Volume 623 Week 80 - Tuesday 15 February 2005 
Volume 623 Week 80 - Tuesday 15 February 2005 
[Volume:623;Page:18575] 
Tuesday 15 February 2005 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Sweden—Prime Minister 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that His Excellency Mr Göran Persson Prime Minister of Sweden is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair. We also wish to welcome members of his delegation who are present in the gallery. 
His Excellency Mr Göran Persson accompanied by the Prime Minister entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Questions to Ministers 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Results 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his reported statement that there was nothing unexpected in this year’s NCEA results? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 It is important to remember that the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) is a quite separate examination from the New Zealand Scholarship. I am advised that at the end of a 3-year process implementation of NCEA levels 1 to 3 has gone relatively well. I stand by the advice I have received that the results for NCEA are within expected parameters. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that level 2 standard 90380 is one of the standards included in literacy and numeracy requirements for university entrance and is he aware that in 2003 28 percent of students failed that standard in 2004 57 percent of students failed that standard and is this difference of 10000 students what he expected? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I would have hoped by now that the member would understand that in a standards-based assessment regime—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not have that shouting out. That is quite enough. The Minister will have an opportunity to answer the question. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I would have hoped that by now the member would understand that in a standards-based assessment regime— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will please come to the answer. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: —with lots of variable factors such comparisons between years and cohorts are absolutely meaningless. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What reports has he seen from the education sector about the implementation of NCEA? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am able to quote Chris Haines president of the School Trustees Association who said on 18 January: “It was clear the former system had long outlived its usefulness as a fair measure of student learning. What we have now is a system which more fairly recognises student achievement. This change was huge by any world standards and the fact it was achieved in a tight timeframe is a credit to all those concerned especially secondary teachers stakeholder groups and NZQA. … With any new system there will always be some fine-tuning.” 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Associate Minister provide the House with the chronological sequence with rough dates if possible of when the New Zealand Qualifications Authority management recognised a problem with the variance in the NCEA level 4 results when the New Zealand Qualifications Authority board was informed of that when the board advised its Ministers and when the Ministers passed that information on to the Prime Minister and Cabinet? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No I do not have that information at hand at this time but will be happy to provide it to the questioner in due course. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Does the Minister realise that 30 out of 50 students—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is too much comment. There is to be no comment at all while a question is being asked. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Does the Minister realise that 30 out of 50 students who sat NCEA level 4 Maori got scholarship but only nine out of 1000 students who sat biology got scholarship; if so was that not an unexpected result either? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I think that the most useful response I can give is to quote two statements from a Cabinet paper as follows. Firstly: “An NCEA Level 4 ‘scholarships’ will be introduced for the highest achieving students. The nature of assessment for this will require further consideration and consultation with … secondary schools …” and secondly: “There will be no inter-subject scaling of the external assessment. This has been a source of dissatisfaction for some time because of the distortions that occur …”. Those statements were made by Wyatt Creech on the introduction of those exams in 1998. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very interesting to know what Mr Wyatt Creech thought about the NCEA but that cannot be regarded as an answer. The Minister was asked about his own statement that the results were not unexpected. He was asked quite a simple question about whether he expected 30 out of 50 students who sat Maori to pass and only nine out of 1000 who sat biology to pass. That was a simple question and I would have thought he would say either yes or no. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable Minister can come to the answer. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I made it clear in my answer to the primary question that I was referring to NCEA levels 1 2 and 3 and that the scholarship exam is quite a different issue. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Why is the Minister surprised that extending a standards-based system to scholarship exams has created those problems when the scholarship awards scheme requires students’ results to be compared and ranked yet standards-based assessment is designed to focus on individual achievement; and what would have been so difficult about retaining the old-style approach for the scholarship exam as it is separate from NCEA level 3? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I was certainly surprised as I believe most of the community was about the wide variety of results generated in that exam and at presumably the lack of moderation and control systems to ensure that that was not the case. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement to the House that all comparisons between years and subjects are meaningless; and what does he think that those students who were among the 10000 extra students who failed one of the literacy and numeracy standards—which may have made the difference between them getting university entrance or not—will think of that? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I think that students who have been spending some considerable time and effort working successfully with NCEA clearly have a greater understanding than has been demonstrated by the member opposite. They understand only too well—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will answer the question. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The students understand only too well that they pass a standard if they reach the set standard and if they do not reach that point they fail. That is the simplicity of the system. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister therefore explain to the House why in 2003 around 8000 students failed the standard for reading an unfamiliar text but in 2004 around 18000 students failed it; what went wrong for those 10000 students—did the teaching go through the floor or are they just dumb? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Clearly there are a number of factors involved. They would relate to the size of the cohort any change in the standard and also I could suggest the origin of some of the students setting those literacy standards in particular. I would be happy to obtain and provide that detailed information for the questioner in due course. 
Hon Bill English 
: Would the Minister care to elaborate for the benefit of the House and also for the benefit of those 10000 students just what he meant by the expressions “change in the standard” and “origin of some of the students” as an explanation for 10000 more students failing that standard this year compared with the number last year? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: What I specifically meant was the role of foreign fee-paying students who are speakers of other than English as a first language in some of those results. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sure you are not going to accept an answer from the Minister that suggests 10000 foreign fee-payers are the reason why the figures are different. In any event he failed to answer the question about what he had said to the House was a change in standards. I think that is pretty important and he should give us an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is a political point not a point of order. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship Examination 
2.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: What action is the Government taking to address public concerns about the administration of last year’s scholarship exams? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 Having acted in the interests of fairness and addressed the issue of variability in last year’s scholarship exams by introducing the distinction award the Government’s next priority has been to students who will sit the scholarship exam this year and beyond. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that I am assembling a group of educational practitioners and experts including teachers principals and representatives of the tertiary sector to review and provide remedies to any deficiencies in the scholarship system. That expert group will have 2 weeks to prepare a report including recommended options that I will take back to Cabinet. I know it is not a lot of time but we have teachers and students in classrooms today who need to know the shape of the exams to be held at the end of this year. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister please advise the House who will form this new review group? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I will be inviting nominations for one representative from each of the following organisations to sit on that review group: the Secondary Principals Association of New Zealand the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee the Post Primary Teachers Association the Principals Council of the Post Primary Teachers Association the New Zealand School Trustees Association and Independent Schools New Zealand. It will also include two additional principals nominated by me and a person from the wharekura area. They will be assisted by senior representatives from the Ministry of Education and the Qualifications Authority. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is it that the Minister in setting up a group that is meant to improve the operation of scholarship has appointed a bunch of people who are political representatives of the usual organisations—a group that will be simply taken over by the Qualifications Authority bureaucrats in exactly the same way that all other advisory groups have been taken over? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The Minister has not and it will not. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Associate Minister confirm that all examination papers would not have had to be recovered as the Prime Minister was led to believe in order to provide statistical moderation of scholarship marks; and if that is the case why was that course of action not taken? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: It is my understanding that the discussion over how—if at all—marks in this year’s scholarship exam can be moderated is still an ongoing statistical debate. 
Jill Pettis 
: Given the Minister’s announcement about the review and the panel can he advise the House whether that is the Government’s only response to concerns about the administration of last year’s scholarship exam? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No I have also written to the State Services Commissioner Dr Mark Prebble asking him to use his powers pursuant to sections 6(b) and 11(4) of the State Sector Act relating to the performance of Government institutions including the discharge by the chief executive of his or her functions. I have requested that Dr Prebble review the performance of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority firstly in relation to the New Zealand Scholarship examinations in 2004 and more generally in carrying out its functions in the school sector. The terms of reference will be referred to Cabinet this week although I expect them to cover the wider issues of the authority’s role in the educational sector. The priority will be identifying what went wrong with the 2004 scholarship exams. 
Te Wananga o Aotearoa—Funding 
3.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What amount of Government funding did Te Wananga o Aotearoa receive in the last financial year and is the wananga meeting his expectations relating to financial management? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am advised that the Tertiary Education Commission funding to the wananga was $239 million approximately. I am yet to be convinced that the taxpayer got value for money from that expenditure. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Why does that massive level of funding of $239 million in 1 year continue when the Government’s own representative on the wananga council Graeme McNally advised in December that there has been a serious breakdown in financial management with a prevailing culture of non-accountability and extravagance in wananga spending by senior management? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think that probably Mr McNally’s report was one of the reasons I said that I am yet to be convinced that the taxpayer has had value for money from the system that was set up by the previous National Government. 
Tariana Turia 
: Does the Minister agree with the comments made by his previous Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) the Hon Steve Maharey on 17 May 2004 when he stated that: “Maori enrolled in tertiary education is one of the great success stories of this Government and the bulk of Maori tertiary enrolments are at wananga but the majority are at Te Wananga o Aotearoa which is providing a staircase into higher learning for tens of thousands of Maori who have never participated in tertiary education before.”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the degree of agreement goes to the quality in the staircasing that actually occurs and that is something that I want to see more evidence of. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Is it appropriate for the wananga to offer a security guard course to students in Queensland Australia with flights accommodation apparel and passport costs etc. provided free of charge as inducements to enrol and to get New Zealand taxpayers’ funding for that? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Not if it is getting New Zealand taxpayers’ funding. I do not know that that is the case for that course. 
Tariana Turia 
: How many State agencies have scrutinised Te Wananga o Aotearoa over the past 2 years? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I know that the Audit Office has someone whom I have appointed who is currently there the Tertiary Education Commission is having a look and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has had a look but that does not mean that there is a satisfactory result yet. I want to make it very clear to the House that there has been a large increase of funding in the area and I am not yet convinced that we have value for money. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Can the Minister explain to the House how it is that he does not know that the country’s biggest university which I understand the wananga now is— 
Hon Member 
: Southern Hemisphere. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is to be no interjection during question time. This time I will be generous. Please start the question again. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How can the Minister say to this House that he does not know whether this institution which is now the largest university in the Southern Hemisphere may actually be providing courses in being a security guard in Queensland Australia when he said he is aware he has had an adverse report when he has sent in all those officials; and when the wananga is spending $239 million does he not think he has some obligation to know the answers to those sorts of questions? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think a number of questions sit in there and I would like to correct one impression straight away. The wananga is not a university and it is very important that people understand it is not a university—notwithstanding its inappropriate advertising which indicates that it is. A number of Australian institutions offer courses in New Zealand and that is allowed under our rules. Our institutions are allowed to offer courses offshore. The key is that they are not allowed to use New Zealand equivalent full-time student funding to do so. If they are that money will be recovered. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Why don’t you know? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As Mr Prebble indicated I had not quite completed my answer unfortunately. Universities in New Zealand and other tertiary education institutions offer tens of thousands of courses. I do not know the list off by heart. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Why not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am perfectly happy for the Minister to complete his answer. Mr Prebble had quite a detailed question. The Minister was trying to complete the answer. I did not think it was an especially controversial one. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. While the Minister was on his feet I am afraid that the honourable Tariana Turia called out an epithet accusing him of a position that was very unparliamentary. I know that neither the Minister nor you would have heard it but we certainly did and I think she should be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member used an unparliamentary phrase I ask her to withdraw and apologise. 
Tariana Turia 
: I withdraw and apologise. I seek leave to table the Hon Steve Maharey’s press release of 17 May 2004 praising Te Wananga o Aotearoa. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There is. 
Kenneth Wang 
: Just a point of order. I just want to know from the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a question? 
Kenneth Wang 
: What control or management system has been put in place to monitor the spending of the $239 million of taxpayers’ money by Te Wananga o Aotearoa? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Is this a question rather than a point of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There has been extensive monitoring as I outlined to the House earlier. I am not sure yet whether we have got to the bottom of the issue—that is whether in fact the vast number of people who go to the courses actually graduate on to something worthwhile. The wananga argues that they do. We are yet to see the evidence of it. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My colleague Kenneth Wang raised that as a point of order. I hope for the sake of the record that it is recorded as such and that the Minister was responding to that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member asked a question. I specifically asked him about that and he did ask a question. However I will take that into consideration. 
Labour Market—Reports 
4.  
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What recent reports has he received on the state of the labour market? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The household labour force survey for the December 2004 quarter released last Friday reported that employment increased by 87000 last year taking the total increase in employment since the Labour Government took office to 264000. That is 152 more people in employment for every single day of this Government or one person employed every 10 minutes. Unemployment reduced by 18000 last year. That is 37 percent fewer unemployed than when we took office. Unemployment now is at a record low of 3.6 percent which makes us No. 1 in the OECD. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Were any aspects of the December 2004 household labour force survey results unusual; if so what were they? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Labour-Progressive Government was pleased to notice in the survey that six records had been broken. The first was the record high level of employment. The others were the record low level of unemployment; a record high 1.6 percent employment growth in the December 2004 quarter; a record high labour force participation rate of 67.7 percent; a record high 65.3 percent of those of working age now in employment; and for the first time all ethnic groups measured having an annual average unemployment rate of under 9 percent. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Minister want to associate himself with that sort of deception when he knows full well that the Finance and Expenditure Committee was told that that employment measurement can derive from a person getting just 1 hour’s work a week and that it disguises the fact that tens of thousands of New Zealanders have gone off the unemployment benefit to the sickness benefit and therefore are not measured against the Minister’s 3.6 percent index? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Because of course it is not deception. This measure is the measure used throughout the OECD so we are using the same measure. As I have explained to the member a number of times the measure he should be looking at in the survey is underemployment to tell whether people are getting the jobs that they actually want. I point out to the member that what we have is a movement of people from sickness benefit to invalids benefit but that over the last 5 years approximately 20000 have moved from sickness benefit to invalids benefit and about 70000 have moved back the other way. 
Judy Turner 
: Has the Minister seen reports of Dr Alan Bollard’s recent speech to the Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce when he stated that to increase growth it is more important to focus on improving the productivity of the current workforce rather than on expanding an already stretched labour force and how does this sit with the Government’s pledge to encourage more mothers back into paid employment and away from caring for their children at home? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: It sits very well. In fact if the member cares to read speeches from right across the economic portfolios of the Government she will hear the same message about productivity. But at the same time this is a country where more people can go back into the workforce provided they have the support of such things as childcare and provided that it is a free choice to do so. That is what we are aiming to provide for. 
Georgina Beyer 
: How has this significant improvement in the employment situation been shared regionally? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Labour-Progressive Government has noticed that all 12 regions have reported and benefited from an improved employment situation. In every single region the unemployment rate is now under 5 percent. The annual average unemployment rate in Northland went down from 8 percent to 4.5 percent within a year while that in the Bay of Plenty dropped from 6.3 percent to 4.7 percent. The disparity between the lowest rate which is 2.5 percent in the Nelson / Marlborough / West Coast area and the highest which is 4.8 percent in the Hawke’s Bay / Gisborne area is much smaller than it used to be. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that a singular focus on increasing women’s participation in the labour market in an effort to improve GDP relative to that of other OECD countries ignores the fact that staying home to look after children is valuable work even if it does not rate on a clinical economic indicator and that by contracting out parenting through dawn-till-dusk childcare we may be putting economic rankings above family well-being? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I would not want the member to think that the Government would focus on one singular policy to increase productivity. As she knows the Government has more policy than the rest of the House put together on these issues as well as on everything else. I also stress that the Government has placed an enormous amount of emphasis on the family. That is why we have a partnership on the Families Commission as the member knows. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table two documents. One is the comparative record between the 2005 results which were much lauded by the Minister and the results from 1985 when the great economic experiment began under Labour which shows that unemployment is higher than it was back then. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Document not tabled. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the second document which debunks the view that there is a greater movement of people from the sickness benefit to the unemployment benefit than the reverse. The document proves that under Labour there are tens of thousands more people who are on the sickness benefit than there were before Labour came to power. 
Document not tabled. 
Police Priorities—Policy 
5.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What policy determines how police are prioritised to solve crime? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 The Government’s crime reduction strategy set seven priority areas aimed at particular at-risk groups of victims. This strategy is then reflected in the statement of intent which records the annual agreement between the Minister and the Commissioner of Police. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister confirm to the House and the public that the sole purpose of the Criminal Investigation Bureau (CIB) is to investigate serious crime and that its officers are not expected to fulfil traffic quotas? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The Commissioner of Police has told all his staff that with priority one calls the nearest staff member should respond. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate the Minister’s answer but I did not ask about emergency services or priority one calls. I simply asked the Minister whether the CIB’s sole purpose is to investigate serious crime and whether its officers are not expected to fulfil traffic quotas. It was a question about traffic quotas not about emergency response. Can he answer it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister to respond. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police do not have specific quotas. 
Tim Barnett 
: How does the Government quantify the success of its crime reduction policies? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The statistics show that recorded crime is at its lowest rate in 21 years. Crime resolution is up to 45.1 percent. In addition we have reduced the road toll to its second-lowest annual rate since the 1960s. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has the Minister ever asked the Commissioner of Police whether he has enough resources to provide a safe 111 service; if so when and what was said? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The commissioner and I often talk about resources and he is very pleased with what I get him. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will now answer the specific question that the member asked. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I remind the member that this Government has provided resources for 111 calls over the last year since we talked about providing another 18 staff for the control rooms. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister in no way addressed the question—it was not my particular question but I know that the public and the members of this House certainly have an interest in it—which asked whether the Minister himself has done his job and has raised the question of adequate resources for the 111 emergency service. The Minister studiously avoided addressing that. I know that you are not responsible for his answer but he certainly has to address the question and I took from what the Minister said that he did not address the question at all. I can only conclude that that was because the true answer would be embarrassing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No he did address the question. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister confirm that the police would have the equivalent of 50 extra front-line officers to respond to 111 emergencies if they copied the British police policy of not charging people with cannabis offences—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Every member in this House who has been properly elected in the democratic system has the right to ask a question. I will not warn anyone again. Mr Tanczos has just as much right as anyone else. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister confirm that the police would have the equivalent of 50 extra front-line officers to respond to 111 emergencies if they copied the UK police policy of not charging people with cannabis offences and if he cannot confirm that can he tell the House how many front-line officers it would free up? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have admonished members of the House for making noise during that question. I point out to you that the questioner invited the Minister to accept a breach of the law—charging people who are caught in respect of such offences is clearly enough stated in our current law—and therefore the question is ridiculous and should be ruled out of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need any assistance. The question was in order. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Police police all offences across the board and make sure they are even-handed in the way they apply that policing. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister addressed the question. I heard him. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister willing to defend the categorical statement from a detective sergeant that it is police policy to contract a certain number of hours for the traffic police that that is non-negotiable and that if there is a shortage due to staff holidays sickness etc. then police are pulled from criminal investigations and used for traffic duties? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I will not comment on that individual case because I know that last week when the member brought cases to the House they were proved to be wrong. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If everything is fine in the Minister’s portfolio and if as he claims he is on top of his job why did he go to the Prime Minister and complain that Ron Mark was bullying him and what did the Prime Minister say to him? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I did not go to the Prime Minister about Ron Mark. Everyone knows what he is like. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that the Minister is under extreme pressure and I know— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please come to the point of order. What is the point of order? 
Ron Mark 
: My point of order is this: is that member implying in this Chamber that Ron Mark NZ First MP is a bully? That is serious. I would have expected you to be first on your feet to bring the Minister back into line for casting aspersions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I thought the question and the reply were within the Standing Orders. 
Hearing and Vision Testing—Children 
6.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: Is he satisfied that the regime to test for hearing and vision difficulties in children is adequate; if not does he have any plans to do something about it? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Not entirely and yes. The member will be aware of the hearing screening project under way in the Waikato which I trust will give us good information on what steps if any need to be taken to further improve provision. On the subject of vision and hearing I have read the member’s articles over this summer and invite her to submit her source data from the Castlecliff School study to me so that we can take a look at it. 
Judy Turner 
: If after viewing the 2-year trial at Wanganui’s Castlecliff School he is able to confirm that 40 percent of the children who passed the Government-funded screening test actually needed glasses and that 23 percent needed retesting a year later and given that the Health Committee has voted against an inquiry will he initiate a ministerial inquiry into the performance of that programme as those results suggest that as many as 22000 new entrants tested each year could be getting a false result? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If the situation is as serious as the member suggests we probably would not need an inquiry. But why do we not take a good look at the source data and like any other experiment assess it objectively? 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Ministry of Health cannot tell us how many children complete their eight well-child checks—which this screening is part of—because a system to track that kind of information was put in place only 6 months ago; if so does he think it is acceptable that the Government has no idea how many children have missed out and are still missing out on this care? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No I cannot but that does not mean that the member’s assertion is wrong. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Ministry of Health has not formally evaluated the effectiveness of the National Vision Hearing Screening Programme since its inception; if so is he content to stand by while our children’s educational and social development is being jeopardised when other screening programmes have been scrutinised much more seriously? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I was advised today that the National Audiology Centre which curiously looks at both hearing and vision testing considers that things are moving satisfactorily. But I said in my primary answer that I am not entirely sure that they are. 
Judy Turner 
: I seek leave of the House to table the Castlecliff School vision testing report as requested by the Minister. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
111 System—Priorities 
7.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Is he prepared to change police priorities to divert some staff from lower-priority traffic tasks to improve 111 response times; if not why not? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 That is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police. He is responsible for the effective allocation of staff resources to meet the strategic and daily priorities of policing. The commissioner has reinforced his expectation that all rostered sworn staff will make themselves available to respond to emergencies when they are on duty. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has he ever asked the Commissioner of Police whether he has enough resources to provide safe 111 services? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Yes and he has been provided with an extra 18 and there is a review. If the commissioner needs more resources we will make sure that he gets them. 
Ron Mark 
: Does the Minister believe that his priorities are acceptable when a Criminal Investigation Bureau officer writes: “CIB have prided themselves for many years as an elite group of people in the police who investigate serious crime and are thorough in leaving no stone unturned when investigating crime. … How are they expected to continue with this level of service to the communities they serve when they are being pressured to put down their homicide and rape files and go do traffic?”; does he find that acceptable? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: As no name is given to that person the member is quoting he sounds very much like doubting Thomas or his brother. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has police management raised any concerns about staffing levels at police communications centres at any stage and what were those concerns? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Last year police management said it wanted more prosecutors and more people in its communications centres. We gave it 18 more people in the communications centres and we increased the number of prosecutors. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If everything is fine in the Minister’s portfolio and if he is on top of his job why are we seeing in the newspapers photographs of him appearing with the Prime Minister and commentary regarding his being bullied by Ron Mark; and when did the Prime Minister say that she would make that statement? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I am always happy to be with the Prime Minister and photographed with her. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not ask him whether he was happy or unhappy—I know he is pretty desolate most of time. But my real point is why such articles are appearing in newspapers—on the front pages at that—and when did the Prime Minister say she would make that statement. He must have known that the Prime Minister was going to make a statement at a press conference. He surely should be required to tell the House what the answer is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you thought my question was appropriate then with respect it was a point of order. If you thought that what I asked was appropriate—and you did not rule me out of order then—and if that was his answer then it was a very valid point of order. There are two questions that the Minister has failed to answer. If you know what the answers are please apprise me the House and the whole country of them. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Firstly the Minister has no responsibility for what photographs a newspaper carries; the newspaper is responsible for that. Secondly the Minister is not responsible for the prime ministerial decision to make certain statements; the Prime Minister makes those decisions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The Minister could have given that answer in respect of the first question. But on the second question it is not the prime ministerial responsibility I am asking him to acquit; it is his own. I asked him when the Prime Minister had apprised him of her intention to hold such a conference and make such a statement. That is in his knowledge and that makes it his responsibility. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not agree. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Countless times in this House Ministers have been asked as to when they first learnt something. That makes it the Minister’s responsibility. Certainly no one in this House surely believes that the Prime Minister went along to that media function intending to make a statement and did not tell the Minister that she was going to do that. I am asking the Minister when he was told—before the meeting or after. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As far as I was concerned the Minister addressed the question originally. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Well if he did answer the question then please tell me what the date is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I beg your pardon? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If he did address the question then please tell us all what the date was on which the Prime Minister advised him of that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: My job here is not to answer that sort of question. That is not my job as Speaker. My job is to ensure that questions are properly asked and I allowed the member’s question. My job is to ensure that Ministers address the question and the Minister did. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not your job to answer the question but it is your job to make sure that the Minister does make some attempt to answer. If it is in his knowledge—and it must be—then surely he should be required to answer. When did the Prime Minister tell him that she intended to make that statement at a press conference? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not responsible for newspapers or the Prime Minister. The Minister responded in so far as there was responsibility and I adjudged that he addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not claiming that he is responsible for anything in the newspapers—none of us are. But he is certainly responsible in respect of my question as to when the Prime Minister told him that she was going to make that statement. He is the only one who knows. That is what makes him responsible and I am asking now that he be asked to answer the question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Apart from the fact that I am now informed that the Prime Minister first made the statement on  
Morning Report  
that morning so there was scarcely anything to be said in Cabinet about it the Minister cannot be responsible for what the Prime Minister said even if she said it to him. He might be responsible for whether he heard it but not for whether she said it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is precisely what I ruled. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This has been a very long and rather interesting exchange. Do you not think it would have been a lot better had you just said to Mr Hawkins that he could expand on the answer and at least tell the House whether he knew that the Prime Minister was going to go to his defence? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well if the member had my job he could have insisted on that. I did not; he has not. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is it not a fact that the police were actually seeking funding for an additional 60 communications centre staff to relieve pressure on the 111 system as detailed by Mr Greg O’Connor on television; if so why was this funding not forthcoming and who made that decision? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police always ask for more than they are going to get. That always happens across every portfolio in this Government. The Commissioner of Police was well pleased to get the 18 extra staff. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When the Commissioner of Police asked for those additional 60 staff did he highlight to the Minister a stream of internal correspondence from within his department expressing concerns about the understaffing; and why did this Minister and this Government decide that 18 staff were better than 60? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: It was not a matter of 18 or 60; they were wanted for other areas as well such as prosecution— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: No. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The member can say “No.” but they were wanted for the prosecution section and for police driver training. The commissioner was pleased because he got staff for all three areas. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a report to the Minister of Police on 2003 Budget bid initiatives from the Commissioner of Police dated 14 November where on page 4 the commissioner asked for a total of 100 staff to deal with the Auckland response capacity. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the transcript of the interview on television of Mr Greg O’Connor of the Police Association where he said in respect of this matter that the police applied for 60 staff and ended up with 18 many of whom did not arrive. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that transcript. Is there any objection? There is. 
