Volume 628 Week 5 - Tuesday 13 December 2005(continued on Thursday 15 December 2005) 
Volume 628 Week 5 - Tuesday 13 December 2005(continued on Thursday 15 December 2005) 
[Volume:628;Page:977] 
Tuesday 13 December 2005 
( 
continued on Thursday 15 December 2005 
) 
Veterinarians Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Greetings Mr Assistant Speaker—meriKirihimete! Nga mihi nunui ki a koe te tangata e hapaianai te reo Maoriitenei taha o te Whare i te kaha koretake o tera taha mo te reo Maori. Me mihi ahau ki a koe. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Merry Christmas! Absolutely huge acknowledgments to you the person who promotes the Maori language on this side of the House because that side is absolutely hopeless with it. I really have to tip my hat to you. 
] 
I do need to redeem myself slightly; some members are endeavouring to change the deep prejudice and the deep bias that emerged during the election campaign. One imagines that they are practising te reo Maori so that they can apply it to the pets they own which might need the attention of the Veterinarians Bill. 
But I think I need to make a small improvement on last night because unwittingly I did demean the animal kingdom. I made the unwise observation of comparing a number of the members opposite with members of the animal kingdom. I did warn about guarding the crotch in terms of the “Tigger from Tauranga” and I did warn about a bird—a “Peachey Parrot”—causing near death to itself by pecking itself in the back; I will not continue in that vein. However the Veterinarians Bill—[ 
Interruption 
] I am not entirely sure whether they are edible but certain members will be on a very raw diet on the other side of the House so who knows what they will consume. 
The family pet—who in the early months of next year will no doubt need the assistance of the vet to be put down—sits on the front bench. Actually if he does not need the assistance of a vet he could draw on the assistance of the one or three doctors on that side of the House. Let us hope that they are experts in pathology because they will be endeavouring to breathe life into a virtual corpse of a political character. 
However let me return to the Veterinarians Bill. Veterinarians work in a profession that we stand very proudly to support by introducing and shepherding this bill through. The brand of the profession must be protected and safeguarded. We do not want to see the profession undermined—as many other guilds trades and professions were as a consequence of failed policies in the 1990s. 
I also make reference to the fact that there was a very very sensible suggestion made regarding the creation of a board that has a combination of professional vets and a number of lay people. Members have made a range of very silly childish remarks—which were reflective of the very shallow pool that their rhetoric was being drawn from at that late hour yesterday—but that board will have a very important role overseeing the monitoring the stewardship and the full-time development of the veterinary profession. 
There is this foolish notion that only those who were swept into Parliament in certain rural areas can speak about these matters. It is difficult to speak with any authority when one is an obscure back-bencher in Opposition and is likely to stay there for the foreseeable future. The place to speak from with authority actually is on the side of those who enjoy the power of the Treasury benches. 
All the braying in the world from either the donkey or any other character will not make any difference if one does not enjoy the authority of the Treasury benches to shepherd through particularly important legislation like this—as well as the student loan legislation which will be of great assistance to the veterinary profession. Not only will it enable veterinary students to pass with distinction but it will also help the profession although far be it from me to say whether vets might get an early Christmas. [ 
Interruption 
]. I listen to all this noise and wonder whether a hydatids dosing is necessary; there is too much frothing coming from the other side of the House. 
Engaritaku mihi mutunga ki a koe e te tiamana kia kaha hapaingia te reo Maori. Kia taunga manaakitanga. Ko te wikitoria kei konei ko ratou kei te ngaro. Kia ora tatou! 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
But my final tribute to you Mr Assistant Speaker is this: persevere. Promote the Maori language. Blessings upon you. It is here where the victory is; they are missing out. Greetings to us! 
] 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Veterinarians Bill and is pleased to see it pass. I congratulate the members of the Primary Production Committee some of whom have left Parliament and some of whom are no longer on the committee including myself and I am a bit sad about that because it was a committee that I enjoyed immensely. In the spirit of good cheer and Christmas I want to congratulate the chair David Carter who had a lot of work to do. This bill as members found during the Committee stage had extensive re-writing in the select committee and I think—well there is no think about it—the bill is better for that. I have to say that the chair brought in a couple of innovative moves as in putting officials and veterinary representatives together which I believe has to be tightly controlled and the chairman did that. I think it has to have tight parameters around it but if those two things are taken into account I believe that the outcome is a far better and far more workable bill and importantly for this House far harder for the participants in the industry to criticise in future years. So I commend him for doing that and I commend the rest of the committee for the great job they did. 
This bill in many ways modernises the Acts that veterinarians operate under. It respects the fact that many of our people are going overseas and are not returning in the numbers that we would like and it is being far more accepting of qualifications that are earned in other countries and applied in New Zealand without a whole lot of fuss and bother. It brings those people into the fold and accepts the differences in their qualifications while still upholding the standards that are so essential to our industry. 
I think it was Mr Lindsay Tisch who mentioned yesterday that we talk largely of veterinarians on farms. We talk about the small-animal practices they have including the family member Bianca that we talked about yesterday. But vets are of course critical to our export industry and it is only their professionalism and their standing that allows our meat which is such a big part of our trade to go offshore without those horrible things called non-tariff barriers that apply in other countries and that they are only too ready to put on our products. 
It is interesting as we spend a bit of time in this House and move around the different committees to see that there are different cultures in those committees and it is amazing how even with those different cultures in those committees and in different parties in those committees people still apply themselves to the matters in hand. I think sometimes that it is unfortunate the public cannot get more of an overview of that than they do of this particular place that we are standing in at the present time which is very confrontational but the select committees tend to be much less so. We work in cooperation—and none more so than the Primary Production Committee where we all know the importance of exporting we all know the importance of farming for the future of this country and we all work diligently to make sure that that is not interrupted in any way and to make sure that we retain the clean green image to use a cliché that we have spent so many years attaining for New Zealand. I think that not one member of that committee is unaware of that or takes it lightly and even though in my time there was certainly a bit of joking around the work still got done. 
I am still New Zealand First’s spokesperson on agriculture and I will be speaking to these bills in the future. But I will not be at the Primary Production Committee so I want to mention a person who gave us a bit of excitement over the last years at that committee. That was our friend Ian Ewen-Street who during a select committee inquiry took off to use my language with the learned counsel who was sitting before the committee—and a very charming and wonderful lady she is. She Sue may be listening. With due respect we just did not expect that of Ian Ewen-Street but there was much backslapping and congratulations when that came to light. It did not do a lot for his career I must say—and that is a warning to all the rest of us who may look around the place. But they are a charming couple and we wish them well. In his valedictory Ian Ewen-Street sort of landed me in the messy stuff a little bit for which I will never forgive him but for my part I look on it as a prank that had long-lasting repercussions. Nevertheless it was meant in good heart. 
So that committee was a great committee to be on. Its members did sterling work and still do sterling work and this Veterinarians Bill is proof of that. It is a bill that has been gone over in the biggest possible way and lots of it has been rewritten but that has all been done with the intention of making it work better. There is no better example of cooperative select committee diligence and hard work than that of this bill. For my small part in it I commend it to the House and I hope that it serves the veterinary profession well. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I place on record that the Green Party supports the Veterinarians Bill and indeed the veterinary profession. Despite the lengthy and tedious filibuster we have experienced over the past 24 hours on this bill I believe in fact that all parties in this House support the legislation and that all the hundreds and hundreds of amendments by the National Party were just part of some little game. I have not quite understood what it was all about; they were certainly not serious amendments but just part of a filibuster. So now we have a bill that I think every party in this House supports and we hope it will achieve its various objectives including that of protecting the reputation of practising vets. Indeed their brand has been mentioned a number of times as though everything in the world has come down now to brands. 
The interesting thing about veterinarians is that almost every vet I know—and I am sure that most vets—cares deeply about animals. Most people who go into the veterinary profession do so because they have a great affinity for animals. Certainly I could sing the praises of all the vets who have helped to keep our 18-year-old cat alive and I think we could all sing the praises—and they have been sung endlessly in the House over the last 24 hours—of individual veterinarians. 
But there is a mystery that I would like to comment on—that is why veterinarians who have a great affinity with animals are silent when it comes to major and important issues of cruelty towards various animals. In particular I am thinking of the cruel and shameful conditions that hens pigs and chickens have to endure in New Zealand. 
David Bennett 
: And fish. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: The member is right—some fish in their cages as well. I am absolutely convinced that most veterinarians would feel as repelled and horrified as I do or in fact as anybody would who actually visited for example factories and saw hens stuck in cages with a space the size of a piece of A4 paper to move around in. It is a grim Orwellian sight. The hens cannot express any natural forms of behaviour. They cannot even extend their wings. They are kept in conditions of misery that it would not be an exaggeration to say are verging on torture. 
Pigs—highly highly sociable animals—are stuck in their sow crates unable to turn round and just standing there. That is all they can do day after day—those highly highly intelligent sociable animals who can in experiments play games on computers with joysticks. To see those highly intelligent and sociable creatures stuck behind bars unable to move and just chewing their bars in desperation would make most veterinarians feel repelled—as indeed I believe any member of this House would feel if he or she cared to go inside and observe the conditions those animals are kept in. They would feel that that is a very grave blot on New Zealand’s landscape and that we should not in this day and age in the 21st century be keeping animals in conditions that can only be called cruel. 
So it is a mystery to me when I am certain that most vets are opposed to those practices why the organisations and councils that represent them are silent for the most part about them. We look to veterinarians to speak up on behalf of the animal kingdom and I am sure that if they were not silent but spoke up those cruel practices would come to a swift end. But in fact it is their silence that enables those horrendous conditions to continue in our midst. 
That is why the Greens are particularly keen on the new functions of the Veterinary Council of New Zealand and its prime No. 1 function—that is to advise and make recommendations to the Minister on any matter relating to veterinarians and the practice of veterinary science. Councillors now have a mandate to give specific advice to the Minister on any matter of veterinary science and surely now after years of silence they will find their voice and see that mandate as an obligation on them to speak up for the animal kingdom—for those animals that have no voice in this Parliament. A veterinarian’s livelihood is based upon looking after animals and seeing that they are well cared for. 
So I look forward to hearing that the Veterinary Council has made recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture to get rid of sow crates from New Zealand and to get rid of cages where hens are jammed into spaces with an area less than the size of an A4 sheet of paper in which to move and also to look at the whole issue of keeping 20000 to 40000 chickens that we eat for meat jammed into windowless sheds where for much of the time they have very little room to move around and where they are continuously fed antibiotics in low doses for breakfast lunch and dinner even though they are not sick. 
Of course we know and every veterinarian in New Zealand knows that that particular practice is shameful and that it puts the health of future generations of New Zealanders at risk. If we wanted to have an experiment in creating and developing antibiotic resistance we would continuously feed millions of animals low doses of antibiotics. This practice is producing antibiotic resistance. Up to 50 percent of chickens tested have antibiotic-resistant bacteria on them. When we eat them we in turn can take on board those antibiotic-resistant bacteria and of course those bacteria can pass to other bacteria in our stomachs and so on. It is a shameful practice it has been banned in many countries overseas and I do think it is time we acknowledged that this practice is putting the health of New Zealand at risk. 
It is up to veterinarians to take the lead on this issue because after all a small number of veterinarians are filling out the prescriptions and allowing—recommending in fact—millions of chickens to be fed antibiotics continuously which they do not need because they are not even sick. I have no problem with giving antibiotics to any animal that is sick but I do have a huge problem with feeding antibiotics continuously to any animal that is not sick basically to make that animal grow more quickly and to prevent disease from sweeping through flocks. 
Other countries have banned that practice because they realise the huge risk that overuse of antibiotics places on our future. More and more diseases are becoming resistant to antibiotics and we are facing a future where we will not be able to treat many diseases with antibiotics. When we face that future people will look back and ask why we allowed that practice to happen and why veterinarians stayed silent about that practice and allowed it to continue by filling out prescriptions that allowed it to happen. They will also ask why the Veterinary Council of New Zealand did not take the lead in getting rid of this and other shameful practices such as the keeping of animals in cages in conditions that could really be described only as torture. 
The Greens strongly support this bill. We are very hopeful that the new role of the Veterinary Council in making recommendations to the Minister and in giving advice on any matter relating to veterinary science will result in the Veterinary Council and the veterinary profession at long last finding their voices on those issues taking a lead and getting rid of some of the shameful cruelty that millions of animals in New Zealand still have to endure. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to begin this speech on the third reading of the Veterinarians Bill from United Future’s point of view by saying that I agree with the sentiments that Sue Kedgley has just expressed in relation to the way in which we look after animals such as pigs and chickens in this country. I think if I had been born a chicken I would have preferred to be able to range around in the open air from time to time and do all the things that chickens do. They do a bit of scratching hunting and pecking. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Keeping chickens sometimes reminds me a little of Parliament because chickens certainly are quick to find a pecking order. They get rather peckish towards each other on many occasions which bring to mind some of the other images that members sometimes see in this House. I think similarly if I was born a pig I would like to do my share of the rolling in mud the rooting and so forth instead of being confined in a little cage with a concrete floor. As our society comes to understand more and more about animals I would imagine that this House will address those issues in due time. So I wish Sue Kedgley all the best with those endeavours. 
In my electorate of Rongotai we have a very large veterinary practice called— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Your electorate? The member is Annette King. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Well it is my electorate. I live there I work there and I do good things for it. So I am very proud— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: She’s a King—what does that make the member? 
GORDON COPELAND 
: The Hon Trevor Mallard would know more about that subject perhaps than others in the House would but I do not think we will go there at the moment. I did not say I was the member for Rongotai; I just said it is my electorate and it is where I contested the election. But we have a wonderful veterinary practice there called Animalz which has started a whole new chain of large veterinary practices around the country. Allan Probert who is the dynamic entrepreneurial businessman behind it has made it into a great success. It is like a cross between a zoo and a veterinary practice because there are so many different animals there. 
I think that for whatever reason the number of cats in New Zealand now vastly exceeds the number of dogs. That is certainly true in Miramar. When I go for my nightly strolls I have a lot of fun stopping now and then to stroke various moggies that want to accompany me down the street and up the trails in my beautiful suburb. I can tell people on authority that I have not seen a cat come out of Peter Jackson’s house yet but I walk past that house every night. So I offer my congratulations today to Peter Jackson on the very sensitive way that he has portrayed a gorilla in a certain movie that premiered here in Wellington last night. 
I would also like to make a comment about the general welfare of animals in this country. United Future has a policy which we will be progressing under our confidence and supply agreement to do with the planting of trees on marginal strips around rivers and lakes. We call it a “no regrets” policy because it has so many great benefits to the country. Trees live on nitrates so we deal with nitrate runoffs. We add a lot more to our clean green image and we also provide more shelter for animals—which brings me back to the bill. I think it is true that veterinarians should have a very broad view of the welfare of animals. It is good to see some trends emerging in our farming practices where that is also being taken into account and people are beginning to realise it. 
Let me give an example. During the election campaign I spent quite a bit of time in Southland—and I know my colleague Eric Roy will know something about this—which had the best lambing season over the last spring that it has ever had. One of the things Southland has done as a new practice is to minimise human interaction with ewes during the lambing process. Instead farmers are leaving a cluster of tussock in their paddocks because they have found that ewes like to tuck under those tussocks at the time they are lambing. Without human beings being involved farmers are finding the outcomes are very good. It is also adding to productivity because of course it reduces the cost of human intervention. So I think there will be some good spin-offs for animals coming from that process of planting trees. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: There’s been a bit of modification there too—the sheep are nearly cows. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Oh there is a little bit of genetic modification going on there as well. I have not actually seen a species quite like that yet. I think I can picture it though; we would have to milk it on our knees—which is probably not a bad thing for those who pray in the morning. 
So for all those sorts of reasons I have the pleasure of signalling United Future’s support for the Veterinarians Bill in its third reading and I wish the vets in this country all the very best in the important work that they do for the welfare of millions of our animals. 
Bill read a third time. 
Sports Anti-Doping Bill 
First Reading 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sports Anti-Doping Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration. I want to thank the House for what I am sure will be a largely bipartisan or multipartisan approach on this legislation. That has been its history ever since my good friend John Banks showed leadership in this area in the early 1990s. 
New Zealand is considered by the international community to be a world leader in the fight against doping in sport. We were a founding member of the World Anti-Doping Agency and have been a strong supporter of the development of the code that seeks to harmonise international efforts to address doping in sports by establishing international standards and values which was finalised at the world anti-doping conference in Copenhagen in March 2003. Nations then moved on as members will be aware because a committee has been dealing with the Unesco international convention. That is something New Zealand is just about to officially ratify following the support of the Government Administration Committee. 
The world code is a set of anti-doping rules and principles that are accepted by most of the world’s international sporting organisations. Those organisations have responsibility for ensuring compliance with the code and enforcing it through their member organisations. I make the point that a few international sporting codes have still not quite come into line with the code and I encourage the relevant local national sporting organisations to work on their world organisations in order for that to happen. 
This bill was developed in order to allow all doping violations to be handled in a uniform manner in New Zealand. The current legislative framework comes from the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency Act of 1994 which was the work of John Banks. From memory—and this will surprise people a little—I think David Lange played a bit of a role in the committee that was involved in getting that agency set up at the time along with some other sporting matters. The advent of the world code in 2003 changed the environment we had for the previous decade. What we are trying to do is to bring our legislation into line with what is happening around the world. Therefore this bill will repeal and replace the 1994 Act. 
The bill does not contain the world code itself as the code does not lend itself to going into legislation nor does it incorporate it by reference. But it does allow for the making of rules that will interpret the code for New Zealand. The bill continues the Sports Drug Agency as an independent Crown entity with members who have knowledge and experience in law sports sports medicine sports participation and administration. I do want to acknowledge the work the agency has done. It has recently re-branded itself as Drug Free Sport New Zealand and there have been three exceptional leaders there in Sir Graham Speight David Howman who now has an international leadership role in the anti-doping area and Dr Dave Gerrard who as well as being a real athlete himself has shown technical expertise in this area along with Graeme Steel who is probably seen as the international leader in technical matters around doping in sport. 
The bill will make some changes that will allow for the public notification of the names of athletes who commit doping violations after the processes have been completed. There has been a tendency on the part of some sports to try to hush up some things in this area and I think the naming and shaming approach is important. The bill also allows for the implementation of blood testing something that was right at the edge of the rules. The bill makes that area a lot clearer. 
I make it clear that the bill and the sports anti-doping rules will not impinge on the rights or affect the obligations of members of the general public. No one will be randomly stopped when riding a bike down the road and asked to give a sample. The legislation will apply only to people who by their voluntary participation in sport are required by their sport’s anti-doping policy to comply with the rules. But people will have to be aware—and it is important that there are some reminders—that both within the participation season and out of season there are rules and people will have to be prepared to give samples if they are involved in sport. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What about normal clubs—at that level? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Theoretically at the club level there is an obligation for people to be dope-free. I think that is quite important. There was probably a previous history. Many members of the House who have been members of gymnasia found that in the 1970s and 1980s the attitude to the taking of drugs was probably quite different from that now. Drugs were quite openly available and almost certainly much more extensive use was made of them by club and possibly even school players in the past. I make it very clear that these rules apply to people who are in organised sport run under the auspices of national sporting organisations even at a club level. It is quite unlikely that they will be tested at that level because the focus will always be at the top level but the rules do allow for that sort of testing and people should be aware of that. 
The support of Drug Free Sport New Zealand and of the New Zealand Olympic Committee has been vital in this area. I think it is very important that our athletes who have shown recently how well they perform on the international stage can compete can be clean and can win. It is interesting that we seem to be doing a bit better internationally as the rules are implemented for international competitions. That probably says something about some other countries and their longer-term attitude. 
I will make two closing points. One is that an international debate is being held on whether the rules should focus on performance-enhancing drugs only. Therefore there is a discussion around marijuana and its use—whether that is something that is clearly not performance enhancing and whether it should be the subject of the testing. It is clear that the majority of positive tests in New Zealand are for marijuana which stays in the system for 6 weeks or more. We should have that discussion at some stage internationally and we should have it in New Zealand as well. 
The other point I will make is in reference to articles in a Sunday newspaper last week around the rider Lisa Cropp. I think we need to get some consistency around our testing and our rules and around the regulations and the courage of enforcement because it is becoming very clear that a very senior person in the racing industry has been cheating. She has been achieving records when she has been cheating and the authorities have been unable to deal with her. It is absolutely unfair that New Zealand records are broken by someone who at the time was using methamphetamine. That is wrong and it has to stop. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 National will definitely be supporting the bill going to the select committee. I have the view that anybody in this House who does not support the first reading of the bill should probably be swabbed because the need to have in place a range of mechanisms to keep sport as it should be—the pure and wholesome prevail of those who want to achieve by dint of training and ability—makes so much sense. 
If there were an example that we should use to show that this issue does have some currency it is today’s  
Dominion Post 
 headline “US sprinter banned for two years” and the article about Tim Montgomery a previous world record holder and his doping offences. That is just using today’s news as an example that the subject does have some real currency. 
So National will be supporting the bill certainly through the first reading in the select committee and at the subsequent stages. But we believe so strongly about this issue that we will be giving this legislation absolute scrutiny through every stage to ensure that we are able to provide adequate levels of protection the right incentives and the right enforcement procedures as far as New Zealand is concerned to play our part in what is a world international sports arena. 
New Zealand has been a world leader in this area for some considerable time. We have been right at the cutting edge of making decisions. We have not been at all tardy in accepting our responsibility in the arena of sports anti-doping. So we support the Minister’s comments about some of the details in the bill and I will not repeat those. 
The explanatory note of the Sports Anti-Doping Bill includes the code which states that doping is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport. I think that sums it up. Doping puts at risk ethical principles and educational values and we support working against that. The bill will continue the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency as the national agency responsible for compliance with the code. It empowers the agency and changes and enhances its role in quite a number of ways. So National is supportive of the bill in every way. 
We have to protect our young people from some real dangers. Today sport is a business. Once it used to be a pursuit of competition; today it is a business. The rewards for those who achieve are so much greater than they were when I was a youngster although there were some opportunities then. Today when one sees the earning capacity of the top sportspeople around the world both in prize money and in endorsements from a range of commercial entities that associate themselves with sport one can understand the temptation that is there. 
We say it is good that people can and want to achieve. We support people who want to be winners but we want them to do it in a way that is fair and that does not put their bodies at risk. We now have a situation where there is just simply so much money attached to sport that probably the best chemists and doctors in the world are creating new enhancement drugs and the second best are trying to catch them. I think that that is simply the reality. So we need to say: “Let us empower those who have the responsibility of keeping sport clean.” That is entirely what we want to do. 
There are a few people who might ask what harm it does if people want to win as it is their bodies and it is the ultimate free market. But it simply is not that simple. There are clear and catalogued illustrations of how drug doping has had serious implications on the health of individuals. 
If members want a model of just what drug doping can do they should look at Germany. For about a millennia Germans were essentially the same people the same race. In fact one of their leaders in the 1930s thought they were the purest race in the world—although that is a debatable issue that I do not want to get into. But essentially all German people were the same. In 1960 a fence went up and cut one-third of the country off from the other two-thirds. Within 15 years in the mid-1970s one-third of the country had gone from winning one or two gold medals at the Olympics to being the second-greatest achiever in the Olympics in the world—winning something like 30 or 40 gold medals. That was in the period that the Minister mentioned: in the 1970s when the ability and the desire to control drugs internationally was much less. 
It is a matter of record now that in the late 1980s the Berlin Wall came down and the countries were merged. The performance of the winners of that former country in the Olympic arena has diminished considerably with the increased scrutiny of drug management drug control and the testing around international sports events. A number of very clearly documented illustrations show how some of those East German athletes’ bodies were distorted. Some of them even died. There was a high jumper—whose name escapes me at the moment—who died at a meet and subsequently was found in the autopsy to be overloaded with a range of performance-enhancing drugs. 
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that that behaviour is entirely inappropriate. At a time when our young people have enough to contend with in terms of planning careers studying fitting in family and training—balancing competition and the desire to win—to add something else into that mix such as whether they will be part of the doping scene in sport is just entirely inappropriate. I think that it is harder today to engage in the taking of performance-enhancing drugs. But because the money is there those who really want to pursue that course are able to do so. The desire to win can and does cloud judgment. 
I had a very limited involvement with athletics in the 1960s. I am no great shakes as an athlete but one thing I could do was throw a discus. I was probably competitive at most provincial meets. I can recall on one occasion going to the Caledonian ground in Dunedin. I was 18 years old 18 stone and straight off the swedes and I thought I could throw a discus—until this man-mountain arrived on the scene. His name was Robin Tait. He was just a veritable behemoth of a man. He had muscles in places where I did not even have places! He was just a huge powerful man. 
I do not want to besmirch Robin Tait; a man who won a number of medals for New Zealand at the Commonwealth Games and who performed quite adequately for us at a number of international meets. But there were a lot of anecdotal stories about Robin Tait and little blue pills and the way in which he had enhanced his performance. Sadly Robin Tait died in his 40s and I think members can draw whatever conclusions they like but certainly there is evidence that he would have been partaking in something that assisted him. 
In my own case it was not until later years that I actually took steroids for cancer and the repercussions of doing that even though I was in my 40s is that I now take a bigger size of shoe. My left foot is one and a half sizes bigger than my right. That happened on the taking of steroids. My left hand is 20 millimetres bigger than my right hand. That is something that just distorted my body in my 40s. So we cannot presume there is not a huge risk with the taking of steroids. As I say that is pretty well documented. 
Can I just say to the House that National supports this bill. We are keen to see in place the most rugged and robust rules surrounding the absolute exclusion of drugs in the sports arena. So we will be voting for the bill. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak in support of the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. I must say it is a relief to be talking about sport and athletes and getting away from veterinarians cats dogs gorillas and even parrots which we have been talking about over the last day or so. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Then Labour should not have introduced that bill. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I thought National supported it! As members have already said New Zealand is recognised internationally as a world leader in the fight against the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport. Sport is such an important and integral part of our nation and is something we all can identify with—our record in sport our children’s involvement in sport. I think we should be proud of our efforts thus far in implementing a progressive and comprehensive anti-doping programme. It is very heartening that the National Party has said it will support the bill through the select committee process and beyond. I think we all can identify with how important it is to our international reputation and what we believe as a nation in terms of the part that sport plays in our daily lives. 
