Volume 645 Week 69 - Thursday 13 March 2008 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 645 Week 69 - Thursday 13 March 2008 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2008. Volume:645;Page:14897. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Thursday 13 March 2008 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House the financial review debate will be held on Tuesday. This is a 4-hour debate. Following this debate for the remainder of the week priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Securities (Local Authority Exemption) Amendment Bill the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill the Human Tissue Bill the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill and the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill and the second reading of the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill. 
Dianne Yates’ valedictory statement will be made at approximately 5.30 p.m. on Wednesday. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I may have missed it in the comments made by the Leader of the House and I apologise if I did but I would ask whether he mentioned any intention to introduce a Commerce Amendment Bill that deals particularly with Parts 4 and 5 of the Commerce Act. I would ask whether we are to have a commerce amendment bill next week; if we are given the nature of that bill I would ask whether it is likely that briefings will be available on a cross-party basis. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 At this stage I cannot finally confirm that but I am hoping that we will be in a position on I think Thursday to take the first reading of the Commerce Amendment Bill that deals with Parts 4 4A and 5 I think it is of the Commerce Act. I am very happy to organise a briefing for the members opposite. 
Questions to Ministers 
KiwiSaver—Enrolments 
1. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How many young people have enrolled in KiwiSaver? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 As at 29 February 113084 people aged under 25 were enrolled in KiwiSaver. Over 75000 of those were young workers aged between 18 and 24 and an additional 37000 were less than 18. By and large those young people would not have been existing savers prior to the scheme’s launch so it can be counted as adding additional savings to New Zealand’s record. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has he seen any reports on support for KiwiSaver as announced in Budget 2005? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen a report suggesting that take-up among young New Zealanders would be low because “a lot of young people are not thinking 30 years ahead”. That report comes from Mr Key the same man who initially said the KiwiSaver scheme was “terribly designed” “fatally flawed” and “a glorified Christmas club” and then later said that it was going to be successful. We are still waiting to find out what his position is on the KiwiSaver scheme. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Can the Minister confirm as he had previously estimated in the House that had New Zealand introduced compulsory superannuation in 1997 as had been proposed by New Zealand First Kiwis would have in the order of $100 billion invested now; and would he also agree that although KiwiSaver is better late than never the New Zealand economy would have been much healthier if Kiwis had saved in the time between 1997 and the start of KiwiSaver? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Clearly there would have been an improvement in savings. It would have been even greater of course had a former National Government not scrapped the Labour Government’s compulsory savings scheme in 1976. That scheme was based incidentally on contributions of 4 percent from the employee and 4 percent from the employer. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on projections for KiwiSaver enrolments? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Initial projections suggested that 270000 people would join by 30 June this year. Mr Key was reported as saying he doubted that and that take-up would be low. In fact we have now seen some 470000 people join in the first 8 months of the scheme. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am awake and Mr Carter never is. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a question. Does the member have a question please? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: He cannot help himself. He sits there sniping away. He is described by the agricultural sector as being the invisible man—but not in this House unfortunately. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it not important that on the issue of long-term savings for this nation there be an agreement across the political divide and what reports does the Minister have on that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That would be highly desirable but unfortunately when one is wrestling with jelly one realises that it is hard to reach a successful conclusion to the match. This is what we are doing at the moment with the National Party on KiwiSaver. National refuses to state its position when it has voted against KiwiSaver in Parliament some 40-odd times. 
Financial Statements Crown—Gross Sovereign-issued Debt 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What was the level of gross sovereign-issued debt in 2000 and 2007 in millions of dollars as recorded on page 23 of the Government’s Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2007? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 In 2000 gross sovereign-issued debt was $36.04 billion or 32.4 percent of GDP as recorded on page 23 of the Government’s Financial Statements for the year ended 30 June 2007; at 30 June 2007 it was $36.15 billion or 21.7 percent of GDP. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister agree that the figures he has just quoted show that the amount of debt in 2007 is about the same as it was in 2000 when Labour entered office and does that not strain the credibility of his recent statements that he “seized the opportunity” to lower debt when in fact he has not paid off one dollar? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: First— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Slippery Cullen. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: But at least I have never been convicted of contempt of court. First that debt has lowered from 32.4 percent of GDP to 21.7 percent of GDP. The Government is in a far better position to service that debt. Second the figure of course included settlement cash. Excluding settlement cash it dropped from $36 billion down to $30.9 billion at 30 June 2003. Third net debt which perhaps more accurately reflects the Government’s exposed position— 
Hon Bill English 
: Ah you’re changing that. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. Net debt is what we owe minus what is owed to us—just like we have in a household if the member can understand that simple matter. Net debt has dropped from $21.4 billion to $4.4 billion which is a $17 billion reduction in net debt in nominal terms. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Was the Minister’s test that personal tax cuts should not be funded from increased borrowing defined clearly in the 2008 Budget Policy Statement? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes it was. Page 7 of the Budget Policy Statement states that the Labour-led Government’s personal tax package will be consistent with its overarching goals. The Budget Policy Statement went on to state that the package will be consistent with the Government’s medium-term approach to fiscal policy of having gross debt excluding Reserve Bank settlement cash as a proportion of GDP broadly stable at around 20 percent. Mr Key has committed National to lifting that to 25 percent of GDP. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister now confirm that his test for the tax cuts is not whether he actually borrows money because of course he is borrowing money this year as we speak but to keep gross debt at somewhere around the range of 20 percent which is quite a different test and will enable him to borrow money when he is cutting taxes? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: For some years now the Government’s medium-term fiscal target has been to have debt of around 20 percent of GDP and we have achieved that target. Now what we have to do is keep around that target. The National Party is promising to lift that to 25 percent of GDP and the only thing it is promising to do apart from freezing all public servants is to cut taxes. It is clear what the extra borrowing is for. 
Hon Bill English 
: What is the Government’s extra borrowing this year of $2.7 billion for? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I tried to explain this to the member yesterday and Mr Key clearly understood what the Government is doing. The Government is borrowing at a constant rate because that helps the market and reduces our long-term borrowing costs. Therefore cash is building up in the year when we are not paying off debt which is this year and in years when we are paying off debt at higher than the average rate then that position comes into the opposite situation. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister recall saying that if debt-servicing costs increase that means he would have to cut investment in health and education and given that his debt-servicing cost has increased half a billion dollars this year—a matter of fact not conjecture—can he now tell us which services are going to be cut to fund that half-billion-dollar increase? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I explained to the member yesterday this year we are borrowing the same as last year and as we plan to probably borrow next year but we have no debt repayment this year. Therefore we see gross debt go up but net debt does not. We have more cash on hand; we are earning on that cash. The member has cited the gross finance cost servicing figure not the net cost after the Government’s interest income. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Minister persist in pretending that he is not borrowing and that debt-servicing costs are not going up when he is borrowing and they are going up and pretending that if someone else does it it is very bad but if he does it it is pragmatic management of the Government’s books? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not ever recall saying that the Government is not borrowing. At least twice every year while I have been the Minister of Finance I have published documentation showing the Government is borrowing. The member cannot just make it up and then say: “Ah the member has confirmed …” what I have already said twice every year which I also say every time I am in front of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and every time I have answered a question in this House. He thinks he is being very clever saying it. It is interesting that our medium-term debt target is the same percentage that that member had when he was Leader of the Opposition. 
Rodney Hide 
: What is it that determines total Government spending in the years ahead and does the Minister think it a good idea that we have a firm target or a limit to set total Government spending in the medium term? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Part of Government spending is generated by a very wide range of pressures and demands and political choices. This Government made the choice to fund Working for Families; it made the choice to fund 20 hours’ free early childhood education; it made the choice to fund interest-free student loans; it made the choice to fund assistance to business and so on. It is clear that in the long term Governments will face some increased spending pressure as the demographic changes start to really bite. If one has committed oneself to a ceiling based on a different demographic situation at that point one must be delivering poorer health and poorer superannuation services. That is why the Superannuation Fund is there to offset some of that future cost of superannuation. 
Rodney Hide 
: I get only one supplementary question. Just to clarify does that mean that anything goes in terms of overall total Government spending? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order; that is a supplementary question. Are you asking a supplementary question? You have two supplementary questions. 
Rodney Hide 
: No; I was just making a point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: With regard to Mr English’s questions has there been a change in the accountancy rules for the Government Government departments and Treasury in the last 9 years; if not how can the Minister explain why those series of questions have been put in the first place? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There has been a change because we have moved from general accounting practice to international financial reporting standards. Although that has had an impact on some of the headline figures actually it makes no difference to the trend and the differences are not relevant to the kinds of strange questions that Mr English is raising. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Minister not just admit that by his own measure when he says he has paid off debt in fact he has not and when he says he is not borrowing in fact he is? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I repeat that I have never said we are not borrowing. We reduced net debt from $21 billion in 2000 which was about 20 percent of GDP to $4.4 billion today which is about 3 percent of GDP and one of the lowest levels in the developed world and on top of that we have a Superannuation Fund that puts us into a strong net asset position. He has promised in the past billions of dollars of tax cuts so how on earth can he start criticising the Government for not having been fiscally strong? 
Human Rights—China 
3.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Does he agree with the United States State Department’s latest report released on Tuesday that China is “authoritarian” and continues to “deny … citizens basic human rights and fundamental freedoms”? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 I want to thank the member for asking my third question in 3 years and to tell him that New Zealand is a sovereign nation that forms its own views and assessments of other countries and nations. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That does not answer my question. That could be a response to any question asked in this House; it does not address the specific question on the Order Paper. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: With the greatest respect Madam Speaker we do not have our minds made up by Pol Pot or the Russians invading Afghanistan or anybody else. Since 1947 when we adopted the Statute of Westminster we have progressively been confident enough to make up our own minds on all these international issues and that is what covers this question he is asking. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That does address the question. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It does not answer the question; it is just a generality that could be used to answer any question that any member asks a Minister of Foreign Affairs. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No ruling on the point of order—[ 
Interruption 
] Would those members who are walking around the Chamber please be seated. It is very distracting when members are addressing points of order. The Minister’s answer did address the question; it can be applied to the specific question that was asked. It was within the bounds. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I actually rise to say that this raises a serious point. If the Minister was asking this question he would be declaring the answer to be a constitutional outrage and saying that he had never heard anything like that in any Western democracy ever and that in any other Parliament the Minister would be asked to stand up and answer the question. If members think about it they will realise it is no wonder that he has had only three questions to answer in 3 years while taking the baubles of office because he has never answered one yet. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That may well be true but you would still rule that the Minister had addressed the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Absolutely it was the same point of order. I did listen carefully and to the additional information the Minister gave—he addressed the question. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister then agree with the Chinese Foreign Minister who claimed that raising human rights issues during the Olympics is anti-China; if he does not agree with the Chinese Foreign Minister when will he be “speaking out”—to quote the US State Department’s report—against the Chinese Government’s continuing to “harass detain arrest and imprison journalists writers activists and defence lawyers and their families.”? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: In recognising important areas of difference between New Zealand and China on human rights it does not follow that ending economic relationships political dialogue or sporting contact with China is the best way— 
Rodney Hide 
: Who wrote this? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I wrote this—not a fool like that member obviously; it would be unmitigated drivel if it came from him. I do not want to drop Mr Locke on his head like the dancing partner of Rodney Hide but I want to say that New Zealand athletes will have the same rights as all Olympic athletes and that would apply to any other Olympic Games. Hopefully too the athletes can count on the support of all New Zealanders when they compete. 
Keith Locke 
: When the Minister refers to economic relationships is it the case that his failure to specify any human rights violations in China and to speak out publicly against them has something to do with him as the Minister being muzzled by the Government in its pursuit of a free-trade agreement with China? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Of all the terrible rumours about Winston Peters none of them has been about me being muzzled. The fact is we acknowledge that economic reforms in China and a freer trading environment have lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese above the poverty line. But there are examples of human rights not having progressed at the same pace and we have consistently always encouraged the Chinese Government to do better. 
Keith Locke 
: To be more specific has he received reports that China’s migrant construction workers labouring to revamp Beijing for the Olympics—workers who are mostly poor migrants from the countryside—face routine exploitation work in dangerous conditions have no access to medical treatment often go unpaid and have no right to strike or have independent trade unions; and will he publicly condemn this rather than give some vague gentle encouragement of China? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: At the last election and at every election for quite a few years I promised like most members of Parliament my responsibility and my efforts and energy would be given to the progression of the social and economic welfare of New Zealanders. I have not spent all my time trying to find some problem in some far-flung country and sought to make it the main concern of this Parliament. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister make any public criticism of a most immediate event and that is the suppression of a protest by hundreds of Tibetan monks in Lhasa Tibet yesterday; if not why not? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Successive Foreign Affairs Ministers from this country have made New Zealand’s view on human rights very clear to China and any other nation that we might have some concern about. But that said we do not intend to jeopardise the whole future economic and foreign policy relations of this country by picking up on some attack of the nature that Mr Locke has been notorious for including for example supporting the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union and supporting of all things the killing fields and Pol Pot. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table an article in this morning’s  
Dominion Post 
 headed: “Chinese quell monks’ protest with tear gas”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table the US State Department report on human rights violations by the Chinese regime. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table this week’s Human Rights Watch report on the very poor conditions faced by migrant workers working on the Olympics. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table yesterday’s report of the Chinese Foreign Minister claiming that any criticism of China’s human rights is anti-China. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I seek leave to table two documents that go to the core of the background of the questioner. The first is an article referring to his support for the Soviet communist attack on Afghanistan in 1980. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I seek leave to table a document showing the member’s support for the regime of Pol Pot. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on the Minister’s answer to the last question. On numerous occasions you have pulled Ministers up for extraneous matter contained in their answers and it seems to me that it cannot be acceptable for a Minister to bring up some made-up story about what my colleague has said simply as a means of distracting the House from the fact that he has been given a script by the Government and he is too afraid to say what he really believes. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I can see why he is going but the fact of the matter is that I am prepared to table the two pieces of evidence I have and Nandor knows that I have those documents so why is he lying to the House? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The point of order was actually raised out of time. It should have been at the time of the question and the answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes the point of order was raised out of time but I think it is appropriate that I just remind members at the beginning of question time that questions and answers should be consistent with the Standing Orders and superfluous observations of many sorts that we hear are really not acceptable because they do lead to disorder. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I observed through the answering of questions that the Minister Winston Peters was reading his answers from I assume official documents carefully prepared. I ask him through the House to table those documents so we can see the answers that he rifled through and did not read. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Ministers are perfectly allowed to read from the notes prepared for the answering of questions but those notes are not of themselves the official documents referred to in the Standing Orders. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Sometimes despite the longstanding tradition that people should be able to ad lib their answers I sometimes wish Mr Hide would stick to his script rather than let his tongue roll around in his mouth and see what happens next. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. May I say of course—ruling on Mr Hide’s point of order—that all Ministers tend to read out answers. If the Minister did have an official document then obviously that raises the point but he did not as I understand what he was saying. It was an answer to the question. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. There is a constitutional issue that comes out of the Minister’s answers and there has been some discussion during the last couple of years as to the role of the leader of New Zealand First. This concerns the party being outside the Government and the Minister of Foreign Affairs being outside Cabinet and what capacity when he answers questions he is answering those questions in. It seems unfortunately that he cannot exercise his role as leader of New Zealand First in opposing the China free-trade agreement and I wonder whether there is some way through this to allow him to be able to speak his mind a bit more freely. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: There is no merit in the point of order at all. Questions can be addressed only to Ministers and they can reply only as Ministers. I would love you to rule Madam Speaker that we could ask questions in the House of leaders of parties unrelated to any ministerial responsibility. I am sure that each day on this side of the House we would have lots of questions trying to find out what National Party policy is. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: With respect Madam Speaker I do not think you should have allowed the member’s point of order to go on as long as it did. The point of order was thoroughly spurious but I will tell the member that New Zealand First’s views on foreign policy and domestic policy are well known unlike those of the Greens who are now struggling for a populist issue and who are going to oppose the free-trade agreement. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. The point of order was not valid. Questions can be asked only of Ministers and the questions have to relate to the Minister’s ministerial responsibility. In this instance they clearly did. 
Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflicts of Interest 
4.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Will the director-general’s inquiry into the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board cover the role of management in dealing with conflicts of interest; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 For the information of the member I was asked the same question yesterday by Heather Roy to which I replied: “Although the draft review and the final review are I am told a matter of governance the relationship between a board and its senior management team is no doubt relevant.” None the less I fully expect the member to continue his desperate attempts to undermine an independent review. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would the Minister be concerned to hear that leaked findings of the review team’s version one report say: “There were significant barriers to a vendor other than Healthcare New Zealand succeeding with the proposal. Healthcare New Zealand and Peter Hausmann on the other hand knew what was required as it had seen the February 2005 board paper which set out what the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board wanted.”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Of course the difference between the member and me is that he thinks he has the report and I do not because he is violating Speakers’ ruling 32/4 which says that he should exercise his privileges only in exceptional circumstances not to protect his cronies. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is unacceptable that a Minister can get up and say that a question is outside the Standing Orders. If it is outside the Standing Orders he should take a point of order and ask the Speaker to rule. That was not an answer to a question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister made reference to a Speakers’ ruling and I have made reference to that Speakers’ ruling in the past on matters related to this one. For the benefit of those who are interested I advise it is Speakers’ ruling 32/4. Of course members’ rights to freedom of speech in this House are not curtailed but members are reminded in the Speakers’ ruling that it is only in exceptional circumstances that they would go against a court order. However it is at the end of the day in the judgment of the individual member as to what he or she says or does. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am concerned that your ruling may have given the impression that a member has gone against the court order. That is not in fact the case. In fact the court order concerned quite explicitly says it does not cover the fair reporting of statements made in Parliament. So there is no question here of an MP using privilege to breach a court order; the court order does not apply in this circumstance. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I was not making that implication at all; I was merely reiterating to members a ruling that has been made before. It is for members to decide whether it applies. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister should answer the question without reference to the cover of your previous ruling which does not apply in this case. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well if he wishes to. I think he had two parts to his answer as I recall it. But does the Minister wish to readdress the question? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Continuing from the previous answer I was asked the same question yesterday and I said then in my answer that the report I am told was on matters of governance but may include the relationship between the board and the management team. I would invite the member if he is confident that his material does not breach a court order to read the same material out in the corridor after question time. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In his previous answer the Minister made a remark that I believe is unparliamentary. He alleged that a member of Parliament was using the privilege of the House to “protect his cronies”—those are the words he said. I believe those words are quite unparliamentary. I have never heard that allegation made before. The member is not actually using privilege in any case and the Minister should be required to withdraw that allegation. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think this particular line of questioning over some weeks has been accompanied by direct statements from that member and certainly from other members on the National front bench about the protection of cronies and indeed other people. It is a little rich to now raise the issue when somebody on this side has used the phrase. 
Hon Bill English 
: It was the Minister’s allegation that a member was using privilege. Now the use of privilege in this Parliament is something that we all take seriously and I will repeat what I said before. I have not heard the accusation made in this Parliament before that an MP is using privilege to protect his or her cronies. In fact the statement is wrong; the member is not doing something that requires privilege. The Minister should be asked to withdraw his allegation that privilege has been used for some kind of self-interest. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Everything said in this Parliament is subject to parliamentary privilege. If one cannot say that then one cannot even use the phrase “protecting cronies” in regard to almost anything else. The fact is that what is said in this House is privileged and members use that on occasions to say things that if they said them outside the House they would be subject to legal sanction for. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker we are in great danger here if you are to accede to Mr English’s request of so restraining the rights of members of Parliament as to in fact end up with an abuse of our rights which we have had since 1688. Just because Mr English is sensitive about some things that is no reason for you to tighten the Standing Orders. But more important Mr Ryall has been invited countless times to go outside this House and say what he has said here. The fact that he does not do so might add some substance as to whether we should believe him. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank members for their contributions. I shall reserve my ruling on this matter because it is obviously one of some importance to everyone. Now can we proceed? 
Sue Moroney 
: Is the Minister concerned by continuous attempts to undermine the independent director-general’s review? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Yes. I am aware that yesterday some former board members of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board attempted to undermine the director-general’s report by falsely stating that I would be in breach of no less than the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act if the review were released without giving them 7 days to review it. I will soon seek leave to table advice from Crown Law relating to this matter. That was a clear act of desperation from a group of individuals who first sought to slow down the process by taking out an injunction and who are now attempting to further delay the release of the independent report. I am also aware that yesterday the National Party claimed that a draft of the report exonerated the former board. Why why why are members across from me working so hard to undermine this review? What are they afraid it will say? 
Heather Roy 
: Why was it when I asked exactly the same question as the primary question yesterday that the Minister said I sorely—sorely—tempted him to disclose some of the many pieces of information that the good people of Hawke’s Bay have sent to him since he made his decision; and why does he not put on record the information he has and who supplied it that makes him think he is so right when the good people of Hawke’s Bay think he is so wrong? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member’s question is an important one and it is precisely because I am seeking to ensure the independence of the director-general’s review report. I am therefore unwilling to put in the public domain any material that I have independently received lest the two be confused. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would the Minister be concerned if the leaked findings from the review team say of Annette King’s appointee: “Peter Hausmann did not provide adequate disclosures to the board of his interest in the community services initiative.” and in particular that “He assisted in drafting both the RFP itself and the board paper that recommended that the initiative should be adopted.”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the sense of neither my decision to replace the board of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board nor as I have previously said any relationship I may have with the board in my position as Minister of Health in no case am I seeking to protect Mr Hausmann. Mr Hausmann is accountable for his actions in exactly the same way as all other members of the board will be. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Minister not ask Mr Ryall to table the information from which he is reading—which is clearly improperly obtained—so that all the rest of the members of this House and the public can know what on earth he is talking about; would he simply ask that question now and seek leave for that to happen? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: For the information of the member I tell him that I have previously asked the member opposite to declare what information he has received and how he has received it and further to restate his questions outside the House. I do not think he has been straight enough with the public to do so. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why did Annette King appoint Mr Hausmann and say that his conflicts would be well managed when it is clear that this Government appointee was drafting board papers and amending tender documents; if that is “well managed” what would a badly managed conflict of interest look like? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: One report I can refer to is the Auditor-General’s report on the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board which goes to the year ended 30 June 2007 and which in sections 4 and 5 goes through large numbers of governance failures at the board. I think that that speaks for itself. All I can say is that I look forward very much to making public the independent report of the director-general whatever it says about whomever it says it. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think the Minister of Foreign Affairs is unwell and is showing his normal diplomacy in repeatedly calling out unparliamentary language across the House about Mr Ryall. I think and ask you that he should be required to withdraw and apologise for what he said. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not hear what was said because there was so much interchange across the House. Did the member make an unparliamentary comment? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I was paying attention to my colleague here and rightly ignoring Mr Hide. But if I did say something unparliamentary I apologise. 
Sue Moroney 
: What reports has the Minister seen that express confidence in his decision to replace the board with a commissioner? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I have received a number of messages and seen reports from people in Hawke’s Bay. Some of these comments include an editorial in the  
CHB Mail 
 which states: “The  
CHB Mail 
 has battled issues of transparency with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board for the last 3 or so years and it believes it is about time that the board was revealed for its discrepancies.” Comments from concerned citizens include: “I believe on the balance of the evidence to date your decision regarding the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board was the correct one.” Another comment was: “What the public needs to know about is the level of inappropriate expenditure by the board. I am sure my situation is only the tip of the iceberg.” My personal favourite is: “In central Hawke’s Bay well known for voting National it is said ‘If you put a monkey up with a blue ribbon they will vote for it.’ ” No offence is intended to Mr Tremain. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would it surprise the Minister to know that the review panel has indicated it will not be dealing with the district health board management’s involvement in the conflict of interest nor will it be dealing with the whistleblower’s concerns so what sort of inquiry can the public expect to get when neither of those vital issues is being considered? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In respect of the second part of the question I previously tabled in the House a settlement document from the whistleblower which says her retrenchment had nothing absolutely nothing to do with the member’s question. In respect of the first part of the question yes I probably would be surprised because I have not seen the report and I advise the member himself to wait till next week. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why did the Government design an inquiry that would not look at the actions of the district health board management because if Mr Hausmann was allowed to write the board paper then someone in management let him do that? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I have repeatedly told the member the whole point of the inquiry is that it is an independent inquiry and therefore the Government does not control how it is done. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister not realise the public is not going to buy his argument about an independent inquiry because the people know that he tried to shut down the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board from criticising his jack-up inquiry and that that is the reason it got the chop? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The reasons the board got the chop were that it could not manage a spiralling budget deficit that it had virtually the entire senior management team on the point of walking out and that it thought the way to manage a relationship with the Crown was through the pages of  
Hawke’s Bay Today 
. The management is not responsible for the persistent breakdowns in the governance process and I invite the member to choose his words carefully so that he can do it on the basis of evidence that I will put in the public domain next week. 
Transport Investment—Waikato 
5. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What investment has the Government made in transport in the Waikato region? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Since 1999 the Government has invested close to $1.2 billion in land transport in the Waikato region. In 2007-08 the Government forecasts to invest a further $200 million. This is a 70 percent increase on what the National Government invested in the region in 1999 as demonstrated by this graph that I am showing the House now. This is the investment into Waikato under a Labour Government. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What reports has the Minister read on the Government’s commitment to the Waikato region? 
Paula Bennett 
: Desperate! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I heard an interjection from the backbench member saying “Desperate!”. It was desperate times under a National Government because certainly the Waikato region could not get any investment into transport. I have seen comments from David Bennett National Party MP saying that the Government lacks commitment to the Waikato region in respect of land transport. I do not know where he has been; it is obviously not in his own electorate. This Government has invested considerably into infrastructure in the Waikato region and all the National Party built was stone walls. I ask the member Rick Barker to hold up this graph which shows this Government’s investment into transport as a percentage of GDP. [ 
Interruption 
] That has got those members going because there are the facts and they do not like the facts. 
Martin Gallagher 
: Has Land Transport New Zealand in effect withdrawn funding for two sections of the Waikato Expressway? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No it has not because funding for Hamilton and the Huntly bypass has not yet been allocated. In fact Land Transport New Zealand has not received formal funding applications for either project. Land Transport New Zealand has asked Transit to go back and have a look at these very high-cost projects before it submits its final funding applications in order that we get value for money. I would have thought that every person in this House would want value for money or is it just National Party rhetoric when its members talk about that? 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I seek leave to table advice from the Crown Law Office that makes it clear that no undertaking was given to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table a press release issued by the former Hawke’s Bay District Health Board members on 12 March 2008. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table a press release from the Ministry of Health on 1 March 2008 that effectively satisfies the undertaking— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Families Commission—Confidence 
6.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Is she satisfied that the Families Commission is focused on its role as an advocate for New Zealand families; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes. The Families Commission has consulted widely to identify issues that are of concern to New Zealand families. As a result it has developed a work programme to advocate for families in key areas that have been identified by families as important to families. 
Judith Collins 
: Does she think it is good use of taxpayers’ money for the Families Commission to spend more than $500000 on a pre-election advertisement telling people that they should value parents—a message that even the commission said yesterday was self-evident? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes. Unlike that member I do support parents and a campaign so that the rest of New Zealand supports parents. The Families Commission - led campaign is in partnership with community-based family support agencies such as Barnardos Plunket and Relationship Services and I commend both the message and the campaign to that member and her party. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Why has the Families Commission launched a campaign to promote the value of parenting? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The Families Commission has called on all New Zealanders to do more to support parenting following research that indicated that some parents felt undervalued. Sadly the attitude of the member asking the primary question and her party indicates that those parents may have been right. In contrast to the National Party our Government values parents. That is why we have invested in initiatives such as the Working for Families package paid parental leave and 20 hours’ free early childhood education. These are all policies that support parenting and parents and all policies that the National Party has opposed. 
Judith Collins 
: Why did the Families Commission recently appoint a public relations company “to review the Families Commission’s reputation and communications as part of its planning for a new approach to public relations for the Families Commission” and can the Minister explain how the average Kiwi family benefits from such brand-building exercises for the benefit of the commission? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As it is a relatively recently established commission I think it is important that the first phase of its long-term work is evaluated to ensure that it is delivering in both advocacy and promotion in terms of Government expectations. Through the last 3 years’ research and work the member alluded to and through the consultation with families the commission has now focused on preventing family violence. I ask whether the member will oppose that. The commission is also focused on supporting parents and I ask whether the member will oppose that. The commission is also focused on improving families’ work-life balance and I ask whether the member will oppose that as well. 
Judith Collins 
: Is the Minister familiar with the Families Commission report on the 2007 Families Day which noted: “The Families Commission is competing in a cluttered space where there is a risk of ‘not being seen’.” and “Families Day/Week provides an opportunity to differentiate from other competing Government entities…” and can she explain what those other competing Government agencies are and why the Families Commission is in competition with them? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As an advocacy Minister in our Government over the last 8 years I have noticed exactly the same problem—that nearly every week is an awareness week for some cause or another. But I would challenge that member to say that any one of those weeks is not worthy of support. The key aim should be to ensure that the value of promoting families is recognised. 
Judith Collins 
: What does it say about the focus of the Families Commission when that same report on the 2007 Families Day stated: “While there was a concerted effort to gain media support for Families Day there was little interest from mainstream media outlets.” but in the next paragraph the report writer suggests extending Families Day from a 1-day event to a week-long event followed by yet another paragraph noting that it was necessary to ask what the objective or purpose of Families Day/Week is. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I think that shows a highly commendable level of confidence in the New Zealand media. The fact that the report writer suggests that the media may well move from its inability to focus on a 1-day event to focus on a week-long event is very commendable. 
Judith Collins 
: Oh well the Lord loves a trier! Why is the Families Commission advertising so much this year that it was compelled to seek advice to ensure that it did not breach Cabinet guidelines on political advertising and the Electoral Finance Act—whom is the Families Commission really advertising for this year? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As has been repeated many times in this House any agencies that are involved in the publication of Government initiatives would be wise to seek advice to ensure their publications do not conflict with the Electoral Finance Act. The basis of the question is hugely ironic given that that member challenged the Families Commission for underspending at a select committee this week—it is bizarre! 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table a Families Commission document headed “Valuing Parenting programme of action total cost $883000”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table the Families Day 2007 report and recommendations. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table Senate Communications’ letter to the Families Commission. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—Te Rupeketanga Trust 
7.  
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What contracts is Te Rupeketanga Trust currently receiving from the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) and what is the total amount of contract funding being provided to Te Rupeketanga Trust from ACC? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Acting Minister for ACC) 
: The trust has three contracts with ACC: the first for employment maintenance the second for transitional job search and the third for work-ready programmes. The contracts were effective from 24 January this year. All three are on a fee-for-service basis. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Is it appropriate for an organisation that is only 8 weeks old to receive fee-for-service contracts and why did ACC not have confidence in the ability of existing organisations in the health sector to administer those contracts rather than it wasting money on setting up yet another bureaucracy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: My understanding from advice received from ACC is that the three contracts were actually transferred from a previous organisation to a new organisation which was set up as a marae-based organisation because the previous provision of service did not attract any clients. 
Louisa Wall 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. What actions is the Labour-led Government taking to ensure that Maori are participating in accident compensation schemes? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As the House will be aware Maori have traditionally had a low uptake of accident compensation entitlement. Our Government is taking steps under the Maori access strategy to address that such as appointing community-based kaiawhina to assist Maori access to the scheme by providing information on accident compensation matters; piloting six Maori community relationship organisations again working with ACC at a local level to promote access to the scheme; and targeting communication and resources through Maori media. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: The contract with Te Rupeketanga Trust is for the area from New Plymouth right down to Wellington; what relationship will other Maori health providers have with Te Rupeketanga Trust and why has another tier of bureaucracy been added to the relationship between ACC and Maori services in implementing the Maori access strategy? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: My understanding is that the trust is now marae based which it was not previously under its former incorporation. It is working with Ngati Ruanui Tahua Society and is linked closely with its health clinic and primary health services which is a good thing. But actually the trust’s contracts are not for health service provision; they are for employment maintenance transitional job-search and work-ready programmes. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: How concerned will the Minister be to know that a substantial amount of funding has been given to someone who provided Maori policy advice to ACC that resulted in ACC establishing these contracts with that same person and is this another example of conflict of interest in awarding contracts? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The situation that has been outlined by the member could raise concern about potential conflict of interest. On the basis of the information provided in that question I am sure the corporation will be investigating any such potential conflict of interest. 
Housing New Zealand Corporation—Confidence 
8.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Does she have confidence in the Housing New Zealand Corporation; if so why? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Acting Minister of Housing) 
: Yes; because the Housing New Zealand Corporation works hard to provide housing for New Zealanders with the greatest housing need. 
