Volume 636 Week 33 - Thursday 7 December 2006 
Volume 636 Week 33 - Thursday 7 December 2006 
[Volume:636;Page:6995] 
Thursday 7 December 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week Dr Brash’s valedictory speech will be the first item of business on Tuesday following oral questions. Priority will then be given to the first readings of the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill and the Appropriation (2005/06 Financial Review) Bill on which there is no debate. It is then the Government’s intention to take urgency for the following business: the remaining stages of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill the Telecommunications Amendment Bill and the Taxation (Annual Rates Savings Investment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill; the third reading of the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill; any other first readings on the Order Paper; then the adjournment motion which will include the motion on the House sitting programme for 2007. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that information. It will be useful for members who are planning the last week of the parliamentary year. 
I do wonder though whether the Leader of the House would be prepared to grant leave this afternoon for a snap debate so that the House can express a view on the appropriateness or otherwise of Television New Zealand making available its satellite broadcast equipment to Commodore Frank Bainimarama last Tuesday night so that he could broadcast live to the world his intention to overthrow the democratically elected Government of Fiji. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is certainly not a matter involving ministerial responsibility. I have no intention of granting leave for that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave for there to be an urgent question today to the Minister responsible for Television New Zealand—either the Minister for State Owned Enterprises the Prime Minister herself or some other Minister who is prepared to answer the question—as to why equipment owned by the New Zealand taxpayer was made available to the usurper of the democratically elected Government in Fiji. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: When was this news made public? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: This news was made available to me just minutes before the House sat this afternoon. I think it is clearly something that the Government would know about because the Government of course owns Television New Zealand. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: It may come as surprising news to the member but Television New Zealand does not tell the Government very much at all about anything it does. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 There has been consultation between the whips and I understand there is agreement all around the House so I therefore seek leave that on the conclusion of order of the day No. 6 the second reading of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) we proceed directly to the third reading of that bill. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Points of Order 
Television New Zealand—Fiji Government 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The issue I raised is a serious one. A democratically elected Government in the Pacific has been overthrown and it would be completely inappropriate for Commodore Bainimarama to have been assisted in any way by New Zealand’s State-owned broadcaster. I wonder whether we might expect a ministerial statement on this matter later in the afternoon. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I emphasise again that there is no ministerial responsibility. If the member would like to seek leave to put immediately without debate a motion deploring Television New Zealand’s actions I would certainly have no objection to that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The matter that Mr Brownlee raised was not actually a point of order; it was more a point of debate. But we have had a response. We shall move on now. 
Questions for Written Answer—Replies 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that answers to written questions Nos 18555 18556 and 18557 lodged to the Minister of Justice were due by 4 December and I still await them. Like most MPs I give a little latitude in these matters but I think it is also necessary for us to draw to your attention from time to time that the Standing Orders are being broken. I would like you to assist me by ensuring that the Standing Orders are upheld in that regard. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I apologise to the member. I am not aware of which particular questions they are but I have made a note of the numbers and I will check them out straight after question time. 
Questions to Ministers 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Kyoto Protocol 
1. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: How will the Government ensure that New Zealand meets its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol noting the statement by Victoria University economics senior lecturer Dr Geoff Bertram: “we’re miles in breach of our Kyoto undertakings”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: By doing our utmost to ensure the re-election of a Labour-led Government. Until only weeks ago the National Party had opposed every meaningful move to address climate change over the last 7 years and indeed kept congratulating itself on doing so frequently in somewhat scatological terms. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question I asked was how the Government will ensure that New Zealand meets its commitments. I think the House would have expected to hear from the Government some of the policy around climate change to achieve that rather than some gratuitous argument about who might win the next election which I think is a decision for the people of New Zealand to make. Before the people of New Zealand make that decision I think they would like to know what the Government’s policy is to meet those commitments. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. From what I could hear of the answer I thought the Minister did address the question. I ask all members on all sides of the House to please keep their interventions at a level at which other members can hear both questions and answers. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What did the Minister mean yesterday when he said that New Zealand would meet its Kyoto commitments by investing in Kyoto flexibility mechanisms and is the flexibility he was referring to that of taxpayers’ pockets which will have to flex a great deal to fund the hundreds of millions of dollars in liabilities? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The liabilities of course fall upon the Government. Meeting those liabilities will require a very very large range of policies that address such issues as afforestation removing deforestation incentives energy efficiency and many many other matters. The problem the member has is that he believes that it can all be solved with nobody suffering any consequences at all. That is pure “Pollyanna-ism”. 
Sue Bradford 
: Will the Government follow the example of the Green MPs who have today announced that we will offset our parliamentary air travel out of our own pockets from January next year and start offsetting carbon emissions from Parliamentary Service and Ministerial Services air travel by paying for the establishment of a permanent forest? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I welcome the Green initiative. Of course it is a matter for individual MPs of political parties as to what they do in that respect. Certainly the Government is committed to achieving carbon neutrality. One of the key issues around that is of course how the offsetting of air travel may occur over time. 
Moana Mackey 
: Is New Zealand up to date in compliance with our commitments under the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We are in compliance with the reporting commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. New Zealand was one of the first parties to submit its initial report on the calculation of its assigned amount under article 7.4 which is the basis for determining compliance with targets. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister aware that Treasury currently estimates that it will cost $650 million to meet the quite modest Kyoto greenhouse gas goals for New Zealand and assuming a similar price per tonne for carbon that carbon neutrality as promised by the Prime Minister would cost well in excess of $5 billion; if so does he still think carbon neutrality is a realistic goal? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is absolutely clear that in the long term carbon neutrality has to be a realistic goal. I note for example the British Government has just announced some ambitions in some respects in relation to carbon neutrality by 2015. What the member again seems to ignore is that major policies will be required to address this area. The party that opposed any form of carbon charge and whose members ran around giggling like schoolboys and using the words “fart tax” day after day has clearly not got to grips with the issues surrounding climate change. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Has the Government in fact got to grips with the issue of climate change when after 7 years in Government we have New Zealand’s greenhouse gases growing at four times the rate of those of the US and three times the rate of Australia’s when for the first year since 1953 we have net deforestation rather than the planting of forests and when we have the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment saying we have a complete vacuum in climate change policy in New Zealand under a Government that is 7 years old? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Firstly deforestation has been increasing for the last 10 years or more. Secondly much of that deforestation—[ 
Interruption 
] The National Party members really cannot stand facts Madam Speaker. Much of that deforestation is for the conversion of land to dairy farming and the members of the party opposite are completely opposed to any kind of internalisation of the cost of that conversion. All they do is stand by the wayside lamenting. Mr Key of course described climate change as a form of a hoax only a matter of months ago then read the views of the focus groups and changed his mind. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers does the Minister support the research that is going into carbon capture and storage technology in regard to coal; if he does what will the Government do to encourage the adoption of such technology when it becomes economically viable? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Solid Energy is a partner in that kind of research. Clearly it holds realistic prospects. The Government has never ruled out the use of coal-fired power stations in the longer term. In the meantime there are still significant difficulties around effective sequestration and capture of carbon from coal production and that is why the national energy strategy will make it quite clear that we expect to see once E3P is in place the vast bulk of new generation come from renewable resources. But of course the members of the party opposite only a short time ago were bemoaning the fact that we might run out of electricity in a dry winter then said we should not have thermal power. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister agree with the statement by the Government’s chair of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority Mr Mark Ford who said this morning at a select committee that the 2001 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy of this Government had failed noting that since then we have gone backwards on both efficiency and renewables; and with that strategy being a failure why should we have any confidence that Monday’s strategy will be any better? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There are so many strategy and discussion documents coming out in the next period of time that the only danger is that the logging of the forests used to produce those documents may contribute to global warming. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked the Minister quite specifically whether he agreed with the chair of the Energy and Conservation Authority Mr Mark Ford who said that the Government’s energy strategy from 2001 had failed. I did not hear anything in the Minister’s answer that addressed that question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member knows members cannot require a specific answer to a specific question. The question was addressed in so far as there was reference to reports on the matters that the member raised. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the energy strategy— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Talk about useless! 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Actually the Government’s policy on climate change is bloody useless. Will the energy strategy provide the substance of how Helen Clark’s promise of carbon neutrality is to be achieved—or was the Prime Minister’s statement just a bold exercise in spin doctoring to take public attention off the pledge card and Taito Phillip Field’s shenanigans? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It will point to the way forward in a number of key areas but there are many other policies apart from energy policies that will contribute to carbon neutrality over the long term. If we are to talk of spin doctoring I say a party whose members changed their minds on the basis of survey groups and public opinion polling is in no position to comment. Nobody believes Mr Key actually believes in addressing climate change issues. 
Agent Orange—Treatment of Veterans 
2.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What agreement has been reached with Viet Nam veterans’ organisations to address grievances arising from their service in Viet Nam? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I am very pleased to advise the House that a full agreement has been reached between the Government and the Ex-Vietnam Services Association and the New Zealand RSA over resolving longstanding grievances on the part of Viet Nam veterans. I am particularly pleased that this has been achieved in the Year of the Veteran and that 34 years after the last serviceman left Viet Nam a strong foundation has been laid for at last resolving those grievances and for bringing closure. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What response to the package has the Minister received? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: We have received a very positive response from the Ex-Vietnam Services Association and the RSA. Chris Mullane from the Ex-Vietnam Services Association has described the package as “fair and sustainable” and John Campbell the president of the New Zealand RSA has praised it as “a comprehensive and reasonable package” which is “worthy just and fair”. I am also pleased that by and large there has been a positive response from all quarters of the House where parties have heeded the request of the veterans’ organisations that there should be bipartisan endorsement for this policy and that this issue should not be made into a political football. 
Judith Collins 
: Why has the Government refused to fund the annual medical check-ups for Viet Nam veterans and refused to refund the tax that Viet Nam veterans paid while on active service for their country as was recommended by the joint working group? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the member reads the document carefully she will see that there will be a comprehensive medical check-up provided for all veterans free of charge and a specialist visit provided. The member is guilty of what she was nodding sagely about before—that this issue should not be made into a partisan issue. I do not intend to make it into that but no member with a history of her party’s should indulge in hypocrisy either. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What are the major provisions of this package? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have called Steve Chadwick. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Was that answer in order? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: He made an accusation at the end of it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members will please be seated. I did not hear the accusation because—and this is the last time I will say this to members—it is very hard to hear when members start barracking. Everyone is on his or her final warning. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What are the major provisions of the package? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The package is in three parts. Each part firstly acknowledges the past; secondly puts things right; and thirdly improves services for veterans. Amongst its most important provisions—and there are about 25 of them—are firstly an apology for and an acknowledgement of the legitimate grievances of those veterans that have been ignored for far too long; secondly a whakanoa or a welcome home by the New Zealand Defence Force to make up for the fact that there never was a proper welcome home for these veterans; thirdly financial compensation for those suffering from prescribed medical conditions—that is conditions related directly to their service in Viet Nam; and fourthly and lastly an endowment fund of some $7 million the interest from which will provide assistance to veterans and their families who are in need notwithstanding whether that need was directly as a result of service indirectly related or for some other reason. 
Judith Collins 
: Why has the Government still not implemented many of the recommendations made by the Health Committee—a multiparty recommendation—2 years ago following its inquiry into the effects of Agent Orange and other defoliants in Viet Nam? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Again the member seems not to have heard the description I quoted from the two organisations representing the veterans—unless she believes that she can better represent them—saying that this is a fully comprehensive package and that it is a fair just and full package that adequately and sustainably meets the critical needs of veterans. That member and her party did nothing in the decades in which they were in office notwithstanding that it was the party that sent veterans to Viet Nam. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister will be seated. Those last comments were unnecessary. 
Ron Mark 
: What lessons can be learnt from this issue considering that it has been 41 years since the first Kiwi soldier was sent to Viet Nam; that it is about 17 years since Geoff Braybrooke a Labour member of Parliament brought a member’s bill to the House to address the problems facing Viet Nam veterans; that it is about 7 years since the shonky Reeves report came out which was influenced by the National Government of the day; that it is about 5 years since the shonky McLeod report came out; and that it is 2 years since the Health Committee reported to the House— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please ask his question. He is making a speech. 
Ron Mark 
: —what lessons can be learnt to ensure that travesties such as these never ever blight this country’s record again? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I will restrict myself to two lessons that I think can be learnt. Firstly the Viet Nam veterans themselves were blamed for the war in Viet Nam. That was not a decision of the veterans; they were simply professional soldiers who followed the instructions of the Government of the day that sent them to Viet Nam. It was unfair and unjust that they should have been blamed for that decision. The second lesson is that the veterans were sent into a toxic environment. There were inadequate provisions for taking account of the dangers and the risks to their health and check-ups before and after. I am pleased to advise the member that the modern New Zealand Defence Force is far more attuned to the needs of veterans in checking and warning veterans and in ensuring that when people come back from deployment they receive full medical check-ups. 
Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Policy 
3.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does he stand by his pre-election statement that “86000 children will definitely get 20 free hours under Labour”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Acting Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does he agree with the statement of Nelson kindergarten association general manager Wendy Logan that it would be difficult to continue under current funding arrangements when his Government’s 20 free hours policy is in operation and that many previously free kindergartens will be forced to start charging fees rather than have parental donations; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No because the funding will be adequate. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Will the Minister assure the House that the per hour rate that will be struck will not be either the mean or the median rate but instead will be high enough to ensure that at least 99 percent of the early childhood education providers will opt into acceptance of the 20 free hours policy? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is my expectation when somewhere between $80 and $100 a week additional subsidy for the 20 hours is offered that there will be an opt-in at a very high level. 
Sue Moroney 
: What reports has he seen on alternative approaches to funding early childhood education? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have seen a report of a policy that would charge for the 20 hours provide assistance for working families only through a very complicated tax rebate system which would mean that the more someone earned the cheaper the early childhood education for that person’s children would offer no hope to low-income families or their children and would leave out beneficiaries totally. That was the policy the National Party went to the election on. 
Judy Turner 
: What estimates can he provide the House as to what the uptake rate is likely to be of centres participating in the 20 hours of free early childhood education for 3 and 4-year-olds when he is offering centres the average of what it costs to educate and care for those children so half of all centres will be underpaid particularly those in Auckland where costs are higher? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would like to give the member some advice. No offer has been made and she should be careful: she would be much better off if she did not believe the propaganda from the Early Childhood Council which is a subcommittee of the Business Roundtable. 
Paula Bennett 
: How many parents of 3 and 4-year-olds currently attending free kindergarten will not have to pay a fee for kindergarten as a result of Labour’s policy of 20 free hours? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Clearly for the 20 hours none. 
Katherine Rich 
: Although the Minister earlier said that rates would be “adequate” how can early childhood centres decide whether to offer the 20 hours when the Government has not made clear what the rates will be; and why should centres hand out the Ministry’s misleading brochure  
Twenty Hours Free 
 when it only raises parents’ expectations and when the centre may not even offer the service at all because it cannot? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are a number of questions in there but it is my very firm expectation that—given the way the market works in this area and I have been involved in it for over 30 years—when there is $80 to $100 a week extra subsidy the centres will take it. 
Paula Bennett 
: Does he agree with the advice of a Ministry of Education official who suggested to participants at a workshop on 20 free hours that it would be a good idea to build another centre adjacent run it as though it is its own business and part-way through the day swap the children from one building to the other so that she could claim for each building’s service as if it were sessional; and does he think this kind of planning will become typical under such an unworkable policy? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not believe that anyone with a future as an early childhood official would make such a stupid statement. 
Katherine Rich 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That cannot be a reasonable answer to that question—just slagging off the associate spokeswoman on education. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not hear a slagging-off and reasonableness is not within the Standing Orders when it comes to answers. But the Minister did address the question. Ministers do not have to accept authentication of statements made in questions. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does the Minister think that his  
Twenty Hours Free 
 brochure for parents is misleading when it says under a heading “More good news” that centres will receive an additional 10 hours of subsidised support creating the impression that this is something extra when in fact that same subsidised support has been offered since the early 1990s? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The effect of this policy change is for most centres and at most rates actually to double from about 10 to 20 the amount of free hours in early childhood care and education available. 
Health and Disability Commissioner—Report 
4.  
