Volume 662 Week 39 - Thursday 22 April 2010 
Volume 662 Week 39 - Thursday 22 April 2010 
[Volume:662;Page:10389] 
Thursday 22 April 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is the Government’s intention when the House resumes next week to advance the Committee stage of the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Bill the Education Amendment Bill and other bills on the Order Paper. It is expected that there may be other introductions during the week. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Could the Leader of the House advise the House whether any of the legislation for introduction he referred to falls out of the Government’s decision to accede to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and whether there will be any new Government legislation as a result of signing up to that declaration? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Despite the Opposition’s wanting to scratch at the bottom of a barrel to find some interesting aspect to that particular decision by the Government the answer is that all legislation introduced into this House by this Government is for the betterment of all people in New Zealand. 
Questions to Ministers 
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—Government Support 
1. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: On what date did Cabinet decide to support the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and what did Cabinet believe the impact of such a decision would be? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Cabinet made the decision to support the declaration on 22 March. The statements made to this House and to the UN accurately reflect Cabinet’s view that this is a non-binding aspirational document. The Government has affirmed that New Zealand’s existing legal and constitutional frameworks will define the bounds of the influence of the declaration. 
Hon Annette King 
: If Cabinet agreed to ratify the UN declaration on 22 March was it open and transparent of him to tell media in Canada on 14 April when asked whether New Zealand would sign the declaration: “I think you’re a little bit ahead of yourself. From the New Zealand perspective it’s true we’ve been looking and working on ways that we might adopt the declaration but we haven’t made an announcement and at least or until we do wouldn’t necessarily count your chickens.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I make two points—[ 
Interruption 
] Yeah—a funky question. The Government has been quite open about the fact that it has been considering affirming the declaration. In fact the Prime Minister has been talking about it since April 2009 and he correctly said no announcement had been made. 
Hon Annette King 
: If the declaration which New Zealand has now ratified is symbolic and will not result in a lot of change as he has claimed was Sir Eddie Durie who is a former Waitangi Tribunal chairman and High Court judge and a man considered to be a high-powered legal expert wrong when he stated yesterday that it had important implications for the Office of Treaty Settlements the Crown Forestry Rental Trust and the Waitangi Tribunal and that “Important statements of principle established through international negotiation … filter into the law in time”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Eddie Durie is known for the vein of his opinions on these matters. 
Hon Annette King 
: Vagaries? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well the general direction of his opinion is always pretty predictable. What he said today on the radio was “… it is not legally binding it’s not going to tie us up” and he is absolutely correct about that. 
Chris Tremain 
: Has the Prime Minister seen any contradictory reports on the declaration? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I have. The Hon Phil Goff has said “This is a declaration that says you have to restore all land that was once owned by indigenous people.” The Hon Trevor Mallard said on the same day “there is nothing in it at all for Maori.” But of course what really matters is what the Hon David Cunliffe thinks and we have not heard from him yet. 
Hon Annette King 
: If the ratification of the declaration is aspirational and symbolic as the Prime Minister has repeatedly stated why 2 days later has the first claim to the UN under article 32 of the declaration been lodged by the hapu from the Ngapuhi tribe seeking the return of 2490 acres of land known as the Treaty grounds at the Bay of Islands and does he agree with the tribal leader who says that if the land is not returned the New Zealand Government will be exposed in front of the international community and lose credibility? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Labour Party thinks so much of Mr David Rankin who lodged that claim that it would not go near Waitangi for years. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member asked a question and the answer has nothing to do with the Labour Party. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes it does. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister should answer the question before he makes any comment about the Labour Party if at all. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Part of the answer to the question— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to draw your attention to something. I know you were looking in the direction of the Government as you were speaking to it but as you were directing the Acting Prime Minister and saying that matter had nothing to do with the Labour Party he said “Yes it does.” If we did that we would be ordered out of here. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member that I did not particularly note that but I remind members that when I am on my feet members will not comment interject or say anything. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The so-called claim by Mr David Rankin who I think is well known to all of us cannot be a claim. It is completely irrelevant and I would advise him not to waste the price of a postage stamp on it. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he concur with the Attorney-General who said today that Maori who make claims about the impact of the ratification of the declaration are “fantasists and bush lawyers” and are Eddie Durie a former High Court judge Tuhoe leader Tamati Kruger and former Maori Language Commission commissioner Haami Piripi to be counted in this group? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: If they believed that making a claim under the declaration was some kind of useful exercise then the Attorney-General is absolutely correct. I say to claimants that it is a total waste of time to imagine that they can make some kind of claim under this declaration. The Government has a framework in place for dealing with Treaty of Waitangi claims and we are dealing with them much more successfully than the previous Labour Government ever did. 
Hon Annette King 
: Who met the expenses of Te Ururoa Flavell a backbench member of the Maori Party to be at the ratification of the declaration in New York on Tuesday? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is quite entitled to ask detailed questions about those expenses. As I understand it they were met by the Maori Party. 
Budget 2010—Value for Taxpayers and Better Public Services 
2. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How will the Budget next month ensure Government spending delivers value for taxpayers and better public services for New Zealanders? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Budget next month will continue to undo the damage done by the previous Government to public finances when it squandered the benefits of a growing economy on ineffective services and a bloated Public Service. We plan to redirect another $1.8 billion of lower-quality Government spending between now and 2014 into higher-priority initiatives and better front-line services. We are taking a significant sum of money from existing unnecessary and ineffective services so we can have better health-care and better education and keep New Zealanders safe. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How will the Government ensure that it continues to manage its finances in a responsible way on behalf of taxpayers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government signalled last year that there would be a $1.1 billion new operating allowance for Budget 2010. I am pleased to say that the Government services have come to the task with some readiness and we will be able to announce a Budget that lives within the $1.1 billion annual operating surplus. This will help us return to Budget surpluses as quickly as possible. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does his definition of low-quality spending include thousands of elderly in his own electorate who cannot get home help? Does it include dying patients in the Manawatu losing intensive rehabilitation services? Does it include $2 million cut from mental health services in Nelson? Does it include front-line biosecurity jobs or police cars to get cops to crime? Or does he mean tax cuts for his rich mates and housing allowances for politicians? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is the kind of exaggeration and false outrage that propelled Government spending under Labour to record high levels of funding for record low levels of service. I might say to that member that his party leader yesterday used an example of an individual in this House that completely misrepresented the facts. That party should be careful before it exploits older people whose situation is not how it was described in this House. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What implications does his responsible approach have for Government agencies? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Most Government agencies will receive no Budget increases over the next 3 or 4 years as the Government moves to get back into surplus as soon as possible. This will remain the case in this Budget. We have been surprised at just how much low-value spending the last Government put in place because it has enabled Government agencies now for 2 years in a row to reprioritise billions of dollars over the next 3 or 4 years. 
Stuart Nash 
: How will slashing $1.8 billion of Government spending and cutting taxes for the 8 percent of Kiwis on the top tax rate while delivering little if anything for the 75 percent of Kiwis earning below the average wage deliver growth-enhancing change for every New Zealander? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That illustrates neatly the reasons why the electorate threw out the Labour Government because its members cannot tell the difference between wasting— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In response to my colleague’s question about National policy the Minister has once again attempted to portray the question as being about Labour policy. In response to my earlier question about policy decisions made in this term of this Government he again referred all in his answer to Labour. He will either address the question on the basis of a grown-up approach to his own responsibilities— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member was on reasonable ground until that point. But his objection to the answer I think was reasonably well founded. I say to the Minister that the question asked by Stuart Nash was a fair question—[ 
Interruption 
] I warn the Minister of Finance that he may differ in view but while I am on my feet he is not to question me. As far as I am concerned it was a fair question and does not deserve an answer that seeks to ridicule the Labour Party. The question deserves an answer and as we all know in this place some political shots are perfectly normal and acceptable but to start an answer with saying that the question demonstrates that the member’s party does not understand something is not a reasonable way to start answering a question. It was a reasonable question. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That raises the question as to how someone who is a Minister is supposed to answer a question that is as hypothetically proposed as the member’s question was. It is not the policy of this Government as he is claiming because those announcements if they are to be made have not been made— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient. The Hon Gerry Brownlee has given a very good answer: all a Minister needs to do is to say that decisions have not been made and therefore it is a hypothetical situation. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The decisions have not been made and that is a hypothetical situation. But I can tell the member that this Government does not believe what the previous Labour Government believed which was that if a dollar was spent that was the point. We actually want to provide effective services for people not just crank up Government spending at the expense of taxpayers. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I imagine you already know what the point of order is. The Minister just clearly cannot help himself can he? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I made the point sufficiently clear in requiring the Minister to answer the question asked and I think we should leave the matter at that point. 
Rahui Katene 
: How will the Budget enable low-income New Zealanders to cope with the exorbitant price increases in basic foods such as butter cheese and milk with butter having risen more than 30 percent in price cheese being 9.2 percent more expensive than it was at the end of last year and milk having a 6.3 percent increase in price? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Budget will include the allocation of many hundreds of millions of dollars for the adjustments in income support to lower-income New Zealanders who are dependent on that support. The consumer price index takes into account all of the price changes they face and increases their income accordingly. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What alternative approaches to managing the Government’s finance is the Minister aware of? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We want to avoid the dangerously lopsided approach of the previous 5 years where Government spending grew by 50 percent at a time when the economy grew by 25 percent. We simply cannot continue growing Government spending at twice the rate of the growth in the economy. It is just not feasible; it does not matter how much Labour members want to believe it. 
Rahui Katene 
: Will the Minister support my bill on removing GST from healthy food which was pulled from the ballot today and which is about getting families ahead and helping them to eat healthily? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has made its position clear about GST: it does not intend to provide exemptions either now or in the tax package. 
Health Services—Minister’s Statements 
3. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by all his statements on health services? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes including the fact that the Labour Government left district health boards delivering over $150 million of unfunded health services including the MidCentral District Health Board providing around $10 million in services that her Government did not fund. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What explanation can he offer to the Greater Auckland Integrated Health Network which has now quit the planned integrated family health centres saying that despite their being central to the National Government’s restructuring of primary health care it has totally given up on creating them because his Government is offering no money to help set them up? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The member is well aware that the Government believes that integrated family health centres will be developed by the private sector. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: How do his statements tally with the  
Wanganui Chronicle 
 report that half the people in Wanganui who are waiting to have ultrasound scans have now been told to look elsewhere as the health board tries to clear a log-jammed waiting list? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: There is an issue in Wanganui resulting from the district health board’s difficulty in recruiting an additional sonographer. Some weeks ago I rang both the chair and the chief executive officer and I was advised that of the referrals all urgent and maternity cases are being dealt with. Those cases that fall outside the thresholds are being reviewed to see whether there is an alternative diagnostic approach or whether they still need such an assessment. This is not unusual and happened under the previous Government. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Why will Horowhenua and Otaki residents face a cut to the access they had to assessment treatment and rehabilitation beds at the Horowhenua Health Centre before the change of Government? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Only days ago members opposite were telling the people in that community that all the beds would be closed. In fact the proposal from the district health board is to maintain the same number of beds providing service for patients in Horowhenua. The challenges of the MidCentral District Health Board do not stem from any cuts to funding by the new Government. We have given the district health board an increase of $26 million this year or 7 percent which is one of the largest increases in the country and there will be a significant increase again in the Budget. The board’s challenge arises from Labour’s legacy of mismanagement leaving up to $10 million of unfunded services that the board is working hard to fill. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How is the Government filling the gap of over $150 million of unfunded services that it inherited from the previous Government? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Government is working hard with district health boards to deal with the legacy that we inherited of $150 million of unfunded services. This year the Government invested an extra $536 million in district health boards up and down the country and funding next year will put health on a record unprecedented by the failed crowd opposite. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: How is allowing MidCentral District Health Board to cut overnight—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member but I ask his front-bench colleagues—more than one of them—to please show some courtesy to their own colleague. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: How is allowing MidCentral District Health Board to cut overnight district nursing services better for people who are dying and wish to pass away with dignity in their own home? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: In relation to the overnight district nursing service I have spoken to the chair and senior management at MidCentral District Health Board and they assure me that alternative treatment plans will be put in place and people will be looked after. The service will also continue to work with the local Arohanui Hospice which received an increase of around $300000 extra this financial year. The district health board’s challenges do not stem from any reduction in funding by the new Government. We have given the district health board an extra $26 million this year. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does Bill English’s comment to Grey Power that he knew their pain about home support cuts because his wife forced him to clean their bathroom reflect his view of cuts to home support for the elderly as well? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Of course there will be difficult cases throughout this process but I say to the member that if there are cases she would like me to look at as a result of these changes I ask her to please forward them. I am advised that to date we have not received any advice from Ms Dyson on any of the cases she has raised in Parliament on this issue. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I seek leave to table a document from the MidCentral District Health Board that outlines a proposal to cut 24 assessment treatment and rehabilitation beds in response to a lack of funding from the National Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave to table a document asking for further financial support on behalf of Bill English for the cleaning of his house. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Broadband Roll-out—Rural Initiative Progress 
4. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What progress has the Government made on the Rural Broadband Initiative? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce that today the Government has commenced its tender process for the $300 million Rural Broadband Initiative which will boost Internet connectivity and growth in rural areas. It is unacceptable in the 21st century that around half of rural households are still coping with dial-up speeds. The calls for expressions of interest released today will assist the prioritisation of regions and the development of minimum open-access requirements and service levels ahead of the request for proposal stage which begins in a few months’ time. 
John Hayes 
: What improvements will rural communities see in their broadband connection as a result of the Government’s initiative? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Rural communities businesses and schools will see a significant improvement over the next 6 years. Ninety-three percent of rural schools will receive fibre enabling speeds of at least 100 megabits per second with the remainder to get speeds of at least 10 megabits per second. Over 80 percent of rural households will have access to broadband with speeds of at least 5 megabits per second with the remainder to have speeds of at least 1 megabit per second. This will allow rural people to access content and to use online services at the meaningful speeds currently enjoyed by their urban counterparts. 
Clare Curran 
: How does he respond to claims made by rural organisations that rural broadband is the poor cousin of urban broadband given that a just-released KPMG report notes that only 1.6 percent of the new money that the Government initially proposed to put into broadband and fibre networks was targeted towards the 13.8 percent of the population that lives in rural communities—approximately 585000 people—who between them grow process and export 66 percent of New Zealand’s merchandise exports? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am not sure how the member gets to that percentage level with $300 million worth of subsidies for rural areas versus $1.35 billion worth of investment in urban areas but I would make the following points. The different approaches of the urban and rural initiatives reflect the differing population densities of those communities and the different economics of supply. Therefore the urban programme is an investment whereas rural areas receive grants the urban programme will take longer and the urban and rural networks—thanks to the previous Government—are starting from different points. Many rural households are unfortunately still struggling on dial-up. This measure is an important step forward in developing rural broadband which was sadly neglected for a very long time under the previous Government. 
Clare Curran 
: I seek leave to table the report  
KPMG 
Agribusiness Agenda: The big opportunities and challenges facing New Zealand agriculture 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Liquor Industry Representatives—Meetings with Associate Minister of Health 
5. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: How many times in 2009 did he meet with representatives of the liquor industry and what were the dates of these meetings? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 During 2009 I met with representatives of the liquor industry four times: on 5 May on 27 May on 5 August and on 7 September. I also attended three functions sponsored by representatives of the wider liquor and hospitality industries. In contrast I met with officials and non - industry-related groups on a mere 41 occasions. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Did he have any concerns as the Associate Minister of Health in charge of the Government’s alcohol policy that there could be a perception that he was overindulgent to the liquor lobby by meeting with them four times in 4 months and being hosted by them on a further three occasions over 6 months? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I would have thought on the basis of the figures I gave that the concern that could be expressed was that I was paying less attention than I should to their interests. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: When his private health secretary wrote to Professor Doug Sellman Professor of Psychiatry and Addiction Medicine Director of the National Addiction Centre and expert psychiatrist on the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs that he would not agree to meet with Professor Sellman because “he was aware of his thoughts on alcohol” is he seriously suggesting that he was not aware of the thoughts of the alcohol industry when he met with them on seven occasions at the same time? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I am well aware of Professor Sellman’s views—indeed they were stated on television last night—that alcohol should be treated as a class B drug and that people should not drink at weddings. I meet with a lot of people on alcohol-related matters over a range of issues. I have met with people from the United Nations drug and alcohol programme and the World Health Organization’s global alcohol strategy. I have visited various treatment facilities up and down this country. I have actually worked in this field for over 30 years. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: If the Minister understands Professor Sellman’s thoughts on alcohol so well could he comment on Professor Sellman’s 5+ Solution and on the speech entitled “Ten things the Alcohol Industry won’t tell you about Alcohol” which was recently presented in 38 public meetings held throughout New Zealand? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I am well aware of the 5+ Solution. I cannot recall the precise details of the ten things that he alleges the industry will not tell people but the presentations are widely available. I have read them frequently. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Is it correct as reported that he was “amused” by the doctors’ and nurses’ support for the 5+ Solution; if so what is funny about 1000 alcohol related deaths each year or is he underplaying it because the statement identifies that the tactics being employed by the liquor industry are the same as those used by the tobacco industry? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I am not underplaying in any way the social and economic consequences of the misuse of alcohol. Indeed I spent last Saturday evening out with the Wellington Central police and at the Wellington Regional Hospital emergency department viewing those very things. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table  
An historic opportunity to change New Zealand’s heavy drinking culture: A public statement by the Doctors and Nurses of New Zealand 
 supporting the 5+ Solution. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I seek leave to table  
Ten Things the Alcohol Industry Won’t Tell You about Alcohol 
 and the 5+ Solution prepared by Professor Sellman. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Burma—Officials Studying in New Zealand 
6. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: What are the job titles of the three Burmese Government officials sponsored via the Minister of Foreign Affairs to study in New Zealand and what checks were made by the ministry to ensure that the officials had not held “controversial roles” in the Burmese regime? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 All three Burmese officials taking part in the English Language Training for Officials programme are from the most junior of the six ranks of officials in the Burmese Public Service. The first official is an attaché from the planning and administrative department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the second official is a staff officer from the general administration department of the Office of the Government and the third official is a staff officer of the office administration of the Ministry of Home Affairs. The English Language Training for Officials programme for ASEAN nations has provided English language training for over 750 officials in the 18 years it has been in operation; 35 of those officials have been from Burma. All Burmese nationals applying for entry are assessed by the immigration profiling group. Applicants considered to pose any risk to New Zealand are not granted a visa. 