Phil Heatley 
: Will the Minister continue to publicly support the corporation’s policy that the 6000 market rent tenants have “no legal responsibility to advise … of … the purchase of an investment property” and therefore support State house tenants being landlords themselves if they want to be or will she change that policy? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: That is a bit rich coming from a member of a party that established market rents as the norm. It was during the 1990s that the so-called “McCully tenants” were enrolled and given tenancies of State houses. Of the new tenants in State houses 99 percent are income-related renters. For that member to grandstand in here seeking a headline by talking about market renters when his party put them in our houses is a bit rich. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask you to consider the answer the Minister has just given. He was asked a very specific question: does the Government intend to change the policy that allows wealthy State house tenants to own properties that they then put into the rental market thereby being State tenants and landlords at the same time? It was a simple question. The Minister made no attempt to answer it; he simply railed against all sorts of things that he imagined— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Thank you Mr Brownlee; I have got the point. I must say it was difficult to hear all of the answer. The first bit did not seem to be very relevant but I thought the Minister got there. If he would like to add to his answer he may. I must say that risks are run. As members know they cannot require a particular answer. But if answers are prefaced by comments that are not seen as relevant then obviously members will raise this issue. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think that may have been a suggestion that Mr Heatley had introduced irrelevant material— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I was addressing the answer in terms of the point of order that I thought the member had raised. In other words I was asking the Minister whether he would please like to add to his answer. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Mr Heatley and other members of this House know that once people are in a State house they are there for as long as they want to be. Their assets are assessed and they pay a market rent when they no longer require subsidised housing. The Housing New Zealand Corporation no longer puts market renters into our houses; it was Mr Heatley’s party that did that. They are the legacy we have inherited. We are actively trying to move them on. We have been pretty successful but there are still a few “McCully tenants” left. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Could you just clarify this matter going forward. Yesterday the Minister of Housing said that 91 percent of State house tenants were income-related tenants meaning that there are about 6000 market rent tenants. This Minister said before that 99 percent were income-related renters meaning that there are only 1000 market rent tenants. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. Please be seated while I am on my feet if you want to stay in this Chamber. It is not a point of order. If the member wishes to elicit further information then there are supplementary questions available to do so. It is not for the Speaker to clarify the questions or answers of members. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: What steps has the Labour-led Government taken to meet the housing needs of New Zealanders? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: We have taken many steps. We have introduced income-related rents to make housing affordable and we have increased the number of State houses by 7652 to make up for the 13000 that National hocked off—mostly to its speculator mates. We have introduced the Welcome Home Loan scheme which has allowed 3231 people to buy their first home. Through the Housing Innovation Fund working in partnership with local government and other housing organisations we have created hundreds of new housing opportunities. We have retrofitted 15993 State houses. We have spent millions of dollars on community renewal transforming suburbs in Christchurch Auckland Wellington and Rotorua. We have many more exciting projects like those in Hobsonville and Tamaki. 
Barbara Stewart 
: How can the Minister have confidence in the Housing New Zealand Corporation which advised a couple on one income with three young children who meet the criteria for obtaining housing assistance that no properties were available anywhere in Canterbury and that when they become homeless next Monday their best option for finding accommodation would be a camping ground? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I anticipated that this question might come from New Zealand First and I applaud the party for raising it. I would like to clarify the situation of this particular case. The information I have from officials is that the family applied for housing only yesterday they have accommodation until 20 March they appear to have sufficient income and funds to rent from the private sector and they want a particular house in a particular suburb in Christchurch. They will be treated in the priority system where they deserve to be. 
Phil Heatley 
: Can the Minister confirm that average household income across New Zealand is about $70000 before tax or roughly $50000 after tax which is well above that of those low-income earners whom one would expect to see on the State housing waiting list? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can confirm what I said earlier: 99 percent of our new tenants in Housing New Zealand Corporation homes are on income-related rents—that is they require a rental subsidy because they are on a low income. It would be great if we could move out the 6000 other tenants whom Mr McCully and his mates put in our houses; then we would have a smaller waiting list. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister whether he could confirm that the average household income is about $70000 before tax or $50000 after tax. I did not ask anything about market renters or income-related renters. Can he confirm that that is the average household income? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Yes I can confirm that it is the average income but I would also like to remind everybody that we have Working for Families and depending on how many children a family has Working for Families would affect their income as well. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Can the Minister confirm that despite the Housing New Zealand Corporation telling this young Christchurch family that they should consider moving to a camping ground the corporation has a number of vacant State houses in the province set aside for refugee families as they arrive and can she tell the House why this Kiwi family is being treated as second-class citizens by the Housing New Zealand Corporation? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I can confirm if we are talking about the same case—and I would be happy to talk to the member afterwards about it—that that particular family applied for a house only yesterday and that they have accommodation until 20 March. I am proud that our Government provides housing support for the 750 refugees we take every year as part of our international outreach to people who are very unfortunate. New Zealand is one of only 12 countries in the world that does that and I am proud to be a Kiwi in a country that looks after refugees. 
Phil Heatley 
: How does the Minister justify the Housing New Zealand Corporation renting to a couple in Glen Innes jointly earning a household income of $90116 after tax and the couple in Panmure together earning $95212 after tax when close to 10000 very low income families are on the waiting list? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I assume those are two of “Murray McCully’s tenants” and I wish they would buy a house and move on so that we could put other people into those houses. I also wish we had the 13000 State houses that Mr Heatley and his mates hocked off to their developer mates; then we would have no waiting list at all. 
Phil Heatley 
: How does he justify renting to the New Plymouth tenant who personally earns $89544 after tax to the Nelson household earning $127348 after tax or to the Papakura couple jointly earning a household income of $89908 after tax; perhaps he would like to consider those households in light of the other household that is destined to go into a camping ground? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I guess we have just heard about a few more of “Mr McCully’s tenants”. I wish those people would move out of our houses and buy their own homes so that we could put some people who have a real housing need into those houses. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We do not normally get too wound up about these things but I think it is inappropriate for this Minister to continually refer to some people as “Mr McCully’s tenants”. The Labour Government has been in office for 8½ years. Those people are Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants. If he were to apply the strict measure of them all they are the Minister of Housing’s tenants—if that is how this Minister wants to go. But might I also say that this Minister is being asked very very specific questions and his political comments do not help the House maintain the sort of order and decorum we should have when he resorts to the sorts of silly comments he is making. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The Standing Orders require a Minister’s answer to be concise. The Minister could of course have said: “Those tenants who were given State housing when Mr McCully was the Minister of Housing and any people no matter what their income could get a State house as long they paid a market rent.” But that is rather long; “McCully tenant” is a lot briefer and more to the point. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek to have the Minister set out the actual facts. The couple did not approach the Housing New Zealand Corporation a day ago; they have sought to see the corporation for the last 2 weeks and I think that is a rather important point. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Well that is a slightly different point of order but perhaps the Minister can address it when he is asked a question. As members know the Standing Orders do not actually require specific answers to questions; they require them to be addressed. I would also prefer that members when asking and answering questions respected other members in the House. 
Phil Heatley 
: How did it ever get to the point that after 8 years of a Labour Government it will still house tenants earning $80000 $90000 or $100000 a year after tax and allow those same State house tenants to purchase their own rental properties if they want when so many genuinely needy families languish on the waiting list with next to no chance of ever getting a State house? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: We have got to this point because that member and his party filled up our houses with people who could afford to pay market rents. I find it quite cynical for him to ask a question like that. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table information from financial review questions on tenants with after-tax incomes of $80000 $90000 and $100000. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table a document stating that market rent tenants have no legal responsibility to advise of owning an investment property. 
Document not tabled. 
Education System—Reports 
9.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports has he received about the success of the education system? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen two reports. One report records a 90 percent satisfaction rate from parents about the support provided to their children by the special education section of the Ministry of Education. The second report is from John Key who claims education staffing numbers are out of control. Mr Key alleges that he spent the summer holidays researching each major area of Government policy. Clearly he did not read the education briefing very well. If he had he would know that in 2002 the Special Education Service was merged with the Ministry of Education. Statistically this increased the Ministry of Education’s staff but actually created no new positions. I would be happy to brief the Leader of the Opposition if he was not able to grasp the information from his background material. Perhaps he has already forgotten what he read over summer. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Can the Minister tell the House what further reports he has seen about extra staff for our education system? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Ministry of Education has introduced significant enhancements to truancy services this year. A new contract has been signed with the Non-enrolment Truancy Service and the Ministry of Education has picked up responsibility for managing the most difficult cases and indeed has hired 10 extra staff to do this work. According to the Leader of the Opposition we should not have hired those extra staff. Does Mr Key want me to sack the 10 new truancy staff in order to cut staff numbers in the Ministry of Education? I guess his answer would depend on which audience he was talking to. 
Anne Tolley 
: How can the Minister talk about a successful education system when the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study on the literacy levels of New Zealand 10-year-olds shows that despite employing 40 percent more bureaucrats this Government has not lifted the literacy levels of the average 10-year-old since 2001? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am very glad that member has raised the question of the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment scores because New Zealand comes top in the English-speaking world in literacy numeracy and science—a very proud record. Why does that member want to keep knocking the successes of our education system? 
Dail Jones 
: When does the Minister expect to count among his successes a teacher education system that cannot be criticised as it is in the review entitled  
Becoming a Teacher in the 21st Century: A Review of Initial Teacher Education Policy  
of September 2007 which states: “Initial teacher education providers are in a difficult position because there has been no explicit statement of what newly qualified teachers are expected to know and be able to do. Whilst a number of bodies are involved in assuring the quality of initial teacher education there is no shared understanding of requirements for newly qualified teachers.”; and when does the Minister intend to remedy this problem so that he can count it as a success? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am very glad the member raises that question too because the New Zealand Teachers Council last year set in place protocols that absolutely address that question about having a checklist for teacher trainees to have completed before they enter the teaching workforce. 
Police—Firearms 
10.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Is she satisfied with police policies and practice relating to the safe handling of their firearms? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 In general yes. On occasions incidents occur where police firearms are handled in a manner that does not meet the required standards. But in such cases I am advised that the police undertake a full investigation in order to prevent similar events from recurring. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can she confirm that the police still have no idea where two Glock pistols are after they were couriered from Warkworth to Wellington in December and never arrived and why should the public be comforted by the claim that neither parcel on its own contained enough components to construct a working pistol when two fully working pistols could be assembled from the two parcels and both parcels are still missing? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can confirm that the pistols are still missing and that inquires are continuing. 
Chester Borrows 
: Does she stand by the statement from police that: “In all the years of transporting firearms around the country this is the first time one has gone missing.”; if so can she also confirm that two police rifles and four pistols were also lost from an unsecured trailer that was being towed by a police vehicle in the Bay of Plenty in 2005? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can confirm that since 2005 there have been two reported incidents involving the loss of firearms. Firearms were lost from an unsecured trailer in the Bay of Plenty in 2005. All the firearms were subsequently recovered in a short time. The second incident is the one the member outlined in his previous question. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can she confirm that late last year a live round was fired inside the Palmerston North Police Station during a training session with the new Bushmaster rifles penetrating an internal wall and flying over the head of an officer sitting in an adjacent office? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot confirm that. That may well be the case and I am happy to get the information for the member. But I do need to tell the member that as he would be aware as a former police officer the police undertake considerable firearms training. In fact they do a total of 24 hours per year. 
Hon David Carter 
: They need a bit more then. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Although members opposite want to scoff and laugh at the police I do not. I take the matter seriously. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Oh come on! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: They are scoffing and laughing at the police. The police handle firearms every day of the week. They handle them with care but we have to note that they are human beings and sometimes there are errors. Even the members opposite make mistakes sometimes. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can she confirm that Graeme Burton was carrying a baton identical to that used by police when he was captured and can she give a categorical assurance that as far as the police know he did not have a police firearm or other police equipment in his possession at any time following his release from prison in July 2006? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot confirm that but I would direct the member to the Independent Police Conduct Authority report on the Burton case. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can she confirm that since 2000 there have been at least four instances where unintentional discharges have resulted in injury to police officers including an officer who was shot in the abdomen by another officer during a role play when live ammunition was inadvertently used a leg injury caused by a loaded shotgun that accidentally went off when it was left on a bench during a training scenario and a foot injury that was caused by an officer discharging his pistol while holstering it? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot confirm those incidents other than the ones I have already outlined today. I really do not know where this questioning is going. Is the member trying to show that over the years and the hours and the days that the police handle firearms they are incompetent? I do not believe that that is the case. I believe that the police handle these weapons— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No—just the Minister. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No the Minister does not handle the weapons and never has handled the weapons. Mind you one would be very tempted if one had one with regard to the member for Nelson! One would be very tempted indeed. I do not know where the member is going with his questions. The police undertake considerable training in firearms and they take considerable care with them as they know how lethal those weapons are. In any incident that occurs inquiries take place so the police can learn from it. I would much prefer to see a culture where they learn rather than have someone stand up in this House and try to name blame and shame them. I think it would be much more helpful to support the police rather that try to make cheap political points. 
Family Courts Matters Bill—DNA Testing 
11.  
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: Why has he refused to include DNA testing to determine parentage in the Family Courts Matters Bill despite his own admission that “The Government agrees in principle with the policy intent” of the proposal? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
:  
The Family Courts Matters Bill is about increasing the openness of Family Court proceedings and approving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Family Court by making changes to processes and procedures. The member’s issue raises a significant policy issue that will need to be fully worked through before the Government decides to introduce further amendments to the legislation. In fact on 22 November I wrote to the questioner and explained to her that the issue of mandatory DNA testing is a justice policy issue and that it warrants further consideration by the Ministry of Justice which will report back when the work is complete. 
Judy Turner 
: Will the Minister admit given he had recently described the bill to the Social Services Committee in a letter as an omnibus bill that if he wanted to make changes to allow the court to order paternity testing in this bill as recommended by the Law Society and the Law Commission there is nothing to stop him from doing so; and can he explain to children out there why he cannot be bothered to make changes that would allow them to know who their fathers really are or could he explain to the Law Society and the Law Commission why they are wrong? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The issue of mandatory samples for paternity testing also involves the issue of the use of force. Common law does not necessarily permit the sample or blood tissue to be taken from a person without his or her consent. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act gives people common law rights about personal liberty about trespass and about privacy. Those are rights that children have as well as adults. Legislation about paternity testing needs to find the appropriate balance between the interests of the mothers fathers and children. 
Judy Turner 
: Given that both the Law Commission and the Law Society have recommended that the law be updated to allow paternity testing and that I have offered him my fully drafted member’s bill to action those recommendations is the Minister now out of excuses; and does he plan to introduce legislation to address this legal loophole and finally create certainty for families? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: I have made it very clear that the issue is an important one will be considered and will come on to the Government’s programme. It needs to be fully considered. The member’s bill takes a very narrow interest in it and does not deal with the wider issues. 
Question time interrupted. 
Family Proceedings (Paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill 
Procedure 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I seek leave to table my bill set down for consideration which is the Family Proceedings (Paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? No objection. 
Question time resumed. 
Questions to Ministers 
Maori Trustee—Independence 
12. Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Is the Maori Trustee intended to be independent of the Crown? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: If as the Minister says the Maori Trustee is independent of the Crown how is the Crown able to purloin $35 million out of the general purposes fund? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The Maori Trustee will be included on the fourth schedule of the Public Finance Act. This is currently not the case. The other issue is that the $35 million that will come out to support this is money earned on interest—it is in the general purposes fund. It is technically recognised by Crown Law as the Maori Trustee’s money. 