 The bill was developed to allow all doping violations in New Zealand to be handled in a uniform manner and to update our legislation to ensure it allows for the making of rules to interpret the very important anti-doping code. It is very good to see our leadership role in the international community. We were a founding member of the World Anti-Doping Agency and are a strong supporter of the code and I look forward to our joining other nations in adopting the convention early next year. 
The bill repeals and replaces the 1994 Act. When the Act was developed there was no common international practice around doping and sport or drug testing. Of course with the 2003 code this situation has now changed which means our legislation is outdated. Although New Zealand anti-doping practices are generally consistent with the code the bill brings our legal framework into line with the code. It allows all doping violations to be handled in a uniform manner and it is integral to the anti-doping regime in New Zealand as it provides for the national anti-doping agency and national hearing body to implement the code. 
We need to understand that non-compliance with the code could affect our strong anti-doping reputation and damage the efforts made by previous New Zealand Governments and our anti-doping agencies to establish an effective and credible anti-doping programme. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: What does the code say? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I am sure the member can read it for himself without having me read it out for him. I hope he will take the time to read the code and inform himself about it which is the duty of all of us. 
We should be proud of this measure. It is a very very good bill. We should commend New Zealand for its leadership in this matter and give our thanks to all of our sportsmen and sportswomen who have upheld and who will continue to uphold our tradition of competing and winning cleanly and fairly. I look forward to the support of all parties for this very important bill during the select committee process. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 National will support this bill because it is necessary and it is timely. I congratulate—and I never thought I would ever say this—the Minister in charge of the bill Trevor Mallard. I have to say it quickly in case it hurts too much. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: You could have a heart attack. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Absolutely. The present Minister the Hon Murray McCully and before him the Hon John Banks have done sports in this country a very very good service and I congratulate them all. But it is more serious than just aligning ourselves with a code. I note and the Minister pointed out for his own reasons that the code this legislation will put us alongside is not in here. I would have thought that at least it would be included as an attachment or be in the schedule so that when people are reading the bill they can see the international code right there and have a look at it. Sports are part of our national identity. They are part and parcel of what makes us the people we are. It is not only the All Blacks but also the netballers— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: The cyclists. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Cyclists you name it we have them. We compete on an international stage far above what our population ratio should be. We are a country of sportspeople. I am also glad to say that the Minister answered my question about whether this was designed for people at club level. Although he said yes my worry is that the bill is all about the glamour people. It is all about the glamour pusses who get all the kudos around the world. It is never about the 18-year-old who may have been forced into doing something that he or she should not have at a club level just so that person can go the extra mile and that is something we need to put a lot of our energies into. 
I point out to the House that there are the internationally named people like Robin Tait who was not just rumoured to take steroids but did take steroids. He took performance-enhancing drugs and it killed him. Robin Tait was as my colleague said dead in his 40s. There are also the glamour athletes like Flo Jo. We all thought she was a great athlete. She passed away in her 40s. 
Eric Roy 
: Tim Montgomery! 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I will come to Tim Montgomery in a minute. In this country we should be putting pressure on international bodies in relation to the whole issue of sports doping. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a great character—“I’ll be back.” He took anabolic steroids. [ 
Interruption 
] I suppose that is the reason why he is not a very well-liked man at the moment. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: A famous Tory like Tau Henare. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Here we go. The Noddy from the north has nothing better to do than to come down to the House— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Christian names not nicknames are to be used in the House. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It was not a nickname Mr Assistant Speaker it was a derogatory name. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well it is unparliamentary. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I withdraw and apologise Mr Assistant Speaker. That unfortunate person lost his seat because the voters in the north decided enough was enough. I always said that if I could not beat Dover Samuels I did not deserve the seat and I still believe that. I am so grateful to the people of Te Tai Tokerau that they put their faith in a person who is willing to go the extra mile—and he already has. Here is some interesting stuff and this is a wide-ranging debate: the former electorate office of the past member for Te Tai Tokerua Mr Dover Samuels—talking about doping—is now Te Atatu’s first knock-shop. Does that have anything to do with doping? There was the former leaseholder and now there is a new leaseholder—it must be all about doping. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will come back to the bill. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: I just did Mr Assistant Speaker and it is a wide-ranging debate. I want to talk about the drug-induced frenzy of performance-enhancing drugs. It will make people do anything. It will make them accept things that they would not normally accept. It will make people underperform not overperform. It will create havoc in communities. Like any drug dependency there is a price. It is a sad life and it is a false life. It is depressing for those who are around such people and it can even lead to break-ups in the family. 
The new designer drug on the market today is “Winstone Alone”. Members might laugh at it but it is a performance-enhancing drug. It is about a quick shot of a hormone-enhancing drug that has some sad side effects. 
 It is depressing for those who are around people on this new drug “Winstone Alone”. It can lead to a false life it can lead to a sad life and it is not performance enhancing at all. All it leads to is living out a lie. When one is on this drug one is living out a lie. 
I want to congratulate the Minister again and also those people who have been part of the whole industry of sport because that is what it is—an industry and we do have to clean it up. I want now to refer to Tim Montgomery and this touches on one of my major concerns about this bill. Tim Montgomery the 100 metres world record holder was suspended for 2 years. He was suspended without testing positive. That happened because he was caught up in the big scandal and because of the evidence of somebody else. He has not tested positive at any stage of his career. He is the world record holder of the 100 metres. 
Are we aligning ourselves to a system where there is justice for all? What about access to the courts? What about access to justice for those who are caught up in some way shape or form? That is what I want the select committee to look at when this bill comes before it. There is no code as part of this bill. It is not attached and I think it should be. People will then be able to look at the international code and know what we have actually signed up to do. I am glad that the Minister said that yes people can be tested if they are a member of a sports organisation and play sport. I want again to congratulate the Minister. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to indicate that New Zealand First will support the passage of this bill and to congratulate the Minister again on bringing the bill which is long overdue to the House. I note that the work on it was actually commenced under a previous administration—in fact quite some time ago when the Hon John Banks was in Parliament. 
I want to spend a wee bit of time in responding and replying to some of the comments that have just been made and I say to the Hon Mr Henare not to go away— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
RON MARK 
: That is not an enhanced performance. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think it is right for a member to mention when another member is leaving the Chamber or coming into it or his or her absence from the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is absolutely right and he will notice that I called the member to order. In fact that was under Speaker’s ruling 23/8. 
RON MARK 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member was still in the House. How could I refer to a member being absent from the House when he was still here to raise a point of order? Time immemorial will show that that was a ridiculous ruling. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. I as well inferred from what you said that the member was leaving the House. The member was concerned about that and there the matter rests. 
RON MARK 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With all due respect to you and to your position—a position I actually voted for you to have because I respect you—I ask that you deliberate in private on the ruling you have just quoted and see whether any reference whatsoever was made to the impending possible departure of a member who indeed might not depart the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have applied the principle of Speaker’s ruling 23/8 and I want to let the matter rest there. I have made a decision. 
RON MARK 
: I hope Mr Henare is listening with both ears because what we saw over there was not a performance-enhanced performance and neither was it a drug-enhanced performance. It might have been enhanced but it was definitely not performance-enhanced; it was actually quite detrimental—whatever that member has been subjecting himself to over the last 24 hours. 
Might I point out to honourable members of the National Party that we should possibly have been debating this bill last night. What we heard and what the people of New Zealand heard last night—and let there be no mistake—were speeches from all those brand-spanking new members of the National Party who were making what were probably their second contributions to the House and I say to them: “When I start playing the CDs of those speeches you’re gonna look pretty stupid around the country.” New members of this House should be warned that what they say in this House is recorded forever in perpetuity so it is not very smart for them within a month of their being here to make the most banal stupid childish immature speeches thinking they can get away with that in the dead of night—because we have a wonderful thing in this country and this speech right now is being recorded. It can be downloaded on to CD and no doubt will be played at the forthcoming election and so will my remarks on the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I am allowed to respond to the interjection Mr Assistant Speaker. Again new members and recently returned members should remember that the rules allow me to respond to interjections and to broaden my debate. If members want to keep chipping then I make the point to them through you Mr Assistant Speaker that they should not follow the lead of people like Mr Henare. He failed. If that is the example they are going to follow then they will all be in serious trouble. 
I will give Mr Henare one little bit of credit. He touched very briefly on youth. This bill is very important because of the forthcoming Commonwealth Games and looking ahead the Olympic Games. Yesterday Parliament hosted an absolutely amazing ceremony in the handing over of the taonga from the former flag bearer of the Winter Olympics team to the chef de mission and from there it will be handed over to whomever is appointed as the new flag bearer for the New Zealand Winter Olympics team. In looking at the DVD that shows how our New Zealand village was set up at the last Olympics in Athens and how our athletes performed one is absolutely filled with pure pride. It is 100 percent New Zealand pure pride. 
New Zealand First people can be forgiven for that—we are quite a nationalistic party. We take pride in the flag and in the performance of our athletes. What we do not take pride in is people who cheat. That is akin to the National Party bringing in the Exclusive Brethren and doping the party’s campaign with $500000 to performance-enhance it. We do not admire cheats. We do not admire people who do underhand things so any legislation that stems that or stamps that out is good. 
But there is a problem that I will reflect on. It was interesting to hear Mr Tim Montgomery say in an interview that one of the reasons he took the drugs he took was that he was told to take them. He did not have time to understand them or learn about them. He did not actually bother himself with considering the implications or looking at the analysis of what he was being told to take. He simply lifted his tongue to have it popped in and that was it. He was relying on his coaches not to put him in a situation that was illegal. That is what he said in an interview that I watched which I think was a CNN interview. 
The problem is that today many of the young people coming through sports training probably do not realise the level of education they will require to be good effective competent and competitive sportspeople in today’s world. There is the possibility that if they do not educate themselves or if they are not educated as well as they should be firstly in the law and secondly on the enhancements and supplements available to them out there they could put themselves into a dubious situation. 
It is not just about supplements and it is not just about enhancing products; it is also about simple things like medicines. I am one of hundreds of thousands of people in New Zealand who suffer from asthma and eczema. What do I use? I use Ventolin and Betnovate—a steroid-based cream is it not? The question I guess one would have to ask if one were an athlete is whether athletes are allowed to use Betnovate. Does that have an effect on their testing regime? Can they use Flixotide? Can they use Betnovate? What types of prescription medicines or treatments are they taking that can have an effect on their testing regime? 
Professional athletes of the likes of Sarah Ulmer and the people who successfully represent New Zealand today on the Olympic circuit are well educated and well informed and they have good staff and a good management team to keep them on the straight and narrow and help them. But today as young people see a career in professional sports and as they look at their heroes winning the Rugby League Tri-Nations in the United Kingdom or competing and blitzing the northern hemisphere on the rugby circuit with the grand slam tour they aspire to be like them. Many of them look at sport as a possible option for a professional career. 
The challenges and attractions of taking supplements that young people should not take will always be there and one cannot help but reflect that possibly what the select committee needs to look at is the sort of educational processes that exist in our schools. I know that Aranui High School in Christchurch set up the first sports academy in order to take in a bunch of kids whose only real interest in life was sport; they were not interested in academia. Those young Maori and Pacific Island kids who flooded into Aranui High School—some came from St Bedes College and some came from St Andrews College; those are the top schools of the district—and moved across to a school that was too brown and too bad for anyone to consider previously were in search of a sports academy training regime that hopefully would put them either into the services the military or the uniformed police or give them a shot at sport somewhere competitively. And those kids have done very very well over the years. I wonder whether those schools will be considering including educational initiatives in their syllabus in order to better inform young people of the dangers surrounding the enhancement of their performances by the use of drugs or medicines. 
This is a good bill. I have only a little time left to speak so I will wind up by simply saying again to those new members of the National Party that when they participate in these debates they should think carefully about how what they say might reflect on them personally when they go back to their districts and face the constituents who voted for them. They should ask themselves one question: “Will I be proud of the speech I just made when it’s played to my constituents by an opposing party candidate on the hustings at the next election?”. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Anne Tolley cannot help herself. She is chipping in again. That is why she lost her seat the first time and it is probably why she will lose it again. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill. I want to look at the question from a number of angles. My colleague Eric Roy said that the desire to win can cloud the judgment of sportspeople and I do agree. We have to look at the pressures on athletes to do that sort of thing nowadays as they know that they are going to hurt their health by taking such drugs in order to win. 
I think there is a problem in society with winning being everything. In the past participating and doing one’s best was what people aspired to. Now winning has become everything. The glory comes to the winner and in the international sports setting there are so many rewards for being No. 1. We can see that in the performances of our own athletes and in the attitude of the public both in New Zealand and around the world to our athletes’ performances. I am thinking of someone like Ben Fouhy our kayaker in the Olympics who came second in his race. He was subject to some criticism: “Oh you’ve been world champion and you didn’t win at the Olympics.” The pressure on him to win was so great even though he gave a fantastic performance and came second to a Norwegian who was really at the top of his game. 
Also the financial rewards internationally in terms of sponsorships and everything else have grown so much that to win means one can perhaps be a multimillionaire and live in comfort for the rest of one’s days. If one happens to come second at the Olympic Games then all of those rewards do not come one’s way. So there is the social pressure combined with the pressure of commercial sport which is not good. The pressure is also driven by the attitudes of the public and media in New Zealand. 
The other unfortunate pressure is the pressure of national interest and Eric Roy talked about the East European Governments of the past who were so desperate for national glory through getting a lot of medals at an Olympic Games—East Germany in particular—that they were engaged in doping on a substantial scale. In fact as I understand it if a person was in an East German or Czechoslovakian team he or she was ordered to take those drugs. People had to take those drugs or they were not on the squad. That has led to great problems and not only in Eastern Europe. 
American authorities seemed to be under similar pressure to make sure that their athletes won. A couple of years ago we heard of a whole pile of athletes including Carl Lewis who seemed to be caught up in this pressure to take drugs. Carl Lewis was deemed to have taken not just one type but three types of banned stimulants. When the international agencies—the International Olympic Committee and others—looked at the United States Olympic Association and what it had done they were rather horrified that the defence of people like Carl Lewis was that they did not have any intent to take a drug. 
The World Anti-Doping Agency chairman Dick Pound dismissed the no-intent defence. He said he had seen copies of US documents and that there was almost what he called “automatic forgiveness” by US officials. They were so desperate to have a lot of their people win gold medals that they tended to look the other way. The International Olympic Committee’s medical commission chairman Arne Ljungqvist said that the US Olympic Committee documents fitted a pattern of failure to report positive drug cases. So we can see that a perceived national interest can blind authorities to the dangers of that. Tim Montgomery the 100 metres world record holder has now been banned for a couple of years and perhaps he should be banned for life for being caught up in drugs. In all possibility his partner Marion Jones who also won gold medals at the Olympics was also taking drugs. 
What does this do to athletes who are really trying to do their best? One of the problems—and I refer back to the East European doping in the past—is that some world records date from that period when there was almost universal doping of East European athletes. Women in particular gained an advantage out of it. Some of those athletics records are still on the books. The problem for athletes today is that they can excel at the very top of their sport and be at world record - holder level but those world records are still on the books and in their way. 
Flo Jo’s—Florence Griffiths Joiner’s—records for the 100 metres and 200 metres are still I think on the books in spite of the fact that most people recognise that they are likely to be drug-induced world records. That is very bad. It is also bad for the fans as well. We all took great pride in Carl Lewis’s performance. He was a hero to many and it does tarnish the public’s identification with sport and with the progress of the athletes if they later find out that the athletes are involved in drugs. The performance of Robin Tait who was mentioned by Eric Roy is a similar example. We had a lot of pride in his performance in the shot-put and discus and in his gold medals and records. We then found out—he openly admitted it in later life—that he had been involved in steroid taking. Graham May our Christchurch weight lifter who was also a medal winner was also found to have taken drugs. People’s interest in sport is deflated as is their identification with the athletes and their performances if they find that out in later life. 
I am glad that the Minister in his introductory speech talked about out-of-season testing. There is a problem in that some athletes get around drug testing by taking drugs as they are leading up to a performance and then when they know the testing regime is going to kick in closer to the competitive athletics they stop taking the drugs. The drugs disappear from their systems but they have had the benefit of them by that time. So there is out-of-season testing and random testing and another thing that can help is holding blood samples for later testing. Sometimes athletes are at the front edge of scientific experimentation in drugs and they can get away with taking drugs because testing has not caught up with a particular drug. So holding blood samples for later testing can help to avoid the situation of world records by the Florence Griffith Joyners the Tim Montgomerys or the East European athletes in the past. Their world records cannot be taken from the books because there was no system to check drug testing at the time. 
I conclude by saying that this is a serious issue. As Tau Henare mentioned sport is a part of our national identity. We want to make sure that we in New Zealand are a model in this respect. Even if we know that some other nations might be cheating and getting the edge we just have to have confidence that our own athletes are performing to their highest ability. There has been no suspicions around Sarah Ulmer who performed fantastically in cycling or most of our other athletes and I think we can be proud in that respect. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Madam Speaker tena koe. Nga mema o te Whare Paremata tena hoki tatou katoa. 
[ 
Greetings to you Madam Speaker and to us all as well members of Parliament. 
] 
I rise today to support the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. I do so because the Maori Party is committed to the notion of fair play and supports the principles of people competing on a level playing field. We also support the values embodied in the International Charter of Physical Education and Sport of Unesco. While this discussion is about principles in sport I note also that they are principles that apply to all situations in our society—honesty fairness respect courage commitment and unity. Ki a matou o te ao Maori me pono me tika me tuturu me pakari me whakawhaiti. 
 [ 
To us of Maoridom one must be honest correct genuine mature and to the point. 
] 
We also support activities that encourage whanau to take part in community activities that encourage healthy active lifestyles and that recognise national Maori sports organisations. There are many sporting activities in which Maori have gained international recognition including Maori golfers Philip Tataurangi Michael Campbell and now Bradley Iles; surfers like Daniel Kereopa; the whole of the New Zealand basketball team; and waka ama as well. In fact we are privileged to host the world waka ama championships at Lake Karapiro in March 2006. Every 2 years countries from all around the world unite to determine who are the best waka ama paddlers in the world and next year it is being held here. 
Darren Hughes 
: Otaki will win this time. They are ready to go. 
HONE HARAWIRA 
: I say to Darren Hughes that if that happens it will be a laugh. I wish them all the best but I suspect that the winning teams are probably going to come out of the Tai Tokerau. All these sporting activities encourage healthy living in an environment without those substances that enhance performance. Indeed Maori have a proven record of achievement at the highest level of international sport competing and winning on the world stage. The Aotearoa Maori women’s sevens team for example have won the Hong Kong Sevens on the three occasions they have participated. The Aotearoa Maori rugby team beat the British Lions and everybody else in the world. There are also the Aotearoa Maori women’s and men’s touch teams. None of them needed performance-enhancing drugs to achieve their goals. They did not need to cheat on themselves let alone the opposition. 
It does concern me though regularly to hear our sporting commentators referring to people who cheat and get away with it condoning the behaviour because they simply were not caught. It is kind of an irony that this game of rugby which our nation reveres so much has its origins in a classic legend of cheating dating back to before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. A young man by the name of William Webb Ellis at a school called Rugby broke the rules cheated picked up a ball and ran with it. We have even named a world cup after him. Yet here I am speaking about integrity and honesty in sport when our national sport traces its origins from a cheat. It makes me wonder albeit just briefly whether I should withdraw our request to host the Rugby World Cup final in 2011 in Kaitaia. 
Seriously though the Maori Party is of course committed to the game of rugby and indeed we look forward to our own Te Ururoa Flavell captaining the 2006 parliamentary rugby team which will also no doubt be dope-free although probably not free of dopes if Darren Hughes chooses to play. 
I come back to the bill and say that it is good to see that cheats are starting to get the message that it is not worth it and that they will get caught. I congratulate the Government on introducing this legislation and signing up as part of the international coalition of the willing opposed to the use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs and prepared to implement the Copenhagen Declaration on Anti-Doping in Sport. 
 We in the Maori Party also compliment the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency its board and its staff on being so resolute in advocating the apprehension of those who aim to cheat their way to success through the use of performance-enhancing drugs. 
Sport is a megamillion-dollar business as is the manufacture of illicit drugs. Mix the two and you see the ends to which greed will go to avoid detection. I disagree with the Minister for Sport and Recreation and I agree with the Executive Director of the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency Graeme Steel. He wants the World Anti-Doping Agency to take cannabis off its prohibited substance list so it can concentrate on catching cheats who use performance-enhancing drugs such as steroids human-growth hormones and erythropoietin. We also agree that the Sports Drugs Agency with its limited resources should not get sidetracked away from its primary role of being focused efficient and quick to respond to the key doping issues. We do not agree with sportspeople being stoned or drunk while participating in sport but we also recognise that neither of those drugs enhances performance. Much time and resources can be wasted on policing the use of recreational drugs whereas the use of performance-enhancing drugs is not getting the attention it should. 
What is more there is no evidence of widespread use of cannabis amongst New Zealand’s elite athletes; and we congratulate them because there have been no positive cannabis tests in our top-level professional sports teams like the All Blacks the Warriors the Kiwis and the Silver Ferns. Resources are best put towards the catching of those cheats who use sophisticated means and sophisticated substances to escape detection. 
The Maori Party does not believe that the use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs is rife in sport in Aotearoa. We also believe that more would be gained by encouraging athletes to not use recreational drugs rather than use punitive measures against them. But we note too that society must always be vigilant. The Sports Drug Agency is a small body and I note that it is expected to draft the rules once the bill becomes law. Although I am advised there is a high degree of cooperation between the Sports Drug Agency and organisations like Sport and Recreation New Zealand I would support consideration being given to extra resourcing to help the agency in drafting those rules. In conclusion I again commend those responsible for this bill. The Maori Party will be supporting it. No reira hurinoa tenatatou katoa. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to signal that we will support and vote for the Sports Anti-Doping Bill. I thought that the previous speaker Hone Harawira was a bit tough on William Webb Ellis in classifying him as a cheat. I think there is actually a distinction between an innovator and a cheat and I think that what William Webb Ellis did by picking up that ball and running was actually to bring a new innovation into sport—one that has become the backbone of our national game. 
Hone Harawira 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. William Webb Ellis was actually caned for what he did. He cheated. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: I remind the member that that may be interesting but it is not a point of order. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: That does not surprise me at all because I am sure the teachers at Rugby School were a bunch of stuffy old—I could use a word that I am not allowed to use in the House which has been used by the previous Speaker of the House on a couple of occasions I seem to recall—people who would not have recognised an innovator if they had seen one. Many many great innovators and great people were caned at school and I have a few notches on my belt to prove that I am one of them. 
Performance-enhancing drugs are the enemy of true sport. Only a dope would take dope. I remember that in the year 2000 when Peter Snell was declared to be the New Zealand sportsperson of the millennium he was asked about performance-enhancing drugs and whether there were any around in his day. He said: “No we did not need them.” I think that encapsulates the true spirit of the proud sporting tradition of this country. We have produced a disproportionate number of great sportsmen and great sportswomen and for the most part we have done that without having to rely on performance-enhancing drugs. 
New Zealand has a simply fabulous sporting history and we should all be very proud of it. I remember that in the mid-1960s  
Sports Illustrated 
 an American sporting magazine that most members will have heard of did a worldwide survey on sporting ability related to the population of a country—in other words a per capita analysis of sporting greatness in the world. The big headline which shows the time was the 1960s was: “Man for man it’s Australia”. However Australia got there because in the world rugby rankings—this was in the mid-1960s would members believe— 
Sports Illustrated 
 had ranked the No. 1 rugby-playing nation of the world as being South Africa the No. 2 rugby-playing nation as being Australia and the No. 3 rugby-playing nation as being New Zealand. If the magazine had got it right New Zealand would have been in second place and the headline of that magazine would have read: “Man for man it’s Kiwis”. 
A huge dispute erupted. In fact in subsequent copies of  
Sports Illustrated 
 which I remind members is an American magazine several pages were devoted to letters from New Zealanders stating it had got the rugby call completely wrong and they provided all the statistics to prove it. The response of  
Sports Illustrated’s 
editors which was in the fine print at the bottom was that the figures showed that Australia had had a better overall performance against South Africa than New Zealand had and on that basis they concluded that Australia was No. 2. Of course that completely overlooked the record between Australia and New Zealand which at that stage was about 75 to 25 in our favour. 
As others have mentioned performance-enhancing drugs bring to mind some very tragic images such as Flo Jo. From the moment I set eyes on Flo Jo I thought to myself: “I don’t think so. I don’t think the female body pumping as much iron as it can over a period of time could ever quite look like that.” To my eyes her body was obviously unnatural and sadly that was proved to be the case by her untimely death. Members will remember the images of the Chinese swimmers who came to one of the Olympic Games. Again they were women. Some of them had shoulders that I think would have made any All Black prop happy. One of them was almost would members believe 1 metre wide across the shoulders. Those young women of course have all gone to early graves as well. So the whole area of sports doping has a tragic history. It is all driven by national ambition and so on. Those things are good but they are not good when they go over the line into cheating and using artificial substances and steroids which are thoroughly bad not only for the human body but for sport itself. 
Performance-enhancing drugs are actually an evil. They undermine sport itself by removing from it honesty ethics fairness health respect courage commitment and solidarity. As a nation we should be proud to take a lead in this area and make sure that we do all we can to eliminate any thought of a culture ever developing in this country that regards winning by any means as being in any circumstances remotely acceptable. It is not. As a previous speaker mentioned and I agree with the point at a certain age young men and women—I am not sure of the age at which they do this—make up their minds that they want to be an All Black a Silver Fern an athlete a swimmer a triathlete a marathon runner a cyclist or whatever it is. At that level we must ensure that we get the point across very very clearly that it is certainly not sporting—in fact it is the opposite—to take performance-enhancing drugs. Otherwise our country will have let loose a virus that will have tremendous long-term negative consequences for us. Performance-enhancing drugs in short have no redeeming features. 
We support the bill and we hope that if necessary the tribunal and others will come back to us if they need additional powers in the future. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 Athletic competition relies on a basic premise: one man’s best against another’s one woman’s best against another’s or one team’s best against another’s. The entire phenomenon of sport rests on that simple idea. When someone cheats the value of victory becomes worthless. That is a key part of the very culture of this great sporting nation. Although we may push the rules—even test them to the limit—we are a nation that plays hard but fair. Fair competition is not a moral ideal; it is a basic principle which is directly tied to the enjoyment of competing and the value of victory. The contest has more value when athletes compete cleanly. When there is a winner in clean sport it means something. With doping someone merely crosses the line first. 
