Volume 636 Week 33 - Tuesday 5 December 2006 
Volume 636 Week 33 - Tuesday 5 December 2006 
[Volume:636;Page:6831] 
Tuesday 5 December 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Ministerial Statements 
Fiji—Unconstitutional Actions 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I wish to make a ministerial statement under Standing Order 348 in relation to the situation in Fiji. 
I am sure that all New Zealanders today will share the shock of the Government and this Parliament at the unconstitutional actions by the military and the President of Fiji. I have been advised this morning that the President of Fiji has now acted outside his constitutional powers and supported the removal of the democratically elected Prime Minister by the military. I have spoken again to the Fiji Prime Minister Mr Qarase within the last hour and a quarter. He is showing great courage in the face of huge threats and intimidation by the Fiji military led by Commodore Bainimarama. The Prime Minister has told me again that he has no intention of resigning. He is deeply concerned that the President has acted outside his constitutional powers in supporting the military. 
The message of the New Zealand Government to the President and to the commodore is very clear. They should pull back even at this late stage from their unconstitutional actions. If they do not they will cause irreparable damage to the Fiji economy and people. Given the events that have already taken place the New Zealand Government is now imposing travel bans on senior republic of Fiji military officials and their families and it is discussing with the Commonwealth Secretary-General the inscribing of Fiji on the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group list with the likelihood that if this coup is not stopped Fiji will again be suspended from membership of the Commonwealth. As of now New Zealand is suspending bilateral defence ties with the exception of maritime patrolling disaster relief and search and rescue activities. 
A range of further measures is available to the New Zealand Government and will be based on our reactions to coup activity in 2000 and previously. These measures will be implemented progressively unless the commodore and the President withdraw from their unconstitutional actions. 
The New Zealand Government fears for the future of Fiji when a democratically elected Government acting within the constitution is put under this kind of pressure by a military acting outside the law. We commend Prime Minister Qarase and his Government for standing up to this bullying undemocratic and unconstitutional action. We call on all parties in this Parliament to join us in sending this message to Fiji. 
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 The National Party joins with the Government in expressing its deep concern at what has taken place in Fiji over the past few days. It is now clear that we have a coup either taking place or about to take place in Fiji. This illegal act by the Fijian military and its commander is likely to have grave consequences for many innocent and law-abiding Fijians. We support the New Zealand Government in its efforts to convey to the commodore that such illegal action does not come without a price and that there will be serious consequences. National calls on the Government to stand by the statements it has previously made about the ramifications for Fiji. 
It is sad for New Zealand to be facing an outbreak of instability yet again amongst our Pacific Island neighbours. We trust that the Government will now move without delay to put in place moves to achieve the sanctions that are now due. This serves to reinforce the importance of the role New Zealand needs to play in the Pacific Island region as we try to achieve greater stability amongst our Pacific neighbours. This is a time when unfortunately we need to take strong measures and send the clearest possible message that it is unacceptable to tamper with democratically elected Governments. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party fully supports the Prime Minister’s statement and that of the leader of the National Party that we should unite as a House to convey to the Fiji military in particular to draw back at this critical moment and not lead Fiji into such a catastrophe that will result from a coup—the fourth coup in a couple of decades. I also endorse the Prime Minister’s role so far in trying to mediate between the parties and I think that should continue. If a coup takes place I think we would have to combine the sanctions and criticism of the military regime with close support and dialogue with the democratic forces in Fiji be they the elected Government or the non-governmental organisations. One final note in terms of something that perhaps we can learn from this experience is that we should not necessarily be encouraging countries such as Fiji—and the same applies to Tonga which I visited last week—to have significant armed forces when they face no external enemy and when those defence forces are actually used against their own people. Thank you. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I am more than happy to endorse the actions that the Prime Minister has already taken and has announced this afternoon in respect of the bizarre and inexplicable coup in Fiji. I want too to acknowledge the work the Minister of Foreign Affairs has done over the last week. I thought it was a very brave and far-sighted attempt to broker a deal. It was unfortunate that the good faith that the Minister and the Government showed was not honoured by at least one of the participants. 
 I also want to express admiration for Prime Minister Qarase and the courage he is showing at the moment and to send a message from this Parliament that this country stands by his steadfast support of democracy. As the Leader of the Opposition said this is a chance for New Zealand to show leadership in the Pacific area and the best way we can do that in this very fraught situation is to demonstrate our solidarity and support for those people who uphold democracy in Fiji to encourage them to continue their valiant stand for freedom and to do what we can behind the scenes to play an influential and constructive role. I am more than happy to endorse the stand the Government has taken to date. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The people of Fiji are our friends our neighbours and our family and they are in our thoughts and prayers today. I too rise on behalf of the ACT party to support the Prime Minister’s statement and indeed Mr Peter Dunne and the work Helen Clark our Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters have done in trying to avert this tragedy. We should stand firm behind the Prime Minister of Fiji as the duly elected leader of that country. Although we greatly admire the ability of the Fijian soldiers it is important that this House remind them that they are the servants of the people of Fiji and that it is not their job to overturn the Prime Minister of Fiji it is not their job to subjugate the people of Fiji and that they should return to their proud tradition of being soldiers in the service of the Fijian people and not become the thugs and the bullies that their current commander is leading them down the road to becoming. The ACT party stands with the rest of this House in condemning the actions of the Fijian military in attempting to overturn and usurp the legitimate authority of the duly elected Fijian Government. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I thank the members who have spoken for the stand they have also taken in support of democracy in Fiji. I believe no one could have done more than the New Zealand Government has endeavoured to do in the past couple of weeks to avert this course of events. I want to give particular credit to the Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters who has been assiduous in attending to that relationship and we continue to call for dialogue. We have always believed that was the best way through. We know that in the year 2000 when the coup was attempted by George Speight Commodore Bainimarama got a lot of credit for standing up to that. To see him today carve out a position for himself as the Speight equivalent in 2006 is tragic. He should reflect on that and pull back from where he is today. 
Questions to Ministers 
Carbon Neutrality—New Zealand 
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that New Zealand “could aim to be carbon neutral”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
John Key 
: Did she seek advice from the Ministry for the Environment about the feasibility of making New Zealand carbon neutral before she made this statement; if so what was this advice? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No. I am pleased to say I am not utterly dependent on others for what I think. 
John Key 
: Is it normal practice for this Prime Minister to make announcements of such significance without seeking advice from her own climate change officials and does this scant regard for what officials tell her provide a useful explanation of why she has had to abandon her other promise of getting New Zealand into the top half of the OECD? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is normal practice to set out one’s aspirations to a Labour Party conference without seeking official advice. 
John Key 
: Has she seen the information released this morning by Statistics New Zealand showing that in the year ended September hydro and wind generation provided the lowest proportion of electricity generation since records began in 1961 and on the basis of this information how can she possibly claim that her Government has a goal of becoming carbon neutral? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Presumably the member would prefer when there is a shortage of rain that we not fire up the Huntly station. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Recognising that international scientific opinion agrees that very major reductions in carbon emissions—such as a reduction of 60 percent by 2030—are needed to prevent climate disaster will the Prime Minister set targets and dates for reducing our emissions that aim towards that ultimate goal of carbon neutrality? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government has a range of proposals coming out including within the next 2 weeks. We look forward to the new era of bipartisanship that the new Leader of the Opposition has promised in working on these issues and to National working constructively—as the Greens have always done—on these issues with the Government. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In the light of that answer is the Prime Minister prepared to consider convening a summit meeting of all political parties with a view on this subject so that the decisions that New Zealand arrives at regarding future climate change policy and carbon neutrality in particular are decisions that all parties can sign up to rather than decisions promoted by just a few? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I believe that there is increasingly some scope for multiparty discussion. I would like to suggest to the member in response to his suggestion and to others that we look at holding a meeting early in the new year at which people are certainly welcome to put their ideas on the table and at which the Government is prepared to share with others the very substantial amount of information it has. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I seek leave to table a document called  
Turn Down the Heat 
 which the Green Party launched last March when it first called for a cross-party accord on climate change. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
John Key 
: What is the approximate date at which the Prime Minister thinks New Zealand will become carbon neutral if we keep following her Government’s policies of burning ever-increasing amounts of coal while chopping down more trees than we plant? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: A lot earlier than those who are still in climate change denial—like that member—would ever reach it. 
John Key 
: Why as a Prime Minister with the stated goal of making New Zealand carbon neutral did she do nothing to advance hydro projects like Dobson or Aqua yet signed off on an State-owned enterprise burning more coal and firing up a new power plant at the Marsden B facility? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I told the previous short-lived leader of the National Party a desire for renewables is not in itself an excuse for environmental vandalism. We are committed to more renewables. We will facilitate that through a proper process. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Prime Minister think that rapid expansion of the motorway network while the rail system and public transport investment still lag woefully behind those of other countries is compatible with achieving carbon neutrality; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am happy to advise the member that public transport spending under this Government is up by around 900 percent on where the last—and we hope it was the last—National Government had it. Secondly of course the rail system particularly in Auckland will need considerable investment. Knowing Auckland I expect it will be looking to the Government to help. 
John Key 
: If the Prime Minister wants to be taken at her word as being committed to having more renewable energy in this country maybe she would like to tell the country why we are now burning three times more coal to produce electricity than we were in 1999 why today Statistics New Zealand released information that shows that renewables are at the lowest level of energy production since 1961 and why we are chopping down more trees than we are planting; is it not a fact that when it comes to this Prime Minister the country should not listen to her rhetoric but should just look at her record? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member might reflect on the fact that 2006 was a rather drier year than 1999. Secondly he might reflect on the fact that virtually all the major projects coming on stream are renewable projects. Finally if the member wants to be taken at his word then I will take him at his word when he said in this House that he is not even sure whether climate change is a problem. I ask Mr Key what has changed. 
Rodney Hide 
: What specific work if any has the Prime Minister sought from officials to understand what it would take what it would cost and when it could be achieved for New Zealand to be carbon neutral? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Officials are certainly working on that issue. Carbon neutrality is the aspiration and frankly if National members want to talk about bipartisanship on climate change they had better put some substance into it and get with it rather than just saying what they think will please the focus groups. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think you know what I will ask. My specific question was what specific work the Prime Minister has commissioned. What I heard back from the Prime Minister was that officials are working on it. Well they are probably working on lots of things. My question was what specific work she has commissioned. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I recall the question was asking about some specific issues—the member is quite right. The response was that yes officials are working on all those issues. So the question in that sense was addressed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Seeing as the Dobson project has been put at issue here does the Prime Minister recall what the multiparty position on the Dobson project was and in particular what certain members in the House said about it back then? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not recall bipartisanship on the Dobson project but I do recall National Party members campaigning against Project Aqua. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I seek leave of the House to have the Climate Change (Government Vehicle Procurement) Bill a member’s bill in my name introduced and set down for first reading as a first small step towards carbon neutrality. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Sue Bradford 
: I seek leave of the House to have the Climate Change (New Zealand Superannuation Fund) Bill a member’s bill in my name introduced and set down for first reading. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Metiria 
Turei 
: I seek leave of the House to have the Climate Change (Airline Emissions) Bill a member’s bill in my name introduced and set down for first reading. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave of the House to have the Climate Change (Rail Electrification) Bill which would require the systematic electrification of the rail network and is a member’s bill in my name to be introduced and set down for first reading. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Keith Locke 
: I think the House will like this one. I seek leave of the House to have the Climate Change (National Land Transport Fund and Financial Assistance Rate) Amendment Bill a member’s bill in my name set down for a first reading. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: In the interests of a cross-party approach to climate change I seek the leave of the House for the Climate Change (Electricity Fixed Charges) Bill a member’s bill in my name to be introduced and set down for its first reading. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is surely not an acceptable practice to come down to this House mention bills that no other parliamentary party has seen put them up for a fast track and waste Parliament’s time. This practice is unprecedented and those members should be asked to desist and get on with questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members are entitled to seek leave; it is for others to judge. 
Darren Hughes 
: Did the Government receive any support from any political parties for the Dobson or Aqua schemes when they were mooted publicly? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Colleagues do suggest that the Hon Nick Smith may have taken a position against Dobson and that Katherine Rich may have taken a position against Project Aqua. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to correct the Prime Minister and table the five news releases that I issued on behalf of the National Party that strongly supported the Dobson hydro scheme. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Taxation—Business Tax Review 
2.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports if any has he received on the proposals for research and development tax credits included in the business tax review? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have received positive feedback on the proposals from a wide range of sources especially those involved in research and development. For example nearly two-thirds of submitters on the business tax review supported the research and development credits. 
Shane Jones 
: What other reports has he received on the merits of research and development tax credits? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I received two quite contradictory reports. One report argued strongly for better write-off research and development spending in the purchase of plant and equipment. The second report opposed the use of tax incentives altogether in this area. The first report was from the new National leader and the second was from the new finance spokesperson Bill English—contradiction No. 1 for the day. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister confirm that aside from the business tax review being New Zealand First’s policy it together with moves to incentivise productivity research and development through tax credits forms part of the confidence and supply agreement between New Zealand First and Labour? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can confirm that the business tax review is part of that confidence and supply agreement and the confidence and supply agreement with United Future and I have great confidence that Mr Dunne will supply some answers. 
Shane Jones 
: Has the Minister received any reports of different views on the correlation between tax cuts and economic growth? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have received two reports. The first report notes that tax cuts are “central to our growth strategy”. The second report expressed doubts about the link between tax cuts and economic growth stating: “I don’t think tax cuts are a magic bullet. There is no magic link between one and the other.” The first report came from the leader of the National Party and the second came from the deputy leader of the National Party—contradiction No. 2 for today. Unfortunately Mr English has not put down a question to me so I cannot find contradiction No. 3 just yet. 
Carbon Neutrality—Energy Strategy Document 
3.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Will the Government’s energy strategy document adopt carbon neutrality as an attainable goal? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 The draft New Zealand Energy Strategy sets out how New Zealand can advance towards carbon neutrality. Our abundant sources of renewable energy mean that New Zealand is already a leader in sustainable energy. The strategy will set us on a path that will enable us sustainably to reduce our total carbon dioxide emissions—including transport emissions—from energy for the first time in our history. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why would anyone believe Labour’s commitment to carbon neutrality when statistics out today show that after 7 years of a Labour Government we produce the same amount of hydroelectricity and the same amount of wind generation as previously that the proportion of electricity generated by those renewable sources is as low as it has ever been since 1961 and that we are now generating more than three times the amount of electricity we used to from coal? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: As the Prime Minister has already noted the main reason that thermal generation was so high in recent years was the relative shortage of water. It is true that despite the opposition of the National Party to climate change policy for the last few years the Government has already brought forward the cost-effective development of wind generation. We have a wind resource that if not the most cost-effective wind resource in the world is amongst the most cost-effective and that has been achieved through the Government’s climate change policy which until now National has opposed. 
Charles Chauvel 
: When will the draft New Zealand Energy Strategy become public for consultation and what will it achieve? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The draft New Zealand Energy Strategy is to be released on Monday next week and it sets out the Government’s vision for a cost-effective reliable and sustainable energy system. We will welcome feedback from interested groups and members of the public during the submission period which runs until 30 March next year. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How can he defend his energy efficiency and climate change strategies when total electricity generation does not fall but goes up by 4400 gigawatt hours and when the share of that powered by coal is over 85 percent? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Electricity consumption in New Zealand has gone up under the Labour Government because we have had strong economic growth during the period of our Government. In terms of the proportion of New Zealand’s electricity that comes from renewable sources it is true that it has dropped in recent years. It is also true that at an average of around 70 percent of all generation at the moment it remains the third-highest percentage in the world but we have an ambition to do even better than that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What evidence does the Minister have to dispute the suggestion that it is now much easier to get consent for a thermal power generation project than it is for a renewable power generation project? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I will give one example. The rather convoluted and lengthy hearings procedure for the Marsden B coal-fired power station for which consent has not yet been granted and may not be granted is of course much lengthier than the average for wind farm applications. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that being carbon neutral will amount to very little on a global basis if the USA China and India do not address their carbon emissions; if he does accept that and noting that he has just been to Nairobi to attend a convention on climate change can he outline what is expected of those nations? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It remains true that New Zealand is a higher-than-average emitter of greenhouse gas emissions—quite a bit higher than China on a per capita basis. It also remains true that for the world to overcome the climate change challenge countries like America and China should do their bit. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can he confirm that the Climate Change Office has abandoned its pedestrian strategy because it believes that if the traffic flow is disrupted by more pedestrians it will make it harder for the office to meet its carbon dioxide emission targets? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: No. 
Climate Change—Conservation Management 
4.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What steps is the Department of Conservation taking if any to support the task of “managing DoC areas in a way to offset the effects of climate change” and of “doing something to mitigate the effects of climate change” as stated by Alastair Morrison Director-General of Conservation on 16 November 2006? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 The Department of Conservation manages one-third of our land mass and could make a significant contribution by adopting land management practices that extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in permanent vegetation. Work is under way to identify how best we can do this. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can such statements on climate change be taken seriously when his department has now been sitting on an application for 18 months by Bay of Plenty Electricity for a hydroelectric station that would require only 0.7 of a hectare and when every month this renewable energy project is delayed equates to another 3000 tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can report that the Kaituna dam project which is the one I assume that member is referring to has been in a process that has to be worked through in the area but I can say that some good news is very close on that project. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What contribution do initial assessments suggest the Department of Conservation could make to achieve carbon neutrality? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It could make a very significant contribution. For example—based on initial figures—if the Department of Conservation were to commence intensified pest control in the public conservation estate next year it would offset between 20 million and 40 million tonnes of carbon by the end of 2012. There is also significant potential benefit from native reforestation programmes and from encouraging regeneration on degraded parts of the conservation estate. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why when his department’s statement of intent sets a target of 6 months for processing concessions has it already taken 18 months to consider a consent for only 0.7 of a hectare and noting that all of the resource management processes come afterwards and are on top of that does this sound like his department is taking urgent action on climate change? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: One of the things I think all New Zealanders are proud of is our beautiful natural environment. Protecting that environment is a very important task of the Department of Conservation. I remind the House of my earlier answer that good news might be on the way on the Kaituna project. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a list of all the National Party speeches on climate change listed on its website for the last 18 months—a total of one. I also seek leave to table the speeches on climate change listed on the Green Party website in the last 18 months—a total of 23. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister consider it consistent with the Government’s talk of transformation of the economy and urgent action on climate change for his department to take 2 years to process a 0.7 hectare consent that would provide renewable power for 10000 households? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: It has now grown from 14 months to 2 years. I guess that is another example of how the member can inflate issues. The member and his party have all the zeal of a recent convert. Let us hope their conversion is genuine. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think that addressed the question. Could the Minister please address the question. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The House will be confused as to whether we are talking about 14 months or 24 months. I can say that working through any proposal to build an energy project on conservation land which belongs to all of the people of New Zealand is a very important question and needs to be looked at carefully. I remind the House again that a decision on the Kaituna project is very imminent. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek the leave of the House to table the timetable for the consideration of the Kaituna hydro scheme which has taken 18 months to date— 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Oh—ha ha! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Look everybody is on their final warning while points of order are being taken. They are to be heard in silence. Would the member please continue. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Indeed—I will raise the point of order again. I seek leave to table the timetable for the Kaituna hydro scheme which shows that to date it has taken 18 months and the letter to applicants from the Department of Conservation showing that it is expected to take a further 6 months. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Supplementary Madam Speaker? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Supplementary? May I just remind members that it is the normal convention to table documents at the end of the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It might have helped if you had reminded Jeanette Fitzsimons— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The reminder goes to everybody. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister explain his decision to reject the Dobson hydro project in 2002 on the West Coast which would have produced sufficient renewable energy to offset 1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide; and given the commitment from the director-general to ensure that all Department of Conservation actions are climate-friendly will this decision be reconsidered? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Clearly the member is not aware—but he should be—that the Dobson dam project is going ahead. It is now going ahead with some of its worst environmental effects mitigated. Everyone seems to be happy with the project now; Dr Smith just does not seem to be up with the play. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister aware of Statistics New Zealand figures released today which show that in the year to September we had the lowest proportion ever of power produced from wind and hydro sources; and given this figure and the doubling of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector will his department now consider the implications of climate change when considering applications for wind and hydro stations on Department of Conservation land—will it consider those factors in future applications? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The role of the Department of Conservation is to be the guardian of the conservation estate for future generations of New Zealanders. I remind the House that Project West Wind at Makara was approved by the department; Project Aqua was approved by the department; and Genesis’ Tongariro hydro expansion was approved by the department. Why does the member continue to try to create an image that the Department of Conservation is a block to renewable energy projects? The department looks at each case on its merits. 
Genetically Modified Sweet Corn—Accidental Release 
5.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: Can he tell the House how much of the GE-contaminated sweet corn seed has been planted and in which districts? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 An estimated total of 4420 kilograms of corn seed imported into New Zealand is currently being investigated for possible GM contamination. This includes an additional 2600 kilograms of possibly contaminated seed that has been identified by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry following further tracing in the last day. Thus far the ministry’s investigation has identified that approximately two-thirds of the corn seed from these batches was planted in Hawke’s Bay Gisborne Blenheim and Ashburton. The remaining unplanted seed has been secured. Biosecurity New Zealand has checked seed import records for the last year and has discovered no further discrepancies. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister clarify for the House whether the plants will be destroyed as announced on Monday or whether the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has the power to decide to let them grow to maturity and to harvest them as it said on radio today? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Biosecurity New Zealand is consulting with growers and seed producers as is proper but unless there are compelling reasons against it it is almost certain that the unplanted seeds will be destroyed and that the plants will be removed and destroyed. 
Shane Ardern 
: Will there be an inquiry into the apparent failure of Biosecurity New Zealand that saw contaminated sweet corn seeds breaching our borders despite two consignments having documentation that showed that the parent batches—the seeds that the seeds originated from—had GE-contaminated seed in them? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes there will be a stringent inquiry into how this event occurred. It seems on the face of it to be human error but although human error is possible of course the system— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just hopeless. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes hopeless as much as it is hopeless when a party’s leader is changed five times in 9 years; members opposite must have got it wrong there too. [ 
Interruption 
] It has not changed the leader! I remember that that interjector was deputy leader for 3 days. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is conducting a stringent inquiry. There will be accountability here. But I say again that New Zealand is recognised as having one of the strongest biosecurity systems in the world. Many of the systems of countries all around the world would not even have picked up that seeds such as these had been introduced. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is the Minister aware of any peer-reviewed substantial research that demonstrates negative health effects from the eating of food with genetically modified components; if not is it possible that the public is being unnecessarily panicked over the current GE corn fiasco? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I am aware that the levels of GM contamination here—and I cannot be sure until the ministry has fully researched the issue what the GM construct actually is—range between 0.1 percent which is one seed in 10000 and 0.9 percent. So the levels are low. I am not aware of any research that suggests that any of this seed is injurious to human health but I cannot be absolutely sure of that of course. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What did the Minister mean when he said it was “almost certain” that the plants would be destroyed in what situations might they not be destroyed and is the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry trying to implement its long-held preference for a threshold below which genetic engineering contamination is legal? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: When I say “almost” I mean “almost” which means that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is going through a process of consultation. If one goes through a process of consultation one has to listen to in this case the seed producers who claim they have a system of control that eliminates GM contamination. The ministry is rather questioning of that possibility but that is what the seed producers say. We are also consulting with the growers who have planted the seed none of which has reached a stage at which it is likely to create any long-term problem—as long as the plants are removed before they seed. But when one goes into a consultation process one has to allow for the possible outcome—to let one’s prejudices be dictated to by the facts of the situation—and we are listening to that. But as I said in my original answer unless there are compelling reasons which I cannot envisage at the moment—but because the consultation process is proceeding we have to wait to see how that works—it is almost certain in my view that the seeds and the plants will be destroyed. 
Elective Surgery—Laboratory Workers’ Strike 
6.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: How many patients have had their surgery deferred as a result of the current strike by laboratory workers and how long will it take to clear the surgical backlog? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am afraid it is not clear at this stage. It is true that acute and elective surgery has been deferred both in the public and private sectors during the strike. However before the strike district health boards increased their volumes to compensate for the delays expected and during the strike some more major surgery was replaced by minor surgery that did not require blood products or laboratory tests. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Are patients at risk or is care being compromised during the strike? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is my view that this strike is a more difficult strike than earlier ones. Clinicians have indicated to me through the media or in private meetings that this strike is more concerning because it involves laboratory workers and that the life-preserving parts of the arrangement we have in our society will be used more often. That has turned out to be the case. 
Maryan 
 Street 
: What plans do the district health boards have for recovery? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The district health boards especially the large district health boards are confident that they will deliver a full day of surgery tomorrow. That means that normal volumes of surgery will be done. District health boards will prioritise those patients with the greatest needs and they aim to recover much of the lost ground by Christmas. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Will the Minister answer the question: does he agree with the statements of the 11 Auckland surgeons the Medical Council and others declaring that during this strike patients are at risk and care is being compromised; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am advised that the strike has exposed a difference between the Code of Good Faith as signed between the Council of Trade Unions and district health boards and the expression of that code in the schedule of the Employment Relations Act. The Government is anticipating that parties to the code will seek a change to the schedule. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question was quite clear. It was not about life-preserving situations; it was clearly asking the Minister whether he agreed with the comments of the experts who say that patients are at risk and that care is being compromised during the strike. We are looking for the Minister to either confirm that or not confirm that. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I think it is undoubtedly the case that there have been compromises made during this strike and that there have also been delays. I hope that we are able to assert however that the life-preserving services agreement which—as a feature of this Government and not of his previous Government—has been important. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How can it be safe and not compromising of care when a West Coast woman diagnosed with a cancerous growth on her kidney last month whose operation was cancelled yesterday because of the strike may have to wait another 2 months to find out how bad her cancer is and how can he suggest that her care is not being compromised? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am sorry; I did not make it clear to the member. I thought I said in my answer to his earlier question that it is clear that people’s care is being compromised and/or delayed and he has simply come up with an example of where a woman who might otherwise have received treatment has had that treatment delayed. My own mother is in the same position I might say. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is he aware that patients whose operations have been cancelled before the laboratory workers’ strike will probably now have to wait until late January or February for their surgery—that is a 1-month or 2-month delay; and what would he say to a woman diagnosed with bowel cancer 2 months ago whose surgery was cancelled yesterday and who may have to wait another 6 weeks before vital surgery and all the while her cancer is growing and he has done absolutely nothing to bring the parties to the table to solve this crisis? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I will just say to the member as I have said to him before that I am neither the employer nor the employee. My obligation is to ensure that folk do operate within the law of this land—and indeed they do. I will say to the member what I have said to the member earlier in this question which is that district health boards are of the view that they can recover much of the lost ground before Christmas this year. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: What is it about his handling of the health portfolio that has meant that this year we have seen the junior doctors’ strike the radiographers’ strike the radiotherapists’ strike the laboratory workers’ strikes and there are more strikes to come; and does he take any responsibility at all for the thousands of patients whose care has been disrupted while he has this appetite for industrial action? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member needs to be a little careful with his history. The truth of the matter is that there are fewer strikes under this legislation than there were under the Employment Contracts Act. That is a matter of fact. It is a matter of fact and I am just saying to the member that the junior doctors have settled. I urge the radiographers and radiation therapists the laboratory workers and the district health boards with whom they negotiate to come to an agreement as soon as they are able and I am hoping that some of them will. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Has the Minister heard any reports that there may be a second laboratory workers’ strike starting before Christmas and what has to happen—does someone have to die as a result of the strikes—before the Minister will step in and take action and responsibility? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There have been 150 strike notices lodged by one person this calendar year. There may be 151. 
