Volume 607 Week 20 - Tuesday 1 April 2003(continued on Thursday 3 April 2003) 
Volume 607 Week 20 - Tuesday 1 April 2003(continued on Thursday 3 April 2003) 
[Volume:607;Page:4777] 
Tuesday 1 April 2003 
( 
continued on Thursday 3 April 2003 
) 
Motor Vehicle Sales Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 2 Motor vehicle trading ( 
continued 
)  
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 It is good to see the real Minister of Transport the Hon Harry Duynhoven in the chair. We might get some good amendments passed today with him there. Last evening when the Committee rose I was debating Part 2 and was just about to talk about clause 25 “Power to exempt persons from requirement to register by Order in Council”. The five exemption clauses are curious because a person can apply to be exempted from the new register of motor vehicle dealers. The register was originally to be run by the Ministry of Economic Development but it is not quite clear in the bill where it will be run from now. Maybe it will be the Ministry of Commerce. 
A person can apply to be exempted from registering but as one would expect a number of things must be taken into account when he or she makes the application. People apply to the Minister via the prescribed form stating why they want to be exempted from all the regulations imposed on them for being motor vehicle dealers. Under clause 28 “Process for making recommendation for exemption” subclause (1)(a) states that the Minister must consult with persons or representatives whom he or she thinks will be substantially affected by the exemption and the Minister can then go to the Governor-General for an Order in Council. 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Noes 48 
Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 96 
Noes 21 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 3 Registration of motor vehicle traders 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would like to carry on from the very fine presentations made by my colleagues last night. They were making such a wonderful contribution to this bill that most of the Labour Party members came down to the Chamber to take some notice of them. 
Part 3 is about the registration of motor vehicle traders and covers the procedures involved. It is interesting to note that a large amount of motor vehicle trading probably takes place on the streets. If we look at the  
Trade and Exchange 
 we see that an inordinate amount of vehicle trading results from advertisements placed in that paper and I imagine that a large proportion of those sellers would not be registered. The number of vehicles that a private individual may trade without having to register as a trader has now been increased to six. It was three vehicles. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: It’s been six for a long time. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I thought it was three. I stand corrected and I thank the Minister for that. It would be marvellous if he took a call. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Is the member yielding? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: No absolutely not—I could not possibly do that. But we would certainly welcome and appreciate some comments from the Minister. Within his comments he might like to cover what the cost will be of the levy that is to be imposed on registered motor vehicle dealers. There is a prescribed application fee but a levy is to be imposed as well. It would be interesting to know what the ballparkfigure for that levy will be and also what the definite intention for using it will be. No evidence has been given that motor vehicle dealers have been spoken to about the levy. The levy has come as somewhat of a surprise to them and my colleagues have canvassed that issue substantially. 
There is an application fee and now there is to be a levy. Those are some of the substantial costs that are to be imposed on motor vehicle dealers who register. I am sure that the Minister is aware that there is an absence of a compliance cost report. He may care to take a call on that and tell us why no compliance cost report was done in respect of the levy particularly when the traders are paying a registration fee. Those matters are of considerable concern to National and we already have a major concern about the increased compliance costs for businesses under the Labour regime. We would like the Minister to take a call and perhaps give us a precis of the compliance cost report as he may have it in his head given that we did not get it in any form of paperwork in association with this bill. 
In looking at the registration of motor vehicle traders one of the calls from United Future was for the need for greater enforcement. Judith Tizard in her presentation on the bill when it was read a first time in the House—between knitting dropping stitches and whatnot; and we still do not know whether that garment was ever finished— 
Brent Catchpole 
: She was still working on it last night. 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: I actually saw it being continued last night by another member of the Committee Dianne Yates. I have now been sidetracked by knitting so members can see what an influence knitting in the Chamber has been and how it has detracted somewhat seriously from the processes of the House. I am talking about Subpart 1 in Part 3. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: What’s this about? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: We are debating Part 3 “Registration of motor vehicle traders”. We are talking about compliance costs and the enforcement that goes with that—the enforcement to ensure that people dealing in more than six cars a year become registered traders. Those provisions are being put in place to ensure that people register as traders if they sell more than six cars a year. The Hon Judith Tizard the great knitter of the Chamber said that enforcement was a very important aspect of this process. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak to Part 3. Before I get into that I would like to thank the Hon Harry Duynhoven the Associate Minister of Transport for getting up last night to give us some explanations on this bill. It was sadly lacking from the Minister who had been in the chair at the time. We are very grateful to Harry Duynhoven for clearing up some of those issues that we had last night. This bill is very complex and it is one that New Zealand First was not on the select committee to look into. Therefore we were very grateful to the Hon Harry Duynhoven for clearing up some of those points. 
The difficulty we have in this part is that there are no means of compliance checks and therefore when there is a registered or deregistered member then there is no way that he or she intends to go back to be registered. There are no teeth or incentives in this bill for somebody to become registered and therefore why would he or she bother? People can sell out of the backyard or under the guise of somebody else’s registration or licence under what is termed a harbouring association. Once people are in that situation they can sell as many cars as they like. They will not report how many cars they have sold. To put in the bill that they have to be registered if they sell more than six cars is a waste of time. They will not disclose what they are doing out of the backyard or under the table. There is no incentive for them to become registered. It certainly does not protect consumers because they will just walk away from the licence they are working from and leave it. There is no comeback to the original licence holder. Why should anybody become registered under this situation? 
New Zealand First has a real concern that this bill lacks teeth. The purpose of the bill is quite good and reasonable but it lacks teeth it is disorganised it does not have the coordination and thankfully the Hon Harry Duynhoven got up here last night and explained some of the situation. One jumps from one end of the bill to other. It is a pity that the real Minister the Hon Paul Swain who is supposed to be handling this bill was not able to stand up to do that for us. He sat in the chair and said absolutely nothing. 
Peter Brown 
: He asked us what we thought it achieved. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: That is right. He asked us whether we thought it achieved what he wanted it to do. I do not think he really knew what he wanted to do with this bill so he had to ask us. Why did he not ask the Hon Harry Duynhoven? He was there and he has the knowledge. Why did the Minister not ask him? He would have told him that this bill has some major problems. The Hon Harry Duynhoven cleared that up last night and made it quite clear to us that those problems exist. 
There is one issue that I would like to go back to: I would like the Hon Harry Duynhoven to explain to us when we have a situation where people can go to Japan and get the details of the odometer readings why that paperwork does not follow the vehicle back all the way into New Zealand. This bill does not insist that it do so. If it did then a lot of the problems with odometer readings and winding them back would be solved. But no that paperwork does not follow the vehicle and it does not give us the checks that we require. I ask Mr Duynhoven to explain this to the Committee. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 In some ways this part is probably the whole crunch of why the industry is so pleased that this bill is going through. For many years dealers have been operating on an uneven playing field where traders have been operating and selling cars from their backyards through auction houses and car fairs. I agree that the policing of it has been non-existent. Comments have been made that no longer because our society’s foundations have been breaking down can we rely on the goodness of people to operate within the laws we make. We expect the police to have to operate and to keep all laws. That is an absolute impossibility. A substantial amount—I would estimate probably about one-third of the vehicles that are bought and sold in this country on a day-by-day basis—would be bought and sold by unlicensed traders. It will interesting to see whether those who deal in that realm register or indeed are capable of being registered. 
Personally I think the criterion for the registration of a vehicle trader under this bill is a good criterion. It is a fair criterion. It is in enough detail for anybody who has a brain to read it to understand how it works. It will be interesting to see how many of the unlicensed traders become registered. 
Last night my colleagues in National asked why this legislation needs a review within 2 years. This is one of the reasons it will need a review within 2 years. Currently to be a licensed motor vehicle dealer requires a substantial investment of capital. Therefore dealers are very aware that if their licence is taken from them then they will not have the ability to trade whereas under the new regime it will cost very little to get a licence. Therefore an unscrupulous trader when he or she does get prosecuted and loses his or her licence to trade will not have lost anywhere near as much. But likewise United Future also believes that enterprise is well capable of looking after itself. 
I believe that what we will find over this 2-year period is that the good dealers will again group together. They will make sure that there are the criteria of a code of ethics for the people who are within their group as they buy and sell motor vehicles. In 2 years’ time we will find again that there is a massive gap between the genuine motor vehicle dealer and those who have just taken a licence because it has been cheap to get. We will find going through the disputes tribunal a massive difference in the quality. 
I also notice in the legislation that there is the ability to charge different levies to different types of dealers. That is very wise because those who are continually in the tribunal will be able to be levied at a higher rate and those who are not at a lesser rate. That is great. United Future is pleased to support this legislation. I really hope that all those who are dealing illegally in motor vehicles take this good opportunity that has been given to them to register to clean up their act to operate within the laws of the nation and to keep up the great reputation that the motor vehicle dealer industry has. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 It is interesting that this bill is described as something that will protect consumers. I see that the National and ACT members of the select committee which I was not a part of made the comment that the registrar should have the power to require audits of motor vehicle traders especially when he or she believes that a motor vehicle trader may be insolvent. It could stop an insolvent trader carrying on business losing more and more for his or her creditors. When that was rejected it was one of the things that could have protected consumers. Government members rejected that recommendation. That would have been a way in which they could have been protected. Currently this legislation has virtually no teeth. 
I turn to clause 29. It is here that we are first introducing the reference in the Supplementary Order Paper to section 130A which relates to somebody applying for registration as a motor vehicle trader or he or she has to pay this levy. Nothing in section 130A says that if one trader is taken to the disputes tribunal more often than another trader the levy will go up or down commensurately with how good or bad a trader he or she is. It prescribes different levies for different classes of motor vehicle traders not for different levels of integrity of motor vehicle traders. 
I come back to my point that it is absolutely despicable that this Government—and it should be ashamed of itself—is passing yet more taxes for businesses out there. Why does it keep singling out the poor old motorists and whacking them every time? We have had petrol tax go up and road-user charges go up. We have had accident compensation levies go up and licensing costs go up. The member from United Future talked about a level playing field. What is “level playing field” about socking it to the poor old motorist or the car dealer? It is easy to sock car dealers because everybody holds them in contempt anyway—or that is what this elitist spa-pool neo-socialist Government thinks. 
The other point about this Supplementary Order Paper is the fact that it is being sneaked through. It never went to a select committee; motor vehicle dealers were never given a chance to have their input. They are writing back to me and I got another letter this morning that said: “Thank you for your advice regarding Ms Tizard’s clever little stab in our sides. Nothing the Labour Government does surprises me any more. Their electorate seems to be lower-income people and beneficiaries so the only way to keep themselves in office is to tax their perceived rich taxpayers to keep the poorer voters happy. As a motor vehicle importer and retailer I feel we have had enough. The cost of compliance in order to bring a vehicle into the country has risen dramatically over the last 4 years. I wish you well fighting this tax. Your yells will no doubt fall on deaf ears because the ones that vote these wankers into power have an insatiable appetite for taxpayer money and they have got to get it from somewhere.” It is a matter of tax and spend and I come back to the latest OECD report— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member used an unparliamentary term. Would she please withdraw. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Yes I withdraw and apologise. But to help me can you tell me what that was? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is well aware of what was said. Please continue. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I come back to what taxing and spending does. The latest OECD survey shows that the average tax bill for the average worker with a spouse and two children in New Zealand makes that worker the second-worst-off in the world—in just one place above the Czech Republic. That is shameful and this new tax on motor vehicle dealers will put us probably below the Czech Republic. The average working couple now is $1400 worse off a year in real terms. I say to this Government that that is shameful and I say to United Future that if it would support my Supplementary Order Paper which deletes this reference to section 130A from this bill then we would be left with legislation that vehicle dealers do want and that would clean up the system a bit for them. I think it is far too regulatory and singles them out for issues like: why have a disputes tribunal anyway for motor vehicle dealers when they can go through the ordinary courts? 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 3 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 96 
Noes 21 
Amendments agreed to and Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 4Enforcement. 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 It gives me some pleasure to be speaking on Part 4. In particular late last night at about 20 to 12 I was raising questions relating to the issue of tampering with odometers. I raised the question in the Committee: if one was a banned person or a person who tampered with odometers—so what? What would happen under Part 2 to that person if those offences occurred? Part 4 contains some of those provisions that relate to enforcement. It is worth making the point that I personally do not think that this way of drafting legislation is satisfactory at all whereby there is an offending provision in one part of the bill and an enforcement provision further on. There is not even the actual penalty on conviction in the same part as the section that dealt with creating the offence. So in fact there are three sections that relate to the prohibition on tampering with odometers. 
Then one must go to clause 89 for the creation of the offence of tampering with the odometer but to find out what happens to an offender if it is an offence—before anybody who infringes those sections knows what the penalty is—one must go to clause 106. So first of all we are told in clause 13 that a person must not tamper with a vehicle’s odometer then we are told at clause 89 that it is an offence to tamper with an odometer—well what is the difference between being told one must not tamper with an odometer in clause 13 and being told in clause 89 that it is an offence to tamper with an odometer—but we do not even know what the penalty for tampering with an odometer is until we get to clause 106. 
I say that that type of drafting is sloppy at best. There should be one clause that states that it is an offence to tamper with an odometer and here is what happens if one offends that provision—one would be jailed or fined. It should all be in one tidy clause. Looking through this document during the course of last night and early this morning I have to say that it is pretty sloppy stuff in my view. 
Again I raise the point that has been raised by other members during the course of this debate: if this legislation is so necessary so tight and so well drafted why does it have a 2-year review clause in it? Why does it have a sunset clause? It is sloppy lawmaking. There are three different clauses all relating to the one offence and we have a review at the end of 2 years. I say that it is just not good enough for this Parliament to be producing legislation that is set out and configured in such a difficult way to follow. This Parliament should be about providing clear and concise laws for the people of New Zealand with the old “plain English” approach to legal interpretation. In this bill we have some sloppy work with three different clauses relating to one issue of interference with odometers and if we are not worried about that then we will just review the whole thing after 2 years! The Government should be thinking seriously about the processes being followed when that type of drafting is becoming the norm. 
Turning to a specific point in Part 4 I read that now the District Court is to consider whether a person is fit and proper to participate in a business of motor vehicle sales and I note at clause 65(2) that every application to a District Court must be by way of an originating application. That actually means one has to pay court filing fees and have supporting affidavits and originating applications. That will become a costly business. I would be interested in hearing from the Minister about whether the costs incurred by an originating application in a District Court differ from the current costs to gain a motor vehicle dealer’s licence if so by how much and what her estimate is for whether that is necessarily a good or bad thing. 
One further point has come to my attention on which I want to wind up my short contribution to Part 4: what happens to those cases currently before the fidelity fund? That is a very interesting question and I think it is worth asking the Minister— 
Peter Brown 
: There is a transitional— 
SIMON POWER 
: I am sure there is a transitional clause. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to outline a set of circumstances that I believe do from time to time occur in this country with regard to imported second-hand cars. I would appreciate the Minister taking a call to explain whether I am correct in the first instance and if I am correct what this bill will do about the matter. 
As I understand it some importers go to Japan and buy an allocation of cars in a block and the Japanese dealer says: “If you take this amount of cars we’ll give you these cars for free.” They are the lower-level cars that in normal circumstances the dealer would have to dispose of at some cost. So he would be keen enough to give them away if the New Zealand importer is prepared to buy a certain lot of what I call “acceptable” cars. These lower-level cars are known I believe as “sewer” cars because they are about to be dispensed with. They come into this country and I am of the understanding over past years that quite frequently they have their odometers “clocked” or wound back and are sold to unsuspecting members of the public. 
We have to remember that the New Zealand dealer does not have any equity in these cars; he is selling a car in the circumstances I have illustrated that he has not bought but has been given and he has “clocked” or wound back the odometer. I want to know how the rules in Part 4 will be imposed in respect of that band of motor vehicle dealers who are not toeing the line. New Zealand First was not on the Commerce Committee and I have read this bill to try to find the answer. Now I would appreciate the Minister taking a call and answering that question. I believe that practice has occurred and I have no reason to believe that it is not occurring right now. 
The honourable member from United Future earlier spoke of all motor vehicle dealers being people of integrity but I notice this morning he has moved somewhat from that view. He said this bill will open the door to anybody to enter the trade. That possibility is a major concern to New Zealand First. If that happens and this bill opens the door to anybody then somebody will pay the price financially or possibly with an unsafe car. I do not want to extend my statement any further than is necessary but I would appreciate the Minister addressing that question. If she does not know the answer I respectfully suggest she speak to her colleague the Hon Harry Duynhoven because he can verify that what I am saying has occurred. He has immense knowledge of the motor vehicle industry. Indeed when he spoke last night he was the first Government member with due respect to Paul Adams who threw some sensible light on what this bill is all about. He has made New Zealand First rethink this bill to some limited degree. We say that it is flawed and we say that the issue I have just illustrated indicates there is a major flaw because it will not address this issue. If the Minister cannot see her way clear to talk to the Hon Harry Duynhoven perhaps she would talk to the officials sitting behind her and then give us a genuine answer to that concern. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 The speedometer issue comes up regularly in our conversations on this bill but can I assure the Committee that “clocking” is a used-car problem not an imported-car problem. Throughout history people have realised that the lower the mileage is the higher the price of the vehicle. The fact that a car has been registered “new” in New Zealand does not necessarily mean that that car has an accurate speedometer. I remember in the early days trading Falcons and finding holes behind the ashtray because people would turn off the electronic speedo when they were going on a trip. So let us get the facts right: the altering of mileage is a used-car problem not necessarily an imported-car problem. 
This enforcement clause has been of great concern to United Future and I have appreciated the efforts of Judith Tizard and the officials as we have worked to close that major loophole in the used-car industry. However because that issue crosses a couple of bills we have not been able to do that in the time allowed so I look forward in this 2-year period to working to close that gap. We talk about levies being a cost to dealers but unlicensed trading is also a huge cost to dealers. United Future has been concerned—just as the industry has been concerned—about the huge hole between when a car is cleared by the Customs Service as it comes across the wharf to when it enters the Land Transport Safety Authority registration system. Under existing regulations there is no requirement that one has to be a licensed motor vehicle dealer to import cars from overseas. The only criterion is that those cars must be sold to a licensed motor vehicle dealer. They cannot be sold direct to the public unless the seller is licensed. Of course that regulation is blatantly ignored. The people who import cars into the country have their money invested in those cars; they cannot sell them to a dealer for one reason or another and they blatantly sell them through car fairs auctions or whatever. United Future would like to see the regulations amended so that only licensed motor vehicle dealers can import cars into the country and hold them until they comply with an MR2A—in other words until they are identified from the Customs Service to the Land Transport Safety Authority. 
We would not be opposed to people bringing in cars for their own private use—that is obvious in the market we are in—but we would insist that if a vehicle were imported by a private person that person would have to register the vehicle in the name of the person who imported it at the time that the vehicle went through the compliance process. If that regulation were brought in it would close a huge loophole that is costing the Government millions of dollars in money not collected through GST from those unlicensed traders. It would create a nice link between the Customs Service and the Land Transport Safety Authority and it would tidy up a lot of the concerns that people have been dealing with. 
My second point deals with the sale price of cars and the cost that those levies will impose. Surprisingly enough in a free-trade environment such as we have car dealers do not set the price they sell their used cars at. The public sets the price. If we try to get too much for a car it will not sell. In a competitive industry such as we are in we learn very quickly what price the public will pay for a certain make and model. Our overheads or costs have absolutely nothing to do with the sale price of the motor vehicle. As regulations come in which the industry does welcome a segment of traders will stand out above the others. I welcome that because the public are not silly. They will soon realise where they can buy a car in safety or where they can buy a car that might be cheaper but has a huge risk attached to it. That is the same for anything we buy and sell. 
I look forward to this bill being passed. As I have said United Future is supportive of it. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I am going to say something positive about Part 4—the enforcement part of the bill. 
Hon Member 
: That is a change. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: No I have not changed; I am often positive about things. I am positive about this list of banned persons. It is a good idea to have a list of banned persons to be kept by the registrar. This part of the bill has been very well-thought-out and carefully drafted. The list will be electronic it will comply with the Privacy Act and it will not breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Hopefully this part of the legislation will set a precedent in respect of people who prey on vulnerable members of the public. The public will be able to access the list on the register see the history of those people see whether they are legitimate car dealers and armed with that information make up their own minds about what they want to do. 
So I congratulate the Minister on having this provision in the bill but I would ask her to take a call and explain what happens—because the Crown can be exempted from some of the clauses in this bill—when a dealer is banned from trading in vehicles and the Customs Service has seized imported cars. Contrary to Paul Adams’ statement that “clocking” is not an imported-car problem it is an imported-car problem. If it is not why is the Customs Service still seizing up to 1000 cars a year because it suspects that the odometers have been tampered with? Those are cars coming across the wharf. When I last went to school that meant they were imported. Now the Customs Service sells those cars and takes the money and the importer does not get anything back. What happens to that importer? I presume the importer is listed on that list of dodgy dealers. The cars are seized because they are suspected of being unsafe so we would expect that they would then be broken up and sold for parts or that the importer would be ordered to cover the cost of sending them back to the country from which they came. But that is not actually what happens—they do get passed on to the unsuspecting public. The first time they are passed on it will be with a history of possibly having a “clocked” odometer but that is as far as it goes. The Crown passes on liability to the first dealer who takes those cars after the Crown has seized them. It exempts itself from any liability that might arise when some unsuspecting person buys a car as the second or third purchaser and finds it has done a lot more mileage than he or she suspected. 
I would like to query something else. Two-thirds of car sales in this country do not go through dealers. Under this bill an individual is entitled to sell up to six cars a year before having to be registered. Does that mean that a family of six could sell 30 cars a year without being registered as a dealer? 
Paul Adams 
: Not if they make a profit. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: How do we prove that? They are not registered so we will not know what they are doing. How do we know whether they are making a profit? Those are two things that I call on the Minister to answer. 
As I said I congratulate her on the banned persons list. I think it is a good idea. Hopefully it is a precedent for other lists that might come before this House of people who should not be trusted in respect of the vulnerable public—especially those who are under age. I ask her to answer those two questions about what happens when the Customs Service passes on the cars to the public and how we tell whether unlicensed traders who can sell up to six cars a year are making a profit? 
The question was put that the following amendment and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of Hon Judith Tizard to Part 4 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause 4(b) of clause 65 the words “period of”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 96 
Noes 21 
Amendments agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Part 4 as amended agreed to. 
Part 5 Miscellaneous provisions 
SANDRA GOUDIE (NZ National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I would like to talk a bit about Part 5 “Miscellaneous provisions”. The first provision is an exemption for car auctioneers which looks eminently sensible. The car auctioneer is exempt from the general auctioneers licensing requirement but has to comply as a registered motor vehicle dealer. 
I see that the levy regulations are in Part 5. That is quite a substantial amendment to the bill and many speeches have remarked on it. Members will recall the compliance cost comments that have already been made. In looking at the bill maybe for the second time the Minister is perhaps taking some cognisance of the fact that there is no compliance cost report. Perhaps she would like to take a call and give us her assessment of the compliance costs that this levy will impose on motor vehicle dealers. We know that 85 percent of businesses in this country employ five people or fewer which is a substantial part of business in this country and we are now putting an added cost on to them. What will be the result of that? Will we have less registration and therefore even more unregistered dealers? United Future is claiming that one-third of those dealing in motor vehicles are unregistered and ACT is claiming two-thirds so we have rather a discrepancy. With the cost to business of the imposed levy the number of unregistered dealers will increase and the absence of a compliance cost report indicates that no analysis of that has been done. There has been no analysis whatsoever of what impact the levy and cost impositions will have on registered motor vehicle dealers. Clearly the one-third and two-third figures suggest a substantial impact and the two-thirds figure is huge. Clearly without a compliance report we know that this Government has not taken any cognisance of that. The effect on consumers will be considerable and their opportunity for redress against unregistered persons dealing in the sale of motor vehicles will be significantly reduced. 
In clause 131 we are also looking at the prescribed fees payable under this Act. If the number of motor vehicle dealers registering is reduced and the disputes tribunal is to be paid for the levy will rise commensurately because we will not have the numbers to be able to afford to continue with that tribunal. 
Jill Pettis 
: Talking about numbers how is it going? 
SANDRA GOUDIE 
: The member is asking me? She should know how it is going but because her Government does not have a compliance cost report it has no idea how it is going. The Government has no idea of business. It will resort to any measures to try to bolster its own ego but in this instance it has not done a compliance cost report. It has not even assessed the impacts on the industry of the increased cost it has imposed on these people. They are just general mums and dads—the average Joe Bloggs and his wife—trying to run a business and they are being undermined by the increased costs imposed by this Government. The Government has put through this levy in an amendment with no submissions on it. It is a major amendment to the bill and no reports have been done on the impacts of it. I believe that to be a serious omission. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 In going through the Supplementary Order Paper we discover that an additional clause has been added to Part 5—Clause 130A “Regulations may impose levy”. This Government stated during the election campaign that it would not add any more costs to businesses and it would not increase taxes. But what has it done in this particular Supplementary Order Paper which has not been discussed at any select committee whatsoever but just brought up in this debate? It has added a tax a levy an additional compliance cost or whatever one likes to call it. The Government has gone and added it without any consultation with the industry or with anybody else. It certainly was not discussed with members on this side of the Chamber. The amendment was just dropped on to the table in a very large Supplementary Order Paper to add an additional cost. 
So what happened to the promise that Labour members made during the election that they would not increase costs add levies or add taxes? This is another tax by any other name. They like to call it a levy but it is still a tax and it is still a compliance cost. The Supplementary Order Paper goes against the whole spirit of the bill. 
Clause 142 deals with the transitional provisions for the fund. I see that the fund will be wiped out after 12 months. What is the point of wiping out the fund when clause 143 “Claims against Fund” states: “(1) No person is entitled to make any claim against the Fund for any act or thing done or omitted to be done after the commencement of this Act. (2) No person is entitled to make any claim against the Fund for any act or thing done or omitted to be done before the commencement of this Act ...”? In other words if something happens before or after the Act that fund cannot be accessed. So the fund is basically wiped immediately the bill comes into effect yet the Government is trying to say that it will be there for another 12 months after this bill comes into effect. What is the point? It is being wiped out in the next clause. The fund should either be disbanded immediately or kept until the Act is reviewed to make sure that it supports the consumer because the consumer has been completely left out in the cold by this Act. 
The Supplementary Order Paper adds another clause to the bill—clause 146 “Review of operation of Act”. Why would the Government want to review the Act so soon after it comes in? It is because it is uncertain of its ability to achieve what it sets out to do. I know that the industry is calling for legislation that will sort the industry out but this Government has put forward a bill that it has suddenly realised will not work. It has no confidence in it so it has put in an extra clause under the Supplementary Order Paper to provide for a review of it. But what will happen when that review is done? There is nothing in the clause in the Supplementary Order Paper that states what has to be done once it has been reviewed. The Government could review it then sit there and do nothing even though it may find some major problems with it. There is nothing in the legislation to insist that it does anything about the review once it has been done. It could just do the review and ignore it as it does with most things. 
With this Supplementary Order Paper the Government has ignored the select committee process. It did not allow any consultation on the Supplementary Order Paper. It has dropped huge new parts into the bill and additional clauses that did not go through the consultation process. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I have come down to the Chamber particularly to talk about this part because it is one of those parts that puts Parliament into disrepute. Here we are in urgency putting through a stealth tax. Let us be frank about what the Government did. It went out and talked to the registered vehicle salespeople about a new piece of legislation. The Government introduced the legislation into Parliament and it invited the industry to make submissions to a select committee. At no time did the Minister or any Labour member of the select committee say to the car dealers: “Oh by the way after we have heard all your submissions—after you have gone to the trouble of coming to Parliament—we will put in what is called a Supplementary Order Paper which will not go to the select committee and we will include a provision whereby we can particularly tax just car dealers.” 
I know that this Government has contempt for car dealers because it jokes about them. I say that the car dealers in New Zealand do a good job. Motor vehicle dealers in this country compare very favourably with motor vehicle dealers around the world. When we look at the problems that people have buying cars they are very rarely from a registered motor vehicle dealer. Is that not right? 
Paul Adams 
: That’s true. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I now have a member of the profession who is prepared to confirm that. I ask a serious question. When I look at the registered motor vehicle dealers in this country I think that they serve the country well. But this Government thinks that they are just sheep to be shorn and it has the contempt to introduce a tax on them without allowing it to go to a select committee. I say that for just that reason alone we ought to reject this whole bill. It is the style of lawmaking that an arrogant Labour Government has gone in for and this particular Minister the Hon Judith Tizard is known for her arrogance. She treats people with contempt. I doubt whether she knows any car dealers. Certainly none vote for her or that is what she thinks—and they will not after this bill. I ask the Government and the members of United Future how they can support this type of legislation. 
Deborah Coddington sent out a letter to a number of registered car dealers and asked them what they thought about that proposal. The Committee will not be surprised to know although the Minister does not care that they were outraged. They could not credit that a Government could treat them in that way. We have a Government passing legislation to protect the public from car dealers but what we actually need to do is to pass some legislation to protect car dealers from the Government. [ 
Interruption 
] The Government is treating car dealers in a way that would make the member jump up and down and say was an outrage. It is like selling someone a car getting the cheque then at the last minute saying: “Oh by the way I forgot to mention that there are a whole lot of extra taxes owing on this car and you now have to pay them.” I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Tizard when did she say to car dealers that she was intending to put in this Supplementary Order Paper? She is very silent. Does she not remember or is she too embarrassed to admit that she always intended to do this? Did she? If she did not why did she suddenly have this new idea? 
Paul Adams 
: It was in January 2001. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: That is very interesting. Is the United Future party going to support this measure? [ 
Interruption 
] The United Future party tells me that the Minister has known about this secret proposal since January 2001 and that it is now going to vote for it. I thought that the United Future party was interested in lifting moral standards. Is this bill not immoral? Is it not immoral to go out and ask the industry to make submissions to gather them all in to listen to them all then only after the submissions have closed introduce a secret tax? Is that not immoral? 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: What’s the tax for? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Hello the Minister is prepared to say something. Let us stop. Oh no it has passed. For a moment I thought the Minister was going to contribute. She has forgotten that her whole strategy is to put this through as a stealth tax. Of course it is not a stealth tax if one talks about it so the Minister does not want to tell us why she has done it. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I was not going to speak on this part but young Richard Prebble fires away in his normal exuberant style which I admire. It is always interesting when we hear one side of the story without hearing the other side. To be honest the industry was aware of this in a consultation paper in January 2001 where the levy was mentioned and the levy was supported by the industry. Motor vehicle dealers are a group of people who do like to solve problems quickly. As I said previously in the long run the longer disputes go on the more it costs the dealer. 
The motor industry will have to pay a levy of $127 per dealer. That will give motor vehicle dealers access to a tribunal that will be able to sort out any disputes at a very quick rate. Personally I am thankful that I have had very few disputes with a customer but I would not like to have to wait to go through the court process of this nation while the whole thing was held up. If I have to pay $127 on each of my licences I will be very pleased to pay the $127 so that disputes can be sorted out quickly and resolved. I for one as with most other dealers in this country do appreciate our customers; we do want to do things in a correct and a right order. Even in this Chamber we have disputes between people and there are always two sides to a story. If it costs me $127 a year to have access to a tribunal to sort it out I and I believe most other dealers in this country welcome it. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 It is interesting is it not— 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Paul Adams just referred to a document. It would have been most helpful if the Minister had told us that this document existed. I seek leave for the member to table that document so we might— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows that is a point of debate. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: It is interesting is it not that when one person is prepared to pay a tax he or she is happy to force that tax on to everybody else. There is nothing in the income tax legislation that precludes people from paying extra taxes as they want to voluntarily and I am sure Treasury would not be embarrassed by a surfeit of cheques. That is typical of the arrogance of people who want higher taxes. They say that they are prepared to pay it so everybody else should. That is what we are getting under this levy regulation clause 130A. 
Car dealers already pay taxes. They already pay a huge amount of GST and company taxes. Part of that goes towards the justice system. Why should car dealers be singled out for another tax that they did not know about? If Paul Adams has a paper from as far back as January 2001—which he and the Minister knew about; obviously he was well prepared before he came into Parliament—let him table it so we all know what it is about so all the car dealers out there know what it is about. Peter Brown is sitting there and he does not know what it is about. He is “Mr Transport” in the New Zealand First Party. If he does not know what it is about I doubt whether the car dealers know about it. 
I wrote to 2250 motor vehicle dealers in this country. That was a week ago. That is the response so far. Those letters are from people who are outraged and did not know about this levy. 
Peter Brown 
: Give us a sample of the letters. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I can give members a sample but most of it is unparliamentary language—as I have already discovered. They knew that they would not have to register on a compulsory basis with the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute and they welcomed that. That is another issue with the fidelity fund. What will happen to the $2 million in the fidelity fund? This legislation says that if one goes to the disputes tribunal it is not backdated—so what is the point of it? I say we do not know what this tax is for. I ask the Minister to stand up now. Now is her chance to explain to all those motor vehicle dealers out there who are listening and want to know why they are being singled out for this levy. Now is the Minister’s chance to stand up and share with all of them—this is a very caring sharing Government—why they should be singled out for this tax. 
All that this tax will do is to encourage Internet dealing backyard dealing and all of those things in respect of which the Government thinks this legislation will close all the loopholes. There is nothing in this legislation that would encourage anyone to register as a car dealer. In fact that is what the dodgy dealers out there are already saying. They have looked at the legislation and at the levy regulations which can be changed overnight. We do not even know what they are. There is no limit to them despite Paul Adams saying the levy is $127 a year. There is nothing in here that sets the maximum amount. It is all very loose. It can be changed by Order in Council specifying the criteria. This Government just gives with one hand and takes away with the other. 
I ask the Minister now to stand and tell us why she thinks this is such a good tax. People will remember that when we discussed this bill in the House last time the Minister was too busy knitting to explain to car dealers and motor vehicle dealers why this levy was needed. Now is her chance to stand up and explain. The dealers do not know about it and they are outraged about it. Many of them have said as Richard Prebble just commented that this levy makes it worth opposing this whole bill on account of clause 130A. I have tabled an amendment to remove that clause altogether and let those businesses get on with their lives let them get their compliance costs down and let them be successful entrepreneurs and contribute to this country instead of being constantly harassed and whacked just because they are motor vehicle dealers and drive and sell cars. Of course car transporters are something that these people here loathe. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am very happy to advise the Committee that in relation to motor vehicle sales a proposed regulatory regime document was issued in January 2001. Members will find on page 30 7.1.3: “The tribunal will be partly funded through a registration levy paid by motor vehicle vendors and also through user charges. The fees paid by applicants will be on a similar scale and operate on a similar basis to that of the ordinary disputes tribunal.” That document was available. In fact we had two submissions on it from motor vehicle dealers both of whom said they were very happy to pay it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Two submissions! 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Only two in spite of the hundreds of those documents that went out. So I am very happy having discussed this with the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute that this very small levy is seen as an excellent benefit for both the dealers and the car-buying public. If we are going to be sure about buying a major item like a motor vehicle we need to be sure that if something is wrong it will be put right. I congratulate Paul Adams from United Future on his excellent advocacy for the car industry but also for car buyers. That is what this very small reasonable levy is about. 