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What is the Minister doing following the report of the Health and Disability Commissioner that progress in tackling the safety and quality of health care in New Zealand has been “slow patchy and uncoordinated” and how will these concerns be addressed in ways that recognise respect and protect the rights and responsibilities of consumers? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: The health and hospital systems can always of course be improved and this Government is always looking for improvements. That is why the previous Minister of Health the Hon Annette King developed and implemented a quality initiative. That is why the current Minister is reviewing the membership and terms of reference of the National Health Epidemiology and Quality Assurance Advisory Committee. The Minister anticipates making positive announcements very shortly on further actions to be taken. 
Tariana Turia 
: What were the grounds for the Health Advocates Trust services which pioneered Maori-specific advocacy services within the Northland and Auckland catchment not to be repurchased; and does that decision not contradict the health and disability legislation requirements to meet the needs of vulnerable populations? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As I am acting on behalf of the Minister I do not have information on why that contract was not renewed. But if the member wants to put that question in writing to me I will see that officials give her a full response. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why when each year 1500 people die as a result of adverse events in our hospitals—which is three times the annual road toll—and that costs taxpayers $870 million a year will the Minister not require that hospitals report publicly on adverse events so that New Zealanders can compare records in this area as called for by the Health and Disability Commissioner and the Health Committee? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think all of us are aware that in one sense hospitals are dangerous places because people who are very sick usually go there and sometimes adverse events occur in them—that is true. As a front-line constituency member in an electorate in Christchurch that is very close to two hospitals and knowing what other people around the world think of our public hospital system I say to the member that basically New Zealand has a very fine public hospital system that we should be proud of. Work is being done continually to improve the situation and that will continue. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It was very interesting to hear the Minister’s comments about public hospitals but I specifically asked the Minister why he would not require mandatory reporting of adverse events. He did not even attempt to answer that question and I would appreciate it if he did so. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that the Minister did address the question. As members are reminded they cannot require a specific answer to a question. 
Tariana Turia 
: How is the Minister directing the Health and Disability Commissioner to respond to the findings released in mid-2006 from a survey of 6579 patients admitted to 13 hospitals which reported that Maori patients had a higher risk of experiencing preventable adverse events in hospital than did patients of non-Maori and non-Pacific origin? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I cannot be certain of how the Minister is dealing with that issue but again if the member wants to put a written question to me I will make sure she gets a full and appropriate answer. 
Ann Hartley 
: What evidence is there that the Health and Disability Commissioner complaints system is working to advantage patients? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I note the commissioner states in his report that there is growing evidence that investigating systemic failures in care and recommending improvements is making a positive difference to the health and disability sectors. The Government welcomes the role of the commissioner both in improving our already world-class complaints systems and providing leadership on quality improvement. 
Immigration Minister’s Statement—Ministerial Discretion 
5.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does he stand by his statement to the House on 20 July this year that “The Minister of Immigration is accountable for decisions being made when ministerial discretion is being exercised.”? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Acting Minister of Immigration) 
: Yes. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: In what way did the previous Minister of Immigration the Hon Paul Swain demonstrate that accountability when the Department of Labour’s workforce deputy secretary Mary Anne Thompson raised with him her concerns about the number of representations being made by Taito Phillip Field on behalf of failed asylum seekers? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: As has been previously brought to the member’s attention ministerial discretion is exercised because no two cases are alike and not all circumstances can be foreseen when policy is written. Members on all sides of the House accept this when they put forward representations for ministerial discretion. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Was the action of the previous Minister of Immigration the Hon Paul Swain consistent with his accepting accountability for the exercise of ministerial discretion on immigration matters when he asked the deputy secretary Mary Anne Thompson to pass on her concerns to the previous Associate Minister Damien O’Connor instead of the Minister taking up such a serious matter himself with the Associate Minister? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I reiterate my answer to the previous question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister repeat the substance of the answer. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: As I said to the member and as he knows—and I would argue that this would be the case in respect of any current or former Minister of Immigration—ministerial discretion is exercised because every case is different. As I have previously said to the member if he has issues or facts in relation to wrongdoing then he should give them to me and I will have them investigated or he has the option of taking them to the police. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I realise that Ministers have only to address a question but my question in fact asked about the failure of the previous Minister Paul Swain to speak to his Associate Minister Damien O’Connor about the concerns raised with him by his deputy secretary from the Department of Labour and whether that failure was consistent with the requirement for accountability by that Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister should address that question again please. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I have seen no evidence in the member’s statement to back up his assertion. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister of Immigration in answering questions in this House has told this House that Paul Swain had serious concerns about Phillip Field’s submissions raised with him by Mary Anne Thompson and that he had asked her to talk to his Associate Minister about it instead of his talking to her about it himself. The Acting Minister has simply said that there is no proof of what I have said in the question I have just put to him but the Minister of Immigration told this House that that was what happened. I am asking whether that is acceptable accountability. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister has addressed the question. It may not be to the satisfaction of the member but he did address the substance of it. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am troubled that you can suggest the Minister has addressed the question when he has simply denied the basis of my question because that is not addressing it at all. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: But Ministers can do that. That is the point actually. It is for others to judge the substance of the answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In this case the Minister of Immigration provided the House with some information in answer to a question. 
When a subsequent question about that information was asked as Dr Smith has just questioned the Acting Minister simply replied that the previous answer was wrong. If question time is to be at all valid then I think Ministers do have to make some attempt to be consistent in their own answers. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I said it is not for the Speaker to judge the quality of the answer. But the Minister did address the question. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I urge you to reconsider this. If the answer we have just heard from the Minister is to be an acceptable answer in terms of the Standing Orders then on every single question the Opposition puts to the Government a Minister need just say: “Well we don’t see any merit in the content of the question.” 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. I have ruled on this matter twice now and it has been raised for a third time. It is not for the Speaker to judge the quality of the answer but the question was addressed. If you wish to have different sorts of answers then I beg you to go to the Standing Orders Committee so that we can change the Standing Orders. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If that member makes one more comment challenging my ruling he will not remain in the House. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is very unfair because it is frustrating to the Opposition when we get a Minister one day giving information to the House then just a few days later denying any knowledge of it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. Frustrating it may well be but taking it out on the Speaker is not acceptable. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Standing Orders 370 and 371 which you have suggested might need to be changed—you basically said that if I have a difficulty with your ruling I should have the Standing Orders changed—have requirements in respect of questions. In respect of the content of replies Standing Order 377 provides that an answer must be given “if it can be consistently given with the public interest.” The public interest in this matter is absolutely vital. A piece of information went to a Minister of Immigration. The question of whether it was passed on to an Associate Minister of Immigration is critical to one of the most contentious issues in the House this year. You tell me to have the Standing Orders changed. I have absolutely no difficulty with the Standing Order. I simply ask you as Speaker to require this Minister to answer the question or address the question consistent with the public interest. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: An answer was given. What that Standing Order means is that a Minister can decline to give any answer if the Minister considers that it is not consistent with the public interest. I am afraid that is what that Standing Order means. There are circumstances where a question may be put and to give any answer is not consistent with the public interest and a Minister may decline to do so. I have been in this House long enough to see a Minister not give an answer at all but simply sit in his or her chair and that is allowable—the Minister is the judge. But in this respect the Government could well have raised a point of order on the actual question that was asked. It is not for this Minister to judge whether another Minister’s action was a proper exercise of ministerial accountability. If any Minister is to be asked that it can only be the Prime Minister. No one Minister in this Government is responsible to any other Minister except the Prime Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes. The Standing Orders are clear about the public interest requirement. I know that members have raised this issue before and I am quite happy to go away and do a ruling on it and it will be consistent with other rulings—if members read them. It is in fact for the Minister to determine whether to give a reply is consistent with the public interest. That is why I have told members before that if they wish that to be different then it is in their own hands. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When the previous Minister of Immigration the Hon Paul Swain met Mr Sunan Siriwan when he was working on the floor of Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa only a few days after the deputy secretary had raised with the Minister her concerns about Mr Field’s representations on behalf of failed asylum-seekers what action did Mr Swain take to follow up on Ms Thompson’s concerns as the accountable Minister for ministerial discretion on immigration matters? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am confident that the previous Minister acted appropriately at all times and the Ingram inquiry bears me out. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When the previous Minister of Immigration Paul Swain received the letter from Keith Williams stating: “You sir visited Taito Phillip Field’s home along with the Hon Phil Goff. You and all your members of the party were introduced to Sunan Siriwan by Taito Phillip Field.” and outlining the deal which was that “If Sunan Siriwan went to Samoa for 3 months to tile Mr Field’s house he would be given a work permit by the New Zealand Immigration Service and then allowed to return to New Zealand.” what actions if any did Mr Swain take as the accountable Minister for decisions where ministerial discretion was exercised other than just to send that letter on to the Associate Minister Damien O’Connor? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: As I have just said I am confident that the actions of the previous Minister were appropriate at all times. The Ingram inquiry has borne me out in that respect. Again I say to the member that if he has issues or evidence of wrongdoing there is a live police inquiry and he should exercise his due rights. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: If the Minister of Immigration is accountable for decisions made where ministerial discretion is being exercised did the Prime Minister ensure that the previous Minister of Immigration Paul Swain exercised appropriate accountability when she received the letter dated 3 August 2005 from Keith Williams blowing the whistle on Taito Phillip Field’s secret deal with Mr Sunan Siriwan? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I will raise this point now. I do not see how the Minister of Immigration is responsible for the Prime Minister’s exercising of ministerial accountability. I do not see what possible ministerial responsibility this Minister holds for the actions of the Prime Minister in that regard. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I take the point. I have been listening to the member’s questions to ensure that they are within the ministerial responsibility. So far I have let them relate to the previous Minister’s responsibility in effect. I would ask the member to confine the question—I know that it is a fine line—to the ministerial responsibility. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Let me change the question slightly then. If the Minister of Immigration is accountable for decisions made where ministerial discretion is being exercised what record does the Minister of Immigration have of any contact from the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister received a letter dated 3 August 2005 from Keith Williams telling her of the secret deal that had been done between Taito Phillip Field and Mr Sunan Siriwan? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: As has been pointed out I am sure the Prime Minister and the previous Minister of Immigration acted appropriately at all times. If the member has information to the contrary he has a course of action available. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. At the risk of annoying you that seems to me to be a totally inadequate addressing of the question. He was asked whether there was any correspondence between the Minister’s office and the Prime Minister’s office subsequent to her becoming aware of the fact that a deal had been done between Mr Taito Phillip and Mr Sunan Siriwan. To simply say: “Well I think they all acted appropriately.” may well address the question but most certainly is seen to be dodging it. It is not at all in the public interest if he is to give an air of ministerial responsibility around these matters. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I have said to members before and at the risk of my irritating the member—although the question is not really whether we are irritating each other—the question is the Standing Orders. It is not for the Speaker to judge the quality of the answer; that is left to others. 
Public Services—Ownership and Access 
6.  
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What is the Government’s policy with respect to ownership of and access to public services? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I thank the member for his question. This Government believes in a high level of public ownership of public services but more important it believes that access to those services should be on the basis of need. That is why for example we have been so active in making visits to the doctor cheaper making the obtaining of prescriptions cheaper limiting the increase in student fees and introducing a range of other measures. 
Shane Jones 
: Has he received any other reports on this very significant matter? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Can I thank the member for his even better question. I have received a report of a poorly attended public meeting called by the self-described most famous man in Auckland John Key and other National MPs. At this meeting Mr Tau Henare is reported as saying: “Everything will be simpler for everyone when everything is made user-pays.” It will be interesting to see how this policy area will be “inoculated” to use the term used in the book  
The Hollow Men 
. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Would the Minister consider the actions of Television New Zealand in making available its satellite broadcast unit to Commodore Frank Bainimarama to assist his overthrow of the democratically elected Government of Fiji to be consistent with the policy of the Minister’s Government in respect of the use of ownership of and access to public services? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If that is true certain—[ 
Interruption 
] I have no evidence. I have no reports. Mr Brownlee’s word is not sufficient on this matter in the absence of a proper report I have to say. I invited the member previously to seek leave to move a motion without debate in the House deploring that action. He did not do so. However had Mr GuyonEspiner been included in the deal I might have taken a different view! 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister confirm that regardless of the Government’s policy in respect of maintaining ownership of and access to public services any strategic asset sales in this current parliamentary term would constitute a breach of the confidence and supply agreement between Labour and New Zealand First? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am happy to confirm that and equally important it would be in breach of the Labour Party manifesto. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If the Minister accepts the allegation that Television New Zealand made its satellite broadcast unit available to the Commodore in Fiji why has he not taken time since it was brought up this afternoon to find out just exactly what Television New Zealand was up to or is it now the Government’s policy to encourage such reality television? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I would not regard the Fijian coup as reality television at all apart from anything else; it seems to be unreality television as far as I can see. The member may also have noticed that I have been in the House. It is my job. I am the Leader of the House and given the number of points of order that the member raises all the time I have to pay attention right the way through. 
Stadium Auckland Waterfront—Cabinet Reports or Papers 
7.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues 
: What reports or papers if any has she presented to Cabinet for $320 million in funding on a national amenity to be built in Auckland? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister with responsibility for Auckland Issues) 
: 
 All papers to Cabinet on this matter were from my colleague the Minister for the Rugby World Cup. I have passed on a range of proposals and have received regular briefings on the Auckland venue proposals. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Given that apparently the Minister has not given any papers reports or recommendations to Cabinet why did she then tell the  
New Zealand Herald  
that all she had to do was convince her colleagues that they needed to invest $320 million in the Auckland waterfront? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The particular proposal—which after all is part of a New Zealand - wide Rugby World Cup—was for a rugby stadium in Auckland that can cope with 60000 people. When the Government on 27 November made the decision to support the redevelopment of the Eden Park stadium subject to resolution of design funding and governance issues it seemed to me a good idea to lead a discussion in Auckland about the future of Government involvement on the waterfront and that is what I intend to do. I will convince my colleagues and they will still be the Government. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I remind members that it is again becoming increasingly difficult to hear the answers. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Given that the Minister is so convinced that she will convince all her colleagues to pay $320 million how then does she reconcile her statement in the  
Auckland City Harbour News 
 that she welcomes the decision to revamp Eden Park with her statements in the same article that the waterfront stadium was “a lost opportunity” with “enormous potential” and that: “we should be developing a national stadium and centre in Auckland.”? That article was published on 1 December not 27 November. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: Golly 1 December did after all come after 27 November. The figure I was referring to was the investment the Government made in Te Papa which as a foundation development of the Wellington waterfront has indeed made a difference. I am suggesting that Auckland as New Zealand’s main international city should expect a similar investment from the Government and I will work towards a suitable facility. 
Keith Locke 
: Why did the Government pursue the much more expensive poorly costed and environmentally offensive waterfront stadium option when 6 months ago it had a full design for Eden Park and had detailed costings adding up to $320 million provided by WT Partnership a highly reputable quantity surveyor— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Not detailed at all! What rubbish! 
Keith Locke 
: Is the Minister for Sport and Recreation answering this? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member just ask the question. We are straying into questions becoming speeches. 
Keith Locke 
: What specific disagreements does the Minister have with the detailed costings provided by WT Partnership months ago? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I did not see any carefully costed detailed plans for Eden Park. That option too was financially uncosted and unfunded. It was also environmentally offensive to many people in Auckland. The Government decided to make sure that the enormous public and private investment in any facility was well spent. I think what this Minister and this Government have done has now been thoroughly welcomed by everyone who has reflected on it and it means that we might get some movement on the waterfront as well as a suitable facility for the Rugby World Cup. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Does the Minister now believe that hundreds of millions of dollars should be spent on upgrading Eden Park and that we should also develop another national stadium—I am basing this on the article in the  
Auckland City Harbour News 
—also at the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars on the waterfront; which is it? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The member opposite obviously has not caught up with the business and trade convention centre that has long been proposed for the waterfront. A number of other options are being looked at. It seems to me a really good thing that we meet our obligations to host the Rugby World Cup given the more than $300 million economic benefit that will accrue to New Zealand as a result and that Auckland gets the infrastructure it needs. I do not believe that those are mutually exclusive. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Given that the Minister is supporting a national convention centre what discussions has she had with the Minister of Finance to spring $300 million from him to build the national convention centre on the Auckland waterfront? 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: I do not agree with the assertion that member makes and given that his major assertion for the benefit of Auckland was a tunnel under the harbour I really wonder whether National Party members care about what happens in Auckland or in the Rugby World Cup. Come up to speed Wayne. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister knows how to address other members. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does the Minister accept that her discussions with the Minister for the Rugby World Cup were detailed frequent exhaustive and exhausting? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members will please lower the temperature of the House. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD 
: The discussions were always constructive. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave of the House to table the detailed costings on the Eden Park design that were provided some months ago by WT Partnership. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to check that the member is not going to do what he did yesterday when he tabled a document and got the date wrong by a year. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the House’s interest in stadiums and stadium construction I seek leave to table a document on the construction of the Arsenal Emirates Stadium a magnificent stadium built under budget within time and at a cost of £390 million. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is total objection. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I seek leave to table an article in the  
Auckland City Harbour News 
 dated 1 December headed “It was time to shut up” quoting Judith Tizard. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table an article from page 2 of this Tuesday’s  
New Zealand Herald  
in which various Auckland MPs including Labour MPs proposed how to properly develop the Auckland waterfront. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Market Development Assistance Scheme—Announcements 
8. RON MARK (NZ First) 
 on behalf of  
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What recent announcements have been made regarding an increase of funding to the Market Development Assistance scheme? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 The Prime Minister has made an announcement of a $33.75 million funding boost to mark the launch of Export Year 2007. The boost in funding means that New Zealand exporters will receive support to break into offshore markets. This Government knows that increasing our export capacity is at the heart of transforming our economy. That is why overall funding for the Market Development Assistance scheme has gone from nothing to $5.8 million in 2005-06 and to $33.75 million now. 