Positive Ageing Strategy—Goals 
7.  
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Senior Citizens 
: Has the Government taken any steps recently towards meeting the goals of the New Zealand Positive Ageing Strategy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 Following on from the recent very successful launch of the Supergold card by my colleague and associate the Rt Hon Winston Peters the Prime Minister announced yesterday the removal of the mandatory on-road driving test for people aged 80 years and over. This will remove the stress of older people taking the test without unduly compromising road safety. 
Darren Hughes 
: Has she seen any reports of proposals that would be detrimental to the welfare and positive ageing of older New Zealanders? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Actually I have. I have seen a report suggesting lifting the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation to 68 years of age while at the same time seeking to “inoculate” the issue by publicly promising not to change the age of eligibility and to be prepared to find a “nuanced way of talking about super issues.” I challenge the new leader of the National Party to confirm that the National Party’s stated policy on superannuation is its real policy and not just another example of style over substance. 
Schooling—Parents’ Right to information 
8.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What rights do parents have to information about their children’s schooling? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The Labour-led Government is committed to supporting parents to take an active role in their children’s education. The National Administration Guideline 2(iii) states that schools are required to “report to students and their parents on the achievement of individual students”. The best way for parents to be informed about their child’s education is to visit the school. They could also talk to teachers and the principal look at the latest Education Review Office reports and visit the school directory website. If parents talk to their school they will gain access to comprehensive information including what sort of environment the school has the kinds of teaching programmes in place and what actually happens in the classroom to benefit students. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why under his ministerial leadership is Rangiora High School charging some parents $20 per copy for school reports and also denying that information if the money is not paid when it is any parent’s right to know how his or her child is doing in school? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I mentioned before National Administration Guideline 2(iii) states that schools are required to “report to students and their parents on the achievement of individual students”. Therefore the school is not allowed to take that action and we will ensure that it does not. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: In light of clear evidence that failure of children to develop phonological awareness skills during pre-reading and early-reading stages impacts negatively and significantly upon the development of literacy skills will the Minister facilitate the creation of appropriate assessment tools and remediation programmes for use in our schools and preschools? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member may like to know that the kind of formative assessment approach we take which is different from the summative approach which often leads to the kinds of difficulties that the member is pointing out is of course what underlies the whole development of tools such as asTTle which not only set a benchmark for us to understand where students are up to but also provide teachers with the very tools that the member is talking about. So good are these tools that today for example in Auckland there is a US - New Zealand round-table discussion on these very matters with people from France and Britain here as well. We are seen indeed as leaders in resolving that issue. 
Katherine Rich 
: What is his response to the school’s argument that the reason for charging some parents for copies of school reports is a limited operations grant and why are schools under his ministerial leadership seeing communicating with parents about their kids’ performance as a fund-raiser? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The national guidelines say they must inform students and they must do it. 
Moana Mackey 
: What is the Government doing to ensure parents have good information about their local schools and are able to get involved in supporting their child’s learning? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government is providing a wide range of information to ensure that parents are well informed and get engaged in their children’s learning. We do this because we know that one of the factors in the outcomes for children is parental involvement or caregiver involvement. Initiatives include such things as the Team-Up and Te Mana campaigns the school directory web page asTTLe as I have just mentioned which provides very good quality information about teaching and learning and I intend to do more in this area extending the information available on the school directory website supporting home and school partnerships particularly things that are done through the computer and developing new resources for parents through Team-Up. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does he think it is an absolute right for every New Zealand parent to get a free copy of his or her child’s school report; if so will he issue a special instruction to schools to clarify this point because there seems to be some confusion? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes. We are talking about one school and it will have that clarified. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Madam Speaker. Tenatatou katoa. What explanation can the Minister provide to explain the fact that half of the 8000 non-enrolments notified to the Ministry of Education in 2005 were wrong and does this give any parent confidence that his or her child is in good hands? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think this is a problem that arises from the history of us not having an enrolment number for students. That is why I have introduced it and that is why I am paying $4 million to roll it out this year. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister assure every New Zealand parent that he or she can and will receive free copies of his or her children’s reports so they can see how they are performing within New Zealand schools? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I mentioned before the National Administration Guideline does guarantee that. It requires that schools report to students and their parents on their achievement. Section 3 of the Education Act 1989 states that students have the right to a free education now. That is what schools are required to do. 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document relating to question No. 4 where the Hon Nick Smith told us that the Department of Conservation had delayed the Kaituna project for 18 months. I have a document that shows that 6 months of that delay was caused by the applicant. There was a 2-month delay while the applicant provided a fuller application to the department and a further 4-month delay while the applicant provided the department with comments. Once again the member was not quite truthful. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Smoking—Anti-smoking Initiatives 
9.  
ANN HARTLEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What support has he seen for the Government’s anti-smoking initiatives? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Two weeks ago I hosted a breakfast at Parliament that featured two international speakers talking on the subject of misleading terms on tobacco products. It was good to see support from members across the House including National’s associate health spokesperson Jonathan Coleman. 
Ann Hartley 
: What reports has he seen on the effects of exposure to second-hand smoke? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I have seen many reports on the harmful effects of exposure to second-hand smoke and they range from lung cancer to emphysema heart attacks and possible concussion. It has also been disturbing to read in a recent publication that British American Tobacco a company responsible for many of the diseases and conditions mentioned has close links to the National Party. 
Tariana Turia 
: Is the Minister aware of the statement from the Cancer Society spokesperson Belinda Hughes that it is hypocritical of the Government to support international agreements on the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control while lining its pockets with tobacco industry profits; if so when will he take action to challenge Crown financial institutions to withdraw any investment in tobacco companies? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am aware of the contentious issue of Governments taking tax or duty from tobacco. It is one of the dilemmas that we continue to work through. However our focus is on reducing the harm from tobacco use for all groups across this country. 
Metiria 
Turei 
: What advice has the Minister received regarding links between the National Party and British American Tobacco and has he had any advice on the impact that such links might have on the capacity of this Parliament to regulate tobacco in the best interests of our own people? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am advised that according to a recent publication on 30 June Don Brash and David Carter met with seven of the top managers of British American Tobacco. This was at a time when the company was working on plans to introduce new candy-flavoured and alcohol-flavoured cigarettes—a move criticised by the Public Health Association as trying to get children hooked on smoking. I would also like to acknowledge the fact that due to support from parties such as the Greens this Parliament has been able to make some significant progress on regulating tobacco control in this country. Of course those steps have all been continually opposed by the National Party. 
Biosecurity New Zealand—Confidence 
10.  
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: Does he have confidence in Biosecurity New Zealand; if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) 
: 
 Yes; as I have already noted today in the House New Zealand has some of the toughest biosecurity and GM-related controls in the world. 
Shane Ardern 
: Why then despite severe criticism 7 months ago from the Auditor-General on staff training does this latest GM corn breach show that little progress has been made in this area? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Biosecurity New Zealand as with all Government ministries carries out a continuous training programme for key staff. An investigation has been commenced into the errors that were made on this occasion. I have to say that biosecurity staff at the border take their role very seriously. Their work is extremely challenging given the difficulties in relation to conflicting test results and potentially tiny amounts of possible contamination. Anyone of course is capable of making a mistake even political parties in their consecutive and regular choices of new leaders. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think the last comment was relevant. 
Shane Ardern 
: If the Minister has confidence in Biosecurity New Zealand then why did he go against its recommendation to eradicate the varroa bee mite in the Nelson area when a paper released under the Official Information Act stated that an attempt at eradication would have an 80 percent chance of success? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Because when I put a question to the scientific advisers in Biosecurity New Zealand and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry as to the possibility and chance of varroa bee mite reoccurring in the Nelson region or in the South Island the answer from the scientists was that it would be inevitable. There is nothing about the word “inevitable” that I do not understand. 
Shane Ardern 
: Will funding be an issue in the eradication of the GE-contaminated corn given that the same paper released under the Official Information Act demonstrated that funding was a significant factor in the Minister’s decision not to go ahead with an attempted eradication of the varroa bee mite despite an 80 percent chance of success? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: We are confronted with a wide range of possible biosecurity incursions coming from half a million containers 4 million tourists the wind the sea washing on our shores and the inevitable millions of possible incursions arising from those factors. The expenditure on the saltmarsh mosquito programme this year was $11.5 million $4.5 million was spent just in terms of management of the varroa bee mite and $12 million was spent on didymo  
Styela 
clava 
 and painted apple moth. In addition $76 million was spent on pre-border and border management. If the member wants an unlimited budget for biosecurity before he ever gets near the Treasury benches he should have some discussion with National’s spokesperson on finance and see how that works. 
Shane Ardern 
: In the light of that answer given that 1.8 tonnes of contaminated seed made its way across the border and given the big long list of other incursions the Minister just read out such as didymo in the South Island— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Just ask the question. 
Shane Ardern 
: —which is now in 26 rivers will the Minister give the House an assurance today that funding will not be a problem in the eradication of the GE corn incursion? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Of course funding is not a problem in this incursion because the funding required would be rather small in comparison with some of the other figures I have worked out. But I can assure the House that I will not be taking advice from the member. He advised me in terms of didymo in the South Island to nuke the rivers; I have not taken that advice either. 
Shane Ardern 
: Has the Minister or his ministry looked at the issue of compensation for farmers who may be affected by the planting of this corn if he or the ministry is going to destroy it? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The issue of compensation is always on the table when Biosecurity New Zealand takes action to protect New Zealand on biosecurity issues that are not the fault of the owners of property who might have goods or services confiscated. Biosecurity New Zealand will be looking at that as this matter evolves. 
Gardasil—National Immunisation Programme 
11.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Can his ministry include Gardasil in the national immunisation programme earlier than 2008 given the Cancer Control Council’s opinion that the vaccine offers a unique window of opportunity to address inequalities around cancer; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I can confirm that the next time changes will be made to the National Immunisation Schedule will be in 2008 and that Gardasil is under consideration for inclusion at that time. However I must also say to the member that there are other vaccines under consideration including one for pneumococcal disease which includes meningitis. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Are the Ministry of Health’s deliberations on the addition of Gardasil to the National Immunisation Schedule related solely to financial considerations? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: They are certainly not related solely to financial considerations although both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are taken into account. If we have to buy it we have to be able to pay for it. 
Sue Moroney 
: What is the process for implementing a major vaccination campaign? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Implementing a change to the National Immunisation Schedule takes 12 to 15 months after a decision is made to include a new vaccine. Information for patients training of health professionals to administer the vaccine and establishment of the safety regime around the vaccine are all required beforehand. These are matters that are well understood by the immunisation community. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Minister aware of the reported association between the incidence of cervical cancer and socio-economic deprivation; if so is it morally acceptable that Gardasil is currently available from general practitioners at around $450 which puts it well beyond the reach of many of the people who would benefit from it most? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I think the member makes a good point but I say back to her that whether or not we have Gardasil this country will continue to need ongoing cervical screening. I say further that that screening needs to reach more assertively towards parts of our population that tend to access it less. That is what we will need to do with screening no matter what we do with Gardasil. 
Taito Phillip Field—Associate Minister of Immigration 
12.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What information did the former Associate Minister of Immigration Hon Damien O’Connor possess about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with failed refugee applicants prior to 17 June 2005? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I have addressed similar questions in the House on a number of previous occasions. I refer the member for example to my response on 13 September 2006. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I ask members to come to order. Would the Minister please address the question in more detail. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: On 13 September 2006 I said in response to a very similar question that the director of service international attempted to contact the Associate Minister but that it is not the case according to the Ingram inquiry that the information intended for the Associate Minister reached him. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What information did the then Minister of Immigration the Hon Paul Swain provide to Mr O’Connor about the serious concerns Mr Swain knew were held by senior management at Immigration New Zealand about the number and nature of immigration submissions made on behalf of failed refugees by Taito Phillip Field prior to Mr O’Connor’s intervention in the case of failed refugees Siriwan and Phanngarm? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that the department holds no information on any information passed directly from the Minister to the Associate Minister at that time. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What information did the Hon Phil Goff provide to Mr O’Connor relating to his personal knowledge that failed refugee Sunan Siriwan was working on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa given that Mr Goff met and spoke to Mr Siriwan while Mr Siriwan was working on the floor of Mr Field’s house in Samoa in March 2005? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that the department holds no information on that matter. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister able to confirm that the findings of the immigration review proposed the tightening up of immigration process including the failed refugee problem and can he also confirm that this is exactly what New Zealand First has been advocating for years? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I suspect that the question may be somewhat out of the scope of the primary question but certainly the New Zealand First Party has been extremely helpful in regard to the Immigration Act review. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What information did Ross Robertson MP provide to Mr O’Connor relating to his personal knowledge that failed refugee Sunan Siriwan was working on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa given that not only did he see Mr Siriwan working on the floor of Mr Field’s house in March 2005 but also he socialised with both Mr Field and Mr Siriwan in Samoa at that time? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am advised that the department holds no information in regard to that question but that the matter was covered in the Ingram inquiry. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How credible is it that two Cabinet Ministers including the then Minister of Immigration and a third Labour member of Parliament all possessed information about Taito Phillip Field’s involvement with failed refugees yet not one of those four people passed on their information to the Associate Minister Damien O’Connor? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Although the Minister of Immigration has no ministerial responsibility for what members of this House might say to each other I recall that those members have all provided evidence to the Ingram inquiry which finds no substance to that member’s allegations. 
Points of Order 
Absence of Members from the House—Rules 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have been handed a list of the new seating arrangements in the House. There appears to be no seat for Mr Lindsay Tisch. I would like to be assured given Mr Tisch’s sterling service as a whip in this House that he will be provided with a seat on his next appearance in Parliament. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I take it that the Leader of the House is offering us the seat of the honourable Phillip Field who of course is no longer in Parliament; instead he is out there collecting a massive salary at the grace and favour of Helen Clark. I raise a further point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That probably was not a point of order but we will get to the point of order. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well it does concern the status of the honourable Phillip Field. We are told that this member is on leave at the moment supposedly suspended from his parliamentary duties. Well it is news to us—and it has been for some time—that the Prime Minister has the capacity to suspend anybody from the Parliament when he or she has been duly elected. Madam Speaker we would like to know what your view is on this particular situation given that Mr Field has not been in the House for a very considerable period of time now. We are told that the police inquiry will go on for some months into next year and that Mr Field will apparently not be making any appearance in the House for that time. Regardless of whatever the Prime Minister says Mr Field has a duty to his constituents to be here and that is a duty I believe you Madam Speaker have a role in upholding. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: First of all the seating arrangements in the House are of course a matter for the party concerned and that matter I think has been addressed. I will take advice on the other. I will address the question; I will take advice on it. 
Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister for Information Technology) 
: 
 I move  
That the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill be now read a second time 
. In speaking to the second reading of the bill I first extend my thanks to the Commerce Committee for its excellent work on the bill. The committee gave full consideration to all of the public submissions received and the bill as reported back incorporates a number of changes that reflect those submissions. 
Unsolicited electronic messages more commonly known as spam were estimated to comprise approximately 80 percent of all email traffic worldwide when this bill was first mooted. Since then the flood of spam has only got worse. I have seen estimates by Internet service providers that spam now makes up around 90 percent of all emails. This problem is serious it is urgent and this Government is taking action on it. Spam clogs up networks reduces productivity and is often used for scams and malicious cyber-attacks. Spam is always a nuisance and is often much worse than that. 
The Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill is an important part of the Government’s strategy to curb spam in New Zealand. It aims to prevent New Zealand from becoming a haven for spammers to promote good e-marketing practice and to provide a basis for international cooperation on combating spam. It contains prohibitions and requirements relating to the sending of commercial electronic messages. It also establishes a civil enforcement regime including high maximum financial penalties for breaches. 
I now turn to consider some of the key provisions of the bill; firstly the commencement and preliminary provisions. The Government supports the following changes recommended by the Commerce Committee: an extension from 4 months to 6 months for the transition period between the enactment date and the commencement date so that organisations can have enough time to achieve compliance; an amendment to the purpose clause to better reflect the broad social and economic objectives of the bill; and an amendment to the definition of a commercial message so that an electronic message need not have commercial promotion or marketing as its primary purpose in order to be defined as spam and so that messages containing hyperlinks to commercial promotional messages can also be deemed as spam. 
In respect of restrictions on electronic messages submissions were supportive of the provision that a recipient of a commercial electronic message must consent to receive the message. This is known as an opt-in system and it is contained within the majority of such similar legislation worldwide. However submissions expressed some concern about there being possible confusion between promotional messages and commercial messages. Promotional electronic messages are non-commercial messages from an organisation promoting its aims such as religious or political messages. I note that this House has been treated in recent weeks to a considerable volume of such messages in a recent book by Mr Nicky Hager. The bill as introduced includes a requirement that persons do not send promotional electronic messages to any person who has “opted out” of receiving such messages from the sender—notwithstanding the fact that some members of this House occasionally forget whether they have opted out. 
The Commerce Committee recommends the removal of promotional messages from the bill and the Government supports this change in order to achieve clearer legislation focused on combating the main problem of commercial spam. The bill requires senders of commercial electronic messages to include accurate sender information and an unsubscribe facility so that the recipient can unsubscribe from future commercial electronic messages from that sender. The select committee has recommended that the requirements of the unsubscribe facility be changed so that recipients can unsubscribe by using the method of sending. The Government supports these changes. 
In respect of address-harvesting software the bill as introduced included prohibitions on the supply and acquisition of address-harvesting software and harvested-address lists with the intention to use lists for spamming purposes. The select committee has recommended the removal of clauses regarding the supply and acquisition requirements. This is to focus the bill on the use of address-harvesting software and harvested-address lists for spamming purposes as this is where the harm has occurred. 
Part 3 “Enforcement provisions” proposes a civil enforcement regime. It provides for financial penalties up to a maximum of $500000 for organisations and $200000 for individuals. High maximum penalties reflect the potentially high financial gains to be made from spamming and the fact that spamming is a business with a very low-cost business model and one that potentially offers the spammer high financial returns. In order to address the problem of spam it is important to ensure that that business does not pay. 
The bill as introduced required that the enforcement agency could consider only complaints regarding spam from service providers but could not consider complaints from any other person. It could investigate possible breaches on its own initiative. The reason for that requirement was to make clear that service providers would be the first point of contact for their customers who may have had concerns about spam. The committee recommended removing that requirement. It was concerned that the requirement would place unreasonable burdens on service providers. The committee expected—and we agree—that most users would first contact their service providers if they wished to complain about spam but it was inappropriate to require that as a legal obligation. The Government supports that change. 
The Internet Society of New Zealand sought in its submission to have the enforcement agency under the bill take an expanded role in monitoring spam and receiving and investigating spam complaints. The select committee has recommended that the role of the enforcement agency be expanded by amendments being made to the provisions setting out the agency’s functions and powers. These amendments include a requirement that the enforcement agency monitor levels of spam that contain sexual material. The Government supports these changes. 
The Legislation Advisory Committee has expressed the view that the proposed enforcement regime for the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill should be criminal rather than civil. The committee’s reasons were that the high maximum financial penalties for breaches indicated an intention to punish offenders thus the protections of the criminal law should apply. The Government has consulted a number of submitters and considers that the civil enforcement regime should be retained. The purpose of anti-spam legislation is not the punishment of offenders but to curb spam. Fraudulent actions and cyber-attacks using spam are already covered by existing criminal legislation. 
The Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill is important legislation that reflects the significant role that information and communications technologies play in our lives both now and in the future. It provides a regulatory framework for commercial electronic messages in order to prevent New Zealand from becoming a safe haven for spammers promotes good e-marketing practice and provides a basis for international cooperation on combating spam. If New Zealand is to realise fully the benefits of information and communications technologies then users of those technologies must have trust and confidence in them. The Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill supports this objective. As such I commend it to the House. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 The security and confidentiality of one’s own mail and the right to control it be it electronic or otherwise is fundamental to a free society. I rise to support the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill in its second reading. This bill will I suggest be well received by the general public once it is ushered into law as it makes a clear statement on the unacceptability of spam in the email systems that are used by an ever-increasing percentage of the population. Interestingly enough as the Minister has advised it transpires that 90 percent of all emails sent or received fall into the category of spam—that is stuff that no one ever wants or has asked for and that no one would have wanted if asked. I guess we all know from personal experience or from the experience of members of our family that feeling of opening up the screen and the first thing we see being a great pile of unsolicited often rubbish mail—much of which is offensive. The main difficulty most people have is that they have to trundle through all the rubbish to sort out the emails that they do want deleting the rubbish as they go. It is a bit like rummaging through a dustbin. There is a very real perception that spam—unwanted electronic messages—could destroy email as a system of responsible communication if it were allowed to continue unabated or go unchecked. 
Very little spam is generated in New Zealand at present it would seem. On the international scale only an infinitesimal amount is estimated to originate from here. However in considering this bill at the Commerce Committee and later in the National caucus it was recognised that we have to put this bill forward as an important part in the international jigsaw of combined international activities. New Zealand is part of the international action against perpetrators of spam and stands shoulder to shoulder with other sovereign States doing the same thing. We see that it is important that we do so in order to build fences beyond which spammers cannot reach. We also want to make it plain that we are not a soft target for spammers to use. This bill fulfils part of the strategy against spam which also includes improved education technical solutions and international law enforcement. 
Getting rid of the stuff is not a simple matter and I have been very impressed with the quality of the submissions that the select committee received and the detailed discussions during the committee process. To the recipients of spam of course the requirement is plain. In a lot of discussion it has simply been said: “Get rid of it.” The important aspect of the legislation is to ensure that the laws we are bringing into being avoid having unforeseen outcomes that negate the good that is being done. 
The officials worked diligently I considered in advising the committee as we made our considerations on this bill. The submitters were not without credence in the field of electronic messaging. TradeMe sent along its commercial and regulatory manager and its Government relations manager. It sends out 1.8 million site-generated emails each week and is by far the largest Internet company in New Zealand. TradeMe as a company welcomes and supports this bill and offered useful recommendations in its submission. The New Zealand Bankers’ Association provided a detailed submission on the issue and sought a slightly longer period to arrange for customers to have a transference of systems which the Minister mentioned in his opening speech on the bill. The National Council of Women the New Zealand Law Society the New Zealand Marketing Association the Privacy Commissioner Microsoft the New Zealand Press Association Telecom Telstra Vodafone and a whole host of others all made submissions supporting this bill. It is significant that there was such a united voice on the issue. 
I think there are grounds to conclude that the same response would be received over the improper collection of other people’s emails by parties that the emails were not intended for. The control of one’s own correspondence is a subject that is not without current significance. I am not a betting man by nature but I am prepared to put a bob or two on the safe bet that most people in New Zealand find mail theft a repugnant practice quite apart from the legal aspect of it. I have been impressed with the indignation of those with whom I have discussed email spam. I am equally impressed with the indignation of those who have spoken to me about people accessing other people’s emails. Those same persons are not inclined to be persuaded that such theft could be “justified” on the basis of political intrigue. They just find it disgusting to think that emails can be filched and used beyond the control of their author. Perhaps this legislation about unwanted electronic mail may impact eventually on those who want other people’s mail which they have no entitlement to. 
The bill restricts the sending of unsolicited commercial emails which are punishable by large fines. Non-commercial emails can continue to be sent but must contain opt-out provisions. The details of what constitutes an electronic message are quite precise in the bill and are detailed in Part 1. Those can be covered in the Committee stage but for the sake of clarity and as a courtesy to those members of the public who are listening in to this second reading I will quickly read the meaning of “electronic message” and “commercial electronic message”. Clause 5 “Meaning of electronic message” states: “(1) For the purposes of this Act an electronic message is a message sent—(a) using a telecommunications service; and (b) to an electronic address. (2) However the messages listed in clause 1 of the Schedule are not electronic messages. (3) For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether—(a) the electronic address exists; or (b) the message reaches its intended destination.” Clause 6 “Meaning of commercial electronic message” states on the other hand that a commercial electronic message “(a) means an electronic message that—(i) markets or promotes—(A) goods; or (B) services; or (C) land; or (D) an interest in land; or (E) a business or investment opportunity; or (ii) assists or enables a person to obtain dishonestly a financial advantage or gain from another person;”. The details go on and as I say will probably be covered in the Committee stage. 
There was an initial amount of debate over whether one should be able to opt in or opt out of receiving mail. This was resolved in a straightforward manner by simply prohibiting unsolicited commercial emails. There was some initial confusion about the difference between commercial— 
Darren Hughes 
: Why are you reading it out? Why don’t you speak from the heart? 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I certainly do speak from the heart. Has he got one? 
I turn to promotional messages. The National members of the select committee can take some measure of credit for resolving the promotional aspect. In other words we should be protected from spam ever originating in New Zealand and should that occur we have redress facilities available to us in the law. With regard to the law and its enforcement it should be noted that the search warrants required will be available to enforcement officers only when they apply for them on a case by case basis. The enforcement authority will not have a blanket warrant. 
The legal proceedings involved in this bill are to be in a civil liability regime. When the bill was initially put forward a criminal liability regime was proposed. This was part of the original legislation that was looked at in Australia. It has been decided though to use the civil liability regime here with a criminal regime able to be considered at a future date if necessary. 
It is beyond doubt that this bill has been considerably improved by the select committee. A number of initiatives towards improvement were generated by the National and the United Future members of the committee and the whole committee with Katherine Rich as chair went very much in harmony to reach a sensible practical and workable outcome. The division of emails into commercial and promotional has been dropped so as to avoid spammers using the excuse of sending promotional emails. Promotional emails may continue to be sent but must be non-commercial and contain opt-out provisions. 
There were submissions on the provision in the bill for members of the public experiencing spam to complain to their Internet service provider in the first instance. That provision has been dropped. It would have placed an unrealistic burden on the Internet service providers which are already battling spam with technical solutions. One of the most impressive aspects of the submissions was the Internet service providers’ efforts which they are currently engaged in to avoid and eliminate spam. It has been most worthwhile putting this bill after it was brought to the select committee into its present form. Thank you Madam Speaker. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 The problem with trying to follow that speech by Chris Auchinvole is that by the time we get to some of the brilliant contributions from the Government side of the House virtually everybody is turned off. That is a shame because we wanted to introduce some new material into the debate—not the material that was dredged up from the research unit—and we noted on a couple of occasions that the pages appeared to have been read at least twice and that did not help the nature of the argument. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Sometimes we have to emphasise the points for you guys. You wouldn’t get it the first time. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No we got it the first time. The member did not need to repeat it over and over again. 
