Volume 607 Week 19 - Thursday 27 March 2003 
Volume 607 Week 19 - Thursday 27 March 2003 
[Volume:607;Page:4485] 
Thursday 27 March 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Representatives of Sami Parliament Norway 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that representatives of the Sami Parliament of Norway led by the Vice-PresidentMs Ragnhild Lydia Nystad are present in the gallery. I am sure we would wish that they be welcomed. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House it is the Government’s intention to take urgency on Tuesday rising by 6 p.m. on Friday. I will circulate a full list of business to be included in the urgency motion to all party whips by late Monday. However I can say that it is all but certain that it will begin with all stages of the Land Transport (Street and Illegal Drag Racing) Amendment Bill followed by selected first readings as listed on today’s Order Paper. 
Questions to Ministers 
Elderly—Housing 
1. GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What commitment does the Government have towards housing older people? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that tomorrow the Prime Minister will open a $9.9 million development in Lynfield. This complex provides 51 units designed primarily for elderly New Zealanders although other units have been modified for the use of people with a disability. The design standard of those units sets a new benchmark for State houses in New Zealand. I am extremely proud of them. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What future housing plans does the Government have for Auckland? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government is determined to increase the housing stock which was severely depleted during the 1990s. The problem is particularly acute in Auckland where there is heavy demand for housing. As a result more than 80 percent of all new Housing New Zealand acquisitions are in Auckland. In its first term this Government has added an extra 1150 State houses in Auckland. That does not include the 1660 Auckland City Council houses the Government purchased recently. In total over the next four financial years we expect to increase Auckland’s State housing stock by another 2500 net. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: In the light of the fact that one of the largest issues facing older New Zealanders and housing is whether this Government will stand by its commitment to remove asset testing of their houses when faced with residential care can he tell us why asset testing has not been removed as promised by Labour at two elections? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I know the National Party will be anxious about that because it has no policy at all on the issue. However we on this side of the House will keep our word. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Minister to answer the question. Why has Labour failed to keep its promise after two elections and could he eliminate any answer in respect of the National Party’s policy because we know it does not have one? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question can be answered. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Labour Party undertook to introduce legislation prior to the election. As people know we had an early election last year and as a result we explained to people that we would put the legislation as soon as we could after the election—[ 
Interruption 
] It was actually the member’s fault because he called for it repeatedly. I know that the National Party is embarrassed because it does have a policy: it wants to keep asset testing. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In the light of the fact that Labour’s income-related rents policy has resulted in thousands of families in urgent need not being able to get a State house what does he intend to do to encourage those people with less urgent needs who sit tight on their cheaper rents to move on? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: On the contrary for 53000 households in this country the introduction of income-related rents has meant more money in their pockets every single week and that is why it is such a popular policy. We now have an active policy of working with those people to move them to suitable accommodation and of course to build new accommodation more suited to them. 
Iraq—Humanitarian Aid 
2.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: In light of her reported comments earlier this week that New Zealand wanted the United Nations actively involved in the distribution of humanitarian aid in Iraq does she now support the United Nations’ view that the United States and its coalition partners are legally responsible for providing humanitarian aid to Iraqis; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has correctly pointed out that under international law belligerent forces are responsible during the period of conflict for the well-being of the civilian population in the area they control. The United Nations Security Council however is considering right now how to reactivate the oil for food programme so that humanitarian aid can be provided just as soon as conditions on the ground allow that to happen. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did the Government make a disgraceful statement to the UN on this matter today showing no support for Australian British and American troops who are losing their lives in Iraq and implying that there is no distinction between the troops of our friends and allies and those of the vicious Saddam regime? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is wrong on both counts. If he wishes however to say that the deaths of innocent civilians should not be regretted then he is entitled to say that. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I cannot see how it is in order for the Minister to interpret the question by saying “if he wishes to say” and go on to say something that is way outside anything that was said by the Leader of the Opposition. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister was in order. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: What the Government of New Zealand said in the open session of the Security Council today represents the overwhelming majority of public opinion in New Zealand and the majority of opinion leaders including the church leaders of each of the seven major churches in New Zealand who have strongly supported what this Government has said and by implication opposed the lack of position held by that member. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I take it from the Minister’s answer that the Government’s distaste for getting involved in any post-war assistance to victims of that war will ensure that if there are attempts by Iraqis to be refugees to this country the Government will likewise stop that happening? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is quite wrong to say that this Government has any distaste for getting involved in post-conflict humanitarian aid to the people of Iraq. Indeed we have already committed to the first instalment of that aid and as a country that is a good international citizen we will continue to give assistance to humanitarian aid and post-conflict reconstruction. 
Tim Barnett 
: What information does the Minister have on the level of need for food aid in Iraq? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The United Nations World Food Programme estimates that overall Iraqis probably have food for about 5 weeks. However as many as 60 percent of Iraq’s 27 million people were entirely dependent on aid for survival prior to the war which is why it is so urgent that we resume the oil for food programme as soon as possible. In some areas the situation with aid and water supplies is critical as in Basra where supplies of electricity and safe drinking water have been cut. I believe that once the World Food Programme can resume its task will be the biggest humanitarian operation we have yet seen through the United Nations. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Will the New Zealand Government offer active assistance in the distribution of humanitarian aid in post-conflict reconstruction if that aid is controlled by the United States and the United Kingdom or is any offer of assistance from New Zealand conditional upon the aid programme being under the auspices of the United Nations? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: We have already indicated the agencies through which we are committed to providing aid. Some of those are UN agencies but there are others including the International Committee of the Red Cross. We have already provided money for the provision of humanitarian aid and we will continue to do so. Moreover we join with the leadership of the United Kingdom and Australia in saying that the United Nations must have a crucial role in overseeing what happens in post-conflict Iraq. 
Keith Locke 
: How will the Government be promoting the total UN engagement in Iraq which it proclaimed in the Security Council this morning when Colin Powell today asserted for his coalition “a significant dominating control in Iraq” and how will the Government be challenging the Bush administration on that? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think the member will find that countries within the coalition that have forces in Iraq will be strongly promoting the role of the UN. The Prime Minister of Australia Mr Howard said yesterday that in the long term the UN would have the critical role of providing post-conflict reconstruction. Clare Short the Secretary of State for International Development in the United Kingdom went even further saying that for the purposes of legitimacy the UN had to be the agency responsible for what happens in post-conflict Iraq. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why did the Government not indicate support for the troops of Australia Britain and America—which are our allies—in their effort to overturn the Iraqi regime when it had the opportunity to do so today in the United Nations and why did it imply that there is no distinction between those troops and the soldiers of Saddam Hussein? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have the statement in my hand and I am happy to table it. The member’s allegation is utterly wrong. I will table the document so that members opposite who are yelling so loudly can see it for themselves. This Government makes absolutely no apology for the fact that it has consistently argued that all other avenues for achieving the disarmament of Iraq should have been pursued before resorting to force. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek the leave of the House for the Minister to be granted a concession to read the statement so that all those people who are listening can make up their own minds. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A member can seek leave only on his or her own behalf. A member cannot seek leave for any other member. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek the leave of the House for the Leader of the Opposition to read the Prime Minister’s statement to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot do that either. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to read the statement myself. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has sought leave to read the statement himself. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will the Minister give a plain answer to the question: if the post-war aid is under the aegis of the United States and not the United Nations will this Government be involved; if not why not and if the answer is no does it mean that we will therefore not take any refugees from Iraq? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is abundantly apparent to everybody in the country that we have already given the money for that aid—at least the first instalment. That aid which the Iraqi people desperately need will be delivered regardless of what sort of regime exists in that country because the aid is for people who are the innocent victims of that conflict. The agencies employed are the UN and other reputable agencies—the sorts of agencies through which we always deliver our international assistance. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a contribution to the  
Listener 
 by the Green MP Keith Locke where he declares that he gets a warm feeling at the thought of a world without— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article from the  
Listener 
. Is there any objection? There is. 
Mount Everest—50th Anniversary Expedition 
3.  
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Sport and Recreation 
: Is the Government supporting an expedition to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Sir Edmund Hillary’s ascent of Everest; if so how? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 Yes the Hillary Mekong from source to sea expedition will start in Tibet in June. Five adventurous young New Zealanders will spend 80 days travelling the 4500 kilometres from Tibet to Vietnam. They will walk mountain bike and kayak the entire length of the Mekong River. They will be the first people ever to do so. Sport and Recreation New Zealand (SPARC) will provide up to $100000 for this inspirational adventure. 
Dave Hereora 
: What is the purpose of the SPARC Hillary expedition? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yesterday I was asked by Mr Brownlee whether I would be indicating to anyone when there were interjections while questions were being asked. I am not going to do so because two of the people who interjected on this occasion were from his own party. A member asking a question is to be heard in silence. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes there are a number of purposes. The key purpose is to honour Sir Edmund Hillary. The expedition aims to raise the profile of physical activity to encourage young New Zealanders into trying physical activity and to create inspirational new role models who do things for the first time. Resources will be available for teachers of 11 and 12-year-olds and there will be further expeditions every second year. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Given the decision to abandon the use of Sir Edmund’s name in relation to the national sporting and recreational body named in recognition of his achievements is there any plan in addition to the expedition to take any further step in honouring Sir Edmund? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. 
Stephen Franks 
: In the light of that answer if the support was a genuine respect for Sir Edmund’s achievement and not an attempt to gain or retrieve political credit by association why did the Government not honour this most respected New Zealander by leaving his name on the independent Hillary Commission instead of calling it SPARC and turning it into a Government poodle? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the only poodle in this House is that member when he is following Richard Prebble around picking up— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The Minister knows he has gone too far. He will withdraw that comment and then he will answer the question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw. From memory this House made a unanimous decision on that question. 
General Agreement on Trade in Services—Treaty of Waitangi 
4.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: What steps is he taking to protect the interests of Maori in the current General Agreement on Trade in Services negotiations and will he ensure that te Tiriti o Waitangi is included in New Zealand’s General Agreement on Trade in Services Schedule of Specific Commitments? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 New Zealand’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) commitments will not get in the way of it fulfilling its Treaty of Waitangi obligations. New Zealand has excluded from GATS coverage: “Current and future measures at the central and sub-central levels of Government according more favourable treatment to any Maori person or organisation in relation to the acquisition establishment or operation of any commercial or industrial undertaking.” This is one of the first times wording of this sort has been included in a trade commitment. 
