Volume 638 Week 40 - Thursday 29 March 2007 
Volume 638 Week 40 - Thursday 29 March 2007 
[Volume:638;Page:8475] 
Thursday 29 March 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill the Immigration Advisers Licensing Bill the Criminal Procedure Bill and the first reading of the State-Owned Enterprises (AgriQuality Limited and Asure New Zealand Limited) Bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Can we assume from the fact that the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill does not appear under Government orders of the day that the Government on instruction from the Rt Hon Winston Peters has decided not to pursue that particular line and that the bill will remain a member’s bill? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 To repeat myself no decision has been made on that matter. 
Questions to Ministers 
Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Bill—Thrashing and Beating 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that those who oppose the legislation currently before the House to amend section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 were “demanding the right to be able to thrash and beat children”; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: What the Prime Minister actually said was: “… our rate of child death and injury from violence including in the home is appalling. It is a stain on our international reputation and I cannot see how those who are demanding the right to be able to thrash and beat children can possibly then turn around and profess concern about what is happening to our children.” The Prime Minister absolutely stands by that statement; it is self-evidently true. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister seriously believe that the 80 percent or so of New Zealanders who oppose this legislation want to beat and thrash children or that they condone violence against children? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am aware of statements in the House such as “I spank my children and I am proud of it.” from the Opposition spokesperson on social welfare Judith Collins. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports about prominent people or groups that have supported or opposed the bill? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen reports that Judy Bailey Paul Holmes Barnados Save the Children the Plunket Society Women’s Refuge and over 100000 emailers all support the bill—company I am proud to keep. Groups leading opposition to the bill including followers of Dr James Dobson who has said that women are biologically inferior to men and that he wants to cure people of being gay; Family Integrity from Palmerston North which says that smacking may be a 10 to 15-minute process with a smacking rod; Family Life International which opposes a woman’s right to choose the use of contraception; and Brian Tamaki who opposes having multiple sanctioned religions in New Zealand and says that not having a State religion is “religious treason”. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is it therefore the case that the Prime Minister is pushing this legislation through in defiance of overwhelming public opinion because she believes that 80 percent of New Zealanders are religious fanatics and extremists? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No clearly not. But clearly some of those in the vanguard of the opposition to this bill do fall into that category as well as other various forms of strange people including those responsible for the Cyfswatch website. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the House what action the Government has taken to alleviate fears about prosecutions under this bill? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Last night a Supplementary Order Paper was introduced providing for a review of the legislation 2 years after its enactment to ensure the bill works as intended and does not criminalise good parents. I can point concerned New Zealanders to the  
New Zealand Herald  
editorial of 18 February which states: “ … the repeal of the parental defence to assault will be hotly debated until the day it is enacted. Thereafter it will seem so right and sensible we will forget the issue.” No parent will be prosecuted for a normal smack but abusers will lose legal protection exactly as happened with the abolition of corporal punishment in schools which nobody now proposes going back to except those who marched on Parliament yesterday. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is it that the Prime Minister believes that she is right about how people should carry out their parental rights and obligations and that thousands of normal New Zealanders who are not religious fanatics who are not asking for the right to thrash and beat their children are wrong; and why should they believe her? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because I have noticed in my own emails that those supporting the bill adopt a moderate and reasonable tone while those opposing it seem to have a violent tone in many of their messages. I note the question the member referred to in the poll actually mis-states what the bill does. Wrong question wrong answer. 
Hon Bill English 
: Would the Prime Minister now care to repeat for the benefit of the public the list of those characteristics that she believes 80 percent of New Zealanders who oppose this legislation have—namely that they are asking for the right to thrash and beat children that their emails are violent that they are religious fanatics and that they do not know the right way to parent their children? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What the Prime Minister quite clearly said was that those who are leading the opposition to this bill fall into this category and that member should be ashamed to be amongst them. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Prime Minister believes that those who are leading the opposition to this bill are wanting the right to thrash and beat their children and are religious fanatics what does she say to the other 79 percent of New Zealanders who are opposed to this bill many of whom vote for her party many of whom are in this Parliament? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: One thing she might say is: “Look at members of the National Party—such as Katherine Rich and others—who are supporting this bill who are not themselves foolish people.” 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is it that the Prime Minister has told the public that this is not an anti-smacking bill when the clause debated by the Committee last night quite explicitly abolishes the defence of any use of force for correction—which cannot be described in any other way than as an anti-smacking provision? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The current law provides that smacking is an assault. The current law does that. Section 59 provides a defence that recent cases have demonstrated can be used to justify beating people with pieces of wood whips and other matter. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Prime Minister not aware that the law that Parliament is debating will mean there is no defence for a parent who lightly smacks his or her child for the purposes of for instance preventing that child putting his or her hand on a hot element? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The best way to prevent a child putting his or her hand on a hot element is not to hit the child while he or she is doing it but to grab the child and take him or her away. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why does the Prime Minister not answer the question I asked which was whether she understood that the bill before the House if passed will mean there is no defence for a parent who lightly smacks his or her child for the purposes of correction? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The member has to take account of the other provisions— 
Hon Bill English 
: Answer the question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am answering the question but note the aggressiveness yet again from the member on an issue around smacking. He is condemned out of his own behaviour in this House. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have asked the Prime Minister a direct question on a matter on which the Prime Minister has made a number of statements and a matter that is a matter of fact which is the provisions in the bill and I have now asked it twice but the Prime Minister has not answered. Of course as you know I have run out of supplementary questions and cannot continue to keep asking the same question. Given the public interest in this matter I seek that you direct the Prime Minister to answer the question that has now been asked twice. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that the member has not run out of supplementary questions. The National Party may allocate its supplementary questions however it wants to on any question. It is a matter of that party’s internal arrangements if the member has run out of supplementary questions. I have clearly addressed the question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Dr Cullen on behalf of the Prime Minister is clearly showing contempt for the procedures of the House. It is quite evident now that without your direction it would not matter if I asked that supplementary question 10 times. He does not intend to answer it because he knows that if the Prime Minister answered it correctly it would contradict all her public statements. That might be a political concern for him but for the House it is a legitimate question to ask whether the Prime Minister understands the legislation we are debating. I suggest that you require him to answer it. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that it is quite clear from the debate that has occurred in this House so far and from the advice that has been received that the bill as it stands at the moment is not going to lead to the outcomes the member argues for and no amount of bluff and bluster will lead to that conclusion. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think I have had enough debate on this particular point of order and I will rule on it. By my count there have been eight supplementary questions and National today has 33. It is a matter for the party so that people are aware of the number of supplementary questions. The second point is that the Minister did address the question. As members know they cannot always get the answer they want. They can ask the question but as long as the Minister has addressed the question that is all that is required. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister did answer the question more directly but he did it in the form of a point of order that was not actually a point of order. I would be happy for him to give the answer as an answer to the question so that it appears correctly in  
Hansard 
. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think we have had enough. We want to move on to a supplementary question. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on this. I ruled that the Minister addressed the question. If in fact— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated while I am on my feet. You will get your turn—I will make sure of that. I am being constantly interrupted by members at times when I am on my feet trying to give a ruling. As members know the Standing Orders require only that questions be addressed. As I have said on numerous occasions if members wish to change that I will be very grateful. There is a procedure for doing that—it is called the Standing Orders. Members cannot require a specific answer to a question. I have ruled on the point of order. In terms of what was raised in the point of order the member is probably correct. Matters were raised on both sides that were not strictly within the point of order but I consider that the matter has been addressed. We will have a supplementary question from Sue Bradford. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. During that exchange when it came to the answer part my recollection is that Dr Cullen was about to give an answer but then broke from it to say that he was about to answer it but noted some aggression in the tone coming from this side of the House. He then sat down. Subsequent to that there was an exchange of points of order no longer between the Prime Minister and the Hon Bill English but between Dr Michael Cullen and Bill English. In that exchange he gave an answer that should have been given as an answer by the Prime Minister to this House. I think that is the issue we have here. Dr Cullen of course is a very skilful politician. Everyone knows how clever he is. Everyone knows how he is able to use the Standing Orders very very effectively. But in this case he is using them quite inappropriately. He should be required to stand give the answer he gave in the point of order and answer the question as if he were the Prime Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for that and I note that there are experienced members both asking and answering the questions. I also note that further supplementary questions could be asked. I also note that it is quite possible that interjections will result in a diversion from the answer and that risk is always taken when an interjection is made. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that in fact the bill as amended by the select committee and brought back to the House has a new section 4 that explicitly provides for a defence of reasonable force when parents do things like remove their child with some force from a burning element a power point or something like that? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is entirely correct. In the instance that was given that of children who are about to place their hands on a hot element the bill as reported back specifically provides that parents can use force as required to ensure that their children do not place their hands on it. I suggest that the alternative of smacking children possibly across the back and thereby forcing them to put their hands on the element is a particularly stupid example for Mr English to use. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The member is not free to misrepresent what I said to the House. I never said or implied that a child should be hit across the back in a way that would force his or her hand on to a hot element. I take offence at that misrepresentation and ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that the member said a child putting his or her hand on an element should be given a smack. I do not know how good the member has been at smacking and how much practice he has had but the notion that he will direct the smack so well that it might not actually impel the child towards the heating element beggars belief. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Because the member has taken offence at the comment I ask the member to withdraw the comment and apologise. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw. 
Schools—Health Promotion 
2.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What is the Government doing in schools to promote healthy active children and reduce obesity? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 On the subject of healthy confident kids which we have just been discussing I am pleased to say that today the Government along with Sue Kedgley from the Green Party has launched the Food and Nutrition for Healthy Confident Kids guidelines for schools. The guidelines are in my hands and will be available to all members of the House who may want to use them personally or who would like to make sure they are available in their local schools. This is part of the $67 million Mission-On campaign that will run over a number of years. In practice these guidelines will influence what is eaten in the tuck shops in our schools and what children will bring to school and it will impact on what they learn through the curriculum because a number of learning units can be taken from these guidelines to be used in the curriculum as well. So the campaign will have a substantial impact on what happens in our schools. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What else is the Government doing to encourage young New Zealanders to live healthy and confident lives? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The $67 million campaign I mentioned earlier covers not only nutrition but physical activity amongst younger New Zealanders. The programme for example will involve making use of high-profile New Zealanders who will be setting an example to young New Zealanders; youth-focused websites; encouraging the advertising industry to decrease children’s exposure to unhealthy foods; the sponsorship of television and radio programmes that contain healthy choices within them; a television and computer free - time campaign; and an expansion of Green Prescription programmes such as the ones that encourage young people to get out and exercise rather than rely on other forms of prescription—say medication—to resolve an issue. It is a very good campaign. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that a $12 million Nutrition Fund secured by the Green Party in last year’s Budget will help to implement the new nutrition guidelines; and does he hope that children’s ability to learn and concentrate in the classroom will improve as all schools move towards ensuring that only healthy food is sold? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I can confirm that. The $12 million Nutrition Fund runs over 4 years and is now available to schools. That funding was secured by the Green Party as part of its post-election agreement with the Government. As a first step the Nutrition Fund will provide for two people from every school to be able to attend a workshop so that they can learn more about how to incorporate all of this into the school curriculum and the life of the school. From July funding will be available to early childhood education services and schools to establish their own ideas or programmes to support sustainable healthy eating environments. 
Resource Management Act—Meridian Energy 
3.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy:Does 
 he agree with Meridian Energy’s Keith Turner who stated with regard to the consent process that “We have absent a critical design element of the RMA and that is I think what we would like to see if the Government wants renewable energy”; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I certainly agree with Keith Turner that renewables will play a critical role in New Zealand’s energy future. One of the solutions proposed in the New Zealand Energy Strategy is to use the call-in powers that we streamlined in 2005 to assess wind and geothermal applications. We are also considering whether a national policy statement or environmental standard is needed for renewables and of course we are already advancing one for transmission. Finally I was also pleased to hear from Dr Turner on radio today on the Makara wind farm who said: “We are quite confident it will go ahead.” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why did he trumpet in the House last week that an additional 1500 megawatts of generation is currently in the consent process when as Keith Turner pointed out today: “If you’ve got a lot of uncertainty about consents then you’ve got to lodge a lot of consents to get a few out the other end.” and will he be so smug in 1 or 2 years’ time when the effects of the Resource Management Act in slowing renewable energy projects now is seen in the insecurity of New Zealand’s energy supply? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I do not accept that New Zealand’s energy supplies are insecure; neither do I accept that the Resource Management Act is as big a bugbear as the member pretends that it is. 
Maryan Street 
: How does the Minister reconcile suggestions that the Resource Management Act is fundamentally flawed with currently consented renewable generation? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I cannot reconcile them because in my opinion those complaints by Opposition members are exaggerated as evidenced by the 88 percent increase in wind capacity being built this year alone. Further evidence is found in the Mighty River Power geothermal projects being built. We have already amended the Resource Management Act indeed advancing the priority for renewables—National voted against that of course—and we have signalled our intention to use the call-in powers which we streamlined and which National also voted against. But we must remember that power projects do cause adverse environmental effects and the Resource Management Act provides a vital means for local concerns and national interests to be balanced. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Will the Minister explore all avenues and take whatever action he can to ensure that Project West Wind at Makara proceeds on the best wind-energy site in the world and in the closest proximity to the demand for the electricity it will produce namely right here in Wellington? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am not going to interfere in the judicial process that is under way in respect of Makara. I am confident that the Environment Court applying what I think are appropriate laws under the Resource Management Act will consent a viable wind farm at Makara which I agree would be an appropriate outcome. But the details of those issues are for the Environment Court and not for me. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why can the Minister not see that far from being just around the corner many of the projects that he trumpets about have yet to run the gauntlet of the Resource Management Act and even if they are successful there may face up to 33 months in the Environment Court and why does he think that such a slowing of a process will not cause security of supply issues for New Zealand in the very near future? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The normal process under the Resource Management Act is that an application is made to a local council and if the decision of the council is opposed it goes on appeal to the Environment Court. We have said that there are instances where it is very obvious that these matters are going to go on appeal to the Environment Court and that in those cases it is appropriate for the Government to consider using the call-in processes that this Parliament enhanced but that the member’s party opposed a year and a half ago. But I would say that our proposal to use those call-in processes is not actually universally welcomed by some applicants because some applicants say that the present process is cheaper and faster. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting that he does agree with Keith Turner’s statement does he agree with the statement made by David Baldwin of Contact Energy who appears basically to want Huntly power station taxed to the hilt in order to force it to close down or convert totally to gas; if so when will that happen? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Mr Baldwin’s comments were that the cost of carbon affects most carbon-intensive generation. I did not read it as an attack on Genesis or Huntly; I saw it as stating a reality that in a carbon-constrained world the generation that is most affected by the cost of carbon is that which is most carbon intense and of course that is coal-fired generation. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Has he chosen to ignore the recommendations of the reference group on electricity generation—a group set up by him—which has raised the concern that the Resource Management Act processes facilitate the building of fossil fuel generation stations far more readily than they do renewable energy generation stations; if so why has he taken that position? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I take it that the member is referring to a draft report that I released in advance of the closing date for submissions on the New Zealand Energy Strategy— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No but if you want the report I’ll give it to you. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: There is a report from an industry working group that looked at the question of whether there should be national policy guidance or a national environment standard on generation. That report was not strongly in favour of an environment standard. I am addressing that issue through the New Zealand Energy Strategy and it is likely that one of the outcomes from the strategy will be more guidance under the Resource Management Act. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How can the Prime Minister’s goal of carbon neutrality be taken seriously when the only carbon-neutral power company in New Zealand Meridian Energy says that the Resource Management Act works against the Government’s objective; and why can he not see that? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I note the somewhat double standard whereby every time we actually introduce legislation to improve the plight of renewables this Government passes it despite opposition from the National Party—for example the two pieces of legislation I quoted in response to another supplementary question. I also note that the industry players—the people developing new generation—are already changing course as a consequence of the draft New Zealand Energy Strategy as indicated by amongst others Contact’s announcement that it will be spending $2 billion on geothermal and wind power and deferring its decision on Otahuhu C. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why does the Minister keep saying that his Government has done something about the Resource Management Act when as late as just a couple of weeks ago the New Zealand Wind Energy Association has said it is a problem and is preventing growth in that sector when Dr Keith Turner this morning on Radio New Zealand National says that the Resource Management Act is the problem and when the Contact people have said they will go ahead with their geothermal project if they can get their consents within a particular time; and when will New Zealanders be able to stop having to swallow this carbon-neutral garbage while the Minister presides over a Resource Management Act that prefers fossil fuels ahead of renewable energy? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am very confident that New Zealand’s future in electricity lies predominantly with renewables and that they will be consented and built. Indeed I again remind members that this year wind capacity being built adds to existing capacity by 88 percent in 1 year. 