As a result the National Party supports the introduction of the bill. We believe that it will seek to preserve what is intrinsically valuable about sport which is characterised by values such as honesty ethics fairness health respect courage commitment and solidarity. The Sports Anti-Doping Bill will provide the legislative framework under which New Zealand can implement the World Anti-Doping Code thereby playing its part in addressing the global problem of doping in sport. The bill will continue the role of the New Zealand Sports Drug Agency as the national anti-doping organisation and it will be responsible for ensuring that New Zealand complies with the code. 
Today I would like to examine the need for such a bill. I want to explain exactly why doping is a real threat to sport. Let me break it down into three categories: firstly fraud; secondly the “If you can’t beat them join them.” phenomenon; and thirdly the health risks that are associated with doping. 
First let me talk about fraud. What I find unacceptable about doping is the fraud that it perpetuates. When I watch a game or a race it is with the assumption that I am watching a clean contest. And it is not just me; sponsors pay millions of dollars to be associated with supposedly pure athleticism. It is a let-down then when I discover that drugs are involved. Do I personally care whether Tim Montgomery covered 100 metres in 9.78 seconds at the Grand Prix de Paris in 2002 if he had to inject himself with something first? No I do not. But I am awestruck and inspired to see a clean athlete do it in a time of 9.8 seconds. What I am trying to get at is that the end does not matter as much as the means. Doping is an ethical issue a scientific issue and a health issue but it is first and foremost a philosophical issue and it is that analysis that has been neglected. As I have said previously athletic competition relies on a basic premise: one person’s best against another’s. The entire phenomenon of sport rests on that simple idea. When someone cheats the value of the victory becomes worthless; it is a fraud. 
Secondly I will talk about the “If you can’t beat them join them.” phenomenon. A second argument says that if so many athletes are doping why do we not just let them do it? Then the playing field is level again—game on! Well that would obviously get rid of the fraud but it would be hard to explain to New Zealand kids why the All Blacks were dropping dead on TV from cardiac arrest or for one parent to explain to another that little Jimmy died because he took something to make the under-60-kilogram Ross Shield rugby team. He had to of course because everyone was doing it. If sports are allowed to become a pharmaceutical free-for-all I no longer want anything to do with them and not just because the drugs are unhealthy. There are of course plenty of outlets for cheap entertainment in our culture; there is no need to turn sport which has the potential to be so much more into one of them. 
Thirdly let us look at the health risks. Of course this is the most practical argument against doping concerns. Here is a statistic that has not received much air time: eight. That is the number of elite cyclists who have recently died suddenly from inexplicable heart failures. Cycling officials say those were freak tragedies. That is quite a coincidence especially as most of the drugs popular with endurance athletes do more than improve their endurance. The drugs also dangerously thicken the athletes’ blood. Death is the highest price to pay when one is willing to win at any cost but even the lesser side effects of blood boosters and steroids range from inconvenient to horrific. Sadly because of the shameful secretive nature of doping many of the most serious risks are unknown. 
Here is a list of the current doping options available on the market and some of their side effects. Firstly let us look at stimulants which have side effects that include increased blood pressure aggression and anxiety and increased and irregular heartbeat. Narcotic analgesics also have side effects. They are highly addictive and can cause a loss of concentration amongst other things. Anabolic agents have side effects of in males the development of breasts premature baldness and the shrinking and hardening of the testicles. In women they cause the development of male features including facial hair deepening of the voice and a number of other things. Diuretics can cause dehydration headaches and kidney damage. Peptide glycoprotein hormones and analogues have side effects of the abnormal growth of the hands—which Eric Roy talked about previously—feet face and internal organs. Blood doping also has significant side effects including blood clots and kidney damage. 
I personally do not like the health risk argument. Of course it is perfectly valid but it skirts the real issues at the heart of sports. In addition the health risks have not proven to be a deterrent. Some athletes—I am talking about a very small percentage—say that if they could take a pill that would guarantee they would win an Olympic gold medal or a world series but would die 5 years later they would still do it. Of course they still are doing it. Although the Sports Anti-Doping Bill is important legislation to ensure that New Zealand is part of the wider anti-doping code there is still a wider issue to be addressed in terms of the athletes themselves. The main problem that keeps us from understanding the doping problem is our reluctance—or in particular the athletes’ reluctance—to talk about it. Two dozen athletes seven of them medallists were thrown out of the Olympics at Athens for failing or missing a drug test. That is a summer Olympics record. The world and US anti-doping agencies should be applauded for carrying out such an unpopular task. But let us not kid ourselves. Twenty-four dopers out of 10500 athletes—or just 0.2 percent—is not something to gloat about record or not. Even to the least cynical the evidence from the Balco scandal which was once again highlighted in this morning’s paper in reference to Tim Montgomery the recent Tours de France and a few candid experts suggest that doping is far more epidemic than the 0.2 percent I have talked about today would indicate. 
Doping received more media attention in Athens than at any previous Olympic Games. That drew a mixed reaction. The most alarming response came from the athletes themselves many of whom appeared uninterested uncomfortable or ignorant. Some were even annoyed. Former sprinter Donovan Bailey said on CBC that he was sick of hearing about it. So that is it. The athletes are too focused to think about doping or they are sick of it and they are annoyed that the issue distracts from the moment of glory. That is fine—understandable. But the essence of that attitude is absurd—like dismissing the notion of crime while the burglar is still in the house. Athletes who train and compete clean should be furious and they should not feel obligated to keep that to themselves. If a small percentage—whatever that percentage may be and I suggest that it is probably a lot higher than 0.2 percent—of elite athletes are doping the real question is why the other percentage is so silent while the cheaters steal their medals and sponsorship deals. 
Whatever the reason it is time for athletes to step forward and admit that doping is everybody’s problem and that it is especially harmful to clean athletes. This bill will go only some way to cleaning up the sector; the major responsibility still rests with the athletes themselves. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.referred to Government Administration Committee 
Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill 
First Reading 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is my intention to move a motion referring the bill to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee at the end of the first reading. 
The bill creates a new regulatory framework for the regulation of individuals who provide immigration advice both onshore and offshore. Although many immigration advisers provide good services there are currently insufficient regulatory constraints or market incentives to prevent some advisers from providing unethical or incompetent services. This legislation will bring New Zealand into line with countries such as Australia and Britain. By raising the standard of immigration advice this bill will promote and protect the interests of migrants and potential migrants who receive immigration advice and enhance the reputation of New Zealand as a migration destination. Migrants their communities and the reputable parties in the immigration advisory sector will welcome it. 
As a local MP I have all too often seen the destructive effect of unqualified or ill-intentioned immigration advice on the lives of my constituents. As a Minister I am now pleased to have the opportunity to commend to the House the speedy passage of this much-needed bill. 
All immigration advisers who assist migrants wanting to live in New Zealand will be required to be licensed unless exempt. That includes not-for-profit and offshore advisers. It will be an offence to provide immigration advice without a licence unless exempt. Offenders could face a fine of up to $100000 7 years’ imprisonment or both. It will also be an offence for people to say that they are immigration advisers unless licensed or exempt or to say that they are licensed to give advice when they are not. It is currently intended that the people exempt from having to hold a licence should include: those who provide immigration advice in an informal or family context where the advice is not provided systematically or for a fee; offshore immigration advisers where the advice relates to applications for student visas or student permits; groups for which there is little consumer benefit to be gained from licensing and there are sufficient processes in place to ensure competent and ethical conduct for example members of Parliament and their offices; and groups that are members of an occupation group that already has appropriate disciplinary procedures for example lawyers. The select committee will no doubt consider a range of submissions on these matters and I will be interested to read the select committee report in due course. 
Offshore advisers provide the first point of contact for many migrants and it is crucial that they are included within the scope of this bill. Offshore advisers will be temporarily exempt from the licensing regime for 3 years but will be allowed to opt in. This opt-in phase will last for 3 years after the Act comes fully into force at which time offshore advisers will be required to be licensed. However people who are ordinarily resident in New Zealand will be immediately subject to the regulation including when they provide advice while overseas. 
The regulator will be called the Immigration Advisers Authority; it will be a statutory body within the Department of Labour and will be headed by a registrar. The registrar will be appointed by the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour under the State Sector Act 1988. The Minister of Immigration will be the relevant Minister. The Department of Labour is the appropriate host department as the bill’s objectives relate strongly to government immigration policies which are currently managed within the Department of Labour. The bill provides for the transfer of the function to an alternative department if appropriate in the future. 
To ensure the independence of the authority from immigration decision-makers the authority will sit separately from the immigration arm of the Department of Labour. In addition no person who makes decisions on immigration matters or who has been employed to do so within the previous 2 years may be employed by the authority to decide licence applications inspect premises or investigate complaints. 
The registrar may grant different types of licences depending on the competency of the applicant such as provisional licences for new entrants in the industry. All licences must be reviewed on an annual basis. Details of licensed immigration advisers will be recorded and updated on a public register. This information will include who is licensed how to contact an adviser and whether an adviser is subject to any sanctions. To obtain and hold a licence advisers must meet competency standards set by the registrar which cover qualifications experience knowledge and communication ability in English. They must also be fit to practise. This includes consideration of any previous convictions bankruptcy and unlawful status under the Immigration Act 1987. The registrar will also develop a code of conduct that sets out standards of professional and ethical conduct for licensed immigration advisers. 
One issue that has been raised with me by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel is whether people who have recently exercised any power of decision in relation to immigration matters should be prohibited from a licence. This has not been included in the bill but I think it should be considered. Some people use previous positions involving immigration matters or immigration decision-making to generate business. It is important that there is no suggestion of improper advantage. A delay or stand-down period in the licensing of those people may help to achieve that goal. I invite the select committee to consider this and to report back. 
Enforcement provisions cover administrative actions complaints and disciplinary procedures and offences and penalties. Administratively the Department of Labour must refuse to accept immigration applications from unlicensed immigration advisers unless they are exempt. Complaints and disciplinary procedures against licensed advisers are both punitive and provide for consumer redress. The registrar will set up a complaints body to investigate complaints of negligence incompetence dishonest behaviour or breaches of the code of conduct. Following the investigation of a complaint the registrar may impose sanctions including caution or censure suspension or cancellation of a licence payment of a penalty up to $10000 and compensation to the complainant. 
There are two classes of offences: offences involving knowledge where people have deliberately flouted the law; and those of strict liability that enable people to show that their breach of the law was not intentional and that they have otherwise exercised all reasonable care. Imprisonment and/or fines of up to $100000 are provided as penalties for knowledge offences and strict liability offences carry correspondingly lower penalties. Those penalties are compatible with existing provisions under both the Immigration Act 1987 and the Australian migration agent registration legislation. There is a right of appeal and review to the District Court. The courts are able to order payment of reparation and to order additional fines reflecting any commercial gain or material benefit. 
There will be a staged implementation of this Act. A 12-month set-up phase will be followed by a further 12 months to allow immigration advisers to meet entry standards apply for a licence and be approved by the registrar. At this point all immigration advisers must be licensed unless exempt or based offshore. Offshore advisers will be able to voluntarily opt in to the regime for a further 3 years at the end of which time they will be required to be licensed. 
I thank the officials who have worked so hard to bring this bill to fruition today. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 The National Opposition will be supporting the first reading of this bill and its consignment to the appropriate select committee. We do that because we accept that there are issues around the immigration consultancy business. As the Minister of Immigration just said all of us as members of Parliament confront from time to time the problems that crop up as a result of unprofessional or incompetent immigration advice that potential immigrants receive and we often have to sort out the resulting mess. 
My having said that if we are trying just to bring some measure of reliability to this industry—to assure potential immigrants that they can have some measure of confidence in immigration consultants—I ask whether we need a bill of this size to do that. That is a big issue that will have to be examined by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Is a major bureaucracy being established here that will grow? We know only too well that too often bureaucracies or regulatory bodies are envisaged as quite small when they start out but my God do they grow! 
Let me give an example of that. When I was Minister of Education I used to run the entire tertiary sector—because in those days I was Minister of the school sector the early childhood sector and the tertiary sector—with a team of about 15-30 people in the Ministry of Education. Now we have a regulatory body called the Tertiary Education Commission that employs over 300 people to do the same job and it does that job far less competently than I used to do it when I was Minister with a tiny little team in the Ministry of Education. It is a classic example of how regulatory bodies just grow like Topsy with no accountability. Ministers think these bodies will do a wonderful job and no longer take a key interest in their activities and then we see a bureaucratic monster develop. So our first concern is that if we look at this legislation and the nature of that regulatory body we see there is potential for major bureaucratic growth. 
Labour loves that sort of thing. We all know that Labour thinks bureaucracy is wonderful. It has employed so many more bureaucrats in the last 3 years that the increase in just the core public sector wage bill—forget teachers police and nurses; I mean just the core sector—is now a billion dollars a year because of the number of bureaucrats this Labour Government has employed in recent times. Labour is not afraid of bureaucracy but we on this side of the House are. 
I think concerns will also be expressed that the regulatory body is within the Department of Labour. I know that it is meant to be separate from the Immigration Service within that department but colleagues of mine will probably express some concern about the visibility of that separateness and the risk of conflicts emerging there. 
But today I want to put a little bit of time into the issue of exemptions. We know that not all those involved in giving immigration advice will have to be licensed and one group of people who are exempt under this bill is—believe it or not—members of Parliament. What do we know about the ethical behaviour of members of Parliament on matters of immigration advice? We know that most members of Parliament are pretty reliable in those areas but my goodness the track record recently of some on the Labour side of the House shows they clearly are not! 
We are about to license and regulate immigration advisers under this legislation but a member of Parliament—a former Minister the honourable Taito Phillip Field—saw nothing unethical about dealing with an overstayer who had sought refugee status with his wife was declined that status and overstayed in this country. As I understand the wife was arrested and deported back to Thailand. That member of Parliament saw nothing unethical in dealing with that illegal overstayer. I do not know why any member of Parliament would think he or she should be involved with illegal overstayers but still Taito Phillip Field seemed to think it was OK to offer that illegal overstayer work in Samoa where Taito Phillip Field’s wife could get him a work permit. He saw nothing unethical in telling that illegal overstayer that if he went to Samoa and worked on that member’s new house he would get him a work permit to come back to New Zealand 3 months later. That person Taito Phillip Field will be exempt from any licensing requirement under this bill. 
That is one of the worst examples and I am not sure that in my time as a member of Parliament I have come across any immigration adviser or consultant operating near my electorate whose ethics are as bad as that. I am not sure that I have come across any immigration adviser who has said to someone: “Look if you tile my house I will help get you a work permit.” Taito Phillip Field also said to a painter that if he painted a house that the member had bought under certain unscrupulous terms from a poor person in his electorate he would help him get a work permit. That sort of person is exempted from the requirements of this legislation and we on this side of the House say: “Well hang on. If we want to sort out the problems around immigration in this country how do we make the system work when members of Parliament have no constraints on them?”. 
At the moment in the case of Taito Phillip Field the Minister of Immigration is refusing to accept any accountability whatsoever in terms of the involvement of the Minister of Immigration in this fiasco concerning Taito Phillip Field because the Prime Minister has set up a commission of inquiry. And what has happened to the commission of inquiry? A key player the guy who blew the whistle on Sunan Siriwan—the guy Taito Phillip Field got to retile his house in Samoa for the promise of a work permit here in New Zealand—the builder who went to Samoa to work on Taito Phillip Field’s house as well which is how he knew about Sunan Siriwan is refusing to speak to the inquiry being held by Noel Ingram QC. 
So what a farce we have. Here we have legislation to try to make the Immigration Service put some decent boundaries some certainty and some professional behaviour around immigration advisers and consultants but Labour members of Parliament who will be exempt from the licensing and regulatory requirements of this legislation are displaying behaviour that is totally unethical. If they were immigration consultants they would probably be charged under various of our other laws but as members of Parliament those Labour members are able to get away with the Prime Minister setting up a mickey mouse inquiry. 
People knew what went on. People knew what Taito Phillip Field was up to. People like the former Minister the Hon Paul Swain knew what Taito Phillip Field was up to because he visited his house in Samoa and met the Thai tiler whom Taito Phillip Field had promised a work permit. What is becoming outrageous now is that this Labour Government will not pay for people who know what went on to get legal advice. It will not pay for people to have legal advice as they give evidence to that inquiry. Therefore it is a farce because people are refusing to appear in order to be interviewed by Noel Ingram QC. So what will we get? A cover-up—a snow job! 
Here we have legislation that will tie our immigration consultants up in bureaucratic knots and Labour members of Parliament who put in hundreds of representations to the Minister—most of which it seems are for people who should not be getting residence or permits to come to New Zealand—are exempt from it. That is just one of the reasons why National has concerns about this legislation. It is typical of Labour’s “look good” kind of legislation whereby Labour sets up a whole big bureaucratic machine and makes it look as if something is being done but in fact the legislation has huge holes that Labour members of Parliament can exploit. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 There is a degree of irony in following on from a speaker who is from a National Government that refused to license immigration advisers. It had the opportunity to do so with amendments to the legislation in 1999 and in fact I was standing on the other side of the House as the Opposition spokesperson on immigration asking for amendments to the Act in 1999 in order to bring in a licensing regime. As soon as I became Minister of Immigration we started to put together a process that has brought us to today. Yes it has been a lengthy process but that is because it has been a robust one. 
We have done a lot more for immigration in this country than any other Government in New Zealand’s history because we have brought in a proper process that has enabled people to have some assurance about the way in which the immigration process will apply. This is the Government that recognised that what happened after people arrived in New Zealand mattered to them; that the National Government did not care about what happened to migrants after they arrived in New Zealand. This legislation is an important plank of the settlement strategy that this Government had the ability to bring in but that Government did nothing. All it did was count the numbers of people coming into the country; it did not care what happened to them after they arrived. That Government did not mind that there were doctors driving taxis; it did not mind that highly qualified information technology specialists were working in takeaway bars. It did not care that highly qualified business people ended up running takeaway bars to get residence in this country in order to escape from a particular environment they did not want to live in. 
Who was standing in the way of those people? Who actually made sure that a number of people came here with high expectations but no ability to live up to those expectations? It was immigration consultants who did not care what happened to those migrants after they arrived here and a Government that did not care what happened either. This Government is a caring Government; it has put into place a settlement strategy that is second to none in the world and it has now brought in a licensing regime. Yes I would have liked to see that brought in earlier but I am glad that it is here now and I pay full tribute to the Hon David Cunliffe and also to the Hon Paul Swain who did the preliminary work on bringing it in. 
This legislation has been well negotiated with the industry and it is interesting that the good immigration consultants are the ones who say “This is great!” because it will clean up the industry and the consultants who are doing the job properly will make sure there is an ethical framework within which they can operate. Lawyers operating in the field of immigration are covered by ethical standards by fees revision—they cannot charge contingency arrangements—and by disciplinary procedures. There is proper protection in place for people who use lawyers. There have been no protections in place for people who use immigration consultants apart from disputes resolution and general consumer protection law. The trouble is that those consultants promise the earth. If it is not delivered and the person’s permit expires the immigration consultant does not have to deal with the fallout; the person must deal with it. 
I heard a member talking about illegal overstayers. All overstayers are illegally in the country; that is what overstaying is. The point that I am making though is that the reason many of them become overstayers is that the proper applications have not been filed in a timely manner. This bill will make sure there is a proper process in place to ensure that people are able to be properly looked after and that those who hold themselves out as offering a service are actually capable of delivering on it. 
The last point that I want to make is about the ethics of people who leave the Immigration Service’s offices and set up as immigration consultants and the ethics of members of Parliament including a former Prime Minister and former Ministers of Immigration who leave Parliament and set themselves up as immigration consultants. What they do is the most unethical practice that one could possibly even imagine. I know that some members in this House have relationships with some of those former members of Parliament who have taken up immigration consultancy work. They do not care about our country. They use their former positions to open doors that should not be opened to them. They should be slammed in their faces because they have no right to abuse their former position in order to gain personally in the way that they have attempted to do—by bringing thousands of people into this country who have no chance of settling and without a word of English between them—without any obligations because of the way the law was set up under a National Government. 
I am proud of what I was able to do in the time that I was the Minister of Immigration because we closed off loopholes that those members opposite know perfectly well were being exploited by former National members of Parliament including former National Ministers and a former National Prime Minister. It is an absolute outrage and I look forward to this bill providing an opportunity for some ethical framework for the operation of immigration consultants. I do not know why Pansy Wong is standing up while I am still talking but it just looks as if she still does not know how the procedures of this House operate even though she has been here for quite a while. Obviously she knows perfectly well who I am talking about in terms of connections with people who are abusing their former positions in order to gain personally in a way that is intolerable. 
I just want to make a point about former Ministers who actually do go out and practise in this field in order to take full advantage of opportunities that should not be made available to them. It is an outrage and we are seeing one example being played out in another forum not so far from here. I remember sitting on a select committee and exposing what I saw happening. A former Minister of Immigration had used a policy that he was very well attuned to then had abused a change that I had brought in to enable a talent visa operation with the effect that an immigrant would pay a $45000 salary to an employer that the employer would pay back to him or her. It was a money-go-round. It was absolutely utterly and completely unethical and it would have been found to be illegal if we had not exposed it before it was put into place. I want to know why we have allowed that situation to occur. It really does reflect somewhat on people who were once honourable members of this House but who will never be regarded as such in anyone’s eyes again. 
I commend this bill to the House. I think it is an excellent opportunity for us to draw a line in the sand. If people are to operate as immigration consultants—and the good ones support this bill—then we will see a situation where immigration consultants will be able to hold their heads up because what they are doing is in accordance with ethical standards and there will be disciplinary procedures that will enable them to be struck off and not allowed to practise if indeed they do cross that line. I think it is important that we provide that protection for new migrants to New Zealand; they deserve nothing less. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Before we pick up on the point about former immigration Ministers and a former Prime Minister how about talking about existing Labour Ministers and MPs. Who did more to undermine the New Zealand Immigration Service? The honourable Taito Phillip Field asked the Associate Minister of Immigration in the Labour Government to intervene in 438 cases followed by the Hon Chris Carter with 176 cases and by the Hon George Hawkins with 172 cases. In the last 3 years when people have come to my office my staff have taken them through the proper procedures. In 3 years I have made only 12 representations because people need to respect our immigration process. 
If Ministers and MPs abuse their positions that undermines our immigration policies and I wonder what part of the bill deals with that issue. Nobody should take too much notice of the member who has just spoken. She did more to undermine the New Zealand Immigration Service by doubting her staff and by not telling the truth to reporters. Who planted material for reporters to find? That behaviour is becoming a hallmark of the Labour Government. That former Minister of Immigration promised that this bill would be in the House in 1999 in 2000 and in 2001. Well I have news for the Labour Government: even though it has put this House into urgency we are still in December of the year 2005. So it is a very slow process and I am surprised that the Hon David Cunliffe now wants to put pressure on the select committee to pass this bill in a hurry. 
There are other problems with the bill because as I said previously the Labour Government is really suffering from what I would call “truth deficiency syndrome”. It will not tell us the cost of setting up this new bureaucracy to regulate immigration advisers but as Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith pointed out it will grow. I ask how much it will cost. We are told in the bill that the Crown will be responsible for the cost of setting up this system and administering the system in relation to individuals who are exempt or for non-profit individuals who are offering advice. Otherwise the commercial advisers will be charged $1000 to $2000 per year. The bill also mentions that there are about 1000 advisers in the sector. On the surface that figure sounds OK; we might have a million dollars to run the system. But if we follow the Government’s logic we are told that there were only 9000 applications for residency in 2003—9000 only—that were handled by advisers. 
According to my calculations and I am a qualified accountant that means those advisers are doing about nine cases per year. We were told that about 66000 applications for temporary visas were handled by advisers which means that full-time commercial advisers would survive doing about say six per week. So how many full-time advisers actually exist in that sector? If we are being told by the Government that 1000 advisers would be affected by this legislation then I have news for the Labour Government: no adviser can survive by doing so few cases per month. So who will pay the additional costs that will be required to run the system? 
The second weakness of the immigration legislation that is before us is that the type of people this legislation aims to regulate handle only 37 percent of the total applications for residency and 17 percent of the other type of visa. Forty percent of those advisers are actually based overseas. This legislation in the next 3 years will not include those overseas consultants hence we will regulate only the sector that deals with about 20 percent of total applications. We are passing this legislation to deal with people who handle only 20 percent of the cases. How effective is this legislation in resolving the situation? 
The advisers who have come to see me raised the issue of some of the powers contained in the legislation—for example the inspection power for administration of the licensing regime. We have just learnt that the new body will exist within the Immigration Service. One of its powers will be that its inspectors can at any reasonable time enter any premises where any licensed immigration advisers work or have worked in the last 2 years or where the inspector has reasonable grounds for believing that a licensed immigration adviser has worked there in the last 2 years and those inspectors have every right to question any licensed immigration advisers and to look at documents in the advisers’ possession. National has some great lawyers in its team like Chris Finlayson. No doubt he will point out and highlight for us whether this type of extremely wide power should be exercised in that manner. 
The well-behaved members of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment have brought this up as a major concern. They ask why their members should be subject to an organisation with such a wide-ranging power. So we certainly want to examine the type of power that will be given to the inspectors under this legislation. 
I also question why after 5 years and after what we will call the knee-jerk reactions and changes to the immigration policy we have seen the international student numbers reduce by 10000 and the net immigration flow decrease from about 30000 to 6000 in the year ended October. The period when there were a lot of problems with immigration advisers was from 2001 to 2002. Now that we are hardly attracting international students etc. the Government wants to bring in this legislation; the number of immigration advisers affected could be in the hundreds only. The Government has seen fit to bring in this legislation when it is almost like the horses have bolted. 