Keith Locke 
: What are we doing training Burmese Ministry of Foreign Affairs officials whose job is to present the regime in the best possible light using after their training here very good English? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: First of all I say that it is generally felt that exposure to the principles of human rights the rule of law and democracy in New Zealand is generally regarded as a beneficial education for officials in addition to the English language that they acquire in this country. Also there have been 35 Burmese officials trained under the English Language Training for Officials scheme; there has never been a decision to suspend the scheme at any stage. The whole scheme was suspended pending a review in 2008 and there were no applicants from Burma in the first intake after it was reinstituted. In 2010 there were applicants from Burma. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade sought my concurrence to allow those applicants to be selected according to the long-established criteria. 
Keith Locke 
: Using the same principles the Minister has just outlined do we offer training through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to any officials from the Fiji regime in order to assist Fiji’s return to democracy? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: As I indicated in my primary answer the English Language Training for Officials scheme is designed for the ASEAN nations and when I last inspected a map Fiji was not located in South-east Asia. 
Keith Locke 
: Will he give an assurance that Government officials from Burma while in New Zealand will not monitor the efforts here of anti-regime refugees? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I give the member an assurance that junior officials are selected for those programmes and those who undertake the selection process give full consideration to the sorts of issues that the member has just outlined. This is an ASEAN-wide programme which is intended to have a constructive influence. In addition to introducing English language it also exposes those officials to good standards of governance and to principles of democracy human rights and the rule of law. Those are regarded widely as beneficial matters. I say to the member that we have talked widely to our partners around the world about engagement with Burma. That member will be aware that the United States under the Obama administration made a decision to re-engage with Burma at a lower level. I took the opportunity personally to talk to Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell and also to the chairman of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs Senator Jim Webb. They went to Burma to look at precisely how we can best contribute to that process through schemes of the sort that we operate. 
Keith Locke 
: Does he accept that even the most junior officials will be allowed to come here only if they are totally supportive and loyal to the regime and does he accept that it is possible that those officials will report back to the regime on the activities of Burmese anti-Government activists who live in New Zealand? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I hope that the officials who come to New Zealand on the scheme will report back to Burma on the excellent standards of governance adherence to the rule of law and respect for human rights that they have found in New Zealand. That is the sort of report I hope that they will convey to Burma. But I emphasise to the member that we do take seriously the concerns he raises. He does not need to convince me or I am sure many other members of the House that the standards of governance in Burma have been appalling. Anyone who saw the bloody repression of Burmese monks on our television screens would have some firm and not very supportive things to say about the regime. However we are part of an international community that has decided that this year we will try to assist Burma to find a constructive way forward. The English Language Training for Officials scheme will make a minor contribution to that process and we are mindful of the risks the member outlines in following that course. 
Keith Locke 
: Does he not agree though that right now when the Government of Burma has not freed Aung San Suu Kyi is shutting the National League for Democracy out of the elections and is clamping down on the Burmese people is not the time to give points by taking those people from a regime that he a couple of years ago described as the “butchers of Burma”? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I will not resile from any of the harsh things I have said about that regime in the past. I believe that it attracts the very strongest criticism for the steps that have been taken there to repress Burmese monks in particular. I will say that since the middle of last year there has been a general international consensus that there should be some lower level of engagement with Burma in an attempt to try to encourage those elements in their society who do support moves towards democracy and respect for human rights to make some progress. I agree with the member that the features the member described in relation to the election this year are highly regrettable. New Zealand’s view on that is being expressed very firmly to the Burmese Government as are I am sure the views of other communities around the world. 
Keith Locke 
: Speaking of international work and cooperation will New Zealand be joining with Australia and the United Kingdom which are supporting the United Nations special rapporteur’s call for a UN commission to address human rights in Burma; if not why not? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: We have not made any statement on that as yet. I will say that generally we try to work with our friends in like-minded countries around the world in pursuit of the principles of good governance democracy and respect for human rights. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table a public document of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority decision dated 29 June 2001 on the way in which Burmese refugees and their families are persecuted by the Burmese regime. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Agriculture Industry—Position in Global Market Place 
7. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What reports if any has he recently received on the position of New Zealand’s agricultural industry in the global market place? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: The Minister receives numerous reports every day on the position of New Zealand’s agricultural industry in the global market. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Given his Government’s abolition of the research and development tax credits and the Fast Forward fund does he agree with the recently released KPMG agribusiness report that says: “Despite much talk about the importance of improving the productivity of the New Zealand economy the track record to date of the National-led government has suggested they are not fully committed to a view that science is a high priority driver of productivity …”; if not why not? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: The Fast Forward fund is a fantasy in the minds of Opposition members. The Government replaced it with the Primary Growth Partnership fund which actually has some money and is investing in science. The Fast Forward fund had no money and had not bought any science. Let us get the facts out there. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If Mr O’Connor had asked for an explanation of what the Fast Forward fund was then that answer would have addressed it from the Government’s perspective. But he was asked whether the Minister agreed with a quote from KPMG— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Had the member asked just that he might have received a different answer but the member will recollect that the Hon Damien O’Connor said “Given” that the Government had done certain things including abolishing the Fast Forward Fund. We cannot blame the Minister for picking up on that part of the question. The remedy lies in the hands of the— 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Is it reasonable for me to expect an answer from the Minister or not? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Where the member adds superfluous information to a question and the Minister chooses to comment on that question or challenge that information I tell members not to ask me to assist in getting an answer. The remedy lies in the hands of questioners to ask tight disciplined questions. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Given the Minister’s answer how much of his Primary Growth Partnership money allocated to agricultural research has been given so far? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: This is a very exciting initiative. We are working with the industry to ensure that it will work very very well unlike the failed policies of the last Government. I am unable to produce the figure at the moment but I can say that this Government in Budget 2009 invested $30 million per annum there will be $40 million in the next year’s Budget $50 million in the Budget after that and in the Budget after that $70 million. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know it was a little noisy and I may have missed the answer if it was indeed there but how much of the money has been given out so far? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If members want to hear clear answers the remedy again lies in the hands of members to be a little less rowdy with interjections. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: He didn’t know the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No one is to make further comment now. The member did ask a very direct question. Unfortunately though the primary question asked was such that one could not necessarily expect the Minister to have that detailed information. The Minister indicated in his answer that he did not have that detailed information on him now and that is a perfectly proper answer. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: I do not want to trifle with the House but I seek leave to support the tabling of the KPMG report tabled by my colleague just a few minutes ago. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The member will resume his seat. I fail to see how that has anything to do with order in the House. As I understand it leave was sought to table the document and that has been granted. The Standing Orders do not provide for members to get to their feet on a point of order and support the tabling of a document that has already been tabled. 
David Shearer 
: Given that the KPMG report argues for the investment of leading-edge science in the wool and meat industries how does he believe that this will occur with the loss of 36 top scientists and technicians from AgResearch and what is his Government doing about it? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: A Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry report was commissioned in 2009 to do with the meat sheep and beef industries. The Minister has said publicly on numerous occasions that if there was going to be any drive and rationalisation to do with these industries then it needs to come from the industries themselves. We are also investing in research and development which is a big part of the focus of this Government and of the Minister of Agriculture. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Can the Minister confirm that the KPMG report received from the Government confirms that not one dollar has been allocated or spent on the Government’s programme which he has been lauding in the House this afternoon? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: I have not been able to get through the entire document but as I said before to the previous member for Otaki this Government has a real focus on this initiative. The member should wait for the announcement in the Budget on 20 May. 
Fishing Recreational—Research 
8. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture 
: What announcements has he recently made regarding research into recreational fishing? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 Yesterday I announced the largest study of recreational fishing in a decade. It will commence this year it will cost about $5 million over a number of years and the results will greatly improve our understanding of how many people are fishing diving and gathering shellfish where they fish and how much they are catching. It will give information that will enable me to set better catch limits. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What other research on recreational fishing is planned? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: From 1 October this year recreational charter fishing-boat operators will also start reporting how often they go fishing and how much of a particular high-value species of fish their clients are catching. These research and reporting projects will combine to give us the most comprehensive picture of recreational fishing in New Zealand that we have ever had. 
Truck Driver Safety—Changes to Vehicle Dimensions and Mass 
9. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What advice if any did he receive about truck driver safety before amending the land transport rule for vehicle dimensions and mass to allow heavier trucks on our roads? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I received advice from officials following the consultation phase of the rule development and prior to my report to Cabinet. The advice concluded that the vast majority of high-productivity vehicles will be existing vehicles that are designed to operate at heavier weights. They will not be wider or taller and they are required to meet all existing safety requirements and standards. Road controlling authorities will also have the ability to impose any reasonable additional safety requirements and improve driver training as recommended. These are all consistent with the objectives of Safer Journeys. 
Darien Fenton 
: Did he receive any advice about how allowing heavier trucks on our roads will exacerbate the safety risks for truck drivers who routinely drive up to 100 hours a week who are not taking any breaks and who are scrimping on maintenance before he amended the rule? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No and it stands to reason that if the heavier-productivity vehicles are on the roads they will reduce the number of vehicle movements required for the same freight task. That would reduce the safety risk of those said vehicles. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does he stand by his statement on Radio New Zealand earlier this week that the  
Sunday Star-Times  
article that revealed it is common for truck drivers to work well beyond the legal number of hours just so that they can earn enough to make ends meet was the first time that he had heard of these problems; if so how many truck drivers has he spoken with since he became the Minister of Transport? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I have spoken to a number of truck drivers since I became the Minister of Transport and none have raised that issue with me. I have received two items of correspondence in relation to work and logbook rules. I note that the  
Sunday Star-Times  
article raised an issue in relation to only one driver. If the member has concerns about the flouting of work logbook and time rules then I strongly suggest that she contact the police or the New Zealand Transport Agency and get them to investigate those concerns. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does he agree that there should be an investigation into any link that there may be between road safety and low rates of pay for truck drivers; if not why not? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No; I do not believe that an investigation is necessary unless there is a systematic abuse of the system. If the member has evidence of such abuse then she should present that evidence either to me or to the New Zealand Transport Agency and to the police because generally in this country if somebody is breaking the law we have an enforcement agency called the police and in transport we have another one called the New Zealand Transport Agency. That is what they are there for so she should pass the information on to them. 
Maori Affairs Minister—Visit to UN 
10. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Did the Government inform Maori Television that he was flying to New York to speak to the UN; if so on what date? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Maori Television was briefed in confidence on Friday 9 April 2010 to enable it to send a reporter and a camera operator to New York in time for the announcement. 
David Garrett 
: Did the Prime Minister advise him before his trip to New York that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples would have “no effect whatsoever”; if so how does he justify the secrecy and expense of the trip? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: It was very clear what the parameters of the declaration were. There was no secrecy to the Minister’s going to New York. The Prime Minister signalled very early last year that this matter would be on the agenda this year. There has been no secrecy. 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was quite specific: did the Prime Minister advise him that the declaration would have “no effect whatsoever” which was a direct quote from the Prime Minister. It was not about the contents of the document which was the subject of the answer given on the Minister’s behalf. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I recollect correctly that was not the question the member asked at all. I seem to recollect there was another hunk to the question and that was what Minister Turia chose to focus on in her answer. That is the thing: if members want a particular point to be covered in an answer they must not add more because that enables the Minister to latch on to the bit they did not particularly want to be focused on. I believe that the Minister adequately answered the question. 
David Garrett 
: Will he be advising Tuhoe that as the Prime Minister stated the declaration he signed in New York will have “no effect whatsoever” and that they—Tuhoe—are mistaken in citing the declaration in their claim to ownership of Te Urewera National Park? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: It is very clear that this declaration must fall within the parameters of New Zealand law and within the Treaty obligations that have been agreed between the Crown and Maori people and that is also how the Tuhoe decision will be made. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Was it his intention to travel all the way to New York to as the Maori Party says sign the declaration or was he as the National Government says going over there just to affirm it and which of these affirmations or declarations will help the most to reduce Maori prison numbers and unemployment and increase Maori educational achievement? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: It was appropriate for the Government to make its first statement publicly to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues as it was the setting in which much of the declaration was negotiated. 
Question No. 11 to Minister 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to have my question held over until a day when the Minister of Education is present in the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to have question No. 11 in the name of Sue Moroney held over to another day. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. 
Early Childhood Education—Priority for Government 
11. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does she stand by her statement to the House on 1 April 2009 that “quality early childhood education and care is a high priority for the Government”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister)  
on behalf of the  
Minister of Education 
: Yes. 
Sue Moroney 
: What did she mean then when she told the Early Education Federation at a meeting on 25 March that the Government has to address the increasing costs of early childhood education and there are some tough decisions to be made? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Government spending on early childhood education has increased from $428 million in 2004-05 to $1120 million this last year so it has almost trebled in 5 years. This Government wants to make sure that the taxpayer is getting good value for three times the expenditure on early childhood education so we are looking at where the expenditure is less effective so that we can move it to where it is more effective. 
Sue Moroney 
: Will the Minister guarantee to continue the funding that early childhood services with 80 to 100 percent qualified staff receive? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member will just have to wait until the Budget to find out about the measures that the Government has taken but I think that any sensible person who was looking at this sector would say that when expenditure has gone up by 300 percent the Government should have a pretty good look at whether that is actually working. I might say it is a much faster rise in expenditure than the previous Labour Government ever budgeted for. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why has the Minister decided to shelve National’s election promise of 2008 to improve staff ratios for under-2-year-olds by deferring that for another 3 years as she informed the Early Education Federation at that March meeting? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I have already said this is an area where Government spending has gone up by 300 percent which is much faster than the previous Government had budgeted for when it made changes to the system. It imagined the spending would go up a bit but it has gone up by 300 percent so the Government is looking at all aspects of early childhood education to ensure that we are getting value for money. The most important issue is that despite that large rise in expenditure the children who most need early childhood education still are not receiving it and the Government is determined to fix that problem. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table a document titled “Meeting with the Hon. Anne Tolley Minister of Education—25 March 2010”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the source of the document? 
Sue Moroney 
: It is the minutes of a meeting that the Early Education Federation had with the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Aquaculture—Government Support 
12. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What support is the Government giving to encourage the development of the aquaculture industry in New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Last week I announced that the Government is contributing $1.69 million to develop a shared research facility for seafood and aquaculture innovation which is likely to result in substantial national economic benefits. The facility will allow greater collaboration between research organisations education providers and industry. The aquaculture industry will benefit from the world-class science undertaken at the Cawthron Institute’s new $5.73 million facility in Nelson. 
Shane Ardern 
: There must be more. What other support is the Government giving to encourage the development of the aquaculture industry in New Zealand? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Quite apart from the fact that the aquaculture industry in New Zealand finds it a refreshing change to deal with the current Government my colleague the Hon Phil Heatley is advancing new legislation to provide a better framework for the industry. We have also supported the development of new markets for New Zealand aquacultural product through the aquaculture market development contestable fund and in January of this year I announced a further $500000 to help New Zealand aquaculture companies to take advantage of emerging markets offshore. We expect the activity generated by new projects will build on the five projects that are already under way for two of aquaculture’s flagship species: greenshell mussels and king salmon. Along with Pacific oysters these species are major contributors to the growth of aquacultural production in New Zealand. The industry is working hard to establish its brand in international markets although I must say it does not appear to be putting itself through the same contortions that the Labour Party is over its brand. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Earlier in question time I sought leave to table a document. The leave was declined because according to members opposite it had been previously tabled. I have had an inquiry from Grey Power which wants to publish it. I have been on to the website but I cannot find that document; that might be due to my computer skills. I wonder whether the website is working well or whether those documents are not put up there. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member talking about the parliamentary website and documents tabled? I am advised that documents tabled by leave are not placed on the website; they are placed on the Table here by the end of the day. 
Electoral Referendum Bill 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electoral Referendum Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred for consideration to the Electoral Legislation Committee. This bill will fulfil the Government’s pre-election commitment to hold a binding referendum on MMP. In 1993 New Zealand voted to change to the mixed-member proportional representation or MMP voting system. For most of the previous 140 years as members are aware elections were held under the first-past-the-post system. Since the change five elections have been held under MMP making it timely to consider how the voting system is working and whether New Zealanders wish to retain MMP. Many New Zealanders understood that they would have the opportunity to revisit their decision through a later referendum; this bill provides New Zealanders with that opportunity. 