Crimes Act—Child Abuse Charges 
4.  
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: How many parents or caregivers have been charged with child abuse under the Crimes Act 1961 in the last 5 years? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Acting Minister of Police) 
: 
 There is no offence of child abuse as such under the Crimes Act. Child abuse is covered under a number of different offences and the system does not currently identify statistically the percentage of the victims who are children. There is however a specific section—section 194(a) of the Crimes Act which is assault on a child under the age of 14—under which 287 offenders were convicted in 2005. Again the statistics do not identify how many of those offenders were parents or caregivers. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Does the Minister agree with this statement made by an experienced lawyer Michele Wilkinson-Smith in her excellent article in the  
New Zealand Herald  
on Tuesday: “I say the repeal of section 59 is unnecessary because in my experience it is just that—unnecessary. I never lost a case which I prosecuted on the basis of section 59 … I’ve had far fewer cases as a defence lawyer but I’ve never fancied my chances of going to a jury and saying: ‘Look bashing that child with a jug cord was perfectly reasonable.’ ”; and as there have been only about three cases where defendants have been acquitted on the basis of section 59 does that not reveal that the law is already working well and that the police should be required to get on with the job of upholding the current law by prosecuting real child abusers and not the good parents who will be criminalised by Sue Bradford’s bill if section 59 of the Act is repealed? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The opinion of a legal media journalist is just that—an opinion. It is quite clear—and it has been debated in this House over the last couple of weeks—that there are examples of section 59 being used successfully when there would not be a member in this House who would regard the use of force using implements as being reasonable. 
Jill Pettis 
: What discretion do the police have in respect of a decision as to whether to prosecute someone for a minor assault? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The police have considerable discretion. Very minor offending will not generally result in a decision to prosecute. The police have to for example weigh up whether it is in the public interest to prosecute taking into account the seriousness or conversely the triviality of the alleged offence. Offences of the latter type will hardly ever reach court. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Does the Minister hear the warning given by Michele Wilkinson-Smith when she stated: “The people who will eventually suffer from the repeal of section 59 are the most vulnerable and powerless members of our community—and their children.”—and that will mean many in the Pacific community which explains its widespread opposition to the Sue Bradford bill—if not what assurances can the Minister give that good parents who are working hard to raise and correct their children will not be unnecessarily investigated by the police and Child Youth and Family? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think we can say with quite strong confidence that good parents are not going to be prosecuted under the new section 59 as set out in the bill. The reason for that is that the police guidelines which follow the Crown Law Office guidelines make it absolutely clear that minor forms of offending will not be prosecuted. Further to that there is case law— 
R v Hende 
 in 1996—where the Court of Appeal itself ruled that a light smack did not merit the stigma of a conviction or a fine. It is clear from Crown Law guidelines police guidelines and case law that good parents will not be so prosecuted. 
Housing—Foreign Ownership 
5.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree that having minimal restrictions on non-resident foreign ownership of residential property is increasing the demand for housing in New Zealand and contributing towards the crisis in housing affordability; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 No. As I said last week it seems that an increase in house prices has occurred across almost the entire country and often in areas of previously quite low housing value and still relatively poor housing areas. There is little evidence that foreign owners are moving to these areas or indeed to many middle-class areas and placing pressure on housing prices. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware that the average wage in the UK Germany and Japan is about twice our average wage when converted into New Zealand dollars; and does he think it is fair that foreigners from those countries who have twice the purchasing power of Kiwis are gifted an unrestricted and irrefutable advantage in our housing market? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said before there is no evidence that foreigners are actually entering the residential housing market in large numbers. Of course some say that 7 years ago when the New Zealand dollar was under US40c those differentials in market value terms were very much higher than they are today. There is not a great deal of data on this issue. The only available data from Quotable Value shows that property purchased by those with overseas addresses is approximately 0.1 percent of residential dwelling purchases since 1990 and 0.3 percent of what are called residential vacant purchases—which everyone understands as sections. Some of those of course are sold back to New Zealanders for redevelopment purposes. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware of the survey by Britain’s National Savings and Investments which found that a quarter of Britons are looking overseas particularly to New Zealand to buy their first house as a stepping stone to buying property in the UK; and does he believe that practice will provide positive outcomes for young Kiwis trying to buy their first home? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not aware of that survey. I assume that Britons are starting to run out of Spanish houses to buy—there has been a strong trend to do that over recent years. We have not seen any evidence of that actually occurring in large amounts in New Zealand. The primary drivers of house price increases in New Zealand have been areas such as the growth in employment the growth in real incomes and the growth in population combined. Of course in terms of affordability interest rates come into play as well. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. What response does the Minister make to the statement from the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa that foreign investment will boost house prices even more making it far too expensive for the average New Zealander to buy a house; a situation fast reaching crisis point given a study by Professor Bob Hargreaves the director of Massey University’s property foundation which shows that home affordability is at its lowest level since 1989? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said before I do not believe that the response of the Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa actually rests upon any solid evidence at all. These are not the factors driving house prices or the related—though other factors are also involved—housing affordability index. The Government is moving in terms of a shared equity scheme and the KiwiSaver scheme which starts on 1 July provides very significant support for the accumulation of a deposit for a first home. These are potential answers. One answer I saw in that newspaper story was that we should engage in a massive house-building programme. That of course would be hugely inflationary given our very tight labour market and very strong construction sector which the Governor of the Reserve Bank Alan Bollard is actually trying to weaken at the present time. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware of any public comment on this issue such as one on the  
Stuff 
 website which states: “I have been living in Invercargill since 2002 and I know 5 Australians who have bought a combined total of 46 houses here since 2003.”; if not does he not think his Government’s policy on this issue is out of step with public reality? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I do not think it is out of step with public reality. What is more out of step is the policy of some countries such as Australia to try to place very strong limits on people who are not Australian citizens owning property to the point where for example the chief executive of one of their major banks was not allowed to buy a house in Sydney for a number of years. I think that is a rather daft kind of politics and policies. 
Heather Roy 
: Is not the real crisis the fact that red tape is constraining housing supply and driving up prices as was highlighted in yesterday’s www.interest.co.nz housing affordability study; and when will the Minister’s Government fix the Resource Management Act so that our kids can afford homes of their own? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the problem with what the member is proposing in terms of open slather on the Resource Management Act is that it would lead to uncontrolled urban growth and no doubt further demand for construction of motorways further demand for construction of public transport and therefore—contrary to what the member would like—further demand for tax increases to pay for all of that. 
Peter Brown 
: A point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Point of order Peter Brown. 
Peter Brown 
: I was quicker this time than my colleague across the House! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes you are doing well. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table information showing that our average wage is half that of Germany the UK or Japan. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table public feedback from the  
Stuff 
 website to enable the Minister to come up to speed with public opinion and my assertions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table a press release from Britain’s National Savings and Investments company which states that a quarter of Britons are looking overseas particularly to New Zealand to buy their first home. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek leave to table David Chaston’s www.interest.co.nz housing affordability study which shows that housing supply is the real solution to the crisis in housing affordability. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Laboratory Testing—Waitemata and Counties Manukau District Health Boards 
6.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What is it in the Auckland laboratory testing High Court judgment that prevents him from expressing confidence in Kay McKelvie and Pat Snedden chairs of the Waitemata and Counties Manukau district health boards? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: The judgment was critical of the Auckland regional district health boards in several respects. For example in paragraph 330 of the judgment the judge found not only that Dr Bierre had breached two statutes but that the three district health boards had made “a serious procedural error”. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would the Minister now confirm that the Auckland district health boards have signed a new contract for laboratory services for another 18 months; and in light of that announcement and the Minister’s earlier statements that he would answer questions about his confidence in the district health board chairs once that contract was secured does he have confidence in Wayne Brown Kay McKelvie and Pat Snedden? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can confirm that contrary to the member’s best hopes a contract has been secured from 1 July with Diagnostic Medlab Ltd. It will have a term of 18 months. That will clearly give sufficient time to reopen— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Answer the question. Do you have confidence? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That was in answer to the first part of the question—if the member had listened. That will give sufficient time to do a proper re-tendering process. The Minister will consider the issue when he returns from a very quick visit to Australia at midnight tomorrow. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When does the Minister expect that the Government will fulfil its undertaking to Parliament that when the contract is settled then that is when someone will be held accountable for this fiasco? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The announcement of the settlement was made at 2.15 this afternoon. The Minister is on his way towards the airport to go to Australia. He will have a chance to consider this issue on his return from Australia. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is it acceptable that the Government’s appointees Wayne Brown Pat Snedden and Kay McKelvie were willing to sign a contract with someone whom they knew was using inside information whom the Minister said broke two laws whom Mr Mallard called lying and corrupt and whom the Prime Minister described as “duplicitous”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As both the Minister and the Prime Minister have said any suggestion from the Government of vetoing any tenderer for the new long-term tender process would itself invite judicial review at large expense and further uncertainty around the tendering process. Also Mr Mallard actually said that Dr Bierre was a corrupt and lying Tory. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister think that it was ethical behaviour for Government appointees such as Wayne Brown Kay McKelvie and Pat Snedden to sign a $500 million contract with a man whom they knew was an insider who had been actively involved in setting up the terms and conditions of the whole process and who in fact had briefed them only weeks before the tender began? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is possible of course that Mr Brown was influenced by a description by Dr Paul Hutchison of Dr Bierre as a man “for whom I personally have great respect” and who “is well respected nationally.” However putting all that and the judgments of Dr Hutchison and Dr Blue in that respect aside I think the judgment does raise questions about the fact that clearly there was a conflict of interest. The Minister and the Prime Minister have both outlined that fact at some length. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister believe that Wayne Brown has handled the whole issue of conflict of interest involving Dr Bierre and the Auckland District Health Board appropriately; and does he think that Mr Brown’s arrogance and abrasiveness may have been a strength in the past but now make him a liability because he does not realise that the time for accountability has come for him? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure that the Minister will give attention to matters involving the future of the Auckland district health boards on his return from Australia. 
Holiday Pay—Changes 
7.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What recent announcements has she made concerning changes to how employees and employers can work out leave and pay entitlements? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I am happy to inform the House that my colleague Lianne Dalziel and I have recently launched a new online tool to help both employers and employees calculate their improved leave entitlement under the Holidays Act. It provides a simple one-stop shop to determine whether an employee is entitled to a paid public holiday and if so what that entitlement should be. 
Dave Hereora 
: What does the Minister expect that this tool will achieve? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The tool’s design recognises that not every worker has straightforward working arrangements and it will make determining his or her pay and leave entitlements simple and straightforward. It will meet a core and significant aspect of one of the recommendations of the Small Business Advisory Group as it will reduce business compliance costs—a reduction that I am sure will be welcomed by all but in particular by small-business owners. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: Does the Minister think it is fair that a worker is paid more to be sick than to be at work; how does that encourage productivity or is a calculator needed to decide what is fair? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Perhaps I could recommend to the member that she actually use the online tool to determine the facts of the entitlement rather than rely on her predecessor to continue reporting misinformation. 
National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Secondary Principals Association 
8.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he agree with Peter Gall president-elect of the Secondary Principals Association that some schools are loading study programmes with easy subjects to help pupils pass the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA)? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Of course I listened closely to Mr Gall’s comments but there is no evidence that schools are designing assessment programmes with anything other than the students’ best interests at heart. Secondary school students can earn credits in three ways. They can get achievement standards assessed internally or externally and they can get unit standards assessed internally. There has been a slight increase in the percentage of students doing internally assessed unit standards so that issue is being looked at by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority as part of its review of design features. I should also note and I take notice of this from Peter Gall as well that he has said: “We are a pro-NCEA school and our staff like many teachers around the country have worked incredibly hard to make sure it does work.” 
Katherine Rich 
: Why should New Zealanders trust the Minister’s opinion over that of a secondary school principal of many years’ experience who says that some schools are loading study programmes with easy subjects to help kids through NCEA? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am not asking anybody to trust anybody in this matter; I am just saying that I listen closely to Mr Gall and will carry on doing so because he is the incoming president of the Secondary Principals Association. I am simply pointing to the fact that there is no evidence at the moment that there is a shift of any extent to unit standards. So until we see that I guess we will have to say it may be a one-off isolated case. Of course we would take a very dim view of it if it is a one-off isolated case. If Mr Gall or the member bring it to our attention we will of course investigate it immediately. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What reports has the Minister heard about the potential of the NCEA system? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have heard numerous reports about NCEA because most people agree that a standards-based assessment system is fit for the 21st century. I draw attention in particular to the remarks of Phil O’Reilly Chief Executive of Business New Zealand who said: “It gives employers news they can use it tells you what a student is good at and it delivers more about their capability.” I think that is the general view of people right round the country—that NCEA is the right direction for our assessment system. They want to focus on the process of constant improvement that is going on not on trying to undermine our national qualification system. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: What changes to NCEA have been initiated to overcome the de-motivating effects on students which were unearthed by his ministry through research undertaken last year? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member is referring to the research led by Professor Luanna Meyer from Victoria University which was the major study done on motivation in NCEA. A number of things were suggested. In particular a key finding was firstly that students predominantly choose subjects that interest them and secondly that the subjects relate to their future job and career goals. So what we know from that research is that we need to work with students to ensure they make that link between where they want to go to further study and in their future job. That is being done through the Career Services. Senior subject advisers have been appointed to assist teachers to develop effective teaching and assessment techniques related to NCEA. We are looking at the proposal to endorse certificates so that there is a clearer idea of what the student has gained relative to other students. That is part of the design review going on at the present time. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why are schools being urged by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to increase the use of internally assessed unit standards and easier subjects as a safety net and does the Minister think that increasing the proportion of unit standards being sat each year since NCEA started is evidence of this directive being implemented?’ 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: There is actually no policy to increase the use of internal assessment. One of the strong features of NCEA that people would agree on is that it does allow for internal and external assessment which is much more like a university kind of environment. That is why for example it is a better predictor of university success—as John Hattie’s research showed recently. It would interest the member to know that there has been a slight increase in internal assessment at levels 1 and 3 but almost no noticeable increase at all at level 2. 
Katherine Rich 
: When the Minister says it is not policy what are New Zealand Qualifications Authority documents that urge schools to consider internally assessed unit standards as a safety net; and what does he think that advice from the authority to schools was if not a directive? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the member is referring to the frequent workshops that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority holds with schools whereby the authority talks through the different styles of assessment with the school. One of the things that schools need to consider is the appropriate form of assessment for a student for a given subject. For example it is obviously better to have students internally assessed if they are say part of a learning to be a chef course or if they are doing the speaking part of a unit standard. 
Katherine Rich 
: Gift-wrapping. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member raises the notion of gift-wrapping. As I pointed out earlier in the Chamber these are standards set only at level 1; they are not at levels 2 or 3. They were originally constructed for students who have less ability. The member—and Mr Power with his law degree—may not want students who have lesser ability to leave school with anything at all. But I think that for students leaving say after getting level 1 and a unit standard that shows they can for example wrap gifts then they could work in a store somewhere and it could be a useful part of their job. That is a useful thing for them to do and it may get them a job. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Has the Minister read the scoping report for Te Kotahitanga which states: “This deficit theorising by teachers is the major impediment to Maori students’ educational achievement for it results in teachers having low expectations of Maori students.” which I would suggest explains why 53 percent of Maori boys and 45 percent of Maori girls leave school without gaining level 1 NCEA qualifications; and what initiatives will he be pursuing with colleges of education to ensure they address such matters in their programmes? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I have read that and I agree absolutely with it. I think Russell Bishop is right. Actually he is right not just for Maori students by the way but for working-class kids like me for example. I can look back on my own history and see that the same notion of deficit theorising as Russell Bishop calls it has been part of the educational system to the detriment of students from those kinds of groups. A change in that attitude as his research shows makes a huge difference to those kids. What can we do? As the member knows we are about to release a discussion paper on initial teacher education. One of the major features of that discussion will be the way initial teacher education addresses the needs of Maori which have not been addressed properly in teachers colleges until now and now in the university setting. I am looking for a real change in that area. 