Health Benefits—Proposals 
8.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has she received any proposals to scrap universal health benefits and what would be the impact of such an approach? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: Yes the Minister has seen the statement made by the Opposition spokesperson that National will abandon the universal subsidies for primary care that have been announced by this Government. That would mean a return to the old discredited targeting policies. For example under the community services card regime people who earned over $19999 a year were rich enough to pay for their primary-care services. The public will also remember the failed attempt to introduce charging for hospital services that quickly had to be abandoned. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to ask you to make a comparison. That Minister found himself responsible for learning when some other party made a statement but of course just prior to that when the Minister of Police was asked when he learnt something that was out of order. How can this be in order if that question was out of order? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In speaking to the point of order I say that the question was whether the Minister had received any proposals. Had the member cared to ask the Minister whether he had heard certain things from the Prime Minister that question would have been in order. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What evidence has the Minister of Health seen of the benefits from the universal subsidies for primary health care now being rolled out through the primary health organisations? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We are already seeing good results from the increased investment in primary health care. Preliminary figures show that people are accessing primary care based on their need and not on some arbitrary targeting tool such as the community services card. People with the greatest health needs are now using services at a higher rate. That is exactly what one would expect given their higher health needs. Under the old regime many people from the high - health need population were simply not getting adequate primary health care. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Can the Minister of Health guarantee she will have resources available to fix New Zealand’s woefully substandard cancer services the mental health crisis the obesity diabetes epidemic and the pressing health needs of our ageing population? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am happy to answer the question but the question was about universal health benefits rather than the issues of cancer patients etc. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister said that he was happy to answer the question and I ask him to do so. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I certainly am. I will continue on behalf of the Minister of Health to place considerable pressure on the Minister of Finance to ensure that sufficient resources are available but in the case of cancer treatment I remind the member that in 1999 the then National Government refused to release a report on the shortcomings in cancer care and since that time the Government has been progressively building up resources in that area that were left completely inadequate by National. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I note that there are four Associate Ministers of Health in the House. In the event that the Minister of Health is unavailable why is it that those Ministers—Mr O’Connor Mr Hodgson Mr Anderton and others—draw a salary but do not stand in for the Minister during her absence? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that the Government determines who answers questions when the Minister is absent. 
Prime Minister—Comments on Institutions 
9.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Was she referring to any specific institutions—if so which ones—when in her Prime Minister’s statement to the House she stated: “Low-quality providers and courses should not expect to survive. The money they have consumed can be far better spent elsewhere.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 No. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned with the lack of financial accountability of Te Wananga o Aotearoa and can she explain to the House how taxpayer funding went from $8 million in 2000 to $111 million in 2002 to $239 million this year with inadequate checks on financial management and quality outcomes; is that not a case of double standards? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the Minister of Education said in his earlier answer there are a number of issues to be looked at around that level of funding and no I could not say that I am satisfied there is value for money. In my statement to the House I said that I want value for money. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How can the Prime Minister account for the spending of over a quarter of a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money in just the current financial year when her own advisers on the governing body of that organisation have been saying that there is a lack of accountability bad management and gross extravagance by senior management; how can she just flush away taxpayers’ money on that scale? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: If the member listened carefully he would find that I actually agree with him that there is an issue to be examined. I also draw attention to the statement: “… ‘that our educational programmes be funded in ways that are consistent with the … Treaty of Waitangi.’ ” That was a statement the ACT leader issued stating that he agreed with Mrs Turia about that. 
Rodney Hide 
: When did the Prime Minister first have concerns about the financial management of Te Wananga o Aotearoa and in particular about what Mr McNally said about there being possible breaches of statutory duty serious cases of financial mismanagement and that the Maori university suffered from a culture of non-accountability and extravagance; and when does she think she will announce an investigation of the wananga so that her Government can escape further questioning? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There are of course a couple of investigations under way at the moment. One was initiated by the Hon Steve Maharey who wrote to the Auditor-General in late August 2004 asking him to look at potential conflicts of interest at the wananga and another was initiated by the Hon Trevor Mallard who is corresponding with the Registrar of Companies and inviting that office to exercise its statutory power in respect of the use of the term “university”. There has also been another audit of Te Wananga o Aotearoa and as the former Associate Minister will confirm I have on many occasions raised with him concern. That was dealt with in my speech to the House. We will get better value for money. 
Kyoto Protocol—Greenhouse Gas Emissions 
10.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: Does he believe New Zealand will meet its target under the Kyoto Protocol which comes into effect tomorrow to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 On a gross basis no; on a net basis yes. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand’s net emissions have so far risen 20 percent since 1990 and how does he plan to eliminate that 20 percent over the next 3 years? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member will find that it is our gross emissions that have risen by about that amount. I simply say that the Government’s many programmes to reduce emissions—not to 1990 levels but certainly to levels against business as usual—are now starting to bite. 
David Parker 
: What reports has the Minister seen on business support for the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have seen many reports including one today from a group representing New Zealand’s largest energy users. They see the Kyoto Protocol as being an important first step and are supportive of New Zealand’s efforts to reduce emissions and to protect business competitiveness at the same time. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister recall justifying the Government’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in 2002—ahead of our major trading partners—on the basis of having 56 million tonnes of carbon credits to sell; and given that with the collapse in new forest plantings increase in dairy stock and increase in emissions that figure is already widely discredited does he now accept he was in error on that fundamental point? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The answer to the last question is no. The fact is that New Zealand is likely to remain a net seller of carbon credits over the course of the 2008-12 period. The amount by which we will be a net seller will fluctuate up and down as projections continue to change. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister support the view promoted by some that carbon dioxide should now be considered to be filthy life-threatening pollution or does he agree with the many sensible and balanced members of the scientific community who regard carbon dioxide as we always have regarded it: as a natural and necessary component of our planet’s atmosphere? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Like many things in life carbon dioxide is good in moderation. Climate change suggests that carbon dioxide is now becoming an immoderate part of our atmosphere. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister explain in light of his reply to my primary question why the Government’s climate change website states that gross emissions have risen nearly 22 percent but net emissions have risen 20 percent; and is that figure on the website wrong? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I misunderstood the member and I apologise. It is true that both gross and net emissions have risen. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: He is all over the paddock. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not all over the paddock. It is true that both gross and net emissions—[ 
Interruption 
] The member is one of those with kangaroos in his top paddock but I say to him notwithstanding that that New Zealand is still on track to meet its Kyoto targets on a net basis. 
David Parker 
: Has the Minister seen reports with regard to what other conservative Opposition leaders say on climate change? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes. The Conservative Party leader in Britain said last year with simple clarity: “Like the war on terror or the drive for responsible free trade no one can opt out of the fight against global warming.” Then in October last year the leader of the conservative party in this country said that he wished to renounce the protocol and that he was uncomfortable with even its underlying science. His language was starting to approach that of a bewildered conspiracy theorist. 
Rod Donald 
: Can the Minister confirm that greenhouse emissions from transport have increased by over 60 percent since 1990; and when can we expect to see energy efficiency standards for all vehicles entering the country so that within 10 years we can be using half the fuel to drive the same distance? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I cannot confirm the figure but it sounds about right. My colleague Judith Tizard the Associate Minister of Transport is now piloting New Zealand’s first-ever emissions testing and that will have its benefits. There is another issue in front of us which is whether New Zealand should go to a mandatory vehicle fuel efficiency labelling scheme. I have a meeting on that basis with officials tonight. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that emissions from thermal power stations increased by over 90 percent from 1990 to 2003; and how will firing up the antiquated inefficient mothballed power station at Marsden B on coal help to reduce those emissions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Electricity generation accounts for about 8 or 9 percent of all greenhouse gases in this country yet seems to account somehow for about 80 or 90 percent of public attention. Cars and cows are where our greenhouse gases largely come from. That said I say that any coal user for electricity or for other purposes will have to face a carbon charge in the future. The details of that charge will be announced later this year. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Can the Minister confirm that the current rates of forest planting are nowhere enough to offset greenhouse emissions; and what is the Government doing to discourage the conversion of forestry land—which is a sink for greenhouse gases—to dairying which he himself just described as a major contributor of those gases? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I can confirm that forest planting does not offset and never was enough to offset all our emissions. It is however enough to offset our additional emissions on 1990 levels. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarship Examination 
11.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement regarding scholarship results that “… there are a whole range of issues here that NZQA has to face up to”; if so what issues does he think the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has to face up to? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes I do agree with the Prime Minister. As I outlined earlier that is the reason for the initiation of the review by the State Services Commission. But among the issues that need to be addressed are whether specified processes were followed and whether the examinations in each subject were fair and valid assessment tools. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware that the membership of the review group that he announced today is remarkably similar to the membership of the Secondary Principals’ and Leaders’ Forum—namely the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) the Principals Council of the PPTA the Secondary Principals Association the School Trustees Association and the Vice-Chancellors Committee—and that that group gave the Minister advice last year that scholarship would be a shambles; so why will he take any notice of the same group reappointed this year? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that when allegations like that are made they should be properly authenticated. I received no such advice from that group. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member asked a question. The Minister can respond. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: My understanding of the comments made by that group previously is that they were certainly not as unequivocal as has just been suggested by the member. I am confident that the group’s members are appropriate representatives of the wider sector and will give good— 
Hon Bill English 
: It’s all the same people. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: They are not the same people I say to Mr English. I am confident that they will give us good advice. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Minister confirm that the decision to have New Zealand Certificate of Educational Achievement level 4 as a standards-based assessment was made by the Labour Government Cabinet not by National; and given that it was that decision that created the current debacle are his moves to sack the chief executive officer not simply passing the buck? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: No I will not confirm that statement. Quite clearly that decision was made in 1998. I earlier referred to the Cabinet paper over the signature of Wyatt Creech to demonstrate that that is the fact of the matter. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that a group called the Secondary Principals’ and Leaders’ Forum whose membership is largely made up of exactly the same membership he announced for his review group today told the chief executive of the Ministry of Education and the New Zealand Qualifications Authority on 25 August 2004 in respect of scholarship: “Entries are very conservative teachers have been reluctant to enter students for scholarship when they do not know how it is going to be examined.” and that the minutes also pinpoint subjects such as biology and graphics which have turned out to be the subjects in which there were real problems? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I cannot confirm that but if that is the document that the member tabled in the House the other day I can confirm that his quotation from it is extremely selective. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table the minutes again to demonstrate that my quotes were precisely from the document. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is this Parliament meant to believe that when the Secondary Principals’ and Leaders’ Forum told the chief executive of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and the Ministry of Education—the Minister of Education’s principal advisers—that teachers did not know how students were going to be examined in scholarship and that this reflected a lack of confidence in scholarship by teachers those people did not tell the Minister that that was what secondary schools were telling him in August last year? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am sure questions like that will be properly answered by the review that has been initiated today. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It makes a nonsense of question time when I am asking the Minister responsible who has all the paperwork and who has a colleague Minister who would have been present about what advice he was given and he says to go and ask someone else who is not in the House. He is the Minister responsible and Parliament is about ministerial responsibility. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I think that is a fair point. The Minister will expand on the answer. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: The whole point of the review is to answer exactly questions like that which I am not able to answer because I do not have all that information. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Mr Speaker we are in a rather unusual situation. I have seen it before but it is rather unusual. We have a Minister who has only just been appointed and we have by way of interjection from the previous Minister Mr Mallard a clear indication that he as the Minister who was responsible does know the answer. I seek leave for that particular question to be redirected to Mr Mallard who I am sure could answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister advise the House whether advice given to Howard Fancy the chief executive of the Ministry of Education and Karen van Rooyen the Chief Executive of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority was passed on to him the advice being that given by the Secondary Principals’ and Leaders’ Forum on Wednesday 25 August 2004 which includes in the minutes under “Scholarship” the statements: “Entries are very conservative teachers have been reluctant to enter students for scholarship when they do not know how it is going to be examined. This may reflect a lack of confidence in scholarship examination by teachers.”; if that advice was passed on by his chief advisers why did he proceed with the scholarship examination? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I have over the last 24 hours worked my way through the advice I received over that time period. I did not receive that advice. 
Hon Bill English 
: I don’t believe it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will now stand withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Energy—Capacity 
12.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Is he confident that New Zealand’s energy requirements are being met? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Generally yes. 
Peter Brown 
: Is it acceptable to the Minister—noting particularly that answer—that with our lakes 100 percent full the wholesale price of electricity is something between four and five times what it was this time last year; if that is acceptable would he tell us that; if it is not what will he do about it? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The substantive question was about energy requirements not price and I answered it directly. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My colleague asked the Minister whether he thought the energy requirements were being met and his answer was “Generally yes.” Then my colleague asked a totally different question about the issue of price and the huge escalation in price since this time last year. We never got an answer at all. The Minister just got up and said he had answered the question then sat down again. Frankly on an issue as important to New Zealanders as power pricing he should be required to answer the darned thing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister could address the particular question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I did not come to the House prepared to answer questions on price because the primary question did not relate to price. I do not have the information to confirm the member’s suggestions. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister confirm that coal-fired power generation will form an important and necessary part of the industry being able to meet New Zealand’s energy needs over the foreseeable future? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Notwithstanding the coal research facility in my own electorate I am not prepared at this stage to back particular winners for our future energy requirements. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that one of the requirements of the electricity industry is to deliver electricity to every New Zealander; if he does accept that is he concerned that the price of power in New Zealand continues to grow at a much faster rate than inflation and that it has a much greater impact on those who are on a fixed income particularly those who live totally on superannuation; if he is concerned what will he do about it; if the answer is nothing will he be honest enough to tell us? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is four questions. The Minister can address two of them. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have noted as I have become better briefed in this area the very good work done by my colleague the previous Minister of Energy in making sure that pensioners and others—people who use lower amounts of power—are able to get power at reasonable prices. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why when domestic electricity prices have doubled since 1990 have we seen so little improvement in household energy efficiency and what is this Government’s target date to see all homes adequately insulated damp-proofed and fitted with energy-saving lights water heaters and showers to keep bills down? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The Government does not have a date for that. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister satisfied that when the Electricity Commission assesses the new 400 kilovolt ampere transmission lines against alternatives as it is bound to do by statute it will have a properly quantified and costed package of alternatives to assess including the relative contributions of distributed generation improved energy efficiency wood-fired cogeneration peak-load shifting and direct use of gas? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Again I am relatively new in the portfolio. However the one thing I know in this area is that the commission will be reviewed to death if it does not do its job properly. 
Questions to Members 
Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill—Reporting Date 
1. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Social Services Committee 
: What is the report-back date for the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill and what extensions have there been to the report-back date?  
GEORGINA BEYER (Chairperson of the Social Services Committee) 
: 
 I am pleased to inform the deputy chairperson of the Social Services Committee that the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill is due to be reported back to the House by 31 March 2005. The House has agreed by leave to one report-back date extension. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In light of the committee receiving only 16 submissions even though the bill will impact on more than 3000 workers is the chairperson planning to take steps to ensure that families who will be affected have been adequately consulted; if not why not? 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: That is a matter for the select committee itself to determine. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked whether the chairperson is planning to take steps to ensure wider consultation. I understand that that is a matter on which the chairperson can report to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the question was in order and the answer was in order. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Does she believe that the reason for the extension was to ensure that parents of disabled people in sheltered workshops have been adequately consulted and if they have not been why not? 
GEORGINA BEYER 
: No. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just raise with you a point of consistency. Last week you asked me very politely to leave the House because I interjected before a person had started to speak and I did so. I did not get any warning and I left. When my colleague Dr Newman stood up to ask a question Ruth Dyson immediately called out and yelled at her. You said nothing Mr Speaker. Then while my colleague was taking a point of order Jill Pettis called out across the House. Again you took no action. I have to say when I look at it that it is hard not to feel somewhat aggrieved. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that the member can feel somewhat aggrieved. I was in error. 
Sandra Goudie 
: I seek leave to table 750 signatures of people who say that there has not been adequate consultation. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise a point of clarification. Should I feel somewhat aggrieved that Ruth Dyson and Jill Pettis were not thrown out or somewhat aggrieved that I was? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Take your pick. 
Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill that it take the bill part by part 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments enabling indexation of duties on motor spirits by reference to diversion amounts 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party to oppose Part 1. I find it quite amazing to see what the Government is proposing. For the benefit of those people who have not had an opportunity to read the bill I simply say that this is a Government that wants to index the duty on petrol and motor spirits. It wants to index its right to build inflation into its revenue stream year in and year out. The Minister does not want to come to this Parliament and say so. The Government does not want to ask to pass on to the people of New Zealand the additional costs of inflation in its revenue stream. 
I say to the Minister and to the Government that this proposal is actually quite logical. We do this in a number of areas. We do it for tobacco and alcohol and there is some quite compelling logic about doing it for motor spirits. But it gets a bit rich when this comes from a Government that when it looks on the other side of the ledger—when it looks at the income tax paid by New Zealanders—does not want a bar of this kind of approach. The Government is very happy to look after its revenue stream. It is more than happy to have the effects of inflation nullified by the Act of Parliament that will be amended by this legislation. The Government is more than happy to know that if inflation is rampant in New Zealand and we are facing ever-decreasing amounts of income in a real sense it is protected. That is absolutely fine from the Government’s perspective. But the poor old workers out there will have to pay for the inflation on petrol as a result of this legislation. They have to pay for the inflation on tobacco—on cigarettes. But those people do not get the effects of inflation on their income. 
Labour members smugly sit back in their green seats. They do not have to be out there working hard for a living all day. They do not care about the poor workers out there. They do not care about the policemen. I asked the Minister of Revenue a very interesting question a few months ago. I asked him if he could tell me how many policemen in New Zealand pay the top rate of personal taxation. Mr Hughes is giving me the fairly standard “deer in the headlights” look of the Government so let me tell him how many pay the top rate. Thirty-nine percent of all policemen in New Zealand pay the top rate of taxation. That is right—they are the elite rich according to Helen Clark and Michael Cullen. Wonderful! “Join the police force and get rich” will be the new advertising slogan under Labour. Thirty-nine percent of policemen pay the top rate of taxation which was raised under a Labour Government to 39c in the dollar. Two or 3 years ago the number of policemen paying the top rate of taxation was 13 percent. That is right—it has gone from 13 percent to 39 percent in 3 years. Why? Because the effect of inflation has pushed the wages and salaries of policemen and policewomen into a higher bracket. Their real after-tax income is not going up. Their real after-tax income is in fact stagnant. They are not getting ahead and that is why they do not feel any better off. 
On the wages and salaries side of the ledger the Government says: “We don’t care about inflation; tough luck. Just pay the higher rates of taxation. Let us have more money and we’ll go out and waste it on all sorts of things like twilight golf hip-hop tours and anything else we can dream up.” You name it; the Government will spend money on it. It does not care because it is rolling in clover. Why? It has so much money coming in because it is prepared to index its revenue. 
The Government talks a lot about its confidence and supply agreements and its coalition arrangements with various parties. It happily took the confidence and supply support of United Future. It was happy to come to this House and say: “We’ve got a strong confidence and supply motion.” We all know that when one of the Government’s tax bills was before the House late last year Gordon Copeland the finance spokesman for United Future put up a Supplementary Order Paper that would have seen the indexation of income tax. And what did the Minister of Finance do? He vetoed it. He said: “No I am not prepared to accept inflation when it is on your side of the ledger but when it comes to the Government’s revenue—when it comes to my coffers—I want the lot.” That is not fair. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 This is a very interesting bill. It is the first time that Parliament has had a bill like this referred to a select committee and the first time there has been the opportunity for public submissions on a bill like this. I would have thought that the least the Opposition could do was congratulate the Government on improving the process. 
The truth is that there has been a huge under-investment in transport infrastructure in New Zealand over a considerable period of time. National Party members from Auckland have whinged constantly about the poor quality of transport in Auckland yet National in its 10 years in Government did nothing about it. But this Government has invested a substantial amount of money in Auckland roads. If members were to go to Auckland today they would see quite a lot of roadworks going on. But much more needs to be done. 
The Government will invest a substantial amount into transport infrastructure not only in Auckland but in every region around the country. Every cent raised by this proposal will be invested in transport infrastructure throughout New Zealand on a population basis. For example there will be a substantial quickening of the building and improvement of roads in my region the Hawke’s Bay. The people of the Hawke’s Bay welcome that. Likewise the people of Canterbury want to see improvements in their roads. The people of Southland want to see improvements in their roads and this bill will do that. 
The bill provides for the duty to be indexed to inflation and as the previous speaker said there is precedent for that. Funding for roading will be guaranteed and there will be a clear stream of funding to help improve New Zealand’s infrastructure. If we want New Zealand to grow we have to have better improved roads. 
I want to refer to a point made by Mr Key. I was interested in what he said about the top rate of tax in terms of police officers. If 13 percent of police officers were paying the top rate of tax before and now 39 percent are doing so he should be congratulating the Government on increasing the salaries of police constables in a very short period of time. It just shows that the member cannot count. He cannot do maths. 
John Key 
: I certainly can. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member cannot. He has claimed that police officers’ pay is static. That means that it has not improved or changed. If the member thinks about it for a moment the point is that the top rate of tax is 39c and 39c out of every dollar means that officers get 61c in the dollar. I would have thought that if they get an extra 61c for every extra dollar earned they are improving their position. That member simply cannot count. 
This bill is a good bill. The public want to see our roading infrastructure improved and this bill will deliver for all reasons for all New Zealand. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 1 of the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill I will read an excerpt from the commentary on the bill: “… as oil prices are at high levels the Minister of Customs”—who is in the chair—“proposed that we amend the bill to allow for the excise duty increase to come into force on a later date by Order in Council to allow the implementation of the increase to be delayed.” My question to the Minister in the chair Rick Barker is this: does he honestly think the average New Zealander will accept an explanation like that? It is the biggest load of hogwash I have ever heard. I want to say to this Government—I wanted to say it to that Minister but he has sadly just left the chair—that it is a disgrace. 
The average New Zealander out on the street will not believe it. This Government thinks the average New Zealander is dumb. That is what it thinks. But we on this side of the House know that New Zealanders are not dumb. As the New Zealand First spokesperson as a New Zealand First member I say that this Government will realise come the 2005 election—which is only 6 or 7 months away depending on when the Prime Minister wants to call it—that the people of New Zealand are not dumb. 
This Government wants not only to put up petrol tax again but to toll the Albany to Puhoi realignment which is the State highway in the Rodney electorate where I come from. This Government says it needs even more money. Not only will it keep taxing us to the hilt on income and through other taxes like petrol tax but it says it will toll it will tax us through GST and it will tax us every way we turn. Every way we turn we will be taxed. This Government always tells itself: “Just a little bit more and it will be enough.” But the fact is that for this Government it will never be enough because it will constantly be throwing its money into pet projects like the arts like the hip-hop tours that John Key mentioned. There will never ever be enough. 
Delaying the 5 percent rise in petrol tax until after the election is manipulative deceptive disgraceful and morally wrong. But this Government does not care about morals or whether something is wrong. We have seen that. It cares about whether it can collect money; that is all this Government cares about. It wants to toll a State highway. It wants to tax New Zealanders again and again and again. 