Moana Mackey 
: Will the Minister ensure the Maori Trustee’s independence under the Maori Trustee and Maori Development Amendment Bill? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes. At present the Maori Trustee is an office conferred on an employee of Te Puni Kokiri. The bill will establish the Maori Trustee as a stand-alone entity that is separate from Te Puni Kokiri. This will underline the independence of the Maori Trustee in carrying out his or her responsibilities. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Maori Trustee’s general purposes fund is made up from income generated by and derived from beneficiary money? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The Maori Trust Office Regulations 1954 require the Maori Trustee to pay set interest rates on beneficiaries’ money in the common fund. Those rates are 3 percent for balances less than $5000; 4 percent for balances between $5000 and $50000; and 5 percent for balances over $50000. The bill will remedy the interest differential by requiring the Maori Trustee to review on a quarterly basis the interest rates paid taking into account market rates and similar types of investment. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I ask your assistance Madam Speaker. Without my going through my question again do you think that that reply addressed the question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I think it fully addressed the question. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My question was: “Can the Minister confirm that the Maori Trustee’s general purposes fund is made up from income generated by and derived from beneficiary money?”. The Minister went on about something completely different— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but I have ruled on that. Yes the Minister did go on and I thought he was addressing the issue. If the member wishes to ask another question of the Minister he should feel free to do so. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What does the Minister understand by the term “independent of the Crown”; and as a precedent would he follow the Quality Inn deal of 1991 when the Maori Trustee put in three-quarters of the money for one-quarter of the dividends ownership and action—which was supported by the then National Party—then when the Hawaiians flogged off that share it was owned by the Singaporeans which was also supported by the National Party; and does he regard that as being an example of being independent of the Crown? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is a very good question. It was an outrageous situation that Tau Henare helped to put Maori people in. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: As the Minister said in answer to my question in the House last Tuesday that the Crown Law Office advised him that the general purposes fund is owned by the Maori Trustee and that no other person has a claim over it how does he think he can purloin the $35 million out of the general purposes fund? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am not too sure why the member is waxing on about purloining because this is about an injection and progressing Maori into the future. This is about ensuring that they have a fund to use when they cannot get access to banks or anything else. What is wrong with that and why is that member moving against this legislation? The legislation is positive for Maoridom. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How many trustees will be appointed by the Minister of Maori Affairs to the new Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand entity and has the Minister shoulder-tapped anybody to be a part of the new team? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: There will be trustees appointed by the Minister just as is done with judges and other people. It will go through a process. At the end of the day a lot of the Maori farmers who are very supportive of Labour and the Maori landowners will certainly put names up as we would expect. This is about progress. I remind that member that in 1996 he stood up and said he would halve the Maori unemployment rate and it moved up to just under 20 percent. He stood up and said the same thing again in 1998. I tell the House that this Maori Trustee— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect how can that be addressing the question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is right. The first part did but the second part certainly did not address the question; it went off on a tangent. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that you have just ruled on this matter but investment in Maori enterprise—the extensive amount that has occurred under this Government as a result of Treaty settlements and a number of things—has resulted in a substantial decline in Maori unemployment whether or not the National Party likes it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but I have ruled on the matter. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: On the question that Mr Henare asked as to whether the trustees would be shoulder-tapped did the Minister hear Bob Clarkson’s interjection that it depends on how much money they get and can he confirm that none of them will ever be appointed from the Blue Chip group of companies which are so beloved of Mr Clarkson? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The best people will be appointed. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Can the Minister confirm the statement made by the Hon Shane Jones that the proposed Maori Business Aotearoa New Zealand entity will receive millions of dollars purloined from the Crown Forestry Rental Trust and the Poutama Maori Business Trust; if so what right does he have to purloin money set aside for use in Treaty settlements to give to his personal appointees to use as a Labour Party slush fund? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That is an outrage. I know full well that Mr Jones who went to Harvard University is too wise to say that nonsense. At the end of the day the member is making it up again. I remind that member that the Maori Trustee will be included on the fourth schedule of the Public Finance Act which is not currently the case. The reporting obligations for bodies included on the fourth schedule of the Public Finance Act reflect the independence of these organisations. Examples include Ngai Tahu Ancillary Claims Trust the New Zealand Fish and Game Council and the New Zealand Lottery Grants Board. I ask the member what is wrong with that. 
Points of Order 
Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name that incorporates Dr Cullen’s recent Order in Council into the Overseas Investment Act and I ask for this bill to be set down for a first reading on the next available day. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection? [ 
Interruption 
] There is objection. 
Appropriation (2006/07 Financial Review) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the Appropriation (2006/07 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time 
. 
Bill read a second time. 
Building Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
on behalf of the  
Minister for Building and Construction 
: I move  
That the Building Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill will improve the clarity and effectiveness of the regulatory reforms set up under the Building Act 2004. The Building Act was introduced in response to the systemic issues that led to major building failures in the 1990s and in a wider sense to an expectation of re-establishing our world-class reputation for quality-built buildings. The regulatory costs around the new schemes in the Act reflect the necessary rebalancing of a building control system that had fewer upfront costs and controls but will potentially cost $1 billion to $2.2 billion for the downstream costs of repairing thousands of leaky homes. By introducing more robustness and accountability into the process at the front end we are ensuring that buildings will be built right the first time and that costs will be lower over the lifetime of a building. This Government will continue to work on refining this risk-cost balance with the sector. 
In response to claims that the Building Act creates unnecessary bureaucracy and costs I note that the World Bank’s  
Doing Business in 2008 
 report includes a section that compares the regulatory requirements and costs to businesses of building a warehouse. On this measure we are ranked in second place while Australia is ranked 52nd out of 178 countries. 
I thank the Social Services Committee which is chaired by Russell Fairbrother for its excellent work. There have been a number of minor amendments and these should help in producing a workable piece of legislation. I thank the Minister for Building and Construction’s predecessor the Hon Clayton Cosgrove for introducing the bill and I thank the interest groups and those who made submissions on the bill. I am pleased to commend the Building Amendment Bill to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This morning’s  
Dominion Post  
contains this headline: “Building costs putting homes ‘beyond reach’ ” and the article states: “The cost of building an average-size house has sky-rocketed in the past seven years—from $232000 to $422000.” That is an increase in the cost of building an average house of $190000 and the question that National members ask about the Building Amendment Bill is whether it will address the housing affordability crisis. The answer is that it will not. The answer is that it will make the problem worse. 
There are two major changes in this bill. The first of those is around the very complex system that the Government has imposed on councils in respect of their being accredited as building consent authorities. We have a bloated Government bureaucracy called the Department of Building and Housing. It has gone from having 30 staff to having nearly 500 staff and it is now trying to impose the same sort of bureaucracy on councils. 
I was interested to note that the Government has just congratulated the Rodney District Council on its new building consent process. If anyone wants to build or even put in a drain in Rodney there is now a 110-page form to fill out and this bill reinforces the sort of mad bureaucratic imposition that this Government has put on the building industry. But it goes further. 
This bill seeks to retrospectively dump on councils and homeowners the costs of that accreditation process. That is in complete contradiction to everything that New Zealanders are saying in the area of what this bill attempts to do. We had only 12 months ago a rating inquiry into the extra costs that central government was imposing on councils and that rating inquiry said that the Government needed to stop passing these sorts of laws. They give the capacity for the Department of Building and Housing to dump its bureaucratic costs on to councils and councils have absolutely no choice but to cough up and pay. National says that that is wrong. National says that this bill is adding to the huge increase in rates that is driving New Zealanders up and down this country mad. 
There is a second set of changes in this bill that National further objects to. It is just so typical of the red tape and bureaucracy that Labour is imposing on New Zealanders. There was a time when the Labour Party celebrated the heritage of Norm Kirk who built his own house in Kaiapoi. But what does this bill do? This bill means that young aspiring New Zealanders will be prohibited by red tape from being able to build their own houses. Again National says that it was not the do-it-yourself builder who brought about the leaky home crisis; it was dodgy developers it was poor council process and it was the issues around untreated timber and building products. It was not the do-it-yourself builders. Norm Kirk would be rolling in his grave to know that the Labour Party is today reinforcing legislation that will say to New Zealanders that they cannot build their own houses. Well I say to New Zealanders that National is on the way back and we will restore the rights of New Zealanders to build their own homes. 
I will now go to the report that has been produced by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet dated March 2008 and released yesterday. This report says that building costs are skyrocketing and that homes are now further away from being affordable for families than at any time in our history. The report notes that there has been the biggest fall in homeownership rates since census data began in 1892 and this Government has the worst record of any Government in the 116 years since in respect of home affordability. The report further notes that the biggest fall in home affordability is in relation to those aged between 25 and 35. Those are the young aspiring New Zealanders and it is little wonder that 70000 of them are abandoning this country and building their futures in other parts of the world when there is this sort of escalation in housing costs. 
What is even more important is what this report says about what needs to be done to improve housing affordability. It says that lower costs of sections and construction are the most likely way of Government policy achieving a long-term reduction in housing costs and that reforms need to be made in the streamlining of the regulatory systems especially around the Resource Management Act and the building consent process. National members say: “Hear hear! That is what we have been arguing about with the Resource Management Act and the Building Act until we have almost lost our voices for 8 or 9 years.” What then has the Government done after reading that official Government report? It has moved the third reading of the Building Amendment Bill which adds even further to those very building costs that are causing the crisis. 
Let me outline for the House the sorts of things that this bill means for communities around New Zealand. The building consent fees in Nelson City have just been put up by 15 percent. In the Tasman district next door they have been put up by 37 percent. In Dunedin City building consent fees have been put up by 67 percent. In this very city the Wellington City Council has noted that 4 years ago it used to take three A4 plans and 20 pages of documentation to get a building consent for the average house. The new Act will require 12 A4 plans and 200 pages of documentation to get a building consent for that house. That is outrageous. That is paperwork gone mad and this bill furthers that problem. 
National opposes this bill because it does absolutely nothing to address the housing affordability crisis we have in New Zealand. We have the second worst home affordability in the OECD and our homeownership rates are plummeting. That great Kiwi value of the average family being able to own their own home has been ruined by this Government and by this sort of legislation. We have a building sector that is in crisis and we have builders leaving the country because they have had it with this sort of bureaucracy. 
This bill should be rejected. We need to go back and amend the Building Act 2004 to bring the red tape and the bureaucracy back under control. We need to drive building quality by putting the commercial tension on the building industry to make sure that it is financially responsible for its building products and for the design inspection and construction of homes in New Zealand. This bill does nothing of the sort and it should be rejected by this House so that we might be able to get some policies that actually improve home affordability in New Zealand. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 Once again we have heard the member who spoke previously Dr Nick Smith criticising and being incredibly critical and using the old National mantra about there being increased bureaucracy in councils. We heard all about that last night. We heard the myths and legends that that party created around the Waitakere Ranges Heritage Area Bill and we hear them now in this case when we are looking at the Building Amendment Bill. We are actually looking at ensuring that there is more accountability more safety and— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: More costs. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —more investment actually in the industry. 
Let us look at the real story and facts around homeownership. Has there been a reduction in homeownership rates? Yes there has. That is happening in every developed country and this Labour-led Government is now finding ways to address that. How are we doing that? We have introduced the Welcome Home Loan scheme which has helped well over 3000 Kiwis get into their first home. The National Party of course did not vote for that legislation; it voted against it. 
In terms of our KiwiSaver scheme which is something that we will see the benefits of in years to come the good thing is that not only is it a wonderful scheme for getting people involved in saving for their superannuation but also it is of really tangible assistance to first-home buyers. How does it work? I can see John Carter looking puzzled. John Carter’s mum would be very interested in this. His party did not support KiwiSaver and why not? I find that really tragic. It offends me to the hilt. 
But what is so great about the KiwiSaver scheme is that once people have saved for 3 years or more to buy their first home they can take out those savings and use them as a deposit on a house. A tax credit from the Government and the employers’ contribution which will be starting in April of this year will also go into the deposit. On top of that those people will get $1000 gifted towards that deposit from the Labour-led Government after a maximum of 5 years. So let us look at it. A young couple or an older couple who want to buy a house and who are part of KiwiSaver get their savings the tax credits from the Government the employer contribution plus an extra $10000 to put towards buying that house. That is helping our homeownership rates and that is what this Government is about. 
We are also introducing a shared equity scheme and that will be rolled out in the very near future. That will assist in the future our families our people to own their own home. We are also introducing new legislation that will assist the process—assist the bureaucracy as the National Opposition would say—and look at the construction of medium-priced homes in communities so that low to middle income families can afford to buy their own home. 
Whilst we are talking about housing let us look at Hobsonville. 
Bob Clarkson 
: What a disaster. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: “What a disaster.” the member says about a development that will deliver 3000 houses. Which member had the cheek to stand and oppose that development at public meetings? “I do not want Housing New Zealand Corporation houses. I do not want low to medium density housing on my patch. Oh no not in Hobsonville!”. Who was that member? It was the very slippery Mr John Key—“Slippery John”. We have not heard from John and it will be interesting to know whether he will take a call on this today to answer our questions on this. Mr John Key the leader of the National Party opposed that development happening in Hobsonville and he wound up a storm about affordable housing in his own electorate. I say shame on him. 
Whilst we are on the subject let us talk about why we have problems in the building industry. I heard Nick Smith talk about dodgy developers. Which Government deregulated that industry? Which Government scrapped the Apprenticeship Act? Which Government said: “Hey we do not really need apprentices. We will not support apprentices any more.”? It was the previous National Government. We had the loss of those skills and tradespeople so many of whom were in the building industry—we are looking at building here—and they were just part of a declining mass of workers under the National Government. 
I am really proud that this Government has reintroduced apprenticeships. We are now seeing far more young apprentices and older apprentices getting skills and training in those vital areas of construction and manufacturing and our country is all the richer for it. 
The Building Amendment Bill is about ensuring that quality homes and buildings meet New Zealanders’ needs and it re-establishes our reputation for world-class quality construction. The Building Act was significant legislation in 2004 and it was expected at the time that it would need updating to maximise its effectiveness. With more robustness and accountability into the process at the top end where it matters we will ensure that our buildings are built correctly the first time that costs will be lower over the lifetime of the building and that the stress and anxiety homeowners experience will simply not be there or certainly will not be as much of a stress and a challenge as it has been in the past. We will continue to work on refining the risks and the cost balance when we are building and within the building sector. 
I am really proud to commend this bill to the House. I know that it does go a long way towards what we want to see. I know that it gives more certainty to those people who are building their first home or building a home per se. It also gives certainty to those people who are buying a home that they know they are getting a quality product that the work has been done and as Nick Smith would say that the bureaucracy has been carried out. They will have more certainty that they have a more professional product and they will not face the stress and anxiety they faced under the policies that that National Party over there introduced when it was in Government. I commend this bill to the House. 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I would love to spend an hour talking about Hobsonville but I had better keep off that as I would rather talk about the bill. One has to earn about $120000 a year to be able to afford a house in Hobsonville. It is a disaster waiting to happen. 
I am happy to talk about this amendment bill. In private enterprise the secret of success is to find the problem before we fix the problem. The Minister for Building and Construction is following on from eight former Ministers in not finding the problem. This Minister still wants to licence tradesmen carpenters. The problem was caused mainly by using faulty materials. Would it not be a good idea to fix the problem? Tradesmen carpenters were not the main reason for leaky homes. I say we should fix the problem. 
This amendment bill goes nowhere near fixing the problem. We are still building leaky houses. The Minister might not understand when I say that we are still face-fixing cladding on to houses. This allows no air to circulate. Why have we not made cavity walls compulsory to let some air through and keep them dry? Licensing tradesmen carpenters as we are doing in this amendment to the Building Act does nothing to fix leaky homes or stop leaky homes from being built. All this bill does is add a $2000 licensing fee on to the cost of a house. I do not think that is a very bright idea. 
I would like to mention that I am a tradesman in another field. I am proud to be a tradesman and I do not need to be licensed. I am a tradesman and I have the right to do what my trade says. The previous Minister for Building and Construction Clayton Cosgrove and the present Minister Shane Jones keep pushing the amendment to license tradesmen. 
The Minister should concentrate on fixing the problem—I come back to that all the time. In the building industry we have been using timber treatment methods that are causing serious health problems. People who are working on building sites throughout New Zealand are getting nosebleeds coughing up blood and getting serious rashes on their bodies. I would think that the health of a carpenter would be more important than bringing in an amendment to faulty legislation. There have been four goes at this now and they have all failed. 
The Labour Government has known for 18 months about health problems in this industry to do with the treatment of timber and it has done nothing. Changing Ministers has not helped the problem. Perhaps they do not like talking to each other. 
One amendment to the bill talks about supervising restricted building work. A DIY builder will have to have a licensed building practitioner to oversee his or her work. Why would we want a system whereby DIY builders build a house a building practitioner checks the work and then an inspector from the council re-inspects the work? This is top heavy in a bureaucratic system. 
We just need top-rate inspectors and houses will be right. What building practitioner will sign off somebody else’s work without charging a high fee or taking out insurance against the risk of doing that job? All these costs will go on to the final cost of a house. My prediction is that with all these amendments and rules costs will go through the roof. We will not be able to build houses because of the price. One good thing about that is we will not have any more leaky homes. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Building Amendment Bill which is largely a technical amendment to the Building Act and has special provisions with regard to dams. Various issues about building have been raised during the course of this debate. I just want to make the point that New Zealand First sees the solution to building problems especially with large building projects as being similar to that adopted in many other countries which is to ensure that when any large builder is involved in a large building contract he or she takes out insurance in order to ensure that if anything goes wrong the subsequent buyer will be protected. That is New Zealand First’s policy. I hope Mr Clarkson will care to think about that because obviously there is no one more concerned to make sure that a job is done properly than the insurance company itself. It will make sure that things go through properly and that we will not have leaky homes and the like. 
