Volume 673 Week 77 - Wednesday 22 June 2011 
Volume 673 Week 77 - Wednesday 22 June 2011 
[Volume:673;Page:19587] 
Wednesday 22 June 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Australia—Parliamentary Delegation Queensland Legislative Assembly 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have pleasure in informing the House that a parliamentary delegation from the Legislative Assembly of Queensland led by Mr Kerry Shine MP Chairperson of the Industry Education Training and Industrial Relations Committee is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish that that delegation be welcomed. 
Questions to Ministers 
Youth Suicide—Kawerau Core Clinical Committee 
1. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: When was the Core Clinical Committee established in Kawerau and how are iwi involved in the membership and functions of this joint taskforce to tackle youth suicide? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Core Clinical Committee was established in the wake of a number of tragic suicides in Kawerau in 2010 and 2011. It includes a range of organisations designed to provide a cross-agency platform for response. The organisations involved include Kia Piki o te Ora and iwi groups such as Ngati Tuwharetoa Tuwharetoa ki Kawarau Hauora Trust and Tuhoe Hauora Trust as well as the police mental health services Child Youth and Family the Ministry of Youth Development local colleges and Victim Support. 
Rahui Katene 
: What resourcing is available to directly assist families in Kawerau who have suffered over 14 deaths of their young people over the last 18 months? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Clinical Advisory Services Aotearoa is contracted through the Ministry of Health to provide postvention services and does this through its community postvention response service. The service is actively working in the area along with the local Kia Piki provider Toi te Ora and I understand that the Ministry of Education has also put resources into local schools. In addition a group of key agencies including community agencies meets regularly to screen those affected by the suicides and to provide support within the college to the young people who are living with the consequences. Mana Social Services Trust has seen a number of youths and whanau following recent tragic events. 
Rahui Katene 
: How many of the suicides identified in Kawerau are young Maori and what approach has he made to ensure whanau have access to Te Whakauruora which is a community action - focused resource to build capacity in Maori suicide prevention? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: There are believed to have been between nine and 12 suspected suicides in Kawerau in 2010 and 2011 and a further four attempted suicides. Almost all of the suspected and attempted cases are of young people 14 to 18 years old and they are predominantly Maori and male. In response to the second part of the member’s question I am not aware of whether Te Whakauruora has been used in this specific situation but I encourage its use and I will certainly be following up with officials over its availability to the wider Kawerau community. 
Infrastructure Programme Investment—Progress 
2. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister for Infrastructure 
: What progress is the Government making on its infrastructure investment programme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister for Infrastructure) 
: 
 It is making very good progress. The Government laid out a programme 2½ years ago and despite the fact of the recession and significant Government deficits we have actually held our capital spending and increased investment in infrastructure because we believe that in the long run investment in productive infrastructure will help our export sector to be more competitive and will therefore help to rebalance this economy. In addition to this spending we have changed the rules on consenting for infrastructure projects so that they can occur much more quickly than in the past. 
David Bennett 
: How has the Government’s infrastructure programme supported jobs? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: One of the benefits of this long-term investment in infrastructure happened to be that during the recession when we were ramping up the programme the Government’s infrastructure spend directly supported thousands of jobs across New Zealand in the construction sector which as we know was hit very hard both by the New Zealand recession and then by the effects of the global recession. A very significant proportion of all non-residential building in New Zealand has been funded over the last 2 or 3 years as part of the Government infrastructure investment programme. 
David Bennett 
: What are the Government’s infrastructure spending plans for the next 5 years? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is just more good news. We expect to invest heavily in what is now a clearly defined pipeline of work. Over the next 5 years we will invest $750 million in KiwiRail for new wagons locomotives and other projects to increase productivity and $5.4 billion in new State highways which will mean the start of construction of the Waterview Connection four more sections of the Waikato Expressway and the MacKays Crossing to Peka Peka Road part of State Highway 1. We will be spending $3.9 billion on upgrading the national electricity grid and spending $7 billion on State housing schools hospitals and the prison system. Of course there is also the investment of at least $1.5 billion in the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband for which the final commercial arrangements have been put in place in just the last few weeks. Parliament will pass that legislation hopefully in the next few weeks. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: How does the Government intend to attract private capital to boost New Zealand’s infrastructure base? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has taken a careful and considerate approach to introducing public-private partnerships being one of the few developed countries in the world that has not had those in place in the last 10 years. We have learnt from others and we are making cautious progress in that respect. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Would he describe the comment made by the Hon Trevor Mallard regarding broadband infrastructure investment that “Anyone entering into an arrangement based on this legislation has got to know that it may not last” as being wanton economic thuggery that would scare away private infrastructure investment and turn New Zealand into a banana republic; if not how would he describe it? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Although that is something that I might like to frame and send to my Labour electorate committee I think asking the Minister of Finance to have responsibility for my comment is going a little bit far. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need to hear further on the matter. The Minister certainly does not have responsibility for the honourable member’s comment but Ministers can be asked their opinions on all sorts of things. As long as the Minister is somewhat careful in answering it I am prepared to allow the question but certainly the Minister has no responsibility for that comment. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think the member had finished. It was such a good quote I would like— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member had finished. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think it is more bark than bite because firstly no New Zealand Government would act illegally and it would comply with the contract; secondly that comment is reckless; and thirdly I will work very hard over the next few months to make sure that the election of 2011 makes that comment irrelevant. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: If his stated aim of infrastructure investment is to boost our economy through streamlining private sector exports then why are poorly maintained rural roads being ripped up by milk tankers while his Associate Minister for Infrastructure Steven Joyce squanders $1.8 billion on the Holiday Highway which has a benefit-cost ratio of just 80c in the dollar? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am most impressed with this newfound sympathy of the Labour Party for the farming community but those members need to sort out their strategy because last week they were kicking farmers in the slats and today they are trying to hug them. As someone who lives on one of those poorly maintained rural roads I say that the Government has done a very good job of working with local government to make sure the rural infrastructure can support the very successful export efforts of our rural sector. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can he confirm that land transport funding will be reallocated later this year by the new Government policy statement with more money being taken out of road safety maintenance and public transport and instead being funnelled into four new so-called roads of national significance which will presumably have even worse benefit-cost ratios than the road from Puhoi to Wellsford? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I cannot confirm that. I can confirm that the process of allocation is arm’s length and very focused on productivity so much so that the most recent tar-sealing programme in Dipton actually stops at the end of English Road. We have the same gravel road that we have had for 100 years. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The members’ colleague has called for a point of order. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just ask whether the Minister might repeat his answer. It was very difficult to hear and I am an “English patient”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I think the member heard the answer perfectly well. 
Pike River Mine Safety—Prime Minister's Statements 
3. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What advice did he rely on when commenting in Australia on the safety of the Pike River coalmine? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I did not provide a view on the safety of the Pike River coalmine; I pointed out its design and the differences I understood there were with Australian mines. For the purposes of clarification let me read out the actual transcript of what I said. The question asked by Dennis Shanahan from the 
 Australian 
 was the following: “The issue of mining safety in New Zealand seems to be behind Australia’s. Do you accept that?”. My answer was: “I don’t think I’m in a position to fully give you a view on that but what I can say is that there’s a royal commission of inquiry into the Pike River mine disaster. On that commission is Stuart Bell from Australia who’s one of the major mine experts here in Australia. I do think rightfully so we need to ask some questions whether mine safety standards are high enough. What is true is that the Pike River mine couldn’t have been constructed in that way in Australia. The single entry 2.4km upwards-sloping mine shaft I don’t believe is legal in Australia and so from New Zealand’s point of view we have to ensure we have the world’s best practice. I have no doubt that there will be changes actually recommended in New Zealand. We’ve taken an interim review of our mines to check the safety but long term there’ll need to be other changes I suspect.” 
Hon Annette King 
: Why did he criticise a union delegate for talking about the safety of the Pike River mine before the royal commission of inquiry was completed but he felt able to answer a question by an Australian media person about mines and mine safety in New Zealand? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because if I had done that and had talked about mine safety I would have been hypocritical but I did not; I talked about the construction of the mine and the differences between New Zealand and Australia. I would add that it was a mine that was consented under a Labour Government. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you need to tell that member that 1998 was a National— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat immediately. That is an outright abuse of the point of order process. The shadow Leader of the House should set a better example. He may not agree with the Prime Minister’s answer but he should not use the point of order process to voice his disagreement. He should be careful of doing that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was that mine first consented in 1998? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not in a position to confirm that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I draw your attention— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member cannot. The Prime Minister has answered two questions in the way he sees fit. As long as the question has been answered and nothing unparliamentary has been said it is not up to the Speaker to adjudicate on the accuracy or otherwise of any answer. That is not the way question time is conducted. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Which answer was correct: his answer to Annette King’s supplementary question or his answer to mine? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Both. 
Hon Annette King 
: If he is now saying that mine safety standards need to be changed why wait until after the royal commission has reported to make the changes or is he prepared to guarantee that no further mining accidents will happen in the next 2 years under the current mining regulations? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not saying that they need to change; I have said exactly that the royal commission of inquiry needs to look at that matter. I have simply made the point that a particular mine that was constructed in New Zealand would not be legal to be constructed in Australia. 
Hon Annette King 
: As an interim measure until the royal commission reports will he implement the Queensland regulatory standards for mine safety which are considered world best practice and will he contract experts from Queensland to come to New Zealand to oversee their implementation; if not why not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No because an audit was taken of the safety of mines. We are now working our way through the royal commission of inquiry and we will see what recommendations it makes. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is he aware that family members of Pike River miners are now calling for increased mine inspection to occur now; if not why not listen to what they have to say rather than wait? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because we have undertaken a safety audit of New Zealand mines and we are now waiting for the royal commission to make recommendations. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why did his Government halt the review of mine safety in 2009? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member would have to direct that question to the appropriate Minister who is the best person to answer that question. I can say from the top of my head that there were a number of factors in relation to smaller mines. 
Hon Annette King 
: Can he confirm that generic occupational safety and health regulations leave the ultimate responsibility for mine plans to the mine manager? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. That question would have to be directed to the Minister. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: When was the Pike River mine first consented? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not know the answer to that question. 
Earthquakes Canterbury—Support Provided by Department of Corrections 
4. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What support has the Corrections Department provided in Canterbury since the first earthquake struck in September last year? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am very pleased to advise that since the first earthquake in September last year offenders on community work have provided over 170000 hours of free labour to help to clean up Christchurch. Offenders on community work have been used to clear streets assist in getting schools and early childhood centres back up and running and tidy up parks reserves and marae. Following last week’s aftershocks offenders on community work were quickly sent out to the eastern suburbs where they have helped non-profit organisations community groups and others to clear the silt and liquefaction from their properties. The department will continue to ensure that offenders on community work are available to help out in the months ahead. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What actions have the department and staff taken to support their colleagues in Christchurch? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: From today Christchurch-based corrections staff will be receiving the benefit of the department’s Give your Mates a Day Trust. The trust was set up after February’s earthquake and nearly 1000 staff from around the country have kindly donated a day of their leave. The department put the net dollar value of that leave in a trust. Due to the generosity and goodwill of staff a total of $166430 has been raised. This money is now being distributed to Christchurch corrections staff and payments will be completed by this Friday. 
Government Contracts—Use of Kiwi Companies 
5. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he believe that in the current economic environment kiwi companies should be considered favourably with regards to big government contracts? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I believe the current economic environment makes it even more important that Government spending achieves the best value for money possible on behalf of taxpayers. In that respect we are simply following the guidelines that the previous Labour Government laid down in 2007. I quote: “New Zealand’s own government procurement market is open and competitive and the policy does not call for discrimination against foreign suppliers.” 
Hon David Parker 
: Have members of his Government vowed that the multimillion-dollar contracts to build thousands of temporary houses and utility blocks in Christchurch will go to Kiwi companies and does he agree? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I have not heard such vows being made. The Government has been exploring the market for temporary housing and some results of that will be coming back in pretty soon I think. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does he believe that preference should be given to New Zealand companies in the building of thousands of temporary homes in Christchurch? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I believe preference should be given to the people of Christchurch being able to get access as quickly as is necessary to a reasonable quality of temporary housing and that is what the Government processes aim to do. 
Hon David Parker 
: Will the Government release a cost-benefit analysis as to the benefits of those houses being built by New Zealand companies rather than overseas contractors? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That might be an interesting idea; I am not sure what it would show. We have been focusing more on the needs of the people of Christchurch some of whom need temporary accommodation and we will continue to do so. 
Clare Curran 
: Given the significant size of the flat-deck wagon contract with KiwiRail and the implications for New Zealand’s rail engineering workforce will he commission a report into the real cost difference if any between imported flat-deck wagons and New Zealand - built ones? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As has been discussed in the House decisions about that issue were made on a commercial basis by the KiwiRail board. The Government needs to give KiwiRail the best possible opportunity to be a successful and viable organisation. As I think everyone knows that is quite a challenge. It needs every advantage we can give it. 
Clare Curran 
: Does he deny that a senior KiwiRail representative said at a meeting of KiwiRail’s mechanical council committee on 23 March that a political decision had been made to buy the 3700 flat-deck wagons from outside New Zealand rather than have them built in New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have no idea what transpired at that meeting but if anyone said that they would certainly have been wrong. 
Parents First-time—Support 
6. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What parenting support is being made available for first-time parents? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Last year 63000 babies were born in New Zealand.  
Raising Children in New Zealand 
 is a new parenting DVD which will be launched at Parliament this evening. In partnership with the Lion Foundation Barnardos Plunket and Television New Zealand we are helping first-time mums and dads get quality advice on raising their newborn babies. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What other initiatives for parents is the Government supporting? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This DVD is just one of a range of initiatives that this Government is putting investment in for new parents and families. Many of the initiatives have come from the Minister of Health and have been very well received out there. In my own area every year we spend around $50 million on parenting support. Under this Budget we saw an expansion of the HIPPY (Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters) under the Minister of Education $2.4 million for parenting support for foster carers and grandparents raising grandchildren $21.3 million for Well Child services and more than $550 million for early childhood education. This Government in a small way is providing that sort of support for parents. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table the consents for the Pike River mine that were issued on 23 May 2003 and the consents that were granted by the Department of Conservation and the Minister in 2004. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the record of the issuing of the first consent for the Pike River mine in 1998. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Tax System Changes—Effect on New Zealanders 
7. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: In light of the answer given on his behalf to Oral Question No 2 on 15 June is it his opinion that real average after-tax wages do not go up when high-income earners get tax cuts and low-income workers lose their jobs? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 It is my opinion that real after-tax wages go up when the economy becomes more productive and people get to keep more of the money that they earn. That is why the real after-tax wage has gone up by 10 percent since 2008 but went up by only 4 percent over the 9 years before that under a Labour Government. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What does happen to average net after-tax wages when high-income earners get tax cuts? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That would be subject to and depend on a number of factors. It is not possible to say immediately because it would depend on amongst other things the inflation rate the number of people who are working and various other component parts. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave to table a document that was prepared by the Parliamentary Library which shows the increase in average wages as a result of the National Government’s tax cuts for the rich. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Hon Annette King 
: Oh they don’t like the truth. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is objection because of the way the document was described. [ 
Interruption 
] The reason why there was objection I suspect relates to the last words used in the seeking of leave. 
Border Control—Joint Border Management System 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 My question is to the Minister of Customs: what recent reports has he received— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to Paul Quinn whose voice is not lacking in volume at all. But with the interjections that were going across the front of the House I was struggling to hear even Mr Quinn which is quite extraordinary. With those interjections now ceased please Paul Quinn on question No. 8. 
8. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Customs 
: What recent reports has he received on developments to technology at the border? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I bring more great tidings of joy to this House. The New Zealand Customs Service last week signed an agreement with IBM that will start the development of a Joint Border Management System or JBMS. It will bring together the two border processing systems that were previously run independently by the New Zealand Customs Service and by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. A $75 million appropriation will cover the first stage of the Joint Border Management System development. Stage one will include what is called the trade single window which will enable exporters importers and others involved in trade to complete all their border compliance requirements online through a single point of electronic contact. 
Paul Quinn 
: What benefits will the Joint Border Management System bring to the border? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Bringing these two previously independent systems together will give us more efficiency allowing for more effective trade and will improve biosecurity. The Joint Border Management System is designed to significantly improve border processing for New Zealand importers and exporters and to make the border agencies more effective. The Joint Border Management System will move the agencies away from fragmented separate processes that result in a duplication of efforts to a far more cohesive system that shares processes data and technology between border agencies and between industries. 
Budget 2011—Vote Health Allocation 
9. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has sufficient funding been allocated in Vote Health to meet the increasing costs facing organisations working in the health sector? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 There are 40000-plus contracts funded by the Ministry of Health and the district health boards. These include telecommunications building medical supplies and health services. Each faces different cost pressures. However I do know that Vote Health has once again been the recipient of the biggest amount of new money from the Budget. That money is flowing through the Ministry of Health and the district health boards to other providers that they contract with. 
Grant Robertson 
: Given previous answers by the Minister last week can he confirm that the funding allocated in Budget 2011 to the district health boards does not meet inflation costs in the health sector? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is too early to give a definitive answer to that question because the district health boards will receive additional funding through the year related to various projects and contracts. 
Grant Robertson 
: Has he read the article in the  
Bay of Plenty Times 
 under the headline “Health services on the brink” which shows that agencies such as Arthritis New Zealand are unable to provide services in his own community? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes I did read those articles in the  
Bay of Plenty Times 
. If the member really wanted to give the full story he would draw attention to the fact that the Bay of Plenty District Health Board does not support the service he was quoting from. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is he aware that the cost pressure funding provided in the Budget is insufficient such that mental health and addiction providers in the Northland Auckland and Waitemata district health boards have been told that they will get no funding at all to meet greatly increased service costs? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Cost pressures vary across providers. The district health boards and the ministry are doing their level best in order to support services in these very difficult economic times. What we do know is that $585 million was made available in this year’s Budget. 
Grant Robertson 
: What is his response to the Access Homehealth chief executive Graham Titcombe who said that its funding is not enough to meet inflation and that carers were leaving their jobs because they could not afford petrol costs? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: My response is that many providers in the health sector under both Governments have said they never get enough money. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table a letter signed by the chief executives of the Northland Waitemata Auckland and Counties Manukau district health boards dated 10 June which says that cost pressure funding is insufficient to be able to provide any increase in funding for the mental health and addiction non-governmental organisations. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mine Safety—Underground Coalmines 
10. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Was she satisfied before the first explosion in the Pike River coal mine that her Government had done all it could to ensure the workplace safety of people working in underground coal mines; if so why? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 According to advice received I had no reason to believe that the hazards in underground coalmines were not being managed. Immediately after the tragedy at Pike River the Government commissioned an independent safety audit of all other underground mines which recommended a number of safety improvements in those mines but reported that there was no evidence that a dangerous situation was imminent. We have also established a royal commission of inquiry with very wide terms of reference to inquire into all aspects of the explosion and mine safety. 
Kevin Hague 
: What steps has she taken to implement the call for the reinstatement of check inspectors in the 2008 Department of Labour discussion paper aimed at improving the health and safety in the underground mining industry? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The advice I received at the time was that check inspectors would not necessarily improve mine safety as the legal responsibility in our legislation needs to be squarely on employers. 
Kevin Hague 
: Why has the Minister ruled out the reinstitution of worker-appointed mine check inspectors abolished by the National Government in 1992? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I have not ruled that out; in fact it will be one of the issues that the royal commission of inquiry will look at and we will be taking those recommendations very seriously and acting accordingly. 
Kevin Hague 
: Is she aware that Australia still uses check inspectors and what has she instructed her department to do to learn from health and safety standards in Australian underground mining? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I understand that in some states in Australia they use check inspectors; in other states they do not use check inspectors. 
Kevin Hague 
: Why will the Minister not now reinstate the mines inspectorate dismantled by the National Government in 1998 in light of her department’s May 2011 report slamming the current system of mines inspection? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Because we are waiting for the recommendations of the royal commission of inquiry which will be giving a comprehensive review of the mines and the legislation relating thereto. 
Kevin Hague 
: In light of the Pike River mine disaster does she agree with the reassurance of the Hon Max Bradford in 1998 that changes to the mines inspectorate would not downgrade mine safety or with Mr Peter Ewen the author of the book  
Strongman: Three Score and More 
 who says: “The wisdom of the inspectorate changes in 1998 has been questioned by numerous parties and unfortunately it will only be a matter of when not if several pay with their lives given the ill-considered changes to the inspector’s role. Ministerial condolences that will follow will be of small comfort to the bereaved.”? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I think we can all agree that a very real and serious tragedy happened on Pike River. That is why we have taken the matter seriously. We have an internal investigation we have a health and safety in employment investigation and we have a royal commission of inquiry because like everybody else in New Zealand we want to know exactly what happened and why it happened and we want to prevent it happening again. 
Kevin Hague 
: Why did the Government halt the review of mine safety in 2009? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: We did not halt it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Was she aware that her department halted the review of mine safety in 2009 and why did she not reopen that review when Damien O’Connor in May 2010 raised mine safety issues with her in writing? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The review was not halted by me. In fact some of the recommendations made in that review were actually adopted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before we go on I am not sure that was an answer to the question asked. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I did not ask whether she halted it at all. That was Mr Hague’s question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to repeat his question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: As much as I can remember it because it was adjusted following the response. Why did the ministry halt its review of mine safety and why did she not reopen that review in May 2010 when Damien O’Connor raised mine safety issues with her? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I do not believe that the department halted the review. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why did she not open a review or take seriously the requests of the member of Parliament for West Coast - Tasman Damien O’Connor in May 2010 when he raised mine safety issues with her? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I think the member has a false premise to that question because Damien O’Connor is not the member for West Coast - Tasman. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept that I slipped. I was premature possibly in that. But can I ask you to ask the Minister to address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a very interesting point because I assisted the member a moment ago with a question that I did not believe was answered but it is incumbent on members to get their questions right. When a member as skilled as the honourable member makes that kind of error in a question it would be unfair of me to prevent a Minister from utilising that in an answer. I have to be balanced in how I handle these things. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why did she not reopen the review in May 2010 when Damien O’Connor raised mine safety issues with her? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: We had a review of small mines I took that review very seriously and we accepted recommendations that were detailed in that review. 
Kevin Hague 
: Does she agree that the Government has a share of the responsibility for workplace health and safety in underground mines and for retrieving the remains of those who died in the Pike River disaster; if so does she understand New Zealanders’ abhorrence that the Government has made this the responsibility of the mine’s receiver? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I point out to that member that a fundamental premise of heath and safety in employment legislation is that the primary responsibility for health and safety in the workplace lies with the employer. 
Kevin Hague 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was whether she agreed that the Government had a share and she has not responded to that unless she is saying that the employer is entirely responsible. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Given the nature of the member’s question I think the Minister’s answer was in order because in response to the question she answered that under the current law it is the employer’s responsibility. That was a reasonable answer to that question. 
Kevin Hague 
: I seek leave of the House to table a series of documents. The first is page 162 from the Peter Ewen book  
Strongman: Three Score and More 
 which contains the quote I referred to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that page— 
Hon Simon Power 
: What’s it from? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is from a book by a person called— 
Kevin Hague 
: Peter Ewen. 
Mr SPEAKER 
:—Peter Ewen and the book is called  
Strongman: Three Score and More 
. Leave is sought to table that page from that book. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Kevin Hague 
: The second document is—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard. Front bench members know better than that. 
Kevin Hague 
: The second document I seek leave to table is the submission of Mr W P Brazil into the inquiry on the administration of occupational safety and health policy in 1995. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Kevin Hague 
: The third document I seek leave to table is a list of National Party MPs for the period 1996 to 1999. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are not seeking leave to table that. It is a matter of common record. 
 Western Hoki Fishery—Recovery of Stocks 
11. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture 
: What recent announcement has he made about the recovery of the western hoki stock? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 Today I announced the recovery of the western hoki stock following a period of low recruitment which saw stocks depleted between 2003 and 2006. The Ministry of Fisheries and the industry worked together to make large reductions in catch. It is a move that has now paid off with the scientific evidence meaning that the ministry is able to declare the stock rebuilt. This may allow for the reconsideration of total allowable catches later this year. This is exactly how the quota management system should work. 
Colin King 
: How is the management of New Zealand’s fisheries stock regarded by scientists internationally? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: We manage our fisheries resources through an ongoing process of review and adjustment. New Zealand’s success in this area was recently documented in a report “Rebuilding Global Fisheries” which was co-authored by 20 international fisheries and marine scientists and New Zealand came right at the top. 
Minimum Wage—Minister's Statements 
12. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she stand by all her answers to Oral Question No 10 yesterday? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does she stand by her statement that “We are aware that for those people on the minimum wage budgeting is tight.”; if so does she support increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour to make it easier for minimum-wage workers who are facing tight budgets? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes to the first part of that question. To the second part of that question although we would all like a high minimum wage—and even $15 an hour is a high minimum wage—if it results in the loss of 6000 jobs then we do not think that that is a very helpful supportive or practical solution for those young people who are trying to get employment. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Was her comment “If you’ve got somebody who is 16 who is wanting a job and someone who is 30 at the same price then who is the employer going to employ?” an admission that a youth minimum wage will shift the issue of unemployment from one group to another? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: In answer to the first part of the question yes; to the second part no. 
General Debate 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Yesterday in Parliament the Prime Minister in reply to a question reluctantly admitted there was “a degree of inequality in New Zealand”—a degree of inequality. But he does not believe we are a deeply unequal country and he does not think we are as bad as others. Well I have to say to the Prime Minister and the National Government that they are badly out of touch with what is going on in this country today. They have become blinkered. The Prime Minister is basking in the adoration he receives from people around New Zealand Government members are believing their own propaganda and together they are blinded by their own “brilliance”. But I have to tell them that inequality is growing in New Zealand at an alarming rate. 