Who is it taxing? It is taxing the hard-working New Zealanders who will in the upcoming election in 7 months’ time say that they have had enough. They have had enough of this Government’s social engineering they have had enough of its political correctness and they have had enough of its high taxes. The Minister was just talking about a police constable who after taxes superannuation payments and so on gets $500 a week in his or her hand and is meant to feed a family with that. Now this Government would after the election tax every motorist another 5c in every dollar. 
That is disappointing. New Zealand First says that it is not good enough constantly to try to find other areas in which to tax New Zealanders and then to spend the revenue on pet projects like hip-hop tours and other ridiculous things. New Zealand First says “Look out!”. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I have just now been going through the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill and I realise—and this might be a shock to members of the House and to the public—that this bill will not pass. When we look at the commentary on the bill and read the minority views we realise that they add up to the majority. What we see is that the National Party is opposing this bill—good on them—that the New Zealand First Party is opposing this bill—good on them—and that the ACT party of course is opposing this bill. I also see when I look over the page that the Green Party is not prepared to support this bill. The Green members are happy for taxes to go up but they think that the bill does not go far enough. They say that taxes should also go up for diesel users as well. So the Green Party along with the other Opposition parties is a dissenting voice. So clearly the Greens will not vote for this bill. Then there is the brave bold United Future party—and blow me down they do not support it either. United Future believes that it is okay to put taxes up on petrol but that there should be a reduction in income tax. 
Gordon Copeland 
: That’s right. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Mr Copeland says that that is right. I have news for him. Nowhere in this bill is there a reduction in income tax. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: So they won’t be voting for it. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: They will not be voting for it. This bill is dead. This bill is dead because the United Future party the Green Party and the other Opposition parties have put on record their opposition to it. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Why don’t we put it in the bin? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well why waste time? Why debate it—unless of course the Greens want to get up and say that they wrote those words but did not mean them. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: They wouldn’t do that. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No they would not do that because I hear them so often talking about their truthfulness their honesty and their principles. So what they wrote is what they mean. I turn to the United Future members. About them I have no doubt. They are good Christian people. They are the honest brokers of Parliament. They are the honest members of Parliament who hold the Government to account. 
Gordon Copeland 
: We’ll stand by what we wrote. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Gordon Copeland says that the United Future party wrote that it believes the bill should be accompanied by a drop in income tax. That is a test is it not? We are in an election year and there is a question about political parties is there not? Can people trust them? Can people trust a party to deliver on what it promises? Can people trust a party to deliver on what it says? The United Future party has said unequivocally that this bill should be accompanied by a drop in income tax. That is what it is telling its supporters and its members—so they will vote against this bill. 
Hon Member 
: It’s a dead duck. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is a dead duck and it should be. Why is the Government putting up taxes to build more roads? It does not need more money. What about the surplus? What about alternative funding mechanisms? What about the petrol tax that already exists? Who trusts Labour to spend this 5c increase on roading only as it promised? Was that not what the roading tax—the petrol tax—was originally meant to be? Of course it was! 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It’s a Tui tax. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yeah right! Then the Government says it will allocate 35 percent of the increase to Auckland and the rest will be allocated on a population basis around New Zealand. What percentage of people live in Auckland? About 35 percent. What a lot of rubbish! Then we see that the Government will inflation-proof it. That is a good one for the United Future party too. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 The public might have no idea from this debate that we are debating Part 1—“Amendments enabling indexation of duties on motor spirits by reference to diversion amounts”—of the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. Part 1 is the part that indexes the rate of excise duty on petrol or motor spirits to the consumer price index. 
There is an important constitutional principle here that in all my years in this Chamber has been adhered to very closely which is that no Government has the right to increase taxes on people without the representatives of the people actually passing it—accepting it. 
Shane Ardern 
: No taxation without representation! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: My colleague Shane Ardern reminds us that there should be no taxation without representation. It has been an important constitutional principle that only this Parliament can increase taxes. Sure Governments can propose that there should be increases in taxes but they bring them to Parliament. Part 1 of this bill says to hell with Parliament; it says that this Labour Government of Helen Clark is so all-knowing so wise so wonderful—after all Helen Clark once referred to herself as an extraordinarily successful and competent Prime Minister and she tells the public so; she is a “victim of her own success” is our Prime Minister—that it can ignore that constitutional principle and put up taxes just by Order in Council. That means that taxes will be upped when the Government decides to up them and Parliament can whistle in the wind. 
I think that is an important issue. It is something this Parliament should not hand over to the executive without a lot of careful thought. If the Government were to bring to Parliament a comprehensive proposal stating that it wanted to be more efficient and that as the petrol excise is increased every year according to the consumer price index it would make that automatic but that to make sure the proposal was a balanced one it would also address for example the income tax side and index the thresholds for that that would provide some balance. Maybe Parliament would be prepared in those circumstances to say that that would be fair to the taxpayers whom we represent. But this bill is not fair because it empowers the executive to put up the taxes on petrol without Parliament having any say. The people we represent will get clobbered because the income tax they pay is not indexed. The thresholds on which their income tax are based are not indexed to the consumer price index. So the people we represent are not being treated fairly by this. 
This bill is a real test for United Future. We know that United Future believes that the income tax thresholds should be indexed to the consumer price index. We know that United Future in its minority report from the Finance and Expenditure Committee stated that it believes that this increase in petrol tax should be offset by a reduction in personal income tax. This is a test for United Future. Will it vote for anything it believes in—for something as important as this—or will it just keel over and be another little limp-wristed doormat for this Government? This will be a real test because this is an important issue. This Government giving this executive the power to increase taxes is an important issue and United Future should stand on principle for something and vote with the Opposition to try to prevent the Government from carrying this proposal out. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: They won’t? They won’t. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: No I am not sure how United Future will vote. I suspect it may well vote with the Government because I do not think its members have enough you-know-what to vote against the Government on this issue. This will be the test. 
I suspect the Greens will vote with the Government because they are in the Government’s hip pocket—but I should not say that. [ 
Interruption 
] Watermelons? Well yes we know about the Green Party. I suspect it will vote with the Government but United Future should show some principle. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to confirm that as the previous speaker said Part 1 “Amendments enabling indexation of duties on motor spirits by reference to diversion amounts” of the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill is about indexing the excise duty on motor spirits for inflation. We have just heard a very interesting speech by a member who said that that is a dreadful thing to do that it bypasses parliamentary processes and that it is unfair and unjust etc. A number of National Party members were seeking the call and I invite them to say—as the previous speaker did not—whether they believe that the indexation of excise duty on motor spirits is wrong. Are they prepared to make a commitment here in the Chamber today that should they be fortunate enough to be elected later this year by the people of New Zealand as the new Government they will repeal that section of the legislation? If they are not prepared today to say that then it will be quite clear to everybody listening to and participating in the debate that that is just another bit of politicking. 
If indeed National members believe they will form the Government then it is about time they started to tell the people of New Zealand exactly what they will or will not do when they become the Government. My challenge to them is quite clear: if they want to repeal the provision they should get up and say so. 
 Secondly while I very much accept the praise and support of the National Party New Zealand First and ACT for the indexation of inflation brackets when it comes to personal income tax which is our policy and which we have clearly stated we will do if we have a hand in the next Government I would like those other parties to go a little further and say that if they are part of the next Government they will do that too—they will index the inflation brackets. It is all very well to come here and praise the policy of other parties; that is good it is a tribute and I suppose a compliment to the fact that the indexation of the tax brackets is obviously and patently necessary in any fair and just tax system. Otherwise without coming near Parliament the executive could increase the effective rate of income tax just by doing nothing and that is not good enough. It is something that we want to see changed. 
My simple request is to let the other parties take the opportunity to state what they intend to do about this bill that we are debating today should they be part of the next Government; 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I am hugely disappointed in the Minister in the chair Rick Barker because he has shown a complete lack of understanding of a term referred to in financial circles as “fiscal creep”. We are not talking about the Minister of Finance; we are talking about a process that happens when indexation occurs. I shall put it to the Minister in the chair. My colleague John Key pointed out that some time ago only 13 percent of police officers were paying the top rate of tax of 39c in the dollar but now 39 percent of them are paying it. The Minister said that showed how great the Government was in having increased their pay. What he did not seem to understand was the time value of money. 
I put it to him that back in 1999 when this Government came to power and legislated for the 39c rate a lot of police officers would have been earning around $59000 or $58000 or maybe even $57000 a year. Now those police officers receiving just straight inflation adjustments to their pay—that is no improvement in their actual standard of living because it is just correcting for inflation alone—will have accumulated around 12 percent. I have an accumulative inflation figure over that time of about 12 percent. So if one accumulates 12 percent on that $58000 one is talking of say another $7000 pay. That means those officers are receiving exactly the same amount as they were beforehand. They were being paid $59000 and now they are on say $66000 which is the exact stand-still pay rate. The Minister said those people had now all moved from the 33c top bracket to the 39c top bracket and that they were much better off. In fact they are no better off. If their pay has only kept pace with inflation and their tax rate on that money is higher than it was they are worse off. We have a Minister who said to this Committee that those policemen should be grateful to the Government— 
Opposition Member 
: He’s dumb. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Clearly he is a dumb Minister if he does not understand the principle of “fiscal creep” and that 5 years ago that money was worth a lot more per dollar than it is now. So we get to the principle of Part 1—that is indexing the revenue stream. The Minister has come along here with a bill and said that instead of just collecting so many cents petrol tax per litre he wants that figure as the starting point and then every year as the consumer price index goes up he wants to catch a little bit more and then a bit more and a bit more. I ask why he does not do that at the other end in terms of the income tax brackets at which a person slips into the 33c in the dollar rate and the 39c. 
I shall give the Committee an example of what will happen if that does not occur at some stage. Within 25 to 30 years every worker in this country will be earning more than $60000. In fact $60000 will probably be the pension or the unemployment rate in 25 to 30 years if one looks at what “fiscal creep” means. If this Government does not do any indexation everybody in New Zealand will be on the 39c top tax rate. But maybe that is what Labour actually wants. I have suddenly realised that I am wrong. That is the great plan! Why did I not spot it? I thought Labour said originally that it was done to catch the top 5 percent of high-income earners but of course I was wrong. It was to do with catching everybody. There will not be a single sausage out there in the workforce who one day will not be on $60000. I tell the Minister that with “fiscal creep” they will all be on the top tax rate paying 39c in the dollar. 
If the Minister genuinely believes that the Government just wants to catch the top rich and he believes that indexing is right let us do it for both. Let us put up an amendment right now to do it for both; to take the 39c at $60000 correct it every year so that—my colleague John Key will have a more accurate figure—we would be up to a figure of $67000 by then and we say that it would kick in only at $67000 and within the 25 to 30 years I was talking about when everyone is on $60000 they would not pay that tax rate until they were on the $250000 mark. But oh no! We heard nothing: not a sausage not a mutter not a murmur from the Minister. 
Then United Future came out with an absolutely lame-duck report saying they would be supporting the bill so long as there was a corresponding reduction in taxation. Then we heard the previous speaker Mr Copeland double dog National to explain its policy. Our policy is to reduce taxes for all New Zealanders when we become the Government. Income tax GST and other costs will be reduced so that the total tax take will drop across the whole country. It will not be with regard to just petrol tax; it will cover company tax personal tax—the lot. There is his answer. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party to oppose the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. I remind the Committee that this is the fifth tax increase on motorists since Labour has been in power. Each one has been presented to Parliament with the reason that Labour wants to reduce congestion in our cities or to improve the standard of roading in New Zealand. However I think most Kiwis understand that it is simply a way to grab more taxes. So this is yet another tax-grab bill by the Labour Government. 
I was not on the Finance and Expenditure Committee but I note in the report to the House that the bill was referred to that committee on 4 November last year and had to be reported back on 26 November. That gave just over 3 weeks for submissions to be called for advertised and sorted through. Is it any wonder that on an issue as big as putting up petrol prices and petrol tax there were only 16 submissions? This is yet another example of the Labour Party’s undermining of the democratic process by ramming legislation through so quickly that people who are concerned—and I say that would be every motorist and every small business in New Zealand in particular—do not have time to take part in the whole submission process. When submissioners are given 3 weeks from beginning to end it is no wonder that essentially the Labour Party seeks to lock out those people who might be opposed to this legislation. 
The first part of the bill deals with inflation adjustments. We have already heard in this debate how the Labour Government has inflation-adjusted excise duties on alcohol and cigarettes and now it will add petrol to that group. We have also heard how that undermines the whole sovereignty of Parliaments. Asking a Government to come to the House with its hand out or its hat out to beg for the numbers in Parliament to be allowed to put up taxes is a very key part of the Westminster democratic process. We want Governments to come cap in hand to their Parliament to ask for permission to put up taxes in a country. What the Labour Party is doing in a very sneaky way is taking that role outside of this House and doing it by regulation through Order in Council. In that way it will not invoke the wrath of taxpayers up and down the country who will say: “Hang on a minute. Government you are being too greedy.” 
 What is peculiar at this particular time as we pass this bill is the fact that Labour is already going to be sitting on a treasure chest of some $6 billion—the amount by which it has overtaxed New Zealanders. There is a huge surplus. Yet the Government is deciding that it has to pull more money out of the families of motorists up and down the country. 
We have heard about the problem of indexing taxes. It is interesting; I asked our research unit to tell me what would happen if we indexed tax rates. When Labour came into power it said there would be no tax increases for anyone earning under $60000 a year. Well if we had indexed taxation it would be only people earning over $68000 a year who would be on the top tax rate only people earning between $43000 and $68000 a year would be on the second tier of 33c in the dollar and anyone earning under $43000 a year would be paying the bottom rate of 19.5c in the dollar. So instead of the Government being fair and deciding that it would index income tax rates as well as all those user charges it has tried to pretend that it does not need to. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I take issue with Minister Barker who said we should congratulate him or the Labour Government on the process of bringing this bill into the House. The fact is that members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee were forced to have a very short time frame in which to invite submissions. Basically the bill was introduced on 4 November and submissions closed on 26 November. 
Deliberation on the submissions took only about an hour and the committee’s consideration took only about 2 hours because the chairperson and the Labour members kept rushing the process and saying how important it was to get the bill back to the House. So I do not think any brownie points or congratulations are due to that Minister or the Labour Government. 
The second point is that even during that short time we heard 16 submissions. None of the submitters supported either Part 1 or Part 2. One submission which was from roading contractors was not against the bill mainly because their members want certainty that they will have the funds to build the roads and basically they said that any source their funding comes from is fine. So technically we are talking about zero support—100 percent zero support—for this bill. So one has to ask what does it take under the democratic process to make this Government take note? 
I also feel it is important to read for the public what an individual submitter wrote to the select committee just in case this tax-and-spend Government thinks it is penalising only the so-called high-income earners or people who can afford to drive by introducing this indexation. One individual submitter wrote this in a submission: “I and many others like myself are home helpers out in the community and we are very poorly paid. Out of that pay we must use our own cars without the benefit of a petrol allowance and the ever-upward cost of petrol is reducing our income to a point where some of us are seriously considering giving up this valuable service.” He also mentioned the other volunteers who are on fixed incomes and are contributing to society by volunteering their services as Meals on Wheels drivers Red Cross support drivers Cancer Society drivers etc. 
I know it is a waste of time for us to plead with members of the Labour-Progressive minority Government because they are hardened and they believe in taxing and spending. So my question once again is directed at United Future. Members of United Future and the Green Party today after listening to this individual submission made to the select committee have a chance to help those New Zealanders who have volunteered to drive to support other people in need. Those members can help today by not supporting the bill. This bill does not have to go through. Today during the Committee stage is the moment for both the Greens and United Future members to show that they are genuinely representing their supporters by coming into Parliament and doing something good—that is not depriving those fantastic volunteers out there who are subject to this indexation of petrol tax. 
There is a convention by which every year the Minister of Finance has to bring to this House a bill to confirm the taxation rate—every year because it is important. Petrol tax is a very important tax. I would say that literally New Zealanders who are of driving age do at some stage get behind the wheel and will have to pay this petrol tax. Compared with income tax it is a tax that probably even more people pay. It is totally unacceptable that Part 1 gives the Government an automatic increase in taxation revenue for roading projects. We can demonstrate in further debate—because we will take more calls—that there are already funds to finance the increased need of more New Zealand roads. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 This part deals with the indexation of the fuel tax. New Zealand First does not support that. We do not believe it is necessary. I know that the Minister will bear these figures out and support me in this because the growth in vehicle traffic grows greater than inflation every year. On top of that the average car consumes more petrol per year. I know that cars can go further on average on a litre of petrol but they are actually burning more. So the Government— 
John Key 
: Not in Auckland they can’t be because they are at a standstill most of the time! 
PETER BROWN 
: I think the member is making a very good point. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: It’s all the fault of the National Government—9 years of neglect under National! 
PETER BROWN 
: But believe it or not on average in New Zealand more petrol is being used— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I apologise to my colleague from New Zealand First but you could if you saw fit remind the Committee that there is a convention that a Minister in the chair with a live microphone is not to interject whilst other members are making their contribution to the Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is quite right and I certainly so caution the Minister. 
PETER BROWN 
: The point I am making is that the Government is getting more and more revenue from motorists by natural gains in that there are more cars and more fuel is consumed. It is way ahead of inflation. 
I want to turn my attention to United Future because Gordon Copeland offered us a challenge. He asked the major parties National in particular whether they would repeal this. Let me tell the honourable member that if we do not get taxation indexed we would repeal this. I am convinced we would repeal this. Although I have not discussed that detail with my caucus I know the feeling on this matter in my caucus. We do not think it is fair or justified to index petrol but not taxation. The member sitting there—Gordon Copeland—who is nodding his head has an absolute power at his fingertips. He can say to this Government: “Look we don’t agree with this unless you do both bits. We will not support this bit unless you do the other bit that we want.” He claimed that his was the instigating party in wanting taxation indexed. I do not believe that to be true. I believe that the member does want it to be indexed but his is not the only party. It is certainly a worthwhile idea to be given strong consideration. 
He can go to this Government and say: “Look we give you supply and confidence. We give you it very very cheaply but on this issue unless you give us both we’re not going to support it.” I know that the bill will still have the numbers to get through because the woolly-woofter Greens will support it. But the member does not have to tie himself along with the Greens on these sorts of things. The Greens would tax everybody out of existence. I see Sue Bradford is shaking her head but the Greens state that they believe diesel users should contribute to the non-road costs they impose on the economy through an excise tax on diesel. They want to tax diesel operators—the trucks and goodness know what. They want to slam it on to them. That is the truth of the matter. It is more taxation. There is no account of where it will go and no doubt they will want to index it through inflation. 
However I say to United Future members—because from time to time a degree of common sense comes through from those members in some of their announcements—that they should show some strength of conviction and if they cannot show New Zealanders that they stand for something show us in this Committee that they really do believe that taxation should be indexed. That party has spent oodles of thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money saying that there should be no GST on rates—there have been big notices all over the place—because it is a tax on a tax. That is absolutely correct. Would those honourable members remove GST from the tax that is on petrol? No they would not. I have already asked them that. So the principle of not taxing a taxation does not count for too much but when Grey Power or somebody else says: “Take it off rates.” they go along with it knowing that they will give the Government confidence and supply and whatever and that they will do nothing about the taxation at all. 
It is no wonder MPs and politicians generally have a bad name with the public. Nobody really knows what those members stand for or where they will put a stake in the sand. We will not support the indexation of petrol. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek some guidance from you. During the course of the debate Mr Hide pointed out that the National Party New Zealand First ACT Green Party and United Future had all submitted minority reports on this bill. Would you be able to advise the Committee whether that in any way binds the way that those parties vote on the bill? 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I would like to say because I think it is pertinent to the point of order that Mr Hide misquoted. Our minority report states that United Future supports the 5c per litre increase. Therefore the point raised in the point of order does not arise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is not a point of order to debate. Members of the select committee vote how they see it at the time. 
Peter Brown 
: Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have ruled on the matter. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I would not have raised this point but my colleague saw fit to raise a point of order on the commentary. The commentary lists the select committee membership as the standard committee. However on this particular bill the Rt Hon Winston Peters was replaced by my good self. I do not know whether that is important in the scheme of things. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No it is not; that is a matter for the select committee to record. I will just repeat that the minority view is the view of the select committee member; it does not bind his or her party in any way. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I thank you for your ruling on that. However I seek clarification. Under the heading “Minority views” there are paragraphs from National New Zealand First ACT Green Party and United Future. That would indicate to the Committee—and I appreciate that they are not bound—that the United Future and Green Party members of the select committee were in fact in the minority and opposed to the bill if they did indeed contribute a paragraph to the minority view part of the commentary. I know that does not bind them when voting now—you have made that ruling and I do not dispute that for one moment—but it puts us in an interesting position and I now look for clarification. Does it follow from your ruling that Gordon Copeland the member from United Future and the Green member Rod Donald were in the minority in opposing the bill at the select committee stage? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No it is not a matter for the Committee of the whole House now. That was a matter for select committee members at the time. It is their report. 
Simon Power 
: Is my interpretation correct? I accept that it is not a matter for this Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is not up to me to interpret that. 
SUE BRADFORD (Deputy Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I had not intended to do this but because this has happened I would like to point out that like our colleague Mr Copeland the Green Party states in its minority report that it supports the increase to the level of duty on motor spirits which is a clear indication of support for the— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I remind members that they are debating points that could be brought up during the discussion of the Committee of the whole House. They are not points of order. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I did not want to interrupt the voting any further than I already have but before we get on to Part 2 the member Sue Bradford raised a very interesting point. I do not look for a ruling now but perhaps we could have a considered ruling from the Chair later in the piece. I believe Ms Bradford said that the Greens supported the bill during the select committee stage and that that was to be the interpretation to be put on its minority report. How can that be right? How can a minority report that opposes the majority view contain a view that supports the bill? It may well be that we need this matter clarified for select committees. I do not ask you to make a ruling at this point but you can see the dilemma that we are in. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is certainly my understanding that it is the committee’s role and I have certainly heard discussion on this previously. 
Part 2 Amendments to increase duties on motor spirits  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: This debate includes debate on the schedule. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise in opposition to Part 2 of the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. I do so for this reason. This graph that I have managed to get from the Parliamentary Library shows me that now at this point in time 51 percent of the price of every litre of fuel that people purchase in New Zealand is tax—without the 5c per litre increase being proposed. If we look at the breakdown of where that tax of 51 percent goes this is what we find. The accident compensation levy accounts for 9.4 percent of it the petroleum fuels monitoring levy accounts for 0.1 percent the National Land Transport Management Fund gets 33 percent local authorities petroleum tax makes up 1.2 percent GST makes up 22 percent and petroleum excise tax accounts for 34.3 percent. All of that makes up 51 percent of the total price of a litre of fuel. So the question I have for the Minister is this: if 51 percent of the price of a litre of fuel cannot fix the problem we have with New Zealand roads then how can he suggest to the Parliament today that a further 5c per litre slammed on to poor old “Joe Hard-worker” the Labour voter will fix it? 
It gets worse. If we do a little bit more research we find that in the last decade the combined distance travelled by the motorists of New Zealand has increased from something like 15 million kilometres per year to about 30 million kilometres per year. The question that comes from that—and I would be prepared to let the Minister take a call to explain it to us—is: how much of that extra cost which is put on people in terms of getting to work comes out of the average weekly wage? It is a simple question. How much of an increase has there been in the cost of transport or in the cost of going to work in the last 10 years with that massive increase? The Minister sits there and shakes his head. I am sure he has no idea of the answer to that question. 
I ask this Minister who is part of a Labour Government that has so far introduced 24 new taxes since it has been in power this question: at what point he does he believe that poor old “Joe Hard-worker”—traditionally a Labour voter but no more—has suffered enough at the hands of this Labour Government? I say to the Minister that having 51 percent of the price of petrol as a plethora of taxes is enough and that another 5c will not fix the problem. 
I need to address a further point and it concerns the issue of this Government setting a precedent like none that has ever been set in this Parliament before. It is an absolute abuse of the Westminster system. I could read out a whole list of things that this Government has done but the debate today needs to focus on the fact that the Government is increasing taxation without representation. The Committee is today debating legislation that indexes the price of petrol to the consumer price index. I ask the Minister whether he can show me an example of this having happened before. Where has there been such a blatant increase in taxation? I am thinking about the 24 new taxes that this Government has introduced since it came to power and about this extra 5c. Where in a Parliament anywhere in the world have we seen such a blatant abuse of executive power? I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s answer to that and I am sure that most New Zealanders would. 