Katherine Rich 
: When the Prime Minister says that she is “at somewhat of a loss” to explain why the recording of failure has not happened when this was agreed by the Government 2 years ago why was the Minister still saying last September: “There is no place on such a list for the things that people have not yet attained or perhaps not even attempted.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I mentioned to the member before these issues are under consideration as part of the design changes going on around the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. It might be useful just to walk through what is available now because it is clear that is not widely understood by the member. Student results notices are different from the record of learning. There are two things that students get—a record of learning and a results notice. The results notice carries a “not achieved” for externally assessed standards. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority does not deliver that information around internally assessed statements because of course the school has that. The record of learning does not carry any information about “not achieved”. That is the question that is being considered—should “not achieved” be on the record of learning should it be on the results notice. Most of the members on the National side of the House such as Mr English will have a university degree. His failures will not be shown on his degree only his successes in getting that degree at the end of the day. 
Katherine Rich 
: When the Prime Minister says that the Government agreed 2 years ago to return to recording failure on students’ records of learning and has said that she is “somewhat at a loss” as to why it has not happened why did the Minister not do that? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: One of the reasons is that I was not in this portfolio 2 years ago as the member knows so I suppose she wants to point to someone else. But she does not need to; I am fully happy to take responsibility for it. At the risk of repetition of what I said yesterday as I told the member this is the State Services Commission report which reported in 2005. We focused on operational issues because they were urgent to make sure the system worked. The system now does. We have made design changes in a range of areas and we are about to do the last part of those changes. The member will be so relieved to see them I am sure. 
Methyl Bromide—Nelson Medical Officer of Health 
9.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does he agree with Dr Kiddle Nelson medical officer of health that: “Methyl bromide is a hazardous substance and it needs to be used carefully and it needs to be used with appropriate risk management.”; if so why? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes I can confirm that methyl bromide is a hazardous substance and as such is regulated under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. I can also confirm that as a potential hazard to workers and the general public those who are permitted to use it also have obligations under the Health and Safety in Employment Act. I agree that its use must be managed very carefully so as not to put anyone at the risk of harm. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Given the finding in an until very recently secret report that residents living nearby to a methyl bromide fumigation facility in Nelson may have been exposed to the highly toxic gas at twice the level allowed under workplace safety exposure standards does the Minister agree that fumigation with the gas should not be permitted in residential areas; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am aware of the issues raised in the report. I think it is important to note that those conclusions have been drawn as possibilities on the basis of modelling only and that they are contested. In that respect I think the article in today’s  
New Zealand Herald  
is not helpful. The direct contradiction internally between what is in the box claimed as reality and what is referred to in the article as modelling is obvious. But I would add that if that level of exposure were the case it would be the cause for very serious concern. I would also like to add the words of Dr Kiddle when talking about this matter. He cautions that these reports go only part of the way towards building an accurate picture of the effects of methyl bromide that more work is required before firm conclusions can be drawn and further that measures have been taken over the last 6 years to reduce any risk of health impacts. Dr Kiddle states: “We are currently in mediation and while this is proceeding the court has requested that all parties to the mediation refrain from public comment on issues discussed by the parties in mediation and issues arising from the reports.” I think that is very sound advice. 
Lesley Soper 
: Can the Minister confirm that the use of methyl bromide is being phased out? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Yes I can. Even if used safely methyl bromide is an ozone-depleting substance. As such it is being phased out globally in terms of the Montreal Protocol—the international agreement under which ozone-depleting substances are managed. I can further advise that the Government has already informed the strawberry industry that it will no longer be given any further critical use exemptions for the use of methyl bromide as a fumigant. I can advise further that Government agencies in Australia and New Zealand are actively investigating alternative fumigants for use in the timber industry. 
Sue Kedgley 
: In view of the Minister’s last answer why does his Government allow methyl bromide fumigation to take place in specified locations all around New Zealand including in residential areas without any monitoring to ensure that the amount of methyl bromide being released into the atmosphere is at a level that is allegedly safe or any requirement to inform local residents; and why does his Government allow fumigation operators simply to open container doors and release this toxic and ozone-depleting gas directly into the atmosphere? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I am advised that officials do support investigating different ways of monitoring gas discharge and discharge and exposure rates over time; that they also support the idea of using a recovery and destruction method where possible for fumigations; and that they support options to reduce gases discharged into the air. However decisions on permitted or non-permitted activities in urban or regional areas are made by the relevant local authority under the Resource Management Act. In Nelson for example the use of methyl bromide in fumigation is subject to an ongoing case as I have referred to. It is before the Environment Court and in mediation and therefore it is inappropriate to comment further. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can the Minister confirm that contrary to his earlier answer our use of methyl bromide has steadily increased since we signed the Montreal Protocol and said we would phase it out; and does he further agree that there should be a requirement on all users of methyl bromide to recapture the gas not release it into the atmosphere? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I certainly did not make a comment that the use of methyl bromide had decreased because of our trade and in particular increases in timber exports. It has consistently increased over recent years. But I confirm to the member that the issue of the use of methyl bromide is on the priority list of the Environmental Risk Management Authority for reassessment and can I assist her by reading an extract from the authority’s reassessment evaluation form: “There are a number of steps underway to investigate a reduction in use and emissions of methyl bromide. These include discussions with trading partners to secure agreement on phytosanitary standards (on the use of alternatives to methyl bromide) that can be applied internationally consideration of alternative treatments a trial of recapture technology that will be run in the Nelson area this export log season and consideration of operational procedures including monitoring.” 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee in response to a petition by Claire Gulman that recommends among other things— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind the member that the identification of the document is all that is required not a reading out of it. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Early Childhood Education—20 Free Hours Policy 
10.  
PAULA BENNETT (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How is the policy of 20 free hours of early childhood education consistent with the Government’s intention to increase the level of quality in early childhood education? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The 20 free hours policy is designed to do two things: boost participation in early childhood education for 3 to 4-year-olds and lower costs to parents. The policy is part of the Government’s 10-year early childhood quality education strategy which aims to improve quality boost participation and promote collaboration. Other initiatives that are relevant include having registered and qualified teachers; curriculum materials innovation and professional development; a better regulation system; higher funding; and better adult-child ratios. 
Paula Bennett 
: How does that fit with the Ministry of Education’s recommendation to centres that in order to make the 20 free hours policy work they reduce quality reduce staffing or charge more for children aged zero to 2 years? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Those are not recommendations of the ministry. 
Dianne Yates 
: What reports has the Minister seen about alternative policies that are consistent with raising the quality? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am speaking to a lot of early childhood groups at the moment and I am aware that they are very aware that the National Party is now supporting the 20 hours’ free policy. National’s leader John Key has stated: “We want these young kids to be able to have 20 hours free.” However early childhood groups are confused by the fact that on National’s website it still says National will scrap 20 hours’ free early childhood education and those groups are wondering when the National Party will come clean and say what its actual policy is. 
Paula Bennett 
: In light of the Minister speaking to so many centres what is his response to the newsletter of the Building Blocks Childcare and Preschool which recently stated: “The centre has decided that we will not be offering the 20 hours free as we want to provide you and your child the same high-quality care without any compromise.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I have not read the particular information that the member has read out but I will take her word that that is actually what has been said by the Building Blocks Childcare and Preschool. But I would urge that centre to take advantage of the workshops that are being run by the Ministry of Education because in my experience many people who are looking through their budgets at this time change their mind when they have had the opportunity to work the issue through with the ministry. 
Paula Bennett 
: How does the 20 free hours policy increase the level of quality of early childhood education when for example Mark Finlay the managing director of Lollipops Educare said that if he signed up to the policy: “We would have to cut back on costs teachers nappies and food etc.”; and how does cutting back on teachers increase the quality of early childhood education? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I am sure the member knows the funding rates were based on information provided by the early childhood sector through the 2006 operating costs survey. Centres that qualify for the funding of course qualify because they employ registered teachers—the higher the number the more money they get. The rates are therefore tailored to reflect the costs of early childhood centres particularly in the area of their two major cost drivers which are employing qualified teachers and the length of the session they provide. I will be making it clear of course to centres around the country that the next operating costs survey will be completed in 2008. It will capture any of the anomalies that might arise in their centres and we will be able to deal with those going forward. 
Pasifika People—Employment 
11.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports if any has she received on the number of Pasifika people in employment? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Talofa lava. I can advise the House that employment growth for Pacific people rose by 3.8 percent per annum from 2001 to 2006 compared with 1.6 percent for Europeans—palagi. At the same time the Pasifika unemployment rate dropped by more than a third from almost 10 percent in 2001 to a near record low of 6.4 percent last year. O nisi na o talafiafia mo tagata Pasifika o lo’oalala ma soifua Niu Silanei—this is more great news for our Pasifika communities. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: How many Pasifika people in the workforce are participating in industry training? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: Pacific people make up 5.6 percent of all industry trainees compared with the 4.3 percent share of the total workforce. I also add that 15.7 percent of Pacific people are now enrolled in tertiary education compared with 14.2 percent for the general population. I congratulate my colleague the Hon Dr Michael Cullen as Minister for Tertiary Education on his sterling work in this area. 
Judith Collins 
: If everything is going so well for Pasifika New Zealanders—and I am sure we all hope it is—why does the Government’s  
Social Report 2006 
 show that 54 percent of Pasifika families live in poverty which is an increase of 10 percent under her Government? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: To add a bit of context to that question during the 1990s when National was in Government and undertook major economic restructuring the community that fared the worst in terms of unemployment market rents and psychological and emotional harm was the Pacific community. My response to the first question showed clearly that we have made enormous changes to the economic and social position of our people. 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am trying to hear the Associate Minister’s answer at the back of the House and it is impossible to hear her give this information on Pacific Island communities through the screaming and yelling of the National Opposition. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I must say that there was screaming and yelling on both sides of the House. Would the Minister please continue with her answer. 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: As I said before the community that suffered the most from economic restructuring under the National Government of the 1990s was the Pacific community. Enormous progress has been made in the economic and social position of our peoples and our children and our Labour-led Government will continue that good work. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: What is the total number of Pacific people reliant on an unemployment benefit? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: I can advise the House that at the end of February there were fewer than 2900 Pacific people reliant on an unemployment benefit in the whole of New Zealand. This is an astounding 76 percent reduction from 12300 in 1999 when National was last in Government. This Labour-led Government is clearly making real progress at improving outcomes for our Pacific families and communities. There is still much to be done and we are committed to getting on and doing it. 
Judith Collins 
: Did this Minister not know that in 2000 49 percent of Pasifika families lived in poverty and in 2004 after 4 years of her Government that figure had increased to 54 percent; if not why not? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: As the member of Parliament for Mana also I would like to share with members a story about the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) where Porirua College is leading NCEA. Eighty percent of the children are Pacific. They come from families where their parents are now in employment and they are receiving the Working for Families package income-related rents and affordable housing and health. That is why our children in Porirua are leading NCEA. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister did not address the question which was “did she know”. All we got was something about NCEA. This question was about whether she knew that 54 percent of Pacific people are now living in poverty. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows no member can in fact require a yes or no answer to a question. The Minister did address the question generally. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Can the Minister confirm that the data used by Judith Collins is from 2004 before the introduction of the Working for Families package that that package is reducing child poverty by 70 percent that the last stage occurs on 1 April this year and that the National Party voted against it? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: Yes I can confirm that. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek the leave of the House to table page 65 of the Government’s  
Social Report 2006 
 which has these figures in it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
School Boards of Trustees—Criteria for Candidates 
12.  
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Is he satisfied with the criteria for candidates for election to school boards of trustees under the Education Act 1989? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The Act does not determine eligibility to stand but it does list numerous criteria that make a person ineligible. Those criteria include—and I do not want anybody to take this personally—being mentally disordered; being an undischarged bankrupt; not being a New Zealand citizen; being a permanently appointed member of the board’s staff other than the principal or the elected staff representative on the board; having contracts with the board worth more than $25000 a year; or having not yet served a sentence for a crime for which that person has been convicted and which is punishable by imprisonment. I just tell the member because I am sure he was not here at the time that those criteria were endorsed by Parliament when the Education and Science Committee unanimously reported back that Gerry Brownlee’s Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill not proceed. 
John Hayes 
: How does this law and its criteria protect the children of a Wairarapa school where a person with 25 convictions including sexual offences with a minor is currently a candidate for election to the board of trustees and could be elected without anyone ever knowing about his or her past? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As the select committee pointed out the powers that are available to the Minister of the day are quite sufficient I think to deal with anybody who feels that the safety of a child is at risk. For example if this person was elected to the board and was considered to be a safety risk—and it could be that I consider that person to be a safety risk—I can require under law that the board deals with that matter. If the board does not deal with it to a satisfactory level I can suspend—sack—the entire board and deal with it myself. That is what the select committee unanimously concluded was the best way forward and that is what I would intend to do. 
Darien Fenton 
: What is the Minister doing to ensure that boards of trustees have the skills and attributes needed to govern schools? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: As I indicated last year following the outcome of the boards of trustees elections I will be asking the ministry to have a look at matters of governance. I would like the ministry to look at such issues as whether we have the right mix of skills on boards whether there is some more support that we could give them and whether there could be better arrangements—for example the clustering of boards. I am pleased to see that currently 17000 people are standing for the 13000 places on boards around the country and that only two boards do not have enough candidates to fill their vacancies. I am sure they will fill them by co-opting because in those cases it was a procedural hiccup that had led to the problem. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister confirm that National’s current deputy leader Bill English was a member of the Education and Science Committee that unanimously agreed to recommend that Gerry Brownlee’s bill to prevent those with sex offence convictions from becoming school trustees should not proceed? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I not only can confirm that the Hon Bill English was a member of that committee; I can confirm that so was Colin King and so was Mr Allan Peachey who of course was the leader of one of the largest schools if not the largest school in the country. The report back unanimously concluded that such a bill would not make children safer given that those in the trustee role had limited contact with children. The committee also concluded that the Minister of the day has the power to ensure students’ safety by requiring a board if there is a difficulty to deal with it; if it does not deal with it the Minister can sack it. 
John Hayes 
: Clearly the Minister is satisfied with the legislation for which he is responsible and he is also satisfied— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I realise that Mr Hayes is a relatively new member but I think it is important that he learn that members should start a question with a question word. He had two clauses out and had not got there yet. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As a general rule we are trying now not to start questions with comments statements or imputations. Just go straight to the question please. 
John Hayes 
: Is the Minister satisfied with the legislation—particularly section 103 of the Education Act 1989—for which he is responsible as Minister and with the advice from his ministry on the Education (Trustee Ineligibility) Amendment Bill that the Education Act as it currently stands already sufficiently protects children’s safety? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Not only am I satisfied that we have that protection but as I have said that was the unanimous opinion of the select committee. I have the report here if the member would like it. Membership of the committee included the deputy leader of his party plus a former leader of one of the largest schools—if not the largest school—in the country and Mr Colin King as well. Yes I think we are in a position at the present time where members across the House—Ms Bennett shakes her head—have agreed that the legislation is currently adequate. 
