Volume 641 Week 54 - Tuesday 4 September 2007 
Volume 641 Week 54 - Tuesday 4 September 2007 
[Volume:641;Page:11473] 
Tuesday 4 September 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Health Minister—Confidence 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Health; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
John Key 
: Is she satisfied with the care provided by neonatal intensive care units where despite warnings in 2004 intensive care units are now routinely full nationwide and hospitals are so desperate that they are currently considering transferring pregnant women to Australia for care; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am aware that those units are under pressure at the moment. Since 2002 there has been about a 10 percent increase in the number of births in New Zealand and clearly if this is ongoing there will have to be more capacity. 
John Key 
: Is she satisfied with Dunedin Hospital where last week an urgent warning was issued for patients to stay away due to overcrowding and the district health board suggested transferring patients to motels in order to free up beds; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am aware that at certain parts of the year when there are seasonal pressures with regard to flu and colds our hospitals come under a lot of pressure. I might say that it was ever thus and one could flourish long lists of newspaper headlines from the 1990s that say exactly that. 
John Key 
: Is she satisfied with Wellington Hospital where the hospital was so full recently that it declared itself to be in code red status because there was no capacity to admit patients and where resources usually reserved for natural disasters are being used regularly; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I refer to the pressures I referred to before. What I am very satisfied with is that under a Labour-led Government 4000 more nurses and more than 1200 more doctors are employed and there is a $1.2 billion infrastructure programme in our hospitals. All I am hearing from the National Party is that it wants there to be more privatisation in the health sector. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister satisfied with North Shore Hospital where patients wait for hours—sometimes days—for treatment in the emergency department and where last month the wait was so bad that ambulances were parked outside and used as makeshift emergency rooms; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No or course not and that is why I am looking forward to the announcement I understand will be forthcoming of an expansion in its facilities because when we have a Labour-led Government putting $1.2 billion already committed into new facilities we can deal with those pressures—unlike the National Government in the 1990s when there were headlines such as: “Nats kid us they care” and “Unfair policies pushing oldies into the grave”. That was a National Government. 
John Key 
: Is the Prime Minister satisfied with Palmerston North Hospital described as a nightmare where a man waiting for treatment was forced to bleed into a bucket and where an 8-year-old child waited for 5 hours for pain relief after breaking both her arms; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am satisfied that we can always do better than we are doing but I am also satisfied—and I hope the National Party will listen carefully to this answer—that in the 1999 Budget $6 billion was provided for health. In this year’s Budget there is $12 billion—twice as much in nominal terms. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the reason the health system is in such a mess under Labour is that her Minister of Health has one of two problems: either he is totally distracted by trying to dig dirt on the Leader of the Opposition or he is just completely out of his depth; and can the Prime Minister assure us that when she gives Pete Hodgson the flick in her reshuffle she will put in place a Minister of Health who actually cares about the health of New Zealanders instead of one who is totally distracted? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This is a Government that puts its money where its mouth is by doubling health spending unlike the previous National Government which always prioritised tax cuts for the rich over health care for ordinary people. 
Heather Roy 
: Does her confidence in the Minister of Health extend to his handling of the district health boards and can she tell the House of a single thing that boards can decide without getting the approval of either the Minister or the Ministry of Health; if she cannot tell us even one thing why do we go through the expense and the rigmarole of electing people to boards that have absolutely no autonomy? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: District health boards are elected to be responsive and accountable to their communities and they work very closely with their communities. But I take it that ACT and National would get rid of all elected boards again as they did in 1991 in the horrible night of that year’s Budget when they took away local democracy. That is National Party policy. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Prime Minister had ample opportunity to explain the National Party’s policy. Explaining National Party policy or hypothetically what it might be in answer to a direct question from the ACT party is hardly helpful in terms of addressing the question. The question asked specifically what autonomy district health boards had and whether they could decide one thing without getting either the Minister or the Ministry of Health’s permission or authority and the Prime Minister resolutely refused to address that question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Prime Minister did actually address the question. Obviously it was not to the satisfaction of the member but the question was addressed. 
John Key 
: Can the Prime Minister explain to New Zealanders why if tax cuts are a problem with regard to solving health care issues and would prevent health from being delivered better in New Zealand her Government chose to cut the company tax rate before fixing up the many and varied issues I have just outlined? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What an extraordinarily incoherent question that was but can I take it that the National Party leader is continuing his opposition to the business tax package which is designed to help our economy grow and transform? If that is what we are to infer from that rather dopey question we know that National could never run an appropriate economy. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a schedule that shows that despite the extra $5 billion a year now being spent on health fewer New Zealanders are getting to see a doctor. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a schedule that shows that despite the extra $5 billion a year crowed over by the Prime Minister— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Annette King 
: I seek leave to table newspaper reports that show that in the 1990s Kaitaia Hospital was under threat of closure Wairarapa— 
Document not tabled. 
KiwiSaver—Uptake 
2.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the uptake of KiwiSaver? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 As of last week the total number of KiwiSaver enrolments received by the Inland Revenue Department had reached approximately 130000. It is encouraging to see that just 2 months since the launch of the scheme so many people are already indicating the likelihood of saving better for retirement through KiwiSaver. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What other support has he seen for KiwiSaver? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There has been massive support amongst a wide range of the community but I have also seen some various and often conflicting reports on whether the extensions to KiwiSaver announced in this year’s Budget are supported by the Opposition. In particular I have seen reports of Mr English indicating that the extensions to KiwiSaver announced in this year’s Budget are supported by the Opposition. In particular I have seen reports of Mr English indicating that New Zealand is too generous in its support for retired New Zealanders—an indication that I am sure we will want to remind senior citizens of in the run-in to next year’s election. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Inland Revenue Department’s regular releases of the uptake of KiwiSaver be able to distinguish between those higher-income people who have moved from existing schemes into KiwiSaver and lower-income people who have actually signed up through the opt-on procedure? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think we will have an indication in the early returns about the spread of KiwiSaver in terms of different income groups. I think further down the track we may have some better indications around that. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Has the Minister seen reports showing that public opinion towards compulsory savings—something New Zealand First has long advocated—is changing with 63 percent of respondents to a  
New Zealand Herald  
survey stating that saving for retirement should be compulsory; if so has he reconsidered his position on making savings compulsory? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the last point no I have not. It seems to me that the view on compulsory savings is a bit like people’s views on road tolls and people’s views on wind power: they tend to be in favour of it until it gets quite close to them. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Is KiwiSaver uptake likely to be affected by the current difficulties being faced by finance companies? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It should not be as long as people understand there is a substantial difference between the operations of superannuation schemes especially KiwiSaver and those of finance companies. Finance companies borrow and lend and are essentially in the business of pricing risk. Superannuation schemes invest savers’ money in a wide range of assets. Since the current legislation on superannuation schemes came into force in 1989 no such scheme has fallen over. Indeed the design of KiwiSaver would make it almost impossible for there to be a run on KiwiSaver schemes. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Amendments 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Have officials been asked to draft amendments to the Electoral Finance Bill; if so what are those amendments? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Justice 
: I am advised no. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Electoral Finance Bill as sent off to the select committee reflect Government policy on electoral law changes; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member has asked this question a number of times in a variety of forms and each time the answer has been that the intention of this bill is to produce a fair electoral system and to ensure that during election campaigns people who might be seeking to influence the election campaign are legitimate and upfront and that we know what they are on about. There are issues that will undoubtedly be debated in the select committee and that is the appropriate place to do just that. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has the Minister seen statements that indicate that this bill will restrict people’s freedom to have a say on important issues in an election year? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes he has seen a letter that actively seeks to mislead the public about the intent of the bill’s proposals. The Government has no intention at all of restricting the ability of legitimate groups that want to play an active role in the public debate during election year and that is not what the Electoral Finance Bill proposes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why has the Minister written a letter to community groups telling them that the bill does not restrict their ability to play an active role in public debate during an election year when the bill makes them register with the Chief Electoral Officer as a third party spend no more than $60000 from 1 January of an election year nominate a financial agent hire an auditor send in a return showing expenses and donations and get audited under certain circumstances—is that what he means by “no difference”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I understand that the Minister of Justice wrote a letter to those groups in order to correct a letter from the member that went out to many of those groups. The Minister felt that it was important that they got information directly from his office. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did the Minister write that letter to community groups saying that electioneering activities were “those activities designed to influence votes for or against a particular political party” when the definition of an election advertisement in the legislation is quite different from the one he says it is—which he has read out word for word in this House—when it is far wider and when it includes any position on a proposition associated with any candidate or party; and why did he misrepresent the bill so completely in his letter? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think that the intention of the Minister’s letter was simply to ensure that groups understood the intent of the bill. There will be opportunity of course to debate this during the select committee procedure if there is any lack of clarity. The Minister wanted to make sure that groups understood that that was the appropriate thing to do. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How many letters or written submissions has the Minister received from the National Party spokesperson on justice and the National Party spokesperson on electoral law; and is it in both cases zero? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: My understanding is that it is zero. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why in the letter that the Minister wrote to community groups does he say that what the bill intends to capture are advertising activities by those who wish to be active in procuring electoral success for a particular party when in fact the bill captures advertising about almost any political position one can think of regardless of whether it is focused on supporting one party and why did he so deliberately mislead community groups about the nature of the bill? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the letter contains a statement that what the bill intends to capture are advertising activities by those who wish to be active in procuring electoral success for a political party or parties because that is the case. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it true that the Minister has not received one letter from the National Party spokesperson on electoral law— 
Katherine Rich 
: So what? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —well it is a good question when we think about who the spokesperson is so “So what?” is a good answer—or one letter at all from the National Party spokesperson on justice on this issue; and does he expect or has he received a letter from the Exclusive Brethren church from those spokespersons writing to him on that group’s behalf? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: To my knowledge no. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell us why the Labour Party used public money to deliberately mislead every community group in the country in fact lie to them about the content of the Electoral Finance Bill and expect to get away with it by stating: “This is the Government’s intention.” rather than being honest about what is in the bill; and should not taxpayers be outraged about the lying this Government is carrying out over the Electoral Finance Bill? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think that conduct in the last question and certainly the wording of it was unparliamentary. I take offence to being described in such a way and I think that the member’s question should be ruled out of order and he should be required to put it in parliamentary terms. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes there has normally been a rule about the use of the word “lie” to a member of the House and certainly I can see how members may have interpreted that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You will of course be aware that another person acting as Speaker as little as 3 weeks ago made quite an interesting ruling on this matter and said that unless the allegation was made personally to a member then no offence could be taken. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but Mr Brownlee should have raised that at the time and if he did it was done accordingly. I am the Speaker who is ruling that it has been a long-established convention that one cannot impute lying to any member of the House. I can understand how that question could have been interpreted in that way and I merely ask the member whether he would like to rephrase it please. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister tell us why the Labour Party has spent thousands of dollars of public money writing a letter to every community group in the country and in that letter deliberately misleading those community groups about every major point that it makes in the letter; and should not taxpayers be appalled that their money is being used by the Government without restriction without having to register as a third party and without any fiscal cap to misrepresent a bill that has been debated in Parliament and extensively questioned and deliberately mislead community groups? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the reason the Minister of Justice wanted to send out this letter was that a letter sent out by the member opposite—I do not know who paid for this particular letter— 
Rt Hon Helen Clark 
: It has the parliamentary crest on it. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: —yes it has the parliamentary crest on it but I do not know who paid for it—seemed to be misleading the people whom the letter was sent to. So I think the Minister of Justice felt that it was very important that people understood what the intention of the bill was. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could the Minister refer to the primary question asked by Mr English and tell the house what select committee process it would be when before the select committee had a chance to hear the submissions and to make its mind up on the various arguments put by the people around the country a Government decided to draft all the amendments without any regard to those submissions? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member quite rightly puts his finger on what is at the heart of the debate about this bill at the present time and that is that the bill clearly will attract a good deal of interest from parties right throughout this House and around the country as it ought to and the appropriate place to have that discussion of course is in the select committee and I would urge members opposite to do exactly that. 
Hon Bill English 
: Well who is the strategic genius in the Labour Party behind a process where Labour has spent 18 months muscling up about what it is going to do produced a bill that does not do what it says ended up with the support of nobody leaked changes to the media said: “No there are no changes.” has now written to community groups misleading them about the content of the bill and all of this while the public are meant to be making submissions to the select committee when they do not know what the Government policy now is? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the genius on this side of the House was seeking to ensure that we have fair open and transparent elections. The member was seeking to ensure that National members for example could come to debate GST. In this bill there is an opportunity for National members to find out what GST is how it applies to elections how they might pay for it and when they should pay for it. This is a golden opportunity to do exactly that. 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 My question is directed particularly to the Minister of Maori Affairs. Because he is not here can I defer the question to another time? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Are you seeking leave? 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I am seeking leave. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Human Rights Council’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—Te Puni Kokiri Advice 
4.  
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Kua whakarato tohutohu ano Te Puni Kokiri ki a ia e tutohu ana kia tautokongia e te kawanatanga te whakapumautanga o Te Whakapuakanga o nga Tika Iwi Taketake a Te Kaunihera Tika Tangata; a meina ae i whakaae ano ia ki ta ratau tutohutanga? 
[ 
Has Te Puni Kokiri ever provided advice to him recommending that the Government should support the adoption of the Human Rights Council’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; if so did he agree with its recommendation? 
] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
 on behalf of the 
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: I roto i nga mahinga e hangaia ana e Te Puni Kokiri he purongo i te wa e whanake ana te Kawanatanga i tona turanga mo enei tu momo kaupapa hei hapai ake i nga ahuatanga mo ngai Maori. 
The Minister has received a number of briefings from Te Puni Kokiri as the Government develops its position on a range of matters that focus on improving the lives of Maori. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Na te mea ko ia te Minita mo nga Take Maori ka tuturu tana whakapono he whakaaro tapatahi he tika mo tenei kawanatanga ki te poti a te 13 o Mahuru kia kaua te whakapumautanga o Te Whakapuakanga o nga Tika Iwi Taketake i whakaaetia e Te Paremata Whakakotahitanga o Nga Iwi o te Ao a mehemea ae he aha ai? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Does he as Minister of Maori Affairs genuinely believe that it is just and ethical for this Government to vote against the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in the UN General Assembly on September 13; if so why? 
] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: One of the issues that I have been informed of is that there have been a number of representations to try to modify the text to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and because some parties have taken a no-negotiation stance that has staggered the way in which this declaration has gone through its consideration. In response to the member’s question I say that I am also informed that at the 61st UN General Assembly session this matter will be voted on conclusively primarily because the chairman of the Working Group of Indigenous Peoples had made changes to the declaration that were not consulted on at all by member States. So that matter is yet to be voted on finally and will be done at the 61st session. 
Dave Hereora 
: What is the most recent report that the Government has seen from the United Nations in relation to New Zealand? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: The Government has seen an advanced unedited version of a report from the 70th session of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination that recognises the reduction of socio-economic disparities between Maori and Pacific peoples and other New Zealanders and an increase in Maori language proficiency across all New Zealanders. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Kei te matau te Minita ki te korero a Te Whakakotahitanga Tika Tangata o nga Iwi Tuatahi mo nga whakahe ki te kape tuatahi o Te Whakapuakanga o nga Tika Iwi Taketake a Kanata Ruhia Colombia me Niu Tireni e ki nei: “Kei te rapu whakatikatika ratau e taka ana i raro i nga taumata o te ao whanui mo te ture tika tangata me te whakama ano.” a he aha nga mahi kai a ia hei whakatikatika i tenei? 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Is the Minister aware of the comment from the First Peoples Human Rights Coalition about the opposition to the draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples from Canada Russia Colombia and New Zealand that “They are shamefully seeking amendments that fall below international standards of human rights law.” and what action will he be taking to rectify this? 
] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: In the first instance Te Puni Kokiri contributes to international policy that is largely led by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. In the second instance I think Maori have had enough of empty promises and the member may care to reflect on that. Indeed the Government is in the position of needing to reach a position on the rights of indigenous people where it is able to give effect to such undertakings internationally and domestically. I relay the concern expressed by Dr Cullen and alluded to by the Minister of Foreign Affairs that a number of countries indicated that they are voting for the declaration but have no intention of implementing it. The Government is mindful of the efforts taken to improve the lives and opportunities of Maori at home and that is where it counts. People generally expect that this Government will act consistently in that regard. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it the position of the Government that the Human Rights Council’s so-called Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in fact runs counter to the rights of so many indigenous people around the world; and is it a fact that no amount of Nicaraguan coffee-planter collectives’ visions of the world will change that? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Indeed. Certainly the Minister is well aware that New Zealand has called for open and transparent consultations on the text and he is disappointed that such consultations did not eventuate despite the continued efforts of a number of countries including New Zealand to trigger such a process. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: He aha tona whakautu ki te pono o te korero ko tona Kawanatanga tonu te putake o nga huarahi “whakatupatotanga moata mahi kaika hoki” a Te Komiti Whakakore Kai Kiri a e takatu tonu nei hoki ki te whakapiri atu ki te taha o nga motu e whakahe ana ki te whakapuakanga otira a Amerika Kanata Ahitereiria Columbia Guyana Te Whetereihana o Ruhia me Surinam ma; kei hea te whakapono a ngai Maori mo te whiwhi Minita e takatu nei ki te porowhiu i nga tika taketake ki hea ra? 
What response does the Minister have to the fact that his Government not only has been the subject of early warning and urgent action procedures by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination but is now prepared to side with the countries opposing the declaration notably the United States Canada Australia Colombia Ghana the Russian Federation and Surinam; and—this is the real question—what confidence can Maori have in a Minister who is prepared to give away indigenous rights? 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA 
: I think that when one reflects on those countries that have expressed support for the declaration—Azerbaijan Cameroon China the Czech Republic Ecuador Guatemala—one will see that we have taken a considered position on this matter. More important our international position must reflect our domestic policy and all along we have focused on improving the lives of Maori back here back home where it counts. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I specifically asked what confidence Maori can have in a Minister who is prepared to give away indigenous rights. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister certainly addressed that question. 
Teachers—Serious Misconduct 
5.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he have confidence in the Teachers Council to monitor compliance with conditions placed on teachers with a history of serious misconduct including sex abuse assaulting children and drug dealing; if so why? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes I do. The Teachers Council has assured me that it has robust and appropriate systems in place to monitor conditions based on a teacher’s registration. We are currently drafting an amendment to the Education Act to enable the Teachers Council to access payroll data in order to monitor all teachers not just the ones with conditions. However I am advised that in a specific case where there is good reason data matching with the Ministry of Education’s payroll system is already taking place. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why does the Minister have confidence in the Teachers Council to monitor teachers found guilty of serious misconduct when the principal of Kawerau College Steve Hocking followed proper processes but found out to his horror through text messages from students at other schools that the school had hired an art teacher who had uploaded over 50 pornographic pictures of himself on the Net and actively attempted to recruit younger girls and when he says that the Teachers Council system is “limp” and that any teacher “could quite happily and merrily be a paedophile” and the principal would never know? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Hopeless! 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member raises a very important point unlike the member next to her who could do with being quiet for a change. As I mentioned in my answer to the earlier question the system currently focuses on those people who have conditions attached to their teaching. This person of course did not. This is a person who has lost his practising certificate. In that case I think there would be some debate about the school and its ability to check through the information that was available for example checking through the person’s history and doing the normal checks as it employed the person. This might have been something that the school had done. Certainly to avoid that kind of problem I asked the Teachers Council in respect of an earlier question between myself and the member to come back with anything it thought might help close all loopholes. The council suggested it needed total access to the entire payroll for the Ministry of Education. That is what the legislation will do which will allow the council to run names against that database so that no one will be in a position in the future of being able to avoid the council catching up with him or her. 
Moana Mackey 
: What steps has the Labour-led Government taken to strengthen teacher registration requirements? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: People will remember that back in the 1990s the National Government made teacher registration voluntary. Although it reinstated registration in 1997 there was no professional body for teachers and no requirement for police vetting before a teacher was employed in a school. In other words it was basically open slather during National’s time in Government. Since then we have established the Teachers Council which has the power to deregister teachers and impose conditions on their registration and which requires all teachers who take up teaching to be police vetted. Unlike the previous National Government which removed teacher registration at the same time that it introduced registration for vets we are serious about student safety and ensuring that our schools provide a good environment for students. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why is the Minister giving answers in the House today that are almost exactly the same answers he gave when asked questions back in October and why was he so confident back in October when he said of the teachers sanctioned for a range of issues such as beating up children sexual abuse supplying drugs and having sex with students that “there is close monitoring of conditions attached to any individual teacher allowed to remain registered as a teacher” and that he had also received assurances that “conditions put into place have been followed to the letter” when a Teachers Council memo from the same time says: “I cannot find any evidence of the research team monitoring conditions placed on teachers” and that “it also appears there are problems in the monitoring of the conditions placed on a teacher’s registration”; and why did the Minister say in the House that the council was monitoring it when it was not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: In answer to the first part of the question to be consistent. We try to be consistent in our answers to these questions. In answer to the second question the member will know that the newspaper article that highlighted this was the  
Herald on Sunday  
article and she will know that in that article the Teachers Council made it very clear that the member of staff who answered that question was a new member of staff who at that time was unaware of the conditions. The member needs to be clear about this. The Teachers Council is the body that looks after teachers. Unlike the member’s Government which focused on vets we are focused on teachers. The person concerned was a new member of staff. Yes this person did not know about the conditions but that does not make it any different: the conditions do exist. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why is the Minister trying to diminish the findings of a new employee a woman who held a similar position at the Medical Council who has worked in the Department for Courts who is obviously a capable person and who was charged with finding out whether there was evidence of monitoring or there was not—she found that there was not so how does he explain that? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No one is trying to diminish anything. I am just simply relaying to the member what the chief executive of the organisation made clear to the  
Herald on Sunday 
. I am sorry if the truth is not adequate for the member but sometimes one just has to accept it. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why is the Minister making a song and dance of his reluctant decision to allow the Teachers Council to share payroll information—the only sure way of tracking censured teachers—when the council has been lobbying the ministry for years to get access to that information only to be stonewalled and asked the Minister about this a year ago and he is doing something only now? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I know the member’s own history on this issue. Her party’s history would lead them to be anxious about it; I understand that. But what I am saying is that the member opposite will know exactly when she asked me the question about this and that led to me asking the Teachers Council to submit to me any changes it would like to have that might improve the situation. That is when the council told me. That is when we acted upon it that is why we are drafting legislation and that is why we will pass it through the House unlike the member’s party. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why should parents believe the Minister when last year he said that the Teachers Council system of monitoring was robust when it was not; that teachers were being monitored when they were not; and just recently when asked about whether a particular art teacher was teaching in a classroom he said he was not and we found he was teaching at Kawerau College? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Starting at the back it is because when I answered the question he was not teaching at Kawerau College. It is an appropriate system and it is robust. I say to the member on the other side that the reason I would trust the Labour Government on this particular issue is because unlike her party which deregistered teachers while it registered vets we have done the opposite and have made sure they are properly supervised. 
Defence—Policy Changes 
6.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What reports has he received on changes in defence policy? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What did Mike Moore say? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 Take your pills Nick—come on! I have seen a report indicating that the policy of scrapping the air combat wing in New Zealand which National has spent 8 years vehemently condemning as “dangerous and irresponsible” and “freeloading off its friends” has now been embraced and adopted by the National Party. I of course welcome this latest flip-flop by the National Party but I understand that the issue remains bitterly divisive within the National Party and we cannot be sure that it will not again flip-flop in the opposite direction. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Has he seen any further reports explaining proposed changes in defence policy? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have seen the transcript of Television One’s  
Agenda 
 programme where Murray McCully admits that the Labour Government was correct in its decision that New Zealand’s defence expenditure needed to focus on capabilities that it could execute really well and I welcome National’s support for Labour’s policy. However I am aware that the National Party is still run essentially by the same core of people—Bill English Lockwood Smith Tony Ryall Maurice Williamson and Murray McCully—all of whom vehemently criticised that policy just a few months ago. So one wonders about either the shallowness of its current policy or the shallowness of its previous policy. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: When does the Government intend actually ever to get an unconditional sale of the Skyhawks given that it is over 2 years since the Minister made his dramatic announcement of their sale and he said he would follow it up when he went on his trip to the United States—or do they keep reminding him to not keep making the cheap shots against Australia and the United States that he has become expert at? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member of course is inaccurate in his statement because I was not the Minister of Defence 2 years ago—so he cannot possibly have that right. But the short answer to the question is the answer that the member already has—[ 
Interruption 
] Perhaps that is why he is still interjecting—because he has asked a question and he knows the answer. The answer is that the decision about the sale of the A4s to the Tactical Air Services company is in the hands of the Department of Defense and the Department of State in the United States. The United States has made it abundantly clear—and the member is aware of this as well—that there is no fault on New Zealand’s side and that the problem exists within its system. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister seen reports of a political party that when last in Government signed up to purchase 28 F16s at a cost of around $650 million that campaigned vigorously against the Labour Government’s decision to disband the air strike capability that promised hundreds of Royal New Zealand Air Force staff at a public meeting in Bulls that it would reinstate that capability when elected to Government and that has now stated it would not reinstate the air strike combat wing; if the Minister has seen those reports what aspect of National’s flip-flop defence policy does this Government see value in or has he concluded as New Zealand First has that National cannot be trusted with the defence of New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have seen those reports and I have seen those exuberant promises made by the National Party. It has broken its word. The member is right—National members cannot be trusted. They could never be trusted. They have done it in the past and they would do it in the future if ever the country had to put up with their being in Government again. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What reports has he read that seek to explain the change in defence policy? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have read an article in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 of 2 September that refers to past National criticisms of Government policy on the air combat wing as being New Zealand “freeloading” and “dropping leaflets on rogue fishing boats”; the journalist who wrote that report reached the conclusion: “So National is now either prepared to countenance bludging on its mates and leaving the [exclusive economic zone] unprotected or it has decided that its former rhetoric was hysterical nonsense.” Either way the National Party has egg on its face. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister consider the sale of the Skyhawks and the Aermacchis to be a trade issue; if so would he consider appointing a former World Trade Organization leader to negotiate the sale of those particular aircraft on behalf of his colleague the Minister of Trade? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is of course a defence issue but I read in the paper just today that the man who climbed Mount Everest first the man who invented rugby and the man who did a few other things would obviously be a very good man to help sell those planes! 