However what members have rightly said is that the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill is part of the Government’s strategy to try to curb unsolicited emails—spam in its more colloquial sense. Everybody hates spam. Everybody hates those unsolicited emails. We are told by the Minister that 80 percent of email traffic now is spam. Everybody hates it. It is like somebody blowing cigar smoke in someone else’s face. It is exactly like that. Everybody hates having cigar smoke blown in his or her face and everybody hates receiving unsolicited mail. There are now rules around second-hand smoke as there should be. We have introduced tough measures on for example smoking inside and all those kinds of things because we know that second-hand smoke causes damage from lung issues right through to concussion and possible sore noses. 
The important thing about this legislation is that just as we have rules about second-hand smoke so we should also have rules against spam email. As has already been described the legislation prevents New Zealand from becoming a haven for spammers promotes good e-marketing practices and provides a basis for international cooperation on combating spam. 
One of the issues that we need to look at is whether spam email is commercial or promotional. Someone is obviously going to have to make that judgment. For example one could receive an email in one’s in-box stating: “To assist in the process we represent a group of Christian businessmen concerned as to the course and direction of the current Government. Accordingly we have put together an election programme with a budget of $1.2 million”— 
Darren Hughes 
: How much? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: —it was $1.2 million—“with the goal of getting party votes for National as this is the only way that change will come about.” That was the kind of email from the Exclusive Brethren that went into the in-box of David Henry from the Chief Electoral Office. Would that email be a commercial spam or a promotional spam? Is it promoting the Exclusive Brethren or is it a commercial arrangement between the Exclusive Brethren— 
Darren Hughes 
: Sounds like a purchase bid to me. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Possibly it was a purchase bid; possibly it was almost a tender bid. Yes it was almost a tender from the Exclusive Brethren to the Chief Electoral Office. If it had been a commercial spam email Mr Henry would have had the opportunity of opting in which means that he probably would not have received it unless he clicked on “Yes I want to receive this.” If the spam was promoting the Exclusive Brethren there would have to be an unsubscribe facility which means someone could open it but could send a message asking not to be sent any more of that garbage—that junk mail. The Exclusive Brethren were donkey deep in this kind of thing and if this legislation had come in a bit sooner then possibly National might not be in the position it is in today. 
Darren Hughes 
: Don Brash could still be leader! 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Don Brash could still be the leader. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: This is hardly— 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No no Madam Assistant Speaker this is absolutely on email spam which is a subject introduced by the previous speaker. 
The kinds of emails that people get in their in-boxes every time they open them the sorts of things that annoy people the sorts of things that the previous National speaker raised are emails such as this from people who state that they believe “… time is of the essence. Our campaign … is direct and simple—It creates and demonstrates MISTRUST in the current Government. It builds TRUST in a DON BRASH led Government.” An email such as that has gone into an in-box for Don Brash and has also been copied to John Key. When someone received that piece of electronic information would it have been a commercial electronic email or a promotional electronic email? 
These are the things that the select committee had to decide on. In the end it decided—I think absolutely quite rightly—to distinguish between the two of them. I think in this case it could well be argued that this was a commercial email and therefore there would be an opt-in provision. If the Exclusive Brethren had sent the email under this legislation and either did not have an opt-in part of the email or did not have an unsubscribe facility it would be in breach of this particular legislation and it would be up for a fine of potentially around $50000 in the case of promotional activity and— 
Darren Hughes 
: Plus GST! 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes there would be then a question of whether it was inclusive or exclusive of GST. That is something the National Party would take a long long time to determine but whatever it was there would be some considerable fine. 
The email was sent to Don Brash and John Key. John Key then said he did not believe he ever received that email. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Whilst we know the member is heading for retirement and has taken the opportunity to give a semi-valedictory speech the fact remains that the bill relates to quite a technical issue relating to spam and its invasion of the computer systems and Internet arrangements in this country. The member should be drawn back to the provisions of this bill. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Speaker I have had a lot to do with this bill. I have studied it. I was one of the Ministers who promoted it. The issues of what went into people’s in-boxes and what did not and what was the appropriate action to be taken by someone receiving such email whether it is a commercial or a promotional email is absolutely in line with this bill. Using examples as a way of trying to elucidate what we are talking about here for the people at home is a perfectly legitimate way of debating this. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is addressing the issues within the bill. Please continue. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: What we then get is an email that has been sent to Don Brash. We have already tried to work out whether it would be classed as a promotional or a commercial email. John Key then said he did not believe he received the email and has no record of receiving it. He said: “In my opinion that may indicate it was sent to the wrong address.” I think what we need to do of course under the current legislation and without this piece of legislation in place is to decide whether that is believable. That is probably something that people— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Talk about believable! 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Well people will need to consider it and think about it. In relation to an important email like that—“Did I not get it; did I get it?”—it was the old “Well I can’t quite recall.” I think that was the way it was described. 
Darren Hughes 
: “I remember not opening it.” 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes—“I do remember not opening that email.” That is a very good line and it is kind of “Brashy” in its logic. 
But then of course there are other kinds of emails and I think that these would fall probably within the ambit of what is called a promotional email. Here is a promotional email that went for example— 
Darren Hughes 
: To whom? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: —from Bill English to Don Brash. This is a promotional email that under this legislation would have to have a little “unsubscribe” box in it. So when the email is opened a message box comes up labelled “unsubscribe” which if clicked means there would be no more messages. That is the message box’s objective and quite rightly it is different possibly from the other. The promotional email from Bill English that I am quoting from states: “There are a few lessons here”. It states that Brash’s strategy team had been “pushing Judith [Collins] as a star” but she was a second-year MP “pushed beyond her capacity” into a hard portfolio and “with an unfortunately high estimation of her own competence”. It said that Collins “with apparent backing from the top” had “spent too much time cultivating the media herself and believing the resulting publicity.”—a very dangerous thing to do in this job—“She will find it hard to recover her credibility in caucus where she has been a tough critic of her colleagues behind the scenes and they know it.” 
What did Bill English in another email say to his leader? He said that he believed John Carter had been “promoted beyond his capacity”. 
Darren Hughes 
: Is he still here? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I think he is still here; he is over there somewhere. And what do members think about this email about Murray McCully? “Unfortunately the middle of the road caucus people are coming to the conclusion their fate is largely in the hands of McCully who is happy to burn off anybody who gets in the way Long who just pushes stars and Brownlee who looks after his own interests not theirs. You cannot afford to be seen to allow these guys to burn off the talent we have and reward self promoters who turn out to be incompetent.” 
This is the new united National Party and I am saying that if the National Party had actually assisted in helping promote this legislation a bit sooner then it might not be in the position it is in today. It might have its old leader—I think the fourth or fifth leader since our Prime Minister has been facing that party—and as a result it might not be in this position today. The important thing about this legislation I tell members is that first of all they must be very careful about who sends them what in their emails and they should not encourage people who are promoting themselves. Worse they should not promote people or open emails from people who are trying to do a deal with them behind the scenes sneakily—notwithstanding the fact they are supposed to be a Christian organisation—and trying to get away with it. 
This is important legislation and I support it. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose this bill. We believe that when we pass law in this Parliament it should be able to work. I listened most carefully to Mr Auchinvole’s speech which I thought was a very very good speech but I listened in vain—to a man who had sat on the select committee—to hear how this bill would stop spam. I heard that the bill—and I think this is the purpose of the bill—“will send a signal” I think was the phrase used that spam is unacceptable. Well we can signal all we like but at the end of the day signalling through Parliament that we do not like spam achieves nothing. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: In itself no. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well we have now had an acceptance from the key proponent of the bill from the National side that this bill “in itself” does nothing. So we are sitting here in Parliament debating a bill and putting a bill on our statute book that does nothing “in itself”. If we want to have respect for the law and if we want our law to mean something it actually has to serve a purpose and achieve a result. But this legislation does nothing. It is true that everyone hates spam it is true that everyone is bothered by spam but nothing sticks in the public’s craw more than having MPs stand up and in a high and mighty way say that they oppose spam too and say: “Look at us; we are passing a law against it.” But it is a law that will not stop one piece of spam in New Zealand whatsoever. Members should ask themselves where this spam comes from. It does not come from Mrs Brown in Te Kuiti; it comes in from overseas. This bill will do nothing to stop spam. 
I listened very carefully to the Hon Paul Swain who has clearly given this legislation some thought—and typically vacuously come up with nothing. But Mr Paul Swain drew attention to a series of emails in his speech and I suggest to the Government that when Mr Swain is thinking about those emails it is a problem the Government could do something about. But is the Government interested? What we have seen with the emails and correspondence that appear in Mr Nicky Hager’s book is a degree of political espionage that we have never seen in New Zealand before. I do not think we have seen it in any Western country before. It is not possible for those emails to have been leaked and it is not possible for those emails to have been a series of leaks. When I read the book it is clear to me that there has been covert surveillance of members of Parliament of this House offices broken into and computers hacked into from outside. The Leader of the Opposition’s computer has been hacked or broken into. Staff members in this Parliament have had their computers hacked and so have other MPs. The computers of private citizens have been accessed. 
I am appalled that a former Minister of this Government has stood up and made trite comments about those emails trying to score some political points yet has not dealt with the serious issue here which is who is behind this espionage? Who is behind this criminal activity? Who is behind putting MPs of this House under surveillance? What terrible forces that would stoop so low are operating in our democracy? I should put on record that I do not believe for a second that the Labour Party is behind it. I do not believe for a second that any political party in this House is behind it. But as MPs as representatives of our democracy and as believers in the rule of law we should be united in saying that this sort of activity and espionage is totally unacceptable in any country in any democracy. 
I find it somehow richly ironic that Nicky Hager in his book makes his conspiracy theory about the few trying to dictate to the many—and trying to do so secretly—when he himself is party to or is perhaps a pawn of the few who have been behind this espionage in order to effect an outcome in an election. Nicky Hager has admitted to taking emails criminally obtained through espionage and selectively leaking them to the media in order to effect an outcome in an election. That material has been obtained in that criminal way that covert and systematic way not once or twice not just for days or even weeks or months but for years. 
 Nicky Hager does not reveal his sources. He does not tell us who these shadowy figures are. He does not tell us who is behind the book and the material he has. He does not tell us—the people of New Zealand and the people in this House—what their motives were. Oh no! It is enough that Nicky Hager has this material. 
I say to the Hon Paul Swain and to the members of the Government that something very serious has gone on here. I heard my colleagues from the National Party mention Watergate. Well actually with Watergate there was only one break-in. Several break-ins—serial break-ins and surveillance—were involved in what we have here. We all as MPs have an interest in this because which others have had their computers hacked? Do we seriously believe that what has gone on here has been done just on the National Party? Why would it be just the National Party? I am sure that every one of us is as vulnerable as the previous National leader found he was in respect of his system and as National MPs their staff and supporters found they were with their systems. What happened to them can happen to each and every one of us. Who is behind it? What is it saying about our democracy? 
I take grave exception to the Hon Paul Swain trying to score some cheap points and I expect our Government to be pursuing whoever is behind this espionage. I tell members that the noose is tightening around the necks of the perpetrators of this. We are closing in on them and they will be revealed. I say that there is a big story to be told here and I believe that every political party in this Parliament—indeed every New Zealander—has to believe that the systems we operate in this Parliament are secure. If Don Brash’s computer can be penetrated then the computers of Michael Cullen the Prime Minister and any other Minister can be penetrated. There is a very very serious issue here. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 That speech was a very interesting one for me to follow on from and I for one hope that Rodney Hide will follow up on what he said and lodge a complaint with the police. At the very least as he pointed out we in a free and open democracy should be looking at this. Thinking back we remember that Watergate started off as one small burglary. But Watergate grew and grew until eventually it forced the resignation of the President of the United States. If indeed we have seen a pattern of similar covert behaviour in our nation then it is something we should worry about. So I think that the points the member brought to the attention of the House need to be addressed by the Government and indeed by Parliament. 
United Future welcomes this Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill to tackle the urgent problem of unsolicited electronic messages commonly known as spam. The creation of the Internet which I understand now has about 1 billion participants has given the people of the Earth unprecedented access to information and has been an irreplaceable element in the globalisation of commercial and political activity. Undoubtedly therefore the creation of the Internet and the ability to send messages instantly and electronically has greatly advanced the common good. As we also know however there is also a downside and it is called spam. Microsoft one of the organisations that gave evidence at the Commerce Committee on this bill told us that 4 billion spam messages a day currently enter its network alone. I understand that in the short period of time between that organisation’s representatives appearing before the select committee and now that number has grown from 4 billion to 10 billion. It has more than doubled and at current rates we should see it doubling again. I am told that it is now possible to send up to 1 million spam messages for $10. So we have a massive problem on our hands. In many ways therefore spam is the curse of the Internet and I am delighted—for the benefit of Rodney Hide—that the New Zealand Government in concert with many other Governments around the world is now taking positive steps through this bill to reduce control and rein in gratuitous spam. 
In my speech today I want particularly to focus on gratuitous spam containing sexually orientated material. This matter was drawn to the attention of the committee by Judge David Henry who noted that spam messages containing links to pornography sites are not covered by the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 and that the commercial nature of the definition of spam may not therefore adequately protect children. I shared those concerns and fully back the recommendations of the committee to amend the bill so that the functions of the enforcement department are broadened to allow levels of gratuitous spam that contains sexually orientated material whether or not it is commercial in nature to be monitored and controlled. 
Spam containing sexually explicit material is somewhat in a class of its own. The original spam may not be selling anything and therefore is not commercial but it may contain soft porn images and links to provide a teaser that grooms the recipient to visit a pornographic website. At that point the transaction certainly becomes commercial. I understand that pornography on the Internet is now worth tens of billions of dollars per annum and is growing at the rate of thousands of new porn sites every week. All of this represents a threat to New Zealand children and is as I know a deep concern to New Zealand parents. My children did not grow up in the Internet age but I am simply amazed at how my grandchildren from age 7 or 8 or younger can surf the net with consummate ease and familiarity. Put that ease of access and skill together with the literally millions of porn sites and the problem becomes all too evident. 
Shortly after the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill was reported back to the House I issued a press release drawing attention to the provisions I have just mentioned in relation to sexually orientated material. I was surprised at the information that has been sent to me as a result. Let me quote for example directly from a letter sent to me from a school principal in Auckland. He says this: “The concern is the use of Internet pornography by pre-adolescent though to adolescent boys and girls. The volume of pornography available on the Internet is enormous. It is available in a variety of forms—pictures movies clips story texts. Access is virtually unlimited. Some sites charge and require a credit card although many normally have free samples. Others may require you to click an enter box that declares you are of age to access adult material.” Members can imagine how well that works in the hands of people who are determined to get access. They simply lie about their age. “For thousands of others there is no restriction at all. Teenagers are curious and are likely to look at pornography given the opportunity. They may access it accidentally. Search engines like Google facilitate this. The concern is that the level of access is growing and that many parents have no idea of what is happening or how to limit it. Many are less computer savvy than their children and are unable to monitor their activities effectively.” The letter goes on to lament how little is being done in New Zealand to address this issue. 
That is no longer the case in Australia. The Australian Government has announced a $116 million comprehensive package of measures to crack down on the scourge of Internet pornography. The central part of this package is a national filter scheme costing some $93 million that will be provided over a 3-year period to Australian families free of charge to be installed in their homes. I should say too that filter technology even now has been overtaken; earlier today I saw some breakthrough technology that actually has the capacity to block porn in its entirety. It is really almost  
Star Trek 
 technology. It is now available and already 850000 Malaysian families are hooked into that system for example. It actually blocks and filters out something like 96 percent or more of all pornography on the Internet so it cannot be replicated on the screen of anyone who has that program installed. I forwarded this material on to the Minister for Information Technology the Hon David Cunliffe and I believe that the Government and Parliament need to address this matter with a degree of urgency. All of us are duty-bound to do what we can to protect the beauty and innocence of our children. The corruption of children must never be tolerated as it can wreak great damage on boys and girls as they move into adulthood and hopefully into stable adult relationships. 
The computer industry also needs to play its part. I was encouraged that after the executives of Microsoft New Zealand appeared before the select committee they spontaneously called by my office to say that their interaction with the select committee in relation to spam was such that they now believe they have a real responsibility to rein in the unsatisfactory elements of this wonderful technology; not essentially for commercial gain—although I have no doubt that that may be a part of it—but for the common good of New Zealand and its citizens including children. I applaud the attitude taken by Microsoft and I would challenge other Internet companies and program design companies to follow suit. I believe that Internet service providers and others who take a close interest in the growth of the Internet could also actively take more steps to reduce the exposure of children to pornography. What I am suggesting here is a multifaceted approach whereby we in Parliament could address this issue along with Internet service providers and program designers in companies set up for that purpose. 
In the 1980s it was said that New Zealand had become a sex-saturated society. If those sentiments were true then then the Internet has introduced a veritable flood of objectionable material right into the living rooms of New Zealand families. Therefore we should together resolve to change that situation for the better. This bill makes a small start and takes a positive step in that direction because in future when people get unsolicited sexual material by way of spam on their computers they will be able to contact the enforcement agency and bring that material to its attention. That agency in turn can clamp down on the people who are sending that spam and also of course feed into the international apparatus that we in concert with other nations are building around the globe so that if the spam originates for example from Hungary then the Hungarian Government will come down on the people who are sending it in Hungary or if it is being sent from the United States then the US Government will come down on those people sending it in the United States. 
This needs a worldwide strategy and worldwide action because we have a worldwide problem. The future of our children is too precious for us to run the risk of failing to take whatever steps we can to bring this most unsatisfactory situation to an end. United Future will be supporting the bill both at its second reading and through its remaining stages. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill. Unsolicited commercial spam is increasingly becoming a problem on every PC and the bottom line is that we dislike it intensely. We do not care whether it is promotional or commercial; we do not want either. We just want it done away with on our PCs. We want to be able to unsubscribe so that we do not have to bother with this total waste of time. 
It is quite interesting to note that spam appears to be more sophisticated and more difficult to detect because even the software here in Parliament can manage to detect only a percentage of some of the spam emails that come through. Like most MPs I received over 400 emails during the recent adjournment period stored in the spam folder. But this was not all of the spam that was on my computer; some of it actually went through into my new emails and bypassed the spam filter. 
Of course spam is a total waste of time. What do we have coming through to us? We have deals on software that we do not need; medications that of course we would not want to buy off the Internet; online drugstores with various medications and again we do not even want to know about them; nonsense words all put together; programming symbols; and even Asian words or some other writing. It all comes through into the spam filter. We also have stocks and bonds which are something that one would never ever just buy on the Internet. 
If we look back over the history of spam the first instance of spam occurred way back in 1978 when Gary Thuerk from the Digital Equipment Corporation sent an email to every ARPANET address on the west coast of the USA—ARPANET was a very early version of today’s Internet—and that resulted in 600 emails being sent. His actions prompted many angry emails in reply due to his inappropriate usage of the Internet. What do we have now? We have spam as a serious worldwide problem that basically is threatening to cripple the Internet due to the huge volume of unsolicited mail. The phenomenal number of emails generated each day is growing exponentially with the most recent figures showing that in June 2006 worldwide 55 billion spam emails were generated each day. This figure has roughly doubled since June 2005 when 30 billion spam emails were generated each day. 
As previous speakers have said spam is one of the curses of the Internet. I think it is worth reflecting that although we receive quite a few hundred emails each week perhaps we should spare a thought for people like Bill Gates who receives over 4 million junk emails each year—far more than we hope ever to have to cope with. 
Although this bill is a good start it is worth reflecting that only 10 percent of the spam affecting New Zealanders actually originates here in New Zealand. Minister Cunliffe stated that the bill will really be enforceable only in New Zealand. Because of this to deal effectively with the spam we now have there needs to be serious international cooperation. New Zealand by itself can do absolutely nothing. Ninety percent of the spam in Kiwi email in-boxes comes from outside New Zealand with the majority of it coming from the USA China South Korea and Russia. This bill will not have a direct impact on those nations unfortunately but it does show our commitment to doing our bit to try to stem this international problem. 
When I looked at the Commerce Committee’s report I noted that the select committee recommends amending clauses 23 24 and 25 in order to remove the requirement that complaints from spam recipients were directed back to Internet service providers. This is a good move as the original provisions may have placed an unreasonable burden and significant enforcement cost on Internet service providers. It is likely however that the Internet service providers will remain the first point of call for customers who want to complain about unsolicited electronic messages but that is not a role we can force upon the Internet service providers. The select committee also recommends extending the transition period before the bill takes effect from 4 months to 6 months. It is good to see that on this occasion the committee did take the advice of submitters and it recommended the extension which will allow organisations to implement the required changes—which of course they have to do. 
New Zealand First does support this bill. It is only a small start. We know that spam is providing a real challenge and that it will continue to do so. New Zealand First wants to see every possible assistance given to all Internet users and to all email users in order to prevent New Zealand becoming a safe haven for spammers because that is something we definitely do not want to see. Thank you. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I am rising on behalf of the Green Party to speak to the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill also known as the “Spam Bill”. It is something the Green Party has had discussions with the Minister about at various times because it is an issue of growing significance. 
Having said that I do want to acknowledge the comments made by Rodney Hide about the bill and questioning how much it actually achieves. I think he is absolutely right that it is arrogant and counter-productive for this Parliament to pass legislation that has no effect other than to salve the conscience of parliamentarians or to send some sort of message to the public. I think he is quite right to oppose the bill if that is what he thinks we are doing. It is not unusual for this House to do that very thing. There are many pieces of legislation I can think of that have passed through this House with great support and are really just about making politicians feel they are doing something positive and have no effect out in the real world. So as I say I think Mr Hide is right to oppose the bill if that is what he thinks we are doing. 
I am not entirely convinced though that that is all we are doing because I think there are some benefits to this legislation. It is predicated on the assumption that we all oppose spam—and of course we do. I think we are pretty familiar with our in-boxes filling up with enormous amounts of all kinds of stuff that we certainly do not want to see so we are as aware of that here as anyone. I think we do all agree that we need to try to do something about it if we are able to. 
I would not go quite so far as Mr Auchinvole who talked about the right to control our own mail regardless of the media. I am not sure that such a right has actually ever existed. If it did then I certainly would be making sure I did not get speeding tickets and bills through my mail but I do not have that ability. We are always going to receive unsolicited mail of some kind so I think we have to have some perspective on how we look at it. 
It is important to see whether there are things we can do about what is clearly a growing and significant problem that is getting out of control all around the world. The Greens are supporting this legislation as a brave attempt to try to grapple with the problem. Obviously I think we are limited in what we can do in this Parliament to address the problem and this bill is probably about as much as we can do for the meantime. 
Of course the reality is that New Zealand is a minor contributor to spam internationally. We are not seeing enormous amounts coming out of this country and what we can do will be limited. But having said that I do not think that means we should not try to do anything to address the spam that does originate in this country. I take as an analogy the whole issue around climate change where we are told that New Zealand is a small contributor to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions and therefore maybe it is not worth our doing anything. But we know that if we are to get international solidarity and if we are to work at a global level to reduce global problems then we all have to play a part. These agreements work only if we are all willing to participate as far as we can to address the issue. 
The other thing is that like climate change it is also a question of moral authority. It is hard for us to go to international forums and make the statement: “Well they should be doing something.” about countries where perhaps their contribution to the spam problem is more significant if we are unwilling to do anything at all in our own jurisdiction. So I think those are strong reasons why we have to see what we can do to address spam in this country. 
The other issue is that we may become a haven for spam. The reality is that one does not need to relocate huge numbers of people or equipment to alter where the spam is originating from. New Zealand could easily become another haven for spam if we become out of step with the international consensus. If we do not move towards regulation of spam as other countries do so then certainly we will see relocation to New Zealand and that is something that we do not want to see. So like Mr Copeland I think we have to look at a regime where we work with an international consensus as much as possible and rely on each country to enforce responsible realistic legislation within its own jurisdiction. I think this is what this legislation attempts to do. 
Having said that and having expressed support for the bill regardless of its limited ability to address the problem there are a couple of issues I would like to address that raise some concern in my mind. The first issue is that I am a little confused as to the intention of removing the exemptions or the different regime that applies to promotional material as opposed to commercial. I understand the argument. I understand the concern of the Commerce Committee that the distinction could be abused by people who are simply trying to stretch the boundary between commercial and promotional messages. I can see the real potential for uncertainty and confusion. I understand the argument about why one would want to do something about that. I guess I am really asking—and I would be interested to hear a member of the select committee express a view if the committee had a unified one—whether this was actually an intention to apply as restrictive a regime on an organisation such as Oxfam as on those who fill up our in-boxes promising greater sexual satisfaction— 
Rodney Hide 
: It works! 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I am sure Mr Hide would know because he is looking fit tanned and ready to go. But— 
Rodney Hide 
: I am going to pass it on to Mr Doug Woolerton. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: And Mr Woolerton looks like he is welcoming that! But members can continue that discussion outside the Chamber and we will continue to discuss the bill. But I think there is an argument to say that there are reasons why we might want to have a different regime applying to some of those promotional activities and in my mind at least that is an unresolved issue. I would be interested to hear from the select committee members as to what the clear intention was. 
The other issue was around clause 12 “Commercial electronic messages and promotional electronic messages must contain functional unsubscribe facility”. This clause sets out provisions around what the message must look like in order for that to work. The difficulty is that the advice we are always given is “Don’t unsubscribe to spam because that just encourages them.” That is the difficulty. If we are planning a regime that is very much dependent on this kind of unsubscribe facility I think that will create enormous difficulty confusion and mixed messages. It means that members of the public will have to be very careful about the distinction between spam that does originate in this country and spam that does not because even if that regime is realistic and even if one could make it work it clearly does not apply to anywhere else. I think that will cause enormous difficulties. 
There is one other thing that I want to touch on and that is in relation to the definition of an electronic address. An electronic address includes a telephone account an email account instant messaging etc. Clause 5 states that “an electronic message is a message sent—(a) using a telecommunications service; and (b) to an electronic address.” which clearly includes a telephone account. However the excluded messages listed in clause 1 of the schedule “Messages that are not electronic messages” are voice calls made using standard telephone service or voice-over Internet protocol or facsimiles. I am just reminded of the election campaign and Mr Hide could confirm this where one of the strategies in Epsom was to use recorded telephone messages to ring people up and solicit— 
Rodney Hide 
: It was not Epsom. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Oh not Epsom— 
Rodney Hide 
: Everywhere else but Epsom. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I thank the member. So the strategy of using recorded messages to solicit political support is not a far step to that happening for a commercial purpose. The definition of a facsimile which is an electronic message of some kind being excluded— 
Rodney Hide 
: People love them! 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: That is not the feedback I got I have to tell the member. I think there is a real anomaly here that it does not include telephone and facsimiles. It leaves an enormous loophole that we will see commercial companies exploit in the very near future if this bill passes. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou te Whare. This stuff can get a bit too serious and a bit too detailed. When I first heard about spam my initial thought was of a Monty Python skit about canned meat. It was a skit set in a cafe and some members will remember it. A group of Vikings were wearing horned helmets and whenever somebody said “spam” they all stood up and started singing chanting dancing and carrying on. Eric Idle and Graham Chapman in drag playing his wife entered the cafe and asked what was on the menu. The waitress said there was egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam; spam bacon sausage and spam; and spam sausage spam bacon spam tomato and spam. Members will get the idea. Sometimes when I check my email it is like Monty Python all over again—whether the issue is section 59 trans-Tasman therapeutic goods or the Auckland stadium it all seems to be spam: spam bacon spam tomato and spam. 