Ron Mark 
: What initiatives will be undertaken during Export Year? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The list is very long and the Leader of the House will not let me say it all but as well as the $33.75 million increase there will be an expansion of New Zealand Trade and Enterprise’s Path to Market pilot programme which supports new exporters into Australia. A very successful conference of chief executive officers and founders of more than 50 of our largest exporters was held last Friday to brainstorm what the sector can do going forward. Resources will be made available for primary and secondary schools as well as for tertiary courses to help lift aspirations in this area. 
Ron Mark 
: What has been the public response to this New Zealand First initiative and specifically to the launch of Export Year? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have received a number of positive responses relating in particular to the high popularity of the Market Development Assistance scheme and the Government’s response to the proposals of New Zealand First and Government Ministers. One of these positive responses came from the Employers and Manufacturers Association. The Market Development Assistance scheme was heavily oversubscribed. It has not been able to keep up with demand so it is pleasing to see a Government moving to put this right. There was however one wally in Christchurch who had a different view. 
Te PuniKokiri—Confidence 
9.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: Does he have confidence in his ministry; if so why? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Yes; because its employees are hard-working and conscientious people. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why did the Minister tell the House on 22 November that Te PuniKokiri’s expenditure on contractors and consultants has decreased when Te PuniKokiri’s annual reports from 2002 2003 2004 and 2005 show an increase of expenditure on those consultants by up to 67 percent? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I understand that the use of consultants and contractors is a lot less than it was in that member’s time as Minister and it is comparable with that by other organisations. It is not true that it has increased. 
Dave Hereora 
: Does the Minister have confidence in a long-term role for Te PuniKokiri? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes. I have as much confidence as the new National Party has even though the edict of user-pays is starting to creep back in. I have seen a list of the National Party spokespeople and I note that there are two spokespeople for Maori affairs one of whom has a role specifically related to Te PuniKokiri. Given that National’s previous leader wanted to get rid of Te PuniKokiri I am very pleased that the Maori spokespeople from National have now recognised the ministry’s importance. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Can the Minister explain why Te PuniKokiri’s expenditure on contractors has risen by an amazing 243 percent since 2001—which just happened to be while I was not here? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The use of contractors and consultants by the ministry or by departments is an operational matter. Therefore the responsibility is that of the chief executive. I tell that member because everybody is poaching the staff then that is certainly a better use— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You’re an embarrassment. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: If there is an embarrassment it is that member. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Is the Minister concerned that the Auditor-General has advised that Te PuniKokiri regional offices do not monitor progress in meeting contract milestones do not ask for or even receive financial information detailing how contracts were being fulfilled and do not even apply the ministry’s own operational guidelines to those contracts? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I assure the member again that my ministry advises me that the expenditure on contractors and consultants has decreased. I tell that member in relation to his question that Te PuniKokiri has built up a huge reputation with ministries and the results for Maoridom are showing that. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I know that you could argue that the Minister addressed the question but it is like asking how tall the palm tree is and getting the answer that it is Tuesday. The answer bears no relevance to the question. I do not think the Minister addressed the question because it was about something completely different. I accept that answers can be along the lines of questions without actually answering those questions but I do not actually think the Minister addressed the question this time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. If members wish me to rule on these matters then I ask members to keep the interventions down because I could not hear what the Minister was saying. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou. Is the minister aware that Te PuniKokiri’s website promotes Vaka Moana which “takes us forward as a nation helping us to see ourselves as a part of the Pacific family”; in light of that what advice has Te PuniKokiri offered the Minister about the impact of Government statements against the actions in Fiji in the context of the Pacific family? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: My ministry has not given me any advice on what should happen in Fiji. This Government has been explicit in its view of what has happened in Fiji. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Does the Minister agree with the advice of the Auditor-General that Te PuniKokiri cannot provide any information on cost effectiveness as required by section 40 of the Public Finance Act; and how does the Minister intend to rectify this problem? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I can attest to the high consistency by Te PuniKokiri in working closely and better with other Government agencies and more so in being the closest interface between any Government agency and the Maori people—more than the distant stance that that member has. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked about the information provided with regard to cost effectiveness and section 40 of the Public Finance Act and what the Minister intended to do to rectify the problem that Te PuniKokiri has—not something about something else that bears no relevance to the actual question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I note the member’s point. But I also noted carefully the Minister’s answer which did indicate that Te PuniKokiri had been working with other agencies to address that. So the answer may not satisfy the member but the Minister did address the question. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is the Minister aware of the tribunal ruling that the Crown must consult tangata whenua about the Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Products Authority legislation on which is rumoured to be introduced into the House shortly; and what advice has his ministry given him about Maori views on that authority? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: There are ongoing discussions between countries in relation to the situation of therapeutic products and so forth. I continually get advice in respect of flora and fauna and on a whole lot of matters that are relevant to that issue. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I follow my colleague Mr Henare in respect of the Minister not actually answering the question. I accept that some of the information the Minister gave might be relevant in the bigger picture but it is not specifically relevant to my question. I ask whether the Minister could rethink an answer—or perhaps you could give some guidance on that? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I note to members that when general questions like this are set down and then a variety of issues are specifically raised in relation to them then often the answers that emerge are not satisfactory from the member’s point of view. But the Minister did address the question. I also further note while I am on my feet that when members do ask in questions for a Minister’s opinion or for the Minister to agree with something then they are likely to get an answer that gives that opinion. It will not necessarily be factual. 
Shane Jones 
: Has the Minister received any advice on the impact of the decision of the Maori Party to support the coup in Fiji in relation to Maori relationships with the rest of the Pacific? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No but I have a view about that. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Does the Minister agree with the advice by the Auditor-General—and here is the kicker—that Te PuniKokiri cannot provide sufficient information to justify its expenditure in 2005-06? 
Paula Bennett 
: Got a view on that? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I have a great view on that. The Maori Potential Framework approach that the ministry is taking provides for a balanced approach between focusing on addressing issues of disadvantage and making the most of Maori talents skills and assets. That person was moved over because he was not doing anything about Maori affairs. The problem with that member is in his heart and his head. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I accept your earlier rulings about the addressing of questions but surely to goodness you cannot accept that that reply addressed my question which basically asked whether he agreed with the advice of the Auditor-General that Te PuniKokiri could not provide sufficient information to justify its expenditure in the last financial year. The Minister’s answer had absolutely nothing to do with that question. Surely to goodness you cannot allow him to get away with not even addressing the question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Given the level of intervention while the Minister was I believe attempting to address the question it seemed that the members who were intervening were not interested in the answer. If the Minister wants to add further to his answer and if we could have a reasonable level of noise in the House I ask him to do so. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: No I do not agree because a lot of progress has been made. I want the member to be specific about what he started to say. A lot of progress has been made. When the member started Aotearoa Television it went down. This other one has gone up and that is what I want to say to him.  
Central / Local Government Forum—Topics of Discussion 
10.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: What were the major topics of discussion at the 12th Central and Local Government Forum this morning? 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 A raft of reports were discussed at the Central / Local Government Forum many of which addressed some of the key issues facing local government and New Zealand going forward. These include sustainability climate change infrastructure affordable housing and regional economic development. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports about the future of local government in New Zealand? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes I have seen a report that states that the member’s bill in the name of the latest leader of the National Party to reform local government in Auckland is actually part of a wider plan to effectively abolish local government in New Zealand and create a so-called local government tsar who would do little more than oversee the permit and approval process. Further not only did the self-proclaimed most famous man in Auckland barely manage to pull in 30 people at his local meeting at least one genuinely famous Auckland National Party stalwart threatened to withdraw whatever support he had for the National Party when he heard of Key’s extremist plans for local government. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. How is this in order? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked for reports; the Minister gave reports. However the Minister is not responsible for National Party policy. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister advise the House on the progress of the independent inquiry into revenue-raising mechanisms available to local government and the sustainability of dependence on property rates for this purpose? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Following the confirmation of the terms of reference that were developed in consultation with parties that showed a genuine interest in this matter including the member’s own party an outstanding panel of New Zealanders was appointed. I have met with the panel and the review is now well under way. The panel is to report back by 31 July 2007. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is the Minister aware that after the 2001 elections the number of local body councillors who identified as tangata whenua was close to 6 percent which is considerably less than the demographic proportion of the population at 15 percent and what initiatives are being introduced to ensure that local bodies foster Maori capacity to contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority as they are required to do under the Local Government Act 2002? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I am aware of the statistic the member has given us and I believe that it is accurate. I point to one example which was the fine initiative in the member’s bill introduced into the House by my colleague Mita Ririnui. 
Rivers—Nutrient Run-off 
11.  
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Has he received the recent report from the Ministry for the Environment that pinpoints a further deterioration in rivers already polluted by nutrient run-off; if so what is his response? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for the Environment 
: Yes. The Ministry for the Environment has recently released two technical reports on water quality. They are a snapshot of lake-water quality in New Zealand and stated trends in the National River Water Quality Network from 1989 to 2005. The reports confirm that approximately one-third of our rivers and lakes are under pressure for both volume and water quality. They confirm that our major water-quality challenge is managing non-point-source discharges. This reinforces the importance of the Labour-Progressive Government’s sustainable water programme of action and the leadership being taken by the agricultural sector to improve water quality for all New Zealanders. 
Jacqui Dean 
: How can spending half a million dollars on a fluffy water-awareness campaign—“New Zealand. A valuable body of water.”—showing fully clothed people standing in pristine bodies of water possibly remedy the poor state of New Zealand rivers? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: There is no question that raising awareness of the importance of water to New Zealand is relevant to the education process that we have to go through here in my view. However I am aware that half of all advertising is wasted. The problem is that most of us do not know which half it is. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What far-reaching and very significant actions is this Government taking to improve water quality? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: One of the key outcomes sought under the Water Programme of Action is improved water quality. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Inaction! 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Like the member’s inaction that lasted 3 days in the deputy leadership of the National Party presumably. That member should never ask for what he wants—he might get it. The Government is a partner in significant current work programmes that target improved water quality. This work builds on the significant investment in science and extension activity by the partnership of Government industry and local government which has developed management tools and approaches that will with time reduce the impact of runoff and non-point discharges to water. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: In light of the interesting work being done around the use of nitrogen inhibitors to reduce nitrate losses from farms is the Government involved in or aware of any work being done to study the effects of nitrogen inhibitors on soil or soil microbiology? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes there is considerable work being done on nitrogen inhibitors the effect of nitrification of soil leachate into waterways and so on. Lincoln University is well ahead in programmes of this kind and the Government is taking those matters into account as it moves through the climate change programmes with our industries—particularly the agricultural industry—and budgetary considerations are being given as we speak. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister did not quite understand my question. I am aware that there is work being done on the use of nitrogen inhibitors to reduce nitrate losses. What I was asking specifically about is the effects of nitrogen inhibitors on soil and soil microbe biology. The reason for the question was that I am not sure that there is a full understanding of what the unintended consequences— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the member had the opportunity to put his question and the Minister had the opportunity to address it. He addressed the question and if the question is to be more specific then it should be framed more clearly. [ 
Interruption 
] I have ruled on the matter endlessly in this particular session. 
Tariana Turia 
: What remedial action has the Minister taken following angry protests in Palmerston North last month which highlighted the issuing of 190 permits to local companies to allow the discharge of pollutants into waterways that are likely to result in the death of the Manawatu River? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I am aware that the Ministry for the Environment and all other Government agencies with any concern for the future of New Zealand’s ecological environment would give consideration and concern to such matters. But in the real word of course these things are going to take some time and usually local authorities are giving exemptions on the basis that time is also being given for industry and other users and polluters to sort out what is happening to their environment and give them the occasion and the opportunity to rectify matters. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Minister confirm that the whole subject of water quality and in particular reference to nutrient runoffs is included in the confidence and supply agreement between the Labour-led Government and United Future and that part of that policy advanced by United Future is to plant trees on marginal strips around our rivers and lakes? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes I can and of course the Government is actively involved with its support partners in promoting the kind of developments that the member has spoken about. Budgetary consideration will be given to active involvement. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Look at forestry you’re going backwards! 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes a bit like the member’s political record. The Government is giving considerable attention to the development of appropriate measures for these matters and that will be dealt with in the Budget. 
Jacqui Dean 
: How will the half a million dollar publicly funded campaign “New Zealand. A valuable body of water.” improve water quality when the website it directs people to has only one practical tip and that is that running a full load of a dishwasher uses less water less energy and is more hygienic than washing by hand? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I think I already indicated that raising the consciousness of New Zealanders about the importance of water and its future use and efficiency of use are important educative matters. When Government departments or any other industry body is doing that they should be applauded for it. The quality of what they do of course is always in the eye of the individual beholder. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Who came up with the idea of spending half a million dollars of public money on the “New Zealand. A valuable body of water.” ad campaign for a website that contains thought-provoking gems such as “Freshwater can be found in two places underground … and above ground …” “Surface water includes things such as lakes rivers …” and “Water availability problems occur when water demand outstrips supply …”? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: As in all these original ideas if there is proven to be success we will find that many authors came up with the idea; if there is not then we will find there will be orphans. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Why instead of spending half a million dollars on a fancy ad campaign showing people standing in pristine bodies of water do we not show them just standing in rivers like the Manawatu the state of which was enough to get more than 200 people marching down the main street of Palmerston North recently screaming for the Government to do something? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Well I think at least this programme would have paid for its GST. 
Jacqui Dean 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Try as I might I cannot see how the Minister in any way addressed my question on the health of the Manawatu River. I am very interested in his reply. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister like to add to his answer please. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Well if the member is suggesting that the Ministry for the Environment or any other Government agency—or local government agency for that matter—is not interested in the health of the Manawatu River then she is not living in the same world as I am. Of course these matters are important and all the initiatives the Government takes are meant to make a contribution to that welfare. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Why instead of wasting so much money merely trying to get people to think about something does the Minister not spend his half a million dollars of public money on something concrete aimed at people actually doing something? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: If the member really wants to go down the expenditure route rather than focus on quality I say that the Government is contributing $36.7 million towards reducing nitrogen levels in Lake Taupo a project it is funding with Environment Waikato and the Taupo District Council. It forms the largest project of its type in the history of New Zealand. The Government is contributing $4 million towards building a structure to divert the outflow from the Ohau Channel that links Lakes Rotorua and Rotoiti and it is assisting the improvement of the water quality of Lake Rotoiti. There is much more than that and if the member is really asking for something she should expect to get the answer. 
