Volume 652 Week 6 - Wednesday 11 March 2009 
Volume 652 Week 6 - Wednesday 11 March 2009 
[Volume:652;Page:1825] 
Wednesday 11 March 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of the House 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following agreement in the Business Committee yesterday I seek leave for the debates on Government notices of motion Nos 2 and 3 to be taken as one debate with speeches of a maximum of 10 minutes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Unparliamentary Language—Reference to Persons Outside House 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yesterday members raised with me a reflection on persons outside the House that was contained in a supplementary question. I indicated that I would further consider my decision that the remark was not in order. Standing Order 115 deals with offensive or disorderly words used in debate. The Speaker intervenes when such remarks are likely to lead to disorder. Standing Order 371 sets the standard for questions. It is quite clear: questions should not contain offensive or unparliamentary expressions nor should they contain expressions of opinion imputations or epithets. The rules for questions while reflecting the general rules about unparliamentary language are deliberately tightly framed. 
In reflecting upon the matter I draw members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 53/3. It counsels members to use temperate and decorous language when referring to persons outside Parliament. Although members have absolute freedom of speech in this Chamber that privilege should be treated with the utmost respect and used only in the public interest because it is conferred on Parliament in the public interest. While members may be strongly critical in debate of persons outside the House the rules for questions require members to take much more care if they wish to include such reflections in their questions. 
I have given considerable thought to Mr Hide’s point of order. It remains my judgment that the reflection was out of order. Not only was it unparliamentary it was in effect an expression of opinion in a supplementary question and it led to disorder. In such circumstances it was appropriate for me to intervene. Members have absolute freedom of speech in debate and I do not seek to curtail that privilege in any way. However I intend to uphold Standing Order 371. Questions that include offensive or unparliamentary expressions will be ruled out of order. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for that clarification but I would ask you to reflect on the difficulty that we may now have. As you point out there are two standards: one for questions and one for parliamentary debate. But today’s question No. 7 which you have said is OK refers to “some oik in Crown Law”. Clearly you have ruled that one can call someone an oik in question time yet you have just ruled that one cannot call someone a hypocrite. I would like you to consider where you will draw the line because to be quite honest I cannot see why being called an oik is OK but being called a hypocrite is not. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 Mr Speaker I think a difference can be drawn but of course all of these matters come down in the end to your judgment as Speaker and judgments are made on a case by case basis. The essence of calling people hypocrites is to imply that they are misrepresenting that they are speaking with two tongues if one likes that they are engaging in saying one thing in one place and another thing in another place and that they are being fundamentally dishonest. The term “oik” is somewhat out of date and not used much these days. It largely means somebody of a relatively limited education and background ignorant and not knowing very much which does not apply to almost anybody in Crown Law that I am aware of but it has been said by a person in reference to people outside the House and it is perfectly legitimate to quote it it seems to me in a question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the honourable member’s point and I think it was well made just as I think the point made by the Hon Rodney Hide was a perfectly fair and valid point. The dilemma with all these matters is that one has to make a judgment somewhere. It is interesting to reflect in respect of some of these things that within this Chamber we consider it absolutely unacceptable to call another member of this House a hypocrite. I am not sure I have heard anyone suggest that one cannot call another member of this House an oik—I do not think that it has ever come up. But it is worth reflecting on the fact that if we find it offensive in this House to call another member a hypocrite why would we hold ourselves to be so special and above good citizens of New Zealand that it would be perfectly acceptable to call good citizens of New Zealand hypocrites? It is interesting that in this case the people being referred to are people who have been honoured and hold some of the highest honours in our country. 
I accept that the ruling is somewhat arbitrary I accept that the Speaker has to make judgments and I have given it careful thought because I think the point of order made by the member was a perfectly fair point of order. But I think in question time it is worth keeping the framework for questions a little bit tighter because the Standing Orders in respect of debate are different from those in respect of questions. I thank honourable members. 
Points of Order 
Associate Ministers—Delegated Areas of Responsibility 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This point of order is in relation to Speaker’s ruling 147/4 which relates to the issue of the tabling of delegations to Associate Ministers. It is my understanding that no such list has yet been tabled in the House. Until that list is tabled questions cannot be asked of Associate Ministers because it is not known what their responsibilities are if any. I am sure the Opposition and even some Government backbenchers are keen to table questions to Associate Ministers and I think after some 3½ months of the Government being in office it might be about time now for a list of delegations to be tabled. After 100 days of action perhaps 100 minutes might be sufficient for the Government to see to that relatively simple task. The list of Associate Ministers in this Government is pretty small. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I give the House an assurance that we are following a timetable previously used by other Governments—former Governments in fact—and the delegations will be tabled in due course. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 Perhaps I could just point out to the member that the delegations last year were tabled on 12 February and we are now well into March. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I do not want to prolong this exercise but last year was 2008. I am sure that Michael Cullen was not telling us that the 2005 delegations were tabled in September 2008. We will be tabling the delegations in due course. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 In case anyone thought that for once Mr Brownlee had made a point that of course related to a reshuffle in December 2007. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I think we can consider the score to be about one all. 
Questions to Ministers 
New Zealand Superannuation Fund—Funding 
1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is the Government considering any changes to funding the New Zealand Superannuation Fund; if so why? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; because under section 42 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 Treasury must each financial year recalculate the Government’s required contribution to the fund. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What is the Prime Minister’s response to comments made by the chief executive of the Superannuation Fund Adrian Orr and by Brian Fallow in the  
New Zealand Herald  
that it is totally misleading to claim that New Zealand is borrowing to pay for the Superannuation Fund given that he himself has made that claim? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: It is factually correct. The Government will be borrowing if it continues to make payments into the fund. At the prescribed rate it will be borrowing $50 million a week to make those funds. Although one does not want to take away from Adrian Orr’s performance or that of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund let us put a few facts on the table. Between 1 July 2007 and 31 January 2009 the Crown borrowed and paid into the fund $3.4 billion. All of those contributions have been lost plus a further $1.3 billion. The fund has lost $4.7 billion in 19 months. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister saying in that answer that Brian Fallow and Adrian Orr are wrong to state that it is arbitrary to draw a circle around any one item around the Government’s outlays and to say it is funded by debt and that we could equally claim that the tax cuts are funded out of borrowing? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: In answer to the first part of the question yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister understand given National’s track record in the 1990s of tampering with superannuation—in 1991 and 1999—that his and Mr English’s recent comments both undermined the certainty that people need around planning for their retirement future and the political consensus that superannuation should no longer be a political football? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Let me make this assurance. Because the Leader of the Opposition seems to be unable to ask the obvious question I will ask it of myself: is the Government considering the payments into the fund? The answer to that question is yes. As part of the Budget process I have asked the Minister of Finance to get Treasury to look at the possibility of temporarily contributing a lesser amount to the fund. That is expressly provided for under a section of the Act. Let me say in answer to the question that the Leader of the Opposition asked there will be no change to superannuation payments for New Zealanders. They are not linked to this fund. I have made it quite clear that if superannuation was to be cut—and I will make the same claim here in the House today—then I will resign as Prime Minister and resign as a member of Parliament. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The problem is that the Prime Minister will not be the Prime Minister by the time the problem arises. Does the Prime Minister understand that in 20 years’ time one in four New Zealanders will be in retirement and therefore that it makes sense while the baby boom population is still in the workforce that we pre-fund the scheme to ensure that the entitlements he promises can be guaranteed for the future? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I understand that and yes I support the pre-funding of superannuation. But the Government also— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: But you’re not going to do it. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well the Government faces some very difficult challenges and that means that over the course of the next few years the Government will be borrowing tens of billions of dollars. The question for the Government is simply whether for a period of time it pays less into the fund in order to take the pressure off its borrowing requirements. I have asked the Minister of Finance as part of the Budget process to consider that option. 
Recession—Job Support Scheme 
2.  
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is she doing to help employees in the current economic situation? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 This afternoon the Prime Minister has announced the Job Support Scheme to help keep people in jobs where their company is struggling in a tough global economy. This will support those workers who might otherwise lose their jobs. This Prime Minister is prepared to listen to ideas from outside the Beehive and to back the good ones. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What help will the Government provide for smaller businesses that are also facing hard times? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Work is progressing quickly on small to medium sized businesses. Their needs are more diverse. Therefore a scheme was more complex to develop but this is weeks away not months. 
Hon Annette King 
: Will the Job Support Scheme be made available to the nearly 600 State employees whose jobs are being cut in the Ministry for the Environment the Ministry of Social Development and the Tertiary Education Commission; if not why not? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This scheme is for private businesses that are having a downturn in their production. It is not appropriate for it to be for the Public Service. It is for private companies that are suffering a cut in their production and as a consequence are looking at laying off staff. This is about keeping workers in their jobs. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What groups and organisations has the Government been working with to develop this scheme? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We have had great cooperation from businesses and unions. We had cooperation before the Job Summit where a lot of work was done. On the day a lot of work was done. We heard from National Distribution Union boss Laila Harré who said that the Job Summit was a success and a genuinely tripartite process. We promised action from the Job Summit and we have delivered. 
Sue Bradford 
: Will the new Job Support Scheme be actively and immediately promoted in the retail sector which employs over 230000 workers and includes a number of really large companies where many jobs are being lost every day at the moment? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: If those companies have 100 employees or more and they voluntarily sign up to the scheme and make an arrangement between them then yes they will fit into the scheme. 
Hon Annette King 
: What advice would she give to workers in a company of say 99 workers who are facing the prospect of unemployment and hardship for their families but who do not qualify for the 9-day fortnight package? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I would say to them “Watch this space.” Thank goodness they have a National Government that is delivering action and not just words. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why has the training proposal which was at the heart of the original announcement been dropped when it would have allowed workers to upgrade their skills on that 1 day in a fortnight when they were not working? Surely that was the intention of the original proposal? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: After the Job Summit and after looking at the proposal that came from that the absolute was that we wanted to save jobs. This Government is committed to upskilling and training opportunities but this measure was about saving jobs and giving employees who had the potential to be made redundant the ability to stay in their jobs. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was quite straightforward: why was the training proposal dropped. I do not think that question was addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that in fairness— 
Hon Member 
: She said “Watch this space.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that was not part of the answer to that question if I recollect correctly. The Minister did say that clearly there was a change of view and that the focus went on to saving jobs. That may not be exactly the answer the honourable member wanted but I think it was a reasonable answer to the question. 
Prisons—Private Management 
3.  
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: How many corrections facilities does she expect to be managed by the private sector within the term of this Government? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 No decisions have yet been made on the number of prisons that will be privately managed. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does the Minister agree that the concept of Maori-only prisons is contrary to the concept of one rule for all? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The issue of Maori-only prisons has not been raised with me before. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Why is the Government considering the private management of prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: In order to deliver the best corrections service for New Zealand. This Government believes that we should not limit our choices. By changing the legislation to allow the private management of prisons we are giving ourselves a choice. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does the Minister agree with the proposal of her Associate Minister the Hon Pita Sharples that the privatisation of prisons “could be a chance for jails to be tailor-made for Maori …”? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Actually I agree that it would be an opportunity to bring about better outcomes for Maori because certainly in the Public Service right now we do not do well enough in corrections. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou. Can the Minister confirm that Maori organisations will be able to tender to manage privately managed prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes. All organisations with skills knowledge and experience in working with prisoners will be encouraged to tender. This will provide opportunities to Maori organisations that currently work with offenders to consider tendering to manage prisons. Joint ventures may also be considered where appropriate. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is GEO Group which ran the Auckland remand prison under National the same efficient and better-outcome-producing corporation that in the US put a female inmate in the same cell block as male inmates who then beat and raped her so that she later took her own life yet still made a very healthy profit of $61 million of public money? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am not aware of the situation to which that member refers but I would say that there is not a perfect record in publicly managed prisons in New Zealand. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Will specific standards and performance measures be able to be applied to each privately managed prison? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes. A separate contract will be developed for each prison that is tendered for private management. In each contract specific standards and performance measures will be able to be developed to address the unique environment of each prison. For example specific standards and measures relating to outcome for Maori offenders who now make up over 50 percent of our prison population could be included in contracts. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Will she be discussing with her Associate Minister the Hon Pita Sharples the implementation of his proposals for Maori-only prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mr Sharples has not raised that issue with me but I am always able to discuss matters with Mr Sharples at any time. 
Community Law Centres—Funding 
4.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What actions has he taken to address the shortfall in funding for community law centres? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Community law centres are funded primarily by revenue from the Lawyers and Conveyancers Special Fund which consists of 60 percent of the interest earned on solicitors’ trust accounts. However the slowing housing market coupled with a cut in interest rates meant they were facing a funding cut of about 68 percent. The Government was not prepared to allow that to happen to such an important service which is even more vital in difficult economic times. Last night I was very pleased to announce at the annual meeting of the Coalition of Community Law Centres of Aotearoa that the Government will put in place interim measures that will provide them with the same level of funding next year as they enjoyed in 2008-09. I know that many members from all parties have been approached on this issue as part of their constituency work and I take this opportunity to thank them for their constructive approach on this issue. 
Chester Borrows 
: What actions will the Minister take to ensure that funding of community law centres is more secure in the long term? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The Government does not want community law centres to find themselves in the same predicament again in a year’s time. In addition to the interim measure I announced last night we have also commenced work on finding an enduring funding framework to ensure continuity of services provided by the centres. I intend to involve the Coalition of Community Law Centres of Aotearoa in this work and I would like to thank Kevin Campbell and his team for their willingness to engage in a constructive way on this difficult issue. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: When does the Minister intend to respond to my letter of 10 February 2009 in which I proposed both the measures he announced last night; and will he accept the offer I made in that letter to work collaboratively with the Government to develop the durable solutions that are needed to ensure the long-term sustainability of the sector? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: In answer to the first question I say very soon. In answer to the second question I say yes. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document relating to question No 3 entitled “GEO Group Inc.: Despite a Crashing Economy Private Prison Firm Turns a Handsome Profit” produced by CorpWatch on 1 March 2009 detailing the criminal mismanagement of private prisons by GEO Group. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could I ask who produced the article? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: CorpWatch. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Foreshore and Seabed Act—Review 
5.  
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Did Te Puni Kokiri provide advice on the membership of the Foreshore and Seabed Act review group; if so did that advice address what should be done if the review group recommended no changes were needed? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena tatou katoa. Yes Te Puni Kokiri did provide advice on the membership of the review panel prior to the decision being taken to Cabinet; but no Te Puni Kokiri did not provide advice on what should be done if the review panel recommended that no changes were needed. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise quite a serious point of order at this point. The question I initially submitted to the Clerk’s Office asked whether the Minister stood by his statement that in the event of the Foreshore and Seabed Act review group not recommending major changes they should be sacked and replaced and I used the exact words the Minister used. That question was declined on the grounds that the Minister had no ministerial responsibility for the Foreshore and Seabed Act review group. We have now been informed that Te Puni Kokiri provided advice on the membership of that group. I now seek your ruling Mr Speaker on whether I can ask the original question. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Just because a Minister made recommendations does not make him responsible for the bill. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I am happy to answer the disallowed question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: My dilemma is that just because members want to answer questions does not mean that under the Standing Orders they are able to. It is an interesting point that the Hon Dr Michael Cullen has raised but the point made by the Hon Rodney Hide is relevant. Ministers receive advice from a range of departments but that does not make them responsible for certain areas. I think we have to abide by the ruling that the Minister of Maori Affairs is not responsible for the issues raised in the question the member originally lodged. I am aware of that difference. I would invite the member to continue to ask supplementary questions relating to the question that has been approved. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It will however have a reasonably different interpretation from this point on in that case. Did the Minister discuss with the Attorney-General the membership of the Foreshore and Seabed Act review group; if so did he support or oppose the inclusion of anyone with expertise in recreational or other access issues? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: The Maori Party had discussions with the National Government in order to set up the agreement and the process. As Minister of Maori Affairs I had discussions with the Attorney-General about possible candidates for the review group. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What reports is he aware of that suggest that a review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act is necessary? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I have received a report that was presented to the previous Government by the United Nations special rapporteur Professor Rodolfo Stavenhagen. The report recommends: “The Foreshore and Seabed Act should be repealed or amended by Parliament and the Crown should engage in treaty settlement negotiation with Maori that would recognize the inherent rights of Maori in the foreshore and seabed …”. Unlike the previous Government this Government respects international expert advice and listens. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: In the light of that last quotation will the Minister therefore explain why he has continually opposed the settlement with Ngati Porou which in fact gives far more than would have been possible under an application to the Maori Land Court following the Ngati Apa decision? 
Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That supplementary question would hardly qualify as relating to the first question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Supplementary questions can arise out of the answer to the principal question and to supplementary questions. It is the Minister who chose to quote the special rapporteur’s report. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Dr Sharples said that this Government does pay attention to international agencies that have a view on this sort of thing. To say that that allows the questioner then to start waltzing off into what are basically negotiated arrangements between the Crown and an individual iwi group I think stretches it. The wider principle is the way in which this country chooses to deal with the issue of ownership around the foreshore and seabed and that is not related to any specific settlement that might be arrived at with one iwi. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If that supplementary question is ruled out you should have ruled out peremptorily the actual question that was put to the Minister to elicit that answer—which is has he seen any reports about the need for a review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. I might say that it is completely in order because I take the view that the Minister of Maori Affairs has ministerial responsibility for all matters to do with Maori in his advocacy role as Minister of Maori Affairs. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank all honourable members because a very interesting point has been raised. I think the Hon Dr Michael Cullen though cannot go back and relitigate the original decision in respect of ministerial responsibility. The point raised by the Hon Tariana Turia is a very interesting one because the Hon Dr Pita Sharples was asked about a report and he did quote from a report and he said the Government listens. I do not believe therefore he has opened up new territory for questioning outside his responsibility. I think it is stretching the linkage between supplementary and primary questions to argue that simply to say that yes he had seen that report and the Government listens does that. It would be my ruling on the matter that he has not really opened up new territory. But I invite the Hon Dr Michael Cullen— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was going to say that the Minister did quote the report in some detail in that regard. The report incidentally did not call necessarily for repeal but possibly for amendment and called for the Crown to negotiate. My point in my supplementary question was the Crown did negotiate with Ngati Porou and Te Whanau-a-Apanui. Indeed a bill is before the House dealing with the outcome of one of those negotiations. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is raising good points of order on the matter. I hope he appreciates that it is a delicate issue given that it has already had to be dealt with as part of the question process in approving questions. I think though I have to continue to rule that just because the Minister refers to a report he is not saying that those are his views but that it was what the report said and he said that the Government listens. It is my view that that has not opened up new territory. However I invite the honourable member to ask a further supplementary question without it being deducted from his party’s allocation of questions. I accept absolutely that it is a fairly marginal call. I will not swear by the fact that I am 100 percent right on this but that is my ruling. I therefore invite the honourable member to ask another supplementary question without it coming off the allocation to Labour members. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: When will he as the Minister of Maori Affairs front up to explain to Maori that even if the Foreshore and Seabed Act is simply repealed it is most unlikely that the great majority of foreshore and seabed will pass from Crown ownership into customary title let alone freehold title? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: We have never concealed the possible results of what a review would do and it is not my right right now to talk about the review. It is in progress at this time. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: What other reports has the Minister seen on support for the foreshore and seabed review? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I have seen reports quoting the Opposition spokesman the Hon David Parker saying that the Labour Party wants to be part of the discussion and to engage with the Crown in a constructive way. I have also seen reports of the Hon Shane Jones undermining the review panel then the Leader of the Opposition calling the review extremely divisive and saying that the review should not proceed. I can only assume that the Leader of the Opposition has a very different definition of “constructive engagement” from his colleague Mr Parker. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Does the Minister accept the Court of Appeal ruling in Ngati Apa which quite clearly implied that the gaining of customary title or freehold title would not be a widespread outcome of any applications to the Maori Land Court; if so why does he continue to hold out to Maori the prospect of full-scale ownership on a very broad basis of foreshore and seabed which is not a correct position of the likely outcome? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The questioner seeks from the Minister effectively a legal opinion. That is not appropriate in a question. It is not reasonable to ask that of a Minister. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I am not asking the Minister for a legal opinion. I asked him whether he accepts what the legal decision given by the Court of Appeal was as opposed to what he has been telling people for some considerable time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Again I acknowledge to members of the House that we are in very difficult territory and I do not pretend to have all the wisdom on this but to ask the Minister whether he agrees or disagrees with a ruling of the court is interesting territory to be getting into. Is it possible for the member to pursue his question in a different form? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think I accept that the Minister cannot answer the question so perhaps I could ask a different supplementary question. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The problem is whether the member can ask the question; it is not whether the Minister can answer it. It is an unacceptable slur on the Minister for the member to stand in this House and somehow pretend that because he has got it wrong by not asking the correct question somehow it is a slight on the Minister’s ability. It is actually the member’s ability to ask the question that is in question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think that that is helpful. This is a difficult issue because the original question the honourable member put down was ruled out of order on grounds that are important. None the less I can understand how the member was concerned about his original question being ruled out. I am therefore trying to be helpful in accommodating the member to ask a reasonable question around the question that is on the Order Paper. I accept though that it gets tricky when the Minister brings in additional information but I ask the member to rephrase a further question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Does the Minister believe that in the event that the Foreshore and Seabed Act is simply repealed—so that the Ngati Apa decision stands in its entirety—there will be large-scale successful applications to the Maori Land Court transferring public foreshore and seabed into customary title and then into freehold title; if not how does he reconcile that view with the decision of the Court of Appeal? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I will not pre-empt the findings of the review panel. Unlike the previous Government I believe in due process and it will take place. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Has the Minister received any reports about the value of the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act in enhancing the relationship between the Crown and Maori? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It seems to me the “protection racket” has to run both ways; how could that question be in order if some of the previous supplementary questions have been ruled out of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I have to support the honourable member in this because although the Minister may be asked about reports he has received the reports must relate to his ministerial responsibility. The Minister has indicated that he is not responsible for the review; therefore I do uphold the point of order of the Hon Dr Michael Cullen and I invite him to ask a supplementary question if that is what he is seeking. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: How does the Minister reconcile his last answer to me about not prejudging the outcome of any court ruling with his frequent statements up and down the country that Maori “own” the foreshore and seabed and the Act stole it off them? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me make it clear: the Minister is not responsible as Minister for statements he may have made in his role as a member of the Maori Party. In inviting the Minister to answer I just make that clear because he would be in breach of the Standing Orders— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think we have to be very careful once a person has taken the oath as a Minister and also holds any other position whether that person can then decide that in any particular case that he was not speaking as a Minister but really as Dr Pita Sharples. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This issue has come up on many times and I do not particularly want to cite all of the Speakers’ rulings that are here. But I wanted to alert the Minister to that because he would be getting out of order were he to comment on statements he might have made as co-leader of the Maori Party. He is responsible only for what he says as Minister and he can be questioned only on that directly in the House. There are plenty of Speakers’ rulings I can cite for the honourable member if he so wishes. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Surely then that would rule that question out? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Only the last part of it. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Well the whole question related to comments that Dr Sharples has made as co-leader of the Maori Party. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I recollect correctly the last part of the question talked about reconciliation with comments the member had made. The first part of the question I believe was in order. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can the House have evidence of this information that Dr Cullen is presenting to it or could he be misleading the House? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no—that is not helpful. Look this is a tricky question and I invite the member to repeat that first part of the question and to add no more because it will be ruled out of order if he does. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: If I can remember what I said—does the Minister in his ministerial capacity stand by the statements he has made on many occasions that the foreshore and seabed is “owned” by Maori and the Act stole it off them? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question cannot stand. Helen Clark established in Parliament the principle of separating her role as Prime Minister from her role as leader of the Labour Party. All Dr Sharples has been saying around the country are comments made as co-leader of the Maori Party. Certainly he would not resile from those comments because they are Maori Party policy and have been for a very long time. Indeed they are the sort of sentiment that was the genesis of the Maori Party itself. That question cannot stand as a reasonable question to the Minister of Maori Affairs.  
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Indeed Helen Clark did make that distinction when she was being asked questions about the finances and other operations of the Labour Party. This is a question about an issue of public policy about statements made and actions taken by the Government and about legislation that the Government is reviewing. The Minister cannot hide all the time as simply being co-leader of the Maori Party. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: It is important to understand that the Minister is free to make statements as co-leader of the Maori Party. That does not impinge on his activities as a Minister. Further I think the Minister has made it very clear that notwithstanding his own strongly held personal views and those of his party on this matter these are matters under consideration by review and he does not want to make a ministerial statement about them until such time as the review is completed. That is perfectly reasonable. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members. This is a very interesting area of questioning and therefore I have allowed the House to take some time to sort it out. I accept that judgments in this area are by nature difficult and I would ask members to respect that. It would be my judgment in this—and as I look at former Speakers’ rulings—that the Minister could be questioned on statements he might have made that impinged on his responsibilities as Minister. The dilemma in this particular case is that we have already established that some of these issues are not his responsibility as Minister. This particular review is not his responsibility as Minister; therefore he cannot be questioned on comments that relate to that matter because they are not his responsibility as Minister. I think that is the clear demarcation on this issue. 
On that basis I must say to the honourable member that when he repeated his question it was not the same as the one he had first asked and I must rule out that question. I allowed him two further goes. I think we have probably given the honourable member a fair go on this question. I do have to rule out that question though. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two further points of order. The first is that it seems to me that we are in significant difficulty around such Ministers as those of Maori Affairs Pacific Island Affairs Youth Affairs and Women’s Affairs—the so-called population ministries. The understanding has always been that the Ministers in that case can be questioned on a wide range of issues of policy relevant to those particular populations. The Minister of Maori Affairs is responsible for input into Government decision-making on all matters of specific relevance to Maori. It would be very hard to argue that the Foreshore and Seabed Act is not of particular relevance to Maori; it is of particular particular relevance to Maori. If therefore the Minister is able to hide and to argue in effect that he has no view as a Minister no position as a Minister or no responsibility as a Minister for matters relating to the Foreshore and Seabed Act then I think we are in an impossible position in the House. 
Mr Speaker once you have dealt with that I will raise a further point of order about a further version of the main question that was submitted earlier. It now seems to me that in the light of your rulings it should have been allowed. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I think the difficulty here may well be where this question was directed in the first place today. During the successive terms of the last Labour Government questions that related to the Foreshore and Seabed Act were routinely transferred away from the Hon Parekura Horomia to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen who answered them as Attorney-General on the basis that it was his particular area of responsibility. At that time absolutely no consideration was given by the Labour Government to those wider considerations that should rightly have fallen then to the Minister of Maori Affairs. 