Although there is a sense of the sublime and the ridiculous in all of this it is also worth noting that spam comes in emails texts and instant messages from all over the place all over the world at a rate of 350 million a month. That is big-time nuisance stuff. Sure there are filters to counter spam but they often delete good messages. The fear is that amongst a whole bag of rotten apples there are often a couple of good ones but they get dumped along with the rubbish. I know this only too well because some of the excellent contributions the Maori Party has made in this House have been blocked by some email addresses because of the use of some language that could be termed to be rather passionate and colourful. 
Rodney Hide 
: Direct. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: Direct! Of course spam artists just bypass the filters by changing the addresses. The thing is that spam is just plain hoha—crackers slackers Viagra vendors and hackers who attack websites and threaten computer security. It reduces productivity it creates stress it wastes networking computing resources and it often perpetrates financial schemes like those emails from somebody’s long-lost Uncle Albert in Nigeria who wants someone to take his millions before a brutal new regime takes over and who says that person can also have a couple of million dollars as long he or she enters his or her bank account details. 
Of course the whole issue of security and computer theft has served us spectacularly through the blaze of publicity surrounding Nicky Hager’s claims that his latest publication  
The Hollow Men 
 was based conclusively on material gained from emails obtained from Dr Don Brash’s address. Nicky Hager says that his use of the emails was justified because they show that National had been acting unethically and dishonestly and getting away with it. Dr Brash got an injunction to stop them from being published and in TV3’s application to have it thrown out Carol Hirschfeld said the emails were in the public interest and blocking them would be an unreasonable restriction on freedom of expression. Whether or not those emails are private spam or items of public interest I suspect that this is not the last we have heard of that scandal. 
We are pleased with the Commerce Committee’s suggestion that Internet service providers not have to deal with the complaints about spam because at 350 million messages a month they would be doing nothing else but answering their mail. I include here the Maori Internet Society Te WhanauIpurangi which promotes a strong Maori presence on the Internet and lobbies for Internet administrators to better accommodate Maori needs. I know that it certainly does not have time to deal with the thousands of complaints that it would receive about spam. 
I want to raise a couple of other matters about commercial and promotional spam pre-recorded voice-over phone calls and unsolicited messages that come in the form of junk mail. I turn to the comments of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment which are a bit “out there” that the Government’s failure to follow through on the New Zealand waste strategy “undermines the whole process of democratic engagement with government”. He went further to suggest: “This loss of confidence may raise questions about government’s commitment to the NZWS”. That raises the question of why the Government does not also take action to stop the phone and mailbox trash while it is dealing with the electronic trash. 
The drain that electronic spam places on personal and professional productivity will only increase as Internet traffic itself increases. Here in Aotearoa Internet access has increased in the last 6 years for Maori from 27 percent to 47 percent and for Pacific Islanders from 11 percent to 40 percent. Although the total for Polynesians is still dramatically lower than that for Europeans who are on 65 percent and that for Asians who are on 80 percent if the trend is anything to go by access to the information highway will only increase. The Maori Party will support the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill in order to ensure that our access to that information highway remains free and open. Kia ora koutou. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I would like to take a brief call on the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the debate as it has taken place this afternoon and it is pretty clear that the bill has enough support to pass its second reading in the House and ultimately become law. But I wonder why we are passing this law. It is not because of the argument that has been proposed that this can have only a minimal effect. The point I make is that we are passing a law and in the course of the debate this afternoon we have seen a past member of the executive of this Government the Hon Paul Swain use stolen material gleefully and for what he perceived to be his or the Government’s advantage. We know that this material was stolen. We know that it is the subject of a police inquiry. It has been purloined from the privacy of some people’s computers by a series of acts that could only have been calculated and then perpetrated for gain. 
So here we are passing a bill saying: “Joe Public out there do not spam us.” We have laws about stealing and laws about using stolen goods. But we have had an example this afternoon of a past member of the executive gleefully using stolen goods. I ask the House what sort of an example that is. What sort of a role model is that? We hold up our hands in disgust when we hear of people in State houses subletting them and going into their own private homes. Again if we want the public of New Zealand to behave in a way that is acceptable the standard that we as leaders of this nation set cannot be compromised. I believe that this afternoon we have seen a degree of compromise that I have not witnessed here for some time. I am concerned and no doubt this will not be the last of it but I say to the House this afternoon that if the members opposite were not part of the conspiracy to steal then why are they now so gleefully and with complicity using the material? Their very action today approves what happened whether or not they were involved. They are sanctioning by their behaviour what went before. The question that I will leave in this respect is— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Assistant Speaker. My understanding of the Standing Orders is that it is absolutely against the Standing Orders to imply that anyone in this House who is involved in any criminal act whatever let alone a conspiracy to steal as that member asserted. I am outraged. 
ERIC ROY 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Assistant Speaker I have not asserted that anyone stole; I have asserted that people have been using stolen goods. Madam Speaker you allowed this debate to be advanced when you— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: No just speak to the point of order. 
ERIC ROY 
: The point is that you have allowed this section of the debate to be promoted by myself now by allowing the debate in the name of the Hon Paul Swain. I am just responding to that. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member certainly did not accuse any member of stealing. He raised it as an issue. The member will continue. 
ERIC ROY 
: I will wrap up now. I simply want to say that I and the public of New Zealand and can I say to members of the Opposition the police will want to know what the Government knew and when it knew it. The Government’s behaviour over the next few weeks will be of great interest to myself the public and the police. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the second reading of the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill. It has been reported back to us from the Commerce Committee which has made a few changes to the bill that was referred to it by the House at its first reading. 
Can I just pick up on the point made by the member for Invercargill. His basic assertion was that some emails were stolen and were turned into a book and that Labour should ignore that because they were stolen even though there are 3000 copies around the country of a book containing all the details of these emails. That is patently absurd. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: It’s embarrassing though. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: It is embarrassing for them I accept that. The unsolicited emails have been foisted on the country; none of us asked for these emails. They have turned up in a book and they are unsolicited in that regard. 
One of the most important things the Commerce Committee did was to delete references to promotional messages. It decided that when it came to spam it was too hard to define what a promotional message was; it would be problematic to try to determine what a promotional message was. This is a very interesting point and Mr Hide Mr Harawira Mr Roy and my colleague the Hon Paul Swain have commented on what these promotional messages might be. 
We have seen unsolicited promotional messages quite a lot lately—most recently of course in this book that has been referred to several times throughout the debate. I wonder whether the select committee possibly had that in mind when it was looking at deleting that reference to promotional messages. Of some of the emails that have been sent around this country we know that one email was sent on 24 May to the Leader of the Opposition Mr Key. That was a promotional email message because it actually offered services to assist in the National Party campaign. The email which was an unsolicited electronic message was headed: “Urgent Important and Strictly Confidential”. The letter began: “Good afternoon Don and John Doug Watt and myself enjoyed your presentation this morning at Millennium Hotel.” In that sense the author was trying to personalise the message even though it was an unsolicited one in terms of the promotional message provisions of the bill. 
The email goes on to explain how the Exclusive Brethren sect had been involved in a defence campaign. The Brethren actually had a misleading campaign saying that the Labour Government had decreased the amount of money being spent on defence in this country when in actual fact we have rebuilt the armed forces of this country while we have been in Government with some significant increases in defence resourcing. The email goes on to state: “Basically we believe marketing is the name of the game.” Of course the bill as reported from the select committee refers quite a lot to marketing being the purpose of a message and there is reference to clause 6 being removed. 
The email states: “Whilst the meeting this morning was excellent it would not have got one extra vote for National. (Everyone there is going to vote National anyway). Getting the message out and to a younger age bracket is paramount.”—because the Exclusive Brethren are quite in touch with the youth of New Zealand being on the hip side of things. The author of the email believed that that was a paramount goal and said: “time is of the essence. Our campaign (a total of seven nationally distributed flyers) is direct and simple:—It creates and demonstrates MISTRUST in the current Government. It builds TRUST in a DON BRASH led National Government.” That was the unsolicited promotional message sent to the National Party on 24 May. 
Why do I mention that date? It is because later in the year the National Party including the Leader of the Opposition tried to argue that National knew very little about the Exclusive Brethren’s role in the election campaign the unsolicited electronic messages they were sending and the promotional material and services they were offering. In actual fact John Key has said that even though the email was sent to him—and that is demonstrated by the material in front of me in the book—he did not open it. I ask colleagues in the House how on Earth one remembers an email one never read. If one never knew one had received it and one never opened it how did one know that one had not actually seen it in the first place? Can this be so? No one really bought that as an argument. 
Then Mr Key had to move to the next stage whereby he made what I would call the President Bill Clinton defence: “I did not have email relations with that sect.” That seemed to be the defence—that he did not have any email relations with that sect at all. That was getting to the point of being preposterous. Although the message was unsolicited—I accept that; National did not ask for this email to come forward from the Exclusive Brethren sect—it was offering promotional services to and was trying to market the putting across of messages for the National Party. Part of the bill addresses the issue of address harvesting and of how people are able to get email addresses and then bombard people with messages. That is in the book as well funnily enough. The book says that addresses were harvested from various National MPs. One thing I am interested in building on the point that Mr Key said he had no idea that the Exclusive Brethren were involved in the National Party campaign and that he did not remember opening the email that he did not remember receiving back in May is what else was happening. 
I read in the book that some bloke in Napier a Mr S Lusk who was a campaign manager for the National Party said in an email that he was shown details and copies of Exclusive Brethren election advertisements that had been shown to other National members of Parliament. So an unsolicited email came in from a campaign manager in Napier who said that he was with National MPs who were shown copies of the Exclusive Brethren election advertisements and that some of the MPs were a little uncomfortable about it. Well I bet they were. I bet they were uncomfortable about that in terms of what the bill does to try to deal to this concern about unsolicited electronic messages that offer marketing services and that try to put out promotional messages to people. It is absolutely farcical that a campaign manager in a provincial city could know about these things and the leaders of the party could not. But as we know the email was not opened and could not be remembered even though it was already in John Key’s in-box. 
What the bill is trying to do in cracking down on electronic messages is a very important measure. It is a frustration to many members of Parliament that they cannot get into the decent emails sent by constituents because there is so much spam. As a speaker previously said we still have to go into the Mimesweeper programme and scroll through emails because genuine messages are often captured by that programme and we want to make sure we are not missing out on those. It becomes quite a difficult issue for members of Parliament members of the public and those conducting legitimate e-commerce activities to put up with. 
One other aspect is the market research that goes on by way of unsolicited electronic messages. In that regard I notice that Crosby/Textor a public relations company that I understand the National Party has quite an intimate relationship with has done some work on how to communicate electronically. I am sure there is rich material indeed in this book. 
I make one other point regarding messages containing links to other websites. I have been using a series of examples to try to highlight the changes the select committee has made to the bill and there is an amendment around spam that links to other websites. I was interested in the role that the so-called non-partisan Maxim Institute played in emails to the National Party. The institute gave website links to its organisation showing very clearly who it was trying to assist in the last election campaign. 
When we go through it all we see that primary resources we have are rich material. We can line these emails up against the bill and see whether the bill would be effective in the case of these messages— 
Simon Power 
: Sit down! 
DARREN HUGHES 
: —which I know are of enormous embarrassment to the member for Rangitikei but which sadly exist. I say to Mr Roy that the Labour Party is not responsible for these emails coming into the public domain. [ 
Interruption 
] The Labour Party was not involved in hacking into others people’s computers or any of the other things that Mr Finlayson is talking about. He thinks it is possible on his Commodore 64 to hack into the parliamentary server. I do not have quite the same confidence in the ability of members of Parliament and their information technology skills in that regard. But what I do absolutely know is that now that the emails have been made public and made into a book it would be wrong of Parliament not to put its attention to some of the unsolicited electronic messages going between National and the Exclusive Brethren the racing industry and the Maxim Institute. And of course there were the wonderfully rich emails—about which I have run out of time to inform the House—that were unsolicited electronic messages that members of the National front bench sent to their leader complaining about and bagging their own colleagues. I do not know whether there is a legislative solution to that; I suspect there is not. I think the problems have gone too far for the law to change that but it is certainly worthy of the attention of members of Parliament. I am very happy to support the second reading of this important legislation. 
Bill read a second time. 
Criminal Justice Reform Bill 
First Reading 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Criminal Justice Reform Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The bill will give effect to the legislative components of the Effective Interventions package of initiatives for the reform of the criminal justice system. The aims of these initiatives which were announced in August are to reduce and prevent crime address New Zealand’s growing prison population and take genuine steps to help build safer communities. The initiatives focus on three broad themes: tilting the balance earlier to prevent crime using alternatives to prison where this is appropriate and adopting smarter uses of prison resources. 
As members will be aware the issue of the growing prison population is one of the most significant challenges facing the justice sector. We have an increasing prison population that is at odds with the long-term overall decline in New Zealand’s crime rate. 
Simon Power 
: Crime is up! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The member should read the statistics. The overall trend over the decade is clear and unmistakable. I say to Mr Power that if he cannot read statistics then he really should not be on the front bench opposite. The social and economic consequences of imprisonment are significant and I do not believe that the current situation is one in which most New Zealanders should—or indeed overwhelmingly do—take any pride. As the Prime Minister said when we announced the reforms contained in this bill further increases in the prison population are neither financially nor socially sustainable—nor in my view are they financially or socially desirable. 
It is important to reiterate though that there will be no change in the tough approach that this Government has taken with serious dangerous and particularly repeat offenders. These offenders will continue to go to prison and for lengthy periods. The safety of the community will always be this Government’s first priority. 
The Criminal Justice Reform Bill comprises two parts. The first part provides for the establishment of a Sentencing Council which will be responsible for producing sentencing and parole guidelines. Over time the council will lead to significant improvements in sentencing consistency and transparency. The council will also play an important role in ensuring wider input into the development of sentencing policy. 
The Sentencing Act 2002 included considerable guidance to the judiciary when imposing sentences on offenders. It codified the purposes and principles of sentencing listed aggravating and mitigating factors and required judges to impose the maximum penalty available—or something close to it—in the worst cases. The 2002 legislation however left a great deal of discretion in relation to sentence severity. Research undertaken for the Law Commission showed that this resulted in considerable inconsistency in sentencing throughout the country particularly for less serious offending. The Criminal Justice Reform Bill provides for parliamentary scrutiny of the sentencing guidelines before they come into force. Once the guidelines are in place judges will be required to comply with them unless they are satisfied in individual cases that it would be clearly contrary to the interests of justice to do so. This will leave room for discretion in appropriate cases. 
The Sentencing Council will comprise a mix of judicial and non-judicial members. The non-judicial members will be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendations of this House of Representatives. This recognises the special constitutional role of the council. Judicial members will be appointed by the heads of bench of the Court of Appeal the High Court and the District Court respectively. 
I am confident that the Sentencing Council will prove a valuable addition to our sentencing framework. I note that similar bodies have been established in Victoria New South Wales and the United Kingdom in recent years enabling us to draw on their experiences in developing our own council. Indeed my own recent meetings with the chair of the UK Sentencing Council Chief Justice Lord Phillips and the chairman of the Law Commission of England and Wales Justice Etherton strengthened my confidence in the structure provided for in this bill. Sentencing guidelines—and parole reform which I will refer to later—are a proven mechanism for managing the effective use of penal resources. Under the bill the Sentencing Council must assess the cost-effectiveness of its proposals by modelling the effect on the prison population in developing guidelines for particular offences. 
The second part of the bill includes provisions for the introduction of a clear hierarchy of sentences and establishes three new non-custodial sentences. This part also contains changes to the parole eligibility regime. An amendment to the Parole Act sees the tightening up of management of child sex offenders under the extended supervision regime. I think many members will welcome that provision. Minor amendments to the Bail Act and the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 are also included. The amendment to the latter defers the sunset clause that would otherwise take effect on 1 July of next year. 
Most important this part of the bill significantly increases the range of non-custodial sentences available to the courts. There are three new sentences. Home detention will be established as a sentence in its own right rather than a way of serving a term of imprisonment as is presently the case. The effectiveness of this penalty is well-established. Home detention has low rates for reconviction and reimprisonment high compliance rates and is a positive support for offenders’ reintegration and rehabilitation. It is seen as an appropriate alternative for those who would otherwise receive a short sentence of imprisonment. Establishing home detention as a sentence in its own right will afford far greater opportunity to the courts to shape sentences to fit the particular circumstances. 
The bill includes two new community-based sentences: community detention and intensive supervision. Each of these new sentences will provide a higher level of restriction and supervision of offenders than the two existing sentences of community work and supervision. Community detention which involves an electronically monitored curfew will be particularly suitable for those whose offending has a specific pattern or tends to occur at particular times. Intensive supervision provides a larger and more complex range of special conditions than are currently available under the supervision sentence. 
The bill also includes a new process called judicial monitoring which will be available to be imposed as a special condition with the home detention and intensive supervision sentences. Judges will receive progress reports and be empowered to order the offender to attend a hearing which is intended to enhance and maintain judicial confidence in these non-custodial sentences. I think one of the overarching objectives both for the legislation and the package more generally is to improve judicial confidence and community confidence in the sentencing package. 
In addition to these new measures the bill contains various other reforms to improve the effectiveness of the existing community-based sentences. There will be a greater emphasis on the acquisition of basic work and life skills which can be major factors in preventing reoffending. Enhancements to the community work sentence to ensure that it is an effective sanction and holds offenders accountable for the harm their offending has caused are also included in this bill. As a result of these changes judges will have a greater range of options when sentencing offenders particularly at the lower levels of offending. Sentences can be used that genuinely fit the specific circumstances of the offence and the offender. 
The final matter I refer to in introducing the bill is the proposal for the reform of parole eligibility. Since 1993 offenders subject to finite sentences have generally been eligible for parole after serving one-third of their term. There is provision in the Sentencing Act for a judge to impose a longer term in certain circumstances but experience has shown that this is done only in a minority of cases. In 2002 legislation abolished automatic release at two-thirds of a sentence. This has resulted in a long period of parole eligibility which has increased the uncertainty about how long an offender will actually serve. 
So the Criminal Justice Reform Bill will postpone eligibility for consideration of parole until two-thirds of an offender’s sentence and reinforce the requirement that release on parole should be determined solely by the risk of reoffending. The new regime will lead to a significant increase in the proportion of their sentences that offenders are required to serve and I think will give a far greater sense of clarity to everyone concerned. These changes will establish more certainty in the sentencing process. All involved—victims the police and of course the offender—will know that the offender will be serving the lion’s share of the sentence as given from the outset. The parole reforms will come into effect when the sentencing guidelines are in place. This will ensure of course that the overall objectives of the bill can be met. 
I believe that the reforms contained in this bill will help reduce criminal offending increase certainty around penalties given to those who break the law and help address New Zealand’s rising prison population. I commend this bill to the House. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 The National Party rises to make some comments on the Criminal Justice Reform Bill. I will do so slightly differently from the way the Minister Mark Burton did by concentrating firstly on Part 2 of the bill and then moving to Part 1 later in my comments. 
I start by saying that Part 2 does offer some positive contribution to the debate around incarceration rates and reoffending rates as opposed to the crime rate in the first instance. Part 2 represents a backing down on the Government’s Sentencing Act 2002 as it relates to parole and eligibility for parole. The Minister all but acknowledged in his remarks that the eligibility of offenders for parole after serving one-third of their sentence has not worked because it has created massive uncertainty around release dates and the length of time served. Although the National Party told the Government in 2002 that the Sentencing Act would create those problems the Government has now acknowledged that mistake and eligibility for parole will apply after two-thirds of a sentence has been served. That is to be welcomed. 
What is not welcomed by National is the fact that those sentence lengths will be 25 percent shorter on average than they would have been previously. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask the Minister to just wait. The explanatory note of the bill states: “Because the proposed parole changes are predicted to increase the average time served by prisoners from 62% of their sentence to more than 80% sentences imposed by Judges would need to be about 25% shorter on average”. The problem with that logic of course is that that is not what 92 percent of the population voted for in 1999. What they voted for and what the Government said it would deliver on were longer sentences for higher-end offending. That will not be the case if that particular measure is imposed. 
I agree that the sentences of community detention and intensive supervision have merit and I look forward to discussing those issues in more detail on the Justice and Electoral Committee. I think that the Government has its head around that portion of the sentencing problem and I believe that some constructive solutions can be offered there. 
I worry though when the Minister says as I recall him saying that the bill is designed to deal with the issue of crime and the issue of the prison population. This bill is designed to do one of those two things and that is to try to have as few people as possible end up being incarcerated. What the bill does not do—and members should remember that it is part of the Effective Interventions package—is to talk about solutions that will prevent crime from occurring in the first place. So National remains open-minded about parts of Part 2 and very concerned about the shortening of sentences that would come about as a result of that part. That I guess is the olive branch. 
Part 1 concerns me deeply. The introduction of a Sentencing Council really worries me. I understand the argument that the council is designed to bring consistency to the application of sentencing and to codify mitigating factors at sentencing in a way that makes sentencing transparent. But let me just tell the Greens the Maori Party and United Future to beware of a Government bureaucracy that comes between the powers of the executive to legislate and the independence of the judiciary to pass sentences. My great concern is that the Sentencing Council will become the district health board of the justice sector and that what we will hear is the Government simply saying the sentencing process had nothing to do with it and that because the Sentencing Council makes those decisions it is to blame for them. Then the Minister stands in the House and says we should not worry because the council will be directed to assess the cost-effectiveness of its guidelines and to undertake prison population modelling. Well we know how successful that has been. The Ministry of Justice has been unable to do that with any degree of accuracy for the last 4 or 5 years. Yet out of nowhere we are to create a Sentencing Council that will simply be able to do all the things to model and forecast the prison population that the ministry with all its resources has been unable to achieve. 
I worry deeply about the fact that the Sentencing Council will undermine the discretion of the judiciary. This is a move by the executive to shuffle into the judicial discretion an independence that should be guaranteed by the separation of powers. If we wanted to undermine the discretion of the judiciary or more important—perhaps more accurately—if we wanted to limit its discretion in a way that sent a message to the public that we were taking back as a Parliament some of the sentencing options available to the judiciary then we should legislate—we should legislate in this Chamber to narrow that discretion. I say to the Minister that we should not create a separate body and a separate bureaucracy that would act as a buffer between those two crucially separated powers: the judiciary and the executive. This is a big constitutional change and it is not to be undersold in this House today as just a mechanism to ensure that judicial discretion is limited and sentencing guidelines are tightened. This is a fundamental departure from the demarcation this country has had between the judiciary and the Parliament up until now and National remains gravely concerned about the prospects of it. The Minister said a similar system worked in Victoria. My understanding is that such a council has not been adopted federally in Australia and we should be asking in this Parliament why it has not. 
Although I agree that there is some work to do around the prison population—and the Minister of Corrections knows that is my view—and I am open to suggestions around issues of intensive supervision and community detention as part of a new sentencing structure National will not support this bill at its first reading because of Part 1: because of the Sentencing Council and because of the discretion that will be taken away from the judiciary in an effort for the Government—the executive—to separate itself out from sentencing which is always controversial in the public’s mind. But the public made it clear in 1999 what they wanted. This Parliament cannot say to the public that it will solve the problem by putting in place a Sentencing Council and reducing the length of sentences by 25 percent. I say to the Minister that we can argue about the sentencing options but I am not convinced by the proposal for the Sentencing Council. I will sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee myself to hear submissions on that issue but I remain determined that there should be a clear demarcation between the legislative arm in this House and the judiciary and its ability to sentence. National will not condone the creation of a district health board model in the justice sector. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I listened with great interest to Simon Power’s contribution. It would be nice to have the National Party supporting the Criminal Justice Reform Bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee because it is very significant legislation. 
I came into the role of Minister of Corrections at a fortunate time. Prior to that this Government had acknowledged that there were issues right through the justice system that had resulted in an escalation in prison numbers that was not sustainable. The Government had initiated the Effective Interventions programme which was effectively a 12-month review of the justice system from front end to back and what we could do to try to reduce prison numbers over time. We did that not necessarily just because we wanted people out of prisons but the number of people in prisons is an effective measure unfortunately of failure right across our society. The fact that we have to lock people up indicates that we are failing at some point; it might be at parenting at preschool education in training—or wherever. But the number of people we put in prison is a measure of failure within our society. The Government is determined to improve that situation because these figures have not been great. 
We have a strong record of action on law and order and have made many improvements to the system since 1999. New Zealand’s crime rate is now the lowest since 1982 but that runs contrary to the trend in the prison population which drove the need to look carefully at what we have been doing and where we needed to make changes. This legislation is the outcome of that very thorough and considered process. 
New Zealand will still need prisons. For the serious repeat offenders and hardened criminals from whom the public must be protected there is no other option than imprisonment. We maintain that position. But non-custodial sanctions will end up being more productive for many others in our prison system and for this country and will allow us to make smarter use of the resources we have at the back end of the justice system. 
I came into the role facing additional cost to complete our new rebuild programme of prisons and that along with the realisation that we were locking up people at I think the fourth-highest per capita imprisonment rate in the OECD—I say the second-highest in the Western World—is both embarrassing and something that should not be tolerated. This Government will not tolerate it. That is why we have to make some changes through this legislation. 
My colleague the Hon Mark Burton Minister of Justice has outlined some of the key points of the changes that we hope the legislation will make after thorough consideration by the select committee. For example we hope to turn home detention into a sentence in itself. Home detention costs a third of what it costs to imprison someone. Some people have said that home detention is an easy option but it is not. That fact was clearly identified by those who have been on home detention. Yet it results in far greater rehabilitation far lower reoffending rates and a far better outcome for the justice system the corrections system—indeed the whole of society. So we hope the introduction of that initiative along with the new community sentence options will give a greater number of tools to judges when handing down sentences for offenders. The Government is not going to step back from that. People who commit crimes will be caught will be processed and they will have to repay their debt to society for that crime. 
However we must be smarter at working on ways to have that repayment to society made in full and enabling and assisting those offenders to rehabilitate themselves—or habilitate unfortunately in the case of many—and reintegrate themselves into society. At a time when we have the lowest levels of unemployment when we have a desperate need for skilled and semi-skilled workers throughout our entire economy we have locked up over 7500 people most of whom are males who are very capable of contributing usefully to our society. By means of this legislation and other programmes in the corrections system we must boost rehabilitation and reintegration. It is a very very difficult area of the corrections system. 
Internationally neither rehabilitation nor habilitation gives outstanding results but we are a little country and we do not have to copy the trends or indeed the practices of other Western nations. We have the ability to develop practices and programmes that will be truly effective. We have a sad statistic that 50 percent of the prison population are Maori the indigenous people of this country. Many of the influences on those offenders are unique to this country so we must develop our own programmes. The Government has reviewed and assessed programmes within the prison system and found that some of them are not as good as they could be and we have made changes. We will continue to do that. We have introduced workers within the corrections system specifically to help prisoners beyond their sentence to rehabilitate them into their homes into jobs and into society. That work will continue and is part of the ongoing achievements and improvements the Government has made within the corrections system. 