But of course why do we have leaky homes? I was here in the House when the weathertight homes legislation and the Building Bill were introduced. We have leaky homes because of the sloppy practices that developed in the 1990s when the previous National Government regrettably decided that everything was free enterprise and the market would prevail. We ended up with cheap materials and consequently leaky homes resulted. This bill is an effort to add to the amending legislation that has tried to stop that from happening again in the future—that is what it amounts to. 
I am very interested in the matters that have been raised about council costs. I am sure that Mr Clarkson would be the first to agree that sometimes councils take advantage of changes in regulations to rip off the builder to rip off the homeowner and to add things to the building consent costs that they then blame on the Government but that are really a way for councils to put more money in their pocket for things that are not really related to the actual construction of the home itself. 
For example in a case that I was looking at a young person was told that the council charged a financial contribution to offset the effect of development. Initially that cost was $5000 in 2000 but recently it has increased to $30000. It has nothing to do with the building consent application nothing to do with the plans and suchlike but is a total rip-off in my view on the part of councils right around the country that are blaming the respective Governments of the day. That happens irrespective of whether National Labour New Zealand First or some other party is in Government. Councils do their best to rip off people by saying that the cost is all the Government’s fault but really it is part of the councils’ ruse to put some money in their pocket which they then use on various other council projects. 
I had an example the other day of someone who was trying to put in a granny flat at a place in Takapuna and he had to apply to the North Shore City Council. He informed me that before he had even started building and getting his building consents and suchlike under way the North Shore City Council wanted to charge him $83000 for a granny flat to be put in a home that used to house five people. The home now has only two people in it and there will be only one more person living there the granny. But for some reason or other in order to be able to let granny live there in a granny flat that person had to put in $83000 up front before he could even get into the resource consent and building consent processes required for the building work on the house. 
The issue of costs lies to a large extent in councils’ policies of creaming off money from people and blaming that on the Government of the day irrespective of which party might be in Government. That has to be closely considered by all parties when they look at councils’ budgets and when councillors come up for election in the years ahead. I think that part of the problem is that new councillors on councils just follow the advice of the officials who blind them with science. The councillors go ahead and allow rules to get through without fully appreciating what is happening because all those people with high diplomas in planning—bachelors of this and masters of that—confuse and blind many new councillors and councillors generally in local authorities. 
I was interested in what has been happening in Hobsonville because I lived in Hobsonville for 18 years and I have worked in the area one way or another since 1975. I was very disappointed with the attitude adopted by Mr John Key when he changed his mind on what was to happen in Hobsonville. I will be watching very closely the developments in Hobsonville because I still think that it is an economic disaster to build 3000 homes on some of the prime land in Auckland as is proposed. I think that policy has to be considered closely and I disagree entirely with John Key’s change of view on the Hobsonville area. As a person who goes by that land regularly and who knows the land extremely well I will be keeping a close watch on it as I did before when I was the member of Parliament for the area. 
The Housing Corporation used to love to put State houses in the Hobsonville area. I said to the Minister of Housing one day that I was quite happy to have two State houses in my electorate for every one that he had in his. That actually stopped the building of State houses in my electorate. Sometimes one has to put those issues to Ministers of Housing in a cold blunt way and that improved the situation in Hobsonville and West Harbour. The reason why we do not have so many State houses in that area today is that I really put my foot down on the matter when I was a member of Parliament between 1975 and 1984. 
As far as John Key’s view on Hobsonville is concerned I see that he is agreeing now to have wide-scale housing and housing that is possibly not of the highest quality on the best-quality land in New Zealand. I am also concerned that he may have changed his mind on a commercial airport being built in Whenuapai. I am totally opposed to a commercial airport being built in Whenuapai and I wonder whether John Key has also had a change of heart on that issue. I would hope that the Whenuapai airport people get in touch with John Key to make sure that has not been another change of mind on his part. 
This bill is essentially technical legislation as I have said. Because it touches on such an important issue obviously there is a tendency towards a wider-ranging debate than might normally be the case and I have just taken this opportunity to answer some of the questions that have been raised. New Zealand First supports the bill. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I firstly say that it just shows how important Government members think this bill is when they have one Minister come and speak on the bill—the Minister of Finance who actually has no idea about the building industry at all. He would struggle to build a dunny in a bush quite honestly. He would not know which end of the nail to put into the wall yet he spoke on the bill for about 2 minutes. Then we had a Government member who I understand is retiring but does not have a trip yet and she spoke on the bill. And that seems to be the Government’s contribution in defence of this bill. That just shows how important Government members think it is. It is surprising is it not that the Minister in charge of the bill has not yet come down to speak on it? He may well do and we are looking for that contribution. I will look forward to it but I am disappointed; I would have thought that that Minister would have wanted to lead this debate. So we are looking forward with some pleasure to his contribution. 
The second thing I will say is that I listened closely to the contribution made by Dail Jones and I just want to remind him about the time he was here in the House. I was reflecting on whether he was actually in the House in 1990. I have a funny feeling that he was not. 
Dail Jones 
: No. 
JOHN CARTER 
: He was not. I thought I heard him say that he was in this House— 
Dail Jones 
: 2002. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Oh it was 2002 of course. Well the member certainly was in the House at that time. I knew that he had been in the House earlier but I could not remember just how much earlier. I think it was up until 1984 from memory and then he came back in 1999. 
Dail Jones 
: 2002. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Oh in 2002 he came back—right. Then he resurrected himself again and here he is. But he made the point about the whole issue of responsibility and where it should lie. There is a simple answer and soon we will make clear what it is. 
I will pick up on one point the member made. He talked about the North Shore City Council and about the fact that some unfortunate person had been levied $83000 I think he said. I cannot speak on the particulars of that case but it is true that the North Shore City Council was certainly charging way above what it should have been charging. The member may know that that council was taken to court and there is now case law that stops that sort of activity. Most local authorities have not charged at that level; most local authorities have been responsible. The North Shore City Council was made an example of and has now had to reduce its whole charging regime and that has set an example for local government across the country. Local government has actually picked it up. 
The real problem—and this is the dilemma—is that what is happening and what will happen even further is that this bill is loading costs on to councils it is loading costs on to builders and it is loading costs on to homeowners. That is where the tragedy is. Even worse is the fact that the bill is not just loading on costs rules and regulations but it is not addressing the problem. In fact this is the fourth time this Government has endeavoured to fix the problem. The tragedy is that the Government has the Department of Building and Housing which the last time I looked employs 385 people but that number has probably gone up— 
Bob Clarkson 
: It’s 500 now. 
JOHN CARTER 
: No I cannot believe it is 500. 
Bob Clarkson 
: It was in the media this morning. 
JOHN CARTER 
: The member is kidding me! No 500 people cannot be employed there; that is not possible. It was only 385 a couple of weeks ago. Oh I suppose anything is possible under this Labour Government. The point is that most of the people who are there to advise the Government have not got much if any background in the building industry itself and they misunderstand it. 
Chris Tremain 
: Are these people builders? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well some of them are builders; most of them are not. They would line up with Michael Cullen and have about as much expertise in building as he has. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Sorry John were you talking about the ones who work in the department or the ones who are employed there? 
JOHN CARTER 
: I am talking about just the ones who are employed in the department. 
Bob Clarkson 
: Oh not working? 
JOHN CARTER 
: No. Here we go again with these speakers; something is echoing. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: No I think it is your constant turning round. 
JOHN CARTER 
: The tragedy is that we have this department that writes these rules and regulations causing great costs in the industry and in fact even ensuring that some people will exit the building industry because they cannot stand all the rules and regulations. The local authorities have to match them so the bureaucracy in the local authorities has increased significantly—25 percent in the last 9 years. Of course that also adds in extra costs. If the system were working then maybe one could defend it. But the real problem is that this bill is the fourth attempt at addressing the problem but it is not addressing it. We are still building leaky homes in this country today. Not only have we got the leaky home problem that we know about—and it is estimated and registered at the moment that that involves about 3200 homes but it is guesstimated that somewhere between 15000 and 30000 homes may well be found to be leaky in due course—but we are building more leaky homes today. That is the real tragedy; we are actually building more leaky homes right now. That is the problem. We have not fixed the problem. The Government has not fixed the problem. All it is doing is making more rules and regulations. 
Some common sense should be applied instead of our saying to local authorities and ratepayers “You are responsible for the failure of building.” That is what happens: local government ends up being responsible when a building fails because the builders have generally exited the scene the architects have usually gone and the suppliers of materials cannot be pinged so the last person standing is the local council. Of course the council’s insurance company says to it: “Well we will be a bit careful about how we back you on this.” and the burden ends up going on to ratepayers. So ratepayers have become responsible for the failure of building in this country and that is just wrong. It should not be the case. But this Government is not prepared to accept that. It says: “Oh well if that is how it is because councils have some role in inspecting these buildings and therefore have some certification councils should be the ones that are finally responsible. If there is no one else we will load it on to ratepayers.” Quite honestly that is just fundamentally wrong. It should not happen. 
We should be saying to the Minister and to the Department of Building and Housing: “Find a way of putting the responsibility back on to the building industry.” I can tell members that the building industry itself is asking to be made responsible for its buildings. It wants to be responsible for its buildings; it does not want all the rules and regulations. Those in the industry or most of them are quite capable of building good sound non-leaky—what is the word I am looking for? 
Colin King 
: Weatherproof. 
JOHN CARTER 
: —weatherproof; I thank the member very much—homes. They are quite capable of building something that is not only weatherproof but will last. Whether it is “weathertight” or “weatherproof” it does not matter; it will stop the blasted rain getting in. That is what we are talking about. 
Most of those people in the building industry are quite capable. There are some tremendously skilled people in the industry. We should allow them to get on with the job. What we are doing instead of allowing that to happen is putting rules regulations and restrictions in their road that stop them actually getting on with the job. 
I say to the Government that this bill will go through—unfortunately. It will add to the pile of red tape. It will add to costs and bureaucracy because the Government will now have to put out more rules and regulations as a consequence. The Department of Building and Housing will already be out there—all 358 500 or however many there are—writing rules and regulations. Local authorities will then have to read them and will have to try to employ somebody else to implement them. 
Colin King 
: Some expert. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well the trouble is that we have run out of experts; it will be just anybody who happens to be hanging around. I can see there might be some people leaving Parliament who might get a job in the Department of Building and Housing or in local government. Unfortunately the tragedy of this situation is that the bill will not work. It will continue to fail. The builders know it will fail. I am sure that in their heart of hearts the people in the Department of Building and Housing know that it is not working. Certainly the Minister in charge of this bill—if one speaks to him very carefully—will say it is not working. But unfortunately his Government is saying that this is the route down which we have to go. There is a bit of good news however that people will find out shortly when they get a National Government and we fix this problem. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I rise to say that the Green Party is very pleased to be supporting the Building Amendment Bill. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. I am pleased to take a call on this Building Amendment Bill. During the debate I have been thinking about who will benefit from this legislation. Although I know this House would be fascinated I am not going to spend any time today on discussing the 45 minor amendments and technical drafting corrections related to the future setting of accreditation fees. 
The bill makes minor changes to the Building Act 2004 that will improve the workability of the current regulatory framework. I want to spend some time on clause 10. This clause amends the content requirements for project information memoranda to include the need to have a statement on how buildings are complying with the disability access provisions of the building code. It reminds builders of the compliance requirements relating to access and facilities for people with disabilities. 
It is more and more common that at any gathering of tangata whenua there will be a group of people whom we might refer to as the “Walking Frame Club”. I am talking about those of our people who are impaired or affected by conditions related to diabetes gout gangrene hip fractures hip and knee replacements arthritis and other factors that could slow us down—too much kina and paua they say. This bill is a step in the right direction for the “Walking Frame Club”. For far too many tangata whenua with disabilities independence is compromised by buildings and access points that are simply too difficult to negotiate. Jutting edges uneven surfaces and obstacles make access to a building difficult. 
It is great that the bill requires project information memoranda to include a reminder about access provisions for disabled people. This is of particular interest to us in the Maori Party as we know that for tangata whenua adult disability rates are higher than national rates. One-third of Maori aged between 45-64 years report a disability compared with one-quarter of the total population. 
The litmus test of any access provisions is if the target groups respond positively. It was pleasing to see the National Assembly of People with Disabilities and CCS disability action support the amendments in the bill. Clause 10 provides for the requirement to show how buildings are complying with the disability access provisions of the building code and that has to be good. 
The other point I raise is around the process being followed in this House in supposedly improving the workability of the 2004 Building Act. We know that on the basis of the 30 submissions received generally there has been strong support across the relevant industry groups. However we also know that many of those 30 submitters raised concerns. The problem is that because there is no commentary on these issues in the Social Services Committee report to Parliament it is very difficult to ascertain what issues have been addressed through recommended changes to the bill what issues have been discussed but did not result in any recommended changes to the bill and what issues have not been addressed at all. 
Let me share an example. Concerns were raised by the Registered Master Builders Federation about the watering-down of the definition of restricted building work. Its view was that the weasel words made the building licensing scheme less practical and less certain. An amendment was then recommended by the committee that would seem to address these concerns but it is difficult to ascertain its effect or how it is qualitatively different from the current wording in the Act given there is no commentary in the select committee report. The amendment specifies that restricted building work is building work that is critical to the integrity of a building—for example its envelope and structure. One would think that the intention would be to make the definition more precise yet the key words “critical” and “integrity” are not defined. That is pretty ironic given the purpose of the bill is to clarify the language and the rules relating to the licensing of building practitioners. The people working in the building industry need straightforward information on what licensing is about and what it will mean for them and it needs to be in terms that do not leave any doubt. 
In summary let me build—excuse the pun—on the concepts I have raised. As a non-builder I would be reliant on a licensed building practitioner to nail down a definition for me that one could hammer home. If the words “critical” and “integrity” are part of the foundations of a building practice concepts that have a clear trade meaning one would have thought it would be useful to define them in the glossary of this bill. If the basic architecture of the bill is “floored” and paints us into a corner because of the cracks in understanding no amount of putty applied during this late stage of the debate will seal it for us. We in the House need to step up. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Excellent! 
TE URUROA FLAVELL 
: I thank Mr Woolerton. The concern for us as a smaller party that does not have membership on the Social Services Committee is that we are not in a good position to evaluate whether the amendments suggested are in keeping with the advice received. We want a level playing field—thank you for laughing Madam Assistant Speaker; I appreciate that. We would have thought that the whole debate was a window of opportunity for framing some alterations to keep the builders building happily ever “rafter” but is hard to see the wood for the trees in the final report of the select committee. 
We have to however measure these issues up against the total design of the adjustments that will improve the safety of any future dam constructions clarify the legal liability and accountability of licensed building practitioners and give more detail around building consent exemptions. In drawing our comments to a close we in the Maori Party will support this bill to ensure that we have appropriate diagrams and plans for success in the building and construction industry. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Building Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 51 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2; Independent: Copeland. 
Bill read a third time. 
Points of Order 
Member’s Bill—Leave to Introduce 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I seek leave to introduce a member’s bill in my name that incorporates Dr Cullen’s recent Order in Council into the Overseas Investment Act and I ask for this bill to be set down for first reading on the next available day. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Any objections? Did I hear an objection? There is an objection. Leave cannot be granted. 
Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Hon Jim Anderton (Associate Minister of Health) 
: I move  
That the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill removes the legal market for so-called party pills that contain the drug benzylpiperazine commonly referred to as BZP and also related substances. Today I would again thank all members of the Health Committee for their valuable work on this bill. They had to tackle a complex public health and justice issue within a tight time frame. I know that the majority of us here understand the need to move as quickly as is practicably possible to respond to the harms associated with the misuse of psychoactive substances and a proper evidence-informed process has been followed in the case of BZP. 
This House will be aware that in 2004 the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs informed us that although there was insufficient evidence available at that time to justify a ban on BZP there was a need to place some controls on the sale and advertising of BZP while further information into its effects was gathered. The 2005 amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act provided just that with a new restricted substances schedule allowing for BZP to be sold only to and by people aged 18 years and over as well as placing controls on advertising and a ban on free of charge distribution of BZP. The enactment of this schedule remains an important achievement and provides New Zealand with a valuable tool to place legislative controls on new drugs that it would otherwise not have sufficient evidence to ban under the Misuse of Drugs Act. BZP and related substances however do now have such evidence to warrant a ban and therefore the continued consideration of this bill is very timely. 