Paul Quinn 
: Brilliance. That’s it—brilliance! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I suggest that Mr Quinn takes off the blinkers stops looking at his own “brilliance” and has a look at what is happening around New Zealand. There is an alarming rate of growth in inequality in this country. But do we think this Government will listen? Does it care? Will it do anything about it? The answer to those questions has to be “No”. Over the last 6 months I have taken time to go out and visit a few regions around New Zealand and I come back to this House to report on what is happening. There are four regions I will talk about today. What is really happening on the ground to New Zealanders in this country that is only a little bit unequal?  
I will first go to Invercargill. In Invercargill I visited the Salvation Army food bank and the budgeting services there. What did people tell me? The message I heard up and down New Zealand was that there has been a huge growth in people having to go to food banks. Are they our usual customers—the customers we would expect to see at food banks? No they are not. Food banks are now facing a huge increase in the number of people we would call the working poor—those who are in jobs but who cannot afford to pay their bills. They cannot afford to pay a bill that comes out of the ordinary at the time they have to pay it. They have jobs; they have jobs that are low-income jobs and many of them have two jobs but they are amazed they have a Government that thinks giving $15 an hour to those on the lowest income would be a bad thing for this country. The Government talks about a loss of 6000 jobs if we were to do that but I have seen no evidence that that would be the case. It is a made-up figure; it is made up because it suits the Government to make it up and say it. But of course if the Government is going to create 170000 new jobs over the next 4 years then I suspect that if there were a loss of 6000 jobs the Government would be able to find jobs somewhere else would it not? Of course no one believes that 170000 jobs will be created.  
Then I went to Timaru and visited the food bank and the social service providers there. The story they told me was very alarming. In February this year 157 people received food parcels. By May the number had risen to 756—756. They have not seen the like of the increase in working families receiving assistance. We are not talking just of beneficiary families but working families. This morning I went to the Newlands Community Centre with Charles Chauvel. They told us they have seen a 300 to 400 percent increase in people going to their food bank every year for the last 2 years. Does that show us we have a country that is equal? Does that show us we have a country where people have an adequate income? No it does not. The story these good people told me this morning—they are not Labour people; they are just good community people—was of a woman who came in last week. She has a job and so does her husband but they are both on low incomes. She came in for a food parcel for the first time in her life. Why? Because she had an abscessed tooth and she needed an extraction. It cost $300 and she could not afford it. Finally I went to Whangarei and there I heard of the most appalling cases of health issues and of a lack of food. There is growing inequality in this country. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I want to talk about the Hon Phil Goff. He is a nice man Phil Goff. I quite like him. He has been an effective Minister in his time but his time is up. It is time for him to go. There are two reasons why I think it is time that Phil Goff was out of here. The first reason is that that lot sitting over there do not respect him. Watch their body language when they are with him. They do not respect him. In fact they are so busy fighting one another that he is left out on his own. It was interesting to see when he appointed the new education spokesman after the Darren Hughes debacle. Whom did Goff appoint? He appointed his friend David Shearer. He is a good friend. He brought him into Parliament. What did the Labour caucus do? They rolled him and they put in Sue Moroney as the spokesperson on early childhood education.  
Sue Moroney spent 70 percent of the time at the estimates hearing last week talking about early childhood education—the small part of preschool. What about the big compulsory sector? Where were the questions on that? Sue Moroney is so into education she cannot even read a Budget document. She believes that if there is a 5 percent increase in roll numbers a 5 percent increase in the operations grant is needed. It is no wonder the New Zealand Educational Institute loves her.  
Speaking of which the New Zealand Educational Institute sent out postcards. It had a postcard campaign: “Early Childhood Education sets the scene for life”. Turn it over and it says: “Dear Prime Minister”. This is a postcard to the Prime Minister. It says: “Add your personal message to the Prime Minister and we will deliver it.” The post note here is free: “ECE Campaign”. If you filled in this postcard who do you think would get it? The New Zealand Educational Institute. And who would they give it to? It would be the Prime Minister because that is what it says. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It might be a valid question but I really do not think that you would have filled in a postcard to be sent to the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the member’s point but I do not like interrupting speeches. The member could have raised that point at the end of the speech. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Mr Speaker I am sure you did not fill in a postcard. But if you had filled in a postcard would you not think that it would go to the Prime Minister? Who do we think received these postcards? The Prime Minister? No. The Minister of Education? No. The Minister of Finance who controls the Budget? No. 
Hon Member 
: Who got them? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: It was Sue Moroney. The New Zealand Educational Institute ran a campaign and who ended up with the campaign database? Sue Moroney. Poor old Phil Goff said: “Actually we were just going to write to these people to tell them what was happening with the postcards.”  
Our friend Whale Oil Beef Hooked has been trawling through Labour emails for a long time. The blogger from Whale Oil Beef Hooked has to be the email friend of the world. He said he found an email sitting there ready to go out from Sue Moroney which said things like “Last year you filled in a postcard for the New Zealand Educational Institute.” It talked about how Labour was fighting hard to stop the early childhood education cuts: “Our focus will be quality … We need your support. … Please like our Facebook page” and share it with your friends. “Please feel welcome to email me any time with your views. Kind regards Sue Moroney”. Where is the Prime Minister in all of this? Who has the postcards? Does the Prime Minister have the postcards? No. Sue Moroney has the postcards.  
We know that Phil Goff does not know what is going on in his caucus; he has no idea. Sue Moroney is working with the New Zealand Educational Institute which is supposed to be a union representing teachers. Maybe Sue Moroney is mounting a campaign with the New Zealand Educational Institute for the leadership of Labour after the next election. The New Zealand Educational Institute has by the way launched on its website a very active election campaign so maybe Phil Goff does not even know what is happening to the election campaign. The New Zealand Educational Institute has it all laid out with all the targeted electorates for the election campaign and scripts for conversations to have with people. It would be interesting to see whether Sue Moroney is going out and talking to people in the context of early childhood education saying “Please think about signing our early childhood education petition here.” and saying things in the school context about children being able to learn at their own rate. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to table two letters from the office of the Hon Phil Goff to the Prime Minister John Key asking him to accept the 20000 New Zealand Educational Institute postcards—with no response from the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Hon Phil Goff to the Prime Minister pointing out that the reason the postcards were presented to me was that the Prime Minister made himself unavailable. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that— 
Paul Quinn 
: What’s the date of the letter? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members cannot stand up and yell stuff out. If the Speaker has not recognised the member he must not do that. The House will come to some order. Leave has been sought to table a letter from the honourable Leader of the Opposition to the right honourable Prime Minister. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 We have a saying in Samoa: e maua loa kafiki loa which means that when someone is caught doing something wrong they begin to attack. That is what we have heard from the Minister of Education. If the National leader had the cojones to accept those postcards then they would not have gone to Sue Moroney.  
About this time in 2008 Mr John Key the then Leader of the Opposition turned up in my electorate flanked by two known Pacific former sports stars. There was a big splash and a big ado about what they would do for the people of Mangere the people of Manukau and the Pacific community. It was splashed in the paper that $6 million would be invested in a trade academy at the Southern Cross Campus. Today that school is still wondering where the rest of that money has gone. They are still wondering. The two former sports stars who flanked the Prime Minister at that time are nowhere to be seen. They are not receiving answers to the questions about where that money has gone.  
At that time too we told the community of Mangere that with National in Government we would have to fight to protect ourselves; we would have to fight to protect early childhood education; we would have to fight to protect housing our public health system and our assets; and we would have to fight to protect the working community of New Zealand. That is exactly what has transpired in the past 3 years under a National Government. The first thing it did was cut the budget for adult community education which served that community well. It continued to cut money that went into early childhood education which is significant for a population of generally young people. Now we are hearing that it will again be looking to undermine the rights of workers not only through the 90-day bill that it introduced right off the bat but also by undermining the ability of trade unions and workers’ representatives to be able to negotiate with employers.  
With the high cost of living that we now have prices are running up to 20 percent. They are rising above more than what people are earning. I ask this Government what it will do for the working population the length and breadth of New Zealand when it has given significant money to the wealthy few. What will the Government do to enable ordinary working families with children who are struggling to make ends meet to meet the regular cost of living?  
Let me give the House a couple of examples so that that side of the House understands the struggles of working communities. There is a family in the south side of Mangere who are currently living with two children in a Housing New Zealand Corporation house. They have had to leave that house because it leaks and was not fixed up by the Housing New Zealand Corporation. That family have to live with their parents in a crammed-up situation. The promise that was given to the community of Mangere in those days was that the Minister of Housing would fix up the stock. Today many families are still waiting for that housing stock to be fixed up.  
A young man with a family of two children was sick in hospital in April. He had an operation for cancer. He applied early just prior to leaving hospital to go home to Work and Income New Zealand and he was told he was eligible for a sickness benefit. Today that family is still waiting to see whether they will receive a hand up to help them with their normal day-to-day expenses including mortgage payments. They risk losing their house because the culture of Government departments under this Government has changed significantly.  
Labour recognises the hardship that families are working through. We promise the working population of our communities and the rest of New Zealand that we will raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Under this Government we have had only a $1 rise in the minimum wage after 3 years. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 Like many members in the House I am always intrigued by what other political parties are up to. It is fair to say that I have been looking on at the Labour Party in the last 12 months and the last 6 months in particular to see exactly what its strategy is. It has been difficult for me to untangle. Sometimes strategies are difficult to untangle because they are complicated and clever and one simply cannot see something coming. Sometimes strategies are obvious to all and the team is proud of putting them forward and out there.  
It has been difficult with the Labour Party. I must say that in recent times I have actually identified a pattern. There is definitely a pattern when it comes to the Labour Party’s strategy. That pattern is about carving out Labour’s core support. It is essentially setting aside those people who will not vote for Labour and targeting those who will vote for it.  
Labour made a conscious decision. We know what it is. Labour said it did not want the hobbit vote. Clearly Labour does not want hobbits to vote for it. Labour does not want the New Zealand film industry to vote for it. Labour does not think it is important to bring that sort of income into New Zealand. Labour does not want the hobbit vote. Labour does not support John Key making those advances to international film organisations to ensure that the 
 Hobbit 
 movies are filmed here. Labour opposed that. Labour is against hobbits. That was one sector that the Labour Party decided it did not want supporting it.  
Labour then moved to the agriculture and farming sector where we saw a tirade from members over there saying that farmers do not pay tax they do not contribute to the economy they are essentially avoiding tax and the Labour Party does not support them. Furthermore to really kick it to farmers the Labour Party decided to bring the emissions trading scheme forward put unknown costs on farmers and make sure that as soon as Labour is in Government after the next election—and that is Labour’s dream—it will bring farmers into the emissions trading scheme. Labour has set aside the farmers of New Zealand and the farmers say that Labour is making agriculture the whipping boy. Federated Farmers said of Stuarts Nash’s tirade about farmers not paying tax and the emissions trading scheme: “It’s all designed to discredit the farmers of New Zealand.” There is a strategy.  
Labour does not want the farmers to vote for it it does not want the hobbits to vote for it and interestingly enough it has decided to insult the Ratana Church. An article titled “Labour list insults Ratana Church” said: “Senior Ratana minister Kereama Pene has launched a stinging Facebook campaign against what he sees as Labour’s list insult. He said on the social networking site: ‘Every Ratana should show their total disgust and abandon Labour forever.’ ” Labour has decided in carving out its core support that it does not want farmers it does not want hobbits and it does not want the Ratana Church.  
Labour does not want homeowners; it is going to introduce a capital gains tax. The minute it is in Government it will introduce a capital gains tax for all homeowners. Labour does not want homeowners at all.  
It was not enough to decide that it wanted to carve off sector interest groups so Labour decided to go regional. It said to Northlanders that the highway from Auckland to Northland is a “Holiday Highway” and that Labour would can it. Labour does not want trucks cars and buses going to Northland and it certainly does not want those Northlanders coming south to Auckland. Labour has decided it does not want the Northland vote so it went regional.  
As if regional was not enough Labour decided to go international. On the eve of and during the royal wedding which we all enjoyed—not only New Zealanders but the whole world—Phil Goff suggested that dropping the monarchy should be up for discussion. This happened during the royal wedding which we all celebrated. Phil Goff decided that Labour had already set aside and isolated sectors and regions particularly Northland so he went international. Do members know who Phil Goff is? He is the little guy at the back of the church who stands up and puts up his hand when the priest asks whether anyone objects to this couple getting married. That is who Phil Goff is. He is the little guy who puts up his hand and objects when the pastor asks whether those royals should get married. What is Phil Goff doing? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I do not participate very often in these general debates and in just the last couple of minutes I remembered why. What a waste of space that speech by Phil Heatley was.  
Yesterday in question time I asked the Associate Minister of Health Peter Dunne what he had to say about the fact that nearly 3000 young New Zealanders under 5 years of age are admitted to public hospitals to have their teeth removed under general anaesthetic. He said he was very pleased with the fact that they had access to public hospitals to have that done. It really stunned me that an Associate Minister of Health in charge of dental policy would be pleased by that. It almost blew my mind away. He should be deeply concerned about the fact that 3000 children are going to hospital to have their teeth removed. They are the lucky ones I tell members because the others who cannot get in are on waiting lists of between 6 to 12 months. Dr Beaglehole knows a bit about this. He is the senior dental surgeon at the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board. He says that on Tuesdays and Fridays he spends mornings knocking out children with a general anaesthetic so he can fix their rotting teeth. The toddlers and preschoolers are so young they are too little to hold open their mouths long enough to have it done in the regular way and their baby teeth are so decayed that nothing but filling or extraction can save them. This is the procedure that Peter Dunne is pleased is available to these kids.  
We should be asking ourselves what is doing all this. Well members should ask themselves this question: what is the most popular and most sold item in the supermarkets of New Zealand? The answer is a 2½ litre bottle of Coca-Cola. What is the second most popular item in the supermarkets of New Zealand? It is a 1½ litre bottle of Coca-Cola. If one goes into the supermarkets now one sees that they have a promotion for the drinks that make All Blacks—these Powerade drinks. There are 16 teaspoons of sugar in every single bottle. The kids are told to drink it as quickly as they can then they will become All Blacks. No they will not; by age 10 to 18 they will join the 500 type 2 diabetes sufferers that we have at the moment who are between the ages of 10 and 18. As we speak we have about 350000 overweight New Zealanders who are type 2 diabetes sufferers. We have another 90000—roughly a third—who are undiagnosed and we have an epidemic of dental decay that is coming on us like a tsunami because all of the people who are at retirement age now who kept their teeth when years ago parents used to have their children’s teeth taken out for their birthday at age 15 or 16 have to have their teeth looked after. We are making no provision for that.  
Today I launched a dental policy to try to do something about it. In the few minutes I have here I cannot detail it all but I will say just one or two things. I looked at the Australian situation with regard to for example fluoride which in water supply gives over 32 percent more protection to children’s teeth than not having fluoride. If one thinks about what that does in terms of the kinds of operations that Dr Beaglehole is doing one would be inclined to think that it should be a matter for public debate. Eighty percent of all Australians have access to fluoridated water. Even the Queensland state Government which I have never thought of as being overly enlightened had a meeting in Parliament a year ago where the overwhelming majority voted in favour of extending fluoridation from 54 percent of the state to the whole state. They voted for it practically unanimously. They join the states of New South Wales which supplies fluoridated water to 92 percent of the state; South Australia which supplies fluoridated water to 94 percent of the state; and Victoria which supplies fluoridated water to I think 80 percent of the state.  
Here fluoridated water is supplied to 60 percent of the whole of New Zealand. In the mainland of the South Island we have very little fluoridation. So the teeth of the children of the most affluent families in Merivale and so on are much worse than those of the children in South Auckland where they have access to fluoridated water. Are we proud of all this? Do we think something should be done about it? We should have a national policy on fluoridation. We should have it as a national health measure not at a local body level where it is far too easy for local body politicians to hide. In Christchurch recently we had chlorine added to our water which was quite proper because if we had not then we might be suffering from all kinds of endemic diseases as we speak.  
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: What now? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Chlorine—to clean up the water and make sure it is drinkable. Yet if we suggest adding fluoride which cannot be smelt seen or tasted there is an uproar. I wonder at the double standards of that.  
My Labour colleagues have been good enough to accept this policy as something they will look at seriously for their health policy in the coming election. because I am retiring at the end of this year. I am glad they are doing it and I wish them well. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I do not know what the Hon Jim Anderton was talking about but I can tell from even this distance that that member needs to brush his teeth.  
We in this party unlike the party on the other side are focused on the things that matter: on the economy on educational standards and on doing something about crime which Labour has ignored. What is Labour focused on? Let us look at what Labour is focused on. It is focused on voluntary student membership or “VSM”. It is absolutely focused on voluntary student membership. Labour members are filibustering—that is not a world I like—other members’ bills— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Just wait and see. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: —sorry I can hear something—so that we do not get to the voluntary student membership bill. I can tell members that the people of Tauranga the people of Rotorua and the people of West Coast - Tasman do not even know what “VSM” is. 
Todd McClay 
: No they’ll tell them to go to the doctor. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: That is right. Some of them think it is a contagious disease they could get from members on the other side of the House. They do not know what it is but somehow that is where all the energy on the other side of the House goes. Why is Labour putting all of its efforts into that bill? If we were generous we could ask whether it is doing it on principle. Well no because the principles at stake in that bill are freedom and choice which are actually National Party values. That is why we are putting that bill ahead.  
I have concluded that Labour’s reason is purely and solely politics. We know on this side of the House that it does not take much thinking to see that for members opposite their main training ground—some would say their only training ground—is in the universities. Student politics is base camp training camp for Labour Party politicians. We could go through them. Grant Robertson is probably the main one we can think of. In his time he was the student union president of one Michael Woodhouse. Student politics is a Labour Party training ground.  
Labour members do not want to stand up for freedom and choice; they are filibustering on that bill purely because of politics. If I have learnt anything in 2½ years in this House it is that the Labour Party only ever focuses on politics. In fact that was “Helen Clark 101”—politics is all. Everything is about the politics and we see it in that bill.  
We also know that the member opposite Trevor Mallard is interested in sports. He is in a cycling competition. I understand that in his spare time he is also meant to be campaign manager for the Labour Party but why worry about that when he has a sports competition to worry about. As one Cameron Slater has said: “Duck really needs some anger management courses so he can concentrate on the campaign rather than fighting an asymmetrical war with a right-wing blogger he can’t win.” Yet that is where the Labour Party is at the moment: voluntary student membership bills that people do not understand cycling races that are asymmetrical and they cannot win and political stunts. I think John Carter called them cunning stunts and that is what we are seeing on the other side of the House.  
With the State-owned enterprises referendum legislation we have already established that because of Labour’s filibustering that bill has absolutely no chance of coming before this House. As John Armstrong said in I think yesterday’s newspaper Labour’s member’s bill has about much chance of becoming law as that famous rugby-playing country Namibia has of lifting the Rugby World Cup or probably even less. But unlike the New Zealand Labour Party Namibia’s Labour Party has at least some chance—and members can check this on the internet—of winning the next general election in that country.  
Why is it that Labour is putting forward the cheap politics of that bill? Why is that? If we look at the Prime Minister he has never sold a State asset but if we put him head to head with the leader of the Labour Party he has the best track record in this House of selling State assets in this country. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: How many has he sold? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: It is a pretty solid record. In his career he has sold 17 State assets worth $9.49 billion. 
Todd McClay 
: Who did that? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: That $9.49 billion worth of assets was sold by one Phil Goff. Maybe we should go through them. There was New Zealand Steel Petrocorp Health Computing Services Development Finance Corporation the Post Office the Shipping Corporation Air New Zealand Land Corporation Rural Banking and Finance Corporation and Government Printing—the list goes on. 
Debate interrupted. 
Personal Explanations 
Tabling on Documents—Date Cited for Resource Consent 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Pursuant to Speaker’s ruling 167/7 I have taken the first opportunity to correct a statement I made in regard to the date of the resource consent when seeking leave to table a document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member seeking leave to make a personal explanation? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes I am. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In question time today relying on a summary provided by the library I indicated that the date of the resource consent was 1998. In fact it was June 1999.  
General Debate 
Debate resumed. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I think the message is clear this afternoon. If anyone wants to witness how out of touch this Government is they need merely watch the general debate on a Wednesday. When people tune in they will not hear a discussion about the $16 billion deficit. They will not hear the Government’s plan to deal with rising unemployment. They will not hear any discussion about inequality levels or the increasing cost of living. No instead they will hear Anne Tolley make jokes about postcards they will hear Phil Heatley try to make jokes about hobbits and then they will hear backbench open mike night via Simon Bridges. I have no idea what that was. I am sure the people who were watching unfortunately had no idea what that was. 
I think there is a much bigger issue. I do not want to allow myself to be distracted by Mr Bridges’ speech. Instead I would rather come back to the point that this week in the House we had an acknowledgment from the Minister of Labour that living on the minimum wage in this country is very very difficult. In fact she talked about the tight budget that many of those living on the minimum wage are experiencing. I would say though that the use of the term “tight budget” almost implies that there is some choice for householders whereas the Hon Annette King talked about the stark choices people are making: fix a broken tooth or eat. Those are kinds of choices that Kiwis are currently making. That is not just a tight budget. 
Living on the minimum wage has now become a lot harder under this Government. Not only are we seeing an increase in prices of almost 5 percent; we are seeing increases in ACC and in rent per week of almost 32 percent over the past 3 years. 
For university students the cost of studying has increased by 16 percent. We see the impact of that on young people. Student hardship grants have increased by 423 percent over the past few years and much of that increase is due to an increase in the cost of food for those students who are struggling to survive. So I ask the Minister of Labour this question: if she acknowledges that living on the minimum wage is hard how hard will it be for a young person to live on a youth minimum wage? How hard will it be for a young person to live on less than what all Kiwis on the minimum wage are currently surviving on? The Government has acknowledged that it is considering the option of a youth minimum wage. This is apparently part of the Government’s cogent plan on jobs. I think it probably speaks more to the point that everything the Government has done thus far has not had the impact required to bring down record high levels of youth unemployment—now 27 percent. 
Labour says that paying young people less is not the answer. In response we say that is a cop-out. It is an acknowledgment that the Government does not have the answers and does not have a plan to create jobs. The Government thinks its only option is to try to pay young people less in order to switch round the unemployment issue. 
The Minister has openly stated that if we pay young people less then employers might be more inclined to employ young people instead of say 30-year-olds but that acknowledgment would potentially shift the unemployment issue from one age group to another. How does that overall help New Zealand and Kiwis who are out of jobs and looking for work? It does not. I would be happy for any Government member to explain to me how youth wage rates bring down unemployment across the board. I would be happy to hear any evidence whatsoever. 
I have some evidence I would like to present to the Government. It is the cold hard fact that the lowest levels of youth unemployment were achieved under the last Labour Government and it was after youth wage rates were abolished. Youth wage rates have absolutely nothing to do with youth unemployment. In fact we have evidence from the Department of Labour that suggests there is no robust correlation between youth wage rates and youth unemployment. In fact the 1990s as members will well remember when National was last in Government was the last time that youth unemployment was as high as it is now. We had youth wage rates. It is time the Government acknowledged that it is out of ideas and that this measure will not help young people. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 That last speech by Jacinda Ardern has shown us what is wrong with the Labour Opposition. It shows economic illiteracy: a borrow-and-spend mentality taking other people’s money and sharing it around and then telling New Zealanders they should be grateful and support Labour so it can keep doing it. In my speech I will show a few contrasts.  
On the one hand we have a Government that has worked hard over 2½ years to focus on education so our children can get more and so their mothers and fathers can be assured they will have a better future. We have a Government that has taken the hard edges off the recession that has focused on jobs and that has been delivering for New Zealanders. We have a Government that is particularly looking at what more it needs to do with that forgotten generation of young people who the last Government over 9 years thought could be made dependent and given welfare and that that was OK. We have made New Zealanders safer in the streets and in their homes through a raft of legislation around law and order. On behalf of my constituents I thank the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Police for the hard work they have done over 2½ years to make New Zealand a safer country and to make sure that those who commit crimes and who harm people in our communities are held to account. 
The Minister of Finance Bill English has delivered a Budget that will get the New Zealand economy back on track. Labour members say they want to borrow more and more and more and they tell New Zealanders that that is OK and not to worry about that. Well New Zealanders know that that is not something that is good for them and is not something that is possible. Bill English has delivered a Budget for us that will bring New Zealand back to surplus much sooner—2013 or 2014. The other thing that we have done is to get more from the Public Service. What that means for New Zealanders is that for every dollar of income tax they contribute their Public Service is delivering more for them in terms of hospitals schools and public services across the board.  
On the other side of the House what do we hear? We hear about Labour’s shonky economic policies and proposals. When Anne Tolley spoke earlier in this debate she was right: there is a huge amount of confusion amongst members opposite and sadly most of that rests with the Leader of the Opposition Phil Goff. Now to his credit when he became the Leader of the Opposition soon after the last election I think that Labour was right to have high hopes for him as Leader of the Opposition. Well today standing here when we consider its high hopes for the Leader of the Opposition Phil Goff we see that the hope has gone. When one considers his economic policies he might well be high from time to time because they are crazy and they are disastrous for New Zealanders. Let us have a little look at this. What have we heard over the last few months of this year? We have heard lots of promises to spend lots of policies that say Labour will do more for New Zealanders. But when Mr Goff is asked where the money will come from he has no answer. From memory it would be $12 billion or $13 billion of extra spending. We heard that he might scrap something in the area of defence which is a one-off spend but that $13 billion of additional recurrent spending year upon year upon year would have to be borrowed. New Zealanders see through that façade. They know it is not good for them and they are awake to some of the false promises the Opposition is making to them.  
I think I know what the problem could be. I have just worked it out. When Mr Goff first came to this Parliament I think I was 13 years of age. Simon Bridges was probably 7 years of age and I guess the current member for Rimutaka who will be the member for Rimutaka for probably only about 4 more months was conceived about then. So what has happened in that intervening period? The last speaker from our side Mr Bridges from Tauranga talked about asset sales. There was a wonderful column in the newspaper just today from John Armstrong a very astute writer in the  
New Zealand Herald 
: 
“Labour push against asset sales doomed to fail”. We have not heard a lot about that this week but it is doomed to fail—a very astute reporter that one. So what did Phil Goff do when he was in Government? Seventeen State-owned assets were sold—17 of them were sold. He sold more State-owned assets than any member of this House to my knowledge. I say to New Zealanders listening those who may hear of this afterwards do not trust that Opposition. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the member’s speech. I ask you to reflect on whether his speech was a reflection on you as a more senior member than Mr Goff as to being around here too long. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are not going to carry on this nonsense. That was not a point of order. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 There is a saying that until recently I would not have been confident using and that is the phrase “It ain’t over until the fat lady sings”. But just as I am proud of my transformation I am proud also to stand today to speak of the transformation that is occurring in Te Tai Tokerau as we cut down to the wire.  