As I said earlier the bill contains a number of provisions. It deals with law changes in the Effective Interventions initiatives. It aims of course to reduce criminal offending and reoffending and increase certainty around the penalties given to convicted offenders. Although I understand the views expressed by the previous speaker about the Sentencing Council I think it is not a bad system to have fairer and more consistent guidelines for penalties that are laid down by judges. I think the member along with most of us would have heard from members of the public up and down this country about their dismay at some of the penalties. 
Simon Power 
: Why don’t we just legislate? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: In fact we have legislation that provides guidelines but its implementation is inconsistent. We hope that through the Sentencing Council we can assist the judges—not dictate to them—by giving them fairer and more consistent guidelines. 
I think most members will welcome the new community-based sentences of community detention and intensive supervision along with home detention. As I said those initiatives will give judges a larger tool box in trying to ensure that those people whom they convict of offences are able to turn their lives around and be reintegrated into society as useful and productive members. The community detention and intensive supervision provisions and the provisions that allow judges to review programmes that these offenders will undertake while on parole will provide a higher level of confidence in those community sentences as laid down. 
One of the frustrations has been that through changes made for good intent the community sentencing system has not offered confidence to judges has increased frustration with probation officers and has undermined the value of community sentencing right throughout society. We hope the adjustments we are making through this legislation which I think will be widely supported by all members of the House will result in fewer people going to prison because anyone who goes into prison is three times more likely to go back into prison. Whether it be home detention or community sentencing or intensive supervision along with community work if we can keep people out of prison secure the public and ensure the penalty is repaid to society then over time we hope to reduce the prison population in this country. It is embarrassing and it is expensive that we lock up at the second-highest rate in the Western World. As a country that is made up of very small communities where most of us are related to one another or know one another we can make a greater effort in this particularly difficult area of Government and societal responsibility. 
As Minister of Corrections I welcome this bill into the House. I welcome the support and consideration for it through the select committee process. I trust we will have positive outcomes from its passage. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I am disappointed the member chose to give a waffly generalised speech rather than a first reading speech that addressed the very real concerns that National has about this legislation and particularly Part 1. I am going to concentrate on Part 1 and elaborate on some of the concerns that Mr Power has expressed. 
Sentencing councils as the Minister said have been established in a number of jurisdictions over the years. The Minister mentioned Victoria and England and Wales. They have also been established in Scotland New South Wales and a number of American states. In its report  
Sentencing Guidelines and Parole Reform 
 the Law Commission has recommended the establishment of a Sentencing Council and the Government has agreed that such a council should be established in New Zealand hence this legislation the Criminal Justice Reform Bill. Although I respect the work of the Law Commission and think it has done some great work this year I believe that on this occasion what it has proposed will not work and is constitutionally unacceptable as it will undermine the independence of the judiciary. 
My first concern is that this bill establishes a non-elected body to oversee a very significant aspect of the criminal justice system that has always been the province of the judiciary. The constitution of this body is unacceptable and I refer members to clause 11 which provides for the appointment of one judge from the Court of Appeal one judge from the High Court two judges from the District Court the chairperson of the Parole Board and five members who are not judges. These lay persons will be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of this House. One of the lay persons is to be the chairperson and one of the judges will be the deputy. 
Who will be the lay people who are appointed to this council? The Minister said the system works in Victoria. I strongly suggest that he speaks to the Victorian Attorney-General Mr Hulls on the problems he had in 2004 when he announced appointments to that state’s independent Sentencing Advisory Council. It was his bid to placate an angry public over apparently lenient sentencing laws that were said to fall short of what was needed. Mr Hulls announced that the new members would include victims of crime police youth women people with disabilities the mentally ill indigenous peoples and the legal sector. The Crime Victims Support Association was so angered by what it called a lack of victims on the list that its members held a protest at the Victorian Parliament to express their views. Their president said that no new member of the council would qualify for the status of a victim and it did not seem right to have an independent committee of this sort that did not have a victims’ representative. 
I have no doubt at all that similar issues will arise in New Zealand if a Sentencing Council comes into existence. For example the Sensible Sentencing Trust people will be asking for a representative on the council as will numerous victims’ rights organisations and the sorts of groups who are appointed by the Victorian Attorney-General. I also think it is unsatisfactory for the chairperson to be a lay person. 
The proposed body is to prepare public guidelines which will be published as set out in clause 14. It may then consult on those guidelines “with any person or body by any appropriate means.” There are numerous consultation regimes in statutes these days. There has been an explosion in consultation procedures since the 1980s and they are now an established part of the business of government. The consultation requirements inserted for example into the Local Government Act in 2002 have been a disaster creating an avalanche of paperwork that entombs local authorities and their staff. I believe there will be similar problems with consultation by any Sentencing Council—it will end up consulting those who make the loudest noise. I cannot see how consultation of the kind proposed is going to result in rational decision-making. 
Then there is the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of these guidelines. I think that will just give some politicians an opportunity to grandstand. Politicians rarely notice the judiciary except when it is convenient to criticise a judge for a decision that he or she may have made. This is nowhere more apparent than in the criminal law area. Once the guidelines are tabled in Parliament one can expect that certain MPs will jump at the opportunity to say that the guidelines are too soft the guidelines are too hard or whatever. 
In this extremely sensitive area of the criminal law this Government is proposing to establish a council half of whose members are to be politically appointed. This Government has an unfortunate record of appointing cronies to various bodies and one can expect that this sort of cronyism is going to continue if this council is established. It is objectionable in principle particularly as it seeks to usurp a significant aspect of the criminal justice system that is properly the responsibility of the judiciary. 
My second objection to this legislation is that the Sentencing Council is not needed. The Sentencing Act 2002 was comprehensive legislation that provided guidance to judges on the factors they ought to consider when sentencing. What was established was both flexible and permitted the exercise of judicial discretion in individual cases. Lower court judges also receive guidance from the Court of Appeal which on a regular basis gives judgments in areas of the criminal law that are often referred to as guideline judgments. More than that following the passage of that legislation we now have the abolition of the right to appeal to the Privy Council and the creation of a Supreme Court which will mean that many more criminal cases will be taken on appeal to the Supreme Court and that is happening now. The Supreme Court will thus have a major role to play in the development of guidelines for sentencing. 
So what has been evolving in this country is a system that permits sentencing judges to have a degree of discretion but allows the superior courts to provide guidance from time to time. I cannot see how the publication of rigid guidelines developed by this kind of body will improve the present situation. It has to be emphasised that judicial discretion in determining a sentence is central to dealing with offenders in a criminal justice system. The legislation will set out the maximum penalty for a defence then it is over to the judge who sentences the offender to determine the sentence that is most suited to the seriousness of the offence and to the individual circumstances of the offender. It is well established that discretion is a useful tool to mitigate the rigidity and the inflexibility of legal rules and it enables judicial officers to particularise their responses to particular circumstances. 
A sentencing judge has to take into account a wide variety of matters that concern the seriousness of the offence for which the offender stands to be sentenced and the personal circumstances of the offender. From all those elements the sentencing judge distils an answer that reflects human behaviour in the time or monetary unit of punishment. Yet this proposal will undermine judicial discretion. What really concerns me about Part 1 is the way sentencing guidelines will affect the independence of the courts. This committee will be more important in the sentencing process than the Supreme Court and that is wrong. 
My final point arising out of what the Minister said about his discussions with members of the Sentencing Council in England is that guidelines have not really worked in England and a recent case illustrates this point. These guidelines have resulted in increased concern or bewilderment on the part of the public at the sentencing process and a diminution of public confidence. I refer to the example of a person called Craig Sweeney in England who abducted and sexually abused a girl aged 3. He was sentenced to life with the judge giving him a lengthy sentence but will be eligible to be considered for parole in 5 years. Judges in England used to follow guidelines produced by the Court of Appeal but this was changed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. 
The Sentencing Guidelines Council produced recommendations to encourage consistency in sentencing and one of those guidelines meant that Sweeney’s sentence was reduced by one-third because of an early confession of guilt despite his being caught red-handed. The Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith has decided not to challenge the sentence because he has concluded that it is not unduly lenient. The mother of the abused child said she was gut-wrenchingly sick at the decision and as Lord Falconer said about this case confidence in the judiciary had been undermined and judges should not be whipping boys for a flawed system. He said there needs to be a very urgent look at the automatic discounts given on jail terms as a reward for guilty pleas. 
There is a real problem in England there is a problem with the sentencing guidelines it is very much the subject of public discussion and debate and the short point is that the sentencing guidelines in England are not working. The case I have described was entirely the result of the Government’s own Criminal Justice Act and the sentencing guidelines. The judge followed them to the letter and the result was an almighty mess. So Part 1 raises some very serious questions that were not touched on at all by the previous speaker and they will need to be addressed by the select committee. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I want to talk today about the courage of a 13-year-old boy from Moerewa Phillip “Piripi” Tautari. Members should remember the name because all the marks of leadership are etched upon his signature. Piripi attends Moerewa School describing himself as “a very reliable person to this community as a fire cadet and an asset to my other friends within my class in the way of life skills.” But 2 weeks ago that young boy became another mugshot protégé as a photographer snapped him in a shot to accompany an article about the kidnapped Dutch tourists. As Piripi later reflected: “I am very upset to see myself pictured in the newspaper clipping as I felt that I was part of the criminal offenders.” 
But the taking of offence did not stop just with Piripi. Letters flooded in from 150 schoolchildren in defence not only of the model student but also of Moerewa. The letters all protested that in associating a shot of Piripi with a story about the brutal abduction and robbery of two tourists a perception was being created that served to cast that young Maori boy as part of the crime scene. And Moerewa was not having it. Its people articulated their outrage at the careless and irresponsible use of the media to project a false image of the boy and the town. 
The actions of Piripi and his mates is an example of the sort of everyday revolution that inspires hope. The hope is what we must all think of when we consider the measures being introduced in the Criminal Justice Reform Bill to arrest the sharp increase in the prison population. The Maori Party has said loudly and often that achieving reduced prison numbers needs a system-wide commitment not just an approach that merely tinkers with the management of penal resources. Just as Piripi his mates his principal and the community stood up to be counted so too do all New Zealanders need to become involved in an overhaul of the incarceration rates to stand up to injustice and to demand better. 
A key initiative in this bill is to give effect to the Law Commission’s recommendations to establish a Sentencing Council. The council will issue guidelines on sentencing principles levels and types and on the granting of parole. Sentencing councils or commissions have been established in England Wales Scotland Victoria New South Wales and over 20 United States states. 
At a very minimum we would expect that whanau hapu and iwi must be consulted by the council when establishing sentencing guidelines. Surely we must all be looking at indigenous alternatives for meaningful solutions to these enduring problems. An initiative that this Parliament could be investigating as part of the consideration of this bill is that of circle sentencing or circle courts. Circle sentencing arose from a decision of the Supreme Court of Yukon in the case of  
R v Moses  
in 1992. The presiding judge Judge Stuart was of the opinion that significant institutional change could be achieved by increasing meaningful community involvement before during and after sentencing took place. Accordingly he consulted the local Indian community and developed the concept of circle courts. Circle courts were known to First Nation Canadian peoples in more traditional settings but have recently been applied in urban settings. 
Over in Nowra in New South Wales the Aboriginal Justice Advisory Council’s circle sentencing pilot has been established from the local courthouse and directly involves local Aboriginal communities in the sentencing process. In essence it means that the sentencing court is taken to a community where Aboriginal community members and the magistrate sit in a circle to discuss both the offence and the offender. Interestingly this is the same concept that the Moerewa primary school uses. It is called a talking circle and when children make anyone feel sad or hurt they are called to account in the talking circle. Circle sentencing involves the victims of offences as well as the families of offenders and other respected people within the community. 
I come to this bill able to speak with absolute confidence from the basis of my experience within similar initiatives put forward from tangata whenua. In the mid-1970s we established a restorative justice neighbourhood court in Te Atatu west Auckland. This form of marae justice began as an independent unfunded model with schools and the community in general bringing their complaints of criminal or antisocial activity to be deliberated upon. It proved to be so successful in settling disputes and in providing for some form of reparation or restitution that the police and later the Waitakere District Court began to refer incidents and crimes to the neighbourhood court to be dealt with by us. The project was extremely successful because perpetrators appeared before a court made up of people from their own community. Expressions of guilt sorrow remorse anger and love were key features that ensured the success of the programme which had a recidivism rate of almost nil. 
That neighbourhood court and sentencing programme was later used by the local District Court judge of the time Judge Michael Brown—Mick Brown—to create the family conferencing programme for New Zealand children’s courts that is in operation now. In turn the elements of the conferencing programme were introduced to Australian children’s courts. In 2003 the BBC was so interested in the work we were doing in Tamaki-makau-rau that it filmed a documentary for its  
Foreign Correspondent 
 programme that aired in Britain and Australia. 
This marae justice is about real life not just crime. The focus is on restoring mana to the group to the whanau and healing the offender as well as considerations of restitution. 
One of the great mysteries to me then is how come we know that great initiatives are occurring in Australia and in Canada and that people from Britain are coming here to learn about our indigenous justice initiatives yet in Aotearoa in this bill there is not even a mention of them. The intent behind this bill relies on full and active community involvement. The introduction of three new non-custodial sentence options for less serious offenders including home detention and the two new community-based sentences of community detention and intensive supervision places far greater emphasis on the involvement and support of the community. Similarly the amendments to the Bail Act so that offenders are not unnecessarily remanded in custody rather than being released on bail demand a greater responsiveness on behalf of the community. 
Yet bizarre twists of policy change are included in this bill that seem to achieve the opposite effect. The Parole Act 2002 is amended in clause 120 which raises the non-parole period for a long-term sentence from one-third to two-thirds of the sentence’s length. Clause 121 shifts the release date for short-term sentences from the date marking half the length of the sentence to the expiry date of the sentence. In effect that means there is no longer any eligibility for parole. So here we have in the midst of a bill purportedly designed to reduce projected growth in the prison population moves to make people sentenced to short or moderate-term lags end up in prison for longer than before. 
The Maori Party will support the Criminal Justice Reform Bill at its first reading because we are passionately committed towards supporting moves to reduce prison incarceration rates. But all the tinkering and technicalities will result in more of the same. We must be prepared to learn from the example of Piripi Tautari and look at the bigger picture—the image from afar. We must apply our best thinking to stand like Piripi and say that this is not the prison profile we want for our nation. We can do something about it. We need to look through another lens. Sentencing circles restorative justice and involvement of whanau hapu and iwi may all provide some help for the solutions we seek. But at the end of the day I cannot help feeling that until the Government seriously tackles the big question—that is how to reduce the amount of crime committed in our society—our prisons will continue to be disproportionately full of offenders. Thank you. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 New Zealand has one of the highest rates of imprisonment in the world. I am profoundly ashamed of that fact and have been since I have known it. I think that fact causes embarrassment to just about every New Zealander who hears it. But the fact itself is not a surprise really because since I have been in Parliament I have seen almost all the other parties—the Labour Party the National Party ACT New Zealand First and United Future—competing to be the most punitive party on crime. I remember many of the debates on justice and law and order in this House were truly odious in terms of the way they were conducted. Some members seemed to relish wading into the tragic details of horrible crimes although I accept that many of those members are no longer with us. Nevertheless that is the backdrop to the various justice and sentencing changes we have seen over the last few years. 
So I am really happy to see a bill finally that focuses on reducing crime rather than on simply locking people up. It recognises that a sharply increasing prison population is actually a symptom of failure rather than a symptom of success which was the mentality here for so long. I am particularly pleased of course with the stance taken by the Maori Party and with the comments it has made since it has been represented in this House in terms of promoting some of the same things that the Green Party has been promoting around restorative justice Maori justice processes and the like. I note the indication we have had that legislation around restorative justice may be under way and I will be very pleased indeed to see that come before the House. 
I agree with Mr Power that this bill does not address the real issue which is crime prevention. Although that has to be our focus I also accept that it is a matter for another bill and that a Criminal Justice Reform Bill is not the place to address issues such as that. So I look forward to seeing initiatives on crime prevention come before the House as well as this bill. 
In relation to this bill specifically I am pleased to see some of the clauses in Part 2 that relate to non-custodial sentences. I was very supportive of the approach taken in some of the provisions in the Sentencing Act 2002 where there is a clear presumption that a sentence should be the least restrictive sentence that is commensurate with public safety and where there is a preference for reparation and fines rather than custodial sentences. I supported that. I think there have been some real difficulties in terms of how the Sentencing Act has actually been put into practice in the courts and some of the things in this bill will help to tidy that up. 
In particular the provision to introduce home detention as a sentence in its own right is incredibly sensible and deserves support. We know that some of the advantages of home detention include low rates of reconviction and reimprisonment high rates of compliance and positive support for offenders’ reintegration and rehabilitation. Those are crucial matters when it comes to reducing crime particularly recidivist crime. I think that the making of the stand-alone sentence of home detention provides clarity and makes it more efficient. It has just been crazy that a judge has been able to say an offender is eligible to apply for home detention yet then the case goes off to another body to decide whether that will happen. It makes sense that a judge should be able to use home detention as a sentence in its own right and I think that will lead to better decision-making. 
The bill also introduces a couple of reforms around community-based sentences in relation to more intensive supervision and community detention. Community detention involves an electronically monitored curfew. The explanatory note of the bill says this is suitable particularly for offenders whose offending has a specific pattern or tends to occur at particular times. This reform is somewhat contentious. The introduction and extension of electronic monitoring is something we need to view with some caution because when this monitoring was introduced we were told it would be only for very serious sexual offenders in terms of extended supervision and the like. Although it is a contentious provision nevertheless there are real and obvious advantages in extending the use of non-custodial sentences in ways where the safety of the public can be better assured such as through electronic monitoring. So I think it is something to be supported although as I say there are mixed views on that. Then there is the higher level of restriction that can come through intensive supervision. The reforms to community-based sentencing also include a greater emphasis on the acquisition of basic work and life skills. That is obviously vital and has been needed for some time. 
One of the things I am unhappy about is that the bill comprises only three parts. Increasingly we have seen a tendency by Governments to aggregate clauses into fewer and fewer parts simply as a way of shortening the Committee stage debates. Those debates tend to be part by part now and in Part 2 a whole bunch of stuff has been put together that could for the purpose of debate quite usefully have been separated into more parts. One example is the reforms to the Parole Act of 2002. I want to be clear: I do not believe in truth in sentencing. The phrase is a cliché that has been used to try to attack what I think is an important part of the criminal justice system which is parole. Parole actually has enormous and proven benefits in terms of reducing reoffending and I think we get rid of that to our danger. It also clearly has benefits in terms of behaviour control in our institutions. 
The other point—which to me is a point of principle—is the issue of why we keep people in prison if they are not a risk to the community. One of the reasons I strongly supported the Parole Act 2002 was that whereas previously people had been automatically released at one-half of their sentence now they can be kept in prison for the whole of their sentence or released at one-third of their sentence with the deciding factor being the risk to the community. To my mind no consideration other than risk to the community should determine whether a person stays in prison. That has to be the most important thing. Prison is really about keeping people out of circulation because of the risk they present to the community. If they do not present such a threat why keep them in prison? 
One miscellaneous matter I have noticed is the extension of the sunset provision in the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act of 2005. That provision concerns me because it has been sneaked into the bill and is not actually in line with any of the other reforms. Members should take notice of that. 
The last thing I will touch on is the issue of the Sentencing Council which I have real concerns about. I agree with Mr Power that it should be looked at with great caution because it is a significant change. Sentencing is already subject to parliamentary influence through legislation that sets maximum and minimum sentences but the Sentencing Council would appear to have far more direct power without the same parliamentary accountability and that is an issue. Nevertheless I recognise the arguments about inconsistency in sentencing particularly around minor offences. It is a question of whether we prize judicial discretion more than consistency. In particular with regard to the inconsistency around sentencing for minor offences I would very much like to see a breakdown along ethnic gender and class lines. I would not be at all surprised to see a correlation between those and that inconsistency because we know that Maori are treated disproportionately heavily throughout the criminal justice system. It is the same with young males and poor people. I think that analysis is worth bringing to that debate. 
Although as I said the Sentencing Council needs to be looked at with caution I think there are arguments to support it. I look forward to receiving submissions in the Justice and Electoral Committee. The Green Party will vote for this bill to go to the select committee but we remain cautious around that particular proposal. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 In speaking on this Criminal Justice Reform Bill it is useful I think to start with some introductory background. In New Zealand as has already been highlighted we really do have some appalling crime statistics. The latest statistics published by the New Zealand Police show that over the past 12 months total crime has increased by 6.9 percent—nearly 7 percent—contradicting previous claims from the Government that crime figures are actually falling. Violent crime has continued to trend upwards since this Government came to power. Since the 1999-2000 year violent crime has risen by 26 percent from 40090 offences to 50644 offences. Grievous assaults are up by 54 percent and serious assaults are up by 30 percent and I do not think that that represents in anyone’s mind a decline. 
There is an alarming increase in the intensity of violence across the community. We have had a sharp increase across a range of crimes in the past year alone. Violent crime is up by 10.2 percent. Grievous assaults are up by 19 percent. Homicides are up by 31 percent. Kidnapping and abduction are up by 46 percent. Intimidation and threats are up by 14 percent. Robbery is up by 20 percent. Sexual assault is up by 13 percent. Sex crimes are up by 8.2 percent. Dishonesty offences are up by 7.8 percent. Car conversions are up by 17 percent. House burglaries are up by 11 percent. Receiving stolen goods offences are up by 33 percent. Drug offences and antisocial offences are up by 6.3 percent. Busts for new drugs—methamphetamine—are up by 50 percent. Property damage is up by 15 percent. In all those figures I do not see one decline whatsoever. I have to say that these figures are a serious indictment on the crime prevention strategies of this Government. Its promises to reduce crime are simply not backed up by action. 
This issue is about crimes against people and the Government is failing to deliver safer communities. So what does the Government do to get on top of the crime problem? It introduces this Criminal Justice Reform Bill which is designed to stop the increase in prison population but it does absolutely nothing to prevent crime from occurring in the first place. As Dr Sharples has already mentioned the big question that has to be answered and that needs to be addressed—and that has not been addressed—is how to reduce crime in the first place. 
The bill creates a new Sentencing Council and my colleagues Mr Power and Mr Finlayson have already adequately and more than adequately covered this matter. The council itself has some laudable objectives. One is to produce guidelines relating to sentencing levels sentencing principles types of sentences and sentencing practice. The second is to produce guidelines regarding parole. The third objective is to produce guidelines in relation to the prison muster. It also assesses the cost-effectiveness of the guidelines—presumably the fiscal cost of the guidelines rather than the important cost to the community of the crime in the first place. The council is also to give advice collate information provide information plus any other functions incidental to and related to any of the above. 
The National Party’s concern which has already been mentioned is that this can very easily transform itself into the “Scapegoat Council”. This council can be given the blame for any criticisms whatsoever on sentencing. The rationale will be that it is not the Government’s policies that are at fault; it is the council’s policies. The council can take the blame for the Government’s lack of policies in relation to the reduction of crime. The priority must be to prevent the crime in the first place not to put a bureaucratic council in place to act as a scapegoat to act as a political tool and to hide the failure of Government policies that are not addressing the problem of the increasing rate of crime. 
The bill is about reducing prison populations. It is not about reducing crime. And how exactly does it reduce those prison populations? Well it appears that it reduces the prison populations by letting people out of jail. Part 2 of the bill amends several Acts—the Bail Act the Sentencing Act the Parole Act and the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act. It has been mentioned that it introduces home detention as a sentence in its own right rather than as merely a way of serving a sentence of imprisonment as under the existing legislation. It introduces a new sentence of community detention and intensive supervision. These are hardly sentences illustrating any policy of being tough on crime. 
Under the bill a court may sentence an offender to either intensive supervision or community detention if the offender is convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment an offence under an Act providing for a sentence of home detention or an offence under an Act providing for a community-based sentence. In other words it is an either/or situation. So any offence punishable by imprisonment can be—so-called—punished by intensive supervision or by community detention sentences. 
We have to ask what message this sends back to the members of our community about how highly we regard their safety. We do know that historically community-based sentences have been a failure. For example in the 2005-06 year 28 percent of offenders breached community work orders—up from 23 percent in the previous year 2004-05. 
The bill also amends the Parole Act. Currently those offenders sentenced to under 2 years’ imprisonment are automatically released after half that time. Those with sentences of 2 years’ imprisonment or more will be eligible for parole after one-third. Under this bill those offenders with sentences of 2 years’ imprisonment or more who are eligible for parole will be eligible at two-thirds of their sentence. But as the Law Commission pointed out sentences would have to be about 25 percent shorter after the parole changes if the length of time served was to be the same and the size of the prison population unaffected. In other words what is tougher about that? 
The public have asked for truth in sentencing. People do not want to be hoodwinked into thinking that there is any truth in sentencing when a 25 percent reduction on average would not necessarily mean a reduction in the actual punishment as the amount of time being served by the prisoner might be exactly the same. The net result is still the same—100 percent of nothing is still nothing. 
We have an increasing prison population. We are building at exorbitant costs more prisons. But softening the sentences is not the right or the safe way to reduce the number of prisoners. The safety of our law-abiding citizens is paramount and should not be endangered because this Government has run out of ideas and thinks that the best way to be tough on crime is to reduce by whatever means the prison population. The best way to be tough on crime is to reduce crime in the first place. This bill does not address that matter. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to have the House lift and for me to resume my speech when the House resumes at 7.30. I see that there is less than half a minute on the clock and it would seem rather pointless to start a speech at this point in time. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Sitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to the Criminal Justice Reform Bill on behalf of New Zealand First I want to say that this bill is a bit of a mixed bag for us in New Zealand First—something of a pot-pourri. I say that because there are aspects of this bill on which we have been involved in extensive discussions with the Government and which we see as being a definite improvement on the justice system as it currently is. I have to say that this bill is a final admission that the reforms passed by this House in 2002 under the Sentencing Act which were championed by Phil Goff as being the answer to the problems in law and order and the justice system that have beset our nation were wrong or that those reforms overlooked some of the criticisms that were levelled at the Government at the time they were passed. In fact the Government chose on occasion to demean and belittle commentary made by Opposition MPs at that time. This bill is final proof that some of those changes in the Sentencing Act were ill-advised. 
I have to say that it has been quite interesting talking to some of the people who have been involved in the discussions behind the scenes. One of the questions I did ask in those discussions was: “So who advised the Government of these changes in the first instance and are they still working for the department?” because quite frankly changes and reforms that actually reduced the amount of time that an inmate or a person convicted of an offence and given a jail sentence would serve—changes that saw jail sentences reduced by two-thirds—were clearly wrong. We know it was clearly wrong because this bill seeks to change that. 
Unlike Nandor Tanczos who says that he does not believe in truth in sentencing New Zealand First says that although we initially opposed some of the thoughts on the concept of truth in sentencing we have come to the point of view that it is the most honest means of delivering justice. For too long citizens of this country have stared open-mouthed and gaped with absolute incredulity at the notion that a person sentenced to 3 years’ jail would be out on the street in a year or less than a year. We applaud the fact that home detention is about to see its closing days in the form under which it has been operating. We applaud the fact that back-end home detention will go. We applaud the fact that the nonsense known as deferred sentencing will go. 