Jacqui Dean 
: I seek leave to table a picture of a man standing up to his waist in water which is the Labour Government’s answer— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there objection? Yes there is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] The member has displayed the document. She should read the Standing Orders on such matters please. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise a point of order not to question your ruling that you previously made because of course no member would dare to do that but simply to seek a clarification. I raise this point of order because the Green Party like other small parties has a very small number of questions. We have one question per day most days and we have four supplementary questions so we do not have the ability to squander questions as some other parties do. But I questioned whether the Minister answered my specific question and I raised that not because I thought he was trying to evade the question but I genuinely thought he had not heard it properly. Often the noise in this House means that Ministers cannot fully hear questions. I asked one question not a number of questions and I asked a very specific question. It was a point of information; I was not trying to score a political point. I know that that is rare in this House as well. So my question for clarification is: how can I be more specific in relation to your finding than to ask one question—and a very specific question? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Unfortunately in this place good intentions do not get members different rulings from bad intentions in asking questions. I accept that the member had good intentions but he has to be treated the same way as other members in response to their questions. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think that members have to be reminded also that the purpose of supplementary questions is in fact to elucidate through those questions what the primary question was. Obviously that does not always satisfy the member as in this instance but the Minister did actually address the question. It may not as I said have been to the satisfaction of the member. I would also just like to remind members that points of order are used to raise matters of order; they are not used to elucidate an answer through a point of order. 
Urgent Question—Leave to Ask 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Mr Brownlee raised some issues previously. I would like to indicate that if he wants to seek leave again to ask an urgent question—provided it does involve ministerial responsibility—I would now be in a position to reply on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting at the end of ordinary question time. 
Housing—Decision-making Framework 
12.  
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What is the framework within which decisions are made regarding new housing? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for the Environment 
: Decisions on new housing are made within the framework of a council’s district plan. A district plan is developed through a public process. It sets out the environmental issues for the city or district and identifies area or zone-specific objectives policies and methods to address them. Depending on the plan’s provision a resource consent may be required. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What reports has the Minister seen with regard to property developers following due process? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have seen a report that details a meeting at which the Mayor of Waitakere City was threatened that “he could expect trouble” unless the council approved consents for a new Titirangi house. That threat was made by Tim Groser National member of Parliament at a public meeting hosted by John Key. Here is yet another example of John Key not caring how his MPs behave while they blow smoke in the face of the public and due process. At the same meeting Tau Henare said that everything would be simpler if everyone was required to use user-pays. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister’s concluding remarks were impossible to hear in this part of the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I agree. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I ask that those concluding remarks be repeated. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister please do that. I remind Ministers and members that answers should address the question and questions should relate to ministerial responsibility. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Am I to repeat the entire answer Madam Speaker? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No. Could you summarise what the answer was please. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Tim Groser a National member of Parliament threatened the Mayor of Waitakere City at a public meeting hosted by John Key. It was the same meeting at which Tau Henare said that everything would be simpler— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. David Bennett Paula Bennett and Sandra Goudie are warned. I can hear your voices. It is probably unfortunate that you have louder voices than others. I accept that and it is why you are still in the Chamber. But please make your contributions a little lower. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The threat to the Mayor of Waitakere City which was that he could expect trouble unless the council approved consents for the new Titirangi house was made by Tim Groser a National member of Parliament at a public meeting hosted by John Key. It was the same meeting at which Tau Henare said that everything would be simpler for everyone if everything was user-pays. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What credibility should the House give to claims made by Bob Harvey the Mayor of Waitakere City when the High Court found his conduct in respect of the Resource Management Act and Whangamata to be quite unreasonable and the Minister who has made the assertions has a conviction for drinking and driving which is something Mr Groser has never had? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am wondering where ministerial responsibility lies in that question. Would— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am genuinely seeking to know. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You allowed Ruth Dyson to get to her feet and make accusations about the personal conduct— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No she was asked for a report. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
:—which has nothing to do with ministerial responsibilities—of Mr Groser in his application to build a house in Waitakere City. For you to allow that then to say: “Oh!”—but for me to somehow question the credibility of Bob Harvey who we all know is a Labour Party hack— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am quite happy for the Minister to answer the question. As I had heard it before reports were called for. As we know we have been through this with rulings and that is permissible. But would the Minister please address the question. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: There are two points I would like to make in reply to the supplementary question. The first is that none of the information in the report I am relying on was received from Bob Harvey. The threat was made to Bob Harvey and nothing in my report came from him. The second point relates to both his integrity and mine. Neither of us have been charged and convicted of contempt of court. 
Urgent Questions 
TVNZ—Satellite News Coverage Fiji Coup 
1.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: 
What reports has he received about Television New Zealand’s alleged involvement in providing satellite news gathering equipment to facilitate Commodore Frank Bainimarama’s announcing live-to-air his overthrow of the Fijian Government from the Queen Elizabeth Barracks Suva on Tuesday of this week?  
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Broadcasting 
: I think the member’s question does not represent fairly what Television New Zealand (TVNZ) did. During Commodore Bainimarama’s broadcast TVNZ was the only news organisation present with cameras. Fiji TV was present but did not have a camera. TVNZ was requested to provide feed for a range of other news organisations that were present as is quite common in these circumstances including Fiji. A news organisation covering an event of public significance is not necessarily commenting on whether it approves of that. Its duty is to report information of public significance. Clearly the coup is a matter of great public significance both in Fiji and in New Zealand. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister think it credible for him to answer that Fiji TV was present at the commodore’s request without a camera; secondly does he think it reasonable that outside of the normal broadcasting times TVNZ allowed the commodore to broadcast live to the world the fact of his intention to overthrow a democratically elected Government—was that good judgment on the part of TVNZ? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not advised that that is the case. I am advised that other news organisations sought permission to use TVNZ’s visual coverage. For example had a TVNZ news camera been present to observe Dr Jonathan Coleman blowing smoke at and insulting using obscene language a woman I hope that TVNZ would have had the courage to show that on the news to show the character of the member. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think that was necessary— 
Hon Member 
: It’s the truth. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No the last bit was entirely unnecessary in terms of the answer to the question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Are you saying I cannot refer to that member’s conduct as being inappropriate? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am talking about the comment being unnecessary in the context of the answer. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: And that TVNZ should have censored such a matter if he had been filmed doing it? He has got away with it only because it was not filmed. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is enough. [ 
Interruption 
] No there are no more supplementary questions. I refer members to Standing Order 379(3). 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I request that you consider allowing me to ask my supplementary question again because it is a pattern with this Government that whenever it gets embarrassed it just goes off and creates some smokescreens. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is not a point—[ 
Interruption 
] Please be seated! Leave is being sought for another supplementary question. The member is entitled to seek leave of the House for anything. Are you seeking leave for that? That is my understanding. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If I sought leave I would expect it to be declined. I am asking you to consider the answer that Dr Cullen gave and the relevance of it to addressing a question about Fiji— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry; would the member please be seated. I asked the Minister to withdraw and apologise and he did. I dealt with it at the time. [ 
Interruption 
] No he addressed that question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to indicate to the member that if he does seek leave for a further supplementary question the Labour Party will not object. We do not mind that when we are winning. 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. During that interchange Tau Henare made a very unparliamentary comment about the Deputy Prime Minister for which he should be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Which one? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Speaking to the point of order I say that the member accused me of being a liar when I said that Dr Jonathan Coleman had blown smoke in a woman’s face and insulted her with obscene language. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Order! If the member wishes to remain in the House please. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do not think the  
Hansard 
 record will show that I accused the Deputy Prime Minister of being a liar. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No no it was not you. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We have all just heard the Deputy Prime Minister being accused twice. That is completely unacceptable to the House. Mr Tau Henare should apologise and withdraw or he should leave the Chamber. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I am not sure whether the Minister heard but I did withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I did not hear it either but I thank you for assuring the House of that—there was too much noise. The member has withdrawn and apologised. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to ask one further supplementary question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to ask a further supplementary question. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why did the State broadcaster decide to turn up to Queen Elizabeth Barracks at the request of Frank Bainimarama who had no authority to direct anybody other than the threat that he was about to overthrow a Government; and was it good judgment on the part of the broadcaster to assist him in broadcasting his message not only to the Fijian people but to the whole world? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: A press conference was held. Whether or not the person engaged in that was engaged in actions that anybody in this House would approve of is irrelevant to a news organisation being present. News organisations cover all kinds of horrible events. What the member is arguing is that Television New Zealand should have engaged in self-censorship on a matter of international public importance. I might add to that that any picture of Commodore Bainimarama giving a press conference is not likely to help the commodore’s case. 
Appointments 
Ombudsman 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That pursuant to section 8 of the Ombudsmen Act 1975 this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General appoint Melwyn Purefoy Smith of Wellington as an additional Ombudsman for a period of 6 months. 
 A request was made to the Officers of Parliament Committee by the Chief Ombudsman for the appointment of Mel Smith for a 6-month period and the committee was satisfied that the reasons were appropriate in this particular case. Mel Smith has served previously consecutive periods totalling 3½ years and 2 years as an Ombudsman and previously gave distinguished service in the public sector. He is clearly highly qualified to fill this temporary position in the Ombudsmen’s office. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Mr Mel Smith was first appointed an Ombudsman in December 2001 and then reappointed for a 2-year period in June 2003. I spoke on his reappointment on 31 March 2005 which expired in December 2005 and today National has pleasure in supporting the appointment of Mr Smith as an additional Ombudsman for 6 months. The demands on the Ombudsmen’s office are increasing. It is interesting to note that they currently have 1040 files which are live files and possibly the office should be looking at the appointment of a third full-time Ombudsman. It is important that this appointment be made now and I understand that Mr Smith could start next Monday on 11 December. National acknowledges the past commitment of Mr Smith and his expertise and experience necessary for this office. We are indeed indebted to his availability at this time. National has much pleasure in supporting Mr Smith’s appointment. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First endorses all those comments. We have had close liaison and discussions with Mr Smith over the last few years. We find him an affable man a very competent man; he is very conscientious; he is very determined to get to the bottom of a particular issue and we cannot speak highly enough of Mr Smith. We would welcome him being an Ombudsman on a permanent basis but we endorse all the comments that have gone before. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party supports the appointment of Mel Smith. He has a distinguished record not only in his previous work as an Ombudsman but in the justice system and looking at prison conditions which is a major part of the Ombudsmen’s duties. That has developed a bit since the recent passing in the House of the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill which has appointed the Ombudsmen’s office as one of the national preventive mechanisms under the international arrangements and treaties to look at any torture or ill-treatment in our prisons. I think he would be well suited to be part of doing the Ombudsmen’s work in that area. I indicate the importance of the procedure we are going through now of having an appointment made by the House rather than by the executive branch. It does reinforce the independence of the Ombudsmen’s office and it was one of the features in the discussion on the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill that the national preventive mechanisms should be fully independent from the executive and should be responsible primarily to Parliament. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I too want to support the appointment of Mel Smith as a temporary Ombudsman for the third time. He has performed with distinction on two previous occasions. I have had the privilege of working with him in both those roles and also in his earlier career as a public servant. Mel Smith is one of New Zealand’s finest in every respect and he will bring great distinction to this office albeit for the short period of his appointment. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I would like to support the motion to appoint Melwyn Smith as the additional Ombudsman Kaitiaki Mana Tangata for Aotearoa. The distinctive role that the Ombudsman plays in our community was brought home to me in various roles that I have played in chairing Maori cultural committees in prisons sitting on review committees on security within prisons and of course as a member of Parliament through complaints received. The role of being at the receiving end of complaints is an incredibly challenging role with the Office of the Ombudsman receiving up to 6000 complaints a year. It is a role that is disproportionate but absolutely vital for the protection and safeguarding of indigenous rights. If one needed any evidence why one has only to look at the raft of reports that we the Maori Party have presented in this House which describe the status of Maori people in all spheres. 
Earlier this year the United States departmental report on human rights practices in New Zealand was issued by the Bureau of Democracy Human Rights and Labour. The human rights report listed the following issues under prison and detention centre conditions as occurring during the 12-month period ended June 2005. Prison overcrowding was a problem juveniles spent more than 600 detention nights in police cells 11 inmates from Paremoremo prison behaviour management regime were awarded compensation for breaches of their rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and management failings in the “goon squad” allowed the unit to develop an inappropriate militaristic culture. The report concluded that Aotearoa was in particularly bad shape as a result of the disproportionate societal problems for indigenous people. This is the bread and butter work that our Ombudsmen are faced with day in day out. 
We know as well that there are many and varied reasons why a person would go to the Office of the Ombudsman for support and there are many examples where the Ombudsman has investigated complaints on behalf of Maoriwananga and so on. Kahungunu academic Moana Jackson suggested that the Ombudsmen could be both an appeal body and Ombudsmen for Maori in their dealings with the police. As well as that the Ombudsman will deal with Maori in the context of school boards trustees tertiary students social service agencies and any number of Government organisations of any nature. 
I do come as a bearer of good news though. When I started preparing for the debate my research took me to the report of the Ombudsman for the year ended 30 June 2006. In the very first section of that report—indeed the editorial—it states: “It is very pleasing to note that the office is at last making some substantive progress in developing our ongoing interface with Maori. We have received strong support from a number of Maori organisations. We are attempting as opportunity permits to make formal Marae visits to be followed up by informal advice and discussion with individual Maori on matters of concern.” 
The focus that the Ombudsman’s office promotes is not about power over anything or control at all costs. The emphasis is on ensuring that the office is not an alien institution—another agency that helps those who already know how to get help while excluding those who do not. This is an office with a difference—an office of the State that seems to genuinely care about the way in which it can relate to a diverse range of New Zealanders. 
The Maori Party is happy to endorse the appointment of Melwyn Smith on two counts: firstly transparency and accountability. Melwyn Smith’s track record is that it was his view that to ensure the public confidence in any changes arising from the Auditor-General’s report on unlawful advertising expenditure last election the review job should be given to an independent body. His responsiveness to Maori is second to none and this aspect has encouraged us to look favourably at his appointment. There is the commitment of the Chief Ombudsman John Belgrave and the movements made within the office to demonstrate strategic support and the longstanding involvement that Mr Smith himself is associated with in Maori affairs. We have much pleasure in supporting this appointment. 
Motion agreed to. 
Third Readings 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill / Maori Land Amendment Bill the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill the Maori Fisheries Amendment Bill and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This legislation implements Labour’s pledge to introduce a closing date for the submission of historical claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. I will say more about that in a moment. 
I would first like to mention the improvements this legislation makes to several Acts that affect Maori and the management of Maori assets. The legislation addresses matters identified as people have worked through the practical application of the provisions of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act the Maori Fisheries Act and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act. The changes introduced by this legislation will help to ensure that a sound legal framework and infrastructure are in place. That is needed to assist Maori to manage their assets and effectively and efficiently resolve any disputes that may arise. 
Maori are beginning to see the benefits of many years of hard work. There have now been a number of significant Treaty settlements which provide the iwi concerned with a base on which to rebuild their futures. The fisheries settlement allocation processes are being worked through as agreed with iwi and set out under the Maori Fisheries Act. Maori have the people the skills the leadership and the determination to make the best possible use of their resources. I see this vitality and vision throughout New Zealand on many of my regional visits. I see it in iwi organisations I see it in tribal and hapu trusts and incorporations and I see it in local marae committees. I also see it in the variety of new business enterprises that are being developed from Cape Reinga to Rakiura. All those people are working hard to build a better future for their whanau hapu iwi and all of New Zealand. 
It is important that Parliament plays its role by ensuring that the statutory framework is in a good shape to support the endeavours of Maori. That is how Maori purposes bills such as the bill that these bills were divided from make useful contributions. They provide an opportunity to address issues oversights and errors and even to provide the simple updating refinements for which a need inevitably arises from time to time in legislation. 
Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill makes a number of changes to ensure that the Maori Land Court is in a position to deal with a changing environment. This environment includes the expanded jurisdiction introduced by recent legislation such as the Maori Fisheries Act and the Foreshore and Seabed Act. The changes introduced include increasing the maximum number of permanent judges who can be appointed to the Maori Land Court as and when the court’s workload increases. In addition the role of the court in fisheries and aquaculture disputes is clarified. Changes are also made to allow the Chief Judge and the Deputy Chief Judge to better share workloads. Those provisions will help to ensure that the Maori Land Court is well positioned to fulfil its full range of responsibilities. 
There has been criticism from some quarters of the provision to validate decisions made by an acting judge when he sat for a short time beyond the term of his temporary warrant. This is the most practicable way of fixing a mistake made some years ago. The concern of the Government has been for the individuals and whanau affected by the decisions. It is those people who would have to deal with the consequent uncertainty if the decisions are not validated by statute. 
Amendments to the Maori Fisheries Act and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act will help to ensure that the policy intentions that underpin those Acts are implemented as originally intended. 