When the Maori Party re-entered Te Tai Tokerau over the last few months to listen to learn and to find out what the electorate needed they told us they wanted someone who would focus on being their voice. They wanted someone who could build relationships who would be proactive and positive. They wanted a representative who could make a constructive contribution. They wanted IWI: influence with integrity.  
Few areas of New Zealand so desperately need that influence to be acted on as Te Tai Tokerau. The statistics scream out for such a focus: 49 percent of children were identified as being born in the most deprived areas. In 2010 the Northland rate for acute rheumatic fever was nearly three times the national rate. In fact a study in Kaitaia found that one child in every 100 had evidence of heart damage caused by rheumatic fever. In some of the poorest areas of the region 40 percent of children were living in crowded households. In the past year more than 7000 Northlanders have been given food parcels by social services. No member of Parliament no matter what their affiliation can listen to these statistics without being moved. But we must do more than simply talk about it and hope the problems will go away.  
The Maori Party has taken this analysis very seriously. We have taken immediate and comprehensive action to address both the long-term nature of poverty and the specific priorities for education health and social services in the region. Last December I wrote to every member of this House asking for their support in addressing child poverty. Today at the Maori Affairs Committee the Aotearoa Equality Group tabled our request for an inquiry to place on record our united concern for the pervasive disparities and poor outcomes being experienced by Maori children.  
Just over a month ago my colleague Tariana Turia announced that the Government would prioritise $12 million of investment into addressing and preventing rheumatic fever—an announcement that Ngapuhi general practitioner Dr Lance O’Sullivan hailed as worthy of our greatest support.  
We have also worked to wrap support around whanau though the enormous investment made through Whanau Ora. Three incredible collectives of Maori providers have been revitalised through Whanau Ora to support whanau across their region. The Te Tai Tokerau Whanau Ora collective includes Whakawhiti Ora Pai Te Hauora o Te Hiku o Te Ika Te Runanga o Te Rarawa Ngati Hine Health Trust and Kia Ora Ngati Wai. Another seven providers are brought together in Te Hau Awhiowhio o Otangarei and another seven in Te Pu o te Wheke.  
The Minister of Maori Affairs has supported Whanau Ora with complementary initiatives such as Oranga Whanau. By virtue of the Kaitoko Whanau programme in Kaitaia Te Korowai Aroha trust has helped 53 whanau access social assistance services. Also approximately 75 ropu in the region have accessed the Mara Kai gardening programme to equip and establish gardens at marae at kura at kohanga and importantly at home.  
Te Tai Tokerau homes have benefited directly from the 6000 homes insulated as a result of the Maori Party negotiating a 100 percent subsidy for housing insulation for those with community services cards. Some 638 rangatahi in Northland and another 247 rangatahi in Auckland have benefited from Community Max positions which provide an entry point into longer-term employment options. We are particularly proud of the heavy investment we have made in education with support for literacy programmes and more funding for kura kaupapa Maori for transport to school and for programmes such as Te Kotahitanga that support Maori success in education. Over $100 million was earmarked for Maori education in the Budget and $73 million for kura kaupapa. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I was fascinated by a tête-à-tête that took place a couple of weeks ago between Mr Mallard and Heather Roy over the costs of running our democracy in response to Mrs Roy’s criticism of Labour’s outrageous filibustering on members’ day. She estimated that that nonsense was costing the taxpayer about $453000 per hour. Mr Mallard replied that silly Heather Roy could not do the maths and that her maths was predicated on the assumption that Parliament had sat longer than it would have otherwise. He said she needed to brief her intern on the difference between average and marginal costs.  
Well I am a chartered accountant so I know a bit about marginal costs. If one picks up a textbook one finds it will say something about the costs attributable to the next unit of production. Here is the problem: on members’ day nothing is being produced—absolutely nothing. So Heather Roy’s maths was absolutely accurate and half a million dollars per hour is being wasted every single hour. The cost of the Te Tai Tokerau by-election which the Labour Party heavily criticised is being wasted by its members every single hour of members’ day. It is like that  
Yes Minister  
episode. Remember the empty hospital? It had all the staff the administrators and the doctors but it did not have any patients. Well this Parliament every second Wednesday has the members the security guards the clerks and the Hansard staff but we are not producing a single thing.  
We have also heard about the total stunt that Phil Goff’s member’s bill on asset sales is. Mr Bridges has already quoted the excellent article by John Armstrong about Namibia having more chance of winning the Rugby World Cup than that bill has of being enacted. But John Armstrong also said that even if Labour became the Government that bill could not pass. It is framed up as entrenching legislation which requires 75 percent of the House’s support so the Labour members know that it cannot pass even if they become the Government. It is a stunt. It would be silly if it were not for the fact that members’ day is a very important part of our parliamentary process where those outside the executive get to debate and raise the legislation and bills that are important to them and their constituents. I thought that Labour’s backbenchers would be pretty annoyed at the way in which that was going except that we have not had a member’s bill ballot this year. I went back to November 2010 the last ballot that we had. There were 25 bills in that ballot. Do members know how many there were from Labour? 
Chris Auchinvole 
: None. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: One. There was one bill from a Labour member in the last member’s bill ballot that we had. Do members know whose bill that was? It was Darren Hughes’ bill on transport so who knows where that is? Labour is so keen to represent its constituency that its members cannot come up with a single bill except one that is a stunt. They know it is a stunt. That is how half a million dollars an hour is being wasted on every single members’ day.  
What are the Labour members doing if they are not actively participating in our democracy? Well they are alienating themselves from just about every sector. We have certainly heard about the farmers. I did not think that the Labour members would go and slap the Ratana Church which has been very loyal to Labour for a long time. The public tell me that they are sick and tired of the same old rhetoric: “There is no plan.” and “Where are the jobs?”. The public know; they are getting to it. They understand how hard things are and they understand that this Government does have a plan.  
The Government’s plan involves a providing a taxation system that works and rewards effort. The plan is also about having an education and skills training plan. It is about fostering free trade and innovation in science. It is about investing in infrastructure and billions of dollars are going into infrastructure not the least of which is in the South Island and in Canterbury. It includes putting a lid on Government spending. This Government makes no apologies for the fact that there are opportunities to continue to constrain spending and for expecting a lot more to come out from a little more going in. And the Government’s plan is about reducing compliance costs to business. One does not need to be a mathematician to work out that if nominal GDP growth of 8 percent is achieved that will produce a minimum of 200000 jobs in this economy. Those members ask where the jobs will come from. Well it is pretty obvious: they will come from a growing economy. They will not come from bureaucrats and the public sector. We might have to increase the number of jobs by 172000 in order to offset the very small reduction in public sector workers that has taken place. I am extremely pleased to put those plans and policies up against Labour’s any day of the week. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 What a relief to hear at least one member on the other side of the House talk about his own party for a change instead of spending the entire 5 minutes talking about the Labour Party. I am very very interested actually; it makes me wonder why those members are so concerned about the Labour Party. Why do they want to talk about us all the time? I know that Mr Woodhouse will not like me saying this but I think it demonstrates that those members have nothing good to say about themselves and no plan for the future. Labour will give everybody a fair go and make everybody pay their fair share. I am very proud to say that Labour has a solid promise to raise the minimum wage to $15 by the end of its first year in Government. That is a solid promise. So do not say that we do not have policies. We will do better by low and middle income people who are struggling to make ends meet.  
Let me talk about what an increase in the minimum wage to $15 an hour will mean. It will mean that over 229000 workers will get a lift in their pay if they work full-time of almost $80 a week. Labour’s tax-free threshold adds a further $10 a week. The people who will benefit from this are not just young workers; they are women Maori Pasifika and those up in Northland in Te Tai Tokerau who are struggling to make ends meet. There would be an economy-wide increase in wages of $518 million. That is an economic plan.  
We all know that National’s changes have not helped anybody. They have not helped unemployment they have not helped wages and they have not helped those on the lowest wages as the Minister of Labour admitted today and yesterday. But of course that Minister of Labour did not want the minimum wage to go up from $12 an hour last year. She actually rejected the proposition that it should go up at all but was rolled. Then she wanted to keep it at $12 an hour. This year the advice was that the minimum wage could go up to $13.50 with a negligible impact on jobs. She rejected that as well; she ignored that advice. John Key’s Government is making life tougher for working people when things were already hard. National did it the last time it was in Government and New Zealand went backwards in wages productivity skills development and job creation. Now it is at it again.  
But New Zealanders are not stupid. They are moving across the Tasman in droves—in greater numbers than ever before—because they have worked out that this Government has no answers. People are not stupid. They can see that Australia has a minimum wage of NZ$20 an hour and that differential is a problem for this Government and this country. Those workers getting on the planes are not just the highly skilled; they are also the unskilled because they can do better across the Ditch. Those workers cannot make a living in this country because this Government is miserable with the minimum wage and has no plan to provide them with decent jobs.  
Contrary to popular opinion more than half of all workers covered by the minimum wage are older than 24. So it is not just about young workers trying to get into work. It affects good people. It affects our school support staff. It affects our caregivers—those who look after older people—our home-care workers and our hospital and school service staff among thousands and thousands. Let us talk about what a minimum wage earner actually takes home each week. If they work full-time—and many of them do not—they earn $447 a week after tax. That is before reductions for KiwiSaver student loans if they have one or ACC. John Key’s cleaner in this Parliament is paid $13.10 an hour. I bet that no one particularly the Minister of Labour asked her advice about whether increasing the minimum wage beyond $13 was a good idea. I do not understand how anyone expects people to live on $447 a week. That is what a full-time worker gets on the minimum wage. I do happen to know that Kate Wilkinson has not been anywhere near her cleaners or the Prime Minister’s cleaners because if she bothered to talk to them she would know that her decisions are making life even tougher. 
Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 We have certainly heard Labour’s plan now. It will put an extra $500 million of costs on employers into the economy—$500 million extra costs on employers. What would that do? It is quite simple really. Essentially it would reduce the productive capacity of the economy. This is the choice New Zealand is really faced with at the moment: the economic plan. We heard one part of Labour’s economic plan: add costs into the economy. Labour members actually think that that is a plan. They think a sympathy approach to the economy will do it. I have to say that that is simply a cynical and bankrupt attempt to grow the economy.  
This is what Labour’s plan seemingly is. First of all Labour would increase the minimum wage which would mean $500 million extra against employers. Second Labour would increase borrowing. Third Labour would increase departmental expenditure. Just about every spokesperson across the House has made some promise or other to increase departmental expenditure. Labour is against efficiency. It is against broadband even. It will have the opportunity later today no doubt to decide whether to vote for that infrastructure investment or against it. I apprehend based on the debate that I have heard so far that Labour will vote against it. It is against broadband it is against infrastructure and it is against irrigation. It consistently opposes the plans to expand irrigation in the Canterbury region.  
What other things is Labour against? It is against the sale of State-owned enterprises. Yesterday when I was listening to the debate Labour’s core argument was that New Zealanders already own those assets. That is a complete misunderstanding of what it is about. We could have said that about a Polish shipyard. The people already owned the Polish shipyard. What did the Polish people do? They decided in common with every Eastern European citizen that their already owning it was not the way to prosperity. In fact the way to prosperity was to actually have a personal share in that business. Our mixed-ownership model will build the capacity of the New Zealand Exchange and give New Zealanders including KiwiSaver account holders the opportunity to directly own and to have a personal stake in the economy of New Zealand. They will personally see the gains. It is well known—and Labour should know this; at least Mr Mallard knows this—that having some private sector ownership increases efficiency and increases effectiveness. Of course it enables the Government to invest against borrowing.  
We have already heard about what Labour sold when it was in office in 1989. Would Labour members seriously suggest today that New Zealand taxpayers should own Telecom? Would they seriously suggest today that it would be a good idea to have a network of State hotels? Would they seriously suggest today that we should have a rural bank finance banking system? Would they seriously suggest today that it would be a really good idea for the Government to own New Zealand Steel? That is the space they are in now. They are now in the space of saying that anything that is publicly owned must always remain in public ownership 100 percent. The reason for that is that we already own it. To Labour members that is the complete answer. It is a mantra for them. Yet from their own evidence based on their record—including Mr Mallard—they know that there are some situations where it is better frankly to have private sector ownership. Most of us would agree that that balance already exists with Air New Zealand and we can see the advantages of that. That is why National is going to go out to the public with that plan.  
Another issue I want to raise is science and innovation. There was the big speech at the Labour Party conference where Sir Paul Callaghan well known and well regarded for his ideas on innovation who wrote an excellent book called  
Wool to Weta 
 was present. And what did Labour members do? They said they would bring back a $160 million tax credit. What will they fund that with? The bringing-in of the emissions trading scheme 2 years earlier than planned for farmers. That is a zero-sum game. Labour has no plan. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 21 June. 
Clauses 1 to 3 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I think it is fair to say that the debate on the preliminary clauses is one in which there is a certain review of what has happened. In particular we go to the appropriateness of the dates and times that are set out. I think it is also fair to say that Labour will not be heavily opposing clause 3 of the bill. It is probably the best clause in the whole bill. It is one of the few that the Minister for Communications and Information Technology has managed to get right and get through unamended. It is probably an indication of the problems the Minister has had with the bill that there are so few clauses within the bill that are unamended.  
I think it is also fair to say that one could invent a number of more appropriate titles for the bill. For example we could call it the “Telecommunications (TSO Broadband Telecom Subsidy and Avoidance of Regulatory Matters) Bill” or a number of other things.  
It is probably important at this stage to restate Labour’s point of view vis-à-vis the bill overall and to restate the warnings that have occurred earlier. I want at this stage to thank Dr Brash. I am not quite sure of the rules and whether we are allowed to address people outside the Chamber but in passing I thank Dr Brash for drawing the attention of the media to some comments I made last week during the Committee stage.  
It is important to make clear that this legislation will be the subject of a review by the new Government. The implication of that is that there will be more legislation that drops out in 2020 and 2019 than there is currently. With that goes a warning that with a change in the regulatory method and in the financial arrangements people who enter into this sort of arrangement do so at some risk.  
I have heard some criticism from members opposite—though notably not from Sir Roger Douglas. I thought it was telling that Sir Roger Douglas who does actually understand regulatory reform and the right of Governments to make changes going forward was not at all critical whereas Dr Brash who is opposed to broadband and made it clear during his task force report that he thought Government involvement in broadband was a waste of money was critical.  
We have made it very clear that the Commerce Commission will be involved in this area in a way that it is not allowed to be under the current legislation. That could well have—it will almost certainly have—implications in the regulatory arrangements for Telecom if in fact it positions itself to get into this contract. The difference between this approach and say the approach used in the past by for example Sir Robert Muldoon is that there is clear notice of this fact before Telecom makes the decision to structurally separate and before the final contractual arrangements become effective. So if Telecom chooses to continue down this track it will do so in the full knowledge that there is a very real possibility of a change in regulatory environment within the term of this arrangement and that it is at some risk of not being able to have what any thinking person would regard as excessive profit and an excessive regulatory advantage during that time.  
It is nothing that could be compared to the Chilean experience for example or that of a number of other countries where there have been nationalisation-type approaches without notice. It may be that for regulatory change and legislation change the legislation is reviewed and changed and the Commerce Commission is involved. Both Telecom and Chorus are at some risk in this and both of them are satisfied with the ongoing situation. But there is a very real risk if this matter is not made clear to them. I am sure that Steven Joyce being a responsible Minister and in fact one who would probably like to stir the pot as well will make clear to Telecom the risks that sit there for the company including this particular risk. There is probably a whole pile of other risks he is not prepared to tell Telecom about but I think it is becoming clear to Telecom that it does not have legislative certainty over the period of this contract.  
A point I want to make and really reinforce is that there is nothing this Government can do by way of contractual arrangements that indemnifies Telecom against future legislation. It has to be made absolutely clear in this Chamber that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament. This Parliament will not be and can never be in the position whereby it is bound by a predecessor. Each Parliament is unique and each has the ability to make decisions. If a Parliament makes changes it could well be criticised for them and that might be appropriate but that is something we want to make clear will not happen. 
There are a number of things that one could do in order to defer this legislation coming into force. Again I acknowledge Sir Roger Douglas and the fact that he has taken a principled position on this legislation. I think it is relatively unusual to share some of his views in relation to the quality of regulation. I find it very surprising that Rodney Hide the current Minister for Regulatory Reform could possibly vote for such an abuse of regulatory powers as forms part of this bill. But it is good to know that at least some of the ACT members are prepared to act by the party’s principles.  
The party I very much have regret for in relation to its position and its stated vote on this legislation coming into force is the Maori Party because through this legislation it is undermining a significant Maori asset in 2degrees. There has been a lot of argument over a period of time about the appropriateness of the decisions I was part of back in 2000 when working at the time with Bill Osborne as I remember now—I do not know whether Bill is even still involved—in order if we like to avoid— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Did you ever play football with him? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I did play football with Bill Osborne and I lasted the game and he did not. Poor old Bill ended up with a rather severe heart problem as a result of that game. It was not a heart problem of the sort that Bill in his playing days might have been more renowned for.  
The point I am making is that this change is one that significantly undermines the assets of 2degrees. It means that that company will be much less competitive and that it will find it much harder to attract capital. I think it is bad that Maori are treating Maori so badly. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 It is traditional in the debate at the Committee stage on the title and commencement clauses to use the debate on the title to draw together some of the themes of the discussion. The Opposition is with a certain sense of sadness I guess witnessing the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill moving its way through the Committee. Maybe one could call it the “What a Difference a Day Makes Bill” if that day were the day of the last election. There is a contrast between the regulatory framework that was pro-competitive which led to an upswing in investment and a better deal for consumers under the previous Government and this slide back to the bad old days of Maurice Williamson’s wet bus ticket where the legislation favoured the dominant incumbent. Here sadly we are creating a new monopoly structure on fibre to replace the existing monopoly or dominant structure—or the pre-reform dominant structure—on copper.  
There are a number of reasons why that is true. The first is the so-called regulatory forbearance period—the regulatory holiday—that the Government proposed which took the cop off the beat. The Commerce Commission is the industry cop that stops people from abusing market power but that regulatory holiday would have tied the industry cop’s hands for a decade. That was obviously a nonsense. As my colleague Trevor Mallard said it is a matter of great regret that only late in the piece did the Maori Party apparently wake up and have a discussion with the Government about that period which apparently led to some change although not good change. Part of the regulatory holiday is still there on point-to-multipoint services which in Labour’s view is inappropriate and which the Minister for Communications and Information Technology has never explained.  
More important the rest of the regulatory forbearance period has been exchanged for a taxpayer-funded guarantee to an incumbent. If it is caught out in future years with excessive margins because the cost of providing the service has fallen but the price has not that incumbent will not pay if it is penalised by the Commerce Commission; the taxpayer will pay. That is extraordinary. An extraordinary insult is being added to injury; the original injury was to the regulatory coherence of this industry. That is why everybody in the industry except for the incumbent telecommunications company was united in saying that the Government’s legislation was utter and absolute rubbish. The Finance and Expenditure Committee heard submission after submission and although the submitters raised a range of issues they were unanimous—other than Telecom—that this bill should not proceed. But here we are. What a difference a day makes. The Government is simply using its numbers to put through what in its heart of hearts it must know—the Minister must know—is simply misguided legislation.  
The second key issue why this is a very very bad bill concerns the lack of rigour in the open access regime. That is less important we agree in terms of retail because we assume that the structural separation of Telecom will proceed but it is crucially important in wholesale and network access. It is crucially important in that critical dark fibre access where other wholesalers now have no guarantee that they will be able to access the same product at the same price and in the same way that Chorus will provide to its own. We are replacing a problem of vertically integrated dominance on copper with a new problem on fibre. That will mean that everybody who is in the gallery watching will pay too much for their broadband in years to come—for at least a decade to come—under this bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Or for their copper. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: That is right. Mr Mallard raises an important point—it is the next one on my list—which is the mandatory averaging on copper pricing. The broadband costs in fibre are so high that the only way the Government could make it worthwhile for the industry to play was to raise the price on everybody’s existing phone bill for no change in service. The brief to us said that it would be $5 a month extra for the average house in a city. But the price will now be averaged as a matter of Government policy between city consumers and rural consumers. Once again it looks as if the farming sector is getting a sweet deal out of this Government while urban consumers are being penalised.  
I tell people that their phone bills are being put up by this Government to make it look like a better deal—or a no-worse deal—for them to swap to fibre which is too expensive. Why is it too expensive? Because the Government subsidy was inadequate. There was not enough money but the Government wanted a commercial rate of return on the deal. The telecommunications company said it could not pay so the Government sold the law to the tune of what the officials have advised was between $400 million and $600 million of disguised subsidies. It made the rules slacker and allowed the telecommunications companies to rip off the consumer. That is an outrage; it sets the course of the industry back a decade.  
It was painful to get the progress that was made but the progress was real—the progress was real. Here is the proof of the pudding: New Zealand climbed up the broadband rankings in the “noughties” but it has fallen back since 2008 from being about 5th or 6th on those criteria to being about 12th or 13th. We have tumbled down the international rankings because the Government and this Minister went around parading the $1.5 billion broadband plan but—like everything else under this dishwater-shallow National administration—there never was a plan.  
There never was a plan. There was a marketing slogan designed by Crosby/Textor or some foreign spin doctor to get National elected but there never was a plan. I can think of no other reason why it took an intelligent man like Steven Joyce 2½ years of nothing to come up with a policy. But 2½ years later he has come up with an absolutely rotten retrograde policy that will set the industry back a decade. It will cost everybody in the gallery and everybody out in New Zealand 5 bucks a month more on their existing phone bills and will consign them to higher prices on broadband—ultra-slow broadband—for 10 years to come. This is not UFB—ultra-fast broadband. It is USB—ultra-slow broadband. It took Steven Joyce nearly 3 years to think up a set of dumb rules that cost the public too much money: mandatory averaging an open access regime that does not work and a stupid regulatory holiday that even in the end the Maori Party could not support. 
Here is the next bit: an asset split. This Government is supposed to be running the show. How do members like this? Telecom gets to decide how it structurally separates and it tells the Minister only after the fact. After the board has signed off to its own internal commercial satisfaction the Minister has zero prerogative to override the substance and zero requirement to consult the industry and Telecom—how do members like this—has zero requirement to put all the details in the public domain. A summary of the asset split is OK. Who would know? If I were running that company now and under an obligation to my shareholders to maximise profit I could certainly hide a few lurks and perks in the detail that neither the Minister nor the public would ever know about until it was too late. Has the Government been asleep for the last 20 years? Does it not know the games that are played in this industry? Why is it playing back into the hands of dominant incumbents and creating a new problem of monopoly on wholesale fibre just as existed with copper?  
There is much more to say but I will not go through it all now. This bill is so bad that it probably breaches New Zealand’s World Trade Organization undertakings because it is a disguised subsidy to a local incumbent. How bad is that? It also probably—or possibly we should say; there is conflicting advice on this—conveys some favourable tax treatment on certain members of the industry. We are not quite sure about that but it certainly was not case proven in the select committee.  
To sum up very briefly this is the “What a Difference a Day Makes Bill”. We used to have fast broadband but now we get ultra-slow broadband. People are paying too much for their phones. They will be consigned to slower more expensive fibre than they would have had if this bill was not passed. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I would like to focus my comments on the commencement date and the interrelationship between the clauses in the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill that were to have limited the ability of the Commerce Commission to intervene in the event of uncompetitive practices by participants in the telecommunications industry and the clauses that are said to be in the contracts under which the Crown indemnifies Telecom in respect of all losses it may have in the future if it is found to have been acting anti-competitively and loses some of its revenue that it was otherwise expecting to get. How could this be relevant? It is possible that in the future part of Telecom could act in a way that abuses its dominant position. There is no doubt that once Telecom builds this fibre network it will be the dominant supplier of wholesale fibre in the country. If Telecom abuses that and charges some of its competitors too much or some of its consumers too much then consumers lose from both the loss of vitality of competition from other telecommunication providers and facing higher prices than need be the case.  
We have already heard David Cunliffe comment that one of the effects of the Government’s policy in this area is to force up the price for people who do not have broadband. The consequence of the arrangements that the Government has seen fit to enter into with Telecom is that those who get their internet connections through the copper network will be forced to pay a higher price than they would pay if nothing had been done. One of the reasons for that is to have a lesser price difference between internet services on copper networks and internet services on broadband fibre networks or fibre-based broadband networks in an effort to improve for Telecom the likely take-up of fibre-based broadband. The cost differential will not be as great as the price of copper has been pushed up falsely. The effect of this bill is just that. People who have existing services will be paying more for them. There will also be a cross-subsidy from urban areas to rural areas.  
This is part of a pattern that we see from this Government. The latest Budget provided a subsidy of $35 million I think to the rural sector for new irrigation schemes. At the very time when the Government will not support jobs in the KiwiRail workshops to build wagons it is subsidising the agricultural sector to that tune. We also have this cross-subsidy in respect of the telecommunications industry whereby copper wire - based internet connections will be charged a falsely high amount in order to make the gap between the price for that service and the price for fibre-based broadband smaller. One can understand why the Labour Party is critical of these decisions. Indeed we are also critical of the fact that there was an over-promise really before the election as National said it would have the fast roll-out of broadband. Here we are 2½ years into the National Government’s term and it is only just passing the legislative framework. The final contracts have not even been signed. The fibre that has to be physically put in place to deliver broadband has not even started to be laid pursuant to the Government’s policy arrangements.  