Health Services—Rating 
7.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he still stand by his previous mark of the health system of 5.5 out of 10; if not what mark would he give it now? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: Noting that the same question was asked by the member on 1 May and on 16 May I reply in roughly the same vein on behalf of the Minister. He marks the health system as continually improving and expanding because this Labour-led Government has always made health investment a high priority and will continue to do so. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware that according to the latest information from the six neonatal units around the country if a highly at-risk premature baby is born this afternoon not one suitable intensive care cot is available for that child anywhere in the country when this Government was warned 3½ years ago under Annette King that this crisis was on the way? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I am aware that extra neonatal units have been installed in New Zealand and I am also aware that on the watch of the National Party babies were being shipped out to Australia for a long time and that the member who asked the question was in that Government. 
Maryan Street 
: Has the Minister received any recent reports on New Zealand trends in basic health indices such as life expectancy? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes I have. Life expectancy is perhaps the most basic index of national health and New Zealand’s continues to improve with a gain of 2.2 years for females and 3.5 years for males between 1995-97 and 2002-04. [ 
Interruption 
] Additionally there is more good news which of course the member interjecting never wants to hear because her glass is always half empty. [ 
Interruption 
] I see; the National Party was in Government between 2002-04—I must have missed that period; I must have been somewhere else. Additionally the gap between Maori and non-Maori life expectancy after some years of widening has narrowly and slightly of course over recent years improved. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is it not churlish to be talking about life expectancy at a time when no suitable intensive care cot is available anywhere in New Zealand for a highly at-risk premature baby born today when 3½ years ago this very document that I am holding landed on Annette King’s desk telling her that there was a desperate need to increase the number of those most serious intensive care beds and we find today 3½ years later that there are two extra beds? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It is interesting that the member has raised the issue of the care of infants because infant mortality rates in New Zealand—seeing that the member has raised the issue—are steadily declining down from 7.1 deaths per 1000 in 1997 when the member’s Government was in power to 5.1 per 1000 live births in the year ended 31 March 2007. That is a 28 percent reduction in infant mortality. I would have expected that the shroud-waver from Whakatane would be celebrating that rather than being as miserable as he always is in this House. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister agree with me that the Government can talk all it likes about the $5 billion a year extra in spending or the $1.2 billion being spent on hospital buildings but the fact is that when it comes to providing suitable intensive care beds for the most at-risk premature children in this country being born today there are only two more of those cots available than when this Government was warned 3½ years ago about this crisis? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It may come as a great shock to the member who asks me whether I agree with him but I have never agreed with anything that member has ever said in this House on either side of the House. I point out to him that an infant born today in New Zealand has a greater life expectancy and a greater chance of living than an infant born under the care of the Government that he represented. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Is the Minister aware that in the past few days Dunedin and Timaru hospitals have told patients to stay away from their accident and emergency departments because they cannot cope; and given that in 1996 Helen Clark said: “We know that winter brings an increase in health problems … But our hospitals must be ready to cope with the problems. It just isn’t good enough to have basic services break down …” how does he explain his total failure to address the problem in our accident and emergency departments? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Even the meanest of minds knows that this Government has made extraordinary increases in investment in the health sector. Given that fact we wonder what kind of health system we would have had under the billions of dollars of tax cuts promised by National in every single election since we have been in Government. I would like the smoking doctor over there to explain that to the people of New Zealand sometime. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the latest hospital cot status which shows there are no— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: The second is the Ministry of Health’s review of neonatal intensive care provision— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Plunket—Funding 
8.  
GORDON COPELAND (Independent) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is the Government prepared to increase funding so that Plunket can provide a full service involving house calls on all new babies and their mothers for the first year of a baby’s life with clinical visits thereafter? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: Government funding for Well Child services has been increasing for a number of years now. Each year this Government spends $41.4 million on Well Child services to mothers and babies. The funding for the Plunket provision of Well Child services has increased by close to 91 percent over the past 7 years to reach close to $36 million each year. The Government has committed a further $23.4 million over the next 4 years for the B4 School health check. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister accept that instead of pouring millions of dollars into a variety of attempts to rein in child abuse it would be better to fund a comprehensive Plunket service with in-the-house face-to-face contact; and surely that is much to be preferred to for example one of his colleague’s exhortations that New Zealanders need to “look over their neighbours’ fences” as if child abuse normally occurs outside? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: If the member is asking about face-to-face child visits by Plunket I can inform him that Plunket is funded to provide additional visits to all first-time parents it enrols which are an additional four face-to-face visits per first-time parent and to other families assessed as having high needs. I think that the lowering of infant mortality and the extending of New Zealanders’ life expectancy are both very good signs that this Government has a very clear hand and a strategic direction that it is following to the benefit of all New Zealanders. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on child health outcomes? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes. As I indicated earlier to the House New Zealand’s infant mortality rates are steadily declining down from 7.1 deaths per 1000 live births in 1997 to 5.1 deaths per 1000 live births in March 2007. As I say that is an improvement of 28 percent in recent years and I would have thought that most representative Parliaments in the world would be very cheerful at that sort of news. I am waiting to hear the cheers from the other side of the House. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Minister have an appreciation of both the huge importation of knowledge and the confidence boost that new mums receive from regular Plunket visits not to mention the multiple health benefits that result from Plunket’s Well Child contacts; if so can he think of a better return to our society than that flowing from the reinstatement of a comprehensive year-long home Plunket service? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Of course I agree with that and I say as I have indicated to the member the Government is funding Plunket for an extension to its services particularly to new parents. 
Fire Service—Funding 
9.  
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Does he stand by his statement in announcing proposals to change the Fire Service funding system that: “The proposals represent a new way forward that will meet New Zealand’s needs for the next 30 years and beyond”; if so why? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Yes; because a long list of problems have been raised and acknowledged since the review of the legislation began in 2004. Most of those who are required to work within the current legislative framework acknowledge its shortcomings. This process is about expanding coverage and ensuring that those who are benefiting from the service are making an appropriate contribution. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Can the Minister confirm that he declined my Official Information Act request for details about how much this new structure will cost on the basis that “the information does not exist”; if so on what does he base his claim that these proposals will meet New Zealand’s needs for the next 30 years? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I cannot confirm that but I can confirm that officials report that the total cost that we currently pay for the Fire Service levy of about $290 million should not increase under the new structure but that it will be broadened to cover those who are not already paying a levy. So it is about extending the service and making everybody contribute to it; it is not about increasing costs. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: What message does he have for Fonterra which stated in its submission that the proposals were “flawed and inequitable”; and what message does he have for the Insurance Brokers Association of New Zealand which stated that the Minister’s proposals would shift the burden “to weigh more heavily on responsible businesses”; and is this what he had in mind when he said that these proposals would “meet New Zealand’s needs for the next 30 years and beyond”? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: What I can confirm is that this document was put out as a discussion document. Submissions were called on it and as every member of this House knows whatever we put out for discussion inevitably draws a range of different opinions. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister acknowledge there are some serious reservations in regard to the fire and rescue services proposal which basically revolve around the lack of full analysis of the service and therefore the likely unfairness of the funding regime and the problems associated with free-riders; and if the Minister is aware of these concerns will he advise the House as to whether they will be addressed; if not how in the dickens can his plan last for 30 years? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can confirm there have been strong points of view both for and against these proposed changes. I can also confirm that submissions have closed and they sit with my colleague the Minister of Internal Affairs who will be making an announcement in due course. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Does he agree with rudimentary costings published in the  
National Business Review  
newspaper of 27 July which suggest levy cost increases of more than 2100 percent for the Department of Corrections and 1950 percent for district health boards; and how can he disagree with these estimates given his own admission that costings have not been done? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: In the 5 years that I have been privileged to be a Minister I have agreed with very little I have ever read in the  
National Business Review. 
Sandra Goudie 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the office of the Hon Rick Barker in response to my Official Information Act request. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sandra Goudie 
: I seek leave to table a press release made by the Hon Rick Barker pointing out that the proposals represent a new way forward. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Emissions—Reduction Targets 
10.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Can he confirm that New Zealand’s delegation to the United Nations climate change talks in Vienna tried to block non-binding emission reduction targets of 25 to 40 percent for industrialised countries; if so was this delegation acting on his instructions or instructions from a member of his Cabinet? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 No I cannot confirm that matter. Indeed New Zealand’s plenary statement began: “First I would like to reiterate New Zealand’s readiness to take on new quantitative commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is he telling the House that reports from delegates and observers at the conference which have been widely reported in the global media over the last 4 days stating that New Zealand did line up with the countries that were opposing those targets have got it all wrong; if so—which would be good news—why has the New Zealand Government not publicly corrected them? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: If the Government chose to respond to every exaggerated bit of rhetoric from non-governmental organisations we would never get down to business. It appears that Greenpeace is actually quite happy with the result from Vienna but it appears to suggest this was obtained against the allegedly shameful wishes of the New Zealand delegation. In fact the truth is the reverse: the New Zealand delegation at the request of the chair of the meeting was instrumental in drafting the text that unblocked the negotiations. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Has the Minister received any reports on how climate change got on the APEC agenda? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes in respect of the APEC agenda it is of course well known that New Zealand’s Prime Minister the Rt Hon Helen Clark was instrumental in getting climate change on to the APEC agenda. It is true—and it was reported accurately that way last year—that this Government has been advancing climate change solutions for many years. We are not johnny-come-latelys and we have never said that climate change was a hoax. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can this Government have any credibility on climate change negotiations either in Vienna or Sydney when official UN figures show that New Zealand’s emissions are up 10 percent from when Labour came into office and are growing at twice the rate of Australia’s emissions and five times the rate of the United States’ emissions; and do not these figures and the Government’s opposition in Vienna to emission targets make a mockery of the Prime Minister’s talk of carbon neutrality? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I disagree again with the characterisation that Dr Smith has of Australia’s emissions. I also put on record that it is absolutely clear that both the United States and Australia have far far higher rates of emissions than does New Zealand. I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of most that New Zealand already has a substantial number of emission reduction initiatives under way and of course we have more coming soon. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can I just confirm that the Minister is saying that contrary to news reports New Zealand did support a target of a 25 to 40 percent reduction in emissions by 2020? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I can confirm that we said we— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No just answer the question. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am Dr Smith if you give me the chance. I can confirm that the representatives of the New Zealand Government explicitly noted that we are willing to take on binding targets. Further the New Zealand Government has always been of the view that we need a multilateral agreement that works; we are not willing to subscribe to agreements that will not work. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will New Zealand be supporting the leaked draft APEC declaration that proposes replacing the real emission reduction targets of the Kyoto Protocol with a plan to allow an increase in emissions as long as that increase is slower than the rate of economic growth; and is that one of the sorts of agreements that would work? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: An international agreement that was focused solely on intensity would not work and would not be supported by New Zealand. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is there any risk to our European Union export market as a result of the Government’s perceived or real actions to weaken the international climate change regime; if so what will the Minister do to address that perception? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There is no doubt that internationally New Zealand is regarded as being one of the countries that wants to find a meaningful practical but real means of reducing global greenhouse-gas emissions. It is very rare— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: But they are going up. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Settle down! There is no doubt that New Zealand’s efforts in that regard internationally are well regarded. Indeed we are the only southern hemisphere country to have taken on binding annex 1 commitments. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the official record of greenhouse gas emissions showing that New Zealand— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: But those are going up— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry but there is objection. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I seek leave to table New Zealand’s plenary statements which reiterated New Zealand’s— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Equine Virus—Containment 
11.  
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: What measures if any has the Government taken to protect New Zealand from the equine virus that has broken out in Australia? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 In order to decrease the risk of equine influenza entering New Zealand the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has suspended the importation of horses from Australia suspended the transit of horses from Australia through New Zealand’s airports required that any horse equipment imported into New Zealand be cleaned and either disinfected or fumigated at the border and required stricter screening of incoming passengers who have been in contact with horses. The ministry is working with the transitional facility for horses to ensure that biosecurity measures are strengthened during the post-arrival quarantine of horses from countries with epidemic equine influenza. 
Shane Ardern 
: Why were travellers who had actually visited stud farms in equine flu - infected areas able to enter New Zealand unchecked for 2 days after the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry had imposed a ban on horse imports or why were travellers who had travelled around Australia then able to come back and declare they had done so to New Zealand officials but still be allowed to go through the border unchecked? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I have seen reports over the weekend to that effect. I am advised by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry that all of those reports have been checked and that none of the passengers involved were deemed to be of any risk to New Zealand in terms of equine influenza. 
Sue Moroney 
: How is the Government working with the equine industry to respond to the threat of equine influenza; and what plans does the Government have in place to respond should equine influenza work its way into New Zealand? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has worked with the equine industry to trace all horses imported from Australia since 1 August and has tested those horses to ensure they do not have equine influenza. All those horses tested negative for equine influenza and the ministry’s investigation is now complete. In addition the New Zealand equine industry is assisting with passenger screening by providing useful information about potential risk travellers. The equine industry has also put in place its own measures to mitigate risks. For example New Zealand Thoroughbred Racing has invoked strict rules on disinfecting and washing procedures that arriving stable workers and riders have to follow before being allowed to work here. 
Shane Ardern 
: What were the “procedural issues” that prevented an order being given that would have required passengers to be questioned or their luggage to be checked; and does the Minister think it is acceptable in terms of New Zealand border control processes that some people were able to come through without those processes being adhered to? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I am advised by Biosecurity New Zealand that immediately following advice from the Australian authorities of an equine influenza outbreak key front-line managers were advised by phone on Saturday 25 August 2007. Heightened risk screening was in place from that date. Some passengers felt that the actions implemented were not stringent enough over the weekend. However from follow-up investigations the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is satisfied that the passengers involved posed no risk. I am advised that the equine influenza virus is unlikely to survive beyond 8 to 12 hours on organic material which includes both shoes and clothing. A standing order was issued on Monday 27 August to advise front-line managers and staff of amended border requirements for the cleaning and disinfection of risk goods accompanying air passengers from Australia. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Why did he not inform New Zealand’s horse racing and bloodstock industry that its members’ livelihoods were left vulnerable to an incursion of the equine virus by travellers for 2 days when the New Zealand Equine Health Association has highlighted the risk of people transmitting the virus through clothing because “It spreads like wildfire.”? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I am advised that the first informal news of equine influenza in Australia was on the Friday and at that point the information was that it was still in a quarantine situation. On the Saturday when official information was given to Biosecurity New Zealand that there was now a risk outside of quarantine the actions that I have detailed to the House were taken immediately. I believe that the industry has worked cooperatively with Biosecurity New Zealand and there has been no undue threat to the industry. We do not have equine influenza here. The steps taken by Biosecurity New Zealand over the years have made sure we have not had it. I must remind the House that equine influenza is endemic in most countries of the world so on a daily basis New Zealand takes precautions against it not just when there is an outbreak in Australia. 
Family Violence—Initiatives 
12.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: What recent initiatives has she announced aimed at reducing family violence in our communities? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 Today the Prime Minister and I launched a public awareness campaign for action against family violence. The aim of this campaign is to build a stronger sense of community responsibility to end family violence in our country. The campaign has a simple message. Family violence is not OK but it is OK to ask for help. 
Dianne Yates 
: What other initiatives has the Government put in place to help reduce family violence? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Our Government has a long history of combating family violence. Some highlights are the funding for Child Youth and Family Services has been increased from $291.8 million when our Government came into office to $468.3 million this year; funding to community-based family violence prevention agencies has been boosted by 32 percent over that period; in 2002 the Minister for Social Development and Employment Steve Maharey launched Te Rito the New Zealand Family Violence Prevention Strategy; and in 2005 we established the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families. Last month the Minister of Health Pete Hodgson launched the Ministry of Health family violence intervention programme which is focused on providing practical advice and tools to thousands of health professionals who come into daily contact with the impact of family violence. 
Dianne Yates 
: Has the Minister received any recent reports regarding the public awareness campaign she outlined in her primary answer? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have. I received a rather ill-informed statement saying that people do not need a TV advert to tell them that abuse is unacceptable and that it will not work. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Who said that? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: That statement was from John Key. I am very pleased that Judith Collins ignored that statement and showed her support for the campaign with her attendance at the launch. It is my view with that attendance and the attendance of every other political party at the cross-party working group to prevent family violence that finally our Parliament can say with a united voice: “Family violence is not OK but it is OK to ask for help.” 
Family Courts Matters Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 23 August. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 The Family Courts Matters Bill is one that National will be supporting going to a select committee where it can and must be duly and properly scrutinised. This bill amends legislation to increase the openness of Family Court proceedings. It is also to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Family Courts by making changes to certain processes and procedures. But most important it opens up the Family Court proceedings to the public. 
I will refer to a couple of comments that the Minister Rick Barker made when he was delivering his first reading speech on this bill which I have to say was somewhat incredible. He said that the bill is largely technical— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Could the members please keep the noise level down. It is very hard for the speaker. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: At the time of the first reading the Minister stated: “The bill is largely technical.” He said that it is not designed to be a major overhaul of the Family Courts and that it is tidying-up of legislation. That I find is somewhat at odds with his statement 3 years earlier when referring to the bill: “The wide-ranging changes are designed to improve transparency in the court without compromising family proceedings.” The changes to this bill are not minor they are not mechanical and they are not technical. The opening up of the Family Court is a matter that must have the proper scrutiny of the select committee. 
I think the explanatory note of the bill issues a suitable caution that any change to the openness of Family Courts must strike a balance between open justice and the privacy of the individuals children and families who are involved. Family law matters dealt with in the Family Courts are largely private often sensitive and involve highly personal information. Parties may be reluctant to give evidence in public. Publicity around the case can heighten stress and have harmful effects on children at the centre of the disputes. That balance between openness and privacy is one that deserves full and proper scrutiny of the select committee. 
We must also bear in mind the increasing tendency to compare our jurisdiction with overseas jurisdictions while sometimes ignoring the important differences. Because the Australian Family Courts may be open to the public does not mean that we necessarily have to follow suit. For example in our Family Court jurisdiction matters relating to the appointment of managers come under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act. It is not in the public interest and in fact it is none of their business what the assets of a dementia-afflicted grandmother are. That is exactly what would be discussed in such an application under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act. I also understand that adoption paternity child protection domestic violence and some property matters are dealt with in other courts in Australia not the Family Court. Accordingly comparisons between the jurisdictions need to be treated with extreme caution. 
The importance of privacy is also balanced with the view that sunlight is the best disinfectant. People can certainly hide behind closed doors for whatever reasons and that may not be in the best interests of justice or the family. Likewise people can exploit publicity which also may not be in the best interests of justice or the family. I note the New Zealand Law Society comment in 2004 following the Law Commission report on delivering justice for all which—incidentally—did not recommend opening up the Family Court. The New Zealand Law Society stated: “The society appreciates the arguments in favour of increasing public scrutiny of the courts. Justice needs to be seen to be done. However it remains of the view that Family Courts in particular should remain private. The personal tragedies and tribulations of families (which affect no-one apart from family members) should not become a matter of public debate. … In general the media should not attend chambers hearings and the current restrictions on obtaining information from the courts should remain. Removing restrictions tilts the balance between the privacy of the parties (which is important in initial stages before a decision to go to a full hearing in public is made) and the public’s right to know (in reality the media’s right to know) too far in favour of the media.” 
I think it is also timely and appropriate to quote the view of the English Law Commission: “What is more serious is that the parties and more especially their innocent children whose identity is frequently revealed as a result of the details which can be published suffer the disturbing experience of having the most intimate details of the family life exposed. While it may be said that the parties have only themselves to blame no such argument can apply to the children whose privacy the law takes pains to protect in other cases.” 
Those changes recommended by this bill in relation to the opening up of the Family Court proceedings are I believe the most important changes that need to be scrutinised. Without a doubt there are some other changes provided in the bill. Some of them I would have to say are reasonably inconsequential and some of them could be technical. Do people really care whether a Family Court judge wears a gown? I would have thought it was far more important to ensure that there are enough family legal aid lawyers available to do the work because there certainly is a problem regarding legal aid availability. It is all very well to have a judge there—gowned or otherwise—but justice is not served if the applicant or the respondent does not have a legal representative to help him or her. 
I have noted some of the criticisms of this bill made by the honourable member Judy Turner that suggest that parenting rights are usually granted to whoever applies to the court first. That matter has not been addressed in the bill. I would have thought whoever made the application that the most important thing is that the welfare of the child is paramount—and the welfare of the child must be paramount. The statistics given were interesting. The figures show that the mother gets the children in 64.5 percent of cases the father in 11.5 percent of cases and shared parenting is granted in only 12 percent of cases. Of course there may be many good reasons behind these statistics and it is foolhardy to take statistics at their face value. But my having said that there is certainly a good argument that this bill should be looked at by the relevant select committee when scrutinising. The honourable member Judy Turner also pointed out that this bill fails to address the inability of the Family Court to order paternity tests. Again maybe this is an issue that is appropriate for the select committee to consider. 
I think the argument that some of this bill is mere tinkering around the edges is a valid one but there is that most important provision relating to opening up the Family Court. I have said before that legal aid in particular family legal aid is an issue especially when the number of family legal aid providers has plummeted from about 2000 to 1000 in just 12 months and especially when victims of domestic abuse seeking protection orders are unable to find a legal aid lawyer to assist. As we know they end up in places like Blenheim filing the applications themselves often with the help of Women’s Refuge. Then the victim ends up having to face the abuser in court because he has objected and that is far too hard a process to expect an already vulnerable and abused victim to go through. It is no wonder that those victims give up on the process give up on the justice system and have no faith or confidence in the Family Court. This bill does nothing for those women. This bill does nothing to address the family legal aid crisis that we have while the Minister just turns a blind eye. 
Court delays is another vexed issue for this Government that it does not seem to be able to get its head around and this bill does nothing to address that issue as well. 
 We need to have a full and complete discussion on opening up the Family Court. It is a major shift; it is not a minor mechanical or technical matter. As I have said we will be supporting the bill going to select committee. We hope that some of the gaps in the bill will be filled and most important that robust consideration will be given to the opening up of Family Court proceedings. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party also supports the Family Courts Matters Bill in particular for one of the reasons that Kate Wilkinson talked about at some length which is increased openness in the Family Courts. Like her we agree that proper scrutiny in a select committee is absolutely essential. There are a number of difficult and delicate issues that need to be addressed when it comes to making changes in the Family Court and there needs to be a very open and robust consultation process so that people get to have their say and so that the competing interests can be balanced. Nevertheless we support the bill primarily because of increased openness. The bill should not allow the identification of individuals in cases or for the media to air people’s personal problems and grievances in public. It is absolutely essential that we protect the privacy of parties in cases in the Family Court. But justice should be transparent; it should be open. 
The bill should also ensure that proceedings in the Family Court can actually be an opportunity to inform the broader public about some of these important issues rather than simply being restricted to informing the individuals involved. We think that is something that is helpful. In fact I note that the Chief Judge of the Family Court has made comments in the past in favour of limited opening of reporting in the Family Court. We support that view. As I said it is a difficult and delicate balance to address. I look forward to the select committee process. I hope that Kate Wilkinson will have a chance to sit in. I am assuming the bill will go to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I think it would be a shame if we missed out on her expertise. 
The other issue I will mention is around non-judge-led mediation. Again that view is something that the Green Party supports. We are very strongly supportive of less formal ways of resolving people’s disputes and issues. We believe that ordinary people have a real ability to work out the best solutions for themselves given a little bit of help in terms of a good proper process that can help to facilitate these kind of solutions. We are very supportive of that. Of course we are well aware that the successful implementation of mediation relies on adequate funding. Again it is the same issue as with restorative justice where we have a process that allows people to have more active involvement in the process of finding just solutions. We know that the process is effective. We know that the satisfaction of participants is increased. We know that the solutions are often more effective. But nevertheless access to those processes is restricted because of a lack of provision which is largely around a lack of funding and also a lack of trained facilitators and the like. We would be unhappy if that situation proved to be the case with non-judge-led mediation. We think it is important that the funding is there to make sure that the procedure actually works and that people who want to make use of the procedure can get access to it. 
That concludes my contribution. I look forward to the select committee working through these delicate issues. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support this first reading of the Family Courts Matters Bill. We do so with some reservation but we are happy for the bill to go to a select committee where the appropriate opportunity for change is in place for these issues to be addressed. We welcome for instance provisions that make the court more transparent. We think that is great. We also welcome any attempt to improve access to mediation services for families facing this sort of process. 
I will mention a family lawyer in Palmerston North Penny Clothier who recently handed in her ticket as a Family Court lawyer. One of the things that impressed me in a conversation I had with her and in correspondence I have shared with her is her belief that lawyers are not equipped to mediate between warring members of a family trying to determine sensitive things like custody and access to children. She believes that this sort of work should be handled by people who are qualified more in the area of mediation and counselling rather than by the adversarial approach of court lawyers. I am very interested to see whether there will be any submissions on that. 
I also noted a column in the  
New Zealand Herald  
recently by Terry Carson a lawyer with more than 35 years’ practising experience in the Family Court. He was commenting on this particular bill and he explained: “… I would suggest that the problems with the Family Court and how it is viewed by the community run much deeper than the issues the bill might address. The court suffers from being the only court in our legal system that appears to frequently operate in a moral vacuum.” He continued by saying: “Nowhere is this more evident than in the Family Court’s property relationship jurisdiction. It is ironic that if one enters into a business partnership with a total stranger the law requires the partners to act towards each other with the utmost good faith and a civil court will enforce that requirement. However one can lie cheat and betray a spouse civil union or de facto partner and the Family Court usually will order the payment of half the family wealth to the offending partner without making any moral judgment. Indeed if the other partner brought a house or more wealth into the relationship at the outset the effect of the law means the Family Court can richly reward a partner whose actions may have been morally reprehensible and have destroyed their family.” 
Issues surrounding parenting orders and the day-to-day care of children are even more important than property and are another area where the Family Court operates in a vacuum. The court is simply directed to act in the best interests of the child when determining custody arrangements. Although this is a noble guide it effectively leaves total control of families’ future make-up to the whim of an individual judge. 
United Future believes that this bill looks like a lost opportunity to make greater improvements in this area. There are lots of technical changes. I think the National speaker made reference to them. Some of them are probably positive and we have no problem with them. Knowing that the Minister Rick Barker was considering amending the Family Proceedings Act I sent him a member’s bill I have drafted that would allow judges in the Family Court where there was a dispute over the paternity of a child to order a DNA test. Currently if a dispute exists and a man believes he is the father of a child and wants his name on the birth certificate so that he can contribute to the well-being of the child and have access to him or her—or it may be the reverse that he is named as the father and he has some doubts about that and would like to have it clarified—under the current Family Proceedings Act the judge can recommend that a DNA test is done but the mother can block it. 