It is also interesting to note that throughout the whole of this parliamentary term a number of parties have said that they are against increases in tax. Then we look at what United Future is likely to do today when we get to the final stage of the debate on this bill. Will it support this bill? That is what we want to know. We know the Greens will support it—the Greens follow blindly wherever Labour goes—and we know they will be morris dancing outside later on. But will United Future members support this legislation today? That is a question we need an answer to. I suspect that once again they will roll over and say: “Yes sir no sir—or madam. How many bags full and how high should we jump?”. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow Shane Ardern who is the thinking National Party MP. I want to take up with him several of the issues he raised. He talked in his speech about the abuse of power by the executive. I would have thought the fact that Parliament is debating this legislation shows parliamentary power. This is not about the abuse of power by the executive. This bill will proceed only if 61 or more MPs vote for it. That is parliamentary power. It is not executive power. The member should get his terms correct. 
Secondly he said that the Government is abusing the Westminster system. We are using the Westminster system. I say to the National Party that it should take some of its back-bench MPs and introduce them to a training session. This is all about using the Westminster system. Mr Ardern went on to argue that this bill represents taxation without representation. The fact that he has come to this Chamber from Taranaki and is representing the views of his constituents is representation about taxation. I say to the member that he should be in touch with the constituents in his area because they want better roads. 
Darren Hughes 
: Jim Bolger understood that. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Jim Bolger understood that and as I have been through the Taranaki area I can see why there is a great need for improvement on the roads. We cannot improve the roads on the current level of funding. I tell the member to have faith and to be a believer. This Government says that with an extra 5c per litre on petrol it will make significant improvement in roads in Auckland Hawke’s Bay and Taranaki. That member should have faith and be a believer. 
I say to members that this is a very simple part. It has two clauses. The essence of it is simply to make it clear that there will be a 5c per litre increase in the rate of excise duty and that there will be some changes to the schedules. This part is the guts of the legislation; it is where the amount goes up. There should not be too much debate about that because every member wants to see improvements in the roads in the area he or she represents. If we want roads improved then we have to put money into them and this is the means of doing that. I look forward to the support of the member for Taranaki - King Country. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to this part the Minister the Hon Rick Barker said that this is a very simple part. But it is also a very bad part. This Government is not only collecting $6 billion in excess revenue and taxing New Zealanders to the hilt but also it is implementing tolls like in the Rodney area where I am based. Tolls anywhere are bad enough because they are just another excuse to tax New Zealanders twice but if that is not enough this Government wants to toll a main State highway in Rodney—the Albany to Puhoi realignment—as well as raise taxes on petrol after the election. 
New Zealand First says no to tolls and to the 5c increase in petrol tax. The National member Shane Ardern mentioned in his speech that since this Government came to power in 1999 it has brought in 24 new taxes. Out of those 24 new taxes this will be the fifth tax increase on motorists. That tax now stands at 18c per litre. 
I was on the Finance and Expenditure Committee that heard submissions on this Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. The committee reported back: “Submitters generally expressed opposition to the increase in excise duty suggesting that the funding required should be provided from the duty currently allocated as general Crown revenue”. Only about half of the money collected from road users actually goes back into roads—we all know that. New Zealand First says that that is a disgrace. But New Zealand First does more than just say that and does more than United Future members who get up in the Chamber and say that the Government should decrease taxes and so on and that they would do this and that. However when they come into Parliament they do exactly the opposite. New Zealand First in our 1996 coalition agreement set the whole legislation in motion to start implementing that very view—of making sure that the money collected from road users actually went back into roading. 
This Government not only has a $6 billion surplus and is now tolling State highways and spending money on its pet projects but it is spending millions of dollars on policy advice—which is more than the Government needs to spend in a whole lot of portfolios. For example in the youth affairs portfolio which has spending power of only $11 million all up it is spending $1.3 million on policy advice. We in New Zealand First say that that is wrong. It is wrong that with the amount of money the Government is spending throwing all around the place and giving to its mates here and there it still has to go to hard-working New Zealand motorists Government supporters and take another 5c per litre from their pockets—as if they are not paying the Government enough in tax as it is. As I said when I spoke on Part 1 in the Committee stage a few minutes ago this Government will pay for that come the election in 6 or 7 months’ time. It will pay for that. 
I was very interested in what the Minister of Customs was saying just before I spoke. He said that this was democracy at work and representative government because we are actually debating it in Parliament. Well I say it is the last time we will debate it. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 Before I start my contribution to this Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill I remind Government back-bench members that this is actually a debate. It is an opportunity for them to stand up and justify the legislation before this Committee. I have sat through Part 1 but I have not heard even one member justify a 5c tax increase on his or her constituents. But it is early so I hope that during debate on Part 2 I will be able to look forward to a contribution from Government back-bench members to justify this huge tax increase as I said earlier on their constituents. I make the point that I will be talking about that and I will be talking about Mr David Parker the member for Otago and his contribution during the election campaign and beforehand as to how the Government back bench justified this significant increase—this yet-another-tax on the constituents they purport to serve. 
I suspect that the constituents they purport to serve will be saying they did not vote in Mr Parker from Otago to whack them with another 5c tax. So that message will be going back. 
Some colleague from this side of the Chamber talked about “no taxation without representation”. I think it was Mr Shane Ardern was it not? Of course I remember where that famous phrase came from. It was from the incident of the Boston Tea Party was it not where the English decided to tax the people of the American colony? What happened? The English were thrown overboard with the tea. 
Shane Ardern 
: A revolution! 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: A revolution started. It takes one little spark to trigger a major bush fire perhaps—and this could be it. The people of this country are sick to death of the Prime Minister telling them they are very well off. If we go to speak to the people of this country—to mum and dad out there who get out of bed in the morning go to work and pay their taxes—we will find that in fact they are not happy. They do not have the discretionary spending that members of this Government have. The average Joe Smith or Joe Bloggs—call him what we will—does not have that discretionary spending. There are at present 22 percent of full-time workers in this country paying the top rate of tax and they are now being asked to pay—well not asked because they have not been consulted; they are being told to make—a 5c contribution that will go to the Government coffers yet again. 
I was recently at a function of rural people of farmers. They asked me whether it was really correct that when they filled up the old farm truck and headed up their roads—roads the Government contributes nothing to—they would actually have to pay 5c a litre which would go towards Auckland’s costs. I said: “My friend a vast majority of those 5c will end up in Auckland.” Well I cannot really tell the Committee what their reaction was but let me assure members that there will be a profound reaction. They should try telling that to a Canterbury or Otago taxi driver in tootling down the highway as I have done. I have asked how they feel about that 5c going towards Auckland roads. Well unless one is well strapped in one will almost go through the windscreen. They are hot about it because they know they have never been consulted on this issue. They also remember the Prime Minister’s comment that there would be no increase in income tax. It is sort of like robbing Paul to pay Paul is it not? We do not take it out of people’s income tax; we take it out of their so-called discretionary spending. That is something we will remind the Government about on a constant basis during the next few months. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 I am delighted to speak to Part 2 because this is simply about an extra 5c a litre being added to the petrol tax. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: John Key’s agreed to it. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well unfortunately Judith Tizard interjects and asks whether I disagree with her and let me tell her yes I do—for this reason: I have no doubt that roading in New Zealand is in desperate need of a lot more spending. I am happy to say that in Auckland as in just about every other part of the country the amount of money currently being spent on roading infrastructure is woefully low. It is way below the OECD average and way below that of those comparable countries we like to compare ourselves with as in the case of Australia the United States or any individual state. In fact in nearly every one of those jurisdictions I quote there is not only a public spend as a percentage of their GDP that is substantially above ours but also there is a big chunk of private money spent as well. 
The Government lauded the Land Transport Management Act a couple of years ago. It was going to have the private sector in there doing things but I ask whether members have seen a single private sector project—no! [ 
Interruption 
] OK so let us strike that down first just before Judith Tizard gets all excited about it. We truly believe that there should be more money being spent on the roads than is currently being spent. The next question is: so where does it come from? Well that is easy. It is really easy. There are two things—in fact there are three points to make. First of all the Government is currently running a surplus of around $7 billion. It’s around seven. I know that it has all those zeros. I worked it out: it has a seven and three zeros and then millions after that. That is the Government’s surplus. 
John Key 
: $7000 million. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: It is $7000 million—thank you—which is seven by 10 to the power of nine for those who are scientific in their view of it. I can understand why the Labour Party would have been wanting to do this in its last time in Government between 1984 and 1990 because it was running deficits every year it was in power. That meant it was not taking in enough even to cover the cost of running the show as it was so I would understand that if it wanted to put some more money into roading it would have to go out and rack up the petrol tax. But right now here is point one. There is a $7 billion surplus on the books. Michael Cullen is very proud of it. So why does the Government need in addition to take another $200 million which pales into insignificance relative to that figure of $7 billion? 
The next point I make is that the people who are driving around on those roads are already paying their fair share towards roading at any rate. Well hang on one should look at the accounts. There is $600 million a year already coming off the motorist by way of petrol tax that does not go to roading. Now I am hoping that Judith Tizard will leap in and say: “Oh it does indeed” or that it is wrong or anything else. I really wish she would because I know that Michael Cullen does that. 
I got a copy of  
Hansard 
 from May of 1995 when the Hon Winston Peters put forward a bill saying that all petrol tax collected should go to the roads and guess what? There is one Dr M Cullen voting “Yes”. There we are! Dr Michael Cullen now Minister of Finance voted in this House because he thought it was right then—it is the old Steve Maharey principle: it was right when one was in Opposition and not right when one is in Government—that all the petrol tax collected from the motorist went to roads. If the Minister did that alone and took the $600 million he would not need this piddly $200 million. He would not need to even think about this figure. It is 18c he is ripping off to the consolidated account and now he will add another 5c on and say: “What a good boy am I.” What a joke! 
Then we come to the third point I want to make about Transfund the body that gets all the money into its kitty to spend on roading. Now we would have to say that last year it must have ended up completely strapped for cash it had no money left and it could not move. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. My colleague Shane Ardern from the Taranaki - King Country area is dead right. It had $239 million unspent in its coffers. When I asked Transfund why it ended the year with all that money when there is so much need for new roading out there it said it could not find any projects that were ready to go. What does that tell us about this situation? So the Government will take another $200 million from the motorist when it could not spend the $230 million that stayed as a carry-over surplus in the Transfund account but it is taking $600 million out of petrol tax already that does not go near it. So I make that point because I know Labour is trying to portray it as National not wanting to spend more on the roads. Oh yes we do! We think there is a desperate need for a big ramping up of expenditure on roads but I say to the Minister that the Government is already getting the money. It is getting it in spades and I use that expression carefully. 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I want to follow on from the words of my colleague Mr Williamson who is quite correct. National does want to invest far more heavily in our infrastructure. But I want to draw the debate to Part 2 in a couple of ways. The first is to say without stating the obvious that there is a reason why the Labour members who are in the Chamber today are not hooting hollering and getting terribly excited in this debate. The very simple reason for that is that this is a deeply unpopular tax. I will tell the Committee why it is so deeply unpopular and why we know that to be so. There is something very sinister very deceitful and rather dishonest happening with regard to this legislation. 
The Hon Dr Michael Cullen the Minister of Finance was very happy to put this tax on when it was to happen well and truly before the election. He was very happy to do that except that one day late last year he toddled down to the Chamber and in the answer to a supplementary question asked by the honourable member Peter Brown he said he was suspending the introduction of this petrol tax on the basis of world oil prices. So I got to my feet and I asked Dr Cullen to tell us expressed in New Zealand dollars—because there is the oil price component in the exchange rate to consider—exactly what the rate was that he was targeting. Well he did not have an answer to that. The normally chipper chirpy Minister of Finance who gets a bit lippy in the Chamber did not have an answer to that one. He did not want a bar of it. When we went off to the officials and asked them what the answer was they said that they had given him lots of advice. That answer did not quite correlate with the written parliamentary question where I asked Michael Cullen to produce the advice and he said that he did not have any. 
There is a reason that the Government does not want the petrol tax to come in. It has nothing to do with economics the impact on the economy or whether oil prices are US$40 or US$45 a barrel. This Government is running the biggest surplus in New Zealand’s history while workers are going down the drain with higher mortgages and higher credit card bills. The Government does not have the guts to front up and— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: To infer that anyone lacks courage is a personal reflection and is out of order. The member will desist from that. 
JOHN KEY 
: This Government absolutely lacks the fortitude to come to the Chamber and tell the people of New Zealand it is going to take another 5c per litre in petrol tax from them at a time when it is running a $7.4 billion surplus. It is not 5c per litre for the record. It is 5.6c per litre because there is GST to add on top of it. 
I want to add a second point. [ 
Interruption 
] No it never ends. Not only do Government members not want to front up but here is a very interesting point. Michael Cullen has spent the last 4 or 5 years trying to tell every journalist in the country that we do not understand accrual accounting. We are all idiots; we are looking at a $7.4 billion surplus. According to the very bright Michael Cullen we do not understand accrual accounting. There is a $7.4 billion surplus but we should be looking at available cash because that is the issue in accrual accounting in all the capital expenditure. So what is the Minister doing? Let us look at that. He is putting a $200 million petrol tax on at a time when he could go to his other capital expenditure and spend the same amount—$200 million—on roads every year and it would cost his surplus $12 million. That is the truth of it. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Really! 
JOHN KEY 
: Yes. It is $12 million because he has to pay it exactly right—the financing cost. 
So when it comes to suiting Michael Cullen we are all idiots and do not understand accrual accounting but when it comes to fronting up he is not happy to front up at all. 
National will build a lot more roads than this Government ever will. National will get Tauranga Auckland and many other parts of the country going again. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Will take credit for what we have done! 
JOHN KEY 
: Judith Tizard has nothing to be proud of with regard to what is happening in Auckland because very little is happening indeed. Every year we have spent the same amount of money—that is the great illusion and great myth from the Labour Government. It is not true. And National will do it at a time when every worker in New Zealand will have more from his or her taxes because we are not greedy and we know the difference between foolish and wise Government spending. This Government does not know that. 
This measure is a disgrace. That is why those members hang their heads in shame—and so they should. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Well that was a very interesting contribution made by my colleague John Key. I thought he made some worthwhile points as did the Hon Maurice Williamson. I was a little worried when Maurice Williamson was talking about privatisation. I thought that he was perhaps talking about the same sort of privatisation that Tranz Rail had. Dr Elder of Solid Energy said this morning that he would buy some ships because when the railway lines were looked after by private people they were effectively stuffed. So he said he would go into buying his own shipping fleet. 
We do not need privatisation to put our roads in order. We need a funding stream that is continuous and sustainable—and we have it. In addition to all the fuel levies that go on to the roads the petrol motorist pays something like $600 million a year which goes into the consolidated account. As John Key said that is not justified when there is a $7 billion surplus. There is not a Government member who will stand up and justify that. Government members do not have the fortitude—I think that is the word that I am allowed to use—to stand up and say the 5.6c per litre increase is justified although the Government is taking $600 million from the motorist. So 18.475c per litre plus GST goes into the consolidated account. 
Where will this money go? Maybe the Minister will answer that because it is a serious question. 
Shane Ardern 
: You will never get a serious answer from that Minister. 
PETER BROWN 
: I think that the member might be right but I will try. Will the money that will be regionally distributed be allowed to be spent on the Tauranga Harbour link? 
Shane Ardern 
: A small percentage. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well it is my understanding that not one cent will be able to be spent where the region would like it to be spent on its No. 1 priority. I would suggest that it is the same with the Albany to Puhoi realignment: not one cent of this regional money will be spent on the main priority of that region. I do not know whether Government members are aware of that. Maybe the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard can tell me whether I am factually correct in saying that and if I am correct why in Tauranga—[ 
Interruption 
] I cannot answer so many questions at once. I am concentrating on the Minister in the chair; I can see she is taking my point on board. Will she explain why this money which is supposedly collected on a regional basis cannot be spent on a region’s highest priority? I cannot understand why it would not be the case. 
Equally I cannot understand why the Maori Party is voting for this bill. The many many Maori people in this country love their cars. They are like me; they love their cars. I love cars and I want decent roads to drive on for safety’s sake. I am certain that is the same for Maori and I do not believe that the average Maori member will want to have imposed on him or her— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: This member loves ships too. 
PETER BROWN 
: I do love ships also—and there are not very many of them either. 
John Key 
: Not on the roads! 
PETER BROWN 
: No. I want to know why the Maori Party is supporting this bill. 
I also want to know from the United Future members—and I am certain they will take a call—how they can justify to themselves never mind to Parliament adding 5.6c per litre to the price of petrol knowing that Transfund could not spend $240 million— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: $230 million. 
PETER BROWN 
: It could not spend that amount of money even if it tried. Yet United Future is saying that it supports an increase in the price of petrol of 5.6c per litre 5c of which is to go into the regional-based petrol tax and 0.6c to GST. In the last year or so United Future has come out and said that it objects to a tax on a tax but it is going to support this increase. There is absolutely no justification for it. There is plenty of money—oodles of it. All that needs to be done is to get the funding stream stabilised. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 2 I am staggered that this Government in 2005 has come into Parliament with a proposal such as this—one it believes will solve the roading crisis in New Zealand. It reminds me of someone setting out to build a home with the contents of his or her piggy bank. Do members remember the little money boxes we had as kids? My colleague who is to be the next Minister of Finance had a money box. He did not grow up in a rich family. Back when I was a kid we used to put pennies thruppences sixpences and shillings in our money boxes. This legislation is like using the cash from that money box to build a house. To think we could solve the roading crisis in New Zealand with a bit of cash like this ripped off motorists is just pig ignorant. 
John Key 
: It’s laughable. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: It is laughable. There should be a proper rational strategy for investing in our roading infrastructure. As my good colleague John Key pointed out a moment ago with accrual accounting it should not be the whole cash expenditure that is coming into our annual accounts; it should be the cost of financing that infrastructure investment. The Labour Government is approaching this matter in such a childish way. We should never forget of course that Helen Clark knows best—that our terribly popular and competent Prime Minister who is a victim of her own success knows best in these matters! But this is just pig ignorant. I say to the Minister in the chair Rick Barker that he does not know the situation because he probably does not get up north very often. Last Sunday I was heading north from Auckland— 
John Key 
: Slowly. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: I was OK; I was heading north but I pitied the poor suffering New Zealand voters and taxpayers who were heading south. Following the speeches made by Don Brash Orewa is a very famous place. As people head north from there they go through a place called Hatfields Beach where Rob Muldoon used to have a bach. Last Sunday the traffic was travelling at 5 kilometres an hour south through Hatfields Beach. As people travel north from there they go up the Waiwera hill then down it to Waiwera. The traffic on Sunday was travelling at 5 kilometres an hour bumper to bumper. Going further north from Waiwera travellers go up and down the Puhoi Hill where the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 will dump four lanes out on to the poor old State Highway 1. That Sunday the traffic was still bumper to bumper gridlocked at 5 kilometres an hour heading south. In fact by this stage the traffic was stationary. 
Heading north from there people come to a passing lane that Transit has been building. It has taken Transit more than 12 months to construct a passing lane that is not even half a kilometre long and it is still not finished. That is how efficient Transit is. The traffic had absolutely stopped at that point. As people head north from there they go up Schedewy’s Hill on to Windy Ridge and the traffic situation was still the same. This was an ordinary Sunday afternoon. 
John Key 
: It was a hot Sunday afternoon. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: It was an ordinary hot Sunday afternoon. It was not a long weekend but an ordinary Sunday afternoon and back almost to Warkworth the traffic was gridlocked. It was totally gridlocked. 
Yet this Labour Government is increasing the price of petrol by 5c per litre. That increase will be felt by taxpayers although the total amount of money raised will not be much at all. It will do nothing to solve the roading crisis because Labour does not have its mind around the full extent of that crisis. It does not have its mind anywhere near it. The crisis is getting worse by the quarter. Every 3 months at the moment it is getting exponentially worse but the Labour Government just sets up committees and taxing facilities and does nothing to solve it. 
What is more the public will feel it because right now businesses are being charged levies for higher fuel prices. It is very cynical that if this legislation passes as it will because United Future will support it— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No it won’t. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: It will; it is just a doormat. The worst feature is that this bill gives the Government the power to decide when to impose this tax and we know that it will use that power cynically. Michael Cullen will not seek to impose it until after the election because he knows that the public will be very angry when the extra tax on fuel goes on. The public is not silly. It knows that this is not the way to properly finance our roading. 
MAHARA OKEROA (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Schedule agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 The Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill is only a relatively small piece of legislation but it packs a lot of punch. It is a real punch in the guts to a whole lot of New Zealanders who are trying to work out why when Michael Cullen has $7000 million of surplus money available to him—[ 
Interruption 
] That is right: $7 billion - odd. They are sitting at home now probably wanting to have a nice sherry and watch the news in an hour’s time trying to work out why they will have to pay 5.6c a litre in petrol tax—why they will have to pay more in petrol tax than they could possibly imagine. 
They will be discussing this issue as we move towards the election. Why? Mark my words: even though this bill if it is enacted will allow the Minister of Finance to put on that petrol tax in a few weeks’ time when it is available to him he will not. He will not because he knows that it is deeply unpopular he knows that he cannot justify his position to the electorate and he knows that thousands and thousands of motorists up and down the country know when they are getting ripped off. I say to Mr Barker that they know when their income is rising in nominal terms but not in real terms. They know the impact of inflation. They know how deeply unfair it is when they have to pay the top personal rate of taxation on some income so that in real terms they get nothing. Now they are having to wear this on the other side. 
They know another rip-off when they see it. They know a Government that does not have the courage—if I can use that term— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member cannot imply that anyone lacks courage. 
JOHN KEY 
: The Government does not have the intestinal fortitude then to test this measure with the public prior to the election. The Government is happy to put the indexation on immediately—no problems there—but it is very happy to leave this measure until after the election. I predict today that it will not matter whether the price of oil is $40 the day before the election and lo and behold the extra petrol tax cannot go on; it could be $45 the day after the election and if Labour wins the tax will be on with plenty more to come because this Government simply loves to tax people and simply loves to spend more. 
Mr Barker made what I thought was a very interesting comment. He said it was only another 5c. It is only another $200 million from the fixed incomes of New Zealanders. It is only another couple of hundred million dollars. When the Government is amassing a surplus of $7 billion - odd what difference does it make? [ 
Interruption 
] Yes the Government is taking $34 billion of extra tax this year. Who really cares whether it takes an extra couple of hundred million dollars? 
Labour has tried pretty hard to create the image that it is doing so much more to build roads. That of course is a mirage. Maurice Williamson pointed out in his address quite correctly that in fact this Government is spending less in terms of a real percentage of GDP on roading than it has spent before. It is not spending more; it is spending less. It is spending less than Australia less than America and less than England. It is spending less than most other OECD countries. And those are countries that have welcomed the private sector as well. 
When New Zealanders go to Sydney Melbourne or Brisbane for their holidays they notice the difference between the kind of holiday they have there and the kind of holiday they have in New Zealand. The holiday they have in New Zealand is primarily spent in the car. They set off on Friday night for what is normally a 1-hour drive to their beach house and they get there some time on Saturday afternoon. In a fit of frustration they pack up on Saturday night and pop back into town on Monday morning. It is basically a really interesting exercise in how to have a holiday in a car. No wonder New Zealanders are buying bigger cars; they have to have bigger cars because they sleep and shower in them! [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. 
I recently had a very interesting experience which I will relay in order to show how bad things are. At a public meeting just the other day a member of the public said to me: “When you become the Government in a few months fix the roads.” I asked why. He said that he had just dropped his son at the airport for a flight to Nelson. His son had rung from his home in Nelson and said: “How’s it going dad?” to which the reply was: “I’m still on the north-western motorway; I haven’t got back from the airport.” That is how bad things are. His son had flown to Nelson but he was still on the north-western motorway—and the Government says it is fixing the problem! I do not think so. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 This is a very short piece of the bill. I thank the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the change it made to make Part 2 come into effect on 1 April and for some other changes consistent with that to do with the Governor-General. In response to John Key’s— 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: It doesn’t come into effect on 1 April. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Clause 2 comes into effect when the Governor-General signs it on the date of royal assent—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes I have got that. 
I want to come back to the point made by Mr Key and to contrast it with the comments previously made by Dr Lockwood Smith. Dr Lockwood Smith lamented the fact that people are stuck in traffic as they go north of Auckland. I remind him and the member behind him Maurice Williamson that Maurice Williamson was Minister of Transport in the National Government for 9 years and did nothing about it whatsoever. Dr Smith laments the fact that an overtaking lane is being put in and has taken 12 years to build. Well in the 9 years when the National Party was in Government no bulldozers were there at all. 
The fact is that roading is being done in this country and this Government with this extra 5c in tax will fix a lot of projects that have been waiting a long time. In my area of Hawke’s Bay there would have been a long long wait before the overbridge at Meeanee was fixed. This extra amount of money will ensure that that is done and done quickly and my people are very pleased about that. A lot of other things will be done. This 5c will make sure that we have better infrastructure. 