Leaving that history aside and perhaps not wanting to point to it as a precedent the clear demarcation in this case is that Dr Sharples has made statements that one would expect of political party leaders when talking to a constituency that either supports them or they are trying to gain support from. He has an entirely different function as Minister of Maori Affairs. If the questions were about his strict involvement with the review process as Minister of Maori Affairs then yes of course he would answer. But this question takes it well outside that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the points that the honourable members have made because I think they are very good and well considered points. The House I think has taken sufficient time on this matter today. Let me make this final point. I as Speaker am not involved in determining Ministers’ responsibility in respect of answering questions. It is an independent process conducted by the Clerk’s Office. The assessment was made that considering all the current Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings etc. the question had to be altered this morning on the basis of ministerial responsibility. I think that is where we have got to in ruling on these questions now that the Minister can be questioned only on comments that he has made that relate to or impinge on his ministerial responsibilities and he is not responsible. As the Hon Gerry Brownlee has pointed out there is nothing new about this because as the honourable member Dr Cullen well knows he himself answered many questions on this area in the previous Government. I think the House should move on. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I still have two points of order. The first is to correct something that you just said because you will not be aware of the facts. The initial rejection of this question came from the Minister’s office and then the Clerk’s Office considered the matter. It was the Minister who declined to answer the question having of course led a party into this House formed solely on the basis of repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. 
My second point of order Mr Speaker is more important. When the original question was rejected a rephrased question was submitted and it asked the Minister whether he had seen comments by the co-leader of the Maori Party along the lines of dismissal of the review committee and asked whether he agreed with that. That question was also rejected. Mr Speaker you have informed the House that we have to accept that this Minister has a peculiarly bifurcated character. In anything that is controversial he is acting as the co-leader of the Maori Party; in anything that is safe he is the Minister of Maori Affairs and can be questioned about it in the House. Mr Speaker I put to you that if we are to have that position we must be able on a matter that is important to Maori and on which Te Puni Kokiri reports to the Minister to ask the Minister of Maori Affairs whether he agrees with comments or has seen any reported comments by the co-leader of the Maori Party. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House I think has heard quite enough on this matter. I think the member knows well that in the previous administration this issue cropped up and he knows how it was ruled on in the previous administration. I have ruled and let me make it very clear: I have ruled consistent with existing Speakers’ rulings and the Standing Orders that the Minister cannot be questioned on matters that are not his responsibility or on comments that he might make on matters that are not directly his responsibility. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has he as Minister of Maori Affairs at any time while considering matters that he is responsible for advocating within the Government resiled from the position that the Foreshore and Seabed Act stole the foreshore and seabed from Maori? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question challenges the ruling that you have not long given to the House. It works on the basis that by putting Dr Sharples in a position where he can answer only according to the public statements he has made as co-leader of the Maori Party he then makes those statements as Minister. That is unacceptable and it is an abuse of the House process. I might say and state again that this whole separation issue of responsibilities and authorities was not established in this House by anyone other than Helen Clark and for the Labour Party to be now trying to skirt round that is I think particularly annoying. But Mr Speaker that was a direct challenge to the way in which you have ruled on this particular matter and I think ruled quite appropriately that we move forward. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Mr Speaker I must correct the member again. Those matters in relation to the Rt Hon Helen Clark were raised in the context of Labour Party internal affairs for which she as Prime Minister had no responsibility. I am not asking the Minister of Maori Affairs anything to do with the internal affairs of the Maori Party. What I am asking about are his views and actions in regard to an issue that has been a central issue in Maoridom for a number of years. If the Minister chooses to hide behind Speakers’ rulings on this matter then I think the public will draw its own conclusion. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mr Speaker I very carefully worded my question having listened to your ruling. It was a very deliberate attempt to work around the ruling—a ruling that I think it is clear some of us do not agree with. It was an attempt to work around that ruling and my submission is that I worked around it enough for the question to be in order. 
Hon David Parker 
: When a Minister stands in this House he stands as part of Cabinet— 
Hon Members 
: Or she. 
Hon David Parker 
: He or she—in this case a “he”—stands as part of Cabinet and has ministerial responsibility on behalf of Cabinet to answer on behalf of the executive. A Minister outside Cabinet is asked really on behalf of the Government whether as a Minister in the Government he or she accepts that that is the Government policy in respect of propositions that are put to him or her. Those propositions can be statements that are in the press they can be statements from other politicians they can be statements from other members of his or her party or they can be statements of that very Minister when he or she was acting in a different capacity. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to examine the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings a little more carefully. Question time does not bring to bear those arguments that the member was just advancing; question time relates very specifically to Ministers’ individual responsibilities. Now I am going to have to rule on this because the House is wasting a lot time. 
Hon Dr Pita Sharples 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am in the process of ruling. The honourable member Trevor Mallard has framed a question in relation to the Minister’s responsibilities as Minister of Maori Affairs and I invite the Minister to answer only in that capacity—as Minister of Maori Affairs. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have just ruled. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes you have ruled but I just wish to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If this is a new point of order I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Well it is a related point of order I must concede. Mr Speaker you will recall from the last Parliament that the New Zealand First Party had a policy that was designed to bring much younger New Zealanders into the adult jurisdiction as far as the courts were concerned. That was not Labour Party policy at the time. I recall Mr Peters being asked in this House how he as Minister of Foreign Affairs had dealt with the human rights issues around this matter when he was engaged in various negotiations and discussions internationally. At that time the Speaker ruled that there was a distinction between his role as a representative of the Government who advances Government policy and the position that he had as leader of the New Zealand First Party advancing New Zealand First policy. We have exactly that issue here today. It does not matter how much the Labour Party members might like to twist things round; this was a precedent established by them and their Labour Government. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon Dr Pita Sharples. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. I have sat here and listened to attempts at asking me questions and you have ruled those questions out of order. While the member was asking those questions he impugned my integrity by saying that I am hiding that I had made statements as a Minister that belong to a party member that I was hiding that I did not want to answer the questions and that I had a relationship with Ngati Porou that was negative. All those sorts of things will now be published—they are out in public—and not one of them is true. I am sitting here while people criss-cross their rights and wrongs and my integrity in the public’s eye has gone down the tubes. Mr Speaker I ask that you now ask Dr Cullen to withdraw and apologise for doing that to my character in this House without providing any evidence whatsoever. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think we are getting—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. I allowed the honourable Minister to make that point of order even though strictly it was not a point of order because I felt he was expressing a legitimate concern about some of the language used in points of order—such as “hiding”. Because we were trying to sort out a difficult issue I did not come down on that language as hard as I should have and I personally apologise to the honourable Minister for not having prevented it. 
The House has spent a lot of time on this matter. I have ruled that the honourable member Trevor Mallard’s question can go to the Minister but he can answer it only in respect of his responsibilities as Minister of Maori Affairs. I invite the Minister to respond to that question in his capacity as Minister of Maori Affairs because that was the way that the question was framed. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled and I invite the member to sit down. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It is a different point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet and the member will sit down. I have invited the Minister to answer that question and I ask him to do so. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I simply invite you to point out to the Minister that if he feels that he could answer those questions he could always have sought leave to answer them at the time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not believe that that was adding to the good order of the House. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: As the Minister with responsibility for take Maori I have always made statements on behalf of that portfolio with full integrity to the position. Any statements I might have made against the Foreshore and Seabed Act I have done as a co-leader of the Maori Party with passion and conviction in that capacity but in the capacity of Minister I have played it straight down the line. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Will members show the Green Party member some modicum of respect as she seeks to ask a question. [ 
Interruption 
] The member happens to be in the Opposition. That is why I am particularly focused on Opposition members who are making it difficult for her to ask a question. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: My apologies for doing this to you this afternoon but I seek your guidance on a matter that has not yet been dealt with in this—the forty-ninth—Parliament. I lodged this particular specific question to the Minister of Maori Affairs this morning because of the specific responsibility of that Minister to advocate for and to uphold Maori participation in public policy issues. It is an issue that is directly a part of his responsibilities. It relates to and impinges on his ministerial responsibility and it is certainly well within the strict matters of Maori affairs as Mr Gerry Brownlee set out earlier. However the question was transferred to another Minister. I know that the previous Government—as we have already discussed—did this on a very regular basis in the previous Parliament to the great frustration of many members of this House. I am concerned that the National Government is treating this as a precedent given that the previous Government did it too. 
I would like some indication from you about what right members of Parliament have on behalf of the public to hold a member of the executive to account for the responsibilities of an issue specifically concerning that Minister’s ministerial area and to get an answer from that Minister on those issues. I am very concerned that today’s decision and indeed the discussion we have just had looks very much like the Minister of Maori Affairs is being actively constrained from answering such questions. I would very much appreciate your advice on this matter. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I wish to make two clear points. The first is that changes to the Resource Management Act—which is what the question asks about—are very clearly within my responsibility. If the member had wanted the question to go to my colleague the Minister of Maori Affairs then she would have asked what advice the Maori affairs ministry Te Puni Kokiri had provided on the Resource Management Act reforms and that question would have gone to the Minister. The second thing I think this House should reject is the view that as Minister for the Environment I have no responsibility for the role that Maori would take in environmental decisions because it is my view that every member of this executive has responsibilities that relate to their portfolio in respect of Maori. 
Metiria Turei 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient on this matter. I invite the member to sit because this case is very clear-cut. The member is asking about changes to the Resource Management Act. The Minister of Maori Affairs is not responsible for changes to the Resource Management Act. This is a very clear case and I invite the member to ask her question. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question specifically asks about the negative impacts— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume her seat. She is now questioning my ruling. This one is very clear. Whereas in the previous case I accepted that it was a more difficult issue this one is very clear. I invite the member to ask her question. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Am I to understand that the Government is now able in any circumstances to prevent a Minister from answering a question specifically related to his or her portfolio area? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Not at all. The honourable member is a good member and she is perfectly capable of framing a question within the responsibility of the Minister of Maori Affairs. She is perfectly capable of framing a question that lies within the responsibility of the Minister of Maori Affairs. This question does not. I invite her to ask her question. 
Resource Management Act Reforms—Maori Input in Decision Making 
6.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Will the Government’s proposed changes to the Resource Management Act have any negative impact on the rights of Maori iwi and hapu to have their say over resource management decisions? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Maori iwi and hapu have an important interest in resource management as applicants as objectors and also indirectly through the creation or loss of job opportunities as users of infrastructure and in exercising their customary rights in such areas as fishing. I have received increased concern from Maori about frustrations at the slow bureaucratic processes of the current Act in such areas as aquaculture. Maori have no more interest in long inefficient bureaucratic processes than any other New Zealander has. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is it not true that the Minister knows that these changes will have a negative impact on Maori and that that is why he is colluding to silence the Minister of Maori Affairs on it? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I know what it will be. The member cannot in a question allege someone is colluding. I rule that question out of order. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could I be quite clear—were you ruling out the word “colluding” because if that word is ruled out then we really are— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. The member is the most experienced member in this House. He knows that the Standing Orders around debate are different from those around question time and that to allege someone might have been colluding is not something that has been ruled out in debate. But questions cannot contain such an allegation. It is totally outside the Standing Orders. That is why I have ruled the question out of order. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How are Maori iwi and hapu negatively affected by the current slow and cumbersome process of the Resource Management Act? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: One of the worst aspects of the current Act is how long it takes to develop and change district and regional plans. This has hampered iwi and hapu in having their interests over natural resources recognised and provided for. I think we would all acknowledge that Maori are at the hard edge of the economic downturn in industries such as construction and forestry. Reforms that can get those industries moving again will help Maori keep their jobs. 
Metiria Turei 
: What will stop council plans allowing for for example sewage discharge over mussel beds or kai moana beds when under his reforms Maori will lose their fundamental right to appeal the plan to the Environment Court? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The changes in appeal rights cut both ways. As the member would know the bill I introduced to the House and that was sent to the select committee by I think 110 votes to 10 does not remove all appeal rights on plans. It constrains rights to issues of Part 2 the substantive purpose of the Act and the substantive example she gives would not be restricted by those changes. 
Rahui Katene 
: What submissions has the Minister received from the Minister of Maori Affairs on the resource management review and was there any change in policy as a consequence of those submissions? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Hon Dr Pita Sharples and the Hon Tariana Turia made very strong submissions to me that the Maori Party would oppose—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can we be clear whether their submissions were made as co-leaders of the Maori Party or as Ministers? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister for that interruption. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How can it be in order for the Minister to say what he has been told by people in their roles as party leaders but not for another Minister to reply— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. If the member engaged the brain before operating the mouth he would realise— 
Hon Annette King 
: That’s very rude. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have been rude on purpose because the Minister was answering in the area of his responsibility which he is entitled to do. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the Speaker would put his brain in order he would realise that the Minister of Maori Affairs was speaking within his! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to reflect a little on what is happening here. It is not helpful. These are tricky issues. They are not new. The previous Parliament had difficulty around these issues of ministerial responsibility and they are not easy issues. I have tried in allowing the question of the Hon Trevor Mallard today to show that questions carefully framed can be allowed and I have tried to do that in the interests of holding the executive to account. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider your last statement. You are the Speaker of this House. You have huge respect because of your office and for you to make statements as you did to Mr Parker or to any member of this House and to then admit that you were abusive deliberately demeans the office of Speaker. I cannot recall—I have been here for only 9 years; I invite comment from other members who have been here longer than me—ever hearing a Speaker use those terms of abuse to a member of Parliament and I invite you to reflect on that. It reflects on you personally and on your office and it is offensive. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I note the point the member has made. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Setting aside the previous point of order which you will no doubt reflect upon I seek your clarification and through you that of the Minister in his reply as to whether he was referring to the two members concerned in their ministerial capacities. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I can deal with that fairly simply. The Minister can reply because it is his ministerial responsibility. The Minister in replying can refer to a range of matters. That is well known. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a somewhat supportive point of order because I want to note that you allowed the original question which was about the Minister of Maori Affairs. Therefore the question from the Maori Party member was about the Minister of Maori Affairs and his contribution. Therefore the response can be about only that and I support both Dr Smiths in the rulings they have made. What we clearly have now is the ability to ask about areas that are not those Ministers’ primary areas of responsibility but to ask about their responsibility in the area of advocacy in a way Mr Speaker which you did not allow earlier. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will see. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It would be perfectly proper for the member to ask what submissions I had received from anybody and what change I had made to the policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Exactly. I accept the point. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I ask for a ruling from you. The ruling I ask for is whether it is now acceptable for the Speaker in the Chair to throw abuse at members of Parliament. I invite you to give a ruling. I think it is appropriate given that you admitted you did throw abuse at members of Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: To the Hon David Parker and to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to whom I clearly caused offence I apologise. I should not have done that. I apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Hon Pita Sharples— 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to prolong this but an important point is being raised here. You are quite right that the Minister can take submissions from anybody. The Minister is quite right in that it does not have to be in his ministerial capacity. But if it was in his ministerial capacity the reason why we are asking is that we are then able to direct further questions on another day to the Minister of Maori Affairs about that matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot rule on hypothetical issues. I invite the Hon Dr Nick Smith to answer. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Hon Pita Sharples in his role as the Minister of Maori Affairs made very strong submissions to me that he would oppose any watering down of section 8 the Treaty of Waitangi clause and as a consequence proposals for change have been dropped from the first reform bill. The Minister of Maori Affairs also sought assurances that no changes would be considered to Part 2 of the Resource Management Act reforms and I gave that reassurance. 
Metiria Turei 
: In reference to the Minister’s response to my previous question can he confirm then that should a council plan contain rules that allow for example for a sewage discharge over a kai moana bed where there is a Maori interest in protecting that kai moana bed that Maori group can go to court—assuming they can afford to lodge a bond under his reforms—to challenge that rule only if they have the leave of the court or if there is a question of law concerning that rule but that otherwise under his reforms they have no capacity under law to challenge the impact of that rule over their right to protect or use that kai moana bed? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is quite wrong in two respects. The first is that the security of cost provision is at the discretion of the court; it is not an automatic right as the member suggests. The second is that the test as to whether a plan can be appealed to the Environment Court is whether it relates to a Part 2 issue the fundamental principles of the Resource Management Act. If it does such an appeal is quite in order. 
Metiria Turei 
: Supplementary question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am afraid the member has used her allocation of supplementary questions. She may recollect that one question was ruled out and therefore the full six questions have now been used. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My records including the question that was ruled out identify that the Green Party asked one supplementary question on question No. 2 one supplementary question on question No. 3— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will take the honourable member’s word because my adviser is not 100 percent sure. 
Metiria Turei 
: What will the Minister say then to the nine iwi who are currently seeking customary rights orders in the Maori Land Court over issues relating to customary rights in the coastal marine area who under the existing Resource Management Act provisions are able to challenge any rule in the district plan that would impinge on those rights but whose rights to challenge will be taken away by his reforms because of the constraints around applying to the Environment Court to challenge district plan rules? What are those nine iwi going to do with their customary rights orders that give them rights in that area now that they cannot even challenge the councils? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The changes we are making to the Resource Management Act provide for quicker processes so where Maori want to see changes made to plans those processes will be sped up. At the moment it is taking on average 8 years to make a change in a plan and that is too long. It is also true that if we are going to speed up that process there is some constraint on appeal. I think we have the balance about right. 
Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill—ACT Party Views 
7.  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Has he received any reports of the suggestion by David Garrett MP that the concerns expressed in the interim report under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 on the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill were not his personal views but those of “some oik in Crown Law”; if so is Mr Garrett’s suggestion correct? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Yes I have seen reports to that effect. An “oik” is an unpopular or disliked fellow pupil an obnoxious or unpleasant person a nitwit or a clot. With respect to Mr Garrett who has spent the bulk of his career working for victims of crime I do not really think that that term accurately describes lawyers at Crown Law. When I receive a draft report from Crown Law I also ask Crown Law to provide source material including case law. After reviewing all the material I form my own view as Attorney-General on the issue before me. The section 7 report is mine. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister agree with the  
New Zealand Herald  
editorial of last Friday 6 March that said of the “three strikes” proposal: “More fundamentally the approach is flawed in imagining that putting criminals away for much longer periods will improve the crime rate. It does not.”? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I refer the honourable member to the section 7 report where I set out my views in detail and where I say that the proposal raises an apparent inconsistency. I do not think I could be clearer in giving an answer now than I am in that report. 
Amy Adams 
: What other reports has the Attorney-General seen in relation to the reporting requirements under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am aware that a former Labour Party Attorney-General considered the Taxation (Annual Rates GST Trans-Tasman Imputation and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill sufficiently inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to warrant a report under section 7. That stands in stark contrast to the oppressive Electoral Finance Bill which restricted freedom of expression where there was no such report. 
Hon David Parker 
: Has the Attorney-General confirmed with his ministerial colleagues that as Rodney Hide claimed the National Party has agreed to support the “three strikes” legislation through all stages in return for ACT’s support for the passage of the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have not confirmed anything with any of my colleagues other than by tabling the section 7 report as I am required to do in accordance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Standing Orders. 
David Garrett 
: How many laws passed by the previous Labour Government were considered inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; and does the Attorney-General think there is some irony in the Labour Opposition’s being so quick to condemn the National Government for supporting the “three strikes” legislation which would have saved 78 lives had it been in place? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am advised that around 30 reports pursuant to section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act were tabled by the previous Labour Government. These reports included reports on the Housing Restructuring (Income-Related Rents) Amendment Bill and the Auckland Regional Amenities Funding Bill. This stands in stark contrast to the Electoral Finance Bill for which there was no report. Having been in Parliament for 3 years I am no longer surprised by anything Labour members say or do. I do not consider their behaviour ironic but merely true to form. 
Hon David Parker 
: Given the Attorney-General’s recently restated high professional standards how can he be comfortable voting for such ineffective policy when in his own judgment it amounts to a clear breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I am surprised that that question was raised by a person who has held this great office. My responsibility under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is to provide a report and table it in Parliament. That is my responsibility as Attorney-General independent of the executive and that is what I have done. 
John Boscawen 
: Is the Attorney-General saying that when the Electoral Finance Bill was introduced in July 2007 it was in his judgment inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; if so does he have any idea why the then Attorney-General the Hon Dr Michael Cullen failed to advise Parliament of that inconsistency? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I do not think I can answer the first part of the question because the member is asking me to give a legal opinion. I will not do so because that would contravene the Standing Orders. As to the second part of the question I say that it is impossible to discern what is in the Hon Dr Cullen’s mind and I will not attempt it. 
Surgery Elective—Reports 
8.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received on elective surgery and what do these show? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have received a number of reports involving elective surgery. The reports confirm that the number of patients receiving elective surgery actually fell in real terms from 2001 to 2007-08. This means waiting lists would have grown significantly if the then Government had not culled thousands of patients from the waiting lists and made it harder to get surgery. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What do these reports say about the amount of elective general surgery provided to New Zealand patients? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: General surgery was one of the specialties that saw the greatest cuts to patient services. Despite a doubling of the health budget in the last 9 years the number of patients who received elective general surgery annually actually fell by seven. So the health budget doubled and fewer people got elective general surgery. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What further services is the Minister prepared to let district health boards cut as a direct result of his letter of expectation? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: This Government stands for improving front-line services to patients. I fully expect that there will be some programmes in the health services that will be reduced or removed so that services can go into patients’ front-line care. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How can access to elective surgery have got worse in so many specialties when the health budget nearly doubled and what can be done to improve access? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is very difficult to explain how the health budget could nearly double from $6 billion to $12 billion yet there is an actual reduction in the number of New Zealanders getting vitally needed general surgery. I have to leave that explanation to members opposite. 
Public Service—Front-line Services 
9.  
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Is it Government policy to shift resources to front-line public services; if so how is the policy being implemented? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 Yes; chief executives of Government departments are required to take note of the Government’s policy in this area and where possible they will shift resources to improve the delivery of front-line services for New Zealanders. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why in light of that answer is the Government reviewing the future of field staff for District Courts and of fine collections staff and why has that plan been hidden from the public? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Oh! How did he find out about it? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes. Obviously that plan cannot be hidden from the public if that member is aware of it. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Why is it the Government’s policy to shift resources to front-line services? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: In the deteriorating economic environment the New Zealand Government expects the State services to play their part in providing services that meet New Zealanders’ needs. We want to see people and funding move into areas that will deliver best value for money and the improvement of front-line services for New Zealanders. 
Grant Robertson 
: How does the Minister think that actions such as cutting front-line service jobs at the Tertiary Education Commission and the Ministry for the Environment and the proposed job cuts at the Ministry of Social Development and the National Library will meet the Government’s Job Summit goals of saving and creating jobs or are public servants second-class citizens for this Government? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We think that New Zealanders would rather have their money that is allocated for the environment for example go into front-line services like insulating homes— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You cancelled that programme! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: —just wait I say to members opposite. We think taxpayers would much rather have their money that is allocated for the environment go into front-line services to insulate homes invest in clean heating and clean up streams rather than into politically correct programmes like a carbon-neutral Public Service. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table a Ministry of Justice document entitled “Terms of Reference: Operations Structure Review” which outlines a review of the district courts department regional management structure the collections department field management structure and the provision of support services in the national office. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that report being tabled? There appears to be no objection to that document being tabled. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Economy—Balance of Payments Position 
10.  
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is New Zealand’s balance of payments position and what implications does this have for the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The current account deficit has been at or above 8 percent of GDP since 2005. The cumulative deficit—that is the increase in New Zealand’s net foreign liabilities over the 3 years to September 2008—was more than $44 billion. This is testimony to how poorly the foundation for future prosperity has been laid and despite the previous Government’s rhetoric about trying to control the balance of payments we have ended up with it at record levels. 
Chris Tremain 
: What were the growth rates of both exports and imports over the past 5 years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: For the 5 years to September 2008—the latest period available—export volumes grew by only 1.6 percent per annum. By contrast import volumes ballooned growing by 5.2 percent per annum over the same period. Clearly this kind of economic management is unsustainable. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why did the Government gut KiwiSaver against Treasury advice when the savings gap is a principal contributor to the current account deficit; and is the importance of savings not even greater when the recession means it is harder for Governments to run Budget surpluses to partially offset household and business dissaving? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The previous Government left New Zealand with twin chronic deficits—a chronic fiscal deficit and a chronic balance of payments deficit. It actually makes no sense to try to fix the balance of payments deficit by blowing out the fiscal deficit. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your advice because the Minister is on the public record as having told the Finance and Expenditure Committee of this House that he accepts that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the order the member is seeking to progress? 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I am just getting to that. There is an apparent contradiction— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. That is not a point of order. The member’s point of order must relate to the order of this House. 
Chris Tremain 
: What would be the consequences if these balance of payments trends were to continue? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think anyone can see that the consequences are unsustainable. No country can prosper for long with imports growing at almost three times the rate of exports. This signals that the New Zealand economy will be going through a substantial adjustment and to ignore that would amount to living on borrowed time. This Government is determined to face up to these realities. 
Minimum Wage—Dame Kiri Te Kanawa 
11.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Can she explain what she meant by her comment to the House on 4 March 2009: “Would you like Dame Kiri Te Kanawa to be on the minimum wage?”? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I made that statement to illustrate the absurdity of Darien Fenton’s considering all musicians to be vulnerable workers for the purposes of her member’s bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does the Minister not understand that the minimum wage is a floor and not compulsory? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think she meant— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat right now. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on minimum wages for independent contractors? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I have seen a report arguing that “contractors should be regulated by commercial not industrial law. … unions should not be able to interfere in commercial arrangements involving contractors”. That report came from the Deputy Prime Minister of the Australian Labor Government Julia Gillard. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call the Hon Trevor Mallard. [ 
Interruption 
] Would members please show some courtesy; their colleague is trying to ask a supplementary. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: You should see us in caucus Mr Speaker. 
Hon Member 
: Must have been kind to him! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What does one do! The Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does she not understand that the minimum wage is a floor and not compulsory? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I understand that the minimum wage is the minimum wage under the minimum wage legislation. 
Carbon Neutral Public Service Programme—Ministry for the Environment Greenhouse Gas Emissions 
12.  
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: How much have the Ministry for the Environment’s greenhouse gases declined since the introduction of the Carbon Neutral Public Service programme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The previous Government committed $10.4 million to the Carbon Neutral Public Service programme of which the Ministry for the Environment was the lead agency. Emissions from the ministry though have increased from 656 tonnes to 766 tonnes since the programme was launched by the previous Government. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Does the Minister view the programme as good value for money? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Carbon Neutral Public Service programme was a “touchy-feely” PC programme that was a total waste of public money. All it aimed to do was to hide the awful record that the previous Government had of ever-increasing greenhouse gas emissions. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Why is the Minister not gravely concerned about cutting the independent environmental advice available to the Government given that the Government has just contracted out a cost-benefit analysis on the emissions trading scheme to the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research an analysis that major emitters including Solid Energy funded last year and that reached the astonishing conclusion that taxpayers rather than emitters should bear the cost of New Zealand’s emissions? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am not sure what that question had to do with the previous Government’s proud programme of a carbon-neutral Public Service but I make the following point: the cost of that scheme worked out at over $2400 per tonne of carbon emission when under any logical basis and in the Crown accounts carbon is valued at about $20 per tonne. That simply reinforces the waste of money and the poor programmes of the previous administration. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What will happen to the $10 million that was budgeted for the Carbon Neutral Public Service programme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: That money has been reprioritised through the Budget process to areas of real value to New Zealanders like home insulation programmes clean heating programmes and programmes to improve water quality because this Government is about making a practical difference and investing in front-line services that really matter. 