I am delighted that ACT members are making such idiots of themselves because I have had a pile of letters and messages from motor vehicle dealers asking what on earth is this hysterical nonsense from Deborah Coddington. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Can I ask the Minister having described my party in unparliamentary language— 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Who did? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
:I can tell the Minister that it is out of order to call people idiots in this Chamber. But having done that and having made the claim that she has a pile of letters to her asking what is ACT doing I challenge her to table them. To make sure that I mean this challenge I say the Minister has not got one. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Whether the Minister tables them is the Minister’s prerogative. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Let me make this statement. I say to the Committee— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is the member raising a point of order? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: No I am taking a call. I say to the Committee following that contribution from the Minister who said and I quote that she has a pile of letters from car dealers— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Messages I said. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It has now become messages. She says she has a pile of messages from car dealers asking what on earth the ACT party is on about. I say to the Minister that I do not believe her. I do not think there is a member of the Committee who believes her. It is a question of credibility. The Minister can table them. Deborah Coddington has a pile of messages right here. Let me pull some of them out. I have just pulled some of those messages out and had a look and I shall read them to the Committee: “Dear Deborah Thank you for taking the time to contact me with the rather alarming news that a Supplementary Order Paper has been added to the impending Motor Vehicle Sales Bill.” Here is another one: “Attention Deborah Coddington: Any tax that Ms Tizard wants to slip into the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill will be most unwanted.” I am reading the messages straight out to the Minister. Here is another one: “Dear Deborah I think a tax or a levy stinks.” Here is another one: “We wish to thank you for your letter re the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. It is very surprising that an MP can slip in a Supplementary Order Paper without those concerned having the opportunity to express opposition to the proposed levy.” 
I could read out another one. Here is the Minister who told the Committee that she has a pile of messages saying that the ACT party is wrong. I am saying that she does not have one. It is very very easy for the Minister to contradict me. I am reading out these messages to the Committee and I hope no one suggests that I am making them up: “Dear Deborah Thank you for your letter dated 19 March re Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. I am surprised and dismayed to hear Judith Tizard has slipped in a Supplementary Order Paper which allows a levy to be imposed on the vehicle industry.” Here is another one: “Dear Deborah We have just received your letter dated 19 March 2003 addressed to the motor vehicle dealers. Turner Fleet Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of Turners Auctions Ltd. My response like you I’m alarmed astonished and disturbed at what appears to be an underhanded attempt.” Here we are: “Dear Deborah re levy I would like to voice strong opposition to this open-ended levy. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I am not in favour of any new taxes.” I could keep going. I ask the Minister whether anyone in the Chamber doubts that Deborah Coddington’s letters are genuine. 
Murray Smith 
: No. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I want to have this clear. Is Mr Smith saying that these letters are not genuine? 
Murray Smith 
: The ones she wrote might not be. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: That is very interesting. He is accusing an ACT member of not having written a genuine letter. It is interesting that all those people can reply to a letter that apparently Mr Smith said may not have been sent. I ask Mr Smith whether he believes that the Minister has a pile of messages. He is prepared to believe that. Has he seen them? 
Murray Smith 
: No. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: No he has not seen them. Does he think it is interesting that the Minister who has been challenged and basically told by me that what she is saying to the Committee is not true has not replied to that? Is the Minister’s behaviour the sort of behaviour that we want from a Minister of the Crown? Of course it is not. Do we as a Parliament want to support a Minister who is prepared to slip in a Supplementary Order Paper and then say that clause 7(b)(ii) had a little sentence in it and two car dealers in the country saw it 2 years ago? I say to the Minister that if she intended to have a levy why was it not in the original bill? 
I believe that we as a Parliament should vote against this bill to indicate our strong opposition to this Minister’s style. I have contempt for MPs who get up in the Chamber and claim that they have a pile of messages but when they are challenged cannot produce that pile. I say to the Minister that her credibility is zilch anyway but if she wants to protect it at all she ought to be able to produce at least 100 messages from 100 different car dealers. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (NZ Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 69 
Noes 48 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Deborah Coddington to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard be agreed to: 
to omit new clause 130A. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
Noes 69 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
The question was put that the following amendment and the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to Part 5 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause 141(c) by omitting the words “section 22(d)” and substituting the words “sections 22(d) to (e) and 23(ab)”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Noes 48 
Amendments agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 5 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Noes 48 
Part 5 as amended agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Schedules 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 I do not intend to take very long to discuss the schedules but I do want to draw the Committee’s attention to a couple of matters contained in them. Those who have had an opportunity to review and reflect on the bill will know that the schedules discuss in some depth the hearings and the manner in which the disputes tribunal may conduct those hearings. In particular I want to take a moment to talk about the rights of people to appear at hearings. 
Clause 7A in schedule 2 spells out the rights of anybody who wants to appear before a hearing. In particular it states: “At any hearing of an application or claim before a Disputes Tribunal any party to the proceedings is entitled to attend and be heard.” It then goes on to discuss whether representation is acceptable within those hearings stating at some length that people cannot be represented—except under some conditions outlined later on—by a barrister or a lawyer. I understand the reasons that that would be the case. In other words it is to reduce the cost and delay to hearings by making them less expensive and arduous. But I make the point that it is the right of an individual who wants to appear before a hearing to determine whether he or she wants representation from a lawyer or barrister. 
There will be people who have a very good reason for being there and who feel that they cannot adequately represent themselves. Even if the amount is under the $50000 limit for an individual or $200000 for a company those people may feel very much that they are unable to put their cases forward appropriately. I do not believe it is the place of Parliament to determine whether individuals spend their own money on seeking representation in a hearing. So I just draw the Committee’s attention to that point. 
I also draw to the Committee’s attention the issue that if one of the parties does want representation and the adjudicator approves that representation then the other party is entitled to have it as well. Again I draw the Committee’s attention to that issue because I believe that if we are to have standards whereby we argue that people do not require representation through a legal professional and then argue that because one party has representation the other party should have it just as of right that seems a little illogical to me. 
I want to talk for a moment on clause 9 “Duties of assessor” in schedule 2. In particular subclause (1)(b) talks about the duty being to “act in all respects”. The assessor must sit with the tribunal and that makes a great deal of sense. Clearly the assessor is providing technical knowledge on behalf of the tribunal. But in particular subclause (1)(b) states that the assessor acts in all respects as an extra member of the disputes tribunal. That is quite an interesting point in the sense that the kinds of people who can act within the disputes tribunal are discussed at some length in Part 4 of the bill and also the length of time that someone can be an adjudicator of the disputes tribunal. Two terms of 5 years each is the maximum. Those are quite rigorous memberships. To argue all of a sudden that an assessor can become an extra member but not go through such a rigorous process of assessment is in my view one of the failings of the schedules. 
I commend to the Committee clause 10 of schedule 2 concerning the immunity of witnesses. Clearly in these cases it is often very important that witnesses feel they have the security of that immunity. It is the only way that we will encourage people to come forward and put their case for the benefit of those who bring a dispute before the tribunal. On that basis I congratulate the Committee on having that provision. 
I also refer to clause 11 in schedule 2 which talks about the way that the decisions of the disputes tribunal need to be communicated. In particular it states that decisions must be given in writing. It is obviously very logical to have that requirement. Oral findings by the tribunal would probably not be worth the words they are spoken with. But in particular I am intrigued that under subclause (2)(b) every decision of the disputes tribunal has to contain the reasons for the decision. This is a rather wordy bill in my opinion. It has gone down to a level of minutiae that we have not seen in a lot of legislation in New Zealand. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Check the original bill. 
JOHN KEY 
: I am sure the original bill was also very lengthy and I fully support what this legislation will do for the industry. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I said check the original bill. 
JOHN KEY 
: We are replacing the original bill so if we are unhappy with it we have the opportunity through this bill to put new legislation in place. I simply make the point that it virtually goes without saying I would have thought that if a ruling on a dispute is being given in writing the reasons that the ruling has been made would have to be given. It seems rather superfluous to have that measure in the legislation.. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: You obviously haven’t been to a disputes tribunal hearing. 
JOHN KEY 
: No I have not been to the disputes tribunal. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 30 in the name of the Hon Judith Tizard to the schedules be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Schedules as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill introduces a new regime for motor vehicle trading and replaces the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act of 1975. Many things have changed since 1975. This bill has been widely welcomed and extremely widely consulted on with motor vehicle dealers and people interested in the trade. This legislation protects and promotes the interests of consumers. It creates a new registration regime for persons involved in the business of motor vehicle trading and allows for the removal of unsuitable participants from the trade. It revamps the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal provides for car information through a revised window card and provides for much stronger enforcement which will be undertaken by the enforcement team at the Ministry of Economic Development. 
The Commerce Committee has scrutinised this bill and recommended a number of changes to improve the workings of the bill. Most notable have been the changes to improve the operation of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal and the strengthening of the banning provisions. I have introduced a Supplementary Order Paper that has made technical changes to the bill including making provision for a levy to pay for the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal in part. Those changes include new clauses 18A and 18B which create a duty on motor vehicle traders who sell a vehicle on behalf of someone to account for the proceeds of the sale. The Supplementary Order Paper also clarifies the regulation-making powers enabling a levy to provide additional funding for the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal. The tribunal benefits traders as well as consumers and it is unquestionable that all parties should contribute to its running. I am also very grateful for the full support for that levy that I have had from the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute and the Motor Trade Association following the extensive consultation on this matter starting with the discussion paper in 2001. 
I thank all of those who have contributed to this legislation—the people in the organisations who made submissions the members of the select committee and in particular the former chair David Cunliffe who carefully considered the bill and recommended changes to fine tune it. I acknowledge my predecessor Laila Harré who introduced this legislation and all members of the House particularly Paul Adams from United Future New Zealand who has contributed in an extremely positive and energetic way on behalf of the interests of car dealers but I acknowledge him much more for his concern for consumers for whom a car is often a very major purchase. I commend this bill to the House. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 We are deep into the second day of urgency and about to pass the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill that is urgently needed by the industry. That industry has been waiting 4 years for this bill but here we are today finally and urgently passing it. 
John Carter 
: After 4 years 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: After 4 years the Minister Harry Duynhoven has finally got around to getting the bill to the House. I suppose I should start by congratulating him on such a fine display of the work ethic. 
This bill is also interesting because it is a step to the right for the Labour Government. Essentially the bill removes some compliance and a lot of regulation gets rid of a whole lot of red tape and simplifies the way in which motor vehicle dealers are able to operate. That is good and that is why we are supporting it. But as is always the case with the Labour Government it is one step to the right and then a quick shuffle back to the left. At the last minute after 4 years of consideration—4 long years of wondering whether this bill would be passed and then finally deciding to do it urgently—we find that a Supplementary Order Paper has been dropped on the table. 
John Carter 
: What is wrong with that? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Members might ask what is wrong with that. In fact we have just discovered that on page 5 of the Supplementary Order Paper under new clause 130A the Labour Government is introducing a sales tax. This is the Labour Government that said “No new taxes.”—unless one earns a lot of money. The Minister of Transport is sneaking in a sales tax in the guise of a levy. New clause 130A states: “Regulations may impose levy”. When we are trying to simplify the process for motor vehicle salespeople and when the House is trying to recognise the way in which cars are bought and sold in this country nowadays one would have to ask why there is to be a sales tax on vehicles that commercial traders sell. That is quite alarming for us and it would have been nice if we could have had an answer from the Minister during the Committee stage about why that is necessary. 
It appears that the Minister is still thinking about how big that sales tax will be. The legislation provides that the Governor-General may by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister make regulations prescribing different levies for different classes of motor vehicle traders. So we will have a truck sales tax a tractor sales tax a four-wheel drive sales tax a people-carriers sales tax—all those seven-seater vehicles that mums throughout the country buy in order to take the kids from schools to all those events around the countryside that they need to get to. I would like the Minister to tell us how much consultation he had with Paul Adams from United Future. I understand that that particular gentleman knows a little bit about selling motorcars as well as driving them. 
Hundreds of emails have come in in the last couple of hours complaining about that levy. It is not at all fair that after 4 years of consultation with the industry suddenly there is an urgent decision to pass the bill to get a bit more tax from honest traders in this country. It is quite ridiculous. We are told that the Minister did not consult the industry and that the industry did not know the levy was coming. It was simply a backhanded way of stealthily applying a little more tax burden on the community. 
As we have said there are one or two good things in the bill. It deals with the activities of people who line cars up and down the sides of various motorways on the weekends and parade them as a car fair. In essence that is an entrepreneurial activity and this country does not need to impinge in any way on the activities of those who act in an entrepreneurial spirit. I want to know whether the Minister will now go to the Minister of Finance to seek an appropriation so that he can have car-fair police out there every weekend applying the new levy to New Zealanders who decide to sell their cars privately. If the levy applies only to licensed motor vehicle dealers—or whatever they will be described as as a result of the passing of this legislation—then surely that is another business-unfriendly attack by this Government on honest traders. 
There is of course a controversial element in the bill and that is the removal of the fidelity guarantee fund. The fund did cost a lot of money and was added into the cost of every car. The Minister might be able to say that the levy will not alter the cost of buying a motor car on the lot but that is only because the levy will be offset by what the car dealer used to have to pay into the fidelity guarantee fund. The difference now is that it is the Minister who collects the money and the poor old consumer is left without the protection the fidelity guarantee fund once gave. There are some good reasons for that. Car prices have fallen considerably in the last few years. The value of the vehicle fleet these days although greatly expanded is on average a little less than it used to be. Of course the vehicles being sold these days are so much more reliable. I remember that the first car I bought was 20 years old and compared to other cars on the road it looked well out of date. These days a person could not buy a 20-year-old car because they are simply not on the roads. More likely he or she would be buying a 10-year-old car and that car would still look reasonably stylish and up to the minute. 
We cannot underestimate the effect that this stealth tax will have on the industry. We cannot underestimate the cost it will put upon those people who are buying cars. We should be sounding that caution because although we are supporting this bill we have concerns about that. We are pleased to see that there will be a registrar of operators that will cover a much wider group including auctioneers fairs and Internet car sales. The question that goes unanswered is whether those sorts of individual traders will be stuck with the new sales tax that the Government has introduced today. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of the industry we welcome this new legislation. It is interesting hearing some of my colleagues speaking and I hope that I do not develop the art of taking something that is really so simple and making it so incredibly complex. If one sits in this place for long enough I guess it is an art that one develops very quickly and some members seem to be absolutely expert at it. That is very strange to me because in the motor industry we try to keep things simple. 
Once this legislation is passed I can see that cars sold on the side of the road will possibly be a problem for councils. The bill removes the criterion of having to have a site from which to sell one’s vehicles. To an extent we welcome that because as we have heard the Internet is a good avenue for selling all products not just cars. If a large number of new traders do not have premises or anywhere to display their cars—because to sell something one does have to display it—it will have to be seen whether they feed them through car fairs or go through auction houses. However I am concerned that the councils will be dealing with a large problem of cars on the side of the road and in public places with “For Sale” notices on them. 
The industry welcomes this legislation. As I have said previously our concern is that the standard and entry level for being a licensed motor vehicle dealer has been lowered substantially. It is now very easy to become a dealer—as long as that dealer does not have a police record or any bad marks against him or her by already being in the industry. The industry has had to put up with policing its own regulations. As with any law this law will only be as effective as the policing of it. My concern—and that of most other dealers—is that it be policed correctly otherwise we will find ourselves competing against far more traders who are perhaps a little unscrupulous in conforming to the standards that the industry is setting for itself. Who will police that? 
We talk about a levy on dealers to pay for this tribunal but look at the levy that the dealers themselves have had to pay under the current regime to police unlicensed dealing. It has cost the industry absolutely thousands and thousands of dollars. The industry has worked very hard and I commend those who have been policing that unlicensed dealing but let us hope that it does not happen under this legislation because self-policing an industry is something that we do not want to do. If we have to pay a small levy for a tribunal and everything gets sorted out correctly—that is everybody who is a licensed trader operates under the rules or is dealt with accordingly—then this legislation will work and work well. 
I know that we will see two standards of dealers in the days that lie ahead. We will definitely see dealers networking together and working with integrity a good code of ethics and looking after their customers. But sadly I think that we will see a lower level of dealer operating. Those dealers might be cheaper but it is the same old story—one always gets what one pays for. 
United Future is pleased that we have been able to get this legislation through under urgency. I know that it will be well received by current motor vehicle dealers and that they will thank us for it. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to express real concern about much of that member’s speech. The Minister complimented him on his advocacy of the motor vehicle dealers industry and he referred to two standards of dealers. He recognised that the threshold will become lower and that more unscrupulous dealers will come into the market but the purpose of this bill is to promote and protect the interests of consumers in relation to motor vehicle sales. What has United Future done for them? Nothing. 
New Zealand First supports the intent of this bill but we could support little more than the title. At one point we supported only the title until the Hon Harry Duynhoven at least gave reasonable explanations of some of the content of the bill and tied together some of the thought processes that went into it. The bill is not well set out. One part refers to odometer tampering but the penalties associated with that are somewhere else. Unless one scrutinises the whole bill one misses them quite easily because there are no cross-references. That is not the way to pass legislation. Only one speech from a Government member carried any merit and weight at all and that was from the Hon Harry Duynhoven. The Minister made one short call towards the end and added more confusion than clarification to the whole debate. Very few people spoke in defence of the bill. Even the National Party which is supporting the bill spent most of its time ripping it apart. 
This bill misses the mark by a long way. The legislation will open the door for the public to be ripped off by whoever wants to call himself a motor vehicle dealer. In many cases it will be a case of buyer be very very aware. I put a scenario to the Minister and she refused to answer it. I think that Mr Duynhoven will take a call shortly and perhaps he will answer it. I understand that some importers go to Japan to buy an allocation—a block—of first-rate cars and they are given second-grade cars which are known I understand as “sewer cars”. They are virtually given away. Far too frequently the odometers of those “sewer cars” are wound back and they are sold to the unsuspecting public in this country. Because Harry Duynhoven is an expert in vehicles and vehicle sales matters I would appreciate him telling me whether I am correct in my assertions whether this bill will address that issue and how. 
As I said we wanted to support the intent of this bill but we believe that it has missed the mark considerably. The question that comes to our minds is: does the public need protection from motor vehicle dealers from time to time if at all? The answer to that question is generally yes because a car is the second-largest expense that most people incur. 
David Benson-Pope 
: The member should be supporting the bill. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member says I should be supporting the bill but this bill does not protect consumers. You have heard Paul Adams— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have not heard it. 
PETER BROWN 
: Oh you missed a good speech. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I know but it is a Standing Order. 
PETER BROWN 
: Mr Adams has been a very good advocate for motor vehicle traders but he has said nothing in favour of consumers. If we believe that the public needs protection does this bill deliver that protection? No it does not. It will allow unscrupulous people to enter the industry and somebody will suffer either financially or by buying a car that is less than safe. They might even pay for it with their lives. When the Government reviews this legislation in 2 years’ time I hope Mr Paul Adams takes a close look at what has happened in that 2 years because he has been a firm advocate for the motor vehicle industry. 
I believe that this bill will to some extent result in fewer safe cars coming on to our roads. Will greater numbers of the public pay more than is fair and reasonable for a car as a result of this legislation? I believe they will. Is that compatible with the purpose of this bill? The answer must be no. New Zealand First was not represented on the Commerce Committee but we approached this bill with an open mind. We believe it to be flawed and therefore we will not be supporting it. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I want to comment on a few things that have been said during the course of this bill’s passage and the first thing I will comment on is Deborah Coddington who accused me of all people of hating cars. Perhaps she does not know me very well yet. Cars have been my life-long interest and I guess my wife is occasionally annoyed at the number of them that we have at home. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That happens! 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Yes it is called an addiction. My interest has always been with the buyers—the consumers. There is clearly not an even playing field between buyer and seller. I really became interested in this issue when New Plymouth Women’s Refuge was ripped off defrauded and cheated by Saevue Autos in New Plymouth a company that operated in a way that led everyone to believe it was extremely trustworthy and very sadly it was not. 
The Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal which for the benefit of Mr Key who spoke about it earlier but clearly has never been to a dispute and admitted such recognised that that vehicle had been “clocked” and that that was a considerable cost to the women’s refuge. The issue is whether people could have faith in the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute and the conflict that the institute found itself in when those importing cars and wanting to make a quick buck by clocking them began to get more and more control of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute. The vast number of dealers in this country were appalled at what happened over the running of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute in recent years. Honest dealers tried very hard not to be members of that compulsory organisation and not pay the levies. 
Mr Prebble commented on the levies and this new $127 levy to fund the disputes tribunal. He ranted about the new levy. I tell him that currently the licence fee just to belong to the compulsory Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute is $140. On top of that there are various occasional amounts that have to be paid to the motor vehicle dealers levy fund. The last amount paid in February this year was $506 but it has been $675 an occasional $500 and so on. 
I have probably been personally responsible for some of the reasons that that money had to be forked out because of the court cases I have taken against crooks in the motor vehicle industry. I think I am the only member of Parliament ever to have taken a constituent through that process. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What about the sales tax? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: It would be very helpful if Mr Brownlee were to keep his mouth shut and listen for a while. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Some comment can be made but that is out of order. The member will withdraw that comment and carry on with the debate. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I withdraw the comment. I tell Mr Brownlee that it might help him if he were to be quiet and to listen. The original motor vehicle dealers legislation set a dual responsibility for the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute. The original 1975 Act was to make better provision for the licensing and disciplining of motor vehicle dealers and their staff and to reform the law relating to contracts for the sale of motor vehicles by dealers—and here is the key point—in order to promote and protect the interests of consumers. The Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute was charged with the statutory duty of operating in the interests of consumers and of disciplining dealers but at the same time it was shanghaied and derailed into protecting the interests of motor vehicle dealers even when they were committing fraud. 
One of the reasons that the levy from the fidelity fund has been so high in recent years is that on some occasions the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute has applied to the licensing board to have a dealer struck off on the basis of evidence provided. In cases where the struck-off dealer has been smart enough to have all of his or her assets in trusts and everything else the money cannot be clawed back and the dealer has been able to avoid paying. It is then that the fidelity fund becomes responsible and the lawyers in the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute then object to the same evidence they used to take the licence in the court to try to avoid a payment being made from the fidelity fund. If members look at the expenses of the fidelity fund in recent years I am sure they will find that most of the fund has been spent on legal fees. 
The original Act had a very powerful section which was section 42(3). Notwithstanding any other law that section enabled a crooked dealer to be pursued. I am very pleased that this bill gives the registrar the right to strike off crooked dealers and provides that there will be a review in 2 years to see whether this bill is working well. I am looking forward to that review. I am pleased to have played a part in this. I know I have not been terribly popular with my colleagues but I can tell from the number of good honest dealers who have come up to me and said “Harry good on you for keeping on this because these “clocked” cars are killing us.” that they really appreciate the work that has been done to try to make this legislation work. 
Finally for the benefit of those who do not believe that “clocked” cars are still a problem I suggest that they look at a Japanese website to see what the average mileage there is and then compare that with the average mileage on cars at their local car yard. I think people will be amazed by the difference between those figures. We still seem to have a problem with the reduction of mileage in vehicles crossing the sea particularly with regard to diesel vehicles. There are many good dealers and I want to see them protected. 
Debate interrupted. 
Visitors 
Mr Tsutomu Kawara 
Mr SPEAKER:  
I advise members that Mr Tsutomu Kawara the Chairman of the Committee on Fundamental National Policies from the House of Representatives in Japan is in the public gallery. I am sure members would like to welcome him. 
Motor Vehicle Sales Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I speak on behalf of the ACT party in the final reading of this legislation. The ACT party now opposes this legislation and will vote against it. As I said originally we were going to give it our guarded support when it was sent to the select committee because my colleague Owen Jennings recognised the need for an overhaul of the 1975 Act. But when this bill came back from the select committee a Supplementary Order Paper was sneaked in which singles out motor vehicle dealers as being deserving of some sort of special tax. As Richard Prebble told the House earlier this morning that brings the whole of Parliament into disrepute. That is not a minor Supplementary Order Paper with just technical changes as the Minister asserts. We are told that it brings in a levy to fund a disputes tribunal in part but there is no assurance that the levy will not end up in the consolidated account. 
The Minister says that in January 2001 a discussion paper was circulated which is what she calls “extensive consultation”. From her own words we know that there are two submissions on that discussion paper. If it was such a good idea to have a levy why was it not put in the original bill so that it could go to the select committee allowing motor vehicle dealers to have an input into it? Why treat motor vehicle dealers with such contempt? We know why: it is because they are easy to sting. They are the line of least resistance. One of the points of taxation is representation—or at least that is the case in a liberal democracy. That is not what we are seeing in this case. As I said that Supplementary Order Paper should have gone to a select committee. 
People have been saying that motor vehicle dealers were consulted but from my perspective the only consultation they had was when I sent out a letter to 2250 of them last week and they started to reply. They said things like: “I am supportive of any action that raises awareness of the potential problem of the good guys subsidising the bad guys. I am alarmed over the industry levy proposed by Labour.” That is from a national executive member of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute. 
The whole point of the levy is to fund the tribunal. It is penalising the good dealers as opposed to the bad dealers. I notice in the schedules that there is provision in the legislation for the tribunal to award costs against vexatious litigants or people who refuse to mediate before cases come before the tribunal. If there is the ability to award costs why do we need a levy to support the tribunal in the first case? Yet here we are in urgency and the bill will go through. The levy will be sneaked in with regulations that impose how much what for and where to. Motor vehicle dealers already pay considerable taxes through their GST and through high company taxes. They do not want to nor should they pay an extra tax without knowing anything about it. 
It is interesting that the discussion document the Minister talked about went out in January which is a good time to put something out to the industry! How many people are taking care with their mail in January or noticing things that the Government might be doing? It is holiday time. Again it just shows the disregard that this Government has for corporates companies and entrepreneurs out there. If they knew this levy was coming why are they so outraged about it now? 
I also see in the schedules that the assessors who sit on the disputes tribunal will be paid out of the consolidated account. There is another reason for us to query why we need the tax. I am very suspicious of where the levy will go. Nothing in this legislation assures us that it will in fact be used to fund the disputes tribunal. To me it looks suspiciously as if the Government will get its clammy hands on what was the fidelity fund which was the property right of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute. 
I concede that the dealers welcomed the demise of the fidelity fund. Harry Duynhoven is right when he says that dealers wanted to get rid of it. But what has the Government done? After getting rid of that it will set up its own little fidelity fund. Sometimes we cannot protect people from themselves—much as Governments would like to be able to do so. Sometimes people make silly mistakes and bad decisions. People have a right to be wrong—the Government cannot be there to hold their hands every step of the way. 
Most members of this House have overlooked the fact that every day in this country two-thirds of all car sales are done without the benefit or involvement of a licensed regulated dealer. This legislation will ensure that 100 percent of all those cars that change hands will be do so without the benefit or involvement of a licensed and regulated dealer because this bill will drive motor vehicle dealers away from registering. Nothing in this legislation that would tempt them to register and to comply with the law. Why should they bother? The levy is another nail in the coffin for them in addition to the growth in Internet and private sales with an individual being able to sell up to six cars a year without registering. There is nothing to stop people from banding together. For instance a family of six could band together and sell six cars each. 
As I said during the Committee stage we welcome the end of car dealers compulsorily having to join the Motor Vehicle Dealers Institute. That is a good move. If an industry organisation is good and acts well on behalf of its members then there is no need for it to be compulsory to join. I look forward to the Government applying the same attitude to student unions law societies and all other closed-shop unions and professions where it is compulsory to join. 
The only reason that the industry is protected by legislation and is compulsory of course is that without such legislation they might fall over. We see creeping compulsion coming back into unions too and I look forward to the Government applying that same attitude to those areas. 
I would like to finish by drawing the House’s attention to another area that this legislation has missed out—that is where the New Zealand Customs seizes imported cars for safety reasons when it suspects that the odometers have been tampered with. Any normal person would think it would follow that if those cars were unsafe then they should not be allowed on the road. They could be broken up and sold for parts or they could be sent back to where they came from. 
But no they get sold. The Crown sells them and keeps the money. The Crown is exempt as a car dealer under this Act so the people who purchase those cars from the Crown without knowing that the odometers had been wound back will have no redress because the Crown will not be liable—and this is a bill that is meant to be about protecting consumers. As Richard Prebble said if car dealers were doing to the public what this Government is doing to car dealers there would be an outcry. I repeat: we should be passing a law to protect motor vehicle dealers. In fact all entrepreneurs and all wealth creators in this country should be passing a law to protect themselves from this Government. ACT is not supporting this bill. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise to support the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill. I notice that despite all the criticism of it the one member of the House who knows most about the actual industry of car sales Mr Paul Adams supports the deal; and that the member of the House who knows most about cars Mr Harry Duynhoven also supports the bill. 
I just want to make two points. The first is that last night we saw something that I have not seen in my 22 years in Parliament. We saw members of a party get up and say: “We support the title of the bill but we do not support anything else about it.” As Leader of the House I was sorely tempted to say: “Right we’ll vote with you and we’ll send out to motor vehicle dealers the new Motor Vehicle Sales Bill courtesy of Winston Peters consisting of a title and then a blank sheet.” The dealers would really be baffled and wondering what it was all about and we would have to explain that Mr Peters was probably somewhere in Courtenay Place at the time resulting in the bill ending up in that particular form. 
Then we have listened to all that whingeing from National and ACT members who have been saying: “Labour Governments always do something that is called ‘sneaky’.” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s right! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member learnt to say that from Roger Sowry. When he has more experience he can be leader of the National Party because we have learnt that the only reason he is not the leader of the National Party is that he does not have enough experience. That is what his leader actually said. Those members said that a Supplementary Order Paper imposing a levy had been sneaked into the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s right! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: “That’s right!” the member says. I heard him say this morning that he had just discovered on page 5 of the Supplementary Order Paper that a levy is being imposed. If he looks at the front page of that document he will see that it was tabled on 19 November 2002. This lazy inexperienced wannabe leader of the National Party MP has taken 4½ months to discover the most important bit on that Supplementary Order Paper. National members have just discovered the levy in the amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper after 4½ months. Where were they all that time? Were they going around their used-car dealers asking them about the Supplementary Order Paper? They were too busy counting the numbers in caucus to go and do their work as an Opposition. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 Firstly I would just like to thank Harry Duynhoven for getting up and clarifying a few more points this morning because I was disappointed that the Minister would not take the call and clarify them. Whether she would not take the call or could not take it I do not know but Harry Duynhoven’s explanations were very much appreciated. He was able to clarify a number of points for us. 
New Zealand First is concerned about the lack of compliance in this bill. It does not have any teeth. It does not provide the mechanisms to make sure that unregistered dealers will want to become registered. Because it does not require them to be registered or does not provide the teeth to make them register why should they bother to be registered? They can work out of backyards and if necessary use the licence of another registered dealer under the terms of harbouring. This leaves the consumer without any recourse because the dealer’s licence being used is not the one under which the vehicle is being sold. The person selling the vehicle therefore does not have to front up and be accountable for the sale. He or she just uses the name and the dealer and walks away from any deals. 
Under the bill backyard dealers can sell up to six vehicles but if they do not disclose how many they sell they continue selling vehicles without reporting their sale. 
Last night we had an explanation from Mr Duynhoven on the subject of odometer tampering. He said that the paperwork of cars purchased in Japan clearly documents odometer readings and therefore if that paperwork were transferred with the vehicles to New Zealand dealers and the buyers in this country could identify those vehicles that come in with “clocked” odometers and we would not have this problem. If this bill insisted that those documents travel with the vehicle then we would not have an odometer-clocking problem. 
Paul Adams claims that it is a used-car problem. Well a large number of the used cars on the roads in New Zealand are imported from Japan and many of the vehicles whose paperwork has been separated from them are found to have been “clocked”. Mr Cullen got up and with great glee stated that New Zealand First intended to support only the title of the bill. Well I tell him that if the bill had had the content it was intended to have we could have supported the whole bill. We can support only the title because the rest of the bill is so fragmented and disjointed. It is not properly cross-referenced so one does not know what a penalty refers to and what the circumstances are. 
 So if that had been properly drafted and if the bill had all the proper content then we would have been able to support it. We support the idea and the intent of the bill and so does the industry. The Minister was unable to explain any of the bill. He had to leave it to one other member of his party to explain. The Minister did not really know what the bill was all about so we have come up with a drafted bill that has no real substance and no real content. That is the reason we could not support the rest of the bill. 
The Supplementary Order Paper clearly states “19 November”. That was after the second reading and it was also after the select committee process. Nobody in the industry was given an opportunity to put his or her views. Deborah Coddington of ACT has a pile of papers from the industry which is horrified that it was not consulted. I really have some doubt about the Minister’s claim that she was consulted about this. A continual stream of letters are coming in in reply to a letter that went out from Deborah Coddington asking the industry what it thought about the bill. The industry is horrified. It was not consulted and not given the opportunity to talk about this through the select committee process and to provide its submissions. 
With regard to the removal of the fidelity fund it is extraordinary that we throw open the industry to new players and players who will not necessarily have the integrity that Mr Adams claimed that the rest of the industry has. He has admitted that to us and he is a member of the Government. He has also admitted to us that there will be another level of car dealer in this country—that is dealers who will not have the integrity of the rest of the industry. To remove the fidelity fund without providing it with another mechanism as a safeguard will leave a lot of consumers with a huge potential for the unscrupulous ones to leave them with a dud car “clocked” odometers and no recourse. 
When we look back at the Supplementary Order Paper we find that right at the very end of it is an additional clause: clause 146 “Review of operation of Act” which states that it is to be no later than 2 years. That indicates that this Government suddenly realised that this bill did not have the substance and it certainly did not have the confidence of the Government. If the Government had had the confidence it would not have needed this particular clause so why have a clause that basically will review the whole thing and say that this could be a total disaster? I hope that once the Government does the review it actually looks at the review and does something about it because nothing in this bill requires the Government to action that review and do anything about it. It states that the Government has to do a review within 2 years but if anything is found that is amiss in the review then there is no requirement by the Government to do anything about it. 
This bill lacks substance it certainly lacks integrity and it certainly lacks any compliance and teeth. That is the reason that we were unable to support it any further than the title. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Motor Vehicle Sales Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 96 
Noes 20 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) 
Second Reading 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. Maori purposes bills generally tidy up legislation that relates to Maori affairs Maori land and other Maori purposes. In this instance the bill proposes amendment to the following three statutes: the Treaty of Waitangi Act the Broadcasting Act and the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Act. The subject areas covered by the bill range over the operations of the Waitangi Tribunal the responsibilities for the Maori Broadcasting Funding Authority and the number of fishing licences available to the people of Ngati Tuwharetoa under the 1926 Act. Maori purposes bills can be viewed as a convenient and necessary vehicle to provide updating and ongoing maintenance of the wide range of legislation that affects the affairs of Maori. 
Part 1 proposes amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act in relation to the operation of the Waitangi Tribunal. Clause 4 proposes to give statutory validation to changes of membership that occurred in three tribunals these being the Wellington inquiry Wai 145; the Kaipara inquiry Wai 674; and the Hauraki inquiry Wai 686. The clause will clarify the status of the changes of membership that have occurred in the three inquiries mentioned. 
The main amendments in the part are in clause 5 and give express statutory powers for the replacement of members and presiding officers and the appointment of acting presiding officers. The circumstances and conditions required before these statutory powers can be exercised is also specified. The new provisions will make the position very clear. 
I wish to comment on the amendment proposed by the select committee to Part 1. The intention of the select committee’s amendment is to impose a requirement that only a member of the tribunal who is a barrister or a solicitor of the High Court of at least 7 years standing is qualified to be appointed as an acting presiding officer. The select committee has indicated that it is satisfied that the bill as drafted reflects advice given to Te Puni Kokiri by the Solicitor-General and the Crown Law Office. 
The amendments in Part 2 are to effect technical changes following the transfer of ministerial responsibility for Maori broadcasting policy from the Minister of Broadcasting to me as the Minister of Maori Affairs. The transfer took place in the year 2000 and the amendments in Part 2 are straightforward technical amendments. 
Part 3 proposes an amendment to the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Act to increase the statutory number of licences issued to members of Ngati Tuwharetoa to permit fishing for imported species in Lake Taupo. The number of licences to which Ngati Tuwharetoa is entitled has not been adjusted since the Act was passed in 1926. The number of general fishing licences for the lake has increased substantially since 1926 by 1515 percent. 