The National Party can go on as much as it likes about how bad the roads are but it has not yet thought up a way to fix them other than the proposal before us. I say to the National Party that this Government takes these issues seriously. We will fix them. The National Party had 9 years in Government and did nothing. We have done vastly more in the short time we have been in Government. We will have vastly improved the roads by the time we too have spent 9 years in office and we will do even better in the years after that. Make no mistake about it: this Government is committed to improving infrastructure despite what Maurice Williamson said. He was in Government for years and he did nothing. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 Speaking to the title and commencement clauses of this legislation I say that was an appalling pathetic speech by—was that a Minister? That was not some back-bench Labour lackey with no understanding of what has gone on in this country; that was the Minister of Customs. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: He’s in charge of the bill! 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Rick Barker is in charge of the legislation and he has no idea when it comes into effect. He has no idea about the levels of spending on road construction in this country in the 1990s. That was just an appalling contribution by a Minister in charge of legislation. 
Let us get a couple of facts straight. In the 1990s the whole motorway construction from Albany right through to Puhoi was funded to be carried out as a single construction under the National Government. Under the National Government it was built all the way past Orewa. Then Labour was elected and construction stopped because the Government did not want to spend any money in the area north of Auckland. Labour wanted the money to be spent somewhere else. In Labour’s efforts to spend the money somewhere else it set up committees—and is still setting up committees—and nothing has happened. Meanwhile taxpaying New Zealanders are stuck in gridlocked traffic. 
A worse performance by that Minister Rick Barker was that he did not even know when his own bill commenced. He said that Part 2 comes into effect on 1 April and it does not. That was correct when he introduced the bill. As it was originally drafted Part 2 was meant to come into effect on that date. The extra 5c per litre in petrol tax was meant to be imposed on 1 April but of course we all know what happened then and it is amazing that the Minister did not seem to know that. Dr Cullen became all nervous about it because as we all know fuel prices went up. Dr Cullen became all nervous about a further 5c per litre charge going on top of the high fuel prices just before the general election. So let me inform the Minister who is now back in the chair that this part does not come into being on 1 April. It will come into being when Dr Cullen says it can. 
That is about the most cynical move that I have ever seen. We will have taxation coming into effect in this country when Dr Cullen decides it is politically expedient for it to do so. That is pretty disgraceful. It is appalling that the Minister did not even know that when he made his contribution a few moments ago. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I did—I knew that. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: If the Minister as he is now saying from the chair knew that why did he say that Part 2 comes into effect on 1 April? It does not come into effect on 1 April. That was in the bill that he drafted. But of course Dr Cullen had the Finance and Expenditure Committee change that. The Labour members on the select committee under Dr Cullen’s instructions have changed it so that Part 2 now comes into effect when Dr Cullen decides it will come into effect. We will have an increase in taxation when Dr Cullen decides on it. It cannot be before 1 April but the tax will come in when Dr Cullen considers it politically expedient to tax motorists further. 
I object to that as does the National Party. We find that to be a dishonest approach to taxation. If Labour thinks that is the best way to fund roading construction—which is desperately needed—it should bring the law in and let the voters have their say on it instead of having a weaselly clause that enables the Government to delay the extra 5c per litre in petrol tax until after the election. It will not matter how high petrol prices are after the election. If Labour wins the next general election we can bet our bottom dollar that the day after it wins lo and behold the cost of petrol will go up by 5c a litre. But it will not go up before the election unless there is a massive reduction in petrol prices and I do not think that that is about to happen. 
Parliament should not be asked to pass such politically cynical legislation especially when the Minister in charge of the bill did not even know what he was doing. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I have listened to the arguments about this legislation. Rick Barker the Minister of Customs said his little piece and it was clear that he did not understand the bill. I am quite sure that he had no involvement in drafting it; Michael Cullen has obviously been the one behind it. This bill brings in another tax on the motorist. We in New Zealand First want to make it clear that we are opposed to a further tax on the motorist. This measure is not necessary. The Government collects approximately $700 million from the motorist every year that is not spent on the roads. 
We in New Zealand First suggest that the Government looks hard at where that money is going because that money could be going towards the roads. It could be going towards relieving the problems right throughout the country. In Canterbury there are a number of roads that are desperately needed to unclog the rush hour traffic. The same goes for Wellington for Tauranga and—in an even bigger way—for the largest city of New Zealand Auckland. In Auckland the traffic grinds to a halt not just for an hour but for 3 to 4 hours in the morning and again in the afternoon. That means that the ports cannot operate properly. The Minister should have a look at this bill. He does not need to charge the motorist an extra 5.6c per litre of petrol. The motorist does not need it. Along with the high oil prices this measure is another kick in the teeth for motorists. The Minister does not need to add on this tax. He has $700 million per year that could be put towards roading. 
Let us have a look at some of the roads that are desperately needed. The Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2) which Maurice and Lockwood Smith were talking about— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Maurice? 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Maurice Williamson not the Morris car. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: I was responding to the Minister. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You must not use nicknames. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Maurice Williamson and Lockwood Smith both referred to ALPURT B2. It is a road that should have been completed; it has been in the pipeline for more than 10 years now. Five of those years were spent under the National Government and we are now into the sixth year of this Government. The Labour Government has seen that the road is required and the Environment Court said that the road had to be completed and out of the centre of Orewa by December 2003. That deadline was extended by 1 more year. At this stage that particular intersection is outside the realms of what the resource consent allowed. 
The Government needs to get serious about the roads and put money into the roads as it is needed. My colleague Peter Brown got the Minister of Finance Michael Cullen to admit that he was going to defer the enactment date of this legislation because the extra 5.6c per litre tax on petrol would look very bad in an election year. The Minister wrongly identified that this provision would come into effect on 1 April of this year. It will not; the Minister knows that. It is up to Dr Cullen to decide when it is expedient to introduce the extra tax. I tell members that it will not be expedient to do so before this election. So why then are we putting this extra tax on petrol if it is to be deferred until after the election? It is not necessary. The Government has the $700 million. It should spend it on the roads and spend it now in order to make sure that the roading system is up to the standard needed in this new millennium. 
I take issue with United Future. It claims to be against a tax on a tax yet it is supporting this legislation which includes a provision to put GST on a further petrol tax. That is another tax on a tax. I thought United Future was against taxes on taxes but this bill allows for that and United Future supports it. Its members should be ashamed and they know it. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I will respond to the previous speaker who asked a question—a rhetorical question perhaps—about why we are not spending the money now available on the roads. Well there is an extraordinarily simple reason why that is not happening. It is called the Resource Management Act. They are three of the most despised words—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes we should all make the sign of the cross. The Resource Management Act is the Dracula of all the appalling legislation under which this country is suffering. We can confidently predict that there will be no substantial roads built in this country as long as the Resource Management Act exists in its present form. 
 I live in Coal Creek near Roxburgh in Central Otago. I can go to Auckland and object to Aucklanders having decent roads I can quite legitimately object to the construction of highways in Auckland that would allow for the free flow of traffic up and down through that massive infrastructure. I can do that. That is an absolute nonsense. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: You don’t even have to go there. You can do it from where you live. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Exactly. I might even try that one of these days. But that is the nonsense of this whole bill. We are collecting a tax to spend so that “Scrooge McCullen” can wallow in his massive— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member cannot refer to members by nicknames or Christian names. He should look at Speakers’ rulings 26/7 and 26/8. He will use the member’s full name or title. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Thank you for that direction on the subject of the correct title for the Minister of Finance Mr Chairman. As has been previously alluded to there are massive sums of money available right now. It is really a question of whether the Government wants to prioritise its spending. Does it think the movement of traffic throughout the country especially Auckland is important? If it does think that is important there is one thing it must do: it must amend the Resource Management Act and make it workable. I am only too willing to help the Government on that subject. 
But there is no need to whack the productive sector the people who get out of bed in the morning and go to work in their cars or even jump on the bus from time to time I guess. There is especially no need to whack the people of rural New Zealand whom I represent in this House who fill their trucks the old Toyota or the Nissan or whatever it might be with petrol—yes they use petrol not just diesel—and use their own farm tracks and their own infrastructure. The money from their petrol tax goes somewhere else. That is a nonsense and it appals the people of rural New Zealand. 
The capital that the Government will accumulate under this tax will sit there and accumulate interest. The Government will take a whack on that interest as well—it will take tax on that interest. The capital will sit there for years to come because in fact we will not be able to spend the money on the roads due to the Resource Management Act. 
There is another point I would like to make on the issue of indexing this tax to inflation. If the Government stopped spending—if it held its expenditure to say the last Budget’s expenditure—then inflation would drop to virtually zero. It is Governments that cause inflation in this country not the public. If Government expenditure was held to previous levels inflation would not be a problem in this country. So we have the dual scourge of Government spending and Government taxation which will destroy ultimately the infrastructure in this country. There have been no significant developments in this country since the Resource Management Act was passed—that is no developments worth over $300 million to $500 million have occurred in the last 10 years. So how on earth will the roads be built with this tax that will be imposed? 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I have been sitting here during the debate wondering—particularly after the Minister of Customs’ contribution—why it is that the real transport Minister the Hon Harry Duynhoven the Minister for Transport Safety is not sitting in the chair instead of the Minister of Customs Rick Barker who is a relatively new Minister and who clearly has no notion whatsoever what the bill is about. That Minister said to me that I was wrong that we do not have taxation without representation but I once again submit to him that this bill provides for the raising of taxes by the power of the executive through indexing that tax to the consumer price index. It will not have to come back to Parliament. I say to him again that he should jump to his feet defend that position and tell me where else a Westminster system has such a draconian tax as that. 
Let me also remind the Minister in the chair that before me here I have a couple of cards. The pictures on them look vaguely like our Prime Minister—one cannot be sure just by the pictures—but there is no doubt that the pictures are of Helen Clark when one turns them over and reads the statement written on the back. This is the 1999 pledge: “My commitments are: no rise in income tax for 95 percent of taxpayers earning under $60000 and no increase in GST.” 
Here is a question for the Minister—I am sure he will be able to answer it. Is it true that the 5c petrol tax in this bill also includes GST? There is a question. Is that not an increase in GST? I am sure the Minister will be able to answer that. It may not be an increase in the rate of GST but it is certainly an increase in the total take. 
Then I go to another card. This one came out around 2002 for members who have forgotten it. It is called “Next Steps”. Once again it states on the back: “Our commitments to you: no rise in the rates of income tax GST or company tax.” That may be as it stands but the Minister should tell me whether an extra 5.6 percent on every “Joe Hard-worker” and every company out there plus GST is not directly contrary to the pledge on this card. Is it not? Maybe it is sophistry and maybe one can use the spin that comes from the ninth floor to manoeuvre one’s way out of it; maybe not. I know for a fact that the real transport Minister the Hon Harry Duynhoven certainly will not find this a popular tax to sell in New Plymouth the energy capital of New Zealand. I know he will be struggling in trying to get the good citizens of New Plymouth to see the merit of it as I know there are a huge amount of projects up there on the drawing board that cannot get through the Resource Management Act process. That member will also know that $230 million - odd was left unspent by Transfund through Transit; $230 million - plus was handed back to the consolidated account because projects that are on the drawing board could not get consent. 
Here we are today passing yet another sneaky little Labour tax through Parliament in the dead of night as usual when people are out working and doing what they need to be doing and when nobody is listening to Parliament on the radio—although they might be because they could be in the gridlock on the Auckland motorway on the way home—and will not know that this debate is going on. That Minister sits there and says that this tax is in the best interests of New Zealand because we will build new roads. I say to that Minister that that is an absolute joke. This will not fix the roading problems. The Government has a $7 billion surplus but yet again it says to “Joe Hard-worker” out there the blue-collar traditional Labour voter: “Look front up again. We’ve only stung you with 24 new taxes. Here’s another one. You can pay. It doesn’t matter that you’re $250 a week behind your Australian colleagues already. That doesn’t matter and look we will fix your roads.” 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call on the title debate on the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. I think it is fair to say that there are some things in Parliament that we agree about and some things we disagree about. The thing we agree about is the fact that New Zealand desperately needs new roads. I must say that I am absolutely amazed at the capacity of our fellow countrymen to put up with the shocking roading conditions in this country particularly in Auckland. 
I was reminded during John Key’s speech of my days before I entered Parliament when I used to regularly fly up to Auckland for a board meeting on Pah Road about halfway between the airport and the city. I would get up in the morning in my home in Wellington get dressed do all the usual things have breakfast get a cab to the airport and get a plane to Auckland. I would then get a cab from the Auckland airport to my meeting at Pah Road and when I got there I would find that we could not start the meeting because a couple of my fellow directors had not arrived from the North Shore. 
That used to happen regularly. I am absolutely staggered that we in this country have this great capacity to put up with intolerable roads. Really the people of this country have just about had it up to the eyeballs with all of us in this Parliament and with every single party. They are looking to us to show some leadership and to have some roads built. Whatever anyone may think about that 5c at least there is the express intention to get on and do the job. But I say to the Government and to the other parties: “Look let’s get on and start building some roads. Let’s cut through the red tape let’s use the PPP thing that’s in the transport legislation and get on with the job. If necessary let’s borrow some money but for goodness sake let’s get on and start building some roads particularly in Auckland.” 
It may be that the Resource Management Act is holding it up and Gerard Eckhoff might be right about that being the problem. Everybody here identifies a problem but it is up to this Parliament to start to solve the problem and get on and start building the roads. That is my first point. 
The second point is that we disagree on something in this Parliament and that is that every party in this Parliament with the single exception of the Labour Party believes that it is time to cut the rate of tax that is being levied on the citizens of this country. Even the Progressives and everybody else here will keep at the Government because a Budget is coming up and the fact of the matter is that everybody is saying and I agree with them entirely that New Zealand households are burdened with huge debts at the moment—mortgages credit cards you name it and the rate of tax that we are imposing on our fellow citizens is too heavy. It has become a heavy burden on their shoulders. 
It is about time that the Government said: “Look we recognise that. We know that we have a great dosh of money in the bank.” It is time the Government started to take seriously the action of cutting taxes in this country. 
I appeal again to the Government as I have throughout this debate and say to it that today we are increasing a tax but it has a Budget coming up—in May the Government and the Labour Party in particular will have an opportunity to decrease the tax burden on this country. It should take the opportunity to do that while it is presented because it will be the last opportunity before the election. If the Government does not do that and if New Zealanders do not see a tax cut I say: fine we will go to the ballot and let the people decide once and for all whether they want lower taxes or to keep on going down the road with a Labour Government to an ever-increasing impost against their pocketbook. I think that most people in New Zealand have said “Enough is enough” when it comes to taxes. Let us try to reverse the trend and start reducing them. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to respond to the United Future member’s contribution because I thought he made a lot of sense. But I cannot understand why with his impassioned plea to cut tax and cut Government revenue he will vote for this bill. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I’m not the Government. 
PETER BROWN 
: He is not the Government but he will support it. Why is he supporting it? I have given up on United Future’s philosophy and principles. I do not think it understands its own philosophy and it seems to have lost its principles a long way down the route. 
I shall take the House back a few years to when the Government first became the Government in 1999. There was a senior Minister I think he was Deputy Prime Minister at the time who called himself the “Minister of Low Petrol Prices” and that was the Hon Jim Anderton. Do members remember him? Do they remember that? He was the “Minister of Low Petrol Prices” albeit self-appointed but boy did he brag about that title! He told all and sundry that that was who he was. What has happened since? We have had the highest petrol prices ever in the history of this country only a few weeks ago oil companies were announcing record profits and the Government takes from the petrol motorist more taxation than ever before. So I think the “Minister of Low Petrol Prices” was an abject failure. He got it totally wrong. He is supporting this bill and his colleagues are following that support. They are totally wrong. 
The Minister of Customs took an earlier call. I invite him to take another one now to answer the question I will put before him. I know the answer. Where will this regional tax be spent? Will there be any prohibitions on a particular region using that tax? For example can Tauranga use the regional tax that will be collected under this measure on the harbour bridge link? I can tell the Minister that the answer is no and that is a disgrace. The Government will impose 5.6c on every petrol motorist on the basis that the money will go to the regions for them to use it as they wish but it will say that those areas cannot use it on their No. 1 road priority if it is tollable. It will whack them for that too. That is—no I cannot say that. But I will say that that sort of stance is hypocritical to say the least. 
I know that the contractors in this country want certainty; they are making that clear by press statement and media report. So does the general public. So what is certain about this bill? When will it come in? When will it start? Nobody knows. Will we pull out a raffle ticket? I tell the Minister now that if he does not put in this measure before the next election then it will not occur because New Zealand First will have a presence in this Parliament far greater than it has now and we will not allow it to be proceeded with. The Minister should show some gumption and tell us that it will come in next week or the week after. If he waits until the election it is dead and buried—I can tell him that. New Zealand First will not have a bar of the petrol motorist being lumbered with another 5.6c. 
Jill Pettis 
: So how are you going to build the roads? 
PETER BROWN 
: How will I organise the roads? I shall tell you very very briefly but Gordon Copeland— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
PETER BROWN 
: I am answering the question. I like questions from the Government. She’s showing some interest. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is bringing me into the debate. 
PETER BROWN 
: People can go down any road in this country and see buildings most of which are mortgaged. Most of the vehicles on the road be they trucks or vehicles are either paid for by hire purchase or leased. In other words where it is possible where it is needed people borrow against future income. Over the next 10 years this Government will take—less this tax—something like $16 billion and an additional $7 billion that goes into the Crown account. That is $23 billion that if necessary we could borrow against. It is not borrow and spend; it is borrowing to get the roads moving. If the member took the trouble to read the Allen report—and it is written in simple English; I am certain the member could understand it. [ 
Interruption 
] She could not? It will tell her the economic advantages of borrowing to put the roads in place—to advance the roads. 
Why will the Government not say when this measure will come in or stipulate the criteria? What does the level of the oil price have to be? 
JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—Tamaki Makaurau) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 Thank you for that. I am delighted that I was not stopped by a closure motion. My adoring drive time audience will be out there right now stuck in the traffic gridlocked and listening intently to this speech. 
Two issues have arisen during the passage of this bill. First if members seem to be opposed to this bill then Labour portrays them as not wanting any more roads to be built. Well let us just get that clear before we then talk about the date this comes into effect. The fact is that if the Labour Government—and I made this point before—between 1984 and 1990 which the Hon Phil Goff was a member of had wanted to put another 5c on the petrol tax I could have understood that. During that time the Government accounts were in deficit. Every year it was spending more than it was bringing in. If that Government had wanted some money to spend on more roading projects clearly it would have had to find it somewhere. It was already short. Is that the case today? Do we have a Government today that has a deficit on its books? The answer is no. Does it have a really minor surplus that is quite fragile such that it could not afford to sacrifice even the $200 million that this bill will bring in? The answer is no. What is the surplus? It is about $7000 million per annum. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Jealous! 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well actually I am angry more than jealous that we are taking much more off the punters of this country than is needed. But let us just take the petrol tax that is taken off them. I challenge Clayton Cosgrove to do one of his little roadside tricks as he did with the boy racer and come with me to the southern motorway in Auckland. We will stand on the side of the road with a sign saying: “Honk if you think the Government should take another 5c in petrol tax from you.” I tell that member that we will be standing all day by the side of that motorway before we hear a honk because the public do not think it is needed. They do think we need some more infrastructure but they know that the Government has a $7 billion surplus and they know that the Government takes $600 million a year in petrol tax that does not go on the roads. Yes other parts of the petrol tax do but $600 million does not. 
Then we get to what I think is the most cynical move of all and that is the date that this increase will come into effect. When the bill was introduced the Government was flying high. Nothing could stand in its way. It was going to be a third-term Labour Government—something the world has dreaded for years but it was looking as if it might be a possibility. So it made the date 1 April. That is when this measure was to come into effect. But suddenly Michael Cullen found a cold wind blowing up his kilt and he went: “Oh dear! We’ve got an election coming up not long after that. We’ve got high petrol prices worldwide.” I do not blame Jim Anderton for the entire world petrol price being high; I blame him for part of it—because I blame Jim Anderton for nearly everything—but in fact there has been the Iraq war supply problems Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries problems and so on. But I ask the Minister what the price of a barrel of light sweet crude oil is today or what a barrel of Brent crude oil costs today. 
Peter Brown 
: $44. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: It is about US$44 or US$45. So what Michael Cullen has done with this cynical little amendment is make this increase come into effect not on 1 April—goodness me no; that would be just as the election campaign was getting away—but when the timing is right. We all know what that means. It means that as soon as he has an election under his belt so that the increase will not cost him he will be straight in. Michael Cullen will have the papers drawn up; he will have them waiting at the Cabinet Office for the seal to be put on them. The good news is he will not actually be in Government after the next election to do it. 
However here is the point. Here is the challenge just in case that dreadful prospect happens. What if after the election it costs US$45 for a barrel of Brent crude oil? That is what it costs right now and it probably is too high as the Minister says. The reason why he does not want to bring the increase into effect on 1 April is nothing to do with elections nothing to do with politics and nothing to do with anger from the public about being socked even more tax; it is just about the price of crude oil. All right; can I get a commitment from the Minister in the chair that if light sweet crude oil or Brent crude oil stays at the US$45 mark after the election the same attitude will apply and this increase will not come in? There is not a mutter not a murmur not a whisper. How is that—not a mutter not a murmur not a whisper? What if world petrol prices stay at the same level they are now? The increase will not be brought in because of high petrol prices; that is the answer from the Minister of Finance—he will not bring it in because of high petrol prices. But when asked whether if petrol prices are at that same level after the election he would carry on with that attitude there is not a mutter not a murmur not a whisper. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Progress reported. 
Films Videos and Publications Classification  Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 It is pleasing to lead the debate for National on this very important legislation. We have supported it through the first and second readings. We will be supporting it through the Committee stage although during this stage we do have some concerns which the Minister in the chair I hope will be able to clarify and to articulate the Government’s position on for us. There are some areas that we do not think strengthen the bill at all but at the end of the day this legislation does improve the 1993 Act and for that reason we will be supporting it. I know that the ACT member Stephen Franks has an amendment. I have gone through it and looked at the points that he brings forward and I tell that member that National will be supporting his amendment. We will also be supporting the amendments of the Minister in relation to the penalties. When we look at the genesis of this bill we see it goes back many many years to the inquiry that was held on films videos and classifications. During that period a number of submissions were received which form the basis of the bill that we are debating tonight. 
I want to start by looking particularly at the meaning of “objectionable”. One of the points I made during the first and second readings was that what may be objectionable to one person may not be objectionable to somebody else. That will be a matter of choice. But it is very clearly defined in clause 4 what the word “objectionable” relates to. I think it is important that we consider the court cases that have come before us and in particular the Living Word Distributors court case which changed in some respects what the censor could do. The censor believes that with that Court of Appeal decision his job has become extremely difficult. I will in further debates articulate the reasons why that court case has in some respects actually not limited but has expanded the criteria. 
 If we look in the Act under section 3 “Meaning of Objectionable” at what that term actually means we see that it does fall within the scope of subsection (1) where the subject matter or the gateways are matters concerning sex horror crime cruelty and violence. One of the points that has been of concern to the select committee is that the Act talks about “matters such as”. That is where the definition can be expanded and broadened. The phrase “matters such as” does not actually specify everything whereas in earlier interpretations the use of the word “includes” certainly made it quite specific that sex horror crime cruelty and violence were included. There was much debate about that and it is not a new issue. That debate has gone on since way back in 1993 and it has certainly come through here. However we have to realise that this bill aims at effects not at the causes. It is the effect of objectionable material that is the concern. The bill is concerned with the effect be it of nudity language or publications. 
The bill also moves beyond that and in clause 4 tries to include under “a matter such as sex” a visual image of “1 or more children or young persons who are nude or partially nude”. That is an area that Mr Franks’ amendment covers. I do not have his amendment in front of me at the moment but I think that it seeks to clarify clause 4 and to make it very clear. It will be on the definition of “young person”; the bill does not really define what a young person is. In its submissions the Law Society stated that term is not defined and although an appropriate definition of child or children may be readily discerned the phrase “young persons” is already used in the principal Act and it is not stated what the age for a young person is. However it is also in new section 3(1A) inserted by clause 4. The definition of a “young person” is important because of that. Is a young person somebody who is 18 years of age or younger or who is 16 years of age? During the select committee stage in the Government Administration Committee we asked the advisers for their interpretation of a young person. In terms of the intent of the bill specifically under clause 4 the Minister may like to clarify for us his interpretation of the very important term “young persons” because that is crucial to the whole argument. 