General Debate 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. What a bad day for Opposition members. They spend every morning girding their loins for question time scurrying through the Internet and all the newspapers trying to dig out a story. At their procedures meeting they work themselves up about how they will knock over a Minister that day and then they come down to the House at 2 o’clock. Would not members rather be watching the cricket? Opposition members are failing in their job of trying to hold this Government to account. It is embarrassing! For 9 years members opposite saw themselves bestriding the political landscape as the health system collapsed the education system failed New Zealanders and the welfare system and bureaucracy blew out of control. Now that they are in Opposition they come down to the House every question time and simply they not only fail themselves but also fail New Zealand. 
It is no wonder “Mr 3 Percent” is shaking every time he gets up to ask a question in the House. Have members noticed how his bits of paper are folded up and how he moves his hands? He is not worried about the question; he is worried about the looks that Shane Jones and David Cunliffe are giving each other the whole time. But I do not want to focus on what does not matter; I want to focus on the huge challenges that face this country because of what we have inherited from the previous Government and also because of the worsening financial crisis. 
The most important question raised in this House today was the issue of the balance of payments and the challenge that it raises for New Zealand which the Minister of Finance Bill English spoke about. There is no doubt that whereas when Labour members were last in Opposition they spent years travelling around the country talking about the burden of the public balance of payments it is now significantly worse than when that party came to power in 1999 and it was significantly worse when they left office after the best economic conditions we have had in this country for 9 years. 
New Zealanders know they have a Government that is focused on the issues that matter to them. They have a Government that is focused on improving the public safety of New Zealanders. Judith Collins is right on the money when she demands improved performance from the Department of Corrections. This Government will support her in ensuring that public safety is improved. She is also doing that role as the Minister of Police. 
New Zealanders also want to support the Minister of Education Anne Tolley in her excellent work in getting bureaucracy and administrative overheads out of the Tertiary Education Commission so that we can back our good tertiary institutions that want to go forward and produce good education for young New Zealanders. 
We also support the leadership of our Prime Minister in working together with Ms Bennett on the 9-day fortnight which will give us an opportunity to put a job support scheme in place for New Zealanders at a time when they need it. This country is facing increasing economic challenges and many New Zealanders are confronting the difficulties of those challenges. I know that in my own electorate of the Bay of Plenty builders plumbers and electricians who have never been out of work in 30 years are now facing that reality as the effects of the world economic crisis reach New Zealand. I know that the Minister for Social Development and Employment is keen to ensure that we can assist those people in those small businesses. 
But the failure of members opposite is no more stark than when it comes to health. Over the last few weeks the National Government has demonstrated that despite a doubling of the health budget in the last 9 years New Zealanders’ access to health services has got worse. Fewer and fewer New Zealanders on a per head of population basis have had access to elective surgery. It has been harder and harder for them to get timely service in our nation’s emergency departments. We know that New Zealanders want improvements in those areas and that is why New Zealanders support this Government. This Government is focusing on the issues that matter to New Zealand at this difficult time. Day after day the Opposition focuses on the irrelevancies. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I really enjoyed Tony Ryall’s little performance at the beginning of his speech—his little dance and hop and the waving of his arm. I think it deserves a nice little song to go with it like the song that was sung to him at the opening of Wellington Hospital which was “If You’re Happy and You’re Healthy Clap Your Hands”. So let us give him a big clap—the clap that he deserves. 
I have to tell the House that the mask is starting to crack. The National Government’s carefully arranged smiley friendly face mask is starting to change; it is on the move. Day by day the cracks are getting wider as the Government’s real agenda is starting to be exposed. National members duped the people of New Zealand into believing that they were not the Tories of the past and that they were not Don Brash’s National Party from a mere 3 years ago. National members said that that party had been killed off and buried. They said that they no longer believed in race-based attacks on Maori that they no longer believed in bashing workers and beneficiaries that the privatisation agenda was gone that their Business Roundtable mates were gone and that they were now “Labour-lite”. 
As John Key said it was a matter of doing whatever it took to get into Government. Our political foes cuddled up to all our policies. They positively embraced and extolled them. One could almost accuse them of thinking they invented our policies. They tried to convince New Zealanders that they could have all of Labour’s policies and a brand new shiny smiley leader thrown in for good measure. They told voters that they now backed paid parental leave; 4 weeks’ paid holiday; Kiwibank; KiwiSaver; early childhood education although minus the word “free”; the Superannuation Fund; affordable visits to the doctor; and our antinuclear policy—the list went on. They told New Zealanders that yes they could have it all. But in the past few weeks large cracks have been appearing in the carefully arranged mask. 
We are now seeing glimpses in Government of the real National Party agenda. That agenda is not being acted out by the National Party leader; he is doing what Bill English says he always does best—just bouncing from cloud to cloud. John Key is the emperor with no clothes. If we take away the smiley face the talkfest the token gestures and the story about the State house and how his mum was a solo mother there is very little behind that. The real agenda is being acted out by the old National Party members. They never went away. They are the movers and shakers in Cabinet and they have the same old policies the same old rhetoric and the same old results for New Zealanders. It was only a matter of days before the National Government brought in the first bill to bash workers—the fire-at-will bill. It was not long before they attacked public servants and it was not long before they wanted to fiddle with the superannuation scheme. 
We have the old apparatchik Bill English. He is still there; he has not changed. He never changed his mind about privatisation. The mask almost slipped down completely during the election campaign when he said that National would sell Kiwibank but not just now. It is his job to soften up Kiwis for the fire sale that is coming. Then we have Tony Ryall. He has not changed his mind about carving up the public health system. He has not changed his mind about the people of New Zealand paying more to go to the doctor. Then there is Nick Smith. Before he even became the Minister for ACC he was planning to privatise accident compensation. One has to say that his extravagant language and over-the-top frenetic behaviour in the past few weeks must be aimed at scaring New Zealanders into accepting a second-rate scheme privatisation and cuts. Then there is Judith Collins. It did not take even 100 days before she got into privatising the prisons of New Zealand. Then there is the old plotter himself Murray McCully—the mover and shaker of all National Party agendas. He has been busy destroying New Zealand’s international reputation regarding overseas aid. 
You see this Government has not changed its spots because old leopards cannot. I tell New Zealanders to look out because Don Brash Mark II is back. John Key might be the face—the mask—they are looking at but behind that mask the same people are there. I say “Look out!” to Pacific Islanders women union leaders workers beneficiaries Labour supporters environmentalists and artists. This is Groundhog Day. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I am not going to stand up here and criticise the National Party nor am I going to stand up and criticise the Labour Party; I want to address an issue that I think is partisan to all members of Parliament. The Prime Minister was asked this afternoon about New Zealand superannuation and he referred to the fact that $4.7 billion had been lost. But there is actually another loss it is a very real loss and it is a greater loss. It has been estimated that over the last 3 years some $6 billion has been lost by—or is now tied up in moratoriums on—finance companies. This money has been lost mainly by savers and particularly by elderly savers and I think that it is an issue that should concern all parliamentarians from all sides of the House. 
About 46 finance companies have now collapsed and I think that a number of issues come out of that. I will be raising at the Commerce Committee tomorrow the proposal that we have an investigation into what has given rise to these collapses and what we can do to ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again. These collapses have had a huge impact on the lives of these people mainly elderly people who have worked their whole lives and raised their families. But now in their 60s 70s 80s and sometimes 90s when they thought they had provided for their future and their retirement they have now found that some most or all of their funds have been taken from them. 
The issues I want to address are the issues of related party transactions between the shareholders and directors of finance companies with those finance companies. I want to raise the issue of dividends that have been passed to the owners of those finance companies in some cases just a few weeks or months before those companies have collapsed. The issue arises as to the licensing of financial advisers and I am aware that the previous Government introduced legislation that tightened up the regulations relating to financial advisers. We need to look at the quality of the advice that was given to those investors those savers and we need to look at the potential conflicts that are faced by financial advisers. We also need to look at the legal profession to see whether people have been given bad advice and to see whether money has been passed on to vendors of properties in excess of what would be normal. 
A lot of people have lost a lot of money and although it is very easy to say to those elderly people that they should go out and seek legal advice and commence legal proceedings a lot of them have lost everything or at least a lot. Last week I referred in this House to a meeting I had had with Ron Jensen an elderly investor in his 70s from Hamilton. He and his wife invested in a unit that was supposedly sold to them by Blue Chip New Zealand. The sum of $200000 was raised by taking a mortgage on his property but the property that he was purportedly sold does not exist. It never existed; he may well have a claim against the solicitor who advised him on that transaction. These are issues I think we need to look at. Earlier this afternoon I brought to the House a petition by Suzanne Edmonds. This lady has championed the rights of some of these people in relation to their losses and she has called for a royal commission. I personally think that that is unrealistic but a lot of these issues can be addressed by the Commerce Committee and in particular the issue of the accountability of directors trustees company management and other parties associated with failed finance companies. 
This is a very real issue that concerns very real New Zealanders. It concerns New Zealanders who have worked for and given their all to this country. These are real people. Since I met Ron Jensen last week I have received a letter from a gentleman who has actually moved out of his house and is now living in a caravan. He is living in a caravan so that he can rent his family’s home to pay mortgagee payments. I recognise that these people are adults; they have gone into investments with their eyes open and with advisers but in some cases they have been misled duped and possibly even defrauded. I think that this is a very serious issue that concerns all members in this Parliament. I have asked for the support of the National Party for an inquiry at the Commerce Committee level and I have asked the support of Te Ururoa Flavell the Maori Party member on that committee. This afternoon I have asked the chairman the Hon Lianne Dalziel for her support. So I hope that the Commerce Committee will be prepared to support the inquiry. Thank you. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 We have just heard why the ACT Party is doing so well as opposed to the Labour Party; it has actually talked about something that is important. Instead of the deputy leader of the Labour Party giving us 5 minutes of personal abuse let us talk about something that is important. People on this side of the House want to talk about what is important and what actually matters to New Zealanders. I will take a few minutes today to talk about the Auditor-General’s report into the management of offenders on parole which I can tell members will not be and has not been brushed under the carpet and ignored. I know that is what Labour would have done with it but I am setting higher standards than that. My focus and the focus of this Government is on public safety. I know that Labour would have brushed that report under the carpet. 
Labour has never ever—not once—referred to the issue of public safety in all its many press releases many questions and many many hours spent on this matter. Not once has Labour ever addressed the issue of the report—which is public safety—not once did Labour mention it. In fact the Minister who was in charge of the Department of Corrections and who is now the Leader of the Opposition the Hon Phil Goff was in charge during the whole time of the audit. He was in charge for that whole year and he should have checked. Instead unfortunately he just relied on what he was told without taking any basic steps on the issue. One thing we know is that after the coroner’s report came out Mr Goff said: “Well look everything is obviously fixed; the coroner’s report has said that.” because that is what Labour was told. He said that that was great: “We’re so proud of that.” That is what Mr Goff said but unfortunately he never bothered to check. He was so keen setting himself up to become the next leader of the Labour Party his eyes were not where they should have been. 
It is important that the Department of Corrections whose primary role is to keep the public safe and its chief executive enjoy the full confidence of the public. I am very pleased that the chief executive has committed to rebuilding my confidence and the public’s confidence in the department and in him. In the coming months I will be expecting Mr Matthews to work hard to gain that confidence. I will be holding him to very high standards and I expect that the State Services Commissioner will hold him to similarly high standards. My concern was and remains that the serious public safety issues be addressed in the department. I have done everything in my power and will continue to do so to ensure that that issue is addressed. The State Services Commissioner has recommended that the chief executive and I engage an independent person to chair an expert panel to review the Community Probation and Psychological Services’ procedures and performance measures. We are working towards that. I think that that will bring a great mix of internal and external participants with expertise in change management to assist Mr Matthews to lift up the performance at the department. I am confident that with that support Mr Matthews will be able to undertake this task. If not I expect that the State Services Commissioner will hold him to account. 
The Department of Corrections deals with large numbers of society’s most difficult and dangerous people and we know there are always going to be issues. Unfortunately when there are an awful lot of very dangerous people locked up together bad things will happen. That does not mean though that we should ever accept that the Department of Corrections’ failures should be taken as a matter of course. When I received that report from the Auditor-General I was staggered at the extent of non-compliance given that the audit took place after Karl Kuchenbecker’s murder. Following that terrible tragedy the previous Government gave assurances. One of the things Mr Goff said was that: “We must learn from failings which occurred during this tragic episode.” Well yes! His Government even said that it had “moved swiftly to tighten up the way probation was managed.” I do not really think so. That Government said that it identified and addressed the issues—no it did not. It also claimed that it had remedied the deficiencies in the system that were made apparent by the Karl Kuchenbecker tragedy. I do not think that actually happened and that is the tragedy. How many people have to die before anybody cares? Unfortunately we have heard everything from Labour’s members—because it was all on their watch; every single bit of this was on the Labour Government’s watch—except anything about public safety and improving the system. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I would like to talk about something very important today and that is education. When I came back into the House after question time I heard Tony Ryall the Minister of Health boasting about what the new National Government is doing and he mentioned Mrs Anne Tolley the Minister of Education. I was thinking about that comment and I remembered a press release that I had read just today on the Internet from the New Zealand Principals Federation put out on 8 March. It says “Minister of Education missing in action”. This is from a press release of the New Zealand Principals Federation. I will read a little bit of it because I guess it contradicts what Mr Ryall said a few minutes ago in this House: “The New Zealand Principals’ Federation is disappointed and angry that Education Minister Anne Tolley failed to appear at its annual Presidents Moot held on Friday. The meeting held in Wellington brought together representatives from local and regional principal associations throughout the country as well as sector heads from the Ministry of Education Teachers’ Council Education Review Office NZEI and directors of the Ariki Project. … The theme of the Moot was ‘Moving Forward Together’.” but the principals have made the point of asking where the Minister of Education was. She was supposed to turn up but she failed to show. 
She has also just told the Auckland Primary Principals Association that she is not going to their meeting in early April in Auckland. Earlier today Plains FM a popular radio station in Christchurch rang me to ask whether I as the former Minister of Education was prepared to talk on their radio station today about school funding. I was delighted to and they said they had been trying for weeks and weeks to get the Minister of Education Mrs Tolley but she just would not go on. Why is she in the words of the New Zealand Principals Federation “missing in action”? 
Mrs Tolley is missing in action because of the very points that my colleague Annette King made earlier. She is embarrassed and ashamed because during the election campaign she and her party went out to New Zealand and said they would not change anything; they would keep all the policies that Labour had put in place and that were popular. In education Labour doubled education funding from over $5 billion to over $10 billion. We brought in 20 free hours we put in 7000 teachers above roll growth we built 42 schools and we removed interest on student loans. We did lots and lots of things that were incredibly popular; Mrs Tolley said “Oh no—we’re not going to change any of those.” 
By the way when she was asked a question about the 90-day rule at New Zealand Educational Institute meetings she said “Oh that is not going to impact on education on teachers and support workers in schools and early childhood centres. They are not going to be affected by that.” Well we discovered the untruth of that statement very soon in the new National administration the new Government. We saw before Christmas that Mrs Tolley had been very untruthful on the 90-day rule in the period before the election. 
She has also gone to ground because of a few other issues that are coming to the fore. One is pay negotiations. The kindergarten teachers’ collective agreement—now expired—has to be negotiated. We have had pay parity as an absolute principle in education; indeed it was brought in by a National Government in the early 1990s—parity between secondary and primary teachers and between primary and kindergarten teachers. When people have the same qualifications and the same experience they get the same pay. We in the Labour Party think that educating small children is just as important—in fact some could argue more important—as educating older adolescents because it is about the educational journey that children are set on right at the beginning. The kindergarten teachers’ collective agreement and the agreement on support staff have now expired. Mrs Tolley the new education Minister who was described by the New Zealand Principals Federation as “missing in action” has not yet even given an instruction to the Ministry of Education to begin negotiations. In the so-called 104 days of action there has been very little action indeed. 
Throughout the education sector at the moment there is enormous anxiety about some of the fantastic programmes that have taken place under the Innovations Pool funding programme. I see Paula Bennett my colleague from west Auckland over on the other side of the House. She knows of two projects in west Auckland because local principals have been to see her. There is a truancy initiative of $80000 which was signed out by me as education Minister last year and the Waitakere learning plan which had another $100000 signed out by me. That money already appropriated has been frozen by Mrs Tolley in her role as the Minister of Education; those are just two small examples of what is happening all over the country. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Let us make no mistake; this National Government is focusing on what matters. We face some of the toughest times we have had in a very long time and some of our older people will remember the effects of a global downturn. They got through it by banding together as families as communities and as Kiwis. We can get through this downturn as well but it requires decisive action. It requires a Prime Minister like John Key and it requires decisive action from our leaders at all levels of society. We are worried about our young people who will find it harder to enter the workforce but at the moment we fear most for the hard-working low-income Kiwis who are supporting families through these hard times. 
Although the previous Government sat around hand-wringing and talking about capacity building—which I must say when I look at the bureaucracy around it I now think meant empire building—this Government is getting on with concentrating on the action that is needed. Only a few weeks after the Job Summit—in fact less than 2—this Government is working quickly because every day that we hesitate more jobs are unfortunately lost. New Zealanders are already feeling the economic squeeze. Employers are holding off on making decisions while they look at just developing policy. We have wasted no time in putting the job support scheme in place because people need to know about it now. This is the first initiative to come out of the Job Summit. It will be available from 27 March which is exactly 1 month after the Prime Minister’s Job Summit. 
Let me give members some details of the scheme. It is for those businesses that have 100 or more employees and about 1600 companies that will fit into that category. They employ around 580000 people. As I said it will be available from 27 March 2009 through to December 2010. A business can be in the scheme only for a period of 6 months and it can be in it only once. The subsidy is paid directly to employers to pass on to employees because we already have a mechanism for it to be done and the actual intention was to try to keep the administration down where we could. 
A voluntary agreement must be agreed between employers and employees that they will reduce work hours by up to a maximum of 10 hours a fortnight. There also needed to be a ratio between those whom employers were looking at making redundant and the number of people who were in on the scheme so we have made that a 1:10 ratio. Companies need to stand up and say they are looking at making 10 people redundant say why they are looking at that and say that as a consequence of that 100 people have come to a voluntary agreement to reduce their hours. That will bring down the wages bill for the company and hopefully get it through a temporary tough time so it can then pull itself out of it. The scheme provides the breathing space that is needed in these tough economic times. 
We anticipate that 20000 to 25000 workers will take up this scheme. That does not mean that as many as that were necessarily going to be made redundant—as I say we are looking at a ratio of 1:10—but that number is pretty hard to get to. We are not exactly sure how many workers are going to come into the scheme. It will work with some businesses and not others and I think that is really important to know. We do not think that this scheme is the fix-all for all businesses and for all workers who are out there trying to survive and unfortunately some jobs will still be lost. We have to be realistic; this scheme will not save every job. It is never going to be enough but we have to do our bit. Workers will still face a cut in their income and that is a reality. But that is better than not being in a job at all and that is what this Government is focusing on trying to avoid. 
I read a quote from Helen Kelly today who said “We are very pleased to see the practical discussions … turn into real policy so quickly”. As I have said every day that we hesitated another job was lost and this Government needed to work quickly. 
Sue Bradford 
: What will the workers be doing during the 5 hours? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: One of our colleagues asks what the workers will be doing in the 5 hours that the Government is paying them for and the answer is whatever they come to an agreement with their employer about. This Government puts no conditions on what employees will be doing in the 5 hours. So they could have the day off and go and spend it with their children at their school. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. To Aotearoa I say that the previous speaker was the famed westie firefighter Paula Bennett who after having arrived in the role of Minister is reduced to reading notes written by a primary school teacher because she cannot be let loose on a portfolio. Not only has she stood and misrepresented what the Job Summit has done she has failed to tell New Zealand families children mothers and fathers— 
Paul Quinn 
: How do you know? You weren’t even there. 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: Of course that was Paul Quinn the man who refuses to take responsibility for the destruction of Maori rugby in New Zealand. When is he going to resign? When is he going to stop double-dipping and give his job to Louisa Wall a real rugby advocate? However let me come back to the failed policies hidden by the previous speaker Paula Bennett—no training no human capital a complete abandonment of any prospect of productivity—as she presides over fair-minded industrious Kiwis being tossed on the scrap heap and given a morsel of 5 hours without an opportunity to transform themselves. Yet their Prime Minister boasts in the  
Wall Street Journal 
—it must have been short of news on that day. Something else was happening in Afghanistan the satellite was in the wrong place in Iraq so readers were reduced to reading John Key stating that he was going to pursue supply-side economics and shrink the State as a way of growing Aotearoa. 
But I really want to talk today about the feline behaviour displayed to us by the Maori Party. The Maori Party boasted that they would come in change the seabed and foreshore legislation and bring rangatiratanga to this House. Today we saw the kapahaka taiaha-swirling chief Dr Pita Sharples hiding behind the handsome bulk and frame of Gerry Brownlee—a rather dangerous thought. Of course Mr Brownlee was giving cover to the Maori Party which has boasted and exaggerated what it will deliver but now realises that the Foreshore and Seabed Act which it falsely believed will be overturned will never be repealed by National. I recall Gerry Brownlee and Simon Power nodding vigorously when the question of public access came up. Hone Harawira was up and down the country; he is the tomcat of that crowd over there. Now in the behaviour of Pita Sharples today we have a house cat hiding behind the master of the manor Gerry Brownlee. Not only did they fail to address the issue they have demonstrated today that they are joined because they are afraid. 
Maori Party members are afraid to stand up and admit that despite the fact that the Maori Party came into existence on the seabed and foreshore legislation they have no intention of delivering. They are hoping and they falsely believe that just because 2 or 3 years have passed John Key Gerry Brownlee and the various other acolytes of Don Brash—who only 3 to 5 years ago were smashing the daylights out of the good name of Maori people—are going to deliver. The other thing they have forgotten about is that when they say that 23000 Maori are doing the haka in joy because the seabed and foreshore legislation is going to be changed those are the people who have already lost their jobs in terms of capacity to work full-time every day. They are young people 16 17 18 19 or 20 years old. 
Dr Sharples is hoping that there will be a brilliant diversion and that all the whanau the marae and the hapu will do the haka over the seabed and foreshore and somehow forget about the fact that accident compensation is about to be stripped. They will soon lose a host of other entitlements in relation to hospital visits health visits and schools; as my learned and very influential colleague Chris Carter pointed out schools are being run down—except private schools which are going to be subsidised and bailed out. Those are the things—equity development truth righteousness—that the Maori Party parrots on about every day. They will not be delivered on. The Maori Party cannot hide behind the rhetoric about the seabed and foreshore and there is no profit in hiding behind Gerry Brownlee—emissions are both front and back in that regard. Kia tupato. 
Of course they are hoping that John Key who wanders around like a male version of a Barbie doll up and down the country celebrating his 50th birthday along with Barbie somehow can suck Aotearoa into believing that this is a friendly kind of Government. In actual fact the power base lies with Tony Ryall and Bill English. It is a wicked recipe. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 That was not a very convincing leadership bid from the member. It was indeed a very subtle one if it was one at all. 
Today I want to talk about the legacy of the last Labour Government in health because it is of deep concern to all New Zealanders. What a huge sigh of relief we can breathe that an excellent John Key - led National Government is now in place to fix up the mess that Labour left. Four months on from when Labour left office it is important to outline just how badly the Labour Government mismanaged our health system. Who were the accountable former Ministers? First was the Hon Annette King who in 1998 had the gall to state that a waiting list of 68000 was criminal. Well what an injudicious statement because it came back to bite her. She was the very Minister who then set about deceptively culling tens of thousands of New Zealanders from the waiting list. She sent them back to their general practitioners to wait and wait and some of them tragically died. Then of course there was the Hon Pete Hodgson who helped to cement in the mesh of bureaucracy entangling the 21 district health boards and the 80 primary health organisations. That created a growth industry of filing clerks and red tape strangulating any efficiency within the system. We know that there was no increase in productivity during those 9 years of the Labour Government. 
What happened during that time? Crucial front-line clinical staff were neglected while Pete Hodgson talked and talked about workforce planning. That is all he did; he talked about workforce planning. In fact Labour ordered 43 reports into health workforce planning in its time in office and nothing happened. Thank goodness for National getting straight into action and getting straight into solutions such as bringing in the voluntary student bonding scheme for doctors midwives and nurses employed in hard-to-staff areas and specialities. Then of course there was the Hon David Cunliffe the man who said “I’m running the show.” when the truth was that the show was wildly running out of control. 
The Labour Government’s legacy in health is one of vastly increased spending—from $6 billion to $12 billion—and no increase in productivity. It was a legacy of vast increase in bureaucracy. In fact just in the Ministry of Health alone a total of 1430.7 full-time equivalent staff were employed in June 2008 compared with a year earlier when the number was 1236. So that is 200 more staff in just a year. That is a recent example of how a bureaucracy just mushroomed under that Labour Government. 
Years earlier it was Annette King who told New Zealand that as the 21 district health boards were formed the Ministry of Health would be downsized. How wrong she was once again. Thank goodness we have a new National Government that is concentrating on front-line clinical services rather than on bureaucrats. 
There has been great concern about district health board deficits. The Labour Government said it would get the deficits down but what was the headline on 9 December 2008? It was “DHB deficit blowouts greet new Health Minister”. The outgoing Labour Government had predicted district health board deficits totalling $111 million but a 40 percent blowout in district health board deficits to over $150 million has been revealed by the Minister of Health Tony Ryall. Annette King is the very one who kept on saying that the Labour Government would control those deficits. The mismanagement of this system by Labour— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that his time has expired. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Dr Paul Hutchison is I think the very embodiment of what we are seeing with this National Government. It is reverting to type and going back to the old ways that it has always used. It is serendipitous that National’s response to the economic downturn happens to look exactly like its programme in the 1990s. How serendipitous! 
Actually it is not serendipity at all; it is planning. The National Government has a planned approach to going back to the 1990s. Cuts to accident compensation provisions the privatisation of accident compensation and the underfunding of superannuation are all coming back as happened in the 1990s under a National Government. But it goes on from there. Tax cuts that favour the rich over the poor—does that sound at all familiar from a National Government? Yes I remember that. National did that in the 1990s as well. And what about bringing back titles for knights and dames in this time of economic downturn? If that is not elitism and a case of National at its best then I do not know what is. 
But it goes further than that. We are already starting to see apprenticeships disappear under this National Government just like they did in the 1990s. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Come on! 
SUE MORONEY 
: Well Gerry Brownlee should wait to see the figures because I think he will find that under this National Government apprenticeships will be on the decline just as they were in the 1990s. National’s mask is slipping and it is not very pretty underneath there. We know that the National Government is definitely reverting to type. I have many more examples. What about reducing workers’ rights so that they do not have any in the first 90 days of their employment? If that is not the National Government reverting to type then I do not know what is. 
I will spend a little time talking about another area where National members really have shown their true colours and where they really have shown exactly the ideology that we have always known was there. They have tried to hide and they have perhaps got away with it for about 100 days but now the mask is slipping and they cannot get away with it. I am talking about pay equity. In 1990 when National last came to power what was the very first piece of legislation it got rid of? It was the Employment Equity Act 1990. Within weeks of taking office National abolished it. Well those members are back and guess what? Pay equity is off the drawing board again. 
