Volume 618 Week 61 - Tuesday 29 June 2004(continued on Wednesday 30 June 2004) 
Volume 618 Week 61 - Tuesday 29 June 2004(continued on Wednesday 30 June 2004) 
[Volume:618;Page:14047] 
Tuesday 29 June 2004 
( 
continued on Wednesday 30 June 2004 
) 
Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Clauses 1 and 2 ( 
continued 
)  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 One of the important points to note about this bill is clause 2. The bulk of this legislation comes into force on 1 July 2004. In the real world that is tomorrow but in this Chamber it is still 29 June. We are trapped in a time warp. That is the whole trouble with Labour is it not? Not only is it trapped in its own time warp but we are dealing with this whole issue under urgency simply to get this bill through before tomorrow. The Government is proud that it has so mismanaged its legislative affairs that the senior Government whip thinks it is a remarkable testament to Labour’s political skills that it runs things right to the wire and keeps New Zealanders poised on the brink. 
Well the one thing that New Zealanders are not pleased about is the time it takes to get to work. As my colleague Maurice Williamson said last night there will be drivers in Auckland who probably started their journeys at half-past 6 and they will be ambitiously planning to arrive at maybe 9 o’clock. That is what happens. In Esmonde Road on the North Shore one can be in a traffic jam for 1 hour just to go 400 metres. Yet members who do not come from Auckland might say that that is not possible—no one could imagine being stuck for 1 hour on a customary basis to go 400 metres. It is a daily occurrence— 
Jill Pettis 
: They could walk. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: —and this bill will do absolutely nothing to change that. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Jill Pettis said they could walk! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Is not that a great collaboration between the Government and the Greens—that everyone could walk? That is obviously the grand design. I was reading in the  
Independent  
magazine today of Chris Trotter’s concerns about the future of oil. It will run out in 2016. He suggested in effect that this kind of legislative approach is all about preparing us to walk. The Government wants to hasten it and that is why it is passing this bill—and I say this advisedly—on the 29th of this month. 
This bill is a failure. There was a real opportunity to bring together central government regional government and local government—to have a single authority. That is National’s plan and it is a plan put out there for the judgment of the people. We are doing it because we want a coherent integrated strategy—the sort of words that are in this bill but which this bill cannot possibly deliver. One has to make meaningful decisions to bring the three key groups together to achieve that. 
A Government has an opportunity maybe only once in a 3-year term to get this kind of legislation right and make a real legislative difference. I presume we will not be revisiting this issue next year yet that is exactly what will be required because this bill will be completely inadequate to deal with the real challenges. The motorway network which is used by private motorists and public transport is largely paid for by Transit and Transfund. There is absolutely nothing in this bill that includes Transit and Transfund in the overall network. No money goes into it and no money is designated directly from those two entities. They are not part of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority they are not part of Auckland Regional Holdings yet they are the key players. 
Given that this is Government legislation and that it is legislation for Auckland as a whole one would think that the Government would have taken that crucial step of imagination because only it can bring together central government regional government and local government. Instead it has fiddled. All this bill has done is deal with the Auckland regional entities and that is essentially Infrastructure Auckland the Auckland Regional Transport Network and the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Have they got rid of all those? Has the Auckland Regional Transport Network gone? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The Auckland Regional Transport Network will be going into the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. TrackCo will still be there. Effectively all the Government has done is rename existing entities. Infrastructure Auckland effectively becomes Auckland Regional Holdings. The Auckland Regional Transport Committee effectively becomes the Auckland Regional Transport Authority perhaps bringing in the Auckland Regional Transport Network as well. That is a pathetic— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: So it’s sort of deck chairs on the  
Titanic. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Deck chairs on the  
Titanic 
 as my colleague Maurice Williamson would say. It is just reshuffling none of which I suggest will make any difference to the actual needs of the city. 
National believes in an integrated approach. We do not just say “roads only”; we recognise that there is a place for public transport. In that integrated approach we would have roads and public transport and the most efficient public transport by a country mile is buses not railways. The real fact of the railways is this and the Green Party in particular needs to take it on board: in Auckland 2.5 million trips per year are done by rail and the annual subsidy today is $20 million. Members should work that out—it is a $10 subsidy per rail trip. For a large number of those people it would be cheaper—say two people together—to go by taxi and it would be more efficient. Many people go by car to the station then wait for a train that is often delayed by an hour. They go by train to the centre of the city and then get a bus back up town to where they are going. It is grossly inefficient. In fact if one analyses it from an energy point of view it is almost sure to be less efficient than two people using a taxi. It is remarkable is it not? That is the sort of thing the Greens praise. 
The most optimistic prediction is that rail might in 10 to 15 years from now produce 20 million passenger trips. That is a tenfold increase. It is hard to imagine that a tenfold increase could actually be achieved but even then the subsidy is predicted to be $4 a trip. Members should work that out. That is $100 million a year subsidy for rail for 20 million trips out of by then probably 1.5 billion trips. That is $100 million of taxpayers’ and ratepayers’ money to subsidise less than 2 percent of the trips. 
One of the parties supporting this bill which therefore must be supporting that kind of lunacy is United Future. I have heard Mr Adams talk about the cost of rates particularly regional rates—Auckland Regional Council rates. He is very concerned about how they will increase. What he does not seem to have absorbed—both in supporting this bill and the potential $100 million subsidy for 2 percent of trips in Auckland—is that there will be an absolute explosion in rates over the next 10 years. So on just about every conceivable basis this bill is flawed. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: He doesn't care at all. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: He does not care and his party does not care about the impost and burden on the hard-working people of New Zealand as they have to deal on a daily basis with that huge rates burden. I do not want to go to another public meeting and hear Mr Adams saying how terrible Auckland Regional Council rates are because his vote today will add to the burden. That is the reality. What we want to see from the Government is a realistic plan for Auckland. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 231 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill is an important step forward in resolving Auckland's transport problems. New Zealand's largest city is being held back by traffic congestion that is impacting not only on Auckland but on the whole country because of Auckland's importance to the national economy. To deal with the lack of past investment the Government is providing an additional $1.62 billion to be spent on Auckland transport over the next 10 years. 
This bill deals with the necessary changes in the governance structures for Auckland transport. The Government's Investing for Growth package and the transport sector review address these funding and governance issues at the national level. Together these proposals consolidate transport governance in the Auckland region and provide a firm foundation for integrated safe responsible and sustainable decision making. 
Under the bill the Auckland Regional Council will be given overarching responsibility for Auckland transport. The council will continue to be directly responsible for the Auckland regional land transport strategy but will undertake its operations through a new arm's-length council-controlled organisation called the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. The authority will be responsible for planning funding and developing the Auckland regional land transport system including setting land transport priorities in the region. The bill disestablishes Infrastructure Auckland and transfers its assets to the Auckland Regional Council's second new council-controlled organisation called Auckland Regional Holdings. It provides effective governance and accountability mechanisms for both the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and Auckland Regional Holdings and a firm basis for improvements in Auckland's transport to be achieved. 
The passing of this legislation will give Auckland a real opportunity both to determine for itself the priorities that will address its transport problems and to implement those priorities. The bill is only the beginning. There is still much work to be done by all of us—the Auckland Regional Council Auckland Regional Transport Authority Auckland Regional Holdings Auckland territorial authorities and Government agencies. This Government has had the courage the will and the resources to do something about Auckland's transport problems. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
: 
 That speech was a very sad defence of a very sad bill. In it the Minister talked about the courage and bravery of a solution. The fact that Auckland is screaming out for a solution is not in doubt. However I challenged him during the Committee stage last night and I issue the challenge again: “Come with me on Friday night at 5 o'clock down into the mangled stopped traffic jam—the sort of moving car parks—and let us put on our red-flare jackets to do a survey. We’ll knock on the windows of the cars and ask the people in them: What do you think should be done to fix Auckland's traffic problems?". I double-dog dare the Minister to do that. I guarantee—indeed I will put up 20 bucks—that not one person who winds down a window down will say: “I know what we need—another bureaucracy. That would fix it.” I guarantee no one would say that. Yet that is exactly what this legislation is about. 
The real significant difference between the left and the right in politics on this issue is that National is unashamedly supporting the building construction and completion of new roads. The Minister did not say the word "roads". The left do not even like the word. The Greens cannot bring themselves even to say the word "roads". They think it is evil. They do not like roads or the things that drive on them. They do not even like the people who drive in the things that drive on the roads. 
There was no more telling evidence about what the Government's view on roads in Auckland is than the press release that came out when this package announcing the intent to put this legislation into the House came out on 12 December. I have it here in its glorious blood-red Labour Party colours. I am happy to report that during the Committee stage I read this out and given that Auckland's drive-time traffic will still be stuck in their cars I would like people to hear this again. The Minister said: “I think everyone agrees that the present governance arrangements for Auckland's transport are confused inefficient and ineffectual." Given that one I think that is right. There are 18 bodies—that is right 18 various bodies—responsible for Auckland's transport solutions at present. There is a plethora of them: Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd TrackCo the seven territorial authorities Auckland Regional Council Infrastructure Auckland Connex the ferries and so on. Everyone knows that. The wiring diagram was appalling and the Minister was right—hopeless. Then he goes on to say: “The Government proposes that responsibility for Auckland transport issues”—now this is the real thing—“such as rail bus ferry pedestrian and cycle transport reside with but one organisation.” That is from the Minister’s own press release. There is not a mutter not a mention of roads. 
The Government does not think roads are part of Auckland’s solution. “Walking will fix it.” I heard Jill Pettis yell out to my colleague Wayne Mapp when he was speaking about the Esmonde Road congestion—“Make them walk.” We will have to put up a big sign at Esmonde Road during the next election campaign stating: “Labour thinks you should all be walking.” That will be a great sign. We will have the  
Hansard 
 to show it—“Labour’s senior whip says that to fix the Esmonde Road congestion problem you should all be walking.” We are just adding one more body called the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. 
I again double-dog dare the Labour Party to survey ordinary people in Auckland on what they think all the organisations are. The other night I mentioned something called “ARTNL” to my wife who takes a modest interest in this matter and she asked: “What’s ‘ARTNL’?” I said: “Don’t you know what ‘ARTNL’ is? It is one of the most important elements for infrastructure and transport issues in Auckland.” She had never heard of it. She had heard of the Auckland Regional Council—the “ARC”—because she gets the rates demands that are going through the ceiling all the time. And another survey we need to run in Auckland should be: “Who trusts the Auckland Regional Council to solve Auckland’s transport issues?”. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Paul Adams. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No one not even Paul Adams trusts it. Yet what organisation has been given the total power and control of this at least in the hotchpotch mismatch that is coming out of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority? It is coming under the control of the Auckland Regional Council. The one failed body that no one would trust to solve Auckland’s problems gets it. 
Dr Michael Cullen said something interesting just before we began this morning. He said that the biggest issues in Auckland are things like State Highway 20—the Mangere motorway which sort of stops at both ends. I think he is right. Dr Cullen and I agree on a number of things and this is one of them. The biggest issue in Auckland right now is State Highway 20 and getting the southern end of it joined up to the southern motorway in Manukau City pushing on through Mt Roskill and adjoining the north-western motorway. I agree with him. Does Auckland Regional Transport Authority have any responsibility for State highways? Does this new entity that is created by this legislation we are passing under urgency in the dead of day right now have any responsibility for State Highway 20? No it does not. It is a Transit road a State highway road and it will still be the “same old same old” as before. 
Aucklanders are now saying—and the Automobile Association survey shows this in great depth—that the private sector will have to be involved in building a huge amount of roading and that that roading will have to be tolled. We need to go to no further a jurisdiction than Sydney Brisbane or Melbourne for examples. All those cities have left-wing Labor Governments. I am not sure whether people understand that roading over there is funded at State Government level. I have spent a lot of time with Carl Scully the Minister for Roads in New South Wales and he said that the only solution to their problem was to haul the private sector in and get it building—let the private sector build the tunnels the south-eastern extensions the western links and so on. It works brilliantly. Some people think Australians and New Zealanders are very different—that Australians are funny and so on—but it has worked brilliantly for Australians under a Labor Government. 
Where is the incentive in this legislation for getting the private sector involved in roading? We have seen no interest so far and again I tell the Labour Government that this legislation will do nothing. That is simply because Labour has rolled over and played dead to keep its coalition partner the Greens happy. The Greens hate roads. They will not bring themselves even to say the word “roads”. They will say ”cycleways” “walkways” and ”walking buses”. Forget building a motorway—the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 to Orewa North—and from where the B1 finishes to Whangarei we will just have walking buses. Jill Pettis will probably sign up to that. It is madness. Yes public transport initiatives will be important and the vast bulk of those will come through buses but Labour has not worked this one out: what do buses travel on? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Roads. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Wayne Mapp got it just like that and Labour still cannot answer. 
Darren Hughes 
: He’s got a PhD. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: That is right. Maybe Labour should get some people with PhDs to advise it. Buses travel on roads and that is why Auckland needs more roads because even the public transport solution comes from roads. What percentage of Auckland’s public transport-users right now use rail? Firstly rail hardly goes to anywhere that the people live. Howick and Pakuranga where I am from does not have a railway line. We do not want one—just in case anyone is getting excited and thinking we might start to build one out there—because the costs of building one are astronomical and the subsidy per person is crippling. 
Again the Greens will never stump up to this next issue: name one city the size of Auckland where rail works. They will come up with London Hong Kong and New York where rail works well. I am sure that if we had 7 million people between Ponsonby and Parnell we would have a wonderful underground railway system. It would be brilliant it would work and it would actually be profitable. But with Auckland’s population of only 1 million spread across a huge block of land and the trips going in all directions rather than focusing on the central business district as they are in Wellington rail is not a solution. It is less than about half of 1 percent at present. Even with the most optimistic outlook it would be about 1 percent. But no the Greens say they want to get everybody on to public transport. Of course they do not use it. The Greens drive their cars to every public meeting they attend. They like to do that. They think it is the great unwashed out there who should use public transport. 
I repeat: the major difference between the National Party and the Labour Government regarding this point on transport is that we believe Auckland’s roads need to be built and built now. The network needs to be finished and we need to see what was planned many many years ago come to fruition. Dr Cullen’s comments on State Highway 20 were right. 
The last thing I find so galling—and members of this House should be appalled by it—is that while Auckland has been screaming out for new infrastructure to be laid and while the private sector has been shut out by dreadful legislation like the Land Transport Management Act Transfund has a surplus of $250 million in its kitty unspent. I want the next Labour speaker to justify why $250 million is sitting in the bank unspent today while we are passing stupid legislation to increase the bureaucracy in Auckland. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I listened with interest to the previous speaker. He is very much like a bird that has been finally let out of its cage. He was silenced by the National Party for a couple of years and he is obviously revelling in the ability to speak in this Chamber—and an interesting address it was too. 
I am speaking as a Waikato and Hamilton member. I want to reflect that if one looks at the history books—History 101—one sees that from 1990-99 there was a National Government. What did it do for transport in Auckland? If I turn the pages of one of those books I see they are all blank. I am not allowed to use that “H” word. Under this Government on behalf of Paul Swain it was my pleasure to open part of the expressway near Rangiriri—the Ohinewai expressway. We are actually doing it. We are not talking about it; we are doing it. Hamilton and the Waikato have an absolutely crucial interest in Auckland sorting out its transport woes because our economy is absolutely integrated into the Auckland economy. I applaud this bill if it will be a means by which Auckland moves to sort out its transport woes. 
I commend the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. This is a good bill. Let us get on with it and let us pass it. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In following that member I too as a Northland member express the same sentiment. The future and issues of Auckland’s transport vitally affect us. That is why some years ago when we found that Auckland was thinking of a drastic light rail solution we were very very concerned. We realise that our future particularly our commercial future is linked to our ability to get goods into and through Auckland and out into particularly South Auckland—and it is the same for the Waikato. Therefore we in New Zealand First take a personal interest in this bill. In our party policy that we are developing under the heading of “New Directions” we have Auckland’s solutions as one of the issues we have to contend with in our policy development. 
In the select committee hearings the issue of whether there should be one entity was expressly covered. I want to pick up what was said by some people in response to that concept because we have heard it enunciated and developed in the House as being the answer. An answer was sought from Mr Maher of Infrastructure Auckland who has been mentioned here and he said that to put Transit and TrackCo into one organisation was quite risky. That was his considered opinion from the point of view of his knowledge of Auckland. An alignment of plans must have a mechanism to make sure that those plans are strong enough. 
That to me is an indication that there needs to be a two-phase development for the issues of Auckland. Federated Farmers is a very conservative sound-thinking group. Its advocate said to us that it generally supports the provisions of the bill. Alisdair Thompson is known for his views on Auckland and on business infrastructure and when he was asked— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Tell the whole story. Mr Thompson said it didn’t go far enough. 
JIM PETERS 
: I say to Mr Williamson that when Mr Thompson pointedly was asked the question whether the suggestions within the bill could advance Auckland’s transport issues his answer was a qualified yes which is not the answer I have been hearing in press statements from people from the business forum and elsewhere. An honest qualified yes was Mr Thompson’s comment. The Automobile Association as has already been mentioned in the House had a very strong view of the joint venture between the Crown the Auckland Regional Council and the territorial bodies where appropriate. But having some knowledge of the way in which those things work I find that it is part of a phased development. 
So where are we in 2004? We have before us a bill that largely meets Auckland’s present needs but not in the time-warp sense of the last speaker from the National Party who seemed to have a very static backward view of Auckland. Instead there is an opportunity here for the Auckland Regional Council to work with other groups—territorial groups in particular—in a far more robust strategic development than it has been able to do in the past. As I said previously unlike others I see this 2004 model continuing over the next 10 years. The core question that was always asked of Auckland was if more money was made available—and this question would have been asked by the present Government—what would Auckland do with it. How would Auckland use it? How would it be spent? The 2003 Act was an Act of mixed parts but it certainly reinforced the need for more robust development with regard to road strategy. 
In that regard both Transit and Transfund have shown a remarkable change over the last 4 to 5 years in the way they work and in their understanding. I have to say that in my experience that has been very gratifying particularly in areas such as Northland. 
We come to the addition in 2004 of this bill in its revised form—I want to emphasise that—as we see it before the House now. It restores the Auckland regional land transport strategy as the primary mechanism for Auckland’s input—that is territorial input; that is the input made by other groups and bodies that make up the regional land transport committee. In turn over 10 years those views will provide the Auckland Regional Transport Authority with the comprehensive regional transport directions that it must undertake on behalf of Auckland. Clause 28 now allows references to activities and allows them to be prioritised but it gives the operational arm—the Auckland Regional Transport Authority—the ability to get on with the job. New Zealand First applauds that attempt to do just that. It is the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s task to go through the fine detail. It will be the Auckland Regional Transport Authority’s task to seek the funding and that funding can come from other sources. I have heard talk in the House about private funding. Among the things that are needed are toll roads which were allowed in last year’s bill. That in turn needs rethinking with regard to some of the strategies for Auckland’s future. 
So this bill in encompassing the regional land transport strategy the earlier regional policy statement and in particular the impact of the regional growth strategy and the changes that that strategy will make over the next 5 to 10 years puts together a strong ability for the Auckland Regional Transport Authority to work for the sustainable development of Auckland’s transport. No one in this House who has lived in Auckland or has gone through Auckland would underestimate that task. By the way over 30 years ago as a youngish teacher teaching at Tamaki Intermediate some of the members of our staff had to leave from the North Shore at a quarter to 7 to get to Tamaki Intermediate in time for an 8.30 start. That gives some indication that some of the supposed recent problems in Auckland have in actual fact always been there. There has been decade after decade of inadequate development and thinking about the real issues of Auckland. 
In conclusion New Zealand First believes that this bill is a brave attempt to provide an integrated approach to the management of Auckland’s land transport system. In my dictionary “transport” does mean roads does mean buses might mean cycling and might mean walking—in other words making way for those people who want to walk as well. The 1998 Act the 2003 Act and this bill together will give Auckland an opportunity. I recall the words of John Law the Mayor of Rodney District who gave the councils’ combined submission. He said to us in Auckland that the councils were in broad agreement. They had some differences with the Auckland Regional Council and they suggested that Transit and Transfund should have a more integrated role. But I believe that this is a reasonable attempt to look at the establishment of what will become and should become a strong working relationship whereby we have the Auckland Regional Council the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and Auckland Regional Holdings working together with the authority of the regional territorial bodies towards improving passenger transport and roading. It is but a step. In time the other issues—TrackCo Transit’s future role and all the other components of a regional transport strategy and package—will be further developed. 
On behalf of New Zealand First I accept the intention of the legislation. We were uncertain at the beginning as to whether the bill would have focus and clarity. We believe that that has been restored in the bill and we believe that the Auckland Regional Council has the energy and ability to see this thing through. We await with interest the next 5 to 10 years because this is a long-term development. Nothing will happen tomorrow and perhaps nothing will be seen even next year apart from the concentrated energy of the people who start working in those new bodies from 1 July as they put together a long-term comprehensive plan for Auckland’s needs in a systematic way and in a manner that we have not seen in the past. New Zealand First supports this further reading of the bill. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the third reading of this bill which we are very pleased to support. It has indeed been an interesting debate as we have been through the Committee stage and other stages. It has been fascinating to see the two parties that are not supporting this bill the first being the National Party. I think all Aucklanders need to understand that neither the National Party nor ACT has chosen to support this bill which is primarily about addressing the transport problems in Auckland. 
It has been interesting to listen to the concerns of those who do not support this bill. The Hon Maurice Williamson has been very vocal against this bill and has tended to fascinate me. Let us pick up just one point he made. He pointed out that $250 million is unspent. I believe that the years when we just spent the budget because the money was there have gone. I believe we need to be wise when spending our money. In the  
Dominion Post  
this morning we saw a wonderful full-page advertisement from the National Party. Was that advertisement placed because we are at the end of the financial year and the money was in the budget therefore National spends it? We could have been given the information in black and white but unfortunately that would have been too cheap. That was not expensive enough to use up all the budget—they had to add colour to the advertisement. That was not to give any more information to the public—no no; no more information was required—but they had to go for colour for the mere fact it used up the budget. I have been waiting to hear from National when its members have been speaking what its brilliant alternative to this would be. I have heard many criticisms about this being another bureaucracy whereas in actual fact the number of organisations involved has been reduced. So I see less bureaucracy. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: It’s not. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: The Hon Maurice Williamson who has been very vocal here—he is trying to interject as I speak—has had one major concern. He has continually pointed out the fact that in Auckland he can see no bulldozers. Well poor Maurice Williamson! Obviously it is something from his past when he thought that there has to be a bulldozer to get progress. He has been extremely concerned that he has been travelling on the roads of Auckland and up till now he has seen no bulldozers. I tell the member that unfortunately the roadworks being done at present do not require bulldozers but if he looks carefully he will see diggers working. A digger is not a bulldozer and I appreciate that the member might have a fascination for a bulldozer but there are diggers working up there. There are Kangos working there there are lots of noises and there is lots of action going on as the roads are being built around “Spaghetti Junction”. So perhaps Mr Williamson needs to go back to the toy box. Maybe his parents only ever bought him a bulldozer and maybe he thought a bulldozer was required for all roadworks. Well we have moved on. Technology has gone forward thank goodness and we have other instruments we can use. Anyway I will do my very best. I will speak to the Government and ask whether we can possibly get a bulldozer on some parts of the road in the days ahead. I am sure we will get cooperation on that from the Government and Mr Williamson will be happy. 
There are two sides to every story. Normally we can hear one side of the story when we listen and sometimes it can make the utmost sense. Then the Opposition will bring the other side of the story and then we sometimes have to weigh up and we say: “Well that is a very good point. We had not considered that.” But in all the hours of debate we have had on this bill I have been listening and waiting to hear the Opposition come up with the alternative—with the other side of the story. But what have we heard? We have heard zip—nothing. Yet Mr Maurice Williamson did mention something to us. To be honest one could see the amazement on his face when he suddenly discovered this—after being Minister of Transport for a large number of years. I do not know how many. Was it 5 years or was it 6 years? All of a sudden as though he could not believe it he made a discovery as he was trying to do some research on the Auckland roading issue. He discovered with amazement that National despite all his efforts managed to spend in one year out of nine the last year—he was there for 9 years—some money on Auckland roads. I think that that is a very sad state of affairs. That was after 9 years yet he has continually come down here as we have been going through this bill and criticised the Government on its performance over 5 years. Well I ask Mr Williamson this: what happened on the Auckland roads in year 6 after the National Party was last in power? 
I have lived in Auckland for many years and I was one of those who saw nothing happening—absolutely zip zero. Yet now I can see that progress is happening and I know that as United Future supports this legislation we are putting things in place so that Auckland that great city will have its transport system improved. Yes there are needs for alternatives. We would be supportive of those—bus lanes trams trains whatever. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Trams? 
PAUL ADAMS 
: Trams are very good. Has the member never thought of trams? There are many many alternatives but at least this legislation which we will see passed today will put in place bodies that can forward plan. As I have said it is never just a body of people. The most important aspect is that those people in those organisations are really forward-thinking. I hope they are and I hope they get good plans but at least we will know who to deal with. So United Future is very pleased with this legislation and is very happy to support it. We can leave on my final words promising Maurice Williamson that there will be a bulldozer. We will organise one and maybe we could get the former Minister a ride on that bulldozer if he is a very good boy as it puts the blade down for the first turn. I know that that will just delight his heart. I can see that he is a man who loves a bulldozer. In fact he has spent more time talking about bulldozers than talking about the legislation itself. United Future is happy to support this legislation. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to say that we do not support this legislation. We oppose it because it will not do anything to fix Auckland’s transport problems. On the face of it we could give this Government a small tick for trying to solve the problems in Auckland but when we read the bill we realise that all that this legislation will do is to make a bad situation worse. By the bill’s own admission it promotes only the integration of decision-making processes. There is nothing in the purpose clause about building more roads ending the gridlock or solving Auckland’s transport problems. That is not a hard thing to do given there are only a million people in Auckland. Other cities in the world have solved their problems. We can look at what London has done. London had a culture shock and brought in legislation with new ideas to solve its problems. Sydney did it by using private enterprise to build and develop roads for the State. But no because this Government is ideologically opposed to any form of private enterprise it will not even go there. At the very most it will allow tolling on some roading but that will not solve the problems. 
The Minister himself in his third reading speech admitted that traffic problems in Auckland impact on the rest of the country. That is the reason why the rest of the country should realise that Auckland is being penalised in this bill by having to use its own assets built up by Aucklanders over the years to fund in large part the solving of its transport problems. If we went and asked Aucklanders whether they wanted to sit in traffic for hours and hours every day of course they would say no. If we went and told them that there was a piece of legislation in which the Government was going to do something about that they would probably be pleased. But if we then said to them that that legislation would just set up more bureaucracies and put the new bureaucracies under the control of the Auckland Regional Council they would be horrified. They would know that all that would happen would be more talkfests and more arguing and not one new piece of roading would be built. This bill is an asset grab. That is what it is; it will take $1 billion in assets that belong to Aucklanders. Previous Governments and this Government have dictated to Aucklanders what they can do with those assets and now the Government is giving them to the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and Auckland Regional Holdings. The last thing that Auckland needs is more bureaucracy. We already have enough bureaucracy in Auckland and the last thing we need is more of it. 
If we look at the clauses in this bill and analyse it clause by clause we can see that the bill will not do anything. Any fool can see that when the roading network is not even a priority. The priority is land transport alternatives. They are stuck between the same rock and a hard place that the Land Transport Management Bill was when we passed it last year. That legislation actually did set out to solve the whole country’s transport problems but it was hijacked along the way by the Green Party and deals were done. What happens is that two issues now stymie the whole development of a roading network. The first is that we have to look at land transport alternatives and not just look at them. They have to play a major part in the decision-making process about whether to build a road or instead put that money—money paid in by motorists by the way using cars—into funding cycle lanes walking lanes or other alternative forms of land transport. The other issue that stymies development is consultation with affected communities. On top of the Resource Management Act this endless consultation will mean that we will never get anywhere. 
The United Future member said that no Opposition party had put up an alternative solution. Well he obviously has not been listening because there is an alternative. The ACT party has consistently put up that alternative and has likened it to the America’s Cup legislation. A Labour Government—I think it was Labour—saw the need for the development of the America’s Cup village given the advantages it would bring not just to Auckland but also to the whole country. So it set up in the legislation one entity to hear all applications and gave the right of appeal—I am not saying that matters should go through in a dictatorship. People did have the right of appeal under the America’s Cup legislation but it was fast efficient and smooth. If the Greens had had the influence on that legislation that they have had on this legislation we would never have ended up with the America’s Cup village and all the boatbuilding industries wonderful restaurants and activity that still goes on there long after the America’s Cup has gone. 
Building more roads on its own is not a solution. If one builds more roads—yes of course the Greens are right—people will just flock on to them in their cars. That is why I do not understand why the Greens do not support issues like congestion tolling. Congestion tolling is the ideal way to get rid of the pollution caused by cars idling on motorways. People would have a choice between paying a bit more to go on a faster road or if they do not want to pay going on a slower road. What is wrong with that if it gets people moving? Those are the only sorts of things that will solve the transport problems in Auckland. We have to have pricing mechanisms but at the moment we do not. People just go out and get in their cars. These days most families in Auckland have at least two cars and they get in them and drive because the roads are perceived as being free. Roads are not free; the Minister talked about spending $1.6 billion on them. Where does that money come from? People need to be reminded that they pay for those roads and the only way they will be allowed to make decisions about when and where they use roads is by means of pricing mechanisms. 
We need practical legislation. More of the Labour Government members who understand the pragmatism of the situation need to take more control over what is being done. When the Land Transport Management Bill was before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee the Minister went around the country urging submitters to be strong on the legislation and to support the public-private partnerships and the Build Own Operate and Transfer proposals whereby developers could come in from overseas build roads operate them and transfer them to the State after a certain number of years. However those matters were lost from the legislation because the Minister of Transport was not strong enough and deals were done with the Greens. But Auckland’s transport problems could have been solved through such schemes. 
In conclusion I would like to answer the United Future member who criticised the National Party for saying that $250 million was still in the kitty and had not been spent. That is money that motorists have paid up in user charges petrol taxes and Accident Compensation Corporation levies and the United Future Party says it should not be spent on the roads. Those members said that just because that money is there that does not mean to say it should be spent. Obviously they would rather spend it on something like the Families Commission. Well I would love to know what the Families Commission will do for Auckland families when in 10 years’ time mum and dad have to leave home before dawn and do not get back until after dark because no new roads will have been built as a result of this legislation. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak after that rather sad speech from that ACT member. It was obviously caught up in Mr Rodney Hide’s ideology when he asked for there to be rates caps on local government. That party wants the Government to get out but that member says the Government needs to climb in more with regard to local authorities and their decision making. That is absolutely amazing. The ACT members have complained about the impact of regulation in the last decade but now they are demanding more regulation and want to go in there to tell local authorities and local government what they have to do for their roads. 
This is a wonderful bill. It is about enabling local authorities to avoid duplicating their efforts. They are to come together make decisions reach consensus avoid duplication and confusion and then come up with the decisions that work best for them. And of course they will be working to our national land transport strategy. That was another wonderful piece of work that this Government undertook and it will be completed by 2010. I support this bill. The 33 submitters supported this bill. The only thing they wanted to do was to make sure that we amended one clause in order to avoid duplication. This is a wonderful bill and we can get on with it now for the benefit of Auckland. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 What a pathetic speech that last one was. Obviously the member has not read the bill because if she had she would know how inadequate it is. The Government talks about its integrated transport strategy and about bringing people together and one would think the bill would reflect that. Unfortunately when we distil the bill we find that all it does is rename existing institutions. 
Why do I say that? Currently in Auckland—or at least until tomorrow—there is the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee which was put together by the Auckland Regional Council and has on it representatives from each of the local authorities. In addition there is Infrastructure Auckland and the Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd. Those are the three regional entities. What this bill does and all it does is rename Infrastructure Auckland as Auckland Regional Holdings—a dramatic move I guess in the eyes of the Government. Secondly it effectively renames the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee as the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. That is all the bill does. So for years the Government has laboured to produce this dramatic measure and believes it will fix the problem. That is the Government’s serious intent. It has seduced and cajoled New Zealand First— 
Jim Peters 
: Rubbish—absolute rubbish! 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: What does that member mean—“rubbish”? New Zealand First and United Future members have been seduced and cajoled into supporting what has to be one of the most pathetic attempts at regional reorganisation this Parliament has ever had to witness. Some people have been asking—particularly United Future members—what National’s plan is. 
We have been saying very clearly what our plan is and members who heard the submissions know that it has the endorsement of the local authorities. That is where they want to get to. At best they see this Government’s mishmash of an effort as a small step towards it. What they want is the plan announced last month by Dr Brash and it is very clear: a single organisation that brings together central government regional government and local government and that has both planning and funding responsibilities. That is what our city needs—a simple plan clear directions and completion of the network. 
We must get the structure right—and this Parliament has only one opportunity in each 3-year period unless the Government intends to visit this again next year which seems unlikely—because it has been talked about for years in Auckland and unless it is done we simply will not see completion. I would not be surprised to hear the Government proudly proclaim that the completion of State Highway 20 will occur in 2020. That is the sort of time frame it has in mind for completing the network. It simply will not do. 
National has a clear plan. We want to simplify the structure. We want to bring together central regional and local government the territorial local authorities and the funding and planning schemes so that we get progress. That is the bill the Government should have put up. If it had done that it would have had support. If the Government had put up that coherent plan—the one that is actually desired by Auckland—then it could have had support. But we will not support the pathetic half-baked attempt that the Government so proudly proclaims as its solution. 
What will the strategic plan look like for Auckland? Everyone is clear about that. Even the Government occasionally acknowledges it. Everyone would concede—and I know that my colleague Mr Dail Jones who will be speaking shortly knows—that Auckland wants completion of the motorway network. Aucklanders do not want to wait 10 or 20 years. The amount of $1.6 billion over 10 years simply will not do it. They want public-private partnerships and they want action. They want the completion of the strategic motorway network and that does include the eastern highway because when the network is completed the traffic will flow. 
This is not just about private cars or trucks and vans doing deliveries around the city; it is also about public transport. The major component of public transport in Auckland is buses and they have to use the roads. They need to take part in the overall network. Rail has a limited place. Ironically I would concede that Britomart would work better if there were some form of limited loop so trains do not come in and then have to back out. That is half the problem of rail not working efficiently. When will people develop some form of loop—maybe one that would go under the university and back to Parnell—to get the flow that would make the railway system work efficiently? That is what we need to do. Trains need to go in one direction rather than come into the station and have to back up thereby jamming the system. 
The Associate Minister of Transport Harry Duynhoven well knows what I am talking about. I am talking about traffic flows and getting a one-way flow in the system. That is the kind of integrated approach required and that the bill absolutely fails to provide. It simply does not put in place the structural approach that brings central government together. So that is National’s plan. It is clear it is straightforward and it is exactly what Auckland wants. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: No plans no policy. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: If the Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues actually listened to people instead of giving them lectures she would get a very clear message from them. Their message is that they want to have a single structure to get on with the job—at least that is the real message they would give her—and to complete the system. There was an opportunity here. The Government had an opportunity and has simply failed to take it. Those are the sorts of issues that this Parliament should be able to deal with by consensus. Not everything in Parliament should divide us. But to have that situation the Government has to listen to the people and to the clear voice of Auckland. 
When Mr Peters says that the local authorities and entities give the bill qualified support he knows full well that the real objective they have is a single entity. That question was asked of them and in each and every case they said that that is what they wanted. Unfortunately all we have is this half-baked solution which they felt was better than zero. I suspect it will be proved to be no better than zero and Parliament will be back in about 18 months’ time—after the election when National is in office—and we will provide the real solution. We will provide the money and a real opportunity for public-private partnerships and we will spend the $250 million that has sat in the kitty because of the Government’s mishmash of planning—and that includes fixing the Resource Management Act. This bill is a lost opportunity. Only National can fix it. 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 That was a rather sad little speech from the member. He talked a lot about what National will do when it becomes the Government. Of course that will not happen. One has to say that the National Party had 9 long years to do something and what did it do? It did absolutely nothing. The citizens of Auckland know what that Government did and they are really pleased to see this Government making the changes to land transport governance in Auckland that will make it more efficient and effective. 
Almost all the submitters who came along to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee supported the intent of the bill. They had some suggestions for small changes which by and large the committee was pleased to implement. The bill is a better bill now that it has been through the select committee process. It addresses the issue of the fragmentation of the land transport plans and the work of the territorial authorities in Auckland. It will give us an integrated and sustainable programme that will address the transport ills of Auckland which were not addressed when that member’s party was in Government. 
The people of Auckland have waited a long time for a Government that will listen to their concerns and take action and that is what we plan to do. Aucklanders are really pleased about this as that member well knows. We are just going to get on and do the job. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 We have a choice here between two different kinds of future. We can build more roads we can build more and larger vehicles we can smash down more houses to build the eastern highway we can take up more and more land with roads we can clog up those roads with more and more vehicles and then we can face chaos as eventually oil production reaches its peak prices rise astronomically and people have no alternatives. That is the future being proposed here by the National Party. 
Or there is another future. We can spread our options we can build those alternatives and we can give people choices. We can make sure that as well as roads we have a functioning national rail system capable of carrying a lot more of our freight than it does at present and passengers as well. We can make sure there is faster more frequent and much more used commuter public transport in our main cities. We can make sure we have at least occasional rural bus services between centres for those who do not have cars. We can make sure we have a balance of modes—ferries buses trains and cycleways. We can put in place travel demand management plans—for example carpooling to common workplaces and safe walking options for children going to school. Then we will have a resilient society. We will have cities that are capable of surviving much higher oil prices cities where the air is much cleaner cities that are convivial for walking in and where people are able to meet other people and cities that are not constantly divided by roads and pollution. 
This bill is part of the Government’s strategy of moving to that second option. It tries to apply to Auckland the principles of the New Zealand Transport Strategy and the new Land Transport Management Act: principles of integration of sustainability of community consultation and of responsiveness to social needs. Auckland of course is the supreme test of this new approach to transport. It is sprawled over an area similar to London with a twentieth of the population heavily dependent on cars containing one person its motorway system congested for much of the day with freight from New Zealand’s largest port needing to cross the sprawling city before it can go anywhere else and with weak public transport systems and a weak city centre so that radial transport services cater for only a minority of the needs. That is the challenge of Auckland and this bill gives us an opportunity to try to meet that challenge. 
The difficulties have been compounded for many years by political difficulties in Auckland local authorities working constructively together. With seven city and district councils and a regional authority all having statutory roles in provision of transport services and planning new governance and accountability structures are needed as well as new transport arrangements. After the passing of the Land Transport Management Act central and local government officials worked together on what is now known as the “JOG report”—the report of the Joint Officials Group—looking at how Auckland’s needs could best be met. Unlike many who believe that more motorways are the only answer the Joint Official Group the experts in transport planning in that area established clearly that if we want to address congestion—and does not everyone want to address congestion—then the priority is travel demand management and better public transport followed by a system of road pricing. Only then should there be a reassessment of what new roads are still needed to complete the system and have not been made unnecessary by the alternatives that have already been built. 
For decades Auckland has had expert transport reports prepared which have stated: “Here is what you should do to develop your roading system on one hand; here is what you should do to develop your public transport system on the other hand.” For decades the roading options have largely been built and the public transport options have not and we now have an extremely unbalanced situation in Auckland that needs to be addressed that needs to be rebalanced before we look at building more roads. The new structure for local government in Auckland depends on a complex system of accountabilities to deliver the outcomes that are anticipated by the new strategy. 
Three arms are needed to deliver those outcomes: planning operations and funding. At the planning level the aim is to integrate land-use planning through the regional growth strategy and the regional plan with regional transport planning via the regional land transport strategy. I spoke a little yesterday on how necessary it is to bring land-use planning and transport planning to be parallel with each other so that the one can support the other. All successful cities overseas are now trying to do that. Here the Auckland Regional Council is the key organisation responsible for both land-use planning and transport planning through its subcommittee the Auckland Regional Land Transport Committee. This is why the regional planning documents must be revised to provide in an integrated way for land-use planning and transport planning consistent with the Auckland regional growth strategy and the bill provides for that revision to be done. 
The bill requires that the regional land transport strategy is not a list of projects to build in order of priority as they tended to be in the past but a genuine strategy taking an overview of the transport needs of the region looking at access corridors and integration. There has been a lot of confusion about what this actually means and some people criticised the bill as introduced for not allowing the regional land transport strategy to get its teeth into any real issues at all. That was never the intention but I am glad that the wording has been clarified through the select committee so that it is now clear that the regional land transport strategy can and should look at modes and prioritise those. It should look at corridors and the needs on those corridors but it should be more of a structure plan than a wish list of activities. 
The Auckland Regional Transport Authority on the other hand is the operational agency. It should prepare a list of projects and prioritise them in order to meet the high-level needs identified in the strategy. It needs to integrate the planning for local roads public transport—both rail and bus—cycle routes and travel demand management such as school travel plans. Funding comes from two sources. The capital currently held by Infrastructure Auckland passes to the new Auckland Regional Holdings owned by the Auckland Regional Council and that will continue to fund transport projects particularly public transport. Other projects such as local roads will be funded by Transfund as they are now but the applications will be prepared together by the Auckland Regional Transport Authority in an integrated way rather than by eight different territorial authorities. 
This system is dependent for its smooth operation and policy consistency on strong governance by the Auckland Regional Council which must ensure that the statement of intent for both the Auckland Regional Transport Authority and Auckland Regional Holdings reflects the principles and objectives of the Land Transport Management Act carried over into this bill. It must also ensure that the Regional Land Transport Committee reflects the objectives of the Act and has on it people with experience in those areas—economic development public health sustainability accessibility. 
There is one problem that has not been solved. Perverse incentives have been written into the system of transport funding for as long as State highways have been fully funded by central government and local roads and public transport have not. Any local community hesitating between proposing a new State highway in its area and a new rail or bus service will opt for the former because it does not have to contribute any of the money. That is not integration and it is not sustainability and it is often not cost effective. Likewise any council that can persuade Transit and Transfund that a particular road should be a State highway rather than a local road absolves itself from paying for it. That is not an easy problem to solve but it should remain a priority for policy work in the ministry to find ways of ensuring that all options for meeting a particular transport need are considered and compared on a level playing field. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is of the view that something has to be done for Auckland. We are here in Parliament and we have to deal with what is on the Table. All that is on the Table is this particular bill. New Zealand First has to look at the bill and see whether it can make the best of it and whether it will do at least something to improve the situation in Auckland. We are of the view that it does. Our spokesman Jim Peters has been on the select committee and has made a very valuable contribution to it. That became clear at the meeting held by the Auckland Regional Council about 2 or 3 weeks ago attended by 27 members of Parliament from Auckland. That must be a record and it shows there is a feeling amongst Auckland members of Parliament that something has to be done. 
New Zealand First is willing to take up any plan that might improve situations. We have this plan from Labour. We heard a plan announced by Mr Mapp in this House—I think for the first time by the National Party—in the third reading today. That was an interesting plan. If National were in Government New Zealand First would have to consider that plan and whether it would improve the situation in Auckland. That is the dilemma and it is the role that New Zealand First as the third party in Parliament must face. 
At the moment this plan does seem to improve the situation and New Zealand First will therefore support it. We will support anything that will improve the situation in Auckland. We want the roads built. They should have been built yesterday and the day before yesterday. Mr Williamson talks about roads being built now. He had the chance for 9 years as a Minister of Transport to do something about it between 1990 and 1999 and as every Aucklander knows he did nothing. 
 The evidence was before our very eyes as we drove through Auckland time and time again in those years. New Zealand First will look at Mr Mapp’s plan. However I ask Mr Mapp to have another think about it. His National Party plan seems to mean that everyone would be involved including the Government. Aucklanders want Auckland to resolve Auckland’s problems. They do not want a Wellington solution to Auckland’s problems. Auckland has had that for many years now. I suggest Mr Mapp and the National Party think about that. They would have difficulty selling that plan to Auckland because it is a Wellington plan not an Auckland plan. 
The advantage of this legislation is that it is an Auckland solution worked out by Aucklanders through the Auckland Regional Council and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority. As an Auckland member of Parliament that appeals to me. I put it to the National Party that I do not want some fancy consultants in Wellington or around the world coming up with yet another plan or fancy idea to resolve Auckland’s problems. 
I say to the House and especially to the National Party and the ACT party that we have to do something for Auckland. Auckland members of Parliament should be working together to try to improve the situation in Auckland and not do what was done while Mr Mapp was putting up his proposal. He had an idea but his speech was chipped in on and interjected on time and time again by Labour members. Of course when the Labour Party put up its proposal Mr Williamson constantly nagged and interjected on Labour Party members about that proposal. There should be wide-ranging consensus and agreement amongst members that some proposal must be accepted rather than constant bagging by the National Party against the Labour Party and the Labour Party against the National Party. 
New Zealand First does not want to be part of that. We want to make sure something positive is done for Auckland. We will support any plan that has a possibility of working for Auckland and generally speaking in other areas for New Zealand’s future. New Zealand First wants to see an integrated proposal by rail road and water. We have a wonderful ferry opportunity in Auckland as well. 
As a member of Parliament who has represented West Auckland in the past and who still takes a very strong interest in the Helensville electorate I am delighted that the double rail network is being established in Auckland. The Auckland Regional Council along with the Government I understand is involved with that and they are both to be congratulated on it. Congratulations should be given where they are due. I am disappointed that the National Party fails to do that at every opportunity. The double lines are going in. I want to see that double line going up to Helensville. I have not heard anything from the National Party member for Helensville who has had ample opportunity to speak in this debate to implore the Government and the Auckland Regional Council to make sure that the double link goes up to Helensville. 
I am a New Zealand First member who has represented Helensville I was the first member of Parliament to represent the electorate I have lived in the electorate and I want to see the double line going up to Helensville. I am disappointed that I am getting no support from the National Party in that respect. I take a good interest in Helensville and I am there regularly. 
Auckland bodies need to get together and they need to speak as one. Auckland members of Parliament need to speak as one. We do not want what Mr Williamson has suggested today perhaps in a humorous vein which is yet another survey of Aucklanders as to what Auckland wants. I know that what Auckland wants and what New Zealand wants is a New Zealand First policy on the roading situation. We want all the money gathered from road taxes to be spent on the roads. That is our policy. When New Zealand First was part of the coalition Government that is what it was starting to achieve. We started to increase the allocation especially for all roading taxes to be spent on roads. After the split-up the National Party got back into the third year of the term and reversed that policy. If National had maintained our policy it would have been possible to do more roading in Auckland and generally. 
\What appears to have happened also between 1990 and 1999 is that more roading money was spent out of Auckland than in Auckland. Clearly the demand was in Auckland but unfortunately for political pot-boiling purposes that money was spent outside that area. New Zealand First and I think all New Zealand now recognises that something has to be done for Auckland and that is why this bill is before this House. But even though this legislation is meant to support Auckland the National Party and the ACT party are opposing it. 
We are seeing the developments currently and New Zealand First commends and supports them. For example in the North Shore area I was invited to a North Shore City Council meeting. I do not seem to have been invited again but I look forward to attending another meeting again. I support the Esmonde Road interchange. I support the development of the Constellation Drive bus depot and the bus depot at Albany at Oteha Valley Road and I am doing all I can to make sure that happens. After the North Shore City Council meeting where the North Shore City Council complained that the Auckland Regional Council was not doing anything about it I went to an Auckland Regional Council meeting and would members believe the Auckland Regional Council suggested that perhaps the North Shore City Council could be doing a bit more. That is typical local body politics. 
Fortunately all that is behind us now because funds have been made available for the Esmonde Road interchange and we will be seeing those developments. I have got back to Parliament in only this last session 2002. However I am seeing roading developments taking place. I have to recognise that that is the case and I commend the North Shore City Council for that happening. I commend the North Shore City Council for developments in that area. I see that the second upper-harbour bridge is being built. That is great news. I have not heard one National Party member even the member whose electorate it is Mr Key mention the second upper-harbour bridge. That is about the only new work that is being done because all the resource consents have been finalised and they are always the problem. I commend that development. I understand that the Mount Roskill development has now been approved. We have read all this. 