I urge that the bill proceed through its remaining legislative stages with some urgency. With particular regard to Part 1 the need for urgency for the rapid passage of the bill has been expressed in submissions by claimants awaiting the release of the report in relation to the Wellington claim. The urgent nature associated with the bill’s passing has been consistently reiterated by the Waitangi Tribunal and claimants. The proposed clauses in Part 1 provide clarity and certainty in terms of the status of the specific tribunal inquiries the ability to appoint replacement presiding officers or members and the ability to appoint acting presiding officers. The clauses thereby address significant concerns of tribunal claimants the Crown and New Zealanders as a whole. 
Finally I wish to acknowledge the members of the Maori Affairs Committee for the diligence and the care they demonstrated in their consideration of the bill—all members. That is reflected in their report on the bill to the House. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 I have much pleasure in rising to make a contribution to the report back of this bill. I note that it is rather ironic that the Minister of Maori Affairs said he hoped this bill would proceed with some urgency. We are in urgency but I note that this bill has been ready for report back for some months now. That is why we in National are very pleased to be in the House to progress the bill to its conclusion. 
In respect of the first part of the bill which deals with changes to the Treaty of Waitangi Act there is a clause that validates the constitution of the Waitangi Tribunal for three inquiries. I have a bit of personal understanding of the difficulties that can be posed by the fact that there have been changes of membership in relation to the Kaipara Hauraki and Wellington Tenths inquiries so I am pleased to see that this bill moves to validate those inquiries. In a sense there is a slight—but only slight—modification under clause 4 to the rights to challenge but in all other respects the existing rights to challenge remain in place. I think it is not only sensible but proper that that be done and it will enable the release of the Wellington Tenths inquiry report which was one of the main issues that submitters came to the committee about. It was a real concern that a report has been waiting to be issued. Hopefully the minute that this bill is passed into legislation that report will be brought out. So the validation clause is supported. 
There are also changes promoted to the Treaty of Waitangi Act to give the chairperson the power to replace presiding officers and to replace members. There was an issue there which we covered reasonably exhaustively in the select committee and that of course was the issue of natural justice—the underlying principle being that only those who hear should decide—and the right to a fair hearing. Again advice was sought first of all by the Minister before the bill came to the select committee and we also satisfied ourselves that those changes were necessary. 
They are proposed on the basis of a quite strict set of criteria and I want to refer to those from the bill itself. The chairperson may appoint a replacement presiding officer and may also appoint a replacement member but as I said there are strict conditions applying before those appointments can occur. The power can be used only if the presiding officer concerned has ceased to hold office—and that is in relation to his or her actual appointment—if the personal circumstances of the presiding officer or member holding the office are such in relation to his or her physical or mental condition that he or she ought to be replaced; and if in the opinion of the chairperson it would be unreasonable to expect the presiding officer or member to continue to participate in an inquiry. There is also an additional criterion which is that the chairperson must not exercise that power unless there is an adequate record of the part of the 
inquiry that has already been heard. That is pretty important. The tribunal is to make sure as it proceeds with claims and hearings that there is an adequate record in existence and the provision also states that it is reasonable to expect that the replacement officer review that record. 
Although clause 5 does throw up an important underlying issue the issue of natural justice it is the conclusion of the National caucus that on balance provided that the strict criteria are followed and provided that the power is used only in relation to those criteria the clause probably makes sense the set of changes are appropriate and we support them. 
One other matter in relation to clause 5 is the provision for the chairperson to appoint an acting presiding officer. The original proposal could have brought into the chair a person or persons with no legal background. There was agreement by all committee members that that probably was not appropriate in the context of a semi-judicial body so the power to appoint an acting presiding officer will occur only when it results in a replacement presiding officer who is a barrister or solicitor of 7 years’ standing. That proposal in relation to that part of the bill is supported by all of the committee’s membership. On that basis National is very happy with that amendment as well. 
In terms of Part 2 and the Broadcasting Act National has some problems with this part. It has been signalled that we will be voting against this part. It may be a technical amendment in that as the Minister said pursuant to a Cabinet minute the responsibility for Te Mangai Paho has been with the Minister of Maori Affairs rather than with the Minister of Broadcasting. But we are tending to look at this amendment in relation to all of the debacle that has occurred over the last 2 years with regard to Maori television Maori broadcasting generally and the inability of this Minister to get that television service up and running. It has seemingly been one set of unfortunate circumstances after another. It is now understood that that television service might be up and running by the end of the year. This change might be a proper change to make but we do not have a lot of confidence—not that the Minister of Broadcasting always engenders confidence either I might add—that the change is actually warranted. 
In relation to the third part of the bill there is a note in the select committee report about my standing at a distance from this provision. I do not intend to refer to it at all in any of these comments and neither do I intend to vote on it. 
So in all the National Opposition is very pleased to see that at long last this bill has come up and that the intention is to pass it through all stages today. We are very supportive of the changes to the Treaty of Waitangi Act particularly the change that validates the three inquiries. Although the changes are sensible and appropriate they do raise an underlying issue that this Government must address—though it is not addressable in this context—and that is the chronic underfunding of the Waitangi Tribunal and its lack of resourcing. These changes are necessitated by the fact that Waitangi Tribunal inquiries are lengthy complex and take a number of years to progress. I was one of the original members on the Wellington Tenths inquiry which started in the early 1990s. I am now here in Parliament so I will be very pleased to see the report on that being issued. 
But I think this Government has put maybe half a million dollars of funding in the last 4 years into the operations of the tribunal. That is an underlying issue that must be addressed. It is not right. Justice delayed is justice denied. Some of these claims are taking too long and I ask the Minister to needle his colleague the Minister for Courts and see whether there is an opportunity to get some more funding to the tribunal. 
I just raise again the issue of the potential conflict of interest for me in relation to Part 3. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 United Future supports this bill in its entirety. Perhaps in beginning I can comment on United Future’s involvement in getting legislation through with urgency. I want to commend first of all the Labour Government for working with United Future on this urgency week and addressing with us the legislation that should or should not be contained in the urgency motion. I am delighted to see the progress that the Government has been able to make under urgency. It was somewhat of a surprise when I realised last night that I might be speaking on this bill if not last night at least this morning and that effectively we are up to No. 14 on the Order Paper. It is pleasing to see the legislation being passed so quickly given the backlog of about 90 bills at the time that United Future first arrived here in the House. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Because of the Greens. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: The backlog as I understand it was because of a lack of cooperation by the Green Party. United Future is pleased to have a good relationship with Labour that allows our involvement at that level and that has enabled us for example to promote the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill but also to exclude legislation that we felt was too contentious to be dealt with this week. 
I am concerned though about the Government’s delays in progressing Treaty of Waitangi grievance settlements. I alluded to that matter during the reading of the Ngati Ruanui legislation and do so again with the Maori Purposes Bill. I believe that the delays in getting this much-needed legislation through the House are reprehensible. I note that the Waitangi Tribunal claim was filed in 1987; the hearings took place between 1991 and 1999; and the decision was issued as I understand it in late 2002 although I note that in April 2002 the 
 Evening Post 
 suggested that the Government was unduly delaying the progress of the bill and questioned the reasons for that. So it has taken some 15 years for this claim to be resolved. 
Given the continuing comments made by the Government and in particular the Attorney-General about the progressing of claims in a timely fashion it seems astonishing to me that the issue raised in the first part of this Maori Purposes Bill—namely the inadequacy of the legislation that allowed changes in the make-up of the tribunal—was not dealt with years ago during the course of the hearings. I know for example that my colleague the Hon Georgina te Heuheu as she has stated was on the tribunal in 1994 and clearly had to leave the tribunal upon becoming a member of Parliament. So it is clear that the issues that are giving rise to this bill in terms of there being sufficient authority for the tribunal actually to issue a decision despite changes in its membership are things that the Government has been aware of for many years. It is a concern that it did not address those issues in order to have them dealt with until after the decision had been made. 
One can understand that the Government might delay dealing with the issue until it became a matter of significance but surely this legislation should have gone through before the decision on the Wellington Tenths Trust claim in particular was completed and was ready to be issued instead of our having this ridiculous situation where the tribunal has made its decision but cannot release it until this bill is passed. We have had to wait for months and months to have this legislation passed so that a decision that has already been made can be released. I know that already details of some of the effect of the decision have been released although they should not have been. I myself have heard of some of the impact of the decision that is going to be released and comments have been made in terms of the findings. 
That is the danger we get into: because the decision has been reached but the court has not released it and has held up actually making it public all of a sudden rumour and speculation and even informal advice in terms of what the decision will contain get out into the public sphere. That undermines the whole judicial process. It undermines the whole treaty settlement process. It is not conducive to our resolving treaty grievances either in a way that is sustainable or in a timely fashion. There are those who having heard rumours of what might be in the decision are worried about the impact of it—about how much Wellington land will be going to the Wellington Tenths Trust and things of that nature. This delay serves only to fuel those concerns and make things difficult in terms of the resolution of grievances and reconciliation between Maori and the Crown. 
So I am astonished that that delay has occurred but at least we have finally got the bill back in the House. I notice that it was introduced in March 2002; that its first reading began in May 2002 but was interrupted by the election and was completed in September 2002; and that it was referred to the Maori Affairs Committee. The committee spent approximately only 3½ hours on hearing submissions and considering the bill. It seems to me that that could have happened fairly quickly the bill could have come back to the House and we could have been dealing with this matter a lot sooner instead of waiting until April 2003. So I am concerned about the Government’s lack of commitment to speedy or timely resolution of grievances. 
There are other examples of that such as the delays in the release of the report on the Gisborne casebook inquiry which we were promised in September—6 months ago—was being finalised. I understand that it was completed in December but is yet to be launched publicly. I am concerned about the reason for the delays before that report is released because they will impact on the budgetary process and on the ability to extend the casebook process beyond simply the Gisborne case. I would like to see it addressed in the Budget with funding being provided to use that process for the resolution of all treaty claims as far as it is appropriate. 
The Ngati Ruanui bill again had to come through under urgency and has taken far longer than it should. I can only hope that the other stages of the bill—the Committee stage and the third reading—happen very promptly so that we can get that one signed off and out of the way and can allow Ngati Ruanui to get on and organise their affairs with the settlement proceeds. 
The first part of this bill deals with the primary conflict between natural justice issues and the need for the tribunal to resolve issues and bring claims to a conclusion. That is a balance that has been discussed within the select committee and it is fair enough to have that debate. On the one hand there is the natural justice issue of a tribunal that starts hearing a claim being the one that finishes hearing the claim. Litigants can be justifiably aggrieved in situations where they give evidence to one tribunal then suddenly find at the time the decision is being made the tribunal making the decision is not the one that heard what the litigants said but is a substantially changed panel. 
Nevertheless I do not agree with the Greens. I do not support their claim that natural justice overrides the situation. I think there is an urgent need to resolve these issues and bring claims to a conclusion; it is a matter of urgency. This has taken 15 years. The hearings by the Waitangi Tribunal took 8 years and to say at the end of 8 years that the tribunal has to go back and start all over again because of the changes in the tribunal’s make-up is frankly ridiculous. It does nothing to help resolve the grievances we all want to see resolved. To have to rehear everything and relitigate everything after 8 years of hearings is simply a waste of time. Although there is a natural justice claim the need to resolve issues and bring claims to a conclusion is in everybody’s interests and is in the interests of both sides of the issue—namely the Crown and the Maori organisations and iwi that are involved. 
There is a parallel of course with the select committees. I could not help seeing the parallel with some of us who came into the House and were faced with select committee situations where the submissions had been heard and the committee that was making the decision was substantially different from the one that had held the hearings. That was the case with the Justice and Electoral Committee and the Retirement Villages Bill where five of the seven members now on the select committee did not hear the bulk of the submissions. The Greens did not seem to object at that point. But we were able to cope with that because we were able to read the written submissions and we were able to rely on the officials’ reports. Although that is not the most desirable course of action and is unfortunate it is nevertheless unavoidable. We managed to cope in the same way that the tribunal is also able to cope in its hearings. 
I support Part 1 and we commend the bill to the House. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) and recommends that it be passed. Part 1 amends the Treaty of Waitangi Act in relation to the operations of the Waitangi Tribunal. Part 2 deals with the Broadcasting Act in order to give effect to technical changes in relation to ministerial responsibility for Maori broadcasting policy and Te Reo Whakapuaki Irirangi also known as Te Mangai Paho. We of New Zealand First have always had a concern about the time factor and the delays that have been taking place—taking into consideration the challenges that have been put before the select committee and those responsible for this area. In respect of the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Act we are happy it has finally been looked at and that the 1515 percent increase in general fishing licences can be sorted out and made more equitable. 
Basically we are talking about the amendments in Part 1 which are a result of membership changes during the Wellington Tenths Kaipara and Hauraki inquiries. The bill gives guidelines as to the appointment of tribunal presiding officers; the mandates and skills required to be a member of that organisation; and the accountability required. 
It has been recommended by the committee that section 5AD(2) of the second schedule in clause 5 be deleted from the bill because it would not offer any protection to either claimants or the Crown. The proposed amendment to that clause of the second schedule provides that only a member of the tribunal who is a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of at least 7 years’ standing shall be qualified for appointment as presiding officer under clause 5(1)(a) of the second schedule. The Act currently requires the presiding officer to be either the chairperson a judge of the Maori Land Court or a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of at least 7 years’ standing appointed by the chairperson. Under a proposed new clause of the second schedule the chairperson may exercise the power of appointing an acting presiding officer only if he or she considers that the tribunal can properly continue to exercise its functions to inquire into the particular claim or other matter with an acting presiding officer. Any person appointed an acting presiding officer would have the same powers as a presiding officer under the Act and would be able to exercise those powers only for the period of time specified by the chairperson. 
In 1996 the acting registrar of the Waitangi Tribunal sought advice on the powers of the chairperson of the tribunal to reconstitute tribunals where members are unable to continue in office. In response to the request the Solicitor-General advised that if the tribunal was to have express power to permit a substitution of a presiding officer or panel members the Act should be amended to make sure that the intention to depart from the standard principles of natural justice to meet the needs of the tribunal process was indicated in terms that were clear and unambiguous. As a result of discussion and advice from Te Puni Kokiri the Solicitor-General and the Crown Law Office the amended clause 5AD(2) on Supplementary Order Paper 76 was recommended. That ensures that only a member of the tribunal who is a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of at least 7 years’ standing shall be qualified for appointment as presiding officer under clause 5(1)(a)(iii) of the second schedule. 
Last night we heard the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill being read. We heard from those who were against it and from those who were for it. I am happy that the bill has been passed and the people can get on with what they should be doing. There was a spirit of contention during debate on that bill because as we all know others disagreed with it. It will probably be the same with this bill. But for the sake of the citizens of New Zealand which we all are we need to move ahead on what is already happening today. 
I commend the Maori Affairs Committee for looking at these amendments and making changes that will make this organisation more efficient. I am reminded of the comments made by the National MP Georgina te Heuheu about the funding for the Waitangi Tribunal and the time it takes to sort out these claims and settle them. I am sure that they can be more efficiently administered too and that rather than our waiting for the year 2050 or however long it will take to settle these claims they can be more efficiently processed and the people concerned can be satisfied and get on with life. 
As a member of New Zealand First I recommend that this bill be passed with the amendments made by the Maori Affairs Committee. 
MITA RIRINUI (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 I stand naturally with previous speakers from this side of the House the Minister of Maori Affairs in particular in supporting the passage of the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2). It is interesting to note the amount of Maori legislation that has gone through the House in the last 24 hours. Last night we saw the second stage of the Ngati Ruanui Claims Settlement Bill and I value very highly the contributions that were made by all members of the House. I am sure we unanimously support Ngati Ruanui in the challenges ahead of them. 
I know there is a parliamentary discipline that we do not bag our friends particularly in this House but the fact that the Ngati Ruanui bill and the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) are being heard in urgency is a strong indication of this Government’s commitment to getting all legislation on the Order Paper through the House. I do not think there are too many members of the House who mind sitting through the process. It should not be seen as a full performance on the part of the Government but as a very strong commitment to its legislative programme. 
It has already been intimated by a number of previous speakers that a particularly sensitive part of the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) is Part 1 and the amendments that have subsequently been made to the bill to allow the Waitangi Tribunal to proceed with hearings so that claimant groups and communities particularly the Wellington Tenths with Wai 145 Kaipara with Wai 674 and Hauraki with Wai 686 can get on with their business have their hearings concluded at a reasonable pace and not have them held up just because there is no quorum on the tribunal. When we consider it we realise that the tribunal not hearing these cases because there is no quorum is quite ridiculous and the amendments are appropriate. I acknowledge all parties that have spoken previously. I also acknowledge that the National Party member on the Maori Affairs Committee has issues with Part 2 in terms of the Broadcasting Act. She has stated quite clearly that she will not be supporting that part. We live in a democratic society and I accept that that is how things fold out but I am sure that by the end of these speeches she will have considered that issue again and with a bit of luck she may change her position. Who knows miracles do happen in the 21st century! 
In my brief speech I also want to cover Part 3 which relates to the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Act of 1926 as it affects the people of the central North Island in particular Ngati Tuwharetoa and their charter licences. There have been no adjustments in this area since the legislation was enacted in 1926. I have to say that for the people of Ngati Tuwharetoa this issue has the same effect on them as the peppercorn perpetual leases in for instance Taranaki and on the West Coast of the South Island. They have a resource but are not getting any material or financial gain from it. Therefore that part of the bill is long overdue and certainly will be positively received by Ngati Tuwharetoa. 
I acknowledge too the contributions of the members of the Maori Affairs Committee in particular the chair for keeping things steady as she goes as usual and for allowing all members of the select committee to make a valuable contribution. I particularly acknowledge the submitters who came from a number of parts of the country to speak to us about their views on various aspects of the bill. I heard a previous speaker say that there were objections to parts of the bill in terms of the charter licences. I can recall only one objection and it was not a very well put argument in terms of why there should be no increase in licences. I think overall the vast majority of those who made submissions agreed that adjustments are well overdue. 
I commend the bill to the House and I congratulate the Minister of Maori Affairs on getting it up the Order Paper. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party does not support this bill for the same reasons as were set out in September 2002 when dealing with the bill in the House. We are dealing with a symptom not the problem. I have just checked with my colleague Georgina te Heuheu about the Wellington Tenths Trust. The inquiry into that case started in 1991 and Georgina te Heuheu was on the tribunal when it started hearing that case. I have just checked with Georgina and the tribunal still has not reported. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member may not use a member’s first name only. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement). Members may be referred to by their full names their titles or their portfolios. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you. I have just checked with Georgina te Heuheu and the tribunal still has not reported on that case. Georgina te Heuheu has left the tribunal and become a member of Parliament— 
John Carter 
: And a very good one. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: —and a good one—so there is a potential challenge to anything that the tribunal might find. We have the situation of Manu Bennett who was a young 73 years when that case— 
John Carter 
: Very able. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: He was very sprightly and able and was thinking about becoming a National Party MP. But sadly he died at the age of 85 before the case was concluded. So there is a potential challenge there. 
This bill allows the chairman of the tribunal to gloss over that and to change its members. But the problem we have is why those cases are taking 12 and 13 years and are still not heard. That is a problem because how can we have justice if a case before a quasi-court takes a dozen years to be heard and concluded? We could have a situation whereby a tribunal was reporting yet none of the people doing that reporting had actually heard the evidence. How could that possibly be just or fair? We should be speeding up the process not allowing a revolving-door policy because members go off the tribunal and become MPs or sadly pass away. 
I have another concern and it is this. I think that Georgina te Heuheu would agree that there are politics in the Waitangi Tribunal. However we have a situation whereby the chairperson can throw off a presiding officer because of his or her personal circumstances. How can it possibly be just that the chairperson of the tribunal can get rid of someone who is hearing evidence and replace that person with someone else because of his or her personal circumstances? I look across to my Maori colleagues and I ask in which court does that occur in New Zealand? Nowhere! So why are we doing that to Maori people? Why are we not addressing the problem by providing proper resources? The ACT party will be voting against this bill because it denies natural justice. 
Part 2 had me a little confused so I consulted my Ngai Tahu brother the Hon Parekura Horomia the Minister of Maori Affairs. I have been addressing my questions on Maori Sportscasting International to my Ngai Tahu brother believing him to be in charge of Te Mangai Paho—I am getting better at pronouncing it and I see that the interpreter is nodding his head. I am from the South Island and the Minister knows that our dialect is a wee bit different down there. I have discovered that we are to put the Minister of Maori Affairs in charge of Te Mangai Paho here. I am pleased about that because I have been hassling him about that organisation for some time not realising that that was actually the fault of the Minister of Broadcasting. It was the Minister of Broadcasting who caused the problems in the first place but it is Parekura Horomia who is doing the clean-up job on Te Mangai Paho. 
I have a few more things for Parekura Horomia that need to be cleaned up. When Mr Peter Bushnell from Treasury comes across to my office I will reveal a bit more to him and it is along these lines. We have an interesting situation. We have heard about the great capacity-building booze-up when $5400 from a capacity-building grant that was supposed to be used for training went on a dinner and drinks for the Labour Party. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Go and have a lie down and take your medicine. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Those members do not like democracy do they? Let us have a look at this question which I mistakenly put to the Minister of Maori Affairs. I said that Maori Sportscasting International interested me because its commentators watched a game and broadcast it on Sky or on the iwi radio network in te reo and that was great. 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Talk about the bill. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: This is about the bill because the bill is about the Minister who is to be in charge of Te Mangai Paho. I am pleased that Parekura Horomia is to be in charge of it because he is doing the business of cleaning that up. I will make a revelation because Parekura Horomia said to me that Maori Sportscasting International is paid—and I want to read this figure—on average $2111 per broadcast. 
I want to know and ask that Minister to find this out when he is doing his clean-up where that money is going. His executive assistant is one of the broadcasters but she is a volunteer. So how can it cost $2000? The Minister may say that may be because of the equipment. Well Sky has been providing until recently the studio for free. There is no equipment cost. Te Mangai Paho has been paying $2000 per broadcast for volunteers to call a game. In fact Hemana Waaka once called a game sitting at home with the TV on and calling into a microphone. Putting the commentary into Maori in that way is very enterprising but why should that cost the taxpayer $2111? 
That amount is the average. Some of those broadcasts cost $6000. Thousands and thousands of dollars were spent on the civil servant who was in charge of managing the contract. That is why when I look at Part 2 and I see that my good friend Parekura Horomia is taking over the Te Mangai Paho mess from Steve Maharey I am very pleased. The one thing I do know about Parekura Horomia—and I want to pay him this compliment—is that he actually does not go along with that nonsense. Not from the first moment that I raised the issue of Maori Sportscasting International and the usage of that money on a dinner and drinks did that Minister agree with that. He sent a message to Te Puni Kokiri and to Te Mangai Paho that that is not the standard that we in Parliament and the Government expect. 
I did not hear the Minister of Broadcasting say that nor did I hear the Prime Minister say that. I did not hear Dover Samuels and John Tamihere—who were sucking up the largesse from Te Puni Kokiri—say that. But the Minister of Maori Affairs has sent a message to Te Mangai Paho and I make a commitment to him in this debate that now that he will be in law the Minister in charge of Te Mangai Paho I will work with him to help him in sorting that out. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh I know the Minister is so pleased. I will be making more and more revelations but mostly I will just go across the House to him and tell him there is a problem that we need to fix. If we are to spend $12 million on Maori broadcasting let us make sure it works. Let us stop pretending that spending $12 million is an answer because the issue is how that money is spent. The Minister knows that. He is not satisfied with what has gone on with regard to Maori Sportscasting International. He is not satisfied that his colleagues have been taking capacity grant money and enjoying the largesse. 
I say Parekura Horomia is the sort of Minister that we want to have in charge of Te Mangai Paho. I look forward to Peter Bushnell coming over to my office as leader of the review team into what has gone on at Te Mangai Paho and I tell the Minister that I will be sharing my extensive files and pictures with him. 
MAHARA OKEROA (NZ Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I am sufficiently inspired to say about the previous speaker the honourable member of the Opposition that he referred to the Minister of Maori Affairs as his Ngai Tahu brother. [ 
Interruption 
] That is fairly close. One of the unfortunate things about our whakapapa is that we cannot do anything about it. I look forward to a response from my electorate of Te Tai Tonga as to the putative claim of the member’s Ngai Tahu - tanga and whether that iwi greets that with the fond reminiscing that that member over there on the Opposition benches so often indulges in. 
Having said that most of the technical aspects of this bill—Part 1 Part 2 and Part 3—have been more than covered. However as well as being the chair of the Maori Affairs Committee I stand here as someone closely involved with one of the claims that is in this bill. There are three there: the Kaipara Hauraki and what is commonly known as the Te Atiawa claim but is essentially the Port Nicholson claim. 
As people have alluded to there has been a significant time-lapse between this legislation being mooted in 1996 and finally entering this House in 2003. As the honourable member Bill Gudgeon said the concerns surrounding the membership of the Waitangi Tribunal were first mooted by the then deputy registrar. I must say that this legislation was in 1996. Having been mooted in 1996 it has taken as long as this to reach the second reading. But since we have been in Government we have moved to introduce the bill in 2002 and now to progress it in 2003. I fully support all the measures and provisions that have been taken in the part of the bill that deals with the Waitangi Tribunal’s membership. In doing so I compliment not only the Minister of Maori Affairs but my colleagues on the Maori Affairs Committee for ensuring that this legislation goes forward. 
With regard to the trout fishing licences the only thing that concerned me was that that matter was last visited in 1926. In that respect I do not think there was very much disagreement from the select committee. 
Again I will refer back to the previous speaker. After speaking in such glowing terms about the Minister of Maori Affairs and his absolute bent towards transparency and accountability and his undertaking to review maybe—that may be the wrong word—the actions of both the agencies mentioned by the member I fail to understand how Mr Hide can now be against the bill. After all he has just extolled the virtues of the Minister of Maori Affairs. There seems to me to be an apparent contradiction between Mr Hide’s presentation and his objection to the bill. Maybe that draws some notion of the confusion in your ranks. [ 
Interruption 
] I prefer to say “confusion in your ranks”. We understand what is happening over here on the Government benches as has come to the media. What is happening over there in the Opposition? 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know it is unusual to do this through a point of order but the member on his feet has asked me a question. He did not quite understand why the ACT party objects to Part 1. I thought I had explained that in terms of natural justice. If Mr Speaker wants to point out that the member can yield the call and give me 2 minutes I will make an explanation and answer his question. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is perfectly normal. It can be done but it is not often done in the New Zealand Parliament. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: That was quite a significant judgment there Mr Speaker; I give you my congratulations. 
In conclusion therefore I stand unreservedly as a Te Atiawa member. If members are talking about natural justice then they are talking about natural justice from a particular perspective. The design of this bill is about speeding up the process. It is about affording natural justice to the claimants so there is a two-sided coin. No reira i runga i nga korero nei. Tena koutou tena koutou kia oti pai tenei taha. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is the member just going to ask for an interpretation? 
Rodney Hide 
: Sure. 
MAHARA OKEROA 
: Having regard to his Ngai Tahu ancestry and the difference in dialect I assumed that that member fully understood what was going down. For the benefit of that speaker I will translate on my behalf in the sense of drawing to a close. I think it has been a very good outcome and I thank the select committee. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I pointed out that the member could yield the call and I notice that the member did not take the full allotment of his time. I just wanted to ask given that he asked me two questions during his speech whether he was yielding me the 2 minutes that remain of his time. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. 
Rodney Hide 
:Is the member prepared to yield that? It is up to the member. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. The member will be seated. The member has already sat down and I now intend to call the next member. 
Rodney Hide 
:Oh so he did not really want answers to the questions. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are very pleased to support this bill and I echo my colleagues in the Maori Affairs Committee in saying how relieved we are that the bill is before the House and will go through all its stages this week. The provisions in the bill relating to the Treaty of Waitangi Act are urgently needed for the effective management of claims through the tribunal. I will talk about that briefly in a moment but let me first mention the provisions in Part 3 of the bill. 
Part 3 allows for an increase in the number of fishing licences to Ngati Tuwharetoa. Yesterday I received a number of letters from people who are concerned about that many of whom have been very active in environmental restoration around Lake Taupo. They are concerned that the increase in licences will cause environmental problems and I want to assure them that the increase in the number of licences from 50 to 200 will not have a massively detrimental effect on the overall fisheries in Lake Taupo or on the surrounding environments. The licences are issued under existing statutory rights under the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Act which vested ownership of Lake Taupo in the Crown while providing amongst other things the right of Tuwharetoa to fish and catch for its own use indigenous fish in Lake Taupo waters. The number of licences for that right has not as has been said been changed since 1926 but general licences have increased considerably. The committee considered that the increase is long overdue small though it is. 
For the Greens the most important part of the bill is the change to the Treaty of Waitangi Act. Those amendments validate changes in membership either to replace or to substitute members during the course of tribunal hearings. Those changes are essential in order to ensure just outcomes from the tribunal. It is part of the process of natural justice though that only those who hear evidence should decide on it. Generally if a judicial officer is unable to complete a hearing the matter is reheard from the beginning. But for the tribunal and particularly for the participants that principle has to be weighed against a greater injustice since claimants spend up to 10 years before a tribunal and the membership of that tribunal has to change due to unforeseen circumstances. On balance the injustice caused to the claimants by having to repeat their claims from the beginning is frankly too great to contemplate. It is an extraordinarily long and exhaustive process that exacts a huge toll on those involved. A number of longstanding claims are waiting for this bill to pass so that they can be completed. The Wellington Tenths is one of them but there are claims as well such as Wai 262. We look forward to their eventual completion. 
The select committee’s report notes a concern from the Greens that clause 5AC(2)(c) inserted by clause 5 gives the chairperson subject to the protections in subclause (3) a broad discretion to replace a member. I do not imagine for one moment that that discretion is intended to be misused or will be misused but I am concerned that in this case we are enacting legislation that does not expressly require the member to agree to being replaced. I realise that some members—although not the member for ACT—may consider that point a little pedantic but I am solely concerned with the standing and reputation of the tribunal. As a semi-judicial body I do not want it to be considered to have a lesser standing than any other similar body in this country. I am concerned that any deviations from the principles of natural justice and from general practice are confined as much as is possible to curing the mischief. However that said the Greens do support this bill and look forward to its speedy passage. Kia ora koutou. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I had not intended to speak in this debate as New Zealand First has indicated its support for the bill. But when I heard the contribution from the United Future party earlier—on its black charger with a white flag with a surrender mark on it as it came to the aid of the Government with regard to urgency—I thought it was quite extraordinary. That charge was accompanied by a comment and I wondered whether that was going to mark United Future’s interest in matters Maori. The United Future member if I understood him correctly said that there is a need for resolution above natural justice. He then went on to say that the process is all important. As that member can boldly make that statement in the House on matters that are before the House now I wondered what comprehensive knowledge of Maori grievances that member and his party have. Let us hear it again: “Resolution should be above natural justice.” 
Maori have cried out for 150 years for natural justice on those issues. Their grievances were heard in the House last night and partly remedied and with this bill we are about to attempt to do the same—that was the attitude of a party in this House and I find it deplorable. That is not the basis for this bill. This bill attempts to correct a number of anomalies that have occurred in the past. The first one is—and the Minister should take great heed of the comments already made—that the Waitangi Tribunal is under-resourced. It is under-resourced in personnel research independence and objectivity and most of all in funding. We will never get beyond what we have now which is a piecemeal year-by-year partial process with two or three decisions unless that issue is seriously addressed. Other speakers have already said that justice is denied if justice cannot be heard and that is the fundamental issue here. If the tribunal is properly managed and resourced how come an issue that arose in the House in 1996 has come back to the House so much later? I heard the speaker’s comment about the fact that it was 1996 but the actual issue is that 4 years later that administration seeks to correct an anomaly. 
Unlike others I am not connected to Wellington but I am connected to Kaipara and I take the issue of the concern in Kaipara seriously. I just hope in our support for this bill that we are not sliding over some of the issues of contention. Members are well aware that judicial review processes would take into account the course of the deliberation the veracity of the evidence heard and the way in which it was finally considered all of which should in most tribunals that I know of be heard by all with the decision given only by those who heard the deliberations. I know that the Government does not worry about that—it has three persons on a committee of 11 that is being asked to consider serious matters. I know that they are not concerned about the process but we are. To that end we hope by our support to aid that slip if one likes with regard to the original Act and to account for the issues that were overseen with regard to membership. 
The second issue I refer to is that I personally am very pleased to see the responsibility for Te Mangai Paho transfer from the Minister of Broadcasting to the Minister of Maori Affairs. Te Mangai Paho was considerably compromised in its deliberations in its earlier years by its tenuous affinity somehow to the Ministry of Commerce. Those who were associated with the establishment of that agency in its early years found that the Ministry of Commerce had far more power to deliberate upon the day-to-day operations of Te Mangai Paho than the Minister of Maori Affairs or the officers who were under that Minster ever had. That was wrong and it accounted for some of the problems that that agency had in the late 1990s. The accountability is finally being put directly on the Minister as has already been mentioned by Mr Hide and that is very very worthwhile indeed. I hope that the Minister has regard to the funding needs of Maori radio if it is to continue into the future. As has already been indicated by my colleague New Zealand First supports the passage of the bill. We hope that the slip that took place regarding membership does not overcome natural justice and perhaps those matters can be explored further in the Committee stage. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 109 
Noes 7 
Bill read a second time. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 7. 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 Even though there has been an instruction to the Committee to take the bill part by part I wonder whether the Committee would consider having one wide-ranging debate over all the parts. It would allow the debate to flow and I seek leave accordingly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave has been sought to take the bill as one question. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
Clauses 1 to 10 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 I have some comments in relation to clauses 4 and 5. The Minister of course has a Supplementary Order Paper in relation to clause 5. He will seek to insert a new clause 5AD in relation to the appointment of a temporary presiding officer. In anticipation of that and in relation to two issues raised by previous speakers I might have said in my second reading speech—but in case I did not the thought was there—that the changes proposed to the Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975 contained in clause 4 the validation clause and clause 5 are serious changes. I guess it is only proper that some comments might have been made that flag concerns with those clauses. I am on the Maori Affairs Committee and we were pleased to see that the officials had sought a considerable amount of advice in relation to clauses 4 and 5. The committee gave serious scrutiny to those clauses too. Because the Waitangi Tribunal is under scrutiny all the time we were very much aware that potshots could be taken and so wanted the changes we were going to support to be proper. 
In relation to clause 4 the ACT member raised an issue about the length of time the Wellington Tenths Trust inquiry is taking. It is proper to raise that issue but it is also proper to understand that the change being sought modifies the rules of natural justice only in relation to membership of a tribunal. No other existing right for anybody who might wish to challenge the findings of the tribunal is influenced or changed and I think it is proper that we make that point. 
A question was raised in relation to clause 5. I have a very personal stake in these matters as I was a member of the Waitangi Tribunal and that is why I make these points now. Again the ACT member Rodney Hide raised the issue of personal circumstances. What are those? Is it that a chairman can just throw somebody off the tribunal? It is not that simple. It is related to the rest of the clause which basically says “by reason of his or her physical or mental condition”. 
Rodney Hide 
: Where does it say that? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Rodney Hide should look at the clause. I forgot to point it out to him but a chairperson cannot just chuck someone off the tribunal. We on the committee were very mindful that if someone is to be replaced—either a presiding officer or a member—the conditions under which that can occur should be very strict otherwise the power to do that will not emanate. I might have got Mr Hide’s arguments slightly wrong and I hope he will bear with me if I did but the point is worth making that somebody cannot be chucked off the tribunal for reasons of personal circumstances relating to anything in the world. There has to be a clear connection to a person being unable to carry on by reason of his or her physical or mental condition. 