What has happened historically in family law is that the father then has to undergo a lengthy and expensive court process—taking 4 or 5 years. In one case I noted the only way in which the judge could bring justice to bear was to remove the said child from its mother’s care for 2 hours and place that child in Child Youth and Family Services care. Child Youth and Family Services then went and got the DNA test done which proved what the father had contested all the time: that he was the father. He wanted to pay child support and to have some access to his child. That process took him 4 years. It was 4 years of lost contact. He had no ability to have any contact at all with his child despite the fact that he had lived with the mother for many months was with her at the birth of the child and had lived with the mother for 3 or 4 months after the birth of the child. He knew he was the child’s father but was blocked from timely contact with his child and lost time with the child. 
 This is a recommendation of the Law Commission; this is not some flaky idea that Judy Turner has dreamt up. In the Law Commission’s paper on legal parentage it recommended that judges be able to order that a DNA test be done when it is in the best interests of a child for this to be determined. The test would not be something that the father could sneak around behind the mother’s back and get done; it would be in an open and transparent way. Where paternity is contested surely the Family Court should be able to get this very simple procedure done. In this day and age it is not even an invasive procedure. A buccal swab from a child’s mouth is all that is required to determine whether the father is the father. 
As a father cannot even begin the process of applying for contact with his child until he has determined that he is the father it seems archaic that the Family Court cannot order this procedure done. I am disappointed that the Minister for Courts has turned down this chance to include what is an already drafted provision. I will be taking the provision to the select committee to see whether there is any openness of the committee to consider this and openness for the provision to be added in as an amendment to the Family Proceedings Act. I think it is something that is long overdue. 
As I say the recommendation came from the New Zealand Law Commission as part of a very substantial paper and body of work that the commission has done around the issue of legal parentage. It is one of the easiest of the commission’s recommendations to implement. I cannot for a moment understand why the Minister would have turned down this offer. I am not precious about the way I have drafted the provision. If it can be improved so that it can be included I am very happy for that to happen. I call on the select committee that will be viewing this bill to consider the provision. I will be making a submission to that end to see whether there is any willingness on the part of the select committee to consider it. I am hoping yet again that the Minister will reconsider it. 
However this is not all that this bill deals with. We are happy with the basic opportunity that this bill provides for further discussion around the Family Proceedings Act. Therefore we are happy to support this first reading. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Social Services Committee. 
Aviation Security Legislation Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I move  
That the Aviation Security Legislation Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill was introduced to Parliament in March 2007. Since September 2001 significant changes have taken place in aviation security and New Zealand has responded well to the challenges of the new environment. Aviation security calls for measures that can respond to dynamic and sophisticated threats. This bill meets these demands by enhancing and strengthening New Zealand’s civil aviation security measures. The bill improves New Zealand’s legislative framework and ensures New Zealand complies with international requirements and can continue to exchange flights with other countries. 
As reported back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee the bill retains the provisions that enable the screening and searching of airport workers; that provide a power for aviation security officers to search passengers’ outer garments and to undertake pat-down searches; that require that airlines do not carry passengers who refuse to be searched; that enable foreign inflight security officers to enter and depart New Zealand and enable New Zealand to deploy inflight security officers should the Government decide to do so at some time in the future; that formalise the process for checking the background of people working in critical areas; that provide a general regulation-making power so that the law is able to respond quickly to new aviation security matters; and that provide a power for aviation security officers to search for seize and dispose of items that are prohibited or restricted from being taken on aircraft. 
The select committee has made a very useful amendment to the provisions for seizing such items. I thank the select committee for its consideration and positive suggestions regarding the seizure provisions. The bill formalises the requirements for dealing with potential weapons. It provides a clear system for passengers and for the industry to ensure no potential weapons are carried in the cabin of aircraft. Originally the bill provided that aviation security officers would make a record of seized prohibited items and pass the items to airlines to hold for 30 days. During submissions to the select committee submitters from the industry provided insights into difficulties with this requirement. They were concerned that making a record of seized items and requiring airlines to hold them for 30 days would actually be unmanageable when numerous low-value items such as liquids aerosols and gels were seized. These requirements risk delays at the screening point. To ensure both efficiency and security the select committee recommended removing the requirement in the bill to record and hold items and replacing it with a power to dispose of seized items. The bill has been amended to give effect to this recommendation. 
I acknowledge that the select committee accepted the need to future-proof New Zealand’s legislation by including provisions in the bill for inflight security officers. I also thank the committee for its hard work on this issue—it was not an easy one. The bill contains future-proofing provisions to allow foreign inflight security officers to enter and depart New Zealand. If the Government decides it is necessary at some stage in the future to allow New Zealand inflight security officers then they can be deployed. Submitters raised the useful point that if New Zealand inflight security officers were ever deemed necessary it would be desirable to consider industry views. A mechanism for the Director of Civil Aviation to do this has been inserted into the bill. Although it was a very sensitive issue the industry supported the bill’s provisions in respect of inflight security officers and agreed that these provisions are necessary for New Zealand to continue flying to other countries. I am confident that the bill deals with this issue in the best way possible. 
I thank the committee for its hard work and careful scrutiny of the new regulation-making power. The general regulation-making power will ensure that the law is able to quickly respond to new aviation security matters. The committee has recommended amendments to improve the regulation-making power. These amendments make the scope of the power more specific and clarify the relationships between the various forms of delegated legislation made under the Civil Aviation Act. I am confident that the regulation-making power is legally robust and at the same time allows New Zealand to respond to threats requiring immediate attention. 
We have all come to accept security measures as a necessary part of international travel. The bill contains amendments to widen existing search powers allowing aviation security officers to request passengers to remove outer garments such as shoes or coats so that those garments can be searched. Naturally some members of the public might feel anxious about these provisions. This was reflected in submissions to the committee. Submissions identified the significance of garments such as turbans for some groups noting that any contact with or removal of these garments would be a very sensitive issue. The committee sought reassurance that these concerns would be reflected in operational practice. The training and operational procedures of the Aviation Security Service’s front-line staff emphasise the importance of maintaining people’s privacy and being sensitive to their needs. The service deals with many people of many cultures and from different religions on a daily basis and is experienced in meeting their needs while still maintaining aviation security standards. 
Members may also be aware of recent media attention on new body-scanning technology being used in some countries that presents an unclothed image of passengers. The committee requested that this issue be reviewed in terms of whether this technology would be able to be used in New Zealand under the bill. After further thought I consider that it is desirable to clarify that body-scanning technology that presents an unclothed image of specific passengers cannot be used. A Supplementary Order Paper has been tabled to address this. 
I finish by thanking the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the Hon Mark Gosche for his excellent chairing. I also offer my gratitude to people from the Ministry of Transport the Civil Aviation Authority the Aviation Security Service the New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Justice who have all contributed a great deal of hard work and expertise towards this bill. 
I am confident that this bill meets the challenges of the modern aviation security environment. It reflects submissions made to a great degree. It will allow members of the travelling public to travel with peace of mind and will allow New Zealand to continue to play its part in the international aviation scene. As such I commend the bill as reported back by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to the House. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 National supports the second reading of the Aviation Security Legislation Bill. I was somewhat surprised by the very subdued tone of the usually exuberant Minister for Transport Safety the Hon Harry Duynhoven during his second reading speech. But I acknowledge his gratitude towards the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee because once again I am happy to say this bill has come back to the House in much better shape than it was in when it was first referred to the select committee. 
I want to pick up on one of the quite significant amendments that were made at the select committee related to the seizure of prohibited items. The select committee listened to the very sensible submissions made by the various airline and airport companies concerned about the impracticality of retaining and keeping a record of the items that are being seized. I must say that it is quite an eye-opener to listen to details of the types of items that have been seized by security officers from passengers who tried to take the items on board. We were told that if airline and airport companies have to keep track of and retain those items then an almost warehouse-sized storage space would have to be built around the airport facility. So we agree that there is a problem and recommend that those items should be able to be confiscated and destroyed. 
In agreeing to that I want to pose a challenge and raise a question for the Minister. He informed the House and the public that he is confident this legislation will now be implemented successfully but one would have thought that the officials would have consulted with major operators when they first drafted the bill and would have been informed about the quite significant scale of the problem of keeping confiscated items. The fact that it was left to the select committee to pick up this issue and make amendments raises a question as to how much consultation has gone on and whether that practical advice has been taken on board in addressing this legislation. 
Now that the select committee has made the recommendation and it looks like this bill will pass through the House and become law it becomes increasingly important to have a promotional or educational campaign targeting the travelling public particularly about the risk if those items are taken on board. I think it is not the first time. Quite often when I have boarded a plane I have witnessed the anxiety anguish anger and frustration of the travelling public when foods are seized. Somehow they were not informed or they have forgotten and it has slipped their minds and they have packed that stuff in their carry-on luggage rather than in the baggage they have checked in. So it seems to me that we need to protect our staff and the security officers particularly because they become the face of the people who confiscate items and we need to avoid having the public take out their anger on those people I think that the Minister should take that on board and make sure that those staff are very well resourced and that we have a very smart public campaign to remind the public to avoid having that stress and antagonism that may arise in those circumstances. 
But I want to spend some time highlighting the particular issues that New Zealand has come to grapple with for the first time. I acknowledge a submission that was made by the Sikh community by the Sikh centre. I have read in various links to overseas websites in the United States and Britain quite a lot of material relating to the issues facing particularly I think the Sikh Muslim and other communities with regard to what they sometimes consider appropriate. For example the Sikh community has what it calls the five Ks. The turban is something that I think New Zealanders are now familiar with. Another one is that the Sikh male carries a kirpan which is a Sikh ceremonial sword about 6 inches long. They carry it from when they are young as it is of religious significance. In the United States and in Britain quite a lot of work has been done on the code of conduct and protocol that has been issued and agreed to between the security authorities and the Sikh community on how they can come to an understanding and not compromise aviation security and at the same time take into account the sensitivities of individuals and respect them. 
I will go into the background a little more because it takes quite an effort for ethnic or religious minorities to make a submission to Parliament and some politicians and other lobbyist groups might take this for granted. First of all how does the information about the invitation for the public to make submissions to Parliament happen? Usually the advertisement appears in what we call an English-speaking mainstream newspaper so that is another barrier for some of the minority communities to even know that such legislation is being considered. 
The background of the New Zealand Sikh community’s involvement with this legislation has happened in two quite high-profile cases. One was in regard to a group of visiting Sikh priests who were on board a small plane from Auckland to I think Napier. The other passengers became quite alarmed and the Sikhs’ kirpans were confiscated and packed away but because nobody knew how to handle the situation it caused quite a lot of ill feeling. The second case took place on a plane from Queenstown where some passengers raised the alarm and a young Sikh man was asked to leave the plane. I think one can imagine the embarrassment that man would have experienced on being told to leave the plane. But I am also positive that after those high-profile cases the Sikh community has been very proactive when I have met with them. I have introduced them to the various airlines concerned and when they have talked things through some improvement has been made in terms of the Sikh community working with airlines in training their staff to understand some of the matters of religious significance of that community. When I invited the community to make a submission I was quite thrilled that the select committee agreed to extend the time line for it to make a submission. 
 I emphasise that the Sikh community in their submission made it very clear that they were not asking for special treatment or exemption. They knew that carrying a kirpan on to a plane is not allowed. So they wanted more publicity and more education both in their community and in the wider community to increase understanding. They also asked that in the case of a person who has forgotten to remove a kirpan when boarding that person should be asked to board through the back of the plane where the removal can be conducted more discretely in a place where they will not be embarrassed. Ideally they also want pilots in a small plane to know exactly how to handle the situation so as not to embarrass people. 
I think this is quite a breakthrough for our ethnic minority communities to be involved in the passage of this legislation and I am looking forward to the debate at the Committee stage. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 This is an important piece of legislation. I guess it is a piece of legislation for our times. I think most of us in Parliament would prefer that we did not have to continue to beef up aviation security law in the way in which this bill does but that is unfortunately the reality of the world. New Zealand needs to meet its obligations under the various international agreements that allow airlines to travel to and from New Zealand and allow New Zealand airlines particularly Air New Zealand to access very important markets throughout the world. 
I guess it is with some regret that we progress pieces of legislation that allow for things that in the past we would never have dreamt of. I refer to things like the ability to screen and search airport workers which the Minister spoke of in his speech; the power for aviation security officers to search passengers’ outer garments and undertake pat-down searches; the requirement that airlines do not carry passengers who refuse to be searched; to potentially in the future enable foreign inflight security officers to enter and depart New Zealand; and should it be necessary enable New Zealand to deploy inflight security officers should our Government decide to do so in the future. 
I think that was probably the most contentious issue in this bill and I think the way in which this has been dealt with is important to note. This bill passed into law would allow the Government to do so in future but it is not in the law as it will be passed. It is something the Government would have to trigger at a future date through an Order in Council. There was some criticism about that as a mechanism but I think it is an elegant way of dealing with an issue that could impact on New Zealand in the future. It sends a clear signal to New Zealanders that we do not want to implement this unless we absolutely have to and that would be in the case where airlines would be coming from a State that required it. If they did not have the ability to legally touchdown in New Zealand with inflight security people on board then our potential trade with those countries particularly in relation to tourism and the like would be deeply impacted. 
There may be some who will say in this debate that it is a terrible thing and it should not happen but they have to contemplate the realities of what might happen if that were not in the law. It could mean that New Zealanders would not be able to travel anywhere of any note in the world at all either by way of international airlines or our own. I do not think anybody faced with that situation would want this law not to be passed. We are so very reliant on air travel these days for all sorts of reasons—business reasons holiday reasons tourism reasons. So it with some regret that we have to pass legislation like this but it is absolutely necessary to have that covered off should it be needed in the future. 
Also there are issues around checking the backgrounds of people working in critical areas. Obviously those who watch international developments can see that there can be weaknesses in security and when people are working in airport areas that require high levels of security we have to know about the backgrounds of those people. We have to have regulation-making powers so that the law is also able to quickly respond to new aviation security matters as we found not so many years ago after 9/11. We had to suddenly put in place measures we had never contemplated before. That may occur again in the future and this bill would allow that regulation-making power to make the types of changes that would be necessary. 
Clearly there needs to be the power for aviation security officers to search for seize and dispose of items that are prohibited and as Pansy Wong mentioned we have to make sure that people taking items in their carry-on baggage know the rules. We did contemplate the bill as it was drafted and I think we can understand that there was a desire to inconvenience the public as little as possible. We learnt from the aviation industry players—the airport operators and the airlines themselves—that planes could be delayed for up to an hour as people wrote down the details of their perfume or their jar of honey or whatever it may be so that it could be returned to them at a later date if they happened to be in the country. The balance between if you like the rights of that individual who unwittingly carried or attempted to carry that sort of stuff on in his or her carry-on luggage had to be weighed against the rights of the rest of the passengers who had obeyed all the rules and regulations and could be delayed on an international flight for maybe an hour. In the end the practicalities of storing that stuff for 30 days probably never to be returned to anybody meant that the committee as a whole put forward the amendment that the bill has in it. 
I am very pleased that the Minister picked up on our suggestion as a committee to look at whether we were absolutely clear about what could or could not be done with the technology that people will pass through in many airports throughout the world that scans people to see what they are carrying about their person. There is some technology that can see through clothing and the Supplementary Order Paper the Minister has put forward is welcomed because it clearly states that the purpose of such technology is not to see an unclothed image of a person. So I thank the Minister and the officials for taking up that suggestion from the select committee. We are pleased with that and obviously that will be supported by all in the Chamber when that Supplementary Order Paper is voted upon. 
There were a couple of other issues that the committee dealt with in its report that in the end did not lead to amendments. But there were some very good suggestions notably from the Air Line Pilots’ Association about on-board cameras and the difficulties pilots have. When they are sitting behind a locked door in the cockpit all they can see out of is a little peephole. Obviously voice communication is available to them but they are very desirous of having on-board cameras. We were told by Air New Zealand in particular that many of its new planes have them already and in the future this will probably be a standard item that larger planes will have. So in the end we did not seek an amendment that would require a rule to be made but that is an issue I think future Parliaments will have to look at and keep an eye on. Obviously in the end it is the pilots who make the decision as to whether the plane leaves the ground and they have to be sure they are in an environment that is safe when they take the plane and its passengers out. So they made some very good suggestions. 
Pansy Wong also talked about the cultural issues surrounding the Sikh community and others and we worked through those issues very well as a committee with the officials. We take on board the advice we got from the aviation security people in particular that they will be doing enhanced training in cultural diversity this year and next. We do not want to have incidents where people like those in the Sikh community get into some sort of difficulty with the items they carry such as a kirpan. The committee will want to check in the future if it can by way of financial review that what we have been told by the Aviation Security Service and the Civil Aviation Authority in terms of training its staff will in fact be carried out. Obviously the matters brought up by the Sikh community were taken very seriously by the Committee and the officials. We did decide not to amend the bill but it will be a matter of good communication good staff training and a good clear understanding by those cultures that the appropriate procedures will be undertaken by security staff whether it be dealing with kirpans or with the searching of a person who may have a head covering like the members of the Sikh community do as to where a search would take place if that had to be done. 
 So I am very appreciative of the work of all the members of the committee. This is legislation that I think as I said at the beginning of my speech regrettably is necessary in a changing world. I think we did a good job of making sure that any bugs in the system if you like had been ironed out and that led to the major amendment to the bill in respect of not requiring items that were confiscated to be held and kept for 30 days then given back. I am sure that the Hon Maurice Williamson will feel a tinge of regret about that because of his recent experience with a bottle of perfume that he lost which was destined for his beloved wife. Even though he saw the personal side of having that perfume taken off him I am sure he agrees with the rest of us. I have had some interesting emails from people demanding their right to carry chainsaws full of petrol on to planes and therein lies the difficulty. Some people see a right and others see a madness. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 Speaking from the National Party’s perspective I say that we are very happy to support the legislation. However I do want to cover just a few aspects of it and say why I think it is a bill that has to be passed. 
But first I will just give an explanation to people in case they thought I was doing something subversive with perfume. I was returning from Paris having travelled with my good friends Darren Hughes and Moana Mackey. I bought some perfume at the French duty-free shop because I was now on the airside of customs which meant I was safe to do so. I put it in my bag and away I went. What I did not realise was that when I got to Heathrow instead of being able to transfer from the Air France plane across to the Air New Zealand plane I had to come back through the security system to be checked. They put my bag through and said there was a liquid in it. I said “No there’s not.” then said “Oh actually I just bought a bottle of perfume. It’s still sealed. It’s still in its wrapper. It’s still got the duty-free certificate and everything.” So the guy opened it up and had a look. It was Yves St Laurent. It had the receipt and it had everything else. He said: “That’s right.” and threw it straight in the rubbish bin. I was pretty upset about it because it was sealed— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How much did it cost? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: It was about €120 I think. I did not even look. My guidance counsellor has told me not to keep thinking about the money and that I will get over it one day. But that is what I wanted to say. 
However I do understand why vigilance is required—certainly in some of those high-security places. Let me tell anybody who really is interested that Heathrow is now just ghastly. Heathrow is now so backlogged and has such queues that people can spend an hour and a half in a queue trying to get through the searches. But on the other hand we have to say to ourselves: “Should we just get rid of this and I will take my chances with someone taking something on board the plane and blowing it to smithereens?”. 
The other thing I would like the House to realise is that legislation really is not a terribly effective tool for aviation security. I think that of all the various transport sectors out there aviation security does a stunningly good job. I think Mark and his team have for years and years run a particularly crisp operation and done a good job. But issues and events arise almost overnight. Remember how it was only when the police raided some places in London and found that there were some formulas for some liquids that one could take on board mix together and make into a detonator that suddenly almost that night liquids became something that people could not have in their bags? Up until then we had all carried all sorts of liquids in our handbags and toilet bags such as hairspray perfume aftershave and so on. Suddenly on one night it all changed. 
We know how long it takes to get legislation through this place even at the very best of times. So legislation is not a terribly good vehicle for dealing with it and that is why we have to have legislation that is empowering and enabling and that allows the Aviation Security Service to make almost instant decisions when a new issue arises. I can give a bold prediction to this House that within 12 months of today another issue about aviation security will have been brought to the fore. Aviation officials will have raided somebody’s house or arrested somebody somewhere who was boarding a plane and found that it was something to do with the heels on someone’s shoes. Members will remember that that is what the shoe bomber was trying to carry the explosives in. So aviation security has a really difficult job. 
I have always wondered how effective it is in New Zealand because I worked out at the airport on a number of occasions when I was working for Air New Zealand and management were called in to do things like load the aeroplanes. Although there was quite a bit of security around how the passengers came and went to the airplane just about anybody could actually get on to the campus of the airport and get from the engineering base to the catering base. Even when the aeroplanes were in dock being fixed just about anybody could get on them and go up on to the plane. A terrorist could probably have found a Boeing 747 gone on board hidden what he or she wanted to hide a couple of days before the plane was ready to go back on line and then when that person got on board as a passenger it would be hidden in some little tray. 
This bill again does some things about legislation for checking and making sure that the people who work at the airport—the engineering staff the people who cater the aeroplanes and the people who service the aeroplanes—can all have background checks and can have searches of themselves made and so on. We will not have a safe aviation system if people can sneak in around the back way and get either bombs or weapons on board. 
One of the things that the Green Party MP Keith Locke is very concerned about is the people called sky marshals. These people will have the potential—and I stress the word “potential”—to be armed and to be on an aeroplane while carrying a weapon. First of all we have had to allow that in order to comply with a whole lot of aviation security rules elsewhere. The point I would make to the Green Party is that we cannot do just what we want as a nation because if we did then other countries would have the right to say: “Your planes don’t come here.”—and not just our planes. Any planes of any carrier would not fly from New Zealand to their jurisdictions. So we have to be mindful of the fact that other jurisdictions have some pretty severe rules. They want from time to time to be able to have armed sky marshals on board an aeroplane. This legislation will allow that to happen. But I suggest to this House that it will not be very often. I suggest it may be very very rare that they are needed. 
Keith Locke’s other concern was that if there are armed sky marshals on a plane and they use these weapons we may be endangering the whole aircraft by puncturing a hole in it and depressurising it. We have been told very clearly by a number of people from the Air Line Pilots’ Association and so on that the movies where we see a gunshot blowing huge holes into a plane so that everyone gets sucked out and dies is just a bit of Hollywood. In fact an airplane can sustain a bullet into the skin of its fuselage and still stay perfectly intact. I put it to the House that if a terrorist were going to blow up a plane or crash it into the ground and kill not only everybody on board the plane but maybe hundreds of innocent people on the ground as well we might actually be quite grateful if there were somebody on the plane who was able to pull out a weapon from behind his or her jacket and take the terrorist down if necessary maybe while causing some damage to the plane or maybe even to another passenger. Someone said: “Well what if an innocent passenger gets killed?”. That would be a tragedy. It would be awful for that to happen but it would be a hell of a lot better for one innocent passenger to die in the skirmish and the terrorist to get taken out by the sky marshal than for the whole 747 to go crashing into the Sky Tower in Auckland and kill everybody on the 747 and everybody at Skycity Casino and so on. So these are all matters of risk. 
This legislation I must say had some really interesting bits to it. We were confronted with the issue of new technology that can nearly show people naked as they walk in front of it. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: A horrible thought. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Yes it is a very horrible thought. I agree with Mr Henare on that. 
There are new X-ray - type technologies that can almost show a person naked. I actually do not quite believe it but we were told that the X-ray can zoom through clothing and so on. What is happening is that technology is starting to outpace our ability to legislate and this bill which will become an Act when it is passed is important in terms of starting to give the Aviation Security Service some ability to implement tools and regimes that will keep our skies safe. I know that a lot of New Zealanders say to me: “Oh isn’t it bizarre that you go through all this checking and even have to get your laptop out of your bag and so on when you are getting on board a 737. But if you are getting on board an ATR going to Queenstown you don’t.” I guess that all I can say to them is that it is a really simple test: if the plane can go elsewhere in the world—which a 737 can; it can go to Australia or Fiji or Rarotonga—then checking is carried out; if the plane cannot fly more than a few hundred kilometres and would fall into the water if it were to try to leave New Zealand shores then I think it does not require quite the same level of scrutiny. 
All I want to say is that we listened with interest to certain communities like the Sikhs with their kirpans which are the ceremonial ornamental little daggers they wear. Although I understand that these people are not specifically going to cause any security issue they also must understand that they have to be checked and that it may be a way that those can be put to one side. To be fair the Sikh community was very good. Sikhs said they understand that as long as it is done in a sensitive way. They know that if they have fairly large turbans on their heads that is a place where a particular piece of explosive or weaponry could be concealed. 
This is legislation that shows Parliament working at its best. The select committee worked well. All the members worked together very well—as we do on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—and I am pleased that the National Party is supporting it. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the second reading of the Aviation Security Legislation Bill and just want to echo the words spoken by Maurice Williamson right at the end of his speech with regard to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The committee did work very well and swiftly on this legislation because this issue although it is one that none of us really wished to be debating and would rather not have to consider is an issue of our time and we had to take it seriously. It is Parliament’s role to make the sorts of decisions that other people would rather not have to make and the committee worked together to make sensible thorough rational decisions with regard to aviation security. It is the nature of the world in which we live in these days that we have to make such decisions about our aviation security. The world certainly has changed since 11 September 2001. In particular international aviation security bodies have changed their views on how we need to operate and it is in response to one of those international organisations and its requirements that we find ourselves here debating this Aviation Security Legislation Bill. 
The Labour-led Government is confident that this bill will meet the changes posed by the modern aviation security environment because those changes will allow both domestic and international travellers to travel with peace of mind knowing they will be in a safe environment. That is what the select committee was charged with. 
This bill is a key part of enhancing the safety and security of everyone who uses New Zealand’s aviation transport system. It will also ensure New Zealand’s compliance with international standards in aviation security by strengthening the legal framework for New Zealand’s aviation security system; also it will allow New Zealand to meet its international obligations as a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization. 
The bill will ensure continued confidence in the security of New Zealand’s aviation services both domestically and abroad. As a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization New Zealand is obliged to comply with its security standards. Failure to do so could actually damage New Zealand’s reputation and question the integrity of its aviation security. Of course it is since September 2001 that the aviation security environment has witnessed significant changes and it has now called for measures that are able to meet the demand of sophisticated threats. 
If we did not go down this path if we did not have this bill before our Parliament then it is possible that other countries if they were unsure of our security measures could cancel flights coming from New Zealand and of course there would be an impact in terms of overseas visitors and how they felt about boarding flights to New Zealand. Different rules apply to inbound and outbound flights. We were told during the submission process that currently inbound flights would require bilateral agreement if they were to have inflight security officers on board. As we stand at present we have no ability within the New Zealand regulatory or legislative framework to enter into those bilateral agreements. The passing of this bill will enable those bilateral agreements to take place. However we were told in the submission process that the inflight security officers—I think some people have referred to them as air marshals but under this legislation the technical term used for them is “inflight security officers” or “IFSOs” as we came to know them—on outbound flights would be under the New Zealand jurisdiction. The bill also deals with the screening of staff to ensure that our security stands up to international standards on the ground as well as in the air. 