John Hayes 
: Can the Minister confirm that any person may stand for election to a school board of trustees irrespective of the number of convictions he or she has which is unlike the position of contractors who must be vetted by the police before entering school-grounds; and given that this situation could be replicated in every school in New Zealand will the Minister take immediate action to protect our children by requiring all elected school trustees to submit to the principal the details of any convictions they have thereby lifting the veil of suspicion and creating a safe environment for our children? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: [ 
Interruption 
] As my colleague here says it is not within my competence to just ignore the law. The law already states who is ineligible to stand. As I mentioned before the unanimous opinion of this House was—although members seem to have changed their mind in the last year—that currently existing law which allows me as the present Minister of Education or any Minister of Education to sack a board if it does not look after the safety of children was right. I just say to the member that if he seriously thinks the police should now be vetting 17000 New Zealanders in the 5-day period between nominations closing and the elections I invite him to tell the police exactly how they might do it. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: With regard to the issues raised by my colleague John Hayes I would seek leave to table a short note from my book of prophesies called  
I Told You So 
. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
John Hayes 
: Why is it acceptable to the Minister that a person with 25 convictions including for sexual offences with a minor can make himself available for election to a board in the first place and that now that this person is a candidate no one can expose that person because to do so may lead to the identification of the victim? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Of course it is not acceptable to a single person in this House that someone with a record such as the member has described stands for election. But the law states which people are ineligible and the law states—and I want to make this clear to the member; he needs to go home and explain this—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. Please members a question has been asked. We would all like to hear the Minister address the question. We will listen in silence. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member needs to know that the law supported by this House protects children’s safety. They come first. If such people were to be elected to boards anywhere in the country and if I understood that that had happened and that children’s safety was at risk the law empowers me to require boards to remove them or I will do it for them and take the whole board with them. 
Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. 
The House will recall the review of the Terrorism Suppression Act by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in 2005. The committee identified a number of issues around the working of the Act and whether it met New Zealand’s international obligations. The committee encouraged the Government to consider whether those issues required a legislative response. The Government has studied the select committee’s report and concluded that most of the issues raised by the committee do need such a response to ensure that the Act responds to New Zealand’s international obligations. The bill contains those responses. It also contains further amendments to bring the Act up to date with international developments. Since the last time the Act was amended New Zealand has signed two new international treaties that require us to create new terrorist offences relating to terrorist attacks using nuclear material. 
I will address firstly the clauses in the bill that respond to the issues raised by the select committee. This bill responds to those concerns by separating out the process for designating terrorists under two separate UN Security Council resolutions. It also amends the procedure for extending designations when they expire and it seeks to repeal the “avoidance of doubt” provisions that were identified as problematic by the select committee. 
It is important to recall that the Terrorism Suppression Act was passed to give effect to New Zealand’s obligations under several different UN instruments. Amongst those are two Security Council resolutions—Resolution 1267 and Resolution 1373. As the select committee noted in its report under Resolution 1267 the Security Council maintains a list of Taliban al-Qaeda and associated entities. Member States are obligated to designate the individuals and entities on that list for the purpose of maintaining asset freezes and travel bans against them. The second resolution Resolution 1373 requires member States to criminalise the financing of terrorism as well as a range of other activities such as participation or recruitment into terrorist organisations. The Security Council does not maintain a list of terrorists under this resolution and instead requires member States to identify for themselves who should be subject to the criminal penalties. 
When the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 was drafted and enacted the dust had not yet settled from the September 11 terrorist attacks. At that time it was decided that the best option would be to combine the two sets of Security Council obligations into one process—that is to designate as terrorists under New Zealand law both the persons and entities on the UN list and persons designated by New Zealand. Under that process the Prime Minister has the power to designate individuals or entities if satisfied on reasonable grounds that they are engaged in terrorist activities. This process however has not turned out to be workable. The number of entities the Security Council has added and continues to add to its list under Resolution 1267 over time is significantly higher than was estimated at the time the Act was passed. 
The select committee pointed out that New Zealand is different from other countries with democratic frameworks in combining the procedures for designating terrorists under both Resolution 1267 and Resolution 1373. The committee pointed out that other comparable countries use automatic procedures that directly incorporate the Resolution 1267 list while maintaining a second discretionary process for additional terrorists to be designated pursuant to Resolution 1373. The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill proposes to remedy this problem so that terrorist entities that appear on the Resolution 1267 list are automatically designated under the Act. The Act’s discretionary designation process will continue to exist but only to those terrorist entities that the Prime Minister may choose to designate pursuant to Resolution 1373. This will ensure that the Act fully meets New Zealand’s international obligations under both Security Council resolutions. 
The select committee also highlighted the role of the High Court in extending terrorist designations as being problematic. Currently all designations expire after 3 years unless extended by the High Court. The select committee review pointed out that should the High Court refuse to extend a designation that had been made pursuant to Resolution 1267 New Zealand would be in breach of its international obligations. There seemed to be little purpose in involving the High Court in a costly procedure that would lead to such an outcome. In order to remedy this problem this bill will amend the Terrorism Suppression Act so that terrorist entities designated by the Security Council under Resolution 1267 will remain designated in New Zealand for as long as they remain on the Security Council’s list without needing to be renewed by the High Court. 
On the other hand the bill also provides that designations made by the Prime Minister pursuant to Resolution 1373 will continue to expire after 3 years unless extended. That safeguard continues to be appropriate given that designations under Resolution 1373 are discretionary and are made on New Zealand’s own initiative. The bill will however replace the role of the High Court in extending those designations. Instead the Prime Minister will renew designations if satisfied on reasonable grounds that the entity continues to be engaged in terrorist activity. This will make the Terrorism Suppression Act consistent with anti-terrorism legislation in other comparable countries. The select committee’s review of the Act noted that anti-terrorism legislation in the UK Canada and Australia did not involve the courts in reviewing or extending terrorist designations pursuant to Resolution 1373. 
Although the role of the High Court in extending designations will be removed by this bill the amended Act will retain judicial oversight over the designation process. Any decision by the Prime Minister to designate an entity or a decision not to revoke a designation will still be subject to judicial review. 
The third major issue raised by the select committee in its review of the Act was the “avoidance of doubt” provisions in sections 8(2) and 10(2). The committee noted that the inclusion of those provisions was not required by Security Council Resolution 1373 and that other comparable countries such as again the UK Canada and Australia do not have such provisions in their legislation. The select committee noted that rather than avoid doubt these clauses have created it by confusing the mental element of the offences by establishing dual intentions. The intention to commit an act prohibited by the legislation can effectively be overridden by a broader motive relating to why someone wanted to commit the offence. The committee noted that sections such as these do not appear in the descriptions of any other criminal offence in New Zealand. The bill proposes therefore to repeal sections 8(2) and 10(2) of the Terrorism Suppression Act. 
The select committee review also raised a number of other issues with the Act such as its lack of a general offence of committing a terrorist act and the level of intent in the criminal offence provisions. The bill addresses these issues by adding a general offence of committing a terrorist act and by adjusting the mental element of the offence of participating in a terrorist group in order to make it consistent with other terrorist offences in the Act. 
Before concluding I would like to address those clauses in the bill that bring the Terrorism Suppression Act up to date with new developments and add new offences. New Zealand has recently signed two new international anti-terrorism treaties: the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and amendments to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. Both treaties have been through the treaty examination process and the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee had no matters to raise with the House in relation to them. The two treaties oblige New Zealand to create new offences concerning the use of radioactive material and radioactive devices. The bill adds those offences to the Terrorism Suppression Act. 
I am sure that the select committee will pay careful attention to this bill. It deals with difficult and contentious matters and it deals with fundamental issues of liberties and the rule of law. It is important to get the balance right and in trying to get that balance right in 2002 I think it is clear that we left certain lacunae in the Act which meant that in fact it has not been as effective as it should have been. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I indicate in response to the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister that the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee will indeed be giving careful attention to the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. The National Party of course will be supporting the introduction of this legislation and its referral to the select committee. We will give it the careful study that the Attorney-General has just urged upon the House and we will also be using that opportunity to urge that the Government show some vigilance in using the powers that the Act bestows upon the Prime Minister in particular. 
I was one of the members of the select committee that took part in the tail end of the review process that Dr Cullen has just talked about. We were constrained very tightly—being a newly formed committee just after the election—by the time available to complete the review. It was very much a pro forma sort of report that went forward. But even in the context of the very brief hearings that we had I have to say that I developed some very serious concerns about the way in which we go about our detection of terrorists and the way in which our authorities are given the opportunity to superintend the efforts of those people in New Zealand. I want to address this first reading speech in the context of those concerns. 
 As Dr Cullen has told us the original legislation the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 arose from the events of September 11. This bill does not precisely mirror legislation passed in other jurisdictions of our type but it does in broad terms. I think Dr Cullen properly concedes that there were some inadequacies in the original legislation and it is timely for us to address them. Some would say we should have done so earlier; indeed I am on public record as having said that myself. 
The Attorney-General referred to the two different vehicles that the original legislation provides for dealing with terrorists. Fundamentally this bill is a tool kit for the authorities in this country to be able to look after those whom they fear will engage in terrorist activities on our shores. The original legislation deals with two different courses: first United Nations Resolution 1267 which deals with the al-Qaeda or Taliban activities; and second United Nations Resolution 1373 which deals with other terrorist groups that New Zealand authorities believe are a threat to this country. 
In respect of the first category which concerns the Taliban-related terrorists under Resolution 1267 Dr Cullen correctly told the House that this bill proposes some changes that the select committee members had in their minds when the committee reported to this House. The bill abolishes the nonsense of the High Court of New Zealand having to consider whether a designation should take place when that designation had been put in place by the United Nations Security Council and the New Zealand authorities could have absolutely no idea why the Security Council did it. The New Zealand authorities may have no access to the information that the council had and we would have the ludicrous situation where the New Zealand authorities would have to present a case to the New Zealand courts to uphold a designation without having any information in order to do so. So we have a very sensible solution. We have the United Nations Security Council list becoming the New Zealand list as far as Resolution 1267 designations are concerned. 
With regard to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 this bill makes an important change in respect of the other terrorist groups—the ones that we are supposed to identify as posing a threat to New Zealand and to New Zealand’s friends and to put on our list. The bill leaves the Prime Minister in charge of that process. The Prime Minister can designate and renew that designation and I support that. Whoever the Prime Minister is in New Zealand will be a person who has won a mandate from the public. That person will generally be the Minister responsible for the SIS and will be in receipt of the confidential briefings that occur in that role. Somebody has to carry that burden and I am perfectly happy to support that change. Personally I think that the Prime Minister of New Zealand should have that authority. So in that sense I have no difficulty in supporting this provision in the bill introduced into the House today. 
Where I do have a problem is in the use of the tool kit that the original legislation provided and that now this bill will provide for the House. In other jurisdictions we have seen a very different course followed. All countries of course have followed their obligation to put the Taliban-related terrorists on the United Nations Security Council list on to their own lists. We have been obliged to do so and we have done so. But in relation to UN Resolution 1373 our behaviour has diverged very sharply from that of our neighbours. 
It is worth inspecting that track record briefly in relation to this bill. I ask members to look at Australia. Under United Nations Resolution 1373 Australia has designated 88 terrorist entities. So it has taken fairly seriously its obligation to identify those terrorist groups to give its authorities the power to watch those groups and to take some action against them. Canada has over 50 groups on its list in relation to Resolution 1373. Since 2002 how many groups has the Prime Minister of New Zealand designated under Resolution 1373 and put on our list? She has not designated one. Not one terrorist entity has been designated by the Prime Minister of New Zealand under the powers given to her by this House back in 2002. 
It is not rocket science. We have a very open border with Australia. Even if we take the very charitable view that New Zealand has no terrorist risk—and I certainly do not take that view—we would certainly have to take the view that there is a terrorist threat to our nearest neighbour Australia with whom we share an open border. If I was an Australian I would be looking at New Zealand and shaking my head and asking what risks we were visiting upon our nearest neighbours by our behaviour under this legislation. 
In Australia 88 terrorist individuals or organisations have been designated according to Resolution 1373. New Zealand has not designated a single one. I tell the House in relation to this measure that outfits like Hezbollah are on the Australian list—I have the list here; I am happy to table it for members if they want to see it. The al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade is on the Australian list. Hamas is on the Australian list. The Abu Nidal Organization is on the Australian list. The Tamil Tigers are on the Australian list. The Real IRA is on the Australian list. The authorities in Australia see those organisations as being of sufficient threat to their country and its people to put them on the list of Resolution 1373 as designated terrorist groups. Not one of them is on the New Zealand list. That poses a real question for this House not just about the safety of New Zealanders but about the safety of those in Australia. 
I say to the Attorney-General as he introduces this bill that National will support the bill. National wants to send it to the select committee it wants to see the provisions of the bill looked at very carefully it wants to have the officials in front of it and we want to know just how much this Government and this Prime Minister have been flirting with the security of New Zealanders. This issue should be taken deadly seriously by every member of this House. It is going to be taken deadly seriously by the National members on the committee. We want to see no stone left unturned when it comes to the protection of the security of New Zealanders. 
This bill will certainly provide for some improvements but it will be worthless if the Prime Minister of New Zealand does what she has done for the last 4 years—which is to not use the powers under this legislation that authorities in Australia have been so ready to use as they exercise concern for the welfare of their citizens. So I warn the Prime Minister and the Government that as we look at this bill we will also scrutinise the conduct of the Government and we will be making sure that it does better in this matter. This is a vital piece of legislation before the House today and it will make some improvements but we will need to see some improvements in the conduct of the Prime Minister and the Government if it is to be utilised with effect. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill and to say that we look forward to it coming to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. I thank the member opposite for his support of the bill and I also thank the committee members for the work they did on the review. As has been admitted before the original legislation was passed in response to the events of September 11 and we are now looking at more requirements and at the recommendations of the select committee to make amendments. I know that the select committee will examine this bill very very carefully because we took as much time as we could on the review and we will be looking at the provisions with much less constraint of time than when the matter came before the committee previously. 
One of the issues brought out is always the balance between protecting the people of New Zealand—protecting us from terrorism protecting us from outside influences that affect this country—and at the same time maintaining civil liberties and human rights. To get that balance is always an extremely difficult thing to do especially when international incidents cause alarm and when we realise that we are now part of an increasingly close global community and we have to protect our borders and our people. But as we have said at the same time we have to maintain our high standards of civil rights and civil liberties. 
This is one of those amendments that has one sometimes wanting to turn the page upside down to read because as is stated in the explanatory note: “Currently New Zealand is required to designate United Nations (UN) listed terrorist entities under the Act before they become subject to the provisions of the Act.” So this is a matter around designation and it will take the select committee a considerable amount of time to make sure that we get it right—that we get the wording right and that we get right the intention of the bill. 
The explanatory note continues: “The Bill amends the Act by removing this designation process and applying the provisions of the Act automatically to terrorist entities that are subject to the United Nations (Sanctions) Regulations 2001.” One of the other issues that often comes up in our select committee and that is an issue around here is that yes we are a member of the United Nations and yes we have signed up to our United Nations obligations but we also have to adopt these obligations into our own law. One of the jobs of our select committee is to examine provisions so that when we sign up to treaties and to international obligations we know that they are consistent with our own laws. That is what we are doing in this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill not only in making these amendments but also in looking at some new provisions that have come through through the United Nations. So we have to give a considerable amount of close attention to this particular bill. 
Some people will be concerned that the matter is now going to be decided by the Prime Minister rather than the High Court and that is an issue we will have to look at. No doubt we will have a number of submissions to the committee from people who think that way. It is a matter of the committee calling for submissions in the usual way and looking very carefully at the opinions of those submissions. This legislation is not something that I think the New Zealand public will get wildly excited about. It tends to be those people who are interested in international law and in the finer details of that law who make submissions on this type of bill. 
But something that is important to all of us is the matter of which organisations—as Mr McCully says—are on that list. It affects us as people but it is not something that people generally get their heads around—except of course when they are travelling and concerned or when there is an international incident particularly when it is close to us. Then people suddenly say: “My goodness could that happen here?” “Are those people here?” or “How does that affect us?”. So once again I thank the select committee for the good work that was done in the review—as I have said there was a time constraint—and we look forward to being able to look more closely at the bill through this new process. 
We also note that there are new developments and some new penalties and the committee will be looking at those very carefully as well. If there are loopholes or inconsistencies I know that the committee with the expertise of those on the committee and those who have worked on this issue previously—those who were part of the review—will be very clear about examining the process. When I listened to the debate I somehow thought that we had had this debate before. Yes we have but I am pleased that the Minister has taken heed not only of the select committee’s review but also in looking to update the legislation in terms of changes in the United Nations and changes to our international obligations. 