Phil Heatley 
: This is a socialist speech. 
DAIL JONES 
: The member for King Country and the member for Whangarei may not like to see Auckland being dealt with. Those National Party members want to attack the new development at Mount Roskill. They can and of course Mr Connell can too. National Party rural members do not want the money being spent in Auckland. That is what it boils down to does it not? Otherwise they would be commending this speech and the developers. 
Brian Connell 
: We just don’t want to pay for it. 
DAIL JONES 
: Those members have told the House that if National gets back into office it will not support development in Auckland. I stand in this House and I hear those rural members say that they will go back to their old ways. Aucklanders and people coming to Auckland from Whangarei do not want to have to go through Auckland to go south. They want to go around Auckland. People who come from Whangarei—Mr Carter’s electorate—do not want to come into Auckland. They are forced to come into Auckland now because in the old days Auckland City people wanted money from the business. I want to see the Mount Roskill interchange and development proceed. People from Whangarei and Hamilton or vice versa can avoid Auckland. When I travel to Auckland I want to avoid Auckland. When I say “travel to Auckland” I mean that if I want to go to Howick I do not want to have to go through Auckland. [ 
Interruption 
] I hate going into Auckland. That is right. I do not like to go to Auckland. I avoid it. I shop at the North Shore Lynnmall and any other place in Auckland. I do not like going into Auckland. That is why I want to see this legislation get under way. I want to avoid travelling into Auckland. I want to go south without all those problems on the interchange and get to the airport without the interchange. 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek the leave of the House for that Government member to have an extension to his speech. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That member is not a member of the Government. The member should read his  
Hansard 
 sometime. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 36 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time. 
Meat Board Restructuring Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Meat Board Restructuring Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill was introduced on 2 December 2003 it had its first reading on 17 February 2004 and has been considered by the Primary Production Committee. The bill provides for the Meat Board to focus in future on its critical meat export quota management role. The bill removes the current board’s levying powers. Industry-good activities in the meat industry can now be undertaken by a non-statutory industry organisation funded under the Commodity Levies Act. The meat and wool industries have formed a new joint organisation for this purpose. 
The bill has new provisions governing the management of the Meat Board’s reserve funds. The board currently holds around $100 million in farmer reserves. The bill provides for the new board to manage the board’s reserves and other assets in the interests of livestock farmers including managing the reserves for action in relation to any major industry crisis preserving the integrity of the quota management systems and funding specific industry-good activities. 
Some submissions to the committee opposed the proposal to maintain reserves to preserve the integrity of quota management systems on the grounds that the reserves could become a potential litigation target and that quota holders as the direct beneficiaries of quota should meet such costs. I support the committee’s recommendation to insert a clear definition of reserves in the bill and its recommendations for clarification of the board’s powers to recover the costs of quota management and to replenish any reserves used to meet quota management costs. 
The bill provides for two of the 10 or 11 directors of the Meat Board to be appointed by the Minister. Some submissions to the committee considered a board of 10 to 11 directors to be excessive and some opposed having two ministerial appointees to the board. The committee has not recommended any change to this requirement. It agreed with the original intent that having two ministerial appointees on the board will help to ensure that the board has around its board table directors with in-depth expertise in the international meat trade quota management and international trade relations and would ensure that the wider national interest was considered when quota management decisions are being made. 
As the remaining directors will come from the new meat and wool industry-good organisation I consider that as directors of that organisation the two ministerial appointees on the Meat Board are necessary to ensure that proper attention is given to its key function of quota management. 
The size of the board reflects the industry’s desire for most or all of the industry-good organisation directors to also be directors of the Meat Board. The bill retains and updates the Meat Board’s export quota management functions. It provides that the Crown owns the rights to secure the economic benefits deriving from quota markets and that the meat industry is the recipient of the economic benefits deriving from quota markets. I support the committee’s recommendation that it be made clearer in the bill that the economic benefits deriving from quota markets are assigned for the benefit of the meat industry. 
The Meat Board’s quota management functions including any costs associated with litigation arising out of events postdating the commencement of this Act will be funded on a cost-recovery basis by export quota holders and applicants for quota. I agree with the committee’s recommendation to clarify that this provision does not authorise the board to collect fees relating to costs arising from events that took place prior to the commencement of this Act except for costs that could have been recovered under the Meat Board Act. 
The bill continues to require a part of meat export quotas to be available for allocation to new entrants as provided for in the Meat Board Act. The new entrants provisions make it easier for new entrants to get access to quota and are intended to encourage innovation in the industry. I accept the committee’s recommendation that all applicants for a quota allocation under the new entrant provision even if unsuccessful should be able to be charged application fees. Every application would impose some processing costs on the board. 
The bill provides for the Crown to audit aspects of the board’s quota management systems. These audits will assess the nature of the board’s compliance enforcement systems to provide a high level of assurance that such systems comply with New Zealand’s international obligations relating to meat export quota management. The committee has recommended amendments to these quota compliance audit provisions in the bill in order to distinguish more clearly between scheduled and unscheduled audits. I support the committee’s recommendations. 
This bill represents an important step in the ongoing evolution of the New Zealand meat industry. I would like to thank the members of the Primary Production Committee for their consideration of the bill and for their report tabled on 27 May 2004. I commend this bill to the House. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I rise to speak in favour of the proposed bill. When we listened to the Minister give his speech—this is the Minister of course who in Opposition campaigned vigorously for years against this kind of proposal—we can understand what happens to a person when he has to carry 19 socialists on his back as the only Minister carrying the flag for primary producers in New Zealand. The National Party supports agriculture 110 percent—not the 51 percent or sometimes 49.5 percent that that Minister can scratch up occasionally. We are 110 percent behind the agricultural industries of this country. 
This bill is a very good move forward for a number of reasons. One is that it identifies the synergies that exist between both the former Wool Board and Meat New Zealand. Over 80.3 percent of farmers on stock numbers voted in favour of this move so it is an industry-driven move supported reluctantly by a tired Minister who had to work and break arms in his own Cabinet to get it through. 
Let me just give members an example of some of the things that the very well chaired National-led select committee had to alter in this bill. 
Brian Connell 
: Who was the chairperson? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: The Hon David Carter the agriculture spokesperson chaired the select committee and chaired it very well. 
Firstly an allocation for both women and Maori was going to be inserted into board management. I recognise that women play a leading role in this industry and I also recognise that Maori are quite a large minority in the meat and wool industries of New Zealand but to suggest that they should be put on the board just by right because of some politically correct philosophy just shows us where this Government would take us if it were given a chance. 
The second major issue that was discussed at length in the select committee—even though I am not a member of the committee I have read the submissions—was quota management which is the essential part of this legislation. Here lies the major philosophical difference between that side of the House—that Labour minority Government—and those on this side of the House who understand the farming industry. I acknowledge the officials here. I recognise some of them from days gone by when I was on that committee and acknowledge the fine work that they must have done in cajoling this Government into not going down the track it would have gone down—that is quota ownership and quota management. 
It is true that quota is negotiated Minister-to-Minister Government-to-Government and State-to-State internationally at the direction of the industries generally and as a result of the industries identifying a potential market. That is how it works. But here is where National differs from Labour. Labour believes that once the Minister has negotiated the quota it owns it. The socialists will nationalise it it is theirs and they should have benefits from that over and above what they are entitled to. That is where National differs. National believes strongly that the industry the Government negotiated on behalf of owns the quota. For that reason and because of the very good work of the Primary Production Committee the following words have been inserted in clause 22 in Part 3: “The Crown owns the rights to secure the economic benefits deriving from quota markets and those benefits are assigned for the benefit of the meat industry …”. It is not for the benefit of the socialist Government’s tax or for the socialist Government to get its sticky fingers into. It is for the benefit of the industry. 
I say to those members on the select committee who are supported by the very good officials: “Well done for getting that put in!” It was clear to me and it would be clear to anybody who took more than 5 minutes to read the bill where the socialists were heading with this legislation. They were going to nationalise the quotas of the meat and wool industries and there would be an opening for them to do that. Once we changed the legal structure of the board for which those quotas were negotiated we would open up an opportunity for people to say: “Hey you have changed the deal so all bets are off and we’re going to change the structure of this quota.” The socialists would love that. We can just see it. Look at them baying over there! They could get their sticky fingers into this. They think it would be a great thing if they were able to take on that quota. 
The industry-good activities which the Minister touched on in his speech are also hugely important. Here is the interesting point which this Government has not understood and never will understand. The socialists are busy out there looking for the new Nokia or some other magical star that will be coming over the horizon. What they do not understand is that we already have it in New Zealand; it is already here. It is called our primary industries. The growth rates in the economy are marginally successful at about 3 percent compared with about 2.7 percent OECD average over the last 5 or 6 years. Where have they come from? Primary industry growth rates over the last 10 years have been about 4.5 percent so not only does the agricultural sector underpin the New Zealand economy it is the one that is leading the New Zealand economy. It is the Nokia of New Zealand. So forget about looking for that magical star! We already have it—it is called our agricultural sector and we should recognise and understand it. Did we see anything in the Budget about it? Not on your Nelly! We saw a $7 billion surplus on the back of this industry but did we see any recognition of it? Never have we seen any recognition and never will we see any recognition of this industry from that lot. 
Any farmers out there who are listening—led by the very capable chairman of the New Zealand Meat Board Jeff Grant who knows a bit about how things happen in this House—will know that what I am saying is true. They are lining up in droves against this Government and they will continue to do so. This combined industry earned $6 billion in export earnings for this country last year. Name an industry on the horizon in the Jim Anderton photo opportunity travel around the country regional development programme— 
John Carter 
: Or in Auckland. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Or in Auckland. This is about five times the size of the export earnings from Auckland but is there any recognition of it? Not on your Nelly! We will never see that not from this Government. Not on a cold day in hell would we see that. 
On 30 October 2003 the Minister said: “Yes we will accept the direction that this industry is wanting to go in and we will accept under the Commodity Levies Act of 1990 that a levy could and should be charged for industry good.” I come back to that point in my closing notes. I record in this House today that the future of this country will be driven on the back of value-added products coming out of primary industry such as nutraceuticals pharmaceuticals the high-tech fibres that will come out of the wool industry and products that come out of wool like lanolin that we have never even heard of in terms of what they can be used for. This will come as a result of a robust science and research and development programme which this industry will invest in as it goes forward. 
Of course without some kind of levy mechanism not only to negotiate the quota access and maintain it but also for investment in research and development those things would not be possible. I say to the Minister: “Good on you for allowing that to happen!” because without it the industry will not survive in the future. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise as a member of the Primary Production Committee to support the Meat Board Restructuring Bill. I say in a charitable way that that was not a bad speech from the Opposition member. I am sure that Mr Woolerton who is also a member of the Primary Production Committee would back me in saying that after the last election we had hoped that Shane Ardern would end up chairing that committee. A bill like this is close to that member’s heart. He is a real farmer—one of the few left in the National Party. 
Darren Hughes 
: Phil Heatley did the numbers. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: With all his fingers and toes Phil Heatley did the numbers. Unlike the present chairman who is a Colombo Street farmer out of Christchurch we know that Shane Ardern is a real farmer and a good bloke. He has a lot of support around the place as a bloke—a real farmer. He is not even on the committee but has been sent down to the House for this second reading to put the boot into the bill because David Carter refuses to take a call. I rise to support this bill. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: He wasn’t even on the committee. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Yes he is not even on the committee. A good bloke like Mr Ardern a good substantial farmer in our community is not even on the committee. 
I rise to support this bill. This bill follows what occurred in the wool industry and the dairy industry. The farming communities the growers held a referendum and came to the Government. This bill meets our criterion which is that if there is substantial overwhelming grower support for the measure then we will move to deregulate. That is unlike the previous Government which had one crack at deregulation with the fruit legislation. Fruitgrowers wanted a certain scheme of arrangement and the then Minister Mr Luxton corporatised the fruit industry and blew it apart and now the industry has collapsed around our feet as we have seen in the last couple of years. This bill does what the industry itself wants. 
The other interesting thing about this bill is that it allows the Meat Board to retain its reserves of around $100 million for the purposes of assisting the industry. I think that is quite substantial and is a very good safeguard. But of course we know—and I will refer to a quote from the chairman of the Primary Production Committee Mr David Carter who will not take a call but stuck poor old Shane Ardern out on a pole today. David Carter said that if he had his way those hundred-million-dollar reserves would be gone—they would be sold. He stated in the  
Rural News 
 of 8 June 2004: 
“We indicated before the last election that we would sell for instance Landcorp if we got into power and I don’t see that changing.” It means that a National Government would sell assets. It would do away with the Meat Board—flog the lot. As with the apple industry the poor old grower the hard-working grower with the intellectual property and all those assets would be left out in the cold. 
I pity Shane Ardern in a lot of ways. I reckon from the speech he made that he knows that the Primary Production Committee is the most depoliticised committee in this Parliament. Poor old Shane Ardern has been stuck out on a pole this morning on his own. He is the only real farmer on the Opposition side of the House. He was told to ramp up the debate and politicise it. What a shame that was. I think Shane Ardern should have said to the chairman of that committee there was no way he would do that and the chairman should do his own dirty work. But the chairman has refused to come to the House to take a call. 
As I said this bill will assist the industry. It will give some synergies and some cost efficiencies. It has the support of growers as demonstrated by a substantial referendum in August last year. But let me also point this out: the committee made a unanimous report on the bill. Again I say this is not a political issue. I think that even our ACT colleague our New Zealand First colleague and our other colleagues on the committee support this legislation as a good way to go forward for the meat industry. I just say to the Opposition members that they should look at their own legacy from the time they were in Government in terms of what they did in the agricultural sector. The only crack those members had at a restructuring was in the fruit industry. Shane Ardern will not stand and agree with me now but I know even he will agree with me in the lobbies that National blew that industry apart. The growers came to us on wool and on dairying and we have ticked those requests off. Now they have come to us on meat and we can tick that one off. We have done what the industry wanted in putting a substantial bill and a substantial entity together. More especially we are ensuring that the $100 million of reserves are kept out of the hands of the Opposition members and out of the hands of this Parliament to ensure that the industry is protected and the money is used to benefit it. 
I tell the Opposition members to give it all a break to support the growers and the industry and not to politicise this legislation because all that that will do is to send the wrong message to the industry. The industry knows that we have backed it. The industry knows the real speech that Shane Ardern really wanted to make this morning but was not allowed to because Mr Heatley over there on the Opposition benches put the axe into him so that he could not chair the Primary Production Committee. I thank Mr Ardern for the speech that he could not make. The speech that he did not make was a very good speech and I agree with the speech that he could not make. 
Let us just get on with it. This is a good bill. It is non-partisan it supports the industry and it is good for this country. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First likewise supports this bill and as previous speakers have said it has cross-party support—as many things do in agriculture because we have a habit of being very practical people—and the solutions are sensible ones. Mr Speaker you would know as I know—and I apologise for bringing you into the debate but I do so purposely—that we are watchers of the political scene. That is as far as you go Mr Speaker. But it is one of the beautiful ironies of politics and watching from the centre of the political spectrum it is interesting to see that there is something that is a fact in New Zealand. Even in my earlier days of farming I recognised that the National Party the Tories or the parties of the right—call them what one will—will talk about agriculture and say how important it is and that it needs to be kept strong in order to keep the country strong. Thereafter National biffs the agricultural sector around kicks it in the guts and uses it mercilessly. Unfortunately for National along came a Labour-led Government in due course and the farmers prospered. Now that is a delicious irony because the farmers do not respect that fact and by and large do not give Labour credit for that. National of course answers by saying that it set the scene and Labour has reaped the reward. Well I wish I had somebody to set the scene so I could reap the reward. 
New Zealand First supports the passage of this bill. We have it as a matter of policy that if an industry conducts a vote and 75 percent of the participants in that industry agree to change we will accept and support that change. That is what has happened in this industry so we very definitely support it and support it enthusiastically. It is true that the restructuring of the farming sector which has led to Meat and Wool New Zealand Limited and to the retention of the board that we are discussing now was started by National. It will have escaped no one’s notice to see that a very good business person or in fact two very good business people who were previously members of this House have gone out and taken full advantage—and good luck to them—of the restructuring of the Dairy Board by starting up their own dairy factory something that previously they could not do. I do not criticise that at all. But I think it is worthy of note that they were able to do that and that they have done so because of the restructuring they initiated. 
It is also worth noting that some of the restructuring in the early days as Mr Cosgrove has rightly said and as Mr Shane Ardern will admit privately when we are talking as farmers over the fence or somewhere else was less than successful shall we say initially. It has come right in the case of the fruit industry but that industry is largely privatised. Interestingly enough the kiwifruit industry which was at the forefront of the need for change so it was said did not restructure along the private model but on the cooperative model. The dairy restructuring retained to a large degree the cooperative model. Both those industries are working well. The cooperative model was not followed in the fruit industry where the restructuring did not work as well as in the kiwifruit and dairy industries. 
New Zealand First sees no need for a period of destabilisation following change and sees no need for farmers to be affected detrimentally. New Zealand First sees no need at all for there to be disruption in an industry when change takes place. In this case there is to be none. There are significant advantages in what has happened and New Zealand First enthusiastically supports the retention of a board to specifically make sure that our quotas which give us access into foreign countries are looked after nurtured and monitored. Those quotas are our access into very very lucrative markets and it would be nice if we could have all our products go through them but that is not to be. The quotas are important. They add the icing on the cake for this very important industry an industry that is at the present time enjoying quite substantial benefits. I made a small note that Mr Shane Ardern did not mention that the returns for meat at the present time are at or very near record levels. I do not blame Mr Ardern for failing to mention that. Mr Ardern was around when Rob Muldoon was around and Rob Muldoon had a saying which was: “If you can’t kick ‘em don’t hug ‘em.” So Shane Ardern would not mention the fact that— 
Phil Heatley 
: He went to school with Rob Muldoon! 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Yes but Rob Muldoon is somewhere far colder than this House and he is somewhere where I am not yet and where I am not likely to be for a number of years. God bless his soul. But it is true that I was wandering amongst the dinosaurs at one time. 
New Zealand First is pleased to see the retention of this board which will nurture the quotas that are so important to New Zealand’s growth. The one thing that Mr Ardern did point out quite correctly was that all the efforts in this country to take us down a path—through some knowledge wave conventions or conferences—leading to some new technology roads have added small amounts to our economy and small amounts to our exports. But it is our agricultural exports our fishing exports and our land-based exports that are still the guts of this economy. While that may not be recognised in some large cities around the country it is recognised by anybody who knows anything at all about the New Zealand economy. 
I cannot sit down without saying that all these industries rely on something that is unquestionably under the control of the Minister of Finance—in many cases people say it is not but in New Zealand First we believe it is—and that is a low exchange rate for the dollar relative to the currency of our trading partners. New Zealand First believes that the Government should remain active in that area. We encourage and have supported Dr Cullen when he has made noises to bring the dollar down in order to help our farmers and I cannot sit down without saying that that is a huge part of this industry. 
I would like to lend my voice to that of Clayton Cosgrove in urging the National Party—in fact begging the National Party and saying we will make every endeavour to help the National Party—to promote Shane Ardern not only to the front bench but to the chairmanship of the Primary Production Committee. That is not to take anything away from David Carter—I will not be unkind—because we hope he exists. My leader has an interest in David Carter’s welfare at this point in time so we want him to continue on. But in New Zealand First we would like to see Shane Ardern promoted and brought into the chairmanship of the select committee. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 It is with real pride that I stand in the House as a genuine farmer— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Genuine? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Yes a very genuine one. I think I have removed the manure from under my fingernails! In fact standing here makes me reflect that I should have brought my Driza-Bone hat to wear. I note that Mr Nandor Tanczos from the Green Party wears his tea cosy in the House so I cannot see why a genuine farmer cannot do something of a similar nature. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is actually a tam not a tea cosy. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I accept what the member says. I point out to Mr Eckhoff that his comment was a personal reflection on the member under Standing Order 116. He will stand and withdraw. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I am happy to stand and withdraw. I meant no disrespect to the member. It was just an observation. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although you have every right to direct the member himself did not take offence. He made a correction. He had the right to take offence and ask for a withdrawal which he did not do. It seems quite odd that the member on his feet should now be directed to withdraw—which he has done—given that the member himself made a correction but did not seem to take offence. It is odd that you intervened. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: The honourable member makes a good point but on reflection it is offensive to liken my head to a teapot in which case I think a withdrawal is in order. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: All right we have had our fun. I thank all honourable members very much for their contributions but I do require a withdrawal and apology. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I withdraw and apologise. As I mentioned earlier it is a matter of considerable pride for me to stand and speak on a matter that does concern the wider farming industry. I have to say that the meat industry despite the very sound rhetoric I have heard so far is under real threat. One has only to look at the newspapers daily to understand the threat to the industry from the environmental lobby and the cost structures that local government and central government impose on the industry on a regular basis. So there is real concern about the future. 
But when we compare the past with where we are today we have to say the industry can take great pride in its achievements. I doubt very much whether any other industry in this country has achieved as much as the meat industry has achieved over the last one and a half decades. When we look at the high-tech industry and at items such as computers we see there has been a huge fall in those commodity prices. Yet when we look at the commodity price for lamb—a product much maligned for years—we see that it continues on a steady march upwards. The commodity price for lamb has risen dramatically over the last 20 years and that hugely reflects the ability of the industry and the fact that it is almost entirely deregulated. It is no longer controlled by Government. We no longer see Budgets where the Minister of Finance stands and announces supplementary minimum prices or some other kind of incentive to assist the industry. The industry actually works well without Government input. That is something that all other industries and all aspects of our social life could well reflect on. I pick up on a point made earlier by other speakers that is worth reflecting on and that is that in the past many people regarded the meat and wool industries as sunset industries. I think maybe Jenny Shipley made some reference to that in the past. Nothing could be further from the truth in terms of where our meat industry has been and where it is heading. 
Some concerns were expressed by members of the Primary Production Committee and I am delighted the influence of the centre-right shall we say— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Centre-right? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Mr Woolerton takes a jump back in horror at being regarded as part of the centre-right. But the influence of the committee members was quite significant in a number of aspects. The biggest issue for me personally is the quota which has been alluded to by other speakers. I make the point that the quota is regarded as terribly important but I am one who does not believe that the quota is owned or should be controlled by the Government. As Mr Ardern pointed out a Government negotiates these things. A former Government negotiated the Closer Economic Relations agreement for example; does that mean the Government should have some form of influence over somebody— 
Shane Ardern 
: It does on some. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I thank the member for that point. Should the Government have some sort of influence over the way in which Trade and Enterprise works and should it have representatives on that board to get some Government point of view across to the industry? I do not think anybody would suggest that is appropriate. 
As we go through the Committee stage it is important to recognise that the majority of farmers did not vote. When the ballot was put before them as to whether the meat and wool industries should be amalgamated and called some sort of pastoral board the majority did not vote. Of those who did vote I think 83 percent voted in favour. I repeat that the majority of farmers in this country did not vote for this bill or for the restructuring of the industry. I suggest to members that that is something we—and indeed members of the Meat Board—should reflect on. The fact is the majority of farmers in this country do not see boards or associations or anything of that nature as relevant to their profession any more. They work alongside their meat company or their dairy company or their wool industry representatives. They do not see the relevance of a meat board or a wool board to a very large degree. So I make that point which I think is very important and one that Mr Grant and the Meat Board would do well to reflect on. It is worth noting that a mere handful of farmers actually bothered to turn up at the first annual meeting of Meat and Wool New Zealand—a handful! That again reflects the fact that the industry is totally deregulated and the relevance of a board is brought into question by a lot of industry members. 
But there is no doubt that there is a need to ensure that the quota is fairly and reasonably administered. We have just gone through a major exercise in this Chamber called a scampi inquiry into the allocation of quota. Those in the Labour Government might do well to listen for a moment or two. There is also a case before the Privy Council at this very time on the issue of meat quota because there are those within the industry who say it was not fairly allocated. I note that a member of the Labour Government agrees with me on the point that an allocation committee should not only be independent but should be seen to be independent. I have grave concerns that there are members of the Meat Industry Association who although they do not sit on the allocation committee sit on the full board which actually talks and discusses these things. I think allocation of quota is probably one of the single most important aspects of this bill. The Government says it is necessary to have two members appointed by the Government to sit on this board. Well I do not and I do not believe that National—and possibly New Zealand First—feels that way. But I am not prepared to die in a ditch on this issue. We will see how it will go. 
Brian Connell 
: Oh why not? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Well if I die in a ditch it will be alongside a couple of my National Party colleagues as well no doubt. I am not sure that it is totally necessary but we have got a couple of representatives and I hope the Minister will ensure that those appointed have the necessary commercial expertise to assist. I hope he does not put the old Blue Kennedy types on the board just because the Government can appoint those sorts of people. 
As I said earlier this industry has an extremely bright future but its future will be fully exploited only if Government and controls are kept right out of its way into the future. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on this second reading of the Meat Board Restructuring Bill. I cannot stand with the same pride that the member before me a real farmer stood with but I do own more cows than anybody else in our caucus. Owning five cows probably does not qualify me as a genuine farmer but it has given me some appreciation for those who work hard in the primary industry around our country. Taking care of 5 acres is enough for me and it has given me an appreciation of the hard work and good management required in order to produce the maximum we can from our land in this country. 
I share in the comments that have been made by other speakers that we as a nation are very much dependent upon our primary industry. It is always encouraging to see it do better each year as commodity prices continue to rise. It is always a worry when we hear there is a possibility that farmers may be in for a glum time because we know that will pass on through the rural communities to affect so many other people in our nation. It has been heartening this year to hear that rather than the predicted doom and gloom there has been a marvellous upturn in the incomes of farmers in terms of projected payouts. We really welcome that news for the whole of the country. 
Our party not having a member on the Primary Production Committee I want to pay my regards to the members on it who worked so hard in hearing the submissions. They received eight submissions and they heard four which is an incredible workload for any committee to have to deal with. I thank the members for diligently working through these issues. The bill returns to the House with some recommendations and I would like to make a few comments on those before ending our contribution on this second reading following which we move to the Committee stage. 
The bill is all about enshrining in legislation the necessary provisions that lay the groundwork for best practice and help ensure the ongoing success of New Zealand’s meat industry and its members. It is pleasing to be part of supporting legislation that has been requested by the industry rather than imposed upon it. I take note of the honourable member Clayton Cosgrove’s earlier comments that during my time in this House we have responded to requests from the wool industry the kiwifruit industry and here we are dealing with something requested by the meat industry. That is really the role of this House: to hear from the communities that it serves to design legislation to hear submissions and to progress the issues that those who voted us here are interested in our progressing. It is a pleasure to take part in this legislation proceeding through the House so that it can meet the needs of the industry. 
The recommendation to define the term “reserves” in concise language to mean meeting the costs of quota management is a prudent measure to offset litigious opportunism. It will also ensure that the $100 million reserve fund remains the primary means to ensure solvency and the ability of the board to carry out its core quota management functions at all times. It is pleasing to note the importance given to livestock farmer buy-in and participation which has been recounted in numerous recommendations made by the select committee. Whether it be with regard to consultations over the reserve fund policy or over the validity of reserve management decisions it is important to ensure that livestock farmers’ wishes are suitably considered. 
Also clarifying the terms of reference of the board with regard to the power to delegate quota functions and the capacity to contract for services is a necessary tightening-up of its terms of reference to remove confusion within the industry. In fact many of the committee’s recommended changes are made with the intent to provide more clarity to grey areas in terms of the structure ownership issues and effective functioning of the Meat Board. It is sensible to clarify that although the quota markets are there to benefit the industry ownership of the rights resides firmly with the Crown. United Future supports that principle. Furthermore the recommendations to minimise the scope of legal disputes by clarifying distinctions between scheduled and unscheduled audits—a bugbear in many industries—is another judicious measure that deserves praise. With any overseeing body whose core role is to benefit its members an affirmation of its core purpose tempered with flexibility is essential to allow for best practice. The recommended changes that provide this necessary flexibility by requiring the industry-good organisation to be owned by a trust whose beneficiaries are all livestock farmers do just that. 
The recommended changes to this bill are sensible measures that will help make sure that the Meat Board fulfils its duties effectively and properly and that the meat industry and its members all benefit from such duties. United Future has pleasure in recommending this bill to the House for the passage of its second reading. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Meat Board Restructuring Bill a bill where the Labour-led Government is doing what farmers want. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: He represents a rural constituency. 
DAVID PARKER 
: I represent a rural constituency. There was a day when the National Party represented all the rural constituencies. There was a day when it had all the farmers. Why is that we do what farmers want? Because we have more farmers on this side: Parekura Horomia Mita Ririnui Jim Sutton Damien O’Connor. The farmers are on this side and that is why the farmers vote for us—[ 
Interruption 
] In contrast we have Mr Connell speaking up the member for Rakaia. He is an East Street farmer. The National Party used to have the occasional Queen Street farmer but it has lost even them. It is down to East Street farmers. 
In any event this is good legislation in contrast to what the previous National Government used to do. What did it do to the fruit industry? Exactly what the fruit industry did not want it to do and it ended in tears. The farmers in my area want this legislation. They want the meat industry restructured in the way that we are doing with this bill. I commend this legislation to the House and I remind those tired members opposite that the reason their former voters voted-in me and this Government was that they knew that this Government would back farmers. Farmers do better under this Government and that is why I am here. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party. There is certainly no shortage of National Party members who could sit on the Primary Production Committee. There is a lot of depth in our party which comes from people who have a rural background. That is why Shane Ardern is standing in the wings waiting to replace us at any time and there are plenty of others in the National Party with a respect for farming who are standing right behind him. We in the National Party certainly support this industry and would like to acknowledge the productivity and the go-forward attitude of the primary sector that has carried this economy for many many decades and certainly with no help from this Government for the last 4 years. 
 National supports this Meat Board Restructuring Bill with the changes that we have made in the Primary Production Committee. I would like to touch on some of those. We are very comfortable with the merger of Meat New Zealand and the New Zealand Wool Board to create Meat and Wool New Zealand Ltd a limited-liability company. We on the select committee did have some concerns particularly with regard to the governance arrangements. For example members will see in the commentary that some submitters argued that the size of the board was excessive—being a board of 10 or 11 people—and some argued that ministerial appointees were inappropriate. In this case the legislation states that the Minister would have two appointees. In the select committee that particular clause was referred to as the “Jim’s job clause”. 
Shane Ardern 
: His retirement clause. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: “Jim’s retirement clause”. There was some cynicism from people in the industry when they came to the select committee about who the Minister Jim Sutton would give those two jobs to—whether one would land in his lap or whether he would give them to other Labour Party lackeys. That concern was put to us. We reflected on that and with some reluctance the industry—and I must say the National Party—will accept having two ministerial appointments. Yes eyebrows were raised at that possibility but with some reluctance “Jim’s retirement clause” was passed. 
Interestingly enough we were quite interested not only in the number of directors but also in clause 13(4) of the original bill regarding the management of the board. I think the country will be quite shocked at that clause particularly with the current climate out there. It stated: “In appointing directors … the Minister must have regard to the desirability of—(a) the representation on the Board of women;”. The Minister must consider putting women on the board. How condescending and patronising is that? We have a large number of women involved in the running of “New Zealand Incorporated” both at Government level and in the private sector—Telecom and other companies. Clearly we have a woman Prime Minister—as Don Brash pointed out the other day—we have a female Governor-General and so on. Women have done very well and are quite capable of getting these appointments on their own merits but no the Labour Government felt that for some reason this appointment should be put at their feet regardless of merit. How condescending and patronising is that? 
Another clause stated that in appointing directors the Minister must have on the board: “… persons qualified to represent the views of Maori livestock farming interests.” How condescending and patronising to Maori is that? As if Maori amongst themselves do not have people who are more than able on their merits to sit on this board and to achieve for livestock farmers throughout New Zealand all the things that need to be achieved. How condescending and patronising is it that the Government would lay out the red carpet for Maori regardless of merit and say that Maori were in? I can tell members that Maori in the fishing industry are more than capable of reaching governance levels and jobs like that on merit without those jobs being passed out to them like a welfare cheque. So we opposed that and we are delighted to see that those particular clauses that put Maori and women on the board without necessarily having merit have been scrapped. We look forward to seeing Maori women and New Zealanders of other descent on that board because of merit. I recall that when we raised this issue—when we said that women and Maori would be put on the board as of right—Clayton Cosgrove asked why. Clayton Cosgrove himself said: “Why?”. He could not understand it and neither could we so he scrapped that clause—as did we—and we are pleased about it. 
There is another clause that will go through to the Committee stage and it is about the Crown and its approach to the rights of the quota. Members will be interested that the clause originally said that the Crown—this is what the Labour Government said: “… owns the rights to secure the economic benefits deriving from quota markets”. I would have to say that there was a shade of nationalisation of those quota rights in that clause and we are delighted that it too has been changed to better reflect the Crown’s role in this. The clause now states: “The Crown owns the rights to secure the economic benefits deriving from quota markets and those benefits are assigned for the benefit of the meat industry ...”. The quota rights are for the benefit of the meat industry. They are not for the Government not for the Government’s coffers and not for the Government to get some benefit that it might redistribute in some way to every New Zealander but for the benefit of the meat industry alone. 
I am also pleased to see that some accountability will be given to this board with regard to fees in relation to quota management and to the operation of quota management systems. I was somewhat concerned when I saw that the board could recover the costs to it of carrying out its functions in relation to the quota markets and that the board may set fees payable by meat exporters who are allocated a quota—not that I think the board should not be able to recover those costs through fees but simply that it would have the ability to set those fees. They would need to be fair and reasonable and the fees would need to provide the board with adequate funding. My concern was that those fees would be set and that there would be no redress for exporters if the fees were excessive unfair or unreasonable. 
But I see now—and it was in the bill—that those fees are to be treated as a regulation for the purposes of the Regulations (Disallowance) Act. In other words they are to be subject to the Regulations Review Committee and can be reviewed. I say to exporters that should problems arise in the years to come regarding those fees they do have access to Parliament through the Regulations Review Committee to see that the fees are reviewed and are set accordingly. So there is a degree of accountability there. 
National certainly supports this bill with those changes. The bill was originally quite condescending particularly with regard to who owned the quota and who should get the benefit and to whether Maori and women should be on the board as of right simply because of their race or gender. I am glad that those clauses have been changed. National supports the bill. We are pleased with the accountability processes and I commend this bill to the Committee stage. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Meat Board Bill. 
Meat Board Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Meat Board Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I have not had the chance to discuss this with any other of the parties but given that everybody supports this legislation I wonder whether the House would be inclined to grant leave for one wide-ranging debate over the Committee stage. I seek leave so to do. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Clauses 1 to 89 and schedules 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 As I rise to speak for my second contribution to the bill restructuring the Meat Board I want to start off by saying “Thank you” from all parties to the Primary Production Committee members who did a fine job on this legislation. The bill had cross-party support and I acknowledge the work put in by my colleagues Doug Woolerton and Clayton Cosgrove—who I know has been a long-time member of that committee—and the work done by the officials and other members of that committee. 
I notice with some interest that only the Green Party hung out to the bitter end on the issue of Maori and women being included as of right when the select committee recommended that they should not be. That says it all does it not? I wonder—and perhaps some of the Maori members on the other side of the Chamber will know this figure—what percentage of the meat and wool industry Maori and Maori incorporations now actually make up. I suggest that it would be substantial and potentially as much as a third of the industry. I know that there is a high capability amongst the leadership there and if those leaders want to be on the board they will be on the board. I suggest they put their names forward to make sure that they are represented. 
As has already been stated the bill sets up structures and regimes principally to manage the quota which is very very important to this industry. We cannot get access to a large percentage of the international markets we export to without a proper robust and well-negotiated quota. I see that the Minister has come back to the chair and I acknowledge the work he does on behalf of farmers in that regard. That said I have to say that that is where the philosophical difference lies between us and them—that is the Labour minority Government with its new partner the Green Party—for the forthcoming election. That is clearly a recipe for disaster for them. The Green Party does not believe in free trade at all and it certainly does not believe in trading meat products in countries like the US which is the largest market and in a number of other markets where we do that business. 
So in the campaign that is coming around the corner I look forward to the Minister justifying to New Zealand not only how he is going to win against the 19 other Cabinet Ministers he is carrying on his back—perhaps 25 or so with all the hangers-on outside Cabinet—but also having to carry Ian Ewen-Street Nandor Tanczos and one or two others. There is Keith Locke that champion of free trade around the world! The Minister will have to carry him on his back as well. It just cannot be done. He might as well give up while he is ahead because it is not going to happen. The public of New Zealand know it is not going to happen and they will not vote for it to happen. They will vote for a National Government and that will be the end of that. 
National supports the agricultural industry. It always has and it always will—110 percent. We are not fair-weather friends like those on the other side of the Chamber. We do not come in and out like them riding in on a high tide and going out when the tide goes out. We are 110 percent committed and would never make a comment like that of a former Labour Prime Minister who said that this industry was “a sunset industry” and the sooner all the land in the South Island became a national park the better. That is of course the approach of this current Government. Something like 40 percent of the South Island land mass is currently in some kind of conservation estate—40 percent! This Government now has a proposal on the books to take 600000 stock units—that is something like 100 productive meat and wool farms—out of production over the next few years. 
What do members make of that? Here we are today debating a restructuring bill that will allow those industries the backbone of New Zealand to get on and produce the very high returns that this Government and the Minister of Finance are benefiting from. At the same time the Government is doing that it has the Minister of Conservation running around the country trying to take 100 productive meat and wool farms out of production. Where is the logic in that? It is beyond me; maybe the Minister will explain it to me. For that reason I say that that Government will not be back. 
This meat industry bill has a number of very important roles to play. First of all as I said it is being set up to manage the quota. Second it is being set up to make sure that there is a proper conduit for a levy to be paid for things like research and development. They are so important to this industry and it is good that the select committee was able to come to that conclusion. When the Minister makes appointments to the board which he will he should forget about the old Labour lackeys because they are history. He should not even consider them for a moment. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will obviously be supporting this Meat Board Bill. A very well-known motivational speaker from America said: “Its time has come.” and I think the time has come for the Meat Board to be restructured. Of course this will be music to the ears of the farmers in the Wairarapa and common sense will prevail. That is not like the National Party which obviously left the farmers alone in the 1990s and had to reconstruct its efforts to bring them back. 
The commentary on the bill under “Introduction” states: “The bill restructures the New Zealand Meat Board and makes management of meat export quota the Board’s primary focus. The bill provides for the meat industry to be the recipient of the benefits of the quota markets.” Just quickly as we do not have a lot of time I want to cover one or two very important issues. In relation to the definition of reserves the Primary Production Committee—on which my colleague Doug Woolerton is very well-known as a farmer unlike others on that committee who are “Queen Street farmers”; I must mention the name of Mr Gerald Eckhoff too and also at this stage Mr Connell—recommends an amendment. It is expressed by clause 4(1): “reserves means all the net assets of the Board other than—(a) fees collected under section 55 to meet the costs of exporter registration: and (b) fees collected under section 36 to meet the costs of quota management except to the extent that they are collected to fund past payments made by the Board that—(i) were made in relation to quota management; and (ii) were not themselves funded from quota fees set under section 36.” 
We note that Federated Farmers of New Zealand opposes the prioritising of reserves as a backup to the quota system or the use of reserves to settle liabilities arising from litigation relating to quota allocation. All I want to say to Federated Farmers is that I believe that is a safeguard for the future of the industry. 
Of clause 13 “Governance” of the board the committee in relation to the Minister appointments and size of the board said it did not recommend any changes in the requirements for ministerial appointments that resulted in a board of 10 or 11 people. Some submitters argued that the size of the board was excessive and some that ministerial appointments were inappropriate. In speaking to Mr Connell this morning I went along with his view in respect of ministerial appointments but after reading the bill I think it is appropriate that directors are appointed. However there are some key points which I think the Minister brought up: experience expertise and not being a bureaucratic handbrake that will pull us up. I am happy as long as there is no bureaucratic handbrake that prevents the industry from prospering in the future. 
The other aspect of that is the representation provision of clause 13(4) which I was very interested in. With the exception of the Green member we did not see the need for clause 13(4) which required the Minister to give consideration to the representation of women and Maori farmers’ interests on the board when making ministerial appointments. Can I say to the Minister and to this Committee that New Zealand First does not support separate representation but I do support Maori farmers. I want the Minister not to ignore the contribution that Maori make to this industry. I want him to make it quite clear that Maori farmers and incorporation blocks out there make up a large part of the income of this industry. 
I will just mention one or two figures. The value of Maori agricultural output is estimated to be approximately $700 million. It cannot be ignored; it represents almost 10 percent of New Zealand’s total agricultural income. Only 15 percent of the population provides $700 million in agricultural income. Considering that their occupation of farming land is very small I want to applaud those Maori farmers and incorporations for the direction they have taken. 
I listened to the National Party going on about how this should not happen and also about the representation of women. Do my colleagues know that today women play a very important role in administeringfarming operations? 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I note that this is a wide-ranging debate but one of the particular aspects of this bill that concerns me and I think many of the farming community—and hopefully there will be a few listening in to the debate this morning—is the question of inappropriate behaviour by the meat industry. The industry has just gone through a rather tumultuous period where one company PPCS was vying to take over another very important meat company in the North Island by the name of Richmond. Hopefully in the interests of the wider industry that issue will be settled. But my concern is the huge influence that major companies will now have throughout the meat industry. For example PPCS will be the biggest meat company in New Zealand and probably one of the biggest companies in New Zealand by half. It will be twice the size of any other company. 
When I look at the offences penalties and proceedings provided for in clauses 66 to 69 I really cannot see anywhere that a significant penalty can be imposed on companies that choose to behave in an inappropriate way. I note that the bill provides for penalties of up to $200000 for an individual committing an export-related offence and can suspend for a year that individual’s ability to export meat products. But really the issue is this: if the company is a cooperative who is hurt? Is it the board? It is certainly not the Meat Board nor is it the board of that particular company. It is the farmers who own that company who pay the price for the inappropriate behaviour of a director. We have seen comments made by a judge of the High Court when talking about gross commercial misconduct about who actually has the ability to sanction directors. I made mention at the Primary Production Committee that I felt that the meat industry and the Meat Board should have some powers to bring those companies into line if because of their size their influence and inappropriate behaviour become pervasive. That is something that is not in the bill—and maybe that is right and maybe that is wrong—but I just want to flag that point. I think it is inappropriate that given the history of the last 5 years and what I repeat has been described as gross commercial misconduct we seem not to be addressing that particular issue either through this bill or perhaps through one other bill that might appropriately go to the Commerce Committee in the future. That may happen and I want to flag that. 
Another issue that I think is rather important is the use of the very substantial reserves—over $100 million as I understand it. I think it is entirely appropriate that the reserves should be for a specified use. There is little doubt that in this world of ours today bioterrorism is a huge threat especially to our agricultural industry. We must have some form of reserves and probably very substantial reserves to meet that threat should it ever arise. God forbid that it ever should arise but if it does there needs to be reserves to meet that threat. But those reserves should not be frittered away to settle court cases that the board may have to front up to in the future. The money should remain for a specified use and nothing else. I am quite sure that the meat farmers of this country want those reserves left for a specified purpose. If the board makes inappropriate or illegal decisions as determined by a court in the future then the board members should be responsible and should have some sort of insurance policy if possible to cover those costs. But they should not come from the reserves that have been built up over the years. 
We all know that with the increasing numbers of tourists coming to this country—and indeed we are encouraging tourism—the likelihood of organisms such as foot-and-mouth disease coming to this country increases. Indeed the back-up and the financial reserves are an integral and hugely important part of our ensuring that should something of that nature arise in this country we have the capacity and financial resource to fight that threat. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Can I start by congratulating my friend Edwin Perry on the quality of his speech. Notwithstanding the fact that I think he got it wrong regarding the Government’s patsy appointments to the Meat Board it is good to hear a member get up and speak with passion about his rural constituents and I commend him for that. 
A lot of talk has taken place in this debate regarding Mr Ardern not being on the Primary Production Committee. The simple answer to that is that National has so much depth in terms of its rural portfolios and rural—what is the word— 
Hon Member 
: Team. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: —I thank the member—team— 
Shane Ardern 
: The farmers. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: —the farmers—that we were lining up to come down here and take a call. For that same reason Mr Carter is not here today; we just muscled him out of the way and said: “David it’s not necessary because we want to go down and take a call.” There are real farmers on this side of the Chamber and on this team. In fact we have many farmers—[ 
Interruption 
] I am not certain what one has to be to be a real farmer according to the Government’s definition but I know that we have Mr Ardern Mr Carter Lockwood Smith and myself. I own 700 acres of prime Canterbury real estate. What does one have to do to be a farmer in this place? I do not know but I can tell members that we have plenty of them and we all were keen to come down and take a call. Madam Chair you could have knocked me down with a purple tea cosy when Mr Parker came down here and took a call. 
Government Member 
: It was a great call. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: It was good that he did and I commend him for it but he suggested that he represents rural constituents in Otago. When I go to Otago and ask who the local member of Parliament is the answer is: “Who? Who? Oh you mean the ‘Parker Pimpernel’! We search for him here we search for him there and we can’t find him anywhere. He is never here so I suppose he is in Wellington.” 
I draw my attention back to this bill to look at clause 3 “Purpose”. There are a couple of things that do disturb me notwithstanding the fact that I think generally the thrust of this legislation is right. The component under the “Introduction” heading in the commentary that I want to dwell on disturbs me a little bit. It states: “The bill requires that the Board manage reserves for: action in relation to a major industry crisis preserving the integrity of quota management systems funding specific industry-good activities.” I pose this question to members: do we really want to legislate for this type of thing? Surely that is a board function. Any worthwhile board would do that as a matter of course. I believe that is a worrying trend. We tend to legislate for anything. It is not just this Government; there has been a propensity over the last 20 years to put in place legislation if anything goes wrong. Someone does something silly somewhere so we legislate. I hope members will be cognisant of that point. 
The other issue that concerns me is under the heading “Definition of ‘reserves’—clause 4” in the commentary: “We note that Federated Farmers of New Zealand opposes the prioritising of reserves as a back up to the quota system or the use of reserves to settle liabilities arising from any litigation relating to quota allocation.” I have to say I share their concern. I simply say that surely no board can operate with a slush fund. A board must manage in an accountable fashion and in accord with its fiduciary accountabilities. Having deep pockets and pockets that do not belong to it will send the wrong messages about board responsibility. I take heed of Federated Farmers’ concerns and I believe that this is something the select committee should have looked at in more detail. 
The one area I want to take some time to talk about is the composition of the board. Certainly we need a board that is skilled that has the right people on it and that has the right expertise. I do not have an argument with that. But surely having selected a board with the right skills we do not then need to have two patsy members—Government appointments—put on that board. Their fingerprints will be all over that board and will constrain its ability to manage according to its charter. That I believe is something we should look at in some detail. 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I should respond to that last point because it was the first point made by any of the members opposite who have spoken on the bill that really had anything to do with the policies covered by it. I explain to him—it was explained to the members of the Primary Production Committee and that is why they did not propose any change—that the reason for having two ministerial appointees on the Meat Board to manage the quota is that the quota belongs to New Zealand. It does not belong to the board; it belongs to New Zealand. It has to be managed in the interests of New Zealand and with a wider view of New Zealand’s interests than just the interests of this particular industry. I have had experience before of a board that was not acting in a prudent way with all the requirements of quota administration. Those board members endangered the viability of other quota held by New Zealand for the benefit of another industry. So it is essential that there be someone on the board—in fact two people are better than one because we all know that one board member can become isolated—to keep an eye on the wider New Zealand interest. 