Metiria Turei 
: Given that our current GATS commitments contain no reservation for Government measures to meet its tiriti obligations will the Minister recommend that the Government amends its GATS commitments so that it can meet its tiriti obligations without impediment; if not why not? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The Government will continue to ensure that the initial offer will in no way override our present GATS reservations with regard to the treatment of Maori persons or organisations. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: What discussions has the Government undertaken with Maori concerning GATS? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Early this year the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade along with Te Puni Kokiri met with interested Maori in Wellington Christchurch Auckland Rotorua and Hamilton. Further meetings are scheduled to take place over the coming months. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does the Minister accept that Maori interests along with the interests of all other New Zealanders would be better served by ensuring a General Agreement on Trade in Services opened up as many opportunities as possible for us overseas including Maori service businesses; if he does not why not? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Yes and most certainly Maori want to be involved in opportunities off shore and on shore. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: No doubt the purpose of the primary question is to ensure that the Government has regard to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in all its dealings internationally and domestically; that being the case could the Minister now tell us clearly what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are that he has regard to? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That member knows well: articles 1 2 and 3. I am more than happy to have an extended discussion with him outside the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I could not hear the answer. He said that he would be more than happy to do something. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister to repeat the answer that he gave. It was in order. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: That learned member is well aware of articles 1 2 and 3. I am more than happy to have an extended discussion outside this House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not more than happy to have an extended discussion outside this House. I want an answer. I think I am entitled to an answer now. If the Minister is offering an extended discussion then clearly he is saying that he can answer the question; so could we have an abbreviated version now? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member might not like the answer. That is not my job; my job is to see whether the Minister addressed the question. He did. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I warn Mr Mark that I will not carry this on today. We have had a ruling and that is it. 
Ron Mark 
: I do not feel intimidated by that and I will ask you for this clarification. The Minister was asked specifically to explain the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The only thing he addressed in his answer was the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi. They are two completely different things. He did not answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That might be the member’s opinion. I have to attest to whether the Minister addressed the question. I do not judge the quality of the answer. He did address the question. 
Stephen Franks 
: Exactly which words of which article of a very short treaty make it necessary to reserve the prospect of favourable discrimination for Maori in the agreement; and if it is not the words which spurious principle justifies that discrimination? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: If that member wishes to elaborate on how he determines “spurious” then I would more than happily address the question. The issue is that we are prepared to put effort into developing Maoris’ commerciality both in this country and off shore—those issues that are relevant to the treaty and those issues that carry commercial opportunity for Maori. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister therefore at all concerned that in the current round of GATS negotiations a request has been made to abolish the funding of Maori broadcasting; and what advice has he provided to the Minister for Trade Negotiations with regard to this request? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I have not provided any advice on that broadcasting issue but I am more than happy to discuss that matter further with the member. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Having regard to his promise to be able to discuss this matter fully outside the House and bearing in mind that the question was asked for the edification of not just myself but the rest of the members of the House would the Minister now please tell us plainly and clearly in abbreviated form what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are about which he speaks? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I could take a whole lot of options through the total of the three articles of the treaty and there is a whole lot of coverage there that specifically aligns itself with the question that member asked. If we need to get into that detail then let us do it outside the House. 
Metiria Turei 
: Will the Minister seek to extend the current GATS reservations so that it is not “GATS illegal” to provide preferential treatment to non-commercial and non-industrial organisations such as kohanga reo and iwi-based education providers; if not why not? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: This morning I was pleased to announce that this Government signed a heads of agreement with the kohanga reo—after 20 years. The GATS has been operating since 1956 and I certainly look forward to discussing it further. 
Defence—Review 
5.  
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: Why did the Government commission a review of the structure of the Ministry of Defence and the New Zealand Defence Force by Don Hunn at a cost of $150000 to $170000 and then reject its major recommendations? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Defence 
: The Government has not rejected the major recommendations of the review of accountabilities and structural arrangements between the Ministry of Defence and the New Zealand Defence Force. 
Simon Power 
: Why when the Hunn review was completed on 30 September last year has the Government waited until now to slip the review out quietly hoping to bury it under news coverage of bombs falling on Baghdad? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Last September we had no idea that bombs would be falling on Baghdad this week. The Government has been working through these issues and it has released the document in its own good time. 
Darren Hughes 
: Will the Hunn review recommendations cause a complete change of administrative and structural direction within the defence sector? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. The recommendations strongly reinforce the direction in which the sector ought to be going with things such as the establishment of the joint forces operational headquarters the establishment of the joint staff college the appointment of the Secretary of Defence as an associate member of the Chief of Staffs Committee and other matters designed to achieve the integration that the report points towards. 
Ron Mark 
: How can the Minister argue that “There is no need to accept Hunn’s recommendation to change the Defence Act because the Government’s objectives could be achieved by ministerial directives.” when the very reason we have ended up blowing approximately $800 million on 105 LAVIIIs is that he personally overrode the recommendations of the then Chief of Defence Force and the Secretary of Defence—a decision he made because he personally believed that the LAVIIIs were outdated and unsafe—and how does that decision look now as we watch on CNN 24 hours a day the sight of M113s operating with the American armed forces in Iraq in combat as of this very minute? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Two of the three questions can be answered. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: None of those matters were dealt with in the Hunn report which is about the lack of coordination between the Defence Force and the Ministry of Defence. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Will the Minister reply to the substantive question: why has his Government refused to adopt the key recommendation of the Hunn report which recognised the abject failure of the split between funder and operator when applied to defence? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I suggest that the member reads the report; in fact the report does not make a recommendation to recombine the two. The report concentrates and I quote on “transformational reform”. This is about a series of objectives not about the necessary particular mechanisms. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In view of the Minister’s comment that the report was about better integration between the various arms of the defence service and picking up the point made by Mr Mark is the Government prepared to consider changing the existing policy to ensure that in future all major capital purchase items by the defence service are made by defence personnel within Cabinet guidelines and that it is not specifically the prerogative of Cabinet Ministers to make those final decisions? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Final decisions on capital purchases of that size as with any other capital purchase of that size are made by Cabinet not by individual Ministers. 
Simon Power 
: When the only recommendation the Government has chosen to follow from the Hunn report is to move to more jointness within the defence forces why has it decided to adopt a policy of disjointedness with our traditional friends and allies over Iraq? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is wide of this particular question but the honourable Minister may comment. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We have an enormous number of traditional friends who share our opinions on Iraq including for example France and Canada. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister reread the paragraph under the scope of the review that says that Hunn was directed by the Minister that the review should be forward-looking not preoccupied with past sins of omission or commission and also says: “Consequently this review does not address the question of accountability for failures in the current system whether these have arisen from system weakness or individual action.” and could that not be interpreted by the public as being the means and mechanism by which this Government managed to remove its fingerprints from its inappropriate involvement with senior Army officers in the run up to the 1999 election? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question was far too long. The member has had his go. The Minister can comment briefly. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The report was about the kinds of structural changes required to achieve better integration of defence forces not about what happened in terms of the member’s obsession with the fact that there might have been conversations between members of defence forces and members of the Opposition. I am sure those conversations continue. 
Crime—Public Safety 
6.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Is he committed to ensuring all New Zealanders can go about their business without undue fear of crime? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Police 
: Yes. 
Ron Mark 
: If the Minister truly believes that does that explain his inaction and doing nothing about Auckland’s police staffing crisis which was reported by Richard Middleton the Vice-President of the New Zealand Police Association in response to a 60 percent increase in Auckland police quitting their jobs an increase that is outrageous given that Auckland already has the highest rate of crime in the country— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is sufficient. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The Government has done an enormous amount about police resourcing. The amount of money that the police get this financial year is $960 million compared with $860 million when that crowd was last in Government. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: What does available data suggest is the biggest concern of New Zealanders in the area of crime and public safety? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The last published national survey of crime victims revealed that the highest personal fear related to the risk of being injured in a crash caused by a drunken driver. Over the last 5 years police have continued to make significant inroads in the road toll. It is now at its lowest level in 40 years and the House should congratulate the police on that work. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does the Minister accept that there is a link between police numbers and the crime rate; if so why are there fewer police officers in Greater Auckland today than there were 2 years ago? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The reality is that the resources in the police have risen and for the acting spokesperson’s information I point out that as at 28 February this year there were 7313 sworn staff compared with 6939 when that member was last in Government. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Ryall did not ask about the general nationwide figures. He asked specifically about Auckland which he said had a huge and rising crime rate. I know that any answer does in this House but frankly what is the purpose of asking questions on a specific area which has more than a third of the country’s population then getting a nationwide answer with no attempt at all to address the more specific question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. He might not have satisfied the member and of course it is the member’s right to say so by way of supplementary questions. 
Deborah Coddington 
: What assurances can the Minister give families in south Auckland where police in the last 3 weeks have received several complaints about convicted paedophile Peter Liddell hanging around children and when the Papakura police told me this morning that they are too stretched as a result of four homicides to send a target squad to investigate immediately? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The Government is doing quite a lot about that including things like bringing UK police to Auckland shifting police to Auckland and trainees in Auckland. It is a bit rich for that member to raise issues about resources in Auckland when that party takes resources that should be used in Auckland electorates and puts them in a member’s flat. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will now stand and withdraw that comment. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I withdraw. 
Ron Mark 
: How can the people believe that the Minister really is committed to ensuring that all New Zealanders can go about their business without undue fear of crime when people like Scotty Watson a Ready to Retail coordinator from Rotorua have written to that Minister expressing on behalf of a larger number of businessmen their total disgust at this Government’s inaction in ensuring that the retail centres of Rotorua are safe from the thugs who pervade those streets? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Because the Minister is a believable kind of guy. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is that an answer? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. On reflection I think that is a fair comment. On this occasion I am going to ask the Minister to give a fuller answer than that. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: He is very believable because of the actions he has taken. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a report that shows the startling changes in staffing in Greater Auckland in the last few years. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Ron Mark 
: I seek leave to table a letter a letter dated 20 January 2003 from Mr Scotty Watson retail coordinator to the Minister George Hawkins. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Iraq—New Zealand Statement to United Nations 
7.  
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: Is the New Zealand Government presenting a statement today to a United Nations forum commenting on the war in Iraq; if so is that statement to be either explicitly or implicitly critical of the actions being taken by the United States the United Kingdom Australia and their allies? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 New Zealand this morning delivered its statement to the open session of the United Nations Security Council on Iraq. That statement focuses constructively on what must be done to alleviate suffering arising out of the conflict and to help Iraqi people achieve a better future once the conflict is ended. It emphasises the key role that we believe the United Nations should play in that process. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: What was meant in the statement on Iraq delivered by the New Zealand Permanent Representative to the UN today: “Our common objective must be to end hostilities as quickly as possible.”; is it the New Zealand Government’s preference for the coalition of the willing to down tools and withdraw leaving in place the regime of Saddam Hussein and his Baath socialist party or does he believe that it is necessary to finish the job and effect a regime change quickly—which of those two is the preference of the New Zealand Government? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I think there is no question that the coalition forces are likely to withdraw from Iraq at this time. Of course we would like to see an end to hostilities as I am sure the member would like to see an end to hostilities. New Zealand has never supported and has consistently condemned the regime of Saddam Hussein. I think we condemned the regime of Saddam Hussein from the time certain security forces put it in place and at a time when other countries were arming Saddam against other countries. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What specific points did New Zealand make in its statement to the United Nations Security Council? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That statement first of all expressed our regret at the breakdown of the diplomatic process and our concern over loss of life in the conflict. I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that most of that loss of life has been amongst civilians. We emphasised that we should focus on what needs to happen now with the provision of humanitarian relief funds and the immediate resumption of the oil for food programme; and post-conflict the full and active engagement of the United Nations in the reconstruction programme. Finally we said that New Zealand was willing to work alongside others in the United Nations to assist with both reconstruction and humanitarian aid. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does the Minister believe that the failure of the Government’s statement to the United Nations today to make any distinction between the actions of our close traditional allies Australia Britain and America to liberate Iraq and the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein will not—I repeat “not”—have an adverse effect on our relationship with our traditional allies; if so why? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The statement will be tabled in the House. There is absolutely nothing in that statement that could in any way be regarded as offensive. If the member takes offence at the fact that we regret the loss of life on both sides that is his judgment. But I deeply regret the growing number of civilian casualties that notwithstanding efforts to avoid inadvertent civilian casualties are occurring and the suffering of people such as those in the city of Basra who are now without electricity or water supplies. 