I come now to the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill which introduces a closing date for the submission of all historical claims. Labour announced in 2005 that it would introduce a closing date for historical claims. This commitment was made then and is being implemented now in the context of a strong and an ongoing commitment to a fair settlements process. It is important for Maori and all of New Zealand that historical Treaty claims are settled as soon as possible. Setting a closing date for submissions will help to identify how many historical claims remain to be settled. That will in turn help in planning for the settlement process and for the time when the process is completed. 
The settlement of historical claims is of huge significance in New Zealand’s history. I have had the privilege of being present when deeds of settlement have been signed. Those are deeply moving occasions. There is a sense of history being made—of the past touching the present. Settlements are also watersheds for the claimant groups involved and for every New Zealander. It is the time when iwi can turn all their energies and talents towards the future and the opportunities the future offers. It is what makes the years of hard work and hard choices worthwhile. The Government wants to ensure that Maori and all of New Zealand can enjoy the benefits of settling the historical claims. The introduction of a closing date will help to achieve that goal. Contemporary claims relating to events after 21 September 1992 will still be able to be made to the Waitangi Tribunal after the closing date for historical claims. 
Before concluding I would like to thank again the Maori Affairs Committee for its consideration of the Maori Purposes Bill and also to thank the other organisations involved. I thank all the members of the committee and the individuals who made submissions on the bill. I commend my own ministry Te PuniKokiri and other agencies for their hard efforts and support. I commend this legislation to the House. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand and speak on the third reading of this legislation. As the Minister has so correctly identified the original bill amended a number of bills and the legislation has been divided into its various parts. 
In any event National supports this legislation. It is true that during both the select committee deliberation and the Committee stage we made comments regarding the retrospective legislation that validates certain decisions made by Judge Norman Smith of the Maori Land Court. We also made comments around the increase in the number of judges from eight to 14 and questioned whether that increase was absolutely necessary. Even though the stated intention of that provision is to assist the Maori Land Court to deal with its increased jurisdiction so far I do not know that that anticipated increased jurisdiction is showing itself to be the case. But no doubt it may very well be so. 
Even though there is to be an increase in the number of judges the advice from officials that the number will not necessarily go to 14 immediately in itself gives us an assurance that we will not have courts overloaded with judges with not enough work or more so without the resources to support them. But if there is the anticipated increase in their workload and if there is a need to fill the 14 positions then I trust that the Minister over the coming 2 years will make sure there are sufficient resources to support that increase. 
On the issue of the closing-off date for the submission of Treaty of Waitangi claims I heard the Minister say that it was part of the Government’s election brief that it would implement that. I just want to add that National saw the need for such a provision to become part of the Treaty settlement process back in 2002 and we proposed it in our policy then. In 2002 after 10 years of Treaty settlements it had become very clear to us even though we were in Opposition that in order for any Government of the day to be able to plan properly and efficiently for the proper administration of claims and for the due settlement of claims at some point in time it would have to have a reasonably clear picture of what lay ahead. 
 That is only fair not just to the Government but to the people of New Zealand. It is also fair to claimants so they know that there is a plan in place and that this will not just happen willy-nilly as claims arise and keep on being filed. So National certainly supports the closing-off date particularly since it was a policy position of ours at least 4 years ago. 
It is important—and I know that the Minister Parekura Horomia stated this very clearly—to know that we are talking only about the submission or lodging of claims. The provisions in this legislation have no impact whatsoever on when settlement claims might be completed in the future—might finally be concluded. That we all hope will still happen in a timely fashion and the provision for a closing-off date is introduced to assist that. I guess we all hope—mostly for the claimants—that the end is in sight sooner rather than later. 
I have to agree with one of the Government speakers yesterday Dover Samuels. There is a deep wish from Maori to have their claims settled. Yes they have concerns about some of the processes involved in the settlement of claims but there is no doubt in my mind particularly with some of the claims already having been settled—those of NgaiTahu and Tainui back in the 1990s for instance—that tribes do not want claims settled over a long time frame; they would like them settled now. If we look at what has happened with those tribes that have settled we see the way they have been able to put grievance behind them and see into and plan for the future. There is real benefit to everybody in having the claims process properly prepared for and properly managed. As I say this provision in the legislation for a closing-off date is a very important part of that process. 
I suppose I support the comments the Minister made about the efficient functioning of the Maori Land Court which the provisions in this legislation are designed to assist. It is true that so much of Maori Land Court activity either helps or hinders our people in the efficient management of their assets—their land assets and more recently their fisheries assets. But let us hope that not too many disputes go to the Maori Land Court and that Maori in their wisdom will find ways to be more consultative with each other and avoid the waste of time energy and money. There is cost—there will always be a need for lawyers no doubt. Lawyers manage to find their way into most activities. Let us hope Maori can avoid all of that time and cost and can settle any disputes in a more cooperative fashion. 
I agree that proper functioning of the courts to enable iwi and Maori communities to manage their assets properly is crucial. It is crucial to the development of our people in going forward. Like the Minister we all go around the country constantly and see what is happening in our Maori communities and what we find is just great. I have to say that sometimes despite legislation Maori manage to move forward anyway. If these provisions help them to do that better then that is absolutely wonderful. 
I add a note that although I support the Minister’s comments about the businesses our people’s enterprises and all of those things that are occurring—they are happening—I say that development also includes education skill acquisition and the whole variety of activities our people are involved in. The Minister should keep in mind that none of those are being affected by this legislation before us today. In terms of underachievement in Maori communities I tell members that at least 20 to 30 percent of our people are not in any way at all constructively one could say participating in our economy and in New Zealand society. That is an indictment on the Labour Government that has been in power for 7 years and that actually has done very little to address the problems of that segment of our people. 
Thankfully businesses will grow because our people are getting a lot smarter and more knowledgable about managing their assets. But the input of the Government and of the Minister of Maori Affairs in particular has been lacking in solutions in areas such as say South Auckland and other parts of New Zealand where too many of our children are living in homes that do not let them see any light towards a productive adulthood. The Minister should turn his attention to these things in the coming year and he should have a good think about them over the Christmas holidays. Let us see what he comes up with to ensure that the issues of that grouping of our people are addressed and that those who are successful at their businesses go ahead and become even better. 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 I take this opportunity to take a call in the third reading of this Maori purposes legislation. As chair of the Maori Affairs Committee I intend to share some of the views formed by members in their deliberation and consideration of this legislation. 
I move toward the issues surrounding the validation of decisions and the concern raised by in particular National members about that validation being retrospective. I suppose that the questions we pondered on were to some degree about the fairness of those decisions given that the judge at the time did not realise he was making those decisions without the appropriate warrant and about whether there was justification to further that concern by sharing it with those affected by those decisions. There was quite a lengthy debate—and that is reflected in National’s view in the commentary—but the majority of members focused specifically on the fact that those decisions were done in good faith and that the issues from the subsequent validation which arose from those decisions that did affect people in the transfer of land have moved on since then. 
To open up that can of worms would have been too negative simply because at the end of the day the validation would give these people some certainty and enable them to continue with their lives without the disruption and possible costs that could otherwise result. I believe that the consensus of the committee concerning that issue—that we proceed under that bill to validate—was the proper one. 
I acknowledge that that part of the amendment increases the number of judges from eight to 14 it also clarifies the procedure and discretion of the Maori Land Court in relation to its jurisdiction under the Maori Fisheries Act and it provides for the Chief Judge duties to be carried out by the Deputy Chief Judge. There was some consensus from committee members in endorsing the position of that particular amendment. 
On the issues surrounding the cut-off date we received in all about 20 submissions. There were mixed feelings in relation to support and non-support of this particular issue. Quite rightly the matter of the cut-off date was a policy that Labour had led into the previous election with. The cut-off date for the submission of historical Treaty claims is 1 September 2008 and that gives us another 20 months’ lead-in. There is still a lot of time for iwi and groups to submit their historical claims. 
MetiriaTurei raised yesterday that she felt a better date would be 2050. But at the end of the day I think this policy is about setting up a time frame so that preparations can be made and claimant groups can be confident that their claim once it is heard has the appropriate historical data. I think if we left it until 2050 that would just be extending the time out unnecessarily. This part of the amendment is about getting to a point so that people can move on deal with their future and just get on with things. 
Let us be reminded that the provision does not prevent a historical claim submitted on or before 1 October from being amended in any way after 1 September 2008. I think that is a point to be raised. It is primarily designed to ensure that the claims are submitted before September 2008 but if there is any amendment that claimant groups consider beyond the date of 2008 they are still entitled to make those amendments. I think that will be helpful as we move into those changes. 
Another area of change is to do with the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act. Clause 27 of the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill amends section 20 by restricting the definition of pre-commencement space to include areas subject to permits for exclusive occupation of space for aquaculture activities including spat gathering but to exclude areas subject to permits for free gathering of spat. That had been an ongoing issue that was raised with the committee on many occasions and this amendment comes a long way towards addressing those concerns. 
Clause 22 of the Maori Fisheries Amendment Bill inserts a heading and new sections into the Maori Fisheries Act. These sections provide prospectivity for the adjustment of the recorded number of quota shares if there is a reduction in the number available through the application of section 23 of the Act. We heard quite an extensive submission from Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd in relation to the disparity caused by the Maori Fisheries Act in that based on the criteria their allocation to iwi was substantially reduced. There was a real need to make that adjustment to give some satisfaction that the iwi groups were getting their appropriate allocation. 
Throughout the discussion the matter was also raised in relation to the stocks of red crab that the definition for inner-coastal and outer-coastal needed to be addressed as well. Furthermore the amendments ensure that the legislation reflects the necessary quota changes and balances that up. So the validation on any applications made under section 157 of the Maori Fisheries Act by Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Ltd before the commencement of the bill and any registration effected by the chief executive under section 152 must be treated as having been made or effected in compliance with the reduced number of quota shares provided for by the amendments made in the schedule. 
Finally I think it is appropriate that I acknowledge the work that committee members have exercised in their consideration of this legislation. It was good to see a committee that was genuinely working together to try to achieve the best outcome. I also acknowledge the quality advice that we heard from all officials and assistants. I commend these bills to the House. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 While everybody is being very very nice to the Minister of Maori Affairs let me break with tradition. 
Nobody had a problem with the amendments in the original bill the Maori Purposes Bill to the Maori Fisheries Amendment Act and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act—those were basically agreed with within about 5 or 10 minutes. There was some interesting discussion about the issue of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 specifying a closing date for claims. I for one my colleague Georgina te Heuheu and the other members of the National Party think it is imperative we do have a closing-off date—not so that we get the issue out of our minds but so that both parties are pushed along the road to quick and sustainable settlements. National had absolutely no problem in supporting the introduction of a closing date. Certainly claimants will be allowed to amend submitted claims up to and including 1 September 2008. I am sure a number of people who have already submitted claims to the Waitangi Tribunal will take another look at and amend their claims. 
The issue for me was the validation of decisions made by former Deputy Chief Judge Norman Smith. The Minister of Maori Affairs said in his third reading speech—I am not sure whether he remembers it—that the judge served only a short time and he basically gave the impression that it was not too much of a to-do. But 80-odd cases were heard by the judge who did not have a warrant. The Minister got up in the House and said that the Government’s main concern was for those whom the decisions affected. Well all I can say is “Yeah right!”. If that were the case then the Minister would have got off his frame tracked down every one of those people who were involved in those cases and had the decency to tell those people—regardless of whether the decisions were right or wrong in law— 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: They were told. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh so that does not matter then? Even the former member for Waiariki— 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: They were told. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No they were not told. The former member for Waiariki says that every one of those people was told. Well they were not told and we heard that in the Maori Affairs Committee. We asked the question: “Have these people been told? Have they been informed?”. The answer was a big fat no. The member should not lead the House to believe that all those people were informed because they were not. The big issue for me is that those people were not informed that the judge actually did not have a warrant. I commend the judge for narking on himself. I commend the judge for figuring out that he did not have a warrant and that he had better do the right thing and inform the authorities so to speak. 
But let us move now to an area that I think needs some discussion: the Maori Purposes Bill. For just on 7 years we have had a Minister of Maori Affairs who has brought to the House only an omnibus bill which did not have any real significance in terms of moving Maori people—as my colleague Georgina te Heuheu says—off the poverty lines in South Auckland off the poverty lines in all other places and into quality education and quality jobs. As my colleague Georgina te Heuheu says it is normally the case that Maori do that regardless of what happens in this place. All the Minister could bring to the House was a fix-up bill—because that is all it was a fix-up bill. If the Minister and the Government had thought about the mana and the place of the Treaty of Waitangi then they would have brought to this House a separate bill called the “Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill”. Even though the original bill was split in the Committee stage into four separate bills which we are now looking at it is a lazy way of doing it. It is an absolutely lazy way of bringing to the House important legislation and it should never ever have happened. The validation was included in the Maori Purposes Bill in order to sweep under the carpet the errors in the system hoping nobody would notice. There should have been four separate pieces of legislation from the start. 
I want to pick the Minister up on what he said that leads me to my conviction of what I have just said. He said that the Maori Purposes Bill was mainly used for oversights and errors. If it was for oversights and errors why not call it the “Maori Oversights and Errors Bill”? Why will Acts like Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and the Treaty of Waitangi Act include what are now as far as I am concerned oversights and errors legislation? 
If in the 7 years that the Minister of Maori Affairs has been in the job he had wanted to have a look at Te Ture Whenua Maori Act how it has developed and whether we need to have some changes he should have brought something like that to the House instead of leaving it first to the Opposition to do his job for him and second to those in our community who have a whole range of issues about Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to bring those to the House. He should not use the excuse that the Maori Purposes Bill was just an oversights and errors bill. The Minister did Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 a disservice by putting all these little bits and pieces into—as he said in the House this afternoon—an oversights and errors bill. 
Lastly I am disappointed that National members are basically being forced into supporting this legislation. We certainly do not support the part of this legislation that validates the judge’s decisions made when he had no warrant. We have always had that view. During the select committee consideration and during the Committee stage we were opposed to that one part of the legislation. So we will reluctantly support this legislation in its third reading but we tell the Minister that there is now a member of the National Party with responsibility for Te PuniKokiri—the Hon Georgina te Heuheu—who will be on the Minister’s tail every 5 minutes of the day and every 5 minutes of the night. On the weekends and during the holidays when he is putting his feet up we will be on the job because for the last 7 years no one has been on the job. There has been a big sign outside the office of the Minister of Maori Affairs saying: “Vacant! No work here today.” That is about to change. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First in the third readings of the bills from the Maori Purposes Bill. I rise to deliver a speech—and I hope I do so faithfully—on behalf of my colleague Pita Paraone. 
The Maori Purposes Bill was duly considered by the Maori Affairs Committee and it proposed amendments to the following Acts: the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004. A number of submissions were made by members of the public many of whom expressed their opposition to the amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 setting a closing date for the lodgment and submission of historical Treaty claims to the Waitangi Tribunal. Some submitters expressed concern that there had not been an opportunity for consultation with iwi and hapu about this matter and others submitted that there be no closing date. Of course the date the legislation has identified as the closing date for the submission of historical claims is 1 September 2008. 
The setting of a time frame by which claims should be lodged is something we in New Zealand First support. In fact it is the policy of our party notwithstanding that some other parties claim a similar policy. Indeed as we now know through the publication of that great exposé entitled  
The Hollow Men 
 we now have proof of what we knew all along—and what some National members have privately confessed—that the National Party had simply been plagiarising New Zealand First policy manifestoes. As the old warhorse Murray McCully said one day half in jest half in sincerity National was simply conducting its research off the New Zealand First website in preparation for the forthcoming election. It is all history now. Don Brash has done his dash and we are moving on. 
It is important for those wishing to make claims to know that this amendment is about the lodgment of claims only. It is not about when claims will be settled or about applications needing to be fully researched before their lodgment—and I recall Pita Paraone making that point during the Committee stage. It is about the closing date for claims being lodged not for their settlement. New Zealand First would be concerned if the date were the date for claims to be settled by as it would raise the issue of whether there is bureaucratic capacity to handle that. Just as important it could affect the durability of the settlement not least the quality of the settlement and I want to make that point very very clear. 
What is a historical claim? This legislation defines that as one that relates to events that occurred prior to 21 September 1992—the date on which the then National Government decided the principles to be used for the settling of historical claims. Of course the principles referred to should not be confused with those principles that New Zealand First members have sought to have deleted from legislation by way of a member’s bill sponsored by our colleague Doug Woolerton. 