After weighing the options the Government decided to take a two-stage approach to the referendum similar to the process followed in 1992 and 1993. As far as practicable the Government has been keen to replicate the processes adopted in 1992 and 1993 to give New Zealanders a genuine opportunity to have another say on the electoral system. The first referendum will be held in conjunction with the 2011 general election and it requires legislation to be passed through the House. The bill provides that the referendum questions will first ask voters whether they wish to retain the present MMP voting system. Voters will then be asked regardless of their answer to the first question which alternative voting system they would prefer from a list of alternatives: first past the post preferential voting a single transferable vote and the supplementary-member representation system. The bill includes a brief description of each of these alternative voting systems but essentially the menu of options is the same as that put to voters in the 1992 referendum. 
Two aspects will remain consistent across the electoral system options. First each system is to be considered on the basis that it will be used to elect a House of 120 seats. Second each system will retain the current provisions for the Maori seats. The alternative voting systems should be considered on their fundamental features and not on other elements of the electoral system. In addition the confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party states that this referendum will not include a question about the Maori seats. The bill also includes the form of the voting paper with the questions to be put to voters. The Chief Electoral Officer will determine the order of the voting systems on the voting paper by lot to avoid any perception of bias in the order in which the voting systems are listed. 
When we first announced the two-stage process for the referenda the feedback we received including that from the Hon Lianne Dalziel was that we needed to incorporate an option for those who wanted to see modifications made to MMP rather than an entirely new electoral system adopted or the status quo retained. However in the time available it would be difficult for the Government to put up a modified version in the 2011 referendum that meets those expectations without being seen to have skewed the result. As was the case in 1992 and 1993 this referendum process is about allowing the public to make fundamental choices between different types of system. Having said that the bill provides that if 50 percent or more of the participants vote to retain MMP in the first referendum then the Electoral Commission will undertake a review of aspects of the way in which MMP works. 
If a majority votes for a change from MMP this Government is committed to holding a second binding referendum in conjunction with the 2014 general election. This will be a run-off between MMP and the most preferred alternative voting system from the first referendum. If voters prefer the alternative voting system the 2017 general election will be held under that new system. I acknowledge that this process is lengthy but the future of our voting system should not be rushed. Cabinet was faced with a range of options that would have truncated the timing including the use of stand-alone and postal referenda. But by holding each referendum in conjunction with a general election we could maximise the voter turn-out on such an important constitutional matter. The process allows for a full 6 months’ consideration of the bill at the Electoral Legislation Committee as well as ample time for a public information campaign prior to the referendum to be undertaken by the Electoral Commission. 
The bill also regulates advertising in respect of the 2011 referendum. Anyone who is advertising for or against any of the referendum options will need to include his or her name and address with the advertisement. If advertisers spend over $12000 during the regulated period they will need to register with the Electoral Commission which will publish a list of advertisers. Advertisers will not be required to provide returns of their expenses or funding sources to the Electoral Commission nor will they be subject to spending limits. These rules are intended to provide transparency without restricting the advertisers’ freedom of expression and they are consistent with the regulation of parallel campaigning in the upcoming electoral finance reform legislation. I note though that this bill goes further than the rules surrounding advertising for the Government referenda held in 1992 1993 and 1997 and that no Government referendum in the post-war period has limited spending by third-party campaigners. Members will be aware that these same issues arise in the context of the Government’s proposed reform to the electoral finance rules. It is also my intention to refer the upcoming electoral finance legislation to the Electoral Legislation Committee so that the committee’s consideration of these issues—in particular the regulation of parliamentary spending—can be consistent. 
Finally I add that I am pleased to have had the opportunity to meet on a number of occasions with all parties in the House to discuss the Government’s proposals and I value their willing and constructive approach to these issues. That cooperation has been in keeping with the constitutional significance of this legislation which should not be underestimated. In New Zealand the triennial election of representatives to this House is arguably the most significant constitutional check on executive power. The decision as to how those votes are translated into seats is rightly one for the people of New Zealand to make. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 Labour will support the Electoral Referendum Bill being referred to the Electoral Legislation Committee. Obviously some additional work needs to be done on the bill but I acknowledge the Minister of Justice for having the discussions that he has had not only with our party but with all parties in the House. 
I think that the Minister’s approach has been a worthwhile one as he 
has identified one of the concerns that I originally raised. 
I was concerned about the unfairness of the original proposal which did not acknowledge the many many New Zealanders who want to stay with MMP but who do not like some of the practices that have been allowed to develop under it. The opportunity to review some aspects of MMP should the decision be made to stick with it will enable those issues to be addressed. I think that that is a major response. The Government has proposed what I have described as a second track post the ballot on whether we wish to stay with MMP. If MMP survives that decision—if it is the No. 1 choice on the ballot paper at the forthcoming general election—then voters will have the opportunity to look at the content of the MMP provisions themselves. 
I want to comment on how good it is that that second track is in the bill. My preference was to fix the MMP system first. I have always been of the view that certain elements of the MMP system should be reviewed after a period of time because a lot of people made the original decision to change to MMP because they were very angry with two Governments: a National Government and a Labour Government. It was a case of a plague on both your houses. Voters chose the option that neither of the leaders of the National Party and the Labour Party at the time wanted at all. Both the National leader the then Prime Minister the Rt Hon Jim Bolger and the Leader of the Opposition the Rt Hon Helen Clark were very opposed to the MMP option and both were strong advocates for first past the post. I think that that is what is good about the debate about issues like electoral reform: because of the checks and balances in our system it is the people who decide the way that they vote their representatives into Parliament. I was giving a speech in Parliament yesterday on another matter that was not quite as positive as this one but I made the point that there is not just a right to vote; there is a duty for citizens to participate in our democratic process. I believe that this referendum process is one that truly brings to the fore the fact that voters will decide that it is their electoral system—it is our electoral system—and it is something that will be determined by way of a referendum. 
I have made no secret of my position on how I will vote. I will be voting to retain MMP just as I voted for MMP originally. Not every political party had a uniform view on this issue and that was because it was down to the people to decide. I am a strong supporter of MMP. I am a supporter of MMP because it is the only system of proportional representation that is on the ballot paper—the only one. I think people will have to remember that and I hope as part of the education campaign to be undertaken that people are given a very clear explanation that even if the other electoral systems look like or sound like proportional representation in actual fact they are not. None of the other systems provide a proportional result in the way that MMP does. 
I hope that the people of New Zealand will consider very carefully the scope of the matters that have been set out in the bill for review and will make submissions to the select committee because they are not the same. There are different issues within the scope of this review that I think people should think about very carefully. 
The first one is the threshold for list seats; the requirement that in order for parties to be eligible for any list seats they have to achieve either 5 percent of the total vote or a candidate has to be elected to an electorate seat. I know that there is a lot of disquiet about that and I will use the example of two political parties—one that is in Parliament at the moment and one that is not. Rodney Hide representing the ACT Party won the seat of Epsom and was able to bring in the balance of the 3.7 percent of the vote that his party had won and New Zealand First with 4.2 percent of the party vote failed to win an electorate seat and was unable to be represented in Parliament at all. 
The question of the 5 percent threshold and whether a single candidate winning an electorate seat is sufficient to be a threshold in itself should be the subject of debate. I was on the select committee that considered that issue and I know that it was a trade-off. The proposal of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System was to have a 4 percent threshold and the select committee decided to lift it to a 5 percent threshold. The trade-off was that one electorate seat would enable a party to bring in a smaller number than the 5 percent threshold allowed; it would not have to meet that threshold. In retrospect I personally do not think it should have been a trade-off and I personally do not agree with the coat-tails provision as I now describe it because it is simply not fair on a party that is very close to reaching the threshold but is unable to get any representation in Parliament whereas the other party is overrepresented relative to the proportion of the vote that it was able to attract. 
The overhang issue does not cause me any particular bother at all. It sits at two at the moment and it has sat at one. I am not uncomfortable with the concept of an overhang. It does not produce proportionality—I suppose it offends against the principle of proportionality—but it is quite a good way of ensuring that parties that win constituency seats are able to take up those seats in Parliament without losing that entitlement and without over-increasing the size of Parliament. 
I have a really strong view about dual candidacy and it is not the view that is implied by this bill. I think people ought to be able to stand for an electorate seat and stand for a list seat as well. The reason is that the list is the mechanism by which we fill the number of seats that are left over as it were by the proportionality that is applied to the number of party votes that parties win and the number of electorate seats that they win. To say that a person who stands in a safe National seat should not be allowed to come into Parliament because he or she was not able to win that seat as a Labour candidate is an absolute nonsense. It would deprive this House of Paul Quinn and Aaron Gilmore. It would not be fair on Parliament if we were deprived of either of those two individuals. I could go on. 
I hope that during the select committee hearing we have a lot of discussion about the scope of the review because there are other things that I think should be in the scope of the review that are not. There is another issue about the size of seats. I do not think that we need this fixation on an equal number of list seats versus constituency seats and I think we could do something a little better there as well. 
The final thing I want to talk about is advertising. I think it is slightly rich of the Minister to pretend that New Zealand is the same environment that it was in the last decade. We did not know about the work of the Exclusive Brethren until the 2005 general election campaign. What we saw then was the effect of unparalleled spending in order to sway the vote against the Labour Party and against the Green Party in particular. Although we ended up knowing who ran that campaign to have no campaign expenditure limits is a breach of democracy and Labour will fight that every step of the way. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 It is a great privilege to have the opportunity to take a call in this first reading debate on the Electoral Referendum Bill. I will take just a moment at the outset of my contribution to run through the history behind where we find ourselves with our current electoral system. No matter in our democracy can be more important than our electoral system and I think that is fairly well accepted by all. Our current system is MMP. I am certainly old enough to remember the previous system although it is amazing— 
Hon Simon Power 
: Surely not! 
AMY ADAMS 
: I know it is hard to believe but in fact I am. It is amazing how many people I and other members speak to who have absolutely no understanding knowledge or even awareness of our previous electoral system first past the post. MMP of course first came about through the 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System. That royal commission led to the first indicative referendum in September 1992. At that time New Zealand voted for a change to its electoral system. The significant referendum was held along with the 1993 general election and in 1996 we had our first MMP election. As the Minister of Justice has already noted in his contribution since that time five Governments have been elected under our MMP system. 
It is worth mentioning that when MMP was first adopted by a 54:46 split of the population there was a common perception among many New Zealanders—not those in the beltway—that there would be a second referendum and that they would have another chance to express their view having had the opportunity to kick the tyres for a while. They were not right in that perception. That was never what the law said but it was certainly a commonly held view on the streets of New Zealand. The reality of course is that that opportunity would only ever happen if this House had voted to make it so. Instead we had a review in 2001. In 2001 this House undertook a comprehensive review of MMP and I acknowledge Peter Dunne who was the deputy chair of the committee. The committee members were instructed by this House to work towards unanimous decisions or at least towards decisions that came as close to unanimity as they could. Although the committee members agreed on a number of matters one thing that they could not agree on was whether there should be a second referendum on MMP. At that time public opinion suggested that the majority of people who did not support having a referendum were of that view because they felt in 2001 that we had not had enough time. We were not ready at that time to assess where MMP was at and whether it was the appropriate system. It is certainly the view of the National Party and it was part of our election promise to New Zealand that it was time for New Zealand to have a referendum on MMP. I am very proud to be part of a Government that will give New Zealand a chance to have that say. 
As we have already heard in the contributions this afternoon this bill is not about which system we should have in this country. It is not a bill where we argue which is the better system. I think it is important to make the point clear for anyone listening to this debate that this bill is simply about getting the process right so that we can ask New Zealanders which system we should have. That is important because even though Parliament is ultimately sovereign and can make decisions as it thinks fit it is my view that some issues are simply too important and too fundamental for this House to exercise its power on unless we have a very clear and specific mandate from New Zealanders. I think that there can be no better example of that than our electoral system. 
In this bill there is a process by which the people of New Zealand will be given the opportunity to say whether they want to keep the system we have. That is the first question in the referenda ballot and it is the most important question. If they vote to keep the system we have now then the remaining issues relating to types of system second referendums and the like become null and void. As Ms Dalziel has pointed out a vote to keep MMP will trigger a review of the MMP system; we have one system of MMP but it can certainly be adjusted. However if there is a vote for change then the second question in this referendum will become all-important. That is the question where New Zealanders can indicate their preference with regard to an alternative system. So it is very important legislation not because of what is in it but because it sets up a process by which New Zealanders can make that very important decision. 
I end by commenting on the timing. I know that there has been discussion about the fact that this could potentially be a drawn-out process if there is a vote for change a further referendum and then a further period for the election. I comment on one thing in closing. When we had those referendums in 1992 and 1993 the first time around— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Referenda. 
AMY ADAMS 
: —referenda; I thank Mr Mallard. The 1992 referenda which was not held with a general election attracted only just over a 50 percent turnout. The 1993 referenda— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no—referendum. 
AMY ADAMS 
: —referendum which was held with a general election attracted well over 80 percent. As Ms Dalziel commented these are important issues that we need New Zealand to engage with. This is important and New Zealanders must engage. It must be undertaken with a good degree of understanding. That is why having it at the time of a general election is important to make sure that we really engage New Zealand in this very important process. Thank you. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 Just to reaffirm: Labour will support this legislation’s referral to a select committee. I reiterate the comments of my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel in respect of the Government’s approach to this legislation and I say to the Minister of Justice that his conduct and approach to this process has I think been good. We thank him. We hope that it will continue and I think the Minister ought to be commended for the way in which he has approached this. My personal view of this legislation is that it is good enough. In fact I would go a little further and say that it is really rather good. It is less than perfect for reasons I will come to in a minute but it is rather good legislation. Given that it has to be legislation that is supported I hope by every party in the House then getting to the state of it being rather good at the point of its introduction is probably as good as one could hope for. So that is great. 
The next thing I will say for the record is that I will be voting for MMP and I think MMP should win in the first of the referenda. Not only that it is clear to me that MMP will win. That is my judgment. Of course I could be wrong. I think it will win for the reason that it won last time which is that it has allowed for a much more diverse Parliament than we have had. Since the advent of MMP we have had a Rastafarian a transsexual and any number of people who describe themselves as being various forms of gay. To my left is the first Samoan woman I think in the New Zealand Parliament and to my right is a part-Tahitian and so on. And so it is around the Chamber. We have now a much much more diverse and reflective Parliament. [ 
Interruption 
] We even have a veterinarian! 
Needless to say a number of these people were elected from electorates not because of the list but none the less the advent of MMP has allowed that diversity to arise to an extent that is greater than it would have done. I look across at Sir Roger Douglas and I would hazard the guess that Sir Roger Douglas would not have been able to make it back into this Parliament had first past the post been in place. I dare say he would agree. But the point is that that sort of diversity has been occasioned by the advent of MMP. 
The second thing is that although we have had instances of tails wagging dogs including arguably earlier this week it has not been a dominant feature of our Parliament. This is not the Israeli Knesset. Some things have been difficult to settle because of MMP. I do not think our approach to macroeconomic policy has gone well under MMP I do not think our approach to climate change has been brilliant under MMP and there are one or two other examples. But for the most part the Government of the day continues to be able to run the ship and to run the ship more or less. Nearly always it is a minority Government whereas before MMP there was an assumption that there would be a coalition majority but tradition seems to be a minority Government. And we have rewritten a little bit the constitutionality of the Westminster system. The previous Labour Government started it 4½ years ago; the present Government continued it 1½ years ago. 
The timing is long but I think it is tolerable. The reasons for the timing are first of all that we have this legislation because National made an election pledge and wants to keep to it. That is understood. The second reason is that should MMP win in the first ballot then we have to have an opportunity to do some tweaking before the election in 2014. In the event that MMP did not win the ballot of course there would need to be a big build-up and a great hoo-ha-ha not unlike the 1992-93 period. 
That means some people are already thinking ahead because they are presuming an MMP victory to the importance of Part 4. I simply make a couple of comments about Part 4. The first is a confession: I was on the select committee that drew up MMP in the first instance and I moved that the threshold be 5 percent. For better or worse it was voted in I think unanimously I cannot remember; but we went back and forth between 4 percent and 5 percent and between 100 120 or 140 total members because the royal commission had suggested 140. I suggested 120 members. We were just trying to get some momentum going. Whether it should be 4 percent or 5 percent is still moot; it always was and always will be. It is just a figure. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: German. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is not German; it was occasioned—it does not matter why it was occasioned. It was a long-ago history. The point is that there is one thing that is missing. I am not particularly worried that it is missing but I am not sure whether the Minister is aware of the fact that in the 1993-95 period we had a big debate about whether lists should be open or closed and whether they should be regional or national. In other words there was a two-by-two box. We do not have a two-by-two box in this law; we have a two-by-one box. I do not mind that but I am letting the Minister know. I personally think that a national closed list is the way to go for all sorts of reasons but the public may have a different view. We would certainly want to hear from them should it come to that. 