Rodney Hide 
: But paragraph (c) can stand on its own can’t it? 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: The Minister might do that. Clause 5AC2 sets out three conditions one of which is that of personal circumstances related to physical or mental incapacity— 
Rodney Hide 
: It does not say that in paragraph (c). 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Yes it does. There is no carte blanche power to throw somebody off the tribunal because of personal circumstances that are not defined. But if the member wishes to disagree that is fine. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to raise again exactly what we are doing in respect of clause 4. What we are doing—and New Zealand First agrees with the bill—is validating the actions of a commission the Waitangi Tribunal some years later with regard to the matters that it is able to deliberate upon notwithstanding the fact that one or more members of that tribunal did not hear the submissions or the evidence. The more I think about it the more I begin to question why with a four-person tribunal should one member by the reasons advanced in clause 5AD of the bill not be able to be a member of the tribunal and continue hearing submissions and making deliberations that tribunal should not be reduced to a three-person or even a two-person tribunal—should the tribunal wish to hear the expert material that the member would have been able to give guidance to the tribunal on seek outside expert legal evidence or maybe cultural evidence in order to aid it in its final deliberations so we do not have a tribunal being set up to hear a whole course of submissions of great import and at the end have a decision made by some members only. We support the general thrust of the bill. We merely ask that greater consideration be given to those matters. 
With regard to a matter raised by Mr Hide he is exactly correct. Paragraph (c) in clause 5AC2 states and it is not qualified by any other paragraph: “in the opinion of the Chairperson it would be unreasonable to expect the presiding officer or member holding office under clause 5(1) to continue to participate in the inquiry into the particular claim or other matter because of his or her personal circumstances.” There is no qualification here as mentioned by the previous speaker about physical or mental condition at all. That paragraph stands absolute on its own and does give the ability for subjectivity personal bias or other political matters to come into the actions of the chairperson of the tribunal. That is a matter that should give some cause for concern. 
Last of all I again applaud Part 2 which at long last gives the Minister or the person who sits in that office the ability to deal with Maori broadcasting in a way that has been constrained and limited in the past by other agencies—some with a remote concern for Maori broadcasting and much more concern for limited financial funding. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I think we have a problem here and I look forward to the Minister taking a call to answer whether that is what this Committee intends. I also picked up on what Mr Jim Peters said and I ask him whether he thinks that is a good idea. 
I now turn to page 3 of the bill and ask whether new clause 5AC(2)(c) should be struck out given what we have heard today. The National Party said it was not the case that a chairperson could get rid of a person because of his or her personal circumstances. I think that Georgina te Heuheu now accepts that clause stands on its own. I have checked with the officials and as I understand their explanation they have said yes to that. With the greatest respect I say that cannot be right. 
Murray Smith 
: You are wrong. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I look forward to United Future’s explanation. What am I wrong about? 
Murray Smith 
: It does stand on its own. It does not—well I will speak to it. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I shall read it for the member: “in the opinion of the Chairperson it would be unreasonable to expect the presiding officer or member holding office under clause 5(1) to continue to participate in the inquiry into the particular claim or other matter because of his or her personal circumstances.” In common language that means—and Murray Smith says I am wrong—that if the chairperson thinks that because of a Waitangi Tribunal member’s personal circumstances he or she should not sit and hear that claim then he or she is gone. Am I wrong on that? 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Yes. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: So says Georgina te Heuheu and I look forward to her explanation. I pay due homage because I am in that mood today to Murray Smith and his expert legal training and insight into this matter. However I am afraid that the courts would look at what the Minister said and would not consider what Mr Smith thought. I would like the Minister to take a call to explain the scope and discretion provided for under new clause 5AC(2)(c) that would enable someone to be replaced. What does the Minister think are the personal circumstances that in the opinion of the chairperson would enable a person to be replaced? I say that sincerely because I think that we could find ourselves in a situation where—given the politics the years and the difficulties of the claims—clause 5AC(2)(c) would have some input. I tell Georgina te Heuheu that it will not be enough to say that a person can be replaced only if he or she is sick because paragraph (c) is not needed. As I understand it paragraph (b) takes care of a person if he or she is sick and physically cannot participate so why does the legislation have paragraph (c)? 
Jim Peters 
: It stands alone. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: It is a stand-alone clause and I hope I am not doing the officials a disservice when I say that it has been confirmed as a stand-alone clause. I think that is what they said but it is not right. With advice from his officials I would like the Minister to take a call to explain that because I think that any judge would look at that provision and say: “Yes the chairperson has the ability to decide that a person should not participate or continue to participate in an inquiry because of his or her personal circumstances.” What on earth could that person’s personal circumstances be? They could be anything whatsoever. It seems to me that we are giving a chairperson the power to take a person off an inquiry and put a new person in but why would we allow that power to reside with the chairperson? If that is not what that clause is about what is it about? 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 Although United Future acquiesced to the motion to deal with the three parts of this matter together in the Committee stage nevertheless I wish to comment on each of the parts and may seek another call as a consequence. 
Dealing with Part 1 in particular I notice that the Green Party is concerned—and once again I am surprised that the Green Party and ACT are both singing a similar song—that new clause 5AC(2)(c) gives too broad a discretion and therefore should not be there. I reiterate that new clause 5AC(2)(a) allows a chairperson to replace a person in circumstances where he or she can no longer operate or has ceased to hold office. Paragraph (b) gives the chairperson that power where the personal circumstances of the presiding officer or member holding office make that person unable by reason of his or her physical or mental condition to continue to participate. The third and controversial option—paragraph (c)—allows for replacement when in the opinion of the chairperson it would be unreasonable to expect the presiding officer or member holding office under clause 5(1) to continue to participate in the inquiry into the particular claim or other matter because of his or her personal circumstances. 
Although paragraph (c) is written in a broad manner I believe it is important that it is left reasonably broad. “Personal circumstances” can be very wide. One could think of examples—and I note that Mr Hide struggled to do that—where a member suffered the death of a spouse or close relative; where it was not a matter of his or her own physical or mental condition but nevertheless a situation that made it unreasonable to expect that member to continue to participate. There could be more subtle reasons. Financial circumstances or other confidential matters could give rise to situations where it might be unreasonable for a member to be expected to continue. 
To answer Mr Hide’s query as to whether that provision gave the chairperson the right to remove somebody we see that it is a follow-on clause from clauses 5AA and 5AB. Under new clause 5AC(2) the power conferred on the chairperson by clauses 5AA and 5AB may be exercised only if (a) (b) and (c). So we have to look at new clauses 5AA and 5AB to see what that power is and clearly it is a power to appoint. There is no power under new clauses 5AA or 5AB for a chairperson to remove anyone; therefore the power can only be exercised if somebody has vacated by way of retirement or some other legitimate way of relinquishing the position that he or she holds. Only if there is a vacancy can the chairperson agree to the appointment of another person and he or she has to do it on the basis of one of those three headings. That is the answer to the question. 
If Mr Hide looks at new clause 5AA he will see that subclause (1) states: “For the purposes of an inquiry into a particular claim or other matter under section 5(1) the Chairperson may appoint another member of the Tribunal …”. It does not state “remove and appoint”; it just states “appoint”. New clause 5AB states: “For the purposes of an inquiry into a particular claim or other matter under section 5(1) the Chairperson may appoint another member of the Tribunal …”. It does not state “remove and appoint” just “appoint”. Therefore there is no power for the chairperson to remove only a power to appoint and that presumes that there is a vacancy for some legitimate reason. So I do not see that the concerns that have been raised by either the Green Party or the ACT party are concerns that need to trouble this Committee. 
Rodney Hide 
: Did the member sit on the committee? 
MURRAY SMITH 
: No the member did not sit on the committee. 
The other issue is the striking out of subclause (2) in clause 5AD which effectively provided that any acting presiding officer did not have to be somebody who was a barrister or solicitor of 7 years’ experience. That then gave rise to a balance of issues. Firstly one could see a rationale for exempting the chairperson from being a barrister or solicitor of 7 years’ standing in so far that if a presiding member had to be replaced mid-hearing it might be more appropriate for another member to take over the role of presiding member rather than to appoint a new person from the outside—given that no other members had the requisite qualification. Therefore bringing in a new chairperson who was brand new to the inquiry was not so good as allowing another member to take over. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 My standing is not to take a call when it might be more appropriate for the Minister because clearly Mr Hide wants some confirmation from the Minister. But I do stand to apologise to Mr Hide because I wrongly thought his comments were made in relation to paragraph (b) of clause 5AC(2). In fact they were made in relation to paragraph (c) of clause 5AC(2). We have had a little conflab while sitting here and Mr Hide is correct. Paragraph (c) of clause 5AC(2) does stand on its own as each of those provisions in that clause does but the implication was that the chairperson can just sort of throw someone off without any proper cause. It was certainly a concern for committee members whether this was a provision that suited the chair more than it might have regard to the circumstances of the person being replaced. As I say if one reads paragraph (c) of clause 5AC(2) quite carefully I think it does contemplate that someone is wishing to go. I think this was put to the officials and that is certainly what was envisaged—a member wishes to be released. 
Rodney Hide 
: That’s what is envisaged. It does not make it the law. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: Hang on there is no power here for any presiding officer or chairperson to remove someone without there being good reason to do so. But as I say maybe the Minister wants to take a call and reassure Mr Hide on that. The purpose for my standing was basically to recognise the error I had made in terms of the clause that Mr Hide was talking about. 
One other point I would make because it was shared by the officials is that there may be a case where the wife or the husband—the spouse of a member—is not well. In fact that may have already occurred in the history of the tribunal. In those circumstances where a member requests that he or she be released then it seems entirely unreasonable for a chairperson not to be replaced. As I say the committee was reasonably satisfied that that provision— 
Rodney Hide 
: Oh I’m not going to believe you on this I have to say! 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU 
: That is OK. I am just saying that the committee examined it. We feel we examined it reasonably thoroughly. We got some explanations from the officials and on balance as I say we are reasonably comfortable by majority that the power is to replace; it is not to remove willy-nilly and not to dismiss willy-nilly. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 It is very important that I put on the record the Green Party position in respect of clause 5AC(2)(c). It was an issue that was discussed extensively in the Maori Affairs Committee and we made sure our position was put forward in the select committee report. Our concern is solely with the fact that in the clause the person who is to be replaced is not expressly required to approve of his or her replacement. Now we have no concern with the nature of personal circumstances and we agree that a wide number of personal circumstances could lead a person to be unable to perform his or her function which are not included in the phrase “physical or mental condition”. That has to be taken very seriously. But what we are concerned about is that the person who is replaced does not have to express his or her consent to that replacement. That is the concern that the Greens hold. That is the concern about the nature of the broad discretion. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I have come to this debate after it has already begun on this point. This is the question whether the chairperson of the tribunal should have a power to replace a presiding officer a member sitting on a tribunal or sitting on a matter. I am looking at this obviously as a lawyer with a very long period of practice and trying to work out why this measure has been made retrospective. It seems to me that if it were a clause merely for the avoidance of doubt or to avoid future problems one would not have subclause (4) of clause 5AC. One would simply have the clause drafted because it was thought that at some future time there might be a difficulty. Presumably this has been prompted by a difficulty of some kind in the past. But if in fact what we have here is a clause that is intended to gas an existing member or to take him or her from the tribunal on a matter then this Committee needs to know the detail. We need to know exactly what it is that has made it necessary to put an explicitly retrospective provision in a clause designed to give the chairperson of the tribunal the power to replace a member once a hearing is under way. 
The normal thing is that one would have a power for a member to resign and to be replaced. That would be perfectly straightforward. Why is that not there? It does not say here— 
Hon Member 
: Yes it does. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: No a power for a member to resign from a particular hearing. That is quite different from resigning from the tribunal. Of course a member would get off if he or she resigned. But the normal power here would be a power to retire from a particular matter because the member considers that it is not appropriate that he or she continues to sit. But that does not even appear to be one of the grounds. So just exactly what circumstances have prompted this? The officials must have in mind—they must be able to brief the Minister in the chair on what the circumstances are that have given rise to this. Because if they have not why craft such a tortured provision? Why craft a provision and then make it retrospective? 
Why craft it with two categories? There are the personal circumstances that make a person unable by reason of his or her physical or mental condition to continue; or there is the more broad issue which would cover the earlier one anyway: that it would be unreasonable to expect the presiding officer or member to continue to participate. Is this aimed at Dr Michael Basset? Is it aimed at a position of personal circumstances where some parties to a hearing do not like someone? Is that what we are getting at? Is this aimed at allowing the tribunal chair to start crafting or recrafting tribunal divisions halfway through a hearing when a member is unpopular with some of the claimants or perhaps it is the Crown? We do not know. We have to protect the integrity of the tribunal proceedings from overbearing behaviour by the Crown just as much as from overbearing behaviour by a claimant. 
Let us think of a circumstance where one has a tribunal chair who is very anxious to be promoted and who perhaps wants to get on a new Supreme Court or who perhaps wants to go to the Court of Appeal and therefore wants to curry favour with the Government. Should we be providing—in something that is supposed to have judicial independence and a reputation for judicial impartiality—a power for that chair to perhaps craft an awkward tribunal so as to resolve the doubts of the Government? The chair can say that it would be unreasonable to expect say Dr Bassett to continue to participate in the particular claim because his personal circumstances are such that he has appeared on Television New Zealand and said that the researchers for the tribunal are biased. Is that what this is all about? It could be that it goes the other way. Maybe it will be like Wai 262 which is one of the very very difficult conceptual claims where there are enormous political implications. Will people be replaced once it becomes clear that their inclinations are not what the Government would like them to be? Will some personal circumstance then be found for the chairperson to use to replace them? 
This is a significant matter. There is already enough doubt about the integrity of the court process. Maori claims are based on the fact that over the years the Maori Land Court was not acting in the interests of justice but in the interests of land-grabbing Pakeha or the Government. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I have just a couple of brief comments to make about clause 5AC. I am pleased to advise that the officials have agreed that my interpretation of those provisions is correct. Another quite appropriate example of where clause 5AC would be necessary is the situation that arose when the Hon Georgina te Heuheu became a member of Parliament. Those are personal circumstances that would mean she would have to stand down and which would require a replacement to be made. 
I was previously dealing with clause 5AD and talking about whether the chairperson should be another panel member who is appointed to take that role if he or she does not have the requisite period of 7 years of legal practice. To balance that the role of the presiding officer is largely a chairmanship role. That is its distinctive function. It is important that the person who takes on that role is able to bring the skills to look at correct judicial procedure natural justice principles and rules of evidence and that the person has the sort of training that lawyers have in order to conduct the hearing fairly. It is no more important for the presiding officer to have knowledge of what has been going on in the hearing than any other member placed in the situation. On balance I think it is important for the replacement chairman to have those skills. I therefore support the select committee’s decision to recommend that that clause be struck out so that the chairperson needs to have legal training; that is the correct way to go. 
In looking at Part 2 and at the changes to the references there I note that the National Party has objected to it on the basis that it believes that Te Mangai Paho should be accountable to the Minister of Broadcasting. That is totally irrelevant to those changes because it is a legitimate decision of the Government. It is the Government’s prerogative to make that decision. The situation we face is that in its powers the Government has agreed that responsibility for Te Mangai Paho should pass to the Minister of Maori Affairs. That having been done the clause then makes for a bit of a nonsense because it states that the Minister—that is the Minister of Maori Affairs—must consult the Minister of Maori Affairs. 
My only concern is that that may be so for the current situation but a future Government may decide to change that in some other fashion. I would have preferred to see an amendment that said something to the effect that where the responsible Minister is not the Minister of Maori Affairs then the Minister shall consult the Minister of Maori Affairs. That would have left open the option to allow another Minister to take part while still having to consult the Minister of Maori Affairs. As we now have the clause if Te Mangai Paho went back to the Minister of Broadcasting he could exercise his discretion without any consultation with the Minister of Maori Affairs and I am not sure that that is really desirable or something that ought to be encouraged. 
That is really the only comment I have to make on that. The legislation will provide a remedy for the immediate future for what would have been a strange situation with a Minister consulting himself or herself. I just caution that any change will mean that we may have to include those clauses again in a fashion that is hopefully a bit more flexible. 
Despite Part 3 being a very brief provision I believe that it is very significant. I am a little concerned with it because I do not think it goes far enough in increasing the number of fishing licences for Ngati Tuwharetoa from 50 to 200. One could say that that is a 400 percent increase but if one bears in mind that there has been no increase since 1926 one sees that it is an increase of only 5 percent per year. I note that in 1926 a total of approximately 4900 licences were issued. In the 2000-01 figures from the Department of Conservation there were 74293 general licences issued which is a general increase of 1500 percent or an increase of 20 percent per annum. When there are already 74000 licences increasing the licences of Ngati Tuwharetoa from 50 to 200 that is a drop in the bucket—it is only 0.27 percent of the overall number of licences. If we took it on the basis of Maori population the closest I could get was in 1926 when there were apparently 1104 Maori in Taupo county. In 1996 it was stated that there were 28998 Ngati Tuwharetoa which is a 2600 percent increase in the approximate number of Maori. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I know that the Local Government and Environment Committee is about to begin the “Corngate” inquiry but I think the cloning process has already started because on my left over here I heard someone speak for the Government. I was wondering what the Minister thinks of that. I do not accept any comment made by a person who earlier stated in the debate that resolution was more important than natural justice as an all-encompassing authority. I therefore stand to ask the Minister to clarify the exact intention of the second schedule. If it is as the member stated in his personal interpretation of it then some parts are superfluous—notably clause 5AC(3). 
Last of all I repeat the question raised by the ACT party in asking what the exact intention of clause 5AC(4) is. Is it retrospectively about a subjective comment made by a full member of the tribunal? Is it in regard to an officer of the tribunal? I want to know exactly what it is. Before the debate on the Committee stage ceases the Minister should clearly state what he thought this bill means in regard to the future of the tribunal. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I look forward to the Minister getting some serious advice over the lunch break and coming back and telling this Committee what the law is. We are not interested in what the select committee envisages or what it thinks this legislation does; we are interested in what this law actually is. I am not very interested in Mr Murray Smith’s thinking in regard to what the law might be. It is very clear. Clause 5AA gives a chairperson the power to appoint a replacement. Clause 5AC says the replacement can be made according to the chairperson’s opinion of the person’s personal circumstances. It has to be wrong that a chairperson who is halfway through an inquiry can replace a person who does not want to leave. For everyone who is sitting there thinking that that absolutely cannot happen I say it can. A simple matter of drafting could allow people a way round that. All the panel member needs is the ability to resign from the panel—not the tribunal—for the purposes of the inquiry and if that person decides to resign he or she can get the chairperson to appoint a replacement. 
As it stands the chairperson has the power to replace a person against his or her will and that has to be wrong. Given what Mr Murray Smith is saying what would be wrong with making a quick drafting change to say that if a person’s personal circumstances are such that he or she chooses to resign from the panel the chairperson may appoint a replacement? I ask the Minister to please get some advice on that over the lunch break and to come back while we are still in the Committee stage and let us settle this matter. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I thank members of Parliament because I think we are getting to a position where we understand we have a problem. The problem is to do with section 5AA in clause 5 which relates to the chairperson’s discretion in appointing a replacement officer because of a person’s personal circumstances. I think that it is a growing concern in Parliament about just what the scope of that discretion could be. The Leader of the House has foreshadowed that there may be a change and we are interested in that. 
I just make the point that the first difficulty we are dealing with is that the cases before the tribunal are taking so long. Is Parliament satisfied that cases that started in 1991 have not been reported on? Is Mahara Okeroa saying that he is satisfied? This is a huge problem. Just allowing people to be placed on the panel is not necessarily the best solution because we will have a situation with this fix—and this is why we oppose the bill—that people could be reporting on a case when they did not hear the evidence. That cannot be right so I think we need to look at the first problem and try to speed up the process. 
We also have a problem with clause 5AC(3) which refers to an adequate record of an inquiry. If there is an inadequate record of the inquiry then the chairperson cannot replace anyone. I look to the Minister to explain what an inadequate record is. I know that my colleague Stephen Franks is busy drafting an amendment so that the chairperson cannot replace a person unless he or she resigns for personal reasons. I understand that one of the concerns is the nature of iwi and Maori connectedness. People can have connections in a roundabout way. That is a concern and a person may choose not to go. Do we not then have to look at whom we are appointing to the Waitangi Tribunal in the first place? We have to ask ourselves if we are to hold the Waitangi Tribunal in a position of respect should not the rules that apply to the Waitangi Tribunal also be the same rules that apply to every other quasi-judicial procedure? I look to Government members and to members who sat on the Maori Affairs Committee to give us some guidance. ACT members will take a further call on this matter I am sure because we are not happy with the thought that a chairperson could simply replace a member of a panel because in his or her opinion that member’s personal circumstances make him or her unfit to be on it. That discretion is too wide. In fact it is unlimited and it needs changing. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am sorry I missed the debate before lunch but I say that members have raised with me over lunch an issue surrounding this bill—an issue that has been alluded to by Mr Hide. I think the issue is a serious one that we do need to think about. It relates to the chairperson being able to remove a presiding officer because of issues of personal circumstances. The powers that exist in the bill are judicially reviewable but they are judicially reviewable on the basis of a subjective test because the removal occurs on the basis of the opinion of the chairperson. As members will be aware a subjective test in that sort of case is quite difficult to apply and it is difficult to overturn the decision made by the chairperson. In effect one has to show that the decision made by the chairperson was totally unreasonable and not one that any reasonable person could have arrived at taking all the circumstances into account. 
The amendment proposed by Mr Franks gets us into another difficulty. If the consent of the presiding officer is required then ironically it seems to me that the worst kind of circumstances could emerge. Very clearly if somebody who should be stood down from a case in relation to his or her personal circumstances—they might include a conflict of interest or other personal circumstances—refuses to go and sits on the claim that will then raise further doubts in the future about the validity of the decision that has been arrived at by the tribunal. The simple solution—and a Government amendment will be moved—is to simply remove from paragraph (c) of section 5AC(2) in clause 5 the words “in the opinion of the Chairperson”. That then means that if the power to remove the presiding officer is exercised by the chairperson and that decision is judicially reviewed it is judicially reviewed on the basis of an objective test. In other words it is judicially reviewed on the basis that reasonable tests have been applied about the nature of those personal circumstances. It cannot be exercised on the basis of whim if one likes by the chairperson—on the basis of a form of personal antipathy. 
I think that amendment deals much better with the most likely kind of circumstances than does the amendment proposed by Mr Franks which ironically is most likely to fail in the circumstance in which it is most needed in terms of removing a person as the presiding officer over a claim. If Mr Franks thinks that through he may come to that view. I have consulted parliamentary counsel on this matter. I understand that the Maori Affairs Committee at one stage did think of removing those words and of making the test an objective one. In my view it will be better to do so in order to make it clear that the chairperson does not have the power to operate that capacity in a way that might be seen as arbitrary and unfair. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I support the proposed amendment from the Government to remove the words “in the opinion of the Chairperson” but I do not believe it goes far enough to fix the problem that we have. If we go back to schedule 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act we find that clause 1 provides: “Any member of the Tribunal whose term of office has expired or who has resigned from office shall whether or not that member’s successor has come into office continue in office for the purpose of completing any proceedings heard by the Tribunal before the expiry of the member’s term of office or the member’s resignation.” That gives the situation where a person may have resigned from the tribunal but nevertheless is required to sit on the tribunal until a particular matter has been dealt with. In those circumstances it is difficult to envisage a situation where there would be a vacancy voluntarily for the chairperson to fill. 
Clause 2 “Vacation of office” in that schedule allows a person to be removed from office for reasons of “inefficiency inability to perform the functions of the office neglect of duty or misconduct proved to the satisfaction of the Governor-General.” It seems to me that the powers of removal are already in the Act but for clarification it is necessary for those powers of removal to be inserted into clause 5AA which is inserted by clause 5 of the bill. That will make it clear that effectively the power to replace somebody by way of an appointment comes into play only in a situation where there has been a vacation of office under the provisions of the Act as they currently stand. 
I will therefore move an amendment that would add to the words at the commencement of clause 5 the words: “Notwithstanding clause 1 …”. Clause 5AA(1) in clause 5 would then read: “For the purposes of an inquiry into a particular claim or other matter under section 5(1) the Chairperson may appoint another member of the Tribunal or a Judge of the Maori Land Court to replace a presiding officer or former presiding officer holding office under clause 5(1)(a)” and would then have the following words added at the end: “whose office has been vacated pursuant to clause (2)”. That would make it clear that it is a power of appointment to replace somebody whose office has been vacated pursuant to clause 2 of schedule 2 of the Act as it currently stands. It would then be very clear that there is no power of replacement invested in the chairperson but simply that the chairperson has a power of appointment which is what I believe the provision was intended to do. The same amendment would need to be made to clause 5AB inserted by clause 5 as well because it has the same wording. 
I will table my amendment and members can consider it. I think it will remedy the deficiencies that we have had but as I said I am quite happy with the Government’s proposed amendment to take out the discretionary provision “in the opinion of the Chairperson” so that it takes the subjective element out of the process. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 With all due respect to the Minister’s proposed amendment it does not satisfy the concerns of the Green Party. Those concerns are primarily that the person who is being removed does not give his or her express consent to that. That amendment will not alter that. If the purpose of this clause is to prevent issues such as a conflict of interest then that needs to be made explicit. I would have thought that there are already sufficient procedures in place for the tribunal to avoid making those kinds of mistakes when such situations occur. 
My understanding of the purpose of this clause is that where there are personal circumstances that mean a person is unable to continue in those circumstances he or she can be replaced by someone else so that the claim can continue to be heard with some sense of natural justice. The amendment being put up by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen does not address that issue. In fact it increases the uncertainty about the reasons that the person can be removed for. Those reasons need to be explicit if they are to do with anything like the inability of the person to perform because of a failure of performance rather than personal circumstances. 
Before I sit down I just want to acknowledge the hard work commitment and endurance exhibited by two very special people who have had to sit through at least 10 minutes of this particularly arduous debate. I proclaim their “fabulosity” and acknowledge the honourable “Camp Leader” and “Camp Mother” who are in the gallery this afternoon. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I appreciate the fact that the Hon Dr Michael Cullen has taken this issue seriously. It is indeed a serious matter. When a person exercises a judicial function whether a Waitangi Tribunal member a disputes tribunal hearing officer or anyone else the appearance and reality of independence is vital and that person should not be subject to improper influence. Our concern about the wording of the proposed removal and replacement power is that it is simply inconsistent with principle. 
We can appreciate the concern that if a person who is hearing a tribunal claim appears to have a conflict of interest there should be a way of making sure that that does not continue. As I understood Mr Smith of United Future he told us that there is a process for the removal of people by the Governor-General which of course gives it the right degree of procedural seriousness. To consider that a person with a semi-judicial or judicial function has a conflict of interest is a matter that should be taken very seriously indeed. It should not be open to the presiding officer or to the chair of the tribunal to exercise a power on that basis without that level of process. The alternative is that the chairman of the tribunal in effect could hold over the head of all members at any time their potential removal from a matter. 
I am particularly concerned that the Government and the Hon Dr Michael Cullen thought that it would be sufficient to turn this into an objective test by simply taking out the words “in the opinion of the Chairperson”. Firstly the problem is that it cannot be anyone else’s opinion. With or without those words it cannot be anyone other than the chairperson’s opinion unless the issue is taken to an external court that applies an independent judgment. So Dr Cullen’s amendment does not achieve the objective. Secondly I am worried by Dr Cullen’s amendment because in effect he acknowledged our worst fears. He acknowledged that the words “because of his or her personal circumstances” were intended for more than just illness family pressure or competing demands on a member’s time. That very amendment itself acknowledges that this provision is really intended to get rid of people who are sitting on a matter that the chair of the tribunal thinks it is inappropriate for them to sit on and that they should not be there because they are not in a position to do a proper judicial job. If that is the concern then we have a really serious issue that ought to be dealt with seriously. It should not be left as a matter of discretion. 
The amendment I have moved would make it plain that another clause of that schedule would have to be used. The amendment I have moved simply means that the power is exercisable where members have the sort of circumstances that mean they cannot apply their mind to an issue. They may have family pressures or other pressures and they agree that they should come off the panel. It does no more and no less than that. 
Dr Michael Cullen suggested that we have a more serious problem: a standing problem of potential conflicts of interest that the tribunal members will not recognise or acknowledge. If that is a standing problem then it needs a proper procedure to deal with it. If that is a standing problem it needs an amendment. I am sure the Committee will be quite happy to see this bill reported back without concluding the Committee stage so that we actually have a proper process for dealing with that. At the moment all that the Minister has said confirms the original concern that the words “his or her personal circumstances” were code words for dealing with potential outcomes or influences on the decision that the chair considers improper or does not want to see advanced. 
When I add to that the fact that I am afraid that clause 5AC(4) in clause 5 makes the measure retrospective I am even more concerned. That retrospectivity tells us that the chairman of the tribunal perhaps has concerns right now that there are people who should not be sitting on matters because of problems that this power is needed urgently to get rid of them and that that is intended to happen without their consent. If that is our concern and if those people cannot recognise a conflict of interest when it stares them in the face—and indeed there has been concern that the chairman of the tribunal himself has been a bit slow to recognise such conflicts—then that should be dealt with by something more than simply making this measure more objective. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Maori Affairs Committee went very carefully into that issue. Issues of conflict of interest were not the only issues dealt with under the heading of personal circumstances. There may well be other issues that might come into play. Mr Franks’ argument is actually a very strange one. What he is really saying is: “if in some way a mistake has been made in an appointment.” and I think that that is actually drawing things far too far. Members should remember that the initial appointment is to the tribunal. What we are talking about in this context is a panel for a particular case. It is very important not to confuse those two things. A person may be a perfectly proper person to be appointed to the tribunal but circumstances might emerge for whatever reason which means that he or she is not the most suitable person to be on the panel for that particular case. 
Stephen Franks 
: What would be an example? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I could take an extreme example—that is if the person was going to be overseas for the next 6 months and there is some urgency about the case being dealt with. 
Stephen Franks 
: Then they’ll concede. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No they might not concede. That is the point. Mr Franks is assuming that for some reason everybody will act perfectly reasonably. If I were to base my management of the House on that then I would have to point out that the ACT party nearly always acts unreasonably in terms of House procedures. I have yet to get ever anything reasonable through the consent of the ACT party in terms of sensible procedures in this House. We are going to finish the business that the Government wants to do before 6 o’clock tomorrow and I offered if we did that to have question time and ACT was the only party that turned it down. We will end up doing exactly what we wanted to do anyway and the Opposition has denied itself question time—and the National Party was very keen to have question time. It was only ACT that turned it down. Mr Franks an ACT member has said that he assumes everybody acts reasonably in all reasonable circumstances. I have to say that he and his party members are not models of that kind of behaviour on anything that I have seen around this place. They are classic examples of cutting off their noses to spite their faces. 
The notion that circumstances might arise where anybody would see it as reasonable to stand aside is to ignore the fact that one does need a reserve power in these cases to ensure that the case is properly dealt with and that is applying to the panel. We have said that if somebody is going to be removed then it should not be subject simply to the opinion of the chairperson about those circumstances; it should be capable of being tested objectively that the removal is for reasonable cause which is why we have proposed the amendment to remove the words “in the opinion of the Chairperson”. It turns the test from a subjective to an objective test. 
Regarding the amendment moved by United Future the point there as I understand it is that the removal is simply about being on a panel; it has nothing to do with removal from the tribunal. The matters that the member referred to relate to membership of the tribunal not membership of a panel. I think that to some extent he is jumping at shadows by being concerned that the ability to remove from a panel is not clear in the bill as it stands. The advice I have is that that power is clear and is implicit in the replacement powers referred to in the bill itself. I think that issue has been gone over fairly clearly and everybody is reasonably happy with that situation. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 We have come a long way since this morning with regard to the issues. Mr Cullen has expressed an opinion with regard to the subjectivity and a passing remark would be that wherever one is able to exercise that—wherever there was discretionary power—one would expect that the circumstances would be legally defined and strictly expressed in legal language. But we will not hold that part of the bill up at this stage. Therefore on behalf of New Zealand First I say that this is an improvement. It gets to what we were thinking about this morning. Again just in passing I say that it is very unfortunate that the exit from this tribunal which is a semi-judicial one is possibly different from that of any judicial body such as the High Court. It is just a wee bit unfortunate at this late stage that the alternative exit will more clearly define the exit pathway although reviewable and was not the original basis of this part of the bill. But we will support the intention and thrust of Dr Cullen’s suggestion. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
: 
 We have actually had quite an interesting development today. When we started out—and I appreciate Dr Cullen’s “upfrontness” on this issue—we were attacked from all sides when we said that this clause gave the chairperson the power to replace a person on a panel. We heard from various members of the House who had actually sat on the Maori Affairs Committee. They said that that is not what was envisaged. The ACT party pointed out that what is envisaged and what the law says are actually different things. We have now heard the Hon Dr Michael Cullen explain that yes this clause—and I want members to be very clear about what they are voting on; and I am looking at the Hon Dr Michael Cullen in case I get it wrong—gives the chairperson the power to replace a member of the Waitangi Tribunal from a panel halfway through an inquiry and carry on the inquiry. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: On reasonable grounds. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes. At the present stage that can happen simply because of the opinion of the chairperson. It can happen if the chairperson thinks there is a reason in the person’s personal circumstances. So anything could do. A member cannot be replaced from the tribunal but he or she certainly can be replaced from the panel halfway through an inquiry. I ask members to picture it. People go before the Waitangi Tribunal panel and present their evidence. Then the chairperson changes one of the people on the panel—and they write the report but they did not hear the evidence. As it stands the provision gives the chairperson the power to do that and I also think that the Hon Michael Cullen is saying that it is virtually un-reviewable. It is simply a matter of the opinion of the chairperson. No judge can look at that and say: “We contest that opinion.” So now the Government is saying that it will change that take out the phrase: “in the opinion of the Chairperson” and give it an objective test as to whether that is reasonable. Is that the way we want to conduct judicial affairs in this country? Do we want a situation where a panel member after 5 years of sitting down and hearing a case is told by the chairperson: “I am going to replace you with someone else from the tribunal and if you don’t like it you can go for a judicial review on whether what I am doing is reasonable.”? Most people would say that that is a kangaroo court that it is monkey business and that they do not want to be a party to it. They certainly do not want those quasi-judicial officers to seek a judicial review on their sacking. So before lunch we suggested an amendment—and I think my colleague Mr Franks has drafted it—to the effect that the person has to choose to resign from the panel. So the power would be in their hands as judicial officers—it would not be in the hands of the chairperson to sack them. 
Then we heard from Michael Cullen. I do not think I am doing him a disservice because I do not think that select committee members understood this point. He said: “But we want the chairperson to have the power to sack a person from the panel.” That is what the Minister said. My goodness me! Was it really? The reason is that Maori interconnectedness is special and there can be conflicts of interest that a person does not recognise. If that is the case what about the conflict of interest of the chairperson who is not even sitting on the panel? So he or she can replace someone and the only defence in this process is that the person replaced can seek a judicial review. That is wrong as a matter of principle and judicial operation. We say that if the chairperson is to have the ability to sack a panel member then the reasons should be stated. Let us require the chairpersons to get from this Parliament the guidance they will need because otherwise it looks as though we are up to monkey business in this Parliament today. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I agree with Rodney Hide in terms of the inappropriateness of having a chairperson who is able to replace a member of the panel. The amendment I proposed led back to schedule 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act. Under that schedule vacation of office was on the basis of certain things that had to be proved to the satisfaction of the Governor-General—that is at the point of highest office. I accept Mr Cullen’s comments that effectively what my amendment does is clarify a permanent vacancy namely someone who has resigned from the tribunal as a whole rather than from a particular case. I do not see from what I have heard so far that the Maori Affairs Committee in fact intended or considered what the mechanism should be in a situation where somebody wants to resign from only one hearing but wants to continue to act as a tribunal member otherwise. That needs some careful consideration. 