This current bill originally had an enactment date of 18 December 2007. However as members of this House will know there was a significant amount of work before us at that time and it was not possible to progress this bill any further before the year drew to a close. For this reason it was necessary that a Supplementary Order Paper was drafted to amend the original enactment date of this bill to a new date in 2008. I have been asked why a set date for the enactment of this legislation is necessary and why the enactment could not have been linked to the day after the legislation receives the Royal assent as is consistent with the majority of other bills we pass into law. The answer is simple: a set date in the legislation provides for certainty around when this classification will come into force. There are a large number of party pill retailers in New Zealand and having a specific date in the legislation allows for better clarity around the obligations of these retailers under the law. It also provides more clarity to users of BZP and related substances regarding the exact date that the amnesty for possession and use offences will expire. 
On advice from the Attorney-General and the Ministry of Health the date of 1 April 2008 was chosen as this was seen as an appropriate length of time to allow for both the ministry to properly communicate this change in legal status and the industry to comply. I am pleased that the members supported this important Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage. The Green Party also chose to introduce an amendment to this House that would have delayed the banning of these substances deemed by experts to pose a moderate risk of harm by a further month until 1 May 2008. The Green Party justified this delay on the grounds that the party pill industry needed more time to facilitate the recall of its products. However it needs to be noted that in the time since the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs advised us in December 2006 that available evidence commissioned by this Government now shows that BZP and related substances pose a moderate risk of harm. 
There have been two public consultations on the proposals in this bill. There has also been extensive debate in the media as well as in press releases from the Ministry of Health. No one in this industry in my view is able to claim that there has not been sufficient warning of the ban. Furthermore it needs to be noted that this bill was originally intended to be enacted before the end of last year and I am advised that some in the party pill industry did recall their products in order to comply with the pending legislation at that time. I have also recently received a letter from one distributor stating that the enactment date of 1 April would indeed allow them time to complete an orderly thorough and safe withdrawal of these products from the market. Thankfully this House had the sense to vote down that proposed amendment which would have continued to expose New Zealanders to these harmful substances for an additional month. 
A Supplementary Order Paper was introduced by the National Party which sought to amend this bill to require the expert advisory committee to review the effects of this classification and report back to the House in 2½ years’ time. In considering this proposal it is important to understand that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs is mandated under the Misuse of Drugs Act to report to the Minister with responsibility for the National Drug Policy—not to the House of Representatives but to the Minister. I consider that members of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs have enough on their plate already without being subjected to additional pressures from this House. Additionally the member who put forward the Supplementary Order Paper justified it on the basis that action against illicit drug use needs to be evidence-based. On that view I agree in full. It is for this reason that our actions on BZP to date have been informed by the best available evidence and the continued advice of the expert advisory committee and the Ministry of Health. 
Membership of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs which has considered BZP on nine separate occasions since 2004 consists of among others respected leaders in the fields of pharmacology toxicology psychology community medicine and addiction treatment. I have always respected the advice of this committee and I find it concerning that this member would put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to bring into doubt the evidence base behind the bill that we are considering today. Furthermore and importantly the Supplementary Order Paper was not necessary as it does not take an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act to require the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to reconsider the classification of BZP after this ban comes into effect. The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs is mandated to consider not only new substances as they emerge but also the classification of currently controlled drugs as new research becomes available. I can ask the committee to reconsider BZP at any time and members of the public can write to the Ministry of Health to request that items such as BZP are considered for the agenda in future meetings of the committee. It is my view therefore that the Supplementary Order Paper proposed by the National Party would have unnecessarily complicated this classification process should it have received enough votes during the Committee stage to go ahead. 
The continued legal availability of party pill products containing BZP and related substances is concerning and cannot possibly be condoned by members of this House when we know that the available evidence indicates a moderate risk of harm. It is for this reason that the bill must be progressed into law. I believe that party pills will virtually disappear from New Zealand following the enactment of this bill. This legislation will remove the legal access to BZP and related substances. It will allow the police and the Customs Service to prevent these substances from being imported and marketed and it will prevent them from causing the moderate risk of harm that experts have identified. I would like to acknowledge the great work and determination of my colleague the Hon Jim Anderton in nurturing and guiding this bill through the House. I commend this bill to the House and support its passage through its final reading. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 Can I say Madam Assistant Speaker what a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair and thank you for acknowledging me. 
I believe we have come a long way in the 5 or 6 years since benzylpiperazine (BZP) first came on to the market in New Zealand. Before I became a member of this House BZP-based drugs were commonly referred to as herbal highs or “herbies” which is what the young people still call them the perception being that they were herbal and therefore harmless. Of course that perception was reinforced by the fact that they were legal and largely unregulated. What a long way we have come in those 5 or 6 years. Even in the 2½ years since I have been a member of Parliament I believe that society’s concern and understanding about BZP and its medical and social effects have been crystallised and today we are finally addressing the issue of BZP by way of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. 
The bill is very short. It simply changes the classification of the family of drugs known as benzylpiperazine from a class D restricted substance to a class C classification which is the same as that for cannabis. I think it is appropriate that the classification is the same as that for cannabis because now the law will recognise that benzylpiperazine and party pills are every bit as dangerous as cannabis. The bill introduces a 6-month amnesty period for the personal use of benzylpiperazine. It also gives the party pill industry advance warning of when the ban is to take place—not on the usual date of when it is signed by the Governor-General but a few days after. The rationale is that this will allow party pill manufacturers and retailers time to take these items off their shelves. That is unnecessary of course. The industry has known that the writing has been on the wall. For goodness’ sake the Minister has been going on about it for long enough! The industry which is a big industry has had plenty of time to get used to the idea that BZP will at least become illegal so in my view that consideration was unnecessary. Having said that we do support the bill. 
Benzylpiperazines are already banned in the United States. New Zealand is lagging well behind. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs) 
: Excuse me I am sorry to interrupt the member. I ask that we do not have conversations in the House with members standing up. Thank you. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker—you are so considerate. BZP is banned in the United States. BZP and the family of benzylpiperazines are also banned by our close neighbour Australia as well as Japan Denmark and Sweden. One of our exports which we should not be proud of is BZP products which are exported via the Internet to countries like the UK. It is a thriving market. I sincerely hope that that trade is also shut down. 
I acknowledge the work of the Health Committee. I understand that with an issue such as this there are divergent views which are expressed in the committee’s report. The committee members reviewed my petition and also my submission to them. I believe that my point of view was heard and I am grateful to them for that. 
To give just a little bit of information about the benzylpiperazine family it has become very popular in the last few years due largely to its legal status of being only a restricted drug and therefore the perception of its safety. As I said when I first rose to my feet that perception of safety has been very quickly eroded during the last few years. The family of BZP is mixed to mimic the effects of methamphetamine. It gives users a high if you like with exaggerated blood pressure heart rate and metabolism. Unfortunately other side effects—particularly when taken with alcohol and other drugs—can include anxiety collapse agitation nausea and grand mal seizures. The concern of doctors is well documented—particularly that of Dr Paul Gee of the Christchurch accident and emergency department. He has been concerned for many years over the presentation of patients into his hospital. 
The advocates of BZP—and we must remember that this is a $30 million-a-year industry which is a good little earner—claim that it offers users of illegal drugs a safer alternative and would therefore displace illegal drug use. Unfortunately for them a university study has disputed this myth. It shows that party pill users are 10 times more likely to be users of LSD Ecstasy and Ritalin. So that myth—for that is what it is—has been dispelled. The author of that report Kate Bryson concluded that: “In terms of reducing harm by reducing illicit substance use BZP party pills are not fulfilling their purpose.” For drug users they are “simply another substance on the … menu.” This conclusion is shared by other researchers who have noted that an increase in BZP-related presentations to Auckland Hospital did not reduce the incidence of methamphetamine-related presentations. So any myth that BZP reduces the incidence of illegal drug use is just that—a myth. 
BZP’s legal status is finally about to change with the imminent passing of this Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill—and I am very grateful for it. I am grateful that the Associate Minister of Health Jim Anderton has finally succumbed to pressure to outlaw this drug. Right back in 2004 the Minister first acknowledged the harm BZP causes but it has taken 4 years until he has finally brought legislation to Parliament—not without continual lobbying on my part—and today I am very happy to be standing here during the third reading of this bill. Unfortunately a market for BZP and other drugs has grown exponentially in New Zealand and as legislators we must face the fact that while Parliament has delayed passing this legislation a market has been created and that market will be filled with other drugs. We also now have a culture whereby many children hold the view that in order to have a good time one must first take a pill. How regrettable is that? 
My colleague Dr Paul Hutchison attempted to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that I believe provides a very sensible way forward after the passage of this bill. Dr Hutchison proposed that this legislation be reviewed within 2 years and 6 months of the date of its enactment. Under his Supplementary Order Paper the review of the banning of BZP would have been undertaken by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs—the very committee that the Minister has relied on so heavily for advice in bringing this bill to the House today. My colleague Dr Paul Hutchison proposed that what is really needed to finish off this bill is to look at the effects it will have. We understand that the Minister is now considering the reclassification of another drug— 
Salvia divinorum 
. We do not need another piecemeal approach to this issue. Experience with BZP classification has shown that the Minister is reluctant to act. Several years may go by between the intention to do something about  
Salvia divinorum 
 and the actual reclassification of this drug. What is needed is a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. The Minister has promised a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act but instead we have another piecemeal bill. So in the absence of any policy work on behalf of the Minister that I can see—and I would be very happy to be corrected—we have yet again a lot of talk but no evidence of any real work. The amendment proposed by Dr Paul Hutchison would at least have given this Parliament a chance to evaluate the effects of banning BZP. 
I will conclude today by reflecting that society has shown a good deal of concern about what has become an open legal drug culture in New Zealand. This bill which National supports goes part of the way towards addressing those concerns. I believe that the Minister had the chance to do so much more but he has failed in that. Thank you Madam Assistant Speaker. 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. It is my pleasure to stand and speak in support of the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. 
This bill amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 to make it illegal to possess and use sell supply import export or manufacture benzylpiperazine (BZP) phenylpiperazine and related substances. These substances are the active ingredients in the majority of pills commonly known as party pills or herbals. The purpose of this legislation is to prevent the misuse of drugs by controlling harmful substances through the classification of drugs according to their degree of harmfulness.  
Party pills—or herbals as they are also known—came on to the scene in New Zealand around 2000 and their popular use has increased over the years. A walk down Cuba Street or Courtenay Place or down streets right around our country illustrates how accessible these pills have become to our families and our communities and more important to our young people. There are shops dedicated to selling the pills with dairies 24-hour service stations and nightclubs stocking them so that they are readily available. As the popularity of party pills has grown an increasing number of manufacturers of these products have entered the market.  
A 2006 Massey University study found that nearly 60 percent of 20 to 24-year-olds surveyed had tried party pills. As the popularity of these pills increased real concern was raised over the potential health effects—let alone all the other effects—of these pills. Reports have also shown that a wide range of people are using party pills from young professionals to senior citizens who use the pills to make themselves feel more alert or on a high. The party pills are sold under a wide range of product names and the term “herbals” implies that they are good for people. It is thought that a large number of people use BZP because it is legal and readily available.  
I join with my colleagues in congratulating the Hon Jim Anderton on his role in this and on the public consultation that it has enabled. He has shown real leadership and stewardship of legislation in this area not only with this bill but also with the 2005 Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill. That amendment made it an offence to sell and supply pills to people under 18 years of age or to give away or advertise the pills thus enabling controls on BZP while research was carried out into this drug.  
The classification of BZP and the harm of the drug’s misuse have been extensively considered in recent years. This bill has resulted from this research and from a recommendation made to the Minister of Health by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs that BZP be classified as a class C1 controlled drug—the same as cannabis—under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 as it poses a moderate risk to the health of those using it. In making its classification recommendation the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs has ensured that its decision is evidence-based appropriate for New Zealand’s domestic situation and consistent with international obligations. When introducing the third reading Minister O’Connor commented that the committee’s composition represented all professional areas including a representative of those who treat consumers of drugs. Our Government has acted on expert advice and has taken this recommendation very very seriously and this bill seeks to give effect to that.  
Because party pills have been legally available for a number of years a 6-month amnesty for those who have less than 5 grams or 100 tablets for their personal use as opposed to supply will remain in place from the commencement date of the legislation on 1 April 2008 ending on 30 September 2008. More important this bill ensures that all New Zealanders are protected from potential harm and from the effects on themselves their families and their communities caused by BZP phenylpiperazine and related substances which are the active ingredients in party pills. For that reason I commend the bill to the House. Thank you. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the third reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. It is my pleasure to rise and support this bill. 
This is an issue that needed to be finalised—from the manufacturer’s point of view the user’s point of view and of course from Parliament’s point of view. Further action needed to be taken; once the wheels had been set in motion the whole situation needed to be clarified. We in this House all know that this is a multimillion-dollar industry and it had geared itself up for a ban on 18 December. That did not eventuate and in fairness to the industry another specific date has been set. The writing was on the wall. The date that is now set is very clear it is specific and there is no room for any misinterpretation. 
In New Zealand First we received some information from the Social Tonics Association that recall procedures had been put in place by many manufacturers for the disposal of their existing stock. I understand that these procedures will be put in place again so that the products can be disposed of in a safe and proper manner. It is really important that this is done. It is not a little job to close down a multimillion-dollar industry in a short time; it has been around for 7 years or so. There needed to be sufficient time to do this in a planned manner. I was very pleased to see the professional recall procedures that have been put in place and I think that the Social Tonics Association can be quite proud of what it has done. The very last thing we need is for this type of product to be dumped in local rubbish bins where it can be pulled out by anyone—and we know that a lot of people fossick around our rubbish cans now. Of course if it is in a rubbish can it can also be consumed by anyone and that is definitely not an ideal situation. Being part of a manufacturing environment in my previous life I was very pleased to see this responsible response to the recall of these particular products and the Social Tonics Association and other manufacturers have to be commended for the actions they have taken in drawing up the procedures and for trying to follow them through. 
In New Zealand First we believe that Parliament—this Parliament any Parliament—has to act on the advice of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs. Otherwise what is the point of having it and of wasting the advice of the experts on that committee? They are the experts they have all of the relevant qualifications and we need to take their advice. When we look at it they have verified what most of us suspected: this product cannot be guaranteed to be absolutely harmless. Although there are those who say that it is harmless the bottom line is that there are no scientific studies carried out on this drug by any reputable agency proving that it is safe. 
Earlier in the week I went into a pharmacy and was absolutely amazed to see a product that claimed on the header card of the display and on the product as well that it was “Tested on Australians”. I did not want to believe what I was reading. Obviously Australians are quite happy to be lab rats or perhaps they were unwittingly lab rats for some company that was testing anti-hangover pills of all things. I thought this was a really amazing piece of advertising. As a consumer it would give me no real confidence at all that it had been tested on Australians and found to be safe. Yet when I looked at the display I saw that plenty of the product had been sold. New Zealand First believes that we can be really pleased that party pills have never ever been displayed or advertised with that cavalier attitude even though when we look at it the industry could have said that the product had been “Tested on New Zealanders”. 
We realise that unfortunately this legislation will not immediately stop the party pill culture or the widespread consumption by young people of some other product that promises the same type of high or buzz. Most of our young people who are into this type of drug taking will consume the new product that comes online. 
I was talking to an elderly person who blamed all of the baby-boomers and the availability of prescription drugs for this phenomenon. Apparently we pop pills freely for headaches depression earaches and sore throats and afterwards we feel quite good that we have actually taken the pills. This person said we were modelling the behaviour for our young people. I thought it was quite a tenuous link but perhaps she had a point. 
As we know the second generation of party pills is well on the way; we read about it last year in the newspapers. We can only hope that the Social Tonics Association and its members will again take a precautionary approach. However we definitely do not want to see these substances displayed for sale in dairies and garages. 
Hone Harawira 
: Like cigarettes. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: Like cigarettes. The voluntary code for packaging quality and quality control that was developed and largely adhered to by the manufacturers of party pills was a step in the right direction and we have to hope that it will be followed again. 
Over the course of this debate we have often had parties talking about the health effects of alcohol and tobacco and saying that they are just as bad if not worse than the effect of benzylpiperazine. I have no doubt that we will hear from those speakers later on. In New Zealand First we ask why we would add another substance to this list if this product had not been banned. Enough grief is caused by alcohol and tobacco. Something had to be done and we are trying to do something here so we support this bill. It never ceases to amaze me—and more than likely others in this House—that manufacturers never had to prove that party pills were safe before they were put out for sale as happens with food and medicine. We would like to see this loophole corrected. 