I want to take the Minister on about his comments on advertising. I agree with him: this is the most transparent referendum we have ever had. The rules on transparency in this law as long as it passes in this form will be better than has ever been the case before. But there was a little bit of sophistry in the Minister’s argument and I feel the need to fill him out a little bit on that. That is to say something happened in the 2005 election that should never have happened I hope never happens again and arguably changes the construct of the way we approach electoral law. It is an important question because speaker after speaker has said that electoral law really matters that it is very central and I will go a little further and say that it is one of the cornerstones perhaps the cornerstone of our unwritten constitution. But if we are going to settle for transparency in this referendum and not for transparency plus expenditure caps whatever those caps are we may run into that problem again somehow sometime even with an organisation that does not meet the support of anyone in this House. We really just do not know what extraneous force might come on in an electoral process. If an electoral process is to be free and fair and if we are to go for a plebiscite that is as universal and as untainted as possible then it seems to be inevitable that we will have to reconsider the role of expenditure caps whatever they may be. It is simply too vulnerable to leave it untouched. I just say that to the Minister. He may or may not agree with me I am not sure but that in any case concludes my remarks. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party has long campaigned for a fair and democratic electoral process that favours all New Zealanders not just the wealthy few. I want to pay my respects in homage to the late Rod Donald for his work on this exact issue. He long campaigned for MMP and for a fair electoral process so New Zealanders are represented in their own Parliament. After all this is supposedly a House of Representatives and the more representatives the better. 
It is certainly true that the influence of money on politics is one of the greatest threats to freedom and democracy. We know that in Aotearoa wealthy non - political party actors can intervene in the election process by buying advertising and distorting the process to favour their own agenda. For that reason modern democracies all around the world have introduced rules to try to limit the influence of money on politics. The Greens believe that our democracy thrives on ideas and not on fat wallets. Our electoral process is the central mechanism by which we are able to ensure that ideas are of greater value than bank balances. Our system is not perfect and it never will be but democracy should never be static. It should always be an evolving process that is ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century. The Electoral Referendum Bill is an important step in confirming New Zealand voters’ choice of electoral system. It establishes a two-stage referenda on our electoral system and voters will quite rightly make up their own minds as to the kind of electoral system that is best for our country. It is one of the responsibilities of citizenship that in a matter like the electoral systems citizens consider the needs of the country as a whole. 
We in the Greens do not hesitate in affirming our support for MMP. MMP has meant that more New Zealanders are represented in Parliament and in Government. Under the current MMP system everyone’s vote counts equally. MMP has enhanced the representation of women Maori Pasifika and Asian people in this House and in our society not just in population sectors. MMP enables different ideas ideologies values and solutions to be represented in Parliament and in Government. The advent of new parties has gifted this House with a creativity and innovation that was absent during the long reign of the duopoly of Labour and National. It has increased the breadth of Parliament so that it better reflects the country as a whole. As I said if we are to have a House of Representatives then surely a system that increases the representation of New Zealanders is the goal. I know that women MPs in this House and National Party women MPs in particular must be very proud of the number of seats that they command in this Chamber because of MMP. MMP has delivered real gains for our community such as Kiwibank paid parental leave and home insulation. It has been a success. 
As to the process given the constitutional nation of this bill the legislative process and the substance must be objective un-biased even-handed and scrupulous. We called for a process that was independent of the Government. We looked for a process of public input into the design of the questions in the process and looking at the substantive process that is laid out in the bill we believe that some effort has been made to avoid bias and political interference. I commend Simon Power’s efforts in that regard. Having said that there is a glaring omission in the legislation that has the potential to seriously undermine its objectivity to foment bias and to challenge the even-handedness of the process. I will turn to that gap in a moment. 
The bill provides for a referendum to take place in 2011 and potentially in 2014. Both are designed to coincide with the general elections. There will a ballot paper with two questions one asking voters whether they wish to retain MMP and another giving a choice of electoral systems. The systems are the same as those discussed in the report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System. Following the referendum in 2011 if MMP is retained by the voters then a review of MMP will take place. Certainly we welcome that review. This House last considered the issue of a referendum on MMP in August 2001 which is less than 10 years ago. The majority of parties at that time were very cautious in rushing constitutional matters of this nature which we think was wise. I will quote from the review of MMP which stated: “The ACT party considered that on constitutional matters prudent societies are conservative. People can look to constitutional changes to fix perceived ills instead of searching for the true causes. Political patterns take time to adjust to changes. Constant changes make it harder to distinguish the causes of problems from the symptoms of change.” We have found that in the last 14 years which is not very long for an electoral system to be in place MMP provides stable Government and robust Parliaments and there are no concerns about New Zealand functioning during a change process under MMP. 
I will now return to the glaring gap of the anomalous position of parallel campaigners especially those who if history repeats itself want to spend up large. The Electoral Act 1993 has provisions for the registration of political parties and this legislation makes provision for registering promoters—non - political party actors—who wish to publish advertising during the period up to the referendum. We have no issue with the registration of promoters. We must know who is behind any campaign but registration alone would not have prevented the outrage that Nicky Hager exposed in his book  
The Hollow Men: A study in the politics of deception 
 when the Exclusive Brethren and the horse racing lobby provided apparently independent pro-National advertising. We remain extremely concerned that there is no spending limit on a referendum which has the most serious implications for our representative democracy. There are very few decisions a country can make that are more significant than how the country elects its more senior political figures. It is not a process that should be trifled with and it is not a process that should be left to the market to decide. 
We know that the 1986 report of the Royal Commission on the Electoral System stated that it is not “fair if some in the community use their relative wealth to exercise disproportionate influence in determining who is to govern and what policies are to be pursued.” That comment was in relation to campaigning in an election. But I argue this referendum is an even more constitutionally serious decision because not only are we deciding how we elect our Government but also that decision is binding. It is one of the few mechanisms in New Zealand to constrain a Government. If less significant democratic decisions—for example citizens initiated referenda—have a spending cap to protect the level playing field why would we not have a spending cap to protect the level playing field for arguably the single most important constitutional decision that electors can make? Why would we not ensure that this decision is made with the utmost fairness with the greatest protections and with a level playing field that gives New Zealanders the same opportunities to campaign on these issues? Why should the wealthy be privileged? The Government has argued that it did not include a spending cap because it thought that the citizens initiated referenda spending limit was too low at $50000. The answer to that is very simple: put it up and make it more. That is fine. The principle remains the same and we make it more. It is not rocket science. It is not difficult. It should have been done before this legislation came before this House. 
This is not about freedom of expression although some will argue that. It is ironic that freedom of expression masquerades as a debate about the right of the wealthy and the privileged to spend as they choose. The fact is there is an inequality in this country that is suffered by the community across the board. That inequality makes a mockery of those who might rally behind the expression “freedom of expression” as a defence to allow the wealthy to continue to manipulate the process because they have the resources to do it. That is not a fair system for choosing an electoral system that has such constitutional significance. 
The Minister of Justice Simon Power argued for a good process for the referenda on a sound basis and on good principle but then he dismissed out of hand the option of limiting expenditure. I accept that he is genuine in his concern and we hope that New Zealanders are able to make substantive submissions on this issue and tell the Government that a spending cap is necessary. Our democracy should not be a battle of wallets but a battle of ideas. Our democracy must not be sold on the market place. Thank you. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 This week we have been proud to place on record the significance of sitting at the decision-making table. It has been a week to treasure the role that the Maori Party can play as the credible Maori voice in Parliament. That Maori voice is a voice that comes from a basis of strength—a voice that resonates with the words of all those who fought the good fight to enable our issues to be heard. Our current electoral system enables those voices to come in through the hallowed halls of Parliament. I think of some of those people who are now being given due honour and recognition through the Maori Party’s position of being able to advance the signing of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 
I chose to begin my contribution to the Electoral Referendum Bill by acknowledging the impact of many individuals and the whanau hapu and iwi to which they belong. In recalling those who paved the way to the United Nations I seek to remind the House of the role that the Maori Party holds as the natural partner of the Government—the Maori partner that provides the means by which tangata whenua may be heard in this Chamber. The issue of Maori representation is so vital to our constitution and indeed to our nation that we have written into the terms of the relationship and the confidence and supply agreement between National and the Maori Party that there will not be a question about the future of the Maori seats in the referendum on MMP. I stand in this debate to respond to the legislation relating to the referendum on the electoral system with my feet firmly planted in the context that is our constitutional framework Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That is the strong legal basis and constitutional framework that the Prime Minister referred to this week in relation to the historic decision to support the declaration. 
How does this new bill on electoral reform the Electoral Referendum Bill relate to this constitutional context? I refer the House to the Ngai Tahu Waitangi Tribunal report of 1991 in which this statement was made “it is clear that the exercise of tino rangatiratanga like kawanatanga cannot be unfettered; the one must be reconciled with the other”. The Treaty provides us with the knowledge that as partners to the Treaty Maori should at least be guaranteed representation in the organs of kawanatanga. The Treaty is a document of duel accountabilities between two Treaty partners. In itself it is about the reconciliation of kawanatanga and rangatiratanga. 
The 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System expressed this view with great clarity: “Under the terms of the Treaty the Crown formally expressed the existing rights of Maori and undertook to protect them. It is in this sense that Maori people have a special constitutional status.” That report went on to note the failure of successive Governments to recognise and give effect to the Treaty as the basis of constitutional government in New Zealand. The report went further and made the important observation: “Although they were not set up for this purpose the Maori seats have nevertheless come to be regarded by Maori as an important concession to and the principal expression of their constitutional position under the Treaty of Waitangi.” 
I set out this context—a Treaty context—before we embark on the process of a referendum on the electoral system because I want to explain why we do not want to have the constitutional status of the Maori seats mixed up with all the issues that will be discussed in the review of MMP. Those issues of constitutional significance are not ones that can be dealt with in a quick and slick study or two or indeed in an electoral referendum. 
However there will be every opportunity to consider our constitutional framework within the context of the constitutional review that is also part of our relationship agreement with the National Government. The Maori Party brought to the negotiating table a policy goal to establish a constitutional commission in order to begin a constitutional review aimed among other things at the drafting arrangements that give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the foundation of our electoral system A Treaty-based constitution that recognises tangata whenua might encourage Maori to participate in elections but let us leave that for the broader discussion the longer conversation that the constitutional review will enable. 
I am proud to be a member of the committee that has been established to consider the legislation arising out of the referendum and the reform of the electoral finance regime. Of particular interest to the Maori Party is the citizenship right of all New Zealanders to take up their democratic rights to vote and to contribute to the shaping of a new Parliament. 
I was interested in a presentation made by Colin James at the Official Statistics Forum 2010 which was held last month. He reminded participants of the need to focus on article 3 rights—the citizenship article—and in particular on full participation in society and the economy. It is his view that appropriate recognition of article 3 might imply State-guaranteed action to reduce inequalities of opportunity and to ensure that assistance works. In turn this might imply sensitivity to cultural and other differences including understanding and working with different world views. It was extremely timely to read this analysis and to think about the opportunities for Maori citizens to be full and contributing participants in the electoral system that we have today. 
As we all know the Maori turnout in general elections is much lower than the turnout for the general population. The number of votes cast in the Maori electorates in national elections is roughly 58 percent of the number of votes cast in general electorates. A focus on citizenship rights would inevitably force the question of why the electoral system is doing so badly and why it is failing to lift the Maori vote. 
This question is not a new one. In 1994 I was the instructing solicitor for a Waitangi Tribunal claim brought by Hare Puke and supported by the National Maori Congress the New Zealand Maori Council and the Maori Women’s Welfare League. Within the essence of that claim was the argument that the Crown has an obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi to protect the right of Maori to be represented in Parliament and that there are special needs in promoting Maori enrolment and education on this option. That claim is just as relevant 16 years on. How do we ensure that Maori representation is protected and that Maori citizens take up every opportunity to enrol to vote to vote to stand for Parliament and to be represented? 
Finally that claim has also gained traction through the status of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The declaration states that indigenous peoples have the right to participate fully if they so choose at all levels of decision making in matters that may affect their rights lives and destinies. We want to see an increase in Maori electoral participation and as part of that we expect that there may need to be new legal and administrative responsibilities for Government and electoral-related agencies in order to increase that participation rate. Maybe this could be done through improving the accuracy of the Maori roll improving measures to ensure that Maori enrol to vote or introducing an electoral education campaign to emphasise the importance and significance of voting. It may be that what is required is a focus on cultural awareness and responsiveness in the electoral administration system. 
We look forward to close analysis as the legislation relating to the referendum on the electoral system and the reform of the electoral finance regime unfolds. Certainly we are pleased to be part of such a significant opportunity to undertake electoral reform and to that end we support this bill. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 It is indeed a privilege as a member of Parliament to be involved in setting the direction and the laws of one’s country. In that regard it is a privilege to be a member of the newly constituted Electoral Legislation Committee which has been appointed to deal with two bills that will go before it over the course of this year. 
The first bill that will go before the committee is the bill before us this afternoon the Electoral Referendum Bill. The purpose of this legislation is to provide for an indicative referendum to be held in conjunction with the first general election after the commencement of the Act in order to provide electors with the opportunity to express an opinion on the preferred system of voting for election to the House of Representatives in New Zealand. The second bill that will go before the select committee is yet to be given a specific name but it will be an electoral finance bill to deal with the wider issues of electoral finance which have been discussed by a range of members in the House today. Both of those bills are part of a commitment by National at the election. They honour and meet a commitment given by National. I am proud to stand and say it is one of many commitments that National gave to the wider electorate. It is part of our commitment to building trust with the electorate and following through on the things we said we would do. 
Speaking about this bill gives one cause to reflect on the history of MMP and on one’s own voting record. It is interesting that when we are out in the electorate and people bemoan the parts of MMP that they dislike they often say: “Well who actually voted for MMP?”. Obviously a majority of the electorate did vote for it and I was one who did vote for MMP at the time. I reflected on why I voted in that way back then. I looked back at the elections that took place in 1981 and 1984. The 1981 election was an interesting election. A party by the name of Social Credit got 20.65 percent of the wider vote. The Labour Party at the time got 39.01 percent of the vote and National got 38.78 percent. Despite those votes National ended up being the Government of the day with 47 seats. Labour had 43 seats and Social Credit had two. That aside when I looked at that result as a young 18-year-old voting at the 1984 election— 
Hon Simon Power 
: The member doesn’t look that old! 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Yes I was an 18-year-old in 1984. The fact that Social Credit obtained only two seats at that election gave me cause to ponder whether that was fair. Twenty percent of the electorate had voted for a particular set of values and a particular set of policies yet received only two members of Parliament out of nearly 100 members. The second point I thought I would reflect on was the 1984 election which was the first election in which I voted and one can look back in hindsight on one’s political values and the way in which one voted at that time. Members may remember a political party that went by the name of the New Zealand Party. The party was headed by Sir Robert Jones. At that time voting at my first election I had cause to give my vote to the New Zealand Party. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What? 
CHRIS TREMAIN 
: Yes but it is interesting that that party achieved 12 percent of the vote. As I say one reflects on these positions in hindsight and one grows in one’s political thinking. At that 1984 election the New Zealand Party got 12 percent of the vote but did not get one member of Parliament which gave me cause for reflection. 
When we got to the two-stage referendum—in 1992 and 1993 as Simon Power has pointed out—I voted for a change to MMP. That brought us the first MMP election in 1996. MMP has been with us for five terms now and it is fair to say that a big chunk of the electorate still does not clearly understand it. People understand the constituency vote but if we go out into the street and ask people we find that many members of the public do not understand MMP fully. Many people thought that there would be a referendum on it. In fact a review of MMP was undertaken in August 2001 chaired by the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt. That review found at the time that despite some concerns we should stay with the MMP system largely unchanged. That aside there are still a number of concerns for the public. Some members of the public when we are out there talking to them say they are concerned that sometimes the tail wags the dog—the smaller parties have a wider involvement in the political say. The other concern that we hear is that the major parties after the election water down the policies that they were elected on when they go into a coalition agreement. That is a concern for members of the main parties; I know that. 
I know that one of the big concerns out there is the debate about whether a person who stands as a constituency MP and is elected as a constituency MP but who subsequently loses an election as a constituency MP should be allowed to be elected as a list MP. That is one thing that I know a large number of people in the electorate struggle with. Despite the political fortunes and the tides going in and out if I have stood as a constituency MP and been elected by the people but then subsequently the people said: “Tremain you’re on your bike.” Should I stay on the list? That is the question I ask. It happened in Napier with someone I stood against back in 2005. He had been elected as a constituency MP the public decided that he was not going to be their MP and I was fortunate enough to win that election. But for 3 years after that they struggled with the fact that that MP stayed in Napier fighting the campaign. It is an interesting issue. 
Those are the issues and wider changes that the committee will deal with. But for now this is a referendum whose time has come. It honours a commitment that was given by this National-led Government in association with ACT. It is something that we will be following through on. I am proud to say I will be part of that in the select committee that hears submissions on this bill. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The Electoral Referendum Bill enables the referendum that the Government seeks to hold on the future of the MMP system. I think it is obvious already from the speeches on this side of the House that Labour regards a referendum as premature. We have had only five MMP elections. There is significant evidence that the electorate is honing its skills to use MMP to find and achieve the sorts of outcomes it wants. The so-called wasted vote—the vote that goes to those parties that do not achieve the 5 percent threshold or otherwise do not have their votes counted under the system—got down as far as 1.3 percent in 2005. The process of starting to reduce the number of political parties represented in this House was begun in earnest by the people at the last election. Looking at the trends Colin James has predicted that by 2014 probably four parties or five at the most will be represented in this House if the trends continue. So people are working out how most effectively to use MMP. Our view is that they should be allowed to continue to do that for some time before we look at potentially throwing out the baby with the bathwater. 