Another area that we should be very mindful of is what will happen with regard to the penalties regime. The penalties have been substantially increased and it is crucial that we look to make sure that the penalties reflect the crime. Penalties are covered specifically in clause 27. We need to be able to make the penalties so severe that there is a deterrent there that will stop somebody from infringing the law or from taking advantage of young people. If we look at what the penalties regime does we see that it brings in some quite severe penalties for that particular offence and that is important. I know the Minister will move an amendment to the penalties on his Supplementary Order Paper 326 because offences relating to the possession or importation of objectionable material that involve knowledge of that are areas that we have debated at some length. Those are important factors that we need to take into account. If we look at clause 27 we can see that it relates to the display of objectionable publications to someone under the age of 18 years. Under the new penalties provisions a person is liable for up to 10 years’ imprisonment. 
It is important in the penalties regime to bring it into line with those of other countries. Other jurisdictions around the world have different penalty regimes and we want to make sure that the reasons that we are imposing penalties will be in sync with those regimes. In fact we find that some jurisdictions—namely Canada the United States and some of the Australian jurisdictions—have enacted distinct child pornography offences with correspondingly high penalties. That is something that we discussed during the select committee stage but in our case we felt that rather than have stand-alone provisions we should have a unified censorship regime under which all publications are dealt with by one classification agency under a single set of classification criteria using uniform classification procedures. We felt that we did not have to move in the direction of Canada the United Kingdom and some of the Australian states. Amendments in this bill to the schedules to relevant Acts identify the penalties: the length of time for imprisonment and the fines that are incurred. That strengthens the bill quite deliberately. We know that people who are in possession of objectionable material and who have knowledge of that or who are trading in the business will be caught by that offence and that it is a very serious offence. The legislation allows for that. 
There is also the area of importing and exporting which is covered in clause 24. That is a serious situation. I want to acknowledge as I did in the second reading that the Customs Service is at the forefront in policing it. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party to advise that this bill which should be able to be supported by every party and every member in this Parliament is a highly objectionable bill—unless the Minister is prepared to use the Committee stage to remove its objectionable parts. The Minister in the chair the Hon Phil Goff knows that censorship is always a fraught topic. It is very difficult indeed to find a balance so that censorship powers cannot be misused by an establishment or by one group getting its hands on the levers of power to suppress the opinions of others. 
In this case we are amending an Act that everyone knows will always be problematic. We are amending an Act that the Court of Appeal interpreted—to tell the censor on three separate occasions that he was going too far in the direction of suppressing free speech and doing it for purposes not related to the purposes the community through Parliament had seen as requiring the intervention of the law. Those purposes would be pretty commonly agreed—horror torture exploitation of children and the kinds of things that a general consensus says represent objectionable material. In this bill hiding under the guise of being something to deal with child pornography we have the censor coming back and wanting to reverse— 
John Tamihere 
: What do you know about it? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Mr Chairman I ask whether you could comment on that. I believe that the member had absolutely no foundation for making such a comment. I know of no reason. It is the sort of thing for which there should be an immediate request for the member to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry I did not hear what the member said but if objection has been taken I ask the member to withdraw. 
John Tamihere 
: I withdraw. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I was explaining why we believe that this bill which increases powers of censorship needs changes to protect against it being misused by people who do not see the necessity for the protection of free speech—to allow us to offend others. There is no free speech unless we can say things that some people might not like might hate or might bitterly disagree with. 
This bill makes a test of material that includes images that depict express or deal with “conduct that if imitated would pose a real risk of serious harm to self or others …” or conduct “of a degrading or dehumanising or demeaning nature.” and images that are of a degrading dehumanising or demeaning nature. It seems that the drafters either deliberately or incompetently did not realise that those provisions could be used for example by Hindus to prevent depictions of people eating cows—which of course is deeply offensive to them—or perhaps by Muslims who would like to see New Zealand ban  
The Satanic Verses 
 by Salman Rushdie or to prevent other depictions of Muslim practices as being barbaric or demeaning. The legislation states that if young people would be encouraged by a publication to regard themselves as being degraded dehumanised or demeaned then that would fit the definition of objectionable. 
We can easily see the pressure that could come on to this Government or a public servant to decide to curry favour with some of those fanatic groups in order to make sure that we do not give offence. Offence is the very essence of free speech. Almost every advance has been offensive at the time. The rolling back in our community and society of the power of priests and the theocracy and of their ability to suppress new ideas actually involved offence to the majority of the population at the time. It took years before it was not offensive to question views that the world was flat. 
I believe that we have here either unconsciously or deliberately an attempt by the Government to empower the censor to suppress free speech. It is curious that Part 1 states that the Court of Appeal’s foundation for saying that the censor could not restrict the distribution of the Living Word Distributors Ltd video— 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports this bill but we will move one amendment to clause 4(1). We will do that—and I think that Lindsay Tisch indicated the problem in his speech too—because the definition in it is a bit loose. Mr Tisch referred to the definition of a young person as perhaps being a bit broad. But perhaps the more fundamental point—I addressed it in my second reading speech and the Greens now have an amendment on it—is that the breadth of the definition of visual images of children or young persons who are nude or partially nude tends to put the emphasis on whether they are nude or partially nude and the reference to the sexual dimension is pretty vague. In essence child pornography is really about child sex and visual representations of that. To refer as the definition does to visual images that are “reasonably capable of being regarded as sexual in nature” is a bit broad. 
Clause 32 also has a definition of “child pornography” with reference to extraterritorial jurisdiction in relation to offences in this bill. That clause refers to the optional protocol to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. I think that the definition is a good one and could be transferred to new section 3(1A) of the Act inserted by clause 4(1) in order to make the bill consistent. My amendment to the definition in clause 4(1) reads: “… a publication deals with a matter such as sex for the purposes of that subsection if the publication is or contains 1 or more visual images of a person who is or appears to be under 18 years of age engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities or a representation of the sexual parts of a person of that kind for primarily sexual purposes.” 
The existing definition in the bill can be a bit confusing because there are two types of people who may be producing or looking at images of nude people particularly of children. People who are into child sex or who are trying to get it often look at nude images of children or have nude images on their computer—that is true. But there is another category of people. That comes out for instance in Germaine Greer’s book  
The Boy 
 which has been a bit controversial. Are such images in relation to children deemed to be pornography or are they to do with general artistic appreciation? Germaine Greer looks at the history of the presentation of images of boys. That is a legitimate debate. I am not an expert on who is right or wrong in that debate but we do not want our definitions to be so loose that they tend to inhibit that sort of debate among people who are not into child sex and child pornography. So I think that the UN definition of child pornography in new section 145A(1) inserted by clause 32(1) is more clear that it is about people who are engaged in real or simulated sexual activities or about a representation of the sexual parts. That focuses on what I think we are really trying to get to when we attack child pornography. 
The Minister has also brought forward an amendment to extend the penalties in this bill. In general the penalties have been increased substantially. The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 326 will increase the penalty for the possession of objectionable publications with knowledge of that from 2 years’ imprisonment to a term of 5 years. I do not think that that is really necessary because it is not just a penalty for people who are engaged in child pornography. It is a penalty that applies to all objectionable materials and I think Stephen Franks said earlier that there can be a problem in defining what is objectionable. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It is interesting to follow on in support of the bill from the Green member Keith Locke. He raised some interesting points about what the definition of undesirable pornographic or illicit material might be. I am reminded of the image of the girl during the Viet Nam War. That was a very powerful image which all of us will remember and it had a completely different message from what this bill might state as an undesirable outcome. I am sympathetic to the argument but I say to the member that in most cases—99 percent of cases—the difference is absolute. In my view those who cannot tell the difference between an image of a naked child portrayed in a sexual way versus the image that I mentioned really need to have a close look at what they are trying to liberalise. 
It is absolute as far as I am concerned. 
So too in my view is the objection to the notion that this kind of activity should be tolerated in any way in society. Therefore I thank the officials and the Minister who took note of a late submission and introduced the Supplementary Order Paper that he suggests should pass through Parliament along with the bill. The reason is that it harmonises the situation we find ourselves in in New Zealand with the situation of internationally comparable Western nations. 
I also say to the Minister that this is timely legislation because of what has happened with technology. If we look at what is the case today with regard to covert filming and the ability to do that compared with what was the case in 1993 for example then we see there is no doubt that some kind of amendment to the existing Act is necessary. Many submissions that came to the select committee or certainly the advice officials had received suggested that that was so. We can see how that is the case today with cellphones that can take movies and the like. So I say to the Minister: “Well done on that part.” 
The part I guess that needs to be further thrashed out is whether the censor who is ultimately the person who will make the final judgment call will find that the legislative framework around that is clear and that is the question our colleague Stephen Franks raised. The Minister may want to go back to his advisers and ask that question. I simply do not know. Mr Franks has submitted that that is not the case and that there is a bit of ambiguity. I do not know. Certainly the officials may want to have a look at that. The reality is that I do not think there would be a person in Parliament without exception who would not want to see something in place to safeguard our children against the kind of activity those people want to be involved in. 
I have said it before and I will say it again that I cannot understand them. I am somebody who is fairly simple in my thinking around this stuff. There is a black and white line between what is right and what is wrong and if there is any ambiguity in the minds of people as far as that line is concerned then they really do need to have a look at themselves. 
It is interesting to look at some of the statistics around child abuse in this country. They are alarming. We have to ask the question: how in a modern society like today’s does anybody get into a position where they consider for more than a few seconds that the kind of activity this legislation is designed to protect our children against is acceptable or is something from which they should derive some kind of pleasure—perverted pleasure as it must be? So I say to the Minister that he should take notice of those groups that have done that work. I know that he has in terms of his amendment but he should also take notice of the number of other alarming statistics that seem to be being promoted by various groups. I have in front of me a letter from the Parentline Charitable Trust which has written to me in that regard. The trust quotes some figures. I have no ability to know whether they are right or wrong but I presume they are right. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I rise to concur with my colleagues in welcoming the opportunity to support this bill but of course we do have some reservations—or some of us do certainly. None of us want to see our children put at risk in any way shape or form. I was privileged just this evening to watch a performance by some of our high school students in Play It Strange which was absolutely magnificent It reinforces the need to protect our children in order to see them grow to be productive young adults. 
But I have concerns. If we think of the photograph of the girl in Viet Nam in the context of subsection (1A) inserted by clause 4: “Without limiting subsection (1) a publication deals with a matter such as sex for the purposes of that subsection if—(a) the publication is or contains 1 or more visual images of 1 or more children or young persons who are nude or partially nude;” we know that that young girl was nude. Therefore any publication that that photograph appeared in would then be required to be classified as a publication that dealt with a matter such as sex because that publication would have one or more visual images of a child who was nude or partially nude. So although it is quite clear that that was not the intention of that particular picture it could fall within the classification in the bill under the clause heading: “Meaning of objectionable”. All that the provision requires is that the publication has one or more children or young persons who are nude or partially nude. 
I find that very interesting. I do not know about other members but many of us as mothers have photographs of our children where they are nude or partially nude. I have heaps. Often the boys would try to find them to screw them up and throw them away but that was in the old days. Now they do not seem to mind so much. Then if such photographs are seen paragraph (c) of section 3B(4) inserted by clause 4A states that it would: “encourage them to treat or regard themselves others or both as degraded or dehumanised or demeaned.” To “encourage them”?—I find that extraordinary in the extreme. I would love the Minister to take a call and explain why it is necessary to have such a subjective requirement in the bill that is really emotively based and how that will apply when we look at the previous meaning of “objectionable”. Essentially it could be anything. 
I recall also that some Muslims objected to a billboard with a woman in a bikini. That objection did not go anywhere but there was another case where women with burkas were going into court. I ask what that could mean. The arguments used for them to be allowed to wear their burkas were that for them not to wear them would place their safety at risk and that it was degrading and dehumanising for them not to wear them because of their beliefs. So this provision inserted by clause 4A is quite an interesting one and I do hope that the Minister will take a call. I think it would be very interesting to hear what he had to say in that regard. 
Clause 4B(3) contains another situation that is actually retrospective: “Without limiting section 42(3) of the principal Act the Chief Censor may be satisfied under that subsection that there are special circumstances justifying reconsideration of a decision made in respect of a publication if the Chief Censor considers that the decision may be altered because of the new provisions.”—the new provisions of this bill. Why? I would have thought that decisions in respect of all publications have already been made so why would we now want to go and retrospectively deal to any of them? I am sure they would have been dealt with appropriately so is this just some desire on the part of the chief censor to have another go at something he or she did not particularly like or is it an instance where the chief censor may have lost an argument and wants to have power later to get his or her own way? That needs to be very very carefully considered. I just wonder now at the broad powers of the chief censor and whether the accountability is there that should be there. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 This is very difficult legislation. It has clauses in it that have sat around for a long time. A lot of child protection agencies have asked for and wanted this bill for a long time. But when it was tabled it was very disappointing to see that the penalties were not severe enough. They were not actually for possession of child pornography and they were not in line with those of other countries. I am pleased that the Minister has taken note of that because when I said I would introduce a Supplementary Order Paper increasing the maximum penalty to 5 years for possession he introduced his own Supplementary Order Paper to the bill. The message sent was that New Zealand was softer on possessors of child pornography than were other jurisdictions in countries like Australia Canada and the UK. 
The essence of this bill and the difficulty with it is that it is two pieces of legislation. We are dealing with two issues here. Someone who has libertarian beliefs who believes that the only time the State should interfere is when force or coercion is used and people are being harmed would have to balance that very carefully with the heavy hand of the State coming down on censorship and breaching free speech. It is always very easy for people’s freedoms to be eroded in the name of protecting children. That is often a way that is used to erode the freedoms of consenting adults. 
Clause 4 which proposes to insert a new section 3(1A) into the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act is very very ill-defined. I would like the Minister to explain why we are not taking the international definition into that clause. That is why I support Keith Locke’s amendment. As Sandra Goudie from National has just pointed out every parent in this Committee—every mother every father—will have photographs of their children in the paddling pool or in the bath. The Vietnamese girl in the photo was totally naked. Possession of such photos is not an offence if it is innocent possession and that is what I mean by “fine line”. Perverts can do what they like with the photos—they can turn them into something obscene and into a cause for harm—but we should not be introducing legislation that punishes everyone who possesses images or publications that have “1 or more visual images of 1 or more children or young persons who are nude or partially nude”. That is such a light barrier to call into this legislation. 
In fact why are we even bringing in this legislation when we do not even enforce the law with our existing legislation? A couple of weeks ago we heard that  
Time 
 magazine was holding New Zealand up as being a haven for paedophiles because the country had been provided with a list of 75 names of suspected possessors of child pornography who had been tracked through their credit cards—so there was enough evidence for suspicion of trading—yet to this day nothing has been done. 
I call on the Minister to explain why we have such a light meaning of “objectionable” in New Zealand. A common myth out there is that such material is harmless and that it is better that perverts and child abusers sit at home watching child porn on their TV than go out and abuse children. Well that is not the case. There is a victim behind every image of child pornography. If possessors of child pornography are swapping looking or trading in it then they are creating a demand and they are abusing children. Evidence has shown that many of those who just look do go on to offend so children are in danger. That is a real risk and a real danger. However we should not be passing a bill such as this one that as I said probably catches everybody in the country in its provisions. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I would like to address a number of issues that have been raised in Committee. First of all I welcome the support from around the Chamber for this legislation which produces much tougher penalties for those people who deal in the trade of child pornography. Whatever our arguments about freedom of expression there is no one in this Chamber who would for a moment justify the use of young children in sexual abuse cases for the gratification of people who seem to enjoy that sort of thing. For a long time in this country we have had legislation that provides for a penalty of just 1 year for producing trading in or distributing pornography. [ 
Interruption 
] The member has had his chance to speak. If he would just listen politely for a moment he will have another chance. 
If I could pick up Shane Ardern’s point I think it is quite right that technology has totally changed the nature of child pornography and the menace it poses to our society and to the children who are victims of it. Instead of having the stereotypical man in a gaberdine raincoat going down to a seedy shop and trading images in ones or in tens we are now having through the Internet the trading of images that run to tens of thousands. Clearly the message has to go through that the penalties are tough for that sort of thing; that we will as a society protect our children; and that the chances of being caught are high. 
I say to Deborah Coddington what an absolute nonsense that  
Time 
 magazine article is and I think she may have made the same comment. Denise Ritchie certainly regarded it as a bit of Kiwi bashing and sensationalism. We have in this country one of the best enforcement agencies in the world in the Department of Internal Affairs and the job that it does. Any member who does not understand the job the department does ought to go down and look at what it is doing the sophistication of its operation and the success rate in getting prosecutions. He or she would then see that some half-baked Aussie journalist—who knows nothing about New Zealand—claiming that we are a haven for child pornography could not be further from the truth and that is a fact. 
What we have in this legislation is a tenfold increase in the penalty for those who produce trade in or distribute child pornography. I think that is appropriate and in line with the penalties that exist in other like-minded countries. What we had was quite a dramatic increase too in the area of possession of pornography. Under the current law as members will be aware there is no prison sentence for possession of pornography. The legislation has been in place since 1993 and that legislation frankly has been inadequate. The original bill as approved by the Government Administration Committee proposed a sentence of 2 years for knowingly possessing child pornography. It was brought to my attention I have to say by Denise Ritchie that changes are occurring as we speak to the legislation and to the penalties for possession in particular in Australia. For a couple of years Canada and the UK have had a penalty of 5 years for the intentional possession of pornography. In Australia the norm tended to be a penalty of around 1 to 2 years but that has now changed in a number of states—Western Australia and Queensland I think are at 5 years—and three states are in the process of moving their penalties. New South Wales has legislation before its Parliament right now. 
It made sense to me and I think it would have made sense to the select committee in retrospect that as that was the norm for the penalties for possessing child pornography in an area where those images move across national boundaries we needed to be in line with those other countries. I willingly propose that change. I hope we will have support across the Chamber and indeed I hope we will have support from the Green Party I say to Keith Locke because 5 years is the maximum penalty. It will not be applied in every case. The Department of Internal Affairs for a start uses its discretion in terms of who it decides to prosecute. So it prosecutes those who are into pornography in a big way. It does not take before the court the curious teenager who flicks on the screen and sees some of this stuff. Yes those people will be pulled up and shown the error of their ways but they will not be put in prison for 5 years. That privilege will be given to those people who are at the worst end of this offending. So I think that this bill and the two Supplementary Order Papers—there are two Supplementary Order Papers; Supplementary Order Paper 325 is largely a technical Supplementary Order Paper—and particularly Supplementary Order Paper 326 with regard to possession make sensible changes. 
A question has been raised about clause 4 regarding images of nude children. I think a genuine concern is raised by people concerning the graphic image of that young girl in Viet Nam who had been napalmed and who was nude as to whether she would be covered. The answer is no—quite clearly no—in the way this legislation is drafted. Will we see a Renoir of a child banned under this legislation? Of course not. 
Keith Locke 
: Why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Well if the member wants to listen for a moment I will explain. He should show me that courtesy for just a couple of minutes longer. 
 The bill clarifies that images of nude children that are reasonably capable of being regarded as sexual in nature are treated as dealing with “a matter such as sex.” That is one of the gateway criteria for being covered and potentially regarded as offensive and prohibited material. The bill does not change the existing legal standard for prohibition. What it does is to clarify that certain images of children are to be regarded as “a matter such as sex” for the purpose of the subject matter gateway in section 3(1). This enables the classification office to consider whether they should be restricted or prohibited. Under the existing legal standards the classification officer may restrict or prohibit them if they deal with a subject matter—and Sandra Goudie might like to listen to this—in such a manner that the availability of the publication is likely to be injurious to the public good. 
Secondly a publication must be prohibited if it promotes or supports or tends to promote or support the exploitation of children or young persons or both for sexual purposes. The Government Administration Committee heard that one of the favourite tricks of the child pornographer is to send out images of naked children for sexual gratification. We want to be able to clamp down on that practice. We do not want to take into this net examples of pictures of children who are nude that are not presented for sexual purposes and for sexual gratification. In fact what this legislation does is to clarify what the Court of Appeal decided in the second Moonen case. This provision endorses the implicit finding of the Court of Appeal and removes that possible doubt. This is not something that will be misused for that purpose and experience with this legislation will show that. I respect the work that the select committee did on a bipartisan basis to reach this conclusion and to present this report. 
I come now to Stephen Franks’ amendments. I have read his press statement which he kindly supplied me with. But I have to say that it is an absolute nonsense to say as he says here that this is smoothing the path for Labour to pass hate-speech laws later this year. I made the explicit decision not to incorporate hate-speech laws in this legislation and the committee agreed. The committee comprising National and Labour agreed on a bipartisan basis because to give respect to that committee it did not do as the member has been trying to do: play politics with it. Hate speech is an area that should be looked at in its own right. It is not something that will be done by the film censor and it is something that I have explicitly excluded from this legislation. This set of amendments is to counter a situation that is a figment of that member’s imagination. There is no intention to do what he claims in his press statement this legislation is trying to do and I deplore the fact that he is trying to wring some miserable politics out of something that had no partisanship in it in the first place. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I want to talk about the increase in the penalty. One of the problems with the Minister increasing the penalty to 5 years for possession with knowledge is that most members of the public will think it is about increasing the penalty for child pornography. Actually it is about increasing the penalty for the possession of any objectionable publication. That is where the problem lies and the Law Society identified that in its submissions to the Government Administration Committee. 
One of the committee’s recommendations was that if the focus of litigation was to target child pornography then consideration should be given to objectionable publications involving child pornography having a different maximum potential penalty from other types of objectionable publications. We want to focus on child pornography—and there is a huge increase in the penalty for possession of objectionable publications in general. The penalty for possession of objectionable publications—I think it was “without knowledge” as defined in the original legislation—was $2000 and no prison penalty. Under this bill the penalty for possession of objectionable publications “with knowledge” goes to 2 years’ jail and Supplementary Order Paper 326 jumps that up to 5 years which is a heavy penalty. The reason we object to this heavy penalty being applied across the board is that the definition of objectionable material is fairly broad covering sex horror crime cruelty and violence. 
Historically in New Zealand we have seen what happens as society liberalises. In previous times the  
Little Red School Book 
 and things that Germaine Greer said when she visited New Zealand in 1971 or 1972 were seen as objectionable and bans or criminal cases ensued etc. But often what is objectionable today is allowable tomorrow if we get outside this area of child pornography and look at things particularly in the political and moral realm. A year or so ago a chap in Auckland Bruce Hubbard emailed the American Embassy. He accused the Americans of “napalming babies”. The American Embassy took offence. The police charged him. Later they dropped the charge. But the fact that it got to that point indicates there could be a bit of a problem about what is considered objectionable and what is not. Should we really be applying a 5-year penalty to people at that level? 
There is a problem too even with the age restriction clauses in the bill having such large penalties. Again as the Law Society said under the new penalty provisions a person is liable for up to 10 years’ imprisonment for showing a 17-year-old an objectionable image but no offence is committed under section 127 if it is shown to a person on his or her 18th birthday. Sure the maximum penalty for possession may be applied primarily to real child pornography offences and the section on sentencing states that it is an aggravating factor if effectively it is child pornography. So child pornography offences may be at the very top of the scale in the judge’s mind but other objectionable publications could be very heavily penalised. Also we have to be more cautious about possession penalties and make a bit of a distinction between possession and trading. Although possession should be penalised I think the people we are really trying to hit on the head are the traders the distributors and the people who are profiting. To provide for a penalty of 5 years for possession of objectionable material that might not even be child pornography—it might be in those other areas I talked about—can be quite dangerous. We are in a very difficult area altogether here with the way cellphones are developing enabling the sending of pictures. It is a very very difficult area. We do not want to go mad in terms of our penalties at this point. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I want to bring up a number of points. The first one relates to what I call the tidying-up of the situation where a film is to be screened at say 9 o’clock at night but prior to that time in the earlier part of the evening trailers are shown of some of the images in that film—a film that has been restricted for later viewing. I think that would certainly cause concern. 
A constituent of mine from Cambridge has written to me and I shall read out what he said because it illustrates what some folk find in terms of violent adult programmes. On Television One on Saturday 27 November before  
The Inspector Lynley Mysteries 
 there was a preview of an adults-only programme prior to its screening at 5 minutes past 9 that carried the warning that some viewers might find the violence disturbing. The preview used the words “trail of death” and there was an image of a large knife immediately followed by a clip of a woman screaming in terror. 
Dianne Yates 
: Put in a complaint. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: I understand that and we are pursuing those sorts of avenues. But the point is that this legislation does move to rectify that in clause 5A “Submission of films by labelling body”. It does provide that protection and I think that is a significant change to what we currently have. Where a film or video is to be shown later in the evening because it is classified as restricted—let us say it is adults-only—then the trailer that precedes it should have the same classification. It is certainly National’s view that that would take care of some of the issues that came up during the select committee proceedings when people complained about trailers prior to the screening of the main film showing violence. With that in mind National supports the change. 