Lastly I want to raise the very good point made by my colleague Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. I want to see on an annual basis some disclosure of the number of direct representations made by members of Parliament to the Ministers for special consideration. The Associate Minister of Immigration disclosed that annually he has to intervene in 4000 cases. That means he has to look at about 12 individual cases daily. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I first would like to comment on some of the points made by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. She said that immigration in this country had improved because the Labour Government was doing this and that. In fact it has improved to some degree over what it was when Labour came into power—I recognise that—but it has very little to do with the Labour Government. From New Zealand First’s point of view it was like pulling teeth. More particularly from Winston Peters’ point of view it was like pulling teeth. The Government would not have done a single thing. It was quite happy with open-door immigration. Whoever wanted to come here could come here and stay here. It was not worried about overstayers the English test or a darn thing until New Zealand First and principally Winston Peters highlighted the issues. There is a long way to go. 
The previous Minister the Hon Paul Swain only a little while ago when he was talking to a group of professionals described the immigration legislation in this country as a “dog’s breakfast”. I do not want to go back to the Veterinarians Bill because we had enough of that last night but I can tell members that in those two words the honourable previous Minister made it quite clear what he thought of the current immigration laws. Just to reinforce that let me read the extract from the enhanced confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First: “Immigration: conduct a full review of immigration legislation and administrative practices within the immigration service to ensure the system meets the needs of New Zealand in the 21st century and has appropriate mechanisms for ensuring the system is not susceptible to fraud or other abuse and taking note of other items raised by New Zealand First.” I was there when that clause was presented to Labour. Helen Clark and Dr Cullen could not sign it quickly enough. They said “Yes Winston yes Peter you’re absolutely right. We want to tidy up the Act.” 
New Zealand is a fantastically beautiful country. It is filled in large measure with hard-working people. There are some exceptions and some of those sit across the Chamber. Tau Henare is one of them. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Waka jumper! 
PETER BROWN 
: He is a waka jumper. He has been in five political parties. Sorry he has been in four because one was a sham. 
Hon Member 
: He has sat in every seat in the House. 
PETER BROWN 
: He has including one outside. This is a fantastic country. It is filled in large measure with hard-working people. Another asset this country has—and on a worldwide basis this is being recognised more and more—is that there are not too many of us. That is a huge asset for this country. If members do not believe me they should look at the people who come here because they want to get away from where they have been or where they live right now. We must put a value on the low population. Of course we need immigrants. 
Hon David Carter 
: More people like the member! 
PETER BROWN 
: Exactly like the member. Immigrants should come here and offer the country a skill. That is the first priority. They must have good health. They should be crime free and remain crime free. They should be able to speak English and they should be prepared to integrate into New Zealand society. 
The Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill is about the gatekeepers for a system that is letting people in. It is absolutely imperative if we want desirable people to come here who will make a contribution that the gatekeepers—the immigration consultants or advisers—are top-notch people also. We can do this only by regulation. New Zealand First has been an advocate for this sort of legislation for many a year. It is sad that it has taken the Labour Government 6 years or so to even get round to it. I heard the Hon Dr Lockwood Smith say that this could lead to too much bureaucracy. He may have a point there. But I say to National Party members that New Zealand First would prefer there to be too much bureaucracy than too many undesirables coming here. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: And too much corruption. 
PETER BROWN 
: And too much corruption as the honourable member said. This is a very important bill. It makes up a very small part of the confidence and supply agreement but it is a move in the right direction. There are some aspects of the bill that concern me on first reading. It basically states that people will be prohibited from being licensed. We agree with everything that is in here but we also think it could be a little bit more stringent in this regard. What about the people who are prone to having violent outbursts? If they have a criminal sentence they are barred from being a practitioner. But what about the people who are prone to violence? Will we allow those sorts of people to become immigration advisers? 
I will touch on just a couple of things that concern me on the surface. A register of licensed advisers will be kept by the registrar. The bill refers to the data that the registrar is going to keep on the database but there is no reference to the fees or the methods of payment etc. I believe that immigrants—who tend to feel quite vulnerable coming to a new county—should be advised on not only who is a suitable immigration consultant or adviser to speak to and refer problems to but also on the level of fees or payments that are reasonably acceptable. We know from information given to us that some huge amounts of money are passing over from various hands to come into this country. It is huge money. One has to ask whether it is fairly earned because New Zealand First has real concerns about how some people pay for the services of an immigration adviser. 
I will conclude by saying that immigration is a problem area not only for this country but also on a worldwide basis. It is an area that New Zealand First has endeavoured to highlight for now many a year and we are not going to let go of the issue. We will keep on keeping on until we have an immigration policy and immigration legislation that actually reflects the needs of the people of this country. New Zealanders are warm-hearted people who give a welcome to most people who come to these shores. They are entitled to know that the system protects them from undesirables from criminals and from people who have exceedingly bad health or who just want to rip off the country. This is the first step forward. We look forward to working with the Labour Party over the next 3 years under our confidence and supply agreement and tidying up many if not all of the immigration problems that we have. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 In joining this debate on the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill I wish to refer to the Treaty of Waitangi. I also wish to begin my remarks by speaking in the official language of this country: te reo Maori. 
Tena koutou! Kuaotiketakumohio ki etahi o koutou ko te Tiriti o Waitangi he meakino. He meawhakawhiu whakawehe whakapau tangata. Ki etahi hoki o koutou ko te Tiriti o Waitangi ko ngakeremekuawhakatakotoriairaroi te maru o te taraipiunara. Ki a koutou ra he gravy train tena. Atu ki enei kei te mohioahau ko etahi o koutou karei te mohio he aha te take ka koreroMaorimatoui roto i te Whare nei. He mea tino hohatenei ki a koutou ki te rongo mai ki te tangi o te reo Maori a ka taria te whakamaramai roto i te reo Pakeha. Tatauma! Ko matau te PatiMaori! KoreroMaorimatauietahiwa a ka kawearawatia e mataunga kaupapa nga tikanga o ngatipunaMaorikuaheke iho nei mai ingawhakatipuranga a tae noa mai ki a matau o teneiwa. Ka whai haere matauingatapuwae o o matautupuna ara o Ta Apirana Ngata o TaTuri Kara o TaMauiPomarema. Ko mataunei te kanohi Maori o te ranei he reo Maori e tumotuhakeana hei mangaimongahapu me nga rohe Maori o Aotearoa nei. Na reira kei warewaretia e ngatangata o Aotearoa nei te ahua o te tangata whenua ka koreroMaoriahauiteneiwahanga o akukorero. 
I te 6 o ngara o Pepuere 1840 ihainatia te Tiriti o Waitangi. I hainatia e nga rangatira o ngahapuMaori me te apihamo te KuiniWikitoria te Karauna ki Ingarangi. Na te meaihainatia e ratau e nga rangatira Maori he kawenata ki a mataunei he kawenata a na te mea hoki ihainatia e Te Hapuku o Ngati Kahungunu nakuanoihaina. 
Na reira ki etahi o koutou ko te Tiriti he kaupapa tawhito. He kaupapa hoha he kaupapa moumou taima. Ki ahaunei ki te PatiMaori ki te iwi Maoriwhanui ko te Tiriti he kaupapa matua he kaupapa hohonu he kaupapa tikamotatau katoa mo Aotearoa iteneiwa. 
He aha te take ka koreropeneiai au iteneiwa? Na te mea kei roto i te Tiriti ngawariu ngauaratangahohonurawa kia whakakotahiaitataui a Aotearoa iteneiwa a mo te wa e heke mai nei. Kei roto i te Tiriti 
o 
Waitangi nga kaupapa matua o te PatiMaori. Kuawhakararangitiaenei kaupapa i roto itamatau mana topu ara te TuTohingamo te PatiMaori. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
Greetings to all. I am aware that some members do not view the Treaty of Waitangi positively. It is seen as oppressive divisive and a waste of human resources. To some the Treaty of Waitangi means the claims under the Waitangi Tribunal. To them the claims are a gravy train. In addition I know that some members are not really aware why we speak Maori in this House. To some members hearing Maori spoken is something quite annoying as well as having to wait for it to be translated into English. I say to members that we are the Maori Party. At times we will speak Maori and articulate the philosophical beliefs of our Maori ancestors handed down to successive generations and to us of this era. We follow in the footsteps of our ancestors Sir Apirana Ngata Sir James Carroll Sir MauiPomare and others. We are the face of Maoridom today a Maori voice that stands apart to act as representatives for Maori subtribes and regions here in New Zealand. So to serve as a reminder to the people of New Zealand about this aspect of the indigenous people of the land I present this part of my address in Maori. 
The Treaty of Waitangi was signed on 6 February 1840 by chiefs of Maori subtribes and an official on behalf of Queen Victoria the Queen of England. Because the Maori chiefs signed a covenant to us anyway it is one and because Te Hapuku of Ngati Kahungunu signed it as well I consider myself a signatory too. 
To some members the Treaty is a document that is past its “use by” date—one that is bothersome and a waste of time. To me the Maori Party and to the Maori people at large the Treaty is a founding document its principles are deep and it is appropriate for all of us of New Zealand today. 
Why am I talking like this now? It is because within the Treaty are the values and aspirations of immense depth that we can use to unite New Zealand as one today and tomorrow. In the Treaty are the key principles of the Maori Party that are listed in our Maori Party charter our policy document. 
]  
Hon Paul Swain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very interesting listening to the member and there are obviously some issues that he wants to get across but it sounds like he is giving a speech on the wrong bill. This is the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill and I think there is some obligation on the member to at least refer to the bill and to talk about its content. It is a first reading speech not a speech summarising the end of Parliament. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you for raising that point. I was just about to bring it to the member’s attention myself. It is important that the member relates whatever he is saying to the bill before us. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: If the member had waited one more verse he might have— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thought you were coming to it yes. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Ka kaha taku tautoko i te Tiriti o Waitangi iteneiwana te mea ko te Tiriti te tutohingatuatahimo te hekenga mai o ngamanene ki Aotearoa nei. I whakaaenga rangatira Maorii roto i te Tiriti kia whakaheke mai a tauiwi ara ngamanene o Ingarangi ki Aotearoa nei noho ai. Natenei au iki he kaupapa tino pai rawa atu te Tiriti o Waitangi hei kaupapa wharikimotatau he punga hoki mototatau noho tahi. Ko te Tiriti he kaupapa whakakotahii a tatau. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
I strongly support the Treaty today because it was really the first charter for migrants who migrated here to New Zealand. In the Treaty the Maori chiefs allowed foreigners that is migrants from England to settle here in New Zealand. This is the reason why I stated that the Treaty of Waitangi is truly a fine philosophy for us as a foundation and also as something to anchor us together. The Treaty is a means of making us one. 
] 
I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think I am allowed more time because of the translation. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes you are in good hands. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: E te Matua Rangatira ka koreroahau ki teneiPire. Na te iwi Maoriiwhakatu te RatongaManenetuatahii roto i te Tiriti iterarautauneke atu. Erangi mai itauawa tae noa ki teneiwa na te Kawanatangaanakeiwhakatakoto ture mo te whakahaekemanene. Noratauanoteneiratongamanene. Ki a matau 
o te PatiMaorikua tae ki te wa kia uru atu te tangata whenua ki roto i te roopuwhiriwhiri kaupapa mo te ratongamanene kia noho te tangata whenua ki roto iteneiroopu ara te Immigration Advisers Authority. 
Kei te tautoko mataui te pirenei. Nateneipire ka whakatakotoai te kaupapa kia uru pai aingamanene ki roto i te ao o Aotearoa nei kia ngawariai o ratau noho iwaenganuii a tatau. He pire nui motatauiteneiwana te mea ka haere mai ngamanene ki koneinonga hau e wha nongapito katoa o te ao. Me kaha tatau ki manaaki ki te awhi i a ratau. Me kaha tatau ki te ako kia mohiotataui o ratou tikanga a ki te tautoko ingarereketangaiwaenganuiinga iwi katoa o Aotearoa nei. 
I roto iaku mahi ingataukuapahureake irongoahauingaawangawangamaha kei roto ingamanenehou. Ko etahi o tataukarei te tino manaaki i a ratauno te mea he tikanga ke a ratau he reo rereke he hahi wairua ke he kirirerekeranei. Ma te PatiMaori e ki mena e whakaaeanatatau kia hara mai ratau ki konei noho ai me manaakitia me awhinatiaratau. Kia kauatatau e whakatuwhawhai a-iwi peraiteraiCronulla iAhitereiriaiteneiwa. 
Ki te koreroiputa mai i te  
National Business Review 
iHepetema—Mahuru—iteratau kahoretatau katoa o Aotearoa nei e tautoko anaingamomomanenekuaheke mai nei. I teratataupoti 45 orauiki he nui rawa atu ngamanene o Ahiaikonei 39 orauiki he nui rawangamanene o te Middle East 39 orauiki he nui rawangamanene o ngamoutere o Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa ikonei. Na reira tataumaanoahau e ki ki te whakapuarei te kuaha ki ngamanene a kia kaha tatau ki te manaaki i a ratau. A kuamutuikonei. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
I address this Bill by saying that over 100 years ago the Maori people established the first immigration policy through the Treaty. But from that time to the present only the Government has been involved in determining immigration laws. This is a Government policy as well. We of the Maori Party say that the time has arrived for the tangata whenua to be involved in formulating immigration policy and also to be represented on the Immigration Advisers Authority. 
We support this Bill. It provides a policy that ensures safe entry for migrants into the New Zealand way of life and makes it easy for them to settle in amongst us. It is an important bill for us now because migrants come here from the four winds and from all points of the world. We must work hard to look after them and to embrace them. We must work hard to learn about their ways so that we can understand them and to support the differences among all peoples here in New Zealand. 
In jobs I have been employed on in the past I heard many concerns relating to new migrants. Some of us were not really welcoming to them because their customs languages spiritual beliefs and ethnicity were different from ours. The declared position of the Maori Party is that we allow them to come here and live. We should look after them and help them. We must not replicate the racial riots like the recent ones in Cronulla Australia.  
According to a statement published in the  
National Business Review 
 of September last year we here in New Zealand were not in total support of the types of migrants who migrated here. In the last poll 45 percent stated that there were too many Asian migrants here 39 percent stated that there were too many Middle Eastern migrants and 39 percent stated that there were too many Pacific Islanders here. And so I say again if we open the door to migrants we should also work hard to look after them. I conclude my address here. 
] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wanted to raise a question in response to the point made by the Hon Paul Swain in his point of order and also that Dr Sharples raised in relation to the time available to members when speaking in Maori and then having a translation. I also raise it because of the difficulty for members to follow the eloquence of Dr Sharples and other members who speak in Maori because of the broken time with the translation. 
I ask you to consider and your office to consider the question of simultaneous translation in this House. I know it is an issue that has been mentioned by other members outside of the Chamber—I think of Tim Barnett in particular and I know that other members have considered it—but I really think it is time that this House started to address the question of simultaneous translation. We are officially a bilingual nation and I think it is ludicrous that we cannot provide that facility in this Parliament. I ask you Mr Deputy Speaker to consider how that issue might be progressed. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for raising the issue. I can tell the member that the Speaker and the Standing Orders Committee are addressing the issue. How long it will take I do not know but they are certainly addressing the issue and the member is quite right. I thank Dr Sharples for his contribution. Sufficient time is always allowed by the Chair. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this bill. We want to remove any corruption that takes place in terms of people who make a business of assisting migrants. We want proper procedures and accountability and the registration of immigration advisers will assist in this. But I think we have to look at the whole question of immigration advisers as in part a criticism of our immigration system. We need immigration advisers for two reasons. One reason that we cannot get around completely is that a lot of people want to come to New Zealand and many of them will go to any lengths to try to get the best advice to get entrance into this country for themselves and their families. We cannot really stop that. In fact it is a tribute to New Zealand that so many people want to come here. 
One of the main reasons people go to advisers is that the Immigration Service itself is not very transparent in its processes in terms of what people need to qualify to get into the country etc. If the service were much more efficient in that respect then as in other Government departments the advice would be given properly and adequately by the department itself without people having to get—and often paying large sums of money for—independent advice. The very flowering of immigration advisers I think means that we need to have another look at the system. 
I think that problems with immigration are reflected in the migration figures for the current year in that although the Government had quite a high target the latest figures I have seen show net long-term migration to New Zealand over the last 12 months to be a little under 6000. That shows that a lot of people who cannot find ways to come to New Zealand are often people we could benefit from having here. Of course there are problems that have been identified previously such as the English language test being set at too high a level in the past which excludes a lot of people and tends to be more biased against Asian migrants in particular. Then there is the whole problem that has developed since about May or June last year when Winston Peters started talking about the number of Iraqis coming in whom he thought should not be coming in. He even got a lot of his information to the House wrong and people were taking cases against him to try to get him to apologise etc. All of that hoo-ha produced a defensive reaction on the part of the Government in the setting up of the immigration profiling unit in the New Zealand Immigration Service. The unit employed a huge number of people to work very long hours trawling back through all the visitor visas immigration approvals—you name it—and creating a barrier to people particularly those from the 54 high-risk countries. These are mainly the poorer countries whose people find it very difficult to get into New Zealand at all and no doubt have more recourse to immigration advisers. 
I have asked the Minister—and have put down various written questions—to name those 54 high-risk countries. I was told that because of diplomatic and security reasons I as a member of Parliament could not be told any of the names of those 54 high-risk countries. I asked a second question about the criteria used to determine a high-risk country. The answer came back saying that was a diplomatic and security matter and that I could not even be given the criteria. So that is a problem. Even people applying to come to New Zealand from those 54 countries do not know—although some of them can probably guess—that their country is defined as high risk and therefore their chances of getting in are small and they are wasting a lot of money going to immigration advisers. 
There are also a whole lot of problems relating to qualifications particularly for people who do not happen to come from Anglo-Saxon countries such as America England Canada and Australia. Their qualifications are often not looked at seriously enough. That is still a problem. There is also a whole set of problems around the question of family unification that people go to advisers about. We MPs all know that in the end they often come to us about these questions. In terms of family unification there are big problems for people who have an older parent or grandparent whom they want to get here. Mainly they are deemed to be a burden on the health system because being older they might just happen to have a disease. Even younger people who have a disability have a big problem coming in under the family unification criteria and that creates a greater demand on immigration advisers. 
As we have seen over the last couple of years even when the migrants get here and become citizens they have problems. They have problems with immigration and customs at the border. I was in Hamilton on Monday night and a whole lot of people came up from the Muslim community there with all sorts of cases. As members know the head of the New Zealand Federation of Islamic Associations Javed Kahn has complained in the media—and I issued a statement supporting him—that people who had been New Zealand citizens for many years are held up by the immigration and customs services when they return to this country. They are searched interrogated and held for 2 or 3 hours. I was talking to Somali people who have been New Zealand citizens for some time. They are sick of it. Just going to Australia for a few days means that when they return they get held up for 2 or 3 hours. These people are citizens of this country. The Immigration Service has no reason to waste its time on citizens. If people have committed a criminal offence then they should be checked by the police of this country not by some mickey mouse immigration and customs interrogation system at the border that is not designed to cope with that level of criminality. Our immigration and custom services should be concentrating on visitors to New Zealand not on people who are already New Zealand citizens. 
Then there is a whole array of cases that involve MPs and immigration advisers—not so much at the level of migration but in getting visas to this country. It is very hard for anyone from those 54 unnamed high-risk countries to get visitor visas to this country. An example I had recently was of a family whose members were all New Zealand citizens and had been for some time. They were of Iraqi origin. In 1998 their mother visited them from Baghdad. She had no trouble getting a visitor visa. Now post all this immigration profiling and the reaction to Winston Peters’ activities the family cannot get a visitor visa for their mother to visit them in New Zealand to see her grandchildren etc. There is no question that she would not go back. She did in 1998. The reasons the Immigration Service gives are not specific to her. The reason for not letting those New Zealand citizens have their mother come to visit them is that allegedly she has no incentive to return to Iraq because there is a war on. That reason applies to every single Iraqi who applies for a visitor visa to visit his or her relations in this country who are probably New Zealand citizens. 
So a whole array of problems is producing a market for immigration advisers. This bill of course will help straighten things out in terms of their advice and it will make them much more accountable. But the problem is a big one. As Pita Sharples said we have to look in a much more open and compassionate way at migrants coming into our country. We should not apply cultural discrimination and we should accept the different religions and languages that are involved. At the moment there is prejudice particularly against people from Middle Eastern countries who might be of Islamic origin. Once we start targeting those people as the Immigration Service is today we create in the population racist feelings such as we have seen on the beaches of Australia this last week. The responsibility for what is happening in Australia is largely to do with that country’s so-called anti-terrorist campaign targeted at Muslims—with the way the Immigration Service is getting involved in handling people at the Australian borders. That is creating a feeling amongst the frustrated white youth in Australia that the Islamic people are the cause of their problems. We will undermine the fabric of our society if we do not deal correctly with immigration problems in our society. 
Do we want to go down that Australian track? To an extent we have been down it in terms of young people daubing the mosques. But at least the response of the Islamic community and the rest of the New Zealand was that they got together. They responded very well building greater unity in New Zealand. So we can avoid the Australian tragedy. We should take the discussion around immigration as a way to take a step back and look at ourselves to see whether we are getting too caught up in the American so-called war on terror and the flow-on it has in terms of prejudice. 
Debate interrupted. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Oral Answer—Publishing 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise an important matter with you relating to the fact that the Clerk’s Office has not published questions for today in the normal fashion. Members will be aware that there was some contention as to whether the House would be in a position to begin a new sitting day at 2 o’clock which would therefore necessitate question time. The practice in the past has always been for questions to be received in the normal manner so that Ministers can prepare their answers and members their supplementary questions and therefore be prepared for question time whether or not the House completes urgency. 
 Today the questions have not been published. I am told that they have not been forwarded to Ministers’ offices and the Clerk’s Office advises that it has been instructed—presumably by your office Mr Speaker—not to distribute the questions. It seems to me that that raises a rather interesting question of whether the Clerk’s Office has had some sort of private communication from the Leader of the House about the Government’s intentions with regard to the urgency motion. 
I put it to you Mr Deputy Speaker that the Office of the Speaker and the Clerk’s Office should stand above and beyond the political manipulations of the Leader of the House and well away from any shabby deals that the Government has done with the minor parties that prop it up in the Chamber. It seems to me that it would have been proper for the Clerk’s Office to distribute questions in the normal way and to act in every way in the normal fashion and to not take any political advice from the Leader of the House or anyone else. 
It is pretty obvious to members now that the Leader of the House has had to abandon his wish to have question time today and that he will have to abandon the notice of motion I know he wanted the House to address. That is quite a substantial victory for Opposition parties. But I ask for your assurance that in future we will not have political judgments being passed through to the Clerk’s Office or the Speaker’s Office and that the machinery of this House particularly as it relates to questions and the urgency motion will operate above and beyond those sorts of political considerations. 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I just wanted to comment on the remarks made about so-called shonky deals done with the support partners of Labour and also on the reference to the machinery of the House. The House does have a machinery for dealing with this question. It is called the Business Committee. This matter was raised at the Business Committee—not this week’s Business Committee but last week’s Business Committee. 
Opposition parties have had about 8 days’ notice to raise the matter of whether question time should occur and when it should occur. They have made no representations in that regard at all so I think it is actually quite perverse of them to get up and raise a point of order on the matter today. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank Mr Copeland for making that comment. I note the point raised by Mr McCully. I have no knowledge of the issues you raise at all; nor should I have any knowledge because I proceed exactly as I should. As far as I am concerned I have an urgency motion that does not allow for or show any question time at all. Until that is changed through other mechanisms I shall proceed along those lines. 
I am informed that questions are not distributed beforehand. They have been on one occasion by mistake and I guess that is what is happening. But to get more information I suggest that perhaps the question should be raised with Madam Speaker. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I do not want to put you in a difficult position either but I ask that you protect the rights of the Opposition parties in this matter and after making due inquiry give us an assurance that the machinery of the Clerk’s Office and the House will operate free from any sort of political interference by the Leader of the House—ably assisted no doubt by Mr Copeland and his cronies. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I do not need any rebuttal of that remark. I thank Mr McCully; we shall proceed as though that point was never raised. 
Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to signal that United Future will be supporting the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. Indeed we believe that this licensing regime for immigration advisers is well and truly overdue. I was interested to hear earlier the speech from the Hon Lianne Dalziel which informed me as I was not here at the time that this matter was raised in 1999. For goodness’ sake we are now in 2005! I would like to point out to Lianne Dalziel and members of the Government that they have actually had 6 years since 1999 which proves the point that this bill is well and truly overdue. So I hope it will be passed by this House rapidly and that we can get on and put a licensing regime in place. 
It is a very very important area of our immigration law. It is time that New Zealand cleaned up its act when it comes to immigration. It is a well-known fact that the current Minister of Foreign Affairs the Hon Winston Peters has actually built a political career in part by opposing immigration. But the fact is that immigration does and will continue to play a vital role in the future of this nation. That is the reality. Incidentally talking about reality I would have found Keith Locke’s protestations about people say of Middle Eastern origin who are New Zealand citizens being held up at the border a lot more convincing if I were unaware of the fact that the perpetrators of the bombs on the London Underground and buses in July were not just people with permanent residency but also people who were actually born in Britain. 
So it is important I think when we talk about these matters that we talk about the real world not some idealised version of the world. I would love it if this globe was peaceful and there was love and harmony between all members of all races. That is one thing that many of us would like to work towards. But in the meantime we have to look at the realities and be sensible. We need to remember that one of the functions of Government—its principle function some would argue—is to protect its own citizens. That includes protecting them against people whether or not they are New Zealand citizens who might want to commit acts of terrorism against their fellow citizens. We have to get the cowboys the fakes the frauds the thieves the incompetent the irresponsible and the greedy out of the immigration loop in terms of people wishing to come to this nation. 
Such people are actually scumbags. They prey on the innocent they prey on the needy and very often they prey on people—who are desperate for good and sound reasons such as persecution at home on religious grounds and who are fleeing areas of the world that are affected by warfare poverty or discrimination—who chose to make this country their new home. In those situations it is all too easy to set oneself up as an immigration adviser to claim that one has all kinds of connections—even in a recent scam with the Prime Minister herself—and to say such things as: “You come to me. I’ve got some say with the Prime Minister and I’ll get you into New Zealand.” We really need to ensure that the system eliminates all those things. 