As other speakers have said moving to MMP was a good thing. Chris Tremain has just reflected on the anomalies that were produced by the previous electoral system. He mentioned the position of Social Credit which on one occasion received a large chunk of the votes but had only two members. Under first past the post between 1935 and 1993 the National Party scored a higher ratio of seats to votes than Labour did and in 1978 and 1981 it won office with fewer numbers of the popular vote than the Labour Party. That system is unfair by any measure. As Metiria Turei said in her contribution since the introduction of MMP we have seen the House become much more diverse. Pete Hodgson made that observation as well. The entry of smaller parties has ensured that the views of the electorate are better represented in this House and that the views expressed in speeches questions and otherwise are less monolithic. 
I am not saying that MMP is perfect or that a small number of sensible changes should not be made so as to increase its fairness and its effectiveness. Lianne Dalziel spoke about some of the potential changes. One is to eliminate the waiver under which a party that wins one electorate seat does not need to get 5 percent of the party vote for proportionality. Without the waiver ACT would now have one seat not five and Winston Peters would have been a lone MP in 1999. There are other possibly desirable changes to the system around the threshold and around the proportionality of electorate versus list seats although personally I am less convinced on those questions. 
Although we on this side of the House take the view that I have outlined we will support sending the legislation to a select committee. But that select committee will have to consider one important question. There is another bill that will deal with the future electoral finance rules around third-party advertising. The point at which that bill and this one coincide and where serious questions arise is the decision to hold an electoral referendum at the same time as a general election. Interest groups will be able to run parallel campaigns advertising in both the election campaign and the referendum campaign. If they intend to spend more than $12000 they will have to register. But as far as the State is concerned the proposed limitation of registration is where all issues would end. From that point on people or groups can spend what they like. 
The Minister of Justice has said that the registration rules that I have just described go further than the advertising restrictions placed on the 1992 1993 and 1997 referenda where there was no cap on spending and at that point not even a need to register with the Electoral Commission. All that was needed then was a promoter statement. As Lianne Dalziel pointed out that was before the Exclusive Brethren showed what unlimited spending could deliver. It is important that all members of the House do not underestimate the enduring fear and disquiet that the conduct of the Exclusive Brethren and others caused when they sought to subvert our electoral laws. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What about the hundreds of thousands of dollars taken off union members to pay for a Labour campaign? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Mr Henare might think it is not a matter for concern. He thinks we should not concern ourselves with it but members on this side of the House are always concerned when anybody tries to buy our electoral system. We should never permit it and any member who thinks to the contrary is not participating in this debate in good faith. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What about $400000 taken from union members and given to the party? 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Mr Henare’s interjections just remind us that what the Exclusive Brethren did was done in cooperation with his political party; that is not easily forgotten on this side of the House. The conduct that I am talking about cooperated with by the National Party did enduring damage. If the damage is to be repaired the need for appropriate continuing transparency in our electoral law needs to be properly respected. 
In the United States there is a constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression. It is found primarily in the First Amendment to the Constitution. But even in the United States that temple to free expression it is recognised that there is a public interest in limiting the amounts that wealthy individuals or groups can spend to disproportionately influence the result of elections and that the guarantees contained in the First Amendment are not absolute. It has been interesting this year to watch in particular the struggles that have occurred on this question. These struggles have occurred since the 1970s when Congress and the President first started to attempt to regulate campaign finance. 
The latest developments have included the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 commonly known as the McCain-Feingold legislation. At the point when that legislation was signed into law by the second President Bush in 2002 it was thought that finally a bipartisan and satisfactory compromise had been reached on the question of campaign finance. Unfortunately that ignores the regrettable ultimate success of attempts over many years to stack the United States Supreme Court with extreme right-wing jurists from one particular philosophical direction. Earlier this year significant parts of the McCain-Feingold legislation were struck down. That decision  
Citizens United v Federal Electoral Commission 
 is widely reviled. It has been rejected by commentators and learned academics but also by some 80 percent of Americans who think it is wrong. They know that it will lead to an avalanche of soft money from wealthy corporate interests to skew the mid-term election results which are due in November. People who want to see the United States make good progress on legislation—for example to allow it to impose emissions limits on greenhouse gases—know that this decision striking down the soft money provisions of the McCain-Feingold legislation will make that prospect much much more remote. 
There is a clear analogy with the parallel campaigning loophole that appears in this bill. We in this House all know that big business in New Zealand does not like MMP and would like to see the back of it because it does not allow for the imposition of its will as the previous system did and many alternative systems would. Many have assumed that this dislike is what lies behind the National Party’s decision to promote this referendum which is why so many of us have been impressed by the way that the Minister has none the less largely managed to come up with what looks like a fair process. But we should be concerned that the Minister appears on this issue to have been forced to sacrifice true and complete transparency for the participants in the referendum process by allowing for parallel campaigning and by failing to provide for spending caps. 
I end by making it clear that the interests of democracy require us to remedy this defect as the bill proceeds. If it is not fixed the bill will fail to retain the widespread support across the House that good electoral reform needs to attract. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I was not planning to speak in this debate on the Electoral Referendum Bill but I am still green enough to be greatly gratified when I come down to the House and hear sensible speeches from all sides. 
Todd McClay 
: Catherine Delahunty shuddered when you said you were green. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Oh perhaps the Greens have not spoken yet. I came in when Mr Tremain was speaking and he reminded me of my own experiences politically. I think I will also promote a chortle from members opposite by confessing that my father was an ardent Social Crediter—perhaps that explains it all some would say— and he was hugely frustrated by the fact that Social Credit got 20-odd percent of the vote on occasion and as Mr Tremain said only ever got two MPs. Under no stretch of definition can that be called democracy. They were perhaps odd individuals. I witnessed a few at the house in Stout Street but nevertheless that was their view and they were citizens of this country. Likewise I remember very well the New Zealand Party in 1981 which I think was the first symptom of disquiet among the population about the skewed results that first past the post produced to the benefit of both of the major parties. 
Of course the MMP parties as we have come to be called did not exist then because that was damned near impossible. When we think about it we realise it was rather heroic of the Social Crediters to manage against all odds to get even two MPs given that the system was against them. 
The New Zealand Party was the first sign I think and the Muldoon domination prior to the 1984 Lange Government again promoted disquiet and upset. I personally marched in the streets against Mr Muldoon as he was then known bringing nuclear ships in during the winter. He always did it in the winter because it was hard to protest then. He did it in June and July and I recall standing in the rain down by the railway station there in protests for a couple of years running. He delighted in replying to letters and no matter how much thought we put into them even if it was only a page and a half we would get back one line from the secretary reading: “Your concern is noted. R.D. Muldoon.” So we ended up with an MMP system which as Mr Chauvel has said is not perfect. Ms Dalziel’s contribution was quite valid as well. 
Our party’s position is very simple and it is that the people should decide. We believe in democracy. As Mr Henare said when interjecting on Mr Chauvel we find this obsession with big business quite amusing especially since the ACT helicopters have long since been sold and none of us received our Mercedes although I was hoping and asking for a powder-blue one when I was chosen for the honour of being No. 5 on the list. The idea that big business backs us and that our fat-cat mates are writing us out cheques for $1 million every couple of weeks—oh that it were true! 
We are very happy to let the people decide. I disagree with Mr Chauvel that it is premature; I think it is probably about the right time for the people to have a say. As he has said the number of fringe parties or MMP parties—whatever people like to call them—is reducing. Mr Anderton is off to contest the Christchurch mayoralty although he has not announced it and I think the coiffed fellow who normally sits in front of me will probably go to his well-earned retirement next year. That will leave a spectrum from National on one side to the Maoris us the Greens and Labour which probably reflects the bell curve of New Zealand opinion on many issues. Of course there are cross-party issues as well. As the Hon Pete Hodgson also said very correctly the spectre of the Knesset—I believe the “k” is actually pronounced—with 30 parties and elections every 3 months has never happened here because of the MMP system. 
We are happy to put the system to the vote. It is probably no great surprise to the House to hear that individual members of our party differ on what they prefer. It may surprise the House to hear though that a number of our party are in favour of first past the post which would almost certainly mean our electoral oblivion. But the principle that the people should decide is more important than that so we will certainly be supporting this bill being referred to the select committee and almost certainly beyond that. Thank you. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 I start by saying that for me it is indeed a humbling privilege to be able to serve as a member of Parliament in this House and it is a further privilege—and one that I treat with great honour and care—to have been appointed to the Electoral Legislation Committee. However although I hope to contribute fully to the discussion and decision-making process on the Electoral Referendum Bill I may not be able to say—as one speaker from the other side Pete Hodgson said—that I was responsible for this and that. Even if I could say that I guarantee that I will not be able to stand here and say that when any further bill is reviewed. 
I next congratulate the Minister of Justice who I think has done an outstanding job in maintaining an even hand across Parliament and bringing this bill before us with the support of all the parties in terms of the consultation he has undertaken and the support he has obtained thus far for the process that we have embarked upon. The commitment that he has led is to be held—I say this because Chris Finlayson would not let me get away with not saying it—in stark contrast to what happened over the previous change to the electoral finance legislation. I assure the Opposition that the Minister will ensure that the same consultation and even-handedness that we have seen so far will carry on. 
Obviously I think unlike the previous speaker from Labour that it is timely that this review takes place. When MMP came in many—in fact I think the vast majority—of the populace were of the view and understanding that a review would be held sooner rather than later. Clearly as time passed people agitated for that review to be held. National made a commitment to do so in its election promises; I think it might have been the last promise that we made when we went to the people at the 2008 election. So it is good that the review is to take place. 
The only other comment that I really want to make is that the most important thing in a democracy is to have freedom of expression and freedom of speech. We have heard comments about a spending cap. I say what is important is that people are able to express themselves freely and frankly in any form that they choose. Whether that is a contribution by way of money or by way of labour—by putting themselves forward as volunteers to deliver pamphlets—so be it. People should not be restricted from being able to contribute in the way that they choose. We sit here and criticise people who choose to spend money as a way of contributing. For me if we are to talk about a cap then it must be called a value cap and everything must be valued—not just the dollars. Let us talk about a value cap because everything needs to be balanced. As far as I am concerned we should not run down people who contribute by way of donations. If that means costing volunteer hours then so be it. If we are to put caps on we should put caps on everything. With those few words I say I look forward to deliberating and receiving submissions on the bill in the select committee. Thank you. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 A number of colleagues have prefaced their comments this afternoon by saying what a privilege it is to be contributing to this debate about our democracy. I want to add my name to that list; it is a privilege. It seems that we have been talking about democracy a lot in recent times. We have been discussing for the last year really in a kind of running battle the future of Auckland’s democracy. I am very very aware of how strongly people in my city feel about the changes that are being made to their democracy. 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Is that North Shore Waitakere or Auckland? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: To Auckland City. We have also been debating the plight of Environment Canterbury where elections have been suspended for 3½ years. Feelings are running high in Canterbury right now. 
Looking further back from this debate I think that the consideration of the Electoral Referendum Bill really comes against the backdrop of the 2005 election and the chain of events that a number of colleagues have already referred to which saw the “hollow men” as we have come to know them and particularly the Exclusive Brethren spend upwards of a million dollars trying to buy the result of an election campaign. Since then there has been the rather unhappy progress of the Electoral Finance Act and to my mind the really unfortunate failure of this House to build a lasting consensus about the need to limit the influence of big money in our political system. 
So that is the backdrop. My colleague Charles Chauvel has already commented on Labour’s view that this review is perhaps premature but I will nevertheless add my voice to those who recognise that the Minister of Justice has been responsible for running the process that has led to the bill this far a process that has been fair reasonable inclusive and transparent. I think that the credit that Simon Power has had in this House and from commentators outside is well deserved; the process I think is good. 
As we know the bill sets out a process for two referenda. The first referendum will be held in conjunction with the 2011 general election and will offer voters the opportunity for change. It will ask them whether they want to continue with MMP or whether they would like to choose one of a number of alternative electoral systems—and those are the systems that were dealt with by the royal commission. If MMP wins the 50 percent or more that it needs it will be retained and that would then trigger an independent review by the Electoral Commission. If the change option wins a majority then we will see a second referendum to be held in conjunction with the 2014 general election. I think that that gives people plenty of time to debate the issues and to try to build a consensus. As I said I am of the view that that is a fair process. 
I particularly want to recognise that out of the debate and out of the consultation we have a second track in this bill that will allow a review of MMP. On this side of the House members felt that that was extremely important and I acknowledge the fact that that review has been built into this bill. I also cut my teeth politically during the Muldoon years as did a number of colleagues. David Garrett Chris Tremain and others have said they were influenced by the Muldoon years and often felt that New Zealand was living under a kind of dictatorship during the 1980s that went on for ever and ever. 
I think that in many ways for many of our generation it was that experience that whetted the appetite for electoral reform. There is no doubt that the actions of Governments in the 1980s and 1990s sharpened the hunger of New Zealanders for electoral reform that would deliver a more consultative democratic and representative system. In the years after the MMP system was introduced it was often difficult to find anybody in New Zealand who would actually admit to having voted for MMP. Those initial years after MMP came in were quite rocky and we had to wonder at times whether the system would last because the level of public disenchantment was so high. But I as an MMP supporter am glad that successive Governments and Parliaments have got much better at managing MMP and have learnt how to make the system work. It is gratifying to me to see that the level of public support—that which is indicated by the polling anyway—shows that the public feel I think pretty good about MMP. Nevertheless I am sure they will relish the chance to have their say in those referenda. 
I think as others have said before me that MMP has delivered a much more representative Parliament—a Parliament that looks much more like New Zealand—and I think that that is hugely important. It is also mathematically representative in that perhaps of all the systems on offer MMP is truly representative when we do the numbers. That gives it a legitimacy that is important especially if we are concerned about stemming the downward trend of voter turn-out. 
So I think that for all those reasons I am a fan of MMP. I know that some people feel that it has not delivered the kind of desired consensus politics the kind of conflict-free cooperation that some people had misty eyes thinking about when they thought that that would be delivered by MMP. It has not delivered that but in spite of some of the more frustrating aspects that we see—the tail wagging the dog etc.—I still believe that MMP has produced a much more inclusive and negotiated politics that is good for New Zealand. 
So I will be supporting MMP in this referendum. Under clause 56 of the bill we see that when the Electoral Commission does its review it will examine some of the more irritating aspects that the public often raise—for example the question of the 5 percent threshold that has allowed ACT to have five MPs in this House even though it earned 1 percent less of the popular vote than did New Zealand First at the last election; and New Zealand First as we know is no longer here. I think that particularly is one of the aspects of MMP that needs review. 
I do not have strong views about the overhang or dual candidacy. I think it would be interesting to see a review of a party’s ability to determine the order of candidates on the party list. We do not have a fixed view on that but perhaps it would be more democratic in the way that a primary election is to allow the public a say in determining party lists. I think there is quite a lot of interest and support out there for that. 
I want to also comment as Labour and Green colleagues before me have on the question of advertising rules and the loophole in this bill that allows third parties parallel campaigners to pretty much have a free hand in spending whatever they want to spend in seeking to influence the outcome of this referendum. All that they have to do is to register if they will be spending more than $12000. I think that that is simply not good enough. I support Paul Quinn’s idea of a value cap; that would be fine. Actually most people who contribute voluntary labour to an election campaign like this would contribute nothing like the kind of value that big business and wealthy donors are capable of contributing. It is a nonsense to say the issue is simply about freedom of expression. There is a balance to be struck here between freedom of expression and people who will wield undue influence in our democratic process. This bill does not appear to even recognise that there is a balance to be struck. As Charles Chauvel said even in the United States which we always reference as the place where big money corrupts the election process there have been serious efforts in recent years to regulate and protect freedom of expression. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena tatou e te Whare. It is most appropriate that today we are discussing the first reading of the Electoral Referendum Bill. Many of us in this House today are wearing a red poppy in remembrance of the Anzac soldiers who went overseas to many wars to fight for the very rights that underpin the notion that this referendum bill is about. It is appropriate that we recall that they made sacrifices. Many of them sacrificed their life and their families at home anguished and waited for news of whether they would return home. The soldiers went with the notion that they were fighting for things like democracy like constitutional integrity and like the right to equality in their homeland. In fact in the 1930s Sir Apirana Ngata a former National Minister wrote a very poignant essay called  
The Price of Citizenship 
 in which he exhorted the establishment of the Maori Battalion and said that if we wished to have the rights of citizenship in our country we should also participate in the obligation to fight for the integrity of our system in New Zealand. It is appropriate that we should wear the poppy today and that we should spend Sunday commemorating not only those people who are part of every family in New Zealand but also the particular principle of democracy that their valour and commitment represented. 
Today we are also honouring the social contract that many New Zealanders understood to have been entered into when MMP was first passed as an electoral system in the mid-1990s: that they would have the opportunity to review whether this system was serving us well and meeting our expectations. It is appropriate that we should honour as our party does the commitment we made at the 2008 election to conduct a referendum to see whether New Zealanders remain satisfied with this system and if not which other system they might wish to have in order to protect their democracy and their democratic expression in the new century. It is right that we should honour as I said those Anzac soldiers who all put their lives at risk so that we might maintain a democracy here in New Zealand. 
Like previous speakers I too commend the Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power for the integrity and commitment that he has shown to working across parties on an issue that should not be driven by partisanship but should be driven by our combined and unified interest in providing for our country a system in which all New Zealanders can enjoy confidence. Therefore I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Electoral Legislation Committee. 
Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Commerce Committee for consideration. 
This bill repeals section 92A of the Copyright Act 1994 and amends Part 6 of the Act to provide a fair and effective regime for the enforcement of copyright against illegal file sharers. The Copyright Act facilitates the earning of revenue from creative works in turn encouraging the investment of that revenue into the production of more creative content. Copyright owners are granted exclusive rights to exploit their creative works for a limited period of time. Ensuring strong legal frameworks for intellectual property rights contributes to achieving this Government’s goals of fostering economic growth and encouraging our creative industries to provide new and innovative products to New Zealand consumers and abroad. However copyright owners currently lack an effective enforcement measure against illegal file-sharing. 
File-sharing technologies link together Internet users who have access to copyright works and they facilitate the quick and easy transfer of a copy of a work such as music films and software to many other users. A 2009 study commissioned by the Recording Industry Association of New Zealand identified an average of 5000 potential infringements a day using a limited list of sound recordings. The Copyright Act provides that the communication of a work and the copying of a work without the authorisation of the copyright owner is a breach of copyright. Many file sharers communicate or copy a work without seeking permission from or paying the copyright owner. This sort of activity can therefore constitute a breach of copyright under the Act. 
As I am sure that everybody in the House this afternoon is aware New Zealand’s creative industries are a significant part of our economy. The advice I have is that in the 2008 financial year the New Zealand screen industry recorded gross revenue of $2.7 billion. However the creative industries have experienced significant declines in revenue as file sharing has become more prevalent. This Government wants to ensure that our creative industries can derive maximum economic benefit from the investment they put into the production of new copyright works. Current enforcement measures in the Copyright Act are ineffective at remedying the problem as the cost of legal proceedings outweighs the amount a copyright owner may be awarded by a court for file-sharing infringements. Court proceedings are further complicated by the requirement for copyright owners to obtain an order requiring the file sharer’s Internet service provider—or ISP—to release the file sharer’s contact details to the copyright owner before being able to take court action. 
In 2008 the previous Government amended the Copyright Act to include measures to address repeat copyright infringement over the Internet. The Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act inserted section 92A into the principal Act. It required Internet service providers to adopt and reasonably implement a policy to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers. In March 2009 this Government ordered a review of section 92A as it became clear that that section would not be workable. This bill proposes amending the Copyright Act to provide a fairer and more effective means for copyright owners to enforce their rights against file sharers. 
The bill provides that Internet account holders who are matched with evidence of alleged copyright infringement must receive a detection notice from their Internet service provider. After a second alleged infringement a warning notice is sent to the account holder. A third alleged infringement will result in an enforcement notice. It is only at that point that a copyright owner may take enforcement action by seeking a compensation award at the Copyright Tribunal or by seeking the suspension of an infringer’s Internet account for up to 6 months in the District Court. The bill provides time frames between notices to allow Internet account holders a reasonable opportunity to stop the infringing activity. Account holders who ignore warnings and continue infringing between notices will be liable for those infringements if enforcement action is taken against them at the Copyright Tribunal. There will be opportunities at all stages of the notice regime for an account holder to dispute notices and there will be an opportunity for a repeat infringer to request a hearing if enforcement action is taken against him or her at the Copyright Tribunal. Notices must also contain information to educate the recipient about illegal file-sharing to deter further infringing activity. The bill ensures that where a copyright owner seeks suspension of an Internet account for up to 6 months in the District Court an account will be suspended only after the account holder has received a third notice and in appropriate circumstances. The factors a court must consider when determining whether to order an Internet account suspension include the account holder’s reliance on access to the Internet and the seriousness of the infringement. 
The bill also includes a separate definition of “Internet service provider” specifically for the new regime. This definition covers only traditional Internet service providers—like Telecom—that are technically capable of performing the evidence-matching and notice-sending requirements in the bill. Universities libraries businesses and providers of transient Internet access such as Internet cafes are not considered Internet service providers under the new definition. As account holders however they will still be required to address infringing activity occurring on their networks. 
The proposals in this bill were formed by the Ministry of Economic Development in consultation with the Ministry of Justice Treasury the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Privacy Commissioner. Stakeholders from the creative and telecommunications industries have also been consulted closely on the new regime and the public were invited to comment on proposals. 
It is fair to say that the impending commencement of the original version of section 92A just over a year ago aroused some very passionate responses particularly from the Internet community. By taking the time to stop and listen to stakeholders and members of the public and then to act I am of the view that the Government has arrived at a more broadly acceptable solution. I commend this bill to the House. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I congratulate Minister Simon Power on all the hard work that has gone into the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. It has been quite a journey and I acknowledge and recognise the genuine commitment that has taken place to get to this point. 
Copyright in 2010 has become a brand or code. The prevalence of illegal downloading both in New Zealand and globally is a very real and important issue. The balancing act between protecting the rights of the creators of content and allowing and encouraging access to information and material is a delicate and increasingly tricky issue that is currently exercising the minds of parliaments across the world. Who owns intellectual property who should have access to it how they should have that access and what should be the penalties for infringing the rules governing that access are all very live issues that are being hotly debated. 
I have three main points to make. Labour supports the referral of this bill to a select committee. It is pretty much a sensible bill that has achieved the difficult task as the Minister of Justice has said of gaining support across all of the major stakeholder groups. It does not have their full support but it has support nevertheless. Labour does not support certain aspects of the bill. We question whether the bill will achieve what it sets out to do; there are bigger issues at stake. What lies at the heart of this debate and is the core reason for the bill is that thing called the Internet. The Internet the most important social and technological development of the previous two decades is a global resource linking thousands of millions of users to each other all sharing information. It is the sharing of information that is the issue here. 
Labour supports our local artists musicians and creative industries whose successes have shaped the very face of New Zealand internationally. There is a general consensus that repeated copyright infringement of creative works requires a penalty. It is the nature of this penalty that Labour wishes to address amongst other things at the select committee. 
Estimating the cost for rights holders affected by copyright infringement is not straightforward. Technology is changing quickly and consumers react to change in ways that some people in the creative industry are struggling to understand and cope with. When considering this bill the regulatory impact analysis team considered that although there was a case for intervention uncertainty about the scale of harm being done by illegal file-sharing meant that the impact analysis did not point to a preferred option. In other words the case has not clearly been made that sales of music and movies via the Internet are decreasing due to illegal file-sharing. 
Labour believes that the Government should be an enabler not an inhibitor of creativity and connectedness. The Internet has irreversibly changed our relationship to content; there is no going back. We cannot put that genie back in the bottle. Labour supports the general aim of the bill to enable creativity by placing responsibility on consumers to respect copyright but without overly inhibiting the rights of citizens in a democratic society to access and participate in the Internet. 
So what does this bill do and what will it achieve? It amends the Copyright Act 1994 to provide new enforcement measures against the unauthorised sharing of copyrighted material via the Internet. It repeals section 92A of the Act which would have required Internet service providers to adopt a policy providing for the termination of a repeat infringer’s Internet account. Labour developed section 92A with the best of intentions and notes that it was supported by National in this Parliament in 2008. However it must be acknowledged that intense and widespread public reaction to the introduction of section 92A led Labour to conclude early last year that the issue needed to be readdressed. We moved quickly after the election to acknowledge problems with it and consulted widely with stakeholders. We realised that despite the good intention of the original Act the requirement for stakeholders to develop a workable code of practice to terminate Internet accounts on the basis of copyright infringements had some serious flaws. We pressed the Government to address the issue and supported its decision to take another look at section 92A. 
The revised version this bill goes some way to addressing the issues of the sharing of copyrighted material via the Internet. This is because it provides for an education and enforcement regime. The bill contains many sensible provisions and we support it but we are strongly opposed to the provision for suspension of an Internet service provider account which is firstly in principle unacceptable as it impinges on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and secondly in practice is ineffectual as a deterrent and unworkable because the convicted person can just sign up with another Internet service provider. 
In France which has legislated to disconnect Internet accounts for copyright infringement preliminary findings about the effects of the law have found that it has not been successful in deterring copyright infringement. Researchers at the University of Rennes found that the overall piracy by French Internet users has actually increased. There are a number of matters in this bill left to regulation—in particular the costs payable per infringement and how those costs will be recovered. Public consultation needs to be undertaken on this. It must be a priority for this Government to clarify the relationship of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement to New Zealand’s copyright laws. The digital copyright aspects of the agreement risk introducing enforcement practices and restrictions on content that otherwise balance existing copyright via the back door. 
Finally enacting this bill will not address the fundamental issue of copyright infringement and unauthorised file-sharing. The digital age has meant that corporations that have traditionally controlled and managed the distribution of creative content are losing control of that distribution. As I said we cannot put that genie back in the bottle; it is widespread. I challenge any members of this House to say that they do not have a family member or friend who engages in illegal peer-to-peer file-sharing. Let me give members an example. The Academy Award best picture winner  
The Hurt Locker 
 was released in United States theatres on 26 June last year and on DVD on 12 January this year. It was nominated for an Oscar and last month it won the Oscar for Best Picture. This all occurred before the movie was available legally in New Zealand. In fact it took another month before it was released into cinemas in New Zealand on 1 April. Surely an industry that claims to be adapting and satisfying consumer demand would have released the movie sooner. Just to illustrate this point a copy of the movie was released on the underground pirate scene in January 2009. In this digital day and age what does the industry expect people will do? 
The conventional wisdom of traditional rights holders such as the big distribution companies and the music and movie industries holds that withdrawing Internet access for persistent copyright infringers will protect the revenue and livelihoods of musicians and artists. Yet the prevalence of illegal file-sharing across the world is the result of the market’s inability to control and distribute content rather than the infringing behaviour of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders and millions of people across the globe. 
However Labour believes that the ability of copyright holders to protect their rights in the digital age is a fundamental issue that needs to be addressed given the transformations that have occurred in technology and the inability of the existing laws to respond adequately. The Government should invest in enabling New Zealand content creators to use new technologies to promote and distribute their work to national and international audiences in such a way that allows them to build profitable and sustainable businesses. That means supporting new business models instead of propping up old outdated ones. One such online business using a different model is www.cdbaby.com which is the largest indie music producer in the world. I have been advised that in a traditional record or distribution deal musicians make only about $1 or $2 an album. When selling through www.cdbaby.com musicians make $6 to $12 per album and get paid weekly. The people really losing out from these advances in technology are the large monopolistic corporations whose business models based on outdated technology are being disruptive. A more Draconian law risks locking in those obsolete business models centralising control in a few corporations and restricting artists’ ability to be entrepreneurial and innovative in how they promote themselves and profit from their work. 
Although Labour supports sending this bill to select committee we do so with some qualifications. We believe that the Government should be an enabler of creativity in this country not just an inhibitor. We look forward to the debate on these issues. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the Minister of Justice for bringing the bill to the House and for taking the time and consideration to consult stakeholders in the industry who are affected. I believe he is bringing in the right type of solution for the issues involved. 
As has been stated the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill amends the Copyright Act 1994 to provide new enforcement measures against the unauthorised sharing of copyright material via the Internet. Infringement of copyright as has already been stated in the House is facilitated by digital technologies. It is cheap to produce multiple copies that are indistinguishable from the original and the Internet speeds up distribution. The magnitude of the problem makes it too difficult for some rights-holders to eliminate it and the phenomenon is increasing despite existing regimes dealing with copyright infringement. 
As an example an average of 200000 movie and television files are shared each month in this country according to the New Zealand Federation Against Copyright Theft (NZFACT). A NZFACT survey found that two in five young people have downloaded illegal copies of movies for free and young men and those aged 15 to 17 are more likely to be the offenders. Another survey commissioned by TelstraClear of more than 1000 New Zealand Internet users aged 18 to 70 found that every respondent—every respondent—had downloaded copyrighted material at least once in the year to June 2009. 
Many people consider that sharing and downloading is harmless but my contention is that it impacts on creative industries the New Zealand economy and the reputation of our country in foreign countries. The recording industry in New Zealand is obviously one of the creative industries most affected by illegal downloading. It is expected that similar large-scale effects will also damage the screen sector as broadband availability increases due to the Government’s programme around broadband. 
This bill will repeal section 92A of the principal Act and replaces it with a three-notice regime which is intended to deter illegal file-sharing. This amendment puts in place a fair and balanced process to deal with online copyright infringements occurring via file sharing. The major feature is the three-notice process which educates the public about illegal file-sharing and provides effective methods for copyright owners to enforce their copyright. The bill also ensures that file sharers are given adequate warnings that unauthorised sharing of copyright works is illegal. I repeat that unauthorised sharing of copyright works is illegal. The bill also extends the jurisdiction of the Copyright Tribunal enabling it to hear complaints and award penalties of up to $15000 based on the amount of damage sustained by the copyright owner. 
I look forward to discussing this bill with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee and I support this bill in its first reading. Thank you. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill will repeal section 92A of the Copyright Act which was introduced in the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008. In so doing it aims to deter illegal file-sharing holding individual account holders liable for their actions rather than Internet service providers and compensating copyright holders for damages caused by illegal file-sharing. At the same time it aims to educate the public about the problems caused by such copyright infringements. 
Labour holds in high regard the right of individuals to have their innovative creations whether they are in the form of music films or other entertainments protected. Because of the importance that we place on protecting intellectual property we will do our bit to curb illegal file-sharing by supporting the referral of the bill to the Commerce Committee. But our support for the bill does come with several reservations particularly around the issue of the suspension of Internet users’ access the amount of detail in the bill that is left to regulation and the bill’s general lack of clarity in certain circumstances. 
When Labour was last in Government we recognised the seriousness of the issue of Internet piracy by implementing section 92A of the current Act which requires Internet service providers to suspend the accounts of repeat file-sharing offenders. This was done as I think has been recognised across the House with the best of intentions just as I believe that it was supported by the National Party on the same basis. Clearly after widespread public discussion the House has come to the realisation that that section is particularly problematic. It was referred to on the Net as the “guilt upon accusation” law because it gave the potential for Internet users to have their access suspended without due process. 
This bill seeks to remedy this unjust situation by implementing a “three strikes” system whereby three notices will be given before an account is suspended. 
David Garrett 
: Very sound! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Perhaps this is one occasion where “three strikes” might make a tiny iota of sense although not in any other public policy area I say to Mr Garrett. Although this process hopefully will give fair time in which to change the behaviour along with the opportunity for offenders to learn about the damage caused by illegal file-sharing we still have the issue of suspension which is problematic. In our view the regime is generally more equitable and we do look forward to hearing what the public have to say on the provisions at the Commerce Committee. 
It is important to note as I referred to earlier that Labour sees certain aspects of the bill as being inequitable. A particular example is the suspension of Internet access. The provision in the bill regarding suspension is as InternetNZ has said unworkable and unnecessary as Internet users can simply start new accounts with other Internet providers if they are cut off. It is also arguable that the suspension of Internet access breaches important human rights such as the freedoms of expression and assembly. It is interesting to note the evolving academic debate on the role of the Internet and the dissemination of information through it in a human rights context. It is important to keep in mind how to protect and uphold such rights in a contemporary context. 
Along with the issue of access and the Internet’s relationship to human rights there are several other reasons why Labour supports the bill only as far as its referral to the select committee. These include the loose definitions of Internet service providers and of what suspension would actually entail and the amount of the bill’s detail that would be left to regulation. We hope that the select committee process will be able to bring about some constructive development of these rather vague parts of the legislation and I am sure that the Minister will welcome careful consideration of these issues at the committee. 
The bill affords the House an opportunity to get things right in this increasingly important area. We should seize that opportunity and make every effort to balance in an appropriate manner the competing rights and interests that are at stake. I look forward to the Commerce Committee hearing the evidence and reaching what I hope will be on this occasion satisfactory and enduring conclusions. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. I am happy to take a call in the first reading of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. File sharing is a fact of modern life. Internet service providers say that sometimes at night 90 percent of Internet traffic is illegal file-sharing. The Internet has built connections and increased global communications as significantly if not more than the telegraph. It has contributed to more collaborative ways of working. The Internet has revolutionised business and the global economy. The Internet has unleashed fantastic creativity from the arts to academia and business. 
However in many cases making a business out of creativity is not a viable proposition because of illegal file-sharing. The Green Party supports this bill at its first reading because although it might not solve the problem it will play a part in the solution and send a good message that what is happening is illegal and is damaging New Zealand creatives and Internet entrepreneurs. This bill is an affirmation of New Zealand creativity. At the moment essentially the only sector making money out of Kiwi musicians’ and Kiwi film makers’ hard work is Internet service providers. If we want a growing viable and exciting Kiwi music and movie industry we have to protect musicians’ and film makers’ rights to make a living off their work. A whole generation has grown up not paying for film or music but this is not sustainable. 
The Internet has created a new digital economy. This bill will help entrepreneurs to maximise the Internet as a means of making their living. Other countries that have implemented file-sharing protection along these lines such as Sweden have seen legal music services increase dramatically. Companies that once were not viable now are. New technologies like the Internet mean we need laws that allow new business models to develop and flourish. This bill is a first step in that direction and it will not be the last before this House. 