I am intrigued by how the provisions relating to Commerce Commission supervision of this industry have metamorphosed over the period of this legislation’s stages. The bill when introduced into the House provided that there would be relief from Commerce Commission supervision of this industry and this was achieved by Part 2 inserting some changes into the Commerce Act. This effectively ousted the jurisdiction of the Commerce Commission to take action even if it found that there was anti-competitive practice on the part of a dominant participant in the industry. That ran into problems. There was severe criticism of that move at the Finance and Expenditure Committee by other industry participants who thought that that was inappropriate. They foresaw the risk that Telecom if it was the successful contracting party with the Government would do in the future what Telecom has done in the past which is to use its position of dominance to the detriment of both consumers and other industry competitors. They danced and jumped up and down and said that this is wrong. They convinced every political party in this House other than National that they were right and National was wrong.  
As a consequence National faced the reality that it would not be able to pass the legislation in this House in its then form. There were doubts from the ACT Party from the Maori Party from the Greens and from Labour—all of which said that we should learn from our history. Overly permissive regulatory regimes are taken advantage of by dominant telecommunications company players to the detriment of consumers. If we are creating a dominant player with monopoly powers we ought to make sure that they are overseen with proper regulatory powers on the part of the regulator in this case the Commerce Commission. In the face of the reality that the Government probably could not have passed the legislation in that form the Minister brought forward very late in the process through a Supplementary Order Paper to this Committee changes that backed away from some of those changes to the Commerce Commission’s powers. Again we do not have the benefit of what the competitors in the industry might think of that because they have had no opportunity to submit on what is now proposed. 
In return for the Government moving away from removing those powers from the Commerce Commission we are told that instead it has conferred an indemnity under the form of the contract that it proposes to enter into with Telecom. The indemnity promises Telecom that if it loses revenue because of a future Commerce Commission action then the Government will make good that diminution in revenue even though the abuse of its dominant position in the market would have been the basis for that revenue being taken off Telecom in the first place. The Minister in the chair the Minister for Communications and Information Technology is shaking his head and saying that that is not the case but of course the trouble we have with that is that we have not seen the nature of these indemnity clauses. We are told in the media that that is the effect of these indemnity clauses—that the Government will be indemnifying Telecom against all losses occasioned by Commerce Commission risk. That is how I would paraphrase it. If we have that wrong well how are we to know? At this stage when we are passing this legislation how are we to know? There is a lack of transparency in relation to what exactly is proposed.  
Labour will be voting against the commencement and title clauses of this— 
Paul Quinn 
: David that’s sad. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It is sad is it not? It is sad because we think there should be regulatory certainty that goes beyond one Parliament. We do not think it is desirable that there is regulatory uncertainty. It is true that that creates uncertainty for market participants not just for Telecom which is the market participant in this context that the Government keeps focussing on but also for the other telecommunications providers. We need them to be secure in their future business models in order to compete and to cost-effectively provide services to New Zealand consumers so that we have real competition in this market rather than being even more reliant on the dominant provider Telecom.  
We have a number of problems with the process that has been adopted to get here in terms of the legislation the delays we have had in the practical implementation of broadband policy and the bad policy we have as an outcome of those matters. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 Perhaps I can provide some helpful assurances about a few things for Mr Parker in particular although in answer to his question about what we will do about these things I tell him that he could think. Thinking would be a good thing for starters. One of the things he could think about would be the chances of a fibre network having a monopoly position at any time in the next 8½ years. He could contemplate that for a kick-off. He could contemplate the fact that the copper network continues to be regulated notwithstanding I think three quotes from three different speakers from the Opposition trying to suggest that somehow it was not and so on and so on.  
Opposition members are making things up all the way through the discussion. I think it is a bit sad I have to say because rather than actually studying the bill looking at it and looking at what a great deal it is for this country they are just playing ridiculous politics all the way through thrashing around and opposing—which I think will be sadder for them than for anybody else—one of the most exciting investments that New Zealand can make for its future. They are opposing a tremendous deal for consumers and a tremendous deal for taxpayers and a tremendous deal in terms of the cost to the country of getting this built which I think is very exciting for New Zealand.  
I am pleased that both Mr Parker and Mr Mallard are in the Chamber because they could probably have a bit of a powwow about their views on contractual matters for Governments. The other day Mr Mallard declared that contracts would not be safe with a change of Government or words to that effect. [ 
Interruption 
] No he actually said “contracts”. I can quote it back to Mr Mallard if he would like. Then Mr Parker came in yesterday and clarified it. He said that the contracts will be fine. He said that those members do not change contracts and that it is a regulatory matter only. Then Mr Mallard popped back in today and said that no it is a contractual thing again. I recommend that having a team huddle to discuss what the actual position is might be worthwhile. A group huddle might be worthwhile to discuss whether Labour members really will take the view that Government contracts could perhaps be overthrown at any stage as those members are suggesting. That would be new. That would be reasonably new in the history of the New Zealand Parliament.  
I think that is the way Labour members are at the moment. Those members are thrashing around in the swamp like an old crocodile trying to snap at anything and pretend they have an answer when the reality is that they have not even read the bill or Supplementary Order Paper 247. That is clear from all the things that they have raised.  
With regard to the suggestion that copper prices will go up given that we are talking in terms of averaging about 4 percent of the copper-based broadband services that was huge hyperbole from a man not unknown for hyperbole it has to be said. Mr Cunliffe could possibly be said to be called Mr David “Hyperbole” Cunliffe. Once again he was diving in where truth fears to tread getting stuck in making some wild assertions and trying to look knowledgable serious and grave about New Zealand’s future when we all know that he is just playing for political points.  
It is important to point out that we have made some changes to the bill. We were clear all the way along when dealing with the regulatory forbearance matters that if a better solution could be found then we would be happy to take it. In fact the Labour members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee had no solution and the industry proposed a solution that was the same as the regulatory forbearance. But with the support of the Maori Party we were able to come up with a solution that provides additional confidence to consumers over that initial period which was very good. We also were able to do it in such a way that it costs the Crown no more money which is important and again that has been misrepresented by Labour members. With all their misrepresentations one is tempted to say that although we could grant them a few on the basis that they did not understand things a little bit of a pattern is starting to show. I suspect there might be a possible degree of intent in relation to this matter because they want to sabotage a brilliant policy for New Zealand. It really is; I think it is very exciting.  
I think ultra-fast broadband and rural broadband is exciting for this country. I have a huge pile of endorsements from rural communities around the country. We have not talked much today about the rural broadband enabled by this legislation but it is so important for New Zealand. It is exciting and I have to say that it is politically exciting. It is politically exciting because National will have the opportunity at the election to get up and say that Labour opposes ultra-fast broadband it opposes faster broadband for rural areas and it opposes things that give us an economic step change. I am pretty excited about that politically. As well as the scheme being exciting economically for New Zealand I am pretty excited about it politically. The reality is that I cannot wait for that discussion on the campaign trail later this year. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 Anyone who got up on the hustings and said that Labour was opposed to ultra-fast broadband would be a liar. Anyone who got up on the hustings and said that we were opposed to rural broadband being improved would be a liar. Anyone who got up on the hustings and said that Labour did not support and promote the use of ultra-fast broadband for education would be a liar. Anyone who got up on the hustings and said that Labour did not support the use of ultra-fast broadband for health would be a liar. I do not know who would be stupid enough to tell lies in that way. I do not know who; I heard there might be one or two people around who are prepared to tell that sort of lie but they would be foolish to do so.  
Labour wants—and Labour has made this very clear—ultra-fast broadband. But Labour does not want an inappropriate subsidy to go to the overseas owners of Telecom and we do not want the inappropriate regulatory environment that is coming in under this bill. To be fair I think it is coming—and I do not think there is any debate about this—because the Telecom lawyers the Telecom engineers and the Telecom executives are a lot brighter than the Minister for Communications and Information Technology. They are a lot brighter than the Minister. 
They have basically conned him into an arrangement whereby they will have a regulatory environment where they will have a licence to print money. We are told that the average connection cost for Telecom is about $2500. We are told that the average connection cost for Vector is $700 or $800. That might be better explained in relation to the method by which they do connections and their concentration. That could be the reason. But we are also told that the average cost of this work would be $50 a month per consumer. Even Sir Roger over there can do the maths and work out that that is a 24 percent rate of return. It is a 24 percent rate of return on each of those connections. I say that it is just outrageous that we have a Government that puts into law a guaranteed return of that type then says that if the Commerce Commission finds later on that the company is rorting the Government will make up the money to it. If the Commerce Commission applies the rules even the bent rules that this Minister Steven Joyce is promoting and finds that Telecom or any other minor organisation involved has breached the almost un-breachable rules within this arrangement then there will be an underwrite for them. Well that is something that is clearly not acceptable to members on this side of the Chamber.  
What is acceptable to us is a fair set of rules. I think it is fair to say that under this bill which is due to come into force on the day after it receives its Royal assent—except the part that will come— 
Sandra Goudie 
: It’s OK; we understand. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well the idea that the retiring member understands broadband or legislative matters much less the pair of them put together is something that is making even her colleagues laugh. I can see Maurice Williamson rolling around in his chair laughing at the suggestion that Sarah—what is her name—Goldie— 
Grant Robertson 
: Sandra. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Sandra Goldie— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Goudie. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I apologise; she has made an impression on me over the years that she has been in Parliament! The suggestion that she understands is wrong.  
But I will go back to the question of the shape of the commencement clause and in particular the fact that as a result of the deliberations of the select committee that clause has been divided from one clause into four subclauses. I ask the Minister in the chair how those provisions will be affected if in fact Telecom chooses not to enter into structural separation as Telecom shareholders can do and are currently considering doing. Some Telecom shareholders are putting forward a good argument that they should sit tight maintain their copper network compete—because they have an advantage of incumbency for a long way around the country—and not proceed with the structural separation. I ask the Minister what effect that would have on clause 2(3) which is the requirement on Telecom to publish the date of the separation day. 
The next question I have is a drafting question. It is whether subclauses (3) and (4) which are about the separation day are in fact appropriate subclauses to have within a commencement date. We know that the separation day which may or may not occur is something that is involved in both Part 1A and Part 2A of the bill but I am not sure—and I would be obliged if the Minister would tell me—whether a separation day is something that is appropriate. We can see that subclause (2) of the commencement clause states: “Subpart 2 of Part 1A and sections 23HA to 23S come into force on separation day but only if an Order in Council has been made under section 23E.”. 
Here is an interesting question. I thought the  
Gazette 
 was an official document so how can Telecom publish something in the  
Gazette 
? How can Telecom gazette something? It cannot. The officials are wondering about that now. Clause 2(3) states that “Telecom must publish the date of separation day in the  
Gazette 
 as soon as practicable after it is known.” It may be that this in itself as part of a commencement clause creates a special right for Telecom to publish something in the  
Gazette 
 but does that nationalise Telecom? Only State organisations generally can publish in the  
Gazette 
 and often it requires a ministerial signature to do so. So is there any implication? As an old left-winger I now see a lot of potential here. Is the Minister having a sneaky nationalisation of Telecom here? I think it is fair to say that this Minister— 
Grant Robertson 
: MediaWorks has gone now so he needs— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well no; I think he is going to nationalise MediaWorks because— 
Grant Robertson 
: It’s broke. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is going to go broke. It is going broke; he has lost the Government’s money— 
Chris Tremain 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We have allowed quite a wide-ranging debate but this debate is on the title and commencement clauses. It is fairly narrow and the former Minister there I think is going way outside the scope of what the title and commencement clauses are. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In all my time in Parliament I have never seen as part of a commencement clause a requirement for a private sector organisation to publish something in the  
Gazette 
. But that requirement is in this clause it is unique and it is therefore debatable. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I agree that that is debatable but I was struggling to see the relevance to the member’s argument of some of the illustrations he was using. In that respect I uphold the point of order. I ask the member to debate the issue upon what he said was in the clause. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: A new point of order? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well a related point of order Mr Chairman— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: No I have made a ruling and I think it is fair. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: OK—all right. In an attempt to avoid the Chairman struggling— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Oh that is getting close to commenting on my ruling. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well Mr Chairman you did say that you were struggling to understand. I would not have said that myself— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will respond to that because the member knows that he cannot bring the Chair or the Speaker into the debate. So I rule him out on that ground. Proceed. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am sure you do resemble the remarks! The point I am making is that under the commencement clause in subclause (3)—but relating back to subclause (2)—there is a requirement for Telecom to publish a date of separation in the  
Gazette 
 as soon as is practicable after it is known. The question I am asking the Minister is whether this is the clause that grants Telecom the ability to act as if it is a Government organisation. Would this require a ministerial signature? Normally for something to go in the  
Gazette 
 it goes in by the authority of a Minister chief executive or similar. Who is the agent here? 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 3 (Boscawen Calvert Hide); Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2 (Douglas Roy H); Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 67 Noes 56. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 3 (Boscawen Calvert Hide); Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2 (Douglas Roy H); Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 67 Noes 56. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 65 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 3 (Boscawen Calvert Hide); Maori Party 3; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 2 (Douglas Roy H); Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 67 Noes 56. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on Part 1 of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill. Points have already been made in earlier parts of the debate about how it was unfortunate that submissions on the bill to the Intelligence and Security Committee were heard in secret. I think the unnecessary nature of that secrecy is emphasised by the number of people who are in the gallery today. The number of people present in the gallery today indicates that the Government need not have been too worried about hearing the original submissions on the bill at the committee in public. I do not think the committee would have been overrun by unruly behaviour. In fact there would have been a transparent process that would give some of the critics of the legislation some confidence that nothing untoward was going on through this bill.  
I will focus on and ask the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General to address clause 5A of the bill. It is a matter that I referred to in my contribution on the first reading of the bill which is the drafting relating to proposed new section 4AAA(2) inserted by clause 5A. Section 4AAA(1) was inserted into the bill at the recommendation of the committee upon the submissions of amongst others the Human Rights Commission. It makes it clear that in performing its functions under the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act the Security Intelligence Service: “(a) contributes to keeping New Zealand society secure independent and free and democratic: (b) contributes to the participation of New Zealand in the maintenance of international security: (c)”—this is more relevant to the question I am coming to—“acts—(i) in accordance with New Zealand law and all human rights standards recognised by New Zealand law except to the extent that they are in relation to national security modified by an enactment: (ii) in the discharge of its operational functions independently and impartially: (iii) with integrity and professionalism: (iv) in a manner that facilitates effective democratic oversight.”  
It is a wise addition to set out some principles that underlie the performance of the Security Intelligence Service but I just wonder whether the wording of subsection (2) is so broad as to render nugatory subsection (1). Subsection (2) goes on to state: “Subsection (1) does not impose particular duties on or give particular powers to the Security Intelligence Service the Director any employee of the Service or the Minister.” So my question for the Minister—and the officials whom we seem to have in the Chamber in support of the Minister seem to be rather secret at the moment— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Can’t you seem them? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I cannot see them no. 
Chris Hipkins 
: New technology. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well secret service powers are obviously being used. This must be some device that has come from either KAOS or the other side. The Cone of Silence does not seem to be working today but the invisibility cloak is.  
It rests upon the Minister then to address this issue himself and to explain how subsection (2) does not make a complete nonsense of the very fine sentiments expressed in subsection (1). I ask the Minister to explain how subsection (1) does not impose any particular duties or give particular powers. I am not too worried about the powers; I am worried about whether it imposes particular duties on the “Security Intelligence Service the Director any employee of the Service or the Minister” and what that means. If it means that there are some general duties or general obligations to comply with these laws that are referred to and that act in accordance with New Zealand— 
Debate interrupted. 
Voting 
Correction—Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I will give the member another call but I have to deal with a matter. During the course of the questions on clauses 1 to 3 of the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill the result was incorrectly announced as 67 for the Ayes and 56 for the Noes. It should have been announced as 65 for the Ayes and 55 for the Noes. I inform the Committee of this and the record will show the amended numbers. 
New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act ( 
continued 
)  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I understand that there might not be any standard over and above what is set out in those laws that has to be recognised or complied with by the Security Intelligence Service when it performs its functions under this Act but I do not think we need subsection (2) to state that. That would be the law anyway. All that subsection (1) states is that unless there is some modification in relation to national security by some other enactment then those other enactments apply anyway. So I do not understand why we need subsection (2) and therefore I am confused by what it means. Does it mean that no duties arise under that Act? I thought that was one way we might read it. I find it a surprising and confusing subsection which I think makes this legislation harder to interpret rather than easier.  
I suggest to the Minister that he seek advice from officials as to whether we are making things worse by that rather than better. If particular duties arise under those statutes well they are not abrogated anyway. I presume that they are not intended to be abrogated by new subsection (2). I am left confused as to what that subsection means. I do not think it adds anything to the meaning of the statute but rather it confuses things.  
I would be grateful if the Minister in the chair addresses that issue when he has a chance to consider it. It may well be that the officials under their invisibility cloaks are considering this in some other part of the precinct and maybe they need to come back to him— 
Grant Robertson 
: Send a pigeon. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I do not think many pigeons are left in the Security Intelligence Service— 
Grant Robertson 
: I thought Mr Finlayson kept pigeons. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am sure he has a cloth cap but I do not know whether he keeps pigeons. But it is a serious issue. I agree that we should insert those principles but I do not understand what subsection (2) does. If it does not impose particular duties does that imply that subsection (1) implies general duties? If it applies general duties rather than particular duties what are they? I do not know. Again I say to the Minister that if it does not require particular duties does it propose general duties and if they are general duties what are they? That seems to me to be undesirable.  
I would have thought we wanted just the obligation for them to act in accordance with New Zealand law except to the extent that they are modified by another enactment. That is all it should say. Otherwise we are left with an uncertainty as to what particular duties under those Acts do or do not apply. Even if that is not a proper concern do general duties arise from these preceding clauses that are broader than statutory duties that arise under the New Zealand laws to which subsection (1)(c)(i) refers to?  
In general Labour members are convinced that the other changes made by Part 1 to the powers of the Security Intelligence Service are necessary. It was pointed out to the committee that various powers are held by other arms of the State like the police relating to newer technologies that have been developed since the original Act was passed some 40 years ago—the 1969 Act—and that technological advances since that date needed to be properly regulated. Indeed if it is a bit like the police then some powers of the Security Intelligence Service would be unregulated because they were not included in the Act and therefore they were not prohibited from being used but under this legislation they will now be regulated. I think that regulation is appropriate. I am sure that other members on behalf of Labour will have some other questions relating to the wording of that provision. I would not mind clarifying it for myself. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 One of the problems we have with discussing whether the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill is appropriate in respect of the particular issues raised by previous speaker David Parker is that the SIS is such an opaque organisation and whatever legislation we pass here it is very hard to tell whether the SIS will abide by it because we do not have the means of making this organisation accountable to Parliament in the way we have with other Government agencies. Often when Ministers come into this House they trumpet the achievements of their organisation and the importance of legislation to improve the functioning of their organisation but in the case of the SIS I cannot think of one achievement it can claim credit for over many many years. 
Hon David Parker 
: Preventing thermonuclear war. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Well it is interesting that back in November 2009 there was a request from the Security Intelligence Service to vice-chancellors of different universities for those vice-chancellors and their minions to alert the SIS to any illicit science relating to problems of weapons of mass destruction. That caused a bit of consternation amongst the academic community because first they were not aware of any people at Massey University who were running around producing weapons of mass destruction and second as the President of the Tertiary Education Union Dr Tom Ryan said they do have something called academic freedom including freedom from having State agencies breathing down their necks. According to Dr Ryan that request would undermine the legislative autonomy of institutions including the guarantee of academic freedom. So that was another problem that the SIS had. 
If we look at more recent examples we see the example of Stephen Wilce who was the head of the Defence Technology Agency. The SIS did a vet on him. He was probably one of the very few people in New Zealand who would have any real Government secrets. We are a pretty open society and we have a pretty open Government. We are involved in the estimates process at the moment. We are getting all this stuff from each department. We know pretty much what is going on including in defence itself but possibly the head of the Defence Technology Agency might have one or two secrets. He would perhaps be the one person amongst the thousands they vet each year whom they should have a close look at but the SIS fell down on the job. Stephen Wilce was a bit of a fantasist and should not have been in the job in the first place. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What about Devon Biggs? Do you remember Devon? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Devon Biggs was a student either at Auckland or Victoria University— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Victoria. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: He was a student at Victoria University who many years ago and along with other students and lecturers at Victoria University breached his academic freedom and the right to dissent against the Government of the day. He was an SIS agent on campus dedicated to watching those great subversive students who were protesting the Viet Nam War apartheid and the like. There was a huge furore about that and eventually an accommodation was reached with the universities that they would not put SIS agents on campus. That was not really a feather in the cap of the SIS. 
Then the Ahmed Zaoui case came to public attention. The SIS claimed this as a great victory for either 4 or 6 years I have forgotten which before it had to admit that this chap was a legitimate democratic dissident from Algeria who is now well settled in New Zealand and no one considers him a terrorist or a dangerous person at all. The SIS completely failed in that case and caused great heartache to Ahmed Zaoui who was in solitary confinement for a long time in and out of prison and finally he got his family here and is now settled in Palmerston North and running a kebab stall. That was a great failure but even more of a failure was the fact that even though the SIS had access to all the information on Ahmed Zaoui it did not see the light for so many years. The special advocate for Ahmed Zaoui Stuart Grieve made a submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the Immigration Bill. He looked at some of the material that was held against Ahmed Zaoui and he said that for a start most of the so-called secret material was in the public domain—about 90 percent of it—so it was not really secret material. It was of such low quality as to be virtually meaningless. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I ask the member to refer to Part 1. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes and this is related to Part 1. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am on my feet. Although it may have some relevance you need to relate it back so that we know which part of Part 1 we should refer to. I ask the member to continue and bring in Part 1. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: It is relevant particularly to the debate started up by David Parker on clause 5A where it talks about the particular duties of the Security Intelligence Service and the need for the agency to operate “in accordance with New Zealand law and all human rights standards …”. I am explaining that in the particular case of Ahmed Zaoui human rights were not properly dealt with by the Security Intelligence Service. It was sort of a failure of the agency to abide by what one would think were the proper human rights standards and proper scrutiny. That issue came into public attention and it turned out to be a failure for the Security Intelligence Service. 
There was another big case where the Security Intelligence Service invaded the home of Aziz Choudry. That was a big case in 1996 and again he was a legitimate political activist who was critical of free trade and investment agreements in the main. The Security Intelligence Service got into a lot of trouble because it broke the law by invading his home when at that point the Security Intelligence Service did not have legal powers to break into people’s homes. In the end after a long effort to try to get the material on the case out of the Security Intelligence Service—which was a huge struggle—the judge eventually ruled against the Security Intelligence Service. In effect I think Mr Choudry may have received some compensation out of it as well but I do not have that detail in my mind. 
We can go back to an earlier case with Dr William Ball Sutch who was a leading civil servant in our fine nation a great writer a historian and everything else. He was found at a trial to be not guilty of espionage or something like that in terms of the charge. So the Security Intelligence Service failed in that case. There is all this history of failures but I cannot think of one single success of the Security Intelligence Service. Perhaps in this debate the Minister can illustrate one single success of the Security Intelligence Service in order to justify its existence and all the legislation we are trying to put around it. 
Some intelligence agencies have the odd success overseas like tracking down Osama bin Laden or whatever it might be. But I cannot think of one success for our Security Intelligence Service so that asks the question of whether we need a Security Intelligence Service or whether the police can deal with criminality including politically motivated criminality instead of this secret agency which is pretty unaccountable. We do not even know— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I again bring to your attention that this part is not specifically about the Security Intelligence Service. I asked you to relate the examples you were giving back to parts of the bill. If we look at the purpose clause we see that it is not all about the SIS; it is about the authority given to it to use modern technology in its performance. That is part of it. I ask you to tie what you are saying back into the importance of the bill. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I take your point and we are giving access to this modern much more intrusive technology which is more intrusive on people’s privacy. I think that is an additional reason why we have to make sure that the Security Intelligence Service upholds the human rights standards referred to in Part 1. I and the Green Party are not confident that the Security Intelligence Service will match up with those standards. The record of the Security Intelligence Service has to be taken into account. Should we give more intrusive powers to an agency that does not have a track record of success yet is getting more and more money and more and more agents but still does not seem to be achieving anything? It is geared to catching all of these terrorists but it has not tracked one down in the whole last decade in New Zealand. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I enjoyed that contribution by Mr Locke. I half expected some kind of rant about Philby Burgess and Maclean at one stage but there we are. Can I just say something about the contribution of Mr Parker who spoke about new section 4AAA(2) inserted by clause 5A. My understanding about the way this clause was drafted was that the Human Rights Commission made a submission and then Dr Norman and Mr Goff got together and refashioned it and that is how it emerged. But I am not sure whether Dr Norman and Mr Goff actually dealt with subsection (2). Where I think subsection (2) comes from is that it is modelled on section 11 of the Policing Act 2008. Subpart 1 of that legislation sets out the principles and functions of the police and the roles of others acknowledged. Then section 11 states: “Nothing in sections 8 to 10—(a) imposes particular duties on or gives particular powers to the Police the Commissioner … or (b) affects the powers functions or duties of any agency”. So I think we get subsection (2) from section 11 of the Policing Act. The effect of it is that it does not impose new duties or give new powers to the Security Intelligence Service but it provides explicit recognition of those matters that should guide the working of the Security Intelligence Service. I suppose it is more in the nature of belt and braces but I think that is the legislative history of how we get this particular formulation. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I am speaking as someone who as some members—at least Sir Roger and one or two others—will remember has had more than a passing acquaintance with the SIS and its legislation over a period of years. I would like to focus on clause 5A “New section 4AAA inserted” which goes to the discharge of the operational functions of the SIS and to the integrity and professionalism of that organisation. I say that as someone who I am sure as with Keith Locke who spoke before me has managed to fail one of its vettings. I knew I had failed the vetting because after I had failed it when I was working as a window cleaner when I was a student I was accompanied while I was in the old Ministry of Defence building.  
Part of my responsibility was to clean the windows of what was probably the predecessor of the GCSB the Government Communications Security Bureau which sat in there. Because of the fact that I had failed the vetting I was constantly accompanied by a pistol-wearing guard to make sure I did not look at the papers and to make sure I looked at the window and not at the desks which were cleared for the period I cleaned the windows inside and out.  