New Zealand First supports this bill. We are pleased to see it reach this stage and we will watch what happens in the wider industry with a lot of interest. Thank you. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 As this House knows the Green Party policy on these matters is about reducing harm. We are the only party in this House that has a policy premised on a scientific and evidence-based approach to managing drugs including alcohol and tobacco which are of course the most damaging drugs in our society and our community. We know that drug use can be problematic. But we know that not all drug use is problematic and that the law has to deal with these issues on a rational scientific basis rather than on one based on prejudice and old views. 
I was saddened to hear the Associate Minister Damien O’Connor describe in his speech this afternoon the Green Party amendment to this bill. We put up an amendment that would provide small-business people who are running party pill businesses with the time and opportunity to comply with the law. They know that they will need to comply with the change. They want to comply with the law they do not want to be lawbreakers and they are not lawbreakers—until the law is passed they certainly are not lawbreakers. They want to have the time to do a good job especially if they have to reconfigure their businesses reorganise their finances fire people who are working for them and deal with all those concerns. 
Minister O’Connor presumably speaking for Mr Anderton stood up and said that the Government refused to support our amendment to extend this time period because the businesses—the industry—knew that there was a law coming and therefore they should have been prepared and that is just tough. That reminded me of a member of Parliament from some years ago when I was a teenager who was well known for making law by decree and it occurs to me to ask whether Jim Anderton is a Muldoon Mini-Me in this respect. Is he a Muldoon Mini-Me who will decide that the law should change because he thinks it is a good idea then go out amongst the people and tell them that the law is changing and that he is going to do all this fantastic work make promises to have the law changed by a particular date fail miserably to achieve that goal misinform the public and have no concerns for the businesses who are quite entitled to rely not on a Muldoon Mini-Me decree but on the law of the House and of the land as it stands? 
That is what Mr Anderton did. He should be ashamed and terribly embarrassed by his foolishness. One does not make law by decree in this country. I tell Mr Anderton that this is a democracy and therefore when the law is in one state businesses are entitled to rely on it as is the community. Then when that law changes they are entitled to have some time and opportunity to make the changes so that they can comply. We do not need a Muldoon Mini-Me in this House making law by decree for this country. 
I was also surprised to hear the Associate Minister say that he believed that this law change would eliminate benzylpiperazine (BZP) from this country and that there would be no BZP any more in New Zealand which again highlighted just how utterly irrational his approach to controlling drugs in our country is. Can he point to any single drug ever that has been eliminated from the population in its entirety simply as a result of a law change towards prohibition? Can he? 
Heather Roy 
: No. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: There is silence from the Government benches. The fact is that my colleague Heather Roy is quite right. There simply is no drug that has ever been eliminated from a society simply because it was made illegal. In fact the evidence shows quite the contrary—that indeed drugs proliferate under a regime of prohibition. 
Drugs proliferate under prohibition because they are in the control of unregulated entrepreneurs who see an opportunity to make considerable amounts of money out of an illegal substance that there is still an enormous demand for in our community. Who is going to regulate those entrepreneurs? No one. Who is going to control the access that people might have to those entrepreneurs and their new products? Well one could say the police will do so but I do not see them doing a particularly fantastic job when it comes to other drugs. Have they eliminated methamphetamine from our society because it is illegal? No they have failed to do that. The police do not even manage properly to control the legal drugs that are in this country. They do not even properly manage and make sure that young people do not get access to tobacco for example. So how are the police also expected to eliminate from the community and from these black markets clever little entrepreneurs who are now going to engage in the proliferation of BZP to our young people when they have no capacity at all to talk to them sensibly about the health consequences of what they are doing the kinds of products they are taking the damage they could be doing to themselves and the ways they could keep themselves safe? None of that will be available under this regime because Mr Anderton and his party are relying on the old failed policies of the past—the proven failed policies of the past—in making illegal a substance that Mr Anderton could have controlled from the beginning. 
Here we go back to Mr Anderton’s failure again. He has always had the power to regulate party pills. Party pills as a class D drug can be regulated. Where they are sold can be regulated. Who they are sold to and the content of the drugs or of the pills can be regulated. The packaging and the health information were available to Mr Anderton to control if he chose to do so but he has failed to control and put in place those regulations in the time that BZP has been legal. I raise serious questions as to why he failed to protect our community when he had the power to do so. 
The fact is that he failed to protect our community and our young people because it was politically useful for him to have no controls so he could justify the continued failed policy of the prohibition of BZP. He put our young people at risk on purpose in order to meet his own political objectives. That is disgraceful behaviour by a Minister. That is particularly disgraceful when one is talking about the health of young New Zealanders. Hundreds and thousands of young New Zealanders are put at risk by Mr Anderton because of his failure to properly regulate and control BZP when he could have done so. 
Now that problem has been exacerbated by his continual perpetuation of the myth that prohibition will eliminate these drugs from our society. He has now handed over that control to people who cannot be trusted with the health of our young New Zealanders. 
Hone Harawira 
: Abdicated his responsibility. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: My colleague Hone Harawira is quite right. He has abdicated his responsibility. There is no justification for that position. There is no evidence for that position. It is irrational to take that position. But because this is an issue about drugs for some reason it is OK for the Government through Minister Anderton to take irrational positions on this issue and to put the lives and the health of young New Zealanders at risk. 
Drugs are not so very important and Mr Anderton should be made aware of this. Drugs are not the most important thing in the world. But drug policy is a litmus test for political parties. Like the issue of law and order drug issues are used for electioneering purposes and this is one of those issues. Jim Anderton will go out on the hustings and say that he has protected our young people but he has failed them—for electioneering purposes. To meet his own personal desires whatever they may be Mr Anderton has failed our young people failed our country and failed our communities. He is a disgrace. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Tena koe. Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to congratulate the previous speaker on raising a very valid point about the role of the Minister in protecting society and pointing out his abdication of that responsibility. What has popped up its ugly little head again in this House of hypocrisy our Parliament of pretence and our very own den of double standards? Why it is none other than the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. It is known in some circles as Jim Anderton’s “I’m Dull and Boring (And If I Can’t Be Happy Then Neither Can You Be Happy) Bill” and in other circles as the “They Ain’t Killing Anyone (Let’s Ban Party Pills Because We’re Not Getting Any Money off Them But Let’s Allow Alcohol and Cigarettes to Continue to Be Legal Because Although They Are Killing Our Kids by the Thousands Every Year We Get Heaps of Money off Them Through Taxation) Bill”. 
One hundred years ago Sir Maui Pomare said: “Our effort will be in the direction of the eradication of all things which ensure the demoralisation and decay of the Maori—drunkenness smoking gambling sanitation diseases of animals—all come within the scope of the new crusade. In a word we seek the regeneration of the Maori and unless we effect that our race is doomed. We will do it we must.” That statement of intent is a crusade that the Maori Party is also dedicated to and I repeat those words: “… we seek the regeneration of the Maori and unless we effect that our race is doomed.” We too reject the way in which alcohol tobacco and gambling are killing our people. 
The research has been done and the facts are clear. Alcohol tobacco and gambling are demoralising our people and killing our families. That is the difference between an addiction to those substances and using party pills. Forests have been cut down to detail the evidence the data and the research on the death destruction and family mayhem caused by alcohol tobacco and gambling. But benzylpiperazine (BZP) and party pills? No mate—not even. Nowhere near enough evidence has been produced to justify this Draconian ban on party pills and nowhere near enough thought has been given to alternative ways of handling them. This bill aims to make it illegal to possess use sell supply import export and manufacture BZP although there is no evidence that party pills kill and maim thousands of New Zealanders every year in the way that alcohol and tobacco do—every single year; thousands upon thousands of New Zealanders. 
To get a bit more background I looked over a paper written by a whanaunga of mine Dr Lance O’Sullivan of Ngati Hau. He is currently employed at Te Hauora o Te Hiku o Te Ika the first accredited Maori health provider in the country. He talked about seeing the impact of alcohol abuse on whanau: the domestic violence the unwanted pregnancies the broken families the fatal driving accidents the young men and women with heart and liver diseases and the depression affecting the older generations. This is the day-to-day reality of a legal but lethal drug that this legislature has allowed to ravage our Maori communities for more than 100 years. Even our tupuna thought so badly of the stuff that they called it waipiro—quite literally stinking rotting water. And Dr O’Sullivan does not need to write another paper in order for us to know that tobacco is doing even more damage than alcohol does. 
The Maori Party caucus is new but we have already built up quite a good reputation in the campaigns against tobacco and P and the destructive effects of alcohol and gambling on Maori communities. We have come from and we continue to live within those very communities and we know what we are talking about when we talk about the effects of alcohol tobacco and gambling. We would laugh at the ridiculous efforts being made to ban party pills except that we are still crying at the lack of attention being given to the addictions that still kill thousands of New Zealanders Maori and Pakeha every single year. Let me be clear again. The Maori Party is opposed to harmful drugs including alcohol and tobacco. We are equally committed to stopping substance abuse. But just because it is election year that does not mean we should pander to prejudice. 
Let us drop the scaremongering and get to the facts. Following on from a 2007 risk assessment report by the scientific committee of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction on the risks of BZP last week the centre called upon member States to take measures “appropriate to the relatively low risks of the substance”. Those eight member States Belgium Denmark Estonia Greece Italy Lithuania Malta and Sweden already regulate BZP under appropriate legislation. We can contrast that with the other statistics of death. Tobacco smoking kills more than 4600 New Zealanders every year. By 2020 tobacco will kill 10 million people every year worldwide; that is one person every 8 seconds. Thirty percent of young smokers will eventually be killed by tobacco. And here is one for members: tobacco kills more people than the combined number of deaths from alcohol drugs murder suicide road crashes air crashes poisoning drowning fires falls lightning and electrocution. 
The Victoria University of Wellington Students Association members of which would be prime users of party pills supports the increased regulation and control of the manufacturers of party pills who have targeted the student body through the commercial marketing and on-campus promotion of their products as “energy supplements” with “medicinal properties” and “life-enhancing effects” or—the most bizarre claim of all—a claim that their pills are “replacement brain-fuel”. The students association says that the industry is the one that should be targeted not the users and that reasonable standards should be imposed on the manufacture distribution labelling and advertising of party pills. Yet for all the facts it would appear that National and Labour are committed to this ban on party pills. 
The facts we have gathered reinforce our view the Maori Party view expressed in the minority report in the Health Committee’s report on the bill that a strictly enforced strongly regulated regime with tighter controls tighter regulations health warning labels controlled access and quality and quantity controls is a far better first step than prohibition. The Maori Party remains staunchly opposed to this bill and passionately in support of the call to seek the regeneration of our whanau our hapu and our iwi through dedicated efforts to restore our health and well-being. Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party like the previous two speakers has made it very clear through the progress of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill that we oppose it and oppose it vigorously. I congratulate the two previous speakers Hone Harawira from the Maori Party and Metiria Turei of the Greens because they are the voices of common sense in our Parliament today. 
I think we need to be very careful about what we think we can achieve in this Parliament. As politicians I feel that we frequently overestimate the effect of lawmaking in matters such as this. I will not go over the discussion on prohibition again or the alcohol and tobacco debate but they are very pertinent points. They have already been made very succinctly and well. 
We should make no bones about it: prohibition does not work. It has been tried time and time again with absolutely no effect and all it results in is a thriving black market where substances that are theoretically bad for us reach such inflated prices that they create havoc amongst our communities. That is what we as politicians are contemplating putting into place again today. Alcohol and tobacco are the drugs of choice of many people. They are far more dangerous than many other substances we are planning to ban and that will be the case today with the banning of benzylpiperazine (BZP). 
BZP is already regulated and quite heavily. I have followed the progress of this issue from my introduction to Parliament in 2002. It was shortly after that time that the question arose as to how much BZP should be regulated. In 2002 BZP was not regulated. It was just emerging as a drug of choice for many of our young people. The history is quite interesting. BZP was developed in the 1950s as an anti-worm medication. It was shown to be totally ineffective in that regard but the side effects of the medication were shown to produce an effect that some people who took the medication liked and they then used it for that purpose only. 
When we bring bills of this nature to Parliament what exactly is the problem we are trying to solve? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. I have not actually heard that question answered in this Parliament today by any of the parties supporting this legislation. I ask them again before they vote on this bill what the problem is that we are trying to solve. If someone can stand up and tell me the answer to that question then I am prepared to reconsider our stance but I do not think that anybody can. 
All I hear from the Labour members and Jim Anderton are arguments for putting forward this bill in an election year. I think that they are trying to capitalise on the fact that they are pandering to the fears of parents who have concerns about what their children take and not just about alcohol. In fact those members downplay the effects of alcohol and tobacco and focus instead on pills like BZP party pills. So this bill is a bit like the tagging legislation in many respects. Those members are trying to pander to the fear of people in return for a vote in election year. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What would you do—zip it? 
HEATHER ROY 
: Mr Cosgrove should make no bones about what I would do. I tell Mr Cosgrove that I would leave BZP exactly where it is—as an R18 classification—and I would insist that the law that exists at the moment the regulation in place was properly policed. We say to our 18-year-olds that they are old enough to vote and to go off to war but that they are not old enough to say what should go into their bodies or whether they should have a drink or go and buy a spray-can. [ 
Interruption 
] We could get started on the boy-racer legislation I suppose but I think that it was only the Greens and ACT that took a sensible line on that issue as well. But I will not be diverted by that. 
The law as it exists at the moment is perfectly adequate—that is to have an R18 classification on BZP tablets which is then policed effectively. What will happen next? Everybody knows that chemists are very clever people and they are all ready to go. As soon as BZP is banned the next wave of substances which are not yet illegal will come on to the market and replace it. Mr Cosgrove says they have an answer for that. He will just bring forward a bill every time a new substance comes in. A new bill will come to Parliament and we will ban the next substance. The next one will be developed and we will ban that one too. Then the next one will be developed and we will ban that too. Is that not effective lawmaking! I did not come to Parliament to do that. I came to Parliament to produce a country that I am proud to leave to my children and grandchildren. This sort of lawmaking does not fall into that category. 
What will happen next? Well we are actually empowering the gangs today. We are giving them the ability to become richer and more powerful. We hear all about the gangs from New Zealand First and Labour and we hear about what Labour will do to stem the gang culture. But what we are doing today is empowering the gangs to make more money. The way to get rid of gangs is to get rid of prohibition because it is actually the prohibition that enriches the gangs gives them money and leads to the violence that we see so much of in New Zealand today. If we really want to have an effect as politicians then that is exactly what we would do—we would get rid of prohibition. Those members shouting at me from the other side of the House know I am right. They will not stand up and say I am wrong because they know that what I am saying is right. 
Metiria Turei raised the issue that the Minister is acting irrationally—and he is. He is confused in his thinking if he thinks that banning these substances will make one jot of difference to the problems that again still have not been articulated. He should take stock of what he is doing today. He should take stock of the fact that this will not affect one thing. Our young people will still take BZP tablets or they will find something else to take. 
Why is no party here today saying that this bill will be the answer to the problem for all our young people? Why are no members standing up here and saying: “Actually alcohol is a problem. Why don’t we ban that?”. The reason is that they all enjoy their glass of wine and are not prepared to ban it because they do not want to forgo it themselves. The real answer of course is that banning alcohol would not have any effect either. We should be under no illusions about the dangers and illnesses that alcohol and tobacco cause. Today we are hearing irrational arguments for measures that will be totally ineffective. 
ACT opposes this bill and opposes it rationally for all the reasons I have just outlined. We will not see any improvement in youth behaviour as a result of this bill today. All we will see is the production of more and more chemical substances that may or may not do harm to our young people. Those substances will be promoted and the gangs will have even more power and become wealthier than they are now because of a silly irrational law which I am ashamed we are passing today. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Before I deal with the issue in respect of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill which I wholeheartedly support I will highlight one of the things the ACT member Heather Roy said. Of course the ACT party believes in a free market and in live and let live. If we followed the ACT party prescription for everything and its view of the world then maybe we would legalise every drug—LSD crack cocaine the lot. Where would it stop if we were to follow ACT’s belief that we live and let live and have no rules? 
That silly member who scurries around the Chamber said that benzylpiperazine (BZP) was a medication. I will read out statistics from an eminent medical practitioner in my area Dr Paul Gee who is an accident and emergency specialist in Christchurch Hospital. He led a charge—and I congratulate him on it—to prove to silly people like the previous speaker that this stuff should be banned and that it is bad. Why? Because it is harmful. It is not a medication. I take it that the previous member has no medical qualifications. 