I want to talk a little on the issue that I think will most commonly affect New Zealanders who travel—or anyone travelling in fact including international travellers to this country—and it is something that I hope we will never have to deal with: the consequences of having an armed inflight security officer on board because as other speakers have mentioned although this legislation enables the Government to make the decision to include inflight security officers should the situation arise it does not automatically mandate for those officers being on our flights. I think it is important for people to really get to grips with that. It will not be a matter of course that these armed inflight security officers will be on our flights; the decision would have to be taken by Cabinet. There would have to be an Order in Council for that to occur and there would have to be specific international threats for that to become a consideration. 
However as I said for the majority of New Zealanders and for people listening to this debate that is not I hope the issue that will ever affect them. It is much more likely that the issue will be the one that we as a select committee have had to grapple with—that is how to deal with the items that have been restricted since 31 March 2007. Since that date new restrictions have been placed on what may be taken aboard planes. As I said those restrictions were tightened earlier this year when security measures affecting liquids aerosols and gels came into effect. 
One of the major submitters on this bill was an organisation called the Board of Airline Representatives New Zealand which represents the airlines operating in New Zealand. It told us that since those new restrictions had been in place roughly 2000 items per day were being confiscated. It said that this equated to 12.2 tonnes of restricted items being taken off passengers every day. It told us this because it was concerned that the bill in its original state required airports to have in place a process whereby people’s details were taken and the confiscated items noted and stored for a certain number of days so that those people could retrieve them on their return to the country or at a time suitable to them. So 12.2 tonnes per day of confiscated items was a significant issue that was put before our select committee. It demonstrated quite clearly that we would be placing a significant storage issue on airports. 
The issue was not only the storage capacity but also the labour content of that. It was estimated that to do what this bill originally asked should be done 160 person hours per day would be required at Auckland Airport alone just to administer a system to cope with the restricted items confiscated from people who had inadvertently brought them along with them. Very large storage facilities would be needed and at Auckland alone 160 person hours per day would be required to deal with the process. 
It was interesting to know that no other country actually went to those sorts of lengths. Good old New Zealand—of course it wanted to consider people’s personal and human rights so that they could regain their personal property being those restricted goods that they had inadvertently brought along with them. However it did turn out to be impractical and the select committee saw how impractical it would be. Several submissions were made around this point. We certainly took those submitters’ views on board and recommended that those items can in fact be dispensed with—that they can be destroyed. I guess the result is that although people’s personal freedoms may be limited in some way overall we felt that that was necessary in order to make this legislation workable and practicable. 
I think that was the balance that we sought to have all the way through the select committee hearing on the Aviation Security Legislation Bill. We constantly weighed up the balance between ensuring that good security systems were in place and making sure that people’s human rights were not being trampled over. I think we got that balance right. We worked hard to ensure the right balance between those two tensions and we got it right in a New Zealand context. 
I want to comment on Maurice Williamson’s observation that there are different search requirements for domestic travel depending on the size of the plane. That is certainly the case. When a person is flying on Boeing 737s and 747s his or her property goes through an X-ray machine and he or she walks through a detector so it can be checked whether anyone is carrying weapons. However when flying from Hamilton to Wellington which I regularly do we are on smaller planes and do not have such stringent regulations or search requirements. In the select committee it was explained that the issue is not whether the airplane is capable of flying overseas but the amount of fuel on board. That is what causes the risk and that is why we have those different requirements. Thank you. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting the Aviation Security Legislation Bill because a number of its clauses improve security at airports and on aeroplanes. We support the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Minister the Hon Harry Duynhoven to stop the portrayal of people in an unclothed state when they pass through the screening devices or in the words of the Supplementary Order Paper an officer may not use “an aid or device that produces an unclothed image of the person.” We certainly support the restriction in terms of that intrusive technology. 
In the first reading the Greens indicated our big concern about the presence of armed air marshals on airplanes or inflight security officers. In the Committee stage we will put forward an amendment to remove any ability for officers on planes to be operationally armed. We want to remove the ability for them to use arms on planes be it local inflight security officers as projected in the bill or foreign inflight security officers—that is those coming in and out of New Zealand airports not necessarily on a flag carrier an Air New Zealand plane. 
In the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee the airline pilots expressed strong concern about provisions to have armed inflight security officers on board. The New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association submission talked about “substantial latent risks involved in the ability to deploy inflight security officers on New Zealand - registered aircraft”. It “believes that any time that an armed person or persons board an aircraft the risk of an adverse event occurring is heightened”. It said due consideration must be given to the increased level of risk posed by armed inflight security officers. It says that rather than reducing the risk—and presuming these officers will be regularly on flights as happens in the United States—they actually increase the risk. In oral submissions it was said that although bullets may not necessarily pass through the shell of a plane they could affect the hydraulics and so on that line the plane. So those things could be affected by armaments being used on an aircraft. The association in its submission strongly objected to the deployment of foreign inflight security officers—armed or otherwise—on board any New Zealand - registered aircraft. 
The New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association took a fairly strong stand in the select committee and I think we should listen closely to its views. Air New Zealand itself took a strong position too. It was of the view that if there was any security threat to a plane then that plane should stay on the ground. Its written submission stated that Air New Zealand adheres to the principle that the most effective and efficient response to aviation security risks is the quality of protective security measures implemented on the ground that is pre-flight. It further stated that Air New Zealand’s current operational policy is that it would give serious consideration to cancelling any flight for which the security risk was so high that the airline would be required by any Government direction to place inflight security officers on board an aircraft. I think that is the right approach—if in doubt keep the plane on the ground. 
There was also the submission by the Human Rights Commission. It was worried about not only firearms but also Tasers being used on planes. It stated that the commission’s view tended towards the exclusion of Tasers from the weapons available to inflight security officers. So there were quite strong criticisms from a number of submissions about these armed air marshals. 
The Government of course in justifying the provision is trying to have a bob each way. It says to people: “Well we understand your concerns so we won’t put the provision in to authorise an immediate lodging of air marshals on planes but the bill is just future-proofing.” So at some future time if it wants approval to put these armed inflight security officers on a plane be it foreign security officers or domestic officers it can. When we look through the fine print we see that in future the decision would be made by Cabinet. Well we all know that Cabinet meets about once a week so it would not take too much to implement this legislation very quickly without much public discussion. 
There is no requirement for public discussion except for one provision that has been added to the bill. It talks about consultation taking place with people involved in the airline industry about some of these matters. There was a concession that the select committee put in the bill—that there would be some consultation with the industry generally but the specific decisions on particular cases would in fact be made by Cabinet. That is not a terribly good control in the whole situation. 
The other question that the Human Rights Commission raised in its written submission was in relation to security checks. Obviously nobody is objecting to security checks as such and the bill contains some good provisions about people being told they are being subject to security checks and that there is an adverse security check against them. So those people could take the matter a bit further in an appeal process. That was a good provision but as is the case in a number of bits of legislation coming through this House when it is the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service doing the security check and putting a red cross on the person then there is not so much come-back. 
The Human Rights Commission was right to be concerned about that. At least under the bill the person who gets an adverse check will be told whether it was a Security Intelligence Service red cross or whether the red cross came from somewhere else. But that is not the full story. As the Human Rights Commission says there should be the provision of a summary of the information on which the recommendation is based—that is the recommendation from the Security Intelligence Service. The Human Rights Commission was not demanding that the whole of the information be provided by the intelligence agency but the idea of a summary is to give the person so affected some idea of the nature of the accusations so that he or she can say: “Well it is all very well to say that I committed a crime in America some years ago but in fact I have never lived there or been there.” If people have some idea of the nature of the charge they have some ability to rebut it if it is an unjust charge and that is very good. 
I am disappointed that the Human Rights Commission submissions were not fully taken account of by the select committee. The discussion in the select committee was a very serious one. I think that the way in which the Supplementary Order Paper preventing unclothed imaging came out of it was positive but we have some way to go. As I indicated I will be putting forward amendments at the Committee stage to remove the ability to have armed air marshals on our planes or on planes coming in and out of New Zealand. I think that that is what the public wants too. It is dangerous and the dangers outweigh the benefits. I think the airline pilots are right there. There can be all sorts of situations where because these armed security officers will probably be incognito people who might have some dangerous intent will be pretending to be armed inflight security officers. And how would we necessarily tell the difference particularly if flight attendants were in a different part of the aircraft at that particular time? So there are more problems than solutions I think. In the period in which air marshals have been operating in the United States I do not think they have had any great success. Thank you. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Pika tena tatou katoa. When this bill last came before the House on 20 March a torrent of abuse from the member for Wairarapa followed the speech by my esteemed colleague Te Ururoa Flavell. The member deemed that Mr Flavell’s korero was “fatuous twaddle” and went further to say: “I just point out to the member that the Treaty of Waitangi was in place some years before the issue of airplane security became important—in fact some years before airplanes were invented.” That was a very interesting observation by the National member. Quite how he could then make an association that using the Treaty of Waitangi as a context for assessing any policy measure was “fatuous twaddle” was beyond me. Indeed many claims and cases presented to the Waitangi Tribunal over the years bring into account the airwaves the use of Maori land for airfields the impact of the aviation industry on Maori land and so on. 
The point is that the contemporary issues of the day are based on a context that this Parliament must respect. The Treaty provides us all with a foundation for considering how any political matter is debated and that includes the relevance of measures to improve our aviation security. The Treaty is a historic covenant reached between two sovereign peoples based on broad principles of partnership protection and participation and that covenant gives shape to the nation. It is the key source of the Government’s moral and political claim to legitimacy and is therefore relevant to every bill in the House. 
The Aviation Security Legislation Bill aims to strengthen the legislative framework and meet international obligations in relation to aviation security. The issue of compliance with domestic and international standards is of course of great interest to the Maori Party. The bill makes the case that as a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization New Zealand is obliged to comply with security standards. We are told that the policy objectives are to respond to aviation security threats to comply with requests from other countries and to search and seize certain items in order to ensure that New Zealand is able to participate in an international response to aviation security. In fact the challenge is put that failing to meet those goals could damage New Zealand’s reputation which could have significant economic and social impacts. A worst-case scenario might lead to a reduction in international flights in and out of the country. 
The provision of enhanced security measures is obviously a key issue of interest to both Treaty partners but there are three particular issues that I bring to this debate. They are what I would call the three C’s: cultural compliance consistency and the costs of the legislation. One of the underlying themes running through this parliamentary debate has been the assumed security threat arising from the events of 9/11 and demonstrated in other legislation such as the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill and the Immigration Bill and in the Law Commission’s  
Search and Surveillance Powers 
 report. And this bill adds a whole new inventory to that list: the Arms Act the Aviation Crimes Act the Civil Aviation Act and the Civil Aviation Rules are all amended by the bill. 
An associated theme however has been that while legislation is being amended we must be careful to ensure that the implementation of changes still functions within what the Sikh Centre submission described as: “the bounds of governmental responsibility to safeguard the freedom of its citizens and the paramountcy of their human rights.” The Sikh Centre brought to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee the need to be sensitive to the diverse cultures and beliefs of individuals who pass through airport control to ensure that they are not unfairly targeted during security checks. For its part the Sikh community has made a conscious decision to recommend that Sikhs’ kirpans their ceremonial knives are removed from under their robes and included in their check-in luggage. Contrary to perhaps the preconceived view the kirpan would be appreciated as a symbol of the Sikh religion not as a weapon. But Sikhs remain concerned that employees might be asked to remove their kirpans or that turban wearers will be improperly targeted for profiling and additional searches. 
We have previously raised in this House our concerns about profiling practices at airports that could be discriminatory and we believe that the same concerns for natural justice apply here. We note the advice of the select committee that the Human Rights Act and the Employment Relations Act provide adequate protection against discrimination and that the Aviation Security Service has protocols and training in place to treat all people with respect. But we would emphasise that in light of the very real concern and experience set out in the Sikh submission regarding the sacred respect Sikhs place on their heads and hair the relevant aviation authorities should be encouraged to give priority to ongoing consultation with the ethnic communities of our nation. To a person of the Sikh religion removing the turban in full view of other passengers would be the equivalent of being strip-searched in public. As Maori we absolutely understand that concept because we also recognize the head as being a highly tapu part of the body and the hair taken from the head as being similarly tapu. It is also in respect of cultural sensitivity that we will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister to clarify the legislation in order to ensure that an unclothed image of a passenger cannot be used. 
The proposals in this bill include providing aviation security officers with search and seizure procedures to enable the screening and searching of airport staff and to strengthen the provisions for checking the background of people working in aviation security. In the wake of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 bans on sharp-pointed objects were put in place and in the initial months security staff confiscated bin-loads of pocket knives scissors and nail files from loads of hostile passengers. Stewart Milne the executive director of the Board of Airline Representatives New Zealand believes that it took nearly 2 years for passengers to really get used to that set of restrictions. It was not just a matter of time; it was a matter of skilled negotiation and explanation and of providing storage facilities. We in the Maori Party therefore support the select committee recommendation to remove the requirement to record and store the seized items as a way of easing those compliance costs. 
Finally we cannot leave this bill without pointing out the obvious hypocrisy that although this bill is another chapter in an ongoing series of efforts to comply with international standards in other areas of international concern to do with meeting basic human rights standards this Parliament is showing wilful disregard of the same principles of cooperation. I think particularly of the recent criticism of our human rights failings from the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the opposition of our Government to the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples currently before the United Nations. 
I want to share a commentary with the House from the  
Seattle Post-Intelligencer 
 of 27 August 2007 from Professor Alan Parker co-chair of the special committee on indigenous nation relationships for the National Congress of American Indians. In describing the actions of the current Bush Harper Clark and Howard administrations he said: “It is evident that these national governments share a common commitment to restrict the rights of ‘their indigenous people’ strictly to the domestic law of each nation and oppose any U.N. policy that would recognise indigenous nation rights as a matter of international law and policy.” Obviously it is one thing to recognise international law and policy when one is considering aviation security but when it comes to honouring the sovereign rights of the Treaty partner to partnership protection and participation this Government clearly prefers to exert power and control at the expense of indigenous peoples. 
The Maori Party will support the revised bill that has returned from the select committee but we will never support the antagonist hostility that this Government continues to demonstrate towards Maori people. Kia ora. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 This is very simple legislation for us in this Parliament as there was pretty much unity amongst all the parties on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The only real debate I think has come from the Green Party outside of the select committee through its desire to see the inflight security officers unarmed in that it believes armed inflight security officers would provide a greater risk to flights and travellers. 
I think we need to take a step back and look at the reason we have this legislation. International pressure has been on New Zealand like all other countries to commit to a regime that is unified around the world. We all enjoy the beauty of travelling on planes and we all take advantage of the quick and easy way we can travel domestically and around the world. But in taking advantage of that asset of travel we also have to look at our commitments as international travellers and as a country that provides a destination for a lot of travellers and also has an international airline. Those three factors really led us to the result that we have in this legislation. 
It is not really debatable when the rest of the world is in a situation of such conflict and there is such danger out there as shown by the September 11 attacks that there would be a reaction amongst major airlines Governments and travellers. New Zealand is probably one of the last countries to take the formal steps in this process. Many of the major travelling partners of our airline for our tourist sources took these steps a number of years ago. It was something that we had to take on board; there was not much choice about it. So it really then was a matter for the select committee to determine how far and how we actually do it. I think the select committee came to a pretty reasonable approach in this case. We all understand the certain cultural concerns that ethnic minority groups may have and they were taken into account by the select committee. That will be an ongoing process of education for those involved in the process of policing this legislation. 
Also taken into account was the reality that New Zealand has not really faced any threats in this regard so it was left to the Cabinet really to have that option of regulation-making power should—or more likely if—it is ever required. That probably is the right approach. It is not much use us going overboard in trying to make too many rules and regulations. We have to give the Government of the day some discretion in this matter because it is an international security issue and we all need to have a fully functional flexible and very proactive response if it is ever required. 
I think the question is mainly one of “if” it is ever required because if one looks at the nature of the issue we are trying to solve one sees that it is terrorism on a world scale. The terrorists have tried this avenue in the past and they were successful. But they do not seem to have the networks to try it again or they may be working on other means of engaging in the activity that they want. This legislation may not cover any other activities that terrorists decide would be appropriate for them to fly their flag on the world stage. 
We must be vigilant I think domestically as well and look at the ways in which terrorism could change from the models that we have seen used overseas to models that may be more effective for terrorists in the future. These people do not have a lot of resources. They are really trying to make the best of the limited ability they have to get their issue across so they will look at all other avenues other than the ones that they have tried in the past. So we need a bit of flexibility in our regime of security because the terrorists will look at other avenues in the future. The ways that they have applied their terrorist activities in the past may not be the ways of the future. So although this legislation is a step in the right direction in the sense that it is following international practice we do not know quite what the challenges will be in the future. There may be further steps that we have to undertake in our biosecurity and airline industries to meet those challenges because it is an unknown how terrorism will continue and it is unknown how we will have to retaliate or basically protect our own interests. 
Looking at the legislation I say that there were a number of things we saw that had to be changed as we went through the select committee process. I think the officials did a good job in bringing those issues to our attention. The parties were very general and considerate of those issues and they tried to find solutions that met everyone’s needs and also gave us pretty robust legislation that will take us forward as a country give us some security in travel and also give our airline—Air New Zealand—some security. 
This is not just an issue about travel or New Zealand; there is an economic issue to be considered as well. If Air New Zealand does not have a level playing field and cannot provide the security that other major airlines can provide then that puts it in a very precarious position. It was something that we were very conscious of in the select committee. We needed to give Air New Zealand the full ambit of being able to compete as an international airline. In order to compete Air New Zealand needs to be able to say that it has a safe and secure home base so travellers know they can come to New Zealand with that sense of security. It also means when dealing with other countries that have certain requirements in regard to security that we can match those security requirements so those countries feel we are pulling our weight in the sense that there is security on the airlines and in the airline industry. 
In essence this legislation was something that I think we often see in this Parliament. The circumstances demanded certain action and it was not really a political decision as such. This was something that was based on the fact that we had to deal with this issue. There was international pressure on us to do so and I think it was a wake-up call for New Zealand to have this legislation go through. It brought our attention to the fact that we had some major issues on the world stage that we had to deal with as well. 
One of the issues that the Labour Government was pretty staunch on and that we had to fight very hard to get changed was the Government’s tendency to build up compliance costs through this legislation. National actually managed to get the change so that all restricted items did not have to be written down and held in vaults for the next 30 years. It was only because the National Party stood up for some sensible common sense that the Labour Party woke up and worked out that it had legislation that was too restrictive and that created excessive compliance costs for the industry and also for the punters who would be using the aviation industry. 
 As many people travel these days I guess everyone is going to get used to the concept of seeing little plastic bags in which people have to put their products and also that there are certain limitations on the size of what they can take—as some people might be aware of. The world is changing and part of that change is in the way we travel. It is something that as a travelling country we have to become aware of and very much conscious of. I believe that in time we will see those kinds of restrictions extended to the domestic fleet. Although it is a question of how much fuel planes can carry as to their effectiveness as a sort of mobile bomb there is also the issue that people may want to use an attack on domestic air travel or planes as a symbol of their ability to attack inside another country. That symbolism is something that we may have to look at in the future as terrorists look at other ways of getting their message across. It is something we need to be very vigilant about as a country. 
This legislation is something where New Zealand had to meet its commitments with the international community—we have done that. We have put out legislation that should achieve the goals that we wanted and that we have set for ourselves. In the end it is legislation that I believe will achieve those goals in the meantime. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Bill read a second time. 
Statutes Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Statutes Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. As the House will be aware the Statutes Amendment Bill is a useful vehicle for making minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts. It allows amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed. The bill was reported back by the Government Administration Committee on 10 August 2007. 
Hon Member 
: A very good committee! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Indeed it was. I thank the Government Administration Committee for its careful consideration of the bill and I endorse the committee’s recommended amendments to the bill and note that they are consistent with the overall purposes of Statutes Amendment bills. 
The bill amends 50 Acts. The amendments proposed by the bill include the following. The amendment to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 empowers District Court judges and other specified court officials to authorise the use when executing certain warrants under the Act of facsimile copies of the warrants in question. 
The amendment to the Defence Act 1990 changes references from “Chiefs of Staff” to “Chiefs of Service”. This reflects changes in terminology used by the armed forces. 
The amendment to the Gas Act 1992 ensures that regulations can be made to enable gas consumers to switch gas suppliers. 
The amendment to the Racing Act 2003 relates to the nomination of an advisory panel that advises the Minister for Racing and the appointment of certain members to the New Zealand Racing Board. The amendment provides for a panel member who is to be absent from a panel meeting to designate a person to participate in his or her place at that meeting. 
The amendment to the Biosecurity Act 1993 provides that inspectors in conducting inspections of a transitional facility or a biosecurity control area may seize unauthorised goods along with risk goods if unauthorised goods are found. Risk goods are goods that may harbour harmful organisms while unauthorised goods include imported goods that have not been declared or goods that have been cleared using misleading or fraudulent documents. This amendment will simplify an inspector’s powers to seize non-risk unauthorised goods. 
Further amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 provide that third parties wishing to carry out works on or in relation to the water supply assets of Watercare Services Ltd meet the same requirements that apply in respect of work on or in relation to local authority waterworks. These requirements include notice provisions and the need to obtain consent to carry out the work. 
The bill contains an amendment to the Real Estate Agents Act 1976. It makes clear that references to a salesperson includes persons engaged as well as those employed by a real estate agent. The amendment makes it clear that licensed real estate agents must retain custody of certificates of approval for every salesperson working for them including the majority of salespersons who are independent contractors. The Government has agreed that this provision be removed during the Committee stage and the matter dealt with as part of the wider review of the Real Estate Agents Act 1976 which is currently underway. 
The bill also contains an amendment to the Public Audit Act 2001 relating to the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament that was established in 2005. The House established the register through inclusion in the Standing Orders of the House rather than by legislation. The Auditor-General’s role in reviewing the returns and in inquiring and reporting on any specific issues is included in the change to the Standing Orders. However it was not possible to include the necessary powers to carry out this role in the Standing Orders as such powers should more rightfully reside in legislation. At the time of introduction all parties and independent members supported this and saw it as appropriate for the Statutes Amendment Bill as it simply reinforced the Standing Order provisions. It now appears that this will not proceed as some parties no longer support giving the Auditor-General power to look into the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. 
The examples I have mentioned in the Statutes Amendment Bill clearly demonstrate the value of these bills in advancing legislative amendments for a wide range of practical and useful purposes. I would like to thank all members of the House for the cooperative approach adopted towards the Statutes Amendment bills and this bill in particular. 
Phil Heatley 
: No problem! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Thank you. In response to feedback from some members in future it is the Government’s intention to employ a slightly amended process for Statutes Amendment bills with the aim of regularising the time of such bills as far as it is practicable. This will provide greater predictability around the timing of such bills to assist members to build time into their annual parliamentary diaries and schedules to consider amendments proposed for Statutes Amendment bills. 
Again I thank the members of the Government Administration Committee for their careful and helpful consideration of this bill and I commend it to the House. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party in support of the Statutes Amendment Bill. and I thank the Minister the Hon Clayton Cosgrove for his kind remarks in regard to the excellent Government Administration Committee which did a fine job of looking at all 50 Acts that this Statues Amendment Bill amends. 
Hon David Carter 
: Fifty? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: This Statues Amendment Bill amends 50 Acts. Can I say to members of the House—and to anyone who may be listening to this riveting speech—that this is one of those rare occasions when we do have multiparty or multipartisan if you like support for this type of action. We are talking about an omnibus bill which is a useful tool in terms of the process of Parliament for any Government to amend in a non-controversial and technical way. Not everything in Parliament is controversial and adversarial and can I say that that makes the life of an Opposition spokesman quite difficult when I am supposed to speak on something that has 50 amendments in it. But having said that I say that there are a number of issues I wish to canvass with the House. 
First of all I thank the officials who gave us excellent advice on the select committee and all the members of the select committee. At an appropriate time National intends to move a Supplementary Order Paper in regard to the Real Estate Agents Act 1976 although I think I heard the Minister say in his speech that the Government itself intends to do that. If the Minister is intending to do that I ask him to nod. So it appears as though that might be taken care of. A member from within the National caucus wrote to the Minister and the Minister did not respond to that letter but he is clearly responding now so it looks like that matter is attended to. 
 The second issue I think the members of the select committee struggled with for some time was the amendments to the Real Estate Agents Act 1976—which I have mentioned—and also the amendments in relation to the Ombudsmen and the Audit Office with regard to a number of matters there. The reason the committee considered that over a period of time was that it was neither non-controversial nor minor in its outcome. It may have been intended that that was what was going to be the case but effectively it took what was an action within the Standing Orders out of the Standing Orders and introduced legislation around it. That should not happen under this circumstance. In fact it should happen in separate legislation or in a separate debate through a committee that is tasked with looking at the detail of it. On balance the committee decided that it was not the right vehicle for that so it was removed. 
As biosecurity spokesman I was pleased to see that the amendments to the Biosecurity Act 1993—which as the Minister said allows inspectors to seize unauthorised goods along with risk goods—will simplify an inspector’s powers to seize non-risk unauthorised goods including imported goods that have not been declared or goods that have been cleared using misleading or fraudulent documentation. That is also something that is very positive in this process. 
I also say that the select committee did not receive a large number of submissions on this bill. It would not be appropriate for me as the chair to say at this stage how many submissions it received. I am sure other members might want to speak on that if the Minister has not done so already. The submission we received was of a very high quality. Having said that I point out that the Statutes Amendment Bill is what it was intended to be: a non-controversial highly technical amendment. It is my pleasure to support the passage of this legislation through the House. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Statutes Amendment Bill. May I say this is the first Statutes Amendment Bill that I have experienced as a member so I have had to bow to those members who have been here a bit longer than me on how this process works. It has been a learning experience. The bill is an omnibus bill that makes miscellaneous technical amendments to Acts in order to fix discrepancies. Other speakers have referred to the fact that the Statutes Amendment Bill amends 50 different Acts. Its format allows amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority to be progressed. 
I add my thanks to those of others to all of the parliamentary parties for their consideration and feedback on the bill. I acknowledge the work of the various officials who coordinated the administrative aspects of the development of the bill. I also echo the comments of the chair of the Government Administration Committee Shane Ardern. The bill is a constructive approach to getting something done—to getting very necessary work done. 