I should say that the most interesting part was that the most locked-up room the most secure room had a number of books in it. This was during the Viet Nam War. One could tell what the organisation was working on from the books. They were about the economic aspects of the war against Viet Nam. Lipsky was the author of the Economics 101 textbook at that stage. It was the biggest book on the bookshelf of the most secret room within the Ministry of Defence at the time. The idea that it had to lock that book away when it was readily available to everyone who was doing Economics 101 at the university was an indication to me that maybe at the time the professionalism of the organisations that were involved in security matters was not quite at its peak.  
Then as I was often reminded during the first 6 or 7 years of my parliamentary career by the Rt Hon Sir Robert Muldoon at one stage I—[ 
Interruption 
] I thank Steve Chadwick for reminding me of the exact words he used to use. He described me as a long-haired activist when I was protesting against the lack of integrity and professionalism of the SIS. In fact I was arrested in the Chamber of the House and appeared in court and in the Supreme Court. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: History lessons are all very well and we learn a lot from them but 3 minutes have gone and I would like to hear how that relates to Part 1. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The point I was getting to is that at the time I had very serious doubts about the integrity and professionalism of the New Zealand SIS I think it is fair to say under the guidance of Brigadier Gilbert who was the director at the time. There appeared to be a requirement to have a white South African accent in order to be employed. The SIS agents were fairly easy to identify— 
Hon David Parker 
: And a moustache. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: And a moustache and sometimes a funny little forelock thing. The agents were relatively easy to identify because of the lack of integrity and certainly the lack of professionalism in their selection at the time. As a result of that there were widespread protests against the 1977 legislation.  
Since that time I have had the ability to observe matters to do with the SIS—not in any detail whatsoever apart from a relatively short time when I sat for a year or so on the Cabinet committee that dealt with international economic and foreign affairs and security matters. At that stage I became aware of some matters around the edge. I know that the biggest check on the integrity professionalism and discharge of the functions is the Minister who is responsible for the SIS. I often sat outside the offices of the Rt Hon David Lange Sir Geoffrey Palmer and subsequently Helen Clark originally as a whip and then as a Minister when there were unscheduled meetings with the director of the SIS. I presume that because the meetings were unscheduled they were to do with a matter of immediate security. Often it would have been a matter of warrants.  
The assurance I can give the Committee is that those meetings were never short. I know that because I waited outside. It is fair to say that the directors of the SIS—there were three of them over the years I think—whom I saw come out of those meetings did not always look particularly comfortable. I think it is fair to say that the interrogation by those Prime Ministers of those directors about their duties was intensive and that they used to go right down into detail. It is my understanding that David Lange—I do not know this of any of the others—used to go down to the SIS building and examine the files himself to make sure he was getting the appropriate story.  
I think there is a weakness in the legislation but I am not sure what the solution is. The weakness in it is that it requires a Prime Minister who is prepared to read and to cross-examine. 
Grant Robertson 
: Well that rules out the current one. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There could well be a problem but I think that when we are having a discussion in principle it is important to identify that. Despite my history of failing vettings and of being arrested I know that we have to have such an organisation. We know we must have such an organisation. It cannot— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: It’s a dilemma for you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No no it is not a dilemma at all. The SIS cannot operate in the open. It is clear that it cannot operate in the open. If a security intelligence service told everyone what it was doing there would be no point in having one.  
The idea that the SIS does not look at modern electronic communications is absurd. I would not hesitate to say that I am pretty sure it is looking at this stuff already. It might look at it and use it not for evidence but for building up a case to get a different sort of warrant. I think at least in collaboration with the police—if not independently—it is doing it now. I think it would be foolish if it was not doing it now. The idea that modern methods of communication cannot be intercepted and that modern tools cannot be used against people who at the extreme could be terrorists within New Zealand is just not acceptable. We have to have an organisation that has the tools.  
Part 1 of the bill deals with the changes to include electronic tracking for example. We know that the police have had the legal ability to do electronic tracking for some time. I do not know whether it is much less common or much less likely that the SIS uses it but the consequences of it not doing so could be much bigger than for the sorts of crimes the police are working on. Hopefully it never happens but in my opinion the SIS must have the powers to— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What about the window cleaners? Are they still a risk? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is fair to say that  
Confessions of a Window Cleaner 
 was an interesting movie but I think we had probably better not go into the things that window cleaners have seen while they were window cleaning. It is fair to say that at the James Cook Hotel where I also worked there were some particularly interesting occurrences that one could see as one was window cleaning. Of course I shut my eyes immediately rather than carefully examine what was occurring during the daytime.  
Labour supports Part 1. It is a regret that it is necessary to have the SIS in this country but it is necessary. We cannot have it any other way for it to be effective. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this important bill the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill. As two of the earlier speakers were arrested and put under surveillance by the SIS I feel somewhat left out. I do not think I have such a colourful past as they do—[ 
Interruption 
]—that is true. Maybe I need to get my file. I know that Keith Locke got his file and it was about a foot thick I remember him once saying. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It was nearly as thick as Gavin Briggs. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: That is right. But seriously this is important legislation. There were as I understand it 23 different written submissions that covered mainly Part 1 of the bill. As others before me have said the fact that the submissions had to be heard in secret was regrettable. Although there is some interest in this bill and we could have looked at some of the submissions independently in secret I think for the most part the submitters did not feel that their submissions needed to be heard in secret nor did they want them to be. They wanted their submissions to be heard in the public arena. With that prelude I will move into some of the issues.  
I will start by quoting Sir Geoffrey Palmer whom the Attorney General quoted earlier in either the first or second reading. I think his words summarise the essence and the purpose of Part 1. He was also a Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service. He said: “To a very significant extent ‘national security’ means just this—freedom from interference; freedom from terrorist attack freedom from deliberately incited racial violence freedom from espionage which itself threatens basic freedom such as privacy freedom from the kind of genuinely subversive activity which is aimed—not just in theory but in fact—at destabilising or overthrowing the very democratic system upon which the exercise of civil liberties depends.” I thought that was a particularly relevant quote that needs to be looked at in balance with the protection of the right to privacy the powers that might impinge on people’s privacy and certainly the powers that might impinge on the basic human rights that govern our country.  
Trevor Mallard mentioned at the very end of his contribution that this bill basically brings the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act up to date so that it has the same sort of ability to look at powers of surveillance in the 21st century. It has been 42 years since that Act was properly updated. The Government although I am not sure whether this is particularly relevant would like to get this bill through before the Rugby World Cup. I do not quite understand the reason for the urgency. The Security Intelligence Service is well and truly in place and is working well so I do not know whether this legislation will make much difference to it. Nevertheless given the fact that the bill is to go through the House by then perhaps the Minister might want to comment on any difference that it would make if this legislation did not come up before the Rugby World Cup.  
The submissions on this part focused on four general areas. The first was the surveillance powers of the SIS and that includes the electronic surveillance and tracking capabilities which I just mentioned. The second was the protection from liability of employees and others who assist in the exercise of warrants. Clearly that is necessary as the SIS relies on a number of other people and individuals in the exercise of its work. The third area was the delegation of powers including the power to exercise warrants and the absence of a requirement to name all of the people who assist. Again I think it is pretty self-evident why that is the case: obviously people assisting the SIS could be compromised in the actions that they assist with. The last general area was that of oversight and accountability including issues of human rights and the role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security.  
I was pleased that the Intelligence and Security Committee made a number of amendments to the bill somewhat in response to the four areas that submitters brought up. First of all there was an amendment regarding the principles. David Parker spoke to this amendment. Section 4AAA inserted by clause 5A has been brought into the bill to in a sense highlight the work of the Security Intelligence Service. It runs through what the Security Intelligence Service is trying to do when performing its functions. It lists that in the three paragraphs of section 4AAA(1) which state that the SIS: “(a) contributes to keeping New Zealand society secure independent and free and democratic: (b) contributes to the participation of New Zealand in the maintenance of international security:” as part of our obligations and “(c) acts—(i) in accordance with New Zealand law and all human rights standards”—and this is one of the things that the Human Rights Commission insisted went in as part of its contribution to the select committee—“except to the extent that they are in relation to national security modified by an enactment: (ii) in the discharge of its operational functions independently and impartially: (iii) with integrity and professionalism: (iv) in a manner that facilitates effective democratic oversight.”  
Although one would hope that those principles were inherent within the legislation or the actions of the SIS generally I think it adds to the bill to have them explicitly stated. It will give more confidence perhaps to those people who have some nervousness about this legislation in terms of the way the SIS will carry out its work in future.  
The other aspect I will touch on is the destruction of irrelevant records. This is covered in clause 8A which was also brought into the legislation at the select committee. Once again the idea is that information that is collected but that is not particularly relevant to a case would be destroyed once it was seen to be not relevant. New subsection (2A) of section 4G which is amended by clause 8A states: “As soon as practicable after the expiry of an intelligence warrant that authorises electronic tracking the Director must ensure that any records resulting from the electronic tracking undertaken under that warrant are destroyed except to the extent that those records are relevant—”. In other words a lot of information is likely to be gathered in an inquiry and all of it that is not relevant should be destroyed. The question I have—again for the Minister—concerns how we are to ensure that the information has been destroyed. How will we know that it has been destroyed? What sorts of safeguards could we ask for as a Parliament to make sure that it happens? A provision on that might be in the legislation; it might already be well covered. But I would welcome the Minister’s intervention on that question.  
My last point is about mistaken identity—another area where the bill was modified at the select committee. This is in clause 7 which amends section 4B by adding a number of subsections including: “(4) The Minister or as the case requires the Minister and the Commissioner must consider whether to include conditions in an intelligence warrant to minimise any risk …”. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 One of the issues that Part 1 of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill addresses is updating the powers of the Security Intelligence Service in respect of new electronic technologies. The one I will spend a moment on is the inclusion of the power for electronic tracking. Clause 5 of the bill states: “ ‘electronic tracking’ means the use of electronic means for the purpose of ascertaining the location or tracking the movement of a person or thing”. 
I am interested in the opinion of the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General as to whether he agrees with the Law Commission that in terms of the degree of intrusion upon civil liberties we should be less concerned about electronic tracking than about surveillance techniques like cameras and recording devices. I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee that considered the Search and Surveillance Bill and we heard a submission presented by Warren Young on behalf of the Law Commission. He expressed the view that as a society we should be less concerned about electronic tracking devices than we should be about other surveillance techniques in that electronic tracking devices are less intrusive into the personal life or the personal business of the person under surveillance. That seemed right to me but I was not completely convinced in that if for example a person was regularly going to the place of another person who was not their wife then electronic tracking of that person would be intrusive into the details of that person’s personal life in a way that might concern them given that they might think they had a right to live their life privately. 
That is a little issue that I would not mind some clarification from the Minister on. If there is a difference in the intrusiveness of different methods of search and surveillance or different techniques then maybe there is a need to have some different threshold applying to the different sorts of surveillance techniques that might be utilised. It may well be that the Minister thinks that if the police have these powers then the Security Intelligence Service should be qualified to have them too and that the proper oversight of the use or misuse of those powers is provided for by the Commissioner of Security Warrants and the Prime Minister. 
I would be interested in the Attorney-General’s view on that also because it seems to me that we are lucky in New Zealand that we have a trustworthy judiciary. In fact I do not know of another jurisdiction in the world that has a more trustworthy judiciary than New Zealand. That is not to say that overseas countries’ judiciaries are not trustworthy but I am very trusting of the independence of our higher courts especially. I think we have a tradition of impartiality lack of bias and thoughtfulness amongst our higher judicial officers in New Zealand that is a very very important part of the constitutional safeguard of our civil liberties. 
For example I prefer New Zealand’s system to the American system where there is more political involvement in the appointment of judges in an overtly political way. I know that in the end someone has to appoint a judge and in the end it has to be done by another branch of Government and therefore it is generally a politician—and in our case the Attorney-General—but we have a strong tradition in New Zealand of making non-partisan appointments to courts. As a consequence we have non-partisan courts generally to the extent that that is possible and we therefore have the benefit of a long tradition of judicial independence and a judiciary that we can rightly trust I think to be guardians of civil liberties and therefore guardians against inappropriate use of Security Intelligence Service powers. I would like to hear from the Minister whether he agrees that the controls we have that underlie the way in which we prevent the Security Intelligence Service from misusing the powers we have— 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I will follow on from the previous speech given by David Parker who referred to two quite intrusive powers in the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill. The tracking power—the ability to track people around the place—is particularly mentioned in this bill. When we compare this bill with the Search and Surveillance Bill which has been discussed in the Justice and Electoral Committee we see that there is a higher threshold for video surveillance in private homes. It can be authorised only in relation to crimes with several years’ jail as punishment; I think 7 years is the threshold. It is very intrusive to put a covert video camera in someone’s bedroom or living room; it intrudes very much on people’s privacy and a family’s privacy.  
There seems to be a lower threshold in the Search and Surveillance Bill for tracking but tracking can be very intrusive too. It is true that the police already have that power. It is true that it is not actually outlawed for people to track other people. In fact I get emails saying that for US$200 I can buy a very small device that can be attached to my partner’s car to follow them around and see whether they are cheating on me or to see whether my kids are going astray. They can be tracked. One just tracks on one’s computer where the global positioning system location is at a particular time. It is very intrusive technology and we should not let agencies of the State have it too easily. That is one of the Green Party’s concerns.  
There is also the problem with the warrants. Under this new amended legislation there will be less control over the warrants particularly with regard to people being asked to assist the SIS in the application of those warrants. Previously the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service had to be involved in any changes to the warrants. There have not been many changes. I think there were about five in the last financial year or a maximum of five over the last 3 calendar years; there have not been many changes. But now not only will the Minister not be involved but the SIS director can delegate to somebody down the chain the changes in the warrants and who will be asked to assist. This means we have less and less control over the whole warrant system.  
This question of who should or could be requested to help the SIS is quite contentious and the Council of Trade Unions made quite an extensive submission on that point. It was worried about workers in workplaces being required to assist the SIS by spying on their workmates without even telling their employers. There is not even provision in the legislation for the employer to be told so the employer could get upset that the workers are delegated by the SIS to spy on an employer to spy on another worker etc. A whole lot of industrial issues start to come into the whole thing as well.  
There is a worsening or loosening of the legislation in terms of who can be asked to assist with the interception warrants the tracking or whatever it might happen to be. It can now include organisations as well as individuals so it is a very difficult area. Of course the people in the gun are for the most part those working in telecommunications and for internet service providers. Those working for internet service providers in particular do not want to breach the privacy of the people they sign up as clients who are paying them good money each month to have email or some form of internet service. They do not want to get mixed up in that. Under this legislation it will not even be the Minister or the director involved; it will be some minion in the SIS chasing people around and saying they have to spy on a person.  
I come back to my original point: where are the enemies where are the terrorists and where are the really bad people that mean that we need to give these extensive powers to the SIS? We have a police force that operates effectively. It can and does operate in secret in that it does not tell criminals whether they are ordinary criminals or politically motivated criminals what is going on. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Independent: Carter C. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Crimes Act 1961 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 Part 2 covers amendments to the Crimes Act 1961 that are made by this New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill. The difficulty we have in this Committee at this part of the debate is that the commentary on the bill says nothing about Part 2. Therefore when trying to interpret Part 2 we are left to our own devices. It seems to me from the changes brought about by this part that we are amending a provision in the Crimes Act by omitting a phrase “sections 249 and 250” and substituting in its place the phrase “sections 249 to 252”. In other words by this amendment we are omitting an additional two clauses from the Crimes Act.  
My first question for the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General is whether we are repealing those sections or just saying that those sections do not apply to actions by the Security Intelligence Service; if so what are we changing in practice? It appears that at least part of this relates to accessing computer systems without an authorisation and in that regard we repealing section 252(3). I presume that we are repealing that for all purposes not just for the purposes of the Security Intelligence Service. Hence I am a little surprised in that just from an initial reading of this part of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill I cannot see why we would be repealing provisions relating to the Crimes Act. It is possible I suppose that there were provisions relating to that Act and that section 252(3) of the Crimes Act might have had a specific provision exempting the Security Intelligence Service from that particular provision of the Act.  
If we have extended the number of sections that are omitted to include section 252(3) then the omission of those sections might mean that there is no need now to have the special provisions in sections 253 and 254 which are accordingly repealed. The Minister I see has the statute in front of him and might be able to inform— 
Grant Robertson 
: He has memorised the Act. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: He may already know. The Attorney-General is very learned in matters of law. It may well be that he already knows off by heart the provisions of sections 249 to 252 of the Crimes Act and whether those sections are of particular application to the Security Intelligence Service only or whether they have wider application. I look forward to the Minister clarifying that question. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Sections 248 through to 254 of the Crimes Act were inserted by the Crimes Amendment Act of 2003 and they deal with crimes involving computers. The purpose of Part 2 of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill is to give effect to certain amendments to the Crimes Act and clause 17 amends section 248 of the Crimes Act. It inserts a definition of “authorisation” which is currently not there and which is defined as including “an authorisation conferred on a person by or under an enactment or a rule of law or by an order of a court or judicial process”. So that is what happens there; that definition of authorisation is inserted. Clause 18 repeals section 252(3) of the Crimes Act which is rendered superfluous because of the definition of “authorisation” included in clause 17 of the bill. Sections 253 and 254 of the Crimes Act are repealed. Those sections currently give both the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service in the case of section 253 and the Government Communications Security Bureau in the case of section 254 a qualified exemption from the offence of accessing computer systems without authorisation. Those sections have become unnecessary in view of the definition of “authorisation” that will be inserted by clause 17. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I thank the Minister in the chair Minister Finlayson for that explanation in relation to Part 2 of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill and David Parker for drawing our attention to the lack of clarity in it. I will also address those particular clauses because they relate to the question of computer access. That has been quite a controversial issue both in the original law back in 2003 the Crimes Amendment Act which the Attorney-General referred to which granted some powers of computer access to Government agencies including the Security Intelligence Service and also in relation to the Search and Surveillance Bill which gives a range of powers to Government agencies under different Acts including I think the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act. This provision in Part 2 that relates to computer access is an attempt to tie it all together and streamline it etc. but underneath it all is the more fundamental question of intrusive powers being given to the Security Intelligence Service in its relatively unaccountable state compared with other agencies such as the police.  
Computers have much information—I can speak for my own computer and I am sure that other members will feel the same—given that a large proportion of one’s life views attitudes and sometimes personal correspondence is sitting on one’s computer. So to grant to an agency too readily the power to take a copy of what is on a person’s hard drive to search it with key words and all the rest of it is a power that should not be given lightly. There have been submissions to select committees on this issue over the years. People get very upset at the intrusion this involves. The authorisation although it has been streamlined here under bills like this bill and the Search and Surveillance Bill can have a certain delegation and it is not necessarily always a high-level judicial person who will give that authorisation.  
The other problem with this bill and where this bill and this provision relate to the Search and Surveillance Bill is that when searching whether a building or a computer a principle has been introduced that even though the search is being made on the basis of one crime if evidence of another crime comes into what is called plain view then that bit of evidence can be picked up. If there is enough evidence the charge can be proceeded with in relation to this other crime which had not necessarily been mentioned in the original warrant. That has a particular problem when applied to computers because a lot of things can come into plain view. People accidentally use certain words and word combinations to search for one thing and a whole lot of other things come up and some smart officer of the Security Intelligence Service or the police can sort of get what they want. They can look for evidence of a whole range of crimes not included in a warrant more easily in terms of accessing a computer than possibly if they were searching a person’s home—although there are ways of doing it if they are searching a person’s home. Police officers might walk into a home looking for a bit of stolen property for example and they might sort of know where that stolen property is but they might forget to look in the particular place for a start. Instead they look everywhere else in the room or the house and then end up at the place where they knew the piece of stolen property was really likely to be. In the meantime they have searched the whole building and tried to uncover information about or evidence of other crimes if they are out to get that particular person for example. There may be cases like that.  
But my main point is that access to computers is a very very difficult area particularly if the person in question does not know what is going on. Under this legislation and the parallel legislation the Search and Surveillance Bill access to a computer can include not only the physical computer one operates from but other computers that are part of the network and various other email addresses. It can relate to trawling—you know finding out what people are doing in their computer searches. Access can include a whole range of things. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Independent: Carter C. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Independent: Carter C. 
Schedule agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I think that clauses 1 and 2 of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill are very relevant. The title is the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill. Let us look at the title of the organisation which is the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. I have indicated in my previous contributions that there is a problem with the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. In spite of the increased amount of money devoted to it—in the time I have been in Parliament I think its budget has gone from about $10 million a year to $40 million or more a year and all sorts of staff have been added such as translators and all kinds of people—it does not seem to have in terms of the wording in the title too much intelligence for making any progress or coming up with some achievements that we in Parliament can learn about and celebrate. I think that one use of the word “intelligence” is not particularly appropriate to the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service.  
Also there are no indications of what the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service has done for our security. We are always proud of the term “New Zealand” being in the title of any bill as all of us are very patriotic New Zealanders. The problem is that the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service because of its relative lack of independence internationally is not upholding New Zealand’s good name and traditions in the way that some other Government agencies are.  
If we look at the WikiLeaks documents we will see that the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service although it resisted this course for some years is now integrating its computer system with that of the United States intelligence agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security the FBI and the CIA. In that sense we lose a bit of independence. There are not many nations in the world that link up their computer systems in the same way. We are reliant more and more on the American Government’s definitions of intelligence who may or may not be an enemy or who should be a prohibited immigrant etc.  
We know that particularly from other WikiLeaks documents on the Guantanamo Bay detention centre the American Government gets it wrong many many times. When audits have been done of their databases even Government audits themselves they have found a very high error rate in databases in terms of who is a really bad person and who is not. We are probably through this integration with the American intelligence system detrimentally affecting the lives or the travel plans of many people unnecessarily. We do not have the statistics on that. They are a little hard to come by by the very nature of the way these things work.  
I do not think the title is necessarily appropriate. It is certainly an amendment bill; that part of the title is quite correct. Perhaps we should change the commencement date to further down the track. The bill comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. I think it would be better if we put the commencement date further down the track—a year or two out—so that we can ponder whether this is appropriate legislation.  
Improvements have taken place in this bill. It is good that the provisions are there in terms of the section that was discussed earlier on human rights standards. It is good that the Government the Government members of the Intelligence and Security Committee and all members of the committee agreed to put in that provision. It was proposed by the Human Rights Commission in its submission. It is not quite in the form that the Human Rights Commission would like but it is a step forward. It puts a little moral basis under the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service to abide by human rights. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 At this stage I understand there is a slightly wider purview than we have in respect of other parts of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill. I will express why Labour thinks that overall this bill ought to proceed and therefore the commencement date is appropriate. Sad though it may be I think to quote Winston Peters “every Western democracy” has its own security and intelligence service. We might not like to think that there are elements in society that would do untoward things but the reality is that virtually all countries protect themselves against those possibilities and they do so on occasions through an organisation like the Security Intelligence Service.  
We try to strike the balance between giving those organisations the powers they need to do their work and protecting citizens from intrusion on their civil liberties. In this instance in New Zealand we do that through the oversight of the Prime Minister and the Commissioner of Security Warrants who by tradition is a retired High Court judge or in fact it might be by way of legislative mandate that the commissioner has to be a former High Court judge. I see the Attorney-General is nodding in that respect; he thinks it is.  
That is how we achieve the appropriate balance between protecting our citizens from inappropriate intrusion or surveillance by the security apparatus and having that facility there for the protection of our way of life so that it is less likely to be disturbed by people who have different values and have a different ambition. Although those people are rare we have to accept that they exist in some parts of the world and that they could do damage to our way of life if they had their way. Those are the two interests that we try to balance and I think this bill achieves that. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 One of the problems with the Security Intelligence Service as I have said on a few occasions and this is reflected in the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill is that it is a rather unaccountable agency—probably the least accountable in our Government system.  
One thing that is reinforced in this amendment bill is the exemption from any litigation of people helping the Security Intelligence Service in terms of warrants. It is true as in any Government agency that if one is obeying the instructions of one’s superiors in carrying out certain Government functions one should not be unnecessarily subject to litigation. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Before dinner I was talking about the problem of removing from liability people who help the SIS in the execution of a warrant. I said that when someone is performing a State function for any State organisation the fact that they are obeying the dictates of their superiors must certainly be taken into consideration in most cases. But I do not think there should be a formal exclusion of liability in all circumstances. That exclusion could potentially lead to some people getting off some rather nasty and untoward behaviour.  
I think this is particularly true in the case of an agency that is so secret and that in many regards is not subject to the Official Information Act. It has a let-out clause for matters of national security under the Official Information Act. It does not really have accountability mechanisms that are up to standard. For instance the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security is a body that people can appeal to if they ever find out that they are being unjustly spied upon which is often a bit difficult. But that position is essentially part-time it is not very well staffed and for all the good will in the world of the person who may be the incumbent Inspector-General it does not really act as a very good control agency for the SIS.  
Similarly we have heard earlier in the debate that the Intelligence and Security Committee meets in secret and does not meet very often. It is made up of the Prime Minister the Labour leader and their appointees but they are busy people. They have spent a bit of time on this bill which is to their credit and they have come up with some positive amendments to the bill but the Intelligence and Security Committee is not really a proper select committee of Parliament. It is not up to the standard of some of the overseas intelligence committees in Western democracies such as in Britain and elsewhere which have more teeth get more information and are more in the public domain in the sense that problems that arise are discussed openly and reports are made and discussed.  
Even if we look at the report back from the Intelligence and Security Committee on the estimates and the annual reports virtually nothing is there. There is no breakdown of expenses. In that sense the powers we are giving to the Security Intelligence Service under this bill—and I have talked about the liability clause—are not really accountable. There are no real accountability mechanisms to either Parliament or the people and that is one of the reasons why the Green Party is not for proceeding with this particular bill.  