Because most of the elected board members are mainly involved with delivering and managing industry-good functions that have nothing to do with quota there is absolutely no reason to believe that the board would have had within its members people with the specialist expertise in international trade negotiations and quota management that is needed to do that specialised job. That is why those people are there. They are there for a particular purpose and I am sure that the Minister after consulting with the chairman of the board and through him the elected members of the board will appoint suitable people. 
Apart from that most of the discussion was a political rave and one has to wonder whether in the end it is better to have a wide-ranging debate on these matters or to try to get members to concentrate on the subjects in the bill. The ACT member Gerard Eckhoff demonstrated some wide-ranging hostility to cooperatives. He attacked Richmond and PPCS. He does not like cooperatives. He thinks they are a step on the road to the salt mines of Siberia. We have seen that attitude in the right-wing parties in Parliament in the past. At the same time he wants to tell the board exactly what it should do with the reserves it manages. Those are not his reserves; they are the reserves of the producers of New Zealand. That member wants to tell the board exactly what it should do. He thinks he should define what it spends the reserves on. I am sorry to say he was supported by Brian Connell the member for Rakaia. I thought that was a bit surprising. It shows how impressionable some of the novice right-wingers are. 
This is a good bill. It provides for the slimmed-down more-focused producer organisation that producers have been calling for. It will be more accountable in the way that it raises funds and spends them on industry-good activities and it will be involved in the administration of the quota in the interests of the industry. I appreciate particularly the words of support from Edwin Perry a New Zealand First member. Indeed apart from a little action that occurred off the ball in the debate I thank all the members of the select committee and all the parties that participated because they have demonstrated bipartisan concentration on the issues of the bill which speaks well for Parliament on issues concerning our primary industry. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I want to take a quick call in rebuttal of the retiring member for Aoraki. There are some clear arguments as to why what the Minister of Agriculture said just does not make sense. He said that the composition of the board needs the two Government members because of their expertise. That flies in the face of what other boards do all across New Zealand—in fact of global practice. What he is saying if members think about it is that if a board has a legal requirement on it it must have a lawyer and if it has a marketing requirement on it it must have a marketer. What absolute nonsense! Any board worth its salt goes out and gets that expertise consults it takes it into account then comes back and uses it as part of the decision-making process. But to have two patsy members on the board with their fingers all over the decision-making process just to keep the Minister informed does not make sense. 
The Minister in the chair Jim Sutton knows that. Federated Farmers raised the point and it was raised right around the country. When the restructuring initiative was taken around the country every farmer who was thinking about the issue stood up and said that he or she wanted the best individuals possible on the board not patsy members appointed by this Government. This is a Government that does not really understand farming practice so how dare it say what farmers will have. It just does not make sense. This is the same Government that insisted in the select committee process that we have Maori representatives and female representatives on the board regardless of their merit. My message to the Minister is simply that people should be selected on merit and we should let the board get on with doing its job. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I too would like to respond to the comments made by Jim Sutton a man described by many as one who will never make the top 10 but who will have no trouble getting into the bottom three of anything. The Minister seems not to have read the commentary to his own bill when he criticises my attitude to the use of the reserves. I can do no better than to quote from the bill’s commentary: “We note”—that is the select committee—“that Federated Farmers of New Zealand opposes the prioritising of reserves as a back up to the quota system or the use of reserves to settle liabilities arising from any litigation relating to quota allocation.” That is exactly what I have said and I make no apology with the support of the farmer-owned organisation called Federated Farmers and the Minister stands in the Chamber and criticises me for having done so. Well I make no apology for that and the farmers of this community and Federated Farmers can make their own judgment call on the contribution of the Minister. 
The other aspect that he criticises me on is that I am flagging the size and the ability of a very very large meat company into the future called PPCS in combination with Richmond and their ability to influence perhaps the quota management of the meat industry. It will have two members sitting on the quota allocation committee. The full board of course makes the judgment call but there will be two members of the New Zealand Meat Industry Association sitting on that board. Their influence will be huge because they are so big. Now I do not and never have criticised the sense of two big companies PPCS and Richmond getting together in terms of the geographical distribution of meat the timing of the meat kill etc. It makes enormous common sense but I will say as I have done publicly in the past and I do again today that it is totally wrong for a company to abuse its size and indeed the goodwill of its shareholders. Indeed the company has been criticised by a High Court judge for gross commercial misconduct. That is something that we cannot take pride in in this country. It needs to be spoken about so that these companies know that the representatives—and I count myself amongst them—of the farming community have the backbone to stand in Parliament and criticise if they believe it is necessary. 
I say to Mr Sutton that if that means I end up in the political salt-mines I do not care. I am perfectly happy to go to a political salt-mine but I will not compromise my integrity and what I believe for the sake of political expediency although quite clearly the Minister seems to think that that is a necessary part of politics in this country. I say to the Minister that I do not think it is and that is why I have come to this place to try to change that in my own way if it is at all possible. It seems as though the Minister does not agree with me. 
So these are issues that I think are terribly important. I believe that the farming community thinks they are terribly important as well. But there is also one issue that—instead of criticising the Minister on this time—I am delighted to say the Government does understand the significance of—trade. I think the Minister does understand in a perverse sense if one likes given his dedication to the meat industry that New Zealand will progress only through trade—it is absolutely essential. The Greens of course and this has been alluded to here earlier do not agree that trade is vital to this country. Well the Minister for Trade Negotiations does do a lot of calling around the world along with members of the meat industry the Meat Board—the pastoral board the new Meat and Wool New Zealand. That is an essential part of government and I understand that. The question of whether in fact the Government owns the quota I think is a moot point but as I said earlier it is one that I am certainly not going to die in the ditch on as long as the country and the Minister understand that the real benefit comes from an industry like this one. 
The meat industry has the ability to go out there service its clients and service the world without the constraints the controls and the cost structures that are constantly being imposed on us by this Government. But there is no question that I think some members of the Government do understand the absolute necessity to get out there and sell our product and open access to New Zealand. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Members further to the leave granted by the Committee for one wide-ranging debate is it the wish of the Committee that I put the question as one? 
John Carter 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is. 
Clauses 1 to 89 and schedules agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Meat Board Bill be now read a third time 
. The meat industry makes an enormous contribution to the New Zealand economy in terms of contributions to New Zealand’s gross domestic product employment and export earnings. In the year ended June 2003 $4.2 billion worth of meat products were exported which accounted for about 15 percent of the total value of merchandise exports from New Zealand. This bill was sought by the meat industry. The concepts it puts into practice were overwhelmingly endorsed by a referendum of producers in August 2003. It makes the provision of the raising of funds and the provision of industry-good services more accountable and more efficient. It retains a wide public overview of the administration of the valuable meat quota. I wish to compliment those in the industry who have fronted on this bill—both to the participants in their own industries and to members of Parliament—notably Jeff Grant and Mike Petersen because their energy and leadership have served the industry well. 
I wish the new Meat Board well in its reduced but more focused role of managing the meat export quota markets and the board’s reserves. I also wish the new combined meat and wool industry-good organisation—Meat and Wool New Zealand Ltd—well in its role of funding and managing industry-good activities under the provisions of the Commodity Levies Act of 1990. Most of all I wish New Zealand’s livestock farmers and the wider industry well under their new industry structures. I commend the bill to the House. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 Like the Minister I also recognise the farming folk who have led this industry to where it is at the moment. I congratulate the Minister on his support for them and on the judicious way this process has gone through the Parliament. I also say “Well done.” to Mike Petersen from Wools of New Zealand or the former Wool Board and Jeff Grant chairman for the very strong leadership. Once again an industry that is much maligned by our academic urban colleagues has shown that it can lead will lead and once again has demonstrated why it is the backbone of New Zealand. 
Seventy-six percent of farmers who participated in the vote did support this legislation or 80.3 percent of those on stock numbers who were represented in the vote did support this legislation. Can I just say that the work that took place in the select committee the members on the select committee and the officials who worked with the select committee obviously took note of the referendum and what the industry was asking for and by and large have delivered without exception exactly what the industry wanted. 
By way of an example I shall show what members of the select committee and officials were up against. The industry has never been represented better than in the submission from the Meat and Related Trades Workers Union—the funders of the Labour Party—which stated that it wanted a member on the board as well. When the Minister talks about the necessity to appoint a couple of people I hope he will condemn that submission to the trash can where it belongs and appoint people on their merit not because they represent the Meat and Related Trades Workers Union but on the basis of advice he is given by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 
It is interesting to note that the union’s submission supported the general thrust of the bill but submitted that it needed to have a representative on the board. I thank the select committee for rejecting that notion and also rejecting the notion that a woman and a Maori representative should be appointed. Both those sectors play a very key role in the meat industry but both of those groups whether it be by gender or race should also be able to get a representative elected to the board and will I am sure of that. In fact over the years many good examples of representatives from both those groups have been found. 
The legislation came about as a result of the need to manage the quota structure after the merger of wool and meat. That is the guts of the bill and it is hugely important to New Zealand. It is always interesting to note that with an industry as large as this—and the Minister said that it was worth $4.2 billion and although my figure is $6 billion I will not debate it. The Minister would be right. His figure is probably more accurate although he has probably left out wool. I suggest that he has left out wool. One could dust off a billion-dollar industry as though it were not significant in New Zealand and wool has had different fortunes of recent times. Some could easily dismiss the wool industry being about four times the size of the wine industry and about a hundred times the size of anything Jim Anderton has ever been able to come up with as insignificant. I suspect that he has left wool out of his figures. Whether the figure be $4.2 billion or $6 billion I am not absolutely certain but I suspect that that is what happened. 
The bottom line is that most of that money is managed through quota into international markets and the ability to be able to manage and negotiate that quota access from a ministerial Government State-to-State industry-to-industry point of view is hugely important. In fact that is the overwhelming and most important factor in anything that the New Zealand Government can do in terms of New Zealand Inc. 
Despite this Government having stated many times that it is in favour of growth and is always looking for strong growth it fails once again to acknowledge that the growth this economy has enjoyed—in spite of not as a result of the Government I say—has come from industries such as the meat industry. Those industries underpin the strong growth this economy is enjoying at the moment always has and always will as far as I or anybody else can see into the future. 
This industry is the backbone of New Zealand. This legislation is one of the most important things that this Parliament will have to do. One would not think so. One would think that based on what has happened in recent times with media publicity the number of members in the House and the like things like the civil union legislation are hugely important but the reality is that this kind of legislation will help the economy go forward and fund the social programmes that this Government is intent on putting in place in health education and all the things that every member of Parliament comes to this place to try to represent. 
The only argument and it is a philosophical one is whether the State or farmers own the quota. Technically one could argue—and the Minister has—that because the State negotiates the quota the State owns it. The National Party will never defend or support that notion. Regardless of the amount of official advice the legal ramifications and the technical points the bottom line is that those quotas are negotiated Minister to Minister supported by the industries. Contrary to popular belief the industries drive the quota generally and not the Minister. The industries generally find the markets develop them and then go into negotiation over quota. The Minister seals that deal and those quotas are negotiated for farmers on behalf of farmers for those who produce it. There is a simple question to answer. If it were not for the production of the material that is exported into the quota markets there would not be a quota. That is simple and the Minister would not be required to negotiate it. So the quota is owned on behalf of the farmers. The State does not own the quotas and that is a very very significant point of difference between National and Labour. 
I have no strong opinion on the make-up of the board of 10 to 11 members as stated in the commentary. Providing that the industry itself consults widely enough it will find the expertise within it. Often it is said that farmers do not have the ability to manage industries such as this. Over and over again that has been proven wrong. Over and over it has proven to be one of those urban-driven sorts of myths. The bottom line here is that farmers in this industry will as they always have find the people who will best represent the views of those whom they are elected to represent. 
In summary this legislation is a very good step forward. This initiative was started under the former National Government. I would say the evolution—rather than revolution—within our primary industries has been ongoing for a long time. In fact those regulations were started in 1922 and prior to that I know there were regulations in relation to the export of primary products. It is an evolution it is not a revolution and that is a good way to do business. I say well done to those who were involved. The industry is in a good position now to go forward. It should go forward and prove its critics wrong. I know that it will and I wish it luck in the future. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 The report of the Primary Production Committee was unanimous and this bill will go through with the support of all parties including New Zealand First. However New Zealand First has not seen the need to point out its opposition to women directors or Maori directors. In fact I quite like the idea of women directors on boards and would never ever oppose such a move unless there was a higher reason behind that and of course the higher reason would be equity. However I do not want to let this opportunity go by without saying in particular that women have made a huge contribution to this industry and have done so for centuries. I must also mention that approximately 10 percent of the total sheep and beef stock units belong to or are under the control of Maori interests and that is significant. 
There was a day—and I hope that people do not take offence at this—when people would drive past unkempt land or land that perhaps was not in pristine condition and would lament that perhaps it was Maori land. The implication was that Maori land was not productive and was not looked after and the explanation of that was that it was in multi-person ownership. That was all correct of course but since those days we have had a marvellous thing called Maori incorporations come along and Maori have found a very good vehicle that takes into account the multiple ownership of land. They can appoint managers and they have legislation that means they do not have to track down the last Maori owner maybe in foreign parts of the world. So Maori can get on with the business of farming. We now have very very productive enterprises in the hands of Maori incorporations. They are a credit to the Maori people and to the farming industry and they take their place in the industry with pride and professionalism. I will not name the people who are involved at the risk of missing somebody out and causing offence but the people who are involved in the industry are highly qualified highly motivated very very professional people. They do nothing but add to the industry and we applaud that. I would be concerned if the words from my National Party colleagues were taken as suggesting there was some concern that Maori were not welcome on these boards or anything else. It is simply the fact that the select committee believed that representation on them should be on the basis of merit rather than based on race or gender. I just wanted to make that point obvious. 
At this point I want to thank the officials and my colleagues on the select committee. We do work well together. We enjoy each other’s company dare I say it and we certainly look forward to the reappearance of Mr Shane Ardern on that committee. I think I can say that we are of one voice on that. So we urge his contemporaries and his leaders to bless us with his presence. It is not often that we get the chance—we do get the chance but we do not get it often enough—to tell the people of New Zealand via speeches such as this of the talent integrity and intelligence of the so-called bureaucrats or the people who shepherd bills through the House. We are blessed in this Parliament. I know that sometimes debates rage around these matters but we have a bureaucracy to serve this country and this Parliament that is free of corruption and that has clear ideals and clear guidelines to work to. Officials give freely of their advice. They work long hours; they do not work normal days and take weekends off. If there is a job to be done they work after normal working hours and in the weekends. They work hard at it. We are served by them and we owe them a debt of gratitude. I know that I do not thank them often enough so I am doing so now and making up for what I have neglected to do previously. 
I cannot let this opportunity go by without mentioning the fact that New Zealand First sees a difference between export-led and consumer-driven economic activity. It has been the fashion in the last 15 years or so for people not to differentiate between those things. This bill deals with export-led economic activity and we support it. Members can see that there is complete unanimity on this bill in the House. Whether economic activity is export led or consumer driven makes a difference to the inflation rate of this country. It makes a difference to where the money first lands if one likes. It is far better for the economy for the money to come in through export-led activity go into the hands of people in the provinces in the case of this industry and then flow through into the cities. The money always ends up in the cities but it does matter how it gets there. When it goes through the rural economy into the cities everybody gets a drink if one likes and shares in the wealth and the economy is better balanced for that. 
This is a huge industry. Mr Ardern has rightly drawn some comparisons and we tend to forget them. I came up through my farming career in a cooperative structure. It is a structure that I still favour. I believe this industry would have been better served without some of the very well-known names that were involved in the past like Vestey’s meat companies and things like that—people who have substantial wealth. 
Shane Ardern 
: Foreign investors! 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Yes we mention the words “foreign investors”. New Zealand First is well known for talking about that and I am going back into past history and talking about that now. Sure those people have contributed to this industry but they have also taken great wealth off these shores from it. I personally would like to see more cooperative involvement and I believe if this industry had had that it would be further ahead than it is. It does not surprise me coming as I do from the dairy industry that the dairy industry which played second or third fiddle to this industry has now surpassed it with a cooperative structure that many people in this industry believed to be inferior in days gone by. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to make this observation in the third reading of the Meat Board Restructuring Bill. The reason why we are having such a high degree of unanimity in the House why this bill is going through the House virtually without dissent and why there is very little acrimony is that we are seeing ACT policy in action. 
Larry Baldock 
: Ha ha! 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Larry Baldock laughs! He is the man of high-handed regulation and control. But we do not see in the meat industry or indeed in the primary industries Government handouts or subsidies. In other words those industries run themselves. That has to be a prime reason why we are not having arguments over who will get what and how much more taxation has to go into the primary production sector. I ask Mr Baldock how much the meat industry gets from the Government. It gets nothing! How much does the forestry industry get? It gets nothing! The Government stole from the forestry industry just recently. That is exactly what the ACT party says. We say that if people take the Government out of their lives they will find that things just happen because people will get on with it. The Government likes to think that we have to have more control more regulation and more acrimony. I do not agree with that. 
That is also the reason why by and large the Primary Production Committee gets on extremely well. I have not perhaps thankfully sat on very many other select committees but we do have a reputation on the Primary Production Committee for being very sensible and being able to achieve things that are in the best interests of this country. Why is that? Yet again it is because the issues that we deal with are—as indeed in the case of this bill—about easing the path and making things easier for those industries to get on with the job of wealth creation in this country for the benefit of the shareholders and owners of those industries rather than the industries relying on Government handouts time and time again. That is why the meat industry is so good. 
That is very obvious to all those in the primary industries of course but it is quite remarkable that with the huge reduction in stock numbers especially in sheep numbers in this country production is up. Why is that? It is because the farming community has invested its own money. The Minister has been promoting a “fart tax” just recently so he can hit us again but the farming industry stood up and said there should be no more taxes. We said we did not need that tax because we were achieving the aims in terms of the global warming problems that are perceived by some. We are contributing enormously to a greener planet through our farming processes. We turn water to grass and then to protein hugely efficiently. There is no other industry in the world that can compete with us although of course we are blessed in New Zealand with a microclimate that enables us to do that. But we do that with great efficiency. I can only emphasise the point that stock numbers are down yet production is up. That is hugely reflective of the capability of our pastoral farmers. 
But the Government as has been pointed out in previous speeches seems hell-bent on closing down much of the industry. I ask Mr Clayton Cosgrove in his third reading speech to tell me how the meat industry will benefit from the number of stock units in the South Island high country being reduced by 600000. He will have some responsibility for that. Why should that occur when we have such a successful industry that contributes so much to the wealth of this nation of ours? We are very successful yet the Government now wants to shut down parts of the industry because the Prime Minister wants to go tramping. 
I think it is time for the Labour Government to show some real leadership and for Mr Sutton and the Prime Minister to stand in this House and thank the primary production industry. I have never in my 5 years in this House seen the Prime Minister come to the Chamber to make a speech on a bill like this and say to the productive sector of this country that she thanks it for what it has done to enable the Government to spend money on other aspects of the country. That has never happened to my certain knowledge and that is a matter of some considerable regret. It is time that this Government and indeed the country understood that wealth creation is not something we should ever apologise for. It has given us a standard of living in this country that enables us to look after the less well off and a lot of that has come off the backs of sheep cows or cattle—whatever animal it may be. Our wealth has come from primary industry and it has come from the fact that that industry is deregulated and farmers do not rely on Government largesse to help them out when they need it from time to time. That just does not happen any more and we should be eternally grateful for that. 
The Minister Mr Sutton alluded to the fact that the Government needs to continue to manage and have influence over the quota. I ask this question and perhaps my colleagues in the National Party may know the answer: does the Government need to have a couple of directors on the board of Fonterra to manage the cheese or the butter quota? Why is it then that we need that in the meat industry? What is the difference between a meat quota and a quota for cheese or butter that comes from say Japan? Why is that not being managed by two appointees of the Government on the board of Fonterra appointed so they can manage that? It is an absolute nonsense; it is not needed. We argued against it but the Minister insisted that he have some influence. Well with any sort of luck it is only a matter of time before that influence disappears or certainly dissipates. 
I want to make one final reference in my closing moments in this debate. The farming community does not want accountability from its meat and wool board or the new pastoral board. Instead it wants performance. Any fool can account for his or her hundred dollars of expenditure or whatever amount it is. It is not accountability but performance that is wanted. As I alluded to earlier I went to Whangarei to the first annual meeting. I did not see any Government members there. It was like walking back in time and going back into the 1960s or the 1970s in terms of what happened there. There were remits and it was just old hat stuff. The board has to revitalise itself. It has to show the real leadership that farmers are looking for because in a few years’ time when the farming community again debates this issue to determine whether it should be levied to keep the board going unless there is performance I suspect the days of even the Meat Board will be numbered. We have to see performance from the board. We have to be able to benchmark that performance and the board has to show relevance—more than just being there going through the motions and supporting the political party of the day whichever it may be. That is totally wrong. 
The meat industry knows where it has come from and where it is going. As long as politicians keep out of the industry other than meeting the vital need I talked about earlier of ensuring that free trade operates throughout the world then we will progress mightily if we get the opportunity. If we get constraint cost control and cost structures being placed on us by this Government we will not progress. So the choice really belongs to the people of this country. Do they want a Labour Government that will perpetuate cost and control or do they want a free enterprise centre-right Government? That is the issue; that is what it comes down to. I can see no finer example of success in industry than our current meat industry. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to take a very short call on behalf of United Future as this bill passes through its third reading. The member who spoke before me said in his speech on the second reading that he was a very proud farmer and in that speech he certainly portrayed himself as a very proud ACT party member as well. He wondered why I laughed. Well when we hear some things that are really ridiculous we cannot help ourselves. It is spontaneous. We just had to laugh as he took credit for the fact that there is unity in the House today saying it is entirely dependent upon ACT party policy. The real reason why there is unity on the passage of this bill today is that ACT for the first time in a long time has decided to vote for something instead of simply opposing everything that is ever brought into this House. We are happy that there has been unity on this legislation because it is important legislation. It is good for the country. It will be good for the meat industry for our primary industries and United Future is very happy to see it pass through its third reading today to benefit the country. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Madam Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] I was going to take a very short call on this bill but if I keep getting heckled I might take my full 10 minutes. We will see how it rolls. 
There is a lot to commend this bill. A lot of the credit goes to the outstanding work of the Primary Production Committee. There are no finer examples of members of that select committee than Phil Heatley and David Carter. David Carter in his stewardship of the committee managed to pull back the more extreme views of some Government members and the Greens. I take my hat off to him. I also acknowledge that the consulting advice provided by Shane Ardern in the corridors has made this bill what it is today. I commend the bill to the House. 
There is overwhelming support for this legislation from those farmers who did vote. [ 
Interruption 
] The Clayton’s member for Waimakariri is calling out again. I am not sure what he is saying. I would engage the member in a battle of wits but I never attack an unarmed man so I will just carry on. There is overwhelming support for this legislation. People see that it is common sense and they support it and that is pretty much the theme. But common sense and the Labour Government do not necessarily go hand in hand. It was not very long ago that this Government was trying to foist the “fart tax” on to the agricultural industry. If not for people like Shane Ardern who had the courage of his convictions to jump on his tractor and drive it up the steps of Parliament becoming a symbol of defiance for the farming communities then this Government would be taxing sheep and cattle throughout this country right now. I say to Shane Ardern and the farmers who marched on Parliament: “Well done!”. 
I noted when I was taking a call during the Committee stage that there is a tendency to over-regulate. I was not pointing the finger at any particular Government but I did raise the question of whether some of this legislation is necessary. I reiterate that concern because I think there is a tendency for successive Governments to get involved in legislation that is just not necessary. 
Let us also be clear that the Meat Board Bill is in existence only because of the hard work and outstanding contribution that our meat and wool farmers have made thus far. Jeff Grant a former National Party MP and Mike Petersen have led that work. They are the types of individuals who have made this legislation what it is today. Now of course we have the Minister of Agriculture coming in on their shirt tails and trying to claim some of the glory. But the farming industry does not buy that. That is why there will be a change of Government. That is why that member has already flagged that he will retire; he knows that he will not be re-elected down in Aoraki. 
Let us also be clear that we have a meat quota now only because of the outstanding work that our farming community has engaged in. There is a sense within this Government that all farmers are a bunch of hayseeds. Well let me tell those members something: our farmers are now working in a deregulated highly technology driven and highly scientific industry and they are at the forefront of this industry right across the world. They are not underpinned by subsidies. They do not believe in the types of things this Government is trying to do to the rest of New Zealand—that is to make people dependent. They know that they can exist on their own merits. So I tell Government members opposite that they should be standing up and applauding the farming industry for what it has done not sitting in judgment and putting in place things like the “fart tax”. That is exactly what they tried to do and lest we forget it was not very long ago. We will not forget and the voting public of this country will not forget either. 
We in the farming industry know that we work in a global market. We select people on merit when we put boards together so that principle should have been adhered to by this Government in deciding the composition of the board. I have already taken a call to signal my concern about that but it fell on deaf ears as far as the Minister was concerned. But the National Party and the farming industry believe that one appoints people according to merit. Why would one have a board with highly skilled people then put in place Government patsies to keep an eye on how they perform? It just does not make sense. 
I will leave the House with this view. The members of the farming community are successful business people with asset backings in most cases of $2 million $3 million $5 million $10 million $15 million $20 million or $30 million. If one took that type of business to the city people would say: “Oh that’s a big business. You are successful. We must learn from you.” But we do not do that. There is some sort of derision of the farming community as a bunch of hayseeds and it is driven by the Clayton Cosgroves of this world. It might surprise members that he talks about being a rural representative. His office is in Papanui Road in Christchurch. He is so far from the rural communities that he gets out there with a packed lunch only once a month to see what a sheep actually looks like. So people should not listen to what that member has to say; they should listen to what the National members have to say because we respect farmers and we understand that they are successful business people and that is why we have thrown our full support behind this legislation. 
Bill read a third time. 
Visiting Forces Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Defence 
: I move  
That the Visiting Forces Bill be now read a third time 
. This is an important bill that deals with a complex area of international relations and law. In repealing and replacing the Visiting Forces Act 1939 it will rectify the deficiencies in the present law that are only to be expected in legislation that is over six decades old. It will update and amend the law relating to armed forces visiting New Zealand to reflect established international practice. By providing a clearer and more comprehensive legislative basis for accepting visiting armed forces into New Zealand it will contribute to the enhancement of New Zealand’s international defence and security relationships. It will minimise the possibility of future difficulties in New Zealand’s relationship with States sending forces to this country by reducing the prospect of misunderstanding surrounding the status rights and obligations of forces visiting New Zealand. Most important it will permit New Zealand to ratify its status of forces agreement with Australia. 
Given the complexity of the bill’s subject matter it is a product of lengthy policy development process and broad consultation. It received careful consideration by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee after it had been referred to that committee last November. The committee’s unanimous recommendations for amendment—it accepted the only public submission which was that of the Law Society—are reflected in the bill which I am pleased to observe all parties in this House agreed to on the second reading. 
In addition to the advantages I have already mentioned and as my colleague Mark Burton said on introducing this bill it is also important for reasons of international reciprocity. New Zealand expects its deployed forces to be afforded the privileges and immunities from local jurisdiction that visiting forces customarily have under international law. Those are among the matters dealt with in the status of forces agreements negotiated with the States to which the New Zealand Defence Force deploys and with which this country has defence relations. Negotiation of such agreements will be made less difficult by New Zealand’s law allowing for similar privileges and immunities for the forces of such States when they visit New Zealand. In bringing law that has been in place since the outbreak of World War II into line with contemporary international law and practice this bill will enhance New Zealand’s capacity to act as a valued member of the international community. It will underpin the next stage in New Zealand’s closer defence relations with Australia—the ratification of our status of forces agreement. 
I would like to thank the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for the careful consideration it gave to the bill. I would also like to thank the Parliamentary Counsel Office and the New Zealand Defence Force for the excellent work they have done on the development of this bill. Those officials did an excellent job of updating the existing deficient legislation in line with developments in international law. I commend the Visiting Forces Bill to the House. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I must say that the National Party supports this Visiting Forces Bill and is pleased to support its third reading. 
It is about time this Labour Government got off its butt and put this legislation through the House because it has a long history. One of the reasons the legislation is needed is that the old Visiting Forces Act of 1939 does not provide for status of forces agreements. Back in 1998 the previous National-led Government negotiated a status of forces agreement with Australia. That agreement is very important. There is quite an exchange obviously of military personnel between Australia and New Zealand and we often have Australian servicemen and servicewomen here in New Zealand so the previous National Government negotiated a modern up-to-date status of forces agreement. The problem is that this Labour Government did nothing to pass the legislation needed to ratify that agreement. In 1998 we negotiated a status of forces agreement with Australia—our most important ally the people with whom we most frequently exchange military servicemen and servicewomen—but we had no way of ratifying it. It has taken Labour 5 years—almost 6 years—to get off its backside and pass this legislation. 
One of the problems caused by Labour’s inaction over the legislation is that it conveys to Australia our most important friend and ally the people we work most closely with on military matters the feeling that New Zealand does not give much priority to defence and military issues. If our defence relationship with Australia mattered to this Labour Government surely it would have drafted this legislation which enables ratification of the status of forces agreement and passed it through Parliament in less than 5 years. That it did not is an indictment on this Labour Government and it adds further damage to the already somewhat tarnished relationship that this Labour Government has developed with our important friends and allies. The problem in our relationship with the United States of America is almost legendary now. The problem in our relationship with Australia is perhaps less well known although it did surface during a recent conference in New Zealand when the Australian Foreign Minister made some comments that were quite polite and diplomatic but did reveal that there are problems in our relationship. The lack of priority that Labour has given to advancing this legislation just confirms the impression that Australia has and that is bad for New Zealand. It shows the low priority that the Labour Government attaches to defence matters and to the vitally important issues surrounding our relationship with Australia. All I can say now is thank goodness that finally the Government got off its backside and had this legislation drafted and introduced into the House. It has passed through the select committee process and now is in its third reading. The National Opposition certainly will not be holding it up because it is needed to ratify that status of forces agreement. 
One of the slightly interesting issues around this legislation—and the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee did quite good work on this—relates to jurisdictional boundaries when we have visiting forces in New Zealand. Following the work of the select committee a reasonable solution has been developed in the legislation. Essentially where a status of forces agreement exists that resolves the issues of jurisdiction and where primary jurisdiction lies. But what this legislation must also provide for of course is situations where we have in New Zealand servicemen and servicewomen visiting from foreign countries with which we do not have a status of forces agreement. What the legislation sets out to do—and it is clause 8 particularly which covers this—is to state that where an offence is believed to have taken place that involves the property or persons of the visiting force or involves members of the visiting force carrying out their duties within the range of activity of that visiting force then the primary jurisdiction lies with the sending nation. That makes sense—that where an offence does not involve New Zealand citizens or New Zealand - owned property then the matter can be dealt with by the sending nation. Clause 8 as amended makes that clear and clause 15 as amended makes clear that New Zealand courts cannot then get involved and second-guess the work of the sending State in resolving the issue. 
But a slight complexity enters in terms of how the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act appears to affect this issue of jurisdictional boundary. Clause 18 is inserted in the bill to try to clarify the application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. In fact clause 18(2) states: “This section is for the avoidance of doubt.” So clause 18 was inserted to try to clarify the situation in respect of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. All I can say is that if one reads clause 18(1) one finds it is not exactly clear: “The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 applies to acts done in New Zealand at the request or on behalf of a visiting force by a person to whom or body to which section 3 of that Act applies.”—meaning the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That is a very clumsy construction in my view given that the clause was inserted to try to avoid doubt. It is not very clear what it means. 
If we then go back to the commentary from the select committee to try to make sure we understand exactly what the clause means we read: “Finally we note that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act does not apply to the acts of visiting forces. However if the visiting force’s jurisdiction is exercised over or assisted by a person or body to whom section 3 of that Act applies (ie not a member of the visiting force) then the New Zealand courts would have jurisdiction in respect of that exercise or assistance.” The select committee’s interpretation of the issue of the application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as clarified by clause 18 appears to be that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act may actually be involved in respect of whether New Zealand courts are to exercise primary jurisdiction. That appears to be what the commentary is saying. It seems to me a little complex because although clause 8 sets out the primary jurisdictional issues it does not mention the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It is mentioned in clause 18 and clause 18 appears to add a dimension to clause 8 in respect of the boundaries of primary jurisdiction. 
Sadly I do not think I was here when the bill went through its Committee stage. It would have been good to have the chance to question the Minister of Defence more closely over the interrelation of those two clauses and exactly whether the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act of itself has impact on the jurisdictional boundaries. That appears to be the case from what the select committee has said. 
All I can say is that essentially the bill sets out the issue of jurisdictional boundaries—who is responsible for prosecuting offences when we have visiting forces in New Zealand. The only element that to me is perhaps not quite as clear as it might be—despite the efforts to make it clear—is the application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Given that that was why clause 18 was inserted in the bill it is a wee bit of a shame that the construction of the language is so clumsy as to leave it not as clear as it might be in my mind. And it is such an important issue; jurisdictional boundary is important when we have visiting forces in New Zealand. I suppose the one positive thing is that we could say that any doubt around this area would encourage sending States to negotiate a status of forces agreement with New Zealand because that certainly would clarify the issue. 
Despite that slight concern about jurisdictional boundaries and how the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act affects that issue overall the bill is a sensible measure to replace the Visiting Forces Act of 1939. It finally enables us to ratify our status of forces agreement with Australia. All I can say is thank goodness the Labour Government has finally got off its lazy backside and put this legislation through the House. It has taken the Government 5 years. It is unfortunate that that sends a negative message to Australia about the priority this Government attaches to our relationship with Australia. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Madam Deputy Speaker— 
Dail Jones 
: No you cannot do that. That is not the agreement any more. 
Jill Pettis 
: We have given him our call. 
Dail Jones 
: I will let it go but that is not the agreement that was reached with the Speaker. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Madam Deputy Speaker I am taking the call because I understand that there has been an agreement and that the Government has assigned this call to me and I am grateful for that opportunity. I will not take long so the member will get his call probably shortly after the luncheon adjournment. 
I want to pick up on the point that the previous speaker finished on. This bill does update legislation that is 65 years old and it does provide for the incorporation of status of forces agreements into the ambit of this legislation. I think the previous speaker’s concern about jurisdictional boundaries the application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the interpretation of section 3 of that Act are covered by his subsequent comment that the impetus will be for visiting forces to negotiate a status of forces agreement which will cover that particular situation. We discussed this matter in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and I want to acknowledge as the chair of the committee the contribution that all the members made to this matter. Mr Jones with whom we had a wee contretemps a moment or two ago and other members— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time for the lunch break has arrived. I want to clarify that what Mr Jones said is absolutely right. I thought there had been agreement but it is right that the No. 3 slot is not a tradable slot. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: When the House adjourned for lunch I was commenting on the remarks of the previous speaker Dr Lockwood Smith who had raised some interesting questions regarding the application of clause 18 which applies the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to the provisions of the Visiting Forces Bill and in particular his comments relating to section 3 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which is a fairly tight definition and how it might be applied in the case of visiting forces. I was making the observation that to some extent he had answered his own question because he opined at the end of his remarks that maybe this would be a further reason why visiting forces ought to conclude a status of forces agreement in respect of any particular attachment because that would in effect deal with the issues that are still unclear as a result of clause 18. I think he is absolutely correct. My recollection of the discussion at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee is that when we dealt with these matters we did delve deeply. We still ended up with a grey area but we came to a pragmatic conclusion that had two legs to it. Firstly there was the issue of individual status of forces agreements that might be concluded. Secondly there was the notion that if we got into a really difficult situation in that regard the particular person who was the source of the difficulty would probably be whisked away home by his or her superiors at the drop of a hat anyway. 
The only other observation I will make in respect of this third reading which has widespread support is that Dr Lockwood Smith spent some time in the opening part of his speech criticising the Government for the tardiness in the preparation of this legislation particularly in respect of the inclusion in this legislation of the 1998 status of forces agreement with Australia. He referred to the recent Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum and the remarks made by the Australian Foreign Minister Mr Downer which were interpreted as being somewhat critical of New Zealand. I will make a couple of comments in respect of that view. 
First with regard to whether the Government has been tardy in the preparation of this bill others will make that judgment but I make this comment: if this bill provides for status of forces agreements to be incorporated under the heading of the Visiting Forces Bill and if as we have just discussed at the end of the day in a lot of these matters the primacy will lie with the individual status of forces agreement it does not matter greatly whether the agreement with Australia was included in this bill at this time or at an earlier date. 
The second point I would make with regard to Mr Downer’s observations is that I was one of the few New Zealand politicians who were present at the leadership forum. I do not recall any critical comments about New Zealand being made by Mr Downer in the context of that forum. The only critical comment that I recall Mr Downer making as I would remind the honourable member Dr Lockwood Smith was made a few days earlier when he said with regard to the nuclear impasse between New Zealand and the United States that it was a great pity the National Party which at that point seemed keen on changing the law had not done so when it was in Government. So I think that for Dr Lockwood Smith to use Mr Downer’s alleged criticisms—and I am no defender of Mr Downer—is somewhat strange given that the criticisms were actually of his own party and not of any actions taken by the Government we have at present. 
This bill is difficult to find substantive argument with. The select committee spent a lot of time on the jurisdictional issues and at the earlier stage in the Committee I acknowledged the contribution of members such as the select committee’s deputy chairperson Winnie Laban Mr Power and others in that discussion because it was a constructive process. As a result we have emerged with legislation that I think every party in Parliament will support and that our armed forces are keen to see put in place. Given the increasing role of New Zealand in terms of both our detachments overseas—the 14 or so deployments we have at the moment—and the two-way traffic that that creates in terms of people coming here then agreements of this type will be more relevant. The original Visiting Forces Act was written in the context of World War II. There is a vastly different environment today and this legislation brings us up to speed. I conclude by acknowledging the work of my colleagues on the select committee congratulating them on their efforts and making the observation that we have a sound bill that will serve New Zealand well in the future. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Visiting Forces Bill. This is legislation that brings up to date and amends the law relating to visiting forces to reflect recognised international practice and enables New Zealand to give effect to status of forces agreements concluded with other states. It is a straightforward matter and we do not intend to delay it any further. New Zealand First supports the bill. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Greens to support the third reading of the bill as we have supported it through its previous stages. I think support for the bill is really a practical matter. We have to allow visiting forces some autonomy in their affairs in this country. That is the nature of armed services; they have their own codes of discipline and ways of operating and it would be very difficult in a practical sense to have visiting forces here without that provision. But we should have two cautions in relation to that. Firstly we do not wish the individuals who are part of the visiting force to suffer some injustices in the way they are treated by the command of the visiting force. Secondly we do not want visiting forces to affect New Zealanders or their property without obtaining some sanction. I think the bill has been worked out with this in mind. 
The bill proposes updating the base document for visiting forces which has been longstanding to make it more appropriate today. On top of this for each visiting force a status of forces agreement would be discussed negotiated and signed. In one sense this base document grants sovereign immunity to the members of the visiting force but this does not mean that New Zealand should wash its hands of what happens to its members or the consequences for New Zealand. There is a bit of a problem if somehow in the process of justice within the visiting forces injustices do occur. We can illustrate this by clause 9 which has two parts. Firstly the “visiting force must not impose or carry out a sentence of death in New Zealand”. That covers the situation where the visiting force imposes or carries out the death sentence here but it does not necessarily cover the situation where the alleged offending member of the visiting force is dragged back to his or her home country and then has the death sentence imposed and carried out. Surely we want to guard against that. This does apply here because there is the death penalty in Singapore and China and we can have visiting forces from those countries. Singaporean troops come here fairly frequently. How would that issue be dealt with? It came out in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that it would be handled primarily by negotiation between New Zealand and the Government concerned—say the Singaporean Government—to make sure that it never eventuates and that an offence committed in New Zealand by the visiting force cannot result in the offender being sent back to his or her home country being condemned to death and that sentence being carried out. We would have to be very conscious of pursuing that in the spirit of the bill. 
The second question is due process and again the justice systems in countries like China and Singapore are not terribly good on due process. We all know about China I think and it is much the same in Singapore. In this so-called war on terrorism one often reads in the newspapers about people being arrested in Singapore as alleged terrorists and put in jail. Then one reads the fine print and finds that not a single one of them has ever been brought to trial. They are all sitting there in jail on renewable sentences under the Internal Security Act without any due process whatsoever. We have to guard that members of visiting forces who allegedly commit infractions are treated in a just way. Again it would be a process of negotiation between the New Zealand Government and the Government of the visiting force to make sure that did happen. 
 The other part clause 9(1)(b) states: “The service authorities of a visiting force must not—(b) do any act in New Zealand that would if done by a member of the Armed Forces of New Zealand constitute an offence under the Crimes of Torture Act 1989.” That provision has gained more relevance in recent times with all the pictures shown around the world of what has been happening under the jurisdiction of the American forces in Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay etc. and it has relevance here because we have a US visiting force in this country. I do not think it is terribly likely that the current commander of the visiting force at Harewood is torturing American soldiers—I do not think that is terribly likely at all—but I think it alerts us to the situation that we have to look at how the visiting force treats its prisoners or even members of its own armed force. It is clear from what has been said in all the Amnesty International reports and even in American Government reports that the Americans have treated prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib and in other places in Iraq in ways that are contrary to the Crimes of Torture Act in terms of putting hoods on people putting them in painful positions threatening them and doing what amounts to a form of water torture etc. There is quite a big list of ways in which American forces recently have clearly acted contrary to the Crimes of Torture Act and to the international convention on torture. We would have to keep an eye on that. 
This relates to another point that occurred to me when thinking about this problem. It is not specifically in the bill but perhaps it should go in the status of forces agreement that would be set up on top of the legislation. This point is about having more transparency in the justice operations of visiting forces when they are in New Zealand. Even if we allow them jurisdiction over how they deal with their own soldiers there could be some system whereby the nature of the application of that justice and any questions about the nature of the application of that justice are made available to the host country—in this case New Zealand—so that if there are any concerns about torture or anything else they can be negotiated between the Governments of the two countries. I think that that would be a fit with this bill. 
The other question is about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which Peter Dunne referred to. I think it is important that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act applies to any New Zealander who may be working in one way or another with the visiting force. I think that in that respect we should never put New Zealanders outside the ambit of New Zealand legislation and of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
The other question I want to raise relates to civil jurisdiction beyond criminal jurisdiction. We have a problem here in a sense and it can even apply to the history of the US visiting force at Harewood. Various children have been fathered by members of the American visiting force there and there have been various civil suits relating to paternity responsibilities and things like that. I think it is important for the New Zealand Government—although this is not strictly a part of this bill—to be engaged with those issues and not to say that just because the soldiers have gone back to Milwaukee or somewhere the effect of the members of that visiting force on New Zealand citizens such as women who bear children by those soldiers is of no concern. 
I think it is important that in negotiating the status of forces agreements we take a tough line on some Governments—such as the American Government—that may not want to have this transparency and have any interference at all in their activities. The American Government is a bit more open to negotiations now. The other day it had to accommodate a vote at the United Nations Security Council about the application of the International Criminal Court to its soldiers in Iraq. The American Government has not fully accommodated the International Criminal Court but it has had to start giving ground under pressure from the international community. I think we should approach negotiations with the United States in the confidence that we do have the people of the world behind us in making sure that visiting forces operate correctly. We do not want a situation as for instance has occurred in Okinawa. I heard on the radio the other day a woman saying that there have been hundreds of cases of US Army infractions against women in Okinawa which has caused great hostility amongst the people of Okinawa. We want our relations with visiting forces to take account of the human consequences. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party supports the Visiting Forces Bill. It is clearly necessary legislation. It is clearly overdue legislation. The status of visiting forces is an important issue and all around the world various jurisdictions have confronted this problem. I note that back in 1998 the New Zealand Government signed an agreement with Australia with the intention of amending the law to bring it into line with international law and practice relating to the status of visiting forces but that it could never be ratified because of New Zealand legislation dating back to 1939. Our 1939 legislation prohibited us from ratifying the agreement we signed with Australia in 1998. 
I guess the issue here is why the Government has taken so long to bring what I regard as important legislation to the House. Admittedly we are now doing the third reading under urgency but the Government has been in office for over 4 years and surely could have brought this matter—which is quite a minor matter in a procedural sense—to a close earlier. The bill clearly has the support of the whole Parliament. It is not a question of battling it through Parliament. I say to the Minister Mark Burton that he really has no excuse for not having brought this bill to Parliament at a much earlier date than today. 
Suffice to say that the ACT party will support this bill. In so doing we express our regret that New Zealand is now so far out of the sphere of influence of other forces. New Zealand has become isolationist and that is of deep regret to the ACT party. We have been cut off here in the South Pacific and our military people are very concerned that they do not get to exercise enough and that we do not have sufficient foreign troops exercising in this country. We used to have the Five Power Defence Arrangement which was very active. I say to the Minister that it still exists in name but unfortunately there is nothing like the scale of activity that we used to see. I know that New Zealand’s armed forces used to benefit considerably from the activities under that Five Power Defence Arrangement. 
But ACT is happy to see the bill going through the House and we express regret that this Government has taken so long to bring it here. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I will not take up the House’s time by repeating the comments my colleague Marian Hobbs kindly made on my behalf but it is important that I add to that my appreciation of the officials and the members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that dealt with this bill. It is a complex piece of work and it took a considerable amount of development and consultation to get it right. As Mr Shirley quite rightly said it will now allow the ratification of the status of forces agreement with Australia. 
I want to conclude by giving Mr Shirley some good news. He is clearly very out of date with his Five Power Defence Arrangement—“arrangement” in fact is the name of the arrangement we have. Not only is it in good shape it is more active than it has ever been. New Zealand is playing a bigger part than it ever has— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Absolute baloney! 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I can tell the member that I have just returned from the Five Power Defence Arrangement Ministers’ meeting in Singapore where Ministers agreed to an extension of the arrangement to incorporate the non-conventional threats that increasingly confront the defence forces of the world. Indeed down the track it is our expectation that the contributing nations are likely to see not only military elements involved in exercises but increasingly non-military agencies as well. As we all understand and as it dominated our discussions—as it did at the International Institute for Strategic Studies conference I attended at which I met with 15 Ministers of Defence including Secretary Rumsfeld Adam Ingram from the United Kingdom my colleague from Australia and many others—it is the non-conventional threats that are now the biggest issue confronting the security of nations. 
It is in that area that New Zealand is playing an increasingly important part. The strength of our working relationship has never been better. I am happy to give that good news to the ACT party and to give it an update on what is actually happening in the big world out there. I pass on my congratulations to the House on supporting this good legislation. 
Bill read a third time. 
Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) 
Second Reading 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) be now read a second time 
. The purpose of this bill is to further ensure that the legislative framework in which local government operates is as comprehensive and clear as possible. The bill seeks to clarify and address a range of issues relating to local government legislation that are mostly technical in their nature. The reported-back bill achieves that aim and deals with several additional issues raised in submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Since taking office the Government has introduced a comprehensive package of legislative reforms to bring New Zealand’s system of local government into the 21st century. We have delivered new local government legislation that is modern innovative and flexible. The package has included the Local Government Act 2002 the Local Electoral Act and the Local Government (Rating) Act. As with any major legislative change it is not unusual that some minor issues have arisen that need to be addressed. That fine-tuning will provide more certainty and clarity for councils as they administer and work within the legislation to be amended by this bill. It will also provide communities with greater certainty in their dealings with their local authorities. 
I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work put in by the Local Government and Environment Committee in meeting the tight timetable it had for its consideration of this bill and to acknowledge my officials who worked so hard on it. The time frame was driven by one provision of the bill: a clarification of the right of a candidate to be able to stand for the positions of both mayor and ward councillor in the same territorial authority election. That right needs to be clarified before 23 July 2004 the opening date for nominations for this October’s local authority elections. 
Over 40 submissions were received on the bill. The majority as expected came from local government and I would like to thank the sector for its participation. There was widespread support from the sector for the intent of the bill and for many of its specific provisions. However there were some issues that councils raised about the bill’s provisions and some new issues that councils wanted the committee to consider. Recognising the value of the submissions the select committee has responded by recommending some changes to the original bill. I would like to take this opportunity to outline some of those changes. 