Fifty Acts are to be amended. I do not want to talk about 50 Acts but I want to mention a few. One amendment that really struck my attention was to the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act. It allows court officials to use facsimile copies of warrants. That seems to be very simple and very necessary. We are also proposing to change the name of the Ministry of Energy (Abolition) Act to the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Act which again is non-controversial but has good reasons behind it. Other members have mentioned the amendment to the Racing Act which would allow a suitable replacement to sit on the Racing Board nomination advisory panel in the place of a panel member who cannot be present. Another amendment would allow customs inspectors to seize imported goods that have not been declared or goods that have been declared using misleading or fraudulent documents even if the goods are not at-risk goods. 
One amendment that struck my attention was the update to the Human Rights Act. The amendment is about extending section 136 of the principal Act to apply to civil unions and de facto relationships. It corrects an oversight in the passing of the Relationships (Statutory References) Act 2005. This is consistent with New Zealand’s excellent commitment to human rights. Human rights legislation is very necessary because it protects people in New Zealand from discrimination in a number of areas of life. Just in case people do not know what discrimination is I will tell them that it happens when a person is treated unfairly or less favourably than another person in the same or similar circumstances. 
Statutes Amendment bills are designed to provide technical and non-controversial amendments to existing statutes. The amendments in them cannot effect policy change. Because unanimous cross-party support must be obtained prior to the inclusion of an amendment in a Statutes Amendment Bill many of the debates and issues have been sorted out before the first reading. However one of the things I learnt very quickly is that should just one member object to a clause in the bill during the Committee of the whole House stage that clause is struck out which means that only those provisions in Statutes Amendment bills that are acceptable to all the members of the House can proceed. 
I note—and it is in our report—that there are members who will object to Part 36 of the bill which amends the Public Audit Act 2001 on the basis that the amendment does not fit with the conventions relating to Statutes Amendment bills because it is not minor or non-controversial. Part 36 of the bill provides for the Auditor-General to perform services in relation to the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. As the bill was introduced the services that could be performed are review inquiry or reporting services that are currently provided for under the Standing Orders. It is important to recall for the benefit of listeners to this debate just what the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament is and how it came about. The Members of Parliament (Pecuniary Interests) Bill was introduced in 2003 and as a consequence the House amended its Standing Orders in 2005 to provide a system for members of Parliament to register their pecuniary interests—in other words the assets debts and gifts they may each have accumulated or received. The purpose of the pecuniary interests register is in line with other steps of public accountability that are very important in an open democracy.  
The World Bank basic score card describes 10 transparency reform components. No. 1 is interesting; it is the public disclosure of the assets and incomes of politicians. It actually goes a bit further than that and includes the public disclosure of those matters by candidates public officials and their dependants. Some people’s wives might have something to say about that. The World Bank governance indicators rate New Zealand very highly in the anti-corruption stakes. Again going back to the World Bank governance indicators we score enormously well—way up in the high 90s—on most things. Voice and accountability in 2006 was at 97.1 percent political stability in 2006 was at 93.8 percent Government effectiveness was at 96.2 percent regulatory quality in 2006 was at 96.9 percent rule of law was at 97.6 percent and the control of corruption was at 98.5 percent. That is a record for us to be proud of.  
Thus the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament is a vital tool for ensuring that New Zealand has transparency in its politics regarding members of Parliament. I understand the right of members to object to the inclusion of the powers of the Auditor-General as set out in Part 36 of this bill but I thought it was worth recalling for the benefit of listeners to this debate what that issue is about.  
The chair of the Government Administration Committee Shane Ardern has mentioned that there were a small number of submissions on the bill. One submission that has led to a proposal for change was about issues around the proposed amendments in clauses 32 and 33 to the Companies Act 1993. Consequently the committee is recommending that those amendments be deleted. There was quite a long discussion about the Companies Act and about what happens in liquidations and so on. I thank the officials for their patience with the committee in helping us to understand those issues and for taking us through them. The other change that is being proposed is with regard to the Local Government Act 2002 where the committee is recommending that the bill be amended by inserting clauses 108A 109A and 109B. The main effect of those amendments is to confer on Watercare Services Ltd the same protection that is currently afforded to local authorities under section 225(1) of that Act. There are also consequential amendments. 
Of course many other statutes are to be amended and I am sure that other speakers will mention them. Some are laws that I did not know existed. Somebody may be able to tell me exactly how many statutes we have on the book in New Zealand. I suspect it is many. 
Hon Member 
: Lots and lots. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The member says there are lots and lots and I am sure that is right. It was interesting to find that there were things like the Tokelau Act the Gas Act the Biosecurity Act—well I knew about the Biosecurity Act—and some other Acts that people mentioned I think in the first reading that were quite obscure Acts but that I am sure are very very important. I am looking forward to some debate on the various amendments during the Committee of the whole House stage. 
Once again I record my thanks to everyone involved in putting this bill together. As other speakers have said it is a rare moment when we agree on something in this House a rare moment of consultation and of working together to do the business that really needs to be done. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 The member for Taranaki - King Country has already addressed the concerns expressed about the Public Audit Act 2001. There was an argument in respect of this Statutes Amendment Bill that Part 36 which amends the Public Audit Act did not fit into the conventions relating to statutes amendments. I can understand why the Government Administration Committee expressed this concern. Indeed Dr Richard Worth raised the issue in his first reading speech that essentially if one looks at Appendix B of the Standing Orders which deals with the pecuniary interests of members of this House and the requirement that members fill out certain returns each year one sees that there is very much a code. There is no need for that to be supplemented by references in the Public Audit Act. I would have thought that that particular concern should be paid to the kinds of provisions that were proposed to be included in the Public Audit Act because of the possibility of judicial review. 
Of course no court will entertain judicial review of the legislative process of this House or I would have thought of the requirement that members complete declarations or returns in terms of their responsibilities under the pecuniary interests section of the Standing Orders. None the less we would not want to get to a situation where by a side wind the courts were starting to review any aspect of the process of this House. This is not to say that what is proposed to be included in the Public Audit Act 2001 is necessarily erroneous but the select committee said that it is not the kind of provision that should be amended by a Statutes Amendment Bill and I endorse what my colleague has said. 
I want to make only a couple of comments about some of the legislation that is proposed to be amended by this bill. The first category of legislation I wish to refer to deals with the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. Most of the amendments proposed in this bill repeal enactments that have been superseded by laws promulgated by the States themselves. The remaining amendments tidy up some miscellaneous matters. I must say that I was surprised when I looked at the scope of the amendments proposed to the Cook Islands Act 1915 for example and what it is proposed to repeal. I think the legislation is probably overdue for comprehensive reform. Although one can understand this tidy-up exercise for these islands in the context of a Statutes Amendment Bill perhaps all three pieces of legislation need to be comprehensively reviewed in due course. 
Dr Sharples observed in his first reading speech that the Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr Peters had had considerable help from Professor Tony Angelo for the work that he had done with aspects of the law in Tokelau and Niue and from Alison Quentin-Baxter who was recently honoured in the Queen’s Birthday honours for the work she has done in the Pacific Islands over the years. I too endorse the work of both those fine New Zealanders. Professor Angelo of course is well known to members of this House. He regularly makes submissions to select committees most recently in relation to the Wills Bill. He has always been a very helpful submitter and has made a huge contribution to the law over the years particularly in the Pacific Islands where he has had a very real interest. I know that he has spent many months in Tokelau serving the people of those islands in respect of law reform. I praise him and acknowledge his contribution to the law reform process in the Pacific Islands. 
The next category of legislation I want to refer to deals with minor amendments—for example to the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Part 18 of the bill makes a minor amendment to the Family Courts Act 1980 to reflect the passage of the Civil Union Act. That is the kind of minor law reform that is required in this Statutes Amendment Bill which is designed to reflect law changes or as in the case of Part 29—which deals with the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006—to remedy minor errors. I will not waste the time of the House by going into the detail of that. A similar minor amendment is in Part 30 which deals with the Legal Services Act 2000. 
I want to make one brief comment about Part 8 which proposes to amend the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. The amendment proposes changes to a section that permits facsimile copies of warrants to be utilised. I really wonder why it is necessary to provide for that kind of detail on procedural matters in legislation. It is the sort of thing that is in my opinion more properly covered in a comprehensive set of rules for a Family Court. I sometimes think we make a rod for our own backs in this House when we have legislative requirements like that because the legislative process is time consuming and expensive. We know for example that this legislation was introduced earlier this year and has been before the select committee for some time. I would have thought that this kind of minor procedural stuff is more effectively dealt with by rules. I make that comment in relation not only to that particular species of family legislation but also to the legislation that has been the subject of debate this afternoon about making miscellaneous changes to other family law statutes. 
The only other part I wish to refer to is Part 41 which amends the Resource Management Act 1991. It provides that the Attorney-General is to be responsible for appointing an environment commissioner or deputy environment commissioner and that the Minister of Justice shall henceforth not have responsibility for this particular task. This is entirely consistent with other mechanisms for appointing judges. Of course the Prime Minister is responsible under the Judicature Act for appointment of the Chief Justice but the Attorney-General is responsible for the appointment of other judicial officers—judges in the Supreme Court the Court of Appeal the High Court and the District Court—and is also responsible as we know for the appointment of coroners. We know that Dr Cullen made a complete hash of that earlier this year in relation to the appointment of the coroner in Wellington and that he dealt in a very shabby and unacceptable manner with Mr Garry Evans. Mr Evans has thankfully now been made a relief coroner by the Attorney-General who saw the error of his ways. 
It makes sense that these persons who perform an important judicial function as commissioners should also be appointed by the Attorney-General. The only point I make—and it applies not only to these appointments but also to the other judicial appointments—is that while the Attorney-General does have responsibility for these appointments it is extremely important that he or she properly consult other members of this House on such appointments. In the case for example of Supreme Court judges they are now appointed until the age of 70. They wield considerable power and it is extremely important that the Attorney-General consult not only with members of his own party but with other parties as well so that the best decisions are made. That having been said I am pleased that the Attorney-General will now have responsibility for the appointment of all judicial officers because the change here reflects what happens with appointments to the courts I have mentioned. 
As previous speakers have said this is a mishmash of legislation that deals with minor changes some of a technical nature some to correct previous errors and some to tidy up statutes. Subject to the point that the member for Taranaki - King Country made in relation to the Public Audit Act and subject also to the comments that were made by the Government Administration Committee in its commentary National supports the second reading of this bill. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I a au e tu nei ka rere nga whakaaro ki tera e takoto mai ra i roto o Ngati Kahungunu. Me mihi ki a Ngati Kahungunu raua ko Ngati Porou e tangi nei ki ta ratau mokopuna tamaiti i tenei po. Hirini moe mai moe mai moe mai ra. Me penei rawa te korero ko te hunga mate ki te hunga mate ko tatau e korero nei e wananga nei i nga korero huri noa tena koutou kia ora tatau. Kia ora. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Assistant Speaker. As I stand here my thoughts fly to that one lying in state in Ngati Kahungunu. Indeed I acknowledge Ngati Kahungunu and Ngati Porou who are grieving for their grandson and child tonight. Syd sleep slumber and rest there. The saying should be this: the dead to the dead and we the living to the living as we make speeches here and debate what is being said. Throughout the Chamber greetings to you and to all of us. Thank you. 
] 
As far as I can see debates on Statutes Amendment bills are generally rather timid debates such as we have had tonight in keeping with their very nature. The amendments from what I understand need to be minor technical and non-controversial and so it is with the 50 assorted statutes being amended here tonight. But when this bill came into the House on 1 March the debate took on the Exclusive Brethren Church giggling schoolgirls and openly gay members of Parliament. As a new member still learning the ropes I thought I must have got the wrong bill or perhaps there is more to the Fencing of Swimming Pools Act than meets the eye. 
On a more serious note the Maori Party is happy to support the bill which introduces amendments to these 50 Acts administered in a host of different departments. Most of the amendments as mentioned are inconsequential. The fact that the application for the conversion of a society into a branch in the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Act 1982 now requires only one copy rather than two copies will probably not make tomorrow’s headlines. I do not think there will be too much controversy associated with adding the subscriber’s name and address details in applications for incorporations within the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. Actually we wondered how the charitable trust movement had survived for 50 years without needing these sorts of details. 
Some of the changes are a consequence of the benefit of new technologies so we are happy to support amendments to the Care of Children Act 2004 and the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act for the purposes of enabling any authority executing a warrant to be able to do so on the basis of a faxed copy. 
The amendments to the Energy (Fuels Levies and References) Act 1989 are likewise a result of improvements and advancements in this sector with the addition of definitions of “biofuel” and “engine fuel”. There are however some more substantial changes which I would like to refer to briefly. 
 One significant amendment is to the Local Government Act 2002 which provides water care with the same protection currently afforded to local authorities under the Act. It requires that third parties that want to carry out work on or in relation to a local authority’s waterworks must notify it and get its consent thus minimising the potential for damage to the water infrastructure. It is a move towards transparency that we fully endorse. 
The proposed amendments to the Electricity Act 1992 have special meaning in relation to the ongoing adverse impact of electricity costs upon the more vulnerable segments of our population. The tragic situation in South Auckland earlier this year highlighted the fact that there is no incentive for power companies to avoid disconnections. In fact the Association of Non-Governmental Organisations in Aotearoa has reported that in the company accounts of one power company it had made the princely sum of $6.5 million alone just from the disconnection and reconnection fees that it had charged customers. 
In line with this the amendments intended to gather information about the generation conversion transformation conveyance sale consumption and use of electricity for statistical purposes are a very useful change which we hope will provide the nation with a stronger information base with which to understand the true cost of electricity charges. If we as a Parliament are committed to ensuring New Zealanders have access to an electricity supply that is efficient fair reliable and environmentally sustainable then having the best information in front of us is obviously a priority. 
In much the same way we support the amendments to the Gas Act which will mean that consumers can switch gas suppliers. Currently the regulations allow any changes to be made only in respect of gas retailers. We have a particular interest in protecting the rights of the low-income domestic consumers of energy sources to have the opportunities and information to enable them to get the best deal for their dollar and we think that this amendment will assist that. 
Another issue that stands to impact on the health and well-being of New Zealanders is the proposal to amend the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994. We are happy to support the proposal for the Minister of Health to consult the Health and Disability Commissioner on the appointment of a deputy commissioner. It is vital that the person appointed to the deputy role who after all may have the delegated authority of the commissioner for specific functions and who will deputise for the commissioner on occasion must be someone who has the confidence of the commissioner to be an independent voice for that agency. 
Although we are looking for independence the Maori Party is interested in the concerns raised by the select committee about the Public Audit Act 2001. Earlier Mr Finlayson provided a solid overview of this but my understanding is that the role of the Controller and Auditor-General is to monitor the lawful and efficient use of public moneys and financial accountability to the public sector and to report findings to Parliament. The amendments in this bill introduce services in relation to the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament. Mr Finlayson noted the concerns of the National Party that the Standing Orders encompass the provisions requiring all MPs to make returns on their pecuniary interests but I have to ask what the problem is with increasing accountability and transparency of the pecuniary interests of members of Parliament. Why would we want to stand in the way of being held to account? 
Another of the set of amendments we are interested in concerns the Resource Management Act. The changes provide for the Attorney-General not the Minister of Justice to appoint environment commissioners and deputy environment commissioners. These are extremely significant appointments and given the importance of direct accountability to Parliament and the high value we place on having an independent external point of view we support the shift to bring these appointments under the responsibility of the Attorney-General. 
Finally I make reference to the amendments to the Biosecurity Act 1993 and the Trade in Endangered Species Act. Both sets of provisions enable inspectors to seize unauthorised goods along with the risk goods if unauthorised goods are found or in the case of endangered species to seize a specimen of endangered threatened or exploited species from a ship an aircraft a port or an aerodrome if the species is being traded. It raises the question for the Maori Party of how decisions about risks and endangered species are made particularly when we consider the current environment of both the Wai 262 and the Crown discussion document on bioprospecting. 
 Bioprospecting the search for and gathering of biological material that may have some commercial value is an extremely contentious area of debate as the policy pre-empts the Waitangi Tribunal’s findings by assuming that the Crown already owns biological resources. The Wai 262 claim seeks recognition and protection for matauranga Maori in respect of indigenous flora and fauna. As part of the hearings scrutiny has been applied to the intellectual property regime the protected objects regime environmental decision-making and the wider way in which policy is arrived at regarding biological and genetic resources of indigenous and taonga species. The Wai 262 claim raises relevant issues on the ownership of biological resources on matauranga Maori and indeed the debates that may be had around the Biosecurity Act 1993 and the Trade in Endangered Species Act. 
As I said earlier from what I have seen Statutes Amendment bills are generally played down as minor technical amendments that are not worthy of terribly much attention. But there are some important relationships and contextual matters that we suggest officials should give consideration to. The submissions on the bioprospecting policy framework close on 12 October 2007 and the consultation process officially finishes this Thursday actually 6 September. Meanwhile the Wai 262 hearings have only recently wound up and it would no doubt be some time before the Waitangi Tribunal reports back. 
In the meantime there are two particular recommendations that the Government could follow when considering particular issues of sensitivity to do with endangered threatened or exploited species. It could agree that further policy making on such matters is deferred until the tribunal’s report is released and if that is too challenging it could agree to an alternative course of action whereby the Crown endorses an ethical framework for resolution which is basically about operationalising a working Treaty relationship instead of Maori being a bit player. 
The Maori Party will support this bill as it moves into the Committee stage of the debate but we simply raise for the attention of the House the need for new systems for protecting indigenous knowledge a code of conduct for researchers and a comprehensive and thoroughly thought-through strategy around the access and benefit sharing of genetic resources as just some of the issues that have arisen out of this bill and warrant more in-depth study. Kia ora tatou. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 There has been earlier comment in the House today about one particular provision in the Statutes Amendment Bill that is not to proceed and it is on that particular part that I would like to make some passing comment. The starting point of course for any discussion on the types of issues that arise in a debate on a Statutes Amendment Bill is that it is enshrined in our Standing Orders that bills are to relate to one subject and only the most limited exceptions to that are created. One of those exceptions relates to Statutes Amendment bills. That is why in the course of this argument a number of speakers have spoken about the mishmash nature of this legislation which contains multiple parts and makes multiple changes. 
Part 36 justifiably consumed time before the Government Administration Committee. Headed “Public Audit Act 2001” it sets up a rival regime to what has been very carefully laid out in the Standing Orders of this Parliament. There was an argument that the provisions in the Standing Orders relating to the register of pecuniary interests were completely unnecessary because it is clear law and accepted convention in this House that if a member has a conflicting financial interest he or she is bound to disclose it. But out of an abundance of caution and in keeping with what is going on in a number of Western parliaments this Parliament wisely decided that it would establish a more formal pecuniary interests regime. That was set up quite recently in Appendix B of the Standing Orders. 
The argument really in connection with Part 36 swings around Part 2 of Appendix B because it is there that the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament is set up. There are formal requirements that as members know returns are to be made on an annual basis as to the exact asset position of any member. But it is significant—and this is where the argument takes us—that under clause 15 of Part 2 of that appendix the Auditor-General is given wide-ranging powers of review and inquiry. Not only does the Auditor-General when the returns flow in from individual members have to look and see what has occurred but the obligation he or she has is a continuing one in terms of a power to inquire either on request—that might be a request by a member of the public or by the media—or on his or her own initiative as to whether any member has complied or is complying with the obligations that are in Appendix B of the Standing Orders. 
The Auditor-General is given powers to follow through if he or she decides to embark on an inquiry and finds that there has been a breach. Under clause 15(3) of Appendix B of the Standing Orders the Auditor-General after he or she has completed an inquiry can make a report to the House on the findings of that inquiry. That is much more than simply a slap on the hand with a wet bus ticket because a report to the House brings into play the considerable contempt powers of this House. Within Standing Order 400 there are illustrations of contempt. The most relevant one would be Standing Order 400(h) which states that the House may treat as a contempt a member “knowingly providing false or misleading information in a return of pecuniary interests:”. If a contempt were committed that issue would go the Privileges Committee. If it were well founded it would carry with it the substantial sanctions that the committee can impose. Those sanctions of course include fines and imprisonment. 
So we have set up that regime that self-contained code as others have said and the Government for some reason best known to itself decided it was not content with that regime and wanted additional powers to be engrafted. That was wrong in principle. If additional powers are seen to be appropriate then changes should be made to the Standing Orders. But the Government decided not to do that and instead decided to make far-reaching changes to the Public Audit Act. And they are far-reaching changes because the bill proposed to give powers to the Auditor-General in the nature of access to premises the issuing of warrants and the ability to bust down doors and enter property in order to search. That is why a number of members of this House expressed concern that in constitutional terms this was clearly an inappropriate course to follow. 
A key provision in the context of Statutes Amendment bills is that one MP one member of this House can at any particular part of the parliamentary process take objection to the inclusion of a particular provision. There is nothing like that in any other part of our Standing Orders and perhaps wisely the Government Administration Committee so ably chaired by a competent farmer from the Taranaki - King Country electorate decided that the move should be done pre-emptively rather than waiting for what might happen in the Committee stage and that objection should be taken. There was good reason for doing that because this provision was not a technical amendment. It was not a non-controversial amendment. It was a far-reaching constitutional change that should never have found its way into this bill. 
So I commend the select committee. I commend speakers who have earlier commented on the inappropriateness of Part 36. What will happen? Well Part 36 will not be in the bill when it goes through the further stages that lie ahead and that is quite proper. 
Bill read a second time. 
Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to stand and speak in support of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill and indicate to the Committee that the National Party is supporting this bill. I have also seen the Supplementary Order Paper that was tabled yesterday; I have had a chance to look at it today. I can indicate that the National Party will support the Supplementary Order Paper as written as well. 
The fact is that the confidence of the public has been swayed in the ability of the Police Complaints Authority as it is now to be able to deal effectively with the complaints that come before it and the investigations that it carries out from time to time. This is largely not due to the actions of the Police Complaints Authority but unfortunately is in respect of some isolated incidents that have been brought upon the police by its own members. Over the last few years for instance we have seen a number of investigations and complaints made by complainants such as Louise Nicholas around officers and we can reel off the names—Rickards Schollum Shipton and Dewar. Of course in recent times we have been successful in prosecuting Detective Inspector John Dewar as he was at the time. 
The fact is that the public have always been wary of a police complaints system that has the police investigating their own. The fact that that is replicated across society in many other avenues and in many other departments does not detract I suppose from that lack of confidence because of course there is a huge inequity of power when an organisation such as the police has an ultimate power in respect of its citizens. 
I note that the Supplementary Order Paper as it has been tabled seeks to rename the bill the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill. That seems to take account of the fact that subsequent to the Bazley report police conduct in various forms—not necessarily coming out of complaints but the way that the police conduct themselves on a day-to-day basis—should come under scrutiny at more regular intervals. As the Bazley report has suggested there should be annual audits and then a 10-year audit of the way that the police force conducts itself. The report also of course recommends that there be a code of conduct for the police. 
It is only right and fitting then that the new authority be called the Independent Police Conduct Authority. The word “independent” denotes that it will stand apart from the police. Although to a certain level there will be minor or less serious incidents and complaints investigated by serving police—in other words as I said before the police investigating their own—the new authority as it will be with five authorities being five warrant-holding individuals will have the ability to spread its net wider and investigate more fully those more serious complaints allegations or merely situations as they arise. 
The sorts of things that the Police Complaints Authority at the moment investigates are deaths in police cells incidents of police car chases—and we see that the authority is investigating those at the moment—as well as incidents that involve police shootings or police actions that are so serious there should be some sort of independent scrutiny made of police conduct or the way in which the police carry out their investigations without a complaint having been made. I believe that that is a good thing; so does the National Party. 
New parts of the bill before the Committee look to the Police Complaints Authority being able to release information into the public arena and also release information back to complainants or defendants on an interest of justice imperative. I think that is a good thing too. In the past the information held by the Police Complaints Authority has been confidential and at times that has acted against the interests of justice. It has not allowed the Police Complaints Authority to release information that may well have acted in the best interests of justice to show that a person being treated as a defendant or under investigation by the police is innocent of the charges made or has defences open to him or her. I believe that releasing information in the public interest can add significantly to the way that the public view the Police Complaints Authority and the way in which the police have handled themselves during the course of investigations. The public expect to have a greater scrutiny of the police especially over such incidents as I related earlier. 
The fact is that the New Zealand Police is an organisation that the public of New Zealand must have a high level of confidence in at all times. Although public confidence gets attacked from time to time because of incidents that occur we must remember that those incidents occur on an individual and non-systemic basis most of the time. As detailed in the Bazley report there are a number of ways in which the police dealt with matters over time that detracted from public confidence but the fact is that the police are the first and last call in many situations. It is not that long ago when for instance if we rang Child Youth and Family Services or the Department of Social Welfare we heard a message on the answerphone: “If you can’t get hold of us then ring the police.” and the police stepped in and did those things. The police force was the organisation that we called for. The police were the ones too who most came under scrutiny because they were present most often and they were always dealing with difficult situations. 
The way that the Steven Wallace matter was handled and the publicity that was gained around that—particularly comments made by the Prime Minister in respect of the possibility of prejudice operating within the police against Maori—detracted from the public level of confidence in the Police Complaints Authority. 
I am pleased to see that there will be a significant level of independence within the new Independent Police Conduct Authority. I believe that the structure is one that will add to public confidence in the authority’s ability to make this information available to bear more public scrutiny and to get into the media the real facts of a case rather than allowing people to speculate as to what those facts may be. In this news-hungry world where we always want to deal to those who are in authority that will be a good thing. Thank you. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman for the opportunity to speak about this important legislation— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Now do something with it. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: It is important and—in response to a comment the member has made—in the course of multiple calls on this legislation I hope to make a number of substantive points. It is quite interesting from my perspective because I see I spoke on this legislation in 2003 and 2005. Now in 2007 I am speaking briefly on it again. It must surely be the case that the legislative history of this bill is utterly unsatisfactory. We are currently confined to a consideration of Part 1 “Preliminary provisions” of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill or as the Government would now wish to call it the “Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Bill”. Well what is in a name? Probably there is not much really. “Conduct” is possibly a softer and more appropriate word. 
It is interesting to look at the history around the world of these Police Complaints Authority tribunals and systems. Mr Finlayson reminded me tonight of the seminal work done in this area by Professor Carl Klockars who will be well known I am quite sure to the Minister because he drew attention to the fact that what distinguishes the police from every other domestic institution is that they exercise a general right to use coercive force. The professor noted that it was that right that made the police so valuable to society. The reality of all this however is that it is inevitable that the use of coercive force will give rise to situations of some stress and not infrequently to resentment. No doubt it was such reasons that gave rise to concern expressed at the time that police services were first introduced in the 19th century. 