Just 2 weeks ago the Hon Tony Ryall made an announcement. This time there was a different excuse but the same outcome. The Hon Tony Ryall said that the National Government was scrapping pay equity for school support workers—those people who are teacher-aides and administrators in our very important education sector—and for social workers. Yes that is right folks: for front-line staff working for Child Youth and Family there is no fairness and no pay equity. These things are now completely off the agenda after a decade of making progress towards achieving those things. In comes a National Government and guess what? Pay equity goes again. 
I have to agree with the Chief Human Rights Commissioner on this one when she asked the other day at a breakfast meeting here in Wellington what it was with the National Government. It is OK for it to say that it might use taxpayer funds to bail out Fisher and Paykel Appliances that it might use taxpayer funds for a whole range of private business entities and that it will bring back titles for knights and dames but will it honour a commitment to fair pay for women in the workplace and in the Public Service? No way not under a National Government. To use taxpayer money for all sorts of other ventures is acceptable but not for fairness at work for women. It is the same old National Party. 
Paul Quinn 
: Read the  
Dominion Post 
 Sue. You lost that one yesterday. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Paul Quinn comes in here and says: “So it should be.” He does not believe that there should be fairness for anyone at work because he voted for the 90-day bill. Paul Quinn also supports Tony Ryall’s cutting out those workers’ right to have a fair pay investigation so that they might take that forward and argue for that in a good employer relationship in a collective employment negotiation. But no the National Government has had to scuttle that investigation and it has scuttled it straight away. 
National is reverting to type and the mask is slipping. What do we find underneath that mask? It might be John Key up there with his nice smile and his affable way of not quite pronouncing his words properly and looking a bit goofy. People think they will give him the benefit of the doubt because he is kind of nice and a little bit cuddly. But John Key is out there smiling away while Bill English Tony Ryall and Nick Smith are all doing the policy work that is taking us straight back to the 1990s. They are privatising accident compensation and privatising the prisons. Where have we heard that one before? Oh gosh in the 1990s! Was that not what National did then? It is reverting to type and its true colours are coming out. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 Although I hesitate before responding to some of the diatribes that came from opposite I do need to correct some of the—not false statements but half statements that have come from the opposite side of the House. Let us very quickly review the pay equity debate. Pay equity reviews are taking place throughout the Government departments. Those reviews are continuing. There are however two pay equity investigations that have been stopped. Just to add a few facts into the situation the social worker gap between male and female used to be 9 percent. Most in this House would say that that is unacceptable. That gap is now down to 1.5 percent. That pay equity investigation has been cancelled. There are better ways to spend the money but that of course would not worry the members opposite. 
John Key and the National-led Government are forging ahead and creating confidence amongst voters. People voted for change on 8 November and they are getting those changes. We are delivering on the promises and we are creating confidence amongst even those who did not vote for National. Yesterday I spoke with Prime Minister John Key and I passed on a message to him. Many people would think that any supportive message that I passed on to the Prime Minister would come from National supporters but this one did not. Many people will be surprised to hear that this supportive message came from self-avowed Labour voters who said they had been surprised. They had grave concerns about John Key and they said those concerns have been allayed. They have discovered that in fact they were wrong about John Key. The determination to deliver on promises has surprised them. The work rate of the Prime Minister and the members of Cabinet has surprised them—and they are delighted. Not only that the sheer common-sense approach of this Cabinet of John Key and of the legislation that has come before this House has been greeted with delight by the public. The economic future of New Zealand businesses and of our State-funded services the livelihoods of the employees and the welfare of families are what is at stake. Therefore there is delight in seeing the actions of this Government. 
Members have heard details today from the Prime Minister of the assistance going to employers so they can ride out economic hardship and we have heard more details from Minister Bennett about this. The fact that it has been done speedily is also important. Just 1 month after the Job Summit this scheme will be in place. How is that for action? The Government assistance of $12.50 an hour per worker for up to 5 hours per fortnight will be a voluntary agreement negotiated between the workers and the unions. Hello—what does this say? This tripartite arrangement is an emerging hallmark of this Government. There is willingness for these parties to work together in light of the economic uncertainty. That news is positive for everyone but the Opposition. It is clear that the success of this Government is having a destabilising effect on the Opposition—in particular on the leadership and on the leadership aspirants. As Leader of the Opposition the Hon Phil Goff struggles to register on the radar of New Zealanders—the Cunliffe Cosgrove and Jones camps are nipping at the leadership heels. They are secretly delighting in the Labour woes. They could not say that to their own people of course but they are hoping that by the time they assume the leadership the sinking ship will not have taken on so much water as to be totally unsalvageable. 
This Government is committed to delivering on its promises. It is committed to prioritising front-line services over backroom bureaucracy. It is committed to action not procrastination. It is committed to New Zealanders’ future rather than concentrating on measures that are purely about re-election as the previous Government did. The people of the Rangitata electorate are looking for leadership. They are looking for vision and proactivity in Government and National’s John Key - led Government is delivering on that. We have a woeful legacy from the Labour Government. We have increases in funding with no increases in elective services within health. We have massive but hidden budget blowouts in more than just health. We have the district health board deficits. We have the woeful situation with the Accident Compensation Corporation books. We have the numbers of people who have been hidden on special little lists within the district health board system. We have a surgical waiting list cull of 30000 people that happened under Labour but there was even more hiding there. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. In this time widely referred to as the recession but more appropriately named the consequences the Greens see an opportunity to address serious environmental issues and to create work. Our Green New Deal is based on the premise that the economy and the environment are absolutely connected which is so unbelievably obvious that we feel we are continually stating the obvious—but in this Parliament one can take nothing for granted. 
One dimension of the Green New Deal is the creation of green-collar jobs in one of our disaster areas—contaminated sites that need a safe clean-up. As the green technology emerges to address toxicity issues we will need people to work with the more than 800 toxic sites that are scattered across our clean green Aotearoa. This may not sound like the most appealing form of waste management but it is a vital job that will enhance more than our tourism reputation. It will also stop our communities from facing exposure to the deadly consequences of our ongoing foolish and romantic relationship with deadly chemicals. Yes we have banned DDT and pentachlorophenol and now endosulfan but the deadly legacy of these chemicals is ubiquitous in rural communities as are the residues of modern versions of these chemicals in many of our foods gardens children’s toys houses forests and farms. The Green Party is on a mission to clean up the use of dangerous chemicals by applying the precautionary principle but we must also clean up the deadly legacy of toxic sites. 
Last week I went to a hui at Wairaka Marae in Whakatane where a wide range of groups met to discuss solutions to what may have been some of the most intractable clean-up issues. Bioremediation technologies are emerging that may well be cheaper and a great deal more effective than the industrial ones used at places like Mapua with such debatable results. Scientists health professionals and local authorities attended the Wairaka hui and contributed positively to the solution but they were not the instigators. The true heroes and instigators of the work to clean up toxic sites are the Whakatane sawmill workers. These mainly tangata whenua whanau are the people whose bodies are the waste dumps for the forestry industry’s reckless misuse of pentachlorophenol contaminated by dioxin in the Bay of Plenty. They are the leaders of the collaborative model because they refuse to pretend that little signs saying “disused industrial site” or the building of subdivisions and supermarkets on top of toxic waste dumps are appropriate responses. Thanks to them we are beginning to find affordable solutions to the toxicity issues. Their commitment is to work with both Maori and Western scientific thinking. They say that if we heal Papatuanuku then we also heal ourselves and that we should look to her for answers. 
There is now evidence as well as hope that indigenous fungi and other natural forms of bioremediation will clean up Aotearoa. The pilot research on the fungi grown on the contaminated sawdust from the Whakatane board mill is indicating that pentachlorophenol and dioxin levels can be hugely reduced. The goal for clean-up is 100 percent because when a millionth of a millionth of a gram can cause cancer birth defects or a range of immune deficiencies anything less than 100 percent is a risk to human beings after a single exposure. However thanks to the sawmill workers and their colleagues we might one day be clean and green again. 
Another issue is often avoided when talking of contaminated sites and that is the pollution of land that may be returned to hapu under te Tiriti settlements. In addition wild foods gathered by tangata whenua such as tunga and watercress are affected by the toxic bioaccumulation of many pesticides. If we breached te Tiriti when we stole land then we certainly breach those articles again when we pollute it. A contaminated site needs to be fully restored to a healthy state as do our economy and our community. 
The final toxic environment that I cannot resist mentioning is the debating chamber of Parliament. Every day as question time degenerates into acrimonious backbiting or disingenuous nitpicking about the Standing Orders I look up at the public gallery— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that her time has expired. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 I stand proudly to acknowledge a Government that is committed to keeping its promises and getting things done. Prime Minister John Key has demonstrated strong leadership and a focus on what matters to New Zealanders. What a stunning first 100 days! 
At the start of this week Prime Minister John Key announced that titles are to be reinstated in the New Zealand Honours List. This is not about elitism as the Labour Party would have us believe. Unlike the previous Government we wish to celebrate the success and achievement of excellence of New Zealanders. The Minister of Corrections Judith Collins has continued this theme with the announcement of an award to recognise newly graduated Department of Corrections officers who have demonstrated outstanding achievement during their training. This is about celebrating excellence in the corrections system. 
This Government has no problem with dealing with its priorities in the economic area and it can also progress a number of other areas with ease. One of those is recognising the people in our community who do well. The current Prime Minister John Key has the ability to deliver on our election promises as well as respond to the challenges that arise. A great example of this has been the Job Summit. Within 1 month of the Job Summit we will deliver on the Job Support Scheme—within 1 month. The 9-day fortnight has moved swiftly from being a good idea at the Job Summit to being something concrete that will help ordinary New Zealanders keep their jobs. We have wasted no time in putting this Job Support Scheme in place. This Government is working quickly as New Zealanders feel the economic squeeze. It is an interim step and it is targeted. This scheme will ease the burden on employers and will stem unemployment. We are facing the challenges head-on moving nimbly and boldly where necessary. 
The Job Summit focused on paid work but I will take a moment to talk about unpaid work—volunteers and the enormous contribution that they make to New Zealand. I celebrate the achievement of the voluntary sector. An example of this was the Ironman event held in Taupo just this weekend. There were 1288 participants who entered the water and over 2000 volunteers—which is 12.5 percent of the local community—volunteered to make that event a success. That is what we mean about voluntary service and voluntary work and the National Government is proud to acknowledge the work that our volunteers are doing to keep our communities ticking over. 
This work was undertaken by professional groups Business and Professional Women the SPCA our local schools and our kindergartens. The first volunteers were on the job at 3 a.m. on Saturday and the last would have finished over 24 hours later. 
I also celebrate the work done by the more than 8000 volunteer firefighters in New Zealand. These men and women are the heroes in our communities. They are the ones who turn up to fires vehicle accidents and emergencies in our communities. On Saturday night in Taupo I was proud to be at the volunteer firefighter awards celebrating Clifford George’s 25 years of voluntary service. This is an outstanding achievement and that is what National is about. It is about recognising achievement not bemoaning it as elitism as Labour would have us do. It is important that we recognise the voluntary work done by our firefighters. They provide an incredible service. They are here to support not only us in New Zealand. They also provide incredible support to those fighting the Melbourne bushfires in Australia. 
We have a Government that is producing results. As well as the achievements made following the Job Summit we are celebrating success and excellence in our communities and recognising the achievements of hard-working volunteers. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Speaker’s Statements 
Call—Members Seeking 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Before I call the next item of business I just remind new members that the kawa of this House is that when members want to speak they call. The Speaker does not know whether a person is standing up to go out to the toilet to go and get a cup of tea or to do something else so would members please call so that Speaker knows who wishes to speak. That is the kawa of the House. 
Standing Orders—Sessional 
Intelligence and Security Committee 
Membership 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
on behalf of the  
Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service 
: I move  
That under section 8 of the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996 this House endorse the following as members of the Intelligence and Security Committee:  
Hon Tariana Turia and Hon Rodney Hide nominated by the Prime Minister under section 7(1)(c) of the Act; and 
Dr Russel Norman nominated by the Leader of the Opposition under section 7(1)(d) of the Act. 
I further move  
That— 
(a)the Intelligence and Security Committee will examine the Estimates Vote for each intelligence and security agency (Standing Orders 243 244 245 and 328 are to be read and applied accordingly) 
(b)the Intelligence and Security Committee will examine the Supplementary Estimates for each intelligence and security agency (Standing Orders 243 244 245 and 331 are to be read and applied accordingly) 
(c)the Intelligence and Security Committee will conduct a financial review of the performance in the previous financial year and the current operations of each intelligence and security agency (Standing Orders 243 244 245 334 and 335 are to be read and applied accordingly) 
(d)no select committee can examine an intelligence and security agency 
(e)a bill or other matter relating to an intelligence and security agency may be referred by the House to the Intelligence and Security Committee (Standing Orders 243 244 245 246 247 270 271 280 281 282 283 284 286 287 289 290 and 291 are to be read and applied accordingly) 
(f)the Clerk will allocate any petition relating to an intelligence and security agency to the Intelligence and Security Committee (Standing Order 360) 
(g)for the purposes of this order— 
“intelligence and security agency” means the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service or the Government Communications Security Bureau; and 
“Intelligence and Security Committee” means the Intelligence and Security Committee established by section 5 of the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996. 
These two motions in combination set up and describe the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee which is done so inside the auspices of the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996. We could have an interesting debate on these two particular motions but much of the work that has gone on to establish this committee has been done by the cooperative arrangements between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and it is a long-held tradition in the House that that work is not upset by any contributions that lead to further motions or amendments to these particular motions. I am sure that all members although they will want to make comment today will respect that. 
One of the interesting things about this particular debate is that we under motion No. 2 are establishing that the committee comprises the Prime Minister the Leader of the Opposition the Hon Tariana Turia the Hon Rodney Hide and Dr Russel Norman. That would be one of the greatest spreads across political parties represented in this House that we have ever seen. It leads to a different era in which the matters that are referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee will be considered. The fact that there is widespread party representation and the fact that a great deal more information about the various activities this committee oversees will now go to those parties should be reflected in the debate today. 
The Intelligence and Security Committee deals with matters that could affect the security of the lives of all New Zealanders. Although there are sometimes accusations that the committee’s work is somewhat secretive the public can be assured I think that this wider representation will deal with many of the matters that might formerly have been kept secret. On that note I commend to the House these two motions. The expectation is that the House will support them because of the process that has gone on behind the motions finding their way to the Order Paper. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support both motions. I think the Minister the Hon Gerry Brownlee has adequately outlined the background to these motions. I think it is somewhat strange that every 3 years we have to have a motion that outlines the duties of the Intelligence and Security Committee because it is the same motion every time. It seems to me that at some stage we should define in the actual Act what the functions of the committee are precisely and deal simply with the issue of membership of the committee on a 3-yearly basis. 
The Intelligence and Security Committee is designed to represent both or all—depending upon one’s point of view—sides of the House. There is a fundamental catch 22 about having a committee on security matters. By the very nature of things one cannot deal in open committee with much of what the intelligence services deal with. As I think both Dr Norman and Mrs Turia will find out perhaps they will be disappointed that even the Intelligence and Security Committee consisting of relatively senior members of the House does not actually delve into vast amounts of detail. If they think they are going to find out where all our spies are stationed around the world exactly what they get up to and whom they are watching they will be deeply disappointed. 
There is no doubt that the argument will be made in a few moments that this committee should be an ordinary parliamentary select committee and go through ordinary parliamentary select committee processes. I do not believe that that is a real possibility in practice. All that tends to lead to at the end of the day is a great deal of misleading information probably being presented to the committee and the real information being presented to the Prime Minister and perhaps to the Leader of the Opposition who has always been kept in the loop on security matters long before the 1996 legislation came into force—as is appropriate for the alternative Prime Minister at any point in time. 
It is however important that there is some degree of oversight. I think that in the current constrained fiscal environment the committee will want to be very adequately assured that any requests for additional funding by the committees are necessary but there is no question that the scope of New Zealand’s security interests has widened significantly over the years not least because there is significantly increased activity in terms of what passes through foreign embassies and high commissions within New Zealand and those matters have to be kept under some kind of scrutiny to make sure we know what is going on in that regard. 
With that I am very happy on behalf of Labour to support this motion and to wish the members of the committee the same long happy and enjoyable meetings that I had when I was a member of the committee over recent years. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Working within a few hundred metres of the parliamentary precinct are presumably a number of well-educated bureaucrats who like their counterparts elsewhere occasionally pop down to Lambton Quay for a latte. However unlike their fellow policy analysts advisers and general managers in other Government ministries or departments they do not have any select committee scrutiny of what they do or what they do with taxpayers’ money. This means that even a junior analyst fresh out of university and now working at the Security Intelligence Service is likely to have a far better understanding of the intelligence agency’s workings than most if not all members of Parliament except perhaps the Prime Minister. 
The committee we are discussing today the Intelligence and Security Committee is not a proper select committee and it cannot perform the parliamentary oversight functions that the Green Party thinks are necessary. It cannot get information out of the security services in the way that other committees can. The Intelligence and Security Committee is chaired by the Minister who is responsible for the agency that the committee is meant to be overseeing—the Prime Minister—unlike select committees which are chaired by an independent member of Parliament as is appropriate when we are trying to oversee what an agency is up to and to keep it accountable. Considering the scrutiny that intelligence agencies face in other parliamentary democracies this lack of proper select committee oversight does not actually protect our national security or create a culture of professionalism in our security services. The point is that we need to have proper oversight of the security agencies. We need to have a select committee that is chaired by someone independent—someone other than the Minister responsible. 
That point has been made by many members in this Parliament over the years. Jim Anderton has made it. So have Matt Robson Rod Donald and Keith Locke repeatedly over the years. In fact Rod Donald said in March 2000: “we believe that this committee should be abolished and that the powers that rest with this committee should be returned to Parliament.” 
I ask those who say that is impractical to listen to the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency William Colby who was someone we would think knew quite a bit about the oversight of security services. Mr Colby said: “We in the intelligence and security services can work under a system of parliamentary control. We can do our job and in fact we are stronger because when we make mistakes and get in trouble the responsibility is shared with the legislative committees. The intelligence service can do its important work and yet it can be under the control of our democratic system.” That is what the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency said. So if the former head of the Central Intelligence Agency thinks that why on earth cannot we have proper parliamentary oversight of our security services? It is not only practical; it is essential in a democracy. 
In the past the Green Party has derided the supervision of the intelligence services as being a joke as a result of some of the things we have discovered. For example through parliamentary questions it was discovered that the Intelligence and Security Committee met only once in 2005: on 14 June for 43 minutes. It met twice in the previous year for a total of 84 minutes. That is hardly enough time for its members to pour their coffee chow down on some macaroons and sort out what al-Qaeda is up to. 
According to the SIS’s own website there are approximately 200 staff ready to provide the Government with advice relating to our nation’s interests. The service also states that it is apolitical. However in the past it has certainly shown a distinct political bias against the left. When we think about recent documents that have been handed to my colleague Keith Locke we realise they also show that in the bad old days of the 1980s the service seemed to take an unhealthy interest in those who were fighting against apartheid in South Africa whom the SIS seemed to identify as being a threat to the State. The SIS also made a habit of targeting law-abiding political dissenters. It targeted Aziz Choudry and David Small presumably for their political beliefs—something that the courts later held the SIS accountable for and the SIS lost in court. The persecution of Ahmed Zaoui by the SIS is well documented and the courts have repeatedly upheld Mr Zaoui’s rights against the SIS. Keith Locke of course was targeted by the SIS for being a law-abiding dissident—something that we would think we would encourage and welcome in a democracy. 
There are many hundreds of other law-abiding New Zealanders whose political beliefs happen to conflict with those of the SIS and hence they have become targets for surveillance. In a free society it is wrong for the State security services to target people because of their political beliefs. In a free society a person should not become a target of the State security services simply on the basis of what he or she believes to be true. 
Of course on a minor aspect what is perhaps more worrying is that there does not seem to be a report on the SIS website for the 2007-08 year. The last report of the SIS states: “We are a dynamic professional intelligence service focused on the requirements of our core customers and stakeholders in government”. Well really? Who would know? How would anyone know that? How do we know that the SIS is actually performing what it is supposed to do? Even with the large budget increases the SIS finds it difficult to provide such basics as the adding of yearly reports to its own website. 
Over the last few years the budget for Vote Security Intelligence has kept expanding. In the financial year 2006-07 the budget rocketed up to $43.49 million without any explanation in the budget of what the money was for. What dangers is the SIS trying to dispel and protect us from and how will this massive increase make any of us more secure? Increasingly in this vote hardly ever is there an occasion for the razor gangs to go in. When are the razor gangs going to come into the SIS? Nobody knows what the money is spent on. The Green Party is committed to trying to ensure that there is some fiscal oversight and that the committee meets more regularly than it has in the past. Some of the money we think probably was spent on kitting out the new offices for the security services in the top floors of the defence building. But that can be only part of the story. 
The big increase in funding just keeps going on year after year. More money is being allocated without any improvement in the oversight mechanisms as to how the money is spent. During the 9 years of the last Government the budget for the security services more than trebled but the oversight did not treble. While other public servants are busy clearing their desks right now we have no idea what efficiencies the intelligence services are making if any. We must have more oversight of the intelligence and security services and what they are doing. We are not here to provide a public relations opportunity for the security services. We are here to try to fix a system that is mired in the first-past-the-post era and that should have been changed a long time ago. Bizarrely considering that we live in an MMP environment the Intelligence and Security Committee has only five members. Unlike select committees there are only five members—presumably some people think the fewer members there are the better it will be. 
The Green Party intends to do its best to give the public a much better oversight of the security services than they have had in the past. We are in fact changing tack in how we are dealing with the Intelligence and Security Committee. We do not resile from our belief that the security services need to be given proper select committee oversight as the security services are given overseas. We need to have a committee that can find out what the SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau are up to. However we will none the less do our best to make the current provisions work flawed and limited though they are and hence we have accepted the Leader of the Opposition’s offer of a nomination on to the committee. We will be voting for the motion. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Ernest Hemingway made a statement that in many ways could be the mission statement for the Intelligence and Security Committee. He said: “The best ammunition against lies is the truth there is no ammunition against gossip. It is like a fog and the clear wind blows it away and the sun burns it off.” In this city of four seasons in a day there has been more than enough gossip and lies speculation and secrets associated with the Intelligence and Security Committee. The Maori Party has with some reluctance been drawn into many of these scenarios as the press has brought certain allegations to our attention. 
Information loosely reported in the media suggested that our networks associates and even ironically the new member of the Intelligence and Security Committee have been investigated. There was the sensational scandal some 5 years ago named Operation Leaf in which computer geeks had supposedly been contacted by the SIS to plant bugs in the computers of Maori organisations. The Sunday newspapers were full of breaking news revealing that the secret computer bugs would be frantically gathering intelligence on iwi business negotiations finances Treaty claims and inter-tribal communications. 
The riding instructions for Operation Leaf were supposedly to watch out for dirt on Maori leaders. I will not come to the House today and say that this is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. For a start we had no way of knowing what really went on no basis to judge the veracity of the journalistic reporting and no insider briefing on what was mandated or authorised by the New Zealand intelligence community. But the point that I want to raise is not so much about the allegations but more about the response made to them. 
The immediate action taken by our co-leader Mrs Turia to the allegations swirling around the SIS was to write to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security retired judge Justice Paul Neazor to ask him to initiate an immediate inquiry into the SIS. One would think that the opportunity to ask questions and to challenge speculation would be a basic standard of a healthy democracy. Yet the reaction the party received at that time did little to engender respect claiming the allegations were “laughable” and that the whole situation was “a work of fiction.” 
What we are dealing with in this motion is the committee that is responsible for Parliament’s oversight of New Zealand’s intelligence services including the SIS. It is an extremely serious context for considering matters that cut to the very bone of some basic principles of our democracy such as transparency integrity privacy confidentiality and credibility. These are not matters we take lightly. They are not matters to be laughed at. Every new allegation and every new piece of information before the committee should be examined in the full light of day. Scoffing at the very basis of any allegation is neither appropriate nor wise. It is therefore a complete turn-round of events that 5 years on the Maori Party is now being invited to join the membership of this important statutory committee. We are extremely proud to speak to the Government motion around the membership of the committee and to confirm our support for Tariana Turia to take up her position at the table. 
The time when concerns were raised around Operation Leaf was not of course the only time that the Intelligence and Security Committee has provoked interest. There was also concern about the surveillance that was attached to Aziz Choudry whose home was broken into in 1996 during the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation trade Ministers’ meeting. Of course there have been as many concerns raised by outside commentators as there have been allegations raised in the press. 
Probably one of the strongest descriptions of the work of this committee was that put forward by Murray Horton who claimed: “The SIS and its nominal political masters still operates an absurd and anachronistic culture of secrecy.” That is fairly strong language for a committee that is of such significance to the upholding of national security. Another description of this committee was provided by Auckland Council for Civil Liberties president Barry Wilson who said that parliamentary oversight of the SIS was inadequate and was simply a “rubber stamp” for the SIS’s activities. 
I wanted to lay down this foundation during this debate because we in the Maori Party believe it is absolutely vital nay fundamental to any freethinking democracy that all issues are put on the table and that speculation is laid to rest. The role of the Intelligence and Security Committee to examine the role policy administration and expenditure of each intelligence and security agency must be done in such a way as to avoid any smokescreens any fog and any attempts to hide. If there is any ambiguity to be tested we are absolutely certain that with a committee of the calibre of the proposed membership it will be tested by the ilk of that committee. 
We soundly commend the Prime Minister for his wise choice of appointing the Hon Tariana Turia and the Hon Rodney Hide to the committee just as we commend the decision by the Leader of the Opposition Phil Goff to appoint Russel Norman. They will be a formidable team and we in the Maori Party wish them well in the interests of national intelligence and security and in the interests of a healthy functioning democracy. Kia ora. 
Motions agreed to. 
Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for consideration. 
This bill significantly overhauls New Zealand’s regime for the imposition of safeguard measures on imported goods. Safeguards are emergency measures—with emphasis on the word “emergency”—applied at the border usually in the form of a duty that may be taken to provide temporary protection to a domestic industry from injury caused by a surge in imported goods. 
This bill is designed to ensure that New Zealand’s safeguard regime is consistent with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules—again that is an important point to make—and to promote efficient transparent and objective investigative and decision-making processes. It is worth noting the contribution of the previous Government in the bringing of this bill to the Parliament and I am happy to progress it in a timely manner—something that was previously not the case. 
The current regime is subject to the Temporary Safeguard Authorities Act 1987 which has not been subject to a comprehensive review since its inception. As a consequence— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s now outdated. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: —the Act is now outdated—that is quite right I say to Ms Dalziel—and does not provide an adequate means for New Zealand to comply with its WTO obligations should it be necessary to take safeguard action. 