During the Committee stage it was proposed by the Greens that the date of 21 September 1992 be altered to 1 January 1841. Of course that was their attempt to nullify the intent of the bill. I do not question the Greens’ sincerity as to why they oppose the 1992 date or why they want that other date to be inserted—we just have a differing view. 
We also heard from the Maori Party in the course of this debate. As an argument not to support this legislation Maori members in the House were asked to indicate whether they thought our tupuna who had signed the Treaty would have done so if they had known there would be a cut-off date for the lodging of claims. I recall that speech—I heard it on the radio. Members were asked to put up their hands if they agreed. There are a couple of simple points. Firstly—I ask members to forgive me—the Treaty that our tupuna were asked to sign was not about claims. Let me go one step further than the notes that my honourable colleague has written here. At the time the Treaty was signed there were no breaches for the Treaty had not been signed—let alone there not having been the opportunity to breach it. Secondly there were no protocols or procedures by which people could have lodged a claim against a breach. So the questions put in debate were spurious and nonsensical. 
New Zealand First has the view that support for this part of the legislation will allow us as a nation—and that includes Maori—to move forward as a nation with more certainty than we would have without this legislation. It will also allow our descendants not to be locked into a time warp that sees them forever in grievance mode as some members in this House would have them be. Indeed we suspect some members in this House want that grievance mode to remain because it gives them a reason to continue to be here. 
Similarly we in New Zealand First recognise the need for the appointment of more judges for the Maori Land Court in order to deal with in a more timely fashion the extra work that recent legislation will bring to bear on the court. We have always said that—Winston Peters has always said that. We will therefore support this provision as well. Similarly we support the Chief Judge in the Maori Land Court having the authority to delegate his or her existing power function or duty to the Deputy Chief Judge. In November 2000 the then Deputy Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court operated after his warrant had expired. This legislation seeks to validate court orders made by that learned judge and it is an eminently sensible thing to do given the situation we are now faced with. 
Although approximately 80 different orders were involved we in New Zealand First do not subscribe to the notion that those affected by those orders have had their rights to justice interfered with as alleged by some who oppose the legislation. Our support is founded on the advice that the validation of these orders will not affect the ability of parties to make an application under the principal Act if a mistake or omission is found or thought to have been found and on the knowledge that had there been concern at the time of making these orders the affected parties held the ability to seek a rehearing and/or appeal of the decision at the time. 
My colleague Pita Paraone notes that amendments to the Maori Fisheries Act 2004 and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 will help give true intent to these original settlements by the alteration of quota management areas and will reclassify red crab stocks. 
I conclude by adding to the comments of my colleague who sat on the select committee. There are varying comments and differing views on this legislation; that is clear. We all stand here as members of Parliament for our respective parties which are built and based on differing philosophies differing views differing policies and differing ideologies to support those people who vote for us. We are different. We have different views. Of the speeches I heard I commend my whanaunga MetiriaTurei and the Greens for their views that they have expressed eloquently. We simply differ in our opinions. I commend them for the honesty and sincerity of the arguments they have put forward. 
I add to my colleague’s comments by saying that we in New Zealand First sincerely believe that we need to give the nation the security of knowing when claim lodgments will come to an end. We look forward to the day when we as a nation start looking forward rather than looking in our rear-view mirror at our history. We must never forget our history and we must learn from it but we must not live there we must not dwell there for that above all will retard our progress forward. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will not support any kind of race-hate agenda. The National Party has promoted a race-hate agenda. The Labour Government is enacting this agenda in this legislation and every party that supports this legislation supports that agenda. The Green Party does not and we will oppose this legislation. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 As a new MP I have used this first year to familiarise myself with the separation of powers between the judiciary the executive and the legislature. I have immersed myself in parliamentary business and taken every opportunity to develop my craft. In the process of updating my knowledge of protocols and conventions I came across a masterpiece. The author was Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville the book was  
Democracy in America 
 and the point was the moral power of the majority. Over a century ago in 1835 de Tocqueville released a classic publication that described democracy as tending to devolve towards a tyranny of the majority. In simple terms the book describes the situation in which a majority might use its strength in Government to ride roughshod over the rights of minorities. The idea of a tyranny of the majority implies that the number of legislators is more important than their quality. The next stage of the sequence is the tyranny of the legislature which suffers from exposure to the whims of the majority. 
Last night this Parliament saw the force of de Tocqueville’s teachings enacted through the means of the original Maori Purposes Bill. Clause by clause the Green Party and the Maori Party rose to recommend that specific problematic clauses of this bill be deleted or amended. Clause by clause the moral majority ruled the amendments out of order or voted them down one by one. 
The original Maori Purposes Bill contained a raft of provisions of fundamental importance for tangata whenua and indeed for the future of our nation as we consider the impact of this legislation upon our obligations under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The central sticking point of this whole theatre was Part 2 of the original bill which inflicted changes to the Treaty of Waitangi Act and imposed an arbitrary definition of a historical claim and a final lodging date for historical claims. These interventions would impact widely but there was no consultation with the Maori partners to the Treaty. 
The arbitrary and politically contrived imposition of a final submission date for historical claims without prior discussion with and agreement from Maori parties to the Treaty is yet another if not the most severe example of a Government prepared to run roughshod over Maori for any price—indeed for the price of Government. That election promise of plucking a date out of the air and saying “That’s it!” will neither enhance nor diminish opportunities for Maori to complete settlements of Treaty claims but it will have a significant impact on the Crown’s obligations to Maori under the Treaty. It is a case of one partner—the Crown—imposing the rule of law of its parliamentary majority over the other the Maori which is a classic example of “might is right”. 
There is an obvious risk that to effect change in any part of the current responsibilities under the Treaty without being aware of the consequences to the whole would entail further erosion of the status of Maori and the protection of Maori interests. The Maori Party believes that any and every action of the Crown that affects our capacity to enact the Treaty must be discussed and shared with both partners to the Treaty. The courts have found that an aspect of the Treaty obligation to act in good faith is a duty to make informed decisions through consultation. 
The Waitangi Tribunal has also emphasised the value and utility of consultation in upholding and strengthening the Treaty partnership. So it would seem that we are all singing off the same song sheet. It is critical that informed debate and proper process should occur to accord due respect to the very constitutional framework within which Aotearoa sits. We believe that consultation should have taken place to ensure that tangata whenua were able to come to the table as equals empowered to discuss the implications without having to face a hasty and predetermined position dreamt up by officials. 
So exactly what does this Government believe constitutes consultation on this legislation coming from the Maori Purposes Bill? There were 20 submissions; that was its scale. So we wrote to the Minister of Maori Affairs and we met with the Minister of Maori Affairs—the “Minister of No Change”. When we turned to those 20 submissions we read that the overwhelming—18 out of 20 submissions—and consistent message from the public was to demand consultation with tangata whenua about the proposed changes. During the select committee hearings I therefore sought leave for Part 2 of the original bill to be put to the side until consultation had occurred. Leave was denied. Well we are a resolute bunch so undeterred by another rejection we came to this House armed with amendments to omit Part 2 to omit clauses 16 and 18 and even to put up a compromise position to omit the final closing date of “1 September 2008” and to substitute “after 1 September 2020”. 
My colleague Te Ururoa Flavell speaking in te reo Maori urged Parliament to consider in the interests of due justice and the pursuit of nationhood that talking with the Treaty partner was a very good starting point for progress. The member for Te Tai Tokerau stood and asked all Maori present in the Chamber to raise their hands if they thought their tipuna believed there would be a date imposed for lodging claims to Treaty settlements. No hands were raised. That vote was ruled out of order. Another vote was put but voted down. There were 107 votes opposed and 10 in support. Over and over again the tyranny of the majority overpowered Treaty justice. 
It was not just on the sections pertaining to the Treaty of Waitangi Act that the axe fell. We turned our attention towards the procedures and discretion of the Maori Land Court as provided for in the revisions of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993. I want to correct the myth that the Maori Land Court is somehow a vehicle for privileging Maori in their own court. Indeed according to Sir Hugh Kawharu it is far from being our own court. He said it is “a veritable engine of destruction for any tribe’s tenure of land anywhere”. Like this very Parliament the Maori Land Court will always be haunted by the shame of its role in facilitating the Crown purchase and confiscation of Maori land back in the 1860s. Despite that history however the Maori Land Court today now has exceptional talent and expertise serving on its bench. We proposed an amendment therefore that would have enabled judges appointed to the Maori Land Court to preside also in the District Court if agreed to by the Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court. Again the amendment was overturned—ruled out of court so to speak. 
The Government’s extraordinarily weak consultation on this legislation was deplorable. What is wrong with talking with the people? Why will the Government not consult fairly? This is colonial behaviour over and over again. Everything is totally manipulated to suit the majority in this House without regard to an authentic view from Maori. The fact is that the Treaty settlement process is a complete farce and this legislation will make it even more so. Plonking a rigid deadline into this context assumes that people are resourced and able to identify themselves with a Wai claim by 2008 with little or no evidence to justify that. Every solution and every compromise that we and the Green Party have submitted to this House has been squashed under the tyranny of the majority. But the tyranny of legislation will not proceed unhampered. 
We mourn this day as yet another when justice has been denied and come the next election we will inform the Maori people of how the Maori members of the Government voted. We will not have to indulge in spin as they will no doubt have to. All we will have to do is give the people a copy of  
Hansard 
 and they will be able to see it for themselves. Thank you. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak to the third readings of the bills arising from the Maori Purposes Bill. United Future does not enjoy representation on the Maori Affairs Committee; therefore we have had to rely on the report from the select committee and discussions with committee members. 
When I read the early draft of the original bill I was not surprised at what turned out to be its controversial part. It sort of jumped out at me. However United Future has always supported the establishment of a closing date for lodging claims. Perhaps our only question regarding this provision was about the time frame being a little shorter than we personally would have recommended. Our policy talked about it being 2010. I have talked to members of the select committee and asked them whether in the current environment they feel 2008 is a fair date. I was assured certainly by National and Labour MPs that they feel comfortable with that being established as the date. 
We certainly support the provisions to build the capacity of the Maori Land Court. We think that is a noble idea and should be advanced. We also support the clearer definition that is now going to be given as to what constitutes historical claims. We are pleased about the added definition in that area and also that the closing date does not preclude current claims having amendments made to them. I think that is a necessary provision. We do of course support the amendments to both the Maori Fisheries Act and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act. 
I did not intend to take a long call but I just want to say that I personally believe in the contemporary relevance of the Treaty. I feel that until we as a nation address historical grievances it will be very difficult to convince a large number of our citizens of that fact. United Future continues to support any move by the Government to better resource the work of the tribunal to enable greater self-determination for those iwis still awaiting settlement. We support this bill. 
SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Obviously I arise to support the inevitable passage of this legislation. There are three things I would like us to bear in mind. This legislation is a statement of how difficult challenging but inevitably rewarding it is to be progressive. 
First I heard earlier this afternoon the concerns of our colleagues in the Maori Party who talked in very florid—should I say treacherous—language about tyranny. I say to them: “Do not come to this House and use the language of tyranny when you refuse to stand and oppose but rather condone the coup in Fiji. And do not dress up that double standard with the language of indigenous rights. That brings into dispute the proud tradition of our tupuna in relation to the Treaty—the proud tradition that we as celebrators of the democratic franchise have fought for held and celebrated in this House every day. There is no tyranny in Aotearoa that you can speak of if you tolerate the tyranny we are seeing through the barrel of a gun in Fiji.” 
Secondly this legislation states the inevitable. The inevitable is claims for compensation because historical grievances are drawing to an end. The focus of our young people and the leadership of each tribe must be on how to enlarge the pie for all New Zealanders. What stirring of pride there was for the brief period of time when we saw the potential of the great stadium that was never to be—and could not be—called Stadium Aotearoa. That is the sort of vision that this legislation is based on. It is not one that locks us into constantly arguing about the ills of colonialism; it is one that says we must rise above that bout of historical discord and focus on our role in the globe. We will never go there by listening to dated tedious predictable speeches that lack inspiration originality and freshness and that are undermined by double standards and a willingness to condone the coup of Fiji. 
The third thing is that this legislation will provide a very good choice for the voters in a couple of years’ time. I doubt whether those members will actually be back because as a consequence of their shoddy and very disappointing speeches in this House there will in my view be one less Maori seat rather than one more. 
This legislation is the seed for the future—an end to discord an investment in the future. This will free our young people from that tripe we hear every day about colonialism and grievance breeding a festering sore in the minds of our young people that somehow by dwelling on the injustices of history we will have a brighter future. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill / Maori Land Amendment Bill the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill the Maori Fisheries Amendment Bill and the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 104 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 43; New Zealand First 7; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 3. 
Bills read a third time. 
Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and  Validation) Bill (No 2) 
Second Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. The bill confirms and validates 18 Orders in Council. It must be enacted by 31 December to avoid the subordinate legislation lapsing. The bill was referred to the Regulations Review Committee on 9 November 2006. The committee called for explanations by the seven departments administering the 18 orders. These orders cover rates of annual increase in social security benefits New Zealand superannuation and war pensions; orders made under the Customs and Excise Act; orders made under the Tariff Act; and a range of orders made under the Commodity Levies Act. The committee was satisfied with those explanations and presented its report on 27 November recommending that the bill be passed without amendment. I thank the select committee for its expeditious consideration of this bill under the excellent chairmanship of Dr Richard Worth—whose reward for this sadly was to be demoted in the reshuffle of the National Party. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) and in speaking to this very interesting—and not particularly controversial I must say—bill I will say at the outset that National does support it. By way of background these types of bills are introduced annually to confirm and/or validate subordinate legislation. Subordinate legislation may need to be confirmed to avoid the effect of what are commonly called sunset clauses which basically provide that legislation regulations and orders in subordinate legislation will be deemed to be revoked or will expire on a certain date unless confirmed or validated before that expiry date by Act of this House. This bill therefore confirms the regulations specified in the bill in order to avoid automatic revocation. 
As my learned colleague Dr Worth has mentioned in previous years when he has been given the same wonderful opportunity to speak on Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) bills “this is not bowel-gripping legislation; it is technical and formal.” It is important and it does give the House the opportunity to consider the policy that lies behind the regulations or orders being confirmed. We have heard that in this case we are asked to confirm and validate regulations and orders under several Acts as detailed in Part 2: the Biosecurity Act Commodity Levies Act Customs and Excise Act New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act Social Security Act Road User Charges Act Tariff Act and War Pensions Act. 
Some of the orders being confirmed and validated are under the Commodity Levies Act and relate to nashi Asian pears navel oranges asparagus arable crops maize—though not GM contaminated maize—and dredge oysters. Although it all may sound a veritable feast it is important to realise that in these cases the producers—the industries—have been or should have been properly consulted and proper voting would have taken place as to the amount of such levies. The levies are usually then payable to the industry organisation to finance various activities to the benefit of that industry. 
Some of the orders or regulations merely reflect movements in the consumer price index—for example superannuation and war pensions. Similarly some of the orders under the Customs and Excise Act also reflect consumer price index movements although not all do so. For example we have the Customs Import Prohibition (Toothfish) Order and Customs Export Prohibition (Toothfish) Order which merely continue the import and export prohibitions on toothfish—whatever they may be. 
Two of the orders covered by this bill impose biosecurity levies and one increases the rate of road-user charges. I will spend a little bit of time elaborating on the road-user charges issue. Under the Road User Charges Act the rates of road-user charges may be reduced or increased from time to time. Where such an order is made on or before 30 June in any year that order will expire on 31 December of that year unless it is expressly validated or confirmed by Act of Parliament. Where such an order is made after 1 July in any year that order will expire on 31 December of the following year unless similarly it is expressly validated or confirmed by Act of Parliament. The particular order that we are now validating and confirming came into effect on 1 April this year and therefore must be validated by the end of this year; hence the bill before the House. This particular road-user charges order increased the rate of charges for certain distance licences and also certain supplementary licences. We all know what road-user charges are used for or should be used for and to which vehicles they should apply. What I would like to ask albeit rhetorically is what would happen if Parliament did not actually confirm and validate the road-user charges order. Presumably that order would lapse and we would effectively do away with road-user charges completely. Having said that in any event let us hope that these increased road-user charges may in some way result in better roading which we have not yet seen under the current Government. 