We accept—and still reserve the right to pass judgment again once we have seen the system operating—that home detention has a place. It is good to see that home detention will become a sentence in its own right. We see that as smart. The concept that the person or body of people who makes the decision as to whether a convict should be given home detention some months after that person had been sentenced should not include the sentencing or presiding judge was a nonsense from day one and it remains a nonsense today. That proposal I think was introduced by a National Government although National does not want to seem to accept or stand up and recognise the errors of its ways. The sooner this bill can put paid to that nonsensical situation the better for all concerned. We are comfortable and happy that under this proposal the presiding judge who hears the case who sees the evidence who hears the witnesses and determines the sentence shall be the person who will decide whether at that point a person is deserving of home detention how long that will be and what conditions will be imposed upon that person. Far better that it be that judge than a body of people in a different venue with different authorities different powers and no understanding really other than what those people read on a piece of paper about the case and the impact that it had on the victims. 
There is much debate about short sentences and about how ineffective they are. Well New Zealand First does not disagree with that but we would propose something different. We say to the House that rather than doing away with short sentences maybe in the select committee stage we should be talking about minimum sentences of 1 year. We proffer that thought because one of the greatest reasons we can see as to why short sentences are not working is that within that short undefined unknown period of time it is impossible—and I say it again it is impossible—to put that inmate on a structured treatment programme with any certainty. If one has a person who is in jail because of an alcohol-induced crime of violence and one wants to truly address his or her past recidivism and criminogenic needs—the fancy psychobabble term they use these days—one needs a specified period of time over which one can complete conduct and carry out a specified training course or package of training courses or treatment courses to deal with those. It is hopeless for the Department of Corrections to be expected to put together a rehabilitation plan for an inmate who has been given a 12-month sentence only to find out that the person is actually going to be released at the 6-month mark. It is absolutely impossible. Therein fundamentally lies the reason that many of the issues that beset a particular inmate are never addressed—and then we wonder why the inmate is back again. 
I have to say something about the explanatory note of this bill before I run out of time. We do not agree with the introduction. We do not agree with the background notes to this bill. Fundamentally we do not agree because the approach in this bill has been wrong from day one. The explanatory note states: “The purpose of the Bill is to introduce a range of measures to arrest the sharp increase in the prison population in recent years. This increase is no longer sustainable neither financially nor socially.” What drivel. That is a politically correct approach to a problem that this Government finds embarrassing. Let me make it clear. New Zealand First does not have a problem with the large number of people in jail. What we have a problem with is the absolute ineffectiveness of the rehabilitation programmes and plans which results in people going back to jail. We put on the record here and now that the discussion should not have been about effective intervention. That is a recipe for a disaster for a start. We will be back here debating whether the effective interventions were effective 1 or 2 years from now when we note again that violent crime is still on the increase. 
What all this should have been about was effective rehabilitation. I will say that again. The focus should not have been on effective interventions. I am astounded that the Greens bought into this as well and I actually have a sneaking suspicion that they do not. We should have been focusing on effective rehabilitation. Effective interventions is not about passing laws to stop more people being put in jail. Effective rehabilitation and thereby intervention is about putting in place programmes—alcohol addiction programmes drug addiction programmes—designed to counter those issues that are effective in rehabilitating the inmate. The fact is that 85 percent of the people who are released from jail are back in jail in 5 years. A knee-jerk reaction that we are embarrassed that we are sitting at the wrong end of the OECD levels with the number of New Zealanders incarcerated should not be the driving motive for this legislation. It is wrong silly and fundamentally flawed and is doomed actually to failure. 
But there are things in this bill that we support. As I have a minute remaining I have a brief word to say on the Sentencing Council. How ironic that the National Party should stand against what the Government is proposing here! The Sentencing Council is to be made up of a panel of five judges—former lawyers the very people whom Chris Finlayson objects to being interdicted in the justice process. The big issue that has to be dealt with from one end of this country to the other when it comes to sentencing is consistency and—I am sorry—public acceptance of the sentences. There have been too many cases in this country where the public has been angered and upset by what they see as inappropriate and inconsistent sentences. New Zealand First does not have a problem with the Sentencing Council but we will take this to the select committee and we hope that it will be debated there. We hope to see whether the evidence is there to support it but at this stage I am comfortable with the notion that five esteemed judges should sit on that council. We support the bill going to the select committee and we will deal with the rest from there. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Criminal Justice Reform Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have a bit of an impasse here. We have a Minister in the House who does not seem to be aware of what is supposed to happen. With that surely the vote goes back to the status quo. Nobody is here to move that that bill go to a particular select committee. I think that is an absolute shock. It is shameful that nobody is here to do his or her job properly considering a Minister gets $200000 or $300000 a year as a ministerial salary. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move that the Criminal Justice Reform Bill now be read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How can the bill be read a first time when we have just finished reading it a first time? That was the motion. The motion on the floor was to read it for the first time and then there needs to be a motion to send it to the select committee. I am not sure where the Minister has been but we have just finished the first reading and now he should get up and move that it be sent to the appropriate select committee. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite correct. Is the Minister moving a motion? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Criminal Justice Reform Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
referred to Justice and Electoral Committee 
Motion agreed to. 
Maori Purposes Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Purposes Bill be now read a second time 
. The Maori Purposes Bill is an omnibus bill bringing together amendments to several Acts affecting Maori. The bill includes amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. 
There were 20 submissions on the Maori Purposes Bill and I want to thank all those who put their time and thought into commenting on the bill’s provisions. I would also like to thank the Maori Affairs Committee for its careful scrutiny of the bill. The committee has made some useful suggestions that have improved the bill and clarified some of its provisions. 
Part 1 includes a range of amendments to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. Significant settlements have been achieved in recent years between the Crown and Maori. These have contributed to an asset base that provides real opportunities for sustainable Maori economic development and for the New Zealand economy as a whole. One of the ways the Government can support this potential is to provide an effective and responsive legal framework and infrastructure. Recent legislation such as the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 and the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 has extended the Maori Land Court’s jurisdiction. Part 1 ensures that the Maori Land Court will be able to respond effectively to this new environment. 
The bill increases the statutory cap on the number of permanent judges who can be appointed to the court from eight to 14. This will enable more judges to be appointed if and when they are needed. The bill gives the court more flexibility to balance the workloads of the Chief Judge and the Deputy Chief Judge. This will help the court to deal efficiently with the range of matters referred to it. The Chief Judge will have the express ability to delegate some or all of these functions to the Deputy Chief Judge. The Deputy Chief Judge is also given the ability to exercise the special powers of correction set out in sections 44 to 49 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 subject to the direction of the Chief Judge. 
Part 1 also validates certain judicial decisions. The Chief Judge’s special powers of correction have for many years been delegated to the Deputy Chief Judge. Concerns have arisen that this may not have been valid under the Act’s current provisions. In addition in November 2000 a former acting judge sat beyond the term of his temporary warrant. The bill validates those judicial actions to provide certainty and minimise disruption to the parties affected. Those individuals and whanau will have acted on the decisions in good faith. In all cases the actions concerned were taken by highly experienced judges. 
The bill also clarifies the powers of the Maori Land Court to hear and determine disputes referred under the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. The effect of the changes in Part 1 will be to help to ensure that Maori asset owners continue to have an effective forum and processes for dispute resolution. 
Part 2 amends the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. The main change is to introduce the statutory closing date of 1 September 2008 for submitting new historical claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. Many of the 20 submissions made to the Maori Affairs Committee were about Part 2. This reflects the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi to Maori and all New Zealanders. One of the Labour Party’s election pledges was to introduce a closing date of 1 September 2008 for all historical Treaty claims. This bill delivers on that undertaking. 
Since the announcement of the policy in 2005 there has been a great deal of discussion about what a closing date will mean. The date will help to provide greater certainty about the number of historical claims that have yet to be inquired into by the tribunal. I look forward to greater emphasis on the settlement of claims and on the future that can be built on these settlements. We have seen many examples already of iwi using their settlement assets to invest in their children. Iwi are also rebuilding their governance structures and taking part in a whole range of commercial ventures. 
Claimants will not have to complete all their research or finalise all aspects of their claim by 1 September 2008. As long as a claim is submitted on or before that date it can be amended later. The Government intends to provide information to make Maori aware of the closing date for the submission of historical claims. 
 Contemporary claims will still be able to be submitted to the Waitangi Tribunal after 1 September 2008. Contemporary claims relate to events occurring after 21 September 1992. This date of 21 September 1992 is when the Cabinet of the day agreed to principles for settling historical Treaty claims. It has been used to define the difference between historical and contemporary claims in all Treaty settlements of the past 14 years. 
A closing date for the submission of historical claims will provide greater clarity about the historical claims yet to be addressed. This bill will help to move us forward so that Maori and all of New Zealand can enjoy the benefits of settlement. 
Part 3 makes a number of technical amendments to the Maori Fisheries Act 2004. These address some oversights in the original legislation in its interaction with the Fisheries Act 1996. The bill amends the list of quota shares held by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd to reflect changes that have already occurred as a result of the exercise of preferential allocation rights under section 23 of the Fisheries Act 1996. Section 23 triggers the redemption of preferential allocation rights when a total allowable catch limit is raised for certain stocks. The bill clarifies the proper course of action for Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd to follow in allocating quota shares affected by these redemptions. 
Part 3 also corrects an oversight in drafting that omitted to provide a complete process for allocation of harbour quota in accordance with the agreed allocation model. As a result of consideration by the Maori Affairs Committee it has recommended that three additional matters be dealt with in the bill. Further amendments to the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 have been added to the bill to correct an error in the classification of red crab stocks and to allow for the effects of changes to quota management areas on the quota shares held by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd. A provision has also been added to validate the actions of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd in allocating quota based on its actual holdings rather than those holdings currently listed in schedule 1 to the Act during the period until this bill is passed into law. These amendments will assist in the transfer of fisheries settlement assets to iwi in a timely manner. Consistent with the original intentions of the legislation they will reduce the risk of costly disputes. 
Part 4 makes a technical amendment to the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. It corrects an error in the current wording of the definition of pre-commencement space in the Act in a way that is consistent with the understanding of the stakeholders at the time. This does not affect the Government’s commitment to provide the equivalent of 20 percent of aquaculture space that was promised to iwi under the fisheries deed of settlement. 
In conclusion the Maori Purposes Bill is practical legislation that makes amendments to legislation affecting Maori and their assets. The amendments in the bill will help the Maori Land Court to function efficiently promote greater certainty and a forward focus in the settlement process and help to ensure that the distribution of fisheries and aquaculture settlement assets to iwi is able to proceed smoothly. Maori are fast becoming increasingly important contributors to the New Zealand economy. With Maori managing and leading the growth of their assets and people the benefits will be felt not only by Maori but by New Zealand as a whole. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Let us cut to the chase. Labour members love to talk about how much mana the Treaty of Waitangi has. Let us take just that part of the bill first. If the Treaty had the mana the Minister speaks of then the bill would be just about the Treaty. It would stand alone as an amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and place the Treaty in its proper place. That is the first point. The second point is that National actually agrees with the Minister and Labour about a close-off date. It is not to say to Maoridom that they cannot put in any more claims; it means basically that they have until 1 September 2008 to get with it and make claims. It does not mean that a claim cannot be put in; a claim can be put in that basically says on one piece of paper: “We on behalf of such and such a hapu such and such an iwi submit a claim over the following pieces of land.” or whatever. 
During the claim’s lifetime and during the research the claim can be amended as long as it has been submitted by 1 September 2008. So I would not say that this bill is throwing a spanner in the works of the whole claims process. I actually think that firstly it will speed up the process; secondly it will make the process more interesting; and thirdly hopefully by getting claims in on time by 1 September they will also be worked out earlier. There will be a concertina of the submission of a claim the research of the claim and finally if one is lucky getting whoever is in Government to come to the party in terms of some sort of arrangement such as we have seen in the past. 
The National Party does not have a problem with the amendments to the Maori Fisheries Act. In fact they are a seamless way of tidying up a few problems that have arisen. I am glad that the Minister said that the provisions would not hurt the 20 percent of aquaculture space allocated to Maori some years ago. 
We come now to what I think is an issue of great concern. There are a couple of issues. One—and here we go again—relates to retrospective validation. We have just come out of a huge argument about the retrospective validation of electoral spending. Without going into the details of that we are being asked to approve or support— 
Dianne Yates 
: Do you know what you’re talking about? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Crikey this is the former member for “Hamilton Somewhere”—east west north or south. She does not even know where she represented. She would not know what time of day it was. She would not know the first thing about the Maori Purposes Bill. 
Let me tell members what Labour wants to do. There was a judge and one would have thought the judge had a licence to operate. But lo and behold he never had a licence to operate. In fact he did not have a licence to operate so he could not have been a judge. All those people came into the courtroom thinking he was a judge but he was not a judge. Do members know why? Because he did not have a warrant. He went through the process of hearing the defendants and hearing the other people and actually made a determination. He made determinations not just in one case but in over 80 cases. But he was not a judge—he did not have a warrant to be a judge. I put it to the House that if that had happened in a murder trial or a criminal trial there would have been a retrial at least—at the bare minimum. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: No. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Fairbrother says no. I know what he is going to say—that Labour would have validated that as well. Why did Labour not sort itself out prior to hearing those poor people? Here is the rub: not one of those people who went before the judge has even been told that they are entitled to question the validity— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Rubbish! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: The Minister says that is rubbish. This is the Minister who did not even know how to move a bill to the Maori Affairs Committee and we are expected to believe that he knows what he is doing now? 
 I ask you Madam Speaker. And we are expected to believe that— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: It happened in your time Tau. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No it did not. I never dropped the ball when I was the Minister. In fact lots of stuff that I did when I was the Minister is still going today. But I digress. Here is the last one. The Minister said in his speech that if the Maori Land Court needs more judges it can have them by virtue of a change to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. He said that the maximum amount of judges allowed at the moment will move up. He said that this will happen if and when the court needs them. What the hell is the point of putting the Maori Affairs Committee through a process of looking at changes to a bill only to have the Minister think: “Well that’s if we need them.”? The Minister is saying: “We don’t really know whether we will need them but let’s be on the safe side just in case we get a whole lot of foreshore and seabed claims.” 
That is what the bill is all about. It has nothing to do with bolstering the intellectual capacity of the Maori Land Court; this has everything to do with the Minister going: “Oh crikey we passed the foreshore and seabed legislation and now here comes the rush of people from NgatiPorou”—oh yes that great tribe from the East Cape—“from Ngapuhi from NgaiTahu—from all over the country.” 
Pita Paraone 
: Ngati Hine! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: People will come from Ngati Hine and its foreshore as well. That is what this legislation is all about. It is not to bolster the intellectual capacity of the Maori Land Court but to bolster the number of judges if and when we need them. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: You concede it’s good legislation then don’t you? You concede that people have their rights and are exercising them? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh no I am not the one who sold out. The reason why it is all boisterous in the Chamber now is that I am not the one who sold out his people. I am not the one who brought in the foreshore and seabed legislation. I am not the one who said to Maori: “No you can’t go to court like everybody else.” I am not the one who said: “You are a second-class citizen.” I am not the one who said: “You don’t own anything and you can’t have any rights to go to court to find out whether you own it.” But hey the Minister of Maori Affairs is the one who sold out his people. He is the one. 
Actually the Labour Party members are responsible for the Maori Party coming to Parliament. It is pretty clear that Dianne Yates Parekura Horomia and their colleagues are all responsible for the birth of the Maori Party. I thank the Labour Party members very much because we have in the Maori Party some good MPs who do the hard yards who get around who speak from their hearts and who will never sell their people out. 
No reira we will support some of the bill. In the Committee stage we will move amendments to the two parts I have talked about—that is if Dianne Yates can keep her eyes open. We will support other amendments to the bill in terms of the Maori Land Court that hopefully my friend cousin and colleague Pita Paraone will table. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 When the Maori Fisheries Act was passed in 2004 it was a major piece of legislation and a historic moment for this House. It was legislation that was roundly debated both here and throughout New Zealand. Part 3 of the Maori Purposes Bill 2006 is not of the same scale. It proposes technical amendments that are needed to fix three oversights or drafting errors. Fisheries legislation—I say from my 1 year’s experience—is extraordinarily complex and this legislation is no exception. Tonight we have to repair the status of a species of red crab we have to fix an anomaly that arose because preferential rights were allocated 20 years ago we have to correct the omission of one step in the administrative procedures and we have to validate decisions that were made before anyone knew that the anomalies existed. The amendments are not a new allocation model or an interference with the model; they give effect to the allocation model agreed to by iwi. 
The first amendment fixes a problem that meant Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd could not strictly comply with the legislation’s provisions about the way fisheries are allocated. This story goes back to 1986 when the quota management system was first introduced. At that time some quota owners had their rights reduced without compensation because an effort was being made to reduce catches to sustainable levels. Although they lost their right to take some of the catch they kept the right to get preferential quota if the total allowable catch was ever increased again. Section 23 of the Fisheries Act implements this preferential right. Then the Maori Fisheries Act was passed in 2004 which tied all decisions about allocation of fisheries to a number of quota shares held by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd at the time the Act was passed. These shares are listed in schedule 1 of the Act. 
The problem is that the number of shares can change through preferential quota dating back to 1986 as I have described. This can effect the number of shares held by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd for distribution to iwi. When that happens schedule 1 of the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 will no longer reflect Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd’s true holdings. Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd is unable to comply strictly with the allocation provisions of the legislation. The amendments contained in clause 22 of the bill will rectify that situation. The amendments in clause 22 are not retrospective so clause 23(1) of the bill deals with seven fish stocks that were affected by the preferential allocation rights in October 2004 before this issue was recognised. 
Section 25 of the Fisheries Act 1996 allows the Minister of Fisheries to recommend changes to quota management areas if this will improve fisheries management. This also would change the shareholdings of quota owners. Both the name of stocks and the number of quota shares held can be changed. If that happened Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd would be left with no guidance from the legislation on how to allocate the new quota shares. It would also have a technical obligation to allocate stock that no longer exists. It is a bit like how the Opposition would like to reallocate the technical parts of the fiscal surplus that do not exist. 
The need for this amendment was raised in the select committee by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and it has been added to the bill in clause 22A. The amendment provides instruction for Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd to deal with these circumstances in a way that fully reflects the intention of the allocation model for fisheries settlements assets agreed among iwi. The Ministry of Fisheries is in agreement that this amendment is necessary and it has the full support of the Government. I congratulate Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and the committee members on achieving this addition to the bill. 
The second issue in the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 addressed by this bill is an error in the classification of deep-water red crab species. Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd classified stocks listed in schedule 1 to the Act as inshore or deep-water. Of the hundreds of stocks in the schedule the stocks of red crab were classified wrongly as inshore rather than deep-water stocks. This is doubtless of significance to the crabs who remain unaware of their circumstances. It was also however significant for the allocation of the settlement quota to iwi. Deep-water and inshore stocks are allocated differently. Inshore stocks are allocated primarily according to the relative coastline length of the iwi’s rohe. Deep-water quota is weighted heavily on the basis of iwi population. Therefore it is important to the distribution of assets whether stocks are classed as deep-water or inshore. This reclassification is achieved through the amendment put forward in clause 23(2) of the bill. 
The third issue dealt with in this bill corrects the omission in the drafting of the Maori Fisheries Act 2004. The allocation procedures in the Act are complex. In the preparation of the legislation a process step was omitted from schedule 6 of the Act. This step concerns the final calculation of allocations for generally small amounts of quota attributed to particular harbours around the coast. Clause 24 of the bill puts forward new clause 10A for inclusion in schedule 6 of the Maori Fisheries Act. It completes instructions for the administrative procedure that Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd uses when it allocates this quota according to the model agreed by iwi. 
Other provisions in the bill tidy up matters associated with these three issues. For example clause 24(4) inserts new clause 11A into schedule 6 of the Act. It deals with a special case of inshore quota already allocated but not yet transferred to iwi. It reflects a similar provision to clause 21 of the bill which does the same thing for deep-water allocations. Clause 25 then provides for the validation of some actions associated with technical problems in the Maori Fisheries Act. As I mentioned the holdings of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and seven stocks were affected by preferential allocation rights in October 2004. The stocks are listed in clause 23(1). Before this issue came to light Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Fisheries took statutory action to register a settlement of quota interest over all settlement quota shares. The numbers of shares listed in the paperwork for those actions reflected the schedule of the Act not the true number of shares as modified by preferential allocation. Naturally only the shares actually held by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd could have a settlement quota interest registered over them. Clause 25 validates these actions. 
Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd has gone ahead and allocated quota to iwi in order to get assets to them as quickly as possible. In doing so that organisation also allocated the seven stocks in accordance with the shares actually held rather than the numbers currently listed in the schedule. So the second validation is of allocations made by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd until now for the same seven stocks affected in October 2004 by preferential allocation rights. This is the only sensible approach to take in the circumstances. This validation just confirms those facts. It ensures that the decisions made are legally robust. 
The final matter in the bill that I will speak to is in respect of Part 4. It concerns the amendment of section 20 of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. That Act settles contemporary Maori claims to coastal space for aquaculture development from September 1992 into the future. Section 20 of the Act is an interpretation section and contains a definition of pre-commencement space. These amendments tidy up matters from the development of two landmark pieces of legislation passed in close succession by the House in 2004. The provisions carried forward in the Maori Purposes Bill 2006 will assist in the allocation of fisheries assets and in the management of fisheries under the Maori Fisheries Act. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 A tenaano koe e te Kaiwhakawa. E tikaana ki te whakakokuhutiaahauteneiwairiro ki a au me tokuropumoteneipire moanawahangatuaruaimuai te Whare neii roto iwatatou reo rangatira na te mea he piremonga take Maori. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Speaker. It is apt that I begin my contribution and that of my party in our chiefly language for this bill in its second reading before the House because it is a Maori Purposes Bill. 
] 
As has been mentioned by previous speakers the Maori Purposes Bill is an omnibus bill that has been duly considered by the Maori Affairs Committee. The bill proposes a number of amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. I commend the Minister Parekura Horomia for at least having a Maori Purposes Bill this year. This might be the second bill of this nature to come before the House in the short time that I have been in it. I am somewhat surprised about that fact given the number of social issues—not least economic issues—confronting Maori. Of course legislation is required to assist Maori in their development in these areas. 
In terms of the amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act as proposed by this bill I say that a number of submissions were made by members of the public many of whom expressed their opposition to the amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 which sets a closing date for the lodgment or submission of historical Treaty claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. Of course some submitters expressed concern that there had not been an opportunity for consultation with iwi and hapu about this matter and others submitted that there be no closing date. The setting of a time frame by which claims should be lodged is something that we in New Zealand First support; in fact it is a policy of our party. It is important for those wishing to make claims that this proposed amendment is about the lodgment of claims only not about when claims will be settled or about the fact that applications need to be fully researched before their lodgment. I suggest that a number of the submitters who were concerned about this closure expressed that concern in the belief that they needed to have their application and research completed in order to have their claim considered. 
But we also need to make reference to what a historical claim is. This bill defines a historical claim as something that relates to events that have occurred prior to 21 September 1992—the date on which the then Government decided what principles would be used for the settling of historical claims. That is not to say that claimants cannot amend their applications; it does give them the opportunity to do so should they find as a consequence of further research that they need to include that in their original claim. 
As the previous speaker Jim Anderton has outlined the proposed amendments to the Maori Fisheries Act address a number of issues. We in New Zealand First have no problem with that because it gives effect to the true intent of that particular Act but it highlights for some of us—particularly those in New Zealand First—the haste in which the original Act was put together. We accept that the amendment would allow Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd when allocating quota to iwi to take into account changes to the quota shares it holds resulting from alterations to quota management areas under section 25 of the Fisheries Act 1996. It also allows for the reclassification of red crab stocks and clause 23 of the bill will provide that. The bill also allows for the validation of allocation by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd and that is covered in clause 25. There was without exception support from submitters in relation to this particular amendment and the report from the Maori Affairs Committee which dealt with the bill recognises that. 
The Minister made reference to other amendments particularly Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to clarify that a judge may determine an application relating to a dispute under the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act. We in New Zealand First have no difficulty with that; in fact it highlights the need for a further amendment in relation to the ability of the Minister to increase the number of Maori Land Court judges if required. This reflects the added work that the Maori Land Court will need to consider when claims to the seabed foreshore and other issues arising from successful Treaty settlement claims arise. It does also allow for the fact that this legislation provides a close-off date for Treaty claims and gives some credence to the need therefore to have the necessary personnel in place to consider the work that will come out of this. 
The other point I want to refer to is the issue relating to the validation of decisions made by the then Deputy Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court Judge Norman Smith. We do not question the integrity of that particular judge but rather the fact that the House is being asked to validate the decisions he made during I think the month of November 2002 and to ensure that the orders made by his court are indeed orders of the court. I point out that in considering this application some of us had concerns about the introduction of retrospective legislation to validate these orders. Our concerns really were about whether those families and hapu—and in fact iwi—affected by this issue were aware of it. The speaker from National did indicate some concern about whether those who were affected by the orders made by the court at that time knew of their ability to appeal the decisions or to express some concern or whether they had even been notified about this legislation. I am assured by the officials that although this may have caused some logistical problems they did not perceive there being any difficulty with passing legislation that would validate those orders. 
I signal that in relation to the increase in the number of Maori Land Court judges I propose to have my member’s bill which has been drawn from the ballot considered as a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage. Without further ado I again confirm that New Zealand First will support this bill. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I want to tell a story about how the Treaty settlement deadline in this bill came to such prominence. The story starts with a speech at Orewa. In early 2004 Don Brash the then leader of the National Party made a speech that came to be known as Orewa I. In it he advocated the old integrationist policies of the past and specifically attacked Maori as having special privileges over other New Zealanders. This speech was purposefully written to push the buttons of the prejudiced and incite fear in the general population about Maori. It was an explicit attempt to incite race hate in our country. Thinking people said at the time that National was playing the race card in order to attract the votes of the prejudiced and the gullible. The full extent of this manipulative racism has only come to light through the leaked emails discussed— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Although on the whole I often agree with the member’s speeches to the House it is not appropriate under the Standing Order to refer to a member of this House as racist or anything that a member has said as being racist. I ask you to bring the member to order. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Speaking to the point of order Madam Assistant Speaker I point out that the rule is that no member of this House may describe another member or what a member has said specifically as racist. It does not prevent a member from describing policies ideas or issues as racist where that is appropriate. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite correct and I refer the House to the Speaker’s ruling made by the Hon Doug Kidd which makes that very clear. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: It was an explicit attempt to incite race hate in our country. National was playing the race card in order to attract the votes of the prejudiced and the gullible. The full extent of this manipulative racism has only just come to light through the leaked emails discussed in Hager’s book  
The Hollow Men 
. Clearly this was not a speech based on policy. National’s policy was not framed in that way and its spokesperson Georgina Te Heuheu never advocated such ideas. The speech was not even written by Dr Brash. It was written by a small extremist cabal within Brash’s office who wanted to reverse the poll slump that their man was leading. It was a position based on lies. The examples that National used were extremes: facts were misrepresented and history reinterpreted to give the impression of Maori as a privileged group in society—a bizarre position to take given the facts. But the facts did not matter. The speech included paternalistic comments about Maori in order to pass a “political hygiene” test. So along with descriptions of Maori as having mischievous minds having power of veto over development and using stand-over tactics— 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask about the relevance of the speaker’s line of debate in relation to the bill before us tonight. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: A Maori Purposes Bill is a broad bill. The member is speaking to the bill. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: It was a bizarre position to take given the facts. But the facts did not matter. The speech— 
Anne Tolley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am just looking at the bill before us tonight and I cannot see anything about Orewa speeches; I cannot see anything about emails; I cannot see anything that would in the least bit relate to the member’s speech. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has been addressing the issue of Treaty settlements in its context. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: The speech included paternalistic comments about Maori in order to pass the “political hygiene” test so along with those descriptions about Maoris having mischievous minds there were also very patronising comments about Maoris having a “special” place in New Zealand. When challenged by the media to identify the specifics of that policy all of those involved in the preparation of the speech refused to answer because the examples simply did not exist. Even Dr Brash’s own media team said there were no major race-based funding examples to be found. 