Despite the small number of safeguard investigations that have been undertaken manufacturers must retain access to an effective safeguard mechanism at a time when industry is exposed to increasing import competition through unilateral tariff reductions which are scheduled to continue until July 2009 and a continued growth in free-trade agreements. Further competition from imports may also occur if the WTO Doha round of negotiations is successfully completed and results in a multilateral liberalisation of trade. 
This bill repeals the Temporary Safeguard Authorities Act 1987 and replaces it with a modern regime that takes these developments into account in order to avoid harm being caused to New Zealand industries from rapid increases in imports. Where a safeguard measure is warranted the bill provides for the Minister of Commerce to impose a final and provisional safeguard duty or to recommend that other measures be taken. The ability to impose a separate provisional and final safeguard duty will allow a quick and efficient means for taking safeguard action. To comply with WTO rules—and that compliance is a significant factor—the bill also provides for the extension liberalisation and termination of a safeguard duty. 
Under the present regime the imposition of a safeguard measure through an increase in the normal customs duty or by a quantitative restriction on import volumes is only possible if it is in the public interest to do so. The current legislation does not however contain any guidance on what constitutes the public interest and the new provisions in this bill are designed to increase the certainty and transparency in the process of considering public interest issues. 
The key components of investigations remain essentially unchanged so no significant increase in the cost to participate is expected. The bill also shifts responsibility for undertaking safeguard investigations from temporary safeguard authorities to the Ministry of Economic Development. The ministry already undertakes other trade remedy investigations into the impact of dumped and subsidised imports on New Zealand industries which means there is a substantial overlap with a safeguard investigation. This change will therefore allow the expertise of the ministry to be fully utilised and avoid any potential problems with recruiting authority members as a result of the extension of the time frame for completing an investigation. In other words the bill therefore creates a single Government point of contact for all trade remedy inquiries and that is a plus for businesses. 
The bill provides for the extension of the time frame for the completion of a safeguard investigation from the current 30 working days to 75 working days or to 85 working days if provisional measures are requested. Decisions by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body have helped to clarify obligations that must be met before a safeguard measure can be imposed which would be very difficult to meet within current time frames. The extension of the time frame will allow sufficient time to undertake a high-quality investigation and reduce the risk of any safeguard measure taken by New Zealand being overturned through the WTO dispute settlement process. At the same time the ability of the Minister of Commerce to impose a provisional measure will ensure that New Zealand industry is not disadvantaged by the additional time taken to complete an investigation. 
Finally the bill also includes a number of other technical matters aimed at improving the efficiency of application and investigation processes and at ensuring conformity with WTO rules. The changes I have outlined will strengthen the safeguards regime as well as strengthening access to that regime by domestic industry. Globalisation and increasing competition from imported products at a time when domestic spending is constrained make it even more important that New Zealand - based industries have the mechanism within the frameworks to adjust to these pressures. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill and I congratulate the Minister Simon Power on making a fine speech. I could not have read it better myself. [ 
Interruption 
] I read along with him actually because I happen to have a copy of the speech with me. 
It is unusual for a commerce bill to be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and I think that is worthy of some comment. The fact that this bill is being referred to that select committee and not to the Commerce Committee really shows that the bill is as much about international trade and World Trade Organization (WTO) compliance as it is about protecting New Zealand’s commercial interests from dramatic increases in import competition. 
John Hayes 
: Are you reading this too? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have just jotted these notes down. I am happy to table them for the member if he likes. 
Trade safeguards are very important as it is vital that domestic manufacturers and producers are protected during a period of adjustment. Of course that period of adjustment is as the Minister has highlighted in his very learned contribution to this debate exacerbated by increased trade and trade agreements. The bill replaces a 1987 Act and although there are older statutes on our books much has been occurring in the field of international trade that really requires us to refresh this law. So the bill is very timely indeed. 
The process for bringing this bill to the House has been very robust and I am disappointed that the Minister did not mention that fact. I guess that is because this bill unlike many of the others that were introduced by National in its 100 days of action has an excellent regulatory impact statement. I of course prided myself on bringing bills to this House that had excellent regulatory impact statements in them because a good regulatory impact analysis undertaken at the outset can resolve a lot of issues before they become problems further down the track—after the legislation has been introduced into the House and subsequently passed. This bill has been preceded by a very in-depth consultation process which has included the release of a discussion document to ensure that input was as broad as it could be. 
I have heard a number of people in different fields express some abhorrence of the principles of free trade but I hope they can feel comforted that this bill is actually a measure that they can support as it supports fair trade as part of free trade. 
This bill enables the Minister to act on his or her own initiative as long as there are reasonable grounds for an investigation. The select committee will probably want to pay some attention to what are reasonable grounds for the Minister to initiate this particular investigation. 
The work as the Minister has highlighted will in future be undertaken by the Ministry of Economic Development rather than a temporary safeguard authority for each investigation being established. It has always struck me as being somewhat inefficient to have individual temporary safeguard authorities established in order to deal with each individual case as it comes to light. It is true that very few have been established so in one respect it probably does not matter. However it makes sense to me and it certainly made sense to those who were providing advice in this regard that the expertise of the trade remedies team within the Ministry of Economic Development could be brought to bear on what is a very parallel process. It already investigates allegations of dumping and I myself had experience as a former Minister of Commerce of being in receipt of reports on more than one dumping investigation. I am sure that the current Minister still has something really good to look forward to in his role—that is when the pile of papers comes to his office for him to read in great detail! 
Not only does that detailed analysis identify the true cost of production—in a country where sometimes the producers do not want to be as open as they should be over the actual cost of production because of course they want to protect themselves against the claim of dumping in New Zealand—but also it has to show the damage to the New Zealand industry which has to be both significant and widespread. So it is obviously quite an enormous task for the officials which is why I support the idea of bringing that expertise into this consideration of trade safeguard measures. I think that is something that the Minister will have to grapple with when he gets to one of those because they really do present quite a detailed analysis and that does require some time to go through. 
Then there is the decision as to the measure to be applied so if dumping has been found to be the case—in this case if a trade safeguard is required to be applied—then a countervailing duty may be the answer. When we think about it we see that that is the same process to all intents and purposes that will be applied in relation to this bill. 
I just reinforce the fact that this bill makes a sensible organisation of work in terms of transferring work from a temporary safeguard authority to the Ministry of Economic Development trade remedies team. When I was the Minister of Commerce I was concerned about the extent of work that had to be undertaken by the affected industry in bringing forward a complaint and I would like to place on the record that concern this evening. I urge the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association—and I will probably send a copy of my  
Hansard 
 to the association—to take the opportunity to make a submission to the select committee on this bill because it covers many of the issues that the association had raised with the previous Government and I am sure it is raising those issues with the current Government. This will ensure that those concerns are put before the committee. 
There is an opportunity with this bill to look at whether we have in our desire to be consistent with WTO rules pushed the boundaries out as far as we legally can within those rules. It may be that those boundaries can be pushed a little further in respect of this measure being brought before the House. On that basis I support the first reading of the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill and its referral to the appropriate committee which in this case is the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 That was a very helpful speech from our colleague Lianne Dalziel the previous Minister of Commerce whom I know understands this legislation backwards. I would like to pick up on her comment that some people in this House and out in the community are opposed to free trade. It is worth reflecting on that comment because over the last few weeks in our local papers we have seen the Swazi Apparel industry in Levin calling for protection because of the threat it faces if its contract to supply clothing to the New Zealand Defence Force is shifted to China. The same situation applies in my electorate in respect of Whitehead Productions which supplied equipment for our military. 
I would like to look back about 300 years to Europe to a port called Bruges. This city is located on the Zwijn estuary. It was a real entrepôt. People became very wealthy because the port of Bruges was connected to the rest of the world. Over time the Zwijn estuary silted up and the entrepôt moved down the coast to a place called Antwerp which is located on the Schelde River. Antwerp is still connected to the rest of the world because that river is still running and when one goes there now one sees the signs of the great economic power that was Antwerp. Its wealth built long ago is still very very visible today. Antwerp is still the diamond capital of the world and its mighty port operates 24 hours a day 7 days a week. 
I bring to this House a message from that example—that is if we want to be rich it pays to stay connected and to forge strong links with other countries of the world. My colleague Tim Groser is not here today because he is out doing that. He has already signed a free-trade agreement with Thailand. He is undertaking a precursor study to a free-trade agreement with Korea. He has signed us up to an ASEAN regional trade agreement. He is actively engaged in keeping New Zealand locked into the global economy. 
If people want to do nothing and make no progress as some parties in this House would like then we should let our rivers silt up and our economy wither. That would be the outcome. If we think about our situation here in New Zealand we find that the most visible sign of our linkages with the rest of the world is the array of products we find from all sorts of places available in our shops. 
A while back an economist whose name was Ricardo developed a theory about comparative advantage and the importance of every country doing what it did best. If we go back to the example of Levin we hear that Chinese wages are so low that we cannot compete with them. Therefore it is argued that to protect our industry and the 30 workers in Masterton or the 50 workers in Levin we should impose taxes or even ban shirts and other clothes from being brought in from China. My feeling about that goes like this. In 1936 there was another economist called Lerner. His theorem tells us which he empirically proved that if we put a tax on an import then effectively we impose an identical tax on an export. So if we take his theory around the issue of bringing in manufactured clothing from China or even Fiji in order to protect industry in New Zealand we would be putting an equivalent tax on jobs in for example the dairy industry or the meat industry. 
We must as a country minimise taxes at our border. We must run as open an economy as we can. Sadly for workers in developing countries very few of them compete with our workers just on the issue of price because they are lower paid. They are also generally much lower in productivity. We have to increase productivity in this country if we are to lift our collective standard of living. There is a very close relationship between low productivity and low wages. We have signed a free-trade agreement with China; the economies of both countries will be better off. 
I think that we also need to acknowledge that free trade is not good for everybody. There are plenty of examples of that in New Zealand. My colleague Roger Douglas from the ACT Party will be only too well aware of the strife that occurred when we opened up our market to imported cars tyres clothing and many other things back in the mid-1980s. Those changes hurt a lot of people but is New Zealand today worse off as a result of that? Of course it is not. So there is a solution in a civilised and progressive society which is not to restrict trade. 
However what we also need to do is to not ignore the plight of people who are put out of work by low-cost imports. We need to allow progress and to move forward while at the same time helping to support and retrain those who are hurt in this process. We cannot be callous. When someone loses his or her job it is a personal tragedy. But in a healthy economy jobs are lost all the time just as new jobs are created all the time. That is why this bill is so important. 
The Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill will allow us to repeal the Temporary Safeguard Authorities Act 1987 which embodies New Zealand’s current safeguards regime and to replace it with a new set of rules consistent with the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. It will promote efficient transparent and investigative decision-making processes. I think that this bill is very very important to all the people of New Zealand. It will carry a lot of benefits and I am very glad that it is coming to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee where my colleagues and I will have pleasure in processing it through the committee. 
The bill’s purpose is in particular to allow New Zealand to apply safeguard measures at the border in accordance with the WTO rules adopted in Marrakech back in April 1994. The bill states that such measures are intended to provide temporary protection to a domestic industry from serious injury caused by increased imports. Clearly the free-trade agreement between New Zealand and China or New Zealand and ASEAN will see new exporters in those countries able to send their produce to our market. We are dealing with the reality that some of those goods may affect some of our domestic industries. The bill will help to facilitate the adjustment by New Zealand domestic industries to increased competition from increased imports. As I have said two clear examples of this are the Swazi Apparel plant in Levin and Whitehead Productions in my own electorate. 
The bill as drafted provides that public servants will be able to investigate such things as whether increased imports are causing serious injury or pose a threat of serious injury; whether increased imports were due to unforeseen developments that we did not understand when the free-trade agreement was being signed; and whether a safeguard measurement is necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury. It will also facilitate adjustment by the New Zealand domestic industry to increased competition. It will investigate whether there is a particular public interest and it will consider for example things like the effectiveness of a safeguard measure. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill. I agree with the member opposite that this bill is important. It should be noted that this bill was originally introduced by the Hon Lianne Dalziel in the last Parliament under the previous Labour Government—and a very fine bill it is too. The bill is the result of a review initiated under the Labour-led Government of the existing Act the Temporary Safeguard Authorities Act 1987. There was extensive public consultation and the bill is the result of that work. 
As members have heard this legislation not only means compliance with the World Trade Organization rules but also streamlines the process of responding to allegations of dumped or subsidised goods being released on the New Zealand market. It will be welcomed by New Zealand’s manufacturers and producers which is very important. It is also important to note that it is a cost-effective measure in that it removes the requirement to establish temporary safeguard authorities and enables the existing expertise of the Ministry of Economic Development to be utilised instead. This bill unlike National’s own bills fully complies with the regulatory impact analysis regime. Members have heard that some of the changes proposed by this bill include an extension of the current time frame of 30 working days for the completion of a safeguard investigation to 75 working days or 85 days if provisional safeguard duties are requested and a provision that safeguard investigations are to be undertaken by the ministry rather than by independent temporary safeguard authorities. 
I will talk just a little about what is in the bill. It implements a new safeguards regime for New Zealand. Safeguards as a number of members have indicated tonight are emergency measures applied at the border usually in the form of a duty that may be taken in order to provide temporary protection to a domestic industry from injury caused by a surge in imported goods as a result of unforeseen developments. Safeguards are provided for under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and by the World Trade Organization and agreements on safeguards are intended to facilitate adjustment by a domestic industry to increased imports. So the bill’s purpose really is to enable New Zealand to apply safeguards measures at its border as the member opposite has indicated and to do so in accordance with the agreement adopted at Marrakech in 1994 that established the World Trade Organization. 
The bill states that such measures are intended to provide temporary protection to a domestic industry from serious injury caused by increased imports and to facilitate adjustment by a domestic industry to increased competition from increased imports. The bill provides that the Minister may on application by any person or at the Minister’s discretion initiate a safeguard investigation by the chief executive into increased imports if the Minister is satisfied there are reasonable grounds for an investigation into whether the increased imports are causing serious injury or the threat of serious injury. 
The matters that the chief executive must investigate in a safeguard investigation include the following: whether increased imports have caused serious injury or a threat of serious injury and whether the increased imports have been due to unforeseen developments; whether a safeguard measure is necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment by the domestic industry to the increased competition from the increased imports; and if a safeguard measure is necessary which goods should be subject to a measure which measure is appropriate and the appropriate extent and duration of the measure. Then there is also the matter of the public interest which may entail amongst other matters consideration of the likely effectiveness of a safeguard measure in assisting the domestic industry and the alternatives to a safeguard measure. There is also the likely effect of a safeguard measure on the market—which includes the effect on consumers—and on New Zealand’s international relations and trade goals and the strategic importance of the domestic industry. 
The bill also provides that in investigating whether the increased imports have caused serious injury or a threat of serious injury the chief executive must consider the impact of the increased imports on the domestic industry including an actual or potential decline in output sales market share productivity employment and utilisation of production capacity. The chief executive must consider the nature and extent of imports of the goods by the domestic industry including their value quantity and frequency; the purpose of the imports; and factors other than the imports that have injured or are injuring the domestic industry. So there is a range of important issues there. 
The bill also provides for the circumstances in which the Minister may impose a provisional safeguard duty. The Minister may impose that duty on imported goods if the Minister is satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe that a delay in imposing a duty would cause damage that would be difficult to repair and also that the increased imports are causing serious injury or again the threat of serious injury. 
The bill provides for several different types of safeguard measure any of which may be imposed on or in relation to imported goods. They include a safeguard duty; a duty or a variation of any rate or duty or an exemption from any duty under the Tariff Act 1988; a restriction on importing the goods under the Customs And Excise Act 1996 or the Imports and Exports (Restrictions) Act 1988; and also any other action that the Minister considers to be appropriate. 
The bill provides that after receiving the chief executive’s report about a safeguard investigation the Minister may take one or more of those actions in relation to imported goods if the Minister is satisfied that increased imports have caused serious injury or a threat of serious injury and that the increased imports were due to unforeseen developments. The Minister must be satisfied also that the safeguard measure is necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment by the domestic industry to the increased competition from the increased imports; that the safeguard measure relates to the appropriate goods is the appropriate measure and is of the appropriate extent and duration; and that the action is in the public interest. The particular safeguard measure must not be incompatible with New Zealand’s international obligations as a party to the World Trade Organization agreement or other agreements. 
Finally I will finish by saying this bill is about ensuring that New Zealand’s safeguards regime is consistent with World Trade Organization rules provides an efficient transparent and objective investigative and decision-making process and is responsible. The bill is timely sensible law developed by the previous Labour Government; it strengthens the protections for our domestic industry at a time of increased globalisation and competition from imported products. I have great pleasure in supporting the bill. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the adoption of the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill. It is not my intention to take up too much time of the House in explaining why but a few quick points are I believe in order. This bill repeals the earlier 1987 Act which embodies the current safeguards regime. That Act of course preceded the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 and the aim of the new bill is to make the 1987 regime consistent with WTO rules. 
The underlying purpose as described is to improve the investigative and transparent processes of international trade. Our aspiration is to meet three standards so stated: efficiency transparency and objectivity. No one opposes efficient transparent and objective processes particularly in the area of international trade. It is a passing lament perhaps that the same standards were not met as stringently as the Green Party believes was appropriate in the cases of the recent bilateral and regional free-trade agreements this country has held over the past few years and is holding currently. I note the comments made by my colleague Lianne Dalziel about some concerns over the nature of free and fair trade that are held by some parties; of course we in the Green Party have harboured those concerns—and I would add in today’s world there is an equally deep concern about the imperative of green trade. 
We have also heard from our colleague John Hayes who was gracious enough to offer some insights into the merits of free trade based on the theory of comparative advantage. He recalled for our edification Ricardo while omitting in some haste the theories of Smith and Mill. To prove the point Mr Hayes drew as an example the case of as he put it “Brug-es” which he said gave way in the fullness of time to the rise of Antwerp: the river was silting up so people had to move from Bruges to Antwerp and Antwerp became the great economic power supplanting Bruges—QED the need for free trade. I thank the member. I have some passing acquaintance with Bruges or Brugge. The town is Flemish actually so it is properly pronounced “Bruha”. I lived there from 2002 to 2005 and intermittently from 2005 until the end of last year. In fact I had an apartment there until 2 weeks ago. 
I know Bruges. I also know the theory of free trade as it underpinned or did not underpin Bruges and its aspirations and its destiny. The point here is that Bruges did not collapse because it turned its back on free trade; it collapsed because of environmental concerns. Because of silting at Bruges the coastline developed. Free trade and the shipping trade did not switch immediately to Antwerp; it went to Zeebrugge which is now on the coast and is close to Bruges. The point of this passing exchange is that the theory of free trade has a partial truth—not a total absolute truth. 
The Green Party recognises the partial truth of free trade. That partial truth has to be calibrated with fair trade and with green trade. We are creating a hell on earth if we go headlong for free trade without due regard to the most basic notions of global equity and the imperative of global sustainability. 
Let me return to the Green Party’s concerns. They are particularly to do with transparency when it comes to international trade. I recognise that diplomatic negotiations—whether on security environment or trade issues—cannot be conducted in the full glare of live broadcasting. But in today’s world neither should they be conceived in the cosy backrooms of Geneva or national capitals and then carefully incubated under the artificial warmth of a hermetically sealed confidentiality until they are judged ready to be hatched for public christening after the creature’s DNA is forever determined. 
Today we live in a world that is effectively globalised and in which the public not only has a right to know but also has an ability to keep pace with events and make informed judgments. In such a world a balance has to be struck ensuring that the public input on issues that directly affect them—whether corporate farming or individual—is neither premature and thus unhelpful nor belated and thus futile. That balance is not always easy to strike but we do not think that the democratic and parliamentary process on our international trade negotiations has found it yet. We need to be more transparent with the public than we were with the New Zealand - China Free Trade Agreement. The Green Party looks forward to improvement with the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement and with the Indian and ASEAN negotiations. 
That is a general context for addressing this more specific bill before us. The aim is to reduce the risk of a successful WTO dispute settlement or judicial review should a safeguard measure be applied. That is an objective the Green Party supports. We do however have some concern about the specifics. First the meaning of “public interest” is elaborated upon in the bill. Although non-exhaustive the guidelines are the likely effectiveness in assisting the domestic industry; the alternatives available; the likely effect on the market including on consumers; New Zealand’s international relations and trade goals; and the strategic importance of the domestic industry. We are concerned that the guidelines for taking into account the public interest are unduly limited. They could steer the outcome away from protecting a domestic industry that does not necessarily meet the Government’s current test of strategic importance but if and when oil prices rise again it may prove to be something we might regret. 
Secondly moving the investigative power from an independent authority to the Ministry of Economic Development could result in investigations having a greater political input from the Government of the day—they could perhaps or perhaps not have greater professionalism but quite possibly they could have greater political input. This will need attention. With due regard to these concerns we support the bill and we will be supporting it going to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 Without doubt free trade is one of the seven factors in economic progress for any nation. I enjoyed the speech of the member for Wairarapa John Hayes. He gave me a level of comfort about the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill that I probably did not have until I listened to him. However ACT is very cautious about this bill. I guess we are instinctively suspicious and it could be that at some point in its progress we may well oppose it. 
The reason for our suspicion is the possibility that the bill might be used to hinder free trade in some way. Undoubtedly under the bill the powers of the Minister are extensive. We recognise the need to meet the World Trade Organization’s rules but we wonder whether the bill is the appropriate way of doing that. The problem with this type of legislation is that it can be used as an effective non-tariff barrier and undoubtedly New Zealand has suffered in this regard in many cases. It is because of this possibility that we are cautious. 
As the member for Wairarapa said New Zealand can only gain by selling goods that it can produce at relatively low cost and using the proceeds to buy things that others produce cheaper than we do or that we produce at high cost. The principles involved in international trade are basically the same as those involved in any voluntary exchange. Each partner produces and consumes more than it would otherwise have been able to achieve. There are three reasons why this is so. First with international trade the people of each nation will be able to use more resources to produce and sell things that they do well and use the proceeds to purchase goods they can produce only at high cost. I guess the question is whether this bill actually fosters or helps us achieve that objective or whether it hinders it. 
Secondly international trade allows both domestic producers and domestic consumers to gain from reductions in per unit costs that often accompany large-scale production marketing and distribution. I believe that this point is particularly important for small countries like New Zealand. We need to ask how this bill facilitates that principle or whether it is likely to be used as an excuse for those overseas who want to impose shall we say some barriers on New Zealand trade. 
Thirdly international trade promotes competition in domestic markets and allows consumers to purchase a wide variety of goods at reasonable prices. Competition from abroad helps keep domestic producers on their toes. It forces them to improve the quality of their products and to keep those products at low cost. 
I guess I would like the Minister to assure this House that this bill will not be used to restrict desirable trade and surely that issue has had its day here. Measures such as those proposed in this bill undoubtedly increase transaction costs. Whatever we say one of the impacts of this bill will be that it will increase transaction costs and thereby reduce the gains available from free trade. The question is whether this measure is actually worth the cost that it will undoubtedly impose or whether it is yet another example of bureaucratic red tape and controls. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I have always been amused by the concept of dumping. That is because when I was growing up in Nelson “dumping” had a particular meaning. According to my uncles and aunties when they were children it was the site at which the sweetest juiciest fishbones would be found. But as I drill further into the concept in the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill which we are looking at today there is hardly a fishbone in sight. There are definitely some fish-hooks but there is a sad lack of fishbones. 
The dumping in question in this bill is to do with the situation where goods are exported at a price that is lower than the price charged in the home market of the exporter. The concern is that the dumping of imported products may create a threat to the growth and survival of an industry. Dumping has been registered as becoming of increasing concern across the globe with the World Trade Organization secretariat recently reporting a sharp increase of 39 percent in the number of new anti-dumping investigations between 2007 and 2008. The products most frequently dumped are base metals textiles chemicals steel and plastics. 
So today we have legislative amendments. They are intended to provide temporary protection to a domestic industry as well as to support the industry to adjust to the threat of increased competition from increased imports. There are matters that must be considered when determining whether the application of a safeguard measure is in the public interest. It is in the public interest that the decision-making process is about enhancing certainty and transparency. 
Currently investigations will be initiated if there are reasonable grounds that increased imports will cause or threaten serious injury to a domestic industry. This bill deals with the processes around the safeguard investigations. It puts in place the means by which investigations can be undertaken by the Ministry of Economic Development including the process of addressing delays in investigations. The bill provides for the Minister of Commerce to impose a provisional safeguard duty for up to 200 days. The bill also extends the time frame for completing safeguard investigations from 30 working days to 75 working days. 
Up until this point it all sounds very good—the processes are clarified the base for safeguards is established and protections are in place. But this is where the fish-hooks start to show. We must care about the environment for trade and the position it leaves our New Zealand market in. Yet no matter how positive this new legislation is the remnants of one too many free-trade agreements are there for all to see. The trade liberalisation agenda has been perpetuated in Aotearoa by the means of a whole stock of trade agreements which has opened the door to the dumping of copious imports from overseas. 
All existing bilateral trade agreements have some form of exemption. The New Zealand - China free-trade agreement stipulates that either party may exclude imports of goods from a global safeguard measure. There is a similar clause in the New Zealand - Thailand Closer Economic Partnership Agreement. In both the  
Agreement Between New Zealand and Singapore on a Closer Economic Partnership 
 and the Australia and New Zealand Closer Economic Relations Trade Agreement neither party can impose a global safeguard measure against goods from another party. 
This is why this legislation is so bizarre. We have the introduction of safeguards designed to adjust to the impact of increased competition. We have initiatives to clarify ambiguities in the Temporary Safeguard Authorities Act 1987. But at the same time we have free-trade agreements that counter all of this progress. Under the free-trade agreement with China although China is able to set a maximum volume of agricultural goods imported from New Zealand each year New Zealand does not have the ability to set similar maximum volumes on goods—agricultural or otherwise—imported from China. If New Zealand did set a customs duty to try to prevent too much competition in a particular market our Government would need to compensate China for doing so. It does not really seem to make much sense. 
This issue concerns the Maori Party greatly. We believe that decisions should be based on a rigorous and thorough analysis of potential costs and benefits. Such an analysis should be subject to an independent and contestable process and we should be ever mindful of the need for focusing on results having an eye on the outcome and making sure that those outcomes reflect the full range of social cultural physical financial and spiritual consequences of a particular course of trade. 
The news today revealed that the terms of trade have dropped further. Statistics New Zealand has released information showing a 0.9 percent drop with export prices dropping further than import prices. This is the economic bottom line that dominates our thinking when we look at trade agreements and safeguard measures but we need to also consider the need for scrutiny and oversight of the total picture—the complexities that come with our increased import dependency. 
We need to understand how the quest for corporate profit maximisation has affected workers. We need to be asking what happens to the New Zealand market when our trade agreements allow imports in without safeguard measures. How many people will be fired before we say there has been an injurious effect on an industry? If sales are reduced we should ask what kinds of sales they are. These are just some of the issues that need to come into the broader discussion. 