Just looking back at the history of this matter I note that the first chairman of the authority Sir Peter Quilliam referred to reported complaints of excessive police force in 1841 and a public meeting was called to express concern. So there is nothing new in this issue. The whole concept of coercion involves compelling people to do what they do not want to do or preventing them from doing what they actually want to do. In such situations of course the police act as agents for the majority of the community whose wishes are expressed through constituted authority. There will be in many cases a very fine line between what conduct is acceptable and what is not and where there are divisions in the community itself this can pose difficulties for the police. So where people have been frustrated by the use of police compulsion there is bound to be a reaction. Where it is considered that the police were not justified in the action they took then there is likely to be a complaint from those affected. The types of complaints that have come before the existing authority are not only in respect of the use of compulsive force as we have seen. The use of inappropriate language or sometimes an unfortunate attitude is often the basis for complaints against the police. 
The traditional response to complaints about the police has of course been an internal investigation conducted by—members have guessed it—police officers. In countries with a similar background to ours members of the police have always been required to comply with a strict disciplinary code. That is certainly the case today. Where a complaint was received an inquiry was carried out by police officers and what was considered to be appropriate action was taken by the superiors of the officer or officers concerned. I think it is right to say that there is evidence to support the view that in some cases at least such investigations resulted in outcomes of some severity as far as individual police officers were concerned. Nevertheless it was obviously inevitable that such procedures would give rise to dissatisfaction where complainants took the view that police officers had not acted with independence in cases where members of the police service concerned were the subject of complaint. I think it is also right to say that there was also a concern on the part of more marginalised members of society that the making of a complaint might result in retaliatory action from members of the police. 
We saw in New Zealand a whole lot of events touching the police that I think looking back can be very much seen as the genesis of the principal Act. One of those events I would say would have been the Viet Nam War because the advent of that war and similar issues changed attitudes in respect of protest movements completely. For the first time so-called respectable members of society found themselves in direct opposition to the police and the police were placed in an extremely invidious situation. On the one hand they had the obligation to uphold the law as it stood. On the other hand they were confronted by members of society who considered on moral grounds that certain governmental activities were unacceptable. So in such a situation it was inevitable that major conflicts would occur and erosion of that confidence so essential to stability in a community occurred and accelerated. 
I think at that time—and I was a part of that time—that all of this was accompanied by a much greater readiness on the part of members of society to query previously accepted attitudes and standards. The demonstrations against the Springbok Tour in 1981 brought the changes in society and societal attitudes into sharp focus. At the same time similar conflicts were going on in the UK where there had been big changes in the make-up of society. The society of the United Kingdom had changed markedly as a result of the immigration that occurred after the Second World War and during the conversion of the old British Empire to the British Commonwealth. An example of that would have been the Brixton riots of 1981. 
Dianne Yates 
: I was there. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: Right. The member will know if she was there that following those events Lord Scarman carried out an inquiry that was entrusted to him in two phases. The first thing he looked at was to see what the course of events was. He then looked to see what the underlying causes of that disorder were. He referred to a proposal in Canada where a bill had been introduced that would establish an independent system for dealing with complaints against the police. He was also aware that at the same time a bill had been introduced in Australia that made provision for investigation and establishment of a disciplinary tribunal by the Commonwealth Ombudsmen. 
Eventually a system was set up in England that involved the creation of an independent authority. So we had these models that led in due time to the setting up of the Police Complaints Authority which is the subject of this legislation. Tonight we are looking at an enhancement of the ability of that particular authority to carry out a raft of tasks in a setting that is incredibly important and pivotal in the maintenance of the institution of police and the stability of our society. 
 That is all I wish to say in connection with Part 1. In Part 2 I would like to deal with the challenge that Mr Fairbrother has thrown down and suggest a number of issues that I think would improve this legislation were the Government minded to do that. Now it may not be prepared to do so. These issues may have to await the next Government in September 2008; a Government of a quite different hue of a quite different philosophy and a Government much more committed to the welfare of New Zealand. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Dr Worth raised a couple of points that are perhaps timely at this early stage of the consideration of the bill to get on the record in order to clarify for members who may not be aware and also for other interested members of the public that the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill was introduced as Dr Worth quite correctly indicated back in December 2002. It sought to implement the recommendations that Sir Rodney Gallen made in the review that he had undertaken in 2000 and of course parallel to the bill we are considering a Supplementary Order Paper that has been drafted among other things to give effect to some of the core recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct which reported relatively recently. 
That in part explains the circuitous journey of this bill through the Parliament because although the bill was reported back from the Law and Order Committee it was reported back at about the same time that allegations of historical serious misconduct were made against members of the New Zealand Police. In February 2004 the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct that I referred to was established to inquire into those allegations about the conduct of police. One of the decisions that was taken by the Minister at the time was to put this bill on hold because it was deemed likely that such an inquiry might well bring down some recommendations that would be relevant and relate directly to the measures in this bill. So the bill was effectively put on hold. 
A decision was taken as that commission of inquiry progressed—but took longer than had been anticipated—to move ahead with the bill again. But when the commission’s terms of reference were amended in May 2005 so that it was able to continue its inquiries but not impinge on the criminal investigations and proceedings relating to any of the original allegations again it was determined that it was prudent to hold this bill in abeyance until such time as Dame Margaret Bazley’s commission reported its findings. 
That I think members generally would agree has proven to be an appropriate decision because indeed of the recommendations that came from the commission of inquiry investigation some 12 recommendations directly related to the Police Complaints Authority. So with the benefit of those recommendations it was possible for the Government to move quickly with a Supplementary Order Paper that ensures that the bill we are now considering alongside the Supplementary Order Paper deals with those matters that need to be dealt with as quickly as possible. 
The other matter that I will comment briefly on is that Dr Worth noted the name change advanced by the Supplementary Order Paper which changes the Police Complaints Authority to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. He raises the question of whether there is anything much in a name or whether there is any great point to be taken from this change. I suggest to members that there is indeed. The emphasis is on the status of this authority as an independent entity. It also clarifies its role which is not just confined to investigation of complaints but does include investigating incidents involving death or serious harm and serious misconduct or neglect of duty. In the name Independent Police Conduct Authority we see a more accurate reflection of the range—the extended range—of responsibilities which Dr Worth referred to in his closing comment. The authority will indeed have an expansion of function and it is appropriate that that is reflected in the name of the authority. 
Finally I note that whereas the principal Act currently provides for a sole authority with an option of appointing a deputy expanding the authority’s membership to up to five members including a chairperson who must be a judge or a retired judge which the bill now does will I suggest to members increase the authority’s capacity to deal with complaints allow for wider representation and in the end give greater confidence in the authority’s competence and independence. These changes reflect the nature of the expansion of the authority’s function and a desire to ensure the appropriate connection of the authority to the different strands of experience and expertise in the community. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 The Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill is very very important. Just last weekend I was out with the Levin police until the wee hours up in Horowhenua and that gave me a great insight into what actually goes on in the small hours in my community. In particular I was intrigued by a couple of people in the cells. One had breached bail conditions and the other had had an altercation with his partner. It was interesting to see that a staff member had to go back and forth checking on these two people in the cells on a very regular basis and recording whether there were any incidents. 
With this legislation incidents such as deaths in police cells or police shootings would be covered by the Independent Police Conduct Authority. The authority will cover things like “misconduct or neglect of duty on the part of any member of the police” and will “consider whether the relevant practices policies and procedures have been complied with.” National fully supports the Committee stage of the bill. 
The membership of the police authority will likely be increased to five members but—I think I read somewhere—the quorum might be down to two. National might have a concern about that and I would be interested in the Minister taking a call to clarify that matter. 
It is important that there will still be secrecy around the authority as that will enable a witness to come along and be frank with the evidence he or she can give. This is covered in Part 1 of the bill. 
The other important part of this bill is that it makes sure there is an acceptable code of conduct for the police. The police do a fantastic job in our community in keeping people safe but at certain times they are under a huge amount of pressure. Ultimate power is left with the police. It is very important that the authority is independent and it is important that we have this amendment going through the Committee stage this evening. National supports the legislation. 
 I guess that for people in the community going to the police is the first and often the last call for them when in awkward situations. I think that those people in our community need to be particularly aware that an independent body is looking over them. It is great that we are going to have a current or former judge appointed by the Governor-General to sit over this very important—as the Minister called it—committee. 
I would like if I could to allow the Minister to take a call at some stage in order to explain the quorum of two and I look forward to other contributions from people around the Chamber on the very important amendment bill in front of us this evening. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I want to speak to Part 1 and particularly to the commencement part. I would comment that what we are seeing is the evolution of an independent authority. As Dr Worth indicated previously the original Police Complaints Authority was Sir Peter Quilliam followed by Sir John Jeffries who were both High Court judges and well regarded by both sides in any dispute in their courtrooms. But initially of course when they were appointed to the Police Complaints Authority the concept of human rights was still an evolving pattern. The caution with which both fearless judges approached their task reflected not a lack of bravery on their part but an expectation by the public that the police would do no wrong. Of course later on we have found that that is an expectation that when viewed from a distance is easily believed but close up is often very challenged. 
So the Police Complaints Authority when originally appointed had to walk this very difficult line between trying to balance what might be appropriate police behaviour with the public expectation that the police would go about what essentially is a very unpleasant task of apprehending people who are out cheating and deceiving the system and wreaking havoc upon their fellow human beings while all the time passing themselves off as reasonable and sensible citizens of this country. So the Police Complaints Authority was naturally tentative in the work and generally supportive of the police position. But as the authority has evolved and as our understanding of human rights has evolved the Police Complaints Authority has become a little more loud and a little more independent and the current appointments of Justice Lowell Goddard and Judge Michael Lance will lead the new Police Complaints Authority into an era where we can see a nice balance between the rights of the citizens and the obligations of the police to investigate crimes often covered up by deviousness and violence. 
What is significant about the Police Complaints Authority I think is demonstrated by an experience I want to touch on. There is a chap in prison right now called Jules Mikus who is in there for the murder and rape of a 6-year-old girl in Napier. Within a week of that killing one of Napier’s less popular young men—a larrikin who was somewhat unpopular—was identified by the police as being a likely suspect. He was hounded by the police right up to the day of Mikus’ arrest. It drove him around the bend; it ruined his family; his father went to the grave a very broken man. I took the matter to the Police Complaints Authority who in fact reviewed the file and came forward with the opinion that they considered there was enough evidence to charge this man with the murder and rape of that poor girl. It was only the brink of the investigation finally tipping towards Mikus that saved this man from a trial which would have been a very unpleasant trial and a tough one to defend. To this day he may well have been serving a prison sentence for a crime he did not commit. 
The story I am trying to take from that is that the Police Complaints Authority at that time was conducted under the aegis of the police. Of course the senior police officer who investigated it was a very fair man but his bias always was that there were goodies and baddies; the police were inherently good and the people they investigate were inherently bad. If an investigation is started with two sides of the coin such as that—with the right side and the bad side—then any piece of evidence that contains the possibility of several inferences does not need much further detection before an inference is jumped to without anyone having made sure it is logically correct and true. So I welcome an authority that has strong independent people of the nature of Justice Lowell Goddard and Judge Michael Lance because they will bring to this task a finesse and a deft touch that will establish the authority as a powerful force. 
I do not think that this Committee should get too concerned about quorum—about the numbers who sit on the authority. This authority is not a regulatory authority; it is an authority of professional application to very difficult human situations. It requires finely honed judgment and a very very shrewd assessment of human nature. I think we should be more concerned with the quality of the appointments and about ensuring that future appointments reflect the current quality of the judges I have just mentioned. If we get the right people doing this work then this future authority will be a staunch advocate of human rights in this community. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this Committee stage of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill on behalf of New Zealand First and to put on record that New Zealand First has always supported and will continue to support any legislation that gives increased independence to this body. We believe fully and wholly that the integrity of the police force is very much determined by the public’s perceptions as to how their complaints or concerns raised regarding policing practice or specific instances are dealt with. Of course I guess it is fair to say that this bill is before the Committee because of the concerns raised by the public over what was perceived to be a situation of partiality or bias by the Police Complaints Authority. Very often criticism was levelled at the organisation by people who simply asked how the police could in any way investigate themselves impartially. 
New Zealand First notes a couple of things. Firstly this bill came to the House in December 2002. The New Zealand First member of Parliament who sat on the Law and Order Committee at that time was Edwin Perry who is not with us— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: A very good member. 
RON MARK 
: He was a very good member. I also note that another good member who sat on the committee was one Brian Connell. I was hoping to hear a contribution from Brian Connell today or at least at some later stage in this bill. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What happened to him? 
RON MARK 
: I am not sure what happened to Brian Connell but I think that the rest of the nation is very clear as to what happened. 
The core of the issue—and as we get into Part 2 we will see how these concerns have been dealt with—is the independence integrity and authority that is bestowed upon this organisation. I have to say right from the outset that the appointment of Justice Goddard is in New Zealand First’s view a very insightful appointment. We are looking forward to good things under the leadership of Justice Goddard. 
We do however wonder at the purpose of simply amending the title of the bill by inserting the word “Independent”. There are those people who have—rightly or wrongly in our view—said that this is just window-dressing and that inserting the word “Independent” does not create independence. From New Zealand First’s perspective we see the appointment of a highly valued and very competent senior judge to head the authority as being the principal manner in which true independence is gained. 
The first of the number of things that have vexed New Zealand First members’ minds and hearts as we have gone through this bill is the issue of how the police deal with their own. We know that the Police Complaints Authority is the last centre of refuge for police officers who feel they have been wrongly served or wrongly done by. I will put on the record of the Committee right now the name of Constable Kerry Joyce down in Christchurch. Kerry Joyce stands out as one of those examples of how the police can get things so badly badly wrong when they accuse one of their own for whatever reason of doing something or of impropriety that is subsequently proved to be totally false. I would say—even being kind to the police—that some of the accusations levelled at that officer were malicious. 
 In New Zealand First we do not lose sight of the effect on the family of that police officer. We do not lose sight of the effect on his wife or the effect on his children as their dad’s name and photograph is published in the media and all sorts of allegations are made about him by the police. It concerns us that a man—or a woman—in the service of the New Zealand Police can be subjected to such allegations when subsequently those allegations can be proven to be false wrong incorrect and even malicious. 
This man has not received any form of compensation from the police. I guess that that particular case will play its way through the Employment Courts cost the taxpayer an absolute fortune and cost hundreds of hours of police time. Might I suggest that this is all because of the lack of a vigorous and thorough investigation under the previous Police Complaints Authority which should have gotten to the core of the matter a helluva lot earlier than was the case as the matter eventually unrolled through the court. 
The Police Complaints Authority is often looked upon by people—citizens of New Zealand—as being a place where citizens can go to issue and argue their concerns with the police. We forget sometimes that the Police Complaints Authority is also the body to which police officers themselves have a recourse of action for wrongs done to them. Might I suggest from New Zealand First’s perspective that we think that the loops and the hoops that police officers are often required to go through to prove their innocence are far too long far too convoluted and do not in any way compensate those officers for the losses they incur when they are found to be innocent. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to principal Act 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The debate on this part includes schedule 1. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I want to take a call in respect of Part 2 of the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill and I notice two or three things have cropped up in the interim that I will comment on. The first thing to note is that this legislation will speed up the process of investigating complaints as they come through from the public and conduct as it is scoped by the Police Complaints Authority on a day-to-day basis—those matters that are investigated as they come to pass. I articulated earlier things such as deaths in police cells speeding policemen boy-racer chases that go wrong and those sorts of situations. 
The fact is that some of the cases that are presently before the Police Complaints Authority go back 5 or 6 years awaiting the outcome of other tribunals such as the Coroner’s Court waiting for investigations to finish or for civil actions against the police which are currently moving through the process to finish. But others are caught up within the system. As part of the select committee members such as my colleague Ron Mark will know that the only explanation given for some of the reasons why these matters have been held over for several years is that they are “still with the police” or “awaiting a response from the police.” So giving the Police Complaints Authority independence will allow it to kick on a little bit quicker and maybe shake the tree a little bit as far as getting the police to cooperate in getting matters moving faster than they presently are which is a good thing. I note that the Supplementary Order Paper allows for an extra two authorities moving from one authority and a deputy as we have at the moment to five authorities and that will increase the speed as well. 
I also note that within the last hour or so two Supplementary Order Papers have been tabled by the Maori Party which in effect create a separate leg for a complaints process for Maori. I can understand where this comes from because we know for instance that a disproportionately large number of people who are dealt with by the police as offenders are Maori so there is a proportionate figure of complaints coming before the authority from Maori and because quite a deal of offence comes out of an ignorance or a lack of understanding around things Maori. I do not mean that in any sort of patronising way but I do believe that we should be living in a country where there is one law for all. 
I understand there are arguments about how that plays out from time to time—accusations of institutional racism etc and I believe that some of those are valid—but at the same time I believe that we are not in a situation in this country where we need to have a separate leg an investigative branch within the Police Complaints Authority that deals particularly with Maori. One of the typewritten Supplementary Order Papers refers to new section 4AA “Autonomous Maori Investigative Branch established”. My view is that that is not something that is required. What should happen is the police should be forced into situations where they need to take account or at least show an understanding of things Maori and how that will impact on investigations as the police carry them out. I know that over recent times there has been far more significant training given to police in an attempt to change culture and to gain an understanding of special considerations that might need to be made as far as various cultural groups—Pacific Island Asian Middle Eastern African as well as Maori—are concerned. National does not see a need to create a separate autonomous Maori investigative branch within the Police Complaints Authority. It does see a need for the ability to show more understanding. 
The second typewritten Supplementary Order Paper asks for an appellate body that would sit above the Police Complaints Authority as a review body. So a person who feels that his or her complaint has not been listened to or has not achieved the result expected could make an appeal to the appellate body which would review the inquiry into the complaint made and then be able to make recommendations back to the Police Complaints Authority but would not have the ability to make any instruction or give any direction. That seems to me to not have the grunt that one would expect such a body to have. I guess to a degree as well it has come along fairly late in the day and it is difficult to have had any discussions with the proponents of the Supplementary Order Paper given the late stage at which it has come. 
I would say in trying to give some comfort to the Maori Party—and as I said earlier I have some sympathy with the drivers of this—that as there will be five police complaints authorities now in other words five individuals warranted as a Police Complaints Authority there is the ability obviously to make some submissions as to who those various authorities could be. It could well be that the Maori Party has the ability to raise its concerns with the Parliament so an appointment could well cover the anxiety that it has in a perceived lack of understanding of things Maori within the new Independent Police Conduct Authority that is to be created. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. I rise to take a call on the Maori Party amendments to clause 6 and clause 12 of Part 2 which urge the Committee to consider the opportunity for an autonomous Maori investigative branch. The amendments introduce the requirement for an autonomous Maori investigative branch of the Independent Police Complaints Authority to be established in order to review complaints raised by Maori against the police and Maori relationships with the police. 
Two weeks ago the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination released its concluding observations on New Zealand’s performance under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Amongst 26 areas of specific concern the committee reiterated its concern regarding the overrepresentation of Maori and Pacific people in the prison population and more generally at every stage of the criminal justice system. 
This is not breaking news by any means to anybody. I remember back to a report by former Commissioner of Police Doone which showed that Maori are significantly overrepresented in apprehension prosecution and conviction statistics. That report concluded: “… criminal justice agencies including the Police must work to improve their responsiveness to Maori and to overcome any negative perceptions that may inhibit that responsiveness.” The negative perception that Commissioner Doone was referring to is the fact that many police and Maori hold negative perceptions of each other. The problem becomes self-perpetuating and so we end up with a situation in which—and here are the facts—about five times as many Maori as Pakeha Europeans are apprehended prosecuted and convicted; nine times as many Maori are remanded in prison awaiting trial; and nearly seven times as many Maori are given a custodial sentence or are serving prison sentences. 
The Maori Party will not just stand by and say that because the situation has continued for many decades it must continue for many more to come. A fundamentally different approach is required to break this cycle. Perhaps it is time for a Ngati Kahungunu solution to be found. I say this of course in respect of our wonderful Ngati Kahungunu Justice Lowell Goddard who heads the Police Complaints Authority. We need a culture change—a giant step to really make a difference in the ongoing sad story that is the relationship between police and Maori. 
This is something I have had involvement in since the 1970s—Gideon Tait was then the commissioner—and then followed on to the time of Bastion Point right through the ages as a member of the Auckland District Police Maori District Advisory Board and the Tutahitanga Maori/Police Joint Planning Committee for Waitakere City North Shore City and Rodney County and for the last 10 years as a member of the national committee here at national headquarters of the Commissioner of Police’s Maori Focus Forum. 
I remember that in the year 2000 Sir Rodney Gallen’s inquiry recommended that there should be a separate autonomous unit to address complaints pertaining to Maori or at the very minimum specialist Maori staff. Sir Rodney Gallen recommended that the authority should consist of three persons of whom the chairperson should be someone who holds or has held judicial office. The second member of the authority could represent a Maori section of the New Zealand population as recognition of the Treaty partnership. The third member should represent the lay population of New Zealand as a whole. As I am advised Cabinet did not agree to this recommendation so my Supplementary Order Paper brings us back to the original intentions of Sir Rodney Gallen. 
What Mr Chester Borrows has just said—one law for all—is just a joke. What about the foreshore and seabed? One law for all due process—bang get a new law to stop that. We can go on mouthing these platitudes time after time and nothing changes. I have been working with the police for so long to try to get them to deal with their attitude towards Maori and nothing changes. The same things go on and on. I hear it said that police have to be forced into a situation to take cognisance of cultural factors. The reality is that their day-to-day beat does not allow them to do that if they do not have it in their minds or in their thoughts to recognise that Maori have different ways of looking at things. Thank you. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 National supports the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill. At this stage of the Committee process we are looking at Part 2 of this important and significant legislation. The Minister Mark Burton sought to explain a very substantial period of delay in the progress of this bill. One would have thought that if this bill had merit—which National accepts—it would have prompted a more speedy passage. 
The bill amends the principal Act which is the Police Complaints Authority Act. That Act “prescribes the principal role of the Police Complaints Authority as being to consider whether there has been misconduct or neglect of duty on the part of any member of the police and to consider whether relevant practices policies and procedures of the police have been complied with.” There are a number of significant changes that the bill makes to the Act. 
I would like to start by just responding to some comments from Dr Pita Sharples—for whom I have enormous respect—that he has made on behalf of the Maori Party in connection with his two proposed amendments. These amendments come very late in the piece. They come probably too late in the piece to have the consideration that they might deserve. The first amendment introduces a requirement for an independent Police Complaints Authority review agency to be established so that decisions from the authority can be appealed. The second amendment sets up an autonomous Maori investigative branch of the authority to review complaints raised by Maori against the police. 
Part 2 of the bill which is the subject of debate at the moment contains a raft of provisions that are essentially procedural in nature relating to the constitution and operations of the authority. I just note with reference to what Dr Sharples has said clause 10A which is headed “Personnel policy”. I think it is quite unusual to see this sort of provision written into statute regarding the operations of a tribunal. The personnel policy is to comply with the principle of being a good employer and the clause sets out what constitutes a good employer for the purposes of this legislation. I note that 10A(2) states: “a good employer is an employer who operates a personnel policy containing provisions generally accepted as necessary for the fair and proper treatment of employees in all aspects of their employment including provisions requiring … (d) recognition of (i) the aims and aspirations of Maori; and (ii) the employment requirements of Maori; and (iii) the need for involvement of Maori as employees of the Authority;”. That is a most unusual provision. It does tend to some extent I would say to run with what Dr Sharples has said that there should be within this entity some recognition of the issue—which I am sure saddens him as much as it saddens me—of high rates of offending by Maori members of our society. 
The next point I make in the context of Part 2 is that one of the very crunch issues in this bill is seen here in the implementation of a major decision arising out of the review which is that the Police Complaints Authority should have an enhanced investigative capacity of its own independent of the police. As I said earlier in a fleeting way similar conclusions have been arrived at in a number of jurisdictions such as England Australia and Canada. I think that is a very important fact which provides a high level of protection to the police. 
There is a significant aspect in all this that we should all be aware of. In the context of legislators who seek to strike balances I believe that we need to look at the aspect of police morale. It is obvious that if the authority is seen as being an unsympathetic and constant critic of the police that will have an effect on morale. But if on the other hand the authority is able to build up the confidence of the police there should be no effect on morale. 
I hope Mr Fairbrother who is still in the Chamber might respond to an issue that I think he could make a useful contribution to. I have suggested in past comment on this legislation that there is a case to extend the scope of this bill. I believe that is an opportunity that certainly sits with us in this particular part of the process of this legislation. This legislation could be extended to deal with prison inmates’ complaints. The same arguments about the police investigating themselves apply equally to Department of Corrections staff investigating complaints against prison officers. This is something I would welcome comment on from Labour members. The situation with the Department of Corrections as I understand it is broadly that currently inmates’ complaints of mistreatment breaches of rights and illegality are dealt with by an in-house inspectorate of the department. There are significant numbers of complaints many of which are dismissed. I express the hope that in the context of this legislation an opportunity may be taken to deal with that issue. I have said on earlier occasions how important that might well be as an issue to resolve. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I take up the point made by Dr Richard Worth who has argued—as others have—that the amended Police Complaints Authority which will now be known as the Independent Police Conduct Authority should include a prison complaints system. It is clearly not a serious suggestion. If it is a serious suggestion then it is one that should be considered further by Dr Worth before he advances it any further. 
There is a fundamental difference between the role of the police and the role of the prison service. The police are an investigative authority—that is they are the hard edge of relationships between the citizen and the State. The police have an obligation to investigate complaints in a fearless way. The cutting edge of the Police Complaints Authority—as it is presently called—and the new authority after it is renamed is to reconcile the conflicts that occur during a rigorous investigation process bearing in mind at all times the fundamental rights of any citizen of a democracy to be protected from the overbearing conduct of a Government or State agency. 
An authority that relates to an investigative process is a completely different animal from an authority that relates to a custodial process because a prison authority’s major function is that of custody. Its job is not to investigate but to hold in safe custody those persons sent to it by our judicial process. The relationship between a prison inmate and the prison officers is entirely and fundamentally different from the relationship between a suspect a person being investigated or a person being arrested and police officers. It would be a recipe for disaster as we try to refine and strengthen the Police Complaints Authority to confuse the picture by marrying together two disparate conceptual functions. Although there may be merit in many years’ time for a large authority that deals quite separately with these two different functions as the role of the Police Complaints Authority evolves into the standard that is now being set by the Independent Complaints Authority Amendment Bill we must move carefully to make sure that the good work that has occurred slowly since the first Police Complaints Authority was set up in 1988 evolves into a very effective watchdog over the police but is not a hindrance to their operation. 