I also want to bring to the Committee’s attention the use of search warrants. Some interesting information on this was supplied to us by the Ministry of Justice. I will quote straight from its notes which articulate quite clearly what the position is. The ministry stated: “A search warrant is not available for the current strict liability possession offence. Although people are able to acquire large numbers of images over the Internet and store these on their computers investigating simple possession offences is hindered by the lack of a search warrant power for these offences.” 
We have heard of examples where images have been available and nothing has happened—there seems to be inaction. What has happened is that the Department of Internal Affairs has advised that it has evidence including information from overseas investigations that would be investigated further if search warrants were available for a possession offence. So we cannot place any blame on the department As the Minister mentioned and as I mentioned in the second reading debate it is doing a sterling job. 
The Government Administration Committee had an opportunity to see the work in which the Department of Internal Affairs is involved. That was my second visit to the department; I visited its premises when we conducted the inquiry into films videos and publications classifications. So I respect the work it does. I also respect the work the censor does because there is no way that I could sit there all day looking at those degrading publications and seeing the offences that are occurring and the images that exist. The points the Minister made were I think valid and National certainly endorses them. 
The final point I want to make about search warrants is that the legislation now gives that opportunity. If people have been trading images or if people knowingly possess information or images whatever they may be— 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 One of the things that sticks in my throat is the sad fact that we have to come to Parliament and pass legislation like this. It is sad that there are people out there who would abuse children in such a way that we need laws like this. It is an absolute tragedy. But I have to say that I am getting a sense that a lot of parties around the Chamber feel equally disgusted by the activities of some people in our community. This legislation will pass with a great deal of support from all around this Chamber and I think that is gratifying. Times are a-changing. This legislation in every way supersedes my member’s bill that attempted to address some of these issues but it did so not nearly as comprehensively as this bill does. 
During the course of looking at the information that I was able to access as a result of my bill I saw some of the material dealt with by the chief censor’s office. The kind of material that some people get their kicks out of is absolutely astonishing. Things that we might find simply obscene are nothing compared with some of the stuff that is out there. In fact one has to watch some of the things very closely even to discern what is being sexualised. 
I am reminded of one example that absolutely horrified me. It was a home video—which I gathered from the information I was given was to be put up for sale—in which a father actually videotaped his own child in bed. He videotaped certain portions of the child’s anatomy and he kept moving the blankets so that he could videotape his son and then on-sell. I find such things so disgusting and so appalling. So it is high time for legislation like this. 
I am pleased that the penalties have been increased to the extent that they have been. I cannot wait for people to get caught under this legislation. I cannot wait to see people who have profited from and who have enjoyed child pornography and child abuse finally get the comeuppance they so richly deserve. So of course United Future will be supporting this legislation very heartily. The bill puts first the interests of protecting children from child sex abuse images and the penalties reflect that which is a good thing. 
What the bill does not do however is address the vexed question of hate speech—and for good reason. We do not need to ask judges to determine subjective standards as to what constitutes hate speech. It is simply beyond the scope of this bill. Although we can all agree on addressing the problems of child sex abuse images via the Internet and suchlike it falls far short of impinging on our freedom of expression. 
I have looked at some of the amendments that members have suggested. I think they are trying to do their best and I do not think anybody is trying deliberately to undermine this bill but members in their zeal to put forward amendments might have overlooked a few things. In particular I look at Keith Locke’s amendment to section 3(1A)(b) in clause 4. It states: “(b) the publication is or contains 1 or more visual images of a person who is or appears to be under 18 years of age engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities;”. Members can imagine just how difficult that would make it for the Department of Internal Affairs to prosecute as the department would be required to prove that the person depicted was under the age of 18. It is pretty hard to do. 
Keith Locke 
: It’s in the bill. It’s definitely in the bill. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Well the member should try to prove it. When one gets hold of this pornographic material one does not always get hold of the protagonists who are involved in the video. It is pretty damn hard. And to expect to do that in order to secure a prosecution is just madness. So from that point of view I know what the member is trying to do—it is a good effort—but it is not good enough. 
Peter Brown 
: Like the NCEA. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: That is right. The provisions on speech that is considered to be highly offensive to the public in general do not actually stop free speech; they restrict it so that it is not likely to cause harm to those who are under age. The legislation does not restrict one’s freedom to say those things but it does protect young children. 
Stephen Franks 
: So you can’t teach kids. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: It is not a question of trying to teach kids. One would have to be pretty peculiar if by way of trying to teach a child one were to give the child a video that degenerated into the worst possible language or was pornographic. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 This is important legislation because it is all about striking a balance in society—a balance that I think is increasingly difficult to strike—between freedom and appropriate restraint. It is a bit like the issue of whether judges should legislate or whether they should be subject to some faint constraint. 
 National supports this legislation. I think it is sad that we come to it with a number of Supplementary Order Paper amendments. Those issues are really best addressed if it is possible in the context of the select committee stage. But I feel strong sympathy for the proposals that Mr Franks a wise and able legislator seeks to move in Committee. They are changes that I think would bring improvement to this legislation. 
I see the young Minister in the chair Mr Goff scoffing at what my comments have implied. He falls short of being prepared to endorse the intellect of Mr Franks. But I do not for a moment do that because I think there are a number of points in the proposed Supplementary Order Paper that are worthy of consideration. The problem is that when those amendments come fast and late it is difficult for the officials to immediately recognise the burden of the argument and the strength of the propositions. I express the hope therefore that the Minister in the chair and those members opposite in what is a very crowded Chamber tonight may see the merit of what is being proposed by Mr Franks. It is easy to follow because following the changes that he proposes to make to Part 1 there is a simply worded explanation about the consequence of each part. 
It is incredibly important that as legislators we seek to define the society that we wish to live in. I have said before in this House and in this Committee that it is very difficult to legislate in any realistic way what is appropriate or inappropriate behaviour. The most that can be given are signals; signals that hopefully people in the community will pick up from the way legislation is drafted as to what is or is not appropriate conduct and we see it here. There are limited proposals for change which are set out in the bill as reported back from the Government Administration Committee. 
So I endorse what Mr Franks has to say and the reasons for what lies behind what he plans and I am sure that National will support what Mr Franks proposes. I commend to the Committee the basis of his Supplementary Order Paper. I express the hope that National will vote for it. I also express the hope that National—as I am sure it will—will vote for the thrust of this legislation. Although maybe it is a little bit remote from the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill it nevertheless touches very much aspects of morality in our nation. 
I have had the good fortune to have climbed Kilimanjaro in the last few days and to have been to Arusha which is at the base of the mountain and to have seen the International Criminal Court in action. I heard a story about a priest who padlocked 2000 people into his church and then proceeded to bulldoze that church to the ground with the consequence that those 2000 people lost their lives. As the International Criminal Court hears that case which is now at the point where the prosecution has closed its case it has the opportunity to set an example. 
That is what we do as legislators. We have to sit and carefully ponder whether what we are debating is good stuff in the context of governance to provide leadership or whether it is merely politically correct window dressing. We need to be cautious as we advance with legislation of this type to make sure that it has a message and a leadership ideal. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Stephen Franks 
: That’s a disgrace. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Stephen Franks 
: It’s a disgrace. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am on my feet Mr Franks. You will sit— 
Stephen Franks 
: I don’t care if you are on your feet. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will you please be seated. You have one more chance. [ 
Interruption 
] Will you just go? Leave the Chamber. 
Stephen Franks 
: That was a disgrace. The Minister attacked me personally and I have had no opportunity to speak. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave the Chamber. Mr Franks if you continue I will name you. 
Stephen Franks withdrew from the Chamber. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I wish to put the vote. I will refer members to Speaker’s ruling 9/5: “Once the chairperson has accepted a closure motion and commenced to put the question it does not matter how far the chairperson gets; under [Standing Order 51] the time to report progress is deferred until the closure and any consequential questions are determined.” I intend to take the vote and then I will hear the points of order. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I draw your attention to the fact that New Zealand First is the third-largest party in Parliament and we will probably be the second-largest after the next election and we have not had one single call in this debate—not one. I have taken a close interest in this bill. I was not on the Government Administration Committee but I have listened to members speaking. I have heard very little from the Government members except from the honourable Minister. I have deliberately sat back to listen intently to the debate. It is quite outrageous that we did not even get the opportunity to contribute to it at all. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will first answer Mr Brown because I think he is entitled to it. Mr Brown you are quite right. You have been here in the Chamber and you have not sought the call at all. We had over 15 speeches and I therefore took the closure motion. It was not the first closure motion. I turned down the first closure motion and took the second one. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I want to draw your attention to this issue. We know that the Government is under pressure to get a lot of legislation through but I want you to reflect on the fact that the ACT party has three MPs here. Deborah Coddington has moved an amendment that the Government has incorporated into the bill. I have come down to the Chamber to speak as party leader but I have not had the call and so have not had that opportunity. Stephen Franks has made one contribution to the debate on Part 1. He has moved substantial amendments. The Minister chose to speak after him. He totally misrepresented Mr Franks’ amendments which Mr Worth kindly spoke in support of as having merit. The Minister then launched into a personal attack on Mr Franks. He took two calls to do so. Then you chose to close down the debate on Part 1. New Zealand First did not have an opportunity to speak and that is absolutely appalling. I saw Peter Brown requesting the call when you took the closure motion. The ACT party’s three MPs all made a contribution to the final legislation. Mr Franks had his reputation shredded and his amendments misrepresented by the Minister in the chair for political purpose and you chose to close down the debate. I accept that that is your right but I ask you to reflect on that behaviour because it does not allow Parliament to function. One party has been completely excluded and a party that has made a major contribution to this legislation has had only one opportunity to speak. I suggest to you that a way forward is for you to invite Mr Franks back to the Chamber—because I think he was provoked beyond measure—so that he can contribute to the further parts of this legislation. I think that would be fair. I suggest that you also allow some latitude so that New Zealand First and ACT can contribute to the debate on the subsequent parts of this legislation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for his considered opinion and I appreciate the way he has put it. I say that I had looked at the proportionality of the debate and it was bang on apart from New Zealand First which did not seek a call at all during the 15 speeches. I may have missed that and I apologise if I have made a mistake. I have considered what Mr Hide has said about Mr Franks. If he speaks to the Clerk afterwards I will reconsider my position. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: What does he speak to the Clerk about? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: About the time that he has been sent out. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: How can he speak to the Clerk if he is not allowed in the Chamber? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: You Mr Hide may like to come to the Table later. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Stephen Franks has a number of amendments to Part 1—in fact there are six amendments—and we will be voting on them in a moment. Although I respect the decision you have made and I am not relitigating it I think it is important that the member because he has made a contribution on earlier parts plus he has six amendments to Part 1 should be allowed back into the Chamber so that he can take part in the debate on Part 2 and then on the title. He has made a contribution in the past. I have been present right through the debate and I think that with the goodwill of the Committee it would be my recommendation— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank you Mr Tisch and I will take that into consideration. I have invited Mr Hide to come to the Table. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have ruled on this matter. 
Peter Brown 
: I want to draw your attention to something new. It is a new point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It had better be a new point of order because I have ruled. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I admit that I took my time about seeking the call but I waited for Marc Alexander to speak because I know he has a particular interest in this bill and has followed this legislation very closely. You said that I had not sought the call at all. That is not true. I was on my feet when Dianne Yates moved the closure motion and again when Jill Pettis moved the closure motion but I did not get the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry Mr Brown that I did not see you but there is another part to the bill and I will certainly take into consideration the submission you have made. There are a number of amendments to be voted on. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (1) by omitting proposed new section 3(1A)(a) and (b) of the principal Act and substituting the following new paragraphs (b) and (c): 
(b)the publication is or contains 1 or more visual images of a person who is or appears to be under 18 years of age engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities; or 
(c)a representation of the sexual parts of a person of that kind for primarily sexual purposes. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (1) by omitting proposed new section 3(1A)(b) of the principal Act and substituting the following new paragraph (b): 
(b)those 1 or more visual images alone or together with any other contents of the publication likely to be regarded by a normal person as sexual in nature. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 4A be agreed to: 
to amend proposed new section 3A of the principal Act by omitting subsection (3) and substituting the following new subsection (3): 
(3)In this section  
highly offensive language 
 means language that is likely to cause grave offence to the overwhelming majority of the public by its use of offensive expression and not by reason of disagreement with the subject matter or argument or propositions expressed. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 4A be agreed to: 
to amend proposed new section 3B(4) of the principal Act by inserting before the word “persons” where it first appears the words “the overwhelming majority of”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 4A be agreed to: 
to amend proposed new section 3B(4) of the principal Act by omitting paragraph (c). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 4A be agreed to: 
to omit proposed new section 3D of the principal Act. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 4B be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (3). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 56 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; Green Party 9. 
Noes 61 
New Zealand Labour 51; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 325 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 325 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 326 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to other Acts 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Part 2 is very small and I shall concentrate on two areas. The first is clause 43 which amends a schedule of an Act. 
We note the importance of New Zealand’s requirement to comply with its international obligations under the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children Child Prostitution and Child Pornography. The bill includes provisions that deal with extraterritorial jurisdiction regarding New Zealand citizens extradition and mutual assistance in criminal matters to ensure our compliance with the optional protocol. It is important that we do play our part in the international scene. As is mentioned in the bill the optional protocol was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York on 25 May 2000. 
What does that actually mean? Well it provides for jurisdiction for certain offences that relate to child pornography as defined in the optional protocol. It requires the Attorney-General’s consent to be obtained where jurisdiction is claimed under that provision. And it deems certain offences where they relate to child pornography to be included in extradition treaties. That is a significant international treaty that we have signed up to and it is included under clause 43. 
The other area I want to bring the Committee’s attention to and it has been mentioned before is the penalties that are associated with the offences. Before I go specifically into the offences as per the protocol I want to say the Department of Internal Affairs has provided information on the prosecutions it has been involved in. I note in its memo to the select committee that since 1996 it has successfully prosecuted 139 cases involving objectionable material and currently 125 cases are pending in the District Court. Those figures may be out of date now but the point I make is that the Department of Internal Affairs has a proud reputation. It is internationally recognised for its work and we should be applauding its efforts as it is at the forefront in being able to make prosecutions in being able to use its expertise in monitoring. As I have mentioned in a previous debate I have seen its operations in practice. 
We also have other information from the department that relates to Customs Service and police prosecutions for objectionable material in the period 2000-03. If we look at the 2003 category we see that the Department of Internal Affairs had 26 prosecutions the Customs Service had 12 and the police had 33 bringing the total to 71. My point in the second reading debate was that the Customs Service also has a major part to play it being right at the forefront at our airports ports and seaports where material can come in. It has the ability to seize that material and prosecuting the offences of making distributing copying supplying and possessing such material is part of the work it is involved in. It is able to operate under section 209 of the Customs and Excise Act. So it is at the forefront of providing the protection and the safeguards that we expect and those provisions are included in Part 2. 
The other significant area and it has been mentioned is the penalty regimes that now come in. The penalties for offences under the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act have been strengthened. The Minister of Justice mentioned that they had been increased tenfold. If we look at what other countries are doing we see that the United Kingdom Canada Ireland the United States and Japan have 5 years’ imprisonment for possession. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is with some sadness that we rise to speak on this part because nothing would please the ACT party more than to vote for this bill. It is time that we got tough on those who would exploit young children sexually and it is time that we toughened up on the penalties. In fact one of our MPs Deborah Coddington has been most strident on those issues and we are pleased that the Minister has seen the sense of the Supplementary Order Paper Deborah Coddington was going to move and has adopted it as a Government Supplementary Order Paper and the legislation has been improved as a consequence. 
But the ACT party finds that it cannot support this legislation overall. Because buried inside this legislation is an attack on free speech and the understandable care and concern we have for young people is being used to do something quite different. I draw the Committee’s attention to new section (1B) in clause 40(3) which talks about “objectionable publication” and that is the difficulty we have with this bill. I ask the Committee to consider this. We might not agree with a video that suggests to young people that homosexual behaviour is not a good idea. I do not agree with such a video. However I do not believe that the chief censor should be in a position to ban that video. Under this legislation he will be able to. Marc Alexander can shake his head. Clearly he has not read the legislation because that is precisely what will happen under this legislation. I draw his attention to the bits that will do it. A new provision in Part 1—new section 3B(4)(c) in clause 4A—states that it will be able to ban anything that encourages persons to treat or regard themselves others or both as degraded or dehumanised or demeaned. I tell Mr Alexander that that is precisely the point. I draw his attention to clause 4B “Transitional provision” where subclause (3) makes it retrospective for the precise purpose of banning the Living Word Distributors Ltd video. That is exactly what that clause is for. 
Marc Alexander 
: Rubbish! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Oh well he can shake his head but I tell him that that is exactly right. I draw the attention of the Minister the Hon Phil Goff to new section 3D in clause 4A. When he was attacking Mr Franks he talked a lot about the gateway provisions. That clause actually overwhelms the gateway provisions. I know that I should be talking about Part 2 but we did not get any opportunity on this side of the Committee to talk about Part 1 and when I see “objectionable publication” I am drawn back to that. I say this: just because we disagree with something and just because we find something objectionable that is no reason to ban it. There is a lot of speech that I hear in this Chamber that I find objectionable. I hear a lot of speech in this Chamber that I find highly offensive for being ignorant for failing to understand economics and for failing to grasp wider world realities. I do not want that speech banned. 
So there is a lot of material that we find highly offensive. I say to Marc Alexander that he is voting for a bill that will actually undermine free speech in this Chamber. 
Marc Alexander 
: No it won’t that’s fiction. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He is so confident that it will not. I am telling him. Does he remember— 
Marc Alexander 
: I do not believe you Mr Hide. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Oh he does not believe me. Well he does not need to believe me actually he should just watch it happen. Just remember what the chief censor tried to do to the Living Word video. I did not agree with that video. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Could the member come back to Part 2 please. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes I am talking about Part 2 exactly. I am talking about offensive publications. What one person sees as offensive is another person’s educational material. I tell Mr Alexander that I am not talking about child porn and that member can blind himself to that and Government members can blind themselves to that. We heard from Dianne Yates exactly what this bill was about. We say it is a shame that the Minister allowed himself to take the genuine concern of those in this Committee who want to clamp down on the child pornographers and use it to ban offensive publications and offensive language—things that we might consider dehumanise people—and therefore overturn free speech. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I do not want to speak for long because that speech was about Part 1 and we are now dealing with Part 2. 
Rodney Hide 
: I never got a chance to speak to Part 1. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Well the member’s colleague of course did get a chance. He took two calls. There were some 15 speakers on that part but that is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Chair. I want to tell that member that he has totally misrepresented what is in this bill. 
Rodney Hide 
: Rubbish! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: He says: “Rubbish!” but I doubt that he had read the bill before tonight. I doubt that he knows what he is talking about because he displayed his ignorance in what he said. This bill maintains the strict limits of the gateway subjects that can be classified as objectionable. 
Stephen Franks 
: What’s the expression? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Mr Franks misrepresents the term “offensive language” which as is clear to every member who was on the Government Administration Committee refers to bad language swear words and relates only to those under the age of 18. This bill additionally says that things such as teaching people how to commit suicide should not be put in front of under-18-year-olds and therefore there is a restriction on that. Is Mr Franks so libertarian that he believes that our under-18-year-old children should be subject to that sort of demeaning degrading and dangerous literature? If Mr Franks believes that yes he is entitled to say that in the Chamber. But for him to claim that this is about expression of opinion and not the use of language is totally misleading and totally wrong. There is no foundation to his comments whatsoever. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would like to acknowledge Marc Alexander’s contribution which was very emotionally sincere about supporting this bill. I am sure that that is the reason why we are all supporting this bill. However I was a little bit disappointed that on behalf of United Future he did not support the amendments that were put forward. It would have been nice to see that happen. 
Part 2 “Amendments to other Acts” deals with the exportation and importation of objectionable material. Section 2(1) in clause 37 defines “Electronic publication” as “a thing (including but not limited to a disc or an electronic or computer file) on which is recorded or stored information that by the use of a computer or other electronic device is capable of being reproduced or shown as 1 or more (or a combination of 1 or more) images representations signs statements or words”. I presume that a mobile phone comes into that context. I wondered whether perhaps the Minister could clarify that for me because he did not actually clarify the retrospectivity of Part 1. Maybe the Minister would like to include that in his explanation along with the— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did the member say “retrospectivity”? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: Yes of clause 4B which I mentioned earlier. I am wondering whether the Minister could clarify whether a mobile phone comes into this. I would presume it does but perhaps the Minister would like to clarify that. 
It is interesting to consider electronic publications and to consider as Lindsay Tisch has done in his contribution the relationships and protocols we now have as outlined in clause 43 with regard to conventions overseas. We can expect that materials will come to New Zealand from overseas and it is interesting to see the number of people being charged in crack-downs in Australia. More than 200 people have been charged and another 500 individuals may yet end up in court in relation to 2000 child-porn offences following raids across Australia. 
Of course that is the sort of material that they will be exporting to New Zealand and we have people in New Zealand who are picking up on that type of material. It is sad to see that approximately 20 percent of those possessing that material or accessing that material are actually between 14 and 18 years-of-age. It is an absolute tragedy in my view that that is the case. A letter came from Parentline urgently requesting that some provision be made for counselling or treatment for those young people to ensure that they did not reoffend in accessing these images—and many of these images no doubt come from overseas. 
In another instance a gentleman accessing images was prosecuted. He had 106 images. It was interesting to note that of those 106 images 61 were found to be objectionable in that they featured children as young as 6 engaged in sexual acts or posing in a sexual manner. That was the case with 61 out of 106 pictures and it makes one wonder what the situation was with regard to the remaining 45. One would think that they would have been in the same context. That gentleman downloaded those pictures only for his own use. He did not pass them on to others. So his sentence took into account the fact that he was not a distributor. He just used them for his own purposes. It is good that we do have the arrangements outlined in clause 43 with regard to how we deal with overseas situations. 
It is to be hoped that we will not be in the same situation as Australia where the number of individuals being caught is exploding and more is to come. It just goes to show that we may be underestimating the number of people in New Zealand who also indulge in looking at pornographic images of children. Part 2 looks at prohibited imports and exports which is pretty straightforward and offences in relation to importation or exportation of prohibited goods. My colleague Lindsay Tisch expounded on that substantially and I am very pleased to see that we have strengthened the penalties for offences. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 In Part 2 a very small part the term “objectionable publication” is used and it has the meaning that we will get after the application of the changes in Part 1. In each of the places it is used in Part 2 except one the term is defined as being an objectionable publication that has been banned or prohibited. In other words it seems deliberately intended to exclude those that are simply restricted. Mr Alexander of United Future seems to think that that is a big difference. He muttered: “Don’t you know the difference between censorship and restriction?”. Well yes we do. At what point does it cease to be censorship when the bill states that anyone under 60 cannot look at it? Is that just a restriction? Does that mean anyone who is under 21 when it is intended to be used in an educational institution? That is not restriction? In looking at this term Mr Alexander and Mr Goff have tried to hitch-hike on the unanimous disgust there is with child pornography in order to ensure that the censor gets the power that the Court of Appeal denied him. That is what this does. 
I would have expected and wanted Mr Goff to answer four questions instead of just screaming assertions and making vein-popping claims that we are wrong. He could have referred to the words of the bill which is what the Committee stage is for. He could have said exactly why it is that a blatant retrospective provision does not seem to be designed to allow the censor to go back and do what he could not do before. Why is it that the Government Administration Committee seems to have been gulled into thinking that it was preserving the gateway effect of section 3 when the new section 3D expressly states that defining “objectionable” for the purposes of these new restrictions does not take into account section 3? In other words there is an express provision that I would have thought Mr Goff could explain the intent of—a provision that negates exactly what the select committee seems to think it was doing. As a lawyer I would have to ask why a Minister of Justice would confine himself to shouting out personal abuse instead of addressing the bill. If it is so simple and so obvious why did the Minister not explain why section 3D states that the censor will not have to worry about the purpose provision or about what has been elevated by the Court of Appeal and by the select committee as the gateway? 
These are serious matters. We all want to see child pornographers and child pornography get the highest sanctions Parliament can give them. What we do not want to see is the people we disagree with ruled by the censor as being unable to communicate even with their own children because the censor has decided that is objectionable. United Future has colluded with the Government to enable the censor to go back to look at the Living Word Distributors Ltd video and other documents but nothing Mr Goff said in the time the Committee gave him to explain was about these provisions not being designed for precisely that purpose. This is a part where the unadorned word “objectionable” seems to have been put into something called “the schedule of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act”. I have to ask whether the Chinese Government could not use that to ask us to arrest Falun Gong practitioners. It is possible. 
Looking at the term “objectionable publication” I can see the likelihood of the censor being asked to decide that anything politically incorrect is potentially demeaning to someone. That is what the definitions allow. If the publication is merely demeaning and if it makes people feel bad about themselves the censor can ban it in the hands of young people. In fact it does not even state young people; it refers to an age restriction. It does not state what age. It does not state that the censor cannot say it is to be banned in the hands of anyone under 60. Is that the sort of law United Future likes—just hand it over to the censor trust the censor? I do not think many of us have good reason to trust the censor. The censor ignored the Court of Appeal. It needed two court cases and the censor simply ignored them. Mr Alexander and his party say: “We can trust the censor.” 