The Maori Party will support the referral of the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill to the select committee today as a matter of principle. We want to see what the critics commentators analysts and advisors say about some of the issues we have raised and we want to know their views on the virtues or otherwise of this bill. So we will not be dumping this bill just yet. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I am speaking in the first reading of the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill which I believe is a very timely bill to be considered by Parliament. 
The purpose of this bill is to bring our temporary safeguard measures both up to date and in line with international rules of trade. This bill was introduced in September 2008 by the then Minister of Commerce Lianne Dalziel; the changes to the bill were designed and introduced to the House by the current most excellent Minister of Commerce Simon Power. The changes are designed to promote efficient transparent and objective investigative and decision-making processes. The legislation when passed will provide protection where and when it is necessary to help New Zealand businesses stay competitive in what is proving to be a tough economic environment. 
I said that this bill is timely. I reflect on the early 1990s when I understand—I was told—a complaint was made with regards to a large amount of men’s and boys’ underwear that was brought in from China. I do not know whether members will recall it— 
Todd McClay 
: It’d be too small for Rotorua. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Yes I thank the member for that. All jokes are accepted. 
If we allowed mass importation of a product that is used by roughly half the population as in men’s and boys’ underwear—if that product were brought into New Zealand in such large volumes—it would indeed have a bad effect on New Zealand industry and probably more important on New Zealand employment. At this time with New Zealand’s economic situation I do not think we can afford to leave that without protection. That is why I believe that this Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill is indeed timely. I would hate to see the factories whose job it is to manufacture underwear—I think there is one in Palmerston North there is one in Christchurch and there may be one in Auckland—and their workers placed under pressure at the moment. I do not think that would be helpful for New Zealand. 
The bill makes five main changes. The first change is that the Ministry of Economic Development will be responsible for safeguard investigations rather than temporary safeguard authorities which will be disestablished under the provisions of this bill. I understand that the temporary safeguard authorities undertook four investigations. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Before the dinner break I had begun to speak on the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill which was introduced to the House in the latter part of 2008 by the then Minister of Commerce Lianne Dalziel. Then our very good Minister of Commerce Simon Power introduced some changes earlier this afternoon that have been included in the bill. 
Briefly for the benefit of my colleague who asked how the speeches were going I say that I had raised the spectre of the flooding of the New Zealand market in the early 1990s with men’s and boys’ underwear. This caused problems and was dealt with by way of the temporary safeguard authority process which was the practice then. The purpose of this bill is to bring the process a good deal more in line with current jurisprudence and international law. I was reflecting—because I think it is worth reflecting—on the perils that would befall New Zealand manufacturing if something like that were to happen again. If a cheap product mass-produced for a mass market—as underwear for men and boys was back in the 1990s—were to be introduced to the New Zealand market what would the effect be on manufacturers and more pertinently in these times on workers in the factories? For that reason alone I believe that the introduction of this bill is very timely. 
By way of background I will say a few words on what a safeguard is. It is a temporary duty or levy that can be imposed on imported goods. It is considered an emergency measure. It is applied at the border and is designed to protect domestic industry from injury caused by a surge in imported goods resulting from unforeseen developments. If that is not the case with New Zealand’s economic conditions today then I cannot think of a better way to describe it. 
The bill as introduced makes five main changes. The Ministry of Economic Development will be responsible for safeguard investigations rather than the temporary safeguard authorities that I mentioned before in relation to the underwear from China. Those authorities will be disestablished under this bill. It is worth noting that I believe only four complaints were made to a temporary safeguard authority so it would be more streamlined for the Ministry of Economic Development to have responsibility for safeguard investigations. Underlying that the Ministry of Economic Development already has expertise in trade rules and resources whereas it can be difficult to have the temporary safeguard authorities immediately available due to the low number of cases. The purpose of a safeguard is to provide immediate protection so it makes sense to have a system that works in a timely and streamlined manner. 
The second change relates to the time frame of a safeguard investigation which will be extended from the current 30 days to 75 days and in some cases may be extended even further out to 85 working days. This extension of time brings New Zealand into line with the World Trade Organization’s requirements for an investigation. This reduces the risk of a World Trade Organization dispute settlement or indeed a review which can be a costly and resource-intensive process. The third change is that the Minister of Commerce will have the authority to impose a provisional and then a final safeguard duty without taking it through a lengthier Cabinet process. 
The fourth change is that the bill specifies in clause 12(1)(e) the individual considerations to be taken into account when determining whether a safeguard duty is in fact in the public interest—and the public interest is a major consideration in a complaint. Some of these considerations might be “(i) the likely effectiveness of a safeguard measure in assisting the domestic industry: (ii) the alternatives to a safeguard measure: (iii) the likely effect of a safeguard measure on the market (including on consumers): (iv) New Zealand’s international relations and trade goals:” which are particularly important to New Zealand in 2009 and going forward and finally “(v) the strategic importance of the domestic industry.” I venture to say going back to my earlier illustration that the manufacture of garments could be argued to be a particularly important domestic industry. 
Finally and this is my last point the bill repeals the Temporary Safeguard Authorities Act 1987 and replaces it with a regime that is consistent with World Trade Organization rules. This bill brings our temporary safeguard measures up to date and into line with international rules and I commend it to the House. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the first reading of the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill. I will speak for a moment about the kinds of balancing acts that are required in the development of free trade around the world and about the role that this bill plays in that regard. 
There is legislation that this bill modernises. Even since the 1987 passing of the Temporary Safeguard Authorities Act the world has changed substantially. The need to balance a Sovereign nation’s requirement to protect itself and its people with the requirements of open free and fair trade obligations under the World Trade Organization (WTO) is a responsibility that should properly fall to Parliament and it is doing so with the introduction and first reading of this bill. 
There are balances to be struck between how a nation protects its domestic industries and at the same time manages bilateral and multilateral relationships on a trade basis in a progressive and ongoing way. That balancing act needs to be updated and is updated somewhat by this bill. The most important thing this bill does is to bring our provisions for emergency measures into line with WTO requirements. That is imperative. We no longer live in a world where we can pull up the shutters and pretend other nations do not exist. Our very existence as an export-driven economy is dependent on the agreement of trade arrangements with other countries. 
We have been particularly successful in that respect in the last 9 years. Helen Clark Phil Goff and before that the Hon Jim Sutton have worked hard to expand our bilateral trade agreements. They have been enormously successful. Perhaps the most successful manifestation of that work was last year’s signing of the free-trade agreement with China. 
At every turn with these free-trade agreements New Zealand seeks to put in labour and environment standards. They are an essential part of our integrity in ensuring that free-trade agreements meet with standards that are acceptable to New Zealanders. We have in the past when New Zealand underwent huge economic reforms in the 1980s seen domestic industries particularly manufacturing go to the wall because of rapid tariff reduction. We are one of the most open economies in the world so there are very few protections in the way of tariff barriers remaining for our manufacturers. That caused a great deal of pain 20 years ago but a more vibrant more articulate manufacturing sector has emerged from that because of the need to find new markets and niches within those markets where New Zealand can produce and sell goods that are desirable overseas and that preferably have value added to them before they depart these shores. 
With the kinds of free-trade agreements we have been entering into recently—and we have just recently seen a multilateral free-trade agreement signed between Australia New Zealand and the 10 ASEAN nations which takes us into a different realm of free-trade agreements entirely—we need to be able to keep up with this kind of progress and I believe firmly that it is progress with suitable protection measures as and when required. They are temporary they are urgent and they are in the public interest as is stated in the provisions outlined in this bill. But more than anything else they are consistent with WTO requirements. 
Our bilateral arrangements are one thing and they are significant but we need our bilateral arrangements to be able to move into multilateral arrangements. The Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations that are under way at the moment which started off with Singapore Brunei Chile and New Zealand as the first four signatories and have now had the United States and Viet Nam added create a different kind of multilateral forum for us to market our goods. 
Where protections are required for the public good in New Zealand this bill provides for such safeguards. As I said they are temporary they are urgent and they must be in the public good and consistent with WTO provisions. We are not talking here about protectionism and it is important that members and the public understand the difference. This is not about protectionism; this is about temporary safeguards where an injury may be done to the public good or where a domestic industry needs some time to adjust to a tariff reduction. This is not about allowing dumping and it is not about importing lesser standards into our economy than we would tolerate for our own New Zealand workers; it is about engaging with countries on the international stage on a multilateral basis in order to achieve the kind of free trade and the exchange of goods that is necessary for this country to maintain the standard of living it requires. This bill brings us up to date in that respect. 
One other point I will make about the bill is about the work that went on prior to the Minister of Commerce bringing the bill to the House and prior to its introduction to the House by the previous Minister of Commerce the Hon Lianne Dalziel—that is the statement of consultation undertaken in order to enact these provisions. We must not ever overlook the stakeholder consultation that goes on in order to bring about this kind of progressive measure. There was consultation through a discussion paper with a range of New Zealand business groups and firms and also importantly with the Council of Trade Unions. Those consultative stakeholder representations give me the confidence we need in this Parliament to ensure that this measure enhances New Zealand’s standard of living and our progress in trade relationships on the international stage. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to support this Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill which was initially tabled by the Hon Lianne Dalziel back in September 2008 but which is now being debated under the name of that very excellent Minister Simon Power. What a great team National has in this field given that we have Tim Groser as our trade Minister. He is doing extraordinary and sterling work on New Zealand’s behalf day in day out. 
This bill implements a new safeguards regime for New Zealand. It safeguards the emergency measures that are applied at our border usually in the form of a duty that may be taken to provide temporary protection to a domestic industry from injury caused by a surge in the number of imported goods resulting from unforeseen developments. 
Although I was not here for the earlier part of the debate I did happen to just catch a glimpse of the speech by Dr Kennedy Graham which was very erudite. He was talking about the concept of free trade being ideal but that that is only a partial truth. He said that the Green Party espouses fair trade and green trade. He talked about what those are exactly and he talked about the importance of having global equity and global sustainability. These qualities may be very admirable but they are almost impossible—if not actually impossible—to legislate for because fair trade would be almost impossible to define and trade being free and fair would require extraordinarily individual integrity in all the players. This bill as its title suggests is about safeguard measures usually in the form of a duty that may be taken to provide those temporary protections we have talked about earlier. 
I also happened to get a glimpse of Sir Roger Douglas’ speech in which he talked about how vital and fundamental free trade is to increasing economic growth on a world basis. What a contribution he has made since the 1980s in terms of opening up New Zealand markets. Today when my wife rang me to ask about opportunities in buying whiteware I marvelled that it is extraordinary that in New Zealand we have hugely wide choice at very competitive prices and we have had that choice for a long time. Goods at the best quality and at the best prices of anywhere in the world have probably been available to us through our pursuit of free trade over some period of years. 
But I note that Sir Roger said he had some suspicions about the bill including the question of whether it would be used to hinder free trade in some way the need to meet World Trade Organization (WTO) rules—which I believe the bill is absolutely in alignment with—and the questions of whether it is the appropriate way to meet those WTO rules and whether it could be used as an effective non-tariff trade barrier. As I understand it that last possibility is highly unlikely. 
Sir Roger said that the principles involved in international trade should be basically the same as in any voluntary exchange. In international trade firstly the people of a particular nation can undoubtedly sell things that that nation produces well and effectively and it can buy things that it does not produce well or easily. Secondly it allows an individual country to concentrate on what it does best and produce that product at the lowest cost per unit. Thirdly it promotes competition in domestic markets and allows consumers to purchase goods at an internationally competitive best available price. That is very much like the example I was talking about earlier on in terms of the availability and choice of a whole range of products in New Zealand. 
I understand that my excellent colleague Jacqui Dean mentioned the flood into New Zealand markets of Chinese underpants. Again around Christmas time my dear wife happened to give me a book by that excellent author Joe Bennett about his pursuit to find out exactly where those Chinese underpants came from. He traced them back to the very silk worms that had produced the cotton to enable that particular brand to be made. That pursuit took him many months and went over a huge variety of different importers and people who put the product together. But again at the end of the day what consumers are interested in is quality and value for money. That indeed is one of the great values of free trade. 
I note that the current bill has a regulatory impact statement and that does give one comfort as to the fact that the degree of regulation being imposed by this bill is minimal. It should also give a degree of comfort to Sir Roger Douglas. I note that only four investigations have been carried out under the Temporary Safeguards Authority Act 1987 with one investigation resulting in a safeguard being applied. However New Zealand is potentially exposed to a greater risk of World Trade Organization dispute settlements and that is why it is so necessary to have this bill. It is to ensure that if there were a challenge through the courts we have a mechanism to improve the efficiency and clarity of the safeguarding legislation. I note that there was a discussion of a non-regulatory option but the view was that no non-regulatory measures exist that would be capable of achieving the specified objectives. 
In the bill there are a variety of regulatory options which have been taken up. There is also a statement of net benefit of proposal including the total regulatory costs. The key benefit of the preferred option with regard to the Government is a significant reduction in the risk of a successful World Trade Organization dispute settlement or judicial review should an investigation be concluded and a safeguard measure applied. In terms of business there are not expected to be any significant additional costs to business and in terms of societal effects New Zealanders as a whole will benefit significantly from the reduction of trade barriers. This indeed is a very worthwhile bill and it gives me great pleasure to support it in its first reading. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill at its first reading. I am very pleased to see that this bill which was originally introduced by the Hon Lianne Dalziel under the previous Labour Government has been reinstated as a Government bill. It is great to see that legislation introduced by the Labour-led Government is now proceeding through the House at reasonable pace. 
In an age of globalisation New Zealand like any other developed or developing country benefits significantly from the reduction of trade barriers. However as a limited exception to free trade an effective safeguard regime has the potential to promote support for future trade liberalisation among import-competing domestic manufacturers. This bill is about the safeguard regime as part of a coherent trade remedies regime which could and would have positive effects on investment by providing a means to protect domestic industry from international supply shocks. The safeguard regime which is temporary targeted and adjustment orientated is not contrary to but is complementary to trade policies such as tariff reduction. To be specific safeguards are emergency measures applied at the border usually in the form of a duty which may be taken to provide temporary protection to a domestic industry from injury caused by a surge in imported goods. Such regimes are provided for under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organization Agreement on Safeguards which are intended to facilitate adjustment by a domestic industry to increased import competition. Safeguards of this nature are particularly relevant to New Zealand and to some extent they are vital for us to ensure that manufacturers retain access to an effective safeguards mechanism at a time when other domestic industry is exposed to increasing import competition. 
The existing legislation the Temporary Safeguard Authorities Act 1987 is outdated. It does not provide adequate means for New Zealand to comply with its World Trade Organization obligations should it be necessary to take safeguard action. The legislation was subject to a review under the Labour-led Government and that review included wide public consultation. The bill before the House is the result of that good work. The bill repeals the current Act and doing so will produce compliance with the World Trade Organization rules. It streamlines the process of responding to allegations of dumped or subsidised goods on the New Zealand market something that will definitely be welcomed by New Zealand manufacturers and suppliers. 
Under the leadership of the previous Minister of Commerce the Hon Lianne Dalziel a comprehensive consultation was carried out. Treasury the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade the New Zealand Customs Service and other agencies were consulted on the discussion document. I note with interest that it was proposed that safeguard investigations be carried out by the Ministry of Economic Development—rather than by independent safeguard authorities—which would report to the Minister of Commerce and recommend whether safeguard measures should be imposed. There is a substantial overlap between different regimes and agencies. For instance the current legislation does not provide for the imposition of a final safeguard measure where the measure involves an increase in the standard protection through an increase in the tariff. This must be done by Order in Council under section 9 of the Tariff Act 1988. This can be a lengthy process that could potentially reduce the effectiveness of the safeguard remedy. 
The current bill which is the result of the review and wide consultation promotes efficient transparent and objective investigative and decision-making processes. The changes implemented in the bill will strengthen New Zealand’s safeguards regime and provide better protection for New Zealand domestic industry. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill. I recognise the contribution to the debate earlier tonight by the Hon Lianne Dalziel. I also recognise the wide consultation that took place before this bill was introduced in September last year. 
Trade is vitally important to New Zealand and I am a firm supporter of free and freer trade. I congratulate the Minister of Trade Tim Groser on his excellent work since coming to office and on agreeing to and signing a great number of free-trade agreements—a significant number of which have been signed this year. These free-trade agreements will offer great opportunity to New Zealand businesses and to New Zealand industry. The agreements the Minister has been working on so diligently will open up billions of dollars of trade opportunities to New Zealanders and will offer New Zealand industry important access to the growing markets in Asia. They are markets in which consumers are reaching higher levels of disposable income and developing appetites for many of the goods we produce right here in New Zealand. 
Not everybody is as excited by trade negotiations as the members in the House tonight are. When I get home to Rotorua tomorrow I am not sure my family will be waiting to say to me “Can you please explain the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill 2008 and take your time. Don’t limit yourself to 10 minutes. Go and do it in full detail because it is exciting stuff.” But trade is important and trade negotiation is also important. The importance of this bill is that it will give certainty to New Zealand business and industry and provide protection to our industries where appropriate and where needed. 
This bill does a number of things. Safeguards are provided for under GATT and under other World Trade Organization (WTO) agreements. Why are safeguards in trade important? They are important because they protect local industries in exceptional and difficult times from unfair competition. 
The bill makes a number of changes. The Ministry of Economic Development will be responsible for safeguard investigations rather than a temporary safeguard authority. The ministry already has expertise in trade rules and resources so this bill is an important step in the evolution of our trade protection rules. 
The safeguard will also provide immediate protection. It makes sense to have a system that works straight away and it is important that Ministers are able to take fast and immediate action to protect New Zealand businesses. After all there is no point in providing protection when businesses have been harmed or have gone out of business. 
The time frames will also be looked at. The time frame for safeguard investigations will be increased from 30 to 75 working days and in some cases to 85 working days. Other speakers have recognised that this is more in line with the WTO standard. This extension brings New Zealand into line with WTO requirements for any investigation. 
It is not automatic that if a Minister has concerns about a particular matter at the end of the investigation the measures will remain in place. However investigation allows due diligence and an opportunity to look at the effects that imports and cheaper imports may have on New Zealand business and I think this is a fair and appropriate measure. As I said earlier the Minister of Commerce will have the authority to impose a provisional and then a final safeguard duty taking it through to a lengthier Cabinet process. 
This bill is also about public interest and it is only where there is public interest that it would be enacted. The likely effects in considering the public interest could be the effectiveness of the safeguard measure in assisting the domestic industry. There is a need to demonstrate that there was reason for the safeguard measure and that there would be good effects as a result and also to consider whether other provisions might be taken in its place; the likely effect of the safeguard measure on the market including on consumers; New Zealand’s international relations and trade goals; and the strategic importance of the domestic industry concerned. 
In line with that I will give an example to the House of where the measures might well be used. I am the member of Parliament for Rotorua and all members in the House will know—I do not need to remind them—that Rotorua is the mountain bike capital of New Zealand. Rotorua has some of the best mountain bike tracks in New Zealand. There are hundreds of kilometres of tracks and many thousands of people visit Rotorua every year to enjoy these tracks and to ride bikes. The local Rotorua economy gets more than $10 million a year from mountain biking and this amount is growing year upon year. We have bike manufacturing in Rotorua. These are small companies such as Kiwibikes which is in the centre of Rotorua and has been manufacturing its own bikes for some time. I know that my friend and colleague Steve Chadwick supports this company very well. The company’s position at 1128 Hinemoa Street puts it right in the centre of Rotorua. 
We are very proud of bike manufacturing in Rotorua and the thousands of people who come to Rotorua very much enjoy riding bikes that are manufactured and produced in Rotorua. I believe that our bike manufacturers which are growing businesses can compete with anybody based upon quality and certainly upon enthusiasm. But there could be times when they could be forced to compete unfairly with overseas manufacturers that for a number of reasons and in a number of ways could flood our market with cheaper products. This could be because of a downturn in the economy or because the New Zealand dollar has strengthened in relation to the currencies of the countries producing bikes and exporting them to New Zealand. It could also be because overseas manufacturers wish to flood our market with their bikes which would do harm to our market and to local manufacturing by forcing New Zealand businesses out of business and in so doing getting rid of local competition. Once local competition has gone those manufacturers can raise their prices and therefore their profits in our markets. 
This bill before us today will provide the means for Ministers to provide important protection to New Zealand industry and businesses so that companies such as Kiwibikes in Rotorua are not unfairly affected by the practices of others. This is fitting—and I believe it is right—and WTO law allows when and where such measures are warranted. I am sure that Kiwibikes and other large and small manufacturers throughout New Zealand would want us to support such an important measure and that Kiwibikes would want me to support this bill and in so doing support its business. 
This bill will give certainty to small and large businesses alike; it will give certainty to those that invest in manufacturing and production in New Zealand and in our local economies and where necessary it will give them protection. The bill prevents New Zealand from receiving a rapid influx of cheap imports. It allows time for New Zealand businesses to bring themselves up to the level of international competition required to stay afloat in the current economic climate. It provides for temporary measures whereby New Zealand consumers will continue to have the benefit of the free-trade principles that underpin New Zealand’s trading environment. The key components of an investigation into a temporary safeguard remain essentially unchanged so no significant increase in the cost to participate is expected. 
Earlier speakers in this debate spoke about their concern that the bill would harm free trade. This is a free-trade bill. It provides protections so that free trade can continue and provides rules and a rules-based approach to trade whereby the WTO is able to stop fighting amongst us. I note looking at its website that from 1 January to 30 June 2008 there was a 39 percent increase compared with the previous year in anti-dumping or safeguard measures referred to the WTO. These came from a number of countries both large and small and developed or otherwise. In fact the country that introduced the most measures in that time was Turkey. It is important to recognise this. Decisions taken in New Zealand are not taken in isolation and there will be WTO oversight. I think the WTO is telling us that the number of measures that were brought into place last year from different parts of the world means that others are watching us and I have great confidence both in the ministry and in the Minister to be aware of this. 
I proudly support this bill as introduced to the House today. It is an important measure. It brings us into line with other countries of the world and it is an important step towards a continuing trade environment that supports our manufacturers and our important businesses. Thank you. 
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. 
Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: I move  
That the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill amends the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976 to address problems with the current levy-setting mechanisms. It is a technical amendment that introduces an updated and simple calculation system. It future-proofs the levy against new types of alcoholic products and provides for regulations to be made by Order in Council to fix the rate of levy payable. 
The bill introduces a system of alcohol classification bands an approach that aligns it with the system the New Zealand Customs Service uses to collect alcohol excise duty and excise-equivalent duty. Under this system a dollar amount per litre of beverage for the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) levy will be set for each alcoholic beverage according to its deemed alcohol content or average alcohol content. This means that alcoholic beverages with a higher volume of alcohol will contribute a higher proportion to the levy. This Government along with members from other parties is keen to progress a bill that will improve the way in which the ALAC levy is set. 
During the bill’s second reading members spoke on the importance of the work done by ALAC. The Government supports the role of ALAC and it notes that this bill is a technical amendment to the way in which ALAC is funded rather than legislation to reduce alcohol-related harm. 
There are in my view four main reasons why this bill should be passed. First the levy-setting mechanism is outdated as it is based on only four classes of liquor. The emergence of ready-to-drink products with around 5 percent alcohol and of an increasing number of standard spirits with less than 42 percent alcohol by volume is not readily accommodated by the levy in the way it is currently struck. That highlights the need to future-proof the classification system by enabling the easier classification of emerging types of beverage. Second the spirits category requires the calculation of what are called “proof litres”—a concept that is no longer in use. Since 1986 the New Zealand Customs Service has measured spirit volumes as litres of alcohol and proof litres are no longer recorded. Third the current levy-setting mechanism is unnecessarily complex when viewed alongside the way excise and excise-equivalent duty is set—that is on the basis of alcohol content. Alcohol importers and producers have often noted that this procedure could be simplified. Fourth—and this is the final point—section 27 of the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976 allows the levy to be set by the Minister of Health by  
Gazette 
 notice. There is no process for Cabinet to be involved in the levy-setting procedure. That is inconsistent I would argue with more robust approaches to setting levies such as the procedure for the problem gambling levy. 
ALAC is funded by a levy on all alcoholic beverages manufactured in and imported into New Zealand. The total levy amount for ALAC during the 2007-08 financial year was $12.4 million. That is small compared with alcohol excise and excise-equivalent duty which was $795 million in the year ended June 2008. The new system will not affect the total sum collected for the levy. Estimates from the 2006-07 levy round suggest that the beer industry will be affected most by the proposed change to the calculation of the levy due to the high volume of imported and manufactured beer products in New Zealand. The spirits and wine sectors will both contribute a lower proportion of the levy under the proposed system. The change will have minimal impact on those who pay the levy and industry groups are generally supportive of the bill. 
After looking at the bill and considering submissions from six submitters the Health Committee recommended that the bill proceed with two minor amendments. Mr Ryall who was a member of the Health Committee when it considered the bill was pleased to see the two amendments incorporated because clearly they provided more clarity. I understand that at that time every committee member supported the changes. 
The bill will provide an easier more effective and more robust process for levy setting in the future. I therefore recommend that the House pass this bill. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on the third reading of the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill which is a non-controversial and common-sense bill. 
It is largely a technical amendment bill. Nevertheless it has attracted considerable and at times colourful debate. We have heard a few confessions a fascinating story about Maurice Williamson’s travels behind the Iron Curtain and multiple thorough examinations of some of the finer details and history of the bill. Its progress through the House has been quite an education for me as a new member of Parliament. 
The purpose of this bill is of course to amend the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976 in order to create a simplified and more modern approach to the levy-setting mechanisms of the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC). The bill changes the method of calculation of the levy charged on each alcoholic beverage. ALAC is currently funded by a proportionate levy on four categories of alcohol—beer wine fortified wine and spirits—according to their volumes consumed during the previous year. The total levy for ALAC during the 2005-06 year was close to $13 million. This is small in comparison with the total alcohol excise which was $712 million for the year ended June 2006 which is in turn minute in comparison with the billions of dollars that alcohol harm is estimated to cost our economy. 
The new method introduced by this bill is a levy per litre of alcohol content. The result is that drinks with higher alcohol percentages will contribute a higher proportion of the levy. The Health Committee has recommended that the rates of levy for particular classes of alcohol be made consistent with the rates of excise duty charged on those classes. This does seem infinitely sensible. It is worth noting that the effect on the price of alcoholic beverages at the point of sale will be negligible. The bill is future-proofed against the emergence of new types of beverages that would not easily fit into any liquor class in the current system. These include for instance some hybrid drinks that have a mixture of wine and spirits—not to my taste to be sure—and the alcopops or ready-to-drink beverages that seem to be evolving at an ever-increasing rate. 
ALAC’s prime objective is to promote responsible drinking and strategies that will minimise alcohol misuse. Although improvements in responsible drinking and the minimisation of harm associated with alcohol misuse and abuse are not the aims of this bill it does support those aims by amending the Alcohol Advisory Council Act to simplify the current mechanisms for setting the ALAC levy. The amendment provides for a levy-setting regime that is fair up to date and simple to calculate thus securing the future of ALAC. 