The SIS is unlike the police which has the Independent Police Conduct Authority with very rigorous examination and a proper select committee: the Law and Order Committee. It has all sorts of accountability mechanisms built in and it has more of the public media limelight on it. But where it is necessary it acts in a secret way—if it is tracking down criminals whom it is unwise to warn that the police are giving them some attention. The police combine the necessary secretive element with the proper accountability. Unfortunately the SIS which has been given more powers under this bill does not have those particular mechanisms. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Independent: Carter C. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill and the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 3)  pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper248. 
The Chairperson reported the Telecommunications (TSO Broadband and Other Matters) Amendment Bill with amendment and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill without amendment and that the Committee had divided it into two bills. 
Report adopted. 
Motions 
Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010—Approval 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 78B of the Dog Control Act 1996 this House approve the Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010 made under section 78A of that Act. 
 This motion stood referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. In its report presented on 25 November 2010 the committee recommended that the motion be approved. The Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010 will add the perro de presa Canario breed of dog to the list of dogs banned from importation into New Zealand in schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996. Adding the perro de presa Canario to schedule 4 is a precautionary public safety measure to protect New Zealanders and prevent this potentially aggressive breed from becoming established in the New Zealand dog population.  
The perro de presa Canario is a large heavy dog with powerful jaws and a documented tendency to exhibit aggressive behaviour. The breed originates from the Canary Islands where it has been used for organised dog fights. The tendency of the perro de presa Canario to exhibit aggressive behaviour or attack and the size and strength of the breed make it of particular concern because of the seriousness of injuries it could inflict. There have been two known fatal attacks involving the breed in the United States since 2001.  
The breed is currently not known to be present in New Zealand and is prohibited from importation into Australia. The Brazilian fila dogo Argentino the Japanese tosa breeds and the American pit bull terrier type are already listed in schedule 4 of the Act as prohibited from importation. Dogs of the breeds or types listed that are already present in New Zealand must be classified as menacing by local authorities must be muzzled when at large and must be neutered. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: How about with meaning? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: This measure does not affect the proposed review of public safety around dogs I tell Mr Barker. The review will look at the underlying principles of public safety around dogs and the effectiveness of the existing regulatory regime. We will seek a better understanding of how to improve public safety around dogs while ensuring that responsible dog owners are not disadvantaged. Thank you. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: These are 5-minute calls. There will be a 1-minute warning bell. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I think it is appropriate to congratulate the Associate Minister of Local Government. I think this is the first order or bill that the Minister has brought to the House. Is that appropriate? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Very appropriate. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I thought the pronunciation of the different dog varieties was quite superb. We on this side of the House support Government motion No. 3 about the Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010. I think it is self-evident that this is a good appropriate and logical move to add this menacing breed to the schedule of dogs contained in the Dog Control Act that pose a threat to the citizens of New Zealand were they to be let loose on the streets of our towns and suburbs. 
I want to use these few minutes as an opportunity to say that we have a problem in our country with dog attacks on innocent citizens. Only recently we had a string of attacks in May. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 reported that two small girls suffered terrible facial injuries in separate dog attacks. A 2-year-old girl had surgery at Whakatane Hospital to repair her face after being savaged by a pit bull terrier. Earlier in the day a 4-year-old girl was viciously attacked by a bull mastiff. She faced multiple operations to rebuild her face. The attacks capped a string of horror maulings in the past 10 days including one that left a Bay of Plenty woman scalped. Other attacks saw a woman set upon by a pack of pig dogs and a rescue of a baby girl by her 5-year-old sister when a pit bull invaded their home. 
We have a problem in this country with dog attacks on innocent citizens in our streets. We have a problem but we have a Minister of Local Government who does not seem to know what the appropriate response is from a Government to this kind of problem. The Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide said recently: “I am not sure that people with an irrational fear however real of dogs have a right to require the physical restraint of all dogs in public places.” Every time a citizen gets attacked by a lethal or menacing dog around New Zealand and every time some 5-year-old has his or her face ripped off by a pit bull terrier Rodney Hide announces that he will do a review of the dog control laws. That is all he knows how to do. He has been announcing the same review for the last 2½ years. Every time there is a headline about a dog attack that Minister offers a review. But the trouble is that he sends very mixed signals about what he intends to do. In October last year he addressed the Companion Animal Conference and he said on this very issue of dog attacks on citizens: “Perhaps there are ways to encourage individuals to resolve their problems without the need for regulation—for example: by educating owners about dog behaviour and public education about safety around dogs.” Well I ask this House whether those kinds of signals being sent by the Minister Rodney Hide are any consolation to the parents of that toddler in Whakatane who was severely injured by an attack on an innocent child by an out-of-control dog. 
We on this side of the House tried in 2008 to bring in dog control legislation that would have enacted a stricter regime on the regulation of lethal and menacing dogs. We proposed that lethal breeds already in this country would be dealt with not just dogs that have yet to be imported. Members of that side of the House—Rodney Hide and National members—voted against it because they said it was the nanny State interfering in the lives of New Zealanders. They rejected a practical measure to control vicious lethal and menacing breeds of dogs which are a menace on the streets of New Zealand. They rejected it as a nanny State measure.  
Now that they are in Government I call on the members on that side of the House to rethink their position on this issue and consider whether we should have a cross-party consensus in this House about tougher regulations of lethal and menacing breeds. I think it is time that we considered that and I call on members of the House to respond in this debate. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 I recall the subject of Government motion No. 3 Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010 coming to the Local Government and Environment Committee on 9 November 2010. The papers were accompanied by photographs and illustrations. I have one right here courtesy of my colleague Jami-Lee Ross. These dogs are voracious carnivores. They are equipped with huge jaws formidable teeth an aggressive temperament and heavily muscled bodies—physical features all of which could be put to a very very bad use. None of the features of this particular breed held any virtue in the mind of the select committee. The order added the breed Perro de Presa Canario to schedule 4 of the Dog Control Act 1996. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Say it again. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE 
: Certainly—Perro de Presa Canario. This order forbids the importation of this breed to New Zealand. Although I fully support the comments of the honourable member Phil Twyford I say that these dogs have not actually committed any of those aggressive things for a very good reason: none of the breed is here and never ever will be as long as we adopt this order. The important thing is that we do not need these dogs. We have never had a need for this type of animal in New Zealand we do not have a need for this type of animal in New Zealand and we never will have a need for this type of animal in New Zealand. This motion should be approved and supported. Thank you. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The Opposition supports the Government Notice of Motion No. 3 on the Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010 but I want to comment just on the procedure by which the House is dealing with this issue. The way in which we are dealing with this order is by way of what has become known as the affirmative resolution procedure. Instead of the matter going to the Regulations Review Committee which is what most other delegated legislation does—and Mr Assistant Speaker Roy knows this because I served in a very junior capacity while he was on that committee in the last term as a senior member—this matter is somehow seen as so important that it has to come to the House and we have to spend an hour on it giving set-piece speeches which is a total waste of time. It is an absolute waste of time and an absolute waste of taxpayers’ dollars. It is disgraceful.  
Constitutionally and legally we should refer all these matters in the ordinary course of events to the scrutiny committee that Parliament sets up every term which meets every Thursday morning in a sitting week and deals with all these regulations. Instead these matters go to a subject select committee where they occupy time on the agenda then eventually—because if I recall rightly this was dealt with back in November 2010 by the Local Government and Environment Committee—they make it back to the House and onto the Order Paper for a Wednesday night. We have as I said one of these stupid set-piece debates where the Opposition tries to fill up all the time it can take the Government tries to get through it as quickly as it can and nobody is the wiser once the debate is over.  
I am really making in my speech a plea for us to recognise that we do have a decent procedure available to the Parliament for the scrutiny of legislation. Virtually everything else goes there. There is nothing special about dogs except the fact that back in 1996 there was a moral panic about breeds of attack dogs so Parliament decided it had to do something that looked really sexy to the public. It had all these orders approved by the full House rather than through the ordinary scrutiny procedure. That is ridiculous. It was the usual knee-jerk reaction to a matter of public interest. Instead of honouring the usual legal and constitutional procedures the Government did something really special and decided that a future Parliament would have to waste a heap of time on debating this matter. That is ridiculous and it is a waste of taxpayers’ money. If members opposite were really concerned about this matter then their party would not have enacted this legislation in the form that it was enacted and we would not be wasting our time as we are now. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 Unlike the previous speaker Charles Chauvel I am very proud to support the order banning the perro de presa Canario dog breed. There are a few breeds that this country never wants to see entering our shores and this is one of them.  
We heard descriptions of the breed from the honourable Associate Minister of Local Government who introduced this order today. The perro de presa Canario is a breed that was bred in the 1800s for fighting. That was its sole purpose for being in existence. We have heard the fact that dogs of this breed have been responsible for two deaths in the United States one of which was of the dog’s owner which I find absolutely despicable. It is important to take the steps we have available to us with this notice of motion so I am pleased to do that.  
I will also address the comments that Mr Twyford made. I say that clearly a wider review will be undertaken as committed to by the Minister of Local Government. This side of the House sees that this sort of thing should take a lower priority than earthquake recovery in Canterbury and Christchurch. The Minister of Local Government has other priorities which this side of the House is quite happy about. The other important thing is that there is recognition that there are significant dog attacks but rather than one-off knee-jerk legislative changes we need that wider review.  
Someone in my own employment was subjected to an attack by a bull mastiff of which the perro de presa Canario is a fellow breed as she went for a run down a suburban road. That is the sort of thing we need to get on top of but I do not think it is as simple as some of the legislative changes we have seen in the past in terms of microchipping. I am not convinced that that has saved any child or adult from a dog attack. That is why I applaud the Minister for his wider review and I applaud the action being taken today to support this order. Thank you. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to speak in support of this motion to ban the perro de presa Canario dog breed having had the opportunity to sit through the Local Government and Environment Committee’s consideration of this matter under the chairmanship of Mr Auchinvole whom I can see over there. Having seen some of the evidence of this particular breed of dog I can say that we fully support the decision to ban it.  
I come to this debate as an enthusiastic supporter of the rights of dog owners because I myself have been a dog owner in the past. I think it is important that we do not place unnecessary restrictions on dog owners. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: A vicious dog? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I have never had a vicious dog no. I think we need to get the balance right and I think that a large amount of this falls into the category of the dog owners behaving responsibly. We cannot blame the animals for a certain amount of their behaviour. That is natural; it is what they are. They are animals at the end of the day. How they are treated by their owners will in large part have a significant impact on the way the dogs end up behaving.  
Having said that there are some breeds of dog that are significantly more susceptible to random acts of violence—or even not so random acts of violence just consistent acts of violence. The perro de presa Canario breed of dog is one of them. I do not think we need any more dogs of that nature in New Zealand. In fact we have too many dogs of that nature in New Zealand already.  
I support there being a wider review of what types of dog we have in New Zealand and of the potential to breed out some of the dog breeds that we currently have in New Zealand because they are simply dangerous dogs. If we can get rid of them I think we should. Having said that there will always be exceptions.  
I remember when I was growing up that for a while Rottweillers were regarded as being one of the most dangerous types of dog that someone could get. I happen to know a number of families who have Rottweillers that are the most placid friendly-natured creatures one could imagine. I grew up in a household with boxer dogs. Boxer dogs can be temperamental as well but they are good family dogs if they are treated properly. If they are properly trained and have the appropriate obedience training when they are puppies boxer dogs can be brilliant family pets but they can also be very unpredictable. So it is the responsibility of their owners to make sure that the dogs are properly supervised that they are kept fenced and that when they are out walking they are keeping an eye on what the dogs are getting up to and keeping them on a lead when other dogs and kids and so on are around. That is what a responsible dog owner does and there is nothing wrong therefore with that breed of dog continuing.  
The perro de presa Canario breed of dog which this motion bans from New Zealand does not fall into that category. The evidence is overwhelming that it is not a dog that can be tamed and domesticated. It is a violent-natured breed of dog and I think it is right that we ban it. We have a problem in New Zealand with a number of savage dogs and I think it is really important that we make some progress on dealing with that issue. Having said that again I come back to this issue of balance.  
I am not currently a dog owner. The lifestyle of a member of Parliament does not really lend itself to being a responsible owner and I would be a dog owner only if I could be so responsibly. I cannot be one given the amount of time I spend here. 
Phil Twyford 
: A list MP could. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: I tell Mr Twyford that that is an indictment on the lifestyle of list MPs. He is suggesting that a list MP could have a dog but an electorate MP could not. We need to take a lot more action on dealing with the very real risk that violent dogs pose in our community at the moment. There need to be much more severe penalties for dog owners because once again I think it comes back to the issue of dog owners needing to accept some responsibility for the actions of their dogs. They should not be able to get away lightly. The recent spate of dog attacks that we have seen in the news media highlights the issue. We as a Parliament—and particularly members on that side as a Government—need to be more proactive about dealing with this issue.  
When these things happen we should not just lament their occurrence and say we have to do something about it; we can do something about it before there are more violent dog attacks. That means dealing with menacing breeds and placing much tougher controls on them. It means looking very carefully at the breeds of dog we have in New Zealand at the moment that are menacing and violent and making sure we take action so that they are bred out of the dog breeds we have in New Zealand. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I support the motion on the Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010. I will make just a couple of points. Our approach in the area of dog legislation is really to ensure that we do not make knee-jerk reactions. We support a very considered approach to these issues.  
I will make a couple of points in response to some of the members opposite. Some of the research on this dog breed—as has already been mentioned by a number of speakers—has shown that it has been bred specifically for fighting. We know that the presa Canario dog breed has been banned for both importation and sale in Australia. In some of my research into this breed of dog one of the things that were very clear was that this is a very big dog. It weighs a huge amount. I think the minimum weight of a male dog is 100 pounds which gives us some idea of the scale of this breed of dog. One of the colloquial terms for this breed of dog is the Canary catch dog but my argument is that we know that this dog has been bred for fighting. It is banned for importation and sale in Australia. There is a history of some very violent attacks that have ended in death so I am very pleased to support this motion.  
I will make just a couple of other points about our general approach to dog legislation. A first principles review is happening. That is the best thing we can do because it can be a very emotional area. We have all seen on the news some of the situations that have happened. We are interested in ensuring that there is a review that enables the regime to be effective efficient and fair so that people do not respond in an ad hoc way. I support this motion because I think it will provide better safety in our community. We should not have these dogs in New Zealand. I support this motion on the order. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 Labour supports this motion on the Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010 because more really needs to be done in this area. This Government has not done anything for the last 2 years. This do-nothing Minister of Local Government has been promising to do something for 2 years but he has not delivered anything. He has now brought this motion which as my colleague said earlier is not a proper way to deal with these issues. There is a proper way which is to go to the Regulations Review Committee and get this job done properly.  
This is an issue that the Labour Government handled very well in 2008. There had been serious attacks at the time and the public was up in arms about the attacks that were happening. The Labour Government did something about it and it declared some of these menacing dogs to be dangerous dogs and we took action. The current situation is that a lot of attacks still happen throughout the country. There were 10000 dog-related injuries throughout the country last year. In Auckland alone in the last 6 months there were 320 such attacks.  
Occasionally I get the opportunity to go to the local botanical garden in Manurewa and I can see that a lot of people are now slowly getting used to handling their dogs. There is an area where dogs have to be on a leash and there is a dedicated area for dogs to be walked. I am glad that a lot of dog owners are becoming responsible owners I must say that. In particular when I go there with my wife she is very scared of those dogs because she was attacked some years ago in Palmerston North. She is very very scared of dogs. We are very careful of any big dogs in this park and she is always very scared of them.  
This is the kind of issue about which a lot of people have— 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Emotional. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: Thank you Mr Robertson. It is an emotional issue for a lot of people particularly for young children and women. When people who are not used to dogs are attacked a lot of emotional issues come out in the newspapers and in the media and then we are all concerned about it.  
This is something that we should have dealt with in a good manner. We should not have waited for 2 years to do this thing. As Charles Chauvel said earlier this is something that should have been done in a proper way. I am glad that at last the Government and Ministers are taking some action about this particular species of dog the perro de presa Canario. I understand that there are not any of those dogs in New Zealand at the moment and through this measure there will be a ban on such a species coming to New Zealand. Our neighbour Australia has already banned this species of dog. It is very well known that this dog is bred for fighting purposes. We can do without that species of dog in New Zealand.  
With those words I support this motion. I hope that the Government and Mr Hide will take further action to have the proper review that he has been planning. He has been saying to us that he will do this. Thank you very much. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 I am happy to take a short call on the Government motion on the Dog Control (Perro de Presa Canario) Order 2010. It may have escaped the notice of the previous speaker Dr Choudhary but we have been dealing with some rather serious matters in the House over the past 2 years. But I am pleased that we have got around to this measure. It is a balanced and measured response to a problem that is of concern to all New Zealanders and that is the presence of dangerous dogs in our country. As was commented in  
L’Esprit des Bêtes 
 of 1847 “The more one gets to know men the more one values dogs.” Some people think a dog is a man’s best friend but we have to realise that that is not the case with all dogs. The dog in question was bred for fighting as we have heard and also to deal with very large and recalcitrant livestock. It is known to have a strong and dominant character. It needs strong control. There are none in New Zealand at the moment. We believe that that is a very good situation and we aim to maintain it. Therefore we aim to add this dog to schedule 4 of the Act. I also note that the department is to undertake a first-principles review of the Dog Control Act in a measured and balanced way. I commend this motion. 
Motion agreed to. 
Television New Zealand Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 17 May. 
Clauses 1 to 3 ( 
continued 
)  
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Kia ora tatou no reira e te Whare e nga iwi e nga reo e nga hau e wha tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Good evening honourable members. The House is in Committee for consideration of the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. When we last considered the bill debate on clauses 1 to 3 was in progress. The Hon Lianne Dalziel has the call and has 3 minutes and 30 seconds remaining if she so wishes. Of course we understand that a number of members are in Christchurch because of the earthquake so I ask a member to seek the call. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 Firstly I thank you Mr Chairperson for acknowledging that Lianne Dalziel with other Christchurch MPs is in Christchurch and doing a fabulous job there looking after the interests of the people. I am sure the Committee would join with me in saying that we hope that on Thursday we have a very positive announcement and that the people of Christchurch can get on with their lives. I wish all the best to the Hon Lianne Dalziel as well.  
Clause 1 states the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill will be enacted as the Television New Zealand Amendment Act 2009 but as we all know it is now 2011 so I presume that the Minister in the chair the Minister of Defence will be able to tell us that this date will be updated and it will be the Television New Zealand Amendment Act 2011. I presume that is just a consequential amendment but I would like the Minister to take a call and confirm that that is the case. We are after all in 2011 and it would be a strange thing if the Act was passed in 2011 and called the Television New Zealand Amendment Act 2009. It would be very difficult for members of the public searching for this legislation. Knowing that it was passed in 2011 they would naturally go past 2009 and not see that it was on that date.  
The second aspect of this legislation—and this is very normal for these pieces of legislation—is that is comes into effect on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. This is an indeterminate date because upon the start of a bill’s progress in this House when it is tabled for the first time the Minister tabling the legislation has little idea of how long the select committee will take in its deliberations. The Minister has little idea of the number of submissions that will be heard the number of hours that will be taken for the committee to consider the bill the length of the report and more important how long it will take to get the bill up to the top of the Order Paper. It would be difficult to set with any precision the date on which the bill would pass and the date on which it would gain its Royal assent. So clause 2 is perfectly acceptable. 
The legislation comes into effect on the day after the date on which the Governor-General signs it. Presumably that will be Mr Jerry Mateparae; he will make a fine Governor-General. This bill could well be one of the first bills that he signs as Governor-General. I am sure that he will take his job very seriously and will read the bill very thoroughly and be very familiar with it. No doubt when he comes to the Executive Council he will ask the Minister in charge of the bill some very probing questions as to why it should become public law. I see the Minister in the chair the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp is reading the bill very carefully as we go through the Committee stage so that when he appears before the Governor-General he will be fully briefed and able to answer any probing questions he might be asked. I commend the Minister for diligently applying himself to his homework. We would not expect any less of course.  
Clause 3 is “Principal Act amended” and states: “This Act amends the Television New Zealand Act 2003.” I presume that the 2003 Act was passed in 2003 so I presume that this amendment bill will amend the date of the legislation to 2011. So this legislation will become the Television New Zealand Amendment Act 2011 amending the principal 2003 Act.  
In the Committee stage members can traverse all that has gone on in the bill. This bill has seen quite an amount of discussion and debate but it seems that it has some fundamental flaws. The fundamental flaw in this bill is that it takes away the Television New Zealand charter. Earlier in the day the National Party members accused the Labour Party of being ideological and playing politics but if one wants to see an ideological bent and playing politics one can find them in spades in this bill.  
The National Party is opposed to public broadcasting. It believes that the market is the mechanism by which all decisions can be made but I have to say the market is not a place where one can begin to understand the culture and the nature of a society. The market can be a reflection of it but it is not the place where one would describe the culture of a particular society.  
Labour has believed always that this country deserves good quality broadcasters good quality productions and productions that reflect the nature of New Zealand. It will be more expensive to produce those types of programmes because we do not have the cost infrastructure. We have to make these programmes fresh from scratch and incur all of the costs. It is easier to go overseas and buy productions but those overseas productions reflect the culture in which they were made; they do not necessarily reflect the culture of New Zealand. Therefore Labour has always believed that we have to have a television charter. We have to direct our principal broadcaster Television New Zealand to reflect the nature of New Zealand and its particular character.  
Labour believes that National has gone backwards with this bill just like it has gone backwards with the economy and just like it is out of touch with ordinary Kiwis and is not particularly working for ordinary New Zealand families. This bill which changes the charter of Television New Zealand is a similar backwards step. Thank you. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call on the title clause commencement clause and clause 3 of the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. To start with the title I think we could more accurately describe this bill as the “Final Death Knell for Public Television Broadcasting in New Zealand Bill” because we know now that we do not have a public television broadcaster in New Zealand. The other day when the financial reviews were being debated by the House I had the opportunity to flick through the financial review of Television New Zealand. The organisation actually said that it did not regard itself as a public television broadcaster and it never had. In fact its primary motivation all along had been to be a commercial broadcaster. I think this bill moves us further down that line of saying that Television New Zealand is not going to be a public broadcaster; it is going to be a purely commercial organisation. So we should be totally upfront about that and say that in New Zealand we do not have a public television broadcaster. We would be one of the few OECD countries that do not have a public television service.  
We have a television service that is owned by the public but that does not necessarily make it a public television service. In fact Television New Zealand’s almost exclusive goal now is to make money. We can certainly see evidence of that in my electorate and that is one of the reasons why I argue that this bill should be called the “Final Death Knell for Public Television Broadcasting in New Zealand Bill”. My electorate is home to the Avalon television studios as long as they continue to exist which based on their current standing may not be for very much longer. In Television New Zealand’s very chequered history the Avalon Studios were constructed in the 1970s and 1980s to be the home of New Zealand television—the home of public New Zealand television and of public broadcasting in New Zealand. But one of the reasons that we should call this bill the “Final Death Knell for Public Television Broadcasting in New Zealand Bill” is that the Avalon television studios are scheduled to be closed. Television New Zealand effectively is going to abandon them. It is going to abandon all of the people who work in them. The studios will effectively end up being mothballed because the chances of Television New Zealand finding someone who is willing to buy them are relatively low. 
When I look at the Avalon Studios I think “What a waste!”. They could and should be the home of public television broadcasting in New Zealand. If we had a public television network that would be the perfect place for the network to be. It has arguably the best television studio facilities in the Southern Hemisphere. Almost everybody who has worked there or produced any television there will agree with that comment yet the studios are not being used. They are not being used because Television New Zealand is not a public broadcaster; it is more inclined to rely on cheap imported content such as reality television shows that are produced not in a studio but by giving someone a camera and telling them to follow some celebrities around for a little while. 
As a result what we see on our television screens in New Zealand does not differentiate us as a country from any other country in the world. New Zealand’s identity is not reflected by Television New Zealand any more than it is reflected by TV3 or Sky television. So the question becomes whether the Television New Zealand channels are a public television network. No I do not think they are. I do not think they are any more “New Zealand” than are TV3 or Sky television. 
In fact another reason we should call this bill the “Final Death Knell for Public Television Broadcasting in New Zealand Bill” is that Television New Zealand has now become a content provider for pay TV. It provides an entire channel for TVNZ Heartland which is available only to Sky subscribers who are willing to pay for it. So how could we possibly say that Television New Zealand is a public broadcaster when one of its channels which is made up exclusively of New Zealand content and a lot of which is funded by the taxpayer through New Zealand On Air at various points is available only to people who are willing to subscribe to Sky television. That is one of the reasons why we should call the bill the “Final Death Knell for Public Television Broadcasting in New Zealand Bill”. 
We could call the bill the “Death of Avalon TV Studios Bill” or the “Final Death of the Avalon Television Complex Bill” because one of the things this bill does is make some changes in relation to access to the New Zealand Television Archive. The television archive is currently based at Avalon beside the Avalon Studios in brand-new facilities that are less than 10 years old. One of the things the Government is proposing to do in other legislation which no doubt will come before this House is to force an amalgamation between the Television Archive and the Film Archive. Potentially that will mean that that brand-new less-than-10-year-old Television Archive facility at Avalon beside the Avalon Studios will go the same way as the Avalon Studios and be mothballed by Television New Zealand when that happens. I think that is incredibly sad.  
To continue to elaborate on the reason why I think the bill should be called the “Final Death of the Avalon Television Complex Bill” I tell the Committee that we are potentially seeing the end of Avalon the end of the studios. The tower block—that is the commercial office block—has already gone. The studios themselves are shortly to follow. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What will happen to Astar? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right. Charles Chauvel raises a very good point. What will happen to Astar’s cooking segment on the  
Good Morning 
 show which is currently produced at Avalon? 