At the time that speech was delivered there were some rumours of concern from National Party politicians; most notably from the spokesperson on Maori Affairs who soon lost her role as a result. But the vast majority of the National Party members and caucus sat by and watched knowing that they would directly benefit from the hate heat and division that that speech would cause in the community. And benefit they did! Poll ratings soared for National. The race-hate rhetoric continued from that speech to the election campaign where the “iwi versus Kiwi” billboards specifically set out to isolate Maori from the rest of the community. It was divide and rule—the oldest tactic in the book. No facts no evidence no principles—the National Party election campaign. 
Meanwhile the sitting MPs were returned to their seats and many more National Party people became MPs. Their silence on such an unprincipled stance was deafening. But of course the negative impacts of the speech were not felt by the largely Pakeha membership of the National caucus. They were not the ones being accused of widespread abuses and of destroying the country. They were not being accused of corruption or nepotism. It was Maori who were being abused on the streets as a direct result of that speech. I have had reports of young Maori virtually children being taunted and abused by adults after Orewa. It was National that gave the ignorant and the bigoted the permission to behave in an openly racist manner. 
Who did Maori look to to combat the lies and divisiveness being perpetrated? They looked to the Government which was in the middle of the largest confiscation of Maori land in the history of our country and which was still the only viable power that had the resources and the facts to comprehensively combat those lies. But what did they get from a Labour - Progressive - United Future Government? Some Labour MPs were concerned and there was some rhetoric about that. But the Labour Government turned on Maori like National had and like many in the community were doing the Government lost its nerve and attacked not National which was distorting the facts and manipulating fear but Maori. Instead of defending the record of Maori development and the programmes to assist Maori to break through poverty cycles Labour turned on Maori too. 
Let us look at two of those examples. The first was Labour’s absolute acceptance that Maori were getting special privileges. Labour set Trevor Mallard to the task of finding targeted programmes for Maori and Pacific Islanders to have their funding cut in order to show that Labour was just as tough on the natives as National was purporting to be. National with no plan no policy or intention of doing anything had blown a dog whistle claiming special privileges for Maori and like the obedient puppy Labour came running with a mouthful of bone. In a broad detailed State Services programme Labour went through and cut funding to Maori and Pacific Island programmes. Who lost out? Manaaki tauira scholarships special supplementary grants for the retention of Maori and Pacific students in tertiary education the promotion of early childhood participation for Maori and Pacific children into early childhood education and domestic violence programmes to protect Maori women and their children from violent abusers lost out. 
But that was not the only thing that Labour did in response to National’s attacks at Orewa on the Treaty of Waitangi and the Waitangi Tribunal. Labour obediently decided that Maori should have imposed on them the deadline for the submission of historic Treaty claims to the tribunal set out in this bill. Brash’s nasty insinuation that Maori were using the Treaty— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member needs to refer to another member of this House by either his or her full name or correct title. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes the member does need to refer to the member by his correct name. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Mr Brash’s nasty insinuation— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Dr Brash. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Dr Brash’s nasty insinuation—I repeat that—his nasty insinuation that Maori were using the Treaty and the tribunal process to gain greater civil political or democratic rights than others was factually wrong. National knows that the tribunal process rightly and justly investigates crimes such as theft murder wrongful imprisonment and rape. But the truth was not the point for either National or Labour. Rather than make this just a simple policy on which Labour could consider the issues Labour turned it into one of its three major election promises from which it now cannot back down. Labour barking to National’s whistle has explicitly agreed with National’s distortions and manipulations about Maori. This bill will force Maori with few resources to meet a deadline imposed to benefit the Government and to appease the ignorant who now could not actually care less. We have in this bill the final stages of the implementation of National’s race-hate rhetoric and Labour Government law. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Madam Speaker kia ora tatou katoa iteneipo. The Maori Party is not about to buy into a culture of silence that appears to have strangled some members of the Government. We are about to speak out in this House about things that matter and we think Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a pretty good place to start. So what do we have here? For starters we have a bill that amends the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. The bill before the House proposes the imposition of a closing date of 1 September 2008 for new historical Treaty claims to be submitted to the Waitangi Tribunal. That is it; end of story. No more claims can be submitted after that date. 
The bill also provides a new definition of “historical Treaty claim” to take in claims relating to events occurring before 21 September 1992. For the first time in our history the bill is inserting into legislation a definition of “historical Treaty claim”. Up until this point there has not been a formal distinction between historical and contemporary claims. This bill makes the changes. 
Twenty years ago in 1986 Cabinet agreed in the area of policy development and legislation that Maori should be consulted on all significant matters affecting how the Treaty is applied. One year later in the ground-breaking case  
New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General— 
the lands case—the Court of Appeal characterised the Treaty relationship as a special partnership which was reflected in four fundamental principles: firstly fiduciary duty in that the Crown has a duty actively to protect Maori interests; secondly a full spirit of cooperation so where there are Treaty implications the responsibility for the Crown to make informed decisions will require consultation; thirdly the honour of the Crown where the Treaty is a positive force in the life of the nation and thus the Government; and lastly fair and reasonable redress. 
As a result of that case Parliament took action to improve the statutory protection of Maori interests. And then here we are today. Let us be clear—18 of the 20 submissions received were to do with concerns about the imposition of a closing date. They urged the Government to consult adequately with Maori regarding the reasonableness and appropriateness of the cut-off date of 1 September 2008. The Dunedin Community Law Centre and the NgaiTahu Maori Law Centre argued that good government demands more than doing what is popular. It demands that action be taken to address the valid claims of hapu and iwi who were wronged by the Crown. This cannot be done without a fair and impartial process. The Human Rights Foundation argued that a process of dialogue should be initiated with the aim of securing broad Maori agreement with the provisions in the bill particularly those relating to the deadline for lodging historical Treaty claims. The Treaty Tribes Coalition noted concerns that the bill will undermine the settlements process. 
It seems to me that these groups know the Cabinet guidelines court findings and statutory responsibilities better than the Crown does. As at 30 April 2006 1315 claims had been lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal. By anyone’s estimates that is a significant volume of claims. The downside is that we have no idea really about the number of claims that could possibly come through the door. Worse still more grievance could be created by the whole process anyway where there are things like cross-claims for example. 
What is the evidence from consultation to justify that one side of the Treaty’s signatories—the Crown—can unilaterally impose a cut-off point a deadline a point of no return and say that it is fair. This sort of attitude reminds me of the settlement process we are currently suffering. One of the great ironies of this Government is the way in which Treaty claims are frequently described as contributing to the process of reconciliation. The Office of Treaty Settlement’s guides to Treaty claims and negotiations with the Crown is entitled  
Ka tika a muri ka tika a mu: Healing the past building a future 
. The Waitangi Tribunal website puts the case even more forcefully: “The Waitangi Tribunal inquiry process contributes to the resolution of Treaty claims and in that way to the reconciliation of outstanding issues between Maori and Pakeha.” Yet in this Maori Purposes Bill issues of such national significance for all New Zealanders issues that are central to the reconciliation and healing process as required in the relationship between Maori and Pakeha are imposed contrary to all Treaty principles of partnership participation and informed decision-making through effective consultation. 
On the upside I suppose there are one or two positive aspects to the bill which are there basically to spice up the lousy parts. The Maori Party supports the increase in the number of Maori Land Court judges from eight to 14. In the interests of efficiency we also support the delegation by the Chief Judge to the Deputy Chief Judge in order to deal with an increase in expected future caseloads. But this does not change our fundamental concerns about the Crown’s imposed ultimatum without the prior discussion and agreement with Maori parties to the Treaty. We remain extremely concerned about the failure of any funding to be allocated to enhance the process as put forward by MetiriaTurei. 
 It is a matter of much significance that neither the Waitangi Tribunal nor claimant groups are being given the necessary support to assist in the process of helping claimants to formulate their claims before 1 September 2008. Te Runanga o Te Arawa in its submission reminded Parliament of the recommendation of the UN special rapporteur that the tribunal must be “allocated more resources to enable it to carry out its work more efficiently and complete its inquiries within a foreseeable time frame.” 
The other group of concerns that are located in this bill are to do with the way in which the proposed changes will impact upon the Maori Fisheries Act and the aquacultural policy. The Maori Fisheries Act will be amended to enact revised numbers of quota shares in respect of seven different stocks. The Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act will be amended with the effect being that potentially the amount of aquaculture space allocated to iwi will decrease. The changes are given scarce detail and little explanation. In fact the New Zealand Maori Council is so concerned about the impact of these changes that it submits that the bill “undermines the spirit and intentions of the 1992 fisheries claims settlement and is another attempt at eroding Maori fisheries rights by making technical adjustments here and there.” 
I read a paper by Bell Gully Senior Associate Mr Damian Stone who described the Maori Purposes Bill as “the most significant legislation affecting Maori to be introduced into the House in the current parliamentary term.” Mr Stone went further to suggest that the changes inherent in this bill are arguably the most significant changes to the Treaty of Waitangi Act since the tribunal’s jurisdiction was extended in 1985 to provide it with the capacity to inquire into historical claims dating back to 1840. If Mr Stone is right—and we have every reason to believe so—then how can the Crown adopt all the finesse of a bulldozer in forcing through such momentous changes? The Maori Purposes Bill not only walks right over the interests of Maori but also serves to constrain and limit the rights of participation of future generations in the Treaty claims process. 
In concluding I say that in a process of reconciliation and of healing the past to build a future surely past wrongs must be addressed alongside a commitment to ensure that no fresh grievances are created. The unilateral imposition of a time limit and a consultation process that saw 20 submissions received but only eight heard are not signs of a commitment to a mutually healthy future. 
The Maori Party believes in the ideals espoused by the New Zealand Maori Council—that a framework for the resolution of Treaty claims will reflect integrity honesty durability and good faith between the Crown and Maori. The Maori Party will oppose this bill. It is our view that like all Treaty settlements to date it is another example of the continuing breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to follow Pita Paraone in speaking to this Maori Purposes Bill that member having been on the Fisheries and Other Sea-related Legislation Committee that considered the Maori Fisheries Bill. As members well know that committee was consumed with pressure and careful deliberation which allowed two further iwi to be adopted into the model—namely Ngati Hine in which Pita Paraone has some interest and Rongomaiwahine which separated to that extent from Ngati Kahungunu. As chair of that committee I confirm that we focused on the model and that the amending of detail by this bill simply follows sequentially from the fishing quota in the Fisheries Act which the Maori Fisheries Act also coordinates. 
I move to the second aspect of the Maori Purposes Bill and that is the historic Treaty of Waitangi claims. I enjoyed listening to the previous speaker Te Ururoa Flavell and one cannot disagree with many of the lofty principles to which he referred. But that ignores one thing which is that the Waitangi Tribunal sits as a court. It has judges and it has a process and a procedure akin to a court—a court of inquiry. Every court in this country has time limits. Every court in this country is bound by limitations. There is the statute of limitations and there are common law limitations. In the Crimes Act whether or not there are statutory limitations there is the limitation of the life of the offender. So when we look at the necessity to bring in a limitation on historical claims we must look at it in the reality of legal practice. 
I speak as someone with some limited experience of the Waitangi Tribunal having been the solicitor who lodged Wai 55 one of the very early claims in the mid-1980s. That was at a stage when solicitors acted pro bono for Treaty claims because there were absolutely no resources to lodge claims and working on them required love and dedication. In contrast these days claimants generally are very well funded and are able to research their matters. The Wai 55 claim was eventually resolved some 12 years later but not before the original statement of claim had been amended so many times such that it bore very little resemblance to the original statement of claim because of the better resources of successive counsel and their widening knowledge of the Treaty process. 
Clause 18 of the Maori Purposes Bill which amends the Treaty of Waitangi Act introduces new section 6AA and subsection (2) states that the limit “does not prevent a historical Treaty claim submitted to the Tribunal on or before 1 September 2008 from being amended in any way after 1 September 2008.” That is a very wide provision. All it requires is for potential claimants to identify in a general way the area of their claim and to give notice of that by lodging a pro forma claim before the tribunal. Thereafter they have all the time in the world to put their claim into an order that can make it be strongly and soundly argued. That is the history of many successful claims before the tribunal and it will continue in that way. 
It is common sense that there should be some time limit. All the kaumatua who originated the claim with which I was connected Wai 55 died within a short period of its being lodged. Those who eventually argued the claim did so by retelling stories that had been retold by three four and perhaps five generations. It was only the ability to find some objective evidence—such as middens which verified some of the oral recollection—that gave the claim the power it eventually had. It is not an unusual precept of law to have time limits and this one is very generous in the extreme because the claim can be amended in any way after the cut-off date. 
I move now to the work of Judge Norman Smith and the provision of the bill that validates the cases on which he sat. The previous spokesperson on Maori affairs for the National Party Gerry Brownlee in June of this year said that he wanted a damn good reason why this bill should be passed. Well there are 85 good reasons 83 of them being the cases that Judge Smith dealt with. Another good reason is that they are cases of some meaning to many people who have acted pursuant to those arrangements and those people should not be required because of a technicality to revisit them with the cost the stress and the difficulties accompanying them thereto. 
But picking up the 85th reason I tell members that it relates to the point that Tau Henare tried to make previously which was that Judge Smith was not a judge when he was sitting because he did not have his ticket due to a technical error. Tau Henare ignores the practice in the courts and the Court of Appeal approval of solicitors appearing in court who do not hold practising certificates. They frown upon it they object to it they comment strenuously about it being a bad practice but the litigants unknowingly involved are not subject to a rehearing. The lawyer concerned is remonstrated with but the litigants are not penalised for that oversight. To criticise this oversight is implicitly to criticise Judge Smith himself—a judge of extremely high standing a man whose reputation is large. To say that he was acting improperly is to reflect adversely on his standing as a judge. It does not do the National Party—a party that claims to uphold the rule of law—any merit whatsoever to take these cheap sideswipes at a person with such a substantial reputation who acted in good faith as he himself was unaware that the technicalities as to his temporary appointment had not been adequately completed. 
Before I conclude I want to make some comments on my good friend MetiriaTurei’s contribution. It is always a pleasure to hear her speak on matters taha Maori when she is at full steam. But I must say that her claim in relation to the foreshore and seabed conveniently forgets the work of Professor Paul McHugh who allows that the foreshore and seabed legislation that went through in fact gives more rights to Maori than they could have received under aboriginal law. Those rights arise simply from the fact that there is no right of alienation or exclusivity to land held under aboriginal title and the key concept of European freehold title is the ability to exclude or alienate. Both those factors are at best qualified in aboriginal law but under the Foreshore and Seabed Act one has the right to obtain a better title than one could obtain under aboriginal law. 
So it is an invalid argument. It is emotionally very strong but it is invalid to wind oneself up by saying that the Foreshore and Seabed Act is a continuation of the deceitful Orewa I speech and the message behind it and to run that at the Labour Government which is endeavouring in good faith to address the issues arising from the Treaty of Waitangi and to ensure that as we bring into legislation the various rights relating to customary matters that is done in a morally and legally sound way. 
I commend the Maori Purposes Bill. The errors it endeavours to rectify are errors that should be properly addressed and are addressed in this very good legislation. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 It is indeed a pleasure to follow the previous speaker my colleague Russell Fairbrother. I acknowledge the wealth of experience he brings on issues relative to us as Maori. I also take this opportunity in the second reading of the Maori Purposes Bill to support the bill. As chair of the Maori Affairs Committee this debate gives me the opportunity also to raise some of the issues we were faced with in our consideration of the bill. 
Although not a large bill the Maori Purposes Bill brings together a number of amendments to four different Acts. The issues it deals with are varied but they are all important to Maori. This was reflected in submissions on the bill which included many passionate and thoughtful points of view. We were pleased to receive submissions from a range of groups and individuals. There were 20 in all and the committee gave all of them careful consideration. 
It is important to Maori that the Maori Land Court has the ability to deal effectively and efficiently with applications that may arise under both its traditional jurisdiction and its extended jurisdiction under more recent legislation relating to fisheries and aquaculture. The bill contains a number of provisions that will assist with this including the increase in the maximum number of permanent judges who can be appointed as and when they are needed from eight to 14. 
In the lead-up to the last general election the members of the Labour Party undertook that if we were to become the Government we would introduce a closing date for the submission of historical Treaty claims. This has been done in this bill which amends the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. Although a number of submissions opposed a closing date it is important that Maori and New Zealand as a nation take stock of what historical claims remain to be settled so that we all know what work needs to be completed in this area. We can also focus more clearly on the future and plan for the time when historical claims have been settled. 
Settlement gives back to Maori not just land or other assets in compensation but also people. All the leadership time effort and energy that go into identifying and resolving claims can be invested in an iwi’s future in our young people in our communities and in enterprises that reflect the spirit of our people. As chair of the Maori Affairs Committee considering the various settlement bills that come before it I hear firsthand what settlement means for iwi concerned. Time and time again we are impressed by witnessing the pragmatism the skills and the commitment of people who have contributed to the settlement process. It is inspiring to think that this resource will continue to be available to help our people progress in other ways following settlements. 
Previous speakers have been concerned about the validation of decisions made by an acting judge in November 2000 when he sat beyond the term of his warrant for a short period. The committee considered this matter very carefully and thoroughly. In the end for most of us it came down to what was due to the people who had applied to the Maori Land Court in good faith and who had had their cases determined by an experienced judge who also acted in good faith in the short period concerned. In the years since 2000 these people their whanau and in some cases their successors have relied on those decisions. In many cases subsequent transactions will have been undertaken involving people who would also have relied on those decisions. Statutory validation will give all those people certainty and enable them to continue with their lives without the disruption and possible costs that could otherwise result from a situation of uncertainty. 
Other changes in the bill deal with the allocation process under the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 which are also important to Maori. The bill has provided an opportunity to address a number of technical matters that needed to be addressed in the relationship between the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 and the earlier Fisheries Act 1996. Both are complex pieces of legislation. As the process of the allocation of fisheries assets is being worked through some omissions and errors have come to light and the bill seeks to address those. 
The main changes to the Maori Purposes Bill that have been recommended by the Maori Affairs Committee are additional amendments to the Maori Fisheries Act 2004. When the bill was introduced it already included a number of technical amendments to the Maori Fisheries Act 2004. Submissions by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd in particular highlighted some additional technical changes that needed to be made. The committee has recommended that three further provisions be added to the bill. The first would amend schedule 1 of the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 to correct the classification of red crab stocks which should be listed as deep-water stocks rather than inshore stocks. The second provision also amends that Act to allow for changes to the quota shares held by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd as a result of alterations to quota management areas. If quota areas are amalgamated for example the original shares are withdrawn and shares for the new amalgamated quota area issued. As a result the shares actually available to Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd for allocation could differ from those specified in schedule 1 of the Maori Fisheries Act 2004. The last additional provision will validate the actions of Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd in allocating quota shares on the basis of quota shares actually held rather than those listed in schedule 1 of the Maori Fisheries Act 2004. The committee supported those amendments as sensible changes to help ensure that the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 and the processes in that Act can operate effectively. 
Finally as chair of the committee I would like to thank the members of the Maori Affairs Committee for their thoughtful contributions and their input into the consideration of this bill. I also acknowledge the Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Parekura Horomia for sponsoring the bill. I am pleased therefore to support this bill. Kia ora. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Maori Purposes Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 12 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a second time. 
Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill be now read a second time 
. I thank the Government Administration Committee for its unanimous agreement on reporting this bill back to the House and for the work it put in. I acknowledge the chair and my own colleagues who sat on the committee. This major cross-party support is a reflection of the seriousness of the risk and of the time and effort of the members of the committee. 
This bill is part of New Zealand’s planning for any pandemic we may face particularly from a mutated bird flu that affects humans. There are two main foci of the bill. The first is to ensure that legislation is sufficient to manage the health risks associated with the outbreak and spread of disease and in particular infection control. The second main focus—for which New Zealand has shown leadership in the world—is planning for the disruptions to society that may occur from a pandemic. The Law Commission supported this focus and provided constructive suggestions to the committee to ensure that the legislation could work well. 
In relation to health management medical officers of health will have clearer and more modern powers to deal with communicable disease at the border and in an emergency. The key to knowing whether people need to be isolated or quarantined is the ability to ask them questions particularly at the border. The bill enhances that ability. Complementary to that is the clarification of the right to examine and test people in order to determine whether they are infected. The rights of people in our communities have to be weighed against individual rights. The bottom line is that people in our communities deserve a good degree of protection from being unnecessarily infected with a dangerous disease so some of the measures in this bill will infringe on the personal liberties of some individuals in order to prevent them from unnecessarily infecting others. The select committee has agreed to that. The bill does not however require compulsory medical treatment. Most people with a dangerous disease will choose treatment; if not the powers in the bill allow them to remain isolated while they remain infectious. 
The key part of the bill is the epidemic notice issued by the Prime Minister when a disruptive pandemic threatens or has arrived. The Minister of Health must have agreed that it be issued and the Director-General of Health must have given a written recommendation. The notice has to be gazetted and tabled in the House. It lasts for 3 months at the most but can then be extended. Parliament must meet within 7 days of the making of the notice unless it would be too risky to parliamentarians’ health to do so. The select committee raised a concern that this bill does not deal with the situation of an epidemic possibly occurring during an election period. Addressing that concern involves amending the Electoral Act and Constitution Act. The Government expects to have legislation drafted for that purpose by the end of June 2007 at which stage we will need to debate or decide whether to introduce it. 
The epidemic notice triggers some special powers such as the emergency provisions of the Health Act. Those powers mean that people in our community can be isolated quarantined or medically tested when they need to be. Premises may be closed. Public gatherings may be prohibited. Land buildings vehicles medicines and other things may be requisitioned to help communities with those affected by the requisitioning having rights to compensation. 
The issuing of an epidemic notice will trigger the ability to make modification Orders in Council. Those notices must also be gazetted tabled in the House and kept under review. A modification Order in Council can adjust statute law so as to make laws more workable in the crisis that New Zealand faces. Two examples of such adjustments would be allowing health professionals to work across occupational boundaries in order to provide health care for sick people and the ability to be flexible in relation to the payment of benefits under the Social Security Act. 
Those modification orders can be made in advance in which case they are called prospective modification orders or they can be made during the period of an epidemic notice in which case they are called immediate modification orders. Prospective modifications orders will allow advanced scrutiny of the orders by Parliament. Those orders must go no further than is reasonably necessary in the circumstances. The Ministry of Health is beginning the process with other departments of making prospective modification orders. Immediate modification orders are a last resort. They will receive enhanced parliamentary scrutiny and there is a truncated disallowance process of 6 sitting days. We will amend the Standing Orders to make the disallowance motion debatable and for it to be given priority on the Order Paper. 
Modification orders cannot amend the Bill of Rights 1688 the Constitution Act the Electoral Act the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or the epidemic preparedness legislation itself. Our judiciary is given the power when an epidemic notice is in force to modify the rules of the courts in the interests of justice taking into account the effects of the epidemic. 
I am extremely pleased that we have this legislation before us and I look forward to its continued passage through the House. I thank the very many people who have contributed to it. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I thank the Minister for his comments with regard to the Government Administration Committee. This was a rare opportunity for Parliament to be involved in legislation that had no politics in it at all. A completely multipartisan approach was taken to how we could get the best result which is not something that we all engage in on a regular occasion. This Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill was probably one of the most difficult bills that any select committee will ever have to deal with—that is trying to strike the balance between the amount of executive power we must give to any Government in the event of a pandemic and trying to keep a check and balance on that power with regard to parliamentary scrutiny. Certainly in the initial draft the executive would have had substantial powers. The Minister has spoken about that in his comments earlier. 
The bill was referred to the select committee on 9 May 2006. The closing date for submissions was 6 June 2006. We received considered and heard 18 submissions from interested groups and individuals. We also received briefings from the Law Commission. We received advice from the Minister of Health the Ministry of Health the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet the Ministry of Justice the Minister for the Environment the Minister for Social Development and Employment the Department of Labour the New Zealand Police the Inland Revenue Department the Department of Internal Affairs and the New Zealand Parole Board. So members can see that the select committee did not rush to a conclusion without taking the necessary advice from a number of people. Even then it was difficult to establish which Acts would need to be amended by this legislation. As the Minister said the primary Act was the Health Act 1956 but there were many other Acts. 
All sorts of problems fell out of the various discussions such as what would happen if there was a pandemic during the period when Parliament had been prorogued and we were in an election cycle or even if it occurred after an election when a new Government had been elected but had not been sworn in and it was not possible to meet for safety reasons. So I am pleased that the Minister has said that further work will be done and further legislation will be brought forward to look at that situation. The other issue that the select committee considered for some time was the length of time required. It was decided that a 3-month period once a pandemic had been gazetted was a reasonable time for the necessary actions to be taken and hopefully was about the right time for the country to get through whatever ailment it might have had inflicted on it. 
The bill is intended to ensure of course that the powers that are needed in those circumstances would be provided. A range of human rights issues and natural justice issues spill out of that aspect. The Law Commission under Sir Geoffrey Palmer advised us on a number of ways to try to bring about a balance between executive power and the powers necessary to react to the situation. We hope we will never need this legislation but if we do need it and we have not got the balance right many people will have an opinion on not only the work of the Ministry of Health and the advisory team but also the work of the select committee when the event takes place. The bill will ensure that should there be a human outbreak of avian influenza or a similar disease capable responses will be put in place for that situation to be dealt with. 
 The bill seeks to address some of the gaps in the Crown’s statutory powers under the Health Act as I said before. It also revokes certain provisions in the Health (Quarantine) Regulations. That was essential because if one has notice from overseas that there is potential for a disease to be heading our way then the necessary precautions have to be taken at the borders. The Minister said in his comments that people can be detained and questioned and suchlike but that they cannot be compulsorily treated. Obviously most people who had one of these highly contagious diseases would want themselves to be treated but some may on religious grounds or for whatever other reason—maybe they have no faith in the system—decline that treatment. Those people can be detained in quarantine but they will not be treated by force. That seemed like a reasonable compromise in that regard. 