ALAC’s work is as relevant today as it was in 1976. In fact the council has done a superb job of moving with the times and the range of initiatives undertaken by it today is truly impressive. Anamata is the annual national youth conference hosted by ALAC. The purpose of Anamata is to provide a forum where young people from around Aotearoa come together to discuss alcohol issues as they see them. In addition Anamata provides an opportunity for young people to discuss and debate alcohol issues in culturally appropriate ways. It gives young New Zealanders the opportunity to take part in the wider discussion about the place alcohol should have in our communities now and in the future. That is of immense importance. It is all very well for us to debate the issue of harm reduction and to have a particular focus on issues relating to youth drinking but without the input from our young people our deliberations—perhaps clouded by the number of years that have passed since most members could describe themselves as young—are likely to be wide of the mark. 
ALAC runs a number of campaigns. The “It’s not the drinking. It’s how we’re drinking.” campaign holds up a mirror to New Zealand and our drinking culture. It forces us to question the belief that it is OK to deliberately plan to drink to excess. It forces us to face up to the dangers of alcohol misuse and abuse. ALAC’s television advertisements have become legendary. Yes they are brutal but they bring to our screens some of the very real repercussions suffered not only by those people who take their drinking to the extreme but also by their friends and families. ALAC does not take a prohibitive approach to alcohol consumption—far from it. Indeed ALAC actively supports measured and responsible drinking. However too many New Zealanders do not drink in a measured and responsible way. Too many New Zealanders bank up their drinking then spend it all in one go in one massive binge. That is when most harm occurs. 
ALAC’s programmes are designed to change the acceptance and celebration of drunkenness and intoxication and to reduce the amount of alcohol that we might drink in any one session. It is difficult for us as legislators to tackle something as deeply ingrained in our culture as binge drinking. Clearly change has to come from within our communities and families. However it is possible through legislation to set a regulatory environment that supports safer drinking balances liberty and responsibility and seeks to reduce the rates of crime disease and injury related to alcohol abuse. 
The debate around how best to tackle the enormous costs associated with alcohol abuse must be an informed one. It is vital that we resist the temptation to base our decisions on our own bias or our own narrow range of experiences. We have to take an evidence-based approach and make sure that any legislative change is done in the interests of genuine harm reduction. That is where ALAC comes in. The collection and dissemination of information about alcohol consumption support considered and knowledgable debate both in the public arena and in this House. 
This bill supports the continued existence of ALAC and its continued ability to advocate educate and disseminate information. I wholeheartedly support this bill and I congratulate the previous Labour Government on introducing and promoting it. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 It is indeed excellent that the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill is finally reaching its third reading in the House and that everybody is supporting it. But where there is some degree of concern is about the fact that the bill was introduced on 11 December 2007. This is a bill to simplify outdated legislation and one would have thought that if the previous Labour Government had been studious it would have got on and passed it during its time in office. Instead it was concentrating on absolutely undemocratic legislation that cluttered up the whole workings of Parliament—legislation like the Electoral Finance Bill. That is what Labour was concentrating on instead of getting on with good sensible legislation that would simplify and put into line a measure where the need for it was quite obvious. 
I understand that the Health Committee worked extremely well together during the consideration of the bill. There were six submissions and there was unanimity of opinion as to the result. 
This bill will address problems with the current method of setting the levy that funds the Alcohol Advisory Council. We recently heard a very good contribution from Iain Lees-Galloway pointing out the extraordinary contribution made by the Alcohol Advisory Council. The work that it does in research dissemination of information educational programmes and innovative treatment programmes is absolutely vital. It does all that work on a budget of about $12.4 million. I believe that the council’s task is undoubtedly an enormous one and the council does it with extraordinary commitment and dedication. The speaker before Iain Lees-Galloway the Hon Dr Richard Worth gave an excellent contribution and pointed out just how much the total levies are. They are in the order of three-quarters of a billion dollars. So it is a very small amount that goes to the Alcohol Advisory Council. 
But it is important to note that this bill is not intended to contribute to reducing alcohol-related harm; instead it aims to simplify the calculation of the levy that funds the council. It of course has a very significant role to play in reducing the burden of alcohol-related harm. 
Hon Member 
: They’re a bit loose. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: He is right; my glasses are a bit loose. I must say it makes me think that there must be a huge number of combinations and permutations of riveting new information that one could contribute to this debate so I do not want to be deflected by the fact that my glasses are indeed a bit loose. I will get them fixed. 
The Government is very concerned about alcohol-related harm in New Zealand. However a technical amendment to simplify the funding of a Crown entity is not the place to debate ways to reduce alcohol-related harm. The good news is that the excellent new National Government is introducing a whole raft of measures to help combat both violence and alcohol-related harm. Only last evening in the House there was a vigorous debate along those lines. 
The key point of this bill is to bring the levy-setting regime into line with the excise-setting regime. In 2004 a Ministry of Health review of the levy-setting mechanisms of the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976 found four major problems which are dealt with by the new bill and which were described so eloquently by my colleague the Hon Dr Richard Worth. Firstly the levy-setting mechanism is outdated. Secondly it is based on only four classes of liquor. For example ready-to-drink beverages commonly known as the “RTDs” did not exist at the time the Act was passed into law. Proof litres have not been used to measure spirits since 1986. The New Zealand Customs Service measures the volume of spirits as litres of alcohol. 
Thirdly the current levy-setting mechanism is unnecessarily complex when compared with the method of setting excise and excise-equivalent duty based on alcohol content. That bears out the very fact that the lazy previous Labour Government did not get on and pass this bill. 
Shane Ardern 
: It had 9 long years. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: As my excellent colleague Shane Ardern points out the previous Government had 9 long years to pass the bill. But with alacrity the excellent new National Government is expeditiously passing the bill within our fourth month. The fourth area is that although the current Act allows the levy to be set by the Minister of Health by  
Gazette  
notice there is no process for Cabinet to be involved and that is inconsistent with other levy-setting approaches. 
The bill repeals the four current definitions of “wine” and replaces them with a single definition. [ 
Interruption 
] One has to think of innovative ways to go over the same subject matter time and time again. My glasses have done me well! The Act currently defines the term “wine” as “all products that if imported would be admissible for the time being” under a variety of headings. The term “fortified wine” means “any product that if imported would be admissible for the time being” under those same headings “and that exceeds in strength 14 percent alcohol by volume”. The definition “fruit wine” means “wine manufactured in New Zealand from any product other than grapes”. 
The bill repeals all those definitions and replaces them with one definition: that of wine.  
The Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 describes wine in noun form as “an alcoholic drink made from fermented grape juice” or “a fermented alcoholic drink made from other fruit or plants.” The bill is indeed very much in alignment with  
The Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 in its new definition. It states: “wine means the product of the complete or partial fermentation of any fruit (including grapes) vegetable or honey and—(a) includes—(i) cider perry”—pear wine—“and mead; and (ii) fortified wines such as sherry port and fruit or vegetable-based liquors; but (b) does not include—(i) beer or spirits; or (ii) any liquor containing no more than 1.15% volume of alcohol.” 
Undoubtedly this bill does some very very useful things. The proposed regime is up to date and simple to calculate. The new regime is flexible enough to allow for the emergence of new types of beverages which keep on being changed from month to month by somewhat innovative brewers. There is minimal impact on those who pay the levy and the price changes will be very small. Finally the new schedule addresses the concerns raised by New Zealand winegrowers about the need to clarify which rates will be applicable to particular products. It is with great pleasure that I support the third reading of this bill. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill. As the previous speaker Dr Paul Hutchison told us in great detail this is a technical amendment bill that provides for a levy-setting regime that is fair up to date and simple to calculate and that removes historical anomalies. Previous speakers have touched on those issues so I will add a personal touch. 
I want to talk about some of the social issues surrounding the use of alcohol. I am sure all members have their own stories from their electorates and home towns that they can recount regarding the problems that arise from the consumption of alcohol and I will add my own tales. I need to add though that this bill is not designed to remedy the social ills that alcohol presents as members have touched on. Even so we need to take every opportunity we can to highlight the problems that alcohol causes and the harm associated with it. 
Only about a week after my candidacy was announced I received a letter from a gentleman in Rotorua who warned me of the perils of alcohol and particularly the harm it caused to Maori. Although I found the tone of the letter a little condescending towards Maori I could not help but agree with much of what the gentleman had to say. I assumed from his tone that he was not Maori himself and I winced at some of the Maori stereotypes he reinforced such as our not being genetically wired to handle alcohol. However I felt that there was an underlying concern about us as a people and about the fact that many of us as Maori find ourselves in trouble because of the frequency and volume of alcohol consumed. 
I grew up in Leonard Street Kawakawa which I can assure members was not a neck of the woods that was affected by skyrocketing real estate prices a few years back. In fact I doubt whether property values have moved much at all in that particular part of town. Leonard Street is a cul-de-sac that one can get to only by driving down Whiteman Road. I doubt whether there is a road in New Zealand less aptly named because it is a road full of brown faces. Let me tell the House now that those people are some of the greatest I know. Even though my family moved out of Leonard Street when I was aged 13 and moved a full mile and a half to the other side of town the friendships I made with kids on that street endure to this day. 
But some of my earliest memories are of some of the folk in that street regularly having parties that seemed to last all weekend. None of us living in that street had money but there always seemed to be money for alcohol. I do not know what was sacrificed so that the weekly party could be had but I have memories of guitars and singing cars ripping up and down the street and often more people sitting on the boot bonnet or roof of the car than there were people on the inside being driven. There were 14 families living on that street and close to 100 kids excluding the mokos the whangai the nieces the nephews and the hangers-on. Of those 100 kids only three to my knowledge gained a university degree. Some went on to the police or owned businesses but many succumbed to the system and did not achieve their potential. I cannot help but wonder about the part that alcohol had to play in that underachievement given that alcohol and parties seemed to have a higher priority than education. 
To change tack slightly I recall a wananga held at my marae in Karetu about 10 years ago where for part of the time we spoke about some of our elders who had passed on and what sort of people they were. I was quite astounded that most of our men were described in two ways: firstly they could swear and secondly they could drink. At the time we laughed because the stories were anecdotes and reminiscences of people we loved but it dawned on me that the men we held up as role models and examples in our community were actually hardened drinkers—it was OK to drink. 
I wonder how our women felt back in those days about having their men come home from work drunk most nights. When the freezing works opened in Moerewa and most men went there to work many of them rode bicycles to and from work. This was a journey of some 14 or 15 kilometres. On many occasions they would stop at the Star Hotel in Kawakawa on their way back from work and buy a keg—would members believe—and carry it home on their bicycles drinking as they went. There is a hill and a flat about 4 kilometres from home that carry the beautiful name of Waitemaringi. This hill is where these elders would stop to drink the last of their keg before getting home. Unfortunately the quantities of alcohol consumed on the way would necessitate a comfort stop. Such was the regularity of this that the name Waitemaringi is basically lost and this hill and flat are now known as Mimi Hill and Mimi Flat respectively. Not only can we conclude that alcohol is partly responsible for the loss of some of my hapu’s beautiful traditional place names and therefore another part of our culture but also that my elders set a poor example for our youth not by drinking and driving but rather by drinking and cycling. 
This bill arose as a result of a review of the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976 conducted by the Ministry of Health in 2004. Problems were found in the way levies were calculated and apportioned. The Alcohol Advisory Council—or ALAC as it is known—received a total levy amount of $12.4 million in the 2007-08 financial year which is small in comparison with the $795 million collected as excise payable on alcohol manufactured in New Zealand and excise-equivalent duty payable on alcohol imported into New Zealand in the year ended June 2008. Given the amount of damage that alcohol causes I would like to put in a plug for ALAC to receive a greater share so that it is better able to fulfil its functions which include research dissemination of information educational programmes and innovative treatment programmes. 
Under the system proposed by the bill the dollar amount per litre of beverage for the ALAC levy can be set for each alcoholic beverage according to its deemed alcohol content or average alcohol content. This means that alcoholic beverages with a higher volume of alcohol would contribute a higher portion of the levy. The new system will not affect the total sum collected for the levy and the effect on the price to consumers will not be significant—approximately 2c less for a 750 ml bottle of spirits and a difference of less than 1c for a bottle of wine a six-pack of beer or a four-pack of ready-to-drink beverages. 
I welcome the changes that attempt to future-proof against new types of beverages that will most likely hit the market over the coming years. When growing up in the 1970s I thought there were four classes of alcohol as are described in the bill but I thought they were Lion Red DB wine in a cask and top shelf. I did not really understand at the time that top shelf was not actually a product brand. I remember the first time I sneaked a sip of whisky from a bottle and understood instantly why our people call alcohol wai piro—putrid water. I could not stand the taste then and I cannot stand the taste now. Seeing the range of beverages available and on sale these days I can only imagine the types of firewater that will be available in the future with the different mixes of alcohol—spirits and wines—all tasting like children’s cordial. Therefore it is great that the levy system has been future-proofed to cater for these possibilities. This future-proofing was the first of the improvements to the Act to address the four problems that needed rectifying. 
Other speakers have covered most of the technical aspects but before I wind up I take the time to return our attention to the need for ALAC to receive greater funding in order to support its aims. As principal of Kaitaia Intermediate School it broke my heart to hear from members of the Kaitaia police and the local safer community group the stories of some pupils’ drinking excesses on Friday nights. It is not uncommon for the police or that community group in the course of their patrols to come across highly intoxicated—and in some instances comatose—kids. I can tell the House that as the father of a 13-year-old girl the stories of how some of these kids—young girls mainly—acquired some of their hard liquor absolutely turned my stomach. 
I do not want to leave anyone in any doubt as to the need for greater funding for ALAC so that there can be greater access for our youth to educational programmes on the safe consumption of alcohol. My personal belief is that there is not really a safe level of alcohol consumption for youth. However the reality is that youth drinking is a fact of life and is often condoned by parents. So if youth drinking is going to happen our youth need access to information they can relate to in the hope they can make safe decisions when consuming alcohol. As adults we need to step up and set an example to our youth who are really only mimicking our behaviour. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I want to make just a very short contribution tonight. The Green Party is supporting this bill and we are pleased to do so. 
I hear a number of concerns from other members about the drinking culture and the kinds of messages that social marketing is trying to send to the community about the dangers inherent in drinking. Of course alcohol is a drug like any other drug. It is one of the two major legal drugs in this country. The problem as I see it is that alcohol is not treated as a drug in law and in regulation. It would be consistent and indeed a very good message for this Parliament to send to have alcohol listed in the Misuse of Drugs Act. I imagine it would be most appropriately listed in schedule 4 and be what is known as a class D drug. 
If that was to happen alcohol could be dealt with by regulation; Parliament would not have to deal with legislation every time we wanted to make a change. We would then be able to provide very strict regulations about the advertising of alcohol and about the provision of alcohol in the community and we would be able to deal with issues like these levies and taxes on alcohol all within a regulatory framework that would put alcohol squarely where it belongs which is alongside other drugs that impact on our community. It would be a very consistent position if we were to put tobacco into the Misuse of Drugs Act as well—in the same schedule—and therefore give this Parliament the Government more control over how regulations and restrictions are set for the sale the marketing and of course the display of those drugs in our community. 
We must be serious about the harms those drugs cause to our community. They are serious harms. Those drugs cause deaths. I think it is 5000 deaths a year for tobacco and 1000 deaths a year for alcohol. People are being killed by the use of those drugs so they should be treated as other drugs are treated. It is clear that there is no real drive to reintroduce prohibition for the drug alcohol and the drug tobacco. But that is why we have in law the capacity for a schedule 4 class D classification in the Misuse of Drugs Act. It sends the message to the community that drugs when misused—particularly by young people but also by the community as a whole—are harmful. Therefore Parliament should rightly have the role of setting restrictions on how those drugs should be used. That would be a consistent position; that would send a consistent message. It would also send a consistent message to the producers of these drugs the manufacturers of these drugs that Parliament and the country consider them to be harmful and will take the maximum amount of responsibility for controlling them in a way that reduces the harm that we have seen them cause to our people. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am delighted to support the third reading of the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill. This bill amends a 30-year-old Act the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976. The bill in front of the House is in essence a technical bill an amendment to this Act. 
In 2004 as we have heard from other members’ contributions the Ministry of Health reviewed the levy-setting mechanisms of the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976 and found four major problems which are dealt with by the new bill. The first is that the levy-setting mechanism is outdated because it is based on only four classes of liquor: beer wine fortified wine and spirits. In fact we know that there are now many more such as pre-mix cocktails and ready-to-drinks. Secondly some terminology is outdated. The Act uses proof litres which have not been used to measure spirits since 1986. In comparison the New Zealand Customs Service measures spirit volumes as litres of alcohol. Thirdly the review found that the current levy-setting mechanism is unnecessarily complex. Finally the review noted that there is no process for Cabinet to be involved. 
This bill updates and simplifies the current mechanisms for setting the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) levy which is imposed on all alcoholic beverages manufactured in or imported into New Zealand. I would like to take some time to compliment ALAC and to talk about its process and levy. ALAC’s total budget for 2008-09 is almost $13 million and it is funded largely from the alcohol levy that is collected by the New Zealand Customs Service. The levy is charged on both New Zealand - produced and imported alcohol products intended for consumption in New Zealand. The levy ensures that the funds are targeted at alcohol-related problems. In the 2007-08 year the ALAC levy was just over $12 million representing approximately 1.5 percent of the total excise and levies from alcohol. The total excise collected for 2007-08 in comparison was $795 million. 
ALAC is a Crown entity with a single focus on alcohol. It has a statutory role to research provide advice and make recommendations to Government authorities in the fields of health education and social welfare and to any other relevant bodies or persons on alcohol issues. ALAC’s vision is of a nation where people understand the harmful results of alcohol misuse and share responsibility for minimising them. Where people aspire to moderate alcohol consumption in the environments where alcohol is consumed ALAC will also support moderation and abstinence will be accepted as a valid choice to make. These are indeed very commendable visions. 
Alongside this people who have problems with alcohol consumption will be able to receive appropriate support and treatment. As such ALAC’s important mission is to lead a change in New Zealand’s drinking culture. I have heard tonight that New Zealand has a drinking culture that accepts binge drinking as a normal social behaviour. ALAC’s research shows that about one-third of adult New Zealanders consider drunkenness to be socially acceptable. ALAC considers that this view is no longer acceptable nor is it sustainable for New Zealand. The social and financial cost of alcohol-related harm has been estimated to be in the billions of dollars per year in New Zealand. 
In the past ALAC focused on strategies to reduce alcohol consumption; now it focuses more on patterns of drinking and the ways people are drinking as that is the area where most harm occurs. To change the way people drink ALAC is trying to change the drinking culture. ALAC’s social marketing campaign has achieved high awareness and it is encouraging New Zealanders to think about their own behaviour. I applaud its powerful recent television adverts. 
This bill proposes to align the ALAC levy according to alcohol classification bands which is similar to the approach used by the New Zealand Customs Service. In essence this means that drinks with a higher alcohol volume will have a greater levy than drinks with a lower alcohol volume. There is no doubt that this proposed legislation is fairer and modernises current practice. The proposed regime is also simple to calculate and it has been worded in such a way that new composition alcohol drinks not yet thought about or designed other than beer fortified wine or spirits can be accommodated. Back in 1976 who would have thought that ready-to-drinks would be one of the biggest growth markets particularly among young people? The new regime is flexible enough to allow for the emergence of new types of beverages that would not easily fit into the liquor class in the current system such as ready-to-drinks. 
This is not a contentious bill. It was heard by the Health Committee in the last Parliament of which I was a member. The Health Committee was assured that this bill would have a minimal impact and be far easier to operate. Indeed it was evident from submissions that industry groups including producers and importers were generally supportive of simplifying the process of calculating the levy. We were told that price changes would be very small. The estimates were for an increase of less than 1c for a bottle of wine a six-pack of beer or a four-pack of ready-to-drinks and 2c for a 750 millilitre bottle of spirits. 
The Health Committee did however recommend some changes to the original bill. We were concerned that there was inconsistency between the excise and the ALAC levy collection systems. For example in the table in the schedule of the original bill table wine with more than 14 percent alcohol would have incurred a higher ALAC levy than table wine of less that 14 percent but under the current excise system both incur the same levy. The Health Committee felt that this was inconsistent. The new table provided in the bill now ensures that there is consistency between the two systems. In the table wine example there are in fact six classes. Retaining the levy but aligning it to the excise collection system is the option supported by the Government and most stakeholders as it is simpler than the current method as well as being cheaper and more transparent than other alternatives. 
One other change was recommended by the Health Committee. The definition of “rate” has been inserted into the bill to clarify that it is the percentage figure given in the table in the schedule of the bill. 
This bill does not address measures to reduce alcohol-related harm. That is not its intention. That will be for future debate on other legislation currently before the House. This bill aims to simplify the calculation of the levy that funds ALAC which has a significant role in reducing the burden of alcohol-related harm in society. 
There is no doubt that there is growing concern in the community about the effect of alcohol and that the community wants to have more of a say. That has been clearly evident in the community in Mt Roskill where I am a list MP. Last year the Mount Roskill South community came together to oppose the imminent opening of a liquor outlet that was only 100 metres away from a school a kindergarten and a church. If the proposal had been successful it would have meant that there would be 10 outlets in the Mount Roskill South area. Members of the community were concerned about the growing number of serious incidents of youth crime and violence in the area and thought that more alcohol outlets would fuel that trend. They had a number of concerns about the current legislation having no teeth and were concerned that the local body alcohol strategy had no legal status. I am pleased to report to colleagues that in the face of this united front the proposed outlet did not go ahead. 
My community is not alone; many communities around New Zealand are up in arms determined to have their say. But that issue is for other current legislation in front of the House. In summary the Government supports this bill and the amendments that have come through after consideration by the Health Committee. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill and as my colleagues have done I welcome the changes that this bill will facilitate. Any bill that provides a level of consistency across any form of industry and/or product can be only a positive step in the right direction. Even though this bill is technical in nature we must as parliamentarians always work to ensure that all legislation is fair up to date and simple to calculate. We must also work to ensure that as far as possible legislation is future-proofed to take into account possibilities imagined but not yet realised. 
This legislation had its genesis in the 2004 Ministry of Health review of the levy-setting mechanisms outlined in the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976. The review found four major issues concerning the methodology around the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) levy calculation and apportionment. First the levy-setting mechanism is out of date. The alcohol market has changed considerably since 1976 and the provisions no longer reflect the range of alcohol now consumed in New Zealand. Second the spirits category requires the calculation of proof letters a concept that is no longer in use and has been replaced with litres of alcohol in terms of determining excise duty. Third the current levy-setting mechanism is unnecessarily complex and fourth section 27 of the Alcohol Advisory Council Act 1976 does not have a process by which Cabinet can be involved in the levy-setting process. 
This bill solves the problems that exist in the current levy-setting mechanisms by introducing an updated and simple calculation system that reflects the current alcohol market. As has been noted this bill does not address concerns around the abuse of alcohol in our society and it does not debate the social issues around the causes of alcohol abuse and misuse. However as is the case with the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill—another Labour-introduced bill before the House—any legislation that helps our communities to be better served through education and enlightenment around the healthy and safe use of alcohol is a start and I think we would all agree with that. Our communities deserve this and our constituents demand this for the sake of our diverse communities and society as a whole. 
I think we all know that ALAC does a magnificent job and is a very important body in terms of the delivery of social outcomes to our diverse communities. As has been previously mentioned ALAC was set up by Norman Kirk’s third Labour Government on the recommendation of a formal commission of inquiry into the sale of liquor and it is just one of many examples of Labour putting in place important social agencies and advisory councils to help educate our diverse communities around the issues confronting all New Zealanders either directly or indirectly. 
Like many previous speakers I think that if we went to the ALAC website we would see that it has had about four or five times more hits than it would normally have in a day. Let me talk about ALAC’s vision. I ask members whether they have heard it before. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Say it again; it’s a good one. 
STUART NASH 
: Yes it is worth reinforcing because it is a very important agency. ALAC’s vision as its website states is for “A New Zealand drinking culture that supports the moderate use of alcohol so that whanau and communities enjoy life free from alcohol harms”. The website goes on: “We will know we are on track when New Zealanders share responsibility for: minimising harm that results from alcohol misuse in our communities families and whanau; a culture where all aspire to moderate consumption and reject drunkenness or choose abstinence if that is best for them; widespread understanding of the harms associated with the misuse of alcohol; supporting the measures that control the environments where alcohol is consumed; ensuring that those who do have problems with alcohol consumption will have access to appropriate support and treatment for themselves their whanau families and communities.” 
I do not think anyone would disagree that those are very laudable goals and objectives. ALAC has a budget of only $12.7 million but many of us will be familiar with ALAC’s work. Members may be pleasantly surprised to learn that DB Breweries Lion Nathan and the Wine Institute are among the organisations that endorse ALAC’s work. Even these companies understand that sensible drinking is the only way we can keep ourselves and our communities safe. 
An example of ALAC’s work is the current campaign saying “It’s not the drinking. It’s how we’re drinking.” In my view this is very effective. It is a salient campaign because it takes alcoholism and binge drinking out of the scenes of pubs and bars and puts it into contexts that we all recognise. There are real people in these ads. These are the guys we play rugby with. They are our girlfriends work colleagues mothers fathers and wives. Now when I say “our girlfriends” I am not talking about “my girlfriend”. That is a generic statement of course. Goodness me! Alcoholism knows no social or economic barriers. I am saying that the advertisement brings our families and the families of our nation into it. We are all affected by the destructive consequences of binge drinking. 
It also appears that alcohol consumption does not recognise age or political affiliation. There are some absolutely dreadful statistics for 12 to 17-year-olds. How about the following: 17 percent of 12 to 17-year-olds reported that getting alcohol is not a problem and 24 percent said they can afford as much alcohol as they want. Goodness me! One in three make no attempt to limit their drinking. We are not talking about university students here; we are talking about high school students. One-third of young people reported that they make no attempt to limit the amount of alcohol they drink—so they do not care about waking up with a hangover. Thirty percent reported that they make no attempt not to drink so much that they forget what is happening. Many claim that it is OK to get drunk—these are 12 to 17-year-olds. Fifty percent reported that it is OK to get drunk as long as it is not every day. Sixty-one percent disagreed with the statement that it is never OK to get drunk. 
As for adults well goodness me! Twenty-seven percent of adults reported they feel more confident when they drink alcohol. Twenty-four percent agreed that everything seems happier when they drink alcohol. Thirty-nine percent agreed that when they drink alcohol it is easier to meet people and to get to know people. Forty-five percent claimed they enjoyed the buzz they got when they drank alcohol and 68 percent claimed that drinking alcohol helped them to unwind and relax. Goodness me! Are we that pent up and frustrated? Twenty-three percent disagreed with the statement that they limit the amount of alcohol that they drink so they do not wake up with a hangover. I could go on—and they are pretty damning statistics are they not? Members can find all those statistics on the ALAC website and I urge them to go to it because there is some great stuff on that website. 