In respect of the Dog Control Act adjustments are recommended to some of the infringement offences and fees to provide greater consistency in the level of fees for like offences. Reductions are recommended for some fees in response to submissions that argued that while the fees are intended to give a strong message about the public’s expectations about the control of dogs in some cases the fees are difficult to use effectively. The committee has also recommended that provision be made for the national dog control database to contain dog control – related data over and above that which councils are required to provide. 
In respect of the Local Government Act the committee received a number of submissions on the issue of the removal of the casting vote. The vast majority of those opposed its removal and strongly urged the reinstatement of that tool for helping to ensure efficient local authority meeting processes. The committee recognised the practical difficulties that might arise from the absence of a casting vote and recommended its reinstatement in limited circumstances. On further reflection the Government believes that local authorities should have the discretion to provide in their own standing orders for a casting vote in any circumstances where there is an equality of votes. I will be introducing a Supplementary Order Paper to that effect and also be including other technical drafting improvements during the Committee stage of this bill. 
Subsidiaries of port companies are currently exempt from the definition of a council-controlled organisation. The committee has recommended extending that exemption to companies that are 50 percent or more owned by a port company. Also in respect of the Local Government Act the committee has recommended a new clause to repeal the current prohibition on the delegation of a council’s power to warrant enforcement officers. That recommendation aims to overcome the practical difficulties being experienced by some councils having to wait up to 6 weeks for meetings before a warrant can be issued. 
In respect of the Local Government (Rating) Act the committee has recommended that a new clause be added to make owners’ names and addresses held on a local authority’s rating information database available to the public under certain conditions. In order to protect privacy a provision is recommended to allow the owner to have his or her name and postal address removed from the copy of the rating information database that is to be made publicly available. 
Some councils raised issues that the committee felt were not appropriate for this bill but would be better considered in the impending review of the new local government legislation. I endorse the committee’s view on those matters. The Local Government Commission is to undertake a review of the Local Government Act and the Local Electoral Act following the local authority elections in 2007. The committee also noted that the commission must report to the Minister of Local Government in July 2005 on any legislative amendments it considers are needed before the 2007 local authority elections. 
As I mentioned earlier it is highly desirable that this bill be enacted before 23 July because of the one provision in it that will impact on the forthcoming local authority elections. I hope MPs will keep that in mind in the ensuing debate. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 What the Minister did not acknowledge in his second reading speech is that this bill is really the “Fix Up the Chris Carter Botch-up Bill”. The provisions in respect of changing the Local Government Act and the Dog Control Act all arise because the Minister rushed through legislation under urgency— 
John Carter 
: He’s doing it again. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He is doing it again—and got it wrong and now Parliament has to fix up his errors. What is particularly frustrating—[ 
Interruption 
] Well in the Minister’s case he does not have any to do so—is that the Opposition parties warned the Minister at the time that the legislation was in difficulty. He ignored that advice and has taken us down this road of now being in urgency and having to pass patch-up legislation. 
The first of the provisions is in respect of the Local Government Act and the Local Electoral Act. The botch-up was that the Minister’s legislation inadvertently prevented a councillor from being able to stand both as mayor and as a councillor in a council ward. National was of the view that a councillor should be able to do that and to let the voters decide. We have always held that view and our only question is why the Minister got it wrong on the first occasion. 
The second thing we wish to make plain is that National firmly opposes Chris Carter’s view that every dog in New Zealand should be microchipped. It was a silly idea that he put in the original dog control legislation. It is still a silly idea and it is sad that the Government has chosen not to revisit it despite the number of submissions from councils around the country stating that it is a dopey idea. I find it ironic that the Minister stands in the House and says that this legislation is all about councils being allowed to manage themselves about the legislation not being prescriptive and about councils having the power of general competence. There is all that sort of rhetoric but then he says he will prescribe that every dog in New Zealand will be microchipped and even worse that we in this Parliament and on the select committee have to prescribe the individual fines for dog owners in respect of individual offences. The Minister is quite correct in saying we did receive submissions that the fines he put in his original legislation did not work. But the question I want to ask the Minister is this: why is he any more confident that we have got it right now? Why does he not trust councils—communities’ own elected representatives—to determine the fines? Is it not more simple for Parliament to say to the councils that they can prescribe a fine up to $1000 and can sort out the rates of appropriate fines for offences committed at different reserves in their communities. I think that would work far better than what is proposed. 
I also want to tackle the Minister with regard to the way he is wrecking local representation in rural communities. In the Local Government Act 2002 the Minister insisted that there be a narrow plus or minus 10 percent variation in determining the boundaries of wards. The Local Government and Environment Committee received many submissions from people who were concerned that that would not work and would disadvantage communities like the Wairarapa the Waitaki Tasman and the Rangitikei. [ 
Interruption 
] The member for Wairarapa does not even listen to her own constituents. She is so occupied with meeting every politically correct cause that she has forgotten about representing the people of the Wairarapa. I say exactly the same thing about the member for Otago who ignored the submissions of the Waimate District Council that that provision in the Act does not work because it cuts across community boundaries. 
I have visited many councils. I have gone to council after council—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the member for Otaki pokes his head up. Has he bothered to listen to the council in his own area which raised that serious deficiency in the Minister’s legislation with me? The council in that member’s community pleaded with me when I visited it to advance changes to that particular provision. But that member is more interested in following the instructions of the Minister than in representing the community on the coast north of Wellington. The provision in the Act is so narrow that it cuts across communities of interest and rural communities. 
Jill Pettis 
: He’s the one who beat Roger by 8000 votes. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What is that screeching from the member for Whanganui? 
Jill Pettis 
: I said he’s the one who beat Roger what’s-his-name by 8000 votes. 
Government Member 
: Sowry. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: But why does he not do his job? That is the point. Why does the member not get on his feet and represent—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I have to say this. Roger Sowry supports the changes that his community wants which are for the ward boundaries— 
Government Member 
: He’s a list MP. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member from the Kapiti coast is such a hopeless member that he ignores the wishes of his own community in respect of wards so Roger Sowry has to do the job for him. I forget the member’s name as members hear so little from him. I would like him to get to his feet defend his own community and explain why he thinks the ward boundaries of his local council should be cut across rather than Parliament provide provisions that work for communities. 
The reality is that Labour does not give a stuff for rural communities. Those members do not want to see communities in those areas represented around the council table. They are interested only in their party hacks being on councils so they have ignored the wishes of communities all over New Zealand that want to see those provisions changed. I give notice now to the Minister—and it will be a test of that member as to whether he will vote for these amendments—that we will be moving amendments to make provision for communities of interest to get greater recognition in respect of the development of ward boundaries. 
The last point I want to make is with regard to the issue of rating database information. Again the Minister messed it up. His legislation in 2002 resulted in all the rating records from around New Zealand suddenly becoming private information. He goofed he got it wrong and again the select committee has had to fix up his mistake. I think the committee has done a good job of finding an appropriate balance between the practical necessity for people to be able to obtain the names of the owners of adjacent properties while at the same time allowing a limited mechanism for those owners who want privacy. I think we ended up with—this is so typical of this Minister—politically correct legislation overridden by the need for privacy. I have to ask the Minister why we passed a law in his name just 2 years ago banning citizens from having the right to get rating information on the ownership of properties. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: No not under my name—Sandra Lee’s. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister says it was all Sandra Lee’s fault. Well I looked at the record and I noticed that National members voted against that measure and Chris Carter voted for it. So it was all Sandra Lee’s fault! 
Darren Hughes 
: What did the High Court say about it? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The truth is the Minister got it wrong; he made a mistake. Now the member for Otaki pipes up. He is interested in what the High Court said. Today the Government— 
Darren Hughes 
: What did the High Court say about this matter? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It said it was really interesting that every party in this Parliament has signed up to the changes that I advocated within the Family Court. I am very proud of that and I say to that Government member that I hope he is able to advance some changes rather than make his smart-arse comments— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member risks having his speech terminated with a comment like that. He knows that was out of order. He will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Why is it possible that I can have comments made about my haircut and all sorts of issues raised in interjections that are totally irrelevant to the bill and you sit there doing nothing but the moment I respond you pull me up? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I have allowed a certain amount of interjection. The member is prone to interject frequently from his seat. I thought he liked it and I thought he was scoring quite well. I did not actually think he was losing on the deal. If people interject they run the risk of being replied to. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This bill as I have repeatedly stated is the “Fix Up Chris Carter’s Mess Bill”. The Minister passed the Local Government Act under urgency. Large portions of it now have to be amended. The dog control provisions and the rating information provisions have to be rehashed. Also the local government election provisions have to be rewritten. Members on the Opposition side of the House are getting tired of incompetent Ministers who cannot get their legislation right and who then expect this Parliament to fix up those messes under urgency. 
I think it is time we had a change and had a Minister of Local Government who is up to the job. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 What a performance! The less and least said the better. Unlike the multi-Minister display that there has been in local government over the previous 9 years—and as interesting as that may sound I did have quite a bit of affection for Mr Banks—this is a very good Minister. I compliment this Minister and I think this bill has proved that he is listening to local government. 
Under this Government local government for the first time in a long time actually feels listened to. Tick the box for the local government prime ministerial summit that is held during the year. Tick the box for the on-the-record compliments that the president and vice-president of Local Government New Zealand pay this Government. We have a really good local government leader in Basil Morrison—not some way-out left-winger Dr Smith but a very sound excellent mayor from Hauraki. He is quite a conservative fellow but very complimentary about this Government— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: A good man. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: —and a very good man. He is full of praise for this Government. 
There are two issues I want to deal with quickly in the time available. I look forward to being part of the Local Government and Environment Committee debate around electoral tolerance—the plus or minus 10 percent factor. In simple maths all that means is that even under the 10 percent some communities can effectively be 20 percent worse off in terms of the vote. One has to work out what a reasonable vote per value in terms of the numbers per ward is as is done in the general electorates with the plus or minus 5 percent factor. It is hardly rocket science. 
There are two things. Firstly I think it is very good that councillors can also stand for mayor and councillor. I think it is very wrong to blame the Minister for that. Quite bluntly if I were to blame anyone it would be some officials who perhaps did not do their homework well enough. [ 
Interruption 
] I am saying that as a member of Parliament but I was in local government for a number of years before coming here and I thought it would have been an easy thing to do. But I thank those people who pointed out the error. It was a drafting error an error by officials. [ 
Interruption 
] One can hardly blame the Minister for wording like that. It has been fixed up so tick the box. 
Secondly the casting vote issue—tick the box on that. Basil Morrison and others spoke to me quite strongly on that issue and I went to Chris Carter. I found Chris Carter incredibly empathetic and ready to listen. He said: “Let’s listen closely to local government.” A compliment goes to Basil Morrison Local Government New Zealand my own council and others in terms of the casting vote issue. 
 Personally I have always believed that the mayor is a little bit different from other councillors. I commend to all members of the House a paper by former mayor Margaret Evans around the role of mayor which she wrote for a recent degree thesis. Albeit the mayor is technically first among equals in this country I do strongly believe that the mayor should have a casting vote. I acknowledge that the mayor has a district-wide or city-wide mandate and I think the casting vote at least gives effect to that. 
Without further ado I want to say that this is a good bill and I look forward to its speedy passage. Again it is such a pleasure to be part of a wonderful reforming Government that has given us excellent local government legislation. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 What an amazing speech in defence! Just over 2 years ago local government legislation was passed under urgency and in haste. It was said then that that legislation was not ready for publication as it were and the fact that we are back here again today looking at amendments to that legislation proves it. The Minister has not had the fortitude to face up to the fact that the local government legislation of 2002 and the amendments to the Resource Management Act passed in 2003 are not yet in harmony and that any serious attempt to amend the legislation before us now should have been done with far greater care much more thought and much more deliberation rather than his suggesting to us that he will come back at some future date with a long-term look at the legislation. 
Having said that I commend the Minister for the fact that at long last after some days and weeks of thought—I am not sure why it took days and weeks—common sense has prevailed with regard to the casting vote provision. The previous speaker Mr Gallagher said the Minister came to that understanding and he commended him for that. Instead I say to the Minister that there is something seriously amiss in his department if a casting vote provision introduced on the day that the legislation will be passed is the final answer given that that was the most common-sense approach right from day one. Whether it shows a certain fortitude on the part of his ministerial officials in a very correct manner or whether a single individual decided somewhere in the distant past that there should be wonderful above-the-clouds consensus at all council meetings I am not sure but it is plain stupid that on the last day possible we get a common-sense answer to a straightforward problem. I commend the Minister for finally arriving there. Why it took so long is beyond my understanding. 
The second thing I want to raise is that in the deliberations for the 2002 legislation I raised the issue of council-owned organisations. Specifically I mentioned the role of port companies because many regional councils in particular have a role for them. There was no understanding by the Department of Internal Affairs although finally there was a dim understanding that there was an issue there. I am very pleased to say that a company that is run on the basis of say Northport the Northland port corporation which is a joint venture with the Port of Tauranga has finally had adequate provision for its reporting requirements accepted in this bill. 
The last issue I want to raise is the database. I am not quite sure why as the Hon Nick Smith said it took so long to reach a common understanding. 
In the course of submissions the Marlborough District Council came to us on behalf of rural councils with issues in relation to lump-sum contributions. I draw members’ attention to my proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 227 and say very quickly that it is highly deserving of attention. The Marlborough District Council came to us with the support of other councils such as the Far North District Council the Nelson City Council the Kaikoura District Council the Whangarei District Council the Grey District Council—I could go on with a long list. All those councils did so because in the Local Government (Rating) Act of 2002 the rating powers in the 1988 Act were for some reason changed and there seems to be no reason why that was done. 
It has been the common practice of councils in the past—in particular rural councils—to invite lump sum contributions to fund special localised infrastructural projects. There is a known community preference for a lump-sum contribution. It is well established and common. Under the provisions of the Rating Powers Act of 1988 councils would have had the option to do that as they had in the past and many councils did just that. What did the legislation cover? It covered the regime for allowing it and the potential methods of calculating the contribution as a lump sum separate rate to finance the loan or fund the work. In other words it was an elaborate procedure to establish a very fair balance. It provided for those who wanted to pay a lump sum and those who did not wish to take up that option. It was fair and equitable. The Local Government (Rating) Act of 2002 changed that and caused some councils great concern. Although it was intended to provide more flexible policies for lump-sum contributions serious issues were left in the residue of the Act that needed to be resolved. Those issues were presented to the committee and for some strange reason—I apologise to members of the committee as I was not there that day—they were not accepted. 
I raise again the issue of how transparent and clear the system outlined in the Supplementary Order Paper is. It is very clear indeed. It raises the issue of how the contribution is raised and why. The Act sets out a far more deliberate—and unfortunately sometimes costly—procedure for consultation. Unlike earlier days when lump-sum contributions might have earned a council resolution contributions today for a special localised project even when small are the subject of a policy with a significant threshold and therefore is not likely to take place unless two issues are overcome—firstly whether it is significant and secondly whether it has been transparently explained and understood. The explanatory note covers why this is an issue of choice. It is a choice whether councils exercise it. There is a clear indication in the Act that greater choice is one of the rationales for that Act and this Supplementary Order Paper fits into that long-term desire of local authorities to do their best for their local communities. 
With regard to the dog legislation my party supported microchipping and we earnestly believe it is the way of the future for all stock. I have no doubt that if I were to come back in 10 years time I would find that it was part of an established system for tracking animals. Today a bill was passed that dealt with that. For dairy farmers there is a clear tracking system for the product from the shed to the consumer and microchipping fits into that system. Dogs fit into that system as well so I make no apologies for our stance in 2002 and 2003 in relation to that. 
Secondly councils do have discretion with regard to dog issues. As councils set their rates I followed through the newspapers the contributions made by locally elected people about how the dog legislation would be administered. When we come to the Committee stage I will give members an example of an excellent dog policy from the Waitakere area. It is working and most councils find the legislation agreeable. We support that part of the legislation. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Local Government Act 2002 is a huge piece of legislation and it is not surprising that a year and a bit afterward there are some technical changes to make. It may seem to those who entered Parliament part-way through the year 2002 that that legislation was being rushed through and that may be assisted by the fact that it did eventually pass under urgency in an attempt to get the House’s business through before Christmas. In fact the select committee had been considering that bill for almost a year. There was extensive hearing of submissions and by the time the election came we had got a long way through it. We then did our best to help new members catch up but I acknowledge it was quite a big job for them. However I really do not think we can say that that Act was rushed through without proper consideration. Actually Nick Smith was a member of that committee at the time and had he picked up any of these technical changes he would have been quite free to promote them at the select committee at the time. But he did not. 
The bill in front of us now is an omnibus bill that amends seven Acts. The amendments are mostly technical and non-controversial but there are four issues that I want to raise in the House. The first one is the question of the changes to the infringement offences in the Dog Control Act which are made in the schedule and there has been widespread misunderstanding about this. I was quite surprised to be rung by numerous radio stations after this bill was reported back. Obviously the public has a great interest in how much one gets fined if one does not do the right thing with one’s dog. But it was unfortunate that even people like the editor of the  
Waikato Times 
 saw the lessening of some of these infringement amounts as an indication that Parliament had gone soft on dog control and simply did not understand that an infringement offence applies to the lesser offences and is more in the nature of an instant fine. If one actually endangers the public seriously with one’s dog or one seriously breaks the law one is prosecuted and goes to court. The sentences then can be very much more severe including substantial periods of imprisonment. I think the public did not understand that when we stated in our report back that it is silly to set infringement fines that the public cannot pay because then the council will have to take them to court anyway. The public did not understand that there is another route open to councils and that is to take a prosecution in the first place for offences that are more serious. 
Secondly I want to talk about the casting vote. The Greens have believed for a long time that democracy is not well served by the old approach to voting: “51 percent I win; 49 percent you lose; eat that!”. We do not think that leads to good outcomes. We do not think it leads to community acceptance of the outcome. We think it leads to constant policy change and overthrow as a different lot of people come in and want revenge on the ones who were there beforehand. We believe that striving for a greater degree of support for new ideas is worth doing. Seeking some consensus is never going to be complete—there will always be differences of ideas—but if we cannot actually get more than 51 percent support for something then it may mean that there is something wrong with it and we ought to discuss it further to see whether a position of agreement can be reached. 
So our intention when the Act was passed was that the possibility of mayors having casting votes would be taken away. A loophole in the legislation allowed them to do it if they passed it under their standing orders. The intention of this bill was to close that loophole. We heard numerous submissions from councils saying how important it was to them to have a casting vote and we found a reasonable and sensible compromise. I shifted my position enough to support the select committee view that if it were the last meeting before a statutory deadline and there was a fifty-fifty vote in council that deadlock would have to be resolved and the casting vote should be available for that. So we were all happy with that outcome. What happens? Local government gets on its horse and it lobbies the Minister and it lobbies many Ministers. It lobbies the Government and as a result of that intensive lobbying the Government has rolled over and restored a casting vote for all matters provided it is put in the standing orders. So I do not think the Minister or even his colleagues particularly believed that this casting vote is always better but they have clearly rolled over to the local government lobby. 
I think it is unfortunate that local government cannot see that it will get much better acceptance by the public that it represents if local government goes to a bit more trouble to try to get the support of more than just half of the councillors for an important measure that it is passing. So we will not be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister is putting forward. 
The third question I want to raise is the fine line to be drawn between the privacy of the individual and reasonable access to information for the public good. The select committee spent quite a bit of time trying to resolve this one and I think as Nick Smith said we got it right. I think we did a reasonable job. I think what we came up with makes good sense. 
 On the one hand there are people who are afraid for their safety if the whole world can find out where they live and they do not want to have their names and addresses on the database for anyone to see. On the other hand there are people who want to be able to contact their neighbours. They may have a combined drain sewer or fence about which they may want to come to a cooperative solution. Those people have to be able to contact each other to work that out. So providing an opt-out provision rather than a blanket ban on publishing the information seemed to offer a good way forward. We have taken extra precautions to make sure that the information cannot be made available to people who want to use it for bulk mail-outs and other advertising that is just a nuisance and an annoyance to people. So I think we have made progress on that matter. 
The final issue is the question of what is fair representation in remote and rural areas. It may be that we do need to revisit that one in the future and I am open to doing that. The question is how we weigh up the principle of one person one vote and all votes count equally towards the outcome against the question of community representation whereby communities that are quite remote and distinct from the rest of the district may have their views completely overruled by larger groupings like cities and we have to find a way between it. The 10 percent variation in the representation areas is meant to provide that. It is possible that in some areas it may not be enough but whether it is or it is not it is too late for this bill to affect the situation at this election. Therefore it seemed to us to be sensible to allow a bit more time before deciding whether to revisit it. There is a built in review period after the 2007 election anyway. There is an optional review period after this election. Let us wait and see what sorts of decisions the Local Government Commission makes and what sorts of anomalies might occur then look again at whether in the light of more experience we can make a better decision. I think that is preferable to jumping in now on the basis of very little evidence and potentially getting it wrong again. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 While it appears that this bill is quite simple and innocuous it actually contains a number of elements that are quite serious in terms of local government democracy. To begin with I note that the Minister has backed down on what was a very very foolish concept of doing away with the casting vote of the chairman or mayor. I do not know what pressures finally prevailed but the Minister had persisted with this measure against all good advice right through from the bill’s genesis right through the select committee process and here finally today in the report back and second reading he has tabled a Supplementary Order Paper saying that somehow something has prevailed. I think he probably had the cold steel of the local government mayors around the country and he finally buckled. I think that is the most likely explanation. 
I know that the Greens would have preferred to retain the abolition of a casting vote and that doubles my conviction that the ACT position of saying there should be a casting vote is the correct one. It is all very well to say that the council may be split but good grief let us think of all the split votes we have in this House. Let us think of all the measures we pass into law on the basis of one two or three votes. It is a bit pious to say that it is a terrible breakdown of democracy when councils make decisions on the basis of one or two votes. 
A recent vote in the Auckland Regional Council when it reintroduced a differential in its rating was passed by only one vote. It was an appalling decision. It would be one of the worst decisions any council has made in a number of years. But nevertheless on the basis of one councillor changing his mind that change did occur. My prediction is that the remedy will be at the ballot box this October. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: He’ll be gone. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: He will be gone. Maurice Williamson is an Auckland member and he knows the councillor I am talking about. He is a goner. He buckled against all good sense and logic and he was responsible for reintroducing differential rating in Auckland. 
Let us look at it. The regional council bit the bullet last year and it put rates up by 34 percent. It did that a year ago and its justification was that it was doing away with differential rating. The council has just put rates up again by about 30 percent and reintroduced differential rating. It cannot have it both ways. There is something seriously wrong there. 
The other aspect I would like to canvass with the Minister—and I am certainly looking at introducing a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage—is that there has been a happy outcome for the port companies. Jim Peters referred to the Northport and the Port of Tauranga situation with the council-controlled organisation and the council organisation. My question to the Minister is: why on earth has he not agreed for Watercare in Auckland to become a council-controlled organisation rather than a council organisation? He knows that every mayor in metropolitan Auckland wants that. Even his mate Bob Harvey the “westie” and former president of the Labour Party wants that. They all recognise the huge advantage if Watercare were to become a council-controlled organisation rather than a council organisation. It would allow Watercare to do many things. For instance it could pay a dividend rather than be restricted as it is now to giving a rebate. That would be much more sensible. But oh no for some reason the Minister will not agree to that. All the advice is that that is what should happen yet the Minister refuses to agree. 
I note that the New Zealand First representative said that New Zealand First agreed with the dog control measures as they relate to microchipping. I put on record that the ACT party is totally opposed to microchipping. We think it is a gross intrusion into dog owners’ rights. Mr Peters said that all stock should be microchipped. Will he say that cats have to be microchipped? Mr Mallard would microchip every goldfish in the country. That is the sort of logic we would get from Mr Mallard if he were in control of local government in this country. Is it not interesting that under the dog control measures there is a national register for all dogs yet there is not a national register for all convicted paedophiles. What is the biggest danger to society—dogs or convicted paedophiles? Yet we are forcing a national register of dog owners and that seems a bit foolish to me. 
We have had the rates database issue. I think the select committee made a sensible decision with the opt-out provision. There were genuine concerns. It is a new situation. Councils are just moving to electronic database forms. To make all those addresses and details available to the public on request could be an excessive breach of people’s rights to privacy. Therefore they will have a right to opt out and I do support that measure. Overall I would have to say that there are too many bad features in this legislation. We will be watching it closely as it moves through the Committee stage. Even at this late stage I ask the Minister seriously to consider changing the status of Watercare so that there can be sensible commercially based operations from that very important utility. The answer is to stop Watercare being a council organisation and make it a council-controlled organisation. It would then have much greater flexibility and it would mean that water could be delivered in the Auckland region at a more competitive price at a much cheaper price and much more efficiently. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the second reading of the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3). When we first began to look at this legislation and open it up for submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee I was a little apprehensive that all the criticisms of the Local Government Act which we passed around December 2002 could have opened the floodgates to an avalanche of submissions from people around the country who were upset with that legislation. That was the first legislation I worked on after coming to this House as a new MP and I share the comments of Jeanette Fitzsimmons that we worked very hard on it and in no way did we rush it through. There were many criticisms of that legislation and the fact that we received only 41 submissions on this bill which deals with some of the minor technical issues that need to be looked at is an indication that the Local Government Act is working reasonably well around the country and that some of the dire predictions particularly by National in opposing it so strongly are not coming to fruition. 
As I said the select committee received 41 submissions and we heard 15 of those orally. The submissions were all very sensible and through this omnibus bill will enable us to fix up some matters most of them minor in a number of Acts such as the Dog Control Act the Local Electoral Act the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and the Local Government (Rating) Act. Committee members worked well together in order to report this bill back to the House and I would like to comment on some of the amendments we made. 
First as has been mentioned already in respect of the Dog Control Act and its adjustment of infringement offences and fees I tell members that there is no way we wanted to send a message to the community that we were getting soft after passing the Dog Control Act only last year with much stricter penalties. However a number of submissions pointed out that some of the infringement fees were a little over the top. We always need to make sure that the punishment fits the crime and that there will be an effective deterrent particularly with things like infringement fees that are instant fines. 
In particular a dog control officer from Tauranga pointed out the difficulty the council was experiencing in having to enforce the infringements but in not having discretion on the fines and in finding that some people were being landed with rather severe amounts. I remember the case of one solo mother who foolishly denied that she had unregistered dogs. The next day she was found to have them and she was also guilty of the further infringement of not complying with the dog control officer’s instructions. She ended up with a fine of something like $1800 which was way over the top. So some adjustments have been made to those figures and I believe we have come up with a much more sensible list of infringement fees. 
The other problem for dog control officers is that if people have too high a cost with infringement fees then the offenders simply go to court and are sometimes awarded costs that are less than the infringement fees. So in fact that process has been a complete waste of time. Councils have had to go through the process of representing the case in court only to find that the person has been fined a cost less than the infringement fee. I believe we have made some sensible recommendations in that regard and as we go through the Committee stage we will see how members address that issue. 
It was important to clarify that the requirement for a person to carry a leash when taking out a dog would not affect councils that had already put by-laws in place whereby a person had to have the dog on a leash. It has been a simple matter to clarify that in order for everyone to understand that a council by-law takes precedence in that regard. 
A correction has been made to clarify that a person can have dual candidacy for mayor and councillor particularly when that person is standing in a ward. Personally I had some difficulty with that and tried hard to convince other committee members that that provision may have been worth removing from the bill. I believe that people around the country often stand for mayoral candidacy simply so that they can increase the amount of money they can spend on a particular campaign and also so that they can have a higher profile. When a person is standing in a small ward but has the money to fund a citywide campaign I believe the opportunity is skewed for all candidates to have a fair go. It is not quite so important when candidates are standing at large which is now occurring in a couple of cities since the Local Government Commission made some determinations after its review. However the issue is of concern when people are standing in a small ward and then running for mayor but are not seriously intending to be elected as mayor. However that provision will remain and I will continue to watch how it develops. I would like to see that the Local Government Commission in its reviews in 2005 and 2007 includes that issue in its report to the Minister in order to see whether abuse is occurring on a wide scale. 
Some submissions were concerned about the plus or minus 10 percent variation in the ratio of the population per elected member which was brought in by the 2002 bill. A number of good points were made in that regard but as a committee we felt that the appropriate time to look at the matter would be at the review of the bill to be undertaken by the Local Government Commission in 2007. If it is causing problems after this year’s elections there is an opportunity for the Local Government Commission to report also to the Minister in 2005 which will be before the next local body elections and I think that that will be the appropriate time to make any adjustments. In a number of cases around the country it seems that that plus or minus 10 percent variation has become difficult to manage and it is leaving some communities without the representation they should have. I am very pleased to have convinced the Minister in 2002 to include those reviews in 2005 and 2007 so that we can further address any concerns with this new local government Act. 
On the issue of the casting vote which has been spoken about already I am very pleased to see that the Minister and the Labour caucus have had a rethink and that they are prepared to restore it to what it was in our committee’s report. I had a small paragraph there to mention that United Future was not happy with the very limited allowance of the casting vote and we certainly do not agree with Green members who would suggest that councils should always sit down in a circle and hold hands until they reach sufficient agreement. Politics does operate sometimes on a one-vote majority as we are well aware in this House with such things as prostitution law reform going through on an abstention. That is the nature of democracy and I do not see why local councils should be deprived of that. I see that it is a better outcome for the community to allow the elected mayor or chairperson to have that casting vote than it is to put the vote back to the council and have some kind of horse trading going on by which one particular councillor might have the ability to get his or her wishes included in some draft by-law or other matter the council was looking at. So we are happy to see that that right of a casting vote will now be restored through the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. 
We are happy to see the council-controlled organisation accountability requirements addressed for the Port of Tauranga and for Northport. It was a rather crazy situation before where there were different rules according to whether a company was 49 percent 50 percent or 51 percent owned. I am pleased to see an amendment that was able to satisfy that need. 
We had a lot of discussion about privacy issues and I think we have come up with something that is reasonable and balanced. People do have the option to opt off rates records so that other people cannot have their personal details but in most cases I believe people are comfortable with those details being made known to the public. People did not want to see the whole rates records data being given to companies so they could be then deluged with bulk mails and we have protected them from having that occur. 
The requirements for the microchipping of dogs and the compulsory national database are essential if we are to have that database work. We simply cannot leave it up to councils to decide to opt into the database. We are a very small country and we need to do some things nationally in order to make them work. It would be ridiculous to have some councils on the database and some councils off so United Future still holds to the position that a national database should be the case. We look forward to further discussion on these points as we go through the Committee stage of the bill. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I thank other speakers from the Local Government and Environment Committee who have spoken previously in this second reading. The issues addressed by this bill have been well covered by members. As they have mentioned the bill tidies up quite a broad range of matters that affect local government. 
Phil Heatley 
: What a mess! 
DAVID PARKER 
: That member could not be more wrong as evidenced from the fact that after a very broad and detailed amendment of local government legislation in 2002—the Local Government Act is very comprehensive legislation—we had only 14 submissions to this next local government bill to come before Parliament. So it is not a mess; it is actually in very good shape. 
I want to address a couple of the issues we looked at in some detail in the select committee. The first relates to the casting vote. We heard Mr Shirley of ACT criticise the decision of the Government to support the reintroduction of the casting vote. There was some sort of assertion that it was a giant backdown. I think it is true that all members in this House have changed their minds on the issue of the casting vote because when the provision for it was taken away from councils in 2002 by the Local Government Act that change had the unanimous support of every party on the select committee at that time. But after that change concerns were expressed by members of local government and as the Hon Nick Smith just mentioned there was a little bit of uncertainty as to whether the casting vote had been completely removed. The advice we had in the committee was that it had been but it was certainly arguable. 
The need for a casting vote in some situations was apparent in the cases where local government has a statutory duty to do something by a certain date. So we would be rather errant if we left local government in the position that it could not make a decision because it did not have a casting vote yet had an obligation for example to strike rates by a certain date. There were then arguments as to whether the casting vote should be limited to those situations where there was a statutory duty. The committee thought about whether that was an appropriate place to draw the line. On further reflection the Government agrees with National ACT United Future and New Zealand First that that is a pretty fine line and asks why we should not trust local government to exercise the casting vote in the manner it did without great problems in the past. 
The next issue I would like to talk about is infringement fees. Under the Dog Control Act councils have the power to impose fines by way of infringement notices on people who breach the Act. Those fines were a little bit inconsistent and some of the advice we had from councils—working in the areas that have the most problems with owners who do not keep dogs properly under control—was that they thought the level of fines was so high that in practice the fines were not collectible. Councils thought that a lower level of fines would still act as an appropriate penalty against those who break the law while at the same time make the fines more likely to be paid and collected. They said a lower level of fine would also mean that dog control officers would see it fair to render an infringement notice and be more likely to exercise their powers. We agreed with those submissions and as a consequence we have again tried to rationalise those fees. We tried to do it late last year and did not get it quite right but we hope we have done better this time. 
On the matter of rating information I remind members that access to the rates database was cut off in the 2002 Act because there had been a developing practice whereby marketing companies had wholesale access to the rates records and used that database to market people—to spam them to use the modern electronic equivalent—with information they did not want to receive. So at that stage access to rates records had been removed. 
That was a step too far because it is necessary to have access to such information. For example people might want to know who else is using a common drain or who they are dealing with in relation to a planning application. They need to know the postal address at which those people can be contacted. It is of course possible to get the name of other owners through other sources of information—for example by doing a search of the title. That costs a bit of money and it still does not show people’s addresses. 
So we have reinstated the ability of councils to let people have access to that personal information on rates records. But we have made it clear that they do not have the right to the whole of the records; they have just the right to information on an inquiry-by-inquiry basis. And we have given people on the database the right to opt out from providing personal information. There was a proposal from officials that people had to give their permission to be on the database before they could be included but we thought that that was making it too difficult for councils and I think we now have a proper and practical outcome. I recommend the legislation to the House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I must say that it is with a sense of frustration that members of the National Party on this side of this House sit here during urgency tidying up Chris Carter’s legislation once again. He passed the Local Government Act 2002 and of course amendments to the Dog Control Act. He said at the time that he was front-footing the issues. However because he did not do his homework here we are in urgency spending taxpayers’ money on tidying up a whole lot of loose ends. I wish they were loose ends. Unfortunately it is a lot more significant than that. We have had to go through sections of the Local Government Act and through the amendments to the Dog Control Act and make some very serious changes indeed. 
National would like to outline the concerns we put to the Local Government and Environment Committee on being faced with having to fix up this bill. Most of our concerns are about the errors the bill contains that drive a wedge of misunderstanding between New Zealand’s rural and provincial districts and its cities in respect of their different needs. Chris Carter comes from Auckland. He can live in his little suburb on his one-eighth of an acre prune his roses in the weekends and be oblivious to all those who live more than 20 kilometres away from a motorway. 
The first example of this is the concerns raised in various districts where there is a plus or minus 10 percent variation in determining ward boundaries. For cities it is pretty easy to calculate how many people within those variations can actually elect a ward member. We just draw a circle around a suburb and say that one councillor can represent them. But when we go to the provinces to Whangarei Whakatane Napier and Hastings or to the South Island provincial cities such as Nelson and all the little satellite towns around them that rely on them we have a serious problem. This Minister would have us draw a line through the middle of all those little satellite towns surrounding provincial cities like Whangarei Napier and Nelson—little satellite towns like Brightwater in the Nelson province and Waipu in Whangarei which exist right throughout the country—and say: “You haven’t got enough people. You’re short of 500 people and you cannot have a councillor to represent you. We’ll chuck you in amongst one of the suburbs. You can just sit there and hope that that suburban councillor will represent your interests.” Clearly they will not represent their interests. We are saying that a problem exists around the 2002 Act passed by the Labour Government because of a lack of interest or a lack of emphasis on communities of interest. That is one of the great misunderstandings about how rural New Zealand provincial New Zealand works compared with metropolitan New Zealand where the Minister comes from. 
The second misunderstanding is about the degree to which rural and provincial councils and their ratepayers can afford compliance costs. We are looking at the issues in this bill that constrain the role of the Audit Office in respect of long-term council community plans. Of course we know that the costs of compliance will be excessive. There is clarification in clause 51 that refers to this. I can tell the Minister and the Labour Government that they may be able to draw from deep pockets in the big cities but in the provinces and the rural towns people do not have deep pockets. They do not have the population to support huge compliance costs. They do not live in Wellington where they can knock on the Government’s door or form a lobby group. They just cannot afford it. When these huge compliance costs are being created the Minister should remember that rural provincial areas get hit harder for those reasons. It is not just because of socio-economic factors but also because of geography. I put it to the Minister that these are widespread areas and it costs a fortune to travel anywhere quickly if we can. Often we cannot. 
The third issue that drives a wedge of misunderstanding between rural and city needs is candidates for mayor being able to stand for the mayoralty as well as for council. We cannot understand why the Minister in 2002 suddenly decided that candidates for the mayoralty could not stand as councillors as well. It is just appalling that he said to all the provinces and to all of rural New Zealand: “Listen your candidate can stand only as mayor not as a councillor.” I can tell the Minister that the problem is that provincial and rural New Zealand often do not have a large number of people putting up their hands to say they will stand for council. There is a smaller pool of people able to do that work. If they want to run for mayor and councillor so that if they miss out on the mayoralty they can become councillors that is OK with us. We want their skills. To close them down simply because they entered two competitions I think is appalling and quite short-sighted. I am glad that issue is being fixed in clause 28 and we will be discussing it in more detail when we come to the Committee stage. 
We would also like to put on the record that we do not think every New Zealander should microchip his or her dog. We notice that the Minister thinks that grandma should microchip her poodle just because some gang has a Rottweiler that it does not keep under control. I cannot understand why the Labour Government would have every single New Zealander microchip his or her puppy just because it cannot control the gangs. I find that absolutely appalling. I talked to the Minister Trevor Mallard who said in response to Gerry Eckhoff that he would see every goldfish in this country microchipped. The Minister told me: “No I wouldn’t microchip every goldfish only the dangerous ones—the ones that when you walk by the bowl they jump out and bite you.” That is the attitude from this Government and it is just pathetic. If it cannot get gangs and crime under control if it will not approach gang members’ places and tell them to get their Rottweilers and their Dobermans under control if it is too chicken to do that and would rather have people microchip every little puppy that comes into the world then I find that short-sighted and absolutely appalling. We will oppose that just as we oppose the compliance costs in this bill that address that issue. 
I would also like to say that we do support the inclusion of a casting vote for mayors. Sometimes there is a deadlock in a city and district and regional councils and mayors have to show leadership and give a casting vote. Sometimes people do not disagree. The Green Party would have them sitting around holding hands and singing “Khumbaya” in the hope that in some way they would come to some agreement. It will not happen. A mayor has to show leadership and sometimes cast his or her vote and we are more than happy to give the mayor those powers. With those things in mind I look forward—as I know members on the other side of the House do—to hearing my arguments during the Committee stage. They wait with bated breath I know. We commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) that it take the bill part by part 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Chatham Islands Council Act 1995 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Part 1 deals with the Chatham Islands and has its council take up the functions of a regional council. We heard submissions at the Local Government and Environment Committee and that seemed to be well supported. But the question I have for the Minister in respect of the Chatham Islands is— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Isn’t it  
There’s Something About Mary 
? Isn’t that the haircut? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: At least I have some hair which is more than I can say about either of those two Ministers. My question for the balding Minister seeing there seems to be a focus on hairdos—which is about as sophisticated as the Labour Party gets these days—is: what funding will be provided to the Chatham Islands Council to enable it to pick up the regional council functions? Everybody knows that it has a small ratepayer base. It would be interesting to hear from the member who represents the Chatham Islands and who has not participated in this debate to date to tell us how the Government will assist the Chatham Islands Council meet the extra costs associated with dealing with the regional council functions provided for in clauses 3 4 and 5. 
Members on this side of the Committee are concerned about the imposition on ratepayers which is something that does not seem to be of great concern to the Labour Party and noting the huge increase in rates throughout New Zealand under the term of this Minister— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister objects. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no I don’t believe the member. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He does not believe me? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That the member could do that to his hair! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister is more interested in hairdos than he is about rates. Well the vast majority of members are actually quite concerned about their rates bill and the huge increase in rates. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why has the member got his hands in his pockets? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister is now all excited about where my hands might be. What a pathetic Minister of Education— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am just trying to work out whether the member has pockets. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well actually I do and I tell Mr Mallard that I think most of us in the Committee have pockets. Does it not say something about the intellectual grunt of the Minister of Education that— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No he is just bored by a useless tired and hopeless Opposition. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The hopeless Minister of Education is not interested in whether the Chatham Islands Council will get any funding for the extra responsibilities the Minister wants to dump on it. That is a very fair question and I hope the Minister will take a call and advise the Committee as to how these extra responsibilities will be funded by the very small number of ratepayers. Those ratepayers want to know who will get the bill. 
Members on this side of the Chamber are concerned about rating costs unlike the Government. They want to know why the ratepayers will have to pick up the extra responsibilities he wants to impose on this council. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 The member Nick Smith asked a fair enough question as to how with the very limited rating base the Chathams will survive with the regional functions it has to carry out such as biosecurity dealing with waste and the provision of fresh water. The Government recognises very much the challenges that small region of only some 700 people faces so the Government has provided a one-off payment of $2.5 million to provide for a new fresh water and sewerage system on the Chathams and will also pay for the development of a new tip on the island. In addition the Chatham Islands Council has sought an expression of interest from other regional councils such as the Wellington Regional Council the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council and Environment Canterbury to tender for a collaborative role where the facilities of those larger regional councils will contract out to provide the services to the Chatham Islands that are required from that regional role. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Dog Control Act 1996 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The debate is on Part 2 clauses 6 to 20A including debate on schedule 1AA. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 These 25 clauses in Part 2 deal with the Dog Control Act and it is somewhat amazing that only 12 months after the Minister put through changes in the dog control legislation Parliament is dealing with not one mistake two mistakes or three mistakes but 25 areas in which we are having to rewrite this Minister’s legislation. Earlier in the debate the Minister said: “It is not my fault. It is all Sandra Lee’s. That is why there was a mess with the local government law.” Well the Minister cannot pass the buck in respect of the Dog Control Act. It was entirely this Minister’s doing. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: That’s right. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well the Minister pleads guilty. I would like to know from the Minister for legislation that has been in force for only— 
Government Member 
: No that’s the guilty member—before the court. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well it is the Government’s dirty work and it wants to relitigate that. It did not have the courage when I offered a by-election in Nelson. It did not want to contest. It was quite happy to have the argument in the High Court but did not want to have the debate with the people of Nelson. Those are the sorts of wimps on the Government benches. 
But this is a Minister who has pleaded guilty to having the— 
Government Member 
: Who was challenging the decision? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Sorry—what does the Minister want to talk about? Does he want to debate family law? Does the member want to debate family law? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is the member losing his hearing? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Does the member want to have a debate about family law? I would be delighted to have a debate about family law and the huge changes the Government has now conceded should be made in that area and it is nice to know that one can win an argument. 
I want to talk about the—[ 
Interruption 
] What a pathetic bunch on the Government benches. This is a law to do with dog control and they want to interject about everything else but the legislation. The 25 clauses of this part make a whole series—[ 
Interruption 
] Do I have to put up with this crap Mr Chairperson? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No the member does not. I am warning those who are interjecting that if they interject again they will be out of this Chamber. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The provisions in these 25 clauses are a patch-up job on the dog control legislation that the Minister advanced and there are a number of things that National disagrees with. 
The first of those is with regard to the compulsory microchipping of dogs. As my colleague Phil Heatley pointed out earlier in the debate what sort of control freaks are there in the Government that they want to have every single dog in New Zealand microchipped? That is the policy being advanced by Chris Carter. It is a huge expense for the ratepayers and dog owners of New Zealand. It is not a good policy move and we think the Minister should admit that—as with so many other things he has got wrong—the provision should be changed. 
The second area I want to challenge the Minister on is why within 12 months of prescribing fines for dog offences the Government has to change them and third why the Government is not prepared to trust local councils to determine the appropriate fines for dog offences. Why is it necessary for this Parliament to prescribe the fines that should apply in dog-related offences up and down New Zealand? Surely it is enough for Parliament simply to say: “Look your council can set fines up to 1000 bucks. You describe the offences. You apply the fines at the level at which you think they are going to be the most effective enforcement tools in your particular area.” rather than have schedule 4 in this bill which sets out every individual fine that will be provided. I just think it is so rich for the Government to rave on all the time particularly this Minister: “We trust councils. We believe in the power of general competence.” Councils can best judge for their communities. But when it comes to setting fines over something as small as dog control we say it is unnecessary to have to prescribe that in Parliament. We say it should not be done and we oppose that provision. The last question I have for the Minister is do we have any definitive figures yet as to what it will cost the average dog owner with regard to the Minister’s mad plan of microchipping every dog in New Zealand? We were given widely varying figures at the select committee. I think that before Parliament makes a decision we need to know the cost. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I go to the next speaker I have been reflecting and I think that I was a little harsh earlier on. Of course interjections are accepted; they put a bit of life into the Chamber. Certainly if a speaker says anything that is controversial then another member is fully entitled to interject and I expect members to be reasonable. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 2 I reiterate what I said in the debate on the second reading—that New Zealand First supports microchipping. If the members who have spoken so far about microchipping had any understanding of the rural economy and farming and the way in which these trends are developing in farming given the legislation that was passed earlier today—tracking for the dairy farmer from the shed to the consumer—then they would understand why microchipping will come in time. 
Secondly in respect of clause 15 the fact is that the bill does not provide for microchipping to take effect from tomorrow. It allows local authorities an adequate time-span to allow for the contracts and for the process to be put in place. It takes into account puppies yet to be born and allows for them to be microchipped in sequence. I am absolutely certain from the Local Government and Environment Committee’s experience of submissions made last year by such rural councils as the Opotiki District Council which has worked with this over some years and from the advice given to the committee by veterinarians and other vet groups that the process can take place and will be able to be achieved by contract at a reasonable rate. 
The issue is really whether those who own a dog realise what it means. In doing some brief calling around and speaking to councils about Part 2 I went to the Waitakere City Council and I saw there a few words in the council’s draft policy statement that I will pass on to the Committee. That draft statement starts with an excellent comment which puts us into the context of what we are talking about. First of all it asserts: “It is a privilege to be able to own a dog. Dog control problems are a symptom of community social and individual people problems. The impact of a dog on others is determined by the owner of the dog. To be a successful owner any dog owner must take a daily and active interest in the welfare of the dog with attention given to the physical emotional and mental needs of the dog.” and so on. It is a long elaborate and very carefully drawn up policy. The last bullet points of the draft foreword again assert: “It is in the interests of the community that Council’s Animal Welfare Officers maintain interaction with dog owners.” and “The ownership of a dog brings with it a twenty four hour a day seven day per week social responsibility towards other people (including their property and animals) and towards the dog itself.” If one begins with a sound dog policy as other councils have and puts the amendments to the Act in this bill in context it makes sound and reliable sense. 
To come back to the issue of microchipping it is the way of the future with regard to tracking and identifying animals. The microchipping of dogs is part of the sequence. The whole of our primary produce is dependent upon what overseas markets deem to be so not necessarily what we would wish to be so and the rural community understands more than most what tracking of animals means in terms of that community’s livelihood. New Zealand First commends this part of the bill. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 We heard a lot of rhetoric from Dr Nick Smith the MP from Nelson—of course much of it was nonsense and simply distorted the realities of what this legislation stands for and represents. For example he posed the question—and I guess it must have been rhetorical—about why we should not allow councils to set their own fines. Actually he should know that the law does not provide the ability to do that at all. The Ministry of Justice is looking at that process but at the moment the law as it stands provides for a set fine a threshold and that is it. 