Given that the principal Act states that the Governor-General has the power to remove somebody from office—and I think that is appropriate—I do not think that we should then say: “No but if a chairman wants to take somebody off a particular hearing the chairman can have that discretion.” I think that is fraught with the potential for huge abuse. Even if we take the words “in the opinion of the Chairperson” out the provisions are still so broad—and I supported their breadth—that the chairman is allowed far far too much discretion to do that. My amendment would make it clear that what we are talking about is a permanent removal and that if there is going to be a removal for only one hearing then that is a matter that should now be addressed by a separate amendment to the bill—because we are so far down the track—in order to clarify that point. So from that point of view I think that we should leave the Act as it is. I note that the Government has not tried to clarify its position but we have had enough debate today to know that new clause 5AA(1) which clause 5 inserts into the second schedule is ambiguous. We cannot agree on it amongst ourselves—I still do not agree that that provision is necessarily a power to replace. So if we leave the bill without that being clarified—as my amendment does albeit that it does not do the job the Government wants to do—what will happen? This will inevitably go to court because somebody will be removed by the chairperson and that action will have to be challenged in court. In my view the way the court will interpret that is to say that if there is no specific power to remove—there is a power to appoint in order to replace; it does not say removal—then that should be construed quite strictly so that effectively there is only a power of appointment. 
I believe that the courts faced with a dilemma of ambiguity that this House has thrown at them will say: “Well it is ambiguous; it is not clear. Therefore we are going to construe it in favour of the person who is objecting to the fact that they have been removed from the tribunal and we will construe it strictly to say that it is only an appointment and is not a removal.” I do not think it is a good idea for this Committee to be passing legislation that is ambiguous leaves people in no-man’s-land then leaves a situation where there will be conflict in court about the situation. 
My amendment succeeds in clarifying that matter and that is what we should do in the interim. Then if there is going to be a discussion and amendment about how we get somebody off one panel and who should make that decision that should be considered as a separate issue when we have a bit more time to debate those issues and look at the ramifications in terms of authority. I think we are heading down a dangerous road. The Act as it stands—if it is left as it is—will effectively contain a whole lot of ambiguity which the courts will have to resolve. It is a real mess. At least my amendment clarifies that issue of permanent removals and would allow us to address the other issues on another day when we have a little more time and are not in a rush as we are at the moment. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Murray Smith to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to amend new clause 5AA by inserting before the words “For the purposes of an inquiry” the words “Notwithstanding clause 1”; and 
to amend new clause 5AA by adding the words “ whose office has been vacated pursuant to clause 2”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 16 
Noes 101 
Amendments not agreed to. 
ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
The question was put that the following amendments in the name of Murray Smith to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to amend new clause 5AB by inserting before the words “For the purposes of an inquiry” the words “Notwithstanding clause 1”; and 
to amend new clause 5AB by adding the words “ whose office has been vacated pursuant to clause 2”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 16 
Noes 101 
Amendments not agreed to. 
ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to amend new clause 5AC by inserting in subclause (2) before the word “if” the words “if the presiding officer or member holding office under clause 5(1) consents and”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 25 
Noes 92 
Amendment not agreed to. 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 76 in the name of the Hon Parekura Horomia to clause 5 and the following amendment to clause 5AC be agreed to: 
to amend new clause 5AC by omitting from subclause (2)(c) the words “in the opinion of the Chairperson”. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 to 10 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 101 
Noes 8 
Clauses 1 to 10 as amended agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill the Broadcasting Amendment Bill and the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 74. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Readings 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill the Broadcasting Amendment Bill and the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
 The Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) was introduced on 13 March 2002. The first reading debate commenced on 22 May 2002 and was completed on 10 September 2002. The bill was then referred to the Maori Affairs Committee for consideration and submissions were called for. After careful consideration of the bill as introduced and the submissions received the select committee reported back on 3 March 2003 with one amendment to Part 1 the part relating to amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act. 
Maori Purposes bills are used to give effect to amendments to existing legislation that relates to Maori affairs and various matters in respect of Maori land and property. Perhaps the most important of the amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act are those that give chairpersons certain powers. The first of those is the power to replace a presiding officer or other member of a tribunal and we have been through the amendments here today. 
 Only one amendment was recommended by the select committee during its consideration of the bill as introduced. The intention of the amendment which was unanimously adopted by the select committee was to ensure that only a member of the tribunal who is a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of at least 7 years’ standing would be qualified for appointment as an acting presiding officer. The bill now clearly provides for this. The amendment means that the tribunal will always be presided over by either a judge a barrister or solicitor of the High Court of at least 7 years’ standing. I acknowledge the efforts of all the select committee members and the guidance the committee has provided to the House. I extend my thanks to the members accordingly. The other amendments to the Treaty of Waitangi Act clarify the position regarding three inquiries in which membership changes have occurred namely the Hauraki Kaipara and Wellington inquiries. 
The second Act amended is the Broadcasting Act. This amendment provides for technical amendments to accommodate the transfer of responsibilities for Maori broadcasting policy from the Minister of Broadcasting to the Minister of Maori Affairs. 
The third Act amended is the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Claims Adjustment Act. The amendment to this Act increases the number of fishing licences to which Ngati Tuwharetoa are statutorily entitled from 50 to 200. The current entitlement to 50 licences was set in 1926 when the Act was passed. I am pleased to move the third readings of the three bills. I commend the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill the Broadcasting Amendment Bill and the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Amendment Bill to the House. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 It is a bit of a relief to see this bill coming through and finally passing into law. I want to reiterate something I said earlier about an underlying issue that sits in behind these changes particularly in terms of the validation of the three particular inquiries. It is the issue of a lack of resourcing and proper support for the Waitangi Tribunal which has a huge job as we all know with a mountain of claims before it. Certainly the tribunal has streamlined its processes although that new streamlining is now being tested and we will see whether it proves to have a positive outcome. But the tribunal has an enormous job to plough its way through the claims that sit before it. 
Although both the previous Government and this Government sit ready and waiting to negotiate claims trying to encourage claimants not to go through the tribunal process the reality is that it is like the old saying—everybody wants his or her day in court. In the end having waited over 160 years to get some justice for actions they consider to be totally unjust it is a long shot to think that the majority of tribal claimants from around the country would come straight into negotiations. So there is an issue that underpins or acts as a backdrop to these changes. It is this issue about a judicial forum of this country that has a big job to do—a big job for all New Zealanders—and is currently without the resourcing to do it. 
In respect of the validation clauses in this bill there will be one immediate effect at least which will probably be a great relief to the presiding officer Professor Gordon Orr who sat on the tribunal hearing of the Wellington Tenths Trust claim. At the point of passage of this bill into law he will probably feel he can release the Wellington Tenths Trust report that he has had waiting to be released for some time now. Hopefully any disadvantage that the other two inquiries Hauraki and Kaipara have been under through the necessity to replace members is now removed. For the foreseeable future we can see that no matter how streamlined the tribunal processes are going to be these claims will still take some time to come through so there is provision to replace members in certain cases as well. It is a relief I think to have this come through. 
We had a discussion during the Committee stage about when and how the powers of the chairperson should be exercised. The points raised by various members of the House were valid. They were issues that were certainly looked at by the select committee. The Government has moved to get over some perceived difficulties. On balance it is absolutely proper that this House makes sure that there are checks and balances to ensure there is no abuse of powers. That is a big part of our job in the House. But generally speaking the amendments that are being made to the Treaty of Waitangi Act are made in the context of the effective operation of the tribunal to ensure ongoing and functional panels to prevent the possibility of an inquiry having to start again and to avert the potential for significant extra cost being incurred by both claimants and the Crown. 
I make no comment on the other two bills. I just say that I am pleased that these changes regarding the Waitangi Tribunal have now been made and are about to pass into law. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First’s views on supporting this bill and the amendments that have been accepted have been expressed in the discussions that have taken place in the House today. New Zealand First recommends that the bill move ahead from where we are today and make further progress so that tribunal activities in the future can be streamlined further. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I have already talked at length with regard to Part 1 in the second reading debate and the Committee debate. The only comment I want to make about that is that I believe clauses 5A and 5B are a real mess. Nevertheless it was important that the bill go through so that the claims that are sitting around—the Hauraki claim the Kaipara inquiry and the Wellington Tenths inquiry—will get published and we can progress things. But I ask the House to mark my words that the first time somebody is removed from the tribunal without his or her consent and seeks to challenge it we will find the Courts criticising this House for passing law that is ambiguous that we cannot even agree upon among ourselves and that we simply throw to them rather than fixing it now. 
Moving on from there I want to address Part 3 because it is quite important and its effect has been understated. It is worth going back to the part of the Act that it has sought to amend which is section 14 of the Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Act. The provisions of that Act were a result of negotiations between the Crown and Ngati Tuwharetoa. In particular section 14 of that Act provided that for the purposes of giving effect to an agreement entered into under the provisions of section 29 of the Act: “(1) The bed of the lake known as Lake Taupo and the bed of the Waikato River extending from Lake Taupo to and inclusive of the Huka Falls together with the right to use the respective waters are hereby declared to be the property of the Crown freed and discharged from the Maori customary title (if any) or any other Maori freehold title thereto:”. 
Lake Taupo and the Waikato River are in public ownership and it was through the indulgence of Ngati Tuwharetoa who had legitimate claims concerning ownership of those bodies of water that we are able to freely enjoy them. They are to be commended for that even though it happened way back in 1926. The  
quid pro quo 
 for them giving up those rights of ownership which one must accept as being quite a substantial right was under section 2. It provided that “There shall be reserved to the members of the Tuwharetoa Tribe the right to fish for and catch for their own use any fish in the said lake that are indigenous to the said lake but no such fish shall be sold except with the consent of the Board hereinafter mentioned”; and later under section 9(c) of the Act that “such members of the Tuwharetoa Tribe as are nominated by the Board hereinafter referred to shall be entitled to have issued to them free of charge licences to fish for imported fish in accordance with the regulations: provided that not more than 50 such licences shall be issued in any one year without the consent of the Governor-General in Council:”. It is that figure of 50 that we are now seeking to increase to the figure of 200. 
 At the time that the 50 licences were granted in 1926 the total number of licences in operation was 4900 so that Tuwharetoa had 50 out of 4900 licences. Today the Department of Conservation in its 2000-01 provision of information states that the current number of licences is 74293—an increase of 1500 percent—and Tuwharetoa have continued to have only 50 such licences. We are now looking to increase that to 200. It seems to me that if we had given Tuwharetoa a similar increase they would be entitled to 1300 licences today being relative to the increase in general licences and in Tuwharetoa numbers which have increased from an estimated 1104 in 1926 to roughly 29000 now. 
Some have challenged whether customary rights are a power that can be enforced today but this is not a customary right. It is important that the public understand that the right being granted today—the increase from 50 licences to 200—is not an increase in a customary right but an increase in a statutory right. It is a right given to Tuwharetoa in return for them giving to the public of New Zealand as a whole the whole of Lake Taupo and the Waikato River. I think we have done pretty well out of that deal. 
The only concern I have relates to the comment made by the select committee in the commentary that the number of fish has decreased. I hope that the Department of Conservation and Tuwharetoa are working together to ensure that the indigenous fish population is environmentally sustained and that whatever licences are given—and the number given generally obviously far outweighs what Tuwharetoa will use—they will not deplete the fishing resource further. I think it is important to take that into account. None of us wants to get into a situation whereby we are depleting our fisheries resources to the detriment of future generations. I therefore encourage Tuwharetoa and the Department of Conservation insofar as they both have interests in the fishing resource to work together to ensure that it is sustained. 
I commend the legislation to the House. United Future will be supporting the third reading. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 The Maori Purposes Bill (No 2) had thorough debate during the Committee stage in a way I have not seen on a 3-page bill in the time I have been here. I believe that I correctly summarise the debate by saying that ACT suggested that there was something a little unusual about the chairperson of the Waitangi Tribunal having the power to remove members of panels part way through a hearing on grounds that were at his or her discretion and which might turn on any circumstance that he or she thought was relevant because none was defined. Then all around this Chamber members who had apparently sat on the Maori Affairs Committee were saying: “No that’s not what it says.” After a time it moved. United Future members were saying: “No it doesn’t say that because it doesn’t apply to removal; it only allows the appointment of extras.”—a bizarre interpretation if ever I have heard one. Other members started to have doubts and eventually the Leader of the House Dr Michael Cullen proposed an amendment that would take out what are probably redundant words about the opinion of the chairperson of the tribunal and leave the provision otherwise as it stood. 
The net effect is that of all the judicial bodies in New Zealand I am aware of this would be the only one where a person who had been sitting on that panel could be removed by the chairperson of the panel after perhaps 6 8 or 10 years of familiarity because that chairperson had decided that it was not suitable for that person to render the decision. That is a disgrace to this House to the tribunal and to Maoridom. It is the bigotry of low expectations. Only in relation to Maori would this House be providing that people on an adjudicatory body fulfilling judicial functions could be removed by the chairperson of the panel without any proof of misconduct without any proof of unsuitability indeed without any proof of anything other than the undesirability in the chairperson’s eyes of the decision that was about to be released. 
It is a deep convention in almost every rule-of-law country that judicial independence is protected by security of tenure. In most judicial areas security of tenure means that the pressure to suck up to curry favour is removed by having no provision for reappointment. This tribunal does not have that right. Members do come up for reappointment so there is already potential for Government pressure to procure tribunal decisions that the Government wants. Of course that is not enough. Not only do we have the so-called streamlining that New Zealand First talked about—the streamlining of the tribunal by providing for members to be replaced in a hearing which one would expect if they became sick their family pressures got on top of them or there was something else—but we now also have a position whereby streamlining has turned into sacking. That makes the tribunal the chairperson’s creature. It is a contemptible tribunal. It is an imputation on the mana of every member on it that amongst all the adjudicatory bodies they are the only people who can be sacked halfway through. It is the only body about which I have ever heard the National Party and New Zealand First—both proponents of one law for all—say that that does not apply when it comes to a tribunal that is to adjudicate on Maori claims. When Maori claims are being heard we do not have to have impartial tribunals we do not have to avoid pressure from the Government we can have anyone who is appointed—[ 
Interruption 
]. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would appreciate— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry; I was diverted. I know what the member was going to say. I will now have silence. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The excuse used by United Future for voting for this legislation was that it wanted to rush it through after telling us that the courts would not be able to understand it. Parliament should be embarrassed about that. The only apparent reason is that there is some urgency to finish early. In the course of this debate the Leader of the House who is also the Minister of Finance told us that this urgency would finish early. He said business would be finished well before the time allotted. 
Murray Smith 
: No that is untrue. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Mr Smith you are not the Minister of Finance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Neither am I. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I was addressing Mr Smith Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member can address only the Speaker. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Dr Cullen told this House that we were idiots in effect to be continuing to debate this provision when we could get home early. He said that we should not put it aside in the Committee stage and come back to it with a proper solution because that might mean taking more time of the House and we were going to finish urgency well before the planned time. Apparently United Future thinks that is so urgent that it has to vote for this bill even though it thinks it is damaging and against principle. Dr Cullen admitted that the purpose of this provision was to allow the sacking of members who did not want to go. He could not allow for consent because they might not want to go. If they are not willing and able to recognise a conflict—which was his reason for saying that they needed to be removed—what are they doing on that tribunal? 
There is a procedure in the second schedule to remove members who are unsuitable. It involves the Governor-General as it should to protect the independence of the tribunal and here we had a senior Minister of the Crown saying that they might not consent. We had the National Party and New Zealand First going along with it and only United Future the Greens and ACT saying that we should hang on a minute because there was some deep constitutional issue some question of individuals. The Greens voted for those amendments. 
This provision confirms that the Waitangi Tribunal is not intended to be impartial—it can be a cabal of politically correct inventors of history. The “holocaust” was not just a flash in the pan; “holocaust” hyperbole is what this Government wants the chairperson of the tribunal to be able to perpetuate. This provision is a deliberate attack on the mana of each member of that tribunal. It means that when those members deliver a decision in future they may well be suspected of having buckled to pressure—that if they did not deliver what the chairperson wanted they could get the boot. That is what this Government the National Party and New Zealand First have done to the Waitangi Tribunal. In future if any of us think that a tribunal decision is wrong or a little puzzling we can say that it was because its members were not impartial—that they were biased because they were afraid of losing their positions. That is exactly what this provision has done today. 
We have an example. Dr Michael Bassett—competent expert if anyone was a Minister of the Government that produced the Waitangi Tribunal with a deep understanding of the system—has been subject to a court application to remove him from a panel and he was pressured to go from within that panel. What we have now is a bill that not only legitimises that practice but makes it systematic. In future that can be done discreetly. Instead of having only three appointments to a panel in 9 or 11 years any of those members can go on any panel until the chairperson of the tribunal decides that they are unwelcome or that the line they are taking is not the official line and then removes them. That is not only second rate; it is a kangaroo court. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will support this bill in the third reading but not with as much joy as we had hoped. This afternoon the debate gave credence to the very real concerns that the Greens raised in the select committee about the clause that gives the chairperson a broad discretion to remove members of the panel. We were concerned then that the power could be used to take people off the panel for such reasons as being considered unfit. We were assured in the select committee that that was not the purpose of this clause although we were so concerned that we ensured there was a statement in the select committee report about it. I have been pleased that other parties in this House—ACT and United Future in particular—have also taken up that issue. 
It is a real concern that a senior Minister of the Labour Government is prepared to stand in this House and describe members of the tribunal as being entirely unreasonable—so unreasonable that they would not be able to perform their function and would have to be removed by a provision and a means that is not acceptable in any other court in this country. That is a clear demonstration of the deep lack of respect that senior members of the Labour caucus hold for Maori and for that Maori tribunal which has an enormously important role in this country. That is a very real issue that the Maori caucus needs to take up with its members. It is not something that should be taken lightly. That tribunal is one of the few means by which Maori have any control over their claims and the discussion of them. Under no circumstance should we be allowing it to be so badly disrespected and undermined by the Government in terms of its standing as a semi-judicial body. 
That said we are concerned about the provisions of the bill in the sense that one of the primary reasons members need to be replaced is because the tribunal is so severely underfunded that it is not able to complete its hearing within a reasonable period of time. There is no doubt that the claims need time for preparation and that they cannot happen as quickly as perhaps in other courts. Nonetheless in our opinion the delays are almost entirely due to underfunding and under-resourcing. The Green Party supports increased resources for the Waitangi Tribunal including adequate resources for claimants to prepare and present their cases and the increased transparency and accountability of the tribunal in that frame. 
As a result of underfunding and subsequent delays and the changes in membership that occur over long periods of time a number of claims are waiting to be completed. The Wellington Tenths is one that has been discussed but there are other claims such as the Wai 262 claim and I just briefly want to discuss that claim. The claim was nearly completed last year but could not be due to difficulties that this bill will in some part remedy. Members from over seven iwi in this country including my own Ngati Kahungunu—of which I am very proud—lodged the Wai 262 claim in 1991. Essentially the claim is that tino rangatiratanga incorporates decision-making authority regarding all the rights and responsibilities attaching to indigenous fauna and flora; that the Crown has consistently denied that authority and that Crown actions are a continuing breach of iwi tino rangatiratanga over indigenous flora and fauna. 
The claimants are seeking from the Crown resources to enable a proper consultation so that an overarching framework for the protection and promotion of matauranga Maori is developed but which is premised on Tikanga Maori and not on the commodification and privatisation of intellectual property. It is an extensive claim and it will have wide-ranging effects for all New Zealanders particularly as its basic kaupapa does not rely principally on the principles of the treaty but on the rights of Maori as tangata whenua in this country. This claim gives all of us—every New Zealander—the opportunity to reconsider the privatisation or propertarian model and instead apply other values more appropriate to the protection management and conservation of our environment and our indigenous flora and fauna. 
The Greens are particularly concerned that this claim is heard and finally reported on. For too long the importance of the indigenous peoples in the conservation of biological diversity has been undermined and ignored. The Greens are committed to tangata whenua as kaitiaki and we welcome the application of indigenous values and kaitiakitanga to the conservation framework. In our view it is only through cooperation between tangata whenua and the conservation movement that we will be able to truly restore and rebuild the treasure that is our collective natural heritage. In that respect there is a significant connection between the environmental movement and tangata whenua—as long as kaitiakitanga is respected and becomes integral to the process. The rights of tangata whenua to control manage and develop matauranga Maori must be recognised at both a Government and community level. The Greens look forward to the report on the Wai 262 claim which will be enabled through the provisions of this bill. We are pleased that it will be completed sooner rather than later. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 Now we have heard it all and I am very glad that those statements made not by the previous speaker but by her predecessor have been made. At election time this Parliament and this country were told by the party that had zero tolerance on crime that it was going to be tough—the party that a couple of days ago could not find support even for the boy racer bill. But now that party has stood up in this House and expressed reservations about appointment procedures. That party that did a rort did the expulsion deal—the non-expulsion deal—on one of its members so that it could hold on to $111000 of parliamentary funds. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not relevant to this debate. There are three bills. I will put the question in three parts as I promised. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 108 
Noes 8 
Bill read a third time. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 8. 
Broadcasting Amendment Bill read a third time. 
Maori Land Amendment and Maori Land Claims Adjustment Amendment Bill read a third time. 
Voting 
Correction 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The National Party wanted to vote one down on the last vote. Is it possible to correct that? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will take the leave of the House. I am sure no one will object. Is there any objection? There is none. There will be one less vote recorded for the National Party which will mean the result is the Ayes are 108 the Noes are 8. 
Hop Industry Restructuring Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill facilitates the regulatory and structural reform of the New Zealand hop industry. It removes the New Zealand Hop Marketing Board’s single-desk powers to procure and export all New Zealand hop products and it restructures the board into a producer-owned cooperative company. The bill is consistent with the Government’s policy for producer-board reform. It is supported by all 26 hop producers and by the board itself and is in the national interest. The bill will give producers the autonomy to raise capital and to make their own investment decisions in a contestable commercial environment. 
The Hop Industry Restructuring Bill was introduced into the House on 19 March 2002. It had its first reading on 1 October 2002 after which it was referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration. The committee received one written submission on the bill which was from the Hop Marketing Board. The board gave its support for deregulation of the hop industry and restructuring as per the bill subject to an amendment to the date of the restructuring day. The board’s preferred restructuring day and the date specified in the bill was 1 August 2002. However that day had passed by the time the bill was referred to the select committee. The board proposed a new restructuring day of 1 August 2003 the first day of the board’s 2003-04 financial year and that has been recommended by the committee. 
I would like to thank the board for its support of this bill and for its constructive comments on it. I would also like to thank the members of the Primary Production Committee for their consideration of the bill and for the report tabled in Parliament on 4 December 2002. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 As I start my contribution to the debate on the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill I take the opportunity to congratulate that member both on his remarkable renaissance and on now agreeing to support yet another deregulation of a producer board. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Supported by the producers. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Absolutely but I thought I would take the time to quote from  
Hansard 
 when we had a similar debate back in 1999. Mr Damien O’Connor said then that a blind ideology was driving the Government to deregulate producer boards. “Blind ideology” the member said. He made comments like: “This will be the death knell of the dairy industry.” He said: “This legislation will lead to”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is about the hop industry not the dairy industry. Would the speaker come to the point. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am outlining my congratulations to the member on supporting this bill and pointing out the remarkable change in the member’s own philosophy on producer board deregulation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is perfectly entitled to do that but not when referring to another industry. He must refer to this bill which is the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: In referring to the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill I want to again congratulate the member Damien O’Connor on his remarkable about-face since only a couple of years ago we last deregulated another producer board the name of which I will not refer to in this particular debate. But I say to you Mr Speaker that I am thrilled that Damien O’Connor has matured so greatly and so remarkably in a relatively short period of time. 
Of course National whole-heartedly supports the deregulation of yet another industry that for too long has been shackled by legislation produced by this House. I was intrigued by the comment the Minister himself made when he said: “This legislation gives the company power to raise capital and to make its own decisions.” I have no problem at all supporting legislation that gives an industry the power to establish a company to look after its interests to raise the capital that it then decides it requires and most important as the Minister himself has said to make its own decisions. The Minister also referred to the fact that there are only 26 hop producers in this country so I guess to be fair to the Minister it was relatively easy for them to present a united position and to come to Parliament and ask to be unshackled from the burden of legislation. It is interesting that the industry has been able to make that move and I support it whole-heartedly. 
The other thing that should not be forgotten is the significance of the hop industry to New Zealand society. It is essential clearly in the brewing of beer and it has had a remarkable impact on the social fabric of this country. Therefore we must not underestimate its significance. 
It is relatively easy in the hop industry to get a consensus position. There are 26 producers as the Minister said. Of those producers only one made a submission to the Primary Production Committee and as I go through my notes I see that the committee took just 38 minutes to consider that submission and the officials’ report to deliberate and to present the report-back to the House. It is with some regret—although I guess we are getting used to it—that yet again we have had to change the enactment date of legislation because of the Government being unable to present it earlier. 
Paul Adams 
: Why not? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Why not? The Leader of the House would have to be asked as well as the Associate Minister of Agriculture who does not seem to appreciate the urgency with which those 26 hop growers have waited with baited breath for us finally to address their very valid concerns. 
We have worked very hard. I do not intend to take too much more of the House’s time except to congratulate the Minister on his renaissance. I am thrilled to see that he now realises the benefit of allowing producers to get on and do their own thing. May that renaissance live long and hard in the Labour Party philosophy. National of course supports the second reading of this bill. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 I congratulate the hop growers on forming a cooperative company to market their produce and to sell their hops. 
I have just a couple of comments on the points made by the previous speaker. This is not the sort of structure that the previous National Government and the former Minister the Hon John Luxton would have suggested for this industry. This is a move to form a cooperative that retains the single seller in all but name. Why? Because it is the sensible thing to do in a small country like New Zealand when we are competing worldwide with other countries that are subsidised. This very small industry has done the sensible pragmatic thing. This is not what was proposed by the previous National administration and I congratulate the hop growers on doing what they have done. New Zealand First supports them in their endeavours. New Zealand First supports this bill and wishes the hop growers good luck long life and great wealth. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support the second reading of the bill. To quote the secretary of the Hop Marketing Board: “The restructuring of the New Zealand hop industry is pretty much a non-event.” The industry has been waiting for this for 20 years. There was some initial reluctance to change as the industry growers all 26 of whom farm in the Nelson region felt that the board gave them more protection than a limited cooperative company but there is also recognition that the regulations the industry is working under are over 60 years old and are virtually unworkable in today’s climate. 
The underlying objective of the bill is to enable the hop industry to position itself so that it can respond positively to the challenges of the international market. Whereas the shrinking domestic market once sent grower after grower into the red these days about 90 percent of the annual hop crop is exported. However it is worthwhile to remember that New Zealand’s annual crop represents less than 1 percent of the global total. 
The old board structure is viewed by the industry as outmoded and even a hindrance to innovation and entrepreneurship in the industry. The reforms are similar to the deregulation that has already taken place in the apple and pear industry and the dairy industry though perhaps I should not mention those industries. The bill restructures the New Zealand Hop Marketing Board to create a cooperative company in its place known as New Zealand Hop Marketers Ltd. As a matter of interest the original marketing board was set up by a hop grower by the name of Keith Holyoake which gives us some indication of how old this marketing board must be. 
The basic day-to-day operation of the industry will not change as everything currently under the board’s control will fall under the cooperative. Shares will be allocated to growers on the basis of production rather than the current situation of one vote per grower. There will be no levies under the company. Instead voluntary charges will be used to pay for industry-good items like research which it must be said is a very innovative approach. 
The bill also liberalises the export and acquisition of hops and hop products. Under the Hop Marketing Regulations of 1939 the board is the mandatory sales agent for New Zealand hop growers. This bill removes the compulsory element and will encourage exporters to compete to export hops and hop products. Thus growers and exporters will be able to arrange their own commercial activities as they see fit since the export of hops will be part of the normal business environment. This has the advantage of removing the costs and requirements associated with the current regulatory system. 
There will be some minor transitional costs involved in the registration of the new company. However unlike the restructuring of the kiwifruit industry in 1999 the proposed restructuring of the hop industry does not require a restructuring plan or a referendum because hop producers unanimously support the proposal. This saves some costs for the board in seeking the consent of growers. 
The committee received only one submission from the board itself. Not surprisingly it was in support of the restructuring. Anyone who heard the first reading debate on this bill would have witnessed Labour and National MPs arguing about whether the Government had changed its view on the deregulation of industries like hop production. We were not disappointed today when previous speakers sought to raise this point yet again. United Future however thinks that the most important thing is to ensure that when industries seek to improve the way in which they operate they should be fully supported by the Government whatever their ideological stripe. After all that is the common-sense position. United Future supports the recommendations of the select committee and supports the second reading of this bill. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 Along with my colleagues I take some considerable delight in welcoming this bill back to the House for its second reading. Indeed I will remark on the fact that on occasions we do have unanimity but on this particular occasion there is a large degree of unanimity about the need for deregulation of what was once a producer board—an absolute creature of Government. The previous speaker referred to 1939 as the year when the Hop Marketing Regulations first came through. That was over 60 years ago. It has taken a while but we have finally got here and I am delighted to see it. 
I will take a moment to reflect on the fact that this marketing board was a direct creature of Government. It was a creature of a former Prime Minister Mr Palmer and also of Mr Caygill who decided in 1989 that they were going to get rid of these quangos as they saw them to be at that time. In fact what happened was that they left the hop board and indeed the raspberry board and got rid of a heap of other quangos. But in getting rid of them they also gave us commissions for everything else but. That is just a little bit of history. However I think it is also worth reflecting that the hop board did a very good job in that early stage. 
I do not want to upset my Green colleague too much but it was the hop board that ensured the genetic modification of hops and that is not disputed. I am sure that the next time Mr Ewen-Street gets his jaw around a tankard of high-frothing beer he will reflect on the fact that that small grouping of people under the auspices of the board genetically modified hops to ensure they became a high-yielding alpha resin. I think it was through the then Department of Scientific and Industrial Research but I do not have the particular date. Those who are interested in beer and I am sure that most people in this House are at some stage would find that very interesting and a sign of the future as well once we get past this fetish about genetic modification. 
As I said earlier the Hop Marketing Board has run its course. It was a completely unanimous decision of all the members of the select committee not to mention the members of the hop growing board who decided that the board was no longer appropriate. I take issue with Mr Doug Woolerton and I regret having to do so but this is clearly not just some hybrid single-marketing board. I draw the member’s attention to the commentary on the bill which states that the bill removes that compulsory element and gives growers the commercial choice of marketer and exporter. No single desk gives a commercial choice of marketer and exporter. Along with Mr David Carter I applaud the good work of Mr Damien O’Connor in ensuring that the hop industry has reached this new 21st century. 
In fact from what I hear the industry has a very exciting future. It has the control of its own destiny. It is not relying on Government; nor is it relying on Government to wipe out the $26500 that it asked for. It is appropriate that the new cooperative—once it becomes so—will be standing on its own two feet. It will find that $26500 and can say that it is truly an entity it can be proud of—not having to rely on Government but on itself. 
It is really encouraging to hear the ACT party’s philosophy which has been vilified for so long in this House—and I pay tribute again to my colleague Owen Jennings who pointed out to this House many many years ago when I was a mere farmer from Coal Creek the futility of having statute-controlled producer boards. We still have a few relics to my right. However it is nice to see that the majority of this House understands that deregulation equates to individual responsibility and indeed collective responsibility if the growers so wish. 
I am not about to tell growers that they should not be in a cooperative and that they should be in some other arrangement. If they wish to be in a cooperative selling their hops that is absolutely wonderful. I am a member of some other cooperatives in terms of my farming career and selling my products so I understand how cooperatives work. 
It is important to see in the commentary on the bill that the select committee did ask the board to address subsequent shareholding changes to ensure that the industry is indeed very very well structured. This is so that the industry can progress and not have a run on capital for example if others decide to leave the industry which can happen in a cooperative. It is not a perfect answer but it is certainly a lot better than a single-desk structure where statute demands not performance but just this thing called accountability. With every industry whether it be the hop industry or any other in this country we demand of ourselves and of our industry a thing called performance not just accountability. With those few words I certainly welcome the passage of this bill and commend it to the House. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I would like to take a very short call in this debate. I will start by congratulating the hop industry and sharing my sympathy with it for the time it has spent waiting so patiently for this day to arrive. I also take issue again with my colleague the “member for Upper Coal Creek” Mr Eckhoff who talked about genetically engineered hops. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Genetically modified hops. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: There are no genetically engineered hops in New Zealand. There is a difference between genetic engineering and selective breeding and hybridisation. They are different concepts. It is quite simple. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may interject if he wants to but he should move out of that quarter. 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: In terms of the passage of this bill through the select committee as other members have said we were unanimous—finally. However I did raise with my colleagues the question of ownership of the shares of that cooperative company. In the end we decided that we would not change the legislation to impose a limit of shareholdings on individual members or the cooperative but it would be of benefit to the hop industry as a whole to bear in mind the example of what happened to ENZA formerly the Apple and Pear Marketing Board. When that was privatised and corporatised— 
Hon David Carter 
: Are you mounting a takeover? 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: There was a takeover. There was a maximum holding of 19 percent and people assumed that any company that had a maximum holding of 19 percent would not be able to take control of what was a monopolistic export body. However history has shown that two companies got together 38 percent of the votes and took a controlling interest in ENZA to the very great disadvantage of the members. 
I suggest to members of the hop industry that in the immediate future they set their own regulations to limit the number of shares that anyone or any group of owners can have. The cooperative structure obviously is very powerful but if one allows an organisation a corporate or any individual to take control of the industry it will be to the disadvantage of everyone else. 
I commend this bill to the House and look forward to the third reading in the near future. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I know there are some wine buffs in this House. I confess to being a beer buff. The hops that are produced by the hop industry in the Nelson region go to the core of some of the best-quality beers in the world and this Parliament should be proud of the producers of those hops and of the quite unique industry that exists in the Nelson region to support that international reputation. 
I shall make a few comments about the bill because it brings with it a huge irony. So many of the agricultural debates that we have had in this Parliament over the last decade have been about marketing structures. It seems extraordinary to me that just 6 years ago when we had the first of those debates about single-desk selling they were like a political mantra; they were an absolute. In fact I shall repeat to the Minister who sponsors this bill—Mr Damien O’Connor whose name is on the front of the bill—what he said about those who opposed single-desk selling. He said that they were traitors. He said that there were traitors in this Parliament who opposed single-desk selling. I shall quote the Minister. He said: “And these traitors will one day attempt to deregulate the hop industry.” 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Who was that? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Damien O’Connor said those words. Now I have in front of me a bill that is in the charge of the Hon Damien O’Connor. What is honourable about saying in this Parliament that others who talk about deregulating the hop industry are traitors? When Mr O’Connor says that it is OK. Would Mr O’Connor like to provide some explanation? 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Yes happy to. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Will the member provide an explanation? 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: I’ll do it during the third reading. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I hope he does. I also think that he owes the House an apology. Effectively what we see in the House today which is unanimous support for the bill is that National won the argument. So well have we won the argument that even—[ 
Interruption 
] Can that new young member from Kapiti explain for me why members of the Labour Party said that anybody who wanted to dismantle a single-desk selling operation was a traitor? The word “traitor” is the strongest word one could possibly use. It is the strongest argument one could make. On our criminal law books being a traitor is the strongest offence one can commit against one’s country. Yet members of the Labour Party accused members of National of being traitors because they dared to suggest deregulation and the free market. Mr O’Connor owes the House an explanation. I also remind him that he stood at the top of Trafalgar Street and said that the Labour Party stood for single-desk selling. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Does that member support this bill? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I do support this bill. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What about the numbers man? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: We always know when Labour does not want to debate the issues. I want to know from Mr Benson-Pope why Mr O’Connor stood at the top of Trafalgar Street and said that Labour stood for single-desk selling. He said that Labour is a cooperative party and it wanted single-desk selling. Now as a Minister of the Crown he says the opposite. I think the House is owed an explanation. 