Keith Locke 
: Would it not be consistent with the Government’s opposition to a unilateral US-led invasion and its desire to avoid civilian casualties for the Government to follow up its call this morning for an end to hostilities with an appeal to US-led forces to halt their advance and negotiate a ceasefire with Iraq so that humanitarian aid can reach—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Hide will leave the Chamber. I have warned about interjecting while members are asking questions. Every member in this House is entitled to ask his or her question. After all we have a democracy and every member is entitled to ask a question. Mr Locke will continue and Mr Hide will leave. 
Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber 
Keith Locke 
: I will start again. Would it not be consistent with the Government’s opposition to a unilateral US-led invasion and its desire to avoid civilian casualties for it to follow up its call in the Security Council this morning for an end to hostilities with an appeal to the United States to stop its advance and negotiate a ceasefire with Iraq so that humanitarian aid can reach the many thousands of people in desperate need in places like Basra? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I regard it as highly unlikely that a ceasefire will be entered into on that basis. Probably the best way to end hostilities would be for Saddam Hussein and his family now to uproot themselves out of Baghdad and leave the country. 
Biodiversity—Strategy 
8.  
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What recent initiatives has the Government taken to deliver on the biodiversity strategy goal to secure the protection of a full range of indigenous habitats and ecosystems? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 On Saturday I will be opening the Te Papanui Conservation Park. It is the first tussock grassland conservation park in Otago and only the second in the country. It is a priority of this Government to improve the protection of tussock grassland ecosystems and the Te Papanui park has been warmly welcomed by the people of Otago. 
David Parker 
: What other initiatives has the Government taken to improve the protection of indigenous habitats? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: In the last 4 months two important coastal areas have been purchased to protect them—on the Karekare Peninsula in Northland and the other at Waikawau Bay on the Coromandel Peninsula—and an outstanding area of native forest in west Southland and 1600 hectares of Maori-owned forest in the Waikato have been covenanted. The area features many ancient trees. 
Shane Ardern 
: In the light of the Minister’s answer has he taken advice on the likely effects on ecosystems of such recent immigrants as the painted apple moth the gum leaf skeletoniser the fall web worm and the crazy ants that were discovered in Tauranga port; if not how can he claim success with biosecurity strategy goals? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I was talking about biodiversity rather than biosecurity but all pests in this country are a threat to our native ecosystem. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What exactly were the threats to the special ecosystems at Waikawau Bay in the Coromandel and why were they not adequately protected by the Resource Management Act which makes inappropriate subdivision use and development of the coastline a no-no under matters of national importance? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Government regards the preservation and protection of coastal land as a high priority which is why we were prepared to expend so much money to buy the 150 hectares at Waikawau Bay. 
Larry Baldock 
: Given the threat that pests like possums pose to the New Zealand biosecurity strategy does the Minister encourage the Department of Conservation to work closely with all recreational and commercial hunters to explore all the opportunities for possible pest eradication; if not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Department of Conservation actively seeks partnership in the management of pest control. Indeed recently I met wapiti hunters in Southland to discuss that very issue. 
Welfare—Dependency 
9.  
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
 to the  
Minister of Social Services and Employment 
: Does he believe that welfare dependency is a major problem in New Zealand; if not why not? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Social Services and Employment) 
: 
 It is significantly less of a problem than it was under National. 
Katherine Rich 
: Is he aware of a Government department’s welfare benefit advertising campaign directed at parents which says: “You always knew that having children would be rewarding” and that “if you have two children you could earn even more”; and what does this aggressive encouragement to go on welfare say about the Government’s approach to welfare dependency? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member may not be aware but we have just changed the abatement regime which allows people to retain more of their earnings as they transfer from a benefit into full-time work. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What is the Government’s record in assisting people to move from a benefit into a job? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Unemployment now stands at 4.9 percent the lowest rate since March 1988. Work and Income have been achieving record results placing people into work with the result that the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit is now at 115495 which is also the lowest March total since 1988. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does he think there is a major problem in the escalation of the number of women on the domestic purposes benefit who are refusing to name the father of their children—up from 13996 when he became the Minister to a record 16498 now—with an estimated loss of over $11 million a year in child support payments for over 32000 children; if so can he describe to the House exactly what steps he has taken since he has been the Minister to sort this problem out? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The House needs to know that of course there are people who would not want to have the father named for such reasons as incest or extreme violence towards the partner. But the member is absolutely right in raising the issue which is of concern to the whole House that we are beginning to see men who are in positions where they should be emotionally and financially supporting their own children supporting those children. The member will know that one of the measures that I have been eager to take—but was unable to take while we had an Alliance partner because it would not advance the policy—is to increase the penalty and I intend to do so. 
Sue Bradford 
: After many years of various Governments tinkering with the social welfare system does the Minister think it is time for his Government to initiate a meaningful dialogue with and among the New Zealand public about what basic principles should underpin and guide the framework of the welfare system in New Zealand in the 21st century? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Yes I do and that is why I produced a document called  
Pathways to Opportunities 
 in 2001. 
Judy Turner 
: Are there any age groups that are more susceptible to welfare dependency and what particular benefits are involved? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Young people are today over-represented on unemployment statistics because they are young and they are finding it harder to break into the workforce; and mature workers people who are over 45 who often come out of physical occupations and find themselves on a benefit because of a sickness or disability due to work and find it difficult to move back into the workforce. 
Katherine Rich 
: With regard to his comments about unemployment rates does the Minister not understand that we are making comments about the size of the benefit register and does he accept that there is growing support for work-for-the-dole schemes and time limits for certain welfare benefits or is he out of touch with the opinions of many New Zealanders? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If the member has been following my comments she will know that I always studiously use the working-age beneficiary. That population has dropped significantly since we became the Government. Therefore I think we are seeing major changes that are making a difference. Therefore I do not want to waste this Government’s time on having my staff work for a work-for-the-dole scheme when there are employers all over the country who have skill shortages and labour shortages. 
Katherine Rich 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer my question. My question was about whether he— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question quite specifically in the last part of his answer. 
Police—Staffing 
10.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does he agree that there is a shortage of front-line police officers in New Zealand? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Police 
: It is important that we have an adequate level of police officers which is why the New Zealand Police is currently resourced at the highest levels ever. As at 28 February 2003 there were 7313 sworn staff and 2121 non-sworn staff in the New Zealand Police. That compares with 6939 sworn and 1734 non-sworn at the end of 1999. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you can advise the House how the answer given by the Minister to the question asked which was very specific—“Does he agree that there is a shortage of front-line police officers in New Zealand?”—addressed the question. He did not address the question at all. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Speaking to the point of order I specifically said that it is important we have an adequate level of front-line police officers. It was directly in response to the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is an answer to the question. The member may not be satisfied with it but it is in answer to the question. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: This may help the member who has just raised the point of order. If there is no shortage of police in New Zealand as the Minister appeared to imply why are we now recruiting police from the United Kingdom and dropping the recruitment age locally to 17? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Certainly there are issues that need to be addressed in Auckland. As the member pointed out recruitment campaigns are under way experienced police officers are coming from the UK there is a new trainee-based scheme out of south Auckland and more police are being sent to three Auckland districts. 
Taito Phillip Field 
: Has he received any reports on projections of future staffing levels in Auckland? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I have. I am advised that the current projections show that metropolitan Auckland districts are on target to be at full strength by the end of June 2003. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If there is no shortage of police in Auckland and Auckland police are fully resourced why did the owner of an Auckland supermarket have to hire a private investigator to locate the thief who stole thousands of dollars from the supermarket when the local police said they did not have the resources to investigate that serious crime? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As I have already said there are issues in Auckland which is why a series of programmes are under way. However it is important to point out to the member—and this is certainly good news—that by the end of June 2003 staff levels in the Auckland metropolitan area will be at their adequate level. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: If there is no shortage of police why are we reintroducing the old cadet scheme that was previously abandoned almost 20 years ago? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I think the member might be slightly confused. There are cadets recruits and now there are trainees. The trainee scheme that I think the member is referring to is a scheme that is being introduced and particularly targeted at Auckland. It is out of one of the Manukau polytechs and is aimed particularly at young people and giving them initial training before they go into the full cadet scheme. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I ask the Minister again. If there is no shortage of police why are we now introducing schemes seemingly targeted at Auckland with categories such as trainees recruits and cadets—what on earth is going on here? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: A phenomenal amount is going on from this very good Government. We have recognised that there are issues there. We have a series of programmes under way but the good news is that by the end of the middle of the year staffing levels in Auckland should be about where they should be. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table a report that police failed to respond to at least three complaints of a robbery of a tavern in south Auckland after which the perpetrator then went on to commit three murders at the Returned Services Association headquarters at Mount Wellington. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Responsible Gambling Bill—Consultation 
11.  
Hon MURRAY MCCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Minister of Internal Affairs 
: Will he be tabling any supplementary order papers outlining changes to the Responsible Gambling Bill; if so what assurances can he give that there will be full consultation with sporting bodies in relation to any concerns they may have? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Internal Affairs 
: The Minister advises that no such decision has yet been made. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Is the Minister aware that a group of national sporting organisations has held a press conference in Auckland today to voice its grave concerns about the possible impact of mooted changes to the Responsible Gambling Bill and will the Minister take this opportunity to give an assurance that no such changes will proceed without full and proper consultation with those groups? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I not sure whether the Minister of Internal Affairs is aware of the press conference that was held but the Minister for Sport and Recreation is aware of it. Apparently it was slightly disrupted by a woman regarded as somewhat deranged by the name of Collins who I understand is a member of this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That comment about a member of this House is out of order. The member will stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Now that the Minister has got over that can we please have an answer to the question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I think the Minister can address the question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes I am aware of what has been said. Much of what was said at the conference was nonsense and was fed to people by the National Party. 