These regulations have been scrutinised by the very hard-working and enthusiastic Regulations Review Committee—a select committee that I have had the privilege of being on and one that I do believe every member of Parliament should have a go at being on. It gives a useful insight into the making of regulations and orders subordinate legislation delegated legislation “Henry VIII” clauses etc. This bill covers a somewhat eclectic range of issues. As I have stated it confirms the stated orders that would otherwise lapse. It is a technical and formal bill but it is also the opportunity to consider the policy behind the regulations. National supports the bill. 
Bill read a second time. 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I do not want to forgo the opportunity to speak on the third reading of this wonderfully exciting bill! I am not going to repeat what I said in my speech on the second reading except to say that although it is a formal and technical bill it nonetheless is a very important bill. It is important to look at the policy behind the regulations. It is also a bill that has to be passed before the end of the year to avoid the orders and various regulations mentioned in the bill actually lapsing. National supports the third reading. 
Bill read a third time. 
Protection of Personal and Property Rights  Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 I move  
That the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Social Services Committee. This bill amends Part 9 of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. 
 Our Government has identified elder abuse and neglect as one of five critical social issues for priority inter-agency action over the coming years. This bill is designed to prevent the abuse and neglect of older people through the misuse of enduring powers of attorney. It strengthens the provisions relating to enduring powers of attorney so that the welfare and rights of vulnerable people are better protected. The bill is based on the principle that their welfare and interests should be the first and paramount consideration. 
The purpose of the enduring power of attorney provisions is to allow mentally capable adults to make private arrangements for their personal care and welfare and for the management of their property affairs in the event that they lose the capacity to look after those matters themselves. An enduring power of attorney is a document signed by both a donor and an attorney. The donor grants the power to the attorney. A personal care and welfare enduring power of attorney is usually a family member or friend. An enduring power of attorney is based on the donor’s trust that the attorney will carry out the wishes of the donor and keep his or her welfare and interests paramount. 
Setting up an enduring power of attorney is relatively straightforward and people often do this at the same time that they make their wills. It is a private arrangement that maintains and promotes the autonomy of the donor by ensuring the donor’s wishes are carried out when unable to make decisions for himself or herself. In the absence of an established enduring power of attorney the Family Court can appoint a welfare guardian or a property manager. However court-appointed welfare guardians and property managers are less likely to know a donor’s express wishes in terms of managing his or her care and welfare or assets and income. 
In 2001 the New Zealand Law Commission published a report on the misuse of enduring powers of attorney. The Law Commission found that a significant majority of attorneys act judiciously and honestly under the current enduring power of attorney provisions but that these provisions have not prevented or deterred unscrupulous attorneys from abusing or misusing their authority. The Law Commission identified many ways that attorneys can misuse their powers. These included neglect of the donor embezzlement bullying and failure to consult. The commission also identified abuses in relation to the initial granting of an enduring power of attorney such as the donor feeling under duress the failure to explain the implications of the powers given to the attorney or an enduring power of attorney being entered into when the donor had already lost the capacity to understand what he or she was signing. 
This bill will tighten requirements around the creation of an enduring power of attorney clarify the process of activating an enduring power of attorney tighten provisions relating to gifting in the context of an enduring power of attorney and provide easier access to the courts for anyone with concerns about an attorney’s actions. This bill requires that every new enduring power of attorney is witnessed by somebody who has been appointed by the donor independently of the attorney and is a lawyer or specifically authorised officer of a trustee corporation. The witness must also certify that the effect and implications of the enduring power of attorney have been explained to the donor independently of the attorney before he or she signs. In many cases donors are still capable of meaningfully contributing to day-to-day decisions about their personal care welfare and property and they should be encouraged to do so. 
This bill explicitly states that an attorney must act in the donor’s best interests and attorneys are obligated to consult with the donor and other persons identified by the donor where practicable. Attorneys are to encourage donors to make any decisions about their personal care and welfare or property affairs that they are capable of making. 
This bill makes several changes relating to the assessment of mental incapacity and when an attorney can act under an enduring power of attorney. First it inserts a presumption of competence to make Part 9 of the Act consistent with the other parts dealing with the appointment of property managers and welfare guardians. Second the bill amends the threshold of “mentally incapable” applicable to personal care and welfare enduring powers of attorney to remove the uncertainty around this definition. Third the bill amends the Act to provide that in certain matters attorneys can act only where a relevant health practitioner has certified that the donor is mentally incapable. For a personal care and welfare attorney this relates only to significant life decisions. This change will prevent premature and inappropriate activation of enduring powers of attorney. 
Misuse of an enduring power of attorney has often involved exploitation of section 107 of the Act which currently allows attorneys to act for the benefit of themselves or persons other than the donor if the donor might be expected to provide for the needs of the attorney or those other persons. Misuse can occur when an attorney assumes either honestly or dishonestly that the donor would have made greater provision than the donor actually intended. Attorneys can also misuse their powers by recovering excessive expenses or by loaning money to themselves or to others. When an attorney misuses the gifting cost recovery or benefiting powers through embezzlement mismanagement or fraud this can cause considerable financial and personal harm to the donor. 
This bill replaces section 107 with a new provision that prevents an attorney from benefiting themselves or others who are recovering expenses or making loans of the donor’s property unless this has been explicitly specified by the donor or authorised by the Family Court. This new provision will require donors to make their intentions clear about a number of matters including their future gifting wishes before signing an enduring power of attorney. Having the donor’s specific wishes and intentions documented will make it easier for attorneys to be clear about their obligations and any restrictions on their behaviour. Should an attorney’s actions be challenged by a third party it will be easier to identify any deviation from the donor’s authority. This new section will apply only to enduring powers of attorney made after the bill becomes law. 
The bill extends the list of people who can apply to the Family Court without leave to include a range of third parties like social workers medical practitioners and relatives. If a person has concerns about actions under an enduring power of attorney an application form will be prescribed under Family Court rules to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. Any application made on the form will trigger existing provisions in the Act which include the court appointing a lawyer to act for the donor. 
Vulnerable older people require protection under the law and deserve that protection. The law should as far as practicable prevent abuse and present opportunities for redress. These legislative amendments will help to ensure that vulnerable older people and disabled people have greater protections under the law in relation to establishing enduring powers of attorney that donors’ wishes are carried out and that their personal care and welfare is safeguarded. I commend this bill to the House. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 In speaking to this Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill which in the industry is referred to colloquially as the Triple PR Act I think it is interesting to backtrack as to why the principal Act was originally enacted in 1998. 
The Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act basically provides for enduring powers of attorney to be given in relation both to property and to personal care and welfare. Before that Act powers of attorney could be granted but not enduring ones. In other words a general power of attorney would be limited to the extent that the attorney could do only what the donor could do. The general law of agency is that an agent may not have powers greater than those of the agent’s principal. The difficulty with this was that if the donor lost the mental ability and therefore ceased to have the capacity to perform the delegated acts—sign documents etc.—then the attorney’s powers also came to an end. This would mean for example that the power of attorney given by an elderly person may effectively cease in the very situation in which it is needed. 
The Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act was born enabling the power of attorney to continue notwithstanding the donor’s capacity. Enduring powers of attorney as we have stated can now be granted in two situations—for personal care and welfare in which case only one attorney is appointed and for property for which one or more attorneys can be appointed. Of course any enduring power of attorney can be revoked by the donor but obviously only as long as the donor has the mental capacity to do so. 
If no power of attorney is granted and a person becomes unable to manage his or her own affairs then an application to the court for a manager or a welfare guardian to be appointed is required obviously at additional cost and delay. So prudently enduring powers of attorney would be granted at minimal cost. This does not relate just to vulnerable elderly persons. Any one of us could have a car accident or lose capacity even temporarily and an enduring power of attorney enables the affairs of that person to be continued throughout such incapacity. So enduring powers of attorney are not tools just for the elderly. 
It is also important to appreciate that under a power of attorney the attorney can do anything the donor can or could do. So he or she can mortgage property sell the family home make decisions as to personal care borrow money and spend money. The powers are wide ranging and the choice of attorney no matter what protections have been put in place under this bill is still vital. The attorney must be someone who is trusted. Most can be trusted but unfortunately some cannot. 
The Minister the Hon Ruth Dyson has referred to the Law Commission report of 2001 entitled  
Misuse of Enduring Powers of Attorney 
. That paper referred to an absence of effective safeguards. Some of the problems that have been addressed in this bill and which were included in that report include that there is no monitoring of whether on signing the power of attorney the donor has the capacity to understand the effect of what was signed. There is no requirement for independent legal advice. There is no machinery to ensure that the donor is informed of the donor’s right of revocation. There is no requirement to file accounts and no independent monitoring of the acts of the attorney. There is no monitoring of the classification of a donor as mentally incapable which triggers the personal care and welfare powers and also can trigger the powers to act under a properly enduring power of attorney if so worded. The problems also include the powers of the Family Court to intervene and the understandable reluctance by donors to take court proceedings against children or other family members who have misused their powers. 
There is no doubt that some abuse of enduring powers of attorney has occurred especially with vulnerable elderly persons. They can be taken advantage of—sometimes by their own family—but we must remember that this bill is to protect any vulnerable person not just the elderly. It is important that any vulnerable person young or old who does not have mental capacity has the confidence that he or she is being protected and looked after by the law as much as is reasonably and practicably possible. 
As the commission reports a deed granting an enduring power of attorney is valid only if the donor understands what he or she is signing. Accordingly the bill prescribes how an enduring power of attorney should be created. It must now not only be in the prescribed form but be certified by a witness who must be independent of the donor and be a lawyer or an officer or employee of a trustee corporation. Previously anyone could be a witness. 
The signature of the attorney must be witnessed by a person other than the donor’s witness so we have two witnesses now as opposed to previously having one. The onus on the witness is harder because the witness must certify that he or she has no reason to suspect that the donor was mentally incapable at the time the enduring power of attorney was executed and signed. This will or may add to the cost of an enduring power of attorney but it certainly is a prudent step to ensure that the enduring power of attorney was properly and validly created in the first place. 
The bill makes some changes and additions to the interpretation of when a donor is mentally incapable by stating in new section 94(1) in clause 7 that “the donor of an enduring power of attorney is mentally incapable in relation to property if the donor is not wholly competent to manage his or her own affairs in relation to his or her own property.” In relation to personal care and welfare new section 94(2) states that a person “is mentally incapable … if the donor … (a) lacks the capacity—(i) to make a decision about a matter relating to his or her personal care and welfare; or (ii) to understand the nature of decisions about matters relating to his or her personal care and welfare; or (iii) to foresee the consequences of decisions about matters relating to his or her personal care and welfare …; or (b) wholly lacks the capacity to communicate decisions about matters relating to his or her personal care and welfare.” 
Enduring powers of attorney in relation to property can be expressed to take effect only in the event of mental incapacity or they can take effect from the date of signing. Enduring powers of attorney in relation to personal care and welfare however do not have that option and take effect for obvious reasons only in the event of mental incapacity. 
It is important that there is some objective test of mental capacity and the requirement in the bill for a relevant health practitioner to certify such lack of mental capacity before an attorney may act for a donor is a sensible protection for both the donor and also the attorney. There is a common-sense exception to this as has been mentioned by the Minister relating to personal care and welfare matters that are not significant. 
There is one other issue I would like to highlight and that is in relation to the power of attorney to be able to make gifts. Clause 16 basically enables the court to “authorise the attorney to make any loan or advance of the donor’s property subject to any conditions that the Court considers appropriate:”. The issue I have which I hope will be discussed at select committee is whether the attorney can continue regular gifting in accordance with normal estate planning asset protection gifting programmes. 
We all know that it is common practice for a variety of reasons for say a family home to be transferred to a family trust. It is effectively sold to that trust at its market value and the purchase price is lent to the trust to be reduced year by year at the rate of $27000 per 12 months that being the maximum amount allowable before gift duty is payable. There is uncertainty as to whether that gifting can be continued by an attorney and whether it should be able to be continued without the necessity of a court order if it is part of the regular gifting programme. This is an issue that I would like submitters and the select committee to consider from a practical pragmatic point of view. 
Many issues relating to enduring powers of attorney arise after a donor’s mental capacity has gone and the family is often left to decide what is in the best interests of that donor and what he or she would have wanted. In many circumstances the families themselves cannot agree—they disagree—and although applications to the court to try to resolve such disagreements are an option it is an expensive one. 
A common problem as highlighted by the Law Commission’s report is that of disputes between a child appointed as attorney and siblings of that child who are not appointed as attorney. As the report states: “Enduring powers of attorney (like wills) do not always bring out the best in people.” How we avoid that is difficult and not specifically addressed in the bill. 
Another problem highlighted is the high-handedness or bossiness in a failure by an attorney to ascertain the wishes of the donor—for example by selling the home of an institutionalised donor against the wishes and sometimes without even the knowledge of the donor. Although limiting the powers of attorney in such cases may be seen as an option it would be at the expense of often needed flexibility. At the end of the day an attorney who is appointed by anyone must be someone whom the donor absolutely trusts. The choice of attorney is vital. 
This bill follows many of the Law Commission’s recommendations. It addresses some of the concerns in relation to the misuse or abuse of enduring powers of attorney. National supports the bill. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a brief call on the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. I think this is a fantastic bill to support and so soon after the first reading yesterday of New Zealand First’s Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill which also honoured elderly people in this country. I chair the Social Services Committee and I take on board the comments from the member who just resumed her seat Kate Wilkinson. I am certain that with the talent that lies around that table—particularly on the Labour side—the bill will be scrutinised most appropriately and well by all involved in that process. Therefore I shall not tarry any longer. I say only that I hope support is found fully around the House. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I think people in the House know—and the previous speaker mentioned it—that New Zealand First has always acted very strongly and vigorously in defence of the most vulnerable within our society. We have a proud record of implementing policies and legislation that relate particularly to the elderly—and not just to the elderly but in a larger view to the vulnerable within our society. An enduring power of attorney does not obviously apply only to the elderly but the elderly are the main utilisers of the mechanism. As the Law Commission discussion paper of 2000 stated quite clearly the law needs machinery to enable decisions to be made on behalf of those unable to manage their own financial affairs or to look after themselves properly. 
People have mentioned the Law Commission document that was put out in 2001 following the discussion paper but it has not been mentioned that that document was triggered by a case put by Age Concern Auckland Inc. which believed that there was a lack of protection under the existing statute—that is Part 9 “Enduring powers of attorney” of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. I make the point that Part 9 as the discussion paper makes explicit was not part of the original legislation in 1988. It was something of an afterthought and was inserted into the bill at the select committee stage. An opportunity for public submissions on the proposed addition to the bill was provided and Part 9 replaced and expanded upon the Aged and Infirm Persons Protection Act of 1912. 
What came through to the Law Commission when it looked at the situation was that there are some problems with the Act as it currently stands and that the Act does not necessarily provide the degree of protection and the safeguard of the law to the people who require them. I guess what this bill shows is that we are responding to the Law Commission’s findings. I must admit that this very cute phrase is used in the report: “The Law Commission does not believe that every child appointed an attorney is a potential Goneril or Regan.” Those people with some Shakespearean knowledge will understand what that refers to and given that the author of it is a certain person by the name of David Baragwanath I can understand why that phrase has been inserted. 
What we do know is that the enduring power of attorney system has a lack of safeguards and that it provides opportunities for misuse. Experience within New Zealand points to a degree of frequency of economic exploitation of the aged through the misuse of this mechanism. Age Concern Auckland compiled and examined 130 case studies of elderly abuse in respect of a 2-year period. Of those 130 cases of elderly abuse 40 were attributable to the misuse of an enduring power of attorney. I do not believe that anybody in this House would consider that to be an acceptable proportion of misuse of the legislation as it currently stands. 
So pretty obviously New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. In fact we congratulate the Minister on the work that has been put in to do something about this fragility we have within our legal framework. I will run through a few of the things that we support in this legislation. We believe that the bill remedies many of the deficiencies in the drafting of Part 9 of the legislation back in 1988 and that will make that part more consistent with the other provisions of the Act that provide better protections to people whose mental incapacity means they require protection. 
Some of the new provisions are a legislative presumption of the donor’s competence and a requirement that it be made explicit that attorneys must act in the donor’s best interests and must consult with and/or provide information to the donor and others specified by the donor on the creation of the enduring power of attorney. Attorneys are also required as far as practicable in the circumstances to encourage donors to exercise such competence as the donor has in relation to his or her own personal care and welfare or property affairs. A purpose statement will be inserted in Part 9 of the Act that will really clarify the role of the attorney as providing support to the donor when requested. There is also a range of other provisions that we believe will strengthen mechanisms around the protection of assets for those who are infirm. 