When I surveyed local governments in New Zealand a year ago asking them whether they thought that current dog legislation was adequate to deal with public safety the overwhelming response I got from the 76 councils that deal with this issue was that it was not; that the fines are too low. I listened. I fixed it up. 
Dr Nick Smith also asked why we have compulsory microchipping. Mr Jim Peters explained it very well. Another thing was revealed when I surveyed councils about what records they kept about dog attacks. What I discovered is that some kept records and some did not. There was no consistent record-keeping anywhere in the country. There was no ability for a council to track a dangerous dog. If somebody from Whangarei has a dangerous dog up there that is a menace and attacks people and it moves with its owner to Manukau City or wherever the local council has no way of tapping in and finding out what the record and history of that dog is. I can hear one or two members in the Opposition sniggering away. Having a child's face ripped off by a dog in a park is not something to snigger about. 
That has been a very draconian change to the dog legislation in New Zealand to deal with that very issue—the issue of public safety. It was a very comprehensive change; right from the microchipping issue to entry and seizure provisions to dealing with fines to banning certain breeds. It was a very big piece of legislation. There were some technical issues that had to be sorted through—issues that revealed themselves as councils put this law into practice. 
This is a Government that listens. We engage with animal control officers. We engage with local government to see how effective the new law is. There are indeed a number of changes that need to be made to the law—most of them very minor and some of them a little bit more significant. They are all designed to make the law work better in order to keep the public safer. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I am pleased the Minister acknowledged that it was somewhat draconian to introduce a dog control law whereby every dog in New Zealand is microchipped regardless of its owner regardless of what threat it could be to anyone regardless of its history—regardless of anything. Because it is draconian and it just makes me a little sad I guess when one considers that grandma cannot now keep a dog as company as perhaps some comfort should her husband die. It is sad to me that I cannot now go and buy a little puppy for my 3-year-old and my 4-year-old without them being served with papers to fill in lots of boxes to tick and heaps of compliance costs. 
I consider that my two little blondies—one aged 3 and one aged 4 gorgeous little kids more like their mother granted than their father—would love to have a little puppy this Christmas. Unfortunately because of this Minister and of what he acknowledges are his draconian laws I see in this bill that my little boy will be faced with the following: he will be faced with the power of a dog control officer or dog ranger to feed and shelter his little dog. My little boy will be classified as an owner and the territorial authority the district council may require my little boy to undertake some sort of training. Gee! He just got a puppy for Christmas and he has to undertake some training! 
There will be the obligation on him to dispose of the dog if it is unregistered and my 4-year-old would be disqualified as an owner. Under clause 11A he now will have to maintain records and provide information that affects the classification of his dog as to whether it is dangerous. The territorial authority the district council may visit our place on 26 December the day after Christmas and ask for Bryn. The 4-year-old will come to the door and the dog control officer will say: “We want to classify your dog as menacing. What breed is it? Is it a breed that is menacing? We are deciding.” The dog will have to be registered of course—we do not oppose that—and my boy will have to supply register information. There will be a national dog control information database that may contain additional information about my son. The microchip transponder must be implanted in my son’s little puppy. And on it goes. 
I am just pointing out the absurdity of not targeting dangerous breeds menacing dogs with a particular history and dogs that belong to owners like gang members and are trained only to fight kill and attack other dogs and perhaps other people. Rather this legislation targets grandma with her poodle and my 4-year-old son with his little Labrador puppy. I point out to the House the absurdity of that. I am sure that when the country faces the fact and wakes up one morning and realises that this law or laws associated with it have come into effect and that hundreds of thousands of people will have to microchip their dogs the absurdity of it will not be beyond the comprehension of most sensible New Zealanders. That idea should be challenged. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I will take a short call as I am sitting in for Mr Shirley on this bill. I could not help but be bewildered by the comments of the Minister when he said as I recall—and I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong—that councils have no records of dog attacks. Why should the Minister be surprised at that? Why should a regional or district council have those sorts of figures—on dog bites for example? And what is the difference between a dog bite and a dog attack? I have not heard that explained. Let me explain this to the Minister: I have been bitten numerous times by dogs but I have not been attacked by a dog. If a dog is caught up in a barbed wire fence for example and its leg is about to snap the instinctive reaction is to reach in grab the dog and relieve the pressure on that leg. Of course the dog will fasten its jaws on one’s hand or anything else that it can get at thinking that that is how the harm is being caused. That is quite a different situation from a dog attack. That is a dog bite as distinct from a dog attack yet there appears to be little or no understanding of that point by the Minister. I am sure the Minister for ACC could have told the Minister for Local Government—had he spoken to her—as Federated Farmers have told me that there has been as I recall something less than $1800 paid out in accident compensation for people who have been attacked by a dog. So the real issue is: where is the problem? For the Minister to say that young Carolina’s horrific injuries—and we do not want to minimise that appalling attack in any way—are indicative of every dog bite or attack is quite wrong. 
I would also ask the Minister this. Since this legislation has come through and was passed some months ago to my knowledge at least four children have needed hospitalisation after attacks by dogs so how has microchipping stopped those dogs attacking children? The reality is that it has not and it never will. This is just a politically correct piece of nonsense by this Government to look as though it is doing something about a problem that it really has no intention of addressing. As one of my colleagues in the House said the issue is about the really dangerous dogs—the pit bull terriers and so on. If the Government really wants to address that issue it should ban them. It should send the dog control officers out to shoot every one of those dogs. Let the Government get rid of those breeds if it is actually serious about dog attacks. But the nonsense of having to microchip farm dogs who offer absolutely no threat to the public is just ludicrous. 
That is all I need or wish to say on this particular issue at this time but I wish that the Minister would understand the extent of the problem before rushing into legislation. That is something we have come to expect from a Government that understands nothing more than political correctness. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 2 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 8 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Local Electoral Act 2001 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This part of the bill makes 18 changes to the Local Electoral Act 2001. Again this is a patch-up job on legislation passed only 3 years ago. The substantive issue dealt with in this part is allowing a council candidate to also stand for the mayoralty. There was a botch-up in the Government’s earlier local government electoral legislation that ended up prohibiting that and one of the reasons we are in urgency is that the Minister wants to ensure that this provision—this change or this fix—is in place prior to the local body elections scheduled to take place in 3 months’ time. It certainly is National’s view that a person should be able to stand both for the mayoralty of a district and as a councillor and we support that provision. But I want to express a concern about the mess we will have in terms of the local body elections in 3 months’ time as a consequence of the whole series of amendments and of the mishmash of different electoral systems that will affect voters as they participate in the local government elections in October. 
In the election of district health boards regional councils mayors and councillors we will have an enormous potpourri of different electoral systems used for different votes. It is my view that voters will be quite confused by the different voting methods used for the different local authorities and it is a direct consequence of Government legislation that we have ended up with this mess. It will result in more voting papers being in error and as a consequence being discarded. It will also result in a lower level of participation. I would like to know that the Minister Chris Carter will take responsibility for the mess this Government has made of the local government electoral system. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Democracy! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The man calls it democracy. Is democracy such a mess that when people go to vote for their district health board they will use a single transferable vote system and when they vote for their council and their mayor they are likely to use a first-past-the-post system? They may under the amendments that the Minister and this Government put through use an MMP system whereby some councillors are elected at large and some are elected in specific wards. That sort of a botch-up is the sort of approach that I notice Mr Dover Samuels supports. On the Opposition side of the House we think it will be a mess. Surely the Government can state what it thinks is the appropriate method by which we in New Zealand should elect our community representatives without having a different system for every different form of local election whether it be for a district health board council or the like. National thinks this bill is a mess. We think it will cause problems and we will hold the Minister and this Labour Government responsible for that mess. 
The last thing I would note is a quite extraordinary revolution. Today the vast bulk of our local body elections are run by private businesses. The reality is that with the complexity the Government has introduced into the running of our local body elections that is generally contracted to a Christchurch firm. That firm now has a contract to manage over 50 local authorities’ elections because the only way we can conduct a local body election under the complexity of the legislation this Government has advanced is to contract it out and have someone else do it by computer. 
Phil Heatley 
: It has become an industry. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It has become a bureaucratic industry at the expense of the ratepayer. I express some concerns about whether such a degree of complication and cost is really warranted and ask whether a degree of simplicity in our elections would not make for a better system. 
National does support councillors being able to stand also as mayors but we are concerned about the degree of complication and complexity within our local body elections. It ends up costing ratepayers and does not help the local government process. We would hope to see some simplification rather than the complexity that we see in Part 3. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I comment very quickly that New Zealand First like other parties supports this change to the local government legislation. It was needed particularly for smaller areas. The ability to knock good candidates out because they chose to stand for one office or another would have been a difficulty. On behalf of New Zealand First I commend the Local Government and Environment Committee for that. Let the democratic choice be made. 
We are concerned though that the comments and submissions made with regard to ward requirements for small or rural communities appear to have been disregarded. It may be that those comments were made to the committee against the bruising impact that some people have felt as a result of the recent determinations by the Local Government Commission. Some rural communities felt bruised that the commissioners set varying standards with regard to the decisions and that smaller communities were forcibly pushed into larger amalgamations against their best wishes and strongly against their long-term heritage and history of dealing with their own problems. I hope that the review mentioned in the preamble will take place earlier rather than later because there is a real need to define what communities’ interests are and a real need to define delegations. 
All of these issues were part I believe of the focus of the submissions that came to us whereby people were increasingly feeling that larger councils effectively disenfranchised them day to day. To that degree New Zealand First supports the amendments and I know that some candidates will have a longer life in local government than they would have had if they had to choose one or other of the offices. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 It is disappointing that we have to tidy up the change that the Labour Party put through back in 2002 whereby good members of the community could not stand for both council and the mayoralty. Subsequently a whole lot of them decided that they would stand just for council and their skills could not be used as mayors. A whole lot of others decided that they would stand for the mayoralty and because of course only one mayor could be chosen and they could not stand as councillors as well they were lost to the cities and districts. That was a huge disappointment to areas throughout New Zealand. In the provinces and rural areas in particular the pool from which to select good and able people is smaller—not because of ability but simply because of population issues. 
If people are willing enthusiastic and able and if they can earn an electoral mandate why should they not stand as representatives on the council? Why can they not put up their hand and say that they could do a good job as mayor that this is what they stand for that this is what they stand against and to vote for them? Unfortunately in 2002 the Labour Party decided that people could stand only for council or for the mayoralty. We will fix that. The National Party is very proud to vote for this particular clause which allows any person simply to be a candidate for both positions. A person could be a member in a ward in a council election or could be a candidate for the mayor of the district council of which that ward forms a part. National will support this bill. I know that in Whangarei where now we have a four-horse race for the mayoralty— 
Darren Hughes 
: Is the member running for the community board? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: It is true. The Otaki member is quite right. I have been lobbied by local Whangarei constituents to be mayor as well as MP. But I will not do it. I will not be double-dipping. We have a four-horse race out there but one particular person who is very able has been holding back because he is concerned that if he puts his hand up for mayor—he is very able—and does not get the nod from the public he will not be able to sit for council as well. I will be calling him tonight if this bill passes and saying that the National Party fixed it for him and for Whangarei and we know he will be delighted about that. The member for Otaki might very well— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Who? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I think his name is Darren Hughes. In his electorate he is called “Darren Who” not Darren Hughes. In Parliament he is called “Little Red”. I think it is time that Darren Hughes walked out from under the shadow of Judy Keall—I know it is a long crawl to walk out from under the shadow of Judy Keall—and actually stood for something in this Parliament. “Little Red” should stand for something in this Parliament and crawl out from the shadow of Judy Keall regardless of how long that might take because she casts a shadow indeed. 
We will support this clause for the reasons I outline. We want good people in the provinces and in rural New Zealand to put up their hands and know they have a good shot either to lead a council as mayor or to be a councillor. We want the pool of skilled people in rural and provincial New Zealand to be large so that electors have a choice. We are not interested in closing down the pool as the Labour Party would have us do so that only their whipping boys get to stand. We will support this clause and no doubt the Government is pleased about that. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I will make a brief contribution on the clause we have been discussing the clause about being able to stand for both council and mayoralty. I appreciate the contribution of the member who spoke before me. I have no doubt whatsoever that he will be on the phone only a few minutes after this bill is passed taking the credit for having had the amendment passed that clarifies the issue. But the member is somewhat mistaken in his speech when he says that in the past people have been denied the opportunity to stand for both council and mayoralty. I stood in the 2001 local body elections and there were a number of people in the Tauranga area who stood for both mayoralty and council. This provision was introduced in the 2002 legislation and it has not yet had an effect upon any local body elections. So the member was slightly awry of the truth in that regard but we understand what he was talking about. Perhaps they do different things up in the north and perhaps they did not allow people to stand for both but people in the rest of the country were able to. 
This clause makes it clear that someone can stand as a candidate for a ward and also for a mayoralty. In our area we have another situation arising where we have members standing at large. We have seven councillors being elected at large and three councillors being elected as ward members. That is one per ward as there are three wards in the Tauranga area. I have had a number of submissions from sitting councillors about why they cannot stand for both ward candidate and councillor at large which is currently prohibited. We have had a number of reasons given to us by officials as to the complications that occur there but that is a new phenomenon. There are only two councils that I am aware of after the Local Government Commission’s review where there will now be members standing at large as well as in wards. 
Some of the arguments put forward to me made some sense. It did seem that there was a bias in favour of those who were standing at large—being able to do that and stand for the mayoralty as well. People who wanted to stand at large had no aspirations to be mayor. They wanted to stand for the ward but were prohibited from doing that. I trust that the Local Government Commission will evaluate how these elections go this year and see whether some of the arguments that have been raised about that prohibition are in fact valid. Perhaps recommendations need to be made in order to have consistency in this whole area. 
I said earlier that I am personally not in favour of people being allowed to stand for both. I believe that if a person is a councillor and wants to have a shot at the mayoralty then he or she should have a shot. But if the person misses out then he or she should spend a bit of time out in the real world again learning what is going on and not clinging to his or her seat as a councillor. The converse argument of course is that some good councillors might be lost but one of the great things about local body politics is that it is a great place for people to step into politics and have an opportunity to get involved in public service. I do not think it is a negative for us to see some people of experience stepping aside for a while and allowing some new blood to come in. Who knows? A person could end up going from there straight to Parliament. It does happen. Those sorts of things occur and that cannot always be a bad thing. So I hope we might look at reviewing the legislation after a few more local body elections and seeing whether it is wise to allow dual candidacy. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Clause 26 in Part 3 deals with the issue of fair representation for wards. That was a change made by the Government in the year 2001 which put quite rigid population criteria on the allocation of wards. I on behalf of the people of Waimate and the people of the Kapiti Coast want to point out to the Government the errors it has made with that provision. When the communities of New Zealand and particularly of its rural areas developed they did not develop in a nice neat systematic way with the sorts of grid boundaries that would suit our statisticians. The communities built up and now there are areas that are quite severely disadvantaged by what this Labour Government put into law. The Government rather than having communities of interest as the primary driver of ward boundaries for councils introduced a rigid population criterion. Now that might work in a Hamilton a Christchurch or an Auckland where a line can be drawn along particular street boundaries to ensure that each ward has a population approximately the same. But out in rural New Zealand where we have isolated communities that provision has undermined communities quite badly. 
I want particularly to refer to a community in my own area. Everybody knows the isolated community of Golden Bay. It currently has two councillors. It is a community that is very clearly defined by the large Takaka Hill that separates if off from the rest of the Tasman district. Previously its community has been able to have two councillors. There is also the community of Murchison which is to the south of Nelson. It too was able under the old law to have its own separate ward. But because of what the Government did in that 2001 Act—completely ignoring the views of rural New Zealand and putting a rigid population criterion into law—those communities are disenfranchised from having councillors who can truly represent those sorts of areas. 
I would like to know from Government members whether they are going to revisit and change that. We had submissions at the Local Government and Environment Committee that the law was not working. I actually think there was a pretty strong consensus on the committee that the law was not working. It is true that it is too late to affect the local body elections to be held in October this year because boundaries have already been formed. So if people are to be disenfranchised in communities like that of Waimate and those on the Kapiti Coast we at least seek some commitment from the Government that this issue will be fixed for the 2007 local body elections. 
I give notice right now that National will fix it. It is not fair; it is not working; communities of interest are more important than statistical lines that may be imposed on maps. I was disappointed earlier to hear a Government member vigorously defending the changes and I wonder whether that member has visited any of those rural communities that are adversely affected by this legislation. So I request members opposite to visit Waimate and the Kapiti Coast and to visit areas like rural Nelson and rural Bay of Plenty and to talk to some of the councillors who represent those communities. Those members should talk to some of the people who are affected and they would realise they have got it wrong. Clause 26 of this part does not fix the problem and it does need to be revisited. 
We have the extraordinary situation where the Government has given the power to the Local Government Commission in Wellington simply to write ward boundaries without any connection to communities and National says that that is wrong. National wants that provision fixed and we hope that someone on the Government benches will take a reasoned approach to the issue so that before the 2007 local body elections we do not have a whole lot more small communities being disenfranchised from their effective ward representations around council tables. I ask again whether some Minister or some member of the Government is prepared to give a commitment to this Committee that that provision will be fixed because for every moment it is not we see isolated communities disenfranchised from fair representation. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4 Local Government Act 2002 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 When the Government passed the Local Government Act of 2002 it created a bureaucratic nightmare for our home communities in terms of defining what a council organisation and a council-controlled organisation are and introduced a whole set of performance criteria and special consultative procedures which those organisations are required to do. What members are being asked to do now with these 20 clauses is patch up the mess for those organisations and make some additional amendments. Members on this side of the Chamber would simply say that the amendments do not resolve the problem because the problem is the very core of the legislation that was passed by that Minister in December 2002. 
What is particularly ironic in this part is that members will effectively make a special exemption for Northport. We do not have any bugbear with Northport nor with the fact that it will not be tied up in the bureaucratic provisions in those 20 clauses but we would ask the Minister how many other examples will come out of the woodwork where his Act will be unworkable and where the Act that was put through Parliament under urgency—as it is in urgency now—in December 2002 gets itself in trouble. 
The costs associated with all those extra bureaucratic requirements fall on ratepayers. Over the last 3 years there have been rate increases well above the rate of inflation. This Government is passing bureaucratic requirements down from central to local government without the funding and ratepayers get that bill in their rate demands. There is very little in those 20 clauses that will make any difference to the increasing costs that Labour and Chris Carter are imposing on ratepayers out there in our 84 district and regional councils. 
I also want to put to the Minister the increasing concern of local authorities about the costs of Audit New Zealand associated with those long-term council community plans. Now only a Minister such as Chris Carter could come up with a phrase as wonky as “long-term community plans”. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: No council community plans. You must get it right. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Oh I must get it right—long-term community council plans. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Council community plans. You still haven’t got it right. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well it says something about the bureaucracy this Minister is imposing on the councils of New Zealand that the planning industry is booming out there as it develops those long-term council community plans and their district plans and their regional plans. There is an excessive amount of planning requirements on councils that is adding hugely to the rates bills that citizens out there have to pay. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Not true! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister says: “Not true.” Well looking at the information that is provided by Statistics New Zealand since this Minister has been in the chair rate increases have been three times the rate of inflation. Why is that? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: The member’s made it up. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well actually Statistics New Zealand for which this Government is responsible has been the provider of those rates figures which are well above the rate of inflation for every year that he has been Minister and he does not give a hoot. At none of the meetings that he participated in has he ever expressed any concern for those average citizens on fixed incomes facing another round of record rate increases. The responsibility for those rate increases falls right back on this Minister who continues to pass legislation that puts an extra bureaucratic burden on the councils of New Zealand which is then passed on to ratepayers. The special consultative procedures long-term council community plans etc. are just part of that bureaucracy. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 4 I am very pleased to see that provision was made for Northport the company that the Hon Dover Samuels had a substantial part in creating and developing in his early years before he came to this Parliament. It is a progressive and inter-regional company as it now has a joint working arrangement with the Port of Tauranga. By the way this was something that the Local Government and Environment Committee ought not have had to amend as that very issue was brought to the mind of the select committee at the time of the first bill. Nevertheless time passes and the improvement is there. 
The other issue that I want to speak about is that because of some of its parts New Zealand First did not support the 2002 bill. The issue I particularly want to mention right now is the one just covered by the Hon Dr Nick Smith—the number of plans and processes that that bill required. One does not need to go to Statistics New Zealand; if one did a search of local papers now as councils are setting rates one would see the thousands and thousands of dollars—hundreds of thousands of dollars in the case of some councils—that ratepayers are paying for an imposed Wellington process layer by layer. That is only the beginning because there is provision in that 2002 Act for the process to be redeveloped at least twice before 2007. I do not think those issues were fully understood by all when bravely they set out this whole process. 
New Zealand First is a party that believes in the democratic process but this planning issue which had been gone through council by council will be the most costly impost that any Government has imposed upon local government in our time. I do not think that is reasonable. Even recent Acts such as the activities that now have to be covered under the Prostitution Reform Act would not have covered even a tenth of the cost of ratepayers’ involvement in this process. At the end of it all that process has only marginally I believe improved ratepayers’ knowledge of what happens in their councils day-to-day. So with those words the select committee’s change allowing Northport an understanding that was not there before is finally recognised. 
The cost of the long-term planning and other plans that were a part of the work of the 2002 Act needs to be analysed and measured. Certainly I know that as some councillors set the rates for 2005-06 and go back to the costs further incurred in this next financial year they will be surprised at how much this imposed solution to democracy locally has had upon them. To that degree though we support this part. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I just have a couple of comments with regard to the long-term council community plan and the comments made by the member speaking before me. I just hope that when that analysis of costs is done it takes a bit of a long view because I think there will be some initial costs for councils. However I believe that the real savings of having done a long-term council community plan will be realised as we go through that 10-year period. 
One of the things that costs councils a lot of money is the change of direction that occurs every 3 years when newly elected members come in with their new ideas and projects and old projects are ditched after a lot of work has been done on them. I think the concept of a long-term council community plan is to try to smooth that process out and allow the community to have some certainty about where it is going. 
I will make a few comments about the restoration of the casting vote which I touched on in my second reading speech. It is welcome news that the Minister and the Government have agreed to restore the status quo for councils. After the end of the committee’s deliberations United Future was really not prepared to accept the limited restoration of the casting vote and we were working to develop a Supplementary Order Paper to at least expand it to include new bylaws. It is important that after going through the process of a draft bylaw and consultation with the community councils do not end up in a situation whereby a tied vote means that nothing happens and there is no status quo to fall back on. All that effort would be wasted if there were no opportunity for the mayor or chair to put in a casting vote. 
One of the reasons for the opposition to councils having a casting vote is of course that here in the Chamber we do not have a casting vote. It is often said that there should be equity between the two forms of government but there are clearly differences between local government and central government. I remember that when I was first elected to local government in 2001 I had a concept that the real evil down here in Parliament was party politics and that we really ought to have 120 independent elected MPs who would make up their minds not on the basis of party policy but on the merits of each case. Given a local council with 14 independently minded councillors it did not take me very long to realise that such a system would be a nightmare down here. We would go round and round in circles as some councils tend to do when there is no willingness to get together and form a consensus on various council directions. So some things are different. 
The Government never introduces legislation into this Chamber unless it is fairly sure it has a majority so it is never left in a situation where it would need to rely on a casting vote—except when we have conscience votes and then a casting vote exercised by the Speaker would be unfair because every member has an equal right to vote. That is the only time we get anywhere near to what councils go through every time councillors have to vote on issues. It is important that councils can make decisions and move forward the plans they have made for the community. If a vote is tied at council level it is defeated and then the council has to go through a process before the vote can be brought back. One cannot just nip out to the back room have a little discussion and bring it straight back on to the agenda. 
We are very wise to restore the status quo on that issue and I commend the Minister and the Government for listening to the heavy lobbying from Local Government New Zealand. I do not think there is anything wrong with the fact that that organisation has lobbied hard because it passionately believes in what it is trying to achieve on behalf of councils. I will be pleased to vote for the amendments the Minister is putting forward in his Supplementary Order Paper. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I thank Mr Baldock from United Future for his comments which are very helpful and informative. It is astonishing how the whole story of the casting vote and the issues around it have been recast in the Chamber not least of all by the member for Nelson Dr Nick Smith. Members may recall that when the Local Government Bill was passed in this House—under urgency as bills often are—the issue of the casting vote was contained within it. I had been very interested in the issue because that was legislation I had inherited after being appointed not long before that to the position of Minister of Local Government. There were two issues in the bill that had been quite contentious with Local Government New Zealand: the casting vote and non-resident franchise. In my travelling around and meeting with mayors and councils I said that I was quite relaxed on both issues but that the bill was before the Local Government and Environment Committee and I would go with the decision of the select committee. The select committee in its wisdom restored non-resident franchise and that was fine but unanimously—from the ACT party to the Green Party—every party in this House voted not to have a casting vote for local government. I accepted that as the decision—not by a majority but unanimously—of every party in this House. 
Now when local government looked at the issue after the passage of the bill its representatives felt for some of the very good reasons Mr Baldock and others have explained that it would make their job harder to do. We listened. I said to them that they would have an opportunity to raise that in the tidy-up legislation because in any legislation that is the size of the Local Government Act there is some fixing up to do. It is a massive Act and no one ever gets it 100 percent right down to the last comma. So I said we would fix up those little bits. Some of them were a bit bigger than others but there were some bits to fix up. I said that local government had the chance to relitigate the position of the casting vote that I was prepared to listen again and that it should make its case. Local government representatives made their case we have listened to them we have fixed the legislation up and I hope they will be happy. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 Unfortunately I did not sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee. I suppose that might be something of a blessing; I am not too sure about that. As I listen to the debate I am somewhat stunned at some of the phraseology in Part 4 such as clause 44B “Use of special consultative procedure in relation to annual plan” and clause 45 “Long-term council community plan”. It is almost as though the Government believes that if one has a plan that automatically means one will be successful. There is nothing in here that I can see about benchmarking the success of the plans. Plans last for 10 years or thereabouts. Where in the bill does it state that councils will stop at some stage and assess whether the plans are working? 
I am absolutely stunned at the level of bureaucracy that this Government is imposing on communities. Whether they be in Auckland or Coal Creek it does not really matter. The level of control is literally out of control. I had occasion to speak with a Russian doctor recently at my home. He came enjoyed a wonderful meal and said he was stunned on coming back to New Zealand after being educated in Australia at the level of control that has been applied and the difficulties that people—and indeed including himself in the medical profession—were now facing following that gap of 5 or so years. It is all because Governments tend to believe that if they plan people’s lives for them things will be great. Let me ask the Minister in the chair Chris Carter whether anyone planned the city of Paris or the city of London. Was there a planning department that wrote down how people were going to develop Prague? Some of the great cities in the world did not have planners I say to the Minister. 
Hon Member 
: Yes they did! 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Not to the same extent as we do now. They probably had someone who said where to site developments but they did not control and restrict matters to the same degree as we do today. What do we have in Auckland? We have planners but we do not have anything that actually works. We have gridlocking. We have a thing about getting a plan and putting it in place at a cost to the taxpayer and the ratepayer of millions of dollars. Then when a plan is in place we get the Department of Conservation in to appeal the plan. It does that on a constant basis and that has cost this country about half a billion dollars. And then all of a sudden once we write the plan off we say everything is going to be sweet. 
That is just not the case. It is a nonsense and people around the country are waking up to the fact that we cannot have the layers of government in this country planning people’s lives. It is a nonsense and sooner or later it will have to stop. We just cannot afford the level of “planning” that goes on in this country. It is to me something of an abomination to see in Part 4 that we are seeking to impose the will of a handful of people on the constituents who pay their wages. It seems to me that the Government should never forget who actually pays the piper. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I have to respond to the attempt of the Minister in the chair the Hon Chris Carter to rewrite history around the issue of the casting vote. In my 14 years in this Parliament I have seen few occasions when a Minister has so much wanted to distance himself from his own legislation. How often is it that we hear a Minister saying: “Oh it wasn’t my fault—it was the select committee. My name is on the front of the bill but it is the select committee’s fault that the casting vote was removed in that legislation back in 2002.” I say to the Minister that it does not wash. He must take responsibility. He has flip-flopped so many times on this issue that his credibility is really starting to be in question. Is it not interesting how a Government starts to listen when it gets trouble in the polls? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is true! For 5 years the Government has said there is no problem with the Resource Management Act that it is beautifully written and beautifully crafted and the Government is not going to make any change. The first poll that came out showing Labour was behind and—oops—we are in for a Resource Management Act review. When it came to school closures the Minister of Education was absolutely stuck on track and was closing schools all around the country but after one bad poll he did a U-turn. So it is with this Minister the Hon Chris Carter. The Minister has steadfastly defended the issue relating to the casting vote as we note from the original bill. If the Minister was so open-minded such a “listening caring loving” Minister if he was— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Ask Local Government New Zealand. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I do and I have to say they are somewhat critical of the Minister’s capacity to be able to weasel and worm his way out of anything. If the Minister truly believed that a casting vote was fair and proper why did he not introduce it in the original bill? 
Hon Chris Carter 
: I said let the select committee decide on the evidence. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister is so lacking in leadership. Most Ministers would give their initial thoughts to a select committee when introducing a bill. Not this Minister. The Minister’s initial thought was that there should be no casting vote—or I assume it was. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Why is he getting a Minister’s salary? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That is a very good question. Here is a man who collects his ministerial salary gets a ministerial car and gets all the ministerial perks for his partner—spending a fortune—but when it comes to House matters he says: “Oh it is not my responsibility. It is nothing to do with me. The bill might be in my name but it is just not me.” I say to the Minister that it does not wash. He has done a flip-flop. He has made a U-turn. We are actually pretty comfortable in relation to what National has consistently said on this issue— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: No you voted for— 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member says “You”. I did not think that was within the Standing Orders. I was not on the select committee and what is more if the Minister goes back and checks the record and looks at the bill it is actually unclear whether there is a casting vote. That is what the commentary to the Minister’s bill states. Is the commentary incorrect? The Minister does not want to talk about the commentary’s statement that there is a mess in the Local Government Act 2002 which was in his name that does not make it plain whether a casting vote is possible. National’s view has been quite consistent which is that— 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member might want to explain his own position— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: That is an oxymoron please! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The incompetent member for Taupo interjects. The Government passed legislation getting rid of the casting vote in 2002. Mark Burton voted to get rid of the casting vote in 2002. When this bill was introduced last year he voted to reinforce getting rid of the casting vote. The Government has now done a flip-flop and decided that the casting vote is quite appropriate. Well National’s view is quite straightforward. We say that councils should decide. For all the rhetoric that we get from Government members about trusting local authorities—they want to prescribe them to death—we simply say: “Let the council decide what is best working within its own standing orders just as this Parliament determines its own Standing Orders.” We are continuously amazed at the degree to which this Government will do backward flips when the heat comes on. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
Part 4A Local Government Act 1974 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I must use this opportunity in debating Part 4A which deals with a whole lot of minor amendments in relation to council infrastructure issues to point out what a growing crisis we have and what an inadequate response we have in this bill to the issue of public infrastructure. There are infrastructure issues whether one lives in the city of Auckland with its huge traffic worries that become worse with every year of this Labour Government or whether one lives in my own community of Nelson where there is a daily risk between 5 and 7 o’clock each night that the lights will go out because of inadequate infrastructure. 
There are some challenges out there in respect of the infrastructure required for drainage and waterworks systems and we would expect to see some decent legislation from the Minister of Local Government to address those issues. Rather we are seeing the humbug in Part 4A which makes some very minor and insignificant changes. The Minister is failing as this Government is to provide the sort of legislation that would allow the issues to be dealt with. 
I also point out the concern raised at the select committee by the Marlborough District Council in respect of the funding of infrastructure. I would like to know from the Minister whether the Government will support amendments that will allow lump-sum payment for infrastructure as had long been provided before his Local Government Act 2002 effectively abolished it. It meant that if there was to be a new waterworks scheme or some other new infrastructure in a community a ratepayer had the choice of being able to write out a lump-sum cheque. Let us say it was a waterworks scheme and ratepayers could pay $3000 rather than having an extra $200 a year on their rates for 25 years with the council taking out a loan. To me it has been a good mechanism in our local government system that residents have had the option of making a lump-sum payment as an alternative to having to meet an annual extra increase in their rates for that sort of infrastructure. 
I am not sure whether it was intentional that the Local Government Act 2002 abolished those lump-sum payments but it was not sensible. It is certainly something that National members would like to see retained. I particularly pay tribute to Lynda Scott who as the member for Kaikoura raised this issue with me on behalf of her good people of Marlborough. They would like to have the option with this sort of infrastructure to be able to make a lump-sum payment to deal with those sorts of costs. 
My question for the Minister is whether the Government will entertain an amendment to address that concern from the people of Marlborough; and if not why not? Can he also clarify whether they are correct and whether under the 2002 Act the ability to make those lump-sum payments was a deliberate or an inadvertent change to prevent local authorities from being able to fund their infrastructure in that way. It may sound like a small point but it is an important one. Certainly National comes from the point of view that councils need that flexibility. It would seem entirely inconsistent with the Government’s rhetoric about the power of general competence to take away from councils the capacity to be able to charge lump sums for that sort of infrastructure. 
I would be very interested in a response from the Minister to the point raised by the Marlborough District Council. 
Part 4A agreed to. 
Part 5 Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jim Peters to clause 59 be agreed to: 
to omit the words after “Section” and substitute the words “46A(7A) of the principal Act is repealed.”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to and Part 5 agreed to. 
Part 6 Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The debate is on Part 6 clauses 61 to 67 including debate on schedule 1. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This part deals with the issue of rating information. Again it highlights the problems with legislation that the Government passed in 2002. It has been a long-established custom and practice that when one goes to one’s local council office one can see a list of properties their ratings and the listed owners of each of those properties. That has been really important public information. For instance if I want to know who my neighbours are so that I can sort out a fencing problem then I need to know their address because there may be an issue about sharing the cost of that fence. Or I might want to put a drain through the adjoining property and I need to know who the owner is. It may be that I need to contact my neighbour in respect of changes I might be proposing to make under the Resource Management Act to the use of my own property. There are many quite legitimate reasons why people would want to know the names of the owners of particular properties. 
In 2002 the Government either deliberately or accidentally removed the capacity for the public to have access to that information. I have to say that it has been something of an over-reaction to issues of privacy whereby a whole lot of custom and practice that has worked very well for New Zealanders has resulted in all of this secrecy around information as basic as people’s ownership of land. The bill as drafted is intended to address that and National is supportive of the provisions as they have been rewritten by the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
I have to say that National has saved the ratepayer a fortune by defeating and changing some of the politically correct and bureaucratic proposals that came from the Government in dealing with that issue. There was going to be an opt-in system whereby every damn ratepayer had to get a letter from the council seeking permission as to whether their land would be allowed on a database. National thought that was foolish. We thought the presumption should be in favour of disclosure and of people knowing that. 
We think that a very low-level mechanism by which people can remove themselves from the list of ratepayers is the sort of approach we would favour and we think that the select committee has done a far better job than the Government to provide the proper balance between pragmatic provisions that allow the public to have access to information that is required for them to get on with life. Whereas if for reasons of domestic violence or for some other quite narrow reason people want their names removed they can do so. A person can register his or her property in the name of a trust company or some other identity so I am doubtful that we need to go even as far as this legislation goes but it is certainly a big step forward from what we have currently in terms of being able to provide this information to the public at large. 
So National would argue that this information should be available. It will be a huge relief to real estate agents and the general public to again be able to go to their council office and see the registered list of landowners in their particular area and to do so without great expense. I think that is appropriate and that is why National is supporting Part 6. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to raise the matter in Part 6 that I mentioned in the second reading debate—namely that on the Table lies my amendment regarding new clause 63AA which covers lump-sum contributions. Again I apologise to the Local Government and Environment Committee for not being there at the time that matter was raised because the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill was also being debated at the same time or rather was being looked at in another area of the House. 
The issue is one that is well known to rural councils. Although the submission came from the Marlborough District Council a number of rural councils all of a like mind gave support to it. I want to quickly run through them: the Far North District Council Nelson City Council Kaikoura District Council Whangarei District Council Grey District Council Thames-Coromandel District Council Kawerau District Council Tasman District Council Selwyn District Council and Central Hawke’s Bay District Council all supported this change. Because I was not present during the committee discussions I know no reason why this well-supported submission was not given further understanding as it ought to have been. 
The Rating Powers Act of 1988 contained a very prescriptive regime that allowed for lump-sum contributions that the council could offer in two ways—namely for a particular works situation or towards the capital cost of those works. The other way was to refinance an existing loan. However the Act of 1988 was largely repealed in 2002 and in the repeal of the Act although the specific issues of flexibility and lump-sum contributions were part of the select committee discussions the actual end result was the inability to work through lump sums. 
I have a very simple not very complex amendment for members to look at that meets the need of a number of councils and that historically has been a method that rural councils in particular have used to allow lump-sum contributions. The system is calculated to be equitable and is fair on those who pay a lump sum up front and on those who pay charge by charge. Again because I was not at the select committee I am at some pains to understand why this very sensible amendment was not given further thought. I commend this amendment to the Committee. New Zealand First supports this amendment. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 227 in the name of Jim Peters to insert new clause 63AA be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to Part 6 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 6 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1AA agreed to.  
Schedule 1 agreed to.  
Schedule 1A agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 Commencement   
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 232 in the name of the Hon Chris Carter to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Chatham Islands Council Amendment Bill (No 2) the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill the Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Bill the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 234 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Readings 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the third reading I want to advise members that I will put each bill separately at the end of the debate. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Chatham Islands Council Amendment Bill (No 2) the Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill the Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Bill the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. 
The purpose of the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3) was to further ensure that the legislative framework in which local government operates is as comprehensive and clear as possible. These bills achieve the same. Collectively they will provide more certainty for councils as they administer and work within the existing legislation. They will also provide communities with greater certainty in their dealings with their local authority. 
These bills are part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to bringing New Zealand’s local government legislation into the 21st century. They address some minor largely technical issues that have arisen in the larger legislative changes of recent years. The bills and the changes that have been made to them throughout the parliamentary process are further evidence of the cooperation between local and central government that has taken place for the last 5 years. As Minister of Local Government I am confident that this cooperation and sense of partnership will remain strong and continue to serve us in our communities into the future. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 The National Party outlined earlier that it would support the passage of this bill but we tempered that with concerns about why we are here at all. Members will recall that we outlined the fact that the Local Government Act 2002 was rushed through this House in that particular year. Lots of mistakes were made and we are here sweeping up that mess now and that is unfortunate. Amendments were also made to the Dog Control Act by this Government. We are here now of course to tidy up the mess made there and it is of concern to us. Although we are disappointed we are more than willing to fix those particular problems. 
It is of interest to us in particular to see the Chatham Islands representatives take up the role of having the delegated authorities associated with regional councils. They will be involved in environmental management coastal management coastal plans and all the types of things that would normally go to regional councils and were previously under the auspices of another regional council. They can now dictate their own terms and that is a good thing. Already the Chatham Islands District Council carries out territorial authority responsibilities. 
We are a little concerned about the small ratepayer base on the Chatham Islands. There are only 700 people there most of them kids and we are concerned that they will be subject to extra costs. I do not know whether the Chatham Islands will be able to deal with that without some sort of Government assistance. I hope that this Government will smile upon the Chatham Islands having presented them with greater ability to govern their own affairs but also with more bureaucracy. That has to be supported either out of the rate base or out of some generous gift from a Government that is keen to throw lollies about. I am pleased to hear that $2.5 million will be going towards a sewage scheme there. We hope the Government will support the Chatham Islands practically as well as legislatively in this legislation. 
There are also other issues of concern to us and we outlined those. One was the fact that the Labour Government had taken away the right of candidates in provincial and rural New Zealand to stand for both council and the mayoralty. Unfortunately the pool of good candidates in New Zealand is small. Those people could stand only for mayoralty or council and were concerned that if they ran for the mayoralty and did not get in under the Government’s laws they would not have a place on the council. 
National has changed that. We are delighted to be able to go to rural and provincial New Zealand and say: “Look if you’re good and the people back you and you’re credible and able and if you win on election day you might be the mayor. But if you miss out you can still be a councillor because we recognise that you’ve got something to contribute. You’ve got the skills.” National does want good people on local government. We do not necessarily want hand-picked people from the Labour Government who will promote all sorts of liberal agendas. We want the people to be able to choose who is their mayor who are their councillors and give those people the opportunity to both stand and win and represent good New Zealanders. 
We have also outlined concerns about ward boundaries and the plus or minus 10 percent variation to the population base in governing how many councillors there can be and what wards they represent. We were concerned that satellite towns in rural and provincial New Zealand would simply be cut in half by ward boundaries and that there would be no representation for communities and interests particularly in those satellite towns. We think that issue should have been addressed by this legislation and we are disappointed that the Government has not fronted on that. 
We are pleased that the casting vote for mayors has been returned to them. We know that mayors shoulder some responsibility certainly in the public’s perception. They do not often have to throw those authorities around but when it comes to a split vote we see no reason why an elected representative of the whole district who has a mandate from the people cannot make a decision based on the facts and his or her knowledge of the town. So we are pleased to see the casting vote returned to mayors—not just when it comes to providing a vote or an outcome so that statutory duties can be met but also over a wider range of council issues. 
Lastly I would like to mention once again that National certainly opposes the Government’s idea of putting a microchip into every puppydog in this country regardless of the breed of the dog regardless of the dog’s history of behaviour and regardless of who is the owner of the dog. We find it absurd that many families in New Zealand—young families with kids who want pets older families where elderly people want companionship from a well-behaved animal— should in some way have to face compliance costs and the hassle of microchipping their dogs. 
If we need to microchip dangerous dogs so be it. We need to microchip dogs that belong to irresponsible gang members which this Government seems to be too afraid to confront. So be it but the National Party cannot see why every dog owner in this country—rural provincial or in the city areas—should have to have his or her little puppy microchipped. It is absolutely absurd. It will create all sorts of compliance costs—an industry of its own. With the rest of New Zealand we just shake our heads in disgust at that. However we have put our minority view forward and it can be seen in the commentary on the bill. 
Clearly Mr Speaker you will have listened to all the speeches—certainly to mine—with some intent. We appreciate that. We have fought the good fight and we have made some very positive changes. There is no doubt that we would have gone further but we commend this bill and we will support its passing. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 The remarks of the last speaker reminded me of the Waitaki River catchment legislation. When that bill came to the House and was passed virtually every member of the Local Government and Environment Committee took personal praise for the outstanding parts of the bill. But when Project Aqua was abandoned there was a quick change of mind. It is rather strange that one member claims that the National Party was responsible for that when any sane and sound approach would have come up with the same result. 
I refer first of all to the amendments to the Chatham Islands Council Act. I do not see that as a lolly by the way to the Chatham Islands. Over the years the Chatham Islands have had their natural wealth denuded and taken away year by year with millions of dollars of catches being sent to mainland New Zealand. The fact that the present Government has finally recognised that $2.5 million is needed—in order to put the Chatham Islands Council into the unitary authority regime and enable it to do things there—is only a just recognition of the wealth of those islands which was shared not by their residents but mostly by mainlanders over decade after decade. I think it is highly appropriate that that has been recognised—not as a lolly as was said by the last speaker but as a fair contribution to that council in endeavouring to bring itself up to the requirements of the Resource Management Act with regard to regional planning district planning in its district and particularly with regard to the coastline—the purity of waters and the enhancement of the natural environment. 
Secondly with regard to the Dog Control Act interesting comments have been made about microchipping. The comments about these minor amendments to the Act do not illustrate the fact that the Act has worked. I understand that today the Timaru District Council is rethinking its whole stance. In past years about 600 dogs were known to have remained unregistered as at 1 August. Last year that number dropped to 120. It then dropped to probably about 40. That is quite a remarkable achievement for a small district and it shows how the Act and the large infringement fees have worked. I could go through what has occurred at Auckland City Council and other councils as well. In other words the intention of the Act to emphasise far greater regulation and to place far greater onus upon irresponsible dog owners is working and will continue to work. Therefore microchipping is a natural outcome—not this year but in the year set in the Act—starting with puppies. I feel sorry for Mr Heatley’s little boy who is 4. I know of course that all the stories he told us about his son were really as a responsible parent upon his shoulders and affected his pocket. Nevertheless it was an illustration of how things have changed not least in our rural economy. That Act is one that in the country districts is probably more appreciated with regard to what it is doing and will do than in any other part of the country. 
It is just unfortunate that I was a bit distracted in the course of the Committee stage because I want to leave one issue with the House. New Zealand First does not believe that in the amendments to the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act clarity has necessarily been achieved on what was a difficult issue—the issue of the reconfiguration of new business in councils and so on. In passing I say that I am not entirely satisfied that the amendments which were meant to rectify that situation have clarified it. But I will wait and see whether that is so. 
With regard to the amendments to the Local Government (Rating) Act it seems that I may have to bring that matter back in a member’s bill. The council that came to us with a submission and the councils that supported it have come with a righteous cause. The Local Government (Rating) Act of 2002 did change and although it was not intentional the actual ability to do a proper lump-sum scheme is no longer there in the way that those councils believe it is. I will need to get back to those councils in order to check that matter further. I hope to see whether the issue can be revisited in the House by bringing it back in a member’s bill. 
Broadly speaking New Zealand First is satisfied with what is before the House. What we are not satisfied with is that one would have expected the known industry knowledge that the Local Government Act 2002 and the Resource Management Act are not in harmony to be the first subject of any review. That was not promised by the Minister. There are issues there that were not addressed in 2002 that are known in the industry to be still there and that will probably have to be the subject of legislative change or court action in order to resolve them. The time was ripe 2 years after 2002 not to give us a piecemeal reform bill but to come back to the House with something that addressed the problems created by the haste—and it was indecent haste—of the late days of 2002 in passing that Act. The haste was so indecent I remind members that the councils that were most affected had no opportunity to see the finished form the language and the narrative of the legislation at all. That was a mistake then. 
We are again sitting under urgency as has already been mentioned and looking at a considered review of a number of Acts but not at the core fact that the Local Government Act 2002 is not in harmony with the Resource Management Act. Whether that will be a further task of the Minister in charge of the Resource Management Act I do not know. But I do know—and I will say this because it is germane to this issue—that there are issues before councils now particularly as a result of the decision with regard to Genesis Power that are urgent that need to be addressed and that should have been part of the thinking in this supposedly short-term reform. 
 New Zealand First supports the passage of these bills. We hope that they clarify things. We particularly support the casting vote as it was. We believe as a party that it could have been much more than it is. Personally I would have favoured exactly what the Hon Nick Smith stated: that councils should be given the power to themselves adopt under their Standing Orders what is reasonable in current practice. The fact that they were not given that power illustrates to me there are still some obstacles somewhere in the chain of development. Again it was an obvious oversight that someone could not stand for the mayoralty or the chairmanship of a council and also be a member of it. That has now been overcome. 
But I come back to the last matter that was mentioned in the Committee. The fact that there is to be a reform or a review of the Local Government Commission does not take away the disquiet which the Hon Nick Smith has already mentioned that is there in the distant rural areas with regard to their representation. That is becoming even more so as we start to see some of the rates demands for this current year—2004-05—and analyse where some of those rates are being paid from. We find the burden of rates being paid by the rural part of a district is more often than not far higher than that being paid by the urban part of the district—in one council it is 67 percent rural and 33 percent urban. It must alarm people in the rural areas that they have seen the Local Government Commission take away some of their voting strength that the legislation does not recognise a community of interest and most of all that they have placed on them a considerable rates impost. That issue needs to be addressed further and to wait until the 2007 review is really too late. Ratepayers as citizens need to know that they have a democratic right not just to pay the rates but to be heard and right now there is a feeling in some of our districts as has already been mentioned in the House that that has not been so. 