Jill Pettis 
: Can the Minister please outline to the House what the Responsible Gambling Bill does to ensure that the profits from gambling actually benefit the community? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The bill does a number of things that are quite important. To start with it requires the publishing of the criteria used to consider applications for those grants advertising the fact that they are available advertising where to obtain applications who will consider them and the criteria for that and advertising the unsuccessful applications for grants as well as the successful applications. The bill has provisions to make sure that there are no conflicts of interest. We have seen what in many countries would be regarded as corruption in this area and I am shocked that National Party members appear to be supporting that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have taken a moment to reflect on the answer the Minister gave. It would appear to me that if one was to read  
Hansard  
one would find that the Minister has alleged that a substantial number of members on the Opposition side of the House are engaged in corruption. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I was reflecting on the answer too. The comment— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I did not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well if the Minister gives us an assurance he did not that is the end of the matter. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Not at all Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well if the member said that his word is accepted. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would ask you to take a look at the  
Hansard 
 when it is available later today and to perhaps rule then as to whether the wording used by the Minister was appropriate. To suggest that members on this side of the House are supporting corruption seems to me to be a widespread allegation for which he should apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened to the answer that was given and I think when the Minister examines the  
Hansard 
 he will reflect on the fact that perhaps that interpretation can be taken from it. I want him to withdraw and apologise for it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I want to make it clear to the House that what I indicated was there was a system that was corrupt and members opposite supported it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is not correct. I want the member now to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister aware of an email from the general manager of the Lion Foundation Mark Forshaw to the  
National Business Review 
 dated 4 March last year in which he says that because the  
National Business Review  
has been exposing corruption among the pokie trusts he will give no more grants to any organisation associated with the  
National Business Review 
 and does he not agree that this email is a good illustration of why the Responsible Gambling Bill must be amended so that the distribution of pokie profits is carried out through a publicly accountable system and not through the privatised trusts as currently pertains? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No I am not aware of the email but I am aware of widespread practices that result in clubs being required to buy liquor from agents in order to get grants. I am aware of cases where people have been asked for under-the-table payments. There is widespread corruption and I do not understand why any member of this House would support a system that condones and encourages it. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Given the reported statement of the Green spokesperson that the gambling proceeds currently allocated to sporting groups should be redirected to beneficiary advocates and the reported statement of the Prime Minister that current funding arrangements are “too blokey” can the Minister understand that there might be some basis for the concerns at the press conference in Auckland today and will the Minister ensure that the reasonable concerns of those national sporting bodies are listened to before any legislation is proceeded with in the House? 
Sue Bradford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As the Green spokesperson on gambling that the member is referring to I say I did not make any such statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He did not mention the member. He mentioned a Green spokesperson. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This is one occasion when I am pleased to be answering a question on behalf of the Minister of Internal Affairs. I am sure he will stand strong on this issue. He will act in an appropriate way and he will inform all people who have opinions of the proper thing to do. 
Sue Bradford 
: I seek leave to table an email from Mark Forshaw of the Lion Foundation to the  
National Business Review 
 last year assuring the  
National Business Review  
that any charity associated with it would be declined funding. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Building Industry—Leaky Homes 
12.  
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: In light of her reported concern to have the building industry’s problems with leaky homes resolved will she now allocate funds for a far more wide-reaching inquiry into the cases of property developers evading their responsibility by liquidating companies set up specifically for a development and thus leaving affected home owners with no course of action against them; if not why not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I draw the member’s attention to the discussion document  
Better Regulation of the Building Industry in New Zealand 
 which I launched 2 weeks ago. Reference is made on page 22 of that document to the Government’s decision to legislate for additional measures to deal with phoenix companies which was made in the context of the call for submissions on other proposals to address that very issue. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Given that the Minister is unwilling to extend the leaky homes inquiry into the shonky business of developers is it now her belief that the inquiry that has just been completed is a waste of time or will she spend some money to widen the inquiry into the activities of shonky developers? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Page 22 of the discussion document which has been out for consideration for 2 weeks does precisely that. The member will also be pleased to know that today I am sending a copy of the report on the Government Administration Committee’s inquiry to all territorial local authorities in this country to make sure that they do take into account the select committee’s recommendations when they make submissions on the discussion document. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Why did the Minister tell the Local Government New Zealand workshop last week that the weathertightness issue is a symptom and that treating the symptom alone will not treat the problem? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: There is a danger that to treat only one symptom when it is not the only symptom will leave the underlying problem untreated. A fundamental assessment of the problem which is provided by the discussion document will minimise the chance of building failure. It is better that buildings are built right the first time; then the issue of insolvent developers does not arise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Noting that the primary question goes to the heart of protecting the people who buy houses from those who shirk their responsibilities under the guise of limited liability I ask whether the Minister has seen or asked for any reports on how the expectations of buyers may be protected against a person’s right to operate under limited liability and is she looking at legislation that will still protect limited liability? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I refer the member to the announcement I made to the House in February about the insolvency law changes that we are proposing in order to deal with the issue of phoenix companies. There is also a further issue about guarantees bonds and various other matters that have been raised by the select committee and in the discussion document. I encourage all members of the House to read the discussion document and to propose acceptable solutions. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Given the acknowledgement in the report into leaky houses that toxic mould may be extensive will the Minister commit to implementing recommendations 47 and 48 which are respectively to conduct a survey to determine the extent of toxic mould in New Zealand and to provide an assistance package for homeowners suffering from health problems that result from rotting homes? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: There is a multiplicity of issues arising out of the weathertightness issue and indeed that is one of those matters. I can advise the member that the Building Industry Authority has referred the question relating to the treatment of timber to the Environmental Risk Management Authority and we will be taking all those matters into consideration in determining the best way forward. 
Murray Smith 
: Will the Minister make a promise to this House and to all New Zealanders that she will ensure that a full investigation into the extent of the weathertightness problem will be immediately undertaken as has been unanimously called for by the Government Administration Committee in whose view that is not being done at present? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That draws me back to the second supplementary question I dealt with. Weathertightness is only a symptom of a much wider problem. It is correct that there are several people who want to focus attention on the past 2 years. However the rot set in well before that time frame with the hopelessly inadequate regulatory framework of the Building Act and the building code the destruction of the apprenticeship system and an inadequate system of quality assurance around products processes and designs. 
Question Time 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise a serious issue. There were two questions on the Order Paper today to the Minister of Police and one to the Minister of Internal Affairs. The Minister with responsibility for those portfolios was not available and other Ministers answered the questions—which does happen from time to time. We accept that the questions were not easy but the minute that question No. 11 was over—which was addressed to the Minister of Internal Affairs—the Hon George Hawkins arrived in the House. We have just gone through a series of questions where an acting Minister was not able to answer some of the issues that were raised. The Minister answering on behalf of George Hawkins said he was not sure what the Minister of Internal Affairs would say but he was sure he would say A B and C. I seek an assurance from the Government that the Minister in question was not being kept out of the House. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I wish to inform the House that I was out at the Police College talking to almost 80 people who are graduating today—many of whom will be going to Auckland. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not something the Speaker has any jurisdiction over whatsoever. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I seek leave for question No. 11 to be asked of the Minister of Internal Affairs now that he is in the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I understand that New Zealand First has possibly gone over its quota of questions but I seek leave for my colleague to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot seek leave on behalf of another member. Only the member who asked the substantive question can seek leave. If Mr Catchpole is seeking leave I will put leave but New Zealand First has had its quota for the week. The member is now seeking leave for another supplementary question. Is there any objection to that? There is. 
Questions to Members 
Genetically Engineered Sweetcorn Plants—Inquiry 
1.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee 
: Has a meeting of the Local Government and Environment Committee been set to consider its inquiry into the alleged accidental release of genetically engineered sweet corn plants in 2000 and the subsequent action taken? 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee) 
: 
 The committee has already met to consider how we will address that inquiry and has made a plan of action. We have appointed a specialist adviser to the committee and briefed that person on the work that we wish to have done. Our next meeting on the topic will be on 10 April. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Has the committee scheduled additional meetings to expedite its business; if so why has the “corngate” inquiry not been accorded a higher priority and what could be more pressing? 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: The only additional meeting scheduled by the committee is to progress a matter on which the House has given direction: that we may sit outside normal sitting hours to deal with the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the minutes of the select committee that show that Labour members blocked further tests— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Privilege—New Zealand Post 
2.  
Hon MURRAY MCCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Privileges Committee 
: Has a meeting of the Privileges Committee been set to consider the question of privilege in relation to an allegation that New Zealand Post Limited breached privilege in certain responses to questions at hearings being conducted by the Finance and Expenditure Committee? 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Chairperson of the Privileges Committee) 
: 
 The Privileges Committee will meet next on Thursday 10 April 2003. The question of privilege referred on 28 February 2002 through the Speaker in relation to information given by New Zealand Post Ltd to the Finance and Expenditure Committee will be among the questions of privilege to be considered. 
Privilege—New Zealand Post 
3.  
Hon MURRAY MCCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Privileges Committee 
: On how many occasions since 1 February 2002 has the Privileges Committee met to consider the question of privilege in relation to information given by New Zealand Post Limited to the Finance and Expenditure Committee? 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Chairperson of the Privileges Committee) 
: 
 The Privileges Committee has considered the question of privilege referred to it on 28 February 2002 in relation to information given by New Zealand Post Ltd to the Finance and Expenditure Committee during four meetings since 1 February 2003 and a further meeting will give consideration to that on 10 April. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Will the chairman of the committee confirm that the matter of privilege that has been referred to the Privileges Committee was first raised by me with Mr Speaker on 11 February 2002 and does the committee have anything to report to the House in relation to any reasons that this matter has been delayed for so long—over 1 year and 1 month? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The second part of the question is in order. 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: As the new chair of that committee I would hope that such a matter could be advanced as expeditiously as possible but I point out that the matters are very serious. As the chair I would like to congratulate the member on raising a number of serious issues that have come out. The correspondence on this matter between the committee and those involved has taken some time. The present constituted committee of this Parliament has given quite some consideration to the issues and there are still some more to consider. 
Tabling of Documents 
Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table three separate papers pages 2520 3135 and 3186-87 to do with the citizenship of Samoa bill introduced on 24 August 1982 showing that the Labour Party supported the bill— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Deed of Settlement—Ngati Awa 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Stephen Franks seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 a deed of settlement signed by the Crown and Ngati Awa. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but as the member acknowledges in his letter the deed of settlement will require legislation for its implementation. The House will therefore have plenty of opportunity to consider its implications while passing the legislation. I see no reason for the House to set aside its business for an urgent debate on the deed today. 
Retirements 
John Lindell O’Sullivan 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move 
 That this House express appreciation of the services given to members by John Lindell O’Sullivan CNZM LVO upon his retirement as General Manager of the Parliamentary Service; note his long career in the public sector particularly with the Department of Internal Affairs where he became a Deputy Secretary; and convey to John and Annette O’Sullivan every best wish for the future. 
 I know it is slightly outside the Standing Orders but I would like to refer to the fact that Mr O’Sullivan is in the gallery and I am sure I will be expressing the views of all members in moving that motion. Mr O’Sullivan has been the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service for some 10 years and before that for over 30 years he was in the Department of Internal Affairs. When he left that department he was responsible for matters such as citizenship gaming passports racing film censorship civil defence the arts and culture. At the time when he joined the Parliamentary Service he was also responsible for local government and community affairs. Mr O’Sullivan was engaged in organising royal visits to this country in 1977 and 1981 which is how he became a Lieutenant of the Royal Victorian Order. His service as General Manager to the Parliamentary Service led to him becoming a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in this year’s New Year’s Honours List. 