As has been said the amendments to the Act will make changes that are significant—changes that the select committee and no doubt the submitters will be keen to examine in great detail. I thank the members of the select committee for the attention given. We have on our committee a considerable amount of expertise in these areas and I am sure that members are looking forward both to examining the clauses in detail and also to asking a number of questions in order to clear up matters before this bill comes back to the House. I thank the Attorney-General for his presentation of this bill and I thank members opposite for their support at this first reading stage. The committee looks forward to examining in greater detail the provisions of the bill. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 As the National spokesman on foreign affairs has indicated National supports the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. Clearly the bill will fix some serious problems with regard to the designation process. In fact some time ago those of us who are on the Opposition side of the House did warn that a Government cannot abandon security issues—who is designated and who is not—to the High Court. There were very good reasons for that warning. These issues are not fundamentally judicial issues. Who is designated and who is not are national security matters. The High Court cannot be expected to have the sort of information that the Prime Minister would receive. As has already been noted by Murray McCully the Prime Minister will almost certainly be in charge of the Security Intelligence Service and will receive confidential briefings from it. So one should not abandon the national security of this country to the courts. That matter is primarily a responsibility of the Government and the Government does receive confidential information. 
That point raises another issue does it not? Mr Ahmed Zaoui after 5 years now is still in the court process. I have to say it is remarkable to put it mildly that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has yet to deal with his security status. This area of law is crying out for reform. The Prime Minister raised that as an urgent matter literally years ago in this House but no changes have taken place. It is frankly unsatisfactory that a person like Ahmed Zaoui—who has been convicted in Belgium in a proper hearing of associating with terrorists and of supporting those who had guns money explosives and multiple passports—can arrive in New Zealand and claim refugee status then we have the SIS say that he is a national security risk because of all those convictions yet we are still waiting for that issue to be resolved. That cannot be satisfactory even to the Green Party which is highly sympathetic to Mr Zaoui. Surely we need a better process than one that takes 5 years to try to work out whether someone is a security risk. It would be a good thing given the incredibly short Order Paper that the Government has if the Government actually did something about that part of the law as well as proposing the measures set out in this bill. 
As Murray McCully has indicated New Zealand—or more accurately the Prime Minister—has been entirely guided by the United Nations lists. I want to look at that particular issue. The UN lists by definition reflect a complete global consensus. Every State in the world has to say an organisation is a terrorist organisation and an individual is a terrorist. So on that basis only the most extreme and the worst organisations and individuals are designated. That is the reason why al-Qaeda in its many different forms is so prescribed. No country will come out in support of al-Qaeda. But that raises a further question: does one go for the lowest common denominator list as one’s only list or are there other entities and persons who should be designated? 
Let us take for instance issues in the Middle East. Clearly Saudi Arabia Libya Jordan and Syria are probably going to say no we cannot possibly designate the armed wing of Hamas or the armed wing of Hezbollah notwithstanding that they target innocent civilians. Clearly those countries could not do that in terms of their own domestic politics. New Zealand has ended up being guided by their views as to who should be designated. In contrast Australia Canada and the United Kingdom three countries that the Attorney-General referred to in his address as like-minded countries to New Zealand and as countries whose systems we should adopt have taken a different view—not about the Hamas part of the Palestinian Authority the civil part but about the armed wing in particular which has deliberately not recognised Israel in any respect whatsoever; not even inside the 1967 borders. Those countries have designated the armed wings of Hezbollah and of Hamas as terrorist entities. New Zealand is completely silent on those groups. It effectively means that the countries in the Middle East that cannot deal with Israel—and many of the countries that I mentioned like Saudi Arabia Syria and Libya do not even recognise Israel—in effect dictate New Zealand’s policy because we have bound ourselves into the UN list and into only that list. 
That I suggest does not reflect the way that countries in the Commonwealth—and I specifically note in the Commonwealth—have designated a number of parties. I draw to the attention of members opposite as indeed Mr McCully did that Australia has designated 88 individuals and organisations. Canada which often follows a similar path to New Zealand in international relations has designated 50. New Zealand has absolutely zero designations. 
I want to refer specifically to the Australian list. For instance in relation to Ireland which is hugely important because of the things that have occurred there Australia has designated the Real IRA. The Real IRA was made up from the people who split off from Gerry Adams because they thought he was doing the wrong thing. They wanted to continue the armed struggle as they called it. But in fact they were terrorists who bombed pubs hotels buses and the like. Similarly there is the Loyalist Volunteer Force on the Protestant side—irredentists if you will; people who have opposed the hugely important reconciliation that we have seen on our television screens over the last few days. That was a historic situation whereby the Rev. Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams were able to come together and show a new path forward for Northern Ireland. So the irredentists—the people who are opposing that process—should be prescribed. 
There is complete silence from New Zealand on something like that. When we fail to do something like designating those groups we then fail to support the people who are actually building peace in the countries concerned. So we say to the Government that it should not take just the lowest common denominator approach and confine itself to the UN list; it should think more broadly of New Zealand’s national interests in common with those of other Commonwealth countries. We have tough questions to ask in the select committee and we will be asking them. We want the New Zealand Prime Minister—of whichever party—to look after New Zealand’s national interests our security and the security of our friends and allies. 
National supports this bill; it is necessary. But we have serious questions to ask and we expect the Government to answer them. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill is a very important bill. We live in a volatile world and that makes this bill triply important. New Zealand First will be supporting the bill. As has already been noted the need for the amendment arose from a review of the Terrorism Suppression Act by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in 2005. In that review a number of issues around the workings of the Act were identified and issues around whether it met with New Zealand’s international obligations were also raised. 
The bill contains several of the legislative responses recommended by the select committee and further amendments to bring the Act up to date with international developments—such as for offences relating to terrorist attacks using nuclear material. The bill separates out the process for designating terrorists under two separate UN Security Council resolutions. It amends the procedure for extending designations when they expire and it seeks to repeal the avoidance of doubt provisions. 
The Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 was enacted as a consequence of the 11 September terrorist attacks. Things have moved on from that time—indeed in many ways they have got so much worse—and so must our response move on. The Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill will ensure that terrorist entities that appear on the UN’s Resolution 1267 list are automatically designated under the Act whilst also allowing the Prime Minister’s discretionary designation process to continue. 
The bill will also amend the Terrorism Suppression Act so that terrorist entities designated by the Security Council under its Resolution 1267 will remain designated in New Zealand for as long as they remain on the Security Council’s list without needing to reviewed by the High Court. On the other hand the bill also provides that designations made by the Prime Minister pursuant to UN Resolution 1373 will continue to expire after 3 years unless extended. The bill replaces the role of the High Court with the Prime Minister when renewing designations. Any decisions by the Prime Minister to designate an entity or a decision not to revoke a designation could be subject to judicial review. This will make the Terrorism Suppression Act consistent with anti-terrorism legislation in other comparable countries. 
In summary although these changes to the Act can be explained as technical changes they are necessary both to bring New Zealand into line with international obligations and to ensure we are operating in an up-to-date and workable environment. New Zealand First supports this bill going to select committee. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is disappointed that the Government has come forward with the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. We are disappointed because the Government is not taking account of the much greater awareness now compared with in 2002 when the Terrorism Suppression Act was passed that there has been an international overreaction in anti-terrorism measures. There is a recognition now that many of the anti-terrorist measures driven out in the United States have detrimentally affected human rights. We see an almost universal revulsion at the treatment by the United States of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay where due process has been very limited. A common concern of the critics has been that the executive branch of Government has been given excessive power to determine whether people or groups are terrorists with little judicial constraint or due process. 
Instead of saying: “Whoa we haven’t gone as far down the repressive track as America Australia and Britain.”—and that is good—this bill is actually bringing us closer to those countries. For example when the Terrorism Suppression Act was being debated in 2002 the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee went to great lengths to make sure the judiciary could review the Prime Minister’s terrorist designations 3 years on. This bill destroys all that work with a new provision that the executive branch in the form of the Prime Minister will review its own designations. All that remains in the bill is a general power of judicial review—something common to ministerial action in a range of fields—which applies really only in points of law and is very difficult time consuming and expensive for anyone wrongly designated as a terrorist. 
The section of the bill to automatically transfer the United Nations list to the New Zealand list also takes out any opportunity for due process to apply. Previously there was a common-sense qualification that the transfer would be automatic “in the absence of evidence to the contrary”. It would be the height of injustice for New Zealand to possess incontrovertible evidence that a New Zealander had wrongly been designated a terrorist by the UN yet still put that person on the New Zealand terrorist list and consequently have all of his or her property seized. Yet that is exactly what this provision in the bill proposes to do. 
It is well known that the UN process whereby the Counter-Terrorism Committee designates terrorist entities is seriously flawed. It operates entirely on the basis of the committee trusting that Governments have correct information when they put forward entities for inclusion on the list and that these Governments are not influenced by prejudicial political agendas. Any person or group challenging its own inclusion on the UN terrorist list has two hurdles in its way if it wants to get off the list. Firstly it has to get a Government to back it which means given that most of the designations are from America that the Government needs to be confident enough to take on the superpower—which is not a lot of Governments. 
 The Swedish Government tried to get three of its citizens of Somali origin off the list but had only partial success after a long-drawn-out process. To get a person or group off the list there has to be a consensus of Governments including the United States which is not easy. There has been an attempt by some European Governments such as Germany Sweden and Switzerland to have a fairer listing and de-listing process on the counter-terrorism committee with some ability to test evidence but this initiative has not gone very far. 
The problem the UN has faced all along which is why it has never come up with a clear definition of terrorism is that one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter. We all know that the Muldoon Government called Nelson Mandela a terrorist and that New Zealand Government officials labelled the East Timorese under Xanana Gusmão as terrorists. In one sense they were correct in that some of the armed actions of both the South African and East Timorese liberation movements killed civilians. But the terrorist label is inappropriate because such actions were not the main aspect of their liberation struggle and the Governments they were fighting—which the New Zealand Government had good relations with—were terrorising the people on a much greater scale. 
The same applies to some of the popularly supported nationalist groups operating in the world today that have also been labelled as terrorists such as Hamas and Al Fatah in Palestine. Again strangely enough the Israeli Government is generally not labelled terrorist even though its forces are responsible for more than 90 percent of the civilians killed in Israel and Palestine over the past year. In Western countries where Governments lean more towards Israel Hamas supporters are more liable to be caught under anti-terrorist laws whereas in Arab nations it would be more likely to be those who support the Israeli Government. 
So we can see the problem the United Nations has. That is why it is so bad that this bill takes out a qualification carefully put into the 2002 Act that New Zealanders could support a liberation movement even if that movement engaged in some terrorist acts provided such support was used “for the purpose of advocating democratic government or the protection of human rights.” Taking this qualification out could mean—depending on which foreign Governments New Zealand might be wanting to impress at the time—the criminalising of New Zealanders who support the nationalist struggles in places like Palestine Chechnya the Kurdish areas of Turkey West Papua or Sri Lanka. The opportunities for such criminalisation are increased by the looseness of the definition of “terrorist act” in the 2002 Act which goes well beyond some of the better overseas definitions such as that in the Security Council Resolution 1566 in 2004 which describes terrorism as “criminal acts including those against civilians committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury or taking of hostages with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public …”. 
In the New Zealand Act’s definition people with no intention of harming anyone or of destroying property can still qualify as terrorists. They can simply be putting pressure on the Government for “ideological political or religious reasons” by causing “serious disruption to an infrastructure facility if likely to endanger human life”. This could catch even non-violent liberation movements that engage in mass strikes demonstrations or civil disobedience campaigns. In a New Zealand context the mass disruptive activity by protesters against the 1981 Springbok Tour comes to mind. Perhaps some of those 1981 protesters would have been charged under the Muldoon Government for committing a terrorist act that now becomes a separate offence under this amendment bill with a maximum penalty of life. This could lead not only to injustices if a really bad Government comes to power in New Zealand but also to problems and inconsistencies in our legal system. 
Already any of the crimes that could be covered under the broad definition of terrorism in the Act—from murder and kidnapping to lesser offences—are covered by particular provisions in the Crimes Act and have their own particular penalties. There is also the mistaken and prejudicial assumption running through the Act and reinforced by this bill that lawbreakers who have a political motive have a bad political motive or at least should be treated as such. This is the reasoning behind taking out that qualification—that it is not an argument for the defence that a supporter of an alleged terrorist was doing so “for the purpose of advocating democratic government or the protection of human rights”. 
Back in 1981 a contrary reason applied in most Springbok Tour cases in that judges and juries actually let off people or reduced penalties for their lawbreaking because of their good political motives—that is these New Zealanders were acting in the interests of the oppressed black people in South Africa. Much of the credit New Zealand has in South Africa today is as a result of black South Africans seeing on their TVs the sacrifice that ordinary New Zealanders made for their cause back in 1981. Let us hope that when people in places like Palestine and West Papua finally win their freedom they will also be able to remember that there were New Zealanders who supported them and whose ability to do so was not constrained by anti-terrorism legislation such as we have before us today. 
It would also enhance our country’s international reputation as a peacemaker in countries where there is internal conflict not to have determined one of the parties—generally the non-Government party—to be terrorist. Such open-mindedness or even-handedness opens the door for New Zealand to do serious peacemaking of the sort we did in Bougainville a few years ago. I think we have a mission internationally to be a good peacemaker and to recognise that in most countries where there is a conflict it is generally the case that the Government in the conflict often commits more terrorist acts than the non-governmental group that it is fighting. 
We have to take an even-handed approach. If we remember what has happened in Northern Ireland we see that one of the reasons why there was able to be that political engagement between the British Government Sinn Fein and the Unionists was that Sinn Fein was never made illegal even though the IRA was. Sinn Fein was never made illegal so that allowed for the engagement to take place. The same applies in many conflicts around the world. Although we might always criticise terrorist acts and never justify them we often have to engage with groups who commit them as part of their struggle—critical of them though we may be. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatoui te Whare. This Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill stirs some very strong memories in my mind and some even stronger feelings in my heart. I do not mind saying that those feelings are not fuelled by the jingoistic acid-drenched hate-filled anti-Islamic “death to anyone from the Middle East” vitriolic poisonous crapola that the United States is trying to foist upon the rest of the world. My understanding of terrorism comes from a far different source—a source that relies on historical fact rather than hysterical drama for its position a source that connects me to my indigenous brothers and sisters around the world and a source that roots me clearly in Aotearoa the home of my ancestors and homeland forever of the Maori people. 
Last year I was privileged to be invited to a conference in Canada. The United Nations Expert Seminar on Treaties Agreements and other Constructive Arrangements between States and Indigenous Peoples was held in Hobbema in the Treaty Six territory Alberta Canada. While I was there I saw a T-shirt that some of the local brothers were wearing. It had a picture of Geronimo and a couple of his warriors carrying weapons. The caption below read something like this: “Homeland Security—Fighting Terrorism in the USA since 1495”. I paused to think that although we are separated by thousands and thousands of miles indigenous sentiments about colonial terrorism are exactly the same. 
The picture and the sentiments on those T-shirts reminded me of a book I read when I was doing “bed and breakfast” in Mount Eden Prison. The book was called  
Watch for Me on the Mountain 
 and it was about the rebellion of Geronimo and his people against the rampaging racist terrorists of the United States 7th Cavalry who were operating under a clear mandate from their masters in Washington to crush everything that stood in the way of the land-hungry gold-maddened settlers and to round up hunt down and kill where necessary any natives who stood in their way. Everyone in this House knows the phrase: “The only good Indian is a dead Indian”—such were the sentiments of the United States of America just a couple of hundred years ago. So when I think of this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill that too is where my understanding of terrorism comes from. 
I reckon we could probably update that “dead Indian” threat to read: “The only good sand-nigger is a dead sand-nigger” to explain the United States’ current misbegotten crusade in Iraq. It is misbegotten because it is a military campaign born out of the union of the lies about weapons of mass destruction that were never found and the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein that was never proved. Yes I call it a crusade because it is a venture of Christian paranoia against Islam. It is a task that “Richard the Lion Breath” and his foolish followers could not achieve hundreds of years ago and a failure that George Bush with all his technological superiority is doomed to repeat. So when I think of this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill that too is where my understanding of terrorism comes from. 
Now we hear that the United States of America has finally charged some dumb Aussie David Hicks as its first Guantanamo “war on terror” detainee. An Australian for heavens’ sake! Six years after 9/11 is this the result of billions of United States intelligence dollars being spent on securing a conviction to justify its war in Afghanistan? An Australian? Heaven forbid that we in this country should be connected in any way with the mind-numbing stupidity and pointlessness of a process that has failed so spectacularly that after 6 years all it could come up with was a so-called confession from an Australian charged with providing material support. Seriously hands up all those in this House who believe that that confession was entered into freely and willingly. When I think of this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill that too is where my understanding of terrorism comes from. 