Marc Alexander 
: It protects the kids. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Protects the kids! I say to Mr Alexander that this bill has nothing to do with kids; it has to do with political correctness. It would be a help if the Minister would try to address these— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. For the whole time I have been in the Chamber whenever an ACT member has been speaking Mr Alexander has been carrying on a barrage of interjections. The interjections were not even reasonable. He was just giving a barrage of interjections and I think you should invite him to make a speech rather than allow him to behave in such a disorderly way and deliberately break up ACT members’ speeches even though this bill is all about censorship. I guess he is practising. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is a well-raised point of order. I ask Marc Alexander to desist from what he has been doing. I have noticed the interjecting too but obviously it is louder at the back of the Chamber than from where I am sitting. I ask the member to desist from making those types of interjections. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is grossly disorderly for Mr Alexander who is in his seat to make a sarcastic remark to the effect that he now considers himself censored. It is completely out of order for any member to make a comment on a ruling made by the Chair and I think you should ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Mr Alexander. 
Marc Alexander 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Mr Alexander has made yet another comment. I think you should now invite him to leave the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I did not hear him but if Mr Alexander did make such a comment I ask him again to withdraw and apologise and there is to be no more. 
Marc Alexander 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Could you please advise me how long I have left. I believe Mr Prebble’s point of order was taken during my speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member is right. It was taken while the member was speaking but my finger was resting on the bell. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Anybody who has been listening to Mr Franks’ speech would have imagined that this bill contains a draconian provision that in some way restricts freedom of expression or speech. That is patently wrong. Let me explain to those who are listening what Mr Franks is apparently against. Mr Franks has been railing against sections 3A 3B and so on which state that for children under the age of 18 additional protections are provided against behaviour or language that might be injurious to them. 
One would think that some new thing had come in whereby for the first time in this country children are to be protected against matters that the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders believe they should be protected against. We have R18 restrictions for publications and films. I ask Mr Franks whether that is an expression of censorship of this country that is unacceptable. It is censorship indeed because we believe that children under 18 need protection beyond what we accord adults. What are we protecting them against? We are protecting them against foul language. Mr Franks thinks that it may be a fundamental breach of rights that children should not be subjected to the foulest of language. We are talking about swearing; we are not talking about expression of opinion. 
Stephen Franks 
: Where does it say that? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Mr Franks is wrong and every lawyer who is involved in this knows he is wrong. 
Dr Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. None of the issues the Minister is raising relate to Part 2 so why is he raising them in a context of what his responsibility is—to talk about Part 2? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is in rebuttal. That is not a point of order. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: What else are we protecting children against? We are protecting them against exposure to images of infliction of pain self-mutilation and self-inflicted death—suicide. That is why members of the Government Administration Committee—National and Labour members—were unanimous in advising the House that these provisions should be put in the bill. 
 ACT is a libertarian party: anything goes. Well the member might think that anything goes but I want to see kids protected against some of the things that a bipartisan group on a select committee has said they should be protected against and I make no apology for that. 
Then we had Mr Franks saying that this bill is retrospective—and I will finish on this. Dr Worth is quite right in saying that this belongs to Part 1 but I am answering in rebuttal and misleading comments should not be allowed to lie in this Chamber. I refer Mr Franks to new section 4B(2) in clause 4 which explicitly states: “No person may be convicted of an offence against …” these sections “… in respect of conduct before the commencement of this section if the conviction would rely solely on a classification made under any of the new provisions.” That is not retrospective. That is explicitly prospective. Mr Franks does not know what he is talking about. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 We have just been treated to a gross abuse of the Committee stage of the parliamentary process. I say that because you Mr Chairperson and your predecessor in the Chair tonight have carefully confined this debate to particular parts of the bill. We have just heard from Minister Goff a vein-popping and I do not doubt sincere speech in relation to Part 1 which is not in issue. I do not criticise him for the sentiments he expressed—indeed I espouse them. They are fine sentiments worthy of repetition but they have no part in this particular debate as we look at Part 2 “Amendments to other Acts”. 
As I look at a crowded Chamber and a very crowded gallery I cannot help but reflect that maybe in Part 2 there are amendments to other Acts that are worthy of mention. I notice the presence in the Chamber of Dr Choudhary. I think it is a matter of regret that it seems that only a very few members of this Government are prepared to speak on bills of substance and that is particularly so for the reasons the honourable Minister has spoken about in connection with the Films Videos and Publications Classification Amendment Bill. This bill is about protecting young people from what are described in the bill as child sex abuse images. 
This debate is a great opportunity for Dr Choudhary on behalf of his Indian and Pakistani mandate to talk about the sorts of issues that not only drive New Zealand in general but also the Pakistani community in particular. I ask Dr Choudhary why he will not talk about clause 37 the interpretation clause. Why will he not say something about clause 38 which deals with prohibited imports? Why must he remain glumly silent on clause 39 “Prohibited exports”? Why will he not offer a view on clause 40 “Offences in relation to importation or exportation of prohibited goods”? Nothing has been said by him. Apparently he has no willingness to talk about clause 41 “Publications imported in course of official duties”. 
If I were Dr Choudhary I would ask why it is necessary to have a clause like clause 41 which gives high-ranking members in the ministry the opportunity to peruse without fear of prosecution highly prurient materials. Surely this would have been an opportunity for someone who is committed to a strong Indian and Pakistani code of ethics to say that that clause should go. But have we heard from him? Not at all. 
This particular part Part 2 proposes major changes to a number of pieces of legislation. There are amendments to the Customs and Excise Act the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and the Summary Proceedings Act. I think it is a real matter for regret that although we can listen to vein-popping speeches made by the Minister those who are of lesser station—the Dr Choudharys of this world and the members who sit opposite on the second and third benches—are never given an opportunity to say what they truly feel. Although Mr Goff’s views may be worthy of some respect with regard to the electorate he represents I think we should have the opportunity to hear what the littlies in this Government have to say. We are denied that. I think they should have a voice. They are after all as elected members worthy of even some faint consideration. I raise the point in the context of this bill which National supports that we should hear from them. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I must comment on the point made by Dr Worth. I am not quite sure why he attacked Mr Choudhary or why he thinks Mr Choudhary should support the bill. If we have a look at one particular clause he referred to—the clause that bans the importation of certain publications—then we have to ask what the publications are and how much wider they are. The reason I rise is that the Minister Phil Goff has suggested to us that the only sort of material that will be caught is child pornography which I am sure Mr Choudhary is opposed to as much as any other member of the Committee. 
The reason I think Mr Choudhary ought to be worried about the bill—and I do not think this point was in the minds of those promoting it but they might subsequently move on it—is that we all know what it is actually designed to do. It is all about a particular video—I think it is a video which is put out by some fundamentalist Christians and gives their views on homosexuality. The video is directed at young people. There may be many people in this Chamber who find that material strongly objectionable. I have not seen it myself but I say to members that for this Committee to put through a censorship bill that is actually aimed at fundamentalist Christians is very very unwise. The reason it is unwise is that Christianity is a faith that believes in martyrdom. The idea that Christians will be put off by being martyred by Mr Goff is highly unlikely. If one wants to know how it fits I point out to them that it encourages young people to treat or regard themselves or others or both as degraded dehumanised or demeaned. 
I am sure that this Living Word video if it were a good Southern Baptist sermon most certainly did talk about sin degradation and the like. I have heard many such sermons in my life. But it is a mistake for the Labour Party—which is actually a lifestyle fascist—to believe that it has the right through this legislation to tell parents and churches how they can raise their children even if we strongly disagree. I find it objectionable that the Minister has allowed himself directed by that small group of fanatics within the Labour Party to put through a bill that he tells the public is all about child pornography when we know it is a bill that will enable the censor to censor material put out by fundamentalist Christians. I may disagree with that material—I may not; I have not seen it—but I strongly oppose this Parliament taking that power. 
I say to Mr Choudhary that if they can do that to material put out by Southern Baptists I am sure they can also do it to material put out by the mullahs in Saudi Arabia. There are no doubt nutty people in New Zealand—there were nutty people who objected to the Living Word video; why on earth they went to the censor about it I have no idea—who are just as capable of looking at material used in the Muslim school right next to Mangere airport and deciding that that also encourages people to treat or regard themselves or others as being degraded because of the things it probably says about masturbation or the like. That is what legally this bill does. 
The Minister might think it is a joke. He might think he is being funny because he is managing to put through a measure driven by that group of fanatical women in the Labour Party caucus who regard anyone opposed to homosexuality as engaging in hate speech and who think that people are not allowed to be opposed to homosexuality. Now I voted in favour of the homosexuality bills but I am most certainly in favour of people being able to say what they think about sexual matters. I think they should be able to put up their views. I say to the Minister that this bill is actually not about child pornography and we all know that. This bill is actually about allowing the Labour Party to engage in censorship. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I shall be very short and sweet. As probably one of the only people in the Chamber who has actually watched the Living Word video I can tell members point blank that it is a piece of crap. However having said that I also say that it does not come under the auspices of this legislation. This legislation has nothing to do with it. In fact I have never heard such fanciful rubbish from any speaker in this Chamber as I have just heard the previous speaker utter—absolute and total crap. It is as much rubbish as the video he claims to talk about yet has never actually seen. 
I do not understand how there can be any party in this Parliament that will vote against legislation to protect our kids—and that from a party that claims to be the tough law and order party. But it does not want to protect children. It wants children to have full access to the most awful pornography possible all for the sake of so-called freedom. That is not the kind of freedom we want to see for our children. That is no freedom at all; that is an abuse of our children. That party the ACT party does not stand for law and order. Law and order my foot! ACT members do not want to protect our children and that is why they will not support this bill. Shame on them! 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I appreciate that this is a small part and I appreciate that the call has probably been given in the spirit of the rulings of Chairpersons that where a genuine debate is occurring it be facilitated. But I did not get an answer from the Minister’s fulminating as to what kind of “objectionable” was intended in clause 43. The little schedule in clause 43 talks about making or supplying objectionable publications exhibiting to persons under 18 distributing in public places and having possession of objectionable publications but it does not do what the other parts of the part do and specifically say that the “objectionable” for that purpose is the “objectionable” that is completely prohibited. In other words it appears that this offence can be created when it has been deemed objectionable in the hands of say 9-year-olds or whatever the age restriction is that the censor is free to apply. 
It is therefore appropriate to ask whether that was intended or whether that was oversight. It is similar in relation to the two schedules that are to be inserted in the Summary Proceedings Act both of which refer simply to “objectionable”. It appears that following the amendments that have been approved in Part 1 the reference “objectionable” can include the Living Word video. It can include anything the censor decides makes some young persons feel bad about themselves. Well a lot of education makes people feel bad about themselves. It might be a video for example about fat people. It might be a video that the censor decides could promote anorexia because it is talking about overeating. There is nothing in the words that Mr Goff is promoting that protects us from any group of hypersensitive people coming along. It might be the Prostitutes Collective which does not like a hard-hitting advertisement against child prostitution. The Minister the Hon Phil Goff is doing nothing else to stop child prostitution. This Minister passes law gaily. This Minister raises the age of deemed childhood to 18 and meanwhile ensures that the police do not even have the power to ask the age of child prostitutes on the street. 
This Minister can foam. He can get his doormat allies in United Future to make great claims about ACT wanting to promote injury to children. We are simply asking that the existing law which already bans child pornography be properly confined as the Court of Appeal said to those kinds of offences and not misused to advance the agenda of the ruling cabal in the Labour Party. It should not be used to bring in what is effectively a hate-speech power in the hands of the censor before even the Law Commission has looked at it. 
The Minister tried to deflect attention when the Government Administration Committee first came back with its hopeless report. The Minister said no no he would send it off to the Law and Order Committee and that we should not do anything. In the meantime the censor has everything he asked for and the Minister has not taken the opportunity to look at the words of this bill. He has simply confined himself to what he would call rebuttal—by way of personal abuse—and false claims about what the ACT party stands for. 
We do not get votes by standing up for principle. We do not get votes here by standing up against the wave of emotion about doing something that looks tough on child pornography. We are doing this because this Parliament should not be passing bills that can be misused by a cabal that has already shown itself very happy to misuse its powers. This part appears from what I can understand to require the New Zealand Government to jump to the orders of overseas countries that call on it for assistance. Is that not what the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act requires? Well I ask the Minister what kind of “objectionable” allows overseas countries to call on us to enforce an offence. It may be that I have misinterpreted but the Minister did not choose to take his opportunity to correct the interpretation. Instead he chose to make a whole series of completely false assertions about what ACT stands for. 
We are standing for the right of parents and for churches of all kinds to teach their children as they see fit without the censor deciding that some things are beyond the pale. That was the purpose of our objection to Part 1 and that is why we are concerned that when that Part 1 interpretation comes into Part 2 it might have a far more sinister effect than we had expected—if indeed a foreign Government can use it. 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 325 and 326 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 1 Title 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 National has been very much involved in the Committee stage of the debate this evening. I will summarise the major points we have articulated. We are in support of the bill and we have been right from the word go. It has also been interesting sitting on the Government Administration Committee to hear what the submitters said. I find that some of the views expressed this evening are certainly not my understanding of the bill. However that aside we have made what I think is a positive contribution to a bill that deals with something we strongly believe in: the protection of children and of society. 
But we should look at a couple of points that possibly have not been made and they are concerns that we will probably never get away from. The bill is about effects not causes. What are the effects on children and on society? That is really what the issues are. It does not matter what laws we pass it will be very difficult to give the 100 percent protection that society and parents look for in protecting their children from pornography. The United States has found it extremely difficult to find a law to battle online pornography in particular and that battle has not been easy. The only thing one could really say is that it is about the way children are brought up. We know that it will be very difficult for police telecommunications the chat rooms and messaging that children can have access to and cellphones that can send images. The police in their submission identified those things as major challenges. 
If we look at the term “objectionable” what is objectionable to me may well be different from what is objectionable to my neighbour so it is very very difficult to define. I may be quite happy sitting at home watching a video that has scenes that possibly my neighbours might object to but in my own home they may be facets that I believe are important to me. I want the freedom to be able to associate with to view and to hear whatever messages are being portrayed at that time. 
But one of the real concerns especially with young people now that they have cellphones and digital cameras is whether they are offenders or victims. That question has not been talked about this evening. When they are trading those images between their friends are they offending or are they victims? Some would argue that they have an addiction. A lot of people would argue that it is not an addiction at all it is a behavioural pattern and that is a view I share. Some people would say that they have a sickness or an addiction. It is certainly not easy to quantify but at the end of the day these are behavioural matters because it is about choice. 
So as we draw this debate to a close I believe that the major features of the bill are moving in the right direction. It is about the protection of society and the protection of children. I said in the second reading that the bill probably does not go as far as many would like—it will be a matter of interpretation—but the bill does extend the scope of the trade in commercial offences in the Act to include non-commercial distribution. It further extends the trade in commercial offences in the Act to include importing and exporting objectionable material for the purposes of supply or distribution and aligns the relevant provisions of the Customs and Excise Act 1996. 
The bill increases the maximum penalties for making trading in and distributing objectionable material including child pornography to 10 years’ imprisonment. It creates a new offence punishable by up to 5 years’ imprisonment—and this was in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 326—relating to the possession by a person of an objectionable publication knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that it is objectionable. The bill requires the court when sentencing for an offence involving an objectionable publication to take into account as an aggravating factor the extent to which the publication is objectionable because it contains child pornography. It gives a District Court judge the power to issue search warrants in connection with the suspected commission of a new “possession with knowledge” offence. It removes any doubt that nude or partially nude images of children that can be reasonably considered sexual in nature are publications that deal with “a matter such as sex”. The bill specifies that a publication that would otherwise be classified as “unrestricted” may be given an age restriction if the publication contains offensive language exposure to which would be harmful to persons under that age. 
Those are the main points of this amendment bill that we are debating tonight and they have been supported by National through the Committee stage. We will continue to support the bill when we move to the third reading. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 In summarising through this debate on the title and the first clause of the bill it is appropriate given the claims the Minister has made for this bill to look at what the principal Act already has and at what changes this bill really makes. That Act provided already a very substantial focus on the interests of children and on the offences that can take place against children. The key advances of this bill are to belatedly expand the offences to ensure that what was previously only an offence for trading is also an offence for possession and to deal with the internationalisation of such material to ensure that Internet transmission is more easily followed as some of the Act’s provisions had been done in an age when import and export was a much more straightforward thing. 
But the Minister has not explained why Part 1 in the first few clauses so substantially expands the powers of the censor to restrict. It is perfectly possible—and ACT did not try to change and did not object—to expand the wording so that it expressly covered infliction of pain self-mutilation body modification or self-inflicted death. Although it appeared that the existing section defining pornography for those purposes probably covered it we could see that it did no harm if one accepts the scheme of the Act to make those matters express. Nor were we concerned about the provision that deals with looking at the likely outcomes to test what the nature of the material is and the wording of the new section 3B(4)(b) inserted by clause 4A which states: “increase significantly the risk of them killing or causing serious harm to themselves others or both;”. We could see that that was the sort of boundary one might choose. But Mr Goff made no attempt to argue why this should go further and allow the banning of material that encourages people to consider themselves demeaned. 
Obese people feel demeaned when obesity is pointed out. All kinds of people raised in strict or rigid religions—for example Muslims Hindus or Jehovah’s Witnesses—would feel demeaned by the kind of mockery of various forms of Christian belief that is routine in our media. That mockery is something that in a free society is important. It is laughing at tyrannies that has eventually started their collapse. But this bill allows the censor to decide—as this censor did 4 years ago—that a bunch of middle-aged talking heads who say that homosexuality is wrong and bad for young people can be banned so that those young people cannot get that message. 
The Minister has made no attempt whatsoever to explain why it is that he is now pushing through legislation with the help of United Future to enable the censor to go back and re-ban what the Court of Appeal said should not be banned because it would be a breach of free speech. The Minister has not tried to explain. He falsely implied that ACT had forgotten about a section in the legislation that says that someone cannot be convicted retrospectively. But he ignored the fact that our amendment was to try to prevent the censor from going back and retrospectively changing a decision that had already been made on a publication and in this case a decision where the censor was directed by the court to go and apply a different test. 
Why should anyone vote for a bill that is being pushed through with the Minister being completely unwilling to answer questions on the words and responding to critics only with a tirade of completely false accusations against those who ask for an explanation? He talked about this bill banning swearing or foul language. Nowhere does the bill refer to swearing or foul language. The words it uses are “highly offensive to the public in general”. Well for a very long time it was highly offensive 
to the public in general to question the existence of God and I cannot see anything in the bill as it stands that would prevent someone from using this legislation for similar purposes against some current fervent belief held by the majority of the population that happens not to be right. 
In this case it could well be as Mr Prebble pointed out that the highly offensive language provision is invoked by Muslims who simply do not like—[ 
Interruption 
]—or against Muslims. It could be for or against and in a free society it is wrong that a censor can get into determining on the basis of the offence caused instead of on the basis of applying article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which outlines the fundamental human right to free speech. [ 
Interruption 
] Exactly. Well in fact it is not fanciful. In Britain at the moment a bill is being debated that would enable the Government to ensure that Salman Rushdie’s book could not be published in Britain. Of course the Government finds it easier when it has a whole lot of fanatics to decide that the person causing the problem with the fanatics is the one who stands up to them. That is exactly what this Government is setting the censor up to do whether or not it wants to. When the power is there in the law fanatics of all persuasions will bring pressure for that power to be used so they do not have to meet offence with reasoned argument. 
Before parties vote for this bill they should ask the Minister to explain what he has not managed to explain in the three calls he has taken—in fact in the four calls when we consider the extended one he had first off—because this is a very serious issue. It is obvious that we all support increasing the effectiveness of provisions that deal with child pornographers and those who abuse children. But it should be of equal concern to every party when the Government brackets together something that pursues an entirely different objective. In this case we do know that the New Zealand censor wanted to ban a publication by fundamentalist Christians about their objections to homosexuality. I tell the Minister that that is a fact not some figment of our imagination. The censor did that and then dragged his feet despite the Court of Appeal saying that the section 3 gateway test was not satisfied. The publication did not involve exploitation torture or sexual degradation; it was a propaganda film that was a form of free speech. 
Now we have the Minister refusing to explain why a provision in this bill states that the censor in future can ignore the Court of Appeal judgment in that regard. In future the censor does not have to apply the gateway tests. The Minister has not explained and no one else has tried to explain why the members of the Government Administration Committee thought they were preserving the gateway test. I wonder whether they even knew what had been drafted for them. I do not think there is a lawyer on that committee and that is a shame because sometimes a slippery Government will slide things past a committee that has acted in perfectly good faith—a committee that has heard the concerns of very legitimate people and has tried to respond to public concerns. Here in this bill have been put some provisions that it appears the committee did not understand because the committee’s own report seems to be contrary to what the words of the bill provide. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 9. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Ngati Awa Claims Settlement Bill 
In Committee 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. My point of order relates to Supplementary Order Paper 327 proposed by the Hon Margaret Wilson which was seen in the House for the first time today. That Supplementary Order Paper talks about the preamble. It states that we are to insert after what is described as “recital 10 of the Maori text (after line 29 on page 7)” new recital (10A). A Maori text follows that. 
My first point is that I am just a little uncertain about what the Minister means by recital (10) in the preamble. If we turn to page 7 of the bill we see that there is no recital (10A); there is certainly a recital (10). If this is to be something new I would have thought there would be a corresponding text to go into the preamble printed in English in the pages that follow. I do not see that from the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. I also find that there is no recital (10A) in the English text either. 
So there are two points: firstly can we have an explanation of why there is just a Maori text for a new recital (10A); and secondly can we have a translation. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. The matters he has raised are debating matters and I have no doubt that the Minister if he wishes to will answer them as we get into the bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think that they are actually procedural matters. I have in front of me a preamble which is part of the main body of the bill that has a Maori text and an English text. The Supplementary Order Paper the Minister wants to introduce has a new recital that is provided only in Maori. I would like to know why there is not an English text to go with that and whether you will allow this Supplementary Order Paper to stand. I think it would also be helpful at this point before we begin to have an interpretation of the Supplementary Order Paper on the table. 
What is usually the case in these situations is that although we start out in a different part of the bill we do have the opportunity to read a Supplementary Order Paper—remembering that this bill has been introduced to the House has had its first reading and has been to the Maori Affairs Committee where it had its full 6 months consideration. But today as we are about to debate the bill in Committee we get a new Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister. I do not think it is unreasonable for me to want to know what the Supplementary Order Paper is about so that I can think about it over the ensuing hours of debate and so that I can give a reasonable view to the House on its content when we arrive at that point. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Associate Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I may be able to help the member. I think it is a perfectly reasonable question. I have consulted my official about this because I wanted to make sure that the advice I give the member is correct. I understand that there was an omission of recital (12) in the English part of the preamble from the Maori version. The recital which starts with the words: “The Crown and Te Runanga o Ngati Awa” etc. simply translates that into the Maori preamble thus making the one reflect the other. But I take the member’s point. That fact could have been better explained to assist members and I apologise for that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I come to the member’s point of order I just say that the advice I have is that this is a debating matter. It is not procedural. If the member wishes to take it further then he should raise it with the Speaker. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I do not think that is necessary. I understand that this is a bill that most of the House wants to support. However as we have an interpreter in the Chamber I do not think it is at all unreasonable to ask for a translation of the recital (10A) Maori text in order to verify that it will be recital (12) in the English text. I think we are entitled to ask for that and I cannot see why the Chairperson would not want to grant it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member is quite right. But the matter is still a debating issue not a point of order and I cannot direct that that course of action be taken; nor do I wish to be given the explanation from the Minister. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: It is only about six lines. Just translate it. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Associate Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Before the House resumes tomorrow I am happy to provide a note to members to give comfort about the explanation I have given. I undertake that that note will be provided and circulated tomorrow morning. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I think something good has come out of your point of order Mr Brownlee. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I refer now to the matter of the amendment in the name of Mr Pita Paraone. It raises the interesting option for the Committee to omit from clause 13(3)(a) subparagraph (xx) which refers to Ngati Awa ki Tamaki Makaurau and subparagraph (xxi) which refers to Ngati Awa ki Poneke. What effectively this suggests is that the select committee wrongly included two groups as I assume hapu. I want to know if you might give a ruling the appropriateness— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank you for raising that issue and we will— 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have not raised it yet. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No but the member was well on the way to raising it if he had not already raised it. We will wait for another day for that matter to be settled or indeed it may be settled by the Speaker. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.