As General Manager John O’Sullivan has been responsible for the supervision of the enormous range of activities that go on in the Parliamentary Service catering not only to all the staff here but also to the peculiarly diffuse diverse and difficult 120 select customers who are the prime customers for the services that he provides. Very few departments have to deal with such a wide range of prima donnas as the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service has to at all times. It is interesting that one or two members decided to interject straight away in that regard. We would all agree that John O’Sullivan has dealt with the demands placed upon him in an extraordinarily sensible and straightforward manner. As he said in his own farewell message he has seen four general elections an increase in the size of Parliament from 99 to 120 members a new electoral system—MMP—being introduced substantial development of resources for members and parliamentary parties and the finishing off of refurbishment projects in the parliamentary complex. It has been an extraordinary period of time. I very much want to express my own personal thanks to John for the work he has done. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 On behalf of the National Party I want to join with the Deputy Prime Minister and to agree with the statements that he has made. One of the missions that John O’Sullivan had in his life as General Manager of the Parliamentary Service was to keep members of Parliament out of the media. I know he took it personally whenever that was not quite achieved. There were one or two occasions when unfortunately it did not happen. However I know that he took that as a very serious part of his job. Indeed I am sure I am not the only whip who had a phone call from Mr O’Sullivan from to time to time saying he just wanted to draw my attention to an issue that I might want to debate with a particular person. I must say that was very helpful. In many instances it achieved the ambition Mr O’Sullivan had of not seeing us in the media. 
One of the frustrations there was in dealing with Mr O’Sullivan was that when people raised a matter with him and they thought they were just starting to win he would then remind them of course that the rules were not his rules but those of the Parliamentary Service Commission of which I and others were members and that it had made the jolly rules in the first place. I must say that that was always very frustrating. However if I can say this again—in breaching the Standing Orders—I still think that John O’Sullivan was wrong not to agree with that rental car thing that finally I had to pay for myself. On behalf of the National Party and myself—and indeed I am sure all the members of the House—I conclude by saying that we wish John O’Sullivan very well in his retirement. We know we will see him around from time to time anyway. He also has a number of projects that he wishes to undertake in his private life and we hope that those all go very well for him and that he enjoys the time with his family as he hopes to do. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First my members would have me endorse the comments made by the Minister of Finance. We have to agree that the last 10 years have been years of enormous change. We went from first past the post to the precursor of MMP which was a whole lot of desertions between 1993 and 1996 to other parties and then on to an MMP environment. In all that time Mr O’Sullivan had to have dealt with—present company excepted—a great number of prima donnas as the Minister of Finance said and with unreasonable demands made from all quarters. Having to deal with the precedent set by various parties particularly as that affected the other new parties coming on could not have been easy. 
We also have to say though we regret John O’Sullivan is going at a time when there are outstanding inquiries to do with the use of political funds by political parties. I do not want to say very much about that—it would be very churlish to do so—but I regret that John O’Sullivan will not be able to help the State Services Commission and the Serious Fraud Office to reach their final deliberations on that matter. Having said that— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It was already on. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Exactly but members can see what I mean and the difficulties that John O’Sullivan has had to deal with. I know what my correspondence to the Serious Fraud Office states. However I will get back to the point. During the last 10 years I do not think I can recall one public event to do with Mr O’Sullivan’s staff where there would have been a one-off complaint and that is pretty important for somebody who has been the boss of an organisation. The second thing I can say is that in all of our dealings although on many occasions we have not been happy with the decision that was reached I think we were dealt with in a professional fashion. I want to thank John O’Sullivan for that and to wish him all the very best in whatever he does in the future. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 On behalf of the ACT party I would like to join with others and express our appreciation of the services given to members by John O’Sullivan. I have had considerable dealings with him and have always found him to be very courteous very diligent and very considerate. I would certainly acknowledge his fierce loyalty in terms of the protection of the staff around Parliament Buildings because they can get caught up in all sorts of difficult situations and I believe that John O’Sullivan has been very consistent and very determined to protect the interests of staff. I do not believe that any training or previous experience—and I acknowledge John’s very distinguished career in the public service—could actually equip him for the job he has had as chief executive officer of the Parliamentary Service. Mention has been made of the “prima donnas” around this place and as a governance body I think the Parliamentary Service Commission is a very difficult forum. Whether it is an appropriate governance body is an outstanding matter that needs to be addressed because it must be incredibly hard to run what is essentially a department of State with a governance body like that. Although they make the rules for society in many respects and given the nature of the beast legislators are possibly not very good at making the rules for themselves. 
In summary I would say that in his job John O’Sullivan really has been the meat and the mustard in a very squelchy sandwich. I believe that he has discharged his responsibilities very fairly very diligently and very thoroughly. Certainly we would like to give him our best wishes for his retirement and for the projects he has in mind. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green MPs I would like to join with other parties in the House to thank John for his enormous contribution not just to Parliament but also to the public service. John has been in charge of Parliament at a time of great change. He ensured its smooth transition to MMP which is no mean feat. Parliament is now more truly a House of Representatives and John had to find room for all of us when that change took place. I appreciate all of the services support and advice he has given us in the Green Party since we came to Parliament. Jeanette Fitzsimons and I are especially grateful for John’s assistance after the 1999 election while we were waiting for the special votes to return us to Parliament and for the way he helped our new MPs fit in at the time. 
I have enjoyed working with John on the Parliamentary Service Commission especially in sorting out the allowances and services for members of Parliament and I make a commitment to him that we will continue to progress that after he has gone. I wish John well in his official retirement and I say “official” because we will be continuing to see him around in his role of organising the 150th anniversary of Parliament. I was privileged to know John for many years before I came to this House and in that regard I would like to acknowledge my appreciation of his support for Annette in her commitment to social justice causes. I wish them both well in their retirement. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to join with other members who have spoken in tribute to John O’Sullivan as he retires as the General Manager of the Parliamentary Service. On behalf of United Future I want to say that we have appreciated his counsel his assistance and his practical view of things in coming to grips with the realities we faced in this Parliament. I for one am very grateful to him for his assistance at a personal level as well on many of those issues. 
As has been said John has been the face of Parliament in a managerial sense for the last decade at a time when huge change has occurred. I appreciate the point that Mr Carter made about John’s wish that so many matters relating to the conduct of Parliament did not stray into the public arena. It seems to me that the lasting tribute to John’s stewardship as general manager will be the extent to which we have managed to get about our business in an often controversial but quiet way without too many scandals coming to the public mind. There will always be the question of Mr Carter’s rental car and associated matters but they are the exceptions now rather than the rule. In earlier times more serious incidents might have come more regularly into public contention than has been the case in the last 10 years. Members have appreciated a general manager who has had the interests of both the public and members in mind—individually and in respect of their parties as well. 
We will miss John O’Sullivan but I am delighted that he will not be lost to us completely because he has a huge talent and experience that we ought to be able to draw upon. I wish him well for his planned retirement but I also express the hope—and I am sure Annette will forgive me for saying this—that we are able to draw on his expertise and services from time to time. John O’Sullivan is a man who has been in a unique position for the last 10 years. He has been a great general manager and has set a high standard for his successor to follow—I wish him well too in that challenge—and I hope that he has a long happy and very fulfilled retirement. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 The leader of the Progressive party has asked me to speak on behalf of the party. He in particular has had a long association with John O’Sullivan and appreciates the assistance that he has been given as a leader in this Parliament. John O’Sullivan has overseen an enormous expansion of the services to members of Parliament in that time. 
In a television programme well known in New Zealand the fictional character Francis Urquhart coined the term: “You might very well say that; I couldn’t possibly comment.” I am told that that saying might have come from Mr O’Sullivan and that he was possibly an inspiration for it. 
John O’Sullivan has advised me that in his retirement he will be involved with community organisations. It has been suggested to me that the New Zealand Kindergarten Federation in particular is asking for the benefit of his experience and I do not think that would reflect too badly on this Parliament. I am sure that Mr O’Sullivan will serve in community organisations wherever he is called to serve. As a Minister of Corrections I was often told that it is a good idea to lock people up and throw away the key. I have never been in favour of that but if there are any skeletons in his cupboards in this case I am sure that throwing away the key would be a very good idea. 
In the tributes paid all of us have said that we have appreciated the professional way in which Mr O’Sullivan has assisted us in our work. I can assure the public of New Zealand that in the dealings my party has had he has at all times looked after the interests of the public as well as the interests of the members who serve in this Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Honourable members I am going to take the unusual step of making just a couple of comments myself. I will say a few things later on but John I want to say that I have been Speaker of this House now for 3½ years and having two incredibly good chief executive officers—yourself and Dave McGee—has made my job a lot easier. The comment made by John Carter and other people was right. You have to deal with 120 people all of whom have strong opinions keen ambition and sometimes a desire for a little bit more than they are entitled to. 
I have always admired your professionalism and judgment and I am going to miss having daily contact with you to discuss matters. Of course we would like you to carry on but you have made your decision to go at this time and I know you have discussed it with your wife Annette. I want to say congratulations on all the work you have done and wish you all the best for your retirement. 
Motion agreed to. 
Government Communications Security Bureau Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service 
: I move  
That the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill defines the functions of the Government Communications Security Bureau and provides for its administration and the conduct of its operational activities. Its primary objectives are firstly to formalise in statute the existing executive arrangements that establish the Government Communications Security Bureau and authorise its activities; secondly to fill a gap in the existing legal structure which currently prevents the Government Communications Security Bureau’s intelligence collection operations from evolving to keep pace with the rapidly changing communications environment; and thirdly to recognise formally the key role that the bureau plays in the protection of the nation’s communications and computer systems. 
This bill puts the position of the Government Communications Security Bureau beyond doubt as a legitimate agency of Government. It emphasises that the bureau’s functions are to be focused on meeting the Government’s foreign intelligence and information security needs and provides for robust protection for the legitimate privacy interests of New Zealanders ourselves. In defining the functions for the Government Communications Security Bureau this bill establishes clear parameters of the bureau’s operational activities at a time when the need for an effective intelligence and security response in the national interest has perhaps never been more compelling. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 It is perhaps timely that today we are debating the third reading of the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill because clause 7 states that the objectives of the bureau are to protect and advance the security or defence of New Zealand or the international relations of the Government of New Zealand. Today the international relations of the Government of New Zealand are perhaps more under question than they have been since 1985—and as much as at any time in my 19 years in this Parliament—when Labour last threw a bomb into New Zealand’s international relations. I will come back to that in a moment. 
This bill puts the structure of the Government Communications Security Bureau on a proper footing. It sets out its objectives much more clearly. It sets out the regulation of its activities and particularly its interception activities. These things could not be more critically important than they are right now. If we just think back over the last few months there was the 11 September terrorist attack in the United States which was the first time in a long long time that the United States mainland had been attacked. Since then of course there have been the Bali bombings. Today for the first time in 100 years and more New Zealand is not supporting our English-speaking family in a major conflict affecting the security of the world. That is certainly relevant to clause 7 and the international relations of the Government of New Zealand. The question is whether New Zealand is obtaining the security information it requires to guarantee the security of our people. That is not at all clear. If we go back over evidence put before this Parliament in recent times following the Bali bombings when New Zealanders were killed in those terrorist attacks it becomes quite clear that there was a question about whether New Zealand was getting the security information it required from other Governments voluntarily. If we are not then clearly the activities of the Government Communications Security Bureau which intercepts the communications of foreign Governments need to be stepped up. 