 If he is going to flip-flop on that what other things can we believe about anything that Damien O’Connor and members of the Labour Party stand for? If he can flip-flop on that what else is he going to flip-flop on? I have heard the pathetic explanation from Mr O’Connor. He said: “Oh the difference is because in this case the hop industry wants it.” Well if that is the case why did Mr O’Connor not stand at the top of Trafalgar Street during the apple industry restructuring and say: “It is not that we are in favour of single-desk selling; it is just that we believe it should be for the industry to decide.”? But that is not what the Minister said and if that is the case when we debated the apple and pear restructuring legislation in 1999 why did you accuse Mr Luxton— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not do anything. The member will come back to the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I ask the member opposite Mr Damien O’Connor who is in charge of the bill—and this issue is at a the core of it—why it is that when Mr John Luxton debated single-desk selling being changed in 1999 he was accused of being a traitor but now when Mr O’Connor does it it is different? 
Hon David Carter 
: It will be the “Maharey principle”. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I think it is indeed and I am pleased we have Mr Maharey here. I think it is the “Maharey principle”—saying one thing when in Opposition and doing exactly the opposite in Government. I say that that is a complete abrogation of integrity. Then we heard from my colleague Mr Doug Woolerton. He said: “Oh the reason New Zealand First has changed its position is because this is different.” Well I have to say to the member that this is deregulation in every sense of the word. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: This is not the model you proposed and you know it very very well. They know it is different. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What is the difference? 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Every difference in the world—and that just shows the stupidity of you guys. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well Mr Woolerton needs to explain to the House why it is when it comes to other areas that New Zealand First members have taken a completely different point of view. They flip-flop all over the place. There is no consistency at all in their position. This bill says that it is for ever more the decision of hop growers as to how they are to structure themselves. It is a complete deregulation of that industry and it provides a sensible structure. I think that the credit for this must go to the previous National administration because it set the agenda. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Aw! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr O’Connor argues against it when he is in Opposition then does it as a Minister. I tell Mr O’Connor that I have not in my 12 years in this Parliament ever seen a Minister flip-flop so badly on what he said. I want some explanation as to why he criticised those who said that the removal of single-desk selling was appropriate to hops. I want to know why he said that in Opposition and why there is now a bill in his name now that he is in Government. 
Bill read a second time. 
Procedure 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Unanimity has broken out wildly around the House on this bill and I want to say “cheers” to members who have made a speech. I seek leave after my discussions with the whips of all the parties to move directly to the third reading. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought accordingly. Is there any objection? There is not. 
Third Reading 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill was introduced into the House on 19 March 2002. It had its first reading on 1 October 2002 and was referred to the Primary Production Committee on that day. The select committee amended the restructuring day as requested by the New Zealand Hop Marketing Board and reported the bill back to the House on 4 December 2002. The bill restructures the New Zealand Hop Marketing Board into a cooperative company—New Zealand Hop Marketers Ltd—and removes the regulatory controls on the domestic marketing and export of hops. 
Hops are grown for the flavouring of beer—for those who do not know. New Zealand production is concentrated in the Nelson-Motueka district and I am proud to say that about 90 percent of that is in the Tasman district in my electorate. Exports of around $8 million of hops and hop products go from New Zealand each year. The New Zealand Hop Marketing Board was established under the Hop Marketing Regulations in 1939 to coordinate the marketing of hops to breweries both in New Zealand and overseas. The regulations provide that the board is the sole agent of growers in the sale and export of New Zealand grown hops. Today the Hop Marketing Board is the only statutory single desk to retain domestic marketing powers as pointed out by Mr Smith. 
When the board was established the industry was predominantly domestically focused. Today over 80 percent of the annual production of New Zealand hops is exported. The current regulated structure of the New Zealand hop industry is outdated and out of step with the international trading environment for hops and hop products. The board sought the bill on behalf of hop growers to enable the hop industry to respond positively to the challenges of the international market. New Zealand accounts for just 0.6 percent of world production. The price of hops in New Zealand generally reflects the world price and the worldwide demand for hops is dependent of course on beer consumption. 
The bill means that the industry can be more flexible in responding to changes in consumer tastes for example towards speciality beers. The removal of the single desk will improve market signals to growers we trust. 
Hops are unusual in that they are particularly sensitive to the latitude and climate in which they grow. Due to this latitudinal sensitivity hops are grown in relatively few countries throughout the world the majority of which are in the northern hemisphere. This enables New Zealand to provide out-of-season hops to the northern hemisphere. New Zealand has unique cultivars bred at the Riwaka research station that demand a premium in some markets. The bill enables growers to retain joint ownership with the Crown of these unique varieties by transferring the board’s ownership rights in the cultivars to the grower-owned cooperative company. 
There is a strong tradition and culture of cooperation and coordination within the New Zealand hop industry. The bill gives effect to the industry’s request for defining its ownership rights in the board releases the board from the regulatory constraints imposed by the regulations and the two old Acts and deregulates the sale and export of hops. 
The difference in this Government’s approach to producer board deregulation is that we have responded to requests from the industry not threatened the industry with deregulation as did the last Government. We have delivered to the hop growers a cooperative structure not forced on them a corporate structure as the previous National Government did to ENZA. That is one of the key differences and that is the reason I support this bill through the House. I wish the industry well in the restructuring of the board and I am sure that it will do its best into the future. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 The National Party of course supports the third reading of the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill and in fact will facilitate the Government’s progress today and make sure we complete the third reading as quickly as possible and save the particular member leading the debate any further embarrassment. The position the poor member finds himself in whereby he has changed his point of view completely has been outlined well in the House in the last half hour or so. But I want to take the opportunity of congratulating the member. He clearly acknowledges now that the damage that he threatened would occur to other industries that were deregulated has not occurred and he is prepared to be mature enough to acknowledge that and therefore see the benefit of now moving to also help the hop producers in New Zealand achieve greater wealth for themselves and therefore for the country. 
I guess in supporting the bill I just want to pick up on the latter comment of Damien O’Connor and certainly the comments of Doug Woolerton in his second reading contribution. Doug Woolerton said that what we are doing here in effect is all but creating a producer board under another name. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I didn’t say that. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That is exactly what Doug Woolerton said because I wrote his words down word for word: it is all but creating a producer board under another name. He went on to say that that is not what National proposed. I say to the member that what we have here is exactly what National proposed. As Damien O’Connor has said what we have here is the ability of the 26 hop growers to belong to a company that happens to be a cooperative company. This legislation does not force any of those hop growers to be part of that company—it is up to their free will which is as it should be. If they decide they want to be part of that company they have the ability to set the rules under which that company will operate. Again I tell Mr Woolerton that that is how it should be. In other words there is a huge amount of choice and flexibility available to the people who are involved in the industry. 
It is nothing like what we have had in the past. I tell Mr Woolerton that it is certainly not a producer board in disguise. Mark my words: as this industry settles down and further develops those producers will have the ability to remain in the company if it continues to produce results for them as individuals. If the company fails to do that then I do not see any move by the producers that would cause them to be restrained by the cooperative company—the company will not be able to do that. I have little doubt that in an industry as small as this which clearly is run in a cooperative way with issues being debated amongst the 26 members—who incidentally are all confined to a very small region of New Zealand which is the electorate of my colleague the Hon Nick Smith—the growers will arrive at the ability to make decisions and company rules that advance their particular case. 
Finally I question again Damien O’Connor’s earlier contribution. He said he would give the House the benefit of an explanation as to why this remarkable renaissance has occurred and if I understood his explanation it is because the hop industry has matured and developed since 1999 and now exports about 80 percent of its product overseas. The reason Mr Damien O’Connor is now comfortable supporting the deregulation of the hop industry is that it has grown to a stage where it exports 80 percent of its produce overseas. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: They have asked for it. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I accept that they have asked for it but that is the explanation Mr Damien O’Connor gave. I remind the member that when he was so opposed to deregulation calling members on this side of the House “traitors” for advancing the cause we were dealing with the dairy industry which at that stage exported in excess of 90 percent of its produce overseas. I leave it to the next speaker from the Labour Party to have a brief discussion with Damien O’Connor to see whether that obvious inconsistency can be clarified for him. 
Debate interrupted. 
Social Workers Registration Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House for there to be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House that we have one wide-ranging debate on the Social Workers Registration Bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection? There appears to be none. Leave is granted. 
Hop Industry Restructuring Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to indicate our support for the third reading of this bill and also to say how impressed we have been with the level of cooperation in the House this afternoon. It is absolutely stunning when a bill such as this which is requested and supported by the hop growers is given to the select committee with no contentious submissions and is then put through the House with the kind of speed that we have seen this afternoon. It is my first experience as a member of this House to see that level of cooperation. It really encourages us in United Future to think that common sense is spreading throughout the Chamber. The only real glitch this afternoon has been remarks from the National Party which continues to harp on about the ideology involved in this bill. It does not understand that the average taxpayer in this country does not care a fig about that. The taxpayers would like to see bills passed through the House in this manner more often so that the good work they are waiting for can be achieved with maximum speed. United Future thanks the House again for being able to speak on this bill and to indicate our support for it. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the third reading of this bill and supports it happening very quickly so I will be brief. I will answer a couple of questions and read a little bit from the explanatory note to the bill to explain a couple of things and to give some indication of why I said what I did. It says here that “on the restructuring day the Board is converted into a cooperative company registered under the Companies Act 1993”. Further on it also talks about the conversion of the board into a cooperative company and so on and so forth. Clearly the hop industry participants have something in mind along the lines of the old board. They very clearly have a cooperative marketing structure in place and they very clearly desire to carry on as before but under a cooperative company. That is what I said and that is what I believe. That is not what National proposed when the special committee sat to look at the restructuring of industry boards per se. I take issue with what has been said. We have a difference of style and intent but we are all of one view at the end of the day and that is to congratulate the Hop Industry Board on getting on with its business as it sees fit. We hope that it will remain for a very very long time to come. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill. I just want to make one comment about the speeches made by Dr Smith and Mr Carter. Mr Smith knows the facts. The pipfruit industry asked for a cooperative commercial model and it was Mr Luxton who then ignored it. He did not listen to it and gave the industry a strict corporate model which meant that that industry lost ownership of the whole sector. To prove that point I can recall when thousands of pipfruit growers marched against Dr Smith and Mrs Shipley down Trafalgar Street to vent their spleen. 
As for this bill the hop growers came to this Government to ask for a cooperative model. We listened and we gave it to them. They have their mandate they came to us and requested that model and we listened to them. Pipfruit growers requested a different model Mr Luxton and the then National Government did not listen and as a result the pipfruit growers lost complete control of their own industry. The Guinness Peat Group did that and then the growers marched against that member and his then leader to express their angst. This is a good bill. It preserves the ownership structure. It does what the hop industry itself wants and we support the bill. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 How we reinvent history in this House! I have just listened to Mr Clayton Cosgrove who I believe is a former trade union official and who understands all about producer boards talking arrant nonsense. What he has just told us about the apple industry is arrant nonsense. I am here to pay tribute—but not to those on the left who have finally woken up to the benefits of deregulation. I believe that it is important in a third reading speech to render under Caesar that which is Caesar’s if I can put it like that. I believe that it is important to pay homage to people like John Luxton Owen Jennings and the free-thinkers of this primary industry of ours who many many years ago suffered the slings arrows and poisoned shafts of derision because they dared to challenge the conventional wisdom of control: “We must have a single-desk seller. We must have Government influence.” Those are the things that have constrained our country and have taken away the ability of New Zealand to be in the top 10 of the OECD. 
Mr David Parker mentioned in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 the other day that we desperately want to be back in the OECD—I do not think he used the word “desperately”. He thought that it might be OK in 50 years’ time. But I and the ACT party are desperate for New Zealand to get back into the top 10 of the OECD and this Hop Industry Restructuring Bill is in its own small way a step forward to what we believe is the only way to achieve it. That is by our tapping into the natural capital of our people—not of a producer board not necessarily of a cooperative not of a Government and not of some huge monolith but of individuals’ capacity to go out there and sell throughout the world a product they produce. Whether it is hops or apples or kiwifruit I do not mind. 
It is important to recognise at this time a certain irony in that yesterday we passed a bill constraining trade with those who wish to sell kiwifruit to Australia. It passed by 112 votes to 8. ACT did not support that bill and I believe we will revisit that situation in a very short space of time in order to do another restructuring. It will be a “Kiwifruit Industry Restructuring Bill” not a Hop Industry Restructuring Bill as it is today. 
As I said earlier it is important to reflect on the efforts of those in the House before us who fought tooth and nail to ensure that finally on this day in April 2003 the House finally understands just what those people were striving to achieve all that time ago. They were vilified for it either by industry leaders seeking to protect their own little patch or by those members in the House who did not understand what they were trying to do for that industry. It was not out of any self-interest that John Luxton Owen Jennings and others stood up and argued for deregulation. They did it in the interests of this country and of the industry they were talking about at the time. 
Again whether it was the meat apple or hop industry does not really matter. What matters is principle and the principle we must never lose sight of in this House is the right of individuals to sell their product either in a cooperative or as a single entity and to the exporter of their choice. What a wonderful word “choice” is. A word I put alongside it is the word “freedom”. That is a word we should be reflecting on very deeply in these days of troubled times in lands far away from New Zealand. These are very very fundamental issues. 
I take the Speaker’s point. He is indicating that I am perhaps moving away from the bill. But whether we are talking about a hop industry or about international relationships the words “freedom” and “índividual choice” are hugely important. This is a wonderful day for the House and it is a wonderful day for New Zealand when yet again just a little bit of deregulation finally has been chipped off the huge monolithic block. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak again very briefly in the third reading. I want to pass on the best wishes of the Green Party to the members of the hop industry. I also want to reiterate my recommendation to them that they limit the size of any individual or group shareholding of the shares subsequent to the passage of this legislation. My recommendation would be that for any individual or for any one holding the maximum holding should be about 9.9 percent. That would mean that a minimum of six people then have to get together to have a controlling interest in the industry—bearing in mind of course that there are only about 25 or 26 people who are contributors to the industry in the first place. Obviously with that small number of operators the average holding at the moment would be around 4 percent. It is a strategy that members of the industry could use to maintain the cooperative structure and to allow the industry to continue to be a cooperative into the future. If it is allowed to get into too few hands it will get corporatised. It will get monopolised and the small player is always the one who will lose out. The Green Party wishes the hop industry very well. I am very pleased to see the passage of this bill into law. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want again to hold Labour members to account for what they said. They said: “Labour opposes deregulation”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have had repetition. I allowed the member to go on and on in the second reading speech. In this third reading speech we will talk about this bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There has been a debate on this side of the House that both Labour speakers have addressed. This bill is about deregulation and I take offence at you saying that I am not allowed to debate issues of deregulation when very clearly this is a deregulation of the hop industry. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will debate according to the instructions I have given on this third reading; otherwise he will not be speaking. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: In respect of the third reading of this bill I point out what Labour members said prior to the election and what this bill does. I have here a quotation which states: “Labour opposes deregulation of the apple dairy and hop industries because single-desk selling gets the best market returns.” That is what Labour said to the people of New Zealand and what it said to the people of Nelson. The commentary on the bill states: “This legislation follows similar deregulation measures already passed in respect of the apple and pear and the dairy industries.” In spite of all the words and all the fancy footwork the fact is that Labour has flip-flopped. Labour has said one thing and done another. The greatest irony in respect of the third reading of this Hop Industry Restructuring Bill is that the apple and dairy industries have had their single-desk arrangements removed by this Government. Mr O’Connor’s explanation was that it was because of what the growers said. I will quote what he said about the hop industry restructuring in the  
Nelson Mail 
—a process that began in 1998. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: Whinge moan moan. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Maharey does not want to be held to account for what was said. Well I will remind him of what he said and members on this side of the House will continue to remind him that the people of New Zealand will not accept the “Maharey principle”. 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: No one cares. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: They do care—and I care because I think people should be consistent. People should say what they do and while Mr Maharey wants to be able to re-invent things all the time and tell porkies we on this side of the House will do our job as the Opposition and hold Government members to account. 
Let us see exactly what was said. In 1998 when National had discussions with the Hop Marketing Board about a cooperative bill of this sort Mr O’Connor said: “The only reason hop growers have asked for reform is that the axe is being held over their head by Mr Luxton.” That is word for word what Mr O’Connor said. How does he explain that today? If the hop growers in 1998 were asking for reform only because Mr Luxton was holding an axe over their head why are they asking for reform now? There is absolute silence because there is no explanation. 
Mr O’Connor owes hop growers an explanation. If the only reason they were asking for reform in 1998 was that Mr Luxton was holding an axe over their head is the Minister holding an axe over their head today? 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: No. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He is not but 26 hop growers today agree to reform the hop industry. I simply say to the member opposite that he has done an absolute about-face. What he said to this Parliament in 1998 was absolutely the opposite. I have to compliment him on his speech. His speech then said: “The only way returns could be guaranteed for growers is through a single-desk structure.” But in the speech he has given today he said that a deregulated environment would provide better market signals. I ask Mr O’Connor whether John Luxton wrote that speech for him. He may as well have. I can accept that people might change their views slightly but to do an absolute 180-degree switch as we see from Mr O’Connor shows him to be the flake that he is in saying one thing and doing the complete opposite. Members on this side of the House— 
Hon George Hawkins 
: Tell us about the National Party leadership! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I see the incompetent Minister of Police has poked his head up. Why does he not organise some police for the streets of Auckland rather than cutting police colleges? 
I come back to the bill. The hop industry is a wonderful industry and it has a great future. This bill had its genesis in the discussions that occurred between National and the hop industry at the time. I am pleased to see that it has come through but sad to see there has been no reasonable explanation of why Labour has done its flip-flop. The best news is that the hop industry will be able to continue to grow and to control its own future and that is key. 
Bill read a third time. 
Social Workers Registration Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Workers Registration Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill provides a framework for the registration of social workers in New Zealand. It puts in place a number of measures designed to protect the safety and well-being of all New Zealanders who receive the services of a registered social worker. The regulation of social workers has been the subject of debate over a number of years. There has been concern about the lack of credibility of social work as a profession. There has also been a growing expectation from New Zealanders particularly those who use the social services that social workers should be more accountable for their work and that their work should be more transparent. In its 1999 manifesto the Labour Party pledged to establish a system of professional registration for social workers. This bill delivers on that commitment. 
The nature of social work requires social workers to assist individuals families and communities who have to cope with stressful life events and difficult circumstances. Because those circumstances often make people vulnerable New Zealanders need to be sure that they are protected from poor social work practice and the harm it can inflict. The proposed legislation addresses that need. The aims of the bill are firstly to protect the public by providing mechanisms to ensure that social workers are competent to practice and accountable for the way in which they practice secondly to create a framework for the registration of social workers thirdly to provide for a board to promote the benefits of registration and to administer the registration system and finally to enhance the professionalism of social workers. 
The bill stipulates that registration will be based on a person’s competence and fitness to practice social work. The entry criteria for registration will require an educational qualification and practice experience followed by an assessment of competence. The person must also be judged competent to practice social work with Maori and different ethnic and cultural groups in New Zealand. The bill proposes that only those people who have been through a competency process will have the right to use the title “registered social worker.” While other people will not be stopped from practising social work uncertified practitioners will not be able to give themselves that title. The bill also requires that registered social workers renew their registration after 5 years including the undertaking of a further assessment of their competence. Registered social workers will be made accountable for their practice through the establishment of a complaints and disciplinary process. 
The Social Services Committee received 37 submissions on the bill. The majority of those submissions—30 out of 37—supported the intent of the bill which is to provide public protection to improve the quality of social work services to scrutinise the fitness and competence of social workers and to ensure they are accountable for what they do. Those submitters saw that the bill would benefit the people who use social work services. A smaller number of submissions expressed reservations about the bill. In particular they questioned whether the bill would be able to achieve its purpose and offer enough protection to the public if registration was not mandatory. I know at least one speaker will raise that issue here in this debate. I would like therefore to address the issue of it being voluntary to become a registered social worker. 
As the select committee quite rightly noted it is not viable to introduce mandatory registration immediately. Although the specific criteria for registration have yet to be defined because that is a job of the Social Workers Registration Board it is likely that a significant proportion of the social workers who are currently practising would not immediately meet the criteria for registration. It would also be unrealistic to expect that employers and individual social workers would have the time and the money needed to gain registration immediately. Mandatory registration is not consistent with other forms of occupational regulation. Voluntary regulation regimes are the most common form of regulating other professions. For example they are used for accountants. As a result of considering that issue the select committee has recommended that as part of its regular review of the legislation the Social Workers Registration Board should specifically consider the extent to which the system of voluntary registration is achieving the purposes of the legislation. I of course support that. 
As a result of the submissions received on and of its own consideration of the bill the Social Services Committee has recommended a number of other changes which I support. I will just skip through them. Members of the committee were concerned to ensure that the registration framework is established as soon as possible after the bill is passed. To assist that they have recommended that the commencement clause of the bill be amended to require that the members of the Social Workers Registration Board must be appointed within 12 months of the bill receiving the royal assent. That is what we will do. The remaining provisions of the bill will come into effect by Order in Council and different dates may be appointed for different provisions. Those amendments enable the Social Workers Registration Board to be established as soon as possible but no later than 12 months after the enactment of the legislation. I of course support that change. 
The select committee saw merit in one submission that suggested that if a similar complaint against a registered social worker had previously been made and investigated then that information should be taken into account before a complaints assessment committee makes its assessment of the complaint it has received. The select committee has recommended amending the bill to allow that when assessing a complaint about a registered social worker a complaints assessment committee may have regard to any previous investigation or considerations and the consequences if any of those investigations. 
Another change that the select committee recommended which I fully support relates to the complaints procedures that are maintained by the employers of social workers. The Commissioner for Children suggested that the complaints and disciplinary tribunal should have a role in ensuring and promoting the establishment of complaints mechanisms within the agencies that employ social workers. Such mechanisms would assist the tribunal to better manage complaints that are likely to be referred to it. The committee agreed with that suggestion. The bill has been amended to include a new function for the Social Workers Registration Board which is to promote that process of complaining. I agree with that. It will certainly help with the policing of unprofessional activities by social workers in their employment. 
Finally the select committee recommended that a new penalty be included in the bill. The penalty would be against a person who holds an employee or a professional associate out as a registered social worker knowing that the employee or social worker is not registered or that his or her registration has been suspended. Again that amendment addresses submissions that expressed concern that the bill could take responsibility away from the employers of social workers. 
I would like to thank those organisations and members of the public who made submissions on this bill. In particular I would like to acknowledge the contribution of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers and what it has done in bringing this bill to fruition. That association is committed to professionalism—it has been for a long time—and it welcomes this bill. I would of course also like to thank the select committee for its work and for the changes that it has suggested and that we have made to the bill. 
I have circulated Supplementary Order Paper 73 which largely makes technical improvements that give more clarify to certain provisions within the bill. The most significant amendment made in that Supplementary Order Paper is to extend the time limit for provisional registration from 6 to 8 years. That will allow social workers who have been granted provisional registration within 3 months of the bill being passed more time to gain their qualifications. I suspect that qualification for registration will take up to 5 years to get because of the academic and professional components that will be required. Therefore that increased time is useful. 
The measures in this bill provide a process for the registration of all social workers in New Zealand. New Zealanders are entitled to know that social workers are competent and practice safely that poor social work will not be tolerated and that people will be held accountable in this profession. As I want to reflect in my third reading speech this is a profession that I have had a very close association with over a very long period of time. This bill has a 20 to 25-year history before it has come before Parliament today. I therefore thank all those who have worked hard on getting it this far and I look forward to its further progress. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 The National Party will be supporting this bill because we think it is very important that social workers work towards a position where they can become registered. We think it is very important that every occupational group thinks very seriously about the standards within its own occupation and of course we are a party that has always supported high standards in any occupation be it social work engineering medicine or any other area. 
But I say that this particular bill is a mere shadow of what was expected. There were huge expectations of this bill particularly from the social work community itself. There was an expectation that it would make a real difference to social workers by lifting the standards in social work and putting in place a better system of registration. Initially even the Government was looking at mandatory registration for those working within the Government sector. That is why I think it is a bit of a shame that the Government has made an about-turn when it comes to the provisions that relate to the Government sector. 
In Mick Brown’s report in December 2001 which was a very important report it is stated that the introduction of social worker registration should be given urgency. At the time the Minister told his Cabinet colleagues that he wanted to have this bill in place by the middle of 2001. Now here we are nearly 2 years later than that having only got as far as this with a very watered-down version of what was originally intended. Originally it was intended that social workers from the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and from other Government agencies would be required to work towards registration. We all understood that that would have been an administrative issue for a lot of social workers but we felt that it was important that the Government put a peg in the ground to say that was the standard it expected of Government-employed social workers and in particular those who exercise statutory powers—in relation to that those social workers who work specifically with children. 
That provision has been removed which was quite a shock I suppose not only to the social work sector but also to the Minister himself. When we look at some of the Cabinet papers of the time we see there was actually a Cabinet recommendation that “all statutory social work functions must be performed by registered social workers. The Minister of Social Services and Employment should require CYFS to include in their purchase agreement that registered social workers must be employed for social work positions and incremental targets negotiated”. Also a transition period of 6 years or more was to be allowed to give time for existing Child Youth and Family Services social workers to gain qualifications required for registration and one permanent position on the board was to be reserved for a person from Child Youth and Family Services. That has all gone now. Only some months later all those recommendations by Cabinet had to be rescinded. 
Why was that? It was because the Government had not done its homework. When the Government turned round to the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and told it what the obligation would be the department said that 44 percent of its front-line staff did not have any qualification at all and that only 55 percent of the social workers who joined it as new employees had qualifications. Basically the department advised that that standard was not possible. It would also in terms of training costs have cost about an additional $2 million a year to train Child Youth and Family Services employees up to the level where they could be registered. 
I see that as an administrative hurdle but not as a reason to give up working towards higher standards in social work altogether. The Minister is right on one thing: all New Zealanders deserve to know that when they are working alongside a social worker that worker is of a certain quality and standard and has done certain things. That is not to say that life experience is not important but when we look at registration I think it is important that we put a peg in the ground that works towards a higher standard of service because social workers are dealing with New Zealand’s most vulnerable people. 
This bill is nothing more than a shell of what it was. Most of the provisions have been watered down and the bill no longer applies to those social workers who work within the Government sector. Registration is totally voluntary which means people can either decide to call themselves a social worker or not to do so. Yes there is provision that only registered social workers will be able to call themselves that but the average punter out on the street will not know the difference between a registered social worker and someone who professes to be working in a social work capacity. So the bill has been watered down. Even the Supplementary Order Paper has further watered down the provisions. For example the maximum total period for which a person may hold provisional registration is extended from 6 to 8 years. For a person seeking temporary registration as a social worker the period is extended from 6 months to 4 years. 
Eight years as a total maximum period in which to hold provisional registration is the equivalent of someone’s entire childhood. I do not think that is good enough. I do not think those objectives are ambitious enough. I think that it was possible at least to get the Government sector working towards a higher standard for its social workers and really having been scared off by a bit of resource and administrative cost the Government has just given up on that obligation altogether. So if we look at this bill we can see why the social work sector is very happy to get it into the House at least. It is 2 years late but social workers are mainly happy because this bill just brings registration into the House for the first time. I think there are some deep concerns about the quality of this bill and about what will actually be achieved. 
When the State is dealing with New Zealand families and particularly when it is exercising statutory powers registration is important. There have been concerns about professionalism and about the experience and education that is needed. In particular if we look at some of the high-profile cases that have been in the media of late we see a lot of the concerns the public have relate to the experience of social workers. When we look at the amount of experience that some Child Youth and Family Services social workers have we see the majority of staff have less than 5 years’ experience. That is not to underestimate the quality of some of the social work training programmes and the teaching in a lot of those programmes but life experience does count as well. There does need to be a greater source of social workers who have a lot more experience. That is also why we are deeply concerned about the shortages of social workers in this country. 
Working as a social worker particularly with the Government agencies is not a bed of roses; it is a very tough job to do. Social workers are criticised by a wide range of people when mistakes are made but equally the public has the right to have very high standards. By establishing the registration procedure and working towards having a higher standard of professionalism within the industry we will all be better off. But in terms of what the Government has done here in this bill it is sad to see that many of the provisions have been watered down and that many of the things this bill aims to do have been slowed down. I think that to be able to sit for 8 years on a provisional registration is appalling. The industry was keen to get this legislation into the House and implemented as fast as possible so that social workers could start working together as an industry to provide a better service. So it is a shame that the Government has not played its part and that social workers from Child Youth and Family Services and other Government agencies have no obligation to be involved in registering at all. A lot of training needs to be done to be able to take social workers to that level but it seems that the Government has backed away from that obligation as well. 
We will be raising other concerns that we have about this bill during the course of the debate. We have particular concerns about the issues relating to the treaty and about some of the more politically correct aspects of this bill. But in short I say we will support the bill. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise for United Future to support the second reading of this bill. As the Minister has outlined the bill provides a framework for the registration of social workers. By raising the standard of professionalism for social workers it is expected that the safety and transparency of social work will increase for the good of the general public who are served by social workers. 
The bill originates from the recommendations of Judge Mick Brown formerly of the Youth Court after he had reviewed the service procedures of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services in 2000. He recommended urgent changes to increase the quality of social work. 
 It is common that when members of the public require the assistance of a social worker they are in a needy and vulnerable situation that does not need to be further complicated by poor social work practice. Increased public safety is a key aim of this bill and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence of the fall-out from social work incompetence. However it has been recognised that a one-size-fits-all approach to registration would not best serve the present interests of New Zealanders. There are many fine social work practitioners who have had years and years of experience and have a great track record and who entered social work long before there were any clear requirements or specific tertiary qualifications to be had. 
The registration of social workers will come under the Social Workers Registration Board set up as a Crown entity and the Social Workers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal. It will include an annual practising certificate for registered social workers with three tiers of registration: full registration and limited registration in the form of provisional registration and temporary registration. In respect of full registration we applaud the matters included in that framework including the recognition of New Zealand qualifications the review of competence every 5 years the requirement that the board be satisfied that a person is considered fit and proper to be practising as a social worker and the all-important clauses inserted by the Social Services Committee which we applaud requiring social workers to have culturally sensitive practice as part of their scope. Obviously having sufficient practical experience is part of what is required. In respect of provisional registration there is an 8-year time limitation for existing social workers to qualify for full registration and that time is allowed for them to become fully upskilled. Special appropriate conditions apply and special restrictions can be applied. Temporary registration is available for people with overseas qualifications who are either working here temporarily or who are waiting to meet the New Zealand requirements for full registration. 
United Future compliments the select committee on the wise way that it has approached the complicated issues that have required grandparenting provisions so that existing social workers who do not have tertiary qualifications but who have many years’ experience can have a pathway to registration. The discussion paper put out by the Ministry of Social Policy in 2000 found that among existing social workers 57 percent had tertiary qualifications although it was unclear how many of those qualifications had a direct link to social work. Twenty-four percent had school qualifications and 19 percent had no formal qualifications at all. Those people who argue against this bill because registration is not mandatory need to understand that if social workers are to be given the chance to enjoy a professional coming-of-age then time must be allowed for the current situation to be addressed. This bill includes review provisions that will mean that as professional progress is made over time mandatory registration could then be considered along with any other issues that may become apparent. 
It is interesting that the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers recently made a submission to the Health Committee requesting that social workers be included under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill. Although there is some doubt as to whether the breadth of setting in which social workers operate makes that bill an appropriate measure under which this profession should be regulated the request further indicates the very real need felt by social workers for a framework to operate under. There has been concern for many years about the lack of credibility of social work as a profession and at the same time there has been growing disquiet amongst the public and in particular consumer groups that people in that occupation are not as accountable or the practice as transparent as is considered desirable. 
One of the problems faced by those wanting to legislate for safe practice is that defining social work is difficult. The International Federation of Social Workers which is an international body with over 80 member countries that approves the ethical standards and principles that are binding on the social work occupation in each member country acknowledges that difficulty. The focus of this bill is not to define social work; that is always the job of the professional bodies. The focus is to establish the legislative framework that supports and facilitates professional credibility and status. For that reason United Future is pleased to support the passage of this legislation. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this bill. It has been on the Order Paper for a very long time and we are pleased to see that at long last it has reached this stage. We all know in this Parliament that social work is becoming an increasingly challenging occupation; that has become very evident over the last few months with some very high-profile cases. We read about an increasing number of young people who have had problems in their lives and some of them should have been identified and assisted further by social workers. This occupation is becoming increasingly complex. Social workers make decisions that impact irreversibly on the lives of children and their families and as MPs we all receive letters and calls about those cases. A registration system for social workers is absolutely vital as that puts some emphasis back on accountability and accountability is required in this role just as it is in other professional roles where people’s lives are involved. 
New Zealand First supports the bill in its intent to work towards improving the quality of social work services. It is our view that a registration system will over time result in increased protection and safeguards for children and their families and also for social workers. New Zealand First is aware that the bill in itself will not upskill social workers. But it does provide a framework for ensuring that social work in New Zealand begins to get some of the rigorous discipline that is absolutely required. 
Sufficient resourcing and support must also accompany the new registration system. Of course that does include training. Ongoing supervision will encourage professional development and will provide personal support. It will also ensure that the needs of the client are being adequately met and that the social worker is very very clear about his or her role and responsibilities. New Zealand First believes there should be a clear intention for all social workers to be registered over time. We recognise too that this bill will not eliminate poor practice quickly. However it should begin the process of improving the quality and accountability of social workers. Because social workers are involved with the most vulnerable sectors of society a quality service is essential. One of the first things that registration will offer social workers is status and the new registration board should enhance the status of the social work profession. 
 We know that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services has staff turnover challenges and registration may be an important tool in the department’s efforts to recruit and train staff. The certainty of professional development usually does attract staff. Recent news releases point to a reduction in the number of full-time students choosing to study for a career in social work. The association of social workers estimates that in the past 5 years there has been a reduction of up to 15 percent in those willing and trained to do social work so the improved image of a department staffed by qualified and registered social workers may also help to attract and retain suitable staff. 
We are pleased that only qualified and certified people who have been through a competency process will be able to call themselves registered social workers. Only then can the public be satisfied that a social worker is competent or is at least deemed to be competent. Social work is becoming increasingly complex and New Zealand First believes that a registration system will provide a national standard and framework of control for both the roles and the responsibilities of social workers. New Zealand First supports this bill. 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 It is a privilege to speak in the second reading of the Social Workers Registration Bill. As the current chair of the Social Services Committee I would like to acknowledge and credit the Social Services Committee of the previous Parliament which dealt with this bill. Therefore I would like to acknowledge the membership of that particular select committee with its chair Taito Philip Field and Mahara Okeroa Sue Bradford Helen Duncan Dr Liz Gordon Dr Muriel Newman Jill Pettis Katherine Rich Bob Simcock and Anne Tolley. There are a couple of names there that we have not heard for a wee while and it is nice to have them mentioned and given credit for having worked on such an important bill. 