I recall too that my time in Mount Eden arose out of an uprising right here in Aotearoa when tens of thousands of people right throughout the country marched against the terrorist apartheid regime of South Africa in 1981. Like many others in this House I will never forget the picture that used to come up on TV of a young man running through the streets of Sharpeville and carrying a young girl who had been shot to death by Government-sponsored agents of terror. It is an image that helped to shape an understanding in the minds of thousands of New Zealanders that our passion for rugby should not be allowed to be sullied by a link to State-sponsored terror and State-sponsored murder. So when I think of this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill that too is where my understanding of terrorism comes from. 
I can recall too a very personal connection to South Africa. I recall one brother a member of the African National Congress who fled the terror in his homeland Andrew Moletsane. Andrew came to my home in Otara South Auckland to give testimony about the terror being imposed by the crumbling apartheid regime of South Africa. A few years later Andrew Moletsane was hunted down and murdered in Botswana by one of Botha’s goon squads. His name is recorded forever in the list of African National Congress members who died in exile between March 1960 and December 1993. So when I think of this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill that too is where my understanding of terrorism comes from. 
I make another personal connection to the pain and suffering of the black people in apartheid South Africa. I recall calling Bishop Desmond Tutu to take the stand as my one and only witness in the trials that arose out of the arrests of the members of the Patu squad following the final Springbok match at Eden Park. Bishop Tutu was a small man but when he walked into the courthouse that day the whole world stopped. His entry stunned the whole courtroom into silence and scared the hell out of me as the person who had called for his testimony. I asked him to tell the court what apartheid was and for the next 20 minutes in a quiet and humble voice Bishop Tutu proceeded to describe apartheid through the eyes of one who had been forced to witness the terror imposed upon his people—the degradation the humiliation the pain and the death. As he spoke we could have heard a pin drop. When he stepped down from the dock that day I looked around and saw something I had never seen before and have never seen since in a court of law in this country. The public rose to their feet to acknowledge the man and his message; the prison wardens rose to their feet as well; the police stood up; the press stood up; the lawyers stood up; the defendants stood up; even members of the jury stood up. I found out later that the judge had to force himself not to stand up such had been the power of the truth of the terrorism that was apartheid. So when I think of this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill that too is where my understanding of terrorism comes from. 
 Last night I took the opportunity to read some of the history of the Te Roroa claim and I was overwhelmed by the loss of land the loss of mana the loss of pride and even the loss of life that the people of Te Roroa have had to face over the last 180 years. That reminded me of the Muriwhenua claim the Tainui claim the NgaiTahu claim and many other claims. It reminded me of those who gave their lives all over Aotearoa to save their lands from the rapacious actions of colonialism. Again I was reminded about the real impact of terrorism right here in Aotearoa. So when I think of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill that too is where my understanding of terrorism comes from. 
I will not even mention the terror imposed on the Dreamtime people in Australia the Kanak of New Caledonia the Maohi of Tahiti the Kanaka Maoli of Hawaii and even those who fought in the Mau uprising in Samoa against the colonial terrorists of New Zealand. America dominates the world and stomps around the sandpit of the Middle East like a spoilt bully smashing little brown kids who would dare to say no to its excesses and demands and killing thousands of innocent civilians to repay one act of terror in the United States of America. 
The suppression of terrorism is not a one-way street. After 9/11 President Bush said: “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda but it does not end there. … Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” I am happy to say that the Maori Party will oppose the use of terror to impose one-eyed nationalistic misconceptions of religious superiority and governance on any people whether committed in the name of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda or in the name of George Bush and the United States of America. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I listened to the previous speaker Hone Harawira with some interest. There were flashes of relevance to the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill during his remarks. I think the main thread that emerged during that rather fascinating discursive tale of recent history was that terrorism in a variety of manifestations has always been with us and always will be. 
The issue that this bill addresses is the immediate reality we face in terms of the response to certain international events of recent years. I will speak as someone who was chair of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that conducted the review during 2005 of the terrorism suppression legislation that was passed in 2002. It had become clear by that time that there were deficiencies many of which are remedied in this bill. 
I express some concern that it has taken us to this point to get this legislation into the House. On the face of it there is an absurdity. Here we are trying to put in place for New Zealand legislation that enables us to deal with what we all see as a mounting threat of international terrorism and to make sure we are able to respond to protect our people to secure our borders and to do all of those sorts of things. Yet it has taken us 18 months to get legislation before this Parliament to deal with the outcome of a review about the procedures that we had in place at the time we passed the original legislation. 
I am not saying that these changes are not necessary; they are. The position we had where the High Court would have to review all existing designations was clearly absurd. Given the number of organisations that have been designated the reality is that without the provision contained in this bill the High Court would find itself doing nothing else but reviewing terrorism designations and that would clearly be an absurd practice. So the provision to give that roll over power to the Prime Minister is a pragmatic and practical one in the circumstances. New offences have also been introduced that again pick up the fact that since 2002 there have been additional developments that need to be addressed. 
I come back to a point that was made by Dr Mapp and curiously enough in a similar vein by Mr Locke during their remarks. Dr Mapp argued that we were taking a lowest common denominator approach in adopting the United Nations list of organisations and individuals to proscribe. Mr Locke argued the converse of that which was actually the same point. He was arguing the danger of simply taking an all-or-nothing approach. It is true that we need to be able to select for ourselves those organisations and individuals that might be of greater relevance to this country. But I would sound a grave note of caution because we run the risk of confusing organisations with whom we have a political difference and organisations with whom we have a very deep difference because of their avowed terrorist objectives. 
So I come back to the UN list as being a solid basis from which to work. One could well agree with some of the examples that Dr Mapp listed at a political level in respect of the undesirability of those organisation or their attitudes vis-à-vis the position of the New Zealand Government over the years. But it is going too far to automatically proscribe some of those organisations as “terrorist” simply because we disagree with the political stance that they have been taking. On the other hand the position that the United Nations has adopted and the organisations that it has registered as “terrorist” is one that stands an international test of credibility. 
Most of us would take the view that in an ideal world none of this sort of legislation would even be contemplated. The normal relations between States and individuals would be able to be carried out in a free and harmonious manner. That has never been the case unfortunately; it never will be where we have human beings involved. But the reality then becomes where when one comes back from that ideal does one draw the line at what is reasonable? The whole test has to be that where there is absolute certainty and absolute clarity that the organisations in question are evil are terrorist and deserve to be proscribed they should be. Where there is doubt then the doubt needs not to fall on the balance of the country making the call but on the balance of that organisation. 
As the previous speaker so eloquently illustrated there are occasions in history when yesterday’s terrorist becomes today’s freedom fighter—today’s nation builder. The South African situation is a classic case in point. 
Hone Harawira 
: And the Maori Party. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I would never have described the Maori Party as terrorist and I am not sure that the member is seeking to do that. 
Hon Member 
: Tourist! 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: He may have a view on that as well. The point I am making is that we need to be very careful that we do not get ourselves into a position where for transitory political advantage we proscribe organisations and terrorists only to see as the situation changes that we may wish to take a different view. 
I support the provisions of this bill. I support the way in which it has been crafted and the approach it has adopted. I know it is going to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. I am not sure whether the Minister is moving for a restricted period of time for its consideration but I would certainly hope that we do not have to wait too much longer before the bill can be passed and enacted. As I said at the commencement it strikes me as somewhat absurd that in our rush to make sure we have a very rigorous anti-terrorist regime we have taken 18 months to implement the results of a review that was conducted during the life of the previous Parliament. I think we can be more expeditious. I think there is priority attached to this legislation and genuine support around the House for its provisions. So I hope progress can be made. 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the first reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill on behalf of ACT New Zealand. For many of us terrorism brings to mind the images of 11 September 2001. That day brings to mind images of heroism and indeed of sadness; images of people jumping from windows before the World Trade Center fell; and memories of the shock waves that were felt right around the world including in the far corners like New Zealand. We also remember 7 July 2005 when terrorists bombed trains and buses in London and we remember the Bali bombings of 2002 where our Australian cousins were directly targeted. 
The purpose of terrorism of course is to spread terror. The purpose of terrorism is to undermine reason with fear. The purpose of terrorism is to change our societies not through the power of ideas but through the power of car bombs and suicide belts. 
Although New Zealand is a small country a long long way from the world’s trouble spots we must be alert and vigilant. We have in this very building a stark reminder that no country is immune. On the wall of the steps down to the basement hangs the torn New Zealand flag that was rescued from the ruins of the World Trade Center. That flag was unearthed in the rubble and returned to New Zealand. On 11 September 2001 ACT spoke in this House about the need to defend our way of life and to preserve our freedom. We spoke about the fact that as long as we refuse to live in fear the terrorists can never win. 
Many measures and many laws have been put in place since that time—11 September 2001—in an attempt to combat terrorism. Many powers have been bestowed upon the State. However when the State is required to act in such a strong manner there must be strong safeguards in place to ensure that this overwhelming power that the State has been given cannot be abused. For this reason the ACT party will be opposing this legislation. 
The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee toiled over the Terrorism Suppression Bill for many months in 2001 and 2002 and there have been many references to those discussions in this House today. Both submitters and the committee itself were greatly concerned at the powers they were handing to the State. So the committee introduced a substantial role for the courts to play in monitoring the way in which this legislation was applied. These strenuous efforts made to ensure that there was a significant judicial role in the review process were in ACT’s view right and proper at that time. The bill that we have before us today—the amendment to the principal Act I have just referred to—removes almost all those protections that that committee introduced and we find that unacceptable. When this bill is referred to the select committee after today’s first reading—and it seems clear that it will—the committee should be very mindful of the discussions the submissions and the committee’s views as determined at that time because they were put in place for very good reasons. 
My colleague from the Green Party Keith Locke has pointed out a great number of very pertinent issues in his speech and it does not hurt to remind this House of some of those. The High Court previously was given the task of overseeing the 3-yearly review of the terrorist designations. These will now be done by one person the Prime Minister. In regard to that Keith Locke has said that given the serious consequences for anyone designated a terrorist it is unfair for the person who made the original designation the Prime Minister to be the person later checking whether it was accurate. The only legal avenue open to a designated person is a difficult and expensive judicial review and these points should not be forgotten. Judicial review is not an adequate process by which to appeal a designation under this legislation. It can be complex drawn out and prohibitively expensive especially for those who may have had their assets frozen under the provisions of this legislation. 
A background note was distributed with this bill and it made for some quite interesting reading. It was distributed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs—the Minister whose name this bill is in—the Rt Hon Winston Peters. In this background note the Minister stated: “It has become an administrative burden to require the Prime Minister to designate so many names to keep up to date with the changes and additions to the Resolution 1267 list.” Well if that is the reason for bringing this amendment bill before the House that is nothing short of shameful. The Prime Minister carries a heavy burden of responsibility and if it is the intention of this Government to absolve her of that responsibility I think it needs to take a long hard look at why it is in power. 
 The list currently has about 460 entities on it. It is simply not good enough for the Prime Minister to shirk her responsibilities—her duties—in respect of the bill in this way. What we must do is protect our nation’s sovereignty. We cannot delegate the power to unelected bureaucrats to designate the term “terrorist” on any person or any organisation without some form of oversight from our elected officials. 
Terrorists want to destroy our way of life and to take away our freedom but we play into their hands if we surrender our freedom by passing bills such as this. This is a very appropriate time to remember—and I have borrowed some words here from a senior Australian officer—that the term “war on terror” is an oxymoron. Terrorism is a tactic and war is a strategy—a strategy with goals and aims in mind—and we should remember that the term “war on terror” is an oxymoron. It is the intent of terrorists to grind the activities of the Western World to a halt. With many of the measures that have been put in place since September 11 we have in fact aided terrorists in their goal to do just that—to grind the activities of the Western World to a halt. 
One of the Ministers who seems to have disappeared now mentioned that the anti-smacking bill related to the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act. He was quite right in pointing out that that bill has similarities with this bill although I think his intention was somewhat different. With this bill as with the bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act there will be unintended consequences. 
Terrorists are not worried about local laws. They do not worry about the fact that we are sitting here in this House today debating this bill and trying to do something to combat the acts of violence and terror they bestow upon the world. It should be remembered that when we have laws they should be enforceable and regularly enforced. We should not be putting laws in place light-heartedly. So today in the name of protecting our freedom we are being asked to surrender it and that is something that the ACT party cannot and will not support. For that reason we oppose this bill. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
: 
 First of all—seeing that I am following the ACT speaker—I want to say that this Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill is not about the Prime Minister shirking responsibility regardless of who the Prime Minister is. I am not making a partisan statement; I am making a statement of fact because the bill also provides that designations made by the Prime Minister pursuant in particular to Resolution 1373 will continue to expire after 3 years unless they are extended. It is all about having safeguards and this safeguard continues to be appropriate given that designations under this resolution are discretionary and made on New Zealand’s own initiative. However it is also important to say that the bill will replace the role of the High Court in extending those designations. Instead it will be the Prime Minister who will renew a designation if he or she is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the entity being designated continues to be engaged in terrorist activity. 
This bill is a legislative response to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee’s review into the 2002 Terrorism Suppression Act. The select committee identified a number of issues and was thorough. The issues it identified included whether the Act was meeting New Zealand’s international obligations—and we in this House know that New Zealand exhibits a very responsible attitude towards our international obligations and is a responsible member of the international community. I cannot see that that will change nor will this amendment bill change the attitude we all share in New Zealand. After studying the select committee’s report the Government concluded that there were issues that needed a legislative response and the bill contains amendments to bring the 2002 Act up to date with current obligations further developments and international treaties. The original bill was drafted and enacted not long after the September 11 attacks which was a time of shock horror and high emotion and the amendments will make the bill more current. 
When Mr McCully spoke in the debate he gave the impression—whether he intended it or not but I am sure he knew exactly what he was saying—that he would have on the designated list almost anyone who did not look like us. We have to exercise care and caution. There are people who have no intention of harming anyone or destroying property but who could be classified as terrorists if we were not careful. A terrorist can now be someone who for political reasons causes damage to infrastructure and we in New Zealand have experienced that even though we live in a very safe environment. There are those of us who remember the 1981 Springbok Tour very very clearly and some of us know exactly what our views were on that issue and where we stood on it. But there are some people in this House who do not remember where they stood on that issue. I know and remember exactly where I stood on it. Of course it is not very long ago that the  
Rainbow Warrior 
 event occurred. So we do have to exercise care and caution. 
We need to define what constitutes a terrorist act and what is a terrorist. I am sure the select committee will pay very close attention to that because as one of the earlier speakers mentioned yesterday’s terrorists are sometimes today’s heroes. Some of us have been privileged to be in the presence of and to meet people who were previously labelled terrorists. In fact some members of “acceptable society” who made uncharitable comments about those people when they were still outside that society could not wait to have dinner with them when they stepped inside the tent and became acceptable to mainstream society. Again I mention that and I repeat that what constitutes terrorism is different for different people and events that occur can be viewed as terrorist activity in some people’s minds but not in the minds of others. Some of us have seen films of events that could have been described as terrorism when they occurred but may not be described in that way today. The endeavour to eliminate a race of people in my opinion is terrorism but it may not necessarily in the strictest form be described in that way. 
The bill allows the 2002 Act to automatically designate terrorist entities subject to the UN resolutions of 2001. The bill also replaces 3-yearly reviews by the High Court on all designations for terrorist entities with 3-yearly reviews by the Prime Minister but only on non-UN designations. It brings provisions on the freezing of terrorists’ assets and terrorist participation and offending into line with New Zealand’s international obligations—towards which we have a very responsible attitude as I said before. The bill is aimed at amending earlier legislation. The provisions on freezing terrorist activities and offences involving nuclear material are also important and will further ratify New Zealand’s international obligations on terrorism. Loopholes and inconsistencies in the 2002 legislation on terrorist offending need to be amended as well. 