We depend hugely on voluntary access to or the voluntary provision of security information to us by our friends and allies. Following the Bali bombings it was pretty clear that we may not be receiving the information from our friends and allies that we might expect. For example it became clear that New Zealand did not receive a key CIA warning that specifically listed Bali as a terrorist target before it was attacked. We would have expected to receive that. 
It is interesting that in Australia Prime Minister John Howard admitted that they had received some information that pointed to that bombing. When the New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade was asked whether he could confirm that we had received the same information as Australia the parliamentary select committee was told that it could not be confirmed because Prime Minister Howard had not disclosed to New Zealand the information he had. Quite clearly if our friends and allies are not disclosing to New Zealand the information they have we need to be able to intercept the communications of foreign Governments even more than we have in the past and that is a shocking admission to have to make. In clause 7 “Objective of Bureau” we see that one of those objectives—I am referring to clause 7(1)(a)(ii)—is the advancement of the international relations of the Government of New Zealand. I want to focus today on the state to which those international relations have declined. Today at the United Nations this Labour-led Government made a statement that totally ignores the facts about our family of English-speaking nations our friends and allies whom we have stood and died with through successive conflicts last century—one of whom saved our people from an imperial invasion during the Second World War—and treats that family of friends no differently from a vicious dictator Saddam Hussein. 
This bill we debate today is all about advancing New Zealand’s international relations and we are debating it on the very day that this Labour-led Government has kicked in the guts our family whom we have to depend on for foreign intelligence. The Government has kicked them in the guts. How can Government members think that Washington London and Canberra have not dissected today’s statement at the UN and have not looked at those words which said that our common objective must be to end the hostilities as quickly as possible? There was no mention of wishing our family in that conflict Godspeed in ousting a vicious dictator. People do not have to agree with what members of their family do but when the chips are down decency expects that they will support their family. But no New Zealand today for the first time in my lifetime—maybe with the exception of 1985 when we last had a Labour Government—for the first time for a long time the Government of New Zealand a Labour-led Government has treated our friends Australia Britain and the United States as though they are no different from Saddam Hussein one of the more vicious dictators in the world today. 
I commend this bill to the Labour Government. I urge Government members to read their own bill. I urge them to read clause 7 and see what the objectives of the Government Communications Security Bureau are and think about it. I ask them to think about their friends who keep them in power the Greens and the Progressive Coalition who think this stuff is all wrong. I want the Labour members in this House to reflect for a moment on what our friends on whom we depend so much for security information think of what the Government has done at the United Nations today. These things are not forgotten. They are not forgotten lightly. They reverberate on. New Zealand was done a huge disservice at the United Nations in New York today by this Labour-led Government and we will regret it for some time to come. National supports this bill because we need it given the damage that the Labour-led Government has done today to New Zealand’s future. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I would have thought that the member who has just resumed his seat would not want his speech to be interpreted the way it will be which is simply that this bill was necessary because of the Government’s current foreign policy. This bill is necessary full stop. This bill is necessary because in today’s environment regardless of the particular foreign policy that the Government of the day may follow international relations have become so much more volatile that every single State whatever its size needs to have adequate security intelligence services to gather information about what is going on and to enable that information to be processed in the best interests of that country. That is exactly what this bill seeks to do in both clauses 7 and 8 which set out the objectives and the functions of the Government Communications Security Bureau. The bureau is being set up as a Government department to make it more accountable in effect and also to ensure that its role is more tightly specified. 
As I look around the walls of this Chamber I see a succession of plaques commemorating the occasions when New Zealand has joined international conflict and New Zealand blood has been spilt in the pursuit of freedom. I do not think anyone should detract from that memory. The situation in Iraq at the moment is extraordinarily unfortunate. I doubt that in my lifetime there has been a more savage more brutal more reprehensible dictator than Saddam Hussein. I certainly want to see him removed from power as quickly as possible and I want to see those associated with him removed from power as quickly as possible. That is one of the big issues confronting the country today but it is not of itself an issue that explains why we need to pass this bill. 
If there had been no Saddam Hussein no Bali no September 11 and no Taliban or other threat I would say that we still need to have legislation of this type. The greatest protection that we can have in a very diverse and uncertain world is to ensure that our resources are best placed to enable us to have the information we need to do the job that is required. 
Often it is not just a matter of foreign policy. We see threats being made around the world all the time. There are threats of an economic nature and there are threats of a biosecurity nature. They are threats that may be small “p” political but all of those things are matters that we as a decent society require adequate intelligence upon. We also need to have a mechanism which is the other part of this bill by which those who gather that material can be properly held to account for the role they perform and that is what this bill establishes. I deplore the fact that a relatively non-contentious matter that with the exception of one segment of the House has widespread support is being turned into something that it is not. This is a measure that we ought to have passed some considerable time ago because the change in technology the improvement in communications and the sophistication in the way in which people do their business mean that the Government Communications Security Bureau and the other intelligence agencies that go alongside it—the External Assessments Bureau and the Security Intelligence Service—need to have their role constantly upskilled and updated to ensure that they are able to protect us. And that says nothing about particular situations that arise from time to time. I think it is an unfortunate association to try to say that this measure becomes more important because of certain circumstances in the world at the present time. 
This is a good bill. I do not accept the criticism of those who speak against it that somehow it means that information about people will be gathered improperly or that some of the provisions in the bill particularly the reference at clause 7(1)(a)(iii) to “New Zealand’s international well-being or economic well-being” can be used as a way of suppressing internal legitimate protest and dissent. The people who raised that argument are the same people who object to the line in our national anthem that this country be spared from dissension envy and hate. It is a ludicrous argument that is advanced in that respect. New Zealand is not being compromised in this regard. We are ensuring that our intelligence services are able to operate effectively and efficiently. I believe we ought to give them the support they require to do that job because they are operating on the nation’s behalf. I am happy to support this bill. I want to see it passed as quickly as possible and I want to see us move on and ensure that our intelligence services—whatever the international environment—operate efficiently in the public interest of this country. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to signal that New Zealand First will be voting as it has all the way through in favour of the bill. I wish to make a couple of points. Quite clearly the bill was needed. It is a little disappointing that it has languished on the Order Paper for so long having been introduced into the House under urgency and I would ask members like the member who just spoke that before they give urgency support to this Government they really question it about its intent. To have this bill introduced as a security issue—so important that it had to come in under urgency—and then see it languish for 2 years on the Order Paper and only just coming to its third reading now says a lot about this Government and some of the objectives it puts up on day 1 and what they really mean on day 2. Only two parties in this House are going to give urgency for next week. One is the party of the member who just spoke— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will come back to this bill. Do not talk about urgency. 
RON MARK 
: I will. The point is that if this bill is so important and so critical to the security and well-being of our nation it should not have stopped once the urgency motion had been passed. It should have been rammed through this House as quickly as possible. It should not have taken 2 years. The bill after all was designed to establish the bureau as a department of State and to clarify and define the bureau’s functions and objectives. It was designed to detail the circumstances in which the bureau may intercept foreign communications and how it may do that. They are all crucial and critical things. 
I want to make a couple of points beyond this. It is therefore extremely disappointing to see the way in which the Labour Government supported by the Progressive Coalition and United Future then treated this House with utter contempt at the Committee stage by not participating in the Committee debate. I do not think there was one speech. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: There was. 
RON MARK 
: United Future did speak? I withdraw that. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: You should have been here. 
RON MARK 
: I was here through the whole thing. Maybe the member came in briefly and disappeared. But the Labour Party sat there and did not take one speech in defence of this bill or to explain it. “Concerned about the security of this nation”—it certainly brings into question those statements. But we have the bill. 
The second point is that I note the concerns of the Green Party—and to its credit it fought hard in defence of its views of life. But I have to say to the Greens that they spend so much time worrying about the wrong things. I would put it to the Greens that if they are seriously concerned about the privacy and protection of individual rights individual personal well-being and individual information they should take some time out and examine what happens to the information on an EFTPOS card or a VISA card or maybe they should go and do some checks into Baycorp and see the influence those people have on ordinary New Zealanders’ lives. I would suggest to them that the impact of Baycorp can certainly be far more damaging to many New Zealanders in the low socioeconomic group than this bill will be. 
I would comment on another thing. I have heard a lot of rhetoric and I heard some more of it just then about foreign policy and where we are going. I would say in support of some of those comments that this bill is necessary because the world has changed drastically. If September 11 was not a wake-up call to many of the pacifists and the naïve members of Parliament on that side of the House surely Bali was. And if that was not then surely the bombings in the Philippines after that were. This Government has to wake up to the real security issues that we face and I will say again that the issues that are presented to us through an open-door immigration policy coupled with international terrorism are not issues that this Government should dismiss lightly as simply the rantings of xenophobes or racists. There in the immigration policies lies a very real threat to the security of New Zealand and its friends. 
New Zealand for years has been used as a staging post and a back door into Australia by people who have picked up cheapo New Zealand passports on loose immigration policies. We need this bill and we need more security measures to enhance our protection because of one simple fact: we do not actually have any friends. We say we do but since we came out of the ANZUS alliance much of the intelligence that was always available to New Zealand is no longer available to us. It is available on a pick-and-choose basis and on that basis we are more vulnerable. We need legislation like this and further steps beyond this to ensure that we have access to good information that that access is timely and that it is on a broad-brush not a cherry-pick basis. 
We encourage world trade. We encourage foreign companies to come in and invest here. We therefore have an obligation to protect their investments when they become part of the New Zealand economic infrastructure. By not running competent capable in-depth thorough security systems that are totally networked with our allies where our allies have such confidence in us that they can give us that information we place in jeopardy many of those foreign corporations. 
I shall take a simple example: KFC and McDonald’s which we allow to come in here and set up business to service our needs. Imagine the effects on this nation and on the United States if we within New Zealand had bombings of KFC outlets. It is an American company and a prime target for international terrorists to make their point. In which country could that really happen? Well look at little old New Zealand! We do not think that anything like that could ever happen to us because we have Helen Clark as the Prime Minister and the Labour Government looking after us in a benign environment! I say: wake up New Zealand; wake up Labour Party! I compliment the Government on passing the legislation but I give it a brickbat for taking 2 years to get it through. I tell Government members again that there is a very real need to develop stronger ties with our traditional allies. If this Government is not going to take any of those steps then it had better get its head around this idea: if this Government wants independence of security and independence of foreign policy then it had better develop independence of security on its own shores and an independent Defence Force. 