I would also like to say that this is actually a very very important matter in terms of policy formation. As a result of scams run in this country the Government recently changed the business migration scheme. There were scams of people bringing $1 million into New Zealand living here for just a few days and then going back offshore; the same $1 million brought in a whole stream of immigrants through totally illegal and shonky but very cleverly thought-out immigration schemes. So the Government reacted to that by saying: “If you’re a business migrant now we want you to bring in a million bucks and we’ll have it lodged with the Government and only with the Government and furthermore we’ll pay you an interest rate that is insignificant.” Since that new regulation came in there have been two—yes that is right two—business migrants who have come into New Zealand. 
The whole Government setup we now have in terms of the way that money is utilised is of course the exact opposite of any sense of business acumen or entrepreneurship because anybody who is able to have made $1 million in the first place and therefore is able to bring it into our country obviously has business acumen and those people see the whole scheme as patently ridiculous. I want to tell the Government today that there is an opportunity for it once these immigration advisers are licensed properly to revisit that policy in the interests of bringing more business and entrepreneurial people into this country. God knows we need them! 
I would also like to draw the House’s attention as we are debating this subject today to the write-up in today’s  
Dominion Post  
about the East Asia Summit which our Prime Minister Helen Clark has been attending. Some members may know that this summit now embraces all of the nations of Asia including China India and Japan and it also embraces Australia and New Zealand. The Prime Minister of Malaysia said that he did not know how the Australians—or New Zealanders for that matter—will regard themselves as east Asians. I thought that actually displayed an understandable ignorance of the history of immigration into this country. As Dr Pita Sharples has pointed out the founding people of this nation were Polynesians whom we call Maori. What sort of people are they? The answer is that they are east Asian people; that is actually their point of origin. 
Metiria 
Turei 
: What? 
GORDON COPELAND 
: That is exactly right. The Polynesians came originally from east Asia. Dr Pita Sharples and I have just been talking about this and he thoroughly agrees with the point I am making. From that point of view we are therefore genuinely an east Asian country to the extent that we were populated by east Asian people. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to correct one comment. I definitely stated that we are the same people; we derive from the same language family but it does not mean we are from there. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That is for another time thank you. It is not a point of order. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I am sorry. I meant that the original inhabitants of New Zealand the original human inhabitants were of east Asian origin in the same way that I am of European origin. That is the point I was making and I think it is factual and non-controversial in reality. The Indian diplomat at the summit also had the same problem. He also questioned how it was that New Zealand could be regarded as part of east Asia. 
I think it is also very important to focus on the fact that Asia is therefore not only a very important part of New Zealand’s past but is also a very important part of our history. I was privileged yesterday to be the guest of honour at the Victoria University graduation ceremony for commerce graduands. To be perfectly honest as I have not been to one of those ceremonies since I graduated myself about 40 years ago I was absolutely staggered because I would estimate conservatively that 70 percent of the graduates in commerce from Victoria University yesterday were Asian. I think that is a good illustration of the role that immigrants to this country are playing and what a fantastic contribution these young men and women are going to make to the future of our country. 
The licensing regime for immigration advisers has many many ramifications for this country—all of them extremely positive. I would venture to express the hope in this Parliament that once the licensing regime is in place the Minister of Foreign Affairs might himself in that new role—that very important role of representing our country—open his mind and heart a little bit to the great potential that new immigrants can make to the fabric of life in this country and that we can rid ourselves of xenophobia and put out the welcome mat especially for overseas students. I believe that the best immigrants we could possibly have coming to New Zealand would be students who have come here from different lands who study at our universities who graduate from our universities and then decide they want to become citizens of our country. That is the brain drain in reversal and we do need it because as we are all very aware we also have the other side of the equation which is the migration of some of our best and brightest from our shores to other parts of the world. 
With those remarks I signal our strong support for this overdue bill. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 ACT will support the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill going to a select committee but we note in the same way the National Party did that this bill still needs a lot of work. The purpose of the bill of course is very laudable. According to the explanatory note: “This bill creates a licensing regime for individuals who provide immigration advice. The purpose … is to promote and protect the interests of consumers receiving immigration advice and to enhance the reputation of New Zealand as a migrant destination.” That is as it should be. 
This bill though could be termed the “TuarikiDelamere Protection Bill”. It is a bill to protect people from those who take advantage of immigrants who perhaps do not have a finely tuned grasp of English and are in a very vulnerable position. Those people deserve protection. The Serious Fraud Office said that Mr Delamere received $1 million from his Chinese partner in exchange for part of his company. It went on to say that he recycled the money to trick the Department of Internal Affairs so that seven immigrants—supposedly millionaires but who were in fact subject to misinformation—gained entry to New Zealand. Those people then found that their residency had been revoked and they have since left the country. On looking for information regarding this bill and why this country might need it I found that the  
New Zealand Herald  
was very enlightening. I quote from a piece from 16 November: “The SFO alleges Delamere falsely told the Immigration Service that seven clients had each invested $1 million of their own money in New Zealand—qualifying them for residency under the business migration category. 
 Instead the SFO alleges his Chinese business partner contributed the $1 million which was used seven times for seven different applications in a ‘money-go-round’.” As Lianne Dalziel pointed out that is absolutely unforgivable and scurrilous behaviour. 
So what would Mr Winston Peters have said before his reformation as Minister of Foreign Affairs? Let us forget the Iraqi Cabinet Minister; if we listen to what the Serious Fraud Office said Mr Peter’s former colleague played the system for a— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You are making reference to a matter that is before the courts and has not been resolved at this time. You are free to talk about others and free to talk about Mr Peters but not about Mr Delamere in the way that you have been. 
HEATHER ROY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The information I have been giving is mainly quotations and information that has already been in the public arena. I was very careful when I was researching this to take particular note of that point. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No the Standing Orders are quite clear. You stepped over the mark just slightly with your comments and the rules prohibit that sort of thing. I ask you to use more general terms please. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. There are many cases where people who have applied to come to this country have been taken advantage of in a very serious way and this bill regrettably is necessary to control the behaviour of those few. I think that most people who have consultancy businesses to give advice to those wanting to come to New Zealand do a very good job and I suggest that many members of the House who are frequently asked about immigration cases and for their own advice might well consult those people. So it is regrettable that the bill is needed but ACT will support it because it is needed to control that sort of behaviour. 
Immigrants add a huge amount to this country. Those who have to apply to come to New Zealand are mainly hard-working taxpaying law-abiding good and valuable citizens. They provide enrichment to the country that we would otherwise not see. Those who apply to come here are generally under-represented in the use of hospital beds and in our prisons. They are very good well-behaved law-abiding citizens of our country. Those who apply to come here are frequently the doctors and nurses who keep our hospitals going. New Zealand is a better country thanks to the immigration we have so we feel a deal of disappointment that legislation like this is necessary to provide for immigrants’ protection. 
 In ACT we do not like bureaucracy. We certainly do not like unnecessary bureaucracy that adds costs to things we feel are unnecessary. We do not like excessive regulation and we certainly do not like to interfere with professionals who are doing their jobs but we do support the bill. We support certainty for people who want to immigrate to New Zealand. We support people who want to come here in order to contribute to our society and enjoy our social and economic freedoms and we want those people to be sure they are dealing with bona fide consultants. That is very important; they should have that reassurance. However ACT has concerns about many parts of the bill particularly in respect of the costs it might impose on those who are already giving good valuable advice to people applying to come to New Zealand. We also have concerns about other parts of the bill—particularly about the fact that MPs are not subject to it—but we will support the bill going to the select committee. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 Tragically for the House I am obliged by the whips to be brief but I want to begin by making a quick comment to Mr McCully who earlier raised a point of order about question time. I remind him that if the National Party had not filibustered the Veterinarians Bill for 9 hours and then ultimately voted for it we probably could have had question time. We always know when Murray McCully is not particularly serious because the Brylcream in his hair starts to dry out and get ratty on the edges. And he sat down with a smile on his face so no one took him seriously. 
I turn to the matter in hand the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. First of all I congratulate the new Minister of Immigration Mr Cunliffe on bringing the bill to the House in his name. I also congratulate the former Minister of Immigration Lianne Dalziel whose idea started the process. But there is another Minister whom I want to mention. I hear he is a humble man who does not like to receive public acclaim for his work but I am assured that much of his grunt work his hard work—if you like the intelligence and rigour; the donkey work—in bringing this all together into legislation which was before the House prior to the last election had a lot to do with his own efforts. I know that that member will not like me speaking like this about him and I have said that I will not mention his name because I do not think it is appropriate; nor is it fit and proper. But I do think it is worthy of the House to say— 
Darren Hughes 
: A little thankyou. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes to say thank you for doing a lot of the work in bringing it all together. Of course we are a collegial party—there are no individuals; it is all teamwork. We have Lianne Dalziel and David Cunliffe but there is one other person who will remain nameless and I think we should do that person the honour of making sure— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Name him. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No it would not be right. He would be embarrassed if that were the case because he is a team player and does not like to have individual glory bestowed upon him. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: He was the best. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: No I would not go that far. Basically the objective of the bill which has been well outlined by both Mr Cunliffe and Lianne Dalziel is to drive the crooks the thieves and the liars out of the immigration adviser industry—that is basically its job. So the good law-abiding advisers many of whom I have met over the last 6 years are able to get on and do their job out from under the cloud of constant allegations about behaviour that continually hangs over this industry. 
The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee might like to have a look at two key issues. The first issue raised by Lianne Dalziel is that there could well be a stand-down period for those who have worked for the New Zealand Immigration Service and who then want to become an adviser. I think there should be a stand-down period so that those people cannot therefore claim that they have inside knowledge and information which I am sure there would be a temptation to do. The other issue is about international advisers. The compromise in the end was that it would be 3 years before the legislation applied to them. My view is that it could well be a bit sooner and I would be interested if the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee could have a look at that. But this is a fabulous bill that has been brought to the House through the efforts of a number of fabulous Ministers in a Labour-led Government who are doing fabulous work on behalf of New Zealand. I commend the bill to the House. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill. I declare from the outset that in my former life as a lawyer I dabbled in some immigration advice and I am pleased to see that lawyers are exempt under this proposed legislation from licensing as immigration advisers. Having said that although I accept that the bill is well-intended it is flawed and it is ineffectual. It does attempt to address some very real concerns but why it does not address other concerns is a mystery to me and the method of addressing some of those concerns is also mystifying. It is vital that our immigrants and our potential immigrants receive good competent advice and service. Often those advisers are the first port of call—the shop window of New Zealand—and those first impressions indeed matter. 
As a lawyer I have had the unenviable task of trying to pick up the pieces of very disappointed and disillusioned people who have entered New Zealand. They are often given false hope of what to expect in New Zealand. They are often encouraged to pack up their bags sell their homes and travel to New Zealand in the false hope that they too will be privileged enough to call New Zealand their home. People come to New Zealand relying on advice from so-called immigration advisers and thinking that they can obtain a work permit and they cannot. They come to New Zealand thinking they can obtain permanent residency and they cannot. 
The consequences of poor and incompetent advice resulting in declined applications and sometimes in deportation are severe. Does the bill deal effectively with that? I would have to admit that it does not. The bill provides for penalties payable by the adviser for failing to meet the acceptable standards of advice. But what about the poor visitors to our country whose hopes and aspirations have been totally dashed and whose impression then of New Zealand and New Zealanders is to say the least atrocious? Those poor victims are deported and they run the risk of not being able to return to New Zealand at least not for some time and then with difficulty. They run the risk of their travel to other countries being hampered because of an immigration record that is marred as a consequence of bad negligent and incompetent advice. To fine the adviser does nothing whatsoever to help their cause. 
The bill as we have come to expect is seriously flawed—not only in relation to the penalties. Although the bill provides that no person may provide immigration advice unless that person is licensed or exempt such as lawyers it then goes on to provide the definition of immigration advice. The bill says that immigration advice does not include providing information that is publicly available or that is prepared or made available by the department. But the entire operations manual is available to the public and the entire legislation is available to the public. The appeal and the other case decisions are available to the public. So what exactly is not available to the public? What exactly is the immigration advice that one must be licensed or exempt to provide? 
What is more the bill attempts to include offshore advisers but then it excludes them if they give advice in relation to student permits and student visas. I cannot fathom why that might be. Students are not immune from bad or incompetent advice and I can envisage offshore immigration advisers giving a lot of advice that is disguised as advice on student permits. 
Many of the problems that the bill seeks to address arise from offshore advisers but those offshore advisers are not subject to our New Zealand jurisdiction. I do not believe that sufficient thought has been given to the fact that the enforceability of this regime on offshore advisers is well-nigh impossible. 
My other concern relates to the good old chestnut of costs and compliance. Even the explanatory note admits: “The proposal is expected to result in increased costs to immigration advisers through licence application fees and compliance costs associated with applying for and renewing licences meeting minimum competency standards and complying with a code of conduct (details yet to be decided). Application fees will be prescribed in regulations … An annual licence fee is expected to be in the order of $1000 - $2000.” 
The note continues: “Compliance costs for businesses will also arise from the licensing application process competency standards and code of conduct that are to be developed by the regulator.” It concerns me that we are adding yet another layer of bureaucracy—we are catching a baby about to grow into a monster. An Immigration Advisers Authority will be set up. A Registrar of Immigration Advisers will be appointed under the State Sector Act; what wage will he or she be on? Other such persons will be appointed as the chief executive decides. We will have a complaints body and a complaints procedure. 
This is a monster in the making. Although the bill is certainly well intentioned it fails to address some of our more serious immigration issues. It addresses issues that do not need addressing and I feel that it will do little to raise the standard of immigration advice in our country. 
Although National members support the bill going to the select committee for scrutiny that scrutiny does indeed need to be very robust for this bill to be effective at all. We need to address the issue of offshore advisers giving shonky advice giving false hopes to our immigrants and risking our national integrity. That is vital. There is definitely a mischief out there that needs to be remedied but this bill does not seem to be able to remedy it. I am certainly hopeful that the select committee will see the serious flaws in this bill and try to make it into effective legislation. 
It adds so much bureaucracy that we really wonder whether it is all worthwhile. We only have to look at some of the functions to realise what a bloated bureaucracy this authority will develop into. The authority will establish and maintain a register of licensed immigration advisers then will have to administer the licensing regime then will have to develop and maintain competency standards then will have to develop and maintain a code of conduct for immigration advisers then will have to facilitate the education and professional development of immigration advisers then will have to facilitate public awareness of matters relating to the provision of immigration advice and then will have to investigate and take enforcement action. 
This bill is draconian. A mischief is out there. National members will support the bill going to a select committee but we implore the select committee to scrutinise it very robustly. 
Debate interrupted. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Questions for Oral Answer—Publishing 
Madam SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been raised by the Hon Murray McCully relating to questions not being distributed. I wish to rule on that matter. Questions for a future sitting are not distributed nor is an Order Paper circulated until the previous sitting ends. If this sitting ends before 1 p.m. any questions lodged this morning will be distributed; otherwise they will not. That is the normal procedure. It is not the subject of any deal or political interference at this time. 
Election Petition 
Tauranga 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I seek leave to present the report of the High Court on the Tauranga electoral petition. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection. I hereby present the determination of the High Court in the matter of an electoral petition relating to the Tauranga electoral district. Paragraph 150 of the determination reads as follows: “We certify under s 243 of the Electoral Act 1993 that at the trial of this petition the Court determined that the election of the respondent Robert Moncrieff Clarkson as the member of Parliament for the Tauranga electorate was not void.” Copies of the determination are available from the Bills Office and will be published on the High Court website. 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I seek leave to congratulate Mr Clarkson on having his election to this House confirmed. We were always confident that he did in fact comply with the rules that apply to the election of members of Parliament. I think his confirmation is something that we in this House can certainly applaud and we wish him all the very best. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.referred to Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
Standards and Conformance Bill 
First Reading 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Standards and Conformance Bill be now read a first time 
. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Commerce Committee for consideration. 
The standards and conformance infrastructure supports the economy in many ways. Consumers both here and overseas increasingly require products or services that comply with standards or other specific requirements in terms of quality or performance. Obtaining independent confirmation that that has occurred has become increasingly important for business success and consumer confidence. The Government’s interest is in ensuring that risks to public health safety and the environment are minimised while facilitating innovation economic development and international trade. 
The technical amendments contained in this bill will amend two Acts: the Standards Act 1988 and the Testing Laboratory Registration Act 1972. The amendments are designed to ensure that international and domestic confidence in New Zealand’s standards and conformance infrastructure is maintained. Internationally norms and practices in the standards and conformance area have evolved and it is important that the Standards Act and the Testing Laboratory Registration Act keep up to date with those developments. 
The bill’s amendments will also improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the functions of both the Standards Council and the Testing Laboratory Registration Council. Looking first at amendments to the Standards Act 1988 in New Zealand the Standards Council through its operational arm Standards New Zealand develops and publishes standards that are agreed specifications for products processes performances or services. Internationally standards bodies are now producing a wider range of products. The amendments to the Standards Act will clarify and expand the scope of the council’s functions to include the preparation or recommendation of codes of practice handbooks specifications and other material produced by international standards bodies. 
 The bill will also extend the development of standards in a manner consistent with New Zealand’s international trade obligations to include minimising environmental risks and promoting social responsibility. A further amendment is also intended to improve the nomination processes for appointments to the Standards Council. 
Turning now to the proposed amendments to the Testing Laboratory Registration Act 1972 the Act provides for the establishment of the Testing Laboratory Registration Council. The council has in turn established an operational arm—International Accreditation New Zealand. This organisation assesses the ability of testing and calibration laboratories and inspection bodies to carry out conformity assessments on whether a particular product process performance or service complies with particular standards and technical regulations. On the other hand an organisation called the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand was established by treaty between the Australian and New Zealand Governments in 1991. It provides for the accreditation of certification bodies—for example quality and environmental management systems and inspection bodies. 
A key purpose of the bill’s amendments to the Testing Laboratory Registration Act 1972 is to delineate the roles of International Accreditation New Zealand and the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand in the market for accreditation services. As such the amendments to the Testing Laboratory Registration Act 1972 will clarify that the Testing Laboratory Registration Council does not have the ability to accredit certification bodies and confirm that the council does not have the ability to accredit inspection bodies. The amendments will also make the provision of certification services—currently undertaken by Telarc Ltd an operational arm of the council—discretionary rather than mandatory. It is important to remember that when Telarc Ltd began supplying this service there were no private sector providers. Now however a number of private sector providers have been established. 
This bill will help do much to improve the clarity efficiency and effectiveness of the functions of the Standards Council and Testing Laboratory Registration Council and to align them with international norms and practices. This is ahead of the major review of standards and conformance that will occur next year. I commend this bill to the House. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Yesterday this Minister like other Labour commerce Ministers before her once again made warm fuzzy noises about cutting compliance costs especially for small businesses. Apparently one of the fantastic responses that cuts compliance costs is to ask the Ministry for Economic Development to look into ways to measure and publish the cost of compliance. Compliance costs are indeed being identified along with high tax and the employment laws as one of the major obstacles facing small businesses. But can we have confidence in the Ministry for Economic Development championing the ways that Government departments can measure and report compliance costs? Let us look at this legislation because I am sure it was put together by the Ministry for Economic Development and as required by all legislation it has to contain a compliance cost statement. 
We see the statement identifies that this legislation will incur compliance costs because two accreditation bodies will be reduced to one and the organisations that were previously registered by International Accreditation New Zealand will now have to be registered with Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand. According to the compliance cost statement the size of the compliance costs that will be incurred by the bodies that shift their accreditation from one organisation to the other will depend on how much confidence the new accreditation organisation Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand has in the previous accreditations that were undertaken by International Accreditation New Zealand. 
The compliance cost statement also points out that there may be some confusion in the market because of these changes. Therefore it states it is not possible to quantify the size of the compliance costs. But the Ministry for Economic Development claims that it will take on the task of writing to the organisations that will be affected by the changes and that somehow that will clarify the issue and remove any confusion. Well the Ministry for Economic Development obviously has huge confidence in its letter-writing ability. I have never known any business owner to suddenly say he or she is no longer confused because a letter from the Ministry for Economic Development has outlined all the changes. That is why one can have no confidence in the commitment in this Minister and the minority Labour Government she belongs to to tackle creeping compliance costs. In fact business owners continue to complain nowadays that they can feel the tentacles of this Labour Government interfering in various parts of their businesses. 
National members will support this legislation going on to the select committee process. We look forward to meeting the advisers especially those from the Ministry for Economic Development and to testing their ability to demonstrate that they can indeed champion the measurement of compliance costs given they have actually at this stage put an abysmal effort into furnishing the business compliance cost statement contained in this bill. 
Let me turn to the provision in this bill that concerns the transfer of the accreditation function from International Accreditation New Zealand to Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand. On the face of it to reduce two accreditation operations into one seems to be a sensible move. However we have learnt from the explanatory note of the bill that various organisations have expressed concerns because the new body Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand actually charges higher fees than International Accreditation New Zealand. Whatever happened to economies of scale? We are now telling the bodies that have to get accreditation that they will have to pay higher fees for no obvious benefit. 
Apparently the consultation process threw up another observation: there are concerns about the lack of client services in Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand compared with International Accreditation New Zealand. That is a classic case of businesses being asked to pay more and get less. That sounds to me like a very Labour business persona—one pays more and gets less. I look forward to quizzing the officials and advisers during the select committee’s deliberation on the bill as to why businesses are to pay higher fees for fewer services. Apparently the officials actually took up those concerns and they reckon they have solved the problem by including a transitional provision in the bill. The transitional provision includes the measure that the advisers will write to Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand asking it to review its fees and also to take the concerns expressed by businesses into consideration. Well I do not think that is good enough. I think basically the advisors have to ask Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand for a fee scale and to justify why its fees are higher than those of International Accreditation New Zealand. Unless businesses can be convinced they are receiving more services I cannot see why the Government should pass legislation to force businesses to pay more for fewer services. So that is another provision we will take up and seek answers on from the officials. 
The functions of the Standards Council will also be affected by this legislation. According to section 10(1) of the Standards Act the primary functions of the council were originally: “… to develop standards and to promote encourage and facilitate the use of standards in New Zealand with the object of—(a) Improving the quality of goods and services having regard to economy in their production or supply; or (b) Promoting standardisation in industry trade or commerce; or (c) Encouraging and facilitating industrial development trade or commerce; or (d) Promoting public or occupational safety health or welfare.” This bill seeks to expand those functions by having to include the objectives as outlined in clause 7(1) of “minimising environmental risks” and “promoting social responsibility”. 
Alarm bells should start to ring when sweeping statements like those are to be included. I want to know whether the Minister has in mind a ban on plastic shopping bags in supermarkets in order to minimise environmental risk. When the Greens want such solutions to become policy they at least are upfront about it but the Labour Government always insists upon a quango to do the work it does not tell the public about. 
Another provision I want to question concerns the definition of “social responsibility”. On what criteria is it based and who will decide what constitutes social responsibility under this legislation? If that term is well-defined why is it not included in the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 or the Fair Trading Act 1986? After all those Acts seem to be even more relevant to that requirement than this bill is. I wonder how many types of children’s toys will pass the social responsibility test. We look forward to the officials coming up with guidelines and examples at the select committee. 
The last point I want to raise—the ultimate concern—is that this bill includes another sweeping statement whereby the Minister can interfere. Apparently the Minister can simply ask the Standards Council to take on any other function not in contradiction with its objective. But as we know the council’s objective is very wide. So although we support this bill going to the select committee we look forward to putting it under very robust scrutiny. 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this bill not requiring my full 10 minutes because it is very straightforward. It is in fact much more straightforward than the previous speaker would understand. I wish to underscore a couple of points about the bill perhaps for the benefit of the previous speaker. 
It is very clear that the infrastructure of this country requires updating in order to comply with international standards norms and practices. The updating that this bill contains—that is amendments to the Standards Act 1988 and the Testing Laboratory Registration Act 1972—is not of the dramatic order that the previous speaker suggested. If there are concerns then surely they will be addressed at the select committee. But I would like to pick up on one of the previous speaker’s points and that is the point about compliance costs. 
There is a statement in the explanatory note of the bill that talks about business compliance costs but the purpose—and I am sure it will become blindingly obvious during the course of select committee submissions—is that because we are going to be correcting an anomaly in the current provisions we will be moving to reduce compliance costs. We cannot have two bodies responsible for accreditation. We need to have one. Hence the move towards the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand. 
Australia moved to use that system some time ago and we are doing the same as Australia. I think that the bogey of business compliance costs the member raised is mythical and it will be up to submitters I suppose to demonstrate during the select committee process the extent of those costs. It has been said that it is not possible to quantify them so I will be interested to hear just how detrimental these administrative changes will be. 
Fundamentally it is essential that our standards and the infrastructure that underpins health standards specifications for products testing of products and safety and environment standards are protected by this updating of current legislation. I look forward to addressing that matter at the select committee deliberation. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 I rise to support the Standards and Conformance Bill going to the select committee. With reference to the last speaker I tell her that she should read page 9 of the explanatory note headed “Statement of consultation undertaken”. The paragraph headed “Stakeholder consultation” states: “They wanted to see effective transitional provisions included in the legislation and noted that the proposal will result in increased direct costs to them as a result of higher accreditation fees charged by JAS-ANZ.” 
Maintaining confidence in our standards and in the conformance of the same with their associated infrastructure is very very important to New Zealand and to New Zealanders. We are known to be a people and a country that both holds to high standards and conforms to high standards. There is also a high expectancy that the organisations and infrastructures responsible for being guardians of those standards will fulfil the required task. Occasional breaches of standards—some of which have had truly tragic results—always serve to emphasise the expectancy the population has of our standards. So this is not a light matter; it is very very serious. I would like to think that it is not just a New Zealand characteristic but that it is fundamental to the way we live. I would like to think that certainly in a political perspective it is a National Party characteristic to have high standards—and I think we saw a demonstration of those in the result we were told of this morning. 
It is also a National Party characteristic to have high behavioural patterns that reflect those standards. National is the party that demonstrates those things in so many ways: in the conduct of the recent campaign in the preparation and delivery of policy in the training and inclusion of new candidates and indeed in the induction of new MPs into caucus and into the House. The standards and conformance of this side of the House I think can be considered to be exemplary. If only I could look across the Chamber and feel that the same occurs on the other side of the House. Those members seem not to have the same level of enthusiasm energy and dynamism that is on constant display on this side of the Chamber. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: To continue and I do not intend to use the full allocation of my remaining 7 minutes— 
Hon David Carter 
: Oh I bet you will. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: I will try my best; all right let us do that. As I was saying before lunch the standards and conformance of people on this side of the House can only be described as exemplary. If only Opposition members could look across the House to see the same enthusiasm—I am searching for enthusiasm but I see none—energy and dynamism that is on constant display on this side of the House. The present Government and the cross-bench MPs of its attendee parties get to look across at a whole new batch of MPs—budding future leaders of a high standard and conformance a mature group of mid-career MPs and a fine front bench in the full flower of activity—compared with the view that we have of a sad group of members who have gone to seed in desperate need of weeding pruning and replanting. Indeed one has even heard those members described somewhat uncharitably as “the complete dried arrangement”. But that is not the case on this side of the House. 