This bill amends the Copyright Act 1994 to provide new enforcement measures against the unauthorised sharing of copyright material via the Internet. It repeals section 92A of the Act which was not brought into force but would have required Internet service providers to adopt a policy providing for the termination of repeat infringers’ Internet accounts. In summary it cleans up the mess that was made by the previous Government regarding section 92A. This bill goes incredibly far towards the demands set by the Creative Freedom Foundation and others in response to the Draconian section 92A which was put forward during the last parliamentary term. It repeals the existing section 92A and replaces it with a notice system that copyright holders can then use to go to a tribunal and ask for penalties for repeated copyright infringement. The Green Party was the only party to oppose section 92A at every stage in the House and to offer genuine amendments to fix it. This bill removes the onerous definition of “Internet service provider” and the awkward way they were being made into police jury judge and executioner and all at their own cost. On balance our concerns have been conscientiously addressed and the Minister of Justice Simon Power is to be congratulated. 
We still have some niggles with some of the definitions and with the service cut-off provision which many think is pointless. There are also issues about how open wireless points can be handled and the kinds and level of fines to be issued within the statutory limit. We were also interested in looking at the termination issue. Even if infringers have their connection terminated they can still switch providers. I believe questions can be rightfully asked such as those asked by Bronwyn Holloway-Smith of the Creative Freedom Foundation about whether the Internet is a core vital public service. We would not terminate someone’s right to post a letter. We look forward to looking at this bill in detail at the select committee and the Greens will be supporting it. 
This bill is an essential part of protecting Kiwi creatives and it strikes a sensible balance between Internet service providers copyright holders and file sharers. We still have some way to go to change the culture of file sharing in New Zealand. A survey on movie file-sharing amongst young New Zealanders commissioned by the New Zealand Federation Against Copyright Theft found that a notice from their Internet service providers would be enough to stop 71 percent of young people from further accessing illegal copies of movies. Along with the notices and potential financial penalties outlined in this bill education is important. My generation has grown up with a culture of file sharing. I probably have watched illegally downloaded material and shared files that breach copyright. In many cases people simply are not aware that what they are doing is wrong or that the material they are accessing has been provided through illegal means. 
Unlike the previous amendment bill this bill has widespread public support from the Creative Freedom Foundation InternetNZ the Library and Information Association of New Zealand and the Australasian Performing Right Association. The Australasian Performing Right Association speaks for our Kiwi creatives. It says that it is not its intention to cut people off from the Internet; rather it is to continue to allow creatives to make a living from their skills knowledge and energy. Sure musicians can make money from performing live on the street as they always have and always will but they cannot be reduced to this as their only source of income like some 19th century street musician. Screen Directors Guild executive director Anna Cahill has said: “New Zealand artists and audiences stand to lose unless the government strengthens the proposal to build a framework for stopping online copyright infringement.” 
Digital copyright protection is crucial for new digital business models to be successful. The bottom line is that the creators should be paid if they want but Internet users also need protection and balance. The fact is that file sharing and downloading copyright files is now a social norm. Previously the copyright enforcement agency required a court order to obtain the identity of the infringer from that infringer’s Internet service provider. The costs of doing so often outweighed the possible damage or did not justify the effort. 
Over the course of the Internet’s existence in New Zealand we have missed a great opportunity to protect digital copyright and establish different social norms in this country. This has to be taken into account. It cannot be assumed that all infringers are brazen criminals trying to steal creatives’ work for financial gain. Often it is one’s brother cousin or boss. There are genuine repeat offenders who are doing significant damage to our creatives and in many cases arguably deserve the potential $15000 fine. These people know exactly what they are doing they are aware of the illegality of it and they are motivated by a sense of currently being able to get away with it. 
We need some clarity around the fines schedule because it is unclear what level the fines will be. For example the $15000 maximum fine is modelled on the same limit as the disputes tribunal and at present we all know that the amount will be based on damage to the copyright owner. But in practice how much will the fine be for a movie or an album? The public must be given some real figures. If the purpose of parading a maximum $15000 fine is to scare the public into compliance then the education incentive of this bill will be lost. 
In summary the Green Party looks forward to submissions at the select committee. We will be voting for this bill at its first reading. Kia ora. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 There is something about the “three strikes” approach that this Government cannot seem to get enough of. In this bill the “three strikes” rule is applied to illegal file-sharing. In the Maori Party all of us have children or mokopuna in our lives who would think nothing of sharing music video and game files over computer networks such as the Internet. In my day we might have borrowed cassettes or LPs—for those members who are too young to know they are long-playing records. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: It’s a round vinyl thing Gareth. 
RAHUI KATENE 
: Yes. We could borrow those from our mates but today’s kids are accessing the latest hits online. 
The amendment we are voting on today puts in place a fair and balanced process to deal with online copyright infringements which are occurring via the process of file sharing. The process described is fair precisely because of this “three strikes” rule. The three-notice process is to give sufficient warning to file sharers that unauthorised sharing of copyright works is illegal. But the bill does not restrict itself just to warnings; it also puts in place—as we have been seeing more and more of with the standard Government approach—an almost predictable series of sanctions and punishments. 
The Copyright Tribunal will have an extended jurisdiction to enable it to hear complaints and award penalties of up to $15000. The amount will be based on the amount of damage sustained by the copyright owner. The bill also enables copyright owners to seek the suspension of Internet accounts through the District Court for up to 6 months. Lest I give the impression of unreasonableness I hasten to suggest that there is some leniency around time frames. In essence account holders will have an opportunity to address illegal file-sharing activity occurring on their Internet connection before enforcement action is taken. The timing is also extended to challenge notices and may request hearings at the Copyright Tribunal to contest infringement claims. 
We believe that this bill will be welcomed by the music industry as a weapon in the battle against online piracy. There are huge issues associated with the lack of intellectual property rights not to mention the significant declines in revenue that the copyright owner would otherwise be entitled to. The extent of downloading by individuals is so severe that copyright owners claim that it is having a substantial economic impact on their businesses. 
The interesting thing for the Maori Party will be to see how the range of measures introduced in this bill will be received. It is of course well known that the previous consultation on section 92A of the Act was widely condemned. One of those criticisms was that the legislation had no process allowing challenged Internet users to rebut a copyright owner’s allegations. Under the new law file downloaders who feel they have been wrongly penalised will be able to take their case to the Copyright Tribunal for free. 
At the end of the day the real key to the success of this bill will be in the way in which it is received by the people. We are told the bill is the result of extensive consultation with stakeholders. Time will tell whether that consultation has produced the positive results sought. To this end we will support this bill at the first reading to enable the korero to be heard. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call on the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill today. I acknowledge the work that the Minister has put into amending section 92A of the copyright legislation and the solutions he has found. It is interesting that we are in a society now where digital technology is the norm where information technology growth is the norm where many houses have computers and where our youth from as young as 3 4 and 5 can go on to computers and work them. They have access to the Internet. They actually go on to the Internet and on to Facebook. There are these amazingly interactive games on Facebook— 
Grant Robertson 
: FarmVille? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: —even FarmVille which is a fantastic game. I have to say that all my children are FarmVille people as well and there is nothing like virtual farming to really get in touch with one’s constituents. We are in an era now where the Internet is the norm. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: You are not in a rural constituency. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: No I am not but I do have some rural constituents in Ohariu. 
Grant Robertson 
: Virtual or real? 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: Virtual and real. We are in a society now where it is easy for people to talk to each and to share information online and unfortunately part of that is peer-to-peer file sharing. Many people especially those of the younger generation think it is normal to share this information. They do not realise that there is a value on what they are sharing. They just share it very freely between each other as if it is the norm and there is nothing wrong with it. In fact we know that over 2 million movie and TV files are shared every single year because the practice is considered normal and harmless. 
But it is not harmless—in fact there is great harm to those in the creative industries not just globally but more important in New Zealand. New Zealand has a very small market in which producers can sell their local home-grown produce. The problem hits both our music and screen sectors. We have an incredibly amazingly talented screen sector. We have incredibly talented producers; Ainslie Gardiner is an example. She is one of New Zealand’s most successful producers. She produced  
Boy 
 which is the No. 1 movie at the moment after 4 weeks. It is only fair that such people get recognition for the work they do that they get financial recognition for that as well and that their work is not taken and shared for free. Production does cost money and people do make a living off these sectors. It was interesting that in New Zealand a few years ago we had a movie called  
Sione’s Wedding 
. It was leaked out shared and copied and the producers estimated that that cost them $1 million in revenue. That is a lot of money for producers in New Zealand. So it is important that when we look at these problems we look at them so that we find solutions that are fair for those who are producing and for those who are users as well. 
There was an outcry last year when section 92A inserted by the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act 2008 from the previous Government was to be put in place. The outcry was basically over the termination of Internet accounts without evidence of misuse or users’ opportunity to provide a defence. The outcry was “How can you take my IP address off me? How can you do that without me being able to defend myself and without you proving that it was actually me who was downloading copying and passing on?”. So last year our Government took a breath stepped back and did a review of section 92A. We put it out to public consultation. We looked at the key concern the concern of the proposal to terminate Internet accounts. 
It is interesting that two other countries have something in place already in terms of this matter. One is France which terminates an IP address and has Internet suspension or a fine on the third offence and there is Britain which is going through the process now. It is consulting with its people and its Internet users as to what they think is fair and on the other side with its producers on what they think is fair as well. 
We have gone out and consulted with the public and now we have this bill before the House. The big part of this bill is the three-notice regime intended to deter illegal file sharing. The bill is doing that by saying that Internet users will be given the opportunity to make that mistake once twice or three times but after that stage we will take some action on it. There will be a reasonable time period before the enforcement takes place. The time frames will be prescribed so that account holders will have an opportunity to address illegal file-sharing activity. A great deal of work has gone into finding a fair effective and credible process for the enforcement of copyright against illegal peer-to-peer file sharing. I support this bill in the House. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise and speak on this bill the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill and I will join in the love fest when it comes to Simon Power and his role in bringing this bill to the House. I think that the Minister deserves credit for having drawn together the work that has gone into bringing this bill forward. 
As other speakers have noted this bill has widespread support among those who are interested in this issue. That says quite something because it was clear during the debate on section 92A of the Copyright Act that there was a great diversity of opinion and some of it was very strongly expressed. I will briefly go back to section 92A. Although that section became extremely controversial it was based on the belief that the issue of addressing copyright infringement and copyright abuse is important and that there needed to be serious consequences for those who infringe copyright. The section was also based on the view that we could come to a negotiated solution on this issue. 
On that note I credit the role of the Telecommunication Carriers Forum and Ralph Chivers from that group. He is no longer with it; he works for another large telecommunications organisation now. Mr Chivers and his group attempted to bring together some consensus on this issue. 
A lot of people were involved in that process—the rights holders the Internet service providers and the consumer representatives—and significant progress was made towards a negotiated solution. What happened however was that people became very concerned obviously about the issue of the termination of accounts and in the end it was not possible to come to an agreement. Taken away from the pressure of that negotiation taken out and put into a different process—which as I said Mr Power has led—a process has now been agreed on and that is a good thing. 
But I think the goal of section 92A is the goal that people have been speaking about today. People right across New Zealand want to make sure that our artists and musicians have the ability to make money from their craft and to know that a regime is in place whereby people who abuse that will be brought to account. On the other side of the coin those who use the Internet—which is as many people have said today a brave new world that we cannot control in the way that we may have been able to control other platforms in the past—need to be able to know that their rights will be protected as well. I think credit is due to all of the stakeholders who have been involved in this process up until now. 
A number of people have already spoken about what the bill does. I think it is important to note that there is a “three strikes” or three warnings process which includes a detection notice followed by a warning notice should the Internet subscriber be accused of infringing copyright again. I think that those two notices are very important because one of the most important parts of this bill is the notion of educating people who are involved in illegal file-sharing. It is quite clear—Mr Gareth Hughes and others have spoken about it—that a whole generation of people who do this are not even aware that what they are doing is illegal. There is a generation of people for whom if something is on the Internet it is theirs. They think that if it is there then they can use it. We need to work very hard to build up the education of particularly people of a younger age about the fact that that material belongs to somebody. It ensures the livelihood of our musicians and artists. When those Internet subscribers are going after and trying to find the work of the people whose work they appreciate so much it is important that they understand that point. I think that a three-stage process is a useful way of doing that. 
The third stage of the process is the enforcement notice which as others have said could see people being fined up to $15000 or having their Internet account disconnected for up to 6 months. The process now also includes the ability for those who have been accused and who feel that that charge is unjust to go to the Copyright Tribunal at no cost. That is important as well. That is the second set of rights I was talking about earlier. We need to protect the rights of not only those who hold the copyright but also those who perhaps feel that they have been unfairly targeted. I think that is a good balance. 
As previous Labour speakers have said our point of view is that we have concerns about the disconnection provisions. I will not go back into all the details of those concerns but I think that there will be a number of submissions on that matter at the select committee. People are particularly concerned about what it would mean. My particular concern about it is that it will not work in terms of discouraging people from illegal file-sharing because as a number of other speakers have noted people will simply go and sign up to another account. Many people have multiple accounts already. That is simply the nature of how people use and access the Internet. 
I think we want to work towards mechanisms that will actually work in terms of discouraging people from illegal file-sharing. I think that education notices and a process where people will see the consequences coming towards them will stop people at different stages of that process. The reality is that some people and perhaps some organisations will not stop because this sort of file sharing is what they do. It is illegal it is criminal activity and we will have to continue to look for and follow up those people in other ways. 
What I want to make clear and to lay down on the record is Labour’s support for the music and creative industries in New Zealand. I think that anyone looking back on the record of the fifth Labour Government would have to acknowledge that Labour did a great deal to enhance the ability of musicians and artists in New Zealand to make a living. Last night we had the 21st birthday function for New Zealand On Air in the Banquet Hall of the Beehive and the graph went up on the screen of the amount of New Zealand music being played on commercial radio. That amount is 20 percent and it has been around the 20 percent figure consistently for the last few years. That is a direct result of the code of practice that was brought in between commercial radio and the Government under the fifth Labour Government. That was an important part of ensuring that that music is heard. 
Also important was the creation of the New Zealand Music Industry Commission which has helped to promote New Zealand musicians overseas. It has given New Zealand musicians the ability to break into new markets and to make sure that their product is heard across the world. The ongoing work of the cultural recovery package that Helen Clark oversaw when it came in has also been important. Those initiatives have all contributed to New Zealand musicians and artists being able to make their way in the world. 
Labour stands beside New Zealand musicians and artists. In terms of copyright we stand beside them in acknowledging that copyright is the means by which creators such as composers and songwriters make a living from their work. We will stand up and protect that right and the enforcement of that right. The legislation that is in front of us today will help with that. We certainly have concerns about the legislation but it will help with that. What we have to do is to provide a mechanism that works—a mechanism that will discourage people from file sharing. We need to ensure that we work on the measures in this bill that will work and as I say we have concerns about whether the disconnection process will actually work. 
I will not delay the House much more. I note that we have a couple of other concerns about the bill. In particular we are concerned about the fact that many of the details within this bill are left to regulations. I draw members’ attention to Part 2 particularly the provisions of clause 10 “Regulations”. There is a lot of confusion about what the fee that will be payable by copyright owners for applications to the tribunal will be and we need to ensure that we get a lot more specificity on that part of the bill during the select committee process. We want to make sure that there is clarity. 
I think that a good job has been done by the Minister to ensure that we have a bill we can discuss. The select committee process is now the chance for all those involved—rights holders Internet service providers and consumers—to put down any further concerns they have and to ensure that we have a law that is workable for everyone but one that in particular protects the ability of our musicians and artists to make a living from their work. That is the issue that I personally have the most interest in and those are the people whom I will be standing up for as this bill goes through the House. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I rise in support of this first reading of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. It is lovely to see that there is multiparty support for this bill. 
Advancement in technology has made breaking the law easy. I mean that online copyright infringement is a problem for everyone. But I take this opportunity to speak for the creative industry which I came from prior to entering Parliament. Without wanting to repeat some of the things that previous speakers have said I tell the House that the creative industry has experienced a significant decline in revenue as file sharing has become prevalent. It is cheap to produce multiple copies of programmes or movies copies that are indistinguishable from the original. Of course the Internet speeds up the process and distribution. It was said previously by my colleague Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga that 200000 movies and television files are shared each month in this country—and I believe that that amounts to more than 2 million in a year—according to the New Zealand Federation Against Copyright Theft. I have heard stories of people who have travelled overseas and returned home with dozens of pirated DVDs. I have heard stories of people downloading movies yet to be released in New Zealand from overseas websites as the previous speaker from the Opposition has also said. 
I am appalled by this behaviour but with the advent of faster broadband I fear the problem may just continue to grow unless we do something about it. As a screenwriter in my previous life knowing how long it takes to develop a script and to screen it and the time and effort it takes for a film to be made I know that this kind of theft is something that we need to stop. I fear for the cultural industries. 
The recording industry is another industry that has been affected by illegal downloading. As an example of how prevalent and blasé people have become about this illegal downloading let me share a story that I heard last night. I seem to have been at the same event that Grant Robertson was at in the Banquet Hall last night at which one of my favourite bands Opshop played. During a conversation with the Opshop boys I admitted that I had at least three copies of their CDs which I had bought because I liked them so much. They then told me that they have had people come up to them and tell them to their face that they had burnt copies of their CDs. Opshop could only say to them that if they so much liked the CDs that had been burnt they could actually just go and buy them. People are so blasé that they will actually admit to the people who own the copyright that they have burnt or illegal copies of their work. Illegal copying of content happens everywhere and we can expect the problem to be an epidemic in this country. I am sure that everyone in this Parliament will have heard a piece of music or seen a movie—inadvertently mind you—that has been illegally copied or downloaded. 