I put it to the Government that it will only ever do that when it starts allocating 2 percent of gross domestic product towards defence. It will only ever do that when it backs up its independent mouth with independent dollars to create a fully comprehensive security system that this country can rely on. To do anything else is to be a bludger. To do anything else is to tell the United States: “Oh yes when we need you we will need you but in the meantime we don’t want to know you.” Well that does not work does it and it leaves us vulnerable and our security dependent on the goodwill of our traditional friends and allies. I am sorry but we have a habit of stretching that goodwill far too far. 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise in support of the bill. The Government Communications Security Bureau was formed in 1977 without specific statutory authority. The bill provides some important safeguards to privacy but at the same time ensures that the bureau’s present ability to intercept foreign communications without warrants is retained although some warrantable aspects are also introduced to it. In doing so it puts the bureau on a similar footing to that of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. I think it is good legislation and I commend it to the House. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 ACT New Zealand supports this bill. We believe that it is essentially a good bill and that it is necessary but we raise the question: is it sufficient? We suspect that possibly it is not. We recognise that it is tidying up a situation whereby as the previous speaker has just mentioned the Government Communications Security Bureau was established in 1977 without statutory authority. I believe that it is necessary to have that statutory authority. The bill introduces appropriate checks and balances and I think that those checks and balances are about right. I know that most parties in the House other than the Greens support the bill. I take it that the Greens’ concerns are that they believe that civil liberties are at risk presumably but I am sure that we will hear from Mr Locke on that. 
The point has also been made that the Prime Minister is quite wrong. The Prime Minister Helen Clark told us just a few months ago that we are very fortunate in New Zealand because we live in an extraordinarily benign environment strategically. That illusion has been well and truly shattered and hopefully she now recognises the folly of those words and regrets having ever said them. They will haunt her for some time to come. New Zealand does not have the luxury of living in an extraordinarily benign environment as Helen Clark claimed and the events of the past 24 months have certainly brought that home to us. 
We live in a changing world. We are in a time of global transition. The whole of last century was characterised by a philosophical debate between fascism communism and liberal democracy underpinned by market economies. It is very interesting that out of the ashes of the First World War came communism and fascism and that the Second World War was all about defeating fascism which had sprung up in Italy Germany Japan and Spain. The communists and those who believed in liberal market economies with representative democracies joined together to defeat fascism in the Second World War. 
The month that the Second World War finished we went into a very long ideological war between communism and representative democracy and open market economies. That war lasted until 1990. It was only with the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the accepted failure of socialism that the predominance of open market economies and representative democracy became the prevailing world order. What we have now in our difficult transition from nation States to interdependent market States is an incredible new philosophical battle with those who object to international free trade and open market economies. 
We see it in parts of the Middle East. Osama bin Laden is a total rejection of the values that we hold dear to. Regrettably some of the loony left do not believe in free trade either. In a strange way they are actually more aligned to international terrorists like Osama bin Laden whose bottom line is to bring down the interdependent market economies that underpin the capitalist system that is now the predominant world order. 
The regret is that New Zealand is now out of the loop. We have put ourselves out of the loop. It seems that our Prime Minister and senior Ministers get their information from CNN news these days. This bill is all about putting us in the loop. But because of our strategic positioning it is only the mechanism; it will not of itself put us in the loop for international information. 
We have done it to ourselves. This Labour Government with its abandoning of our traditional allies and some of their other policy positions has clearly alienated New Zealand from what is obviously—to me and I think most others in this country—our strategic best well-being 
Like others I was offended by the statement of this Government delivered to the United Nations today. It was a further insult to our traditional allies. Not only was it unnecessary it was unnecessarily provocative. It is driven by ideology. In particular the quote that I find offensive is this quote from our United Nations statement today: “Our common objective must be to end hostilities as quickly as possible so that the risks to the Iraqi people are minimised and so that their humanitarian needs can be met.” At question time today I asked our Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade—he has an option with that statement—is he saying that the coalition of the willing should down tools now and withdraw because he says it should be ended as quickly as possible and leave the Saddam Hussein and his Arab socialist Baath party regime in power? Is that what he is saying or is he saying he supports finishing the job and supports a regime change? 
He would not answer that question. It was a clear choice. That is an example of how we are increasingly alienating ourselves on vital intelligence and communication information that underpins our security. At the end of the day the prime role of the State is security of the realm and protection of its people from illegal force whether internal or external. That is why we need legislation like this in a Government communications and security provision. 
I note that there has been a call from numerous quarters in recent months for a rethink of how we organise our strategy. The Hunn report tabled yesterday raises and flags the issue of a need to better integrate and rethink our security and defence provisions. I notice that Terence O’Brien who has represented this country at the United Nations and has led the strategic studies group is saying that the Government needs to upgrade its thinking and think anew in this dangerous transitional time that we face globally. 
That brings me to the point: why did this Government leave this bill—having introduced it in urgency—for 2 years languishing on the Order Paper? It introduced it under urgency saying that this bill is critical we have to pass it and then left it languishing on the Order Paper. There has to be a political reason for that. It is only in the new Parliament where Labour has the United Future people who will support it that Labour is prepared to bring it back to Parliament. 
Was it perhaps that the Greens were blocking the passage of this bill? Let me have a guess that the Greens were actually blocking it. Labour knew that it had the support of ACT National and New Zealand First but oh no it was not prepared to bring it back to the Parliament. It was significant enough to introduce under urgency and then to leave languishing for 2 years on the Order Paper! 
To that extent I raise the question is it out of date already? A lot has happened in that 2 years. When we have the Hunn report and Terence O’Brien and others saying that we need to upgrade our thinking on strategic and defence issues I suspect that the provisions in this bill are inadequate. It is necessary but not sufficient. In conclusion I say that ACT is happy to support this bill but we do raise the question: is it adequate is it sufficient? 
DAVID CUNLIFFE (NZ Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call in this debate in support of this bill. This is a useful bill; it is definitely a post-September 11 bill. It does recognise the fact that the world is a difficult and dangerous place and I recognise the support that members of the Opposition are giving to the passage of this bill. As Mr Shirley has said the security of the realm should transcend party politics. It is a matter on which I think most parties in this House are agreed that we need to have modern systems that give us the intelligence cover that we need in a world that is demonstrably insecure. 
I do think that the Intelligence and Security Committee deserves some commendation for this bill because it has sought to balance the need to update and modernise our communications security infrastructure legislation with the need to protect third parties from accidental eavesdropping or interception. The bill does provide a legislative basis for non-warranted non-authorised interceptions under specific certain circumstances that are set out in the bill. It also provides a number of protections for third parties and members of the public particularly domestic sources to avoid unintended interception. I commend this bill to the House and seek its speedy passage. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 This bill is about putting the Government Communications Security Bureau on a statutory foundation after 25 years without any clear mandate from Parliament for its activities. If we are to have a Government Communications Security Bureau it is essential it be on a statutory basis—and over $23 million a year is budgeted for it. But the Green Party questions—and we have to think about this seriously—whether we do need a separate institution called the Government Communications Security Bureau. The Green Party says on balance that we do not. 
I want to go through the pros and the cons of having the Government Communications Security Bureau. Clearly one pro in the bill in terms of the functions outlined for the bureau is to help to advise Government departments on protecting their communications. But that could be done by a different agency most likely under the police. There is no need for a separate Government Communications Security Bureau to do that. 
The main aim of the Government Communications Security Bureau is clearly to collect communications intelligence itself—supposedly on foreigners. The Green Party does not deny that the Government Communications Security Bureau may collect some intelligence that we all consider useful. However we have no idea whatsoever how much useful intelligence is being collected. There has never been any explanation or elaboration of that. There is no indication in terms of the functions of society that we are collecting useful intelligence. Whereas we know that other agencies of State like the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade the various experts in the field overseas academics the media and agencies like the External Assessments Bureau all collect useful intelligence information for our Government and our society we have no proof that the Government Communications Security Bureau does so. 
Also given that other agencies particularly the police do already have powers to collect intelligence on criminal activities against New Zealand including communications intelligence why do we need a separate agency called the Government Communications Security Bureau with separate powers? The reason for that is not a practical one. The reason is that the agency originated through pressures from overseas. Lockwood Smith talked about “our family”. I presume he was talking about America Britain and Australia—the family that we are apparently deserting. In fact the Government Communications Security Bureau has come into existence because daddy the United States National Security Agency and mummy the Government Communications Headquarters in the United Kingdom said we should set it up to work in collaboration with them. We then became part of the five-nation Echelon communications intelligence network consisting of daddy the US and mummy Great Britain and also Australia and Canada alongside New Zealand and enabling those five nations to spy on the communications of the rest of the world. 
That has achieved some friendly relations with the Governments of those other four countries but it has created antagonism rightfully and suspicion rightfully from every other nation in the world. We see that quite clearly right now where members of this “family”—the United States Government the British Government and the Australian Government—are defying the United Nations and defying the world in invading Iraq. We have to be careful that we are not associated with them in collecting intelligence for their aims which are contrary to our Government’s aims and to those of most of the rest of the world. Unfortunately given the way that the Government Communications Security Bureau is structured and particularly the way that its main asset Waihopai the satellite communications interception station near Blenheim is structured we cannot avoid helping the aims of those three Governments in particular. 
On 11 July last year the United States Congress published a document explaining how Waihopai has been used for the war on Afghanistan. It states under New Zealand: “Intelligence support was offered as well. New Zealand’s Waihopai monitoring station is part of the five-nation Echelon network that is providing intelligence for the war in Afghanistan.” Because that network is so integrated in its operations how can we say that the Waihopai station is not helping those three countries in the war on Iraq? In fact one of the section heads of the National Security Agency of America let the cat out of the bag when he put out a memorandum stating that all parts of the National Security Agency must “mount a surge” against the members of the Security Council and get all the information on them including what he called their “dependencies”. That is I suppose finding out how they could be bribed as countries like Turkey and others have been bribed in order to try to get some support for the war effort in Iraq. 
Certainly our participation through the Government Communications Security Bureau and its main asset in Echelon has benefits for the United States Government but it has disadvantages for us. In answer to a question that I put to the Prime Minister a couple of days ago that was answered by Michael Cullen he said that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security had said that we do have sovereign control over Waihopai and the information gathered there. However the reality is that the technology of Waihopai is such that we cannot guarantee such sovereignty. There are two dishes at Waihopai focused on two communications satellites over the Pacific Basin south of the equator. Millions of communications—faxes phone calls and emails—are drawn down through those dishes into the computers in Waihopai and they move through to Wellington. Then key words origin phone numbers destination phone numbers and email addresses are filtered through those millions of communications and thousands of those key words are put in by the National Security Agency. There is no way even if theoretically we could veto a key word or phone number that in practice there would be that kind of interrogation of all those key words. Also it is a very automated system and it functions to get the information immediately through from the satellite to the destination agency which is mainly the US National Security Agency. 
There is a huge downside for us from Echelon. When I was in New Caledonia with a parliamentary delegation a leader of the Government there criticised New Zealand for being part of the Echelon system. The Vanuatu Government people have criticised us. The European Parliament had an investigation into that system. It was worried because there were instances where Echelon including Waihopai as part of the integrated system had been used to spy on European firms like the time for instance that a contract with Saudi Arabia was secured for Airbus rather than McDonnell Douglas. 