But as I said earlier there are concerns with this bill which is a serious matter. It is a very important bill. One of the concerns we have which was mentioned by a previous speaker is the addition of two new objectives which the Standards Council develops and promotes. They are “minimising environmental risks” and “promoting social responsibility”. I have serious concerns that the inclusion of these seemingly well-intentioned objectives will be of concern to many. These objectives in the hands of the present Government will almost inevitably impact on the activities of individuals and groups through regulation by stealth. Promoting social responsibility smacks of voluntary codes until such time as people do not comply after which regulations will be imposed to introduce compulsion. The breadth of possibilities open to bureaucrats under such phrases as “minimising environmental risks” and “promoting social responsibility” is very very broad. 
One of the reasons this bill is being introduced is to try to tighten some of the descriptions that are used in clause 12 which is critical of the breadth of intent. But it almost sounds like a pre-glasnost socialist creed or perhaps something from the darker days of social revolutionary change in parts of Asia. I shudder to think what could be included under “minimising environmental risks” and “promoting social responsibility”. 
In all though we support this bill going to a select committee where its concerns and intentions can be thoroughly considered and thoroughly examined and people can express their views on the bill in detail. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports this bill going to a select committee but we do so with a word of caution. On the face of it the bill seems entirely innocuous—and in fact it probably is—but we are also aware that it is being introduced under urgency in this House just before the Christmas break and within an international context of tension over how Governments should assess and regulate risk in relation to industry and laboratory standards. 
The aim of the bill is to ensure that the functions of the Standards Council and the Testing Laboratory Registration Council are aligned with international norms and practices. That seems to be an admirable intention but what do we mean when we talk about international norms? Are we talking about the norms of Europe when Europe is taking an increasingly cautionary approach towards chemical and biological risk or are we talking about the norms of the United States of America when according to some US commentators the US has become increasingly paralysed by a deliberate industry strategy of manufactured uncertainty? The concern is that the approach of the joint accreditation system of Australia and New Zealand which this bill will lock into place may well follow in the footsteps of the United States given the very strong identification with US policy that currently dominates Australian politics. It will be of no surprise to members of this House that once again New Zealand’s status in that body is not that of an equal and sovereign nation but is more akin to a slightly favoured federal state. New Zealand would be bound by this legislation to implement the decisions that the Australians by their superior voting power choose. 
Why should that concern us? Let us look at what is actually happening in the United States in relation to regulation. In December 2000 its Data Quality Act was enacted quietly as 27 lines in a giant Budget bill. The Act charged the Government to create procedures to ensure and maximise the quality objectivity utility and integrity of scientific information and statistics disseminated by federal agencies. So dozens of US Government agencies now struggle to translate that language into thousands of pages of quality control guidelines 
That would appear to be a laudable objective but the problem is that the bill has opened the door to a massive industry onslaught on the regulations governing hazardous chemicals in the United States and United States industry has adopted a self-proclaimed policy of using doubts and uncertainty to paralyse its regulatory agencies. By using shonky science and poorly implemented replication studies—which as a result of their poor implementation fail to support primary research—and by using blanket denials industry has managed to stave off regulation on the basis that the scientific evidence is contested. Members have only to turn their minds to the very deliberate strategy of the tobacco industry internationally which has used shonky science and poor replication studies in order to confuse the link between smoking and ill health. Well the Data Quality Act takes that kind of deception to a whole new level because it allows US companies and industry to take court action in order to contest the quality of scientific information thus hamstringing the ability of industries to regulate by locking them up in legal logjams. As a result regulatory agencies have become paralysed in the United States. 
The relevance of that situation to this debate is the concern that we do not open the door to a similar manipulation of regulations in this country inadvertently. If we turn to the bill and look at new section 10(2)(ca) inserted by clause 7(2) we see that the provision allows the Standards Council to recommend specifications other than standards. We have to question what the aim of that provision actually is because as the explanatory note tells us those specifications will not be subject to the same “consultation requirement in section 10(3)” that attaches to standards—because the requirements are not standards; they are specifications. I think that that should make members of this House sit up and take notice and they should ask what the purpose is of doing that. Is it a way of avoiding that consultation? 
Perhaps that is being all too suspicious and perhaps this is a totally innocuous if not laudable bill so the Green Party will support the bill going to a select committee. But we are simply using this speech to alert members to the very significant issues that arise in the process of looking through the specific details of this bill and to alert members on the committee the bill goes to that they should pay attention to the significant hidden barbs that might well be buried in the small bill before them. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to take a brief call to say that New Zealand First has carefully looked at the bill and we consider it to be worthy of our supporting it to a select committee. It is a good example of cooperation between ourselves and our Australian cousins. It certainly supports New Zealand’s trade health safety and environmental objectives. It creates economies of scale. 
I have only one reflection to make which is that this legislation has the potential to be a springboard that helps advance the Pacific Plan in terms of extending some of its provisions to our Pacific neighbours many of whom struggle to find the capacity within their own sovereign borders for this type of accreditation system. I just put that out as a teaser for people to think through but as I said New Zealand First will support the bill going to a select committee. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 It makes an interesting change for this House to be focusing its attention on standards. Indeed at first we thought the bill was about addressing the proposed code for parliamentarians which the member for Manukau East the Assistant Speaker Ross Robertson is putting forward to the Standing Orders Committee. Across the Chamber the honourable member for Rodney also referred to the need for ethical behaviour. 
Standards are something we have a great passion for in the Maori Party. We are firmly committed to contributing to a high standard of behaviour in this House and to ensuring that members agree to work together treat each other with respect and act with integrity. Without even looking at the bill we were happy to promote conformance with acceptable social standards of behaviour compliance with practices and values that promote mutual respect and harmonious relationships. It does however always pay to look at the detail of the bill in order to identify what standards we are talking about. The standards in this bill are specific to the trade health and safety of the environmental world of which the Standards Council and the Testing Laboratory Registration Council are key elements. They are standards and specifications in relation to health disabilities business environment and building. They are standards that provide a basis for consistent and acceptable minimal levels of quality performance safety and reliability. The Standards Council develops standards for goods and services while the Testing Laboratory Registration Council assures everyone that the standards are being met. 
So how does this legislation apply? How will it apply? Indeed can it apply? Can it make a difference to the standards of goods and services? When we were looking for a topical example yesterday we found the case of a festive taxi driver who was fined for attempting to spread Christmas cheer. The Hamilton driver known simply as “Butch” says he was banned from work after disobeying the taxi uniforms policy by wearing a Santa hat. Butch told the press that he was ordered to remove the offensive headgear earlier this month but refused and got a fine of $50. I guess that is a case of standards being applied to the most extreme degree. It is important to maintain standards and it is something that we in the Maori Party are committed to but that is probably a case of carrying a good thing too far. 
One of the bill’s key achievements will be to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Standards Council and the Testing Laboratory Registration Council. In thinking around how that will apply there can be no more dramatic an example than what was termed the “unfortunate experiment”—the results of the Gisborne inquiry into the National Cervical Screening Programme. In 1990 when the programme was launched the scheme was initiated without any performance standards in place. Ten years later when the Gisborne inquiry was called for there were no standards no performance indicators and little ongoing monitoring and evaluation. If members recall the Gisborne inquiry revealed that only 32 percent of the smears in which Gisborne laboratories detected abnormalities were marked as high-grade. In other words 68 percent were missed. What does that mean in real terms? It means that 616 women had missed high-grades 577 women who were referred for colonoscopy were diagnosed with cancer after May 1999 and nine women died from cervical cancer. That is the level of crisis that provides the context for demanding improvements in standards. 
What the Gisborne inquiry found was ample evidence of an unacceptable level of under-reporting. It found very poor standards at Gisborne laboratories which lacked both internal and external quality control. It found that Dr Bottrill had failed to gain accreditation for his laboratory and worst of all there was a severe lack of monitoring and evaluation of the laboratory performance which meant that Dr Bottrill’s under-reporting went undetected. Had those contracting with cytology laboratories understood and adhered to the importance of quality assurance then the requirement for laboratories to be independently accredited by the Testing Laboratory Registration Council would have been enforced. There is no question that there are serious issues with the standards and conformance that operated with the National Cervical Screening Programme. The Maori Party will continue to raise questions about the programme particularly why more Maori women have developed and died from cervical cancer than non-Maori women. In the year 2000 the death rate for Maori women was 8.1 for 100000 but for non-Maori women the death rate was only 1.9 for every 100000. Why is that the case? If we are really going to get serious about standards why should we not set in place standards that mean something and under which Maori should enjoy at least the basic minimum that non-Maori do? 
That example brings me to another point about the bill. The majority of standards are developed in partnership with Standards Australia. The function of registering certification bodies comes through the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand which was established by a treaty between the Australian and New Zealand Governments in 1991. The bill aligns the functions of the Standards Council and the Testing Laboratory Registration Council with international standards and conformance norms and practices. It does that in essence by transferring the authority of our body the Testing Laboratory Registration Council to the joint Australian and New Zealand body the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand. Although that is good in terms of lining ourselves up with international standards we have to look at the other side. The context of the bill is the Government’s programme of strengthening the trading relationships between New Zealand and Australia and with other countries that conduct conformity certification programmes which is yet another example of our own autonomy—our sovereignty—being compromised in an attempt towards a closer relationship with Australia. A transfer of authority to another body lessens our own Government’s sovereignty and the ability to determine domestic standards and conformance. 
The Maori Party must also ask the question about whether the Government has consulted with its Treaty of Waitangi partner before signing trans-Tasman agreements. Earlier today I spoke about the importance of the Treaty as a foundation of our constitution. As I said then the Treaty is our primary document. It is deeply philosophical and it is the appropriate document for Aotearoa at this time. It also guides us in all matters of domestic and international negotiation as indeed it should in this bill today. I also need to advise the House that there are many indigenous nations who look at the Treaty of Waitangi as a model for their nations. 
So we ask the House whether tangata whenua will be specifically consulted in developing and recommending specifications to minimise environmental risks and promote social responsibility as proposed in the Standards and Conformance Bill 2005. Or will there be two different standards as demonstrated by the figures from the Gisborne inquiry? I remind the House of the difference in the death rate from cervical cancer in the year 2000: 8.1 for every 100000 Maori women and 1.9 for non-Maori. As my colleague Nandor Tanczos also reminded us this morning there are two standards for the use of language in this House. Te reo which is an official language of Aotearoa is accorded an inferior position in comparison with English. Na reira Nandor Tanczos tena koe e whakapuaki mai i o whakaaro ki te Whare nei tena koe. 
[ 
And so thank you Nandor Tanczos for disclosing your thoughts to this House; thank you. 
] 
Social responsibility is surely about taking responsibility for the outcomes for all in Aotearoa ne?No reira tenatatou. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.referred to Commerce Committee 
Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits)  Registration Bill 
First Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for its consideration. 
The bill repeals and replaces the Geographical Indications Act 1994. The Act was passed in response to obligations arising from the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). The Act established a registration system for the protection of geographical indications and accorded a level of protection consistent under the TRIPs agreement. However the Act has never been brought into force in part because there was no strong interest in New Zealand and in part because other developments internationally did not eventuate. This has resulted in the 1994 Act being out of date. The purpose of the bill then is to put in place a modern efficient and cost-effective process for the registration of geographical indications of wines and spirits which both serves the purposes of our industries and meets our obligations under the TRIPs agreement. 
The geographical indications as defined by the World Trade Organization TRIPs agreement indicate that a good originates from a place where a certain quality reputation or some other characteristic is essentially attributable to its geographical origin. The most obvious example is champagne. In New Zealand over recent years regions such as Marlborough Martinborough Hawke’s Bay and Central Otago have also become synonymous with great wine production. For producers geographical indications can be a helpful marketing tool along with trademarks in the promotion of products. They support regional efforts for establishing and developing both a geographical branch and excellence. A geographical indication can help consumers to make informed choices about the products they are buying. Over the past decade New Zealand’s reputation as a producer of great wine has gone from strength to strength. Our sauvignon blanc is regarded as the finest in the world. We may well need to move to protect Hawke’s Bay or Marlborough’s sauvignon blanc for example against producers passing it off as theirs in other places around the world. 
The bill reaffirms New Zealand’s commitment to providing a strong intellectual property regime that offers clarity for users and fully complies with New Zealand’s obligations internationally. The TRIPs agreement establishes minimum standards for the protection of intellectual property rights including geographical indications which World Trade Organization members are required to provide. But we do have flexibility on how we choose to give effect to those obligations. The bill will provide a clearer more coherent framework for honouring New Zealand’s international obligations. At present we implement our TRIPs obligations via the Fair Trading Act 1986 and the tort of passing off. This has necessitated legal action in order to clarify the status of geographical indication—for example in the champagne case. By establishing a register for geographical indications the bill will provide a less costly method of establishing legal certainty as to the status of geographical terms. 
The bill contains a new definition of geographical indication to ensure that only those places that meet the standards of the TRIPs agreement are able to register under the Act. This means that a registered geographical indication needs to be able to indicate that a good is originating from a particular area where a particular quality reputation or other characteristic of the good can be attributable to its geographical indication. 
The bill limits registration to geographical indications for wines and spirits only. The TRIPs agreement accords two levels of protection for geographical indications: a standard level which applies to all goods and requires Governments to provide measures to prevent the misleading or confusing use of geographical indication; and a higher level which applies only to wines and spirits. This requires us to provide measures to prevent the use of a geographical indication on a wine or spirit that does not originate from the area indicated. The prohibition applies regardless of whether the use misleads or confuses as to the origin of the product. 
The protection accorded to registered geographical indications by the bill is consistent with this higher level of protection for wines and spirits. A person who uses that indication on a wine or spirit that does not originate from the geographical area indicated will be deemed to have contravened section 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 and the provisions of that Act will apply accordingly. However registration will not be compulsory. Unregistered geographical indications for all products—wines spirits and others—will continue to be protected through the Fair Trading Act 1986 and through the common-law tort of passing off. 
The TRIPs agreement establishes a balance of rights and obligations for the protection of geographical indications. This balance includes limitations and exceptions for geographical indication protection. The bill incorporates all of the limitations and exceptions to protection provided for by the TRIPs agreement—for example the protection is not to be afforded to terms that are considered generic in the New Zealand market nor will the bill influence the way in which common descriptive terms are used in the New Zealand market. Similarly the bill also clarifies the relationship between trademarks and geographical indications consistent with the New Zealand position internationally on those issues. 
The bill implements a first-in-line first-in-right principle for determining which right has priority. A later-filed geographical indication will in most instances be prevented from registration by an earlier-filed trademark and vice versa. In very limited circumstance the bill allows for the potential of a later-filed geographical indication to be considered despite a pre-existing trademark having priority. 
Homonymous geographical indications refer to geographical indications that are identical in name but relate to different geographical areas. Provided that both are legitimate the bill allows for the possibility of registration for both geographical indications. Conditions may be imposed on the registration to ensure that the use of both terms does not lead to confusion in the market place. As registration is not compulsory the bill introduces an exception to protect unregistered homonymous geographical indications to be used in the event that someone subsequently registers the geographical indication. 
More generally the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill represents a comprehensive reform of key aspects of New Zealand’s intellectual property regime. It forms part of a wider reform process to ensure that our intellectual property legislation is up to date taking into account international developments. The wider process includes the updated Trade Marks Act 2002 and reviews an updating of the Patents Act 1953 the Plant Variety Rights Act 1987 and the Copyright Act 1994. 
Geographical indications are an important aspect of New Zealand’s intellectual property rights framework. The bill will assist our burgeoning wine industry by ensuring that a modern efficient and cost-effective registration process is in place for geographical indications of our wines and spirits. A registration system will provide legal certainty for producers without stifling the innovation that has marked the rise of the New Zealand wine industry. The bill does not make registration compulsory. Existing legal mechanisms will continue to apply and the bill will also help consumers to make informed choices. 
The bill will provide a clearer and more coherent framework for honouring New Zealand’s international obligations. It considers the changes that have taken place in the international context since the 1994 Act was passed and puts in place measures that ensure the continuing use of terms in common use in New Zealand. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 It always frustrates me when Ministers come down to the House and gabble through a speech written by someone else when they introduce a bill and clearly do not have the faintest notion what the bill is doing or what it is about. It is even worse when they do not even know how to pronounce words that have been written into the speech. If Ministers are not going to write their own speeches—if they are going to come in here and read a speech that some official has written for them—they should at least make sure that they can pronounce the words and that they know what they mean. 
Having said that I want to make it clear that National will be supporting the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill. I must say that this legislation has a fascinating history. It would be fair to say that when the issue of geographical indications was first raised here in New Zealand it caused a bit of concern. If members think back we used to make stuff in New Zealand that we used to call champagne. Things like port were made in New Zealand. There was a lot of concern that if the New Zealand Parliament were to have to pass this kind of legislation it might mean that New Zealand would not be able to market products that it has always accepted had certain names and they would lose their identity. 
However over recent years as trade liberalisation has become a major development around the world and as the World Trade Organization—which was formed from the GATT during the Uruguay round of trade negotiations—continued its work of trade liberalisation the issue of geographical indications and if one likes protecting intellectual property in a liberalising market became a major issue for the World Trade Organization. Consequently the World Trade Organization members agreed to an important agreement called the World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights more commonly known as the TRIPs agreement. Up until now it would be fair to say that the way in which New Zealand has given effect to that agreement although it has been reasonably effective has been a cumbersome way of giving effect to our international obligations under the TRIPs agreement. 
When National was in office in 1994 it passed the first Geographical Indications Act but it never actually brought its provisions into effect. When this bill whose first reading we are debating today is passed into law it will repeal the 1994 Act and we support that. I think that this bill is an improvement over the 1994 Act. We concur with the Government that instead of simply bringing the 1994 Act into effect it makes sense to replace it with this bill. One of the big differences between the 1994 Act and this bill is that this bill quite wisely restricts the geographical indications legislation to wine and spirits. Under the TRIPs agreement that is an area where New Zealand must make sure we comply very carefully with our international obligations so this legislation makes sense. 
One could give examples to show where this kind of legislation will have effect. The Minister when introducing the bill spoke of champagne and how the TRIPs agreement makes it illegal for New Zealand to call sparkling wine champagne. Of course many fine wines do come from places like Champagne in France. Another classic example of a French geographical indicator is Burgundy. Of course Burgundy is a wine name that has tremendous significance around the world. Many countries I guess would like to market wine under the name Burgundy but of course the TRIPs agreement makes it clear that that is a geographical indicator that has market value to the Burgundy area and that wines produced elsewhere should not be able to use the name Burgundy. Likewise with Bordeaux wines some winemakers around the world might dearly like to call their wines Bordeaux because of the very fine reputation that wines from Bordeaux have. 
Most countries of any significance are members of the World Trade Organization and most are parties to the TRIPs agreement so those kinds of geographic indicators are protected. As the Minister said as time goes on this could have positive spin-offs for New Zealand. I guess that initially it was seen as negative for us that we could not call wines Burgundy. I cannot remember where the situation has got to on port but I guess that in the future we may not be able to call wines port. Of course for us in the future it does have potential benefits—unless we get into the provisions in the clause on homonymous indications. The Minister had a bit of trouble getting that word past her tongue and I am not sure that the Minister explained exactly what it means. Words that have the same spelling or the same sound are homonyms and the bill provides for that. For example one of our indicators could be Marlborough. It would not take much thought to realise that there is more than one Marlborough in the world. It would be extraordinarily difficult for one country to claim an exclusive geographical indicator when there is a homonym that is common to more than one place and the legislation addresses that. 
As with all legislation like this—and earlier on today legislation was introduced to license immigration advisers—we are all the time introducing more and more red tape into our economy. It is really important that this red tape be minimised. The Government has introduced several bills today that bring in miles more red tape but I am not aware of any bill introduced today that actually gets rid of red tape. We always have to be careful of red tape. One feature of this bill that I do support is that it makes no provisions beyond that required of our obligations under the TRIPs agreement. The Government has not taken any great flights of fancy to provide more red tape under this legislation than is required under our obligations under the TRIPs agreement. What is more the level of protection guaranteed by this bill is a level of protection consistent only with that required by article 23 of the TRIPs agreement. Again one of the reasons that National supports this legislation is that it does not go beyond the protections required by the TRIPs agreement. 
Having said that I point out that although National totally supports the bill’s coverage because it goes no further than that required by the TRIPs agreement we must make sure that the processes the bill establishes put in place minimal red-tape requirements. I repeat that today the Labour Government has introduced several bills that will bring in more red tape. I am not aware of any bills that the Government has introduced today that get rid of red tape. One thing that all New Zealand business people understand is that we are becoming absolutely tied up in red tape. It is becoming a major constraint on New Zealand’s economic growth. The select committee should make sure that this legislation does not produce any more red tape in its procedures than is required. 
I repeat that National will support this bill because it is consistent with our international obligations. We support the fact that it repeals the 1994 Act and we support its coverage. We think it is a sensible measure. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First likewise supports the bill. Yet again as Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith has said it is something we have to do to line up with international obligations. Unfortunately in the countries we sell into—be that selling wine dairy products beef or the other things we rely on basically for our standard of living—we face not only tariff barriers but also non-tariff barriers. 
The greatest of those is the apple situation in Australia. To give Dr Lockwood Smith his credit he battled that for many years. To his credit he involved himself in I guess an international incident—it is off our shores—by suggesting to the Australians that they were not as clean as perhaps they might pretend to be. He was right of course but diplomacy does not allow one to say those things and the matter was plastered over. However the honourable member was quite correct. 
We have to fall into line particularly in the matter of wine where one cannot name a wine after a French province or whatever without paying some sort of fee. New Zealand First supports this bill. We think it is essential. International agreements are something that we as a country cannot get around. This is one of many such agreements that we are forced to comply with and we do so reluctantly but with the knowledge that New Zealand has to abide by its international obligations. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 The wine industry is of huge importance to my electorate. It provides employment foreign exchange earnings and outstanding wine for all consumers to enjoy. This situation is replicated throughout New Zealand. 
I did not understand one word of the Minister’s speech so I want to start by focusing on what this bill is about. International demand is changing away from the heavy red wines of Europe towards lighter flavoured wines and our plantings are very important in areas like Martinborough which is regarded as an area that produces the best Pinot noir wine in the world. There is huge room to expand our industry because we are contributing only 0.2 of 1 percent to the global wine bucket each year. If we look at our climate we realise that New Zealand wine yields can vary by 25 to 50 percent plus or minus compared with plus or minus 5 percent in Australia which this morning’s  
Dominion Post  
points out is in vast oversupply of grapes. 
Although production and markets are important New Zealand must ensure that it meshes with our international trade obligations in the World Trade Organization and particularly the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights or “TRIPs”. I feel it is a real pity that the Minister has taken so long to bring this bill to the first reading stage but certainly National supports it. The bill will bring common sense to bear. It is really important that our wine-producing regions have identifiable boundaries and that is what this bill will provide. The consumer and the producer need to know that if a bottle of wine has the words “Martinborough wine” on the label the wine can be proven to have been produced from grapes grown in Martinborough. This outcome from the point of view of Wairarapa electorate vintners cannot come soon enough. 
But let me draw members’ attention to the bill. One area of the bill that looks to me to be weak is where it gives precedence to existing trademarks over geographical indication registrations where they are similar or identical—for example clauses 13 and 14. Clause 15 does provide limited grounds for a geographical indication to be registered where it conflicts with an existing trademark. But a problem that could arise is that if a wine with a trademark similar to a geographical indication—for example Martinborough Vineyard—contains less than 85 percent of grapes from the geographical indication its name suggests then a requirement that wines with a trademark substantially similar to a geographical indication meet the 85 percent content rule would fix that and ensure that the consumer would not have the wool legally pulled over the eyes on origin. Otherwise the bill is better than expected and the sooner it is implemented the better. 
But let me draw the attention of this House to the unreasonable charges being levied on this industry. For example this Government is taking $130 million from the wine industry as an excise tax. 
Mark Blumsky 
: Robbery! 
JOHN HAYES 
: It is absolute robbery. And what is it using the money for? It is using it to give interest-free loans to our students. It is robbing the vintners and giving the money free without any interest at all to students. These same growers who provide this $130 million invest in land and plant. They provide employment and they provide our country with foreign exchange earnings. They generally operate as small businesses that face a plethora of red tape and regulation as well as a disadvantageous exchange rate and high interest rates. 
If one says “$130 million” fast enough it does not register much. Most people do not understand what $130 million actually means because they have never experienced that sort of money. Well I would like the chardonnay socialists sitting across the Chamber to realise that one bottle of chardonnay costing $20 allows the Government to retain $2.20 as GST. That is the first tax. Then there is a retail margin of about $3.78 and a distributor’s margin of about $3.45. Of the $20 retail about $10.55 ends up with the wine producer exclusive of GST. From this residue the chardonnay socialists take $1.69 or about 16 percent of the money the vintner receives. This is after they have paid GST of course and it is after they and their company and employees have paid income tax. The vintner pays about $2.60 for the grapes that go into the bottle which is roughly 25 percent of the price then another $2.49 or 23 percent for winemaking and packaging costs. This leaves $3.77 or 36 percent of the amount the vintner receives—$10.55—to cover overheads freight marketing and a return on capital. 
But a $20 bottle of wine as our chardonnay socialist friends would know is a super-premium wine. Most wine is cheaper so the impact is greater. This excise tax—$130 million a year or $1.69 on every bottle—is a huge money-spinner for the Government which feels it knows better than the vintners how to spend. And who says that a chardonnay socialist knows how to spend the vintner’s money better than a vintner especially when the vintner is struggling to survive? In my view the $130 million excise tax should be left to the industry to decide how to spend. It is the industry’s money. The chardonnay socialists are squandering it. Furthermore the promise of a high dollar—or the economic policy being pursued by the chardonnay socialist resulting in a high dollar—is creating a very dangerous situation in an environment of high interest rates and difficult market conditions and this will impact on New Zealand’s foreign exchange earnings. Foreigners are buying millions of New Zealand dollars every day primarily because of an exchange rate differential. If we take the euro as an example for the first time in 5 years Belgium has this week reviewed its interest rate upwards to 2.5 percent. The economic policies of our chardonnay socialists will cause huge damage to our economy in 2006. This House has been warned. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee.referred to Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I move  
That the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Social Services Committee for consideration. 