Moving to the thoughtful comments made behind the proposed amendment by the Maori Party suggesting that there be a separate branch of the Police Complaints Authority for complaints from Maori I can say that on first reading that suggestion finds considerable sympathy. In my experience of 25 or 30 years of dealing with the police most of the people who the police dealt with were Maori. There was an attitude—certainly 10 or 15 years ago—that was quite racist. It was perhaps not deliberately so but it was institutionalised racism. The position of Maori suspects was often hugely inferior to the position of Pakeha suspects. 
I have detected a change in that attitude in recent times. I think in a large part that is because there are a number of very very good Maori officers—both frontline and behind the scenes—who act as iwi liaison officers. That is having an effect among the community of changing the profile of the police. It also has a symbiotic effect on the police force themselves so that they are aware of the different cultural norms that exist in our two major cultures in this country Maori and Pakeha. The Police Complaints Authority must reconcile those changing norms and be able to breed a culture that instinctively understands the different values and norms that go with two separate parts of one country and one society. 
I think that the effect of the amendment proposed by the Maori Party would be to create differences where there should not be differences and to weaken the cogency of the Police Complaints Authority. The authority would become sensitive in areas where it needs expertise and professionalism rather than a fear to tread because it might be overlapping in a different area of responsibility. I agree that there is a need that should be addressed by the Police Complaints Authority. I agree that for a long time the way the police have handled Maori has led to justifiable criticism. But I do not believe that the answer is to have a separate authority because it would seem to lead to divisive conduct when we have police officers who are becoming more rounded and more sympathetic to both the major cultures. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to pick up on the point my colleague Russell Fairbrother just made because I think he provides a good response to Dr Worth. The issue that Dr Worth raised is a matter that has been dealt with elsewhere. This is not the time to try to bring together the police complaints and the prison complaints processes for the reasons that my colleague Mr Fairbrother has just outlined. The importance of dealing with the need to restore full public confidence in the Police Complaints Authority and the complexities of that are significant enough. That is a matter better pursued more narrowly for the time being. 
I want to touch on some of the provisions in the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill and the Supplementary Order Paper particularly as they relate to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct. I will repeat for members that the core reason for the delay in progressing this bill was sound. The delay was in order to ensure that recommendations that arose out of that commission of inquiry could be responded to quickly gathered up in a Supplementary Order Paper as they have been and effectively put in place. Had we proceeded—it may well have been ahead of that Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct—it may well be that we would have had to revisit the whole process in order to give effect to some of those recommendations that we are now addressing here including jurisdiction of the authority to include a new provision to clarify that the authority may investigate historical complaints that relate to incidents that occurred prior to the establishment of the authority. That is an important addition to the scope of the authority’s jurisdiction. 
The time limit on notification of complaints is an issue that a number of members have referred to either directly or indirectly in terms of confidence and satisfaction. The Supplementary Order Paper includes a new provision requiring that the police notify the authority within five working days of the receipt of a complaint. This provision addresses one of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct but it also addresses one of the public concerns about the need for rapid response in dealing with these matters. 
The reports to Government Ministers and the provision of the Supplementary Order Paper require the authority to provide a copy of its opinion and recommendations to the Minister of Police and the Attorney-General in certain situations where it is not satisfied with the police response to a recommendation. Again it is one of those measures that is about strengthening public confidence and indeed accountability and transparency in the process. 
My colleague provided a thoughtful response to the concern—and I think it is a genuinely held concern—behind Dr Sharples’ Supplementary Order Paper. The authority membership provision in the Supplementary Order Paper appropriately addresses the issue about more diverse representation again in a manner that is consistent with recommendations that fall out of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct. It is also to ensure that there is a wider range of experience and perspective in terms of the Independent Police Conduct Authority as it will be named. 
 I want to respond to Mr Guy because I know he was deeply concerned about this question of a quorum—deeply concerned. Obviously he was fretting that we might have moved on beyond that. I suppose one of the administrative changes that falls out of Supplementary Order Paper 116 is that it removes provisions in the bill itself relating to a range of areas that are now effectively covered by the Crown Entities Act 2004. These are things like membership and appointments removal or suspension of members salaries personnel policies meeting procedures and so on—that range of things. 
If I could perhaps refer Mr Guy to schedule 5 of the Crown Entities Act he will see that it deals with this very question. The only circumstances in which the question of a quorum of two is likely to arise is perhaps at the point at which the current authority—and of course there is a deputy so it is a two member authority now—is likely to roll over and become the new Independent Police Conduct Authority. If at that point there are no additional appointees to take the quorum up to the full five then indeed the quorum would be two for the time being because under the Crown Entities Act if an entity has a membership of two the Act requires that the quorum is both members. Thereafter as this authority is increased to five members the requirements of the Crown Entities Act apply. If there is an even number—say four—then the Act requires that a simple half of the board constitutes a quorum. If it is an odd number then the quorum is a majority. So in this case the quorum almost certainly will end up being three of the five members. I hope that settles the member’s concern. I think I have dealt with most of the matters that I want to cover at this stage. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 There is pretty much cross-party consensus on most of the issues here. While some people are highlighting specific issues they wish to have changed I think that we cannot lose sight of the realities in some of the propositions that have been put. I refer to the two submissions of the Drs Worth and Sharples. 
I think Dr Sharples’ submission—the Maori Party’s proposed amendments—is well considered and well written which indicates that a degree of thoughtfulness has been put into it. But I have to put on the record that New Zealand First will not support these amendments. A couple of issues spring to mind. It is proposed in the Maori Party amendment to clause 6 that a Maori investigative branch be established that consists of three members appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of iwi runanga and the Minister of Maori Affairs. Can members imagine that discussion in the current climate? Various iwi and hapu are at each other’s throats right now stymying various settlements because of their different views on boundaries process and mandate. I can well imagine the degree of debate discussion and discourse that would emerge as each iwi tried to assert its position and right to be represented over and above all other iwis. 
That is not the only reason we would not agree with such an amendment. I emphasise the point made by Russell Fairbrother which we believe is quite an astute observation. The reality is that Maori are now climbing through the ranks of the New Zealand Police in a way very similar to the way in which they have climbed through the ranks of the Defence Force. The notion of having an autonomous Maori body set up to investigate decisions made by a newly appointed Maori Commissioner of Police is quite interesting. In effect we could actually have a group of Maori representing an argument against a police force led by a Maori and commanded by Maori at district and area levels challenging those Maoris’ decisions or the appropriateness of the way in which they have dealt with Maori. 
I also remind people that the reason that Maori are so overrepresented in crime statistics is that we indulge in crime to that level. The continual argument from people who advocate that there must be something wrong with society because Maori are overrepresented in prisons ignores the fact that we are overrepresented in prisons because we break the law because we commit crime. Having said that the argument put forward by Mr Fairbrother that the police force has historically not treated all people equally is pretty widely accepted. We know that well. We know that from the way in which our whanau and our whanaunga have been treated over the years. But that cannot be said of today’s police force. I point to a very senior officer Wally Haumaha. Some have even tipped him as possibly being the first Maori Commissioner of Police. He has done a tremendous job. As we see more of his ilk working their way through the ranks we will see a continuance of the improvement of attitudes in the way in which the police administer themselves the way in which they conduct themselves and the way in which they administer and enforce the laws of this land. 
These laws are increasingly being passed by a House with a larger representation of Maori. As we sit here today we can see the evidence of that. Except for the Maori Party which has 100 percent Maori representation New Zealand First has traditionally been the party that has had the highest level of Maori representation of all parties in this House. Indeed you know it was not so long ago that Labour would not even— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What about now? 
RON MARK 
: I will get to the National Party in a minute in the second part of my call. Not so long ago Labour would not even nominate a Maori candidate in a safe Labour general seat. That happened for many many years. So that institutionalised approach and attitude towards Maori well known in the past was also carried by the Labour Party. I often used to challenge Tariana Turia now a leader of the Maori Party when she was in Labour. I used to ask her why the Labour Party would never stand a Maori candidate in a safe Labour general seat. She used to wink at me and say: “I know Ron. Why do you think that is?”. These things happily will become something of our past something we read about in our history as we evolve and change. 
New Zealand First is fully confident that that change is occurring and we are confident that these changes will give the Police Complaints Authority a far higher degree of scrutiny and a far greater degree of independence. I look forward to the day that maybe—I say this to satisfy Dr Pita Sharples my whanaunga from further north—we see Judge Joe Williams appointed to head the Police Complaints Authority. What would we say then? Would we say that Judge Joe Williams is not capable of fairly adjudicating or investigating issues that affect Maori complainants? That would be a nonsense. We in New Zealand First think that New Zealand is moving forward and beyond that. I compliment the Maori Party members on the way in which they have considered their amendment and on the fact that they have submitted it so comprehensively and completely but New Zealand First cannot quite see their view and will not be supporting it. 
As for Dr Worth’s contribution and his philosophising about the concept of an independent prison inspectorate similar to the Police Complaints Authority I ask whether he is a member of the same National Party that refused any investigation into the activities of the “goon squad” in Christchurch prisons. Is this the same National Party that appointed the emergency response unit that oversaw its establishment and that refused to accept that the unit was in any way acting inappropriately and had caused the death of a Maori inmate in Paparua prison? Is this the same National Party? My golly maybe things have moved on for the better. Maybe we do have a realisation within the National Party ranks that its members’ behaviour and conduct in respect of the way in which prisons were managed and the way in which complaints put forward by inmates were handled was not proper and was not as it should have been. 
But we in New Zealand First still have trouble balancing that view against National’s calls for no compensation for people in prisons who have been wrongly done by. We are looking for consistency in any amendments. I suspect because Dr Worth has not put forward a Supplementary Order Paper that much of his argument is simply philosophising simply tongue-in-cheek surmising and on that basis I accept it. Were Dr Worth serious I would fully expect a Supplementary Order Paper to be on the Table and him to be championing the amendments on it. But clearly that is not the case. 
We would support Dr Worth though—New Zealand First would support him—if he wanted to move at some stage through separate legislation or maybe through an inquiry to examine the total independence of the Department of Corrections prison inspectorate because we share the views that he is now espousing. It is a pity he was not the Minister of Corrections in the former National Government. Maybe we would have had a different response to the request of Brian Neeson—that highly valued member of the National Party—who joined forces with New Zealand First to call for an investigation. 
There are many things about this bill that we might wish to ponder discuss and muse over but essentially New Zealand First feels that Part 2 will give that degree of independence. We give this caveat though: we will be watching. I guess we share the concerns of Dr Sharples. The proof of the effectiveness of this legislation and the true independence of the authority will be seen by its deeds—what it does and how it manages the complaints brought before it. I feel that this bill may not be the final throw of the dice in this respect and that some of the concerns expressed by some people the cautions given—including those from Russell Fairbrother—may well need to be further examined when it has a couple of years under the belt. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe. I would like to respond to some of the comments made about my amendment that proposes a new clause 25A and also to talk to the other one. I will begin by saying that there is a lot of concern expressed about having a different separate authority for Maori as opposed to a general one and I share empathy with that thought too. But the reality is it is Maori who are in prison it is Maori who are being arrested and it is Maori who are being apprehended in ridiculous numbers and unless we are prepared to face up to that nothing is going to change. 
I want to tell members something. I have been working with the police since the 1970s and in those days every single recruit and cadet who was introduced into the police force I took for a course on race relations and Maoritanga—every single one in those days including the current commissioner a deputy commissioner and several assistant commissioners as they joined the force in the 1970s. I tell members that the hardest day’s work I have ever done was a refresher course for senior sergeants. They had been in the police for 10 years in charge of the watch-house and I was talking to them about discrimination about prejudices. A senior sergeant stopped me and said: “This is bullshit. I don’t want to hear what you have got to say about prejudice against Maoris. The only Maori I see are bad buggers and I lock ’em up. And you’re not going to change my attitude.” 
So I had a bit of a battle with him in front of his colleagues who were going: “Oh oh oh!” and I told him to stand on the chair and say: “I am a racist.” Of course he refused to do that. I said: “Well you are a racist because of your attitude and what you have said.” Finally I got him on the chair and everyone was saying: “Say it! Say it! Say it!”. So when he finally said: “I am a racist.” the attitude changed and they realised what they had done and what they had said. 
That is the kind of attitude that appears in  
Police Perceptions of Maori  
and  
Maori Perceptions of the Police 
 which were published during the 1990s. They were a collection of interviews by the police and Maori about each other. What it showed up was a distrust and a prejudice on both sides and unless we tackle that prejudice nothing is going to change. So what I am saying here now is that having a separate special Maori authority to deal with those things will do much to take away the mistrust of the police that exists amongst Maori. Members know the statistics. Many Maori are arrested and apprehended. Therefore many Maori go to court therefore many Maori are in jail and so on. What does that mean in real life? It means Maori families know the courts Maori families know the police and Maori families know all about that negative trauma that is associated with one of their family being arrested. 
I am a member of a committee that is trying to do prison reform and we have come up with a lot of things like the new units—but they are not new any more—and the first one we put in was in Hastings. Peter Grant the superintendent there now and I put in our model and we have had other models come up and so on. But the whole point of what I am talking about is that we need to do special things if we want to end the prejudice that exists out there. So I am saying to members that we can carry on in the same way and hide behind the premise that we are all equal and therefore we have to have one process for all people and nothing will change. Nothing will change unless we actually make the effort. I am telling members now that the members of the committee I had that looked into prisons were all university graduates. They were leaders of their iwi or leaders of some authority but working on this national committee and together we designed a change in the prison system. 
But two of those leading authorities on prisons had brothers in jail. So I am saying that we Maori know the courts we know the police and we know the prisons because it is our families. It is the same thing when we are talking about gangs. We know them because they are our families as well. So people just cannot talk about them like they are something out there at all. We have to face the fact that they are us and we are them. It is about getting meaningful examples that really will make a difference and will engender the trust of Maori of the police. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: It’s just wrong. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Yeah it is wrong but so is what is happening now; it is more wrong. It is wrong that we have so many people being apprehended so quickly. Kids walking home from an intermediate school social are laughing and the police are being called because they are making too much noise. One car is on the footpath another one is on the footpath and the lights are on because it is in an area where Maori live. 
Hon Member 
: It’s not the normal situation. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: No no—this is the reality of it. People can hide behind one law for all kind of korero but at the end of the day they have attitudes like that of the senior sergeant who says that Maoris are bad and that he does not need to know anything about it. I just put that proposition to members. 
Anyway I would like to speak to the clause in my amendment proposed clause 25A regarding an Independent Complaints Authority Review Agency. The Maori Party obviously would prefer a Police Complaints Authority to be completely independent like the Ombudsmen and the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. My amendments introduce the requirement for an Independent Police Complaints Authority Review Agency to be established in order to allow the decisions and activities of the authority to be appealed. Although the Police Complaints Authority reports now to the Minister of Justice rather than to the police in many respects this is just moving the deckchairs. In all respects the independent investigative role is preferred. Otherwise there is a perception amongst members of the community that the State is acting just as judge and jury in its own actions. 
I mentioned those two formative studies  
Police Perceptions of Maori 
 and  
Maori Perceptions of the Police 
. They reveal total mistrust and prejudice on both sides against each other and that is what has to be dealt with. I refer to the fact that too many Maori have been shot by the police and the people have not been healed over that process. In fact I think about 14 Maori now have been shot by the police in recent years. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: 18. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Eighteen—there we go. Anyway the amendments introduce the requirement for an Independent Police Complaints Authority Review Agency to be established in order to allow the decisions and activities of the authority to be appealed as is consistent with natural justice provisions. There has never been a more relevant time to be considering the role of a Police Complaints Authority in the wake of the fact that 18 Maori have been shot and killed by the police in recent years. So it is about having trust in the authority. And what is wrong with having an appeal agency for an authority that investigates complaints so that there is somewhere people can go to if they are not satisfied with that authority’s decision? 
 The function of the review agency would be to determine appeals brought under section 48. The review agency would consist of at least three members and all members would be appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Minister. Surely a basic tenet of all democracies is to ensure that there are checks and balances laid against the authority of the State when negotiating with citizens on matters of law and order. We want a system where the focus is restorative rather than adversarial where reconciliation is valued and where fairness is applied across the operations of its various parts. We need to demonstrate our belief that we can improve the lives of our victims families and communities. This amendment is a means towards that. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I have been listening carefully to Dr Sharples and in particular to his explanation of his proposal for an autonomous Maori investigative branch of the Police Complaints Authority and what the functions of that branch would be. I have to say that his proposal is fundamentally wrong. This is simply not the way to develop the law of our country. I would like to think that the majority of parties will be voting against his amendment. 
I want to put on record why it is wrong. It is not to say that there are not many Maori people who appear before the courts and it is not to say that many Maori people do not have difficulties with the police. I have listened to Dr Sharples and that is what he said. I think he overstates the case and that statistically the majority of Maori do not have difficulty with the police. It is wrong to suggest that it is the normal or commonplace experience of Maori people in this country. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: I didn’t say that. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Actually the member did. The reason why it is wrong to suggest that is that it reinforces and perpetuates the idea of victimhood the idea that Maori will always be the victims of the police the court system the penal system and so on and so forth. Surely we want a more aspirational message than that. Even if many Maori—not the majority but many—do have that experience surely it is better to concentrate on the successes of real people in life because they will be the best role models. 
I want to talk more specifically about the amendment itself and why I think it is fundamentally wrong. Dr Sharples pointed out that National has the principle or philosophy of one law for all. He mentioned it in a pejorative way as if it is somehow a bad thing to have one law for all. But he is actually ignoring the reason why the principle exists. Let us forget about the terminology that is used and focus on the principle behind it. It is surely fundamental that all citizens of our country irrespective of ethnicity or background are treated equally before the law. That is actually what the principle is about. It is about equality before the law. Each one of us irrespective of our background and ethnicity can expect fair and equal treatment by our institutions. Our institutions of course should reflect the totality of life. So when I hear the suggestion that Judge Joe Williams be put forward as an appropriate representative that is not because he is Maori; it is because he is a learned judge. He is learned in law and able to apply the law equally to all citizens irrespective of ethnicity. When we say as a nation that the law should be colour-blind we are really saying that the law should treat us all equally. 
I must say that I find this idea of having an autonomous branch inserted into the criminal justice system in terms of the Police Complaints Authority offensive. I find it offensive in the sense that it betrays the idea that we all have the rights as citizens to be treated equally and that we should endeavour that our institutions reflect the totality of life. If we want to solve the problem—and I think there is broad agreement that there is an issue to be dealt with—surely the appropriate way to do so is to ensure not separate institutions which is actually what this is but rather that the institutions we create reflect the diversity and totality of all New Zealanders. That surely is the best way to achieve this. 
I say to the Government which has the responsibility to appoint the relevant people to these organisations that it must be mindful of whom it appoints so that all New Zealanders have an assurance they will be treated equally and fairly before the law. I wanted to take this call after hearing Dr Sharples’ proposal to say why his amendment is wrong in principle and why it offends our deepest notions of what our democracy should be about and that surely is that all citizens have equal treatment and can trust the institutions of our country to deal with them fairly. The right way to achieve that is to ensure that people who reflect the diversity of our country are appointed to its institutions. 
I say to the Maori Party members that although their concerns are valid—I accept that aspect of the argument; the concerns are valid and people might feel that they do not receive equal treatment—the solution proposed is wrong in principle. I apologise if Maori Party members were offended by the use of the word “offensive” but I meant it in the sense of being offensive in principle to the ideas of equality and fairness. Although they identify an issue the solution they have come up with is fundamentally wrong. 
I say to the Government that when it appoints the relevant people to the Independent Police Conduct Authority it should listen to the concerns that the Maori Party has put forward to Parliament and take those into account—when the people are appointed to the institutions to the extent that the Government has that appointing authority. That is the way to deal with the concern. 
But I want to put on the record this particular point: our country is built on the principle that all citizens irrespective of race gender or otherwise are treated equally and that we should all be able to look to our institutions— 
Metiria Turei 
: What about the foreshore? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: —to treat us fairly and equally. If things need to be fixed—and I acknowledge that things do need to be fixed—there are ways to do that without creating separate institutions. I ask the Maori Party and its Green Party supporters to think more imaginatively and more creatively on how the fundamental principles of our country can be realised in practice. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena korua ko te Minita. I just want to follow up on a few comments from our co-leader Dr Pita Sharples and speak to his amendment. The motivation for the amendment of course is to allow people to have a place to go to against a background of a lack of trust in police policy. That is the motivation to insert new clause 25A. It is quite important because some people have a theory as Dr Mapp has mentioned that there should be one law for all and that everything goes quite well when there is one law for all. But the truth and the reality is that it does not happen like that. 
As I have travelled around with the police our people have talked anecdotally to me about the issues that have happened in Rotorua. I talk with not only Maori people in the community but also Maori people within the police. They talk about institutional racism as being part of the police service. 
The report that Dr Sharples alluded to  
Maori Perceptions of the Police 
 reports the perception of Maori that “the Police Complaints Authority would be self-protecting and biased in favour of the police should Maori bring a complaint against the institution or individuals within it.” Indeed even within the Minister Mark Burton’s own Government the previous Minister of Justice the Hon Phil Goff when releasing the review of the Police Complaints Authority said: “There is a strong public view that police investigation of complaints against themselves is neither independent or appropriate” and that “it is critical that there is full public confidence that such investigations are independent.” This is the reasoning behind the amendment. The amendment is to establish an Independent Police Complaints Authority Review Agency so that people have a place to go after an investigation of a particular incident. 
There has probably never been a more relevant time to consider the role of a Police Complaints Authority than in the wake of the investigation of the death of Steven Wallace who as most of us know was shot by police in Waitara in April 2000. Steven Wallace’s death made a total of 18 people—as Dr Sharples alluded to they were mostly Maori—who had been shot by police since 1941. No police officer has been found culpable for any of these killings but questions remain about the circumstances and huge questions remain about the background to some of those incidents. In the Steven Wallace case the Police Complaints Authority found that the police officers involved were justified in drawing firearms even though Steven Wallace was engaged in nothing more than smashing windows. It found that the use of firearms was justified because the riot batons and pepper spray of three officers were allegedly inadequate to disarm one drunken man with a baseball bat. 
The heart of the problem is that public perception—well at least Maori perception; I talk from the Maori perspective because that has come through loud and clear—is that the Police Complaints Authority has relied a bit too much on police officers for its investigatory capacity. There is a lingering suspicion about the police investigating complaints about their colleagues. The proposed amendment at least provides some opportunity for people to go to some place as I say when all else has failed. 
The other question that some members have been raising is in respect of the training of police officers. I thought I would put a question to Mr Chester Borrows about the training of officers at Porirua and ask how many weeks a training course goes for. 
Chester Borrows 
: About 26 weeks. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: It is for about 26 weeks. So the assumption is that if we train those police officers really well in 26 weeks then they will be able to handle cultural aspects of dealing with Maori relatively easily. 
Chester Borrows 
: We open their minds. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: Well that might be all very well but that is about all that will be open because the practical reality is that if people are able to get into the police force at about 18 years of age—or maybe at 20 or 21—then they have a life experience to deal with first before they even get into their training. All of that training is not going to be about dealing with cultural matters. 
In fact—and Mr Borrows might be interested in this—I visited one intake the Mita Mohi wing earlier this year. Mita Mohi is well known in circles back in my area. Of the intake of around 80 people three were Maori. So what are the chances of us getting officers who will be culturally safe? This is not to say that one can necessarily be safe in the police ranks but officers should at least be able to deal with some situations around Maori people. 
Some have talked about iwi liaison officers. Mr Mark talked about iwi liaison officers as did Russell Fairbrother. Sure iwi liaison officers do a fantastic job in terms of keeping liaison with the Maori communities and that is acknowledged by all of us. But we cannot put everything to do with Maori communities on to them. It is not just about iwi liaison officers and it is not just about the cultural component of police training. It is about trying to provide a net if you like that allows people to go to a place should all things turn to mush in particular in investigating issues around the notion of one law for all. 
My colleague Metiria Turei spoke up for us in saying that Mr Mapp’s view about one law for all is all very nice but let us not forget that not long ago there was a law to allow Maori to have access to the courts of this land to test the issue of customary ownership over the seabed and foreshore of this country. Not long after because the ability to do that was so disdainful to this Government the law was changed. To whose detriment? It was to the detriment of those people who could not even test the customary ownership. 
It is all very well to talk about one law for all I say to Dr Mapp but let us put it in perspective. Laws are easily changed and in a sense the fact that the Maori Party is in this House is about trying to ensure that a Maori house is represented within this institution—albeit with four members but the time will come when that might well change. Let us not forget that that is a part of the whole notion of Treaty responsibilities. 
Therefore we ask that all parties consider again the amendments to clause 25A. We believe it is appropriate that an Independent Police Complaints Authority Review Agency is one place to go to to allow people at least to seek some way of redress against the background I indicated earlier should the Police Complaints Authority decisions and outcomes remain to be tested. That is the contention from the Maori Party and I hope that people give it further consideration. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this part of the bill because I was a little bit astounded to hear Dr Mapp’s contribution. He told us that basically we should ignore the presence of racism in our country and we should simply celebrate Maori success. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I didn’t say that at all. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I listened pretty carefully at least to the beginning of his speech as halfway through it I was on my way to the Chamber. I had to come down to make a contribution because I was so astounded at what Dr Mapp had said. This is the party that has been engaging in dog-whistle politics for some time. This is the party that put up billboards telling us that iwi was not Kiwi. When we talk about celebrating the success of Maori let us get real about what we are dealing with here. 
The reality is that one law for all is not a founding notion of this State. We have only to look at the history of legislation that has been passed through this Parliament to see the plethora of laws passed specifically to discriminate against Maori. There is a list as long as my arm and the most recent example of course is the foreshore and seabed legislation. But that was not an isolated one. This House has passed numerous pieces of legislation specifically to dispossess Maori and specifically to disadvantage Maori. The idea that somehow our laws are based on this principle of one law for all is a fallacy. Certainly it could not be said to be a founding principle of the State of New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] Certainly it could be an aspiration I say to Mr Borrows. I totally agree with that. I think that this is our opportunity to put right those injustices of the past. But we do not do that by pretending we have this level playing field and that all is fine and dandy. We have to face up to the reality of the institutional racism that pervades our country and the way that this happens through the institutions of our State. 
I was at a party recently and a number of the Maori people at that party it seemed to me pretty clearly experience the police and the New Zealand State as a colonial imposition as a colonial occupation because of the racism that is inherent in the institutions of the State that they face the passing of racist laws racism in the application of the law and racism in the implementation of the law. 
 Those feelings of those people will continue until we actually start to get a system that treats Maori people with genuine fairness and starts genuinely to address the injustices that are so longstanding and so deep-seated in our nation. That includes racism in the police and in other Government departments as well. The Green Party is supporting Dr Sharples’ amendments because we think he raises an extremely important issue. He is looking for solutions on how to address this matter in a realistic and significant manner. 