Paul Gee’s research shows that between 1 April 2005 and 1 September 2005—a 5-month period—61 patients presented on 80 occasions at the accident and emergency department of Christchurch Hospital. Those patients were experiencing a number of symptoms. I do not know whether the member alluded to any of them. Interestingly 15 toxic seizures were recorded and two patients suffered life-threatening toxicity. The findings of the study state: “The results of this study indicate that BZP can cause unpredictable and serious toxicity in some individuals.” 
I do not know what planet the previous speaker is on or what stratosphere she orbits in her spare time but I say that I would trust the evidence of a medical practitioner in an accident and emergency department before I would listen to the claptrap we just heard when a member of Parliament stood up and said that BZP is medication. I support Jim Anderton’s view of the world on this issue. We have to remember that BZP was developed by one Matt Bowden—the sort of godfather of party pills—who interestingly I am told is or was represented at an exorbitant cost by the same ethical lawyers and expensive lobbyists whom the Real Estate Institute is now being represented by. Members should work that one out. 
Let us be clear about BZP. It is a very sophisticated device. It is a pill for kids. That is whom it targets. That is whom it targets in my electorate.  
Hone Harawira 
: Same with cigarettes. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: That member over there Mr Harawira made some very smart comments. I say that respectfully. He made some good points. He said that alcohol and tobacco are legal drugs that do a lot of harm. I accept that. I accept that absolutely. But equally I say to that member that having two bad drugs in the market place does not mean we should add to the list. If we follow that thesis—as I asked that genius from the ACT party whose leader as we speak may well be on BZP—then where do we stop? The ACT party may say “Legalise everything. Who cares? Live and let live.” We cannot get a handle on people using LSD so the ACT party may say we should legalise it. 
I do not subscribe to that point of view; I subscribe to the point of view of the constituent in my electorate who started a petition the day after the Herbal Heaven shop opened in Kaiapoi which was about a week before the last election. That person does not want to be named because of some of the disreputable folk who are involved in that industry. I take advice from the police the acting principal at Kaiapoi High School at that time drug rehab folk from the Salvation Army and others who convene meetings at Kaiapoi High School to reassure parents and educate parents to educate their kids.  
There are members who say we cannot legislate for everything and that it is not Parliament’s place to do so. I say this: there are those who look at this place and say that what we do counts. There are those who look at this place and say that if the intent of Parliament is such and the lawmakers say it is OK then it must be OK. What we do in this place does count. People look and ask what the intent of Parliament was. 
I say to the ACT member that she is right on one count: the industry is developing the next generation of party pills. We had a public admission from the godfather of the industry who has made millions off the back of young people that the industry is trialling the next generation of party pills which mimic Ecstasy. What a genius that person is. Would we want a party pill that mimics an illicit drug? What a disreputable thing that is. 
Mr Anderton has proposed that we change the onus so that instead of the Crown and the taxpayer having to prove that some substance on the market brought in by those who want to make millions off the back of our kids is safe the manufacturer must prove that it is safe and pay for that proof. It is the reverse onus of proof. I believe that is a very logical position to be in. 
I thank the communities in my patch and around the country that stood up and said they were not having a bar of this. I am one politician who says that we should draw some lines in the sand and we should say when things are bad otherwise the ACT party member’s thesis of life is the law of the jungle. I think it was the ACT member who said that we have not had any deaths yet. I would have thought the smart thing to do is to try to provide prevention not to have a reaction that says: “Hey suddenly we have had a death. We should do something about it.” 
Hone Harawira 
: 4500 every year from cigarettes. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: As I said to Mr Harawira just because we already have two bad drugs on the market it does not mean we should add more. We have had those two drugs for centuries—namely alcohol and tobacco—and maybe if we knew then what we know now about the physical and mental effects of those drugs over generations we may not have embarked on the legal reforms we have in place now. But that is no excuse to add to the list. I thank people like Dr Paul Gee and people in the various communities around the country because on evidence they have proved that this substance will have and does have harmful effects especially on our young people. 
I think it was Jacqui Dean who had a crack at Mr Anderton and continues to do so by saying that he took 2 years to do this but on the other hand Opposition members say that we should not have knee-jerk reactions—and I agree with that. So what is the process for one who was a member of the ministerial drug council committee? Mr Anderton quite logically went and got medical practitioners and scientists. Those people are not the sort of bush doctor or witch doctor we had talking from the ACT party but medical practitioners and scientists. He instructed them to go away and examine the level of danger this substance may or may not cause. I would have thought that was a logical thing to do. Then the scientists and the practising medical folk came back to advise Mr Anderton on an appropriate course of action. 
I would have thought that was a logical thing to do. That takes time because one should exhaustively test. It is true that we should not ban everything that is different; we should get rid of only those things that are harmful and we should manage around that situation. I say to Jacqui Dean that it was a nice cheap shot on the waka a nice little political statement but it does not hold water in logic. 
In Papanui a shop called Jordy’s opened with a wonderful combination special where for cheap rates people could buy party pills samurai swords and BB guns if they bought them all at once. What a cracker that was. It was right next door to my electorate office in Papanui. I am pleased to say that whoever owned Jordy’s saw the writing on the wall packed up and left. 
I hope that Mr Terry Brown that bastion of moral fortitude who lives in Kaiapoi and has some association with the Herbal Heaven shop there will go and sell shoes tennis racquets or some legal thing to make his money. I hope that he will shut his shop or change his product. For him the writing is on the wall; it is game over. 
I think today that we have listened as a Parliament to our communities both as local members and as a collective Parliament. We have listened and we have responded logically. We have the scientific evidence we have done the testing and we have a plan in place not only to have this substance removed from the market but also quite logically to take off the market other similar substances that are there purely to make money. Let us be clear about it. Making money is the only reason for doing it. It is not to prevent harm or to stop people going on to harder drugs—how silly is that? The science has disproved it; those substances are there to make money. Future-proofing is also proposed so that the manufacturers will have to prove that their products are safe before they are legalised. 
For once I think that the people who gathered in the Kaiapoi High School hall and in people’s homes and the mothers and fathers who were very concerned about this have finally had a bit of a victory today. Maybe those with the live and let live attitude where anything goes—those who wave the white flag of surrender and say: “Because we cannot get a handle on it let us forget about it and have the law of the jungle.”—have had a loss today. I am gratified by that. I support this legislation. It is a great day for the battlers in our community. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 The National Party is supporting the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. The bill seeks to change the classification of benzylpiperazine (BZP) from a class D to a class C1 drug and also seeks to provide a 6-month amnesty for the drug. 
The bill has been a long time coming and I congratulate my colleague Jacqui Dean on keeping the pressure on. It is great that this bill will finally be passed today. BZP has already been banned in the United States Japan Australia Denmark and Sweden. In March 2007 the UK regulator warned that selling pills that contain BZP was illegal and that people should not take these pills as there were considerable health risks. The World Anti-Doping Agency has banned BZP in competitive sport. With the passage of this bill today we are simply getting into step with the rest of the world. 
I was part of the Health Committee that heard the various submissions from the public. There were 52 submissions 16 of which were oral submissions. They came from a whole variety of groups ranging from party pill manufacturers and the party pill industry to researchers community groups individuals and our own National MP Jacqui Dean. Fourteen submissions supported the bill and 38 were opposed. 
The Health Committee placed a lot of weight on the evidence of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs which assessed BZP in 2004 and 2006. In 2004 it recommended that BZP should be regulated but in 2006 the committee reviewed further information and felt that the new studies confirmed that in fact BZP had caused potentially fatal seizures. The committee classed it as causing moderate harm and recommended the change of classification to C1. The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs again reassessed BZP in May last year and reaffirmed its position that it should be a class C1 drug. 
The Health Committee heard three petitions in conjunction with the bill: two were in support of the bill—one from my own colleague Jacqui Dean—and the third one was against it. The committee heard many many arguments that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs had not assessed BZP thoroughly or that it had not defined what constitutes a moderate risk and so forth. But we were reassured that this was not the case; in fact the deliberations of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs were very thorough. There were concerns regarding the robustness of the research that was presented to the Health Committee but we were reassured again that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs had looked at this extensively and the assessment was thorough and not biased at all. 
There was a lot of concern over public implications of BZP. Opponents took the opportunity to cite alcohol and cigarettes as a comparison and they have been used as examples today. A number cited concerns that prohibition would drive the industry underground and gangs would flourish and argued that the use of BZP reduced the demand for dangerous drugs like P and the use of alcohol. In the first reading of the bill my colleague Jacqui Dean elaborated on the social consequences of BZP continuing to be sold legally in New Zealand. She quite rightly pointed out that the regulation of BZP has not decreased the use of drugs like P as evidenced by the increase in the number of P laboratory busts that have occurred recently. 
There is clear evidence that BZP is a gateway drug. BZP pills are very colourful-looking pills designed to attract youth and indeed they have a certain appeal to younger children. At the end of the day we do not know what the downstream effects of these party pills are; they are very new and I say to members that we should be taking a responsible stance in the face of uncertainty in order to protect our youth and our children in the future. The argument was used in the Health Committee that alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous and should be illegal. But the fact is that both those products have been around for hundreds and hundreds of years and both are controlled by their own legislative frameworks. I cannot help but go back to my earlier comments that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs assessed BZP not once not twice but three times very thoroughly and very carefully and it has reaffirmed its position not once but twice that BZP should be a class C1 drug and that it causes moderate harm. Members of the advisory committee are experts and it would be a very silly Ministry of Health or Minister who ignored their advice. 
I would like to acknowledge Paul Hutchison who attempted to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that proposed that the legislation should be reviewed in 2 years and 6 months’ time. That seemed a very sensible Supplementary Order Paper and it is regrettable that it was not accepted at the time. The National Party listened to all the arguments and we listened to my colleague Jacqui Dean who has been passionate about this issue since she became an MP. We support the arguments and we support the passage of this bill. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a third time. 
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) 
In Committee 
Part 1 agreed to.  
Part 2 agreed to.  
Part 3 agreed to.  
Part 4 agreed to.  
Part 5 agreed to.  
Part 6 agreed to.  
Part 7 agreed to.  
Part 8 agreed to.  
Part 9 agreed to.  
Part 10 agreed to.  
Part 11 agreed to.  
Part 12 agreed to.  
Part 13 agreed to.  
Part 14 agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
The Committee divided the bill into the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 3) the Cadastral Survey Amendment Bill (No 2) the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill (No 2) the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 4) the Fisheries Amendment Bill Historic Places Amendment Bill (No 2) the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 2) the National Parks Amendment Bill the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 4) the Reserves Amendment Bill Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Veterinarians Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper186. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2); and Bills Therefrom 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Biosecurity Amendment Bill (No 3) the Cadastral Survey Amendment Bill (No 2) the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill (No 2) the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 4) the Fisheries Amendment Bill the Historic Places Amendment Bill (No 2) the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 2) the National Parks Amendment Bill the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill the Radiocommunications Amendment Bill (No 4) the Reserves Amendment Bill the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Veterinarians Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. 
I would like to take this opportunity to thank members of the Government Administration Committee who have been instrumental in the passage of this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). I would also like to place on record my gratitude to the officials who work very hard on Statutes Amendment bills. They are an important vehicle. They cover a wide range of subject matters and some of them involve some unique challenges. This particular bill contained amendments to some 14 Acts covering subject areas as diverse as biosecurity fisheries district courts the regulations of veterinarians and the criminal law. 
I guess that although statutes contained in Statutes Amendment bills do not by their nature address significant policy issues the bills do provide a regular vehicle for minor non-controversial and technical amendments required to keep our statute book up to date. Of course none of these amendments would have received the necessary priority in the House if they were stand-alone measures. However gathered together in a Statutes Amendment Bill they assist in achieving an aim of all parliamentarians and that is to keep the law up to date accurate and user-friendly. 
I would again like to thank committee members and members of the House tonight for all their time and effort and again I acknowledge the many officials who have contributed to the passage of this legislation. I commend these bills to the House. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I rise again in support of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). As the Minister of Commerce spelt out in the second reading the bill went to the Government Administration Committee for consideration. 
There was one interesting submission that I would like to briefly touch on. It came from a Wellington-based lawyer Graham Edgeler who raised a concern about the amendment in clause 27 of Part 7—which is the part that modifies the Historic Places Act 1993—that was potentially on the cusp of what would have an impact in a Statutes Amendment Bill. He said he was a person interested in legislation and procedure and he raised with the committee that he considered it was stepping slightly over the line. The committee took advice on that and it was our conclusion that it did not but that it did get close to it. I raise that with the Minister in the House today. 
Mr Edgeler said that Statutes Amendment bills are legislative procedures and although they involve the same parliamentary scrutiny as other laws they necessarily involve a lesser degree of public scrutiny. He is right about that. It is therefore important that an amendment advanced through a Statutes Amendment Bill does not offend against important rule-of-law principles such as accessibility of the law particularly where the amended statute is unlikely to be reprinted as a result of the changes. What does that mean? The select committee needed to find that out. We sought advice from a range of advisers on that and as I said before satisfied ourselves that it does fit within the statutes amendment ambit given that they are omnibus bills that are intended to amend minor legislative misprints to fix up slightly technical redrafts and suchlike. In this case it probably did get very close to not meeting those criteria but that said we accepted that the intent of the bill was just a minor adjustment and so it went. 
The legislation this amends that I took a particular interest in was the Biosecurity Act 1993. I am the National spokesman on the biosecurity portfolio. I found that the amendment was useful and sensible because it gives the deputy chief technical officer the power to appoint inspectors authorised persons or accredited persons when that is necessary and in a timely fashion. That was a weakness in the old Act and there have been occasions when that weakness has caused concern for a number of people so I am pleased to see that happen. 
A number of other Acts have also been amended such as the Cadastral Survey Act the Fisheries Act 1996 and the Veterinarians Act. The list goes on and on and includes as I mentioned before the Historic Places Act the Misuse of Drugs Act the National Parks Act the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act the Radiocommunications Act the Reserves Act and the Summary Proceedings Act. That is a large number of Acts—14 I think—which is not something we should take too lightly. In its deliberations the select committee decided that they all met the criteria of a Statutes Amendment Bill and we were happy to support it. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I will take a very brief call because I understand that we want the vote to be taken before the adjournment tonight. I must say as a lawyer member of this place that I do not really tolerate this kind of stuff with much ease. I think a lot of legislative drafting could be better than it is. I do not think it reflects very well on this House that from time to time we have to pass bills such as the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) because of sloppy work done in the past. 
I refer for example to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995 where reference to the term “video record” was changed to incorporate the passage of the Evidence Act 2006. How it is beyond the wit of people to deal with that kind of issue which is a very straightforward issue simply escapes me. But there we have it. Every year we seem to pass this kind of legislation to patch up sloppiness. It has been done for years and it will be done for a long time— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It was 1995. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Minister says in that plaintive voice of hers that it was 1995. The point I am trying to make is that when the Evidence Bill was going through this matter should have been dealt with. It is sloppy drafting and the Minister should be disgusted with herself. 
The other point I will make is that—[ 
Interruption 
] We will go beyond 6 o’clock if the Minister interjects on me. I will make one point and it is a very serious point to put the history right because of that extraordinary revisionist speech made by one of Labour’s trade union members Darien Fenton—mind you they are all trade union members these days. That speech tried to rewrite history in relation to Part 3 which deals with the Crimes Act 1961. That extraordinary speech for Mr Hughes’ benefit was all about how the Labour Party was responsible for getting rid of the death penalty in this country. That is simply wrong. Even in a speech to deal with this kind of minor stuff in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) Labour tries to rewrite history. Labour members are like cancer: they never sleep. 
Let the record show that the death penalty in New Zealand was done away with as a result of the sterling efforts of the former member for Invercargill the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice in Sir Keith Holyoake’s Cabinet—for Mr Hughes’ benefit—the Hon Ralph Hanan. That is the reality of the matter. The Labour Party under Walter Nash never had anything to do with it. The last execution was under Walter Nash’s premiership. So I cannot understand how in the context of a debate on this kind of issue we have Labour trying to rewrite history. 
It is like the issue—and I must be very careful not to go on too long—of privatisation because Labour members stand in this House in a shameless manner and go on and on about the dreadful 1990s. They forget of course that they were the ones who privatised Telecom and Air New Zealand. But they never stop. 
I ask Labour members to please deal with the facts as they are. I do not want to sound like Thomas Gradgrind but I ask Labour members to please give me the facts and spare me the kind of ludicrous rubbish that we had from Darien Fenton the other night. With those comments in mind and having corrected the record as to who abolished the death penalty I will take my leave. 
Bills read a third time. 
The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.