The bill provides for information matching between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development. It authorises the corporation to disclose to the ministry information relating to its tenants and tenancies. The information match between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development follows 2003 and 2004 Budget initiatives for new and extended information matches between various Government agencies and the Ministry of Social Development. 
The ministry has completed the implementation of higher priority information matches with other agencies. These matches have resulted in savings to taxpayers and maintain the integrity of the income support system. The ministry has now engaged with Housing New Zealand Corporation to implement an information-matching programme from 1 July 2006. The information will help minimise overpayments of benefits and student allowances help the recovery of beneficiary and student debt arising from those overpayments and help in the detection of fraud. In addition to minimising overpayments that could result in ongoing repayments the information match may benefit tenants their partners and dependents by identifying situations where they are not receiving their correct entitlement to income support. 
Information-matching rules under the Privacy Act require that individuals affected by the programme will be notified. Housing New Zealand Corporation will undertake targeted publicity before the implementation of the information-matching programme and throughout the operation of the programme to comply with the information-matching rules in the Privacy Act. All new and existing corporation tenants will be made aware that information supplied to it by tenants may be provided to the Ministry of Social Development. 
The ministry has agreed to provide reports to Housing New Zealand Corporation on the extent to which housing tenants are giving incorrect information to the corporation. This will allow Housing New Zealand Corporation to make informed decisions on potential remedies. 
The bill renames the Housing Restructuring Act 1992 as the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992 to make it clear that the Act will provide for tenancy matters. The bill also makes consequential amendments to the Privacy Act to include Housing New Zealand Corporation and Housing New Zealand Ltd as specified agencies for the purposes of information sharing and to list the new information-matching provisions. The bill extends information matching between agencies so to improve the integrity of the income support system. 
I commend the bill to the House. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party and would like to make it clear to members present in the House and those listening in their offices that the National Party supports this bill. We will be voting for it to go to a select committee. 
We were looking to introduce just this type of legislation in the late 1990s but unfortunately at that time the Labour Party was not keen to support it. We were quite disappointed in that at that time quite simply because we look for transparency in our social services and social welfare system—we always have. We in the National Party have always had the view that there needs to be a safety net a social welfare system for those who need housing for those who need a degree of income assistance for those who need childcare during various times in their lives and for all those who from time to time go to the taxpayer—essentially the Government—and ask for help for a short period while they get on their feet. The National Party has always been more than willing to support such a social welfare system. But in saying that we have also been a party strong on accountability transparency and making sure that those who are in need are the ones—regardless of race I would have to add—who are receiving help from the general public through the social welfare system not those who might possibly rort the system or ride it for all it is worth. 
We looked at introducing such provisions for Housing New Zealand in the late 1990s but the Labour Party at that time signalled that it would not support that. It is just amazing how ideas suddenly dawn on other parties and they realise that yes sometimes parties with an opposite view actually do have a good idea. We are pleased that it is being brought to fruition. 
However we will be looking out for the fish-hooks that may be in this legislation particularly any threats to the Privacy Act. I have noted that this legislation does have respect for the Privacy Act and I am pleased to see that. It does recognise the Privacy Act it finds a way to negotiate around the provisions of that legislation and I am delighted with that. But I want to go through the detail clause by clause with select committee colleagues with officials from the Ministry of Social Development and the Housing New Zealand Corporation and with members of the general public just to check that the provisions are fair. We do not want disclosure of private information; we do not want individual rights to be trampled over when this bill goes through. What we do want to see is transparency and openness of process. 
That is why we support the idea of information sharing with the Ministry of Social Development. There is no doubt in my mind that rorts are going on in the Housing New Zealand Corporation sector—effectively State housing. I have certainly made quite a public fuss about the situation at present where State houses are being effectively used as businesses—commercial enterprises. I am not talking about engineering workshops being run out of State houses or anything like that. It is quite simple: it is the issue of boarders. Some State house tenants as time has moved on and the young family has grown up and dispersed have been left with two three or four-bedroom houses and they use simply one room or a couple of rooms and have a lot of spare rooms. They are renting those rooms out to boarders and making quite a tidy income on the side. That is entirely understandable— 
Hon David Carter 
: How many? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Well a month ago the Minister of Housing told the public of New Zealand through the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 which is a good paper for investigative reporting that just over 1000 State houses had boarders as well as the tenants—that the tenants of those State houses actually had boarders. I did some further investigation and discovered that the Minister had got it wrong; he had got it wrong but only by 700 percent. There were not 1000 State house tenancies in New Zealand that had boarders; the number was actually a bit more than that—just under 7000. Members should remember that the taxpayer has given tenants a State house because they are in need. Just under 7000 State house tenants in this country have boarders. They have extra rooms and they are renting them out. 
The National Party is saying that if a State house tenant has a 16-year-old or 17-year-old son at polytech who needs to save money or is on a tight budget and who wants to board at home renting him a room is fine. It is entirely understandable. It is entirely understandable if a State house tenant’s 75-year-old mum who is now alone wants to move in with that tenant to board with that tenant. Maybe a State house tenant is renting out two extra rooms to a daughter who is at polytech and to the 75-year-old mother. The National Party is saying it is understandable that one would want to help out one’s elderly parents or one’s children. But I have discovered that there are just under 7000 tenancies in New Zealand where not one room not two rooms but three four or five rooms are being rented out. 
There is one case in New Zealand of a State house tenant with seven boarders. The Minister of Housing Chris Carter has a tenant in Mount Albert who is renting out four rooms and he already has an income of $67000 a year. I have not done a press release on that yet because I have yet to check whether the particular tenant is a relation of Chris Carter’s. I want to check that because I do not want to get the Minister in trouble. I want to be able to go to him and tell him quietly: “Chris your cousin”— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must use a member’s full name. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: —“is on $67000 a year and he is renting out a State house to four boarders. Get him out of there! I don’t want to go public with this.” 
National members support the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill because we want transparency in the process. We believe that a State house tenant can have boarders if the tenant is supporting young family members or older family members or whatever the situation could be but that to rent out three four five six or seven rooms and make a killing on the side off the back of a taxpayer-provided home is absolutely wrong. This bill we hope when we see the detail of it will target situations where rorts are going on. It is my hope that that will happen. 
Obviously there will be information sharing on the income of tenants. That may be through the work they do or it may be through other benefits they receive. But information matching is absolutely necessary because with the social welfare system growing in the way that it has over the last few years we have seen a mad rush of all those people moving off the unemployment benefit and on to invalids and sickness benefits. The National Party wants to get that under control. We believe there are some rorts going on in the State house area—not by the majority of people not by 90 percent of the people whom we care for but by the 10 percent who are ratbags and the ones we want to target or nail. We want to make sure that regardless of whether they are cousins of Chris Carter we get them move them on and make sure they are contributing to this country as well. 
The National Party supports this legislation. We will be voting for its first reading and examining it at the select committee. We commend it to the House. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to make a few remarks on behalf of my colleague Pita Paraone our housing spokesperson. The aim of the bill is to amend the Housing Restructuring Act 1992 in two ways: to rename it as the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992 and to allow one-way information-matching on tenants and tenancies between Government departments—more precisely the Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development. 
The primary purpose of the bill is to protect the integrity of the benefits system by allowing an exchange of information that will minimise benefit and student allowance overpayments and will help to detect fraud. The information-matching provision in the bill also applies to tenants on benefits who pay income-related rents. The bill recognises that current legislation struggles with what constitutes a household or a family. The bill is quite specific about what information may be disclosed about who lives at the address in question. The legislation requires a consequential amendment to the Privacy Act. 
New Zealand First will be supporting the bill going to the select committee but as the previous speaker indicated he may do we will certainly be looking for all the fish-hooks within it—in fact that is the role of the select committee. We support the intent of the legislation to minimise opportunities for the overpayment of benefits or benefit fraud. 
It is vital that the information matching is only one way from the Housing New Zealand Corporation to the Ministry of Social Development and is requested only on clear and justifiable grounds. There is in our view a fine line between having enough information to protect the State’s finances and prying into the private lives of our citizens. That line should be made very clear and should never be crossed. The one-way specific information-sharing enabled by this bill is acceptable but New Zealand First is wary of the possibilities afforded by the electronic information age. We will be seeking assurances that any information sharing occurs under strict limits and controls and is sought only for the purposes outlined in the bill. 
Changes required to the Privacy Act will need to be carefully worked through to ensure the intent of that Act is not compromised and I should imagine some necessary changes will be made to the Electoral Act to ensure we do not have people running up huge bills and winning their elections when in fact they have breached the integrity and the intent of that particular Act. Some definite work will need to be done there in terms of legislative reform. 
In between times we shall be voting for this particular bill to go through to the select committee and we will be looking very carefully at the issues we raise in that forum. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 As Phil Heatley mentioned in his contribution the National Party will support the referral of the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill to the select committee. I congratulate the Hon Chris Carter on presenting the bill to the House because it is momentous. 
Chris Carter has admitted the bill has two main purposes. The first is to rename the Housing Restructuring Act 1992 which will now become the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992. I congratulate Chris Carter on that huge achievement! He has been a member of the House for a number of years. Many people have asked me whether we are related but I have assured them there is no relationship at all. I keep getting asked what Chris Carter’s portfolio is and what he has achieved in his time here. I have been embarrassed to say that even though he shares the same surname as me to date I cannot say there is a lot that he will be remembered for. But today we are creating Chris Carter’s epitaph. The thing by which Chris Carter will be remembered by the Parliament of New Zealand into the future is that he was the man who courageously put forward a bill to change the name of the Housing Restructuring Act 1992 into the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Act 1992. That is a huge achievement and members on the Opposition side of the House are very happy to support this momentous bill. 
The second main purpose of the bill is to allow the sharing of information about tenants and tenancies between Housing New Zealand Corporation and the Ministry of Social Development—or we could say Work and Income. National of course supports that measure because as Phil Heatley said we wanted to do that in late 1999 but Labour opposed the legislation and claimed that it breached civil liberties. Well I say to Chris Carter and the other members of the Labour Party that the time has come to get tough on people who are frankly rorting the system. We had an excellent example of that provided by Chris Carter today—an admission he will not be remembered for favourably—when with great reluctance he revealed that up to 10 percent of all State house tenants are operating a business. They are operating in many cases quite substantial boarding houses whereby they rent a house from Housing New Zealand Corporation and then they take on boarders. 
In some cases I suspect the inventive tenants are making quite a considerable fortune. Many State houses are being rented out by this Government in suburbs like Mount Albert at a total cost of $35 a week. Under the Government’s income-related rents policy it is able to rent out some of those very good houses some of which are quite sizeable for the princely sum of $35 a week. Members can imagine that if tenants have one or two spare rooms they can attract a boarder who is interested in living in those one or two rooms. They are in a position to probably charge each boarder a minimum of $100 a week. It is not a bad little lurk for those people to pay the Government 35 bucks for their rent and to then collect a couple of hundred of bucks—and I bet that that income is not being declared to the Inland Revenue Department. So it is not a bad deal for those people. 
I thank Chris Carter for bringing the legislation forward at long last. We particularly want to follow the very interesting case of the Mount Albert tenant—which Chris Carter is very quiet about; he does not want to talk about this man—with seven boarders in his house. Chris Carter should find out how much they are all paying—probably the best part of 100 bucks a week each which is $700 a week going into that house. Chris Carter should confirm to us the rent paid by the tenant but it is likely to be the minimum rent of around $35 or $40-odd a week. That is a sham particularly when over 12000 desperate New Zealand families are waiting for State houses as we speak. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Didn’t you sell off 13000 yourself? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well we have the old chimer-in; I wondered how long it would take him. We sold off 13000 State houses to wonderfully happy proud homeowners. They were people who lived in State houses and the previous National Government said to them that if they wanted the opportunity to become a homeowner we would help them into their house with the Home Buy scheme. 
Labour did not like that; it does not like people to become independent of the State. Labour wants people to be confined to the benefit to live in State houses and to be dependent on the generosity of a Government that stifles their own initiative to progress themselves. There is a total difference in philosophy between the Opposition side of the House and the Government side of the House. Labour thinks that if it can keep people downtrodden force them to live in a State house and make sure they are on a benefit of one form or another then hopefully they will vote for Labour for the rest of their lives. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: It’s scary. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No it is not scary because New Zealanders are not as dumb as that. They are fast waking up to the fact that they can do better for themselves if they can break the cycle of dependence on people like Chris Carter and try to get out there get their own jobs and manage to buy their own houses. 
When the next election brings a National Government into office I can assure Chris Carter that one of the first bills I want to bring back into the House is one that gives people who are living in State houses the ability to be assisted in buying a State house. I will see that those people become independent and are no longer dependent on the State. I want those people to own their own houses although I know Chris Carter hates that idea. 
One of the things that new members should do is to take the opportunity to look at the ministerial register of interests which goes through the interests that all the Ministers have. New members will find that Ministers are not very good at capitalism. They have not gone out and bettered themselves. They have been quite happy to just muddle along perhaps owning the odd house in Wellington or perhaps renting a house somewhere else. But I say that the philosophy of members on the Opposition side of the House is to encourage people to get out and do it for themselves and if they end up owning their own house then as far as I am concerned that is great. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 It has been a very curious debate this afternoon which came just as the House was falling asleep. We have the National Party supporting the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill. That does not surprise me at all given that National members talk about this being the kind of legislation that National put forward in the 1990s but could not get Labour’s support for then. I am very disturbed that Labour is now heading backwards to where National was in the 1990s. With this bill there is no question about that and it looks as though we may be one of the only parties in the House that opposes the bill. I hope our colleagues in the Maori Party may be considering opposing it as well because it is both unnecessary and intrusive into the lives of beneficiaries once again. Is it not curious that when it is beneficiaries who are at stake we have a grand coalition between so far National Labour and New Zealand First? I hope that at least one other party in the House will stand up for the interests of beneficiaries—no one else seems to be doing so. 
We share the concerns of civil liberties groups around the country about the proliferation of information-matching programmes that operate between Government agencies. Such programmes have grown from 20—more than enough—in 1995-96 to 72 in 2004-05. That information comes from the 2005 annual report of the Privacy Commissioner—I did not make it up. So there are 72 information-matching programmes; we do not need any more. This widespread expansion represents a major intrusion of the State into the private lives of New Zealanders. Just because people are beneficiaries does not mean they do not count as human beings with civil and human rights. Some limits have to be imposed on this proliferation and the Green Party considers that the programme that is proposed by the bill falls outside any reasonable limit. 
The bill also sets Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants aside from other tenants and puts them all in a category of their own which is rather odd. People who are renting from private landlords or from other social landlords such as local bodies or third sector housing agencies will not be required to provide the same level of information matching as required by the bill. That does not make sense either even if one believes in what the bill is on about. The Green Party considers that it is unacceptable to establish two classes of tenants with different privacy rights with regard to their tenancy information. All tenants should have the right to have their personal information treated in the same way and in accordance with the law by their landlords regardless of whom that landlord might happen to be. 
I also ask why the bill is necessary. Section 68 of the Privacy Act 1993 sets out guidelines to the Privacy Commissioner regarding proposed information-matching programmes. One of the things to be considered under those guidelines is whether the use of an alternative means of achieving the same objective would give the desired results of that programme. In this case I question what the information-matching programme will achieve that the obtaining of the written authority of Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants for their information to be provided through the Ministry of Social Development would not achieve anyway. I am confident that the vast majority of tenants would willingly sign if it was explained that the purpose was to allow them to maximise their benefits and entitlements. In this way the Ministry of Social Development would obtain the necessary information through informed consent rather than through some shadowy information-matching programme that most tenants will not even know exists. There are ample—and some of us would say draconian—powers already in the Social Security Act 1964 and its myriad of amendments and in the Education Act in regard to student allowances to investigate the circumstances of those who may not agree to such information being shared by Housing New Zealand Corporation. 
I am also concerned that the focus—as usual unfortunately—is on extending State powers to detect and prevent benefit fraud rather than on how the State may actually do its best to extend entitlements to beneficiaries and make sure that people are receiving their full and correct entitlements. We still have a massive problem right around the country with regard to an ineffective administration of our benefit system so that many people do not get their correct entitlements. I would far rather see the focus be on people getting the full amount they are entitled to rather than there being yet another piece of legislation aimed at trying to cut people off and harass them further. 
Finally I am quite suspicious about why we have to have a whole bill that provides a separate purpose around the information-matching programme rather than just inserting into existing legislation a list of specified agencies as contained in section 97 of the Privacy Act that can carry out such programmes. Why do we have to have a whole bill to do this even if one agrees with what is going on? Most information programmes are carried out under Part 10 of the Privacy Act rather than having specific legislation like this written for them. I question whether the full detail of that programme needs to be contained in the legislation. Is it because the Government is concerned that the Privacy Commissioners themselves may not look favourably upon that programme? Clearly there are other means of achieving the same objective that do not impinge upon tenants’ privacy in the manner that this bill sets out. 
The Green Party totally opposes this bill as being unnecessary undemocratic and intrusive. I wish that the Government would put the same effort into helping beneficiaries to get enough to live on and achieve the full entitlements they should already be getting rather than on finding new ways to further harass them. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 On behalf of the Maori Party I say that we support this bill going to the select committee. It opens up a whole can of worms about the living situations of a lot of our people. We would like some clarity not just about the issues of boarding etc. but about the status our people have in respect of their housing and about the ways in which they can be moved from the situation of poverty that most who live in those houses are currently facing to a situation whereby they can own those homes themselves. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to support this bill going to a select committee. I guess I should make the comment that it is better late than never from this Labour Government. As we heard from Mr Carter just before National wanted to put this bill forward at the end of 1999. ACT certainly would have supported the bill at that stage and we support it now because we are talking about very sensible provisions. 
The bill will allow the Ministry of Social Development to match information from the Housing New Zealand Corporation against its files. The information would be used to reduce fraud and the overpayment of benefits by providing accurate details of how many people live at the recipients’ Housing New Zealand Corporation addresses and what their tenancy details are. I think it is useful to look at what information can be disclosed particularly in light of the discussion we have had about the changes made necessary to the Privacy Act as a result of this legislation. 
Information that may be disclosed includes the names and dates of birth of tenants in Housing New Zealand Corporation housing those of their spouses or partners and dependent children and those of the dependent children of those spouses or partners; the location of the houses; details of the tenancies including the start and end dates; income details of those living at the address; and the address details. The information disclosed will be used by the Ministry of Social Development to help it to verify a person’s entitlement or eligibility to a benefit verify the amount of any benefit to which a person is or was entitled and recover debts due to the Crown. 
Sixty percent of Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants have their rent paid directly out of their benefit by Work and Income. That system is not available to beneficiaries renting privately. That is one area where I think the bill is perhaps deficient and I look forward to the discussion at the select committee about that particular issue. 
The bill will make it harder for people to defraud the welfare agencies by misrepresenting their income rent or the number of dependent people living at an address. There has been some discussion of late particularly in the media about people living in Housing New Zealand Corporation houses and renting out rooms. There has been some discussion about that today and I think most people would agree that that income certainly should be disclosed where it is occurring. 
That information will be made available to the Ministry of Social Development which will also make it easier for the ministry to recover outstanding debt. We should not forget that 49 percent of beneficiaries owe a debt to Work and Income. That matter was discussed recently at the financial review of the Ministry of Social Development at the Social Services Committee and every member of the committee was very concerned about it. That rate is far too high and measures need to be put in place so that people who are dependent on a benefit are not being put in the terrible state of having to pay money back. Measures such as not overpaying benefits in the first place would go a long way to help and this bill should go some way to addressing that problem. 
This bill will not do much about welfare abuse by people who rent privately as I mentioned before but it is a positive step in the right direction especially because Housing New Zealand Corporation properties are Government-owned. Welfare abuse is a major problem in this country. We spend more on welfare than we do on health and education. 
ACT certainly campaigned very hard at election time on tackling welfare abuse. It prevents this country from moving forward. It prevents those people who are genuinely dependent on the State for their income—people who really are vulnerable as opposed to those who could be supporting themselves but choose not to do so—from moving forward. Welfare abuse needs to be attended to. ACT would like those people in our society who really are vulnerable to be treated much more generously than they are. In fact those who prevent that from happening are those who wilfully abuse the welfare system and something should be done about that. 
Our burgeoning welfare rolls stand in the way of a great number of things. They stand in the way of tax cuts. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Our shrinking welfare roll is down by 90000. 
HEATHER ROY 
: If Dr Cullen were to listen carefully he might learn something. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Our shrinking welfare roll is down by 90000 under this Government. 
HEATHER ROY 
: I am not sure which one Dr Cullen is talking about but our burgeoning welfare rolls stand in the way of a great many things. Just because they may be shrinking does not mean they are at the level they should be—and they certainly are not. 
Our burgeoning welfare rolls do in fact stand in the way of tax cuts. They stand in the way of infrastructure development and the improvement of core Government services—something that I thought Dr Cullen might be interested in improving but it seems he is not. When I talk about improving core Government services I do not mean giving money to the America’s Cup campaign or to any number of things that the Government should not have an interest in at all. 
Welfare makes people dependent on the Government. At the start of this urgency period we had the Taxation (Annual Rates and Urgent Measures) Bill. That legislation needed to be put in place to enhance the Working for Families package which makes even more families dependent on the State for their income. As Dr Cullen well knows that money could have been used to provide all the workers of this country with a tax cut meaning that they would have had more money in their pocket to provide for themselves. That is too good an idea; the Labour Government is not interested in the sort of good idea that would make people stand on their own two feet. Labour is much more interested in making people dependent on the State so that when the next election rolls around it will be a bit like a turkey voting for a new Christmas. 
Welfare makes people dependent on the State as we on this side of the House certainly know although Government members seem to struggle with that concept. It takes away people’s choices and erodes their skills it robs people of work routines—which are important as we know—and it undermines their self-esteem. 
This bill will I hope reduce the potential for fraud and be an encouragement for people to lift themselves back into work. I think it is extraordinarily important legislation and I am proud to support it—which is also something the Government seems to have ignored. ACT will support this bill going to the select committee and I suspect further beyond. We will certainly look out for fish-hooks as other members have said they will do during the select committee process. We would like to see one or two things addressed but by and large this is a very good bill and we support it. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 114 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 6 
Green Party 6. 
Bill read a first time. 
Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill 
First Reading 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister for Information Technology) 
: 
 I move  
That the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill be now read a first time. 
 I will move in due course that this bill be considered by the Commerce Committee. 
In just a few years unsolicited commercial email generally known as spam has gone from being a minor nuisance to becoming a significant social and economic issue. It is also a drain on the business and personal productivity of New Zealanders. Spam impedes the effective use of email and other communication technologies for personal and business communications. It threatens the growth and acceptance of legitimate e-commerce. Spam technology is also increasingly being used as the delivery mechanism for computer viruses phishing and identity theft. 
Spam is a multifaceted problem that requires coordinated action from Government industry marketers and consumers working together on several fronts such as self-regulatory measures. Industry codes are useful steps forward; for example that of the New Zealand Direct Marketing Association which has in place a set of standards for email marketing and a spam code of practice that is currently being developed by InternetNZ in conjunction with the Telecommunications Carriers Forum. Education and awareness campaigns need to be run for business and Internet users. Controlling spam requires technical measures such as the use of filtering by Internet service providers and users international cooperation and coordination and of course legislative and regulatory measures. 
New Zealand already has many of those measures in place. However reliance upon on the existing legislative framework codes of practice industry and user education and technical measures alone has shortcomings. The degree of public concern and the growing cost to our economy have made it clear that it is now time for specific anti-spam legislation. Without that legislation and without a specific anti-spam enforcement agency New Zealand runs the risk of being seen as a safe haven for spammers and it will lack a firm basis upon which to enter into multilateral agreements with other countries to address the problem of spam originating from overseas. 
Enactment of this bill is part of a multi-pronged approach to address the problem of spam and will provide the following benefits: it will prohibit spam and enable legal action to be taken against spammers based in New Zealand it will regulate the sending of commercial electronic messages it will prevent New Zealand from being seen as a safe haven for spammers and it will provide a basis for New Zealand to participate in international regulatory arrangements to curb the growth of spam. The bill also sets out an enforcement regime based on civil penalties and the ability to take preventive action. 
The design of anti-spam legislation requires the resolution of issues such as what messages are covered who should be covered and what amounts to consent to receive messages. The resolution of these issues requires the balancing of a number of factors such as the seriousness of the problem compliance costs for business and the right to freedom of expression. The legislation will apply to electronic messages including email text messages and instant messages but not to facsimile messages and voice calls. It will apply to commercial messages—that is those that are primarily for the purpose of marketing or promoting goods or services land or an interest in land or a business or investment opportunity or for the purposes of assisting or enabling a person by deception to dishonestly obtain a financial advantage or a gain from another person. It includes promotional messages—that is those that market or promote an organisation’s aims and ideals other than where a recipient has not opted out. The legislation will apply to messages with a New Zealand link messages sent within or from New Zealand messages authorised by a person or organisation from New Zealand and messages sent to people in New Zealand from overseas. 
The legislation will require specified commercial and promotional electronic messages to have accurate sender identification and a functional “unsubscribe” facility—that is a working and clearly visible means of opting out of future such messages. These measures empower Internet service providers businesses and users to better control the email they have to deal with. The bill will prohibit the supply and use of address-harvesting software and address-harvested lists for spam purposes. 
The legislation will be enforced through a regime that provides for a range of civil pecuniary penalties and remedies. The enforcement regime will be based on a tiered structure with emphasis on Internet service providers and telecommunications carriers taking action in response to customer complaints in the first instance. If complaints cannot be satisfactorily resolved in this way then the user’s Internet service provider can forward the matter to the enforcement agency. The enforcement agency will then consider whether an investigation or further action is appropriate. The Government enforcement agency will have a range of penalties available to it. That will enable it to adopt a flexible approach to enforcement. 