The previous Labour Government tried to fix this problem but section 92A of the copyright legislation caused a public outcry. It resulted in Internet users launching the Internet Blackout week between 16-23 February last year. The campaign also drew support from famous actors from around the world including Stephen Fry whose tweet read: “I’m blacked out: Stand up against ‘Guilt Upon Accusation’ for New Zealand”. This came about because Labour’s section 92A of the legislation would have led to the termination of an Internet account without evidence or opportunity for a user to provide a defence. As a result the National-led Government did not bring section 92A into force and ordered a review; this bill is the result of that process. The bill puts the mistake of the original section 92A passed by the previous Labour Government behind us and allows for a workable regime that will reduce copyright infringement in New Zealand. 
I take this opportunity to acknowledge the Minister the Hon Simon Power for bringing this bill to the House for consideration and for taking the time to consult with stakeholders. I look forward to the submissions through the select committee process. Thank you. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 Winston Churchill once said that out of intense complexities intense simplicities emerge. Unfortunately what that wise man said does not apply to the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Bill. The more I read the bill the more questions I have. My colleagues said earlier that Labour supports the bill being referred to the Commerce Committee but that we have several reservations. In particular the definition of “Internet service provider”—ISP—needs to be clarified. We disagree with suspending infringers’ access to the Internet for two reasons: firstly it does not work because infringers can simply sign up with a different Internet service provider if they are suspended; and secondly as many experts in this area have argued it seriously and unjustifiably impinges on freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Many of the details are left to regulation—for example the amount of the costs payable per infringement. Will it be the market value of a song on iTunes for example or will punitive damages be available? Further it is unclear what impact the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement will have on the bill. 
I reiterate that Labour strongly believes that those people who create music films and other entertainment should have their work protected from piracy. It is crucial that we attempt to curtail illegal peer-to-peer file-sharing. This bill will send a powerful message to our creative industries that we value what they do that we legislators want to protect what they do and that we do not believe in censoring the Internet but we are responding to genuine concerns. While in Government Labour tried to address the growing problem of Internet piracy by requiring Internet service providers to police illegal downloading and to have a policy for terminating the accounts of repeat offenders hence the well-debated section 92A of the current Copyright Act. We have considered that section 92A was problematic and we have addressed the issues by meeting with stakeholders and pressing the Government to take another look at the legislation. 
Businesses that represent artists have lost control of the distribution of creative content. The market has failed and legislation is needed to block the flow of peer-to-peer file-sharing that is undermining the entertainment industry. Labour acknowledges that the requirement for stakeholders to develop a code of practice detailing when Internet accounts ought to be terminated was unworkable. 
Two important cases are very helpful here. The first one is  
iiNet v Australian Federation against Copyright Theft 
 where the Australian High Court ruled in favour of the defendant the Internet service provider. The issue in that case was whether the fact that the Internet service provider’s customers were sharing unlicensed copies of films and TV shows using the Internet service provider’s Internet connections meant that the Internet service provider had responsibility to stop them from doing so. The plaintiff said that if the Internet service provider failed to do so it effectively condoned that infringement and was liable itself. The judge found against the plaintiff on most counts. The judge also found reasonable the Internet service provider’s policy of not terminating its customers’ Internet connections just because it had received complaints from copyright owners. The second case relates to the YouTube website where users can upload copyright-infringing material without the knowledge of the site’s owners. The video-sharing site which is owned by Google and is subject to a US$1 billion lawsuit by the US media giant Viacom argues that it cannot screen every video that is uploaded to the site to check whether it infringes copyright. Given the large amount of material hosted on that site however the whole thing could potentially be blocked by the High Court. 
My former partner from Brookfields Lawyers Mr John Ferner stated: “For many accommodation and other tourism service providers facilities which give their customers private and direct access to the net are simply part of the service. Up until now these businesses have not needed to concern themselves too much about what their customers may be up to when using these services but this is about to change.” 
The bill intends to put in place a fair and balanced process to deal with online copyright infringement by unauthorised file-sharing. It replaces a scheme that was delayed thanks to a barrage of criticism fearful that it could have resulted in many unwarranted disconnections from the Net. To conclude Labour will support this bill going to the select committee. I look forward to the submissions and to robust debates at the select committee. Thank you. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 Like the member Grant Robertson I was in attendance at the 21st birthday of NZ On Air last night. It was indeed a celebration of New Zealand music video and other media. 
As Mr Robertson rightly pointed out the amount of New Zealand music played on commercial radio has increased from about 2 percent 21 years ago to over 20 percent now which is a huge success. But he did not mention that the chief executive last night referred to the fact that NZ On Air and the products that are produced are very much online. The member Ms Katene referred to the illegal copying of vinyl on to cassettes as being the way that our generation copied music. I suggest that that was a hand grenade thrown at copyright law whereas the Internet provides a nuclear explosion—such is the difference in scale and opportunity for illegally copying. So the question is whether section 92A of the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Act was the nuclear deterrent. 
One of the features of this House is the fact that Labour has fiercely defended almost all of the legislation it passed in the 9 years it was in office with a couple of glaring exceptions. I think that the Electoral Finance Act was an example of some mea culpa and in particular David Parker acknowledged that it was not the previous Labour’s Government’s finest moment. I think that Labour’s copyright legislation is another example. 
Credit is due to Clare Curran for bringing this matter to the attention of the House on behalf of her party. Every member of this House was aware of the wave of opposition to the provision. That opposition did not start just at the election; it was very clear that section 92A was not going to work in the way that it was intended. It is a shame that when members opposite were in Government they did not listen a little more carefully to submitters on that point. In fact the architect of this bill Judith Tizard is on record as saying that section 92A was “deliberately vague”. Well I suggest that vague law makes bad law. In fact it was not vague. Those people who were going to be affected by the legislation knew exactly how it would affect them. 
Ms Curran also mentioned something in her first reading call today that I must pick up on. She continued the Labour Party’s longstanding habit of kicking the victim by implying that because large media organisations are large the harm done to them is somehow mitigated. She accused those organisations of working to outdated business models. Well I simply reject that. Hang on if this business model is so outdated why is the legislation affecting those large media organisations more than anybody else? 
I will touch on what Mr Hughes said about the education benefit being lost because of the punitive nature of the $15000 fine. I respectfully disagree with that and Mr Robertson has commented on it as well. There are three reasons why I disagree. Firstly there is a plethora of information out there about video and DVD piracy and Internet piracy. I do not think that it is acceptable now for Internet users to say they did not know that what they were doing was wrong. Secondly in the absence of some form of sanction Internet and DVD piracy messages will simply fall on deaf ears. And thirdly the “three strikes” process that Ms Katene referred to disparagingly does not actually consist of three strikes; it consists of three notices. The process is designed to educate the public about illegal file-sharing and provides effective methods for copyright owners to enforce their copyright. Users are given adequate warnings. If in the face of that the people who participate in illegal file-sharing ignore those warnings then the punishments need to be severe. 
Such people are certainly hurting our entertainment industry and the fantastic young artists who are developing their product with the assistance of the Government through NZ On Air. For that reason I strongly support the bill going to the Commerce Committee. I realise that some questions have been raised and the select committee is an appropriate place within which they should be heard. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee. 
Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 25 March. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in respect of the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill on its second reading and to make a few short points. The first is that when the bill came before the Social Services Committee there were a number of changes— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry Mr Borrows but I am just looking at my notes. I see that you have already spoken on this reading and a member cannot take two calls. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: I am unsure that I have spoken; I think that someone took my place. But if that is your record I am happy to take a seat. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am informed that I am correct. I am sorry. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 May I say how disappointed I am that my fine colleague Mr Borrows is not able to speak to us this afternoon as I acknowledge what an outstanding contribution he has made to the work on this bill as a member of the Social Services Committee. 
This is an exciting day in our legislative history as is often the case when bills come to completion and to an anticipated passing in the House but this bill is particularly important because it involves the culmination of a process that has had a very long gestation. In fact it was under the previous Government—I think as far back as 2004—that changes to the Residential Tenancies Act were first mooted and it has taken quite some time to get to this point. I commend the current Minister of Housing for his leadership in bringing us to the point where we are at today. I thank the members of the Social Services Committee who have worked incredibly hard on this bill. I also acknowledge the many submitters who contributed to our deliberations. The legislation was complex and it was a challenging task for the select committee to work through but I think we can say that we applied ourselves to the work with a sense of purpose and I am delighted with what we have achieved. 
There are many facets to this bill. What is really important is that it reflects the importance of striking a fair balance between the interests of landlords and tenants. Sometimes those are competing interests and they can lead to quite serious disputes and it is obviously important that we have legislation that is fair to all parties. The bill will accommodate if members will excuse the pun in the current circumstances the growing percentage of our population who have a direct interest in tenancy legislation as tenants as landlords or as investors and also as we can sometimes forget the neighbours of those who live next door to tenanted properties or in the near vicinity of them. I think this is very timely and important legislation and I echo its overarching aim to clarify and appropriately balance tenant and landlord rights and obligations. If that can be achieved through this legislation and I believe it will be landlords tenants and their neighbours should all benefit from it. 
A number of changes were made to the bill during the select committee process. In the time available today I cannot go through those changes in great detail but I just assure submitters that their many concerns were heard and a number of important aspects were dealt with. 
The Government wants to see as I have mentioned a number of competing interests fairly dealt with. It is important in a system that sees a large and ever-increasing number of people owning investment properties and also depending upon residential properties for their accommodation as renters or as tenants to ensure that the investment side is protected and looked after but also that tenants are able to access suitable accommodation for their needs. In many cases we are talking about tenants who have very large families which can pose challenges in the system as well. We need to ensure that those tenants clearly understand their rights and are able to make informed choices about the best place for them to live what they can afford and what they will get when they sign up to a rental contract. It is very important that landlords and tenants are very clear about their rights. This bill has gone a long way to update the law to ensure that current demands and challenges are met. We have to ensure that we have a robust and flexible rental market that is sufficient that is responsive and that ensures that housing which is such a crucial need for all members of our society is available throughout the country and is appropriate to the needs and circumstances of those who are looking for tenancy properties. 
I will say finally how delighted I am to see that a very crucial missing component of the previous legislation has been dealt with under the current bill. That is the provision in this bill for those who live in boarding houses to come within the ambit of the Residential Tenancies Act. A very large number of people in New Zealand live in those circumstances. Often they are below the radar. Sometimes we are not conscious of them even being in our communities yet they are often the most vulnerable people in our communities. It is good to see that their rights are now recognised in the legislation. 
I am delighted that we have reached this point. I thank all members of this House and the officials in particular who worked on the bill for the very important and helpful work that they have done. This is a terrific day for everybody involved in the rental market in New Zealand. I congratulate the Minister of Housing on his achievement and I commend the legislation to the House. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I want to make just a short contribution. 
Hon John Carter 
: That’s enough. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: No it is not quite enough I say to Mr Carter. The Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill began under the last Labour Government and I think that is a very important point. Unfortunately the Social Services Committee did not pick up all the brilliant ideas and the brilliant amendments that Labour made. 
Things are a bit quiet in the rental market at the moment because people fear 20 May. Landlords are worried so things have gone a bit quiet. It is worth noting that around 29 percent of tenants are Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants. In South Auckland there are large numbers of tenants who are Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants. Of course what is happening now is that many families are doubling up in houses and no one is taking very much action over that because people are worried. I see the moves the Minister made towards trying to get gangs out of certain houses and that matter is still going through the court system. So this bill does not fix everything; there will still be problems there. I think that people need to know that this bill will not cure all the problems. 
Of course many people are good tenants and this bill will not make a lot of difference to them. The good landlords do not need to worry. But at the other end are the bad tenants and bad landlords—and there are both. I think that this bill goes some of the way towards addressing that issue. When we look at what is happening at the moment we see that people do not want to become landlords. There are not a lot of new houses up for rent and that is a part of these economic times. People will be looking to see what this bill means for them as well as looking on 20 May to see what will happen to landlords. 
I am sure that quite a lot of debate is still going on about letting fees and about who is allowed to charge them and who is not. Arguments of that nature will continue while this bill goes through the House. I am pleased that this bill started its life under a Labour Government and that it has taken only 18 months for National to push it through this far. It may be another few months before it is put into place because this is not the most fleet-of-foot Government that has ever been. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I thought you were going to be short—if you want it passed. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Well there is a guy who is pointing at the watch—a clock-watcher. We know those sorts of people. We can compare him with Chester Borrows. Chester Borrows wanted to make two contributions. He wanted to make a second contribution tonight; that member did not. But seeing that he wants to take his ball and go home I will let him do it. 
Bill read a second time. 
Television New Zealand Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 23 March. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. Before I get going on the substance of the bill I would like to bring people’s attention back to when we were last debating this bill several weeks ago and I will take this opportunity to enlighten the Labour Opposition spokesperson on broadcasting once again. I have previously told Mr Burns that the charter money never funded wonderful programmes like  
Tagata Pasifika 
  
Attitude 
 and  
Asia Downunder 
. I also bring to the House’s attention that before the charter there was wonderful local content. Before the charter was introduced in 2003 we had great local content. A member opposite—I think it was Mr Mallard—mentioned New Zealand On Screen when we were debating this bill a few weeks ago and said that some fabulous content from a bygone era was shown. It was all created before the charter and all local content was brought to the viewers via Television New Zealand (TVNZ) mostly before it was mandated to do so by a charter. 
I am slightly embarrassed for Mr Burns that because he does not know his portfolio area well he makes sweeping statements and assumptions as he did a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps he should study his portfolio area more so that he understands that the removal of the charter does not mean that local content disappears. If his theory is right then there should have been a huge increase in local content when the charter was introduced in 2003 but was there? I do not believe that there was. 
In my previous life as a television content maker I must say that I was very excited when the charter was introduced. Surely the charter would mean that minority programmes special-interest programmes would get more attention from the broadcaster. It would mean that the special-interest programme makers who work very hard to make sure we deliver great programmes in a very cost-effective way would get more funding. That never really happened. Those special-interest programmes which are often some of the best documentaries and are screened in what is considered to be the ghetto timeslot never really benefited from the charter money. 
Many people spoke about the public service broadcasting function of TVNZ. I believe that TVNZ served that function before the charter was imposed upon it in 2003. The charter did not improve the situation. Removing it gives TVNZ the opportunity to concentrate on what it knows best: to make television programmes that are entertaining enjoyable and able to be watched by as many people as possible. What is the use of TVNZ making a television programme that no one watches purely because it is mandated to do so by statute? 
Some members have mentioned the local content quota. Sure as content creators I am sure producers would love the idea of having quotas initially. But filling a quota is not about choosing the best. It is not an endorsement that the programmes we have are entertaining or even good television. I wonder where Peter Jackson and Richard Taylor of Weta Digital would be if we put quotas on New Zealand films. Competition creates better content. The desire to compete with the best in the world has made those two men the leaders in their field and I salute them. 
If we were to translate the quota debate on to sport which New Zealanders are passionate about it would be a case of: “Why have a Rugby World Cup? Why compete with the best of the world? Why compete at the Olympics? Just have a quota of New Zealand athletes and compete in New Zealand competitions only. Don’t mind the world or who the best in the world are.” How uninspiring! I do not believe that the No. 8 wire mentality that we all admire and brag about as being typical of New Zealand should manifest itself in a quota on television content. Ernest Rutherford did it so did Edmund Hillary and both without a quota. 
In my maiden speech I spoke about the importance of local content. I said that I had concerns for our children who are more exposed to overseas content than to local content. Our children’s notion of who they are in the world must first be rooted and supported by a firm Kiwi identity. In this digital age our children’s heroes and role models are often celebrities they see on television or read about on the Internet. I support local content—do not get me wrong. I definitely support local content. How could I not having worked for TVNZ? I worked for 15 years as a television programmer maker and I am passionate about New Zealand content. Special-interest programmes like  
Attitude 
 which brings us stories about people with disabilities  
Tagata Pasifika 
 which brings us stories about people of the Pacific and  
Asia Downunder 
 which brings us stories of New Zealanders of Asian descent have their place as mainstream television does not provide that platform. Having said that those programmes did not benefit from the charter and they were established long before the charter was dreamt up. 
That brings me to the bill. This bill amends the Television New Zealand Act 2003 in three ways: firstly to replace the TVNZ charter with more generic statutory requirements; secondly to amend the prohibition on ministerial direction to TVNZ to cover multiple platforms instead of just a conventional television broadcast including web-based content; and thirdly to enable the screening of pre-1989 TVNZ archived works. 
This Government is honouring its election promise to replace the current TVNZ charter and to leave TVNZ free to determine its own priorities by being less prescribed in terms of its functions. I remember a couple of weeks ago someone mentioned Sky television I think it was. The reason I bring up Sky television is that it is not mandated by a charter to make any local content. It is purely a commercially driven broadcaster a pay TV station yet it makes local content. Why is that? It is because its viewers demand it. If there is no demand there will not be any local content on Sky. Viewers are the driving force behind content. I have heard some people baulk at the idea that we had so much reality TV a few years ago. That was because there was a thirst for those types of programmes by the viewership. Television programme commissioners would be irresponsible if they commissioned documentaries that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and no one watched them. Instead they commissioned reality TV. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.