I am confident that the select committee will give this bill its thorough attention and I look forward to it coming back to the House after the committee has concluded its processes. Thank you. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to talk to the first reading of the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill. National supports this bill. National thinks it is very important that New Zealand shows itself to be serious about terrorism. It is said that terrorism proceeds when diplomacy has failed. Unless the world’s leaders and diplomats vow to work harder to get to the underlying causes of terrorism then it is the case that we have to take steps to make sure we play our part in combating terrorism worldwide and also to make sure we protect our own citizens right here in New Zealand. 
I was a bit surprised at the ACT party’s opposition to this bill. I could not quite make out why that was the case. I think the speaker for ACT gave a false impression of the Prime Minister’s role in this. It is not that I am defending the Prime Minister as such but within 2 years we will probably have a new Prime Minister one from this side of the House. It seemed to me that the member might have created some confusion outside this House as to the role of the Prime Minister. In respect of United Nations Resolution 1267 the Prime Minister actually has no role no choice. It is mandatory for New Zealand to be involved in that mechanism. That is why this bill and the changes proposed are important. Currently New Zealand is required to designate United Nations - listed terrorist entities under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 before they become subject to the provisions of the Act. This bill amends the 2002 Act by removing this designation process and automatically applying the provisions of the Act to terrorist entities. 
As I say this change underlines the mandatory nature of New Zealand’s legal obligations under the Security Council’s al-Qaeda and Taliban sanctions. The Prime Minister has no part to play in that. We must do it; we have no choice. It is part of our being good global citizens. Until the world’s leaders and diplomats find some way to get to the bottom the causes the root of terrorism then we must take proper steps to make sure that those who would threaten the world—the globe—with their terrorist activities are known to us and are kept an eye on. That is part of UN Resolution 1267. 
The other mechanism of course is that under UN Resolution 1373 in which case it is the Prime Minister who designates those entities that are suspected to be of some danger in the sense of terrorism to either New Zealand or our neighbours. We would hope that the Prime Minister would take that responsibility very very seriously. National members certainly will when we are in Government in a short time. 
I echo the comments of my colleague the Hon Murray McCully—although perhaps not quite as vociferously as him—that it seems strange that in the 5 years since the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 has been in place the Prime Minister has not designated one entity as coming within this regulation. In our view the fact that Australia has designated 88 entities Canada over 50 entities and New Zealand none causes some concern and worry. My colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee certainly will want to look quite closely at what lies behind the failure of New Zealand to date to designate any entity under Resolution 1373—whether we have in place the conditions or qualifications to ensure that that is done and whether they are rigorous enough. As I say it seems very weird—quite bizarre actually—that our neighbour Australia has seen fit to designate so many entities and we have not seen it necessary to designate any. 
I take on board the comments made by other speakers about the balance that must be struck so that we are not impinging unduly on the rights of New Zealand citizens. But of course this measure will not necessarily apply to just New Zealand citizens; our country’s population is made up of not only New Zealand citizens but also others who are here on temporary visas residence permits and so on. So although there is certainly a balance to be struck in terms of our not targeting entities or people just because we do not like the look of them or have mere suspicions about them it is the case that we must take seriously our responsibility to ensure that we play our part in the war on terror. 
I took part briefly as a member of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in the review from 2005 to 2006. It is I think somewhat of a disappointment that it has taken 5 years for the review to proceed and the bill to reach the House. I support the Hon Peter Dunne’s plea that this bill be given priority; otherwise we do not look serious about our responsibility in respect of terrorism threats. We do not look serious if we do not give this bill priority. Given that the Government has such a light Order Paper—a very light Order Paper—and it has been so for some time now it is a bit of a mystery as to why the bill has taken as long as this to come up the Order Paper. But it is here and it will be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. 
I know that my National colleagues on the committee and I have no doubt the Government members of the committee as well will give this bill due consideration. I do not know whether the referral will have a time limit. I think there should be one. Nonetheless I urge the members of the committee to give this bill the highest priority in order to show the United Nations that we are serious about our obligations under Resolution 1267 and to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to knuckle down and make sure that we are not being slack in not designating any entities and that we are playing our role in the war against terrorism—not only for ourselves but as a good neighbour to the Pacific countries Asia and Australia. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Kia ora. Mr Deputy Speaker I begin by commending you for your judiciousness and very refined sense of judgment in looking to this side of the House for the call; not that that comment reflects any personal ill will I bear toward Mr Nathan Guy who has demonstrated that his level of interest in multilateral affairs stretches to being a member of the golden oldie parliamentary rugby team and excelling—well “excel” might be the wrong word but I recall his playing a reasonable game in France. 
I stand to support the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill because underlying this bill is the tenet of multilateralism. Recently the Prime Minister ventured into the hallowed corridors of power and influence exercised enjoyed and projected by the greatest military power on Earth the United States of America. While the Prime Minister was there it was evident that despite our modest numbers we are regarded as a very key influence on the overall war against the spread of terror on ensuring that there are international obligations in terms of security and on improving and enhancing the nature in which all citizens in the free world live. 
Of course other members in the House have rather jaundiced views of our relationship with the United States of America but this bill actually shows that we take very seriously our obligations under the United Nations’ arrangements. Not so long ago we stood very solidly with the arrangements that we are a part of through our membership of the United Nations. Yes our trans-Tasman cousins struck off in a different direction. But this legislation reminds us that we are firstly a citizen of the world community and that the world community embraces by and large the virtue and the central importance that the United Nations represents in terms of mediating conflict and also of having a system whereby all countries can play their role to meet global acts of terror or global problems. 
Obviously the ongoing capacity of those nefarious organisations the Taliban and al-Qaeda to disrupt not only our quality of life but economic security trade and the free movement of people is something that New Zealand should be very proud to stand against. These are matters that should not be confused with the minority view that exists in some quarters of our country that we should detach ourselves from activities where the United States of America might be present. So we play a key role in Afghanistan because that is an action that has been endorsed and is being embraced by such multilateral arrangements as we see evident throughout the United Nations arrangements. 
It may not be immediately apparent but our enabling this bill to travel forward is not a surrender of sovereignty; it is our upholding our duties and obligations as world citizens. We as an exporter—as a key trader in the world with so much of our GDP depending on export earnings—need to play our role in as many places as possible to ensure the free passage of goods and services. The existence of the organisations referred to in this bill represents a threat to that. We disproportionately would suffer if there were continual unravelling of security arrangements. Not only would the ability of large freighters and vessels to carry our produce to far-flung places in the world be compromised not only would tourism—one of the largest earners of foreign exchange currency if not the largest—suffer and be compromised by dint of people’s fear of travelling vast distances to New Zealand but we would slowly but surely lose our status and our quality of life. 
If we want to maintain our quality of life then we have duties larger than those that exist amongst ourselves. We have obligations that are of a global character. The fact that the Prime Minister was able to demonstrate how seriously we are taken despite our modest numerical size in the land of Uncle Sam is a fantastic reflection of the commitment that this Government has—indeed that I think all serious members of the House have—to our fulfilling those international obligations. 
It might be said that our Australian cousins are more aggressive—they are more abrasive—more assertive or some might say more thorough in terms of their particular approach which has more of a bilateral character to it. In some sense that may reflect their proximity to South-east Asia—who knows—but we stand firmly as a part of the broad family that upholds the principles and the tenets of the United Nations. From time to time the United Nations does come out with some reports that do not meet with my personal approval. Indeed we had one written by a chap whose name—although he lives in Mexico—reflects his German ancestry that I did not care for at all and the less I see of it the better I feel. However that aside I tell members that these are matters far more important than his observations about social disparities in some quarters of New Zealand society. 
The United Nations’ call to arms in terms of our fulfilling a role really is an opportunity for us to continue to project our identity internationally and to burnish our credentials because if there is a small country in the world that has been a disproportionate provider of men women sons and daughters in international conflicts then we are it. Towards the end of the year we will have an opportunity for a number of New Zealanders to venture overseas and I hope to assist some of our kaumatua to go to the fields of Flanders the Somme and Passchendaele which are places where we played a role in international conflict in the First World War. In the Second World War we as Maori New Zealanders paid the ultimate price of citizenship by rallying to send the flower of our youth in the Maori Battalion. I personally would like to see the Maori Battalion used a hang of a lot more as a role model for what our young men might do what our young men might aspire to. There should be less fascination with the subculture—the crass negative subculture—that is imported here and more focus on that particular institution which represents a fine example of Maori New Zealanders paying the ultimate price in challenging the forces of global terror fascism and indeed Nazism. There would not be any Maori members in this House just as there probably would not be any other member in the House who do not have a very close relation—a grandfather a grand-uncle an uncle or perhaps even a father—who played a role in those international forays. Of course we could go on to talk about the representation of our people in the conflict in Korea the conflict in Viet Nam and in a host of other fora. 
As I wind up I tell the House that I have been told that prior to my arrival there was an impassioned speech from my whanaunga Hone Harawira. I would like to say that there is one thing we know about my whanaunga Hone Harawira: we will never perish doubting what he said or thought. The fact that I have ended up having a slightly different approach from that of my Te Aupouri kinsman in respect of our relationship with America should in no way diminish the fact that there always has been a very strong streak of independence in our New Zealand identity. This bill in no way erodes or undermines our ability to fashion our identity in the broad context of those nations and communities that wish to uphold the obligations under the United Nations. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 12 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. 
Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed from 27 March. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I want to recap that National supports the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. We think that the bill is a little bit overdue like a lot of legislation that this Government brings to the House. The point was made—I think by more than two members opposite—that this bill was seen to be part of the process of satisfying New Zealand’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. National of course supports much of the work that was done in respect of that convention despite what a colleague of mine has said. 
I would like to think that we all agree that this legislation is important regardless of New Zealand’s obligations under the convention. If we saw it as being important that women in the armed forces were not discriminated against in any way then I would have thought that a little country like ours which has a good progressive record in the areas of women’s rights and advancing human rights would support this bill regardless. 
The other issue is in respect of timing and why it has taken so long for the bill to come before the House. For at least 7 years it has been the policy and strategy of the military to not have discrimination against women in the armed forces. So this bill should have come before the House long ago. But it is here now and that is fine—National supports it. 
I would have thought though that the Government might be more concerned about the low numbers of women in the military. Maybe that is where some emphasis now ought to be placed. It is one thing to be able to say that we support women doing everything and going everywhere through their activities in the military but that should not take our focus away from the fact that the number of women in the military is in my view still quite low. Lianne Dalziel the Minister of Women’s Affairs commented in a speech the other day that the numbers were slowly rising. Well she could not have described the situation in a more apt manner. In 2002 the overall percentage of female personnel in the New Zealand Defence Force was 14.9. The figure was 15.8 percent in 2003 16.4 percent in 2004 16.2 percent in 2005 and 16.5 percent in 2006. I would have thought that that was a low turn-out in New Zealand given that we have had women in quite high positions over the last 5 years that women outnumber men and that for a long time women have wanted to be considered on merit no matter what the activity. 
I would hope the military is developing some plans to be a little bit more progressive in order to lift those numbers. There is no doubt that women can do anything and that women want to do everything—and of course they are doing that. But it would help if there were a bigger boost of numbers in any particular sector. In the ranks of women both in the Navy and the Army—I do not have the figures for the Air Force—the numbers in terms of commissioned officers are very low. That is an area where Lianne Dalziel as the Minister of Women’s Affairs and Phil Goff as the Minister of Defence ought to put their focus. I look forward to that happening. The recruitment situation in the military has been tough over the last few years and I am sure that greater numbers are still required. I think more effort ought to go into making sure that increased numbers of women come into the defence forces. 
There is no doubt about the women who are in the armed forces now and I want to congratulate them. I have met a few of them and I know they are pulling their weight and doing great things for New Zealand. I mention Kelly Logue who was the first trained female Skyhawk pilot—I think she came through back in about 1998 or 1999. I am not sure whether others have followed her although I am sure they have. She is a role model. This shows that women want to take their place in the higher echelons of the military and she is certainly an example of that happening. I am not sure where she is now. Unfortunately of course this Government mothballed the Skyhawks. I do not know why it did so but the Skyhawks have been sitting in mothballs ever since. Also my colleague Dr Wayne Mapp tells me that a Louisa Parkinson has been newly appointed as a colonel in the Army which is very good. 
 National supports this bill and it supports the right of women to be available right throughout the military. I do not know whether any females have ever been in the SAS—possibly not—but I am sure the time is coming pretty soon when we will see them there as well. Given the difficulties in recruitment that the military has experienced over the last few years the military bosses should put in more effort and find a better strategy to get more women into the military. 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tenatatou te Whare. One would think that the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill is a fairly straightforward procedure. Indeed in today’s times one would want to think that most New Zealanders would not even blink twice at a proposal to amend the Human Rights Act to remove an exemption that discriminates against women. But I would like to say: think again. We have been surprised at the energy this bill has generated amongst some sectors about its proposal to ensure that there are no impediments preventing women from serving in active combat positions. This is despite the fact that women have served in the armed forces since 1914. However the resistance to women serving in active combat roles has been such that it was not until the year 2000 that the restrictions that prevented such a possibility were lifted. 
This House will be aware that we in the Maori Party take very seriously our responsibility to look deeply at our own tikanga and histories in order to understand the context of any legislation that passes through this Parliament. And so it was that I looked into the experiences of Heni Te Kiri Karamu of NgatiUenuku-kopako and NgatiHinepare iwi of Te Arawa to gain some insight into women serving at the front line of combat. Heni was descended from Ngatoro-i-rangi of Te Arawa waka and was probably born around 14 November 1840. She was literally born into the foundation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. She was fluent in Maori English and French. Heni—later known as HeniPore—became an assistant teacher and governess at the Three Kings Native Institution a boarding school for Maori children. 
Heni Te Kiri Karamu and her family supported the King movement of Waikato when the settler Government declared war in July 1863. They fought with NgatiKoheriki a section of NgatiPaoa led by WiKoka. The following year Heni Te Kiri Karamu and NgatiKoheriki joined the King’s forces at Te Tiki o Te Ihinga-rangipa at Maungatautari. But her contribution is probably most renowned for her involvement in the battle at Pukehinahina or Gate Pa on 29 April 1864. Heni was recognised as a woman warrior—a wahinetoa—who had refused to leave her brother Neri. 
Records of the time make for interesting reading including accounts that report that when the wounded British troops were left abandoned in the pa they were treated with compassion by the defenders. Indeed Heni Te Kiri Karamu gave water to Colonel Booth and other wounded men. So impressed were the Brits with the chivalrous conduct of Maori at Gate Pa that to this day there is a stained glass window in the chapel at Lichfield Palace in England that commemorates the heroic actions of tangata whenua. 
These are our stories our histories our background of revered ancestors who fought with strength and valour on behalf of their people. The legendary adventures of the daring Heni Te Kiri Karamu demonstrate that our women have been leaders in combat leaders in peace leaders at the front line and leaders who tended to the wounded. 
As of July 2006—143 years after the Battle of Gate Pa—2555 women were employed in the New Zealand Defence Force. The majority—1469—were in the regular force and 1086 were civilians. Of course it is not just the 2555 in the current forces but also the women of our future whom we are thinking of with our votes today. 
We note with great interest that five of the six submitters to the select committee supported the bill—namely the Human Rights Foundation the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women the Human Rights Commission the National Advisory Council on the Employment of Women and the National Council of Women. It was the view of these submitters that the proposals being debated today will enable women to legitimately enjoy the same employment opportunities as men. They also pointed out that the removal of the legal exemption will enable New Zealand to fully ratify its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women which is also known as “CEDAW”. 
This House will know that our record at the United Nations is at an all-time low. Just last month the Human Rights Commission released its report to the international Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The report  
Tui 
TuiTuituia: Race Relations in 2006 
 pointed out the significant challenges this nation faces due to persisting social and economic inequality between different ethnic groups. In March last year the report of the United Nations special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples was tabled at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights alerting the United Nations to the significant disparities between Maori and non-Maori in employment health housing education the criminal justice system and their portrayal in the media. In the midst of such dismal reports the opportunity for this bill to enable compliance with international law creating a chance for New Zealand to fully ratify its obligations under the United Nations convention has to be supported. 