We hope that this catch-up—the wash-up as it were—will do the job in two areas. I believe that we may need to look at amending the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act again and also I believe that the amendments to the Local Government (Rating) Act should come back to the House in a different form. We intend to bring that matter back to the House for a further look. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 This is just a brief call on behalf of United Future on the third reading of this legislation. We do not intend to repeat things that have been said already since they appear in  
Hansard  
in sequence when we handle legislation like this. But I will just mention that it was pleasing during the Committee stage of the bill to vote for the casting vote to be fully restored to councils. 
I want to make a couple of comments regarding the National member Phil Heatley’s concerns about microchipping. He was concerned earlier that he would have to train his son to do all those things with his new puppy. I suggest that in 2 years’ time when microchipping becomes a requirement Mr Heatley’s little boy will probably be an expert on technology and will be training his father. He will be wondering why his father did not support the very sensible approach of inserting microchips in dogs across the country so that we can keep track on them and assist dog control officers in making sure that dogs are registered and appropriately taken care of by their owners. In 2 more years’ time I believe technology will assist in many many areas of society so microchipping is a sensible approach. United Future is willing to support the national database which will be of assistance to councils as well. 
I want to thank the officials for their assistance throughout the process with regard to this legislation and it is now with pleasure that we can commend this legislation to local government. I also commend local government across the country for the very good work it does in administrating many many issues in our local communities. Councils can now give their best attention to those issues because of the amendments we have provided for in this legislation. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to make a few comments in the third reading of this legislation further to the Committee stage and the debate that has gone before. The first is that this legislation is about fixing up mistakes made in rushed legislation in respect of dog control—legislation that was introduced by Chris Carter. We warned against the rushed process and now we are having to make over 20 changes in the amendments to the dog control legislation to try to make it workable. National wishes to state on record its opposition to the compulsory microchipping of all dogs in New Zealand which is reinforced by these amendments. It is our view that the expense to dog owners and to councils of having to put a microchip in every single dog will not be matched by the benefits provided by the extra control that that makes provision for. We also want to put on record our opposition to the prescriptive fines that are provided for in the amendments to the Dog Control Act. It is our view that councils are quite capable of setting the levels of fines. Parliament should go no further than to set the maximum fines and should let the councils themselves work out the fines for particular matters. 
In respect of the local government electoral provisions we want to put on record our concern about the pot-pourri of different electoral systems that will be used in the October local body elections this year. It is our view that voters will be confused by the range of single transferable vote MMP and first-past-the-post elections that are provided for. While we support the change that will allow council candidates to stand for both the mayoralty and council it is not our view that these are optimal local government election provisions and we would want to re-examine that area when we are next in Government. 
We note that in respect of the local government rating records we are again fixing an error in the 2002 rating legislation which prohibited councils from being able to make rating and ownership information about properties available to the public. We support the more common-sense approach that is provided for in this legislation to fix up that botch. We express concern only about the 2½ years of confusion that has occurred as a consequence of the Government blocking access by its bungled legislation to that information since 2002. So yes this legislation— 
Jill Pettis 
: Keep talking! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Does the member want me to keep talking so she can get the Government’s speakers organised? Such is the Government’s legislative programme and its mess. The Government is in disarray as illustrated—[ 
Interruption 
] The Minister notes that this legislation does not provide for any of the innovative policy that is required in local government. 
We support this legislation but express concern that rushed legislation has resulted in all these amendments having to be considered. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to advise members that I will put each bill separately. 
Chatham Islands Council Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time. 
Dog Control Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time. 
Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time. 
Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill read a third time. 
Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Bill read a third time. 
Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time. 
Local Government (Rating) Amendment Bill (No 2) read a third time. 
Sitting suspended from 5.27 to 7.00 
Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill was introduced in November 2003 to meet two objectives: firstly the establishment of an active management regime aimed at managing the long-term risks posed by child sex offenders and secondly to make minor amendments to the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act to bring the operation of those aspects of the Acts in line with the policy intentions. The active management regime creates a new legislative regime that will allow extended supervision orders to be imposed on child sex offenders who are assessed as likely to sexually victimise children once their sentence is finished.  
Although the United Kingdom and Canada have regimes that enable child sex offenders to be actively managed New Zealand authorities do not yet have such a regime. This bill enables offenders to be monitored for up to 10 years. How long the order is granted will be a decision for the court taking into account the need to protect the community in light of the offender's risk and the likely seriousness and duration of any risk. The Justice and Electoral Committee has recommended that the Department of Corrections may apply for an extension to the duration of the extended supervision in situations where the offender has breached the conditions of the order within the last 12 months. The maximum period of the order will remain at 10 years. However officials will continue to monitor international regimes and determine whether at some future time there may be a need to consider extending the maximum order permissible under the regime beyond 10 years. 
The select committee has also recommended that an order can be extended where the offender consents to the Department of Corrections making an application for extension for up to the 10-year maximum on the offender's behalf. Some offenders may wish to have the ongoing support that an order provides. The extended supervision regime will be limited in its application. It will apply only to eligible offenders subject to a finite sentence of imprisonment for a relevant offence. The bill as introduced was limited to actual sex offending against children but the select committee has extended it so that those convicted of an imprisonable child pornography offence under the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act will also be eligible for extended supervision orders. This amendment reiterates the abhorrence with which the Government and society regard the production distribution and possession of child pornography. The regime will apply only to eligible offenders who are assessed by the Department of Corrections as posing a high or medium-high risk of offending sexually against children. 
Where a court order is sought and made accepting that assessment the Parole Board will set conditions for supervision and monitoring of the offender. These conditions may include electronic monitoring to deter the offender from breaching any special conditions relating to whereabouts—for example a condition that a person not approach a school. 
The select committee has examined the appropriate safeguards that should govern the use of electronic monitoring and has recommended some amendments. These safeguards include firstly providing an explicit statement that the purpose of electronic monitoring is to deter offenders from breaching the conditions relating to their whereabouts and to monitor compliance; secondly limiting what information derived from electronic monitoring may be used. The information may be used to verify compliance or to detect non-compliance with conditions and to provide evidence of non-compliance with conditions and the commission of offences. The Department of Corrections will be required to include information on the use of electronic monitoring in its annual report. 
I intend to move the adoption of a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage to introduce an amendment to the bill authorising information sharing between specified public sector agencies. This amendment is needed essentially to put beyond doubt that agencies may share information relating to a child sex offender for the purposes of monitoring the offender and reducing the risk of reoffending and that doing so will not be contrary to the Privacy Act. 
Issues related to this amendment were considered by the select committee and such an amendment was thought desirable. However the committee could not recommend the amendment because it was considered to be beyond the scope of the bill. A second Supplementary Order Paper will clarify some of the mechanical procedures around enforcement of orders and also remove the statutory limitation on the use of electronic monitoring for those on parole. The effect of that limitation as reported might be viewed as being more restrictive than had been intended. It is therefore preferable in the Government's view to remove it. 
Part 2 contains a number of amendments to the Sentencing Act and Parole Act to deal with minor matters. The amendments are either of a technical nature to fix up drafting errors or to bring the operation of particular provisions of the Act more closely into line with the Government's original policy intent. They include amendments to the provisions relating to home detention deferral of sentences and minimum terms of imprisonment. The committee's consideration of Part 2 did not result in many changes to the bill but the changes that have been recommended have further improved the drafting of some clauses. 
The committee has also taken the opportunity to address other minor matters that came to light after the introduction of the bill and made some necessary consequential amendments to the various prescribed forms. The Government has been concerned that deferred sentence start-dates were being granted too often in circumstances that did not meet the original policy expectation of being truly “out of the ordinary”. There was also concern that the bail conditions should be imposed where deferral was given to ensure that some degree of control was retained over the offender between sentencing and the commencement of the sentence. The select committee gave careful consideration to the change of the test for deferring the start-date of prison sentences from “special reasons” to “exceptional circumstances”. The commentary on the bill sets out examples that illustrate the policy intention underlying the deferral provision in cases where an offender’s employment may be lost. 
Changes are also being made to the granting of leave to apply for front-end home detention. The Government has been concerned about the number of cases being granted leave to apply for home detention and subsequently being declined home detention by the Parole Board because the offender was clearly unsuitable. That raised the question about whether an appropriate degree of discretion was being exercised at that first hurdle. The amendments to which no changes were recommended clarify and emphasise that the court has the primary role of determining whether wider sentencing considerations make home detention inappropriate. 
I thank the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee for their work on this bill. The committee addressed significant issues and had a positive influence on the shape of the bill as reported back. The Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill will provide a means for the supervision of high-risk child sex offenders in the community beyond the term that is currently possible. Children are amongst the most vulnerable in our society and the predatory and habitual nature of offending against them justifies the establishment of a special regime to help protect them. I look forward to the passage of this bill. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 Would it not be great if we introduced a rule against the reading of speeches. The previous speaker read the speech well but in the reading of speeches I think we lose so much of what is an essential aspect of this House—that is unscripted comment on the merits or otherwise of particular pieces of legislation. 
National supports the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill but it is important to say right from the outset that there are big differences in the law and order policies of the major parties. That is most vividly demonstrated by the change that Labour has made to the parole legislation. Members of the House will be aware that the position under this Government is that a person who is charged and convicted of rape and sentenced to a period of 9 years will be eligible for parole within a period of 3 years. And that surely cannot be right. It is fair to say that National judges Labour to be soft on law and order changes. 
 The piecemeal law changes of the current Minister of Justice have no strategic context or setting. They are reactive ad hoc measures and this is one of them. That is not to say that this is a bad measure but the Government is ignoring significant issues in the parole area and needs to proceed on the basis of a comprehensive and careful look at the laws relating to parole. I do not doubt that other speakers from my side of the House will take this issue further. 
National supports the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill subject to qualifications that I and those National Party speakers who follow me will identify. What we are talking about here is the introduction of a new extended supervision regime that will actively manage the high-risk child sex offender. The concept behind the bill is that those child sex offenders who come within the bill’s definition of “eligible offender” will be assessed by the Department of Corrections to establish whether they are high-risk individuals and should be subject to an extended supervision order. 
What is really proposed is two separate management regimes. The first one is a standard management regime for medium-high and high-risk offenders similar to that used for offenders on parole and the second part of it is an intensive management regime for the highest-risk offenders which may require the use of home detention - like conditions and electronic monitoring. 
I am not sure how it is for other members of the House but I think it is fair to say that many of us were truly shocked by the revelations of Justice Ellis who holds a senior position on the Parole Board when he indicated what one would have to say was an abject lack of knowledge of the way the parole system works. I express the hope that those who follow Justice Ellis in this important position and the other members of the Parole Board get to grips with what is a significant problem in the oversight and supervision of those people who have the privilege—and it is a privilege in the context of early release—of parole. It seems to be the case that the oversight and supervision given by the probation service is minimal and it is fair to say in some cases extremely minimal. The consequence of that of course is that the chance of reoffending is incredibly high. 
The New Zealand Government in what it has done in connection with this bill is not really breaking new ground. It is in fact taking an approach that has been followed by overseas jurisdictions in respect of child sex offenders. It is the reality that the prevalence and the nature of the offending and reoffending against a particularly vulnerable group in society—children—has led other jurisdictions to put in place similar measures. To prove that point I really need only instance what has gone on in Canada and the UK because those countries have created legislation to extend supervision regimes for high-risk offenders including child sex offenders. 
In 1997 for example the Criminal Code of Canada was amended to allow the court to impose a term of up to 10 years of community supervision following a prison sentence of 2 years or more. In the United Kingdom the relevant statute which is the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 allows the court to extend the custodial sentence of eligible offenders by imposing a long-term supervision order of up to 10 years. 
So who are these eligible offenders? One only needs to look through the provisions in the Crimes Act to see that we are talking about a group of offenders who in the worst possible way degrade our children. The relevant offences for an extended supervision order include these sorts of things: indecency with a boy or girl under 12 sexual intercourse and attempted sexual intercourse with a girl under 12 sexual intercourse and indecency with a girl aged 12 to 16 organising and promoting child sex tours and where the victim is under the age of 16 years at the time of the offence there is an extended definition to pick up issues like anal intercourse incest sexual violation and attempt to commit sexual violation. 
There is a critical gap in the present legislation which is the reason National supports this bill in the ability to manage certain child sex offenders in the community. The gap is that there is currently no ability to monitor or supervise in the community those offenders subject to a finite prison term once they are no longer subject to release conditions or eligible for recall from parole. So it was that the Government decided to introduce an extended supervision regime that would enable the management and also the monitoring of child sex offenders in the community beyond the end of their current parole or release conditions. 
I would like to say something about child sex offenders in the short time that remains. First of all child sex offenders are not a homogenous population. There is considerable diversity in this group in socio-economic background education age ethnicity the psychosocial and psychosexual background the sexual interest in children the relationships with victims and general criminality. One of the issues that the Justice and Electoral Committee determined after hearing evidence is that it was possible to identify the types of factors that increased the risk of reoffending among child sex offenders. It is a statement of the obvious that what we are on about here is the aspect of reoffending because—and I am sure this may be developed by later speakers perhaps by myself as well—we are talking about on one view of it a significant infringement of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in this legislation. But I am also saying—and others are also I am sure—that this is one of those cases where it is justifiable to overlook those provisions of that Act because of greater societal interests. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak briefly in this debate as chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee which dealt with this bill. The committee— 
Darren Hughes 
: A very fine committee. 
TIM BARNETT 
: I thank the member. The much admired select committee— 
Richard Worth 
: I’d like to endorse the comments of the junior whip from Labour. It’s a very fine committee and he is a very good chairman. 
TIM BARNETT 
: I stand luxuriating in this but I shall come back to the topic. The committee had the bill for 6 months and in that time I think we did some quite thorough work on it. I wanted to mention five points very quickly. The first is that electronic monitoring is cutting-edge technology. It obviously raises issues about privacy and about the use of information that may be collected in the course of monitoring and therefore it was important to examine and amend the legislation with that in mind. Secondly we had lengthy discussions in the committee about whether what would be applied through electronic monitoring was actually punishment. In my view it certainly is a punishment but I also accept that for some people it is a sentence of liberation if they are high-risk child sex offenders because they will know that with their electronic monitoring the State is monitoring what they are doing and they have a very clear regime to follow. They know that if they step outside that regime they will be breaking the bounds and may end up back in prison. The retrospectivity issue relates to that in the sense that again it is about balancing rights and possibilities in society. 
The third issue I want to put on record is that this legislation provides for only a 10-year regime. Certainly the Justice and Electoral Committee wanted to make it clear that we saw that there would be a need to review its operation after maybe 6 or 7 years to ensure that if after 10 years it was working well it could be extended beyond that which would require an amendment to the legislation. 
Fourthly we were particularly keen to ensure that victims’ rights were enhanced through the legislation. Victim participation in a number of aspects of the regime was added in as detailed in our report on the bill. 
Lastly as the Minister mentioned there is a very exciting pilot scheme in Dunedin that involves all the key agencies in managing sex offenders in the community. The problem raised by that scheme was outside the boundaries of this bill but concerned the exchange of information between those agencies as a Privacy Act issue. The Minister has a Supplementary Order Paper that thanks to the work between the parties and the committee I understand will be accepted even though it is outside the bounds of the bill. On that basis I would like to thank the committee members the committee staff and advisers from the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Corrections for their excellent work on the bill. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 When the Parole Act and the Sentencing Act were passed by this House in May 2002 New Zealand First voted against them as shown in the  
Hansard 
 of 1 May 2002. These bills are amendments to those Acts which we opposed. The opposition to those Acts was from New Zealand National ACT New Zealand New Zealand First and United New Zealand. We believe that those Acts are bad. They are weak on criminality and do not deal with the fundamental issues with regard to the imprisonment of criminals—namely punitive justice at the beginning of a sentence and some rehabilitation at the end. Those were our comments on the sentencing and parole legislation in May 2002. Sections 84(1) and 84(2) of the Parole Act set out a non-parole period that can be one-third of the length of a sentence. That is extraordinarily short and is much shorter than it ever was before. Both Acts are bad and in New Zealand First’s view no amendments can make them better. 
When we come across a painted apple moth it is something bad that we cannot make better so we exterminate it. We get rid of it. On looking at these amendments and at the Acts they relate to we see New Zealand First cannot support these amendments. We will be voting against both bills. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Oppose oppose. 
DAIL JONES 
: We opposed the legislation in May 2002 and we will oppose it now because we are not a party that is soft on law and order unlike the Labour Party which is trying to make it easier for hardened sex criminals to get out of jail. We do not support that. That is what this legislation is about. In our view people who have done a horrendous crime should do all the time and not be let out at one-third or two-thirds of the time. Those people should do the time. Towards the end of the time—after getting some punishment and if there is some evidence of rehabilitation—but only then should one consider parole. 
Although the measures proposed in this legislation are worthwhile they should be commenced while people are in prison and continued mandatorily once they are out of prison. The current legislation contains a retrospective aspect. There is no reason why there should not be a retrospective aspect in terms of people currently in prison—or of course in relation to the prospect of people being in prison in future—and of them having the type of supervision considered in this legislation after they have done their time. It will not be supervision; it will be a degree of control. That is what we want to see. We want to see high-risk sex offenders controlled. 
New Zealand First’s policy is clear. It was set out at the last election and we have not changed from it. At the last election we said that we supported the replacement of the Parole Board by a rehabilitation board with a primary object of minimising recidivism. The board would be required to consider the actual duration of imprisonment and to ensure that a serious violent offender had demonstrated remorse and a positive attitude to rehabilitation before considering any parole. There would be none of the idea that at one-third of someone’s time maybe he or she can get out of prison by going in front of a Parole Board of the likes of the one we have today. The Parole Board chairman Justice Tony Ellis described the board members as risk takers who “live in hope” that the probation service will properly monitor inmates when it releases them. We cannot have that; it is a disgrace. This Minister should have fired the board. There can hardly be a better indication of the board’s derogation from its duty than that and if the Minister does not fire the board he ought to resign. I take up Mr Worth’s comments that we should have people on the board who are willing to deal with these people and who do not take risks. The Parole Act and the Sentencing Act are not there to let people out on parole and to take a risk that the parolees may be all right. That is absolutely ridiculous. 
As I said New Zealand First opposed the two Acts and we will oppose these amendments. We cannot go against the view of the 92 percent of the public who want tougher sentences than those supported by this Government. High-risk child sex offenders should not be given parole but should be subject to supervision once their entire sentence is concluded as this bill to some extent envisages. We do not want a sex offender to be allowed out on supervision undertaken by a probation officer during the term of his or her imprisonment. We know that probation staff do not have the capability to undertake supervision. Supervision should definitely be undertaken only after the term of imprisonment has expired and by way of retrospective legislation—as contemplated by this legislation—if necessary. These amending bills continue the fundamental flaws of the respective Acts: they were soft on law and order and the Labour Government failed to take into account the view of the people of New Zealand. 
New Zealand First’s message to sex offenders is that punishment is vital. Somehow the people who abuse young children—boys and girls—have to learn that a punishment factor will flow from the consequences of their actions once they are caught. Those people are essentially cowards. They have to be cowards to do what they do and the only way to treat a coward is to point out that the penalty will be severe. Some people may want to go much further than that but I suppose that in a civilised society we draw the line somewhere. 
Darren Hughes 
: The member is a softie after all. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is a cutting point I know but we will leave it for another day. 
There is no doubt about New Zealand First’s hard line when it comes to law and order. We are being consistent with what we said before the election of 2002. I ask the other parties who took the same line before the last election to perhaps reconsider their situations and to take the same hard line today—if it is a hard line; I think it is the only line one can take. It is not a hard line but it is a common-sense line. If the high-risk sex offenders envisaged by this legislation—and of course other offenders as well but I am limited to speaking about high-risk sex offenders because that is the tenor of this bill—commit sex offences or other serious offences they have to realise that a New Zealand First Government will be listening to what the Sensible Sentencing Trust has to say and to what 92 percent of New Zealanders have made very clear. 
Home detention is flawed. There has been an example of home detention whereby while on home detention and with the supervising officer outside the room a criminal committed another unlawful act inside. What sort of law is it that meant someone could go on supervision in that type of situation and be committing a sex offence inside a room but the officer would not allow anyone in to stop the person from doing that? It is utterly ridiculous. 
We have had a good look at this matter. We believe that our policy is consistent on this issue and we also opposed the principal Acts in 2002. Although the bill looks quite good on the face of it and is a little tougher than the current legislation that legislation is inherently soft. We cannot support such soft legislation. We ask other parties to join New Zealand First in rejecting it and going back to the views we had in May 2002 when we rejected the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. We ask them to join us in coming up with laws that show a real toughness towards all offenders and in this particular case especially towards high-risk sex offenders who should be kept in jail right to the end of their time and then have supervision imposed upon them for a long time afterwards. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next speaker I wish to advise honourable members that the Green Party has decided to share its time. Therefore the member will get a bell at 4 minutes to signify 1 minute of speaking time remains. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will also be seeking leave to split its vote on this bill. That is an indication of how seriously we take the issues raised in it and how contentious and significant we consider them to be. What we are asked to do here is to balance very carefully the need to protect some important principles of justice with the compelling need to protect children from sexual offenders. That is something we should not take lightly whatever position we end up taking on the bill. The bill addresses the problem in two ways. First of all it creates an extended supervision regime for child sex offenders who have reached the end of their finite sentence and who therefore cannot be subject to any supervision orders or restrictions but who are assessed as being of high or medium-high risk of reoffending. The other thing the bill does is to put in place a system of electronic monitoring for people released under conditions such as parole or extended supervision. Electronic monitoring is not a new thing in this country. We use it now for home detention but this bill allows the door to open to an extension of the idea—that is the use of the Global Positioning System to monitor more closely what people under the regime are doing. The purposes of course are to verify compliance with release conditions detention conditions or conditions of extended supervision to detect non-compliance and to provide evidence of non-compliance so that people can be held to account if they do breach those conditions. 
I consider that the use of electronic monitoring has the potential for great benefit if it is used with some clear restrictions and some clear safeguards. It does allow for the proper monitoring of people and it therefore opens the door to the use of less restrictive conditions because those conditions can be more closely monitored in a more sophisticated way. So I consider there is a potential that people could be subject to less restrictive conditions as a result of electronic monitoring. But without restrictions on its use electronic monitoring could lead to a draconian imposition. It could easily become a gateway for the State to impose more restrictions on people in an unjustified way—for example by restricting political activity in the way that bail conditions are used right now today when arresting people who are engaged in protest in order to clear them away from areas where the police consider they do not want them to be. My colleague Keith Locke will talk more about that when he speaks on this legislation. 
But it is important there are some safeguards concerning electronic monitoring and that is why the Green Party supported the inclusion at the Justice and Electoral Committee of some conditions around the use of it. In particular new section 15A(1) inserted by clause 6A states that a condition requiring an offender to submit to electronic monitoring “may be imposed only on an offender who—(a) is subject to a sentence of preventive detention; or (b) is subject to an extended supervision order; or (c) is or will be on parole and electronic monitoring … is necessary in order to provide the supervision required to ensure that the offender does not pose an undue risk to the community …”. The Justice and Electoral Committee came up with that provision because we felt that there should not be open slather and that there should be some restrictions on the use of that power. We are concerned to hear that the Government seeks to remove that clause in a Supplementary Order Paper and we will oppose that. 
The other part of the bill deals with extended supervision which seeks to address a greater problem and a more serious threat to civil liberties—that is the people released at the end of a finite sentence who are assessed as being of high or medium-high risk. The law allows no restriction on them yet we know with certainty that almost half the people assessed as high-risk will reoffend. Should we just wait for them to make new victims or should we act? That is the issue this Parliament has to address. The bill would allow the chief executive of the Department of Corrections to apply to a court for an extended supervision order of up to 10 years and that would allow conditions to be imposed whether intensive or standard. But some supervision would be allowed over those people. As Richard Worth said that is an infringement of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We had a big discussion about whether that is punishment. Certainly I think it is punishment but I believe it is justifiable if we are to protect the young people of New Zealand. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Four of the Green MPs will be voting against the part of the bill that is to become the Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill. We do that because of its serious civil liberties implications. The bill was heavily criticised by the Attorney-General the Law Society several civil liberties groups and the Howard League for Penal Reform. A major concern is the new provision for the electronic monitoring of offenders and of those under extended supervision post-release. The Attorney-General said of the latter category that the provision “marks a significant departure from the standards of civil liberties in this country” and it contravenes the privacy and the search and seizure provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Other submitters argued it was against article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 
The move to enable the electronic monitoring of some parolees—it could be all parolees if the Minister’s amendment passes—is quite a step towards a surveillance State. It is a big departure from home detention monitoring which just ensures that a person stays at home. Electronic monitoring will enable the tracking of parolees and of those released under extended supervision everywhere they go using the Global Positioning System. The monitoring could even be extended later on to more categories of people including people on bail or people later put on extended supervision for other non-sex crimes. The Auckland Council for Civil Liberties called the bill a Trojan Horse in that respect pointing out for example that the requirement to give blood samples started off as applying to a narrow category but now includes people who are just suspects. It is not dreaming to think that such electronic monitoring once set in place could eventually be used against all kinds of offenders including political protesters whether they are offenders post-release or on parole or people on bail to keep them away from various institutions—be it an institution involved in GE the American Embassy a fur shop etc. Concern about tracking measures is not a new concern for the Green Party and Green MPs. During the debate on the Counter-Terrorism Bill we warned of the extent of the tracking powers granted to the police. 
The other provisions in the current bill that came in for serious criticism from the Attorney-General related to the double jeopardy elements involved in extended supervision which breach section 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—that one cannot be tried or punished again for one offence. That also applies with regard to a similar section section 14(7) of the international covenant I referred to previously. A second double jeopardy aspect that the law will retrospectively apply to those currently serving sentences was also strongly criticised by the Attorney-General in referring to section 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It also contravenes section 15(1) of the international covenant which forbids the later imposition of a heavier penalty than the one applying when an offence was committed. The New Zealand Council for Civil Liberties objected to another ramification of that particular double jeopardy situation saying that it was a change from “a system based on conviction for past offences beyond reasonable doubt to one based on a form of effective detention justified by qualitative estimates of future dangerousness. It erects a shadow criminal law.” 
 That does not mean to say we are soft on child sex offenders. But there are ways of dealing with those problems—for example by taking up the submission of the Safe Network organisation that the Government and non-governmental organisations work much closer together to deal with sex offenders post-release. There is also a serious problem of serious child sex offenders serving their full term in jail and getting out without being monitored as they go into the community. So we are supportive of looking into some of the proposals made by the Law Society that there be a limited parole period built in at the time of sentencing or some provisions for those currently in jail to make sure that they have a parole period without the problems that this law imposes. 
The four of us who will be voting against this legislation have some very serious civil liberty concerns about it. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 This bill is the first patch-up of the Parole Act and the Sentencing Act that were passed in 2002 and as a patch-up it is appalling. So many problems have been identified with those Acts and most of them were identified by ACT National New Zealand First and United Future before they were passed but this bill addresses only a few of them. A great deal of public attention has been placed on the bits that Mr Goff in his normal vein-popping fashion has trumpeted—that is the new provisions to put child sex offenders under up to 10 years of extended supervision. 
But those Acts also deal with other things. First the Parole Act itself has been examined in the course of this bill and all the Minister has touched on are a few minor—the traditional word is “tinkering”—matters. For example Mr Goff has now given himself his officials and the Department of Corrections people the power to put ankle bracelets or electronic monitoring on some parole offenders. Why not all? Why not any who deserve it? 
ACT of course believes that parole is entirely unjustified. There is no evidence that it does anything that a period of extended supervision at the end of a sentence would not do. But even if we accepted for the moment that there is some point in parole other than to empty jails at least cost we would find the bracelet restriction bizarre. Why should it not be a matter of prison officer discretion or Department of Corrections discretion? The people out on parole are out on a privilege; they should be in prison. If they are on home detention or under some sort of observation the conditions applying to them should include electronic monitoring without the need for any legislation. They are out on a privilege and if the cost of that privilege is to be under electronic monitoring they have a choice: if they do not like it they should stay inside so that is fatuous. 
I also noticed that this bill touches on cumulative sentencing but does not of course do what New Zealanders want which is to ensure that there is a price for every crime. Even if it is a small increment it is at least a price to make sure that crime is not an activity for which one gets a bulk discount or a write-off above a certain level. No—just to make sure—this bill says that a cumulative sentence cannot be imposed if the person already on sentence has been let out on parole. In other words that person has been let out on trust and breached the trust and now this bill takes tender care to say that the court cannot go back and make the sentence cumulative with the earlier one. In other words it cannot say to the criminal: “You’ve breached the trust. Now you had better serve the rest of your sentence as well as the new one for the new crime you have committed.” 
Of course Mr Goff and his colleagues think that would be unfair. Presumably they think it might make the criminals feel bad about them. It was not explained to us in the Justice and Electoral Committee what the reason for this provision was but looking at it it is plain that cumulative sentencing has been made even harder for a court to order. The Government will not take the risk of leaving it to the judges; it does not trust the judges. The real sentencing is carried out by the Parole Board. 
As we have seen this week the Minister has been sprung. It is very obvious that the Parole Board has been doing what the Parole Act tells it to do—that is ignore all the purposes of sentencing and simply empty prisons as soon as it can persuade itself on whatever fatuous evidence it has that a prisoner might not be a risk to the community. Until this week I could not have said that in such harsh terms because we did not have the frank admissions from an honest judge at the head of the Parole Board that what it is doing is taking risks and making guesses. That is an interesting point and members might not have been aware of it because the Minister made it look as if he were stunned by those admissions from the Parole Board. He made it appear as if he had no idea that it was not keeping a watch on whether parole conditions were being monitored or enforced or whether it was capable of doing so. 
I just draw to members’ attention that the report back of this bill was on 11 June. It states: “The Parole Board still cannot take account in ordinary cases of the reasons for a sentence it has no duty to consider whether the practical enforcement of conditions is likely …”. Now I knew that because I had talked to Parole Board members. I do not think the Minister had bothered. I knew that because victims had said that the Parole Board was completely uninterested in whether the conditions were capable of being enforced. Let me give an example. Anthony Roma’s conditions of parole were that he abstain from alcohol and drugs and live with his family. Victims told the Parole Board that those conditions were incapable of enforcement and that he would not do it. The Parole Board with its Lord Nelson policy of “blind eye to the telescope” did not want to hear that. It did not pay it any regard and Anthony Roma went out and offended again—as the victims had predicted in writing. 
Yet Mr Goff stands in this House and brings forward a bill like this that does nothing to cure those problems. He has brought in other Supplementary Order Papers but no Supplementary Order Paper to tell the Parole Board it ought to ask the Department of Corrections how its monitoring is going or whether it has the capacity to enforce conditions. He could just read the newspapers perhaps and see that the south Auckland probation officers are totally overloaded and utterly without the ability—as they were in relation to William Bell—to ensure that complicated conditions like abstaining from alcohol and drugs are feasible conditions on which the Parole Board can rely. 
This bill compounds this Government’s error. In clause 19 the non-parole period the court can set has now made an enormous concession to the judges. The relevant section section 86 of the Sentencing Act was wrong when it was passed. In 2002 ACT New Zealand tried to help the Minister out by providing some amendments and Minister Goff was saved only by Minister Barker at the last minute to even restore any power for the court to set a non-parole period. 
Now the public and the media know that the non-parole period is the sentence. The media know it because that is the way they report it. When the media report on a sentencing they report on the non-parole period. They know the rest is lies. They know that the parole system makes judges lie every time they give a sentence because the judges know that the sentence they are giving is not the sentence that will be served. 
What does the new section 86(2) that the Minister has provided do? It says to the judge that he or she can set a non-parole period to make sure that the purposes of sentencing are performed. That is exactly what ACT New Zealand says the Parole Board should be required to do. Why should it not? That is the thing victims are most interested in. Judges go through the charade of listening to victims’ submissions and victims are allowed to complain about how frightened they are but the Parole Board is not permitted to have regard to the most simple victim request of all which is: “Can I please be confident that after parole justice will still have been done?”. 
 Justice Ellis was patently clear about that in his interview with Linda Clark on Monday. He said quite bluntly that punishment was not a consideration for the Parole Board and it gave little if any weight to victims’ views on whether the sentence should be served in its entirety. He said it looked only—as it is directed by statute—at the safety of the community. It does not know what the victim’s rights are although the Minister tells us it is the right to be heard. 
The Minister is more than misleading in that area. He is trumpeting the Act as having been toughened up when in fact he has weakened it. This bill even allows child sex offenders to get out earlier. That was admitted during the select committee process. Previously they had to serve their sentence until the Parole Board was satisfied they were safe to let out. As it could not be satisfied that most of them were safe to let out they stayed. This bill provides for them to be let out earlier as long as they are wearing a bracelet. Even the trumpeted purpose of this bill—to toughen up the legislation—is not true. The Minister has been misleading the people of this country. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 The Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill essentially introduces a new extended supervision regime to manage so-called high-risk sex offenders. Quite frankly all sex offenders are high risk. It is often said that sex offenders are lower risk than a lot of other offenders but a 22-year study showed that after that period of time the recidivism rate went as high as 70 percent which gives the lie to the fact that sex offenders are a low-risk category of individual. There is no reason to suspect that 10 years is enough in terms of an extension of supervision of those individuals. I hope that members will look at my Supplementary Order Paper 226. One of the changes I would like to see take place is the extension of that provision until such time as the Parole Board considers the person to be safe. In my opinion that would be when the person stops breathing. 
Implicit in this is a recognition that sentences were inadequate in the first place. What has been done since? I understand that a lot of individuals will come up for this supervision regime fairly soon which is one of the reasons why there is urgency in getting this legislation through. In fact one individual comes up next month. I am loath to name him though in some ways I would like to because the problem is— 
Richard Worth 
: You must do so. He should be named. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: He should be named. I was advised earlier this evening that if I named him his counsel might consider that to be prejudicial and force the judge to stop providing the extended supervision that would otherwise ensue because of this legislation. If that is true the last thing I want is for that to be on my conscience. I will not take the risk. But there are individuals coming up for release very soon and that is the reason why this bill must be passed flawed as some of its provisions are. 
It has been estimated that around 60 offenders will come under this regime and there are about 107 to whom it could possibly apply down the track. Sixty offenders may not sound like a lot but 60 sex offenders—predators—can manage to run up a large count of victims—families that will be broken and hurt by what they do. The simple fact is that those individuals should never be let out of prison in the first place and if they are mentally deficient they should be held in a facility appropriate to their condition for the rest of their lives. They should never be let out to hurt any law-abiding citizen again. 
I do not see any instinct on the Minister’s behalf to do anything about the Parole Act and the Sentencing Act to remedy that. If anything those Acts allow people to come up for parole one-third of the way through their sentences—contrary to the instincts of 92 percent of the population who voted in favour of tougher laws. Why has the Government not heard them? Why has the Government not acceded to the democratic wishes of the people of this country? That I do not understand. The Government will pursue other social engineering policies that are not demanded by 92 percent of the population but by a very small narrow margin of the population. Yet 92 percent of the population says something and this Government listens to them with Van Gogh’s ear. 
Some groups have asserted that this legislation proposes retrospectivity and punishment over and above sentencing and on those grounds they complain about it. In fact the Attorney-General’s report on the compliance of the bill with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act found that its provisions were inconsistent with the rights and freedoms contained in that Act on a number of counts—there is an unreasonable limit on the right not to be subject to double jeopardy and unreasonable search and seizure. 
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is actually the problem. It is about time we took that legislation apart and introduced a “Bill of Responsibility”. That Act along with the Privacy Act has been responsible for so much stupidity that it is time that they were taken to task and got rid of. The only rights they protect are the rights of offenders. They do not protect the rights of the law-abiding citizens of this country. I do not understand how a Government claiming to have the better interests of the law-abiding citizens of this country in mind can act against their interests by hiding behind the provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the privacy legislation. 
Georgina Beyer 
: There is some humanity amongst us—that’s why. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: There is no humanity amongst sex offenders. Excuse me! They have lost their right to any humanity. They have offended against the rights of the innocent and they must pay the full and ultimate penalty for what they have done. The rights of the innocent should never be put at risk by these predatory offenders. My Supplementary Order Paper proposes to extend hopefully with the support of the House the supervision orders beyond the 10-year period. That is what those predators deserve. Anyone who does not support those amendments and who then finds out that those predators have offended again will have that on his or her conscience. 
There are a number of very good things in this bill particularly with regard to victim participation. There are three things in particular. With the leave of the court the bill enables victims’ input into hearings about extended supervision orders. It also allows victims to be notified in advance if the Parole Board is considering the imposition of special conditions under Part 1A in clause 10 and permits them to make submissions to the Parole Board about those conditions. I would like to see the victims have the right of appeal if they do not like the provisions set by the Parole Board. It also advises victims of the death of an offender something I think most victims would be very glad to hear about. 
In coming to my conclusion I have to say that we feel we have to pass the bill imperfect as it is because it goes one step beyond what we are otherwise capable of doing with some of those offenders. The problem is we cannot now turn the clock back for the individuals who are coming up for release over the next month or two and give them the longer sentences they deserve. Failing that the only argument I can see in favour of this bill is that we must offer some sense of comfort to victims and law-abiding citizens that we will supervise these predatory animals. I would not want it on my conscience if there were any future victims as a result of not passing this bill. Given that United Future will support it. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 The National Party has some considerable concerns about this bill and we simply do not believe that the Government has taken those concerns seriously. 
I want to tell the House why this bill has come to Parliament. This bill came to Parliament because Mr Goff the Minister of Justice was trying to appear to be doing something about the cases of Barry Allan Ryder and Lloyd Alexander McIntosh when in fact he had done absolutely nothing. Mr Goff made his reputation on the back of the Barry Allan Ryder case and he said he would never let Barry Allan Ryder be released from jail. He railed against Mrs Shipley New Zealand’s first woman Prime Minister and he railed against former Minister of Justice Douglas Graham. He said that if he were Minister of Justice these people would never be released from prison. 
Then we discovered that Barry Allan Ryder a paedophile who repeatedly sexually abused young children had been released under Mr Goff’s watch. What did Mr Goff say? He said he did not know about it yet this is the case that Mr Goff made his reputation on. He said Barry Allan Ryder would never be released. Mr Goff said he would never allow it to happen but Barry Allan Ryder was released and Mr Goff never ever asked what his parole conditions were. When it was the National Party that revealed the information concerning the release Mr Goff said he was not going to ask for the parole conditions. He said he could not ask that. It was not until there was pressure from the National Party New Zealand First ACT United Future and the media that the Parole Board and this Minister of Justice released those parole conditions. 
Those conditions showed that this Government could not guarantee the safety of children in Christchurch with Barry Allan Ryder in the community. He abused two young boys in Christchurch and this Minister said he could do nothing. 
Then we discovered the case of Lloyd Alexander McIntosh another offender whom the Minister expressed considerable concern about when in Opposition. We discovered that Lloyd Alexander McIntosh was being paroled and released into Palmerston North. This Minister and Mr Maharey only after pressure from the Opposition parties decided they would say to the people that they would do everything they could to eliminate the risk his behaviour posed to children in Palmerston North. Mr Goff said he would stop the release of this sort of individual but he did not. Mr Goff looked into the case only when this was raised with him. 
So now we have this bill. Mr Goff promised 24-hour 7-days-a-week supervision for Lloyd Alexander McIntosh. Well what happened? Lloyd Alexander McIntosh assaulted a young woman in his home while a security guard employed by this Government was outside the door. 
Stephen Franks 
: So they knew where he was? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: They knew where he was and that happened. Lloyd Alexander McIntosh told somebody that he had almost raped the girl while the security guard was outside the door. 
So the Government in its embarrassment brought forward this bill saying that paedophiles would be supervised 24 hours a day 7 days a week for 10 years. The National Party was able to reveal to the people of New Zealand that the only supervision that this bill provides for after 1 year is the attachment of an electronic bracelet—an attachment of an electronic bracelet after 1 year. For the first year offenders will be subject to home-detention criteria and supposedly to quite intense 24-hour 7-days-a-week supervision but after that it boils down to having a home-detention bracelet but no home detention. So we said to Mr Goff: “How does a bracelet prevent reoffending?”. 
 We are concerned about this because what the Government has not told New Zealanders is that last year senior officials of the Community Probation Service appearing before the Law and Order Committee told us that no paedophile would be monitored for 10 years. We were further told that in the first few months extended supervision would include two visits a week with a parole officer and after 2 years that it would go down to one visit with a parole officer every 3 months. How will an electronic bracelet and a quarterly visit with a parole officer stop the likes of Barry Allan Ryder from abusing young children? 
The proposal in this bill highlights the concern that the Opposition parties have raised time after time in this House and that is the discredited state of parole in New Zealand. A senior highly respected judge respected for his frankness and his directness Justice Ellis—a fine New Zealander—has commented that he was unaware of how low the level of supervision was of people on parole and I paraphrase him on that. At the select committee we were told that parole is essentially this: within 3 days of release inmates must contact their parole officer; there will be contact at least once a week for the first few weeks then that will very quickly reduce to contact once a month. That is not crime prevention. 
The National Party is also concerned about new section 15A(1)(d) in clause 6A. That provision will provide the Parole Board with reason to release these sorts of offenders from jail earlier than would have been the case if the legislation had not been here. 
Judith Collins 
: Shocking. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is shocking and we oppose that. We say that the key issue here is the safety of the public and that keeping people in jail longer is better for keeping people safe than giving offenders a bracelet and quarterly supervision. I tell the House even further that the planning for the supervision of these people is so woolly that the Department of Corrections has not yet finalised its guidelines for the management of paedophiles on extended supervision. This bill with a majority vote of this House could become the law of the land within a few days. 
Many many changes would need to be made to this bill for the National Party to want to support it. We look to the Government and other parties to move amendments to fix this bill because this bill offers no added security or protection to the young people of New Zealand from these vile offenders. A bracelet and quarterly monitoring are no supervision. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave for the votes cast by the Green Party in party votes on the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill to include numbers cast for the Ayes and Noes and to record abstentions notwithstanding Standing Order 144(1)(b). 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to make sure that no one else wants to take a call. I am giving members the chance to go for the call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 As the Hon Tony Ryall has so eloquently stated this bill is too little too late. We have a situation in this country where parole is a joke. People know that after this Government amended the parole laws a person who had been sentenced to 9 years in jail was likely to get out of jail after serving a mere 3 years. Parole is a joke and this country needs significantly more than the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Reform Amendment Bill can ever give it. 
The legislation was premised on the basis that it would deal with child sex offenders. I do not think that there would be a member in this House or in any other term in this Parliament who would not like to see the whole issue of child sex offending done away with forever and ever and never come back to haunt this country again. Unfortunately that will not happen—not in my lifetime and I suggest not in anyone’s lifetime. The reality is that unfortunately some people prey on young children. In any right-thinking person’s mind those people are absolutely depraved and no matter what we do with them in prison or anywhere else they will always be a danger to society. I am not aware of any studies that show no matter what we do with child sex offenders that they can ever be trusted in society. Certainly some of the efforts that the Department of Corrections has made over the years have shown that there has been some improvement but never such that any one of us in this House would ever trust them with our children or grandchildren; nor should we. “Once bitten twice shy” society should say of those people. 
Some parts of this bill are an improvement on the current system but that is not saying much. The current system is so poor and so devoid of any concept of punishment because punishment in this country seems to be a bad thing when it comes to offenders. Punishment is something reserved for the victims of crime. Unfortunately this Government is soft on crime. Despite all the Government’s rhetoric when it was in Opposition despite all the rhetoric from Mr Goff when he was the Opposition spokesperson on justice this Government has proven itself to be remarkably soft on crime. 
One thing it has to deal with is the recidivist culture in the criminal element in New Zealand. Recidivism occurs because we have no concept of deterrents or punishment. We consistently hear comments from the Department of Corrections and its very very culturally sensitive staff that losing one’s liberty is itself the punishment. Some of us on this side of the House do not believe that that is punishment enough. We do believe that deterrents work. We do believe that punishment actually works too. It is about time that we did. 
Mr Tanczos who is making comments obviously feeling that I do not understand concepts of law and order and crime and punishment should consider that as a parent we are told that when our child is naughty we should explain what has happened and then have time out as a punishment. We do not have time out as something else; we have it as a punishment. That is because children do not like to be kept away from others. They do not like to be deprived of their toys or be kept away from something they want like the television or friends. In fact in our prison system criminals do not have to be kept away from their friends their toys or their televisions because they are all provided. 
What is not being provided is a system that educates people who need to be educated. The system does not provide any sort of deterrents. When sex offenders are jailed with other sex offenders they will be with a group of people who consistently reinforce their own behaviour. We then let them out on society and into our communities. 
In my particular electorate of Clevedon one such sex offender was released into the community on bail recently. Before that he was released into the community after having finished his sentence. People in the community were extremely concerned that that man was there. They feared that he was living very close to a school. The next thing that happened was that he was accused of a particular sex offence yet again with a boy. He has admitted it and consequently we have yet another victim and it is only the victim in that case who has come forward. How many other victims do not come forward because somewhere in their minds they have convinced themselves that they are at fault in some way; that they have done something wrong when that is just the very sick and perverse attitude that those manipulators of children have placed in their minds? Those children who in many cases have very loving and caring parents are manipulated by the arch manipulators of the criminal world. That is what we are dealing with with child sex offenders. 
I am supportive of the fact that this legislation is at least an attempt by the Government to improve the situation. What I am not supportive of is that it does not go far enough. As decent-minded people with our own political views—and I do not think that Mr Tanczos and I will ever agree on very much but at least I do acknowledge that he is a decent person with his own views—I do not think that we will ever understand the perverse nature of people who are utterly perverse and evil in their manipulations and what they do. Worse is the fact that so often they place themselves in positions where they have access to children. 
It is worse that they put themselves in positions where they have access to mothers of young children and they target those mothers who often are in positions where they have very little self-esteem. Sex offenders use that position to get access to little children. There is nothing in this bill that will necessarily stop that. As Mr Ryall said: “What’s the bracelet going to do?”. Some of us who come as I do originally from a farming background would say that there are places where that bracelet could go which might do some good but unfortunately I have been reminded by Mr Jones that we are supposed to live in a civilised society and I should not be thinking thoughts like that. 
I can imagine that many New Zealanders would think exactly the same as I do that prison is far too good for those people and it is about time we faced those facts. Occasionally I think that there might be some merit in some of the sharia law that some of the Muslim countries use in those issues. I never thought I would say it but perhaps we could look at that in this particular instance. As Mr Jones said it would be the unkindest cut of all. I am consistently told that chemical castration will not help those perverts. I notice that every man in the House is suddenly looking a bit worried. However I do not understand why castration would not help those people because as far as I am concerned it would certainly help some of the victims of their demented and revolting crimes. 
Mr Ryall has put our position on this very succinctly and very well. We believe that this amendment is simply not good enough. As I said some parts of the legislation are at least an improvement but that is all it is. Next year when we are in Government we will have to change this legislation and make it significantly tougher. I am extremely pleased that we will not have to wait very long. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 93 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 26 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 4; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Question agreed to 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 93 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 26 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 4; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
Sittings of the House 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I understand there have been discussions amongst the whips and accordingly I seek leave for the House at its rising to adjourn until the ringing of the bell on Tuesday 27 July 2004. This is in relation to a visiting UK delegation. I believe there has been discussion amongst the whips. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: We’ll do it later. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am happy to do it later but perhaps not with the member sitting in the chair. It has to be when the member’s party— 
Hon David Carter 
: It hasn’t been discussed. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: No not with the member but there has been discussion with the whip. I am happy to come back and do it again. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It will be done later? 
Hon Members 
: Yes. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is agreement. 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can see no reason why this matter cannot be dealt with now and I would be happy to seek leave myself for that to happen. As I understand the motion the House would rise at midnight tonight and—[ 
Interruption 
] I ask for leave for the Deputy Leader of the House to explain the matter to me more clearly. I would be very happy to come back at the ringing of the bells tomorrow. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The House is the master of its own destiny. If the Minister wishes to seek leave— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I am happy to leave it. 
Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Extended supervision orders 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 At this point National is supporting the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill with substantial reservation. I say substantial reservation because the whole patchwork nature of this parole legislation calls for a comprehensive and careful review. National has instanced in earlier speeches tonight its real concern about the situation whereby a person charged with the rape of a child and sentenced to 9 years’ jail can under the current penal policy of this Government be eligible for parole after a period of 3 years. 
I am glad that Minister Barker is with us tonight in Committee because there is one issue that troubles National members greatly. In the haste to pass this legislation changes have been made in relation to electronic monitoring that may be particularly significant. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to new section 15A inserted by clause 6A which deals with electronic monitoring. New section 15A(1) states: “A condition referred to in section 15(3)(f) that requires an offender to submit to electronic monitoring may be imposed only on an offender who … (c) is or will be on parole and electronic monitoring of the offender is necessary in order to provide the supervision required to ensure that the offender does not pose an undue risk to the community or any person or class of persons;”. 
The issue that I am seeking that the Minister respond to after consultation with his officials is whether this change will have a wider application—given that it is an amendment to the Parole Act—to persons other than in the scope of this intended bill which is to provide a new extended supervision regime that will actively manage high-risk child sex offenders. Electronic bracelets may be all very well but people can commit significant society-harming offences whilst wearing electronic bracelets and certainly members of this Committee who represent the Opposition parties would be extremely concerned if by sleight of hand an unintended consequence of this legislation is to open the floodgates to permit an even greater access to parole. 
It will be obvious from what has been said to this point that National members have real concern about the parole regime. At this point we are supporting this legislation solely on the basis that there is clear merit in introducing a new extended supervision regime that will actively manage high-risk child sex offenders. In this part of the legislation which is subject to Committee comment it is relevant to note that the Attorney-General whose views on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act are often of concern to members of this House has found that the provisions of this bill are inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
 I must say that I quite warm to the comments made by an earlier speaker who said that we should not be so much focused on legislation such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act but that we should be seeking to craft a “New Zealand Bill of Responsibilities”. The point he made which is a very fair point is that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is substantially concerned with the position of offenders. It is right to say that it is a hallmark of this Government that the legislation that has been passed to date regarding the penal sector is very much about the rights of offenders and not as I suggest it should be about the rights of victims. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will make just a few introductory remarks. This part of the bill has been introduced so that the Government can put in place active management of child sex offenders. I make the observation to the member who has just spoken that this is part of a complicated web. The previous legislation has made changes. For example preventive detention is now available on a first offence not as it was previously on a second offence. The age for preventive detention has been lowered. The third element is that the range of offences for which preventive detention can be imposed has been widened. The current law addresses a number of those concerns. Judges now have the option to impose preventive detention in more circumstances than they did before. So we see that going forward we will be incurring fewer concerns. 
What this bill seeks to do in part is to address the inadequacy of the sentencing law historically where it was left undone. The second point I make in response to the member who talked about people being eligible for parole at a third of their sentence is that this is true but there has been eligibility for parole in many many instances at a third of a sentence for a long time. 
Richard Worth 
: No it was a different regime. It wasn’t the Parole Act. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The member cannot deny it. But what has changed—and the member will not like listening to this—is that under the previous legislation an offender was automatically eligible to get out of prison after serving two-thirds of his or her sentence regardless of the circumstances. So an offender serves two-thirds of his or her sentence and then effectively that person is out of prison. The law has been changed now so that offenders are not entitled to automatic parole at two-thirds of a sentence. If the circumstances are such that the offender is not contrite shows no remorse or exhibits bad behaviour he or she can be held in the system for the full extent of his or her sentence. [ 
Interruption 
] The member says that we could but everybody knows that there is automatic parole on serving two-thirds of a sentence. 
The other point I want to make is that this is aimed at improving the management of sex offenders in the community. We are modelling this work on what has happened in other countries such as Britain and Canada where they have seen these provisions put in place. We are looking to be able to have some effective oversight of these offenders for an extra 10 years beyond the length of their sentence. I stress to the member that we are very concerned to ensure that people do not get the wrong impression. For example the previous speaker made reference to section 15A inserted by clause 6A. I say to the member that there is a Supplementary Order Paper to strike that clause out of the bill because there was a concern that it could have the unintended consequence of letting more people out of prison thereby weakening the legislation. This section has been drawn out because we do not want that to be the case. We do not want that to be the unintended consequence. I think the member would be very happy to see that his concern is being assuaged somewhat. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: That’s what you call an effective Opposition. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: An effective Opposition maybe but we appreciate all the good advice we can get. Sometimes it is good and sometimes it is not. There are those elements of it. The overall effect of this is to strengthen the control that the State has on sex offenders beyond the time they have served their prison sentence. I am sure that all in the community would welcome that. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Nothing that the Minister has just said will alter New Zealand First’s view on this matter. We do not want sex offenders getting out of jail early. It is as simple as that. The community does not want sex offenders getting out of jail early. It does not want them out of jail after serving one-third of the sentence put up by the judge. Those people should be punished. They should stay in jail until they are at least nearing the very very last months of a lengthy sentence and they should be given treatment while they are in jail. 
The only valid aspect of this bill about treatment extended supervision orders and the like is that they should continue. They should be put in place after those people have served virtually all of their sentences and the treatment should be for the 10 years proposed by this bill. That is where we differ. We could go along with an extended supervision order after these people have almost completed their sentence and after they have received treatment in prison. 
I have appeared for some of these people. I would not want them out of jail after what they have done. I have been in the No. 1 police cell in Auckland. I did it in the 1970s the 1980s and the 1990s. I have acted for some of these people and they are despicable. To some extent they do need treatment. Lawyers start their plea in mitigation for these people by saying they need treatment. The problem with our system today is that they do not get treatment. They just come out of jail and the same old problem arises again. They should be in jail. They should serve their full sentence and they should get treatment in jail. Only then perhaps they may not reoffend but one does not hold one’s breath. When these offenders come out of jail they should always as suggested spend the next 10 years under supervision. 
Section 15A deals with electronic bracelets and they are an utter waste of time. What use is a bracelet? An offender can be wearing a bracelet and can be anywhere. No one knows quite where these people are unless there is a proper satellite link and a map of the country and the type of device that is in some police cars. What use is a bracelet? This point was raised by Ron Mark in the first reading debate when we somewhat reluctantly agreed to let the bill go to the select committee. New Zealand First does not support this bill we do not support this section and we will be voting against Part 1. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 In dealing with the release of offenders who are subject to automatic release the likes of McIntosh and Ryder I wonder whether the Minister would take a call and explain to the Committee why in the case of sex offenders reaching their statutory release date the Government has not sought to apply section 105 of the Criminal Justice Act or whatever is its successor. That is the section that says the Secretary for Justice may apply to the Parole Board before an offender’s final release date to have that offender not released. That would appear to me to be the means to meet Mr Dail Jones’ concern and the concern of all parties about not using the full power of the law to maintain such people in custody. I wonder whether the Minister would get some advice from his officials and advise the Committee on that question. Can the Minister do that? He could just bend over and ask the question or otherwise we will just keep taking calls until he does. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: It sounds to me like a threat actually. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We are asking a question. We are wondering whether the Minister will ask the officials. Thank you; I appreciate that. It is quite a serious question and we just want an answer. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: The officials are not quite sure what the member’s about. Would the member like to explain? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Under the previous regime when a specified number of offenders meet their statutory release date at two-thirds of their sentence there was a provision in the Criminal Justice Act—section 105—that allowed the Secretary for Justice to apply to have those people not enjoy an automatic release but to fulfil the rest of their term. [ 
Interruption 
] That section still exists. [ 
Interruption 
] Now it is section 107 of the Parole Act. 
Why is that section not capable of being used more frequently for sexual offenders of this nature? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I think the member— 
Hon David Carter 
: Well the Minister should be aware of the legislation. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think it is a valid point because the problem with this is that many of this group are reaching their automatic release date under the previous legislation. The secretary can apply to have them do the remaining third of their sentence. Why is that provision not being used as frequently as we would like it to be used in order to maintain custody of those people before they enter the extended supervision period? 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party on the Committee stage of the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill. We are discussing Part 1 which is the part that creates the new regime for child sex offenders. Of course they are now the lepers of the criminal community. This provision allows them to be supervised after their release for up to 10 years. This is a very sensible set of provisions and it should be extended across all offenders and not just for 10 years. If every offender served his or her court-given sentence so that we had truth in sentencing the offender should then be subject to a period of supervision of the kind contemplated by this bill but only for sex offenders. 
Why this provision is only for sex offenders has not been explained by the Minister. It is a sensible precaution against further offending. Sex offenders according to the Justice and Electoral Committee’s report and the figures we were given by officials are less prone to reoffending than most other offenders. The officials would have told the Minister that a typical serious or high-risk offender is likely to reoffend and cost the community up to $500000 in the 5 years following release on serving a sentence for other crimes. Many of the offences they might have decided to prevent by electronic monitoring or any other kind of supervision will be at least as bad from a victim’s perspective as they are for the victims of child sex offenders. I have no doubt whatsoever that the families of murder victims would be very happy to see the sorts of people who commit murder rape robbery or the sort of thuggery that leaves people injured for life under some kind of supervision at the end of their sentence that is as effective as is contemplated for child sex offenders. So my first comment is that although this provision may be sensible the limitations on it are very telling. 
I also want to mention the amendments I have put forward in Supplementary Order Paper 228 that would fill a gap. There are repeated references to the rights of victims in the Parole Act but no one seems to know what they are. Minister Goff tells us that the rights of victims are the rights to get information. Well I have seen the reports that accompany a parole application. The reports that come from the Parole Board have a single page that states the offender has attended a course of X and completed it or did not complete it; the offender has been in prison for such and such a period and that is it. The victims thought that they might at least get some sort of comment from the prison authorities or from a prison officer about the behaviour of the offender whether he or she is showing remorse the psychological assessment the predictions and what the predictions might be based on as to his or her reoffending risk. But no they get nothing of that. 
Well we do have a benefit in this bill. At least now for child sex offenders new ground has been broken and the Parole Board is allowed to provide the victim with more information if it chooses. The board is allowed to provide victims essentially with whatever it thinks is relevant subject to a right to withhold things that may unduly breach privacy or the effectiveness of the conditions. I have suggested that this is the opportunity to define what are the interests of victims. My Supplementary Order Paper that I mentioned lists those interests. They are not novel; they are precisely what the Minister has said is the object of sentencing. They are to make sure that parole does not undermine the denunciation that the public can expect and does not undermine accountability. That is the cute word used by the anointed leaders in the justice area to mean I think paying the price—what would more honestly be called retribution or even utu if people were ready to acknowledge what is really happening. 
My amendment does not break new ground in the sense that it records the expectation of victims that sentences should deter. I do not remember the number of victims whom I have represented or drafted submissions for—I think it is three. I have been to the Parole Board with two victims. I must have had at least 10 victims tell me that the key thing they really want is to know that the offender cannot do it again and that other offenders will know that it will not be worth doing. In their own words they are saying that they do not want the deterrent purposes of sentencing to be undermined by parole. So my Supplementary Order Paper suggests that this bill has the definition which should have been there right at the beginning that it is the right of victims to have the Parole Board give due weight—the term used in the Parole Act—to their interests. They need reassurance that so far as sentences may deter and as we all know there is a great argument about that the sentence is adequate to cause the offender and potential offenders to feel that it is not worth committing or commissioning similar offences against the victim or others. That is one amendment I will vote for and it is in fact Marc Alexander’s definition. It is a very fine definition and I will be very happy to vote for it. 
The way in which I have phrased it in my Supplementary Order Paper is as a reassurance that the sentence actually served will still deter the offender or others from committing the same or a similar offence. We are both aiming at the same thing—filling a gap in the Parole Act which means that “the victims’ rights to be considered by the Parole Board” is an absolute charade. 
I have also suggested in my Supplementary Order Paper that we show some genuine respect for Maori concepts of justice. I do not believe they are any different from the concepts of justice that are known all over the world and that every culture upholds—that is there is a levelling of the scales; there is something in the sentence that tells the victims and their families that justice means equality so that victims are not left feeling that the crime has damaged them and left the offender better off. And many offenders feel that. They see offenders getting something as simple as free dental treatment and free education which the victim has to pay for. They see them getting tenderly cared for as it appears to them and getting counselling and the victims are left without it. This Government has given $3 million to look after victims and about $500 million to look after the criminogenic needs of offenders. All that my Supplementary Order Paper asks is that the Parole Board takes into account and gives due weight to a victim’s expectation that there is a levelling of the scales and that justice is served. Mr. Benson-Pope can bray at us about this. This is what almost every New Zealander would think was the elementary minimum requirement of the justice system. It is only the anointed in the criminal justice establishment who could even be surprised at it. 
My amendment also puts in other changes to make sure that parole conditions or release conditions do not conflict with what the judge said when he sentenced an offender. It should go without saying. But we know that the parole system was set up in fact to undermine sentencing. The parole system was deliberately set up so that the court could go through its motions. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I want to make a couple of simple observations. When I look at my Supplementary Order Paper 226 and at clause 4 and compare it with Stephen Frank’s Supplementary Order Paper amendment to clause 4 they have the same intent and feeling. They couldalmost have been written by the same person. The concerns that are echoed— 
Stephen Franks 
: And 92 percent of New Zealanders say it too. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Yes 92 percent of them. Those amendments go to the heart of the problem—that is we have a problem with our sentencing laws and we have a problem with our parole laws. These amendments are trying to do the same thing but we are coming at it from slightly different angles. We are trying to respect the rights of victims in terms of what the bill is trying to address. We are trying to ensure that the interests of victims and in a de facto sort of way the interests of the law-abiding citizens of this country are being heard and dealt with in a fair and reasonable manner. It seems to me that when we value the interests and rights of people in this country at some point we have to make the decision that the rights and interests oflaw-abiding citizens supersede those of offenders. If we have to balance the scales of justice then they must nudge in favour of victims and the law abiding against the interests of offenders. Because they do not always go together. They often contradict each other. In terms of sentencing and in terms of this bill this is such a case. 
One of the things I would like to see done in clause 4 is to put forward the rights of victims to give them a sense of satisfaction that justice is being done to the offender in terms of denunciation of the crime and there is precious little here of that happening. Time and time again when we are looking at sentences and looking at parole the overriding consideration seems to be whether the offender if let out will pose a risk. That is a concern and it is part and parcel of what parole provisions should be if we are to have a parole system but it should not ever be at the expense of the sentence. Because the sentence is the time at which we give satisfaction to the victim. It is society’s way of saying to the victim: “We have measured the offence against you; this is the legitimate punishment that we impose.” Why suddenly do offenders get a break? Why do they get a discount at some later point? It is as if to say to the victim: “We erred on the side of the offender. We erred on the side of the offender in making the legitimate decision to say what the sentence was at the time of sentencing and we are now going to retract the impact that the crime had on you.” That approach cannot be justified. 
We know that 92 percent of the population argued against that approach. This Government has not listened. If the Government wants to impose the failed experiment of parole the failed experiment of sentencing on the law-abiding citizens of this country then it is on its head; it is on its conscience. The responsibility for future victims of crimes committed by offenders let out far too early will rest upon this Government. 
My Supplementary Order Paper amends clause 10 by substituting new subsection (b) of section 107A—“(b) provides that an extended supervision order may last for as long as the offender is capable of committing further offences with no time limitations;”. My rationale for doing that is simply that it should have been addressed with the sentencing. These individuals should never be allowed out of incarceration again. But they will be. The least we can do is then to go back and impose a supervision regime to ensure the greatest chance that they will not commit an offence again. I look forward to support for that amendment from other parties in the House. 
I turn to Supplementary Order Paper 228 in the name of Stephen Franks. The amendments essentially want the same changes as mine and who would disagree? An amendment to clause 4 “Interpretation” inserts a new definition “rights of victims”. The definition includes—satisfaction that the sentence actually served will show denunciation; reassurance that justice has been done; reassurance that the sentence actually serviced will deter the offender. These are all things we cannot possibly disagree with. The intent is that the judgment falls in favour of the victim and against the offender. The offender had his or her chance. The offender made a conscious decision to cause an offence against an innocent law-abiding citizen. It is now in the interests of justice to place the interests of the innocent the victim ahead of those of the offender. 
I note Stephen Franks’ amendment to insert new clause 8A to direct that home detention will not negate or undermine the purposes of the sentence for the offender. Again how could one disagree? The point is obvious. This is a matter of saying that the sentence is supposed to deal with society’s punishment of the offender. Over and above that home detention and other such provisions—supervision and so on—are about maintaining the ability to ensure that the public is not disadvantaged or put at risk. They are two separate things and one should not be at the expense of the other. 
In Stephen Franks’ explanatory note of his Supplementary Order Paper he states that the purpose of these amendments is to empower and direct the Parole Board to take account of the judge’s reason for sentencing. In a nutshell he says it and who could disagree? The judge is in the best possible position to be able to determine the impact of the crime on the victim and to determine the sentence. Why is it that a third of the way into a sentence the Parole Board in its great wisdom can turn round and decide to let the offender out of prison? The board does not have the judge’s wisdom; it was not there at the time of the sentencing but it can decide to reduce a sentence by up to two-thirds. 
The Hon Tony Ryall made a very good point. The offenders who are coming up who will come under this supervision regime and about whom we are trying to push this bill through have the possibility of serving an extra third of their sentence because they come under the previous sentencing provisions. Why on earth are we not enacting that proposal? Why is it that the full measure of the sentence has not been visited upon the offender? If we are so eager to turn back the clock and use a bit of retrospectivity then why not simply just extend the sentence? Because United Future would back it I am sure National would back it I know ACT would back it and 92 percent of the population in the 1999 referendum showed they would back it. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I wonder whether I could draw the Minister’s attention to new section 107H in clause 10 of the reported-back bill “Conditions of extended supervision order”. I think this provision gets to the heart of my concerns about this bill. Everybody wants us to have some sort of regime in place for the small group of highly dangerous sex offenders who have come to the end of their sentence. The officials have assured me that they use section 107 of the Parole Act on these people to try to ensure that they serve their whole sentence. So everyone wants a regime for when these people come to the end of their sentence. 
I would like the Minister in the chair the Hon Rick Barker to take another call and talk a little about the actual nature of the monitoring. Minister Goff said that these people will be subject to 24-hour-a-day 7-day-a-week monitoring. This bill provides that the parole authorities in exercising an extended supervision order can impose special conditions and those special conditions can include the person living as if he or she were on home detention for a year. Then we get into the ongoing monitoring by the probation service. New section 107I(1A) states that an offender is subject to a special condition that “… may include a requirement that the offender submit to being accompanied and monitored for up to 24 hours a day by an individual who has been approved by a person authorised by the chief executive to undertake person-to-person monitoring;”. The concern here is that if the Minister is saying he will give 24-hour-a-day 7-day-a-week monitoring why then is this a discretionary provision of an extended supervision order? The provision states that if an offender is subject to a special condition referred to in subsection (1)(b) the condition may include the requirement for 24/7 in-person supervision. 
The Minister in the chair has talked about how there would be 24-hour-a-day 7-day-a-week in-person supervision. The use of the word “may” suggests that not everyone will be subject to that level of supervision. I wonder whether the Minister would take a call to explain why that condition is discretionary to the board rather than a requirement that a person is subject to that 24-hour-a-day 7-day-a-week monitoring he talked about. He said in the Chamber that eligible offenders would be subject to that monitoring. We all thought that that would be in person—the sort of monitoring that Barry Allan Ryder had for the first part of his sentence before it got too expensive and the authorities cut it back—but it became clear that the Minister was talking only about home detention. If the Government is prepared to put in this provision why is it discretionary and why is it not mandatory that anyone on an extended supervision order have that 24/7 supervision in person which would provide a level of security and safety to the community that traditional home detention would not? 
The problem is that after the 12-month period of home detention conditions for these people we are back to the hopeless level of parole supervision by the probation service. We heard about quarterly contacts and I do not think that is as good as it could be. This bill is better than nothing but surely the Government could do better on this. I wonder whether the Minister could explain why the provision for the 24-hour-a-day 7-day-a-week in-person supervision is discretionary when the Government is saying that there is this very small cohort that needs to be dealt with firmly by this legislation. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 This morning we passed legislation that allowed for a national register of dogs that are dangerous and might bite people repeatedly. The Minister of Justice this year said that he would support through this Parliament a national register of sex offenders yet we have seen this Government do whatever it can to knock that legislation kick it into touch and get this legislation in instead. 
This legislation will not do anything to protect people from sex offenders. I have just been reading the latest research to come out of Canada. It took 14 years for Canada to introduce a sex offender register and it was done after an 11-year-old boy was abducted raped had his throat slit and was then left to bleed to death in the woods. This crime was done by one Joseph Fredericks who was released on parole on mandatory supervision—the same sort of supervision that is being created with this legislation. It was after people saw that the mandatory supervision had failed that Canada decided to go ahead and bring in a sex offender register. 
In the United States the community is trusted also to be involved in community supervision of sex offenders. Americans have access to registers through CD-ROMs and computers. Parents are trusted to do everything they can to keep their children safe. 
In this country parents are not trusted to do that. This could be the safest country in the world; it would not be hard. We are an island where it is easy to protect our borders. We could protect the people within our borders. We could do it right by passing legislation that sends a message to repeat high-risk dangerous offenders that they will not get away with their crimes. 
When I did my sex offender registry I was contacted by a repeat sex offender in Canada who has written several articles on his rehabilitation and he admitted that the thing that finally rehabilitated him was the sex offender registry. He realised it was a law that worked and that he lived in fear of and he was terrified of breaking it because he never wanted to go back to jail again. He could not trust himself to be released. It was not until Ontario introduced a sex offender registry called Christopher’s Law (Sex Offender Registry) 2000 that that man was able to get on with his life. When he was interviewed for a job he could tell people about his past and that he was a serious sex offender because he knew he would never get away with it. His exact words were: “Only a public registry will work.” He said it was a law that made him go straight and not reoffend. 
My colleague Stephen Franks has done an excellent minority report in which he states that we go into the dangerous area of double jeopardy and we do not need to do that. It is just because of our stupid privacy legislation and conventions which put the so-called rights of the offenders ahead of the rights of victims that we have to pass laws that breach all conventions of justice. We would not need to do that if we just got tough on crime and kept our word about supporting legislation going through Parliament and supporting each other. I said I would support the Minister’s legislation because he said he would support mine and the legislation would go through together. Instead this Government is keener to pass a law for a national registry of dogs than a national registry of sex offenders. The Government thinks it is funny but I do not think it is very funny at all. 
Several years ago when Peter Liddell was released on parole I went on the  
Holmes 
 show. The Parole Board thought that he would not reoffend. Peter Liddell ruined the lives of children and drove them to suicide and parents to despair. What happened? The Parole Board deemed him ready to be released and last week he was back in jail. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 226 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 43 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 76 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 228 in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 228 in the name of Stephen Franks to insert new clause 4A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 228 in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 6 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 228 in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 6A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 228 in the name of Stephen Franks to insert new clause 6B be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 228 in the name of Stephen Franks to insert new clause 8A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 226 in the name of Marc Alexander to section 107A(b) in clause 10 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 27; United Future 8. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to.  
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 226 in the name of Marc Alexander to add new section 107A(e) in clause 10 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to insert in section 107BA(1) the following new paragraph: 
(aa)that sentence was received prior to the enactment of the Sentencing Act 2002; and. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 17 
Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 102 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) of section 107I(1A) the word “may” and susbtitute the word “must”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 10 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (b) of section 107I(2) the words “only within the first 12 months of the term of the order.” and substitute the words “for the period of the extended supervision order.”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 75 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We come now to the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 223 and Supplementary Order Paper 230 and the typescript amendments to clause 6A. 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Are we doing all the Minister’s amendments as one vote? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We are doing all the Minister’s amendments as one vote. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The ACT party would be happy to vote for one of those amendments but if they are all put together we cannot express that. One of them deletes section 15A(1) in clause 6A which is something we are quite prepared to vote for. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I seek leave to vote separately on two amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 230. One is to clause 6A to delete new section 15A(1) and the other is to clause 20. 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I further seek leave because we have an issue with that seeking of leave. We want the amendment to clause 6A voted on separately but we would also like the rest of the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 230 voted on separately from the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 223. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We will deal with the first seeking of leave. Is there any objection to the leave sought by the Hon Tony Ryall? There appears to be none. 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 Our voting will differ depending on which Supplementary Order Paper we are dealing with. If we are voting separately on the amendment to clause 6A on Supplementary Order Paper 230 does that mean we will do the rest of the amendments on that Supplementary Order Paper as a block? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Yes. 
ROD DONALD 
: Then will we do Mr Barker’s amendment as a separate vote and deal with the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 223 as a separate vote? Is that correct? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Atthe moment as I understand it we have essentially a vote for all the amendments except the two that have been identified as Mr Ryall’s. So at this stage there would be three votes. 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 Could the Chair please just clarify which three votes are we are having now? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: They are clause 6A and clause 20. So there will be votes on those two. At the moment we will be voting on clause 6A clause 20 and the remaining amendments by the Minister. Is that all? 
Nandor Tanczos 
: In that case I seek leave to also treat the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 223 as a separate vote from the remainder of the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 230 after taking account of the leave sought by Mr Ryall. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
:  
So do we want Supplementary Order Paper 223 as a separate vote? That is OK. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Is that all clear now? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Clause 20 is in Part 2 I am reliably advised. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: What does Mr Ryall think of that? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: That is OK. Then we will have it later. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 So we have the amendment to clause 6A the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 223 and then a vote on the rest of the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 230. Is that it? Right. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 6A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 223 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 12A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 and the following amendments in the name of the Hon Rick Barkerto clause 6A be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) of section 15A(5) the words “of each class identified in subsection (1)”; and 
to omit from paragraph (b) of section 15A(5) the words “of each class identified in subsection (1)”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 96 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 23 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 93 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 26 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 4; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002 and Parole Act 2002 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 A good starting point in talking about Part 2 is to note it in its context and its context is that there are before the Justice and Electoral Committee 17 amendments at the moment either proposed or passed that have been placed before it by the Government—17 amendments. They are contained in Supplementary Order Papers 223 229 and 230 and I have probably been generous to the Government in counting them in the particular way I have. 
The interesting thing about all this is that this bill—the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill—has only just been reported back. It was reported back in mid-June. In that short time the Government has found 17 deficiencies in the legislation. It is a wholly unsatisfactory circumstance. While National is supporting the bill we are doing so on the basis that there is really only one redeeming feature of merit in the bill which is the introduction of a new extended supervision regime that will manage high-risk child sex offenders. We have real reservations about how effectively this legislation will be administered by the relevant agencies and we have good grounds for those reservations given the comments of Justice Ellis as chairman of the Parole Board the other day and the comments that the Minister of Justice Phil Goff made in reply. 
The reality is that the outcome of fiddling around with the Parole Act and the Sentencing Act has been complex and densely-worded legislation. It is full of subtleties. It is beset with qualifications elaborations and ambiguities. Members may recall that when the Parole Act and the Sentencing Act were first passed there was trenchant criticism from the Court of Appeal. In fact the legislation was described as being akin to the Hampton Court maze. Well it has been made more complex more subtle and more difficult. In Part 2 we see again a raft of changes running right through the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. Part 2 is in two subparts. Subpart 1 is “Amendments to Sentencing Act 2002” and Subpart 2 is “Amendments to Parole Act 2002”. That in itself is not strictly accurate because there should be a third subpart in which the miscellaneous amendments to other legislation should be. 
It is far reaching—there is no doubt about that—because it touches in the amendments to the Sentencing Act on issues relating to reparation reports and cumulative and concurrent sentences of imprisonment. There is a provision dealing with minimum periods of imprisonment in relation to fixed sentences. The issue of preventive detention has come up again for review. There is material about home detention and deferring its start date which I would like to develop in later calls. The whole issue of discharge without conviction is being revisited as is the question of orders to come up for sentence if called upon. The whole aspect of review of non-association orders is thrown into stark relief and the Government has seen fit to make a number of changes to legislation such as the Misuse of Drugs Act the Bail Act—the changes to bail on deferment of sentence are quite significant—and the sentencing regulations. As if that is not enough for one part substantial changes will also be made to the Parole Act. 
The Minister has surely reached a position with the patching that has been done to the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act since their enactments where he can hardly say as members heard him say as he stood in the Chamber that he is proud of this legislation and that it is a triumph of the Government. In reality it is wholly flawed. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 This is the first call I have taken on this bill. I start my speech by simply saying one thing: stop and wake up! I draw to the attention of the people who are voting for this legislation that everything in Part 2 is aimed at achieving a new extended supervision regime that will actively manage high-risk child sex offenders in the community. Members should think about that. Everything I read in Part 1—which I did not get the opportunity to speak on because I did not get the call when I asked for it—and everything in Part 2 is aimed at putting high-risk child sex offenders into the community under supposedly 24-hour supervision. We all know that nothing in this legislation will guarantee that. 
How do I know that? I know that because even yesterday there were articles in the paper stating that a home detention individual who was monitored with an anklet went missing for 4 months. Get that! Four months! I have one message for everyone on the Government benches who votes for this legislation. The day a high-risk child sex offender commits another crime on another child as a result of that offender supposedly being supervised 24 hours a day 7 days a week under this legislation I will do everything I can to put a billboard in those MPs’ electorates stating that they personally voted for it to happen. 
They should know that this legislation is fundamentally flawed. I go back to the third reading of the Parole Bill when Winston Peters stated that this legislation was fundamentally flawed. There are arguments in this Chamber to the effect that it does not matter what one does with parole. Frankly parole is past its use-by date. Eighty percent of people who are paroled offend within 5 years. Know that! Members should think about that. This legislation is all—a term I cannot use in this Chamber because it is not parliamentary; “Bravo Sierra” is an army term that springs to mind—Bravo being “b” and Sierra being “s”—and that is what this is. The crime here is that members like Mr Barker Ms Pettis Mr Benson-Pope and Mr Gallagher will all sit here and pass this legislation and working-class people will bear the results. Boy am I looking forward to the hustings the day after the first recidivist offender offends because I will nail them all as responsible. We over here in New Zealand First will vote against Part 2 because it is fundamentally flawed. 
There are some things that I can endorse. Why? Because we told the Government they were shortfalls and failures and it would not listen the first time around. Take the deferred sentencing. Why are we dealing with that issue now? Why is it in this legislation? Because the Government would not listen—and is that not interesting: again it is not listening. The result we had from deferred sentencing was that people who were sent to jail did not go to jail. Where did they go? They went back out in the community on deferred sentence pending a home detention application. What happened? There is a high-profile case of a man who committed aggravated robbery was sent to jail did not go to jail and was put out in the community. They suddenly find that hello DNA evidence shows he was involved in four other aggravated robberies and when they went to pick him up from the place he was supposedly living on his deferred sentence he did not live there any more. He had gone—flown the coop. No one could find him. 
Hello! If he had been locked up in jail for a start the police would have known exactly where to go. Well! The Government suddenly realises that it has a problem so it is moving to block that hole. But is it not also interesting when looking at the beginning of the bill to realise this Labour Government supposedly cloth-cap working class and union representative is now bleating the cry of an employer who wants to get off home get a deferred sentence because he is a rich guy. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Firstly I say to the Committee that this debate reminds me a little of the fabulous old cartoon with Bill Rowling and Rob Muldoon looking out a window. The cartoonist observed that it was interesting that one could see blue sky and the other could see only mud. Law and order debates are very interesting because despite what the Opposition says the facts are that since the Bail Act was passed more high-risk defendants are being denied bail than before. Opposition members do not accept that. The second point is that there are projections now for an increase in New Zealand’s prison population of over 20 percent in the next 7 years. Those are not the statistics Ron Mark would have when he says we are soft on crime. The fact is that since 1996 when crime in New Zealand peaked there has been a continued drop and all members should say that is a good thing. But the Opposition members for their own purposes have to go and scare and terrify the electorate by saying there is more crime. 
I want to come back to Richard Worth who made an interesting point when he identified that a number of corrections were being made to the legislation. He put that forward as a criticism. I think Richard Worth should say it is a positive thing. If things are not right we try to constantly and incrementally improve the law. No one gets it absolutely perfectly right the first time and anybody who believes that is a fool. The Government has identified areas for improvement. For example there is concern about the deferral dates for the start of sentences. We are now tightening the rules on that in the light of experience and practice because we have now found that the words we wrote before which we thought were adequate are not. So we are now to require exceptional circumstances instead of special circumstances—we are going to do that. We are also to make it clear in sentencing that when considering non-parole periods of greater than one-third of a sentence those should be imposed in cases where the statutory minimum would be insufficient to deter denounce and punish a serious crime. I think that is a very positive amendment and the House should support it. Those are constructive amendments to improve the quality of our legislation and I think people should applaud them. 
Some people will condemn those amendments. Of course they will because it is the nature of the Opposition—oppose oppose—to lock themselves into that mentality. But the Opposition cannot deny the statistics. The facts are that the crime rate is on the way down the prison population is going up longer sentences are being imposed and it is now much tougher to get bail. So there are some positive matters and I think the Committee should have that put on the record. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Part 2 of the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill has a whole raft of minor patch-ups to the Sentencing Act. I want to look at one or two of them. The first one is in clause 15 “Proof of facts”. In the Sentencing Act Mr Goff’s brave new gift to criminal justice in this country we had a complete code about the evidence that a judge has to take into account on sentencing. It is in section 24 of the Act. Let us look at what Mr Goff is now proposing: that in section 24(2)(c) the words “beyond a reasonable doubt” must be inserted. It now states that a prosecutor the guy who is trying to get a decent sentence must prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of any disputed aggravating fact. That means any fact that would increase the sentence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecutor must negate beyond a reasonable doubt any disputed mitigating fact raised by the defence—that is the guy who is trying to get the offender off a sentence. 
Let us then look at what the offender has to do. The offender must prove on the balance of probabilities the existence of any disputed mitigating fact not related to the offence. So let us think what a disputed mitigating fact may be that is not related to the nature of the offence. It is something such as the offender had been nice to his or her mother. How can the prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offender was not? Or the mitigating fact may be that the offender gave lots of money to the SPCA. How is the prosecutor going to disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt? Whose interests is Mr Goff serving when he comes forward with that sort of fatuous amendment? 
Ron Mark 
: “I’ve become a Christian.” 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The offender may say he or she has become a Christian so the prosecutor must disprove that. The offender may say he or she has become a Christian and will never commit the offence again. Mr Mark has raised an excellent example of what seems to be deep at the heart of Mr Goff’s priorities for the reform of our criminal justice system. 
Judith Collins 
: Any chance of Mr Choudhary becoming a Christian? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am not sure whether it would be of sufficient mitigation. If Mr Choudhary became a Christian I do not think people would forgive him either. However looking back at section 24(2)(c) in clause 15 I cannot even see an explanation of why that is being done. I have no doubt that Mr Goff has a reason to now make the prosecution negate beyond a reasonable doubt the claim by an offender that he or she has become a Christian but I would really like to see how that would be done. 
Clause 17 states that when reparation is ordered against the poor dear offender the court must not impose a condition that it be paid as a lump sum unless it is satisfied that the offender has sufficient means to pay it immediately. The poor offender may have to sell his or her house. Reparation of course is simply compensation to the poor victim but now in all the toughening-up that Mr Goff has been telling us about he is making sure that a court does not make the mistake of putting the offender under time pressure. We would not want that! 
Then I look at clause 19 which refers to section 86 of the principal Act. Section 86 is the provision that has been put in to do what the Court of Appeal told Mr Goff was needed. Mr Goff told the Court of Appeal that in his judgment it was unnecessary because he had already assumed that the court could do it. But the Court of Appeal said it needed to know when it could set longer non-parole periods because the Act stated that it could be done only in extraordinary circumstances or words to that effect. Section 86 is now to state that a longer non-parole period than the minimum can be set in order to hold the offender accountable denounce the conduct deter the offender or protect the community from the offender. Those are the purposes of sentencing. Mr Goff has had to state that when the court wants to set a longer non-parole period it can apply the conditions of sentencing. What can it do? It can then set a non-parole period that extends to two-thirds of the sentence. In other words the court can now go back to what the law was before Mr Goff changed it. Before it was changed violent offenders had to serve two-thirds of their sentence. Now in all his toughness Mr Goff has gone back and stated that a court can reinstate the conditions that prevailed before he changed the law. What a toughening-up that is! He has gone back to the position that Mr Ryall had imposed when he was the Minister. Mr Goff has stated the court can now get us back to where we were before he started to change the law. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 To listen to the Minister in the chair one would think everything was rosy in the garden in New Zealand. One would think that tonight hundreds of New Zealanders have not had their cars broken into that tonight many New Zealanders’ homes have not been broken into and that if those people live in Auckland they do not expect to wait 24 hours before a police officer comes. It is a fact that tonight many New Zealanders are at risk of being bashed on the streets of New Zealand. Although crime dropped during the 1990s—from the mid-1990s on—crime is on the way up again and reported violent crime is up 15 percent in the term of this Labour Government. 
If this Government is so confident of its discredited parole system it should tell this Parliament why 40 percent of people on parole reoffend within 12 months 55 percent reoffend within 2 years and 86 percent reoffend within 5 years. For some categories of offenders over 95 percent reoffend within 5 years. 
Ron Mark 
: So parole works right? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yep parole works for those people! Frankly members on this side of the Chamber are left gasping. This Government can talk all it likes about what it is doing about the prison service the Parole Board etc. but 60 percent of the people who will go to prison this year will have been there before. Of the people released from prison 86 percent will reoffend within the next 5 years. We know what that means. It means that tens of thousands of New Zealanders will become victims as a result of people being released on parole—under Governments of both colours. Tens upon tens of thousands of people will have their cars broken into or stolen or their houses broken into and ransacked or be bashed or robbed in the street. So there is a human cost to the way in which the Government deals with the parole system. 
That is the reason why during this debate National members have sought to raise a real concern about this bill. We support the extended parole provisions in the bill; they are not our first choice on how to deal with these offenders—our first choice is a law that allows one to convince a judge that these sorts of people should not be released from prison—but we do believe that this bill has some merit. But it does not go far enough. We are most worried about what will happen after the 12 months of home detention supervision. The probation service told the Law and Order Committee that these people would be monitored or contacted weekly to start with and that eventually that would reduce to quarterly monitoring. The probation service told us that nobody would be monitored for the full 10 years and that about 8 years might be the maximum. 
Frankly that is not the level of supervision National wants. I give this commitment: a National Party - led Government will ensure that the monitoring of those people is real and we will make sure that if they are out the provisions that apply for the first 12 months apply for the full period. If we are going to agree to extended supervision it should be meaningful and the National Government after the election will make amendments to these provisions. But the Minister should not tell members that parolees are not reoffending. He should not say that tens of thousands of New Zealanders are not being made victims of the offending of parolees. 
Nor should he say that New Zealanders are treating the justice system with credibility. When a young woman in North Auckland was sentenced to 7 years in jail for driving a car into a crowd of schoolchildren and killing a young girl the whole country said she would not serve 7 years but would be out in 2. That is what has happened: sentencing has become discredited. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I want to look at several issues in Part 2. Stephen Franks raised the issue of reparation and pointed out that the Government is saying we must not be too hard when reparation is being ordered; that if the offenders cannot pay it all at once in one lump sum because they do not have it or do not look like they might have it we must be kind to them and let them pay it in instalments. Can members imagine saying to someone who holds them up and demands $10000: “I don’t have it all right now.” and that person saying: “OK I’ll take it in instalments.”? That is what this measure does to offenders. 
For 30 years this country has said that if we are nice to criminals they will be nice back. It just does not work like that. We should not even have parole. Parole does not work. It is a joke. It is a lie to the community. Tony Ryall talked about people saying that the girl who had been sentenced to 7 years would serve only 2. A lot of people still do not realise that. A lot of people still think when they see a sentence of 7 years that that is good then are shocked when they read 2 years later that that person has been released. It is an anomaly that parole is given. We should not have parole at all. 
By having parole we create all these other huge problems. In fact I wonder why we even bother with a justice system when members of the Parole Board are appointed by the Minister of Justice and can be fired by the Minister yet when they consider a person’s parole they do not have to take into account why the judge set the sentence in an open court in an open justice system—except when the judge set a non-parole period which cannot be more than two-thirds of the sentence. If that is not Kafkaesque what is? Why do judges go through the process of sentencing someone to jail for a heinous crime—of stating in an open court that it was a terrible crime that the victims have been harmed immeasurably that the crime has offended the community that there needs to be a deterrent for this sort of thing and that there needs to be reparation—lulling the victims and the community into a false sense of safety and security when that person can go before the Parole Board and none of that has to be taken into account? In essence that offender goes before another secret court a secret set of judges who are appointed by the Minister and do not have to take into account any of those issues. 
The other anomaly in this legislation is the issue of cumulative and concurrent sentencing. I do not agree with concurrent sentencing at all. It is a sort of bargain bin—a two-for-one system. 
Ron Mark 
: Buy one get one free. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Yes; an offender who murders one person might as well murder three because he or she will get the other two free. The bill contains a ridiculous clause clause 18—which I still do not really understand even though Stephen Franks explained it to me—which provides that a court cannot “impose a sentence of imprisonment cumulatively on another sentence of imprisonment if at the time of sentencing the offender is subject to a sentence of imprisonment but having commenced serving the sentence is no longer detained under it.” Well why is the offender no longer detained? If the crime was so bad that there was a sentence of the kind that imposing another sentence would be cumulative why is the offender no longer detained? Why did we get into this situation in the first place? If that person was on parole he or she should have been recalled immediately. That is the issue with our having this nonsense of parole. 
The issue of preventive detention which the Minister of Justice has boasted about constantly in this House—about how people will be imprisoned for much longer periods—is also misleading if members look at the conditions this legislation places on the release of offenders. Not a week goes by when I do not get letters from families who know about convicted offenders— 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Any party that takes law and order seriously and that voted against the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act in 2002 must surely vote against this legislation entirely. At that stage New Zealand First said the legislation was fundamentally flawed. In fact these amendments prove that it is fundamentally flawed. We have a whole raft of extensive amendments from the minority Labour Government that indicate this legislation is flawed. One cannot rectify something that is basically wrong. As I said before west Auckland had a problem with painted apple moth. We could not do something to make the painted apple moth problem better; we had to get rid of it. 
This legislation is flawed. We have to get rid of it and do something along the lines that New Zealand First proposed in 2002 and will continue to propose when it is a part of a Government of this country. We do not support parole in the way it is proposed in this legislation. We want to replace the Parole Board with a rehabilitation board with a primary objective of minimising recidivism. Offenders are not given parole and they will be in prison for a much longer time. I support the building of all the new prisons. These people should be kept in prison and for a longer time. That is why we need more prisons. 
As far as convictions are concerned some current statistics show that the longer the stay in prison the fewer crimes are committed because the criminals are in prison. If we keep criminals in prison we will not get crime. The same people commit crime again and again but if we lock them up they will not commit crime. It is a cost on the community to lock them up but maybe it will be a lesson to their families—it will tell their families that this is what happens to criminals. The second thing is that they will not be able to get back home and encourage young children to do the same thing they were led to do when they were young children. That is one of the problems in this particular area. 
We want these people to be put in jail and to stay in jail for the term of their sentence unless towards the end of their sentence there is some indication of rehabilitation on their part. The rehabilitation board would be required to consider the actual duration of imprisonment and to ensure that offenders have demonstrated remorse and have a positive attitude to rehabilitation before it considers parole. 
Statistics can prove just about anything. On page 18 of the New Zealand Police Statement of Intent 2004/2005 the recorded crime trend indicator shows an upward trend for the years from 1999 onwards. In fact since this minority Labour Government came into office the indicator shows an upward trend for total recorded violence and sexual acts and for total recorded serious violence and sexual acts. That is what this legislation is about. To a large extent it is about the behaviour of sex offenders. And what does this minority Labour Government say? It says that it will give offenders better opportunities to go out into the public. 
New Zealand First says that if the Government is serious about dealing with crime serious about making sure that people get punished and serious about making sure that victims realise the people who harm them are getting punished then it has to repeal entirely the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act and has to pass the legislation recommended by New Zealand First to show that it really is tough about law and order. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I want to make just three brief points. One of the overriding concerns that I guess has been talked about at some length is the attack on the parole provisions. Nothing puts that more sharply in mind than a case of a gentleman by the name of Brian Alan Bolt. He is 48 years of age. The judge said it was clear that he offended regularly and offended as soon as he was released from custody. While on parole he committed his 636th offence. If there could ever be an indictment of the parole provisions I guess he must surely be it. 
Clause 22 states that the court may defer the start date of a sentence of imprisonment and justify it under exceptional circumstances. One has to ask why on earth we are giving the right to do that for an offender while no right of a similar nature has been given to the victim. Nobody has considered the victim’s interest in this deferral. In fact there is no provision for the victim to even make an impact statement with regard to the deferral provisions. It seems shocking that we are still going down the track of giving the weight of credence to an offender rather than a victim. It runs counter to the heart of the victims’ rights legislation that was passed not that long ago which tries to rebalance the justice system in favour of the victim. This legislation does not represent that at all. It does not mirror those concerns. 
Clause 21 deals with the fact that the court must consider granting an offender leave to apply for home detention in certain cases. Subsection (3) in clause 21 states: “The court may grant the offender leave to apply to the New Zealand Parole Board under section 33 of the Parole Act 2002 for home detention only if the court is satisfied that it would be appropriate to grant leave taking into account—(a) the nature and seriousness of the offence; and (b) the circumstances and background of the offender; and (c) any relevant matters in the victim impact statement in the case.” It seems to me that the nature and seriousness of the offence can actually be decided upon by the victim impact statement allowing the victim to have his or her say about just what the nature and the seriousness of the offence is. If anybody understands the seriousness of any offence it must surely be the victims. They are the ones who have to suffer for it. They are the ones who have to feel the full brunt of the offence. So surely the power ought to lie with victims to be able to ascertain the impact and the seriousness of the offence. I do not believe that clause 21 highlights that as adequately as it perhaps might. 
The last point I want to talk about is clause 18 “Cumulative and concurrent sentences of imprisonment”. It seems very difficult to understand exactly what this clause actually says. I am not a lawyer but I did consult a lawyer not that long ago and I asked what it means. He himself was not quite sure of it. It seems to suggest that again we are going down the track of offering people discounts for the offences that they commit based on concurrent sentencing rather than cumulative sentencing. If a person is out on parole despite the fact that he or she comes under the sentencing provisions and has another offence to answer to the possible sentence that could apply in that case should not be waived. On what grounds can the offence be diminished simply by reason of a person being on parole and not having to address the offence or the sentencing that might ensue because of another offence given them? 
I have in my name a Supplementary Order Paper that I consider to be a technical adjustment of what clause 18 is doing to at least allow the judges to take into consideration the fact that a cumulative sentence might actually hit the aims of justice a little better than the provisions that seem to be garbled and muddled as they are presently written. I look forward to the support of the Committee. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Is it not about time we stopped playing politics with the victims of child sex abuse? National is supporting this bill for one reason and one reason only. It is a small improvement on the treatment of convicted paedophiles and their behaviour in the community after they are released. It is a small improvement but at least it is a move in the right direction. Having sat through the speeches tonight and having heard New Zealand First castigate this bill and the people who vote for it I would like to ask where they were in the select committee voting. Did they vote for this bill or did they vote against it? The answer is that they voted for the bill. It is not good enough to come into this House use the victims of child sex abuse in this way and talk about this bill and say: “We’re not going to vote for it because it’s not good enough.” 
The fact is that we know it is not good enough but it is a step in the right direction and we have already signalled to this House that after the next election a National-led Government will improve this even more. We will sort this out in a big way. In the meantime are we to allow convicted paedophiles to sit and think about how they can molest little children and do nothing about it? We know the supervision scheme is bad but if it saves one child from a paedophile I for one and the National Party will say: “Thank goodness for that.” But the trouble is that we will not know which children are saved by this regime. What we will know about are those who fall through the gaps. But if it saves one child—and I believe that the main purpose and intent of this bill is to save those children—it will be worth it until after next year when we are in power and we can sort it out properly. It is an improvement and that is why we are voting for this bill. There is no point in coming into this Committee and saying in a grandstanding way: “This bill’s not good enough so we won’t vote for it.” It is not in fact going backwards; it is actually affecting these people. It is to do with people who were not sentenced under the preventive detention regime. That was not available then to them. It is now available and consequently this is retrospective legislation. 