Charles Chauvel 
: What will the fans watch in the morning? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Charles Chauvel is very concerned about that having just been on the cooking segment of the  
Good Morning  
show. But actually all the people who work on the  
Good Morning 
 show say they cannot produce that show in its current format in the Auckland studios because those studios are not big enough. The cooking segment and the New Zealand music segment will probably disappear because the Auckland studios are not big enough for them to be produced in. Another potential name for this bill then is the “Another Kick in the Guts for New Zealand Music Bill” because the  
Good Morning 
 television show rather tragically is one of the few opportunities for a lot of New Zealand musicians to perform live on New Zealand television. They do that on the  
Good Morning  
show in the mornings. If that opportunity is taken away from them when “Television Auckland” relocates the last of its operations to Auckland and completely abandons the rest of the country as Television New Zealand has progressively done over the last 2 decades that will be yet another thing we will see the demise of. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: What about the Goodnight Kiwi? 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: We have already seen the demise of the Goodnight Kiwi. Of course the Goodnight Kiwi cartoon was of the Goodnight Kiwi leaving Avalon Studios and going up the mast to be put to bed. Avalon was iconic; it was the symbol of public television broadcasting in New Zealand. I find it particularly sad when we drive past there at night now and see that the building is completely dark. When I was growing up in the Hutt as a kid we would drive past the Avalon complex and it would look alight in the evenings. That was where all of the New Zealand television was coming from. We always knew when  
Fair Go  
was being produced in the evening because all of the lights of the studios would be on and the car park would be full. Once upon a time  
Fair Go  
was the most popular show on New Zealand Television—I think it probably still is—and it was filmed in front of a live audience at Avalon. I had the opportunity to sit in the audience for one of those filmings. I sat in the audience for the filming of some of the game shows:  
Wheel of Fortune Sale of the Century 
 and so on.  
Sale of the Century 
 was probably not the pinnacle of public broadcasting in New Zealand; none the less it was filmed at the Avalon TV studios in my electorate. 
Game shows are another one of the things that will be very difficult to produce in New Zealand after we see the demise of those large studios that currently reside in Avalon because Television New Zealand is not willing to back them. The broadcaster is not willing to behave as a public broadcaster which it should do. I think that is an absolute disgrace. We could call this bill the “We Don’t Have a Public Television Broadcasting Service in New Zealand Bill” because I think that ultimately that is where we have got to. We simply do not have public television broadcasting in New Zealand. I think we should be honest about it and say that we have probably not had it for several decades. I do not think that Television New Zealand has ever been in its current corporate incarnation a public television broadcaster. It has never been set up that way. Right from the point when it became a State-owned enterprise it ceased to be a public broadcaster. The almighty dollar became the most important thing. The studios and the head office relocated to Auckland. Television New Zealand now is effectively “Television Auckland”. Everything we see on our screens is largely produced there and very little is produced in other parts of the country. I think that is an absolute tragedy.  
Television New Zealand does not reflect New Zealand. It is no different as I said before to what we see on TV3 or Sky television. As we move to technology convergence I think we could call this bill the “Bill that is Years Out of Date Bill” because as we move towards technology convergence the platform that the content is delivered upon is a lot less important than the content itself. Television New Zealand’s future must be in producing New Zealand content that is distinctly New Zealand’s. If Television New Zealand is only about repackaging stuff that comes in from overseas—from America from Britain and from Australia—it will have no distinctive features and no distinctive content and frankly there will be no need for it to exist. Television New Zealand’s future must be in telling New Zealand stories and producing New Zealand content but it is not doing that. This bill does nothing to achieve that—in fact it goes in the other direction. Ultimately that is why I think we should call this bill the “Final Death of Public Broadcasting in New Zealand Bill”. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman. [ 
Interruption 
] Good looks always win—I joke. 
Actions speak louder than words and with this Television New Zealand Amendment Bill the National-led Government shows its stripes when it comes to public broadcasting. In this bill it removes the charter which was one of the attempts made by the prior Government to maintain at least a modicum of public broadcast ethic within Television New Zealand. I for one do not think we succeeded totally in that task and I do not think we have heard anyone from this side say that we had it completely right with Television New Zealand but removing the charter is going in the wrong direction and it is part of the intent of this Government to strip Television New Zealand of its public-good broadcasting functions. 
I think we should also at this time reflect on other steps that the Government has taken in that regard. This bill and the Government’s actions under it are consistent with what it is doing with TVNZ 7. I am aware that there was a proposal from Television New Zealand to extend the funding of public broadcasting by keeping TVNZ 7 running. TVNZ 7 has been producing a good number of the public-interest broadcasts being produced by or for Television New Zealand and they are screened free to air through TVNZ 7. There were suggestions at different times that TVNZ 7 perhaps together with Radio New Zealand could provide the basis for some good quality free-to-air broadcasting in New Zealand. As my colleague Charles Chauvel said to me as we were chatting before I spoke it is important that we have a public broadcaster in New Zealand that maintains a modicum of good quality intelligent broadcasting and I agree with that. The trend is for ever more reality TV shows ever more imported content and ever more pushing of the boundaries as to violence and sexual content as broadcasters compete for market share and the dumbing down of what we feed New Zealanders and through that the diminution of the standard of discourse that we have in society. So I think that broadcast television is in a poor state and getting worse under this Government and this bill is merely part of that decline. 
It saddens me that we come to clauses 1 2 and 3 of the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill which amend the Television New Zealand legislation because they signal a slide towards mediocrity a slide towards more substandard TV and a slide to more of the same being produced on all of our television channels. That is not to say that commercial television does not have a place; it most clearly does and increasingly a dominant place in New Zealand. But there is a state of change in the television industry. We hear reports that CanWest the owner of the TV3 network and some other radio organisations is in trouble because it paid too much in the recent— 
Charles Chauvel 
: Radio Live. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Radio Live. There was an overseas buy-out where private equity bought into those institutions and paid far too much money. They are carrying very high levels of debt. They were in such difficulty that the Government had to give them a loan in respect of their frequency fees last year. 
Charles Chauvel 
: It’s still not going to save them. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: And rumour has it that that is still not going to save them. That part of the public broadcasting— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: The Government is bailing out the private sector. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Well it is interesting that the Government did give support to the private sector there in a way yet it would not support TVNZ 7 when it required some assistance. 
Hon Member 
: It ran out of funding. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: We hear from the other side that it ran out of money. Yes it is true that its funding lines were originally set up for 3 years but of course most Budget lines are for a limited period of years and it was for the Government to decide whether it thought it was of sufficient priority. TVNZ 7 is very cost-effective. I think the proposals that came forward from Television New Zealand which I understand were supported by some of the Ministers in the current Government but Mr Joyce intervened to kill—[ 
Bell rung 
] Mr Chairman. 
ijp 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: David Parker. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Very good call Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: It was the only one. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Mr Joyce intervened to ensure the proposals did not proceed which I think was sad for New Zealand. It would have taken only a bit of vision. I think Television New Zealand was under the charter trying to do the right thing through TVNZ 7 which was probably the greatest innovation in public broadcasting in the last few years. I think the proposals brought forward by Television New Zealand to continue that part of free-to-air public broadcasting were worthy of support and I am saddened that they were not supported by the Government. 
But I am not surprised when I read this bill because this bill removes as has been said the charter. It is at times depressing to so often have to be negative in this House about the legislative agenda of the Government. Most Opposition members—indeed all Opposition members—are not in our DNA negative people. We would much rather be talking about positive things but sadly it is the role of the Opposition to point out mistakes made by the Government and this is one of them. So when I rise to speak in respect of this bill I cannot really say much else. I thought the Green Party in its minority select committee report said it well in the first sentence: “The Green Party opposes the TVNZ Amendment Bill because it strips Television New Zealand of its charter and its public service obligations and responsibilities.” That essentially is what this bill does and that is why we oppose it. We have said that in our own words as prior speakers have said. 
It saddens me that we are seeing not only the demise of TVNZ 7 but the charter stripped away from Television New Zealand. We will see more and more low-quality reality TV shows which I do not really think add much to society. We will see more and more people—those who can afford to—subscribing to Sky. Good programmes are at times shown on Sky but they are not readily available to most New Zealanders because they cannot afford to subscribe to Sky or choose to prioritise other things. They are left with reliance on Television New Zealand and unfortunately what they get fed through Television New Zealand has over the decades become more populist and more about chasing ratings rather than delivering programmes that would perhaps add to society. So we are seeing less current affairs we are seeing less documentaries— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Fewer. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —fewer documentaries I should say—and fewer quality political shows. The political shows that there are now are on Sunday mornings. They are not in the prime slots that they used to be in yesteryear when there was good analysis of Government policy. I can understand why the Government does not want that. Its policies do not withstand scrutiny and it would not want the public to understand how New Zealand is going backward under its watch. 
I am sad that this bill will be passed tonight by the National majority with support from either ACT or the Maori Party. That is about all I will say. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to take a call. I believe this might be my first opportunity to speak on the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. I will come back to the commencement date for this bill given that we are currently debating that clause. The current commencement we are looking at is post the Royal assent. I propose and I would be interested to hear the views of other members of this Committee that the good people of New Zealand should get the opportunity to vote on this matter via the general election.  
My rationale is that the Government has said that in terms of for instance its policy on asset sales it should go to the country and get a mandate for that particular policy. I would like to see a mandate for this policy. Why? Because ultimately there is such a significant change to our national broadcaster and to the mandate it is given from the Government that I think people should be given the opportunity to vote on this change in the same way as they are given the opportunity to vote on asset sales. There are some similarities. For instance the Government is proposing assets for sale that deliver I believe a 17 percent dividend roughly to the Government. We also require a significant dividend of Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and have done so at the same time as we request that it fulfil its requirements under the TVNZ charter. 
Chris Hipkins 
: They’re selling Avalon. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Despite that they are still selling Avalon Studios—another similarity to the asset sale argument.  
As well as removing the charter basically this bill ensures that the primary focus of TVNZ—it was always a focus but the primary focus—will be its commercial priorities. The charter will be essentially replaced by a statement of functions which will include to “(a) provide for the functions of TVNZ the Crown entity responsible for conducting a television and digital media business; and (b) ensure that TVNZ carries out its functions and maintains its commercial performance;”. That is the purpose of the new legislation in a nutshell. That is it. There is not much wriggle room. It is very clear that the purpose now is solely commercial. That for me is an absolute tragedy.  
My colleagues have already pointed out the role of TVNZ as a place-shaper and there are additional flow-on effects. TVNZ in the past has had a role in providing programming that otherwise might not be provided if we were looking at a purely commercial role such as children’s programmes for instance. We have seen recently in fact that TVNZ has sold one of its most popular children’s programmes to Sky television which is a service that Kiwis have to pay for if they wish to access it.  
There are flow-on effects that are not just about place-shaping and are not just about what will be lost via the removal of the charter. Those flow-on effects are economic. The Government may have entrenched commercial priorities but I think it has actually neglected economic opportunities via TVNZ as a public broadcaster. What do I mean by that? Currently with regard to the film industry the Government is fine with backing a tax incentive regime that basically means that film companies will come to New Zealand to produce their films. Why? Because there is a natural flow-on effect when producing a film in New Zealand via employment of technical teams and of people working in computer generated imagery and animation not to mention the flow-on effect of crews finding accommodation in places where they are filming. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Caterers. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Caterers and so on. There is a long long list. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Key grips. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Key grips. I can see that my colleague— 
Chris Hipkins 
: Gaffers. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Good boys. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Gaffers and good boys. I can see that my colleagues are well versed in the various career opportunities in the film and television industries.  
Of course this effect is not unique to film. The flow-on effects of the screen industry are significant. Yet we do not seem willing to acknowledge that the Government is willing to invest in and incentivise film but it is not willing to invest in and incentivise television. For instance TVNZ 7 cost—what—$17 million over the run of its life. The flow-on effect through the screen and television industry according to some people working within TVNZ 7 is in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  
Television also sustains the film industry—it sustains the film industry. We are not in a continual state of foreign film production in this country. We need an ongoing industry in order to keep all of the production people that my colleagues have named in full employment in between the filming of some rather large productions. What industry does that? Television. By narrowing the focus of TVNZ— 
JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 55. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Independent: Carter C. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
House resumed. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 56 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Carter C. 
Report adopted. 
The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 55. 
Standing Orders—Suspension 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That Standing Order 299(1) be suspended to authorise the Committee of the whole House on the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202 as amended by Supplementary Order Paper 244 to the following Acts that were not included in the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill as introduced—the Crimes Act 1961 the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 
.  
The Courts and Criminal Matters Bill strengthens the processes for the enforcement of fines including reparation and the recovery of civil debt. Supplementary Order Paper 202 as amended by Supplementary Order Paper 244 refines and extends these reforms. The amendments to the six additional Acts listed in this motion form a small but important component of this legislation. The Courts and Criminal Matters Bill establishes a consistent definition of “fine” that covers any amount of money that a person is required to pay under a sentence or order of a court. The term will include all court-imposed fines reparation payments and associated court costs and the new offender levy.  
The bill also establishes a consistent order of priority for allocating the sale proceeds of seized property towards outstanding fines. The first priority will be to reparation. Currently five different Acts apply to the enforcement of fines. This makes the applicable law difficult to locate and understand and has allowed inconsistencies to develop and be perpetuated over time. In the late stages of drafting the bill parliamentary counsel highlighted inconsistencies between provisions in the various Acts most notably between the Crimes Act the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act and the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. However it was not possible to complete the necessary policy development including consulting the judiciary the Law Commission and other Government departments and to draft the necessary amendments before the bill concluded its select committee examination. If adopted these amendments will largely align the High Court fines enforcement powers and processes with those of the District Courts. Among other benefits this will free up judicial time by allowing court registrars to undertake some of the more administrative fines enforcement functions.  
Following the introduction of the bill it was also realised that the Misuse of Drugs Act’s cross-references to the vehicle confiscation provisions in the Sentencing Act were out of date and that additionally there were inconsistencies between the forfeiture regimes in the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act. The additional amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act and the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act will align the two forfeiture regimes. The amendments will also align the allocation of sale proceeds from forfeited items under both Acts with the approach for seized property and confiscated vehicles in the bill. In particular the amendments will enable payment under sentences and orders of reparation as well as offender levies out of the sale proceeds of forfeited property.  
Part 1 of the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill amends the District Courts Act 1947 to among other things facilitate attachment orders which are mandatory deductions from wages or benefits to resolve a judgment debt. I propose these amendments be extended to allow disputes tribunal referees and Tenancy Tribunal adjudicators to record details of attachment orders in their orders where the parties to the proceedings are present and agree to this course of action. This proposal requires amendments to the Disputes Tribunals Act and the Residential Tenancies Act. These amendments will complement the amendments to the District Courts Act and will benefit judgment debtors and judgment creditors alike.  
In conclusion all parliamentary parties have been consulted on these additional amendments and I thank all parties for their willingness to engage on these proposals. Unfortunately the Green Party has not been able to support my request for leave to introduce the amendments to the six additional Acts. It is because the amendments to the additional Acts are so closely linked—indeed are vital—to the objectives of the current bill that I make my present request. 
The principal amendments are set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202 which I publicly released on 14 February 2011. They are consistent with the scope of the bill and although it is not a formal requirement the Crown Law Office has advised the Ministry of Justice that the amendments are consistent with the requirements of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I have moved that Standing Order 299(1) be suspended to authorise the Committee of the whole House on the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202 as amended by Supplementary Order Paper 244 to the following Acts that were not included in the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill as introduced—the Crimes Act 1961 the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 As the Minister for Courts presaged in her speech supporting this motion the Labour Opposition will support this motion. For those who are still processing what it means essentially it suspends a Standing Order which is necessary because leave cannot be obtained because one party objects to leave being granted for an omnibus bill to be amended in a substantive way. So there is a slightly arcane point of parliamentary procedure here. Basically the House is being asked to suspend the Standing Order so that the House can simply vote either up or down on what is desired here. Labour will be supporting the suggested course of action that the Minister has put forward—to suspend the Standing Order and to allow a substantive amendment to an omnibus bill. That is an unusual procedure so I will take some time to explain why we have differed from our friends in the Green Party which is not something we do terribly often and have decided to proceed in this way. 
The Courts and Criminal Matters Bill is essentially machinery amendments technical amendments to legislation relating to enforcement matters. This bill will complete work that was begun while the fifth Labour-led Government was in office. The provisions are sensible in the Opposition’s view. The substantive legislation will introduce a mechanism into the Land Transport Act 1998 to authorise the imposition of something that will be called a driver licence stop order. This will allow the suspension of drivers’ licences if people have not made arrangements to pay overdue traffic penalties and they are essentially acting as scofflaws—they are saying “Look we’ve got these fines but we’re not going to pay them.” In respect of a certain group of people it will be the only effective way to enforce the payment of traffic penalties—essentially stop the licence take away the right to drive and until the fine is cleared keep that right in suspension. 
There are some technical changes that the bill will introduce in order to ensure that this very sensible further enforcement type of action will be available to the Crown. The Minister has foreshadowed two Supplementary Order Papers: Supplementary Order Paper 202 and Supplementary Order Paper 244. Supplementary Order Paper 202 makes a number of drafting and technical changes to the bill. It will consolidate some statutory provisions about the enforcement of fines and reparations. It will streamline the procedural challenge process for unpaid infringement fees that have been filed with the court. It will provide for the resentencing of an offender where the previous sentence or order of reparation becomes unaffordable or unenforceable. It will align the provisions of the Sentencing Act 2002 with the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 concerning vehicle seizures. It will set the maximum period that an offender can be detained in the custody of the court in order to complete some administrative tasks such as making a declaration as to financial capacity. It will enhance the civil enforcement processes relating to the payment of judgment debts through attachment orders and the seizure and sale of property and it will update and align the property forfeiture regimes by amending the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Supplementary Order Paper 244 will make further technical changes in the areas of the powers of parking wardens owner liability for stationary vehicle offences the issue of infringement notices and the discharge of asset forfeiture orders by the official assignee. 
As I said these are technical matters. They have had broad cross-party support. The issues began to be grappled with in the tenure of the previous Government but for essentially technical reasons these sensible changes were not carried through into the substantive legislation so this motion is a mechanism by which that can be made to occur. It is a sensible mechanism. It is one to which the Opposition could raise a technical objection and frustrate the Government from getting its business through but on this occasion we choose not to take that approach because we do think the substantive legislation makes sense and we would like to see it enacted. 
Having said those things there are one or two points I will make about the general programme of the Government in the criminal justice and the general justice areas. The Minister will recall that last week at the Justice and Electoral Committee I asked her whether she was concerned about the state that the sector would be left in following her departure from the portfolio she holds—Minister for Courts—in just over 5 months’ time. Of course we all wish the Minister well in her retirement but we on this side of the House are concerned that she is going that the Minister of Justice is going and that the Secretary for Justice who I think served 10 years in that role left a couple of weeks ago and there are major reforms being progressed in the justice sector by this Government. And “progressed” is the operative word because those reforms will not be completed in the term of this Parliament.  
Extremely important issues are being put forward for consideration by this House such as reform of the sale of liquor legislation which has now been put off to the never-never because the select committee will not be reporting until 30 August. There is no hope that that legislation will pass in this Parliament despite all the hopes that have been raised out there amongst the public for some meaningful action on that issue. There is a bail review and I could go on at length about how unnecessary that bail review is given that the previous Government fixed most of the problems in the bail area. In fact the legislation we have in respect of bail is largely pretty good but none the less there is a review and the Minister of Justice told the select committee 2 weeks ago that he might like to have legislation introduced into the House as a result of that review. We have had major changes to the legal aid system progressed without much consultation with the legal profession. Again the Minister of Justice told us 2 weeks ago at the select committee that he would quite like to see another legal aid bill introduced to the House prior to Parliament rising on 6 October. And there are many other live matters before both the Law and Order Committee and the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
My concern and the concern of members on this side of the House given the departure of two senior Ministers and the departure of the Secretary for Justice the fact that there is an acting secretary in place and the fact that the Minister who has just spoken could not tell us much— 
Jo Goodhew 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask for your guidance in a matter before the House such as this as to how closely the speeches should bear relevance to the matter under discussion. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Speaking to the point of order this motion concerns a bill that is within the purview of a Minister who is about to depart. It is perfectly relevant my having stated the general position of the Opposition which is supportive of the motion to talk about the concerns we have about whether this bill will be able to be passed in the current Parliament given the logjam of legislation and given the mess that the sector is being left in by this Minister and her colleagues. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I wish to make two points. The first one is that it has been the practice of this House for a long time that when a member takes a point of order about order the member makes the point that the member speaking has done something to contravene the Standing Orders. It is not a point of order to ask the Chair whether a rule has been enforced. It is not a point of order to ask the Chair to give the member some guidance on the matter. That is not a point of order. The second point I wish to raise is that the Government sought the Opposition’s cooperation in getting this motion through the House. We did not play procedural politics as we could have and I want to say to the Government whip that if we are going to be very narrow in our interpretation then we might change our attitude— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am on my feet. It is a wide-ranging debate given the motion that has been outlined by the Minister. But the member has nearly finished his speaking time so I would ask him to heed the request. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Sandra Goudie 
: And he was way out of line with the comments he was making. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: We could just withdraw our cooperation I suppose. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! It is one all. Please continue. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: As I said earlier the Opposition has chosen to seek to assist the Government despite its ill grace on this occasion by allowing it to progress machinery reform in the justice area. My points in the last minute or two have been designed to alert the House to the real danger that despite this courtesy and despite this matter being put on the Order Paper there is no guarantee that this legislation will pass in this Parliament because there is no guarantee that it will be accorded appropriate priority on the Order Paper and because there is an enormous amount of other justice legislation that this Government says it will get through that it plainly will not be able to get through. With those comments and that warning I say to the Minister that we have sought to assist because we think these are minor matters but it would be very disappointing if this legislation was not to be progressed through all its stages. There is a real concern which I hope Ministers and others hear about the state of justice legislation on the Order Paper and the mess frankly that will be left by Ministers for their successors in this area. 
Debate interrupted. 
Voting 
Correction—Television New Zealand Amendment Bill 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I need to advise the House that there has been an error in the voting in the Committee stage of the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill. The results of the two votes were incorrectly announced. On the vote on the closure motion for clauses 1 to 3 the Noes were announced as 55. They should be 56. There was an addition error. On the motion that the report on the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill be adopted the Noes were announced as 55. The correct number is 56. In line with Standing Order 148(2) the vote is corrected. This is to inform members that the record will be corrected as well. Thank you for your forbearance. 
Standing Orders—Suspension 
Debate resumed. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
: 
 The National members have castigated the Opposition on a number of occasions I think unjustly about the way in which it uses parliamentary procedure to oppose legislation. I make the point to the House that the Opposition’s role is to oppose bad legislation and we will. We will do it with all the power and the force that the Standing Orders provide. There should be no criticism of that.  
Following on from that I reiterate the point made by Charles Chauvel. What we are embarking upon here is no small matter. The Government has asked for the Standing Orders to be suspended. That is what it has asked for: the suspension of the rules. This is never done lightly. The Minister for Courts has come with a well-argued case. John McEnteer on her staff has argued the case for the Government very well. It was only on the basis of the merits of the case that we have agreed to suspend the Standing Orders. It is not something done lightly as you would well know Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. We have done so because we agree with the intent and the thrust of the amendments that the Minister wishes to bring to the House.  
I will put it into simple language. The fact of the matter is that for a long time the administration of our courts system had been overlooked by the legislature. The legislation is old and antiquated. One piece of legislation that is relied upon and has been amended many times is the Judicature Act of 1908. I do not know many other parts of our society whose foundation bedrock is legislation that was passed in 1908 and amended and amended. It is well overdue for an overhaul. When I was the Minister for Courts I suggested to the Ministry of Justice that we overhaul the Judicature Act 1908 and update it and it almost passed out at the prospect of such a huge piece of work. But it is the bedrock on which our system rests. It is very old.  
There are many other very old pieces of legislation and they date from a time when each of the courts saw themselves as separate entities. The High Court with its inherent jurisdiction and the District Court all had their separate processes and not one of them had anything to do with the other. This of course was the approach that the judiciary took to it. It is not the approach that the public take. The public see the court system as an entity simply with different doors to the same house. They believe that when they owe money to a court they effectively owe money to the State. But as far as the judicial system was concerned if a person owed money via the tribunal system it was different from owing money to the District Court which was different from owing money to the High Court. Not very long ago each court had to have its own process of taking the money that people owed it. A bailiff or registrar of the District Court could not enact matters on behalf of the High Court; nor could it act on behalf of a tribunal. The general public will have seen this as pretty impractical and it was and is. Money that people owe is money owed to the court system and to the State and to the victims if it is reparation.  
In essence this legislation proposed by the Minister simply streamlines that process. It helps any debt any amount that is owed to a court to be able to be picked up and dealt with by the same process and by the same system whether it be reparation in any form that it is given or whether it be a fine in any form that it is given within any jurisdiction and concerning any amount that is owed. All the tools that are available in one jurisdiction will be available to all. If there is to be an attachment order for a fine owed and if a person owes money to the High Court the District Court and a tribunal a single attachment order will cover all three. That is as I understand this Supplementary Order Paper. It is eminently sensible. Anyone would agree with that. I think even the people who owe money to the courts system would agree with that too.  
It begs the question as to why we have to suspend the Standing Orders in order to get this sensible legislation through. I make this point to the House and to anybody else who wishes to listen. One of the great frustrations I had when I held the portfolio that the current Minister for Courts the Hon Georgina te Heuheu holds is that when these ideas come up it takes quite a lot of work and effort by people in the back rooms and back offices the policy makers to ensure that the legislation is right. There are many different pieces of intersecting legislation. If the legislature passes the legislation incorrectly it becomes almost impossible for the courts to fix—in fact they cannot—and it becomes almost impossible for them to operate. In making these changes people have to be very very careful. They have to be very skilled and very knowledgable and it is work that is not rushed. So I can well understand how the Minister has got this out of sequence and out of time.  
The point I make is that in all the hubris we get about reducing the State sector about shifting people from the back office to the front office and about cutting down on civil servants who are somehow portrayed in the current atmosphere as a dead-weight loss to the public we only exacerbate this problem. The one thing that I felt I lacked in the executive arm of Government was the necessary resources to do the policy work the theoretical work to bring papers forward and to get legislation prepared checked drafted and passed.  