It may be that if we develop a genuinely independent Police Complaints Authority that shows itself able to fearlessly investigate the police to hold the police to account and to fearlessly tackle head-on the racism that studies have shown quite clearly exist in the police service—and I am not saying that all police are racist by any means; I am talking about the institutional racism and the racism that is certainly present among some police officers and I have observed that for myself firsthand—then we do need the kind of body that Dr Sharples suggests. It may be that a genuinely independent Police Complaints Authority would prove such a body to be unnecessary because that authority itself can properly deal with those issues. But why would anyone have any faith that there is an ability to do that until there is a proven track record which certainly is not the case to date? Until we have actually seen some proof that the Police Complaints Authority as a body is able to address these problems then how can we have assurance that there is any way of addressing these issues without the kinds of measures that Dr Sharples is proposing? The Green Party is supporting his amendments because it is so crucial that we have an effective and fearless Police Complaints Authority. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I just want to pick up on a couple of points. There are of course two lots of amendments in the name of Dr Sharples. The first is the one I spoke about earlier in relation to the establishment of an autonomous Maori investigative branch. I set out why I thought that was wrong in principle. The second amendment seeks to institutionally establish—which I think was the institution Mr Tanczos was speaking about—the appellate organisation. I would have to say that this idea is an interesting one and I can see the motivation and argument for it. The whole purpose of tonight’s debate is to establish in a much more deeply grounded way the idea in the public mind of an Independent Police Complaints Authority. There is no question about that and that has broad support within the Chamber. To reinforce that point further Dr Sharples then proposes essentially an appellate authority and his long complex amendment sets out the rules on it. 
One of the difficulties I guess one would say about our legislative procedures is that it is asking a bit much of Parliament to vote for something we have had 30 minutes’ notice of in terms of establishing a new institution. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: You’re a quick reader. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: It is not just a question of whether one is a quick reader; it is a question of whether in principle one should establish an entirely new institution on the basis of an amendment that has been introduced at very short notice. I would suggest—and I say to the Government—that perhaps the best way to deal with this is not to support it tonight but to hold the issue under observance and consider it after the new organisation has been established for some time. See whether the authority works in practice then actually determine by review whether an appeal authority would be the right way to go. 
So I say to Dr Sharples that this is an interesting idea and I can see merit in it. I am however reluctant to support it at this point in time. Indeed I do not think it should be supported at this point in time because institutions of this nature should not be established effectively ad hoc. But I do think it is one of those things that ought to be kept under review. I would hope that the Government will take the appropriate steps—certainly we would in Government—to look at this concept once the independent authority has been established. We are bound to get a sense of its track record. Does it need this addition? Should there be a proper review? Should an appellate authority be established for the authority itself? 
So I congratulate the Maori Party on this issue as opposed to the other issue on at least putting forward the idea because it is one of those things that will and should be taken into account in the future once the authority has been established. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Pita Sharples to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to insert in clause 6 the following new heading and new section 4AA before “ 
Independent Police Complaints Authority 
”: 
Autonomous Maori Investigative Branch 
4AAAutonomous Maori Investigative Branch established 
(1)This section establishes the Autonomous Maori Investigative Branch (in this section and section 12C called the Maori Branch). 
(2)The Maori Branch consists of at least three members appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of iwi runanga and the Minister of Maori Affairs. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Pita Sharples to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to add to clause 12 the following new section 12C: 
12CFunctions of the Maori Branch 
(1)The functions of the Maori Branch are— 
(a)to receive and investigate complaints from Maori— 
(i)alleging any misconduct or neglect of duty by any member of the Police; or 
(ii)concerning any practice policy or procedure of the Police affecting the person or body of persons making the complaint in a personal capacity: 
(b)to investigate of its own motion where it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to carry out an investigation in the public interest any incident involving death or serious bodily harm of a Maori person notified to the Authority by the Commissioner under section 13 of this Act: 
(c)to make recommendations which are binding on the Authority on the action(s) to be taken in respect of complaints incidents and other matters as is contemplated by this Act: 
(d)to conduct substantive periodic reviews of relationships between the Police and Maori people and report on these to the Authority. 
(2)In the course of taking action in respect of any complaint the Maori Branch may investigate any apparent misconduct or neglect of duty by a member of the Police or any Police practice policy or procedure which appears to the Authority to relate to the complaint notwithstanding that the complaint itself does not refer to that misconduct neglect practice policy or procedure. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Pita Sharples to Part 2 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
25A 
To insert the following heading and new sections 48 to 52: 
Independent Police Complaints Authority Review Agency 
48Appeal Against the Independent Police Complaints Authority 
(1) An appellant may appeal to the Independent Police Complaints Authority Review Agency against the decisions and activities of the Independent Police Complaints Authority. 
(2)The appeal must be brought within 90 days of the decision or activity in question. 
49Independent Police Complaints Authority Review Agency established 
(1)This section established the Independent Policy Complaints Review Agency (in this section and sections 50 to 52 called the Review Agency). 
(2)The function of the Review Agency is to determine appeals brought under section 48. 
(3)The Review Agency consists of— 
(a)At least three members; and 
(b)The members are appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Minister. 
50How to appeal 
(1)An appeal under section 48 must be brought within the 90-day period referred to in section 48(2). 
(2)In the notice of appeal the appellant must set out the grounds and the circumstances on which the appeal is based. 
(3)An appeal under section 48 may at any time be withdrawn by notice in writing to the Review Agency. 
51Procedure in appeals 
(1)An appeal to the Review Agency under section 48 is to be determined by the Review Agency with all reasonable speed. 
(2)On any such appeal it is the responsibility of the appellant to ensure that all information evidence and submissions that the appellant wishes to have considered in support of the appeal are received by the Review Agency within the 60-day period for bringing the appeal. 
(3)On the lodging of an appeal under section 48— 
(a)The Review Agency must give to the Independent Police Complaints Authority a copy of the notice of appeal and any information evidence or submissions lodged by the appellant; and 
(b)The Review Agency must allow the Independent Police Complaints Authority a specified time to— 
(i)Lodge with the Review Agency any file relating to the matter under appeal that is held by the Independent Police Complaints Authority; and 
(ii)Lodge with the Review Agency any such other information evidence and submissions in relation to the matter under appeal that the Independent Police Complaints Commission thinks fit. 
(4)In determining the appeal the Review Agency— 
(a)May seek and receive such information as it thinks fit and consider information from any source; but 
(b)May not consider any information which relates to matters arising after the date the appeal was lodged unless it is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that justify the consideration of such matters. 
(5)The Review Agency must disclose to the appellant any material or information that the Review Agency proposes to take into account in determining the appeal if that material or information— 
(a)Is or may be prejudicial to the appellant; and 
(b)Is material lodged with the Review Agency by the Independent Police Complaints Authority or is information obtained by the Review Agency from a source other than the appellant. 
(6)The Review Agency must give the appellant an opportunity to rebut or comment on any material or information disclosed under subsection (5) within such reasonable time as the Review Agency specifies. 
(7)Subsections (5) and (6) do not require the Review Agency to disclose to the appellant any material or information whose disclosure would be likely to endanger the safety of any person but the Review Agency must notify the appellant of the fact of any such non-disclosure. 
52Decision on appeal 
(1)As soon as practicable after coming to a decision on an appeal the Review Agency must notify both the appellant and the Independent Police Complaints Authority in writing of its decision and the reasons for that decision. 
(2)The decision of the Review Agency on an appeal is final. 
(3)Unless a court otherwise directs the Review Agency has no jurisdiction to reconsider an appeal after the appellant has been notified of its decision. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Noes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Part 3 Consequential amendments and repeals 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 not agreed to.  
Schedule 2 not agreed to.  
New Schedule 2 Consequential amendments to other Acts 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to insert new schedule 2 be agreed to. 
New schedule 2 agreed to. 
Clause 1 Title 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 116 in the name of the Hon Mark Burton to clause 1 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Clause 1 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Consumer Affairs 
: I move  
That the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The Commerce Committee must be thanked for its thorough consideration of the bill and also the many submitters who contributed their views to the select committee process. This is important legislation which is designed to update and clarify the Copyright Act. This is particularly necessary in response to the introduction of the many new technologies that now impact on the development and use of the Internet digital music and film. The bill promotes a modern legal framework that guides the protection and use of copyright material and it will provide greater clarity about how the Copyright Act applies in today’s digital environment. The bill maintains the balance between protection and access already established in the Act and ensures the effective operation of the Act in the face of emergent technologies. 
Maintaining a current and contemporary intellectual property rights system promotes development of the economy and New Zealand’s identity by encouraging investment in creativity and innovation. Copyright forms an integral part of the system by protecting our creative industries as well as our information and communications technologies by prohibiting unauthorised reproduction. For the system to remain fair and effective it must evolve with the emerging needs of a dynamic and technology-supporting economy. The bill’s purpose is to update and clarify the Act in response to the introduction of new technology such as the development and use of the Internet digital music and film. The bill creates a more flexible framework for technology to operate under by redefining certain terms contained in the Act to make them more technology neutral. 
Several points were raised at the select committee and they will be committed on briefly. The bill as introduced repealed section 88 of the Act which currently allows cable programme services to retransmit free-to-air television broadcasts without the permission of the broadcaster. The select committee reinstated section 88 as a result of concern about the delivery of broadcasts to remote areas. Section 88 does not fulfil the objectives that it was originally put in place to achieve—namely to encourage telecommunications investment. In the current environment there is limited likelihood of cable TV being extended which is why a Supplementary Order Paper has sought to repeal this section of the Act. 
The bill also clarifies the liabilities of Internet service providers—“ISPs”—when it comes to copyright infringement particularly where infringing content is posted using their services. Clarity is provided by modifying the law in two ways: firstly by stating there is no liability for copying that takes place as a matter of course in Internet service provider services and secondly by providing that there is no liability for an Internet service provider when storing infringing material provided it deletes or prevents access to the material when it has reason to believe that it infringes copyright. That has been described as a “notice and take down regime”. 
The select committee made some changes to the regime in the bill as reported back. The requirement for Internet service providers to have a policy for the termination of the accounts of repeat infringers was removed as the scope of that requirement was unclear and Internet service providers’ standard terms and conditions generally already provided for that. A standard form for notice has been provided giving Internet service providers more certainty about when information should be taken down. An Internet service provider will now be liable only if it is aware of infringing material and does not remove access to it. There is now a specific offence for providing notices that are misleading. 
Technical protection measures or “TPMs” are mechanisms used by copyright holders to guard against the unauthorised reproduction and distribution of copyright works which can easily occur with the use of digital technology. The bill gives a more comprehensive protection to technical protection measures in response to the increased risk of piracy. Currently the Act protects only copy protection measures. The bill gives copyright owners the ability to take action in respect of devices means or information where circumvention could enable infringements of all the copyright owner’s exclusive rights and not just copying. In addition the bill introduces criminal offence provisions in limited circumstances where there has been large-scale commercial dealing in copyright material. 
The bill also introduces new provisions relating to the actual exercise of permitted acts where technical protection measures have been applied. Those would enable the beneficiary of a permitted act who has not had the ability to circumvent to have the option of seeking assistance from the copyright owner or a qualified person. In this instance a qualified person means a prescribed library or archive or an educational establishment. The select committee made changes in this area which included a redefinition of technical protection measures to clarify that access control technologies are not protected where they do not prevent the infringement of copyright. The insertion of a new section will ensure that qualified persons cannot charge an unreasonably high fee for providing assistance and the insertion of a new regulation-making power allows the Governor-General to specify persons as qualified persons by Order in Council. 
 The bill provides a limited exception for copying sound recordings for personal use. That exception has been clarified so that the copy is to be used only for the owner’s personal use for the personal use of a member of the household in which the owner lives or for both. There is already widespread format shifting of music and this amendment aligns the law with the public’s needs although it still takes into account the protection afforded to the copyright owner. The select committee also stated that the original purchaser must retain both the original version of the sound recording and the new copy and reiterated that the exception does not extend beyond sound recordings to any other works such as films. This provision is not intended to legitimise CD copying for friends or online file-sharing but rather reflects the realities of format shifting in a technology-changing world. 
Permitted acts are exceptions to copyright infringement provided for in the Act. The bill updates the existing permitted acts for fair dealing and for libraries archives and educational establishments and clarifies how permitted acts should apply in the digital environment. The bill removed from libraries and archives a number of compliance costs that govern the supply of digital copies. The select committee added a number of amendments to the original bill. A number of the compliance costs for libraries and archives that governed the supply of digital copies were removed. For educational purposes educational establishments can create a digital copy of a work provided that certain conditions are met. Libraries and archives may make a digital copy provided that a replacement for the original work is necessary for the benefit of research. Educational establishments that store copies on a website or on an electronic retrieval system need not identify authors in all situations and material on the Internet or other electronic retrieval systems need not be removed before allowing authenticated users to access it. 
The bill replaces copyright owners’ existing technology-specific rights to control distribution through broadcasting and cable programme services with a technology-neutral right that applies to all forms of communication of copyright works to the public. That includes information that is passed through the Internet such as email peer-to-peer file-sharing and other digital forms of communication. The definition of “copying” has been amended so that it applies to the digital reproduction of all forms of works. Copying is often essential to the operation of digital technology computers email services DVD players and even the anti-skip function on a portable CD player. The bill amends the Act to introduce a limited exception for transient reproduction in certain circumstances to allow for that copying. A lawful user of a computer programme may observe study or test the functioning of the programme under certain circumstances without infringing copyright. 
Once passed the bill will be reviewed within 5 years to respond to technology advances and maintain its effective operation. This is a timely and necessary bill. Once again I thank the select committee its members and the clerks of the committee. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the course of the careful speech read to us so carefully by the Minister she made reference to an issue concerning the effect of clause 49 of the bill which repeals section 88 of the Copyright Act. My clear recollection of what she said was that an Supplementary Order Paper had been prepared but I see no sign of that on the Table of the House. I think we need clarification in the context of what will occur in this second reading debate of whether that statement is accurate.  
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 The member is fortunate that we are considering the second reading stage of the bill at the moment so if a Supplementary Order Paper has to be considered and debated that will be done in the Committee of the whole House. That will not be tonight so the member can bone up on any material that is available in time for it. The earliest it could possibly be is on Thursday because tomorrow of course is a member’s day. I hope that assists the diligent and hard-working Mr Worth. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 I did not say that we have either been misled or not been misled. I just seek clarification of the position. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Do you want to add anything Minister? No. I think that clears it up sufficiently. The Minister only briefly referred to that. There is no Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 The matter has been clarified by the whip. The Supplementary Order Paper will be tabled at the appropriate stage for consideration which is during the Committee stage. I would have thought the Opposition would be delighted to hear the foreshadowing of a Supplementary Order Paper that is aligned to what the Commerce Committee was wanting. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for explaining that for the benefit of the member. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 National will support the second reading of the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill although it is not entirely happy with the way in which the legislation has evolved. I was on the Commerce Committee on a number of occasions to work on this legislation. Unfortunately I could not attend all the meetings of the committee when this legislation was being considered because I was needed in the Justice and Electoral Committee to oppose the introduction of that dreadful creature the Sentencing Council. Perhaps if I had been able to be on the Commerce Committee the whole time there could have been some more effective changes to this legislation. 
But putting that to one side on listening to the Minister of Custom’s speech tonight I have to observe that if one were listening to the debate one could possibly conclude that the Government was actually interested in intellectual property law reform. The reality of the matter is that it is not. This is piecemeal law reform and it is piecemeal law reform of absolutely critical legislation. That approach to reform is not good enough. 
 The introduction to the report of the Commerce Committee states that the bill amends the Copyright Act 1994 to address the emergence of technology such as the Internet. But how long is it since the Internet was developed? Apparently so Al Gore would say it was developed by Al Gore; indeed he was making that extraordinary assertion when he was Vice-President of the United States and that was about 7 years ago. So we have had the Internet for almost 7 years and in 2007 in New Zealand we have the introduction of the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill. Why has it taken so long? Why cannot this country move more quickly to adapt its intellectual property laws to the realities of the times? 
Indeed I indicated to the select committee that there should be mandatory post-legislative review of this copyright legislation and I referred members to section 202 of the Evidence Act which introduced a mandatory post-legislative requirement into that very fine piece of legislation. Post-legislative review is not always necessary but it is necessary for intellectual property legislation and particularly for copyright legislation where technology is changing so very rapidly. We cannot afford to allow the Copyright Act to get out of date. The Minister referred to what I have to say as very much a second-best proposal. She said that the Ministry of Economic Development has said there will be a review in 5 years’ time to ensure that copyright legislation keeps pace with technological advances. Well it is not keeping pace with technological advances. Already it is said that this legislation deals with in some respects out-of-date technology so for the foreseeable future we are going to continue to have to put up with piecemeal reform of the Act rather than a comprehensive back to basics review of copyright. 
It is interesting to observe as the select committee report does that already there are issues on the table that have not been addressed. I refer honourable members to page 10 of the select committee’s commentary. The first one concerns off-air recordings of television programmes to educational establishments. That could not be dealt with but the ministry is intending to report to the Associate Minister of Commerce on that issue in September 2007. 
A very important issue concerning directors’ rights arose because a submitter asserted that film directors should be defined as authors under the principal Act and therefore be treated as the copyright owners of films. We are told that the Ministry of Economic Development is going to start looking at this issue in early 2008. That is not good enough. 
The third issue and it was a very important issue that arose time and time again before the select committee was orphaned works. At least the Ministry of Economic Development is recorded as having given the committee an undertaking—and I record the undertaking given by the ministry in this House tonight—that it intends to conduct a review of this issue and report to the Minister later this year. Why it could not have dealt with it while this legislation was before the select committee I simply do not know. 
The fourth issue that requires further review concerns access to works for print-disabled persons and again that is another issue that the ministry intends to report on to the Associate Minister by September 2007. 
So instead of taking the opportunity to have a comprehensive look at this legislation what we have is more piecemeal bitsy reform of a critically important piece of legislation. When this House comes to the Committee stage I intend to address the particular changes proposed by the select committee in some detail and the Committee of the whole House will need to very carefully analyse what is proposed because it will be necessary to ensure that the select committee has in fact got these issues right. In the time available to me I will briefly give an overview of at least some of the proposed changes. 
The first set of proposed changes I wish to refer to concern amendments to Part 3 of the 1994 Act. Part 3 deals with certain acts that are permitted in relation to copyright works. For example criticism review or news reporting may be permitted in terms of Part 3 but the particular ones where there have been changes relate to educational purposes and also the holding of works by libraries and archives. Certain exemptions are granted—for example for educational establishments and librarians—and it will be for the Committee to decide whether those changes as outlined by the Minister are in fact acceptable. 
A second major set of amendments concern Internet service provider liability and this issue was summarised well by the Minister. These service providers play an important role in addressing online piracy. As is well known Internet service providers or ISPs are the gatekeepers of the Internet. They have the ability to control communications over their networks and over the years in jurisdictions such as the United States Australia and the United Kingdom principles and procedures have been developed to set out the roles and responsibilities of Internet service providers. The legislation that we are dealing with tonight also addresses those issues. 
 At the Committee stage members may want to look at the proposed deletion of section 92A in clause 53 and whether that is an appropriate approach to be taken for the reasons that are set out by the select committee in its report. Members will also want to pay very close attention to the proposed new section 92CB which creates an offence for right-holders who provide notices that are intentionally or recklessly false or misleading. Indeed in the case of an individual penalties up to $50000 may have to be paid or in the case of a body corporate a fine not exceeding $100000. Members will wish to consider whether the Internet service provider provisions accurately reflect the law of other jurisdictions and whether what is proposed in the proposed new section 92CB is fair and reasonable. 
The next issue concerns technological protection measures and the Minister has accurately summarised the work of the select committee there. There have been some changes but I do not have time to deal with them now and we will have to deal with them in the Committee stage. One of the issues will be whether the clauses as expressed in our legislation accurately reflect the practice in other jurisdictions. That will be an important question for the Committee of the whole House to consider. 
Finally there is the issue that Dr Worth touched on—the proposed repeal of section 88. This was something that concerned the majority of the committee so we reinserted section 88 and we made some consequential amendments that are set out in clause 49. 
As I say these are major issues for consideration by the Committee of the whole House. This is a very important bill and I for one am particularly disappointed at the sloppy and piecemeal approach to law reform of this critical intellectual property statute an approach which is perhaps typical of a Government that has lost interest in major issues. 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I want to make a couple of comments about the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill which is before us for its second reading. 
First of all the Minister of Customs in her introductory speech referred to a Supplementary Order Paper that would seek to repeal “this section of the Act”—referring to section 88. This issue is covered by clause 49 of the bill as it stands. I would like to make it absolutely clear that the Minister was completely right in foreshadowing the Supplementary Order Paper which will be presented at the appropriate moment—the Committee stage. It does not need to appear now which is why it does not appear now. I recall the Minister saying that a Supplementary Order Paper would seek to repeal this section of the Act and that is correct. At the appropriate moment that Supplementary Order Paper will be produced. 
I would like to make really clear to the House that the Supplementary Order Paper is necessary because the repeal of section 88 was put forward in the original bill but the majority view of the Commerce Committee—not a unanimous view—was that that section should be reinstated and should not be deleted from the statute. The Government’s intention was and remains to delete that section and let me explain why that is. I am happy to do so now in this stage of the proceedings and to do so again in the Committee stage—I am very happy to repeat it then for the members opposite in order to make it clear. Section 88 of the Copyright Act 1994 permits the reception and immediate retransmission of a free-to-air broadcast by a cable programme service in certain circumstances without infringing either the copyright in the broadcast or the copyright in any work contained in it. 
 As I have said a majority of the Commerce Committee favoured retention of the current section 88 although it was notable from the previous speaker’s contribution that there was no justification for that. No rationale for the retention of that section was given. I am happy to give some rationale for the deletion of that section in the absence of any cogent rationale to the contrary. The rationale is largely on the basis of submissions from TelstraClear and Sky television which considered that if the section was retained it would allow free-to-air broadcasts to be delivered in the most effective and convenient manner and at a higher quality. It would improve reception quality for consumers in isolated areas or urban areas with reception difficulties. Competition and choice for consumers would not be reduced because the current provision ensures that broadcasters enter into reasonable commercial arrangements for the supply of free-to-air channels and ensures that there is competition between broadcasters. Some of the select committee members also raised concerns that the repeal of section 88 would undermine the investment in cable networks that had already been made as a result of the provision and noted that Australia and Canada both have similar provisions. 
When the Supplementary Order Paper comes before the House at the appropriate moment it will seek to reinsert the repeal of section 88. I do not know whether there are too many double negatives for the Opposition members to get their heads round but the rationale for this— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Cheap shot! 
MARYAN STREET 
: But an easy one. The rationale for retaining the provision that was put forward by TelstraClear and the majority of the select committee is not compelling. Section 88 does not fulfil the objectives that it was originally put in place to achieve. Its original purpose was to encourage investment in telecommunications infrastructure and to improve reception quality. Since section 88 was enacted in 1994 a broader range of transmission technologies have been developed. 
TelstraClear has been the only significant cable service provider operating in New Zealand. It operates in Wellington Kapiti and Christchurch with approximately 40000 customers. But in today’s environment there is little likelihood of cable TV services being extended. Given the changing nature of technology the current provision as it stands has very little overall influence on technology investment. The lack of rationale for reinstatement of the section in question is completely eclipsed overshadowed and overtaken—and shown for what it is—by the rationale for the section’s deletion. 
I want to reply also to the comments made—again in a fairly glib manner—by the previous speaker about the issues requiring further review which are referred to at the end of the select committee’s report. He is absolutely right; they are there for everybody to read. There are four issues remaining for further review which the select committee agreed unanimously should be taken up as a matter of urgency. There are some compelling points at issue here. There are issues about off-air recordings of television programmes to educational establishments the rights of directors—I will come back to that issue at another time because it is one I feel quite strongly about—orphaned works and access to works for print-disabled persons which is also a matter of real importance. 
At every point submitters came with a particular issue—like the Screen Directors Guild talking about directors’ rights. That is nothing other than a genuine reflection of the process of having something come before a select committee. Where an issue has not been considered previously and where it affects a much wider range of people who might have something to say about it but had not thought it would be raised by a submitter it is legitimate to ask for a little more time in order that people who have an interest in the issue could consider it properly so that consultation might occur. If that looks like piecemeal legislation to the members opposite then I ask them to weigh that against the need for real consultation about issues of this sort that have an effect on wider populations than those who were simply privileged to hear an individual submission during the course of a select committee hearing. 
I absolutely refute the accusation that anything about this complicated and technical legislation has been piecemeal. The fact that it has flushed out an additional four issues for serious consideration—for consultation for proper debate and for proper consideration—simply means that there are issues that could not be adequately addressed by the process in train. It is legitimate that these issues are submitted to an additional process in order that there is a proper hearing of them. That is not piecemeal legislation. That is proper consideration of issues that have been brought before a select committee. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 Noting the passage of time and because the House has made such excellent progress I seek leave that the House lift early so that I am not faced with giving a broken speech. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh I withdraw the request for leave that I have just sought. I seek the call. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Dr Richard Worth. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: I think one of the most interesting things about this legislation—and I hope I will have sufficient time to complete the entirety of this very extended speech—is the fact that at an early stage because of the bill’s technical complexity and difficulty the Commerce Committee engaged two experts. That was unusual although there are precedents for having engaged experts in the past. We were able to identify two quite different streams of activity in this complicated legislation that warranted what we set out to do. I do not doubt that we were hugely assisted by the reports that the two expert advisers furnished. This is difficult legislation; there is no doubt about that. The difficulty is of course seen in the title of the bill the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill. 
It is also very apparent on looking at the bill as reported back from the Commerce Committee that there has been a substantial number of changes but also—as a previous speaker has noted—that a number of issues require further review. I simply do not accept that that is proper process. It will always be the case in terms of complicated legislation where there is a large number of submissions that issues will arise at different points of the process. Just because an issue arises late that is no reason for that issue to not be resolved. There is not a great deal of sex appeal in this particular legislation so it will be difficult to get the unresolved issues back into the legislative programme. The outcome is that whereas it was once possible to resolve all of these questions it will be much more difficult now to do so. 
I want to say in general terms that copyright is a property right that exists in original works. [ 
Interruption 
] I say for the benefit of the Minister who is interrupting that the Copyright Act gives copyright owners exclusive rights that allow them to control certain aspects of a work’s exploitation while at the same time providing limited exceptions to those rights for copyright users. In that way the Act seeks to provide incentives to ensure the creation production and distribution of new creative works in a manner that meets society’s needs. I would say given the rapid changes in digital technology since the Act came into force the Government undertook— 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.