I am appalled to see that people voted against this—as I noted at the select committee—because it is retrospective legislation. The only people I noticed who are against this bill are those who are consistently and constantly concerned with the rights of child sex abusers. Every single civil libertarian did not like this bill. Every single one came along and said: “Oh it’s bad.” That should be a signal to every right-thinking person in this Chamber that it is in fact an improvement on the current law— 
Stephen Franks 
: And the New Zealand Law Society. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: And the New Zealand Law Society—I put them on that particular list. 
Hon Member 
: Pinkos! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: They definitely are a bunch of pinkos on these sorts of issues. Of course they feel that they have to do that because they are there they say to look after the rights of everyone just not necessarily the rights of the victims of child sex abuse. That is why we are voting for the bill. [ 
Interruption 
] I am shocked to hear the former Minister Lianne Dalziel shouting out against us on this bill. I was convinced by her argument in the select committee. [ 
Interruption 
] I say thank you very much to Ms Pillay for her confirmation that I am right and she is wrong. Well done! I always knew there was hope for that member. 
I have to say that the Government at least has made an attempt not much of an attempt but at least an attempt. It does not help that people are now given parole after serving one-third of their sentence but at least it is an improvement. We are pleased to be able to do that. I understand why Ms Dalziel would like my speech to come to an end. It is just too embarrassing for her—people will hear that she has been abusing this speaker all the way through. She has been sitting there chewing gum and screaming like an old harridan. I say to Ms Dalziel that it is not a good look. In fact she does not want us to support this bill. I say to Ms Dalziel that I am sorry but I will not oblige. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Just before I call the next member I have a correction to a vote. The result of the vote on the question that the amendment in the name of Nandor Tanczos to clause 10 of the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill be agreed to was incorrectly announced. The correct result is Ayes 17 Noes 102. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The speech just given by my colleague Judith Collins tells us why National has taken a principled approach. It is an approach that says the bill is an improvement and it will make a difference. She also pointed out that the New Zealand First representative voted for the legislation in the Justice and Electoral Committee. So New Zealand First members are just making cheap political points tonight by changing their stance on this issue. 
Perhaps the most notable interjection today was the one from Lianne Dalziel. She proudly supports the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. How could anyone stand in this Chamber and say he or she supports legislation that allows parole for the worst offenders at one-third of their sentences? An offender sentenced to 9 years can apply for parole after serving 3 years. The Government claims that that is an improvement. [ 
Interruption 
] I have to correct Mr Mark. National is utterly and completely opposed to the whole notion of applying for parole at one-third of a sentence. 
I took the Government at its word when it said it was going to abolish automatic parole at two-thirds of a sentence. Everyone in this Chamber and everyone in the entire country was shocked to find that the Government’s solution so-called was to substitute eligibility for parole at one-third of a sentence. That is not just for the non-violent offender or for the first-time offender but also for the worst offenders. 
That is one of the reasons why I have put in an amendment today. I have sat here and listened to the questions—some of the questions were asked by Mr Ron Mark—about the scandals that have occurred with home detention. These are seriously violent offenders who commit the worst and most vile crimes whilst on home detention. Surely experience should tell us that in those circumstances those people are not eligible for home detention. It might be at the back of a sentence but in practice the actions of many offenders show it is not right. So that is why I have given Government members the opportunity to vote tonight to stop home detention for violent and sexual offenders. They have the opportunity tonight to say no to that. Will they take that opportunity? Will the Minister say that in principle he and his Government oppose home detention for violent criminals and sexual offenders? He has that opportunity. It is not something unreasonable. The Minister knows full well that he would receive the thanks of New Zealanders if he voted for that amendment. He has that opportunity. 
I have listened with huge concern over many many months as members right across the parties on this side of the Chamber have raised scandalous incidents. I have listened to the answers given by the Minister of Justice. He himself knows that it is wrong. Well tonight Government members have an opportunity to fix it. If they have the real interests of law-abiding New Zealanders at heart they will vote for the amendment that will stop home detention. The Minister might well say: “But it was put in there to provide people with an opportunity.” But experience tells us that it was a mistake. Home detention should be limited only to the non-violent offender—the person who does not pose a risk. So the amendment gives a clear instruction that home detention will be banned for violent offenders. We have the opportunity to learn from experience to say that practice shows it is too big a risk to take and therefore we should vote against it. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Is it not interesting that finally we are starting to get some indication from National as to where it might be going with its law and order policy but we will deal with that at a later stage. 
Firstly I hope that when National members give their law and order speeches they will acknowledge that it was New Zealand First that brought home detention— 
Judith Collins 
: Ha ha! 
RON MARK 
: The member can laugh all she likes. She should go to the written questions because they do not lie. There is New Zealand First’s track record on exposing home detention for the sham it is. The point is in there. 
If this Parliament seriously believes that the provisions in Part 2 with regard to 24/7 monitoring of offenders through extended supervision will work it is dreaming. Take the example in Christchurch of the young man who was picked up by a taxi-driver outside the casino having called a taxi to take him home. He got to his home and did a runner on the taxi. Normally the police do not get involved in civil cases such as this because they do not believe it is their job to make people pay for their taxis. But is it not interesting that when the taxi-driver gave the address of the property he was outside suddenly police cars arrived. Why did they arrive? Because the person whom the taxi-driver had picked up outside the Christchurch Casino was on home detention and supposedly was being monitored 24/7 on his anklet. He still managed to go to the casino for an evening’s gambling and do a runner on his taxi fare. So with that in mind what confidence am I expected to have in this garbage before me? The answer is none. 
If that is not enough consider the man in Christchurch who was on home detention under supervision with an anklet on under 24/7 supervision and who was committing burglaries. He had accurately worked out that from the time he activated his alarm it took a minimum of 1 hour for the security people to arrive on his doorstep. So he knew that he could race off his property break into his neighbour’s home steal his stereo get home have it planted and hidden and when the people from Chubb Security arrived to see whether he was there he was there. He simply said: “Well there’s something wrong with your gear bro’ it doesn’t work does it? Must be something wrong.” and so they thought there was. 
That 24/7 supervision is so effective that we now have the infamous case of a person who was personally supervised by a Chubb Security guard who was standing outside the door whilst the offender—the inmate under 24/7 supervision—was inside the room sexually assaulting his cleaner. 
Judith Collins 
: As you do! 
RON MARK 
: As you do! The Government cannot tell me that this piece of garbage that should be sitting on a roll in someone’s lavatory is going to work—it is rubbish! 
With all due respect to my National Party colleagues who have a proven track record of saying: “We’re gonna get rid of the gangs we’re gonna get tough on crime we’re going to do this.” and when they get into Government they spend 9 years doing nothing— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: With help! 
RON MARK 
: Oh the member should not say “with help” because when New Zealand First came into coalition with National we put steel in the spine of that party and we brought in 500 extra police. We brought in the non-association laws and we were the motivation behind that—and I still have the coalition agreement. I still have the black and white coalition agreement signed by Jim Bolger that stipulated and laid down the firm improvements we made to law and order under a National - New Zealand First coalition. Now the problem is to sit here and tell me— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: There was no order in that coalition. 
RON MARK 
: Well I tell the Minister that in the 12 months that New Zealand First was in Government there were far better laws passed through this House than the sort of garbage I am seeing right now. Because at the end of the day the proof of the worth of this document lies in the victims and the Minister can be assured of that. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I realise that I should move on to something other than the things that have already been debated and I will do that. 
The schedules which I believe are part of this debate are of interest. I see that Form 4 in schedule 2 was approved unanimously by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I did not realise that it obliges a judge who wants to set a non-parole period to sign in effect a form of confession or check sheet. If members refer to schedule 2 they will see that a judge who wants to set a non-parole period has to state expressly that he or she considers that the minimum term of imprisonment “is necessary to satisfy all or any of the following purposes: holding the offender accountable …: denouncing the conduct in which the offender was involved: deterring the offender … from committing the same or a similar offence: protecting the community … .” Those are four sensible purposes of sentencing all drawn from the beginning of the Sentencing Act. 
But when I look at the purposes and principles of the Sentencing Act I find that those purposes are only a few of the ones listed. The form does not for example allow the judge to decide that a one-third release would be offensive to the victim or to the community because it would fail to satisfy for example the purpose in section 7 of providing for the interests of the victim of the offence. If the victim is terrified and really needs to be reassured that the offender will not be out in 3 or 4 years or perhaps 5 years if a court ever ordered the maximum sentence then the court cannot find that that is sufficient reason to impose a non-parole period of 9 years or whatever because the court cannot order a non-parole period of longer than two-thirds of the sentence. 
So why do this form and the section of the Parole Act to which it relates exclude providing for the interests of the victim of the offence? Why does the form also omit the purpose of promoting a sense of responsibility? How can an offender feel that the community is taking the offence seriously when the offender hears a court order a sentence of let us say 12 years for a serious offence and knows that he or she will be out in 4 years? And it will be 4 years for a number of very serious offenders. Take for example an offender who is liable to be deported at the end of the sentence: any offender who is liable to be deported at the end of the sentence must know that he or she will serve one-third—the minimum—because the Parole Board must be absolutely certain that such an offender can be no risk to the safety of the community at the end of his or her sentence! It is absolutely rational that every foreign thug who commits an offence in New Zealand and is therefore liable to deportation must know that when the court solemnly pronounces a sentence of 9 years or 12 years at the most he or she will serve 3 or 4. How can that promote in the offender “a sense of responsibility for and an acknowledgment of” the harm of the offence? 
Yet the Minister of Justice has come here with his patch-up bill and has provided in Form 4 in schedule 2 that the only way in which a judge can give a longer non-parole period is by finding one of the four permitted purposes but not any of the others. The judge cannot say that because the offender showed no remorse he or she will set a longer non-parole period because that is not one of the purposes set out in Form 4 or in this part of the Act. Use of a weapon particular cruelty and premeditation are all aggravating factors and one would have thought it was perfectly proper for a judge to take them into account and to say that therefore it would be offensive to the community to release the offender at one-third of the sentence but the judge is not permitted to take those factors into account as far as I can see. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 15 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 20 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 37 the following new clause: 
37ASection 34 of the principal Act is amended by adding the following new subsection: 
(4)Under no circumstances will an offender be regarded as suitable for home detention if the offender has committed a violent offence or sexual offence. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 36 and the subpart heading above it be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1agreed to. 
Schedule 2 New forms substituted for Schedule of Sentencing Regulations 2002 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 230 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to and schedule 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 Madam Chair I am just looking at raising a point of order before commencing my speech but perhaps I will come back to it in a moment. It relates to the last vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Shall we deal with it now? 
RICHARD WORTH 
: Yes. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. It relates to the last vote and whether it was appropriate that the question was put on schedule 1 as well as schedule 2. I am just looking at it quickly as the vote took me by surprise. Madam Chair I thought schedule 1 was concerned with Part 1—I am just seeing whether that is so—yet you took a vote on schedule 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I shall just clarify the matter. That is how the schedules are dealt with now. They are put separately with no debate. The actual debate is included with the debate on the parts of the bill. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: Right. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Has the member not read the Standing Orders report? 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I am well aware of the Standing Orders. It is excellent that that Minister is in the chair. He has had an easy ride tonight because he has chosen to stay out of the arguments. I will substantially confine myself to the title clause and commencement date although of course as the Standing Orders make clear the debate can be more wide ranging. I am sure the Minister is aware of that. 
This legislation is called the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill. I would argue that it is the purpose of a title first of all accurately to capture what the content of the bill is and also correctly to describe it in legal terms. This title is right in that parole supervision provisions are extended in Part 1 and sentencing amendments are contained in Part 2. But Part 2 goes far beyond that. It makes amendments to a number of pieces of substantive legislation: the Misuse of Drugs Act the Bail Act and also subordinate legislation—the Sentencing Regulations. So we have a case here—and it may not be a matter of great moment except to those archivists who later come to research the history of these legislative changes—that the title of the bill does not accurately reflect what its true content is. 
The commencement provision is contained in clause 2. The plan is for the Act to come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent. That certainly is one of the legislative drafting possibilities. I think it is a pity however that given the retrospective nature of some of the legislation it was seen by the drafters as the best mechanism for its commencement. 
I would like to talk briefly in the time that remains about the issue of electronic monitoring. The reason for that is it relates quite directly to the certificate that the Attorney-General gave on the breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Electronic monitoring has been with us for a while. It started off in New Zealand in about 1999 when it was picked up by the Department of Corrections to monitor offenders on home detention. We have in this bill a special condition requiring an offender to submit to electronic compliance with conditions relating to where he or she is. It usually involves an offender being fitted with a transmitter that continuously sends signals to a receiver. We have seen in recent times with technological advances the development of the Global Positioning System technology and other technologies that offer a tool for monitoring offenders in the community. The Global Positioning System has some distance to go. It is fitted to taxicabs with no great degree of reliability. I entertain similar doubts that in trying to precisely pinpoint the location of offenders there will be shortcomings in that process. 
The relevance of it though is directly related to the Attorney-General’s report because there were two issues expressed by the Attorney-General that were apparently of concern to her in the context of compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The first related to the issue of search and seizure as contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The argument is that in terms of search and seizure there is a need for additional information about the proposed method of electronic monitoring. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Carrying on from the honourable Richard Worth it is possibly the—[ 
Interruption 
]. He is honourable. He is an officer and a gentleman by royal decree. Not all men are born officers and gentlemen are they Mr Worth? 
This bill should be more appropriately entitled “Cleaning Up Our Mess: Tidying up the Problems That We Created Because We Did Not Listen” or “Know-it-all Legislation Corrected” or “We Have The Answers To All Your Problems—Sometimes”. Those are a number of titles that could be accorded this legislation. I say that because the simple fact is that we would not be here debating this legislation if it was not a fact that the original Parole Act 2002 was flawed. 
What is good—and I will compliment the Government on this so the Government MPs need to listen up—is that this bill is a good step in the right direction. This bill will make provisions tighter for dealing with those serious child sex offenders but it does not go far enough to address the fundamental flaws that were passed into legislation with the Parole Act 2002. That is what New Zealand First cannot sign up to. By voting for this legislation we would be endorsing the original fundamentally flawed legislation and that we cannot do because we think it is wrong. We think it is wrong because this legislation allows for violent offenders to be on home detention. 
I note that the Greens have voted to allow wife-beaters to have home detention. The Green Party that advocates so often for the rights of women equality and respect for women has voted to allow wife-beaters home detention. We do not agree. We do not approve of that in New Zealand First and hence we will vote against it and tell everybody that the Greens do like it. They like the idea that wife-beaters should have home detention and be put in a position where they can bash women again. We do not agree with the fact that people voted against amendments that would have corrected that. The Opposition has done its very best to help the Government here. 
We vote against this bill because the electronic compliance that this whole bill hinges on is already known to be flawed and faulty and I will not bet the safety of a child against that. Sorry but New Zealand First will not bet the safety of a child against that electronic monitoring. People talk about the global positioning system and the Government has been really quick to say—and Mr Goff has said often—that global positioning system technology enables us to know exactly where these people are. That is fine but although Mr Goff might know where they are he does not know what they are doing. It could well be that a sex offender who has gone home on home detention and is under 24/7 monitoring can be in the house as required but is offending and the Government does not know it and cannot do a thing about it until maybe the charges are recorded. We do not accept that. 
The Government should not to talk to me about how accurate the global positioning system is. We know it is very accurate but if it is so accurate how did those British SBS guys get arrested by the Iranians? They had global positioning systems on their boats and yet those systems did not account for human frailty. Hence we have a very high-profile example of how all the wonders of science and technology still cannot stop a situation from going wrong. If this Government is prepared to bank on this technology and tell the House that it will defend and protect all the children then fine. New Zealand First is not and that is where we draw the line. 
I say to the Government that home detention is a jolly mess. It was never intended for violent offenders. The Opposition has tried desperately to move amendments and Supplementary Order Papers to reverse that decision and regretfully despite those attempts the Government has rejected it. On that basis we cannot support the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill. Had the Government shown some flexibility and ability to listen to the Opposition as it failed to do when the Sentencing Act and Parole Act were passed in 2002 maybe we would be in a different position. But we are not and that is the way it is. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I am really pleased to be able to say that New Zealand First United Future and ACT have joined with National to support an amendment that would see no home detention for violent offenders and sex offenders. It is really good that they have come to that decision and supported Wayne Mapp’s amendment. But unfortunately after all the rhetoric from the Minister and all the shouting out from the Labour benches the Government has decided to side with the Greens and the Progressive Party against women and children—as Dr Mapp so succinctly puts it. They are siding against the victims of violence and the victims of sex abuse. That shows the Government’s true colours which are that they are very much for the soft option when it comes to crime. 
The biggest thing about this Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Act is its name and that is about it. As my colleagues and I have said tonight we are supporting it for one reason and one reason only: that it is at least a little move towards looking after the victims of child sex abuse. That is all it is and it is only a little teeny move. 
 I know that the Government will get out after this bill is passed—if it does in fact pass—sing from the tops of trees and say that it is the most fantastic thing. It will say that the bill is the most fantastic thing for victims of child sex abuse just like it said it would stop this automatic two-thirds parole. What a hollow promise that was! It was a cynical vote-buying attempt and unfortunately too many people—even those on this side of the House—believed that the Government meant what it said. Unfortunately it was just a cynical move by the Minister of Justice the Hon Phil Goff to get a few votes. He has been and will be forever condemned by it because we know that that man is soft on crime just like his Government. 
I notice that he has not taken a call tonight. I notice that he has not stood up for his bill. I notice that he does not care enough to take a call and that has to be commented on. It is pretty appalling when the Minister in charge of the bill really does not care enough even to take a call. What he has put to us instead is a lot of Supplementary Order Papers. Instead of getting these things sorted out beforehand—instead of working with the select committee—he turned up afterwards with a whole raft of amendments. Of course we got them at the last moment and we are supposed to agree or not agree on them. It treats us in Parliament with a great deal of contempt when these sorts of matters are brought in at the last moment with no discussion no opportunity to take them to caucus no opportunity to talk to our electorates about them and no opportunity at all to have an input into them. 
That shows just what contempt Mr Goff obviously feels in relation to this particular area. Obviously parole extended supervision and sentencing amendment bills are not nearly as much fun as foreign affairs. Quite clearly the Minister of Justice has lost the plot when it comes to justice. He is now the “Minister of Overseas Travel” and is only slightly behind “Holiday Helen Clark” in her particular movements overseas. Justice has been left in the very shaky hands of several Associate Ministers of Justice and unfortunately despite the attempts they have made they are not really coming to grips with it. That is why we get this sort of legislation. 
Any attempt made by members on this side of the House to toughen such legislation up and give it a bit of spine is treated with a dismissive wave and a “No we will not vote for that because it was not our idea.” This Government continues to treat the victims of crime with contempt continues to wave away any view that is not its own and continues to be able to oversell its spin on these sorts of amendments to try to get what it wants. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 The title of this bill is the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill. The Minister has tabled Supplementary Order Paper 229 to divide it into the component parts and of course it will be renamed then but nothing in clause 1 properly reflects the real driver of this bill. This bill is an attempt to protect the Privacy Act. It is an attempt to avoid using ordinary common sense which would allow New Zealanders to do what they have done with sex offenders for generations until now. What ordinary communities did with child sex offenders up until the last 30 years—and indeed until the Privacy Act and the emergence of the whole “we know best” movement in the criminal justice establishment—was to try them in open court. Everyone in the community knew whom the sex offenders were. They were not lynched; they were not hounded to death. They went back to their communities and the communities who knew the temptations such offenders were subject to made sure that they did not get a second chance at offending. Sex offenders did get a second chance at working at trying to rebuild their lives and at being part of the community although they were always suspected. This bill states that instead of communities being allowed to know whom the offenders are they should leave it to the justice establishmentand the experts to do the monitoring of sex offenders. 
This bill could have been an opportunity to resolve once and for all the hassle between the police the Department of Corrections and all the other do-gooders employed by the Government over whether it is proper for the police to go around a community and tell people just what kind of exposure they are facing—to go and warn people when there is a paedophile in the community who may be hanging around a school. This bill could have been a chance to confirm that it was entirely in order for people to know that. This bill could also have been the Minister’s chance to do his own version of my colleague Deborah Coddington’s Sex Offenders Registry Bill. Instead we have the Hon Phil Goff’s Supplementary Order Paper 223 which is not reflected at all in the title of the bill or in clause 1 and is a piece of bureaucratic bumf. 
This bill is the outcome—which the Justice and Electoral Committee was not allowed to see—of the dispute between the various agencies about how far they can go in sharing information about sex offenders. When we asked officials at the committee why they did not just use the provisions of the Privacy Act that state the privacy principles are subject to law enforcement purposes they told us in a sort of—I would have to say—embarrassed way that discussions were continuing. They had not resolved the proper form of the protocols that were being developed between the agencies. What protocols? Why was there the slightest doubt about that issue? What has made the justice system—which was once open court justice where the facts would have been out in public the conviction would have been known to everyone and anyone who wanted to find out could simply have looked at the court register—into a system whereby the last residues of open justice are being buried in information-sharing protocols? We have two full pages of rules about managing the risk. What about minimising the risk? 
The Supplementary Order Paper that purports to allow information sharing at the same time states that nothing limits the operation of the Privacy Act or of section 182 of the principal Act. That insertion into the Corrections Act states that the Department of Corrections the Department of Child Youth and Family Services Housing New Zealand Corporation the Ministry of Social Development the New Zealand Police and any sector agency named by the Minister can share information for some very limited purposes. If that had been mentioned and if the people had realised that Mr Goff’s vaunted extended supervision was a substitute for people being allowed to know themselves whom the offenders were—a substitute for open justice being used for the purpose for which it was intended—he would not be able to trumpet it. 
A party vote  was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 93 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 5; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 26 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 4; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 97 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 22 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 229. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill 
Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Readings 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
  
on behalf of the Minister of Justice: 
I move  
That the Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. The passage of this legislation will establish in New Zealand for the first time an active monitoring regime for high-risk child sex offenders living in the community. Child sex offenders are known to be in many cases compulsive repeat offenders. The bill establishes a new regime that allows extended supervision orders to be imposed on child sex offenders who are likely to continue to sexually victimise children once their sentences are finished. In order to address the issues for those who are sentenced under the old laws this legislation has transitional limited retrospective provisions that may be brought forward to apply to those high-risk offenders who are still in prison and subject to release conditions at the time of the introduction of this legislation. 
Extended supervision will be made available to those who are eligible for it the high and medium to high-risk child sex offenders for a period of up to 10 years. 
I do not want to go on much more about that except to say that this has been an interesting debate. It has been one in which there have been measured contributions and I do appreciate the positive contributions made by Opposition MPs. It has been very interesting to note that the Opposition has voted with the Government on many occasions on this legislation. I accept that Opposition members agree with the direction of the legislation but qualify that by saying it does not go far enough. The Government feels that in fact we have made significant advances and that this legislation should be seen in the context of the other legislative changes this Government has made. We have made significant changes to deal with the issues in terms of these types of people. For example we have widened the scope of preventive detention—something the previous administration left for some time. It is also interesting to note that more people are being denied parole that the provisions are being tightened and that we now have an amendment in this legislation that gives better facilities for the sharing of information by Government agencies to help improve the manner in which we can deal with these people. 
I am sure that Parliament will be very pleased with the legislation we have passed and I am confident that it will be effective in protecting the people we seek to protect. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 As I gaze across to the Government benches on the opposite side of the Chamber and see the crowd of members present—and I look specifically at Marian Hobbs at Mark Peck at the two whips of the Labour Government at Helen Duncan at a widely alert Parekura Horomia at the Minister in charge of the bill at David Parker and at Lianne Dalziel—I pause to reflect on how they will judge the contribution they have made tonight to this significant legislation. The reality is that apart from the Minister no one else has uttered a word of any substance at all. A number of people have successfully taken closure motions and the whips have apparently cast votes accurately on behalf of the Labour Party but apart from that the Labour members have contributed nothing. I think it is a great shame that in a Chamber that should be a place of public debate the Government members sit silently and sullenly waiting for the close of business on this legislation when the House is in urgency on 29 June. It is instructive to note that the second reading of this legislation has followed from a Justice and Electoral Committee report presented on 14 June 2004. As I had the opportunity of saying at an earlier part in the debate it is quite surprising that since the original bill was presented to the House for its second reading the Government has found 17 shortfalls in this legislation necessitating a scurry of amendments. 
Mr Barker has spoken of and properly acknowledged the reservations that National has in support of this legislation. We have voted in favour of most of the major provisions but we have done so with a reservation because really all that we see of merit and intrinsic worth in this legislation is the introduction of a new extended supervision regime that will manage high-risk child sex offenders. It would be great if we could say that the legislation had within it the mechanisms to actively—and I underscore that word—manage high-risk child sex offenders but the history of the supervision of offenders by the agencies responsible for that task is unfortunately lamentable. That was identified very clearly for us the other day by the chairman of the New Zealand Parole Board in the comments he made when he realised with surprise just how poor that supervision was. Parole supervision starts with a bang but very much ends with a whimper and the consequence is unfortunately a hugely high rate of recidivism. 
I have spoken in the course of the debate about the particular clauses that cause a degree of concern to National and I have also noted that this legislation is amongst that where the Attorney-General has given a certificate that it infringes the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—not only in one respect but in two. When I last looked at that issue which was about half a year ago I found that no fewer than 19 statutes had been passed in the term of the present Government—and presumably the number is much higher than that now—where the Government had pushed on recklessly in the face of determinations by the Attorney-General that there had been breaches of various degrees of egregiousness in respect of the civil rights legislation. That is a great pity. 
It is also right to say that the select committee that sat in judgment on this legislation did something to improve it. But it still remains the case that the whole regime of parole has become overly sophisticated complex and beset with qualifications elaborations and ambiguities. With the open-weave legislation style that has been adopted an opportunity is provided for the courts to actively intervene and gloss up the gaps in the legislation that seem to require the interpretative aid. 
I will just conclude by saying that it has proved possible in the context of looking at the problems that child sex offenders cause to the community to identify the factors that increase the risk of sexual recidivism against children. The key factors seem to be first the age of onset of the offending. It seems to be the case that the younger the offender the greater the risk is of reoffending particularly for those people who are under the age of 25. Second it seems clear that those who offend against boys rather than girls pose a greater risk of reoffending although I was interested to see on television this evening that increasing consideration is being given to dealing with the problem of those female offenders who have lurked for a substantial period undetected in the community. The third aspect is whether the victim is a stranger or a relative for it seems to be the case that there is a greater likelihood of reoffending where the victims are strangers. Then there are the issues of previous offending history and finally to the extent that therapy is available of whether the particular offender has embarked on a course of therapy and completed it or has failed in that process. 
This legislation is about to go to the further step of obtaining the Royal assent yet National judges it to be not without blotches. Certainly in the context of the policy National plans to announce on 4 July this year in connection with law and order a lot of this material will not sit well with that policy. We can confidently expect when National comes to power in May 2005 that legislation of this type will significantly come under the blowtorch and is likely to be substantially changed. 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I wish to speak in the third reading of the Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2). The National Opposition spokesperson on justice has commented on the excellent contribution of the Minister who has represented the Government’s position very well tonight and I would like to fully endorse that. The Minister has represented the Government’s position on behalf of us all. I am fully supportive of these two bills. I reject the assertion of the National Opposition spokesperson that this legislation in fact offends against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Ongoing monitoring actually protects against further offending and against there being further victims of sexual offences. The Justice and Electoral Committee report acknowledged that some people do not regard that as a punishment but as a sensible protection on both sides of the equation. I just want to place on record that I am one of those. I do not regard such monitoring as a punishment. I regard it as a sensible protection and a sensible course of action for this House to follow and I endorse the legislation. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First and as the Opposition spokesperson on justice for New Zealand First I wish to remind the House that New Zealand First reaffirms its opposition to the Parole Act of 2002 and the Sentencing Act of 2002. That was our policy then and it continues to be our policy now. I see tonight the National Party are cuddling up to the Labour Government on this particular legislation and at this hour of the night that must be quite a cuddle! When the National Party supports the Labour Government it tends to be described as cuddling up to the Labour Government and we do not support cuddling up to the Labour Government in the second reading and following. 
As soon as we had a close look at our policy—the two new members; Edwin Perry and myself—we realised where New Zealand First stood on the matter and we have constantly opposed this legislation in the House tonight. We take the view that this legislation should be repealed now. The National Party comes up with some sort of policy that perhaps sometime after 2005 something might happen to this legislation but we want to see all of it go now. That is our policy. We do not accept any amendments to it at all; it should all go. 
This legislation allows high-risk sexual offenders more freedom and to be able to get out into the community more. That is what will happen under the Parole Board’s view of these matters. Once it sees high-risk sexual offenders being allowed to go out into the community it will grant more parole. 
There was an interesting comment from the Minister. He said that more people are being denied parole. That is right; he said more people are being denied parole today. That is because today under the Labour Government’s legislation more people can apply for parole. If one can apply for parole after one-third of a sentence rather than two-thirds it is mathematically certain that more people will apply for parole and more people will be denied parole. So there is no point in the Minister saying that more people are being denied parole today than before; it is only because more people can apply for it under this Labour Government legislation which New Zealand First does not support—as the Rt Hon Winston Peters made clear when the party opposed both the Parole Act and the Sentencing Act in May 2002. 
We do not support a system that allows high-risk sex offenders for example to be let out about one-third of the way through their sentences. We say that they should stay in prison until the end of their sentences; and then only if they have shown remorse with perhaps some degree of rehabilitation then for them there should be the type of extended supervision mentioned in this legislation after the completion of their sentences. It is a good idea but only after those people complete their sentences. 
Various amendments were put forward during the Committee stage of this legislation by the ACT party and I think New Zealand First supported every one of them. We supported every ACT amendment on this issue because only ACT and New Zealand First have remained consistent with their voting in May 2002 and have continued to oppose the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. Many other amendments were put including one put forward by the National Party and New Zealand First supported with an open mind the National Party amendment to add a new clause 37A. The clause said: “Under no circumstances will an offender be regarded as suitable for home detention if they have committed a violent offence or sexual offence.” Well that is totally consistent with our policy and I am glad the National Party is picking up New Zealand First policy but it does that all the time does it not? So we are not at all surprised to see our policy being mirrored in National Party policy yet again. 
There was a referendum in New Zealand not too long ago in which 92 percent of New Zealanders wanted tougher legislation. They did not really get it in the Parole Act and the Sentencing Act in 2002 and that is why we opposed that legislation. It is interesting that only recently in this House 0.3 percent of people in New Zealand society—homosexuals and lesbians—wanted a form of legislation and this minority Labour Government has given it to them. That shows where the priorities of this minority Labour Government are. It will not support tougher legislation as New Zealand First would do on sentencing and parole but it will support very very readily the 0.3 percent of the community who want a certain type of lifestyle—a type of lifestyle that is not lived by 99.7 percent of our society. 
 That shows up this Labour Party for what it is. It has no heart for tough legislation. This legislation is totally out of order in the sense that those people should be made to continue their sentences. The minority Labour Government if it had wanted to adopt that policy could have brought in legislation to that effect just as it has brought in legislation for homosexuals and lesbians. It has failed to do so and that shows the weakness of the Government on law and order matters. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Green Party members are next and they wish to have two speakers with 5 minutes each. The bell will be at 4 minutes. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Like Mr Worth I would like to refer to some of the contributions of previous speakers. It has been instructive and interesting to hear members across the Chamber talk about the different and very serious issues that this legislation raises. We could characterise the contributions from the National Party New Zealand First and ACT as basically saying that the legislation does not go far enough that it is weak legislation and it is just showing the Government’s soft-on-crime credentials. As is usually the case that has been done without offering any real solutions as to how those things should be fixed. 
I say that but it is not quite fair because New Zealand First and ACT did offer some solutions—unworkable solutions rhetorical devices meaningless and impractical—but they did offer solutions unlike the National Party members who criticised but had nothing to say about how they would address this serious problem and given that the legislation does not go far enough what they would do to make it go further. Of course National does not need to express a policy because it will leave that to ACT and New Zealand First which are desperate to get in on the tough-on-crime rhetoric for the last week that they can claim that prize. Come Sunday all their policies will be stolen by Dr Brash! Mr Worth has told us exactly what will happen. He said that it would be on 4 July—a good date in deference to their American idol. 
Darren Hughes 
: Without reservation! 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: That is right. So Mr Brash will be stealing the policies of ACT and New Zealand First on Sunday in order to have another attempt at pushing the emotional buttons of the New Zealand electorate to get a quick rush in the polls. It will be interesting to see whether that works for the National Party. 
Darren Hughes 
: But it’s never the same the morning after. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: That is right. Who knows what sort of headache they will wake up with? This is serious legislation. At the heart of the debate is a real question about whether extending supervision is double jeopardy and whether it is punishment. The Justice and Electoral Committee talked a lot about the issue. Lianne Dalziel spoke very strongly at the committee and made her point just now in the debate on the third reading. Her opinion is that it is not punishment. I think that that is a semantic device to get around the problem. I do not see how we can say that adding restrictions to a person against his or her will is not a punishment of some form. The question is whether that punishment is justified and I have already indicated to the House this evening that I think it is justified in light of the serious risk and the serious consequences we are talking about when it comes to child sex offenders. 
Unfortunately the Committee did not support my Supplementary Order Paper that proposed a sunset clause. One of the things we have to remember is that this legislation was an attempt to patch up and fix up a legacy of National Government inactivity during its last term in Government. Many of the people sentenced today under the Sentencing Act 2002—the kinds of people we are talking about—are likely to get preventive detention which would allow restrictions and supervision to be put on them for the rest of their lives. That did not happen under the old regime. One of the principal things about this bill is that it is an attempt to create a situation to catch those people who were sentenced to a finite sentence under the old regime. They have been in prison because they are too high a risk to let out and because they have reached the end of their sentence no supervisional restrictions can be put on them. It is unfortunate that that sunset clause did not get picked up. 
I do support the legislation but let us not forget that it is a patch-up. The real issue is about how we increase justice and how we reduce crime. It is not about sentencing. It is about justice. What we need is a package of solutions that will reduce crime in this country. That means we have to start focusing on early intervention and crime prevention and start moving away from an adversarial system that is concerned only with technical questions of guilt and innocence. We have to take restorative justice and Maori justice processes more seriously. We have to look at prison reform. We should look at the Roper report which was written in 1989 and has a lot to teach us today and we should look at reintegration. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 As members will gather from my colleague’s speech the Green Party is not directly opposed to all these issues even though we are dividing our vote. We just weigh the considerations a bit differently. We have to seriously weigh up the question when Parliament brings in measures that are intrusive of privacy of whether the benefit outweighs the cost to the community as a whole. Privacy is continually under challenge on two counts. There is a long-standing desire of State agencies—not just in New Zealand but also in other countries—to get greater surveillance powers. Unfortunately the speed of technological change and the efficiency of modern surveillance technology with satellites global positioning systems and computers make surveillance so much easier to do. But when one is bringing in an intrusive surveillance measure one has to judge it according to recognised privacy criteria. Tim McBride on behalf of the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties in his submission referred to the four-part test of the former Canadian Privacy Commissioner in 2002. He said that any new measure must meet the following requirements. It must be demonstrably necessary in order to meet some specific need; it must be demonstrably likely to be effective in achieving its intended purpose; the intrusion of privacy must be proportional to the societal benefit to be derived; and it must be demonstrable that no other less privacy-intrusive measure would suffice to achieve the same purpose. 
Those who have promoted the electronic monitoring surveillance system have not justified it. It is not just about child sex offenders because now that the Minister’s amendment has passed it is even worse. It applies to all parolees and as amended it does not even need to meet the test of undue risk to the community on behalf of the parolee. It can apply more generally. If the special conditions are that the parolee should not go to a certain place or places at any particular time then that can be subject to the electronic monitoring by the global positioning system to test that the parolee is meeting that condition. 
That is a very general power. If we allow that to go through without any particular argument as to why we need it and without looking at the real balance we do not have any real defence against its extension beyond parolees to people on bail for all offences. It becomes an easy technology to use and we start to go down a very bad track. 
People have said in this debate that New Zealand is now at the cutting edge of this type of surveillance system. We are a test case for its international application. I do not think given that we are moving bit by bit towards a surveillance state in terms of ID card systems that are coming in one way or another and greater electronic interception systems that we should go down an extra surveillance path without a very good reason. 
There are other ways of going about the problem for the particular group that is discussed in this legislation—sex offenders. SAFE in its submission stated that there is a lot we can do to deal with the problem of recidivism in high-risk offenders by the agencies working together. 
 To move to a surveillance state does not make us safer because it only leads to a more anxious less-empowered populace who feel a sense of antagonism towards the State if they are under surveillance and that leads to insecurity and to more crime. It does not lead to a better society and of course despite what Lianne Dalziel states these provisions offend the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Margaret Wilson said so in her very strong criticism of this legislation. She said very clearly that it offends section 26(2) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It also offends section 21 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and there is absolutely no reason why Parliament should go ahead against Margaret Wilson on this issue and against all the other people who made submissions. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise for United Future to speak on the third readings of these bills and I have to preface what I want to say by making the observation that I was quite interested to hear Dail Jones from New Zealand First come out as the super crime-fighter talking tough and saying the word “tough” so often that we got the impression that he was trying to make himself believe his sense of toughness. It almost seems to me that he wants to go the full hog and to try to outdo the toughness of everybody else. He is going to institute a policy of mandatory life sentence and pray for reincarnation so that he could re-imprison the infant when reborn again to show just how tough he and New Zealand First really are. Of course they are not very tough at all. 
Stephen Franks 
: They’re wimps. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: That is exactly right—they are absolute wimps. They are not in favour of crucifixion they are not in favour of flogging and they are not afraid of eating at Bellamy’s. What I would like to say though getting a bit more serious is that we should have a look at the victimisation survey. In 2001 there were 70000 sex offences not including rape in this country. That is a very high rate of crime in New Zealand and despite the rhetoric of the behavioural apologists the recidivism rate for sex offenders shoots up to 70 percent if we take a 22-year study and have a look at what they do. They may not reoffend quite so quickly in the early years but in 22 years it shoots up to 70 percent and that compares with an 86 percent recidivism rate for all offences. 
So it is a very high recidivism rate and the damage done by sex offenders is enormous. It destroys young children if that is whom they prey upon—it destroys families and rips them apart. The hardest thing for most families to cope with is to see the destructive force of those sexual predators on their children. It is absolutely heartbreaking. These are the most vulnerable members of our society and they are preyed upon by a number of these sex offenders. Of course they prey on others besides children but particularly in regard to vulnerable children it seems all the more poignant that we do not have legislation in place to deal effectively with them. 
I have three major concerns—first of all the recognition that the sentences were too lenient in the first place and that has not really been addressed by this legislation; it is a patch-up job. Secondly the recognition that our parole provisions are a joke: 86 percent of individuals are back in prison within 5 years most of them let out through the parole provisions after one-third of their sentence. It is pathetic. Thirdly the culture that the rights of the offender are when in conflict with the rights of the victim often given primary importance has got to change. At some point we have to make a value judgment and say that victims’ rights and the rights of the law-abiding should supersede that of offenders. This should be made a standard practice. 
At some point we must recognise that the good guys—the victims and the law-abiding—have rights that supersede those of the offenders. We cannot say that often enough. A sentence must give full consideration in retribution to the interests of the victim. It should not be circumvented shortened or given a discount. That is exactly what parole does—it revisits the sentence and says it was too much. What has changed? What amelioration has there been in the impact of the crime on the victim? Absolutely none! Yet we are giving a discount. That has got to change. I do hope the Parole Board is listening to this debate and that the probation service is taking note of the concerns raised in the debate and is taking them on board because they will be held to account for this as will the Government. 
One thing I would like to highlight is that according to the Attorney-General the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was a cause of concern. Well again we are talking about the wrong thing. Whose rights? The rights of the victim must take supreme position over those of the offender. Quite frankly when an offender has already made the choice to offend and has been incarcerated and dealt with the offender has made a choice and that offender’s rights are of lesser concern. The real villains of the piece—the music behind the sad operatic tourniquet on the bleeding stump of what passes for our criminal justice system—are the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act of 2002. They are the clowns that maintain the circus of our justice parody and until they are dealt with until they are dragged back into this House and dealt with properly until the provisions of the parole system have been duly altered to reflect the 92 percent who wanted tougher and more justifiable sentencing we cannot proceed down the path of giving true justice to the people of this county. 
United Future will support this bill because it is better than not supporting it. We have to support it because it would be on our conscience not to support it and to allow predators out of prison to prey on unsuspecting innocent victims. But it is the Parole and Sentencing Acts that must be brought to trial for their culpability in allowing this farce to continue. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 It is interesting that when the United Future spokesman was summarising he managed to characterise the Parole Act and the Sentencing Act as villains to be dragged back into this House to be dealt with. Of course it is very hard for United Future members to look in the mirror or to look at the people they sit amongst and admit that those Acts passed by this Government would not be operating if United Future had used its vote to bring the Government down. United Future has propped up this Government and in the end it cannot wash its hands of the fact that this Government has maintained an attitude that is completely at odds with United Future’s values on almost every issue that United Future says it holds dear. 
However I am in a curious position on this legislation. I support Margaret Wilson’s views entirely. I support what Margaret Wilson said about this legislation because she was right. This legislation trashes an ancient and very valuable principle—the principle against double jeopardy. It is explicitly retrospective and quite unnecessarily so. I am sorry that people seem to feel there is a sort of macho credit in asserting that retrospectivity does not rank when it is weighed against the interests of victims. That is not a necessary balance. 
It was perfectly in order for Margaret Wilson to have written what she did and for the solution to be very obvious—and the solution does not ignore victims’ interests. Victims’ interests would have been just as well—in fact probably better—secured simply by dumping the foolish privacy provisions that restrict or discourage the police and every other authority who has knowledge about these sex offenders from warning people who could be vulnerable. 
It would be very simple for the authorities to tell the communities in which these people settle exactly what they have done—simply to advise the communities of the proceedings in open court the conclusions of the court and the sentence that has been served and to warn people to keep an eye out. The community does not need to rely on the agencies and the Government officials who believe they know best and that they should be the only ones allowed this information. 
There was a solution that would have been perfectly consistent with Margaret Wilson’s warnings about the grave breach of established principle and with the interests of prospective victims. If the 44 people for whom the worst form of retrospectivity is reserved in this legislation had been named and had their photos published the entire community would have made sure they were kept out of temptation’s way. That disclosure would have been completely consistent with longstanding principles of justice. If the courts remained transparent we would not be pressured to impose fresh sentences of supervision after the men serve their time. We would not be creating that dangerous precedent of going back and effectively resentencing. 
There is no getting around the fact that this is a new law to confine people for what they may be thinking of doing not for what they have done. It has been a proud boast of our law for centuries that it punishes people for what it is proven they have done not for what some authority or expert theorises they might want to do. We have to remember that despite the grave figures for reoffending by sex offenders even the best predictions about the worst of those offenders are right less than 50 percent of the time. In other words we will confine offenders on suspicion that they may reoffend and we know that at least 50 percent of them will not do so. 
There are far better ways of dealing with this and the first is to have decent sentences. The second would be to trust New Zealanders and communities. When these people go out into communities their neighbours should know what they have done. Everyone should be keeping an eye open for them. When they get into a position of temptation they should be harried out of it by vigilant police. There are not so many of them that that is an unreasonable burden. If the community knew they would ring the police as soon as they were suspicious. ACT would substantially increase the sentences for what those offenders do and there should be supervision at the end of every new sentence but that would not override our ancient principles. 
This is an attempt by the Government—and it seems by every other party in this House other than New Zealand First which is voting for this legislation—to preserve the discredited Privacy Act. I say to Mr Alexander that the 10 or 15-year-old theory that privacy stands ahead of every victim is what is being protected here not the victim. This legislation is to protect the Privacy Commissioner and those absurd privacy codes. It asserts retrospectivity by Mr Goff as if it were a badge of honour. He should know that it is a badge of shame for any Minister of Justice. For once I will say that I honour Margaret Wilson for being so uncompromising in her comments on this legislation. She was right. If only she had insisted in Cabinet on a solution that then fitted with her conclusions. 
This legislation also omits the other changes that should have been made in the Parole Act and the Sentencing Act. This legislation makes some absolutely ludicrous changes. The Supplementary Order Paper I put forward was a solution that would have helped Mr Goff politically. When he faces Don Brash’s speech on Sunday he will wish he had accepted the advice of the Parole Board which he appears to want to keep. There is no place for parole but he wants it. He would wish that he had accepted at least the urging of the ACT party over last month that the Parole Board be allowed to consider the purposes of sentencing. 
Deterrence denunciation and accountability are all of legitimate interest to victims. They are all legitimate interests for the Parole Board to take into account. Instead the board is very carefully confined to one role and one role only—to unpick the sentences given by the courts. According to the anointed that surround the Minister of Justice the courts cannot be trusted. They may actually sentence people to a term of imprisonment that delivers some sense of balance. They may even give a retributive sentence. The Minister could not stand that idea so his Parole Act made sure that the Parole Board deliberates in secret to unpick the decisions of open courts and is allowed to take into account only what Mr Goff calls protection of the public. Protection is only one of the four recognised purposes of sentencing. He would have done well to accept my amendments that would enable the Parole Board to look at the other purposes. 
The legislation also provides for the courts now to have more simplified grounds for setting a non-parole period. In my opinion the non-parole period will now be seen by judges—were that regime to last—as the important part of their sentencing. Judges know that the non-parole period is now regarded by the public as the real sentence. The courts now have a near open sesame to set the real sentence through non-parole periods. 
As I read the new criteria section 86 of the Sentencing Act is now no longer confined to extraordinary or unusual cases. Judges will now be able to use it to set a sentence they want with one qualification: this legislation does not allow them to go past the two-thirds of a sentence parole threshold. All that has done is restore the position for the courts to where the National Party had left it automatically for violent offenders. Parole was not available for serious violent offenders before two-thirds of a sentence had been served under the National Party’s much maligned legislation. It was rightly maligned. It did not allow truth in sentencing. However we have a Minister of Justice who stands up in this House almost every day when questioned about parole and brays about having got rid of automatic release. He has now given the courts the power to stop early release but stopped it at what was automatic for the National Party. That is so cynical and it will be amusing to watch him wriggle and struggle over the next week or two to persuade people of the toughness of a policy that was anything but. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The Government may not like to hear that it voted against disallowing home detention for violent and sexual offenders. It had the opportunity tonight to fix up a glaring omission—one that it is questioned on time and again in the House—and the Minister tried to say it is all right. The Government had the opportunity tonight to vote to stop that and it failed. All the Opposition parties with the exception of the Government’s little helpers the Green Party voted in support of that proposal. Why did the Government not do that? 
I want to make this very brief point. On Sunday there will be a revolution in our criminal justice system. The public will get a real choice. This Government will be left hapless and helpless because it introduced parole eligibility at one-third of the sentence. The Government stands condemned for that and will be forever. That is why Mr Goff is ridiculed up and down the country. The legislation may be a small and modest improvement—that is why National is supporting it—but the philosophy of the two bills is ultimately bankrupt and it will be changed. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sittings of the House 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the House at its rising to adjourn until the ringing of the bell on Tuesday 27 July 2004. That is in keeping with discussions I personally have had with representatives of all parties and with the whips earlier on. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill 
Sentencing Amendment Bill (NO 2) 
Third Readings 
Debate resumed. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Parole (Extended Supervision) Amendment Bill and the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 91 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 5; United Future 8. 
Noes 25 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 4; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bills read a third time. 
"