The registration of social workers will enhance not only competence but also credibility and give certainty to the public on the quality of service they could receive from people who work in this area. Social workers are extraordinarily vital to some of the current issues that communities around New Zealand are working on and with. As we do have a numbers problem with social workers we hope that these mechanisms will enhance the work they do and the confidence that the public has in the work they do. It adds to their bona fides in a very positive way. I support the bill. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Social Workers Registration Bill we are dealing with today is one of those unfortunate pieces of legislation that have been left to languish on the Order Paper for far too long. We first debated this issue in Parliament in October 2001 and the Social Services Committee reported back to the House almost exactly a year ago to the day in April 2002. In the meantime the professional organisation for social workers the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers has grown quite concerned about the delay. The association has been worried that the original impetus that led to the bill’s development may be lost and that hold-ups in getting the bill passed may slow down the positive but extensive processes that will be needed to ensure that adequate systems protocols personnel requirements and so on are in place to ensure that the bill is implemented successfully and in a timely way. 
The association also sees it as critical that the Social Workers Registration Bill is implemented before the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill as my colleague mentioned earlier so that the professional standing of social workers within the health sector is assured prior to their inclusion in that much broader legislation in terms of the health workforce. For these reasons I am delighted that this bill is finally before the House and I can assure all concerned that the Green Party will continue to support strongly the long-overdue establishment of a regulatory framework for social workers across all sectors in New Zealand. 
I sat on the Social Services Committee that heard submissions on this bill during the last term of Parliament and was impressed by the overwhelming support for registration from all manner of groups and individuals not just those with the most direct stake in the bill. However by the end of the process the Green Party was left with one or two reservations about where the bill had got to. Firstly we felt that in order to enhance the quality of social work the bill should reflect a commitment by the Government to work towards the mandatory registration of all social workers within an agreed and specified time frame. We were looking at 10 years. We supported the submissions of the Association of Social Workers and others who called for the registration board to be granted sufficient authority to require eventual compliance from all employers in the public community and private sectors to employ only registered social workers. We do understand the arguments presented by the Government and others that the costs of compliance with compulsory registration will be organisationally very high—and that is not looking just at money—and that it will take time. But at the same time we believe that 10 years should be long enough and is a goal worth aiming for specifically in the legislation rather than our leaving it up to later reviews of the Act. 
The second reservation we had with regard to the bill was that it lacks specific reference to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and explicit acknowledgment of the obligations of the Crown as called for by a number of key submitters. However after learning that groups such as the Association of Social Workers have accepted with reluctance the omission of Te Tiriti o Waitangi from the bill we did not feel able to pursue this matter without community backing and join with the association in hoping that it will be looked at closely as part of the first review 3 years after enactment. The Green Party was also pleased that the select committee in its deliberations did agree to recommend changes to the bill that will clarify provisions for Maori as distinct from Pacific Island peoples and other ethnic groups and that the Social Workers Registration Board will be required to maintain mechanisms such as advisory committees or separate caucuses with the goal of ensuring that the views of tangata whenua will be available and will be heard. 
Overall we look forward to the passing of this bill and the much-needed enhancement of the social work profession that it encompasses. 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I support this bill. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 National is supporting the Social Workers Registration Bill very much because we want to ensure that there are high standards of professionalism amongst social workers. I do note that Minister Maharey pointed out that the genesis of this bill has taken in the order of 20 to 25 years and I too would like to pay tribute to social workers who face enormous challenges in their everyday work. 
I note that in the 2001 census there were 10401 social workers in New Zealand. But what I observe as I go about my electorate work is that there seems to be a tremendous range of qualifications for social workers. I have certainly seen incidents in my electorate particularly around Huntly where situations unfortunately have not been well handled—very very difficult situations requiring huge levels of skill and huge levels of professionalism. I will cite just two examples. One was a situation where a woman’s husband was found molesting the children. He was sent to jail and unfortunately those children were sent to another family despite the woman exhorting the department to allow her to keep the children. They were sent to another family a caretaker family where they were molested. 
On the other side of the coin I have heard of situations where foster parents who have very high levels of professionalism and great levels of sincerity have taken in children from the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and they have not been given the full information about those children. The children then have turned round and accused the foster parents of molesting them and those parents have gone through the horrendous situation of clearing their names. That sort of situation is absolutely a great worry and explains the huge need for this Social Workers Registration Bill. 
I note that of the 37 submissions the three main concerns were lack of explicit reference to the Treaty of Waitangi the voluntary nature of the registration system and the lack of recognition of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers. I would like to concentrate a little on mandatory registration but before I do so I want to point out that in March 2000 Judge Mick Brown was asked by the Minister of Social Welfare and Employment to undertake reviews into Department of Child Youth and Family Services procedures. In his report he noted particularly that he had great concerns about the professionalism of social workers with particular reference to issues of training qualification and supervision. It was observed that only 44 percent of front-line staff and only 55 percent of new staff had a B-level social work qualification and that there could be difficulties in staff being released for training. He also noted the very high turnover rates. 
The report included a variety of recommendations one of them being that the introduction of social worker registration be given urgency. Here we are 2½ years later and if this is urgency in the Minister’s terms I do not know what urgency is. It has taken 2½ years to start finally implementing the recommendations of Judge Mick Brown. 
The second point he made was that by mid-2002 social workers should not be able to exercise statutory powers except when co-working with registered social workers or members of the police. I hope the Minister will be able to assure the House that that is the case. I fear that it is not the case and the situations that I cited in and around Huntly were such instances. They absolutely illustrate the need to implement the recommendations of Judge Mick Brown which I am afraid this Minister has sadly neglected. 
The third recommendation was that the department must set an agreed percentage of registered staff as a goal that must be realised by mid-2002. Once again I hope the Minister will give an explanation why he has failed in achieving that recommendation. 
After the Judge Mick Brown report the Ministry of Social Policy published a discussion paper on the registration of social workers. Written submissions were received on that policy paper focus groups were held etc. and a summary report was published. The report notes that there is general support for a registration system for social workers. All written respondents considered that registration should be compulsory for statutory Government social workers. Again I ask the Minister what he is doing about that. How far as he got in achieving it? This is a hugely important matter for solving the everyday practical problems that we see hit the newspapers in New Zealand from time to time. I suggest that the Minister has again failed to achieve the very simple basic recommendations that Judge Mick Brown submitted almost over 2½ years ago. 
With regard to mandatory registration the bill provides for voluntary registration of social workers. Only registered social workers will have the right to practice under that title but the bill will not stop people from practising social work. I note that the submitters were concerned that non-registered social workers will not be subject to the complaints and disciplinary processes that will be applied to registered social workers. Again particularly in the statutory area it is of huge importance that unqualified social workers will not be subjected to the disciplinary processes that we would absolutely expect them to be subject to. I note that the select committee agreed that all social workers should meet a set standard of practice. I also note that one of the great absences in this bill is that it does not mention supervision or supervised practice nor continued professional education. If ever there was an area for continuous quality assurance for peer review and for quality-improvement activities it must be within the high-risk area of social work. The bill does nothing to address that. I think that is a huge gap and I hope the Minister will take that huge gap very seriously. 
I note that one of the difficulties not sorted out by the bill is that for registration to be made mandatory the term “social worker” would need to be defined. We have over 10000 so-called social workers in New Zealand and despite a genesis of 25 years for this bill to come about again the Minister has failed to grapple with the fundamental question of what is a social worker. Surely once we get into the high-risk area it is absolutely vital that they are appropriately mandatorily registered in order to ensure that there are high standards and to ensure that the public is appropriately safeguarded. 
I also note that the board is required by clause 102 to review the operation of the Act 3 years after full enactment. Again I think that is absolutely important. It behoves the Minister at the time to do so. It may well not be Minister Maharey because in 3 years’ time we will have a National Government. We will be ensuring that there is a review of this Act. I have said that we will support it at this stage of events but this lazy Labour Minister who has failed to achieve the recommendations of Judge Mick Brown will fortunately not be around to do the quite proper thing that clause 102 suggests which is a review of the Act. 
The last thing I want to talk about briefly relates to the Treaty of Waitangi and ethnic representation. I note that a common criticism by submitters was that the bill does not contain special reference to the treaty. Submitters argued that the treaty is the basis from which social work practice is developed. They say that including explicit reference to the treaty would give recognition to the position of Maori as tangata whenua and to the right that comes with that position for Maori to determine their own social work processes. I am afraid that I cannot entirely agree with that but we certainly do support the bill. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I compliment my colleague Steve Maharey on this excellent bill which will improve the accountability of social workers and improve social services. I am delighted to support the bill. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
: 
 Here we are again under urgency dealing with the Social Workers Registration Bill. Last time the bill was brought into the House it was under urgency and here we are again. What a contrast this bill is to the previous bill before the House the Hop Industry Restructuring Bill. The previous bill was all about deregulation; this bill is all about regulation. We already have self-regulation in the social worker industry but obviously this Government believes that it cannot trust the industry—the 10000 social workers in New Zealand—and that it has to come down with the heavy hand of the State. 
The Government believes that the State has to step in and take over control of the industry but it is not doing it. All it is saying is that it is going to register social workers. But it is a Clayton’s bill. It is a Clayton’s regulation because at the end of the day it is voluntary. Can anyone imagine passing in Parliament a bill that says: “We’re going to regulate an industry but it’s going to be voluntary.”? I believe that this is the strangest piece of legislation that has been through this Parliament for a very long time. 
I tried to think why if it is to be voluntary Labour is trying to do it. We have to remember that Labour is a socialist Government and that socialist Governments love to regulate anything that moves. If it does not move they simply nationalise it. The basic rule in policy development and passing legislation is that if it is not broken it does not need to be fixed. 
At our hearings in the Social Services Committee I asked for evidence of a tidal wave of complaints against poor social work practice in New Zealand. There was none. The only major agency that has complaints against it is the State agency. That means that this bill has been brought in to address problems with Child Youth and Family Services—problems that Mick Brown highlighted in his very good report. Instead of the Government addressing the problems in the Department of Child Youth and Family Services it decided to regulate the whole industry in New Zealand. That is an extreme example of absolutely poor governance and this bill is a very good example of poor legislation. It makes the Government look tough on poor social work practice but it is really a Clayton’s bill. It is voluntary not mandatory. 
Mick Brown highlighted huge concerns about competency within the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. Just to refresh people’s memory this came after the tragic case of James Whakaruru. A number of reports were written about his death and they found many cracks and holes in the way the department handled that little boy’s case. He ended up dying. Since that time we have seen another high profile case—that of little Lillybing. A whole lot of other cases have also come to the attention of the public of New Zealand—tough cases that the department has been involved in—and cracks have been found in the handling of them. The point is that Judge Mick Brown put forward a plan of action for dealing with systemic failure within the department. I asked the Minister how many recommendations from Judge Mick Brown he had actually put into practice and he will not tell me. Clearly the Minister is not on top of his job. 
Since Judge Mick Brown highlighted those problems within the department 4000 unallocated cases of potential child abuse have occurred. Hundreds of those cases were registered as critical and were not seen within the statutory 24 hours. The very urgent cases were not seen within 2 days and so on. We have had an escalation of the number of children being taken from their homes put into care and not being returned to their homes. We have had low morale within the department as it has been restructured time and time again. We found out that the number of social workers with less than 5 years’ experience increased from 67 percent in 2001 to 74 percent in 2002. 
So we have a picture of an extremely troubled department. Not only that we also know that it does not follow best practice. In the corporate world in most other places best practice is followed. If one agency is doing well and another one under the control of the same department is not then it is best practice to find out what is going right and spread it around. The Department of Child Youth and Family Services does not do even that. It is an agency that has systemic failure that needs to be addressed. 
This bill will not address the problem at all. The reason is that the Minister decided he wanted all statutory social workers to be registered within 6 years. He took the idea to Cabinet and Cabinet agreed that it would be a very good idea to register them. But some months later after the Minister had consulted a bit more he found that it was not a good idea for all statutory social workers to be registered when social workers in non-Government agencies and private practitioners do not need to be. He said that that was not fair and did a U-turn. He asked Cabinet to change its mind on registering all social workers in Child Youth and Family Services involved with statutory responsibilities. The real reason is that he suddenly figured out that registering all the social workers in the Department of Child Youth and Family Services would cost around $30 million. That is the real reason the Minister did a U-turn and changed his mind. So we now have a bill that he talks tough on—a bill that he will not even ensure his own department abides by. 
This is disgraceful legislation because it raises many hopes in New Zealand that social work standards will improve. There is nothing wrong with trying to improve social work standards. In fact it is an honourable goal. But this bill being a voluntary bill will not do that. It will create two classes of social workers—those who can afford the $14000 and those who cannot. The ones most likely to afford it will be those who are employed by the Government. We will end up with Government agencies with registered social workers and private practitioners not being able to register. 
The training of social workers is another problem I would like to raise. When the private sector was invited to provide tertiary education a number of providers decided that distance social work courses were a really good idea because then social workers could continue in their jobs while quietly working towards registration and building their qualifications. But this Government has come in and like a great big Godzilla has slapped down private training providers. Basically the Government wants to get rid of private providers from the tertiary education sector. The people who will be hurt will be those very social workers who would like to improve and increase their qualifications. Distance course providers will find that all of a sudden they cannot do it anymore. 
So I say to the Minister that as he is the Minister responsible for tertiary education as well and if he really does have a goal or raising the standards of social workers in New Zealand then he has to promote distance education in the social work field. He has to promote the involvement of the private sector in that because the polytechnics and the universities will simply not be able to provide the number of courses needed. He needs to have a holistic approach to this issue and he has to tell himself that the raising of standards starts at home. He is the Minister responsible for social services and it is up to him to sort out the problems in that department. If it is because the structure of the department is obsolete and we need to look at different models then he needs to do that before he tries to regulate everyone. 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I am proud to stand in support of this bill. Social workers have been calling for legislation to support and regulate the profession for many years. This bill fulfils a pre-election commitment and is yet another example of this Government keeping its word. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 It is good news that we have legislation that will provide a framework for increasing the professional standards of social workers. That is good. But what that member and Labour have failed to do is to provide legislation that will actually work and do the job. 
I commend my colleagues Katherine Rich and Paul Hutchison who in the second reading debate put a clear argument regarding some of the bill’s major deficiencies. I want to speak to those. First of all I want to put on the record just how important social workers in our community are. When we read of the tragedies that occur with children we see that it is social workers in practice who are making the decisions—life and death decisions—that affect the children of this country. That is why this National Party stands for high standards in that profession. 
I have a number of questions I would like the Minister in charge of this legislation to answer in respect of the detail that none of the other Labour members want to talk about. The first one relates to the gross inconsistency of this Government to occupational regulation and why it does not trust social workers. The bill is about State control of the profession and that is an oxymoron. State control of the profession will not deliver high professional standards. It is by giving control to a profession and trusting a profession that we get the very best from it. None of those characteristics are in this bill. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I ask the Clayton’s member opposite why it is for instance when it comes to my own profession the engineering profession that the Government says the members of the board will be appointed by the profession itself. The Government supported that. But when we come to this bill it says that every member of the Social Workers Registration Board will be a Government appointee. Why the inconsistency? Can Ms Pettis the member opposite who is giving me a dirty look answer? Why does the Government trust the professions of nursing engineering electricians lawyers and accountants but does not trust the profession of social workers? The silence is deafening. People on this side of the House expect some consistency around occupational regulation. Mr Maharey needs to get his head clear and come up with something constructive. The Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers is a perfectly good professional organisation that has set up a set of professional standards. It has set a benchmark. There are hundreds of social workers out there in New Zealand including my wife who have gone through all the work to get registered with the association and are now being told they have to go back to base one. Is that going to make sense? Is that a sensible way in which to manage the profession of social workers? I suggest that it is not. 
Then we see the level of prescription. The bill has more than 200 clauses that monitor all manner of things and go into all sorts of detail that I think is grossly unnecessary. Why do we not trust the profession to develop sensible rules regarding the level of qualification a person should have to be able to be registered? What are the professional standards associated with the conduct and the ethics of a profession? We trust every other profession to do that. Why is it when we come to this profession we do not? The Government’s most recent legislation that dealt with the registration of a profession was the Teachers Council legislation. It said that it would allow members of the profession to sit on the council and make the decisions. What is it about social workers? Why is it that we do not trust them? Why is it that we have a separate and different set of rules when it comes to that particular profession? I simply do not understand. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: It wouldn’t be the first time. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Would Mr Clayton Cosgrove explain to me why we trust the teaching profession to be involved in setting standards and appointing members to the Teachers Council but do not trust the social workers profession to appoint— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Read the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have read the bill. If the member reads the schedule he will see that the Minister will appoint all the members of the Social Workers Registration Board. Why is that? 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Read the bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have read the bill. That member is the sort of flunky member we have on the Labour side. Those members cannot answer the substantive questions. The substantive question here is: why is it when it comes to accountants doctors engineers plumbers and electricians we trust those professions to develop the rules and to run their own professional body but when it comes to social workers we do not? Again we have absolutely no explanation at all from Government members and that is an issue I will be pursuing in the Committee stage. 
The second great contradiction is that when it comes to the early childhood sector this Government has passed regulations that completely ignore experience. I know of people who have worked in the early childhood sector for 35 years. They are excellent teachers. This Government has come along and cut them off. It said that no it does not trust them and it is not going to allow them after 2005 to continue to work in early childhood centres. Yet this bill says that we are to respect those people that have experience in the sector. Well both sectors deal with children. The bulk of the issues managed by social workers in New Zealand are to do with children so why is it that we say experience does not count when it comes to early childhood workers but when it comes to social workers it does? I would have thought one would come to some sort of consistent approach. We on this side of the House think that experience matters. We are prepared to accept both early childhood workers and social workers who can show they have the experience to set high professional standards. Why does the Government not do that? Why does it have a different view? We have no explanation at all in that regard. It is a double standard and it is not good enough. 
Further why does it take 200 finicky clauses to regulate the social work profession yet most other professions are being regulated by a fraction of that number? For instance if we take engineers—of which there are over 15000 in New Zealand—only 40 clauses regulate them. Only a fifth of the number are required. This bill is far too prescriptive. It sets out all sorts of little details. For goodness’ sake! The people involved should be able to sort those details out for themselves. 
John Carter 
: It almost sets out what they have to have for lunch. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The bill is almost as bad as that—it may as well set that out. If members look at the clauses and the schedules and at the level of detail they will see they go way beyond what is reasonable. Basically it is because the Government does not trust the profession. The Government wants to prescribe and over-regulate every single aspect. My worry is that this will add a whole lot of cost when far more sensible regulation would not have required it. Why do we have to prescribe for an annual practising certificate every year? The engineers do one every 5 years— 
John Carter 
: They just make the decisions. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: They just make the decisions. Mr Maharey believes it is best. This bill has quite draconian powers. The Minister of Social Services and Employment can with no reason at all sack any member of the Social Workers Registration Board. Does that apply in respect of any other profession? Is a Minister able to sack a person who regulates engineers accountants or electricians? No he is not able to. No we do not have that sort of thing. The reason is that this Minister runs such a mess of a social policy ministry—and the Child Youth and Family Services—that he does not want the Social Workers Registration Board to send any missiles the Government’s way. If the Social Workers Registration Board has some hard things to say about the Government it will get fired. No reasons have to be given—its members will just be sacked. This is not much better than the sort of thought police we have in other areas. 
The strength of an independent body is its independence from the Government. The professional people—whether doctors engineers or accountants—should be able to express their free will without the axe that hangs over professional boards like the Social Workers Registration Board. This bill should have provided for legislative backing for the term “registered social worker” and allowed that to be transferred to the perfectly competent Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers that we are proud to have in this country. 
Amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority agreed to. 
Bill read a second time. 
In Committee 
Clauses 1 to 147 and schedules 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 This is a very important part of the process. We need to get it right because the Social Workers Registration Bill will potentially affect about 10400 social workers who currently work in New Zealand. This debate is wide ranging over the total bill so I will work my way through some of the concerns that I have and some of the questions that I would like to put to the Minister in the Chair the Hon Steve Maharey. First I will discuss the title. Social Workers Registration Bill as the bill is presently named is not quite accurate. If it is to be appropriately named the word “voluntary” has to be inserted so that it becomes the “Social Workers Voluntary Registration Bill”. 
One of the key things we understand about this bill is that social workers do not need to register. I would argue as many of my colleagues have argued that if someone happens to be one of the shonky cowboys or cowgirls of the social-work world would that person go the distance and register? The chances are that he or she would not. When it comes to making sure that this legislation does increase the discipline on the profession or raise its standard or increase the professionalism within the sector that issue can be debated. It can be debated because many people who presently work within the sector and who may not have the qualifications and may not be implementing a best-practice approach to their profession simply will not register at all. I question the bill’s effectiveness in making big changes. 
The purpose of the bill is to protect the safety of members of the public and to encourage competency in practice but once again if we are looking at really protecting the safety of the public the State sector plays a role in that. It should be a leader within the sector and that is why we find it quite alarming that such a big chunk of social workers has been left out of this bill. It was originally intended that they be involved. About 10 percent of social workers in this country are employed either by the Department of Child Youth and Family Services or by other Government agencies. We have to protect members of the public and especially those who are most vulnerable. People who have to deal with Child Youth and Family Services in very difficult times will not know whether they are dealing with a registered social worker. We have some concerns about whether the bill will create a framework that will really make a difference. 
I turn now to clause 4 “Interpretation”. One of the glaring problems is that “limited registration” can be up to 8 years. That is hardly a limited registration. That is the equivalent of one’s childhood. Limited registration should be for a very short period of time and it should be a period in which hopefully the person is working towards full registration. So 8 years is far too long. 
There are some pretty vague words in Part 2 and for that reason we think the registration board in making decisions about social workers will run into problems. What is a “fit and proper person”? There is a definition in the bill but one of the things we do know about social work is that some people come into the profession having had certain life experience that allows them to have greater empathy with some of the people they are working with. At the moment people are not allowed to be a social worker if they have a conviction that could have been punishable by up to 3 months’ imprisonment. I want the Minister to confirm that that provision will not include people with quite serious convictions that may not have resulted in imprisonment because the judge decided not to impose a prison sentence. There could still be some pretty serious crimes that could be of deep concern to other New Zealanders. 
The next issue relates to the increasingly “politically correct” approach to legislation. This legislation had some really general statements about a social worker having practical experience in social work. That has been broken into two so that a social worker has to have specific experience dealing with Maori Pacific Islanders and other cultural groups. When people are dealing with those who are disadvantaged then of course cultural issues are important so they can tailor what they are offering. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I have some important questions about the detail in this bill that I want the Minister to respond to and the first of those is a very important issue of principle. The previous issues of occupational regulation and the two most important reforms have been the accountants and engineers. What the Government has done through legislation such as this is provide legislative protection for a term in the case of a chartered accountant or a chartered professional engineer and then trusted the profession to develop a set of codes and regulations that can come through a proper process. 
In this bill we have a very different approach to occupational regulation where there is a statutory body completely appointed by the Minster making all the rules and regulations around the profession. I would like to know from the Minister in the Chair the Hon Steve Maharey why we have taken and why this Parliament is taking such a different approach to occupational regulation. What is it about social workers that means we cannot trust them? Why is it not possible given all the work of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers for us to provide some statutory protections and an acknowledgment of that organisation and let them run the system? It was good enough for accountants and engineers; why is it not good enough for social workers? That organisation has gone to a huge amount of expense to develop the standard. That work is all washed away. It has done a huge amount of work for many social workers to be registered. Hundreds of them all over New Zealand have been put in place because the statutory framework has not been there. It just seems common sense to apply those other models. They are working well and we should do that in this case. 
My first question to the Minister asks why we do not trust social workers as a profession. Surely when we talk about professional regulation the very notion of a profession is that it is able to manage its own affairs. It is not some Big Brother State organisation imposing something on a group of individuals but the profession having an active say in the development of its own code of ethics and its own disciplining of its members. That in my view is the definition of a profession. The Government is not allowing the social work profession to develop in that way and that is a mistake. 
The second key question I have for the Minister—and I will take point after point as I am entitled to in this debate—is about the very draconian provision in clause 10 in schedule 1. That states: “The Minister may remove a member from office at any time without compensation”. That means any member of the board. Why is that necessary? If it were a State-owned enterprise I could understand it; and we do have such provisions with regard to State-owned enterprises. When the Government of the day is managing a key State asset it must finally have responsibility. But when it comes to an organisation that is setting the standards for a profession why do we need that extent of State control? I do not know of any other professional board that has that: not one and my understanding is that we have statutes for over 28. 
I asked the library to find out for me whether there is any other professional board where the Minister has the power at any time to sack a member of that board without giving any reason and the answer is that there is not. So why is it that this Minister wants us to give him the power to fire any member of the Social Workers Registration Board? Does any member opposite know why that is the case? Why is it necessary to have that power in this legislation but not for plumbers electricians doctors nurses teachers or for any other body? 
I will tell members why I think it is. I think it is because the Minister has become so defensive about children and young persons that he is afraid of a strong professional body like the Social Workers Registration Board—and it is true Parliament does have a testy relationship with professional bodies representing teachers or doctors or engineers as does the Government and sometimes those bodies do send a missile across the Government’s way. That is part of democracy. That is part of their being a profession. My fear is that the Minister of Social Services and Employment will use clause 10 of schedule 1—which gives him the power to fire any member of the board including the chair or the deputy chair—to give them the Kit Richards treatment if they dare say anything. 
John Carter 
: He won’t use it surely? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister seems to be indicating he will not use it. So why does he need it? Can he provide some explanation in respect of that important clause? 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 The Committee stage is a very important part of the process. I too would like to start with the title. We believe that the debate on the title is a very serious one because any title must be a fair reflection of the legislation. It should be accurate and self-explanatory. Quite frankly— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: We are debating the whole bill. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: That is right. The title does not reflect the content of the bill. It should definitely include the word “voluntary”. 
Like other groups social workers have been advocating for registration for many years but we know that the commencement is going to take a fairly long time. Once registration has been introduced there are many agencies and employers who will be faced with a whole lot of planning and personnel requirements and that will take some time. Before they can even do this the Social Workers Registration Board has to be established. Of course that cannot begin until the board is established and empowered to act. 
Clause 6(b) states that a person has to be fit and proper to practise social work. It is important that the definition or interpretation of these words is consistent with other usage. Likewise clause 6(c) deals with competence to practise social work with ethnic groups and that raises a big query as to what determines competence. Is it knowledge of language or protocol or religion? We do need to know. 
New Zealand First too believes that any system that registers social workers has to be open inclusive and flexible due to the very nature of social work. We support the establishment of the registration board to overview the practice and the procedures but we know this is going to be a longer process than we initially thought. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would also like to make a couple of comments about the title of the bill. My colleague Katherine Rich’s idea of calling the bill the “Social Workers Voluntary Registration Bill” is a very good one. It certainly reflects what this bill is all about and does not put anybody in the situation of believing that this bill means what the Minister’s title says. I did think that a more colourful way of saying it would be to call the bill the “Social Workers (Clayton’s Registration) Bill”. I think that that would again explain to people just what this Government is up to with this bill. The point is that the way the title is worded would give people confidence that something is happening in the industry when it is not—in other words give confidence that is not warranted. 
I would like the Minister to take a call. I hope he is not going to sit through the whole Committee stage and not rise to his feet and explain a few things that we will be raising. I want him to explain what he really wants to achieve by putting this bill into our legislative programme. In particular I want to ask him what changed his mind from deciding that he would require or ask all his statutory social workers to become registered. What caused him to change his mind; to say no that he is not going to put that requirement on them that he is going to leave registration to them so that it remains voluntary? I want the Minister to tell the Committee whether it was the cost—$2.3 million a year over 12 years which works out at about $30 million. 
If the Minister does not take a call then the Committee has to assume that he is not prepared to invest in his staff particularly in the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. We have to assume that he is not prepared for that department to take a lead in social work registration in the country; and that he does not believe in his heart in raising professional standards because it seems he is not prepared to invest in the staff. Unless the Minister takes a call I am afraid that will be the conclusion the Committee has to reach and it will be the conclusion that New Zealand will reach. So I do implore the Minister to explain to us why he changed his mind. 
The other point of concern is the Social Workers Registration Board. Again I would like the Minister to explain to the Committee how we will know that the board is not going to be made up of Labour Party hacks—candidates who did not make it and people who are friends of the Labour Party. How can the Minister assure us that that board will be well representative of the profession and that its members will not simply be the Government’s lapdogs. We do know that this is a Government that likes to preserve its power. The honourable member Nick Smith mentioned Kit Richards who was one of the first people in the public sector to stand up for a cause that he believed in. And boy did he get guillotined as quickly as anything! The Minister of Social Services and Employment has made it clear that he is in control of the board so does this mean that that Minister will have control of the whole social work profession? That is what I believe is intended unless the Minister takes a call and explains to us that we are interpreting this wrongly. 
It is a very serious business if we have political control of a profession driven through Parliament when only a very small proportion of that profession works in the public sector and a great many people in the profession work in the private sector. What we do not want in this country is for political control to go beyond the realm in which it should exist. 
The other point I would like to raise is in respect of clause 7 which relates to overseas-qualified social workers. Clause 7 has a whole lot of provisions whereby those people will be able to work in New Zealand. We all know the plight of overseas-trained doctors who come to New Zealand full of hope after being told by the Immigration Service that they will be able to work in this country only to find that they cannot work. What we do not want is for people overseas to say to themselves: “Well New Zealand I’m a trained social worker. I’ve got heaps of experience—years of it. I’d like to come and work in this country.” only to hear that they will be able to come to New Zealand but cannot practise. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
: 
 Just because there may well be some people still listening to this debate outside the Chamber and they may well seriously have taken in any of the arguments that have been put up so far I will spend a couple of minutes advising them that this is the normal kind of Committee debate where Opposition members entertain themselves by raising issues that they know the answers to. For example Dr Nick Smith who has been a Minister knows that the Crown entities legislation is reflected in this bill and that the clauses in it are standard to that kind of legislation. Muriel Newman knows that also. 
The main reason we have changed from 6 years to 8 years for registration was explained in my second reading speech and I am sure Dr Newman sat riveted in her seat listening to it. We have changed it because we believe that probably the most likely thing is that people will settle into a 3 years academic 2 years practise requirement to become a registered social worker. Many of them will have to do this part time. It seemed to us that 6 years was a little tight for that so we have agreed to allow 2 years’ latitude. 
Dr Newman had just started on a question about overseas-trained social workers. Yes we do want to get our share of those skills that move around the world. Some of them will be social workers and some of them will want temporary registration and this bill allows that. There will be other questions for those people who are listening at home to this debate but I give an assurance that most of them will be rhetorical. Members are asking questions to which they know the answers. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 United Future would like to draw attention to clause 10 in Part 2 which the Minister has just referred to where the provisional registration timing has been lengthened from 6 years to 8 years. Initially we were concerned with the timing of 6 years then a bit more concerned when it turned to 8 years but we have considered the advice given by the Minister. We understand that the introduction of registration has to be looked at in context. In the 2001 census 46 percent of those who identified themselves as social workers had gained only a school qualification or less. We realise that our current social workers will have to consider either returning to university or starting from scratch if they want voluntarily to become registered social workers. They will need to be given time to do that if they want to continue working while processing their qualifications. Because a large number of women are in social work they will also have the added responsibility of running households. We want to see that life-work balance considered as we give time for people to upskill and register. 
However with the 3-year review built into the bill which falls inside that 8-year timing we suggest that some questions will need to be asked in 3 years’ time—that is what progress have provisionally registered social workers made towards full registration how ready are we within New Zealand for mandatory registration and does the title “social worker” with time need to become a protected term? We would like to see protected within the 3-year review that the term “social worker” can be used only by people who are registered as opposed to at present when the term “social worker” can be used by unregistered people. That is a question that may need to be asked in 3 years’ time as we see what progress has been made by those people who are provisionally registered. 
While it looks as if 8 years is a soft and lenient period in which to gain full registration we consider that we do need to support current social workers. We have to understand that we are now asking more of people who are already overworked and under-resourced and we need to support those people in our request that they become more accountable and competence-based in our social work system. United Future’s concern is with that part of the bill. We support it because it provides grandparenting provisions for people to become registered but we think that in 3 years’ time some hard questions will need to be asked. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 As I mentioned earlier the Green Party does support the bill as amended. I am taking just a very short call to talk to the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 73 which we received only recently. In particular the Minister deals with clause 11(2)(b) that relates to limited registration being no more than 4 years’ duration. When we looked at this provision more closely we thought that allowing people to continue through periods of 6 months’ temporary registration was too long. We would like to see that reduced. To that end we have put an amendment on the table calling for it to be no more than 3 years. I understand that the Government will support that amendment and I welcome that. It is part of the social work profession’s desire with this bill to do everything it can to increase and enhance professionalisation and not to allow people to continue for too long in a temporary situation. 
We do understand the need for this in that we welcome qualified and experienced social workers coming to our country from overseas. All too often they are needed to bolster our workforce which is in decline in some respects. We also welcome at times retired people going back into the social work workforce with all their experience. It is not that we are against people working on a temporary basis but we do not think it should go on for too long and therefore we welcome the Government’s support for our amendment. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (NZ Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 As chair of the select committee that helped to process this bill I want to take a short call to say that the provisions in the bill and the issues we were dealing with in the select committee provide a good balance in relation to what is needed in a transitional period when we need to promote competent well-trained and qualified social workers. We have known for a long time and even from the sector that there is a need to improve standards. I believe that this bill fulfils the needs that have been expressed by the sector particularly with regard to registration. We also need to give people who might be well experienced as social workers the opportunity to get themselves qualified and trained to meet the requirements of registration. 
After so many years of the issue being raised by social workers and those who wanted to see standards raised I congratulate the Minister and this Government on this bill finally coming before the House. In relation to social issues and the care of children there is a great appreciation by the community that we need well-trained and qualified people who are properly registered to be effective in looking after children. That is one example. There are many other areas of social work where registration will help promote standards. 
What the select committee and the Minister have done in setting up the regime for registration strikes a very good balance for the next 3 years. At the end of that period there will be a proper review so that we can look at what has happened in that time and then look at mandatory registration and other important issues. I congratulate the Minister and hope that members will support the provisions during the Committee stage. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I note that in relation to the title of the bill that it has been generally agreed—certainly from this side of the House—that the word “voluntary” should be inserted. I also have another suggestion and it is that we call this bill the “Steve Maharey Let’s Make Social Work Registration Very Complicated Bill”. As my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith pointed out we have something like 109 pages of Maharey complications in order to achieve voluntary registration. This is a tribute to a sociologist’s dream—or a sociologist’s nightmare. 
I now cross to the purpose of the bill which is to protect the safety of members of the public by providing for mechanisms that ensure that social workers are competent at and accountable for their practice. Yet we learn here that there are 10483 social workers that only some of them will register and that a large number of them will not be accountable for their practice. Those who do register only have to do so every 5 years or is it the practising certificate that has to be— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It is every single year. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: As I was saying earlier on in terms of accountability for practice some social workers are involved in very high-risk activities. I am extremely concerned by the recommendations of Judge Mick Brown that by mid-2002 social workers should not be able to exercise statutory powers—except when co-working with registered social workers or members of the police—and that the department must set an agreed percentage of registered staff as a goal that must be realised by mid-2002. I would like the Minister to take a call to tell the Committee what he has achieved or confirm that he has achieved nothing or at least tell the Committee what he intends to do about that recommendation. We need a degree of accountability and there is a huge absence of that from this Minister. It is regarded as one of the important parts of the purpose. 
 I note that there is no definition of a registered social worker but again when we have a bill whose genesis has taken according to the Minister 20 to 25 years it seems absolutely absurd that we do not have a definition of what a social worker is. Apparently there are over 10400 social workers and surely this Minister who has managed to contrive a 109-page bill should be challenged intellectually to try to achieve a basic definition of what a social worker is. We find that a certain percentage of social workers will be registered voluntarily and that is terrific—we support that. We want to achieve high levels of professionalism in this country but when we have a bill about social workers that does not even define what a social worker is there is a huge gap in thinking. I have asked the Minister to take a call to give us his thoughts about what a social worker is. 