Finally I draw the attention of the House to the submission from the Human Rights Foundation of Aotearoa which states: “The Foundation emphasises that conflict situations are routinely associated with severe human rights violations as both cause and effect particularly against women and children and are inherently undesirable.” We in the Maori Party cannot ignore the irony that in the midst of passionate debate about the role that physical violence plays in exerting control we are debating to allow women to willingly go into war and we are expressing tacit support for women to be involved in active and armed combat. 
And we remind the House of the value that we would measure the role of armed forces within the context of a genuine progress index. We remind the House that for the price of 19 days of global military expenditure the world could benefit from access to adequate food clean water safe sewers basic health-care reproductive health-care for women and basic education. Every dollar that is spent by the military could be a dollar used to promote life not death. 
We know that there are other debates that should be had about the association of women with the armed forces: the fact that women are disproportionately harmed by militarism and war; the fact that violence against families increases dramatically in war zones; and the fact that war and military power emphasise a belief that violence can solve problems and that might is right. 
The Maori Party will support this bill. It allows legislation to be updated to fit with changes in practice it allows compliance with international law and indeed supporting the notion of women in active combat is consistent with the tikanga and the histories of some hapu and iwi. But we leave one thought with this House about this issue of military power. It is a thought that takes its origins from an African proverb: “Until lions have their historians tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunter.” We wonder who tells the stories of power and control. Who judges the victors and the victims? Who are the unnamed casualties of war and how consistently do we remind ourselves of the need for peace? When will we be able to learn from the example of Te Whiti o Rongomai and TohuKakahi pacifists of Parihaka? I think of the words of Te Whiti in 1880 to his people: “Though some in darkness of heart seeing their land ravished might wish to take arms and kill the aggressors I say it must not be so.” These are words that provide us with a message of hope to guide our future activities. Let us not forget them. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 By crikey I am quick off the block today! I say to my colleague that I will not be speaking for the full 10 minutes. I am deputising for my New Zealand First colleague Ron Mark who has very sound and sensible views on the issue. 
New Zealand First will support the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. If this is what the fairer sex wants then who are we to deny them that? 
As an ex - merchant navy officer I can say that my time at sea was spent in an all-male domain. When I became manager of a stevedoring company I saw the transition as young women came in as cadets and then became officers. It was not trouble-free; it was not an easy transition. But I understand that it is working quite well now and I suggest the armed forces will be much the same. 
Last night I asked my colleague Ron Mark why he thought women want to become part of the combat troops and fight on the front line as this bill will give them the right to do. He said women in the armed forces will learn quite a lot. I asked him whether he could be a bit more specific. He said they will learn how to handle and throw a grenade in order to blow people to pieces. They will learn that in detail. They will learn all about landmines which also blow people to pieces but more frequently just blow limbs from people and leave them incapacitated for the rest of their lives. Further still he said they will learn how to work with comrades and the effect of comrades being killed in action or partially blown apart is a lesson that will come home to them. 
Women in the armed forces will also learn how to be part of a bayonet unit operation and charge down a hill. My colleague Ron Mark actually singled out Jill Pettis as a good example. He said he could imagine Jill Pettis armed with a rifle with a bayonet on the end charging down the hill confronting the enemy and ramming the bayonet between the ribs of the enemy. I do not know why he singled out Jill. I think he must see that she has a natural skill. But he pointed out another lesson that will have to be learnt: that sometimes the bayonet gets stuck in the ribs. 
Jill Pettis 
: But I might be a chef! 
PETER BROWN 
: Well Jill Pettis might be a chef but Ron Mark has singled her out as an ideal candidate for bayonet training. 
Ron Mark wants me to point out in the House that sometimes the bayonet gets stuck in the ribs. I asked what a person with a bayonet does then with the next guy coming at one. Ron said the lesson one has to learn is to fire two quick shots twist the bayonet—he described it in detail—and pull it out. Then one is ready for the next guy. This is what the women will learn in detail and they will practise it until they are exceedingly competent. 
Being in the military is a tough job. It is certainly a tough job for soldiers when they are in a conflict. Ron said that is probably the hardest lesson of all. I asked him what he would say to ladies who want to get involved in the armed services and become part of the combat troops. He simply said he would say: “Congratulations ladies you have now got what you wanted.” 
HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of ACT New Zealand on the second reading of the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. As the only actively serving Territorial Force soldier in this Parliament I find myself in the unique position of being the only member who may be directly affected by this bill. I say to the member who spoke before me Peter Brown that he presented a somewhat skewed view of modern involvement in the military. It may have entertained the House but I can say categorically that things are somewhat different in reality. 
This bill is well overdue and in many respects it is just a formality. It is an amendment to the Human Rights Act to correct an anomaly. For some time now New Zealand women in the Defence Force have been serving in active combat roles. This bill is long overdue in correcting that anomaly. 
Some members have spoken about the number of women who are currently serving. At the moment the percentage of females in the Navy is 22 percent in the Army it is 14 percent and in the Air Force it is 17 percent. The total percentage of women in the New Zealand Defence Force is 23 percent but that number is bolstered somewhat by the heavy predominance of women employed in a civilian capacity which is 48 percent. The numbers however are somewhat immaterial. It is the principle of the matter that we are debating here today which is to correct as I say the anomaly that exists. 
There are also however very good practical reasons for putting this legislation forward and I congratulate and thank Lynne Pillay who brought this bill to the House originally as a member’s bill. It has more latterly been transferred to the Minister Lianne Dalziel as Minister of Women’s Affairs. 
There are good practical reasons for this legislation also. The first is that of competency. Women are all judged as in fact are men on their competency in the defence forces in each of the three services—the Army the Navy and the Air Force. In fact before someone can join any of the services that person has to pass a fitness test and a number of competency tests. Until those tests are passed that person will not be allowed to join. As someone moves further and further down the track—and some people move up the chain; some become officers—and before anybody is deployed that person needs to pass further competency tests. Those females who have gone on to serve in combat positions have passed those competency tests in exactly the same way that their male counterparts have. 
I have to say that I personally have enjoyed seeing the Territorial Force presence in the Solomon Islands. It had a very positive spin-off for the Territorial Force itself. Everyone is now expected to train at the level of those wishing to be deployed. Therefore the training levels for many soldiers have been increased and that as I say has been a very positive experience for those in the forces. 
Competency is the first thing. Nobody whether male or female goes off to the front line—although the words “at the front line.” have very sensibly now been deleted from clause 4 of the amendment bill and changed to “in an active combat role.”—unless he or she passes those fitness tests which are of a very high standard and other competency tests that happen periodically. 
The second practical reason for this bill is that it brings us into line with international laws of war that our counterparts overseas the Australians the Canadians the Brits and in fact the United States soldiers sailors and airmen are also subject to so that is a very positive move. 
The other area that has been of concern is the eligibility for war disablement pensions. There have been cases and some not long ago where some service people who have been injured but not killed in combat or some partners whose other half has been killed in combat have found themselves ineligible for a war disablement pension because those service people were women. The definition of combatant—until this bill is passed—technically in a legal sense is male so those people have found themselves ineligible. This obviously is an area of great unfairness and one that should have been addressed a long time before now. It is only right and proper that this bill comes before the House so that we will not see this situation arise again; we will fix this. Given too that the number of women in the armed forces is increasing had this amendment bill not come before the House to rectify the situation this scenario would have become more of a problem as time went on. 
ACT supports this bill and I thank those members who have stood up in the House and given illustrations of women who have served and particularly of those women who have served in combat positions with distinction. I thank those members on behalf of the women involved in the Defence Force. We will be supporting this bill but I can reassure members who may have had some concerns initially about women who serve in combat positions that competency is alive and well in the Defence Force and it is tested rigorously. The time is long overdue for us to meet the standards of international laws of war and to address the difficulties that some sadly have experienced with war disablement pensions and eligibility because of gender. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 As someone who has as it were fought on the front lines for women’s equality I do find it slightly ironic and indeed slightly disturbing that we are here talking about this bill as if conferring on women the right to kill and be killed in combat on the front line is somehow a great step forward for women. I recall the words of Germaine Greer in her book  
The Female Eunuch 
. She said: “We must beware that in our quest for equality we do not become just counterfeit men trying to mimic men and gain free entry into the world of the ulcer and the coronary.” These words are ringing in my ears as I listen to this debate. 
However having said that I say that if there are women who want to go to the front line and into combat positions—and we have one of them in this House Heather Roy and I salute her—far be it from me or the Green Party to try to stop them from doing so. We will therefore with some reservations and disquiet be supporting the rather oddly named Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. 
I want to make one point though and that is that if we are going to encourage our women to go off and fight in combat zones and on the front line we need to have much greater protection for them and assurances of their safety than we have had for armed forces in the past. I am thinking of course of Agent Orange and things like depleted uranium. We know that just one tiny particle of depleted uranium if ingested can cause a range of horrendous health effects including birth deformities. We know that we exposed our troops in Viet Nam to Agent Orange which was contaminated with dioxins. This has resulted in deformities in second and third generations to the point that as someone observed when people go to war today it is not just their generation that is affected but future generations as well. So if we are to send our women off into these combat zones we had better make sure that we are protecting them and future generations who may be born to them from things like depleted uranium and other pesticides and contaminants. 
Regrettably depleted uranium has been dropped in Iraq in Afghanistan during the Gulf War and even in the former Yugoslavia. We already have huge huge increases in malignancies and deformities as a result of these hideous weapons of mass destruction. I think there has been a 242 percent increase in malignancies in Basra. In areas in Afghanistan where depleted uranium has been used children have been born with no eyes no limbs and so on—I will not go into all the gory details. 
I hasten to add that we should not be exposing men to things like depleted uranium either but we need to remember that women may become pregnant or may be even more vulnerable to these contaminants and weapons. In Viet Nam women were much more affected by Agent Orange than were men. Therefore if we are going to encourage women to go on to the front line and to enjoy this wondrous new freedom to kill and be killed then we need to be very careful to protect them from the horrendous weapons that are used in war today. 
With those few words I say that the Green Party will be supporting this bill. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The National Party supports the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. I do not want to take all of my time but will speak just briefly on this matter. 
Jill Pettis 
: Talk for 10 minutes! 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Mrs Pettis wants me to speak for the full 10 minutes but time is valuable and I shall stick absolutely to the points. At this time it does not hurt us to recall the fact that right now I understand a British naval servicewomen is being held in Iran. That is in fact what happens on the front line. She is there with her male colleagues as well and I do not want to fail to mention them. This is a serious business. This is not playtime PlayStation Xbox or whatever else; this is serious business. People get killed. It is extremely important that people remember that this bill is about the fact that women have been demanding and will be given the right to go into the front line and to kill and be killed. That is what we are talking about. 
So in view of that it is absolutely essential that we should mention our greatest living war hero Nancy Wake. I know people will groan but frankly I say we should honour Nancy Wake. While I am speaking on this bill I will use an email that I received just over a week ago from several students of Freyberg High School in Palmerston North: Adham Hussein Sophie Swan Laura Balman and Anna Baldwin. They wrote the following: “Dear Ms Collins We are writing to you regarding honouring World War II heroine Nancy Wake. This year our school Freyberg High School Palmerston North is doing her life story as our stage challenge performance. We have emailed Maggie McNaughton from the  
New Zealand Herald  
and have been able to get the current address for the rest home in England.”—so they want to do some work on her. The email goes on to state: “We have done research into her life and are amazed with the achievements she has accomplished and also saddened by the fact that she has not been recognised by the New Zealand Government. Following the research we have undergone we have found that you have supported Nancy Wake and want to make it clear she deserves a medal before it is too late.” They want my support again. 
I know—and the Government keeps pointing this out—that for some reason the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee felt itself bound to take the advice of the bureaucrats and to not recommend that Nancy Wake get an honour. But it is about time the people in this Parliament showed a bit of leadership did something the bureaucrats did not like and gave that woman a medal. Here we are today talking about the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill and when we are talking about that we talk about the fact that we are sending women into battle. Well actually we already have done that. People like Nancy Wake have been into battle. More than that they have actually done the—unfortunately—dirty business of having to deal with the enemy. They have done that. 
 This Government for some reason utterly beyond my comprehension wants to say that Nancy Wake should not be honoured. She is a New Zealander she has a New Zealand passport she is Maori and she is someone whom we should be honouring. She is our greatest living war hero male or female. She was born in New Zealand has lived in New Zealand and her parents were New Zealanders. In fact there is a photo in Peter FitzSimons’ biography of Nancy Wake that shows her father’s family shop in Rotorua. Yet where do we hear the current MP for Rotorua on this issue? Nowhere. I do not care whether the select committee was hoodwinked by the bureaucrats and bullied by its chairperson Diane Yates. I do not care whether that occurred because I think it is time for this Parliament to do some good on this issue and to stop being a bunch of people who just get led by the nose and do whatever they are told to do by people who do not want to deal with the issues. This woman is still alive. She is in her 90s. Who knows how much longer she will be with us? It is time we did the right thing. 
In our support for the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill we say this. Let us do the right thing. I hope the Government will join with me and will in fact recommend that Nancy Wake be given an honour in the next honours opportunity—and I hope it is an Order of New Zealand. I hope that this Parliament will put some pressure on various parties to do the right thing. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 When I first spoke in this House in my inaugural speech an important part of that speech covered women’s issues. I spoke of our proud past as the first country to give women the vote and of our present with the Labour-led Government delivering paid parental leave the Action Plan for New Zealand Women action on pay equity childcare provisions action to advance the New Zealand Family Violence Prevention Strategy and action on women’s health and employment issues. I also spoke about our future—a future that is being led very well by our Minister of Women’s Affairs Lianne Dalziel. I said that although there had been major advances for women and that Labour had delivered most of them the picture was not yet one of equality. Here today is another step towards equality for New Zealand women. 
I have risen to speak on the Human Rights (Women in Armed Forces) Amendment Bill. This bill is another example of a Labour-led Government that prides itself in its belief in a society where discrimination on the basis of gender is a thing of the past as is racial discrimination and age discrimination. Good on my colleague Lynne Pillay the member for Waitakere for bringing this matter before the House as a member’s bill and good on this Government for adopting it as a Government bill. We have a Labour women’s caucus and a Minister of Women’s Affairs who noticed these forms of discrimination. We are prepared to do something about them unlike the do-nothing attitude of the National caucus towards women’s issues with the ink hardly dry on its plans to disestablish the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. But oh sorry that is right: in another Key flip-flop National has decided to appoint a women’s affairs spokesperson after all. 
I will comment on the last National speaker’s little tirade on Nancy Wake. National MPs voted against awarding a special honour to Nancy Wake. Judith Collins may need to speak to her MPs who are flip-flopping again all over the place. 
As I was saying this bill removes discrimination on the basis of gender. It will repeal section 33 of the Human Rights Act the section that allows discrimination against women in relation to combat roles. When the Human Rights Act was enacted the New Zealand Defence Force had a policy of preventing women from serving in combat roles. To do the New Zealand Defence Force justice and to pay it a compliment I should say that it withdrew that policy in practice in the year 2000. The passing of this bill confirms its sensible modern practice as well as validating career options for women who have progressed significantly since the integration of women into the New Zealand armed forces 30 years ago. 
I have a niece in the armed forces who has recently been deployed overseas. She and others have endured and enjoyed deployment to some of the hardest operational environments our forces operate in rising to every challenge and doing themselves much credit. There is no doubt that our women take a full part in the operations of our armed forces. That does not mean just killing; just as important it means peacekeeping and rebuilding as well. 
David Lange got it right when he said nearly 20 years ago when opening the offices of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs that discrimination against women in the armed forces was offensive. He was right. The armed forces have recognised it and it is time we updated the Act and removed the section 33 exemption from the statute book. As the Human Rights Commission said to the select committee it is difficult to see what the purpose would be of retaining an exemption that perpetuates stereotypical assumptions about the roles of men and women in the military. 
The other thing to be proud of in passing this bill is that New Zealand will now be able to ratify its obligations under the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women commonly known as “CEDAW”. Section 33 was New Zealand’s only remaining reservation to that convention. New Zealand has a proud record on women’s rights and on allowing women to enjoy all their human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women has long urged us to withdraw that reservation. It is a proud day when we can say that we have reached that point in New Zealand. It is a great day when human rights and our commitment to international obligations both win. I commend this bill to the House and I am proud to speak on its passage. Thank you. 
Bill read a second time. 
The House adjourned at 5.53 p.m.