We are drinking more as a nation. The total volume of alcoholic beverage available for consumption in December 2005 was 458.8 million litres which is an increase of 14.1 million litres compared with December 2004. That is 100 litres per man woman and child in this country. So when we think about the harm caused through excessive consumption of alcohol by those who lose control under the influence we understand how necessary it is for an organisation such as ALAC to exist. As members of Parliament we have all heard stories from victims who have felt and experienced the misuse of alcohol. There is an ad about people who have been affected by drink-driving and it shows the drinker being referred to as “Mate!” but later just as “Dave.” 
I contend that ALAC’s role is extremely important and will become more so as the economic crisis starts to deepen even further into the bowels of society. Currently 7 percent of adults who drink say they do so to escape reality. ALAC undertakes valuable research disseminates information and runs educational programmes and innovative treatment programmes designed to target those at risk. For those and other reasons I support the passage of this bill through the House. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 I too rise to support the third reading of the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill. It has been unanimously supported in this House and it has been very interesting to listen to MPs talk about the use of alcohol in their communities reflect on their childhoods and even talk about how alcohol and tobacco should be listed as drugs. 
But this bill really concerns only a technical amendment to the Alcohol Advisory Council Act of 1976. The bill is about updating streamlining and making a cheaper calculation system for the levy that funds the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC). ALAC was set up over 30 years ago after a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Sale of Liquor. It was set up because at that time in 1976 it was thought there was a need for a permanent council whose aim would be to encourage responsible alcohol use and minimise the misuse of alcohol. It has been particularly interesting to listen to MPs to listen to the statistics and to ask when ALAC has been going for over 30 years how much real progress it has made. We are all concerned about the binge-drinking culture in New Zealand; we are all concerned about our young people. We are looking at ways to control the number of outlets in cities and the hours those outlets are open. Alcohol is more available but how much has ALAC actually delivered over the last 30 years? 
This bill supports the existing levy that underpins the money for ALAC but it ties the levy directly to and aligns it with the separate excise and excise-equivalent duties that are also calculated on alcohol. The whole idea of this change is to make the levy easy to calculate and to have a more transparent process but it is also to reflect the products in the current alcohol market. Back in 1976 we were drinking very differently—drinking different products drinking in different places and drinking at different times. It is interesting to see how the definitions of alcohol have changed. For example we have taken the four definitions for wine that were originally in the levy and reduced them down to one. 
We have also looked at definitions in terms of the new products that are very commonly in use but I think that the ones that are perhaps the most frequently used and the ones that are perhaps most disturbing to New Zealanders are the ready-to-drinks—that is the mixtures of spirits and sticky soft drinks that young people particularly enjoy. I think that one of the problems that really concern people is that those ready-to-drinks are so similar to soft drinks. Obviously the marketing is designed so that young people can pick them up and go glug glug glug just as they did with soft drinks in the years when they were kids. Ready-to-drinks taste the same as soft drinks look the same have similar graphics and have bright-coloured containers. I think those are the things that make young people attracted to the drinks but also that cause them not to understand how powerful the drinks are. Ready-to-drinks are certainly leading to lots of trouble for young people. 
When we were looking at this levy we also wanted to make sure that it was flexible enough to be able to deal with future products that we have not thought about yet—to future-proof it so that it would not have to be updated again as we are doing right now. This levy will not affect the people who pay it. In fact it is supported by the industry—by producers manufacturers and wholesalers. It makes only the most minor of price changes: a few cents on a bottle of wine on a six-pack of beer or on those ready-to-drinks. 
We support the levy because we support the fact that a levy should go to ALAC and that ALAC should be educating New Zealanders to use alcohol sensibly and to reduce alcohol harm. We support it because we understand that we need good research into how we are drinking why we are drinking and where we are drinking. We need good research so that we can create more innovative treatment programmes. We need good research so that we can educate our young people and ALAC is particularly active in the education area. It works with schools it works with communities and of course it has a very powerful and regular advertising programme to educate us that “It’s not the drinking. It’s how we’re drinking.” In other words it educates us that alcohol is not necessarily bad—it is how we use that alcohol that can be bad. Those advertising messages are very powerful; 94 percent of New Zealanders have seen them have listened to them have been moved by them and have considered how much they are drinking now and how much they should be drinking in the future. Yes ALAC is there it is doing good work and it is educating New Zealand. It is trying to make us use alcohol more sensibly and we support it. And we support this bill which streamlines simplifies and calculates the levy for ALAC. Thank you. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill. This is as has been noted a rather technical bill but it is none the less a very important update for the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC). ALAC’s role is around the minimisation of the harm that alcohol causes and I believe it is a desperately needed agency in this nation of ours particularly when we see the many other people whose job it is to promote alcohol. Not very long ago—around the time when ALAC was first suggested in the early 1970s—our drinking culture revolved around the 6 o’clock swill. It was mostly focused on men aged at least 21 and on those much older than that. Now of course our drinking culture is evident around the clock—24 hours. Rather than just being about men in pubs it is very much focused on the availability around the clock of alcopops spirits wines and still beer—but 100-plus different varieties of beer. 
There is absolutely nothing wrong as most members of the House would agree with having a sophisticated drink—most of us enjoy it. Just last Thursday I had the pleasure of accompanying the Leader of the Opposition Phil Goff on a wander down The Strip in my electorate of Christchurch Central. It was very good natured—people were out enjoying an early evening drink. 
Hon Member 
: Did anyone recognise him? 
BRENDON BURNS 
: Lots of people recognised the Leader of the Opposition. Many people insisted on stopping and talking to him. He did not have a drink with them but he certainly had his photograph taken with them. That is the sort of sophistication that we all want to support and encourage. 
But unfortunately that is not the only picture we see with alcohol which is why ALAC is so important. In fact ALAC is a brick in the wall against alcohol. Our Sale of Liquor Act which has as its principal objective the minimisation of harm is really observed in the breach rather than in practice. In the city of Christchurch sometimes we do not have to look very far to see a manifest failure to realise the objective as specified in the Act of minimising harm. Obviously ALAC is the agency that tries to assist in that role. We all know that very very messy consequences arise from the prevalence of alcohol and its associated culture. If we have any doubts about that we can ask anybody who is at the mop-up end: police officers ambulance officers staff at accident and emergency departments health agencies and church and social workers. Our current wide-open liquor laws are driving many of the problems we face in our inner-city areas and Christchurch is no exception to that. The laws contribute to some of the damage that is done such as to our reputation as a tourist destination. All sorts of tougher sentences are being promoted and societal change and other issues are being aired. This bill is a small step in the right direction. 
I held a forum last June on the issue of alcohol availability and the harm that it has done—the sort of harm that ALAC is charged with trying to reduce. There was very wide consensus around the need for the minimisation of harm to actually take effect which this bill attempts to support. At that forum last June in Christchurch we had almost universal support from the then Minister Lianne Dalziel our mayor Bob Parker the police commander for Canterbury publicans youth workers and retirees. Barely a dissenting voice was heard at that forum; there was not even any real dissent around the issue of age. What was at stake and what was discussed was the harm that alcohol is doing—the very harm that this bill attempts to support ALAC in minimising. 
At around the same time I went with Lianne Dalziel who was then the Associate Minister of Justice and responsible for liquor laws on a tour through my inner-city area on a Saturday evening. It brought home in quite stark relief some of the issues we want to try to address around the minimisation of the harm that alcohol does. When we see a 15-year-old sprawled in her own vomit on a main street in Christchurch at 11 o’clock at night we begin to understand the scale of the issue we are facing. ALAC through the levy this bill confirms will help to try to reduce some of the problems that we as members of Parliament all see in our communities. 
In Christchurch one issue is around the number of liquor outlets. There are 1200 outlets across the city which is more than three times the number of 20 years ago. We can buy alcohol late at night from a supermarket at 3 a.m. in a bar and at 5 a.m. from a convenience store. I was pleased that just yesterday the Committee debated the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill which begins to deal with some of those issues. Clearly Parliament never intended that dairies would be selling alcohol. We also want there to be a move towards the prosecution of people who supply alcohol to younger people which is also a subject of that bill. 
One issue that came up at the forum I held last year related to the input of youth. Alcohol abuse and the harm minimisation that is needed are not just youth issues. Our current laws create quite a volatile cocktail in respect of alcohol being glamorised. ALAC through its advertising campaign tries to offset that but it is really pushing it uphill with a rake to see the clever advertisements that are promoted by the liquor industry which basically say people cannot have fun unless they have a beer or alcohol in hand. Also ALAC very much has youth as its focus and that is why this bill is an important small step. We do not even have disagreement from the Hospitality Association. I believe it thinks that ALAC needs to be well funded and that we need to minimise the damage that alcohol is doing. 
One thing we need to acknowledge is that alcohol is our No. 1 drug problem as a nation. There is sometimes a lot of focus on P marijuana and other drugs but alcohol drives three-quarters of hospital admissions and weekend assault injuries and it is at the base of most of our domestic violence problems. For most of our crime in total it is probably a major factor. We need to acknowledge that liquor licences are very easy to get hold of. Basically people who apply for a liquor licence will get it unless they have a criminal conviction. Occasionally small victories can be won such as the rejection last year of an attempt by a Christchurch supermarket to get a full liquor licence for its Moorhouse Avenue store. 
The liquor laws are just one signal of what we face as a community and society. We need to develop a broad consensus for some change. I am pleased to see this bill as it is a small step in the right direction. If we are looking for changes we need to look at a number of ingredients: parental responsibility a change in community attitudes and education programmes. The availability pricing and supply of alcohol are also important. We need ALAC using the funding it will receive under this legislation to play its role. The Government of the day whatever its flavour may be also has to take responsibility. Obviously it receives a large amount of money through excise tax on the sale of alcohol. Therefore in the final analysis the Government is responsible for ensuring that the principal object of the Sale of Liquor Act which is the minimisation of harm is actually put in place and into law and that ALAC and other agencies are funded to assist in achieving that goal. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I rise to take a quick call in support of the Alcohol Advisory Council Amendment Bill. As the curtain falls on the debate on what has been variously described as a technical bill a tidy-up bill or a simplifying bill I reflect on some of the discourse that has taken place. 
At the various stages of this bill speakers have been at pains to point out that this legislation is not intended to contribute to a reduction in alcohol-related harm. The Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill which was introduced yesterday and other bills that are coming up are appropriately designed to do that. Those speakers usually went on to describe the very good work done by the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) and other organisations that work to reduce alcohol-related harm. We were also treated to a confessional from members who described aspects of their ill-spent youth. Of course they are now reformed. No MPs I know would abuse alcohol—at least that they can remember. 
More seriously we debated the concerning aspects of the very public disorder of events in my own home town of Dunedin such as the toga parade the Undie 500 and other alcohol-fuelled events. We also heard some very serious descriptions from Messrs Flavell Jones and others of the serious harm alcohol can cause and it is on this relevant—for me—issue that I will reflect. Last Saturday night a friend who was a former colleague and one of the nicest people I have ever met was killed in a car accident in Central Otago. Investigations into the cause of the crash are continuing but early indications are that alcohol played a part in the actions of the driver of the other vehicle. Alcohol may once again have taken a life and destroyed the lives of many others. No amount of legislation education advertising or attempts at behaviour change will prevent this type of tragedy from occurring. 
Although we may differ on the manner and the extent to which this House intervenes in the lives of its citizens I believe we all have a fundamental goal at the heart of our reason for being here. It is to protect support and encourage the well-being of our citizens socially psychologically and financially. So when we sometimes light-heartedly debate a technical bill an update bill a simplifying bill or a bill that will not set the world on fire I hope that we do not lose sight of the goal of passing laws—however technical—that improve the safety and quality of the lives of the citizens of our great nation. I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to its safe passage. 
Bill read a third time. 
Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 10 March. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions ( 
continued 
)  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 The purpose of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill is articulated as being “to make more effective provision for the confiscation of property that either represents the profits of criminal offending or was used to facilitate the commission of crime”. In thinking of what examples of that might be and noting some of the points that have been raised by other speakers in respect of this we think about land. 
A point was raised by the honourable member Te Ururoa Flavell in respect of jointly owned land—Maori freehold land and Maori customary land—but it applies equally to any land. Co-owners who may be in the position of losing their interest in a piece of land can easily be called to mind. We could take as an example somebody who allows a property like a flat to be used by extended family—or a family bach or some rural land. A young person may grow cannabis on that land for profit without the knowledge of the co-owners and as a result of a subsequent police operation the young person is caught and is prosecuted. Perhaps the land is sublet to somebody who grows cannabis on it without the knowledge of other co-owners. 
So an action is commenced by the recovery body to have that land forfeited. Obviously a co-owner who makes an application has the right under clause 33 to appear before the court and to adduce some evidence. The co-owner can eventually make an application against that forfeiture because the co-owner should not be deprived of his or her co-ownership of or interest in that land by the activities of a third party or another co-owner if he or she did not have any idea that the activity was going on. So if someone is doing something on land that is co-owned and other people with an interest in that land do not know about it then it does not mean that the land will be forfeited at the expense of those co-owners’ interests. 
Vessels and vehicles that are used in the commission of crime are frequently forfeited. Other people could have interests in a vessel or vehicle that has been used for a drug-dealing offence and that is the subject of a forfeiture application. It could well be that other people—maybe the spouse or the children—rely on that vehicle to go about their business. They similarly could make application and be heard or have someone else make application on their behalf and be heard in argument against that forfeiture. 
Thirdly there is the issue of money in the bank. If money in the bank is going to be confiscated then there needs to be a provable track of the illegitimacy of that money. If money has been stashed away in some form—in a TAB account in a bank or stuffed in a mattress somewhere—and if the recovery body is able to prove the illegitimacy of that money and the fact that it is there then it would be the subject of an action before the court for forfeiture. 
Just returning to the issue of land for a moment it is important to make the point that in respect of Maori land the claimant’s interest would be captured under the legislation as it is written now. The National Government has indicated that it will not be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 5 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell in respect of Maori freehold land and Maori customary land because we believe that the protection is already contained within the legislation as it is written. 
Another point that has been made is that Supplementary Order Paper 7 which is being promoted by the Minister of Justice talks about foreign restraining orders to attack those who have unlawfully benefited from significant crimes. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to stand in support of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. I like this bill because as my Labour colleagues have said earlier in this House it has real teeth. I note the amendments moved by the Hon Simon Power last night and I also note that the bill will be divided into three bills. I have no problem with those amendments and I will focus on them in this debate. 
With reference to what Simon Bridges said last night in his speech on this bill I think we need to reiterate that the reason we are supporting the bill is that it is a good bill and it has real teeth. 
Lynne Pillay 
: And it was a Labour bill. 
RAYMOND HUO 
: Of course. 
To tackle crime particularly organised crime and to address the relevant issues we need bills of real substance and ones that are not just examples of window dressing. We are getting measures that are internationally condemned as failed models—for example the boot camp bill and the “three strikes and you’re out” bill. I do not know how to describe the “three strikes and you’re out” bill but I note that it is one that has a 20-year implementation period. As for the boot camps the headline of a  
Dominion Post  
story on 2 March says it all: “Judge puts boot into boot camps”. The judge who was being referred to is the Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft. He was quoted as saying that the traditional boot camp for young offenders was “arguably the least successful sentence in the Western World.” He said: “It made them healthier fitter faster but they were still burglars just harder to catch”. 
Therefore I am very pleased to see that the Government has decided to progress the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill which according to a press release published in 2007 is legislation designed to hit gangs where it hurts. I congratulate the Hon Mark Burton a former Minister of Justice who introduced the bill in March 2007 and Mr Martin Gallagher who chaired the Law and Order Committee. Both have done excellent work on this bill. I also thank the Hon Simon Power for including the bill in the National Government’s 100 days of action. I am glad that the Government rated this bill as more worthy than other measures that have been talked about in the media over the last couple of months including the ones I have mentioned above. 
The bill is based on the principle that crime must not pay. It provides for a new forfeiture regime for the proceeds of crime. It deals with organised crime and allows us to tackle gang leaders who do not get their own hands dirty but enjoy the benefits of their fellow gang member’s illegal activity. Instead of applying the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” the bill gives the Crown the power to confiscate profits and assets obtained through criminal activity on the civil standard of proof which is the balance of probability. No criminal conviction will therefore be required before forfeiture can occur. 
The bill establishes two orders to deal with the removal of the profits of crime from a person. One is the profit forfeiture order and the other is the assets forfeiture order. I also note that the Law and Order Committee report mentions points in respect of the issue as to where the recovery body might be located which would help to clarify where the recovery body should lie. 
I agree with the amendments moved by the Hon Simon Power last night. Labour believes this bill finds an appropriate balance between targeting the proceeds of crime and protecting personal and property rights. Thank you. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 Along with my fellow members of the House who have spoken on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill I can say that it is a great pleasure to speak on the bill and on its Part 1 which has the purpose clause and the like in it. It really is pleasing as a member of the House to be able to stand and hear from around the House support for what is good legislation. It will give some real teeth to the crime-fighting initiatives in this country. 
I acknowledge that the bill was introduced by the previous Labour Government and I commend it for doing that. I would have been more impressed if Labour had got around to passing it but none the less that is something we will rectify. 
As we have heard the bill in its essence creates a new civil forfeiture regime for property that has been acquired through crime. Although we already have the Proceeds of Crime Act it has become apparent that that Act is not sufficient to get to where the real money is being made in crime today. We know that a lot of money is being made through advanced criminal organisations many of which are the motorcycle gangs and similar gangs that we see and we know that it is simply not enough to have a forfeiture regime that necessitates the linking of the owner of the property and the actual committing of the offence. 
Here we have a bill that sets out to establish a forfeiture regime that enables property to be taken not just from those directly involved in the committing of the offence—and that is the important point—but from anyone who has directly or indirectly profited from that crime. In doing that we are able to really strike at the heart of the people who are making a massive industry from crime. 
The clauses that really set out the overall tenor of the legislation are clause 3 which is the purpose clause and clause 4 which sets out the general overview of restraint and forfeiture of property. But there are some other key clauses in Part 1 that I think are worth touching on. Certainly the lawyer in me is always drawn first in a bill like this to look at the interpretation clause. Anyone who has worked in law understands that that is often where the real teeth and meat of the provisions are. 
There are a couple of clauses that I really want to highlight. My friend Chester Borrows has already talked about one of the provisions which is the definition of “property”. That is an important point. Too often we forget that property is far more than just property in the common parlance meaning land; it is any form of property including cash shares Harley Davidsons and debts—any form of property at all. 
Hon Member 
: Dope. 
AMY ADAMS 
: Well quite often it is dope. Equally it is not necessary for there to be whole ownership of that property. This measure cannot be defeated simply by having joint ownership with a spouse a girlfriend the guy down the road or whomever. Those are important points to note. 
It is also important to comment on the definition of “relevant period of criminal activity” in clause 5. This bill will set up a forfeiture provision that can look back 7 years and if there has been relevant criminal offending in that time then the provisions can apply. Relevant and significant criminal offending in this sense includes offences where the maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years or more or—and this is important—offences from which the proceeds or benefit amount to a value of $30000 or more. 
When a person has unlawfully benefited from that type of offending over that 7-year period and has knowingly directly or indirectly benefited from that offending and just as important whether or not he or she was involved in undertaking the committing of the offence then this provision will kick into gear. 
Anybody who seriously suggests that we do not need this sort of reach-through provision in our proceeds of crime legislation needs to think again. By way of example I offer the Killer Bees and Tribesmen sting last year in Auckland and the Waikato that was much written about which resulted in 51 arrests and the seizure of $200000 in cash 538 grams of pure methamphetamine with a street value of more than half a million dollars 400 grams of cannabis 15 vehicles and 12 firearms. 
Certainly the extent power and influence that gangs are gaining through this profitable trade cannot be understated but those sorts of seizures should not fool us into thinking that the legal system we have is working. We know that the seizures of property under the existing Proceeds of Crime Act has fallen away considerably both in number and in value. That tells us that we need reach-through provisions such as those we have in this bill. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. I join with my colleague Raymond Huo in acknowledging that this bill has been brought forward from the previous Labour Government. If we look at the 100 days of action this bill is up there in that it achieves a great deal. It is not window dressing and it does not deal to the most vulnerable in our society so on that basis I speak very strongly in support of this bill. 
The purpose of the bill as previous speakers have acknowledged is to reform the existing law by repealing the Proceeds of Crime Act of 1991. I think we all acknowledge and accept that life has become more sophisticated in many ways and certainly in terms of being accountable for crime in this country. Under the current Act property that either represents the profits of criminal offending or is used to facilitate the commission of a crime can be confiscated once the criminal conviction is secured. The major change in this bill is that a criminal conviction will no longer be required for the confiscation of property that represents the proceeds of crime or the value of unlawfully derived income. In a nutshell this bill is based on the principles that crime should not pay and crime must not pay. Labour members certainly believe that this legislation helps to uphold this very very important principle. 
I acknowledge Martin Gallagher who chaired the Law and Order Committee. The report from that select committee recommended a number of changes. [ 
Interruption 
] The peanut gallery over there has a few things to say but I suggest to those members that they might like to acknowledge the members of the select committee in the previous Parliament who were committed to legislation in terms of competency and scrutiny. The member interjecting Paul Quinn sits on the Justice and Electoral Committee that I sit on. He has much to learn in terms of applying his thinking to bills that come before the committee and trying to rationalise things but I guess those are things he will find difficult. I can see members on the other side of the House thinking “Tell us about it. He is a challenge.” I can see Chester Borrows nodding wisely and thinking “You think you’ve got problems mate.” We agree with Chester. 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I suggest that the member is right off the topic of the purpose of this bill. She is giving a running commentary on the behaviour of the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: That is not a point of order; it is a point of process. The debate has been in quite good humour. People have wandered off the track and have often been encouraged to wander off the track by interjections from members on one side or the other. I suggest the member should let the debate go on and we will have an interesting conclusion. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Thank you Mr Chairman; that is very sensible. 
As I said I acknowledge the Law and Order Committee. I think the Minister in the chair Simon Power will acknowledge that a number of the recommended changes have been taken up. I can see him nodding wisely—if he could just do that again. Yes we can all see that. It is very effective. I would like to run through some of those recommendations. The first is that the police should be the recovery body—a very very sensible recommendation—and that the definition of the owner of property is extended to include those who may have an interest in it. That extends what I think was a key part of the original bill. That definition clarifies a very important part. The amendment to instruments of crime is to include the proceeds from the sale of property. Again if we are drawing in and making sure that everything is encapsulated it is a very very sensible amendment. Certainly the clarification of the circumstances in which property is acquired after a restraining order was made is very important. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call to explain the concerns of the Maori Party about the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill and its effect on Maori land. We all know that Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 was enacted to halt the alienation of Maori land. However just last year contrary to that principle in considering a situation under the existing legislation a District Court judge decided that the existing legislation overrode Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and that Maori land was available for seizure. In that case the judge considered that Parliament wanted the court to confiscate Maori land. I do not know where he could have possibly got that idea from but he thought that Parliament wanted the court to confiscate Maori land. That judge thought that the existing legislation on the proceeds of crime should override the principle that Maori should retain the small amount of Maori land remaining to us. 
In its current form this bill does not correct that view. Mr Flavell’s Supplementary Order Paper provides the opportunity to us at Parliament to correct what I hope is a mistake in perception. If we do not do that there is a chance that more Maori land will be at risk. Last evening the Minister told my colleague Mr Flavell that he had been advised by officials that innocent owners would be able to make application to the court that the land should not be sold. Let me explain to members how that will work. I have an interest in a Maori land block on Rangitoto ki te Tonga / D’Urville Island. I live in Christchurch work in Wellington for 3 or 4 days of most weeks and travel around my electorate the rest of the time. I never get to Rangitoto no matter how much I yearn to. I do not know what is happening on that land block from day to day or even from month to month but I am spiritually attached to that block because it is the only speck of land left from the vast landholdings that my iwi held years ago. It is where many of my tupuna are buried. 
However suppose unbeknownst to me one of my distant whanaunga was suspected—not convicted but suspected—of cultivating weed on the block. If that whanaunga was arrested under this bill the land would be seized. There would be no court case and therefore no resultant publicity. The alleged offender would be too whakama to say anything about it to any of the other owners and the land would be sold—bang! It would be too late to apply to the court. When would I have the chance to stop this confiscation? When would any of the innocent owners have the chance to go to court to prevent this sale? If I like most Maori land owners could not afford to make this application or to pay for a lawyer who would pay to make this application? The advice the Minister has received is worth less than this paper that I am reading from. The only other way we could make a change to this provision is to make an amendment to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act. I invite the Minister to take a call to respond to our concerns. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 In response to the concerns raised by the member who has just resumed her seat I say that I went over this territory last night in respect of advice I have received. The advice was that Maori who have multiple ownership structures in place for land when they are innocent of an alleged offence that has been committed on the land in which they have an interest have instruments available to them to exercise their rights. That does not mean that those rights will necessarily or automatically accrue but a process is in place. I can say to the member that I will watch carefully to see how the provision is utilised and I give her an assurance that I will monitor the situation carefully. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 It had not been my intention to take a call in this debate. However I feel honour-bound to stand up and respond to some of the comments that came from the Labour member Raymond Huo. 
Mr Huo seems to think that if he continues to repeat a mistruth it might somehow gain credence in this Chamber and in this community. In addressing the Committee Mr Huo talked about the internationally failed ideas of the “three strikes and you’re out” legislation. Those were his words. He also said that he did not know how to describe it. Well if Mr Huo does not know how to describe it I would be very happy to explain it to him. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It would be nice if members tried to pronounce names correctly. That is not the correct pronunciation. The pronunciation is “Haw”. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: There is no point of order. Would the member just continue with his speech. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Thank you and my apologies to Mr Huo. 
The member said he did not know how to describe the “three strikes and you’re out” legislation. Let me just explain. ACT’s “three strikes” bill is not a failed idea. It seeks to clamp down on criminals in New Zealand who commit serious violent crimes on a repeated basis—on a repeated basis. The people of New Zealand do not need to be protected from shoplifters or petty burglars. They need to be protected from people who commit serious violent crime. When Parliament starts to look at the victims of crime and addresses how we make society safer we will start to make progress in society. The way the “three strikes” bill will operate—as proposed by the ACT Party—is that if a person commits a serious violent crime he or she will be sentenced for whatever term the court awards— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member has had ample time to respond to what I think was a passing comment made by Mr Huo. This debate is about another bill; this is not an opportunity to speak up about other aspects of the ACT Party policy. I invite the member to address the bill please. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I will conclude my remarks by just saying that I was not prepared to sit here and have a mistruth go unchallenged. Thank you. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 5 in the name of Te Ururoa Flavell to clause 5 be agreed to: 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 43; ACT New Zealand 5; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 14 
Green Party 9; Maori Party 5. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Criminal proceeds and instruments forfeiture regime 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to take a call in relation to Part 2 in the Committee stage. 
I agree with Lynne Pillay that the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill stands for a great purpose—that crime should not pay. Part 2 achieves that purpose. It puts it into play and implements it. Part 2 is also the lion’s share of the bill—approximately 220 clauses. They provide for the restraining orders and for the civil forfeiture orders. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.