I would like to move to the area of registration and practising certificates. I note that a person who has a recognised New Zealand qualification is entitled to be registered if the board is satisfied that his or her competence to practise social work has been found satisfactory and that he or she is a fit and proper person etc. The bill goes on to state in new subparagraph (iv) of clause 13(1)(b): “that … he or she—(A) is competent to practise social work with Maori; and (B) is competent to practise social work with different ethnic and cultural groups in New Zealand.” But where there is a lack of clarity is that there are no ongoing quality assurance requirements. Could the Minister explain? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 In response to my earlier points the Minister gave one of those lecturing-type of speeches in which he said: “Don’t worry. Trust us. What’s in here is the same as all other similar legislation.” I want to challenge the Minister on that point. I want him to tell of a single other professional body or registration board in respect of which there is the power for the Minister to fire any member. Does the Minister have the power to sack any member of the Nursing Council? No. Does the Minister have the power to sack any member of the Engineer’s Board? No. Does the Minister have the power to sack any member of the Chartered Accountants Board? No. Does the Minister have the power to sack any member of the Plumbers Board? No. Having told this House that this is the same as any other legislation can the Minister tell me whether he has the power to sack any member of any professional board? The Minister has told this Parliament that these provisions are identical. I simply ask him to give me one other example. The library has provided me with the information on 28 other professional boards and its best advice is that for none of them does a Minister have that particular power. 
Katherine Rich 
: None? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Not one. So how can the Minister stand up during this important Committee stage and tell us not to worry because it is the same as every other provision in every other bill? I ask the Minister to perhaps ask his officials to give us an example of one other case. If he cannot then he has misled the House—and the listeners—and that is very serious. 
My second point is this: we all know that social workers working for the Department of Child Youth and Family Services have a huge turnover. We know that they are under a lot of pressure and we know that their salaries are not particularly high. I want to ask this Minister whether the fees for this bureaucratic monster that he is creating will be paid for by the social workers in its employ? It is a very reasonable question because not only do we have the annual registration fee we also have a fee for disciplinary matters. So what does that mean? It means that if there is a disciplinary action against a social worker the cost of that will be imposed on all the other social workers. Can the Minister assure me that the levy that will be struck will be paid for by the department and will not be a sock on the private earnings of those workers in the Department of Child Youth and Family Services? It is a fair question. For instance I know that the Government has just whacked up the teachers’ fee by 80 percent. This Government says that inflation is only 3 percent but it has just increased the fee for every one of our 45000 teachers by 80 percent. Now the Government says that the boards of trustees can make a decision about whether teachers pay those fees and some of them do and some of them do not. But in this case the Minister is the employer. We have I understand— 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: We are not the employer. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister’s Department of Child Youth and Family Services is the employer of social workers. Are those social workers in the department— 
Steve Chadwick 
: There are plenty of other departments. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Indeed but this is the most significant employer. Can the member from Rotorua give me an assurance that the fees that come from this legislation will not be taken out of the wages of social workers of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services? 
Steve Chadwick 
: It depends on where they work. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: So if they work in Nelson they might; if they work in Auckland they might not? 
Steve Chadwick 
: No in which context. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well if they work for the Department of Child Youth and Family Services will they be expected to pay this fee out of their private wages? The Chamber is silent. Is that not a fair question? Is that not a question that the Minister in the chair should be prepared to answer? It is a simple question—yes or no. 
Steve Chadwick 
: It is up to their employer. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well hang on a moment! The employer is the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. The only income the department has is prescribed by this Parliament and this Minister. I want to know who will pay this fee. I do not want to see it as a further imposition and a further nail in the coffin of the huge morale problem within the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. This Minister owes Parliament an answer because he is creating this bureaucracy. He controls that bureaucracy. If he had left the matter over to the profession there might be a fair argument. He has not and he should answer that question. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I did appreciate the Minister taking a call a little while ago. I now know that he has answered the question I asked about whether he was prepared to invest in his department. The Committee will recall that the cost of upskilling his staff or registering the departmental staff in the Department of Child Youth and Family Services was about $30 million. I asked him to tell us whether that was why he no longer requires the department’s staff to become registered. Was it the cost? He failed to answer so that means that we have a Minister who is not prepared to provide the support if one likes for his department so that it can take a lead in becoming a registered agency. 
I think this is a very serious issue. I understand that there are 989 full-time staff in the Department of Child Youth and Family Services and some 580 of them are unqualified. The cost to register them at $14000 a head would be about $30 million. From what the Minister failed to say it means that he is not prepared to make that investment. If he is prepared to I would like him to tell the Committee. Does he expect the department if it is going to support the staff to find that funding internally? Will he be granting it from the Budget process? I see he is making all sorts of moves with his head and I would like him to put the answers on record by taking a call. 
An issue of extreme concern to me is that the Social Workers Registration Board has the absolute discretion to grant registration based on any criteria at all that it thinks fit. The original assumption was that registration would be based on having a social work diploma qualification. But I understand that that board which is appointed by the Minister could change it. It could decide that instead of needing a qualification that 5 years’ experience would be enough for someone to be eligible for registration. I understand that the Minister has seen papers that outline that to him. It means that this Minister could decide that someone does not need a qualification; someone needs only 5 years’ experience. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Before the dinner break I was reiterating that there are some 580 social workers in the Department of Child Youth and Family Services who are unqualified. It would cost the Government around $30 million to provide for their qualification and registration. But now we understand that the new Social Workers Registration Board has absolute discretion to grant registration based on any criteria that it deems fit. I think most of us thought that registration would be granted on the basis of whether the applicant had a diploma or a qualification of some sort. We understand that the board could change the basis of the criteria to the number of years a person had been in practice. Therefore 5 years’ practice could make a person without a qualification eligible for registration. 
The implication for the department is that instead of costing $30 million it would cost only $12 million to register the 264 people who would now need registration. If the Minister has a lapdog board made up of Labour Party supporters he can save the Government a cool $18 million by changing the criteria that everybody expects. I would like the Minister to take a call on that very very serious matter. I do not think that most social workers in New Zealand realise the discretionary power that the board has. It amounts to an opportunity for political interference at the highest level. A Minister can change the criteria if he or she has a board that is compliant. I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Steve Maharey to tell us what safeguards the profession has to know that political interference will not be undertaken either by himself or by any other subsequent Ministers. 
The Minister has to realise that Labour will not be in power for ever. Many of us hope that at the next election the balance of power will change. The Minister has to think about what he will do if he is in Opposition and he sees a National Government Minister changing the criteria to suit him or her. It is not in the best interests of the profession. We need high standards in this profession not political interference. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 The Minister of Social Services and Employment said he was looking for some steady debate and some good questions so I will rise to that challenge on the proviso that I hope he will rise and answer a few of the pertinent questions that the Opposition has raised about this bill in earlier parts of the debate that have not been answered. Unlike what the Minister said these questions are not rhetorical. We are hoping for some answers and some clarity. 
One thing I would like to know is why recommendation 3.5 of the Judge Mick Brown report has not been followed. It was received 2 years ago and clearly stated that the introduction of social worker registration should be given urgency but that has not happened. It has been a couple of years. 
John Carter 
: We’re in urgency now! 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Yes but it is 2 years down the track. It is happening a lot later than many people thought it would. 
The second thing Judge Mick Brown recommended was that by mid-2002 social workers should not be able to exercise statutory powers except when co-working with registered social workers and/or members of the police. Why was that not implemented? Judge Mick Brown said that the department should set an agreed percentage of registered staff as a goal that must be realised by mid-2002. Once again why did that not happen? There was certainly an expectation that it would happen. The Minister wholeheartedly endorsed that report when it was received. 
We have not heard an explanation about why the Government has backed away from asking the Department of Child Youth and Family Services social workers to register. We have not heard the Government’s explanation as to why it has backed away from that. We have a few ideas as to why the Government has decided not to include all Government social workers as was the original intention. The Minister even went to the trouble of getting it approved by Cabinet only for it to be rescinded some months later once further homework was done. I think it is extraordinary that things would go as far as that only for a total about-face then to occur. We have not had any explanation for that. 
At the moment the country faces a huge shortage of social workers. It will be a real problem for this country if we do not work out better ways to support social workers to undertake social work in this country. There are two reasons for that shortage. The first reason is the number of social workers who leave the country after they have graduated. I come from Dunedin and I know that there is an English group that comes in every year to actively recruit New Zealand social workers and take them over to the UK. We are also pretty dependent on immigration on overseas social workers coming in to plug a lot of the vacancies that cannot be filled. 
If I look at the parts of this bill relating to overseas-qualified social workers I realise how difficult we are making it for them to come here and practise. We are asking overseas-qualified social workers to clarify whether they are competent to practise social work with Maori. A very experienced social worker from the UK who has perhaps practised in London will have worked with a wide range of cultures and peoples. I do not think there are any social work courses in the UK that specifically deal with the Maori culture but I doubt whether that has anything to do with the quality of a social worker or his or her practical ability when working in this country. It is an unnecessary hurdle. The principles of social work apply equally regardless of the nature of the client. Yes a social worker has to be able to react and tailor his or her service to a wide range of people but to ask overseas-qualified social workers to go on a specific training course is quite unreasonable at a time when we do not have enough social workers to fill vacancies. 
The second provision is that someone from overseas is required to live and practise social work in New Zealand. Social work is becoming a very specialised profession and there will be some occasions where someone who has a specialist interest in a certain area may not choose to live in this country. That person will come over and just work with specific cases. For example somebody dealing with Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy might live in Sydney and travel to this country. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Whip—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I have to say how disappointed I am in the Minister of Social Services and Employment. It is a huge disappointment because we know that this is a Minister who is not shy about talking. I would like to try to understand a little bit better why he is not prepared to take a call. I remind him that this bill is being passed through all its stages under urgency. Here we are late at night on a Thursday going through the motions with a Minister who will not talk to the Committee about the issues the Opposition has raised. I believe they are extremely serious issues and if the Minister does not want to treat this bill with contempt he will get to his feet and he will answer some of the points that have been raised. 
I want him to tell me how we can be guaranteed that political interference is not behind this bill. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Don’t talk to us about contempt. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Maybe Mr Benson-Pope would like to stand up and put on record how the Opposition can be assured that this bill is not a mechanism to bring political interference into another area of professional expertise in New Zealand. There are no guarantees in this bill that the Minister will be kept under check by anybody. The point is that if the Minister puts in place a bunch of his mates they will be driving the profession. They will be able to change the criteria without any checks and balances. Where are the safeguards for all those people who rely on social workers to help them with their problems? There are none. 
I tell the Minister that I believe that this is an extremely serious issue. I am not aware that anybody in the profession understood that the criteria could be changed in the way that they can be. There are no criteria written down in the bill so it is up to the judgment if one likes of the profession. In my mind changing the criterion from a qualification to a number of years of experience with no qualification is a huge change—the two are poles apart. 
That was the official advice the Minister received. It was pointed out to him. He made no decision to try to put it right in the bill—to include it in a form that would assure members of the Opposition or members of the public that it was out of the politicians’ hands. I would like the Minister to take a call to tell us that my interpretation is not the correct one and that the safeguards are actually written in the bill. 
The other point I would like to make is that it costs $14000 per social worker to get a qualification. Those workers may not even need to get a qualification according to the advice the Minister has received. Are we to put enormous compliance costs on social workers and on the organisations they work for when that might not be needed? If he does want them to train for and obtain a qualification can he tell the Committee what he has done as Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) to ensure that enough providers of services will be out there to help those social workers who would like to gain qualifications to get them? I understand that at the moment the need out there and the actual number of people who can provide help are absolutely out of kilter. There are nowhere near enough trainers in social work to help those people get qualifications if they so desire. 
It is very important that the Minister sets the record straight and that he tells us exactly what the criteria are to be from his perspective because he will be the one who is guiding this. He will be the one who sets the basic criteria for how people gain their registration. We have seen two very different scenarios put forward in the advice that has been given to the Minister and it is only fair that New Zealanders and social workers who have a very very keen interest in this matter are informed by him. The Committee stage of a bill provides the Minister with an opportunity to address the nuts and bolts issues that are raised. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order paper 73 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to clause 11 be agreed to: 
to omit new subclause (2)(b) set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 73 and substitute the following paragraph: 
(b)must be such that when it is added to the duration of any previous period or periods of limited registration of the person the total is no more than 3 years. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 80 
Noes 26 
Amendment to the amendment agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 20; ACT New Zealand 6. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 73 as amended in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey be agreed to. 
Amendments as amended agreed to and clauses 1 to 147 and the schedules as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
: 
I move  
That the Social Workers Registration Bill be now read a third time 
. The key principles of this bill are to provide people with greater protection from the harm that may result from poor social work practice to enhance the professionalism of social work and to ensure an investment is made in the people who work in this important occupation. For Dr Newman’s edification I repeat the phrase “to ensure an investment is made in the people who work in this important occupation” which means that we have allocated the Department of Child Youth and Family with funding to ensure that they can make it through to registration. 
The bill establishes a regulatory framework for the registration of all social workers. It will be applicable across all sectors where social workers are employed in New Zealand. The bill will improve the quality of social work by requiring that registered social workers are competent and held accountable for their practice. It establishes a system that will provide greater protection to the often vulnerable people who receive services from social workers. People receiving social work support deserve a quality service. 
The bill will establish a board to register social workers. The board will be required to promote the benefits of registration of social workers. The employers of social workers and the public generally will also be people to whom this concept is promoted. A tribunal will be established to consider complaints against registered social workers and to manage disciplinary issues. 
Under the registration system only certain people will have the right to use the title “registered social worker”. Only those who have a recognised qualification in social work—and I stress “recognised qualification”—who have enough practical experience who are judged to be fit and proper people to be in social work who are competent and who can practise social work with Maori and different ethnic and cultural perspectives are the kinds of people who will enjoy the “registered social worker” title. The public need to be assured that they can have confidence in people who wield as many speakers have said quite considerable power. 
This is an enabling rather than prescriptive piece of legislation. A significant amount of detail around registration will of course be left to the profession itself through the board. For example the profession itself must decide what an appropriate qualification is. Professions have to own the process of registration in their own profession. 
A number of submissions were received. A vast majority of submitters supported the intent of this legislation. They were of a view that registration would result in better protection and better safeguards for clients and can I say social workers as well. One of the key issues raised by the Social Services Committee was whether registration should be compulsory. Given the shortness of the debate around this bill we canvassed that issue in the second part of this debate and people raised it during the Committee stage so I do not intend to elaborate on it here save to say that I agree with the view of the House that although mandatory registration is not appropriate at this time it needs to be constantly revisited by the registration board to decide when it will be appropriate to move towards a time when perhaps either the term “social worker” is protected or we have mandatory social work registration. But it is not appropriate to do it right now. 
I would certainly like to thank the select committee for all its hard work. It has I think produced legislation that will be welcomed by the sector. I would like to thank the sector itself. It has worked for many many years to get this up and running. It has been closely involved in the registration legislation. I would like to put on the record my thanks to one particular person by the name of Buster Cursonwho has worked with the profession and with the Government right through this process to ensure the liaison has been clear and open and results in good legislation. We now want to ensure that we carry out our promise to social workers that they will move into a professional environment that is good for them good for the public and most of all good for the clients they serve. I commend the bill to the House. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 The National Party gladly votes for the third reading. We think the bill is an important step forward for the social work profession as a whole. However it is important to inject a bit of reality into the discussion about what this bill will be able to achieve once it is enacted. 
We agree with a lot of the comments that the Minister has made. Social workers should work towards the aim of delivering a better quality service increasing the discipline within the profession and increasing the protection of those people who use the service as well as themselves. If members look at all those objectives they will see that the bill in its present form will not be able to enhance the quality of the profession. Certainly it will not make a difference to the discipline of the profession or increase protection because this bill states that registration is voluntary. Anybody who does not want to take part and be registered does not have to. I suspect that some of the less professional social workers—some of those more likely not to follow best practice regimes—are less likely to register. I do not think the cowboys of the social work world will go through the process and register. They will just continue to call themselves social workers and basically not change their practice considerably. 
Yes the Social Services Committee did a good job with this bill and I commend the previous chair Taito Phillip Field. In terms of our side of things we did our job in a timely fashion and we listened to a wide range of groups interested in the social work sector. However I have to say that out of all the advice those groups gave us and the recommendations they made this bill took most of their aims and objectives and basically gutted what they were trying to achieve. They asked for the majority of social workers to be required to register. On the first reading of this bill it was thought that at least State social workers would be asked to register. That sadly is not the case. It is the role of Government to be a leader in the social work sector. With nearly 1000 out of the 10000 social workers being employed by the Government or working within some kind of Government agency it is important the Government works to ensure it is putting the best foot forward for the profession. 
At one stage the Government was going to put expectations for registration in place. It had even done the work and taken the recommendations through Cabinet but some 3 months later the objective to include Child Youth and Family Services and other social workers from Government agencies was rescinded. That was a real shame. It is a shame the Government did not do its homework to try to find out whether it was realistic prior to putting that in place. Somebody within the ministry did not tell the Minister that the recommendation had gone through Cabinet and been rescinded because even a few months later he was happily telling the House that he was pleased that the bill would specifically require all social workers carrying out statutory functions to be registered. A certification model was supported by two-thirds of those who participated in the consultation process; that is true. Perhaps it may even understate the support for that particular requirement when it came through the Social Services Committee. So it is a shame. 
The pace of this bill has been unreasonably slow. It was supposedly a priority-3 piece of legislation. The aim was to get this bill through by the end of 2001 and here we are years later just ending the third reading now. However I am glad that at least there is a framework. It is really important that the sector has a framework to enable it to start looking at what the important issues are—that is the quality of the sector issues to do with training and getting the board under way. We will watch with interest to see who the appointments on that board will be. We will want to know that there is a balance on it and that it will not be just a whole set of political appointments. I am disappointed that Child Youth and Family Services being such a significant part of the sector is not able to put someone on that board. It is a shame that that recommendation too was rescinded by the Government. Being such a large employer of social workers it would have been good to have someone on that board representing that sector. 
I suppose that ultimately what all of us in this House want to know is where the service will progress from here. As many members in this House will know we often hear some pretty sad stories from constituents particularly those dealing with Child Youth and Family Services probation and others areas of social work where things have not got as well as the public expects. Social workers work under immense pressure and I can see why many have decided to leave the country. Certainly when we look at their salaries coupled with the pressure they are under we can see that their job may not be as rewarding as some other jobs they could potentially spend their time doing. With notifications skyrocketing over the last couple of years it is important that we address the problems of shortages of social workers. 
Social workers are being asked to take much higher caseloads than they had to take previously when we were in Government. The caseloads have increased dramatically in an attempt to get the unallocated case lists down. Those lists are shameful. Certainly in Southland today where there are over 200 critical cases the Minister has to take a long hard look at the service. This is his fourth year of managing Child Youth and Family Services and there has been little change. Little progress has been made on unallocated case lists and still children wait while their files are sent to social workers. 
The Mick Brown report released at the time was excellent. It made a number of recommendations but the Government has paid lip service to putting them in place. Of the 57 recommendations made I understand that between 13 and 15 have been implemented. We will hold the Government to account and work with the social services sector to ensure that we can progress its objectives from here. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
: 
 I want to acknowledge the contribution made by Katherine Rich and other members who were part of the Social Services Committee and the work they did to bring this bill to a state where it is favourably recommended to the House—which is more than what I can say for her colleague Nick Smith. As a former Minister of the National Government Cabinet I would have thought that that member would be a lot more knowledgable than was evident by the way he discredited himself with the sorts of questions he asked. This regime of registration for social workers is something that has been recommended. The sector certainly made it clear that it needed such registration. 
 I want to congratulate the Minister and this Government finally after so many years on giving the social workers sector in New Zealand something that is quite important and encouraging to it in terms of what it has been asking for. In particular it is improving the standards of social work in New Zealand and I commend the registration regime that is to be set up. The board to be set up will be a Crown entity appointed by the Minister and the Government and in monitoring the standards of that board it is important that the accountability returns to the Minister. 
The regime also looks at registration on a voluntary basis. I think that the concept of mandatory registration presented in the various submissions particularly from different areas of the social workers sector is an important point. But the wise move in this legislation is to look at what happens over 3 years and then to have a review. Certainly some of the important evaluations that need to be made can be done in 3 years particularly with regard to mandatory registration. 
The other issue that I thought was quite sensible in this legislation was to ensure that people who practise social work in New Zealand have the qualifications and skills to make the right judgments with regard to the care of children particularly in ethnic communities. There has been some comment in this Committee stage debate about why we have reference to ethnic communities. If we look at the mix of clientele in the Department of Child Youth and Family Services we see that Maori and Pacific Island communities are truly over-represented. Because of the overwhelming numbers it is only common sense that that service deals with Maori and Pacific Island communities. Other ethnic communities are also growing and we also need qualified and competent social workers to work in those areas. 
I am very supportive of what is in the bill. It ensures that those who practice do so competently and that the regime will encourage the standards and improve the quality of decisions made. Finally I say that this bill is good legislation that is well overdue and I want to congratulate the Minister and Government on getting it through this House. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports this bill. It is very important legislation—well overdue as Taito Philip Field has said—that appropriately managed should have a very positive outcome for social workers. It is a step forward for this profession and it may assist with recruitment and retention of staff which is something we have a concern with. This increased professionalism will also have a positive effect on the confidence of the many New Zealanders who come into contact with the service and rely on social workers to help them. 
Social work as we all know has become increasingly complex and a greater accountability is required in that role. So the setting up of a registration board is a step forward but it should be representative of all sectors of social workers. The board will also ensure that there is a greater accountability for social workers which is essential when the decisions that are made impact on the lives of children and their families. New Zealand needs well-trained well-qualified people in that profession in order to deal with the many challenges required of them so sufficient resources and support to accompany the new registration system is an absolute necessity. The review element too is essential and 3 years is a timely period for review. New Zealand First looks forward to monitoring the outcomes of the bill and to having a professional team of social workers in New Zealand working with our children and families. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I am delighted that this bill is finally having its third reading tonight and that all organisations involved with employing and/or training social workers will now be able to begin working towards the new era with both hope and confidence. As I mentioned earlier today this bill has been a long time coming especially from the point of view of people in the profession as they have been working towards this moment for decades rather than months or years. I am sure that there will be some quiet celebrations tonight or tomorrow when people learn that the bill has finally been passed. 
Social workers operate at a number of the frontlines of society where the details of life are cruel complex and all too often tragic. Social work is a really hard job to do well and that is exacerbated by the fact that it is one of the professions most vulnerable to public criticism and comment. Working towards the registration of all social workers with a board ensuring high standards of fitness and competence is an overdue and acutely necessary step on the road to lifting the capacity of New Zealand social workers. I am the first to acknowledge that the new Act will not of itself heal all the wounds within the profession or eliminate all poor practice overnight. However I believe that what it will achieve will be a steady improvement in performance and accountability across all social work settings which will in the end benefit all of us in this country not just those directly affected. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 During the third reading debate on this very important bill for social workers I want to reiterate a couple of points that have already been made. I also want to reflect on some of the comments made by other members who were concerned that the outcome of this bill would be to remove the ability for social workers to be self-regulated. The question that pops into my mind is this: if they are so happy with their present level of registration why would they be applying to come under something regulatory like the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill which would provide them with the kind of professional status they hope to get out of this bill? 
One of the other members Mr Smith talked about the fear of State control over a profession. But I reiterate that the aim of this bill is to establish a professional framework for social work that enhances rather than dismantles self-regulation. This bill strengthens that position and gives clout to the term “social worker”. The difference is that on the one hand a Youth Court judge is calling for higher standards and on the other hand a group of what at present are employees are wanting to upgrade to the status of a profession with limited success to date in self-regulating. We do however want to acknowledge the very good work of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association for Social Workers and we want to encourage it in what it has done to date. Obviously it has contributed to where we find ourselves tonight. The association’s attempt to bring all social workers under the umbrella of some sort of regulatory body is to be commended. 
The real need for professional status for social workers reflects the very sad condition that many New Zealand families find themselves in. United Future looks forward to the establishment of a commission for the family to provide a strength-based approach to supporting mums dads and their kids so that the heavy workloads of social workers are reduced. United Future acknowledges the hard work done by social workers and is happy to support the passing of this bill. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT NZ) 
: 
 It is a shame that this bill is again being passed under urgency. It is also a shame that it has taken so long for it to be passed since the original time frame was for it to be a bill that would be handled quickly. 
The Minister told us this is a bill that is meant to give greater protection to the people whom social workers support. It is meant to enhance the professionalism of the industry and the competencies within the industry. I remain puzzled at how a bill can provide for increased professionalism and competency and greater protections for those people who are involved with social workers given that registration under the bill is voluntary. How can the Minister stand there and say the bill will do this that and the other if registration is voluntary? People can decide not to register because it is voluntary. 
I say to Government members that this bill is a fundamental contradiction in terms. It is a Clayton’s bill that will not achieve the fine things that the Minister claims. It is a bill that will bring State regulation through a politically correct and politically motivated board because the Minister did not put my mind at rest in the Committee stage. This bill is imposing State regulation on an industry that practises self-regulation. 
The Committee heard no evidence of large numbers of people who were complaining about social workers except for the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. But that department is run by the Government for goodness’ sake! So why is this Government regulating a whole industry—some 10500 people—when those who were the subject of most of the complaints were the State’s own department of 1000 people? It just does not make sense. It is for those reasons that the ACT party will not be supporting this bill. 
The point is that the regulation of social workers will not achieve the aim of this bill—namely to try to improve the standards of social work in the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. Indeed Judge Mick Brown’s report brought all this about. He was very concerned about the competencies within the department. He saw poor practice he saw systemic failure. We as an Opposition highlighted there were 4000 potential child abuse cases that were unallocated but were being reported on month after month. One day I asked for the duration figures. I wanted to know how long the children whose cases were critical had been waiting; how long had very urgent cases been waiting and so on. The Minister found to his horror that some of those children had been waiting for months and months. The longest cases had been waiting for over 18 months to be seen. There were no provisions in the way the department worked to make sure that those children were safe. 
When the Minister got the report back from the department and it showed these dreadful dreadful figures he issued a statement to say the figures were wrong. It took him 6 months to get the figures right—through a whitewash system I presume! The point is that was blatantly poor practice operating in the department and it was these sorts of issues that Mick Brown wanted the Government to address. 
If we think about the Department of Child Youth and Family Services we recall that when it originated family breakdown in this country was relatively minimal. The number of children with high and complex needs was pretty small. The department actually could cope. But the problem is that things have become worse. New Zealand has the highest rate of family breakdown in the OECD—29 percent of our families are broken families. That means those children are far more at risk. That is what is putting the department under pressure. There are a number of cases of high and complex needs. Many members of Parliament will have received the emails from the family in the last couple of weeks in which it is crying out for support and help and saying the department will not help them and the police will not help them until someone is injured. So these people have nowhere to go because the department is the last port of call. 
I say to Government members sitting on the other side of the House that the model of having one agency is now obsolete. The agency needs to be able to work hand in hand with police health workers and education workers. So the idea of a one-stop shop a community-based agency wrapping all those services together is the sort of model that we should be hearing about in this House today in response to the concerns that Mick Brown raised in his report about competency concerns with the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. 
If in fact we were moving to that sort of model the ACT party would be very much supportive because we would see that it was timely and forward-looking and that it would possibly work extremely well especially if the police took up more of the forensic work that we understand social workers are busy doing. So the social workers are busy investigating doing forensic work doing the “removal of children” work and doing all the stuff that the police should be doing instead of being able to work with children to make sure they are safe and work with families to make sure they are safe so that the child can come back home. At the moment more and more kids are being taken away from their families and they are not being brought back home. The number of children in care is going up month by month year by year. That is not the best answer for this country that is not the best answer for these children and that is not the best that a Government can do. 
I can tell the member sitting opposite that a Clayton’s bill that sounds good feels good and has all the right buttons but does nothing is not the answer. That is why I am so disappointed in the response of this Government to what is the most serious concern this country faces. Every year thousands of children in New Zealand are put at risk because the agency fails to help them in the way that it would want to if it were better organised had better practice or better resources. I do not know what the answer is but I do know that this bill is not the answer. 
If some proper solutions were being presented today the whole social work profession would suddenly start to feel uplifted because its members would see that social work is moving in a modern direction. That would be far better than a bill that basically says to the social work profession: “We do not trust you. We are going to put in place to control you all a board that the Minister chooses by himself with no checks and balances.” What other profession in New Zealand has impositions placed on it in that way by such political intervention? Where are the safeguards for anybody when that is happening? Where are the safeguards for members of the profession to know that if they happen to be ACT supporters or National supporters that somehow they will not find the weight of the board coming down on them? That is a far-fetched scenario but it is one that cannot be pushed to one side when there are no checks and balances in this bill to make sure that the political system does not intrude into that profession. 
There are a few other issues that the Minister did not explain to us. Serious concerns were raised during the Committee stage. There is a real worry in the profession that this registration will create an elitism between different sides of the social work profession—those who have qualifications and can be registered or can afford it and those who do not. There are compliance cost issues on small businesses that run private provision of social work services that they may not be able to afford the $14000 to help their staff become registered whereas the State will. We have already heard from the Minister that he is going to pull down a big chunk of taxpayers’ dollars in the next Budget to ensure that some of his workers can get registered. 
One has to ask whether we need those sorts of compliance costs on an industry that is already absolutely overstretched to the point where many experienced professional social workers are leaving to seek better opportunities overseas and to seek better opportunities in other industries. Do we want to impose a whole lot of Government regulation and compliance costs on an industry that was probably doing a pretty reasonable job except for one particular agency which of course is always going to be the subject of public scrutiny—that is the agency that is run by the Government itself? 
I finish by saying my major concern is the political interference that the Minister did not put to rest. This is a Clayton’s bill and I am very disappointed that we will not be able to support it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 National is pleased to support a proper regulatory system for social workers but it has four quite important concerns about this bill. I am disappointed to repeat the fact that these issues were raised in the Committee stage and the Minister was unable to respond to any of them. 
The first of those issues was raised very ably by one of the most effective advocates for children in this Chamber Dr Paul Hutchinson. He pointed out that social workers do wield enormous power. They have the capacity literally to make life or death decisions about children. Yet with those sorts of powers we would have expected that that group of statutory social workers at least would need registration under this bill but they do not. We are disappointed about that and it is something that we think the Minister should have responded to. We think that if people are going to have the power to take children away from their parents then there needs to be some regulatory control around them. This bill is disappointing because it does not provide for that. 
 The second key concern National has about this bill is that it treats the profession of social workers like children in the classical way of this Government’s nanny State policies. This bill says that the profession of social work unlike any other profession will be driven by the Government. Is there any other profession in which the entire board is appointed or dis-appointed—sacked—by a Minister of the Crown? Do lawyers for instance which some would accept is a profession have the Attorney-General appoint the Law Society? 
Simon Power 
: Just the bench. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague points out that she appoints the judges but not the Law Society. I ask the lawyers in the House whether they would accept the Law Society being appointed by the Minister of Justice. No they would not. They would be up in arms. They would not accept that. Would my own profession the engineers accept it? Is the top body that decides the standards and the professional regulation of engineers run by a Minister of the Crown? It would be George Hawkins and given what he did with the Building Industry Authority I am damned pleased he does not run it. But the law does not allow that. It says it is run by the engineers. If we come to the accountants or the plumbers or the electricians or the doctors or the nurses—in all of those we trust the profession to elect its own. It is so fundamental to being a profession. It is about a profession setting its standards. It is about a profession disciplining its own members. But what we have here from this Government in this bill is good old nanny State. 
The Government does not trust the profession of social workers and that is a big disappointment because the truth is this: who set up a system of a standard of ethics and a code for social workers? It has already been done. The Aotearoa – New Zealand Association of Social Workers has done that work. Does this legislation attempt to build on the work that social workers have done for themselves? No it does not. This bill says that it has to be left to nanny State. Social workers have to set up a statutory authority to do it. We say that is wrong because we trust professions. 
The third area where this party has difficulty with the bill is the costs. The Minister has created a bureaucratic monster here. I do not know why we have to have 200 clauses of very specific detailed bureaucratic legislation to govern social workers yet when it comes to something like my own profession of engineering and many other professions it could be done in 40 clauses a fifth of the number. This is one of the longest professional bills. I ask Mr Taito Phillip Field: how come we need this sort of bureaucracy? Why can we not leave things and trust the profession? Does his Government not understand the sorts of costs it is going to impose on social workers including my wife when they go to register? 
The other key point is that I asked the Minister during the Committee stage whether he could assure members that the bill for this bureaucratic monster would be paid for by the Crown. No no the bill states that every social worker will have to pay a levy every year not just for registration but also to pay for the disciplinary process. We all know that the social workers working for the Department of Child Youth and Family Services are stressed morale is low and turnover is high. I simply asked the Minister in the chair the Hon Steve Maharey whether he could assure me that registered social workers working for the Department of Child Youth and Family Services were not going to have to pay the $200 or $300 a year fee to comply with this bill. The Minister was absolutely silent. Why was he silent? I will tell members why. It is because he is going to bill them for it. We say that is wrong. [ 
Interruption 
] Will Jill Pettis reassure me that her social workers at the Department of Child Youth and Family Services in Wanganui will not be required to pay the registration fee? Will the Government meet that cost? The silence is deafening. 
I wonder whether the Minister who is sitting in the gallery would just give me a nod that the department will meet the costs for the social workers who work for Child Youth and Family Services. I ask the Minister to please give me a nod. He will not. He will not give that reassurance and that is wrong. We know what happened to the teachers. This sneaky Government made it a requirement for teachers to be registered then it put the fee up 80 percent. In the last month every teacher in New Zealand has got a nice little bill and this legislation will do the same thing. 
The last area about which I wish to express concern is something that I want to challenge the United Future party on. It is in respect of the sickly political correctness in this bill. Muriel Newman made a substantial contribution to this debate. She pointed out that if we are to make social progress in New Zealand then we have some big issues to ask about our families and how we can better make society hold those families together. I have been right through this bill but in all the principles and in all the bureaucratic guff I could not find the word “family”— 
Dianne Yates 
: You had 9 long years. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I challenge the member opposite to tell me where the word “family” appears. If we are going to deal with some of the social issues in New Zealand we have the treaty—we have to be culturally appropriate and have all sorts of political correctness— 
Steve Chadwick 
: Blame the social workers for dysfunctional families—how absurd. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No I do not but I say to the member for Rotorua that if we are to get better social outcomes for this country then we need social workers who understand families. [ 
Interruption 
] It is interesting to note that I have obviously hit a raw nerve because what this bill should say is not all this politically correct nonsense about the treaty Maori and those sorts of issues it should be talking about the things that matter for Maori families for Pacific Island families and for families of every ethnic origin. 
The United Future party went around the country saying that it was going to advocate for families but all we get in this bill is the damn treaty. I say that the family is far more important to this country than the treaty will ever be in terms of support for families. The bill should have addressed that and it does not. 
Dianne Yates 
: Which bill? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This bill about social workers. I do not expect the Labour Party to stand up for the families of New Zealand but I thought United Future might. 
Larry Baldock 
: We are. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Where is it mentioned? It is not mentioned once in the bill. Good social work practice has to be about social workers supporting families and that is where Muriel Newman is with me and that is what makes it different on this side of the House. It is good news that social workers are having a statutory framework. Let us hope it can raise standards. It is a pity about the politically correct nonsense and the Government’s incorrect priorities. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Workers Registration Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 100 
Noes 6 
Bill read a third time. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 20; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 7; United Future 8. 
ACT New Zealand 6. 
The House adjourned at 7.59 p.m. (Thursday)