Therefore without any further ado I say that New Zealand First will support this bill. Obviously the select committee will look at the details but as a lot of work has already gone into this bill from the Law Commission and from others who really have their heads around the issue we do not believe that the select committee will need to make a whole lot of changes at this point in time. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I find it a little strange that we can be focusing on a bill for the protection of personal and property rights when just over a week ago our Government supported a delaying motion at the United Nations on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This was no ordinary declaration. This was a declaration for the protection of the personal and property rights of indigenous people. It was a declaration to affirm the fundamental human rights of the most politically economically socially and culturally marginalised people in the world—indigenous peoples. It was a declaration that took 20 years to reach a resolution which this Government took great joy in unwinding. 
In the very early days of hui around this declaration a delegation including NganekoMinhinnick the late Alec Kaihau Aroha Kaihau Joe Williams Hinewhare Harawira and Aroha Mead attended the United Nations working group on indigenous peoples on the relationship between indigenous peoples and states. They were party to statements about dispute resolution and about protection of indigenous nations’ personal rights. At the same time that those early discussions were being held here in Aotearoa the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 was passed to allow decisions to be made on behalf of those unable to manage their own affairs or properly look after themselves. It is ironic then that our own Government can be so quick to strengthen legislation to protect vulnerable people while denying Maori the fundamental human rights guaranteed to all other people by not supporting the United Nations declaration to affirm the fundamental human rights of indigenous peoples. 
This Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill puts into place the recommendations from the Law Commission’s 2001 report  
Misuse of Enduring Powers of Attorney 
 to provide for the protection of the personal and property rights of people who are not fully able to manage their own affairs. It aims to get lawyers to act in their clients’ best interests. We hope that the proposals of the Law Commission will ensure caution against abuses in the granting of power of attorney and abuses such as high-handedness bullying failure to consult—such as when a lawyer sells a client’s home without the client’s knowledge—and embezzlement and theft. The abuse of the powers of attorney takes place within a relationship of trust and the Maori Party believes that that must never be tolerated. 
Behaviour like this—the exploitation material and financial abuse of vulnerable people —is an infringement of human rights. It is behaviour that breaches the code of conduct one expects of a socially responsible society. Indeed it is an abuse of power not unlike what this Government has done in its political manoeuvring at the United Nations: abuse condemned by indigenous peoples around the globe abuse condemned by organisations such as Amnesty International abuse that has resulted in the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples being delayed perhaps indefinitely. 
This bill pays particular attention to the vulnerabilities of the elderly their welfare and their rights and the harmful physical psychological sexual material financial or social damage caused by the behaviour of someone they trust. When the Law Commission consulted for its 2001 report it sought wide involvement from older people and their organisations because it saw that elderly people’s welfare and interests should be a paramount consideration in this bill. 
As part of that consultation process the Law Commission recommended the creation of a commissioner for the aged—a person chosen to champion the needs of the elderly throughout Aotearoa. Yesterday we talked about the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment we talked about the appointment of a new Police Complaints Authority and we made reference to the commissioner for children. In the same vein we also see the importance of now considering a commissioner for the aged one who understands the special needs and dreams of kaumatua and kuia as well. We will be supporting this bill. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak to the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. We are very keen to see this bill go to the select committee and I congratulate the Minister Ruth Dyson on introducing it. Certainly in the 4 years I have been in Parliament I have received on a number of occasions very very concerning letters from concerned family members mostly and some from senior citizens themselves who have got themselves into some awkward legal arrangements and are not completely clear about their rights. 
In preparation for this opportunity to speak this afternoon I looked at the website of Age Concern New Zealand. I commend Age Concern and Grey Power for the work that they do with their members in trying to give good advice to people who are considering these matters. I think that perhaps the most telling piece of information I got from Age Concern’s website was the advice that they give to elderly people who are considering forming trusts or giving a power of attorney to someone. Age Concern’s website advises people to ask themselves some questions and gives a list of nine questions. The very nature of those questions highlights the complexities that this bill needs to seek to address. 
The first question the website asks is: “Do you have absolute trust that the person you are appointing as attorney will always act in your best interests?”. That asks people to consider the character of the person. I could also add information on people who feel pressured by a family member to sign a power of attorney over to them. Often family members contest with each other to be appointed to that position. Another question is: “Will you appoint one attorney or two or more? Or will you appoint a trustee company?”. That explains that there are a range of options. Sometimes—particularly if someone has been put under pressure by people touting themselves as being concerned for that person’s welfare—he or she may not understand the range of options that are available. I think it is really important that people who are considering these things know there are some really good options available. 
The fifth question on the website is: “Do you want to give your attorney authority to take care of everything to do with your personal care and welfare or only some things?”. Again some people have had the misunderstanding that by signing legal documents they have literally given away all rights to all decisions on all matters. That question relates to developing an understanding ahead of time when one is discussing the matter with somebody who is going to have that legal authority and making it very clear to that person exactly what one is signing over and not signing over so that everybody involved in the arrangement is very clear on that. The eighth question is: “Do you want to give your attorney authority to take charge of all your money and property or only some things?”. The website asks people to think about whether they want a separate arrangement for the person who is able to take care of their property from the arrangements regarding personal care. One suggestion I read is that one should have two people with a power of attorney: one person to deal with one’s assets and property and one person to deal with one’s personal care so that the two never become confused in somebody’s mind—particularly if he or she stands to gain from any decisions that are made. 
Another of the questions asks what steps for instance people want to have taken to determine their mental capacity before their attorney can act. Some very good guidelines are given by Age Concern as to the kinds of things one can insist on about who can determine that one’s mental capacity has deteriorated to a point where somebody needs to step in and take over making decisions on one’s behalf. For instance does one want one’s attorney to be monitored and supported in his or her role? Or does one let that person become a law unto himself or herself? To whom is an attorney accountable outside his or her own counsel? 
One of the other questions Age Concern asks is: “If you have an enduring power of attorney already have you checked to see that still meets your needs?”. It is a very similar situation to appointing people as guardians for one’s children. When my husband and I had a young family one of the best bits of advice we were given on that matter was that as our children grew and the relationships we had with different people changed and adjusted over time we needed to revisit that decision every now and then. The people who may make appropriate guardians should a crisis happen when one’s children are very little may not be appropriate once one’s children have hit their teenage years so we need to review those decisions. So it is with this kind of decision. Over a period of say 10 years one’s relationships may change to such an extent that change is required. Often people are unaware that they have the ability to go in and make those kinds of changes. This is another area raised by Age Concern that I would like to see discussed in light of this bill. 
The final question was: “Have you consulted your own lawyer to ensure you have independent advice?”. It is not uncommon when family members are arranging matters such as this for a family member to say “Look Mum come and see my lawyer down the road. I’ve got to get a property thing settled—we’ll throw that in on the bill and we’ll get my lawyer to check that everything you’re signing over to me is kosher.” The advice here is no no no—one should have one’s own independent lawyer to make sure that the advice one gets is unbiased and is all about protecting one’s best interests on every aspect of what is being covered by the power of attorney. 
United Future thinks this is a very timely bill. As I said at the beginning I congratulate the Minister on introducing it. I am pleased to be on the select committee that it will be sent to. I will be taking an active interest in its development and I certainly look forward to the submission process regarding some of the issues I have raised in the House today. I look forward to the passage of this legislation. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to give a fairly short speech on the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. It will be a short speech for two reasons. One is that the matters addressed in the bill are not ones that I have an enormous amount of familiarity with and in that regard the Green Party members can do no better than to base our decision on the fact that the bill is based on recommendations of the Law Commission in its report  
Misuse of Enduring Powers of Attorney 
. I think that is a very good basis on which to make a decision to at least support the bill going to a select committee where the technical matters of working through the bill and making sure that it all works as intended can actually be thoroughly investigated based on public submissions. Of course members of the House have already spoken on many of the issues and I thank members for very informative contributions around the current law and some of the problems and the facts in relation to abuse of elderly people around the matter of enduring powers of attorney. 
 I would also like to say just before getting into the bill itself that it is good to see another example of the recommendations of the Law Commission being picked up by the Government turned into legislation and put before this House. Just today at the Justice and Electoral Committee where we were doing the financial review of the Law Commission the matter arose once again as it has numerous times at that committee that the important law reform work the Law Commission does is often not picked up. It can be allowed to languish for many years sometimes to the extent that significant work has to be done to bring it up to date because by the time we get around to considering it many years have passed and matters have moved on. 
That is particularly true in relation to bills of this nature that are not political bills. There is no politics in this bill; there is nothing to be gained by creating public outrage or disgust or by trying to generate politics around it. This bill is simply about our responsibility as parliamentarians to ensure that the law works properly. Of course it is exactly that matter that the Law Commission has been set up to address. It is exactly what it addresses for the most part in its reports—simple black-letter law reform issues. So it is good to see that these matters are being picked up and made into legislation because that kind of work is for the betterment of the country and everyone and has no political spin-offs for us in here. So I am pleased that we are doing this work. It is important work that has enormous implications for many many people. 
I turn now to the bill itself. It introduces a number of positive amendments. One of the things that seems the most straightforward in some ways is simply the adding of a purpose clause to ensure that the purposes of granting an enduring power of attorney to another person are laid out clearly. That is useful because it simply states what that provision is about and gives us a bit of a yardstick against which to measure the performance of people who have been given that power. As members have indicated it is an extensive power that leaves people who are often in a vulnerable situation entirely at the mercy of the good will of the people who have those powers. I am sure that by and large those people do a very good job but there is no doubt at all from the evidence that has already been presented in the House that significant problems can arise. So it is a useful provision. 
New section 93B in clause 6 talks about the presumption of competence. I think that is a positive thing because it states: “For the purposes of this Part every person is presumed until the contrary is shown to have the capacity—(a) to understand the nature and to foresee the consequences of decisions …” and “(b) to communicate decisions …”. That is important because it is in recognition of the inherent dignity of people that we make that assumption but nevertheless if the contrary is proved then of course the provisions of the bill come into play. 
Another matter I want to turn to is new section 99A in clause 14 because it talks about an attorney’s duty to consult. It states: “(1) When acting under an enduring power of attorney the attorney must as far as is practicable consult—(a) the donor; and (b) any other person specified in the enduring power of attorney to be consulted whether in respect of a particular matter or generally.” It also states that the attorney may follow any advice given and is not liable for anything done or admitted in following that advice. Of course if people feel that that advice conflicts with their duty the law or it exposes them to liability or is objectionable or conflicting then they can seek direction from a court. That is good as well. It is simply ensuring once again that the donor is at least in a position to give his or her views and that can then be tested against those matters I have outlined. Again I think this is about the inherent dignity of people and the right of people to have autonomy as far as possible in dealing with their affairs. 
I also want to touch on new section 99B “Attorney must provide information on the exercise of powers”. It states: “An attorney must promptly comply with any request for information relating to the exercise of the attorney’s powers under the enduring power of attorney if—(a) the person requesting the information is specified … as a person to be provided with such information …” and “(b) the information requested is the kind of information specified …”. 
I raise that matter about information because I was recently speaking with someone whom I know and I will be very careful not to make any statements that might identify the people involved in this case. It arose around some real concerns about the use of an enduring power of attorney that has been bestowed on a person in respect of that person’s mother. It seems that the person with the enduring power of attorney has been using the bank account and the assets of the mother to go out and spend up large. Banking records show that that person has been making payments at the post shop which seem to have been to pay the power bill. They do not live together so there seems to be no justification for that. There are records from diamond shops and all kinds of gift shops. There is a pretty strong argument to be made or at least one can make the presumption that these things need to be looked at and some information needs to be provided. It looks like there is very possibly a serious misuse of those assets. 
The other thing is that the mother’s bill in relation to her rest home is not being paid. I thought that was extraordinary. I would have thought the person would pay the mother’s bills so that at least he or she would not get found out. But then I was told that apparently everyone thought the mother was not going to live long that she was going to go into a rest home and would be dead within a couple of weeks so no one would notice the spending. That has not been the case. She seems to have recovered. She is a sprightly woman. She is talking and she is engaged in life because she has moved closer to her family and that has brought new life back to her. So now suddenly the whole thing is starting to unravel. 
It brought home to me on a personal level the very real need for some increased protections around these matters for increased transparency to ensure that information can be demanded and will be provided around the decisions that the attorney is making for clarification of what the purpose of the exercise of those powers are and to avoid those liberties that are being taken at least in regard to some of the elderly members of our community who certainly deserve our protection as well as our respect. I am very pleased to see this bill before Parliament. The Green Party is pleased to support it. I am looking forward to working through it in more detail at the select committee. Again I am particularly pleased the Government is picking up this law reform work done by the Law Commission. There is no politics involved and no personal interest for us it is simply about ensuring that we fulfil our responsibilities as good parliamentarians. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Social Services Committee.referred to Social Services Committee 
Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers’ Rights) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will move that this bill be referred to the Commerce Committee. 
This bill amends the Copyright Act 1994. It is part of a wider reform process to ensure that our intellectual property legislation is up to date relevant and takes account of international developments. A robust intellectual property rights system is essential for the continuing growth of New Zealand’s creative and innovative sectors. Intellectual property plays a major role in moving towards a knowledge-based economy and in supporting research and development. It also minimises regulatory barriers to innovation. 
Digital technology provides significant opportunities for the creators for the owners and for the users of copyright material as well as offering them potential risks. It allows copyright works to be copied manipulated and disseminated with minimal effort cost or reduction in quality. Digital technology can also be used to protect copyright by preventing the copying of or access to material and by allowing checking for plagiarism or unlawful copying. 
The purpose of the bill is to ensure that the Copyright Act takes into account the impact of new technology while maintaining a careful balance between the often competing interests of creators owners and users of copyright works. It also seeks to create a more technology-neutral framework for New Zealand’s law. 
The bill also considers international developments in copyrights and incorporates many aspects of two treaties negotiated by the World Intellectual Property Organization. That organisation’s Copyright Treaty and Performers and Phonograms Treaty seek to update international copyright standards to take account of developments in digital technologies. All of the amendments introduced by this bill will be fully reviewed within 5 years in order to ensure that they operate effectively and continue to be appropriate. 
The key provisions of this bill include provisions that address concerns regarding the scope of the definition of copying. It has been amended to clearly apply to digital copying of works in all forms. But copying is central to the legitimate operation of digital technology; computers e-mail services DVD players and even the anti-skip functions on a portable CD player all work by making temporary or permanent copies of material. The status of those copies which are technically covered by the Copyright Act has been unclear so the bill amends the Act to introduce limited exceptions for transient copying in certain circumstances. The copying that automatically takes place in the operation of a computer or communications system will not amount to an infringement of copyright. 
In a digital world of almost instant communication the ability to control communication of copyright works is as significant as the ability to control copying. Control over communication is necessary to encourage investment in efficient online distribution methods and new business models demanded by consumers. The increasing popularity of legitimate online music services such as CokeTunes digiRAMA or Amplifier shows that digital distribution of copyright works is becoming core to the developments in the creative industries. The bill therefore replaces the copyright owner’s existing technology-specific rights to control distribution through broadcasting and cable programme services with a technology-neutral right that applies to all forms of communication of copyright works in public. This will permit email peer-to-peer file sharing and other digital forms of communication. 
Consistent with the technology-neutral communication right the bill provides copyright protection for all communication works—for example transmission via the Internet not just the signals that carry content in broadcasts and cable programmes. The bill also repeals the exemption for cable programme services to retransmit free-to-air broadcasts without the permission of the broadcaster. 
Copying is a central function of the Internet and is central to the services provided by Internet service providers. Material must be reproduced at many stages during the course of transmission so it may be virtually impossible to identify when and where many of those copies are made. Where the material being copied is subject to copyright protection an Internet service provider could potentially face liability for copyright infringement by its subscribers. It is in the public interest to ensure cost-effective access to the Internet which may be affected by this uncertain or increased liability for Internet service providers. Consistent with changes in other countries the bill introduces a definition of Internet service provider and a range of provisions that limit Internet service providers’ liability for copyright infringement in appropriate circumstances. They will not be liable where they are merely providing the physical facilities to enable a communication to take place. 
The bill also limits the liability of Internet service providers where a provider stores infringing copyright material on its server but does not know or have reason to believe that the material is infringing and acts within a reasonable time to delete it or to prevent access to it as soon as it is aware of the infringement. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.