This legislation should have been passed 3 or 4 years ago. Other matters associated with this legislation should have been passed 5 or 6 years ago. I make no criticism whatsoever of the people who work in the Ministry of Justice today or who worked for me in terms of the slowness of it. People can do only so much on any particular day. If we want this type of legislation passed we simply have to put the time and resources into it which means engaging hiring and employing the civil servants with the skills and capacity to develop the policy to write the papers and to write the legislation for us. Unless we are prepared to commit to that then the reform of our judicial processes which is well behind where it should be will continue to drag on. The only sufferers will be the people who use it either willingly or reluctantly.  
I will make a couple of points about the reform. Anybody who goes to a local courthouse on a Monday morning will see a great big queue of people standing outside waiting to be heard. They have all been told to turn up at 10 o’clock but they are then processed in some haphazard order; no one knows when they will be heard. They could be heard at 2 or 3 o’clock. I do not know of any other part of the State that does it in this way. Imagine if a hospital said it was going to do hip operations and everybody should turn up on Monday. It would have queues everywhere and people would then wait and wait to see the doctor. They would camp and camp and camp. Of course the health system does not do that. It gives people a date and time to see the specialist and we turn up in an orderly queue. We are treated in a civilised manner. But in the court system one is simply told to wait and wait. This is out of date; it is antediluvian.  
A lot of other things also need to be done such as electronic filing in courts. We have to do a lot more work which requires a lot more policy. I re-emphasise the point made by Charles Chauvel that the overhaul of the administration of our justice system lags well behind. Charles made a very good point that we have had a change in people: the Hon Simon Power Georgina te Heuheu and the Secretary for Justice. At a time when the system needs to be overhauled and have strength and direction it has had a complete change of the guard. It seems to us that this will simply exacerbate the problem.  
We will be faced with more situations in which this type of amendment—worthy justified and supported by the Opposition—will come to this House in an inappropriate way. That is no criticism of the staff who bring the work together; it is a criticism of the structures and resources that are not there in order to do the job properly. We will continue to suffer from this until it is well managed.  
Labour will support the suspension of the Standing Orders we will support the motion for the legislation to be put before the Committee and we will in all probability support the legislation when it comes before the Committee. Thank you. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 This is very interesting legislation that we are speaking on tonight not least because of the procedural matters associated with it which of course my colleagues Charles Chauvel and the Hon Rick Barker have outlined to us. It is quite interesting to be in the situation of suspending the Standing Orders so that basically we can adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 202 as amended by Supplementary Order Paper 242. These amendments are to the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill.  
From listening to previous speakers and looking at the bill I see that this is a very sensible and overdue bill that makes a number of changes that will assist in making sure that our fines system is dealt with appropriately. It will enhance the District Court’s powers and processes for the collection of fines other monetary penalties and civil debt. It arose really from a general concern about the amount of overdue fines which is quite staggering; the dissatisfaction of victims when offenders do not comply with reparation orders; and the frustration of creditors and debtors using the court’s civil debt enforcement processes. Those were the underlying reasons for the bill and those are all very good reasons. Indeed as my colleague Rick Barker said it is a shame that it has taken so long for this legislation to pass. It was well under way when Labour left office. In fact I was quite pleased to see that the commentary on the bill states: “This bill the development of which commenced under the previous Government represents the most comprehensive legislative improvements for the recovery of unpaid fines reparation and civil debt in 12 years.” So it is a substantial piece of work and I give my congratulations to all concerned because I think it is long overdue. I think it is good that the work of the previous Government was acknowledged in the commentary.  
In this bill we also show as Rick Barker said that where there is a matter that is sensible and in the best interests of the public this side of the House will not be oppositional just for the point of being oppositional. Hence we are cooperating and we will be voting in favour of and supporting the incorporation of Supplementary Order Papers 202 and 244. It is important to think about that and to think about the times that this House should cooperate and should do the right thing when there is legislation or opportunities to pass legislation that everybody would see as being in the best interests of the community. I put on the table the example of loan sharks which are an issue that many in the House will be concerned about I know. I brought a bill before the House nearly a year ago; it was initially put into the ballot by Charles Chauvel and was then picked up by me. That was a sensible bill; it was a bill dealing with something that we would all agree is a problem in the community and it continues to be a problem in the community. In the last day or so we have seen a new dimension to that problem in the form of text loan sharks. It is absolutely horrendous; people can get loans of up to $600 in 4 minutes with interest rates going as high as 678 percent. The bill that was before the House a year ago could have put paid to that provision. We would have had the tools to deal with text loan sharks. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that this is a procedural debate and it is wide ranging but it has to be wide ranging in relation to the motion moved by the honourable Minister. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: I think the point I was making is that we support this bill and the procedural motion before us because it is common sense it is good legislation and it is in the interests of society and that is why we are going that way.  
I return to the matter before us. Others have talked about the piecemeal approach to reforms in the justice sector. I have recently joined the Justice and Electoral Committee. Submitters to that select committee have made a similar point—that although there are a lot of different pieces of legislation floating about and being undertaken there is a real concern that they are not being looked at as a comprehensive whole. I say that by way of reinforcing the points my colleague Charles Chauvel made earlier.  
In respect of the Supplementary Order Papers we are talking about my colleague Charles Chauvel went through some of the detail. Supplementary Order Paper 202 makes a number of substantial drafting and technical changes to the bill. They include the consolidation of statutory provisions processes and powers relating to the enforcement of fines and reparation through to things like updating and aligning the property forfeiture regimes by amending the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Supplementary Order Paper 244 also makes some drafting and technical changes to Supplementary Order Paper 202 but in addition it includes changes relating to the power of parking wardens owner liability for stationary vehicle offences issue of infringement notices and discharge of assets forfeiture order by the official assignee.  
The Acts that effectively are being incorporated into the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill by what we are doing here are the Crimes Act 1961 the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. They will be incorporated alongside the other Acts that are already in the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill which are the District Courts Act 1947 the Land Transport Act 1998 the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 the Customs and Excise Act 1996 the Family Courts Act 1980 the Immigration Act 1987 the Immigration Act 2009 the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 the Privacy Act 1993 the Railways Act 2005 the Sentencing Act 2002 the Social Security Act 1964 the Tax Administration Act 1994 and the Transport Act 1962. [ 
Interruption 
] My colleague Sue Moroney has just commented that there might be an opportunity here for me to mention railways and the link between Hamilton and Auckland that is much awaited by the fine citizens of Hamilton.  
There are a number of Acts there that were already included in the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill which as I said is something that we have been awaiting for some time and that we support. With these two Supplementary Order Papers we add in quite a significant number of other bills. Effectively as the Minister said in introducing this to the House tonight this is really about aligning and standardising court enforcement powers. I think the Hon Rick Barker did quite a good job earlier in talking about why that is important and how that will hopefully practically improve the operation of our criminal justice system and give some confidence to victims who are expecting reparation and that we carry through with fines. There is nothing sillier than basically imposing fines for particular offences then those fines being completely ignored. In many cases that has been the case.  
I am sure other colleagues will want to talk a little bit about how this legislation will be used in terms of fines under the Land Transport Act for example. I am sure that we will get to hear how that will work but I will leave that to others to comment on. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Government motion No. 5 (Courts and Criminal Matters Bill) following on from my colleague Carol Beaumont. I think she did a good job of going into the technical aspects of the bill so I will speak to it more broadly. Labour supports the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill and as many other members who have stood tonight have said it results from work that was undertaken while Labour was in Government so it is good to see it finally moving along that path to being put through. We continue to wonder why it has taken so long. That is one of our concerns. Why has it taken so long for this bill to pass? It was practically ready when Labour left Government. Given that National often stresses that it is tough on crime it is hard to understand why it would not fast track this legislation. It had its second reading on 16 November 2010. The rhetoric we often hear about the need to be seen to be tough on crime is really reduced to nothing when we look at the fact that this has taken so long to come through. 
It is not the only legislation that this is the case for. I only need to look at the Order Paper to see a very very important bill that was put up by Labour. It was widely consulted on within the sector concerned. It is the Domestic Violence Reform Bill. That bill still continues to languish at the bottom of the Order Paper. In fact it is second to last. It is at No. 58 so it is of concern that we during this term almost definitely will not get an opportunity to consider that very very important legislation. I guess that is just another example where the rhetoric does not really fit with the action in respect of being tough on crime. As I say another bill the Domestic Violence Reform Bill is not being considered. The Minister of Justice does not seem to take it seriously. Unfortunately he does not seem to understand that domestic violence is a very important issue that should be taken seriously through legislation and through this process.  
The Government continues to take a piecemeal approach to reforms in the justice sector with no coherent plan or vision to strengthen the system or provide improved services to the public. It is of concern that it is a piecemeal approach. There is something happening over here and something happening over there but there is no consistency. There is no overall plan from this Government in regards to justice. Unfortunately that lack of a plan the National Government has demonstrated extends to other areas including the economy moving New Zealand forward jobs and opportunities for training. There is a lack of a plan in respect of justice and what we would hope to see. It is a piecemeal approach to reforms in the justice sector and is just symptomatic of a lack of a plan in general by the National Government.  
This bill omits some proposals developed by Labour. For instance we wanted to create a single agency to have responsibility for fines. Currently there are 80-plus issuing authorities and this impedes the collection of fines. National has not adopted this sensible policy. It is a sensible policy. We really struggle to understand why the Government would not want to take that on board. There are 80-plus authorities involved in the collection of fines. It is hardly a tight ship or the smartest way for this to be dealt with. Labour recognised that and proposed that we create a single agency yet that proposal has been ignored. It does not seem to make sense at all to ignore that. It is unfortunate because one would think that things would be much more consistent and there would be a much smoother running of things if collection was condensed into one agency rather than spread over 80 different authorities.  
Ministry of Justice research shows that when people cross a certain threshold of money owed—around $2000 for young people—they become unable and unwilling to even attempt to pay off their fines. The research for that goes back some 10 years. I was looking at a couple of reports. One of them I have here is from 2005. The report is called 
 Young People and Infringement Fines: A Qualitative Study 
. It was prepared for the Ministry of Justice by Litmus Ltd back in October 2005. One of the quotes from that really does support what I have just said about young people building up fines and then all of a sudden it just becomes too difficult to pay any of them. A quote from one young person was “When I had a few fines I tried really hard to pay them off. Once they get out of control they mount up and up and you can’t see any way of clearing them so you give up.” That was a young person who had numerous infringement fines. It is a concern that when people cross a certain threshold of money owed—around $2000 for young people—they become unable and unwilling to even attempt to pay off their fines. Through the fines register established by this bill lending companies in the wider community will be made aware of people who owe money which will pressure people to pay fines they might otherwise be able to avoid. I guess we need to take into consideration that we are in tough times at the moment. If there was ever a time when fines were less of a priority it would be at this point in time when people are struggling to pay for the bare necessities like putting food on the table.  
Having observed the justice and law and order policies that have been brought in over the last 2½ years under the National Government I must say I have noticed that there has been an increase in the punitive measures particularly with things like fines. On paper it looks good to the public. Often they think “Yes. Fine them more. Fine them more.” but the reality is whether that is really worthwhile when so often it is so difficult to collect the fines. Do fines really make a difference when we see from young people—like the person I have just quoted—that once the fines get to a certain point they do not even attempt to pay them because it all becomes too difficult. We believe that there needs to be a much more concerted attempt to collect the fines but I personally am sceptical about some of the increases that have been put on fines and some of the extensions that have been made by the National Government. I am concerned that on paper the measures look harsh but in reality very little is happening there.  
It is good to see in the commentary on the bill that it is recognised that this bill—the development of which commenced under the previous Government—represents the most comprehensive legislative improvements for the recovery of unpaid fines reparation and civil debt in 12 years. The previous Labour Government and the Ministers of that time need to be commended for the work they put into this bill. My colleagues and I are of course happy to see that this is actually moving along now rather than languishing on the Order Paper as it was before although we are disappointed that certain things have been left out particularly the omission of the one single agency that we had recommended be established to be responsible for fines collection which has now been excluded. We are disappointed that that has happened but we are happy that this is finally getting somewhere. Thank you very much. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) 
: 
 Along with my colleagues I am happy to stand and speak in support of this motion. The Courts and Criminal Matters Bill is certainly non-controversial and in fact the motion allows it to amend a number of Acts that were not included in the original Courts and Criminal Matters Bill as it was introduced. They include the Crimes Act 1961 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 and Residential Tenancies Act 1986. I think it would be fair to say that this bill is a tidy-up.  
I can certainly see the Minister for Courts looking extremely interested in this bill at this point in time and very appreciative that it is being passed. I might even say that she is really listening with bated breath. I heard the Hon Rick Barker speaking before and my colleagues Charles Chauvel Carol Beaumont and Carmel— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: The full team. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The full team. The full muster. The full group was here to acknowledge this bill. 
Sue Moroney 
: What about Carmel’s second name? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: Carmel Sepuloni. The whole lot were down here because they saw it was very important to acknowledge just how important this bill is.  
I would like to talk specifically about Rick Barker and about how committed he was. It was under his watch as the then Minister for Courts that much of this work was done and I think the current Minister would be the first to acknowledge that. I know that Rick Barker put in a lot of work. He is a very very hard-working member of our caucus and a thoroughly decent guy who just happens to be the chief whip. 
Hon Simon Power 
: That’s true. That’s true. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: That is right. That is right. He was really committed. He was very committed to improving the justice system in regard to this issue. I can see Simon Power over there nodding enthusiastically. Members should look at that head going. 
Hon Members 
: The honourable. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: The Hon Simon Power. In fact on many occasions he did not share the same enthusiasm for some of the bills on criminal matters that have been before this House like the “three strikes and you’re out” legislation and those sorts of things. I can see a wry smile on his face now.  
But there is no dissension on this bill; it is very common sense. As my colleagues Carmel Sepuloni and Carol Beaumont said it is a pity that these things take a while to go through. The Government rushes through all sorts of legislation that slashes workers’ rights and makes people’s lives really really miserable whereas something as common sense as this bill— 
Jo Goodhew 
: And the relevance? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I was just making a little reference there not straying from the bill. This bill has taken quite some time— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Far too long. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —far too long some would say—to come to the House. It is sensible.  
The changes to the driver licence stop orders are really one of the key parts of this bill. We all know as other speakers have said before me that penalties and fines may continue to grow until a point is reached where it becomes impossible for people—often predominantly young people—to meet their obligations or they feel that it is impossible to meet their obligations. So it is really really important to be able to come in at that level of fine before things are unattainable and before—let us use young people as an example—it is impossible for young people to pay their fines. I guess it might sound a bit tough but stopping people from driving is a short sharp lesson. Indeed if it comes to the worst action then impounding their car for 28 days will certainly be an incentive to pay their fine.  
If you will bear with me Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson—I do not think I am getting away from the bill—I heard Carol Beaumont talk about debt and loan sharks and the work in that area. If young people were able to borrow money at a reasonable rate from reputable organisations then they could look towards paying that fine or indeed enter into time-payment arrangements. If they have mounting debt and get into a state of panic then go to a loan shark and pay exorbitant interest it compounds the problems that happen in relation to fines and infringements. I am sure that members can see that there is a connection there.  
I think that it is very good that this bill which will go through will tidy the legislation up. Certainly in terms of— 
Jo Goodhew 
: It’s a procedural motion. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I should say that this amendment is going through thank you very much.  
I wanted to talk about some of the important points from the Law and Order Committee and my extensive notes refer to them. The committee went through how a warning notice of a driver licence stop order is actually served and that is quite important. I was not on the select committee but my colleague was and I think it was something that the committee spent quite a bit of time on and it came up with some really sensible recommendations. It was a reorganisation but without changing what would be required. It ensures that driver licence stop orders are brought to the defendant’s notice. That can be done in a number of ways either directly which is probably the preferred way or by an enforcement officer or agent leaving it at the place of residence as long as it is handed over to somebody who appears not to be a young person who is over the age of 14 years—[ 
Interruption 
]—thank you and peace to you too Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has 2 minutes. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —certainly to ensure that it gets handed over. Also the issue of leaving the order with another person at their residence or their workplace is something that the select committee would have put some time into considering. If a defendant cannot be found at his or her home then why not go to the workplace? It is a common-sense arrangement. It is common sense because at the end of the day this is about getting in there early and getting to the problem— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Nipping it in the bud. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: —and nipping it in the bud. That is the sort of comment I would expect from a former nurse. That can then set the young person on the right track with the proviso that if they do not behave they will have their car impounded. That is a pretty serious matter and if the order is served at their workplace it is a bit of a reminder that they do not have their car and there is also the embarrassment. They will just want to get the problem solved.  
I could speak on this motion for a lot longer but sadly I think I am nearly coming out of time. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Coming out of time or running out of time? 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I am coming out of time—my year of retirement—but I am not talking about me; this is about the bill. It is common sense and as others have said it would be a lot nicer if there were more bills before this House that we could agree on but sadly there are so many that are very distressing and serve no justice. In fact they are quite the opposite of that in terms of this Parliament our communities and our nation. Thank you very much. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Standing Order 299(1) be suspended to authorise the Committee of the whole House on the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill to consider and if it thinks fit adopt the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper No 202 as amended by Supplementary Order Paper No 244 to the following Acts that were not included in the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill as introduced--the Crimes Act 1961 the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 the Misues of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 and the Residential Tenancies Act 1986. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 41; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 3; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Independent: Carter C. 
Motion agreed to. 
Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson. I move  
That the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. I start by acknowledging the work of the Health Committee for its dedicated efforts in considering the bill for its report back on the bill and for the helpful amendments. If I could be so bold as to make a preliminary comment about the political support for this legislation it would be to acknowledge the widespread and sincere attitude of support for smoke-free initiatives which I believe is both heartening and responsible. I also acknowledge all of the 150 submitters who participated in the select committee process.  
This is a very important bill. It is primarily about protecting children and young people and the next generations to come. I am very proud that this Government is committed to actions that will reduce the number of children and young people who take up smoking. I think it is vital that we set this bill in context; a context that is about saving lives and advancing the well-being of our current and future generations. The key facts are in sum that smoking is the single leading preventable cause of early death in New Zealand and that half of all long-term smokers die of a smoking-related illness losing an average of 15 years of life. An estimated 4500 to 5000 New Zealanders die each year due to smoking or exposure to second-hand smoke. Maori are disproportionately overrepresented in these mortality statistics. About 650000 New Zealanders or one in five people over the age of 15 continue to put their health and lives at significant risk by smoking. This figure includes approximately 155000 current smokers who are Maori and about 45 percent of the Maori population aged between 15 and 65. Each one of these statistics on their own is a blight on the nation but the cumulative effect is devastating and we cannot tolerate inaction.  
The New Zealand Government is committed to reducing tobacco consumption and to the goal of seeing Aotearoa become a nation that is essentially smoke-free by 2025. As this House is well aware the Government considered raising the price of tobacco products through tax excise increases as an effective measure to reduce smoking prevalence and tobacco consumption. In April 2010 the Government moved to raise the tobacco excise in three stages of 10 percent with the last increment to come into force on 1 January 2012. Subject to an evaluation of these recent excise increases the Government will consider further sizable and regular tobacco excise increases from 2013 onwards. That was the first step.  
This bill takes us forward with the next stage of the programme. This bill is a key mechanism within the package of increased control measures focused on the retail environment. This bill will make the marketing of tobacco products a much more difficult proposition for the tobacco industry. The bill achieves this by prohibiting the display of tobacco products in shops. People will no longer be confronted with a wall of tobacco every time they go into the dairy. These measures will also aid those who are trying to quit by removing some of the temptation to make impulse purchases. The bill also removes the ability of retailers to include tobacco-related words in their shop signage. As an example “John’s Discount Cigarettes” could no longer be plastered all over the shop front. It also makes it much more difficult for companies to enter into covert sponsorship arrangements such as the exclusive supply arrangements we have seen at recent years’ events like outdoor musical festivals. These are sponsorships in all but name which have been prohibited since 1990. The bill clarifies and extends the prohibition on such sponsorships.  
The bill also increases the penalties for selling tobacco products to children and young people from $2000 to $5000 for an individual and up to $10000 for a business. The legislation provides for this offence and a number of other offences to be dealt with by infringement notices rather than costly and time-consuming prosecutions through the courts.  
Therefore this bill is an important step towards the Government’s goal of making New Zealand a smoke-free nation by 2025. We fully acknowledge that there may be some compliance costs to businesses in making the changes required. However we also believe that these extra costs are completely justified when we look at the harm caused by tobacco products. Tobacco products should not be treated like other consumer goods and they definitely should not hold pride of place where they can be seen directly behind the counter. As the recent report of the Maori Affairs Committee inquiry into the tobacco industry in Aotearoa and the consequences of tobacco use for Maori showed there is still much to be done in controlling the scourge that is tobacco. This bill demonstrates that commitment through a specific initiative targeting tobacco displays.  
In the spirit of things to come I will highlight my interest in the developments occurring in Australia in relation to plain packaging. Plain packaging is a key recommendation of the international Framework Convention on Tobacco Control which is a World Health Organization treaty with over 170 signatories. It is part of a comprehensive global approach to removing tobacco promotion and advertising and controlling the part that tobacco packaging plays in all that. The Government is supportive of the Australian initiative and Australia is leading the world in this. Many countries including New Zealand are closely watching the events surrounding this change.  
At a non-communicable disease conference that I attended in Moscow cigarette smoking was considered to be the most significant contributor to non-communicable diseases costing families economically socially and in the long term their health and their lives.  
Finally I say this bill is one of the stepping stones to achieving our goal of ensuring that New Zealand is a smoke-free nation by 2025. I urge all members to support this bill and help to ensure that our children and our rangatahi have the best possible chance to enjoy good health throughout their lives. At the time of this bill’s first reading I said I was confident that this bill would help in reducing the harms caused by tobacco in New Zealand. It was extremely heartening to observe the level of cross-party support at the first reading and in the Health Committee. I look forward to that ongoing and universal support in the subsequent stages. I commend the bill to the House. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 It gives me a lot of pleasure to rise and offer Labour’s enthusiastic and wholehearted support for the Smoke-free Environments (Controls and Enforcement) Amendment Bill. This bill is an important step on the path towards achieving a smoke-free nation by 2025 a path that this nation has been on for a number of years. I think it is an important step because we have seen in this term of Parliament the second significant piece of legislation aimed at curtailing the use of tobacco and the prevalence of smoking in New Zealand. In this term of Parliament we have seen what is near to a consensus across parties on these measures. That is a huge leap forward I have to say from some of the debates—fights is probably the appropriate word—that we have had in New Zealand in the past when it has come to tobacco control and legislation dealing with it. I hope that the silliness and some of the pettiness that we have seen in the past is now behind us. We have certainly seen strong moves towards a consensus on this issue in this Parliament.  
I hope that this bill continues to have the support that it received at its first reading and the support that we saw at the Health Committee. I acknowledge my colleagues on the select committee. I see the chair Dr Paul Hutchison in the Chamber this evening. There was a very constructive conversation. Everybody was on the same page. It was great to see all the parties working together not only to transition this bill through the House but also to find whatever possible opportunity we could to strengthen the bill in order to make this the biggest step forward that we possibly could.  
I also acknowledge the very large number of submitters who came and spoke in support of this bill particularly those people who work in the area of tobacco control. Those people work at the front line of health promotion in this country. They work with communities trying to prevent our young people from taking up smoking and trying to encourage those who have the smoking addiction to give it up so that they can extend their lives extend the quality of their lives and extend the quality of their relationship with their families their whanau and their communities. I think there are amazing people out there doing that work trying to improve the health and well-being of all New Zealanders and I acknowledge them.  
It is fair to say we did not have 100 percent support of the bill by all submitters. We heard from people who were I think it is fair to say representing the tobacco industry. We heard some retailers who were concerned about the compliance issue and the change that this legislation would mean for their business. We also heard the same tired old arguments from the tobacco industry that this issue is about adult choice and that people should be able to choose whichever brand of cigarettes they would like to smoke. People will still have choice; we are not banning tobacco smoking. We are not stopping people from purchasing tobacco products from the places where they are quite used to purchasing them right now. People will still have that choice.  
By removing tobacco displays in what I think is the most significant part of this legislation we are simply removing temptation for people who are trying to quit and removing the presence—the omnipresence—of tobacco in retail outlets that young people are exposed to. It is true that the only thing that people have to look at if they go into a dairy or most supermarkets is the tobacco display. It is right behind the counter where they have to go to pay for whatever other goods they want to purchase. It is right there in people’s faces. I am sure that everybody else in this Chamber will join me in saying I look forward to the day when I can walk into my local dairy and find that tobacco display is no longer there. I know that a number of retailers have already taken up this initiative and they report that they have seen no loss in sales and no loss of customers; in fact it has gone down very well with their communities.  
We considered a number of issues at the select committee. One of those was the commencement and transition dates. A number of submitters wanted to see the commencement date brought forward and the transition dates shortened as much as possible. I can understand their enthusiasm; they want to see these measures come into place as quickly as possible. But we had to take into account the change that is required for retailers. A number of retailers and organisations came and said to us that they wanted there to be some consistency and they wanted to know exactly what they were dealing with. Although the select committee extended the initial period which allows more time for retailers to make the change I think overall we will see a total removal of tobacco displays in a shorter period of time as a result of the amendments made at the select committee. The total lead-in time is slightly reduced and I think that is a good thing. We will have certainty. The retailers have certainty and the public have certainty about when the removal of tobacco displays will actually take place. I think that is a particularly good change that was made at the select committee.  
I do not want us to get distracted by this issue but one issue was I suppose particularly vexing for the select committee. It was the issue of herbal smoking products and whether we should extend the same conditions that we are placing on tobacco to other herbal smoking products. I know that this has become a particularly relevant issue over the last couple of weeks when we have seen a lot of media coverage about products such as Kronic Dream and Spice. These are synthetic cannabis products that fall under the Smoke-free Environments Act as herbal smoking products. The suggestion that we should extend the measures in this bill to those products was brought to the select committee very much at the last minute I would say by the Ministry of Health. Although I think every single member of the committee thought that was a splendid idea and something we should progress with as quickly as possible we felt it would be better to make sure that the manufacturers importers and retailers of those products— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.