Under this legislation Internet service providers and users affected by contraventions of the legislation will also have the right to take direct legal action as well as to join any action taken by the enforcement agency. The agency will have responsibility for carrying out any investigations regarding complaints referred to it by Internet service providers carriers or users on matters that it considers should be investigated; issuing warning and infringement notices; taking legal action where appropriate; and cooperating with overseas enforcement agencies. 
In conclusion the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill gives effect to the Government’s decision to enact anti-spam legislation as part of a multi-pronged strategy to reduce and control spam. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 The National Party supports the first reading of this bill which as the general policy statement says implements the Government’s decisions on the regulation of electronic messages known as spam. It is modelled on the Australian Spam Act 2003 although interestingly there does not appear to be a definition of spam. The preferred terminology is “unsolicited commercial electronic message”. 
I will shortly outline my understanding of the problems with spam but first a brief note about the source of the term. Webopedia says that the generally accepted version is that the word comes from the Monty Python song with the lyrics: “Spam spam lovely spam wonderful spam.” Like the song spam is an endless repetition of worthless text—somewhat like the inane contributions in this House by the member for Otaki. Another school of thought maintains that it comes from the computer group lab at the University of Southern California which gave it the name because it has many of the same characteristics as spam the tinned meat: nobody wants it or ever asks for it; no one ever eats it—indeed it is the first item to be pushed to the side when eating the entrée—and sometimes it is actually tasty like 1 percent of junk mail that is rarely useful to some people. 
Whatever the origins of the term there is no doubt as the Minister said that spam is a curse to the modern world. It causes great disruption to individuals businesses and the Government. It can be sent to millions of recipients at a time worldwide. Indeed I recall a tsunami of spam email that arrived in from Germany one afternoon earlier this year—there must have been about a thousand emails in my in-box in the space of a couple of hours. That volume of spam can threaten the effectiveness and efficiency of electronic communication and legitimate online businesses—although I note that the bill will not prevent that kind of extraterritorial spamming. There are many categories of spam as we know and as adverted to by the member for Whangarei the most common categories are the Nigerian financial scams. There is also pornography— 
Phil Heatley 
: At least you can make money out of them! 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Pornography? Keep quiet. There are also promotions for dubious health products. Perhaps most disturbingly there is also an emergence of spam that carries a virus. I am no computer whiz and therefore have little understanding of the technical means by which spam can be sent although I understand that it costs virtually nothing to spend spam and that it is very easy to send large volumes—as the Germans would tell us. That has led to hundreds of millions of spam messages being sent around the world on a daily basis. Indeed it has been said that the cost to Australian business is substantial—around $900 per employee per year and I have no doubt it is much the same here. It can cause a loss of productivity damage to reputation and a loss to customers of business opportunity so obviously something needs to be done. Hence the need for legislation prohibiting the sending of unsolicited electronic messages of a marketing nature. That is why the National Party supports the aims of the bill although along with much legislation these days it does seem to be very prescriptive and in my view some parts are unnecessary. Perhaps the select committee could take a close look at those parts. 
Part 1 contains the preliminary provisions including extended definitions of electronic messages and commercial electronic messages. Those provisions are modelled on section 6 of the Australian Act. I think that non-inclusive definitions are preferable given the rate of technological change in the modern world and the same comment may apply to other definitions in the definitional section. I hope the select committee will look at that. Clause 8 is a very important clause. It deals with the application of the legislation. The bill once enacted will extend to a person who engages in prohibited conduct outside New Zealand if that conduct contravenes the provisions of the bill and if the offender is either an individual who is resident in New Zealand or an organisation that carries on business or activities in New Zealand. But the legislation can have no extraterritorial effect on foreign spammers. 
Part 2 is the very heart of the legislation. The Minister has outlined the key provisions of clause 9 which provides that a person must not send or cause to be sent an unsolicited commercial electronic message that has a New Zealand link and the onus of showing that the recipient consented to receiving such a message will rest on the person who sent it. Clause 10 prohibits a person from sending or causing to be sent a promotional electronic message that has a New Zealand link to any person who has opted out of receiving such messages. Clause 11 requires that every commercial electronic message and promotional electronic message that is either sent or has a New Zealand link must identify clearly and accurately the person who authorised the sending of the message and must include accurate information about how the recipient can readily contact the person who authorised the message. Clause 13 sets out the defences that can be relied on by a person who either sends an electronic message or causes such a message to be sent. As with other affirmative defences the onus of proof is on the person who seeks to raise the defence. 
I will not deal with subparts 2 and 3 which I think the Minister has dealt with. Subpart 4 will doubtless be of interest to service providers and I expect that the select committee will receive submissions on that subpart. The service provider does not send an electronic message cause one to be sent or contravene third-party breaches simply because it provides a telecommunications service that enables such messages to be sent. Clause 21 is a very important clause. It sets out who is deemed to have authorised the sending of such a message and who is deemed to have sent such a message. It could be that those clauses will require close and careful analysis at the select committee deliberation. 
I want to focus on Part 3 which contains the enforcement provisions. The bill effectively creates a new statutory cause of action that is a bit like the Fair Trading Act’s causes of action. A civil liability event will be a breach of the key prohibitions in Part 3 to which I have just referred and clause 23 sets out what the response to the civil liability event will be. I have no particular concerns with subparts 2 and 3 of Part 3 which deal with the obligations of the service provider and the powers of the enforcement department. 
I do however have a few comments to make about subpart 4 which deals with the powers of the High Court. I wonder whether it is really necessary to specify that the court may grant performance restraining and interim injunctions. That seems to me to be a prescriptive way of stating the obvious—namely that the High Court can grant prohibitory mandatory and interim injunctions which is something the court has done from time immemorial. Why do we not simply rely on the existing law? I also wonder whether it is wise to attempt to define for the purposes of this legislation the circumstances where such injunctive relief may be granted. In the case of interim injunctive relief courts are well used to applying what is often referred to as the American Cyanamid test of a serious issue to be tried in balance of convenience while also considering the issue of overall justice. That test is a broad flexible test that would cover the kinds of situations contemplated by this legislation so the select committee may want to consider whether those clauses are necessary. I think it best not to have suigeneris provisions of that kind unless they are strictly necessary but rather to rely on the general law. 
Clause 41 deals with undertakings as to damages and in fact that clause alters the general law. With every application for an interim injunction under the High Court rules for example the applicant must give an undertaking as to damages. In a case involving the Commerce Commission in 1987 the commission argued that it should not be required to give an undertaking but the court held otherwise saying the fact that the commission was performing a public duty did not in the absence of legislation obviate the requirement to give an undertaking. As far as I am aware this legislation is the first time an enforcement agency seeking injunctive relief will be exempted from giving an undertaking and I think that issue needs to be closely looked at by the select committee. The other relief clauses generally appear to be unexceptional providing as they do for pecuniary penalties compensation and damages and sometimes for all three. 
As with the Commerce Act and the Fair Trading Act one does not rely on the general provisions of the Limitation Act 1950 but there are specific limitation provisions—namely a 2-year period within which proceedings in the High Court need to be commenced. That would appear to be a sensible period for that kind of infringing behaviour. So I support the bill in its first reading. I hope that the select committee will look at the issues I have raised and at others that will doubtless be raised through other submissions. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill going to the select committee. The bill is long overdue. We need to see some action on spam as it is definitely a problem. We hope that the select committee and the submitters take the widest possible view as to how to stop those communications. 
Rodney Hide 
: Winston Peters lost Tauranga twice. Apologise! 
BARBARA STEWART 
: I thank Mr Hide; we do appreciate his apology. 
Even here in Parliament spam is a real problem and I would have thought that if those messages could be stopped then the parliamentary information technology team would have definitely stopped them. I note that the bill takes an opt-in approach which I hope Internet service providers can use when they take action in response to customer complaints. Here in Parliament we seem to be regular recipients of spam particularly for certain medicinal products that we would never buy over the Internet—although I note that the previous speaker said that those products would be useful for 1 percent of people. What do we receive? We receive spam for products like Viagra and other related products human growth hormones Russian caviar enhancement patches computer software investment alerts the best imitation Rolex watches and travel deals—just to mention a few. And they keep coming in every day. They are articles and products that very few people I would imagine would want to buy over the Internet. 
We receive spam letters from people who claim that we have been left or even that we have won $1 million—as long as we are willing to invest some money ourselves in order to collect it. The same messages seem to come from many different people. They are unsolicited totally unwanted and they must block up the parliamentary server. Those messages appear to be totally impossible to block from our own PCs. If they were I am sure that someone in the information technology department would have already done that for us. I know that I have looked carefully at Microsoft Outlook to try to find out how to do it. Those messages really are a pain and spam is a very big problem. Some process does need to be put in place to manage all those unwanted and unnecessary emails. 
It is very surprising that here in Parliament an environment that is very security-conscious we find that spam cannot be managed in any way. We can receive hundreds of emails—up to 200 over a weekend according to one of my colleagues who has counted them—and I can assure senders that those emails are a real pain when people use remote access on their cellphones. Basically here in Parliament we are drowning in spam and there is never ever an unsubscribe option. I was very pleased to see in clause 12 that every commercial electronic message and promotional electronic message that is sent and that has a New Zealand link needs to have an unsubscribe facility. It is interesting too to see in clause 13 that the onus of proving a defence lies with the person who is actually relying upon that defence. 
 This is an important issue and one that New Zealand First would like to see resolved. We have no doubt that the select committee will look further into the issue of spam and how to monitor it. We do not know whether the spam messages that we all receive so regularly originate here in New Zealand or elsewhere—over in Germany according to one of my colleagues. That will prove a real challenge for Internet service providers to monitor. It is an unfortunate fact that this legislation can apply only to messages generated within New Zealand and we hope that it can apply to all emails sent to an email address here in New Zealand. Otherwise it will be very easy for the smart operators to arrange for messages to be sent from an overseas Internet service provider and be above the law. 
So we are looking forward to this bill going to the select committee where the committee can scrutinise it very carefully—and I am sure that Mr Henare will be among those members looking at it carefully—and we look forward to the bill returning to the House. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 It is good to hear from New Zealand First because that party put out a bit of spam during the election campaign in order to have Winston Peters elected in Tauranga. 
Simon Power 
: That worked. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: No it did not work actually. Despite the spam that Mr Peters put out in Tauranga he took a pummelling and lost his seat. Being a bad loser he went off to court said that he would win and told the back bench of his party that it was an open and shut case—and he lost big time. Now New Zealand First is having a whip around to pay Bob Clarkson’s legal expenses. Winston Peters lost Hunua and lost Tauranga twice—the first time he lost with the people of Tauranga and the second time he lost with the High Court judges who released their judgment today. 
The ACT party stands opposed to this bill and we will be voting against it. People dislike spam. Of course people dislike spam but the ACT party is prepared to vote only for legislation that actually works and this bill is feel-good legislation. It might make parliamentarians feel good that they are pretending to deal with spam— 
Sue Kedgley 
: It feels very good to me. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I know that Ms Kedgley feels good. She feels good when she gets into a pig crate on the front steps of Parliament. She feels good about that but it does not achieve anything. When members come to Parliament they should be passing law that will make a difference but this law makes no difference whatsoever. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What have you done Mr Hide? 
RODNEY HIDE 
: That is very interesting is it not? Marian Hobbs the former failed Minister of Broadcasting who was nicknamed “Boo Boo” by TVNZ yells out and asks what I have achieved. I will tell people what I have done. We got an inquiry into TVNZ going which the Labour Government did not want because it had to cover up Marian Hobbs’ cock-ups and the mess that Steve Maharey made. We got that going and now we hear about the level of dysfunction in TVNZ. That is just a small achievement that I have made since the election. I would love to know what Marian Hobbs has done in her entire political career other than be destructive. [ 
Interruption 
] I can see why the people of Wellington Central tried to vote for Mark Blumsky. I just wish they had made a bit more effort and had delivered. 
Here is the point: this bill does nothing for spam that comes from overseas. I want members to put up their hands and say where the spam they receive in their in-boxes comes from. I ask Ms Kedgley where it comes from. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Nigeria. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well I ask Ms Kedgley what this bill will do to stop that. It will do nothing. I will tell Ms Kedgley how to stop it from coming: she should stop sending Nigerians the money. If she stops sending them the money they will stop sending her the spam. I know that Green members have a high level of belief in fairies and goblins but they should stop sending money through to Nigeria and the spam will stop. There is nothing in this bill to address the spam that Ms Kedgley receives in her emails from Nigeria—nothing whatsoever. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Denis loves the Viagra. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes—I am a bit lost for words which is the first time for me in this House! 
The US CAN-SPAM Act made absolutely no difference. [ 
Interruption 
] They are feeling nasty because Winston Peters lost. I can understand that that will make Dr Cullen feel nasty for a day. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The case was found not proven—read it more carefully. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Not proven—that is like Mr Benson-Pope’s case is it not? Winston Peters went to court to win but he lost; that is the point. Bob Clarkson bless his cotton socks is the MP for Tauranga and Winston Peters is not. The only reason Winston Peters went with Labour was so that Labour would not stand against him when he had his court case because that is what Labour promised. That is also why we have a Labour Government. Indeed Winston Peters lost his court case and Bob Clarkson bless his cotton socks is the MP for Tauranga. 
The US CAN-SPAM Act made no difference and after the European Commission passed its anti-spam law—Michael Cullen should listen to this—Microsoft’s UK head of information services said: “We filtered out 2.46 billion spam emails today—just as we have done every day for months.” The ITN news source ZDNet Australia said of Australia’s anti-spam bill—and our bill is modelled on Australia’s I tell Mr Cunliffe—that the new legislation would probably do little to stop the flood of overseas spam but that the compliance issues it posed would be a new reality for businesses. 
So the members of Parliament voting for this bill are voting for more compliance for no result because the bill will not stop Sue Kedgley’s Nigerian spam from coming into her in-box. Most of the spam messages we get are from what are called “zombies”—not Labour Party zombies but machines infected with a virus or worm that are sending out mail without the knowledge of the machines’ owners. In fact it could be coming out of Sue Kedgley’s machine and she could be the one prosecuted under this legislation—even though she is not sending the spam. Someone else is sending it from Nigeria where this legislation has no impact. 
Claims that this bill is part of an international effort or of a multi-pronged approach are hollow. Why? In China there is no anti-spam law and no approach towards dealing with the problem. So we will have legislation that will prove costly to businesses that could see innocent people prosecuted and that will not make one bit of difference. As Steve Linford the founder of the Spamhaus Project said about such legislation: “The whole problem with these laws is that they are geared to spammers being honest and respecting laws.” Once again those who flout the laws and those who are overseas sending spam from Nigeria and China will not be affected one bit by what this Parliament does. This is bad law. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: That’s right. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am pleased to hear Tau Henare say that I am right and I am looking forward to him voting against this bill. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: We’ll fix it in the select committee. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Tau Henare says that he will fix it in the select committee. I would love to know how that fix will work. Perhaps Mr Henare could enlighten us on how he will fix it in the select committee. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Come to the select committee. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He says I have to go along; he is not giving away his trade secrets. Well I tell people that if Mr Tau Henare has a legislative fix for this bill that will see it stopping Sue Kedgley’s spam coming in from Nigeria the guy is worth every dollar the taxpayer pays him and I commend him. I said before that he is the best thing ever to come out of New Zealand First and we are looking forward to having a few more members come out of New Zealand First in the coming weeks and months ahead because they know that Mr Peters told them a porky when he said that Bob Clarkson had overspent. Mr Peters said: “I am going to win. That’s why I’ll become the Minister of Foreign Affairs and that’s why we’ll support the Labour Party—the Labour Party will not stand against me and I will win back the seat.” 
Well that ploy failed and so too will this legislation. It is bad law and it will not work. The ACT party and its entire caucus—to a man and to a woman—stand against this bill. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I take a very brief call to say that the Green Party warmly welcomes the bill defects and all. We would wish as Rodney Hide has pointed out that the bill was able to extend its reach beyond our shores so that we could be mercifully released from the spam that comes from Nigeria and other countries. But the fact that it will not be able to stop spam coming in from Nigeria is not a reason to say that we should not have the bill at all and that we should not try to stop spam that comes from within New Zealand. So we see this bill as the first positive step in trying to rid our lives of spam. 
We would love to understand why we cannot extend the provisions of the bill further. Tau Henare suggested that he will seek to amend it at the select committee so that it can extend its reach and we would welcome that. If we were able to extend the bill’s reach to beyond our shores I am sure it would be one of the most popular bills that has ever come before Parliament. I am sure it will sail through Parliament notwithstanding the comments of Rodney Hide. So as far we are concerned let us bring it on. We will see whether we can amend the bill and extend its reach. Would it not be wonderful if we could rid our lives of the endless ridiculous emails from Nigeria and elsewhere including New Zealand? 
I congratulate David Cunliffe on getting the bill to this stage. Let us hope it has a speedy passage through the House. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 There is no doubt that something has to be done about email. 
Katherine Rich 
: Absolutely. 
NICKY WAGNER 
: Absolutely. Unsolicited electronic messages flood into everybody’s in-boxes every day. One thing that we agree on is that we do not want it and we should get rid of it. It accounts for 40 to 75 percent of all email in New Zealand clogs our in-boxes and reduces workers’ productivity. Even in the carefully controlled information technology environment in Parliament we cannot seem to stop it. National supports this bill going to the select committee. We support it as a first step in dealing with spam but we do not believe that it will have any significant effect on the vast majority of spam which comes from overseas. 
The bill attacks the issue in three separate ways. It bans the sending of commercial spam with a New Zealand link without the prior consent of the recipient. That is the opt-in option. In other words the receiver must choose to receive the commercial or promotional email. I think that is reasonable. The bill also requires commercial or promotional electronic messages to include accurate identification details of the sender and an unsubscribe option. That is reasonable. The bill bans the use and distribution of address-harvesting software and that is reasonable. However legitimate businesses already follow those protocols voluntarily and this bill will do nothing to curtail the illegitimate spammers who have no intention of following our regulations. They will just operate internationally. 
We are all aware of the frustrations of spam—the offers of cheap drugs and software the invitations to visit pornographic sites the offers to enhance our sexuality and the thousand and one scams that tell us we have been miraculously picked to receive competition money inherit mysterious benefits or look after money from Nigeria. Oh that I should be as lucky as that! The amazing thing is that the whole system keeps going simply because people respond to the emails. Spam is a relatively new phenomenon and although there is a suite of existing laws that can deal with computer viruses pornographic offensive and misleading material forgery and harassment some legislation is needed to specifically ban unsolicited marketing material. 
This legislation will be unable to protect us from the overseas spam but it does bring us into line with other countries and it is an important signal that New Zealand is not a soft target for spammers and a place that welcomes their operation. At present the only method of controlling spam is filters. Filters are a hit-and-miss affair; they filter out legitimate emails as regularly as they do spam. Filters are designed to reject messages with “hot” words in them—words like “free” or “sex”. Members will all have had experience of their innocent emails disappearing into cyberspace simply because they have used “hot” words. I do not recommend inviting one’s children by email to see the movie  
Free Willy 
 or to listen to a sextet playing chamber music. Filters use technology to fight technology but they reduce the effectiveness of e-communication and often penalise legitimate opt-in communication. 
Nobody likes spam. It is out of control internationally so National will support this bill going to a select committee. We will support it as a necessary evil to support the global fight against spam and to stop New Zealand being seen as a welcoming home for spammers. But we do see the bill as a first step in dealing with spam and we do not believe that it will have a significant effect on the vast majority of spam which comes from overseas. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 118 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 3; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 2 
ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time. 
Adjournment 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Madam Speaker before you declare the House adjourned until 14 February I briefly wish you and all the staff—the Clerk’s Office the Assistant Speakers the Deputy Speaker the Hansard staff the messengers the security staff all our secretaries and other staff the remainder of the staff who service this building both Parliamentary Service and Ministerial Services—the very best wishes. I thank them for all the services they have performed for all of us throughout this year. 
I particularly wish all my colleagues in Parliament a merry Christmas and a happy New Year and I remind them that this is the second-most important part of their lives. For the next few weeks they can enjoy the most important part of their lives and the public prays that from approximately Christmas Eve for another couple of weeks they do not hear from any of us. 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I echo the comments made by the Leader of the House. I also extend thanks on behalf of the National Party to you Madam Speaker to the Deputy Speaker and Assistant Speakers to the Clerk of the House and all of his staff messengers security staff drivers members of the Parliamentary Library staff—the people throughout this complex who ensured that we operated effectively and sometimes efficiently over the year. 
I also thank the staff of the National Party members of Parliament and those in my own leader’s office. We started this year with a caucus of only 27 which meant that our staff complement was severely strained. We end this year with a lot more members of Parliament but we are not yet staffed up to that level of caucus numbers. The consequence of course is that the staff are under even more pressure now than they were at the beginning of the year. So I would like to extend my sincere thanks to all of them. I also wish them a happy safe and restful Christmas period so that we are ready to function effectively in the new year. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Although I endorse the comments of the Leader of the House Dr Cullen and to a large degree the leader of the National Party we would like to offer our compliments to you Madam Speaker and to the Deputy Speaker and the Assistant Speakers for the way you have administered things in this House on a very fair basis. We would like to compliment the Clerk the Office of the Clerk and all its staff and also wish them well over the Christmas break. We compliment also the people who work in this complex: parliamentary staff secretaries messengers—who do a very important job and are often overlooked far too often—and thank them for their services and wish them a merry Christmas—not too merry but an enjoyable Christmas—and to come back. 
Finally on behalf of my leader and my colleagues who endorse all these sentiments I wish everybody—all the MPs in particular—a merry Christmas and a good New Year. May we all come back and remember one little thing: we are here to serve the people of New Zealand whom we also wish a merry Christmas and a happy time. May we come back and do our job that much better. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Speaker. May I first say how appreciative we have been of you the first woman Speaker of this House. You have done a magnificent job often against very great odds. It is a pleasure to have the first woman Speaker in this House. We also extend our gratitude to all of the people—the invisible people as it were—who make our lives possible and who toil away to enable us to carry out our functions in this House. 
I would be less than honest if I did not say that this year has been—in the Queen’s words—an annus horribilis for the Green Party with the loss of Rod Donald and of course with two other MPs also leaving us in the election. However we have survived. We particularly welcome our colleagues from the Maori Party into this House. It has been wonderful to have this whole new party a new dimension in the House with what that party has brought to it. We think it is wonderful. We note that the new leader of the Tory Party in England said that he was absolutely committed to ending the Punch and Judy show in Parliament there. It would be our dream that we too could put an end to the Punch and Judy show in this House and that we could in the new year have more cooperative more collaborative less acrimonious debate in this House and in some of our select committees and so forth. 
But in the spirit of Christmas I would like to wish all of our colleagues the very best Christmas and New Year and hope that we all give our frayed nerves a rest and return much refreshed and in a more Zen state of mind in 2006. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 On behalf of the Maori Party I would like to endorse the remarks of Dr Cullen the Leader of the House; Dr Brash the leader of the National Party; and other Opposition spokespeople. I welcome the new party “the 2s” who sit beside us! These sittings have been somewhat of a culture shock for three-quarters of the Maori Party but we are adjusting OK. We have made a lot of friends we are enjoying it and we hope everyone has a good Christmas. Nga manaakitanga o Te RungaRawa ki a tatou katoa. May God bless us all. Kia ora. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 On behalf of the ACT party and caucus I thank Michael Cullen for his kind words and I wish you Madam Speaker a very very merry Christmas and—I think Dr Cullen will allow us to say it—a prosperous New Year despite Mr Bollard’s concerns. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: A bit slower. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: A sort of slow prosperous New Year! For the ACT party I thank all the people who work at Parliament make it function and make MPs’ lives possible. I especially thank the Clerk’s Office which does a tremendous job for us. The messengers security staff and library staff do a tremendous job in helping us. I thank particularly the people at Bellamy’s who serve us literally all hours of the day and night. I thank all the other people who work in Parliament and look after us MPs oftentimes when we are grumpy. 
I would like to wish a merry Christmas to all the ACT staff and also former staff. I realise that might be somewhat redundant given that Don Brash has wished all the National Party staff a merry Christmas but we view those people as just on loan to the National Party and are looking forward to their coming back. I would like to wish the former ACT MPs a very merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year. 
But most important I would like to use this opportunity to wish all New Zealanders a merry Christmas; a safe holiday period which means driving carefully within the law on the roads; and a prosperous New Year. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Before I adjourn the House as the first weeks of the forty-eighth Parliament come to a close I also wish to pay tribute to all the people who contribute to the efficient functioning of the House. Consistent with the brevity of the speeches just made I shall keep my thanks short. May I however acknowledge the hard work of the Deputy Speaker and the Assistant Speakers particularly during urgency and the work of those whom no one else mentioned—the interpreters. They probably spend more time on end in this House than anyone else does. Also it is important to acknowledge the work of the kaumatua and his wonderful wife Rose who work tirelessly for Parliament but are rarely acknowledged. 
I also extend my thanks to the Clerk of the House the Deputy Clerk and all the members of the Clerk’s Office for their professionalism and the administrative skills they have demonstrated over the past year. I include in this thanks also the work of the Chief Parliamentary Counsel and all his staff for drafting legislation without which there would probably be no purpose for us being here. 
It is also appropriate to thank the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service and all the members of staff of the Parliamentary Service for their professional administration in the servicing of Parliament in its myriad facets. I say a special thanks to the Serjeant-at-Arms and all those who work with him to uphold the traditions and propriety of the Chamber and to welcome the many visitors who come to the parliamentary galleries. They are an essential part of the running of Parliament. 
I offer my sincere thanks too to those who have worked in support of the committees I have chaired. I also say a special thanks to the leaders of the parties of this House their deputies and the Leader of the House the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and the party whips. Without their skills and expertise the House would not run as efficiently as it does. Before I finally acknowledge the efforts of the members of Parliament I also acknowledge the efforts of the members of the press gallery who are part of us in one way or another. 
Finally then I acknowledge all members of Parliament who despite enormous workloads continue to serve their electorates. I especially acknowledge and welcome the new members of Parliament. I know as one member has already said it is a little strange but coming back in the new year it grows on one. As members go to join their families and friends in the coming break I wish them all well until we meet again in February 2006. 
The House adjourned at 4.20 p.m. (Thursday)