Notification cannot come into force unless first of all it comes from the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health both under the direction of the Director-General of Health in writing. We think that is a reasonable compromise. One of the things that was suggested and teased out in the select committee was a wartime-like Cabinet—a multiparty Cabinet. I suspect although it would be difficult to legislate for this that in the event of a pandemic there would be multiparty or cross-party discussions and the meeting of Parliament that is needed to ratify any such decision clearly enforces that to some extent anyway. The issue of Parliament meeting was a much-debated issue including where that might take place. The Governor-General has the power to decide that Parliament can meet wherever it is deemed to be necessary or safe to do so. It does not necessarily have to be in Wellington. There are also many safeguards in regard to who the Prime Minister the Minister of Health or in fact the Director-General of Health may be in the event that all those who hold those warrants are incapacitated as a result of some disease. 
On balance after lengthy consideration and also after consulting with the Regulations Review Committee on a number of occasions and bringing in legal advice from the Parliamentary Counsel Office the select committee has decided that this is about as good a shot as we could get at the legislation notwithstanding the issues the Minister has addressed that are still outstanding. We think that the Parliament should support this legislation going forward and make sure that New Zealand is well prepared in the event of a pandemic. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in support of the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill and want to echo my colleague’s comments about the constructive approach of the Government Administration Committee in working together on this bill. 
The bill is a critical part of New Zealand’s strategy to manage the effects of any pandemic that threatens New Zealand. The bill is forward-looking in that it not only establishes arrangements to manage the health effects of a pandemic but also enables other laws to be modified to manage other significant disruptions to Government or business activities that may arise from a pandemic. 
The widening spread of the H5N1 strain of avian flu means there is now a significant risk of another human influenza pandemic. Although we hope that will never be something we have to face history tells us something different. Last century New Zealand had three widespread influenza epidemics—in 1918-19 1957 and 1968. Like many in this House I grew up with stories about a family member who died in that early flu. My grandmother used to talk about her young Uncle Dan who went off and fought in the First World War made it home safely and then died in the great flu as she called it. Right up until my grandma died she mourned the loss of Dan. I never knew him but I witnessed the lasting grief that a pandemic can cause one family let alone the thousands who suffered during that dreadful flu. 
Although H5N1 may not be the one that eventually causes the next pandemic one will eventually arise. That is why this Government has introduced a whole-of-Government work programme to ensure that if a pandemic reaches our shores we are ready to deal with what could be some of the most serious social and economic challenges we have faced in recent times. 
The select committee was very conscious of its responsibility and also that a bill of this nature—that can use wide powers in emergencies—must have checks and balances. We were grateful for the advice of the Law Commission and Sir Geoffrey Palmer who assisted the committee with these issues. The bill now includes a number of measures to ensure that necessary emergency powers are established to deal with any future pandemic while at the same time including suitable checks and balances to ensure that those emergency powers are used appropriately. I commend the work of the Government Administration Committee and the Law Commission for their advice. 
My colleagues the Minister of Health and Shane Ardern have already described the checks and balances in the course of discussing this bill but it is worth spending some time focusing on these safeguards. The checks and balances provide that the Prime Minister can issue an epidemic notice only with the agreement of the Minister of Health and with the written recommendation of the Director-General of Health. An epidemic notice must be presented to the House of Representatives. If Parliament is not sitting when an epidemic notice is issued Parliament must be called together within 7 days of the notice being issued. An epidemic notice will remain in force for only as long as is necessary. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Health on the advice of the Director-General of Health must continue to be satisfied that the effects of an outbreak of a stated infectious disease are likely to disrupt significantly central government and business activity in New Zealand or the stated parts of New Zealand. 
The Prime Minister may issue an epidemic management notice to modify other laws only with the agreement of the Minister responsible for the administration of those laws. Where possible Orders in Council to modify laws when an epidemic notice is made should be prepared in advance. These advance orders can then be tabled in Parliament and referred by the relevant Minister to the Regulations Review Committee before being sent to Cabinet in accordance with current practice. Where orders to modify laws have not been made in advance of an epidemic notice and it is found to be necessary to modify certain laws immediate modification Orders in Council can be made. 
The bill establishes an amended scrutiny and disallowance process for Parliament to review immediate modification orders made after the epidemic notice. A modification order made under the bill may not modify the Bill of Rights 1688 the Constitution Act 1986 the Electoral Act 1993 the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 or the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990. These laws govern fundamental rights and freedoms that can be amended only by primary legislation. The Prime Minister is required to declare by notice in the  
Gazette 
 which parts of an epidemic notice are no longer needed. 
The bill offers a measure of reassurance in the face of a threat posed by potential pandemics that we have this legislation enabling us to respond as effectively as can be planned and in doing that to know we have struck a responsible balance between the powers needed and the rights and freedoms of our society. We all have a responsibility in New Zealand to New Zealand families to do everything we can to prepare for this possibility. The select committee took this responsibility seriously and worked in a very constructive way to improve the bill. 
The unanimous report shows that MPs from all parties on the committee were committed to ensuring that New Zealand has sound measures in place to mitigate and manage the effects of any pandemic while at the same time ensuring that the wide powers that could be assumed under the bill are subject to parliamentary examination. 
The architecture of the bill has been simplified: it has greater clarity as to what will happen when an epidemic occurs; it ensures parliamentary scrutiny remains; and the ambit of the powers and restrictions are clearly stated. 
I congratulate the members of the select committee on the manner in which the consideration of this important bill was conducted and have great pleasure in supporting it. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the second reading of the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill. This is a very important bill that hopefully never ever has to be implemented but it is one of those measures that New Zealand must have in place. In order to implement this legislation there must be a pandemic facing New Zealand whether it be bird flu another fatal influenza or some other serious disease outbreak. It is a serious situation and one that New Zealand is definitely not immune from. 
In the event of any pandemic all of the people in New Zealand will be looking to the Government for a speedy response and leadership through this crisis situation. It is absolutely essential that the Government has the law and the power to respond in a timely manner. The last thing that is needed is a disorganised response by the Government or health officials. We must be organised for any crisis of this magnitude. We also need to manage the health effects on New Zealanders and the impacts on essential services and businesses and various Acts did need to be amended to ensure that the response would be prompt. As previous speakers have said it is a balancing act between individual rights and the greater rights of all people here in New Zealand. 
This legislation is timely. It is far better to have a plan that can be implemented prior to any event such as this rather than have something hastily put together when an epidemic is upon us or right on our doorstep. As we have heard from previous speakers we know that any flu can speed rapidly throughout New Zealand with devastating consequences. 
We must commend the Government for planning ahead to help communities and the Government Administration Committee for the bill that has been returned following select committee consideration. We note that substantial changes have been made to the bill by the select committee and we understand that some of these changes were made with the assistance of Sir Geoffrey Palmer. We must applaud the select committee for the fact that this is one bill that has no minority views recorded in the commentary. I think that shows us that the pandemic threat such as bird flu is far too important for petty party politics to come into play and it needs measures such as all of these that are outlined in this legislation. 
We were interested to see that a problem situation regarding the sitting of Parliament had been identified—from memory I do not think it was in the first bill or discussed prior to this bill coming back from the select committee—and that action is now being taken to decide on the process and the procedure for dealing with such outstanding and essential matters. This is the time that this type of matter needs to be identified—not when an epidemic is upon us. 
I was very interested to see that there has been very little media interest in the bill since it has returned to the House for its second reading. Prior to the first reading there was a lot of media attention but this has now totally abated. Obviously everyone is quite happy with the outcome. 
Over the winter months New Zealand First was very pleased to see all of the information and the material issued by the Ministry of Health advising the public about the necessity for family preparedness. Over the winter months I know that very many people right throughout New Zealand did prepare themselves with food and any other items that would be necessary. I even heard of one family that had a whole range of seeds that it wanted to plant in the spring in case there was an epidemic over the winter months and seeds would have been in short supply. No doubt everyone will need reminding again next winter about the need to stockpile because I know for a fact that many people are now working their way through the cans of food and the items that they had stockpiled prior to the winter. We always must be aware too that some families on fixed incomes will be really challenged to stockpile food and other items so we must make sure that this aspect is covered in the legislation. 
New Zealand First looks forward to discussing the Committee stage of this bill. We believe that the bill appears to cover all of the situations that could arise if such a pandemic did occur. The bill covers many Acts and amendments to those Acts that would be affected. New Zealand First supports this bill. As a country we have no option but to be totally prepared. It is not something that we can just think about it. We must be prepared. As a member of the Health Committee I am looking forward to receiving further updates next year on what preparations have been made by the Ministry of Health. 
Recently I was interested to read that a mutation of bird flu identified overseas will not respond to the specific drug that has been stockpiled in many medical cabinets and by many district health boards. This means that a plan will need to be continually updated as developments occur. We believe that this is a very important bill and we are very pleased to support it. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is supporting this bill. I sat on the Government Administration Committee for most of the critical discussions of the bill. It was a very good committee. I do not think I have ever seen a bill that has had such a substantial change and a change in a very good direction as a result of the discussions at the select committee and as a result of the departmental advice changing week by week and people taking into account the submitters and also the very useful advice by the Law Commission in the person of Sir Geoffrey Palmer which all pushed the bill in a very good direction. 
If we look at the bill and look at the bits that have been struck out and the bits that have been added I think we will hardly find another bill that has passed through this Parliament that has gone through such changes. For example turning to the critical sections of the bill in terms of the orders giving powers and potentially restricting different pieces of legislation and freedom of movement four pages—clauses 4 to 9—have been struck out and 12½ pages have been added. The 12½ pages that have been added have a lot of important qualifications—important for civil liberties and good order being maintained through the period of the pandemic. 
For a start one good change was to restrict the orbit of the bill to quarantinable diseases which covers just four diseases—cholera plague yellow fever and added to that avian flu. The powers granted under this legislation cannot be used more generally and that is an explicit contrast to the approach in some other jurisdictions like the United Kingdom where they use generalised emergency laws. As those laws are so generalised they can be used in a wide range of situations and can be abused whereas here there was a care that when we grant such powers they should be very restrictive in terms of what they are applied to. 
One of the functions particularly as a result of Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s intervention and the theme that ran through the way the bill unfolded was to restrain executive power or put parliamentary controls over executive power including the concept of recalling Parliament within 7 days to be able to judge regulations that were brought in to be able to go through a regulations disallowance process and for any member of the House explicitly to be able to stand up and move a motion to turn back a regulation if he or she saw it to be exceeding the powers necessary. 
All that was added to the bill and it is very good as was the concept of having advance regulations made out so that if bird flu broke out we would already have a whole lot of regulations that had been tested in the regulations review process before anything happened and only limited additional regulations would have to be added at the time of the outbreak of bird flu. Leeway was given to add regulations at that point because it is very hard to judge exactly which laws need to be modified a bit. Bird flu by its very nature affects so much in society particularly freedom of movement both at the border and of course to stop infection from spreading. 
 I think one of the themes that came through from the medical advice was that the population is affected less if people can be kept away from the infection be kept at home and have less interaction with society during the peak of an outbreak. The power of a virus declines over time and if people can be kept away from it a lot of lives can be saved in the meantime. If that level of restriction on freedom of movement is to be imposed and if people are to be encouraged not to go to work and where possible not to mix in large crowds that slows up the whole legal process in society. So a whole lot of regulations will be affected particularly those that have times by which documents are supposed to be submitted etc. That runs through the whole legal system. 
There are very strong qualifications in clause 9 about which regulations would be brought in at the time of an outbreak. It would have to be proven that it was impossible or impractical to comply with the normal course of events—say the deadlines in particular laws—and that the regulations were reasonably necessary in the situation. So that is quite a strong qualification. Also the concept in terms of the advance regulations is that there would be a stepped process. As bird flu arrived and as the outbreak grew—if it did grow—then the regulations could be tightened up in a stepladder manner then as there was a decline in the outbreak the impact of those regulations would be reduced step by step. That phasing in and phasing out of regulations is a good approach. 
There is also a recognition that the fundamental human rights of our society—from the Bill of Rights 1688 through to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act made in this Parliament in 1990 and the Habeas Corpus Act 2001—cannot be breached. Some petitioners were worried about other Acts being explicitly overridden in the bill. A number of these Acts such as the Holidays Act 2003 the Resource Management Act and tax Acts were specifically chopped out of the bill. That is good because some submissions—from unionists for example—thought that there was a bit of a bias and that their particular legal entitlements were being overridden in this bill. Obviously in an outbreak there would have to be flexibility about when people took holidays and things like that but there should not be at the beginning of things a bias against workers’ entitlements. I think the union movement will be very happy that those particular provisions have been taken out of the bill. 
Often I and other members of the Green Party stand up in this House and criticise a bill as being a breach of human rights but I think that in this case while we are dealing with a situation whereby various restraints have to be put into the way the Government and the law operate the bill has gone through an extremely thorough process. I commend the members of the Government Administration Committee the advisers from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Justice the human rights people Sir Geoffrey Palmer the Law Commission and the submitters to the select committee for working so well together to turn this bill upside down and to come out with a very good product. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker kia ora tatou te Whare. Three weeks ago the warning bells rang when Professor Paul Zimmet said that left unchecked diabetes could make all Polynesian races extinct before the end of the century. In the uproar that followed I was reminded of the message from an early colonial administrator here in good old New Zealand who said that his role was to “smooth the pillow of a dying Maori race” because there can be no denying the fact that the ferocious epidemic of diabetes raging through our communities right now may indeed decimate our Pacific way of life. So in turning to this bill we raise the urgent need to ensure that in preparing for an epidemic Maori are targeted and included in the response and I turn here to the history and demographics of influenza in this land to give us a clear reason why this is so very important. 
About 100 citizens of Aotearoa have died every year of influenza—every year that is except 1918 the year that the so-called plague of the Spanish lady overran our country and killed more than 8000 people. Of those Maori died from flu at a rate more than seven times higher than that of non-Maori. Indeed Sir Peter Buck said that in 3 months influenza killed more Maori in Aotearoa than were killed in all of the military campaigns of Gallipoli France and Belgium in World War I. Every Maori community bears the scars of lives lost to the black plague. I refer to black not as in “black is beautiful” but as in the black colour of the skin of victims dying from a lack of oxygen. 
The stories are truly gruesome. People queued to be sprayed with zinc sulphate—they called it fumigation but it did not stop the flu. Cinemas churches halls schools whare hui whare kai and all the places where people gathered were closed. Families were left isolated for weeks and people stopped visiting for fear of catching the disease. The Ellerslie racecourse was turned into an emergency hospital Victoria Park was turned into a massive morgue and special trains were enlisted to haul bodies out to Waikumete Cemetery for burial. One of my tupuna in Whakapara was delegated to live alone in a cemetery to bury his relations. One of Rangitane’s main hapu lost 75 percent of its population to the epidemic. Otorohanga’s two hotels were turned into hospitals one for Europeans and one for Maori and Princess Te Puea herself was called in to carry coffins up the river for burial. 
I have taken the time to remind the House of the 1918 flu epidemic because in many respects it was Aotearoa’s forgotten disaster during the world’s worst-ever recorded pandemic of influenza. Such a pandemic could just as easily happen again in a world where low standards of health overcrowding poor diet and bad housing mean that a disproportionately high Maori death rate in any pandemic is guaranteed. 
So I acknowledge the enduring patience and commitment of people like Kathrine Clarke of Hapai Te Hauora Tapui NgaireWhata of Te Korowai Aroha and Dr Lorna Dyall from the division of Maori health at the University of Auckland for highlighting the desperate need for full and frank communication with Maori communities. Our people have many many questions and nobody is giving them any decent answers. Will our marae be closed? Who will care for our kaumatua and kuia? What will happen to our tangi which Te Arawa Maori Trust Board’s AnaruRangiheuea has described as being our most important cultural practice? Will we even get our loved ones back? Will coffins be sealed? Can we meet to grieve? Can we hongi? 
We cannot allow our future to be driven by fear ignorance and a lack of information. We will not allow our pillow to be smoothed out by this epidemic. There are steps that we can and must take and crucial to our survival must be Maori participation at all levels of emergency planning. A good place to start might be simply putting the word “Maori” into the bill. The bill talks about anxiety around parliamentary sitting days the question of whether to recall Parliament during an emergency and the need for flexibility in legal proceedings but for some strange reason it does not even mention the race of people that is most likely to be decimated by a flu pandemic. 
Maori have been calling for a body that can directly access Maori leadership make immediate use of Maori infrastructure and recruit Maori health workers to engage with iwi and with Maori communities. In fact developing a plan to respond to an epidemic with Maori interests at its very core is a matter of urgency that Maori must be actively involved in if we are even to have a future. We must use our history and our expertise to plan wisely and we must mobilise all of our resources and creative talents to protect Maori interests and Maori well-being. This is essential not just for the future of Maori but also for the proper development of our whole nation for if Maori are to commit to the growth of Aotearoa then Maori must also be an integral part of a strategy for its survival as well. 
A hundred years ago the Maori population was 40000 and thought to be close to extinction. One hundred years later we are more than half a million and in another 50 years fully 33 percent of all children in our great nation will be Maori. We have survived the threat of extinction in our past and we owe much to the vision and impact of leaders such as TahupotikiWiremuRatana Te PueaHerangi and Sir Peter Buck who responded to the savage impact of the Spanish flu tuberculosis malnutrition pneumonia goitre diseases leading to child mortality and a host of other infectious diseases by fighting for the right of our people not just to survive but to thrive. 
Parliament has a chance to demonstrate the kind of courage shown by Maori leaders of yesteryear by ensuring a proper education and information campaign to manage the possible effects of an outbreak of avian influenza or of any infectious disease capable of becoming an epidemic. The Maori Party will support this bill in the hope that the Minister will listen that Parliament will consider its solemn duty to care for all citizens and that we politicians will display the courage needed to ensure that those who will suffer most are not bypassed in this legislation or in the bureaucracy responsible for putting it into effect. Kia ora tatou. 
Bill read a second time. 
Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Acting Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 I move  
That the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 This bill provides for changes to the principal Act the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997 to make it more effective and administratively efficient. It is well known that the agriculture and forestry sectors underpin New Zealand’s economy providing exports to a total value of around $17 billion a year over 60 percent of total merchandise exports and 45 percent of our total foreign exchange earnings. In turn agricultural compounds are a vital input into the primary production sector. In the year ended June 2006 the wholesale value of the New Zealand pesticides and veterinary medicines market was approximately $400 million. There are approximately 1000 pesticides and 2000 veterinary medicines registered for use in New Zealand. The range of agricultural compounds is extensive: plant and soil nutrients pesticides herbicides fungicides insecticides stock food pet food—basic feed and special supplements—and veterinary medicines themselves. 
In horticultural production—and the member my friend Mr Barker will be very interested in this—the use of pesticides is essential to securing market access for fresh export crops worth more than $2 billion a year by ensuring there are no unwanted pests in produce and preventing crop damage. Agricultural compounds are also used extensively in forestry and in pastoral sectors to manage pests and diseases and maintain plant health. Veterinary medicines are indispensable in maintaining the high quality and productivity of New Zealand’s commercial livestock population as well as ensuring the health and welfare of the large numbers of domestic and companion animals that form an integral part of our society. 
The use of pesticides and herbicides has increased only slightly in New Zealand over the past decade despite greatly increased output from the primary sector. In some sectors particularly horticulture there has been a noticeable reduction in use in response to worldwide consumer demands. Equally significant the types of substances used has changed to softer chemicals and biological insecticides which are less harmful to the environment. 
Although access to and use of agricultural compounds is vital to the New Zealand economy there are also risks if those compounds are used inappropriately or unwisely—risks to human health animal health agricultural exports and indeed our own biosecurity. The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act is part of the regulatory framework for managing these risks in conjunction with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act the Biosecurity Act the Food Act and the Health Act. The Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Act was new legislation that came into force in July 2001 under this very good Government. The implementation of the Act has revealed a number of areas in which improvements could be made to the regulatory framework or where clarification is required in order to achieve the original policy intent. In addition changes to the organisational environment with the formation of the Food Safety Authority in July 2002 needed to be reflected in the regulatory environment. 
The overarching public policy objectives for the bill are to ensure firstly that risks arising from the use of agricultural compounds in New Zealand are managed efficiently and effectively under the Act; secondly that regulatory controls are appropriate for the degree of risk; and thirdly that business compliance costs are minimised. The proposals in the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill were made available for public consultation with the release of two public discussion papers. These were distributed to a wide range of stakeholders including manufacturers importers farming groups other users and of course Government departments. Eleven submissions were received in the 2002 consultation round and 17 were received in 2004. Most of those submissions were from organisations representing the interests of large numbers of individual stakeholders. Meetings were also held with a number of these organisations. Submissions received were considered when policy for the bill was developed and the proposed changes are generally supported. 
The bill provides for the closure of gaps that have been identified in the coverage of the Act in the areas of managing the public health effects of agricultural compounds and the regulation of all parts of the supply chain. This will be achieved by expanding the purpose of the Act to include managing risk to public health by specifying that the manufacture and import of agricultural compounds that do not comply with the Act are prohibited and by providing that codes of practice can be required for the distribution storage and transportation of agricultural compounds. There are mechanisms to ensure that there is no duplication of regulatory requirements with other agencies or other legislation operating in this area. 
The bill clarifies the statutory backing for arrangements in order to restrict the supply sale or use of certain products like prescription animal medicines or poisons such as 1080 or cyanide which are both very important for the agriculture industry. The bill restricts or controls the sale or use of certain products to authorised persons and the process for transfer of registration and provides that pet foods and stock foods are covered under the Act. 
The bill also proposes changes to improve the enforcement of the Act. It provides for the processes and powers relating to imports of agricultural compounds and veterinary medicine products to be aligned with those in the Biosecurity Act. The bill enables the director-general to recall non-compliant products or suspend product registration and it provides for a more appropriate and effective range in types of penalties for offences. The bill also provides for changes to improve the flexibility and administration of the Act by providing an alternative approval process for the import manufacture or use of agricultural compounds without registration in special circumstances; allows for recognition of persons or agencies to carry out specified activities or functions for the purpose of the Act; provides for the issue of certificates of compliance to assist exporters; and finally updates cost recovery provisions. 
 The bill also provides for removing or amending regulatory requirements that are in excess of those necessary to manage the risks or where the required degree of control can be achieved by non-regulatory or administrative measures. The bill also makes some minor technical changes. It removes provisions that have become redundant following changes in the operating environment and it updates terminology. There will be minimal additional compliance costs associated with this bill. For the majority of stakeholders the technical requirements will remain the same. This will mean very little change in costs. Indeed some of the amendments should reduce costs. 
While I have not spoken to each provision of this bill in any detail although I would be prepared to if I had more time I believe that I have indicated that the package of amendments represents a timely and necessary step forward in the effective and efficient administration of the regulatory regime for agricultural compounds with benefits for all stakeholders. I commend this bill to the House and will be proposing that it be considered by the Primary Production Committee. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 It is very difficult to follow on from that speech. The member from the West Coast Damien O’Connor was obviously a little bit confused near the end of the speech. It reminded me of a sort of bedtime speech written by the research unit where he trundled on for 10 minutes and really did not address the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill very much at all. He may have in the last couple of minutes before he became confused. I was interested to hear him mention there would be no increase in compliance costs and I heard the Minister of Finance interject: “Yeah right! Heard that before.” So I guess it will be up to the select committee to determine that one. I also heard the member from the West Coast talk about the duplication of other Acts and that is a real concern I have having had a look through the bill. 
In essence the bill is a bit of a tidy-up. The Food Safety Authority was formed in 2002 following on from this Act in 2001. It will clarify the statutory backing for arrangements to restrict supply sale and use of certain trade names—in particular 1080. It will also enable the transfer of registration. It will also define what an agriculture compound is. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Wow! 
NATHAN GUY 
: Would the member like me to tell him what that is? That is essentially natural and processed animal feed and substances used post-harvest. The bill also clarifies the benefits of registering a trade name product. 
 I have some particular concerns about this bill as it goes forward and I will talk a little about them. It appears that there could be some duplication in terms of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and I think it is very important to define that at the select committee. Reading through I believe there is quite a bit of duplication around the bill and that Act. In particular I alert the House to the part of this bill that deals with uncleared goods because the biosecurity inspector has the powers to detect an exotic disease outbreak that could occur in New Zealand. I think it is very important to realise that the inspectors are extremely important to this country’s biosecurity. 
It is quite appropriate I guess for me to mention that point right now when we have just had 1.8 tonnes of corn come in from the States and planted in New Zealand and I heard today the Minister of Agriculture mention that it was a human error. So we have had 1.8 tonnes of corn come into this country and I think that is a real concern for our little island nation. I was pleased to hear that he is going to have an inquiry into this. I hope it is not going to be like the Noel Ingram QC inquiry into the Taito Phillip Field allegations which was pretty toothless. This has to be a very complex inquiry because human health is at stake here. Important issues to raise around this biosecurity breach are that the Minister was a little unclear whether these plants will be destroyed and whether there will be some compensation to those landowners who have already planted the seed that has managed to creep through our borders. 
It brings to mind another issue that I should mention the varroa bee mite in the Nelson region. The Minister was advised that there was an 80 percent chance of success in containing that and he did not choose to take it so now the varroa bee mite is spread throughout the South Island. We have also seen didymo come in to the South Island. We had a scare recently in the Rangitikei. Fortunately it has not reached the North Island yet but once again the Minister had an opportunity to get stuck into that and try to contain it in the lakes and rivers of the deep south. So there are some real concerns around biosecurity in this country. 
I also want to talk about the importation and manufacture of unrestricted compounds and in particular special circumstances and that is in the explanatory note. I want to mention that the Director-General of Agriculture and Forestry has the power under this bill to approve one-off circumstances. If we had a rabies outbreak in this country it would be vital that we got a vaccine in from abroad very very quickly. That is a power that the director-general under this bill will have. 
The other thing that is important is to have clear lines of communication and cooperation between two of the big authorities the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the New Zealand Food Safety Authority—that is really paramount. The proposed changes will allow the director-general to recognise the person standards being met. In particular I refer to new section 33 where the sale and trade name can be restricted to the authorised person. That needs to apply to those recognised persons under the legislation. 
I heard the member for West Coast - Tasman reading out that bedtime story before. He talked about the two discussion documents that had pretty wide stakeholder consultation in April 2002 and also in 2004 when there were some amendments that went back to those key stakeholders. That is detailed under “Stakeholder consultation” in the explanatory note on the bill. The important thing is that there has been some dialogue with the stakeholders but I am still concerned that there may appear to be some duplication between the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and this bill before us tonight. 
It is extremely important that I allude to the cost recovery. The explanatory note talks about a levy and the real concern there is that this could be introduced carte blanche. That would be a real concern to a lot of those people who would bear the brunt of that cost. In particular I am talking about the 18000 Federated Farmers members the 12000 suppliers to Fonterra the 7000 vegetable growers in this country the 500-odd winegrowers and the 600 who are involved in the viticulture and horticulture industry. Those people would end up bearing the brunt of what I believe could be quite a costly business. 
National will be supporting this bill but we do have some concerns around the cost and it will be down to the Primary Production Committee to iron those out. In particular I want to talk about those involved with the transport business because for them with the necessary legislation around storage and having the right labelling on their vehicles etc. there will be an increasing cost in time and an increasing cost in personal consultation there will be more paperwork and documentation to take through and there will actually be more processes and procedures that will add to compliance costs. This bill talks about the $85 an hour that will be charged out. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.