In the discussion at the Committee stage on this bill I tried to move some amendments advocated by the Privacy Commissioner particularly to make the bill better even though we were opposed to it. The amendments sought to make sure that warranted interceptions were not arbitrary and that warrants were needed even when the permission of a householder was given. I put forward the suggestions of the Privacy Commissioner that the warrants be for 6 months and not a year that there should not be unwarranted communications interceptions authorised by unspecified enactments and that the Privacy Act should be upheld—that the principle advanced by the Privacy Commissioner that “an agency that holds personal information should not keep that information for longer than is required for the purposes for which the information may be lawfully used” should be put in the bill. But all those suggestions from the Privacy Commissioner were turned down without any debate or discussion. The Labour contribution in the second reading the third reading and in the Committee stage of this bill has been almost zero and that has been quite a disrespectful rejection of the Privacy Commissioner’s proposals. They have been rejected without any discussion or debate. 
One of the problems with the whole Government Communications Security Bureau is the lack of accountability. It is very hard to know when electronic interceptions are taking place under the reporting procedures provided in the bill. The oversight committee the Intelligence and Security Committee and the inspector-general are sadly wanting in providing real oversight. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 National supports this bill which has a number of objectives. The key objectives are firstly to set up as a department of State the Government Communications Security Bureau secondly to define the objectives and functions of that new department of State thirdly to regulate the bureau’s functions in respect of the interception of communications including computer traffic and finally to create a regime of interception warrants and computer access authorisations in relation to the activities of the bureau. 
We have a reasonably sophisticated set of security intelligence entities in New Zealand. We have the Security Intelligence Service which is the equivalent of the CIA or MI6 mostly concerned with spying on New Zealand and visitors to New Zealand. We have the Government Communications Security Bureau which runs the spy stations at Waihopai near Blenheim and Tangimoana near Palmerston North—a critical linkage that monitors satellite and radio communications worldwide. We have the External Assessments Bureau which is a research organisation that produces reports on overseas threats to New Zealand. We have the Domestic and External Security Secretariat which is part of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and which reports on domestic and external security issues. Finally we have the defence intelligence unit within the New Zealand Defence Force which is concerned with military intelligence relating to New Zealand deployments overseas. 
Quite clearly with legislation of this type it is necessary to strike a balance between on the one hand the need for the intelligence services to undertake an effective role and on the other hand the need for appropriate oversight of such intelligence services. As Mr Shirley said in his contribution in this third reading debate the world is not a safe place. The Prime Minister I suggest is foolish and naive to suggest otherwise. Mr Shirley picked up a phrase—incorrectly as it turns out—that the Prime Minister has repeatedly uttered. The accurate phrase is that she has described us as living in an exceptionally benign strategic environment. This is a quibble really but Mr Shirley said “extraordinarily benign”. What the Prime Minister has said is that we live in an exceptionally benign strategic environment. Informed commentators have dismissed those comments and our Australian counterparts have certainly dismissed them because the reality is that we simply do not live in an exceptionally benign strategic environment. 
One need only look at events that are occurring on the world plane at the moment to see that. But even if we look closer to where our clear strategic interests lie we see that the arc of instability that tracks through Indonesia and some of the islands in the Pacific holds real threats and concerns for all New Zealanders. The Prime Minister has sought to distance herself from those comments which formed core assumptions in the current defence policy by saying that when she said that she was talking about relationships between States. But no one accepts that. Even if that were so her comment that we live in an exceptionally benign strategic environment is simply not correct. Not only do we face turbulence touching events within States but we face the new threat described in broad terms as asymmetric warfare. It is the issue of the rise of terrorism with all that that entails. 
In the period that most of us have been in Parliament issues of biological and chemical warfare have not loomed large. They now represent real threats—threats that are capable of causing immense damage that cannot be dismissed as fanciful and that we must constantly be on guard against. It is against that background that I would like to speak very briefly about the history of the Government Communications Security Bureau and why it has become appropriate for this legislation to be passed. 
There were a number of possibilities in respect of setting up the bureau and its structure. The bureau has been with us for a number of years and the contribution that it and the Security Intelligence Service have made is undoubted. The bureau started in 1977 and since that date it has provided the New Zealand Government with intelligence information from foreign signals derived from the interception of the communications of foreign Governments and other foreign entities. It is a curious circumstance that in these days of sophisticated electronic transfer of data the most secure way of handling information is by personal courier. In the days before this current legislation came before Parliament the bureau operated without specific statutory authority. The director’s authority as chief executive of the bureau derived from an instruction issued by the Prime Minister. It was also the case that the role of the bureau was in no sense formally defined. 
Before 1996 when a number of changes were made that saw parliamentary oversight of security intelligence the activities of the bureau were basically left to the Prime Minister. There was some faint involvement from the Government Administration Committee but it did not really have any control or power over the security intelligence agencies. That is why I say that this bill that establishes the Government Communications Security Bureau as a department of State is appropriate and timely. 
In the short time that I have left I will talk about some aspects of the Government Communications Security Bureau with particular reference to Part 3 of the bill. Part 3 is concerned with the interception of communications and the setting of bounds for the day-to-day operations of the bureau. It sets up a system of permissible interceptions with warrants or authorisations. The bill forbids certain types of interception from taking place without a warrant or an authorisation and divides them into four classes. The first involves interceptions where there is physical connection of the interception device to any part of a network—that is straightforward enough. The second relates to the installation of an interception device in a place without the permission of the occupier. The third relates to the installation of an interception device in a place where the purpose of the installation is to intercept communications made to or received in that place. The final situation relates to interceptions that involve accessing computer systems. National supports the bill. 
Bill read a third time. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to take that vote again. It was my intention to vote against it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that? There is. 
Wine Makers Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the Wine Makers Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill was introduced into the House on 14 October 2002 as Part 5 of the Wine Bill which had its first reading on 17 October 2002 and which was referred to the Primary Production Committee on that same day. The select committee divided Part 5 out of the Wine Bill and reported it back to the House on 2 December 2002 as the Wine Makers Amendment Bill 2002. 
New Zealand’s wine industry is a highly knowledgable high-value added-growth industry. Its competitive edge is based on two unique New Zealand attributes: one is physical—our soil and our climate—and the other is Kiwi innovation. It is an industry that contributes to the identification overseas of New Zealand as a producer of products of sophistication and excellence. The amendments in this bill reinforce the current export regime for grape wine through providing for the Director-General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to notify the industry of overseas market access requirements and provide official assurances. The bill also provides for regulations to be made to impose duties on winemakers and exporters so that they comply with the notified overseas market access requirements. It also provides a system for the provision of official assurances. 
The amendments are a truncated form of the export provisions in the Wine Bill and are a temporary measure. The export and supporting provisions of the Wine Bill are necessary for the longer term because this bill does not introduce the compliance regime associated with New Zealand wine standards under the Wine Bill which would further reinforce and support the export requirements. Indeed the Wine Makers Amendment Bill is intended to be replaced by the export and supporting provisions of the Wine Bill which is intended to be passed later this year. 
The need to press forward with those particular provisions from the more comprehensive Wine Bill arose from the passage of a European Union regulation last year which created commercial uncertainty for our exports. That regulation requires other countries that export wine to the European Union such as New Zealand to regulate conditions as to the use of statements commonly made on wine labels such as “vintage” “variety” and traditional terms. It is not clear how that regulation will be implemented. 
The New Zealand Food Safety Authority also provides official assurances to facilitate the export of wine to the European Union. Those issues are not currently provided for in the Wine Makers Amendment Bill and New Zealand’s current official assurance system for wine exports is administrative. New Zealand wine might therefore face import restrictions from the date that the European Union regulation first applies to imports. That regulation was to apply to wine imported into the European Union from 1 January 2003 but as a result of representations by New Zealand and other countries the European Union has deferred its application of the regulation to 1 August 2003. However as the Wine Bill is not scheduled to commence until 1 January 2004 a 5-month gap remains and passage of this shorter bill is still necessary. 
I believe this bill deserves the support of this House as it is aimed at supporting our wine industry by facilitating its exports. I thank the officials for their efforts in bringing all this information together and I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I will start by thanking the Government for finally advancing some legislation that is of use to the Primary Production Committee. We seem to have spent many many hours in this Chamber passing stuff that will not be of much use to primary production at all. Finally Dr Cullen has acknowledged that this bill is important and that it must be passed with some urgency. I thank the Government for that. 
I will also very briefly note that amongst the packed public gallery we have two of the most superb industry lobbyists in the form of Philip Gregan and Nicky Stewart of the Beer Wine and Spirits Council of New Zealand. I take this opportunity to thank Philip Gregan for the superb advice he gave to the select committee. We will need his further advice and support as we progress to the next stage of the original Wine Bill. 
The National Party is pleased to cooperate with the passing of the Wine Makers Amendment Bill. We wholeheartedly support the legislation which is designed to support our wine industry. Of all our industries the wine industry is one that does New Zealand extreme credit right around the world. We have wines that are recognised internationally for their excellence and I take this opportunity to congratulate the industry on the role it has played in that respect. 
I assure the House that National is not in a position to say that it will be able wholeheartedly to support the balance of the Wine Bill when it comes back to the House. There is a lot of water to go under the bridge in that regard. There is a lot of discussion to occur and at this stage I take a very reserved position as to whether that bill will assist winemakers throughout New Zealand to continue their excellence in production and advancement of the name “New Zealand Incorporated”. 
The bill we are debating today has had a most interesting history. It was introduced to the House on 17 October last year in a huge rush and the Primary Production Committee was given— 
Brian Connell 
: Huge rush! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That is right. It sound likes another incursion! 
The Primary Production Committee was given only about 3½ weeks to hear submissions in the hope that we would be able to get the bill back to the House—I think there was a very short report-back time but the details slip my mind. Then when it was realised that the bill as originally introduced would cause great consternation amongst the winegrowers of New Zealand and considering the fact that submissions poured in—in 3 weeks I think we got over 100 submissions—it was suddenly acknowledged that the select committee would need to take some time to sort out the mess that the Government had got us into. On that basis we split out Part 5 of the Wine Bill and that is the part that is before us today in this Wine Makers Amendment Bill. 
The point I made in my last contribution on this bill is that unfortunately the New Zealand Government does not have much choice as to whether it advances it. This is a requirement put on us if we want to continue to export product to that market. As a New Zealander I want winegrowers to continue to export to that very valuable market so having split off Part 5 we all acknowledge that it is important to get this bill through. 
The final point—because I realise the House is keen to break a little earlier than normal tonight—is that it is important that this bill is passed as quickly as possible. There is a deadline now in the legislation of 1 August but for people unfamiliar with the industry that date is not the important one. That is the date by which any wine that reaches its market in Europe England etc. will have to assure the importing countries that it does comply. The point I am making is that that would require perhaps 6 or 8 weeks of shipping time so there is not a lot of time left by which this Wine Makers Amendment Bill must proceed through all stages in the House. 
It is with pleasure that I therefore have this opportunity to make a contribution on the Wine Makers Amendment Bill. The National Party supports this bill wholeheartedly and looks forward to a more interesting debate when Parts 1 to 4 of the Wine Bill come back to the House after going through the select committee process. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 Speaking as the member for Napier which is in a province that develops many of the fine wines of this country I favour the passing of this bill because it continues to facilitate producer-driven regulatory and structural reforms. Sector-driven protected minorities are obviously in the public interest. If this bill is passed before August 2003 it will facilitate the meeting of the European Union regulation tests and ease our exports and imports. For those reasons I favour the passing of this bill. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the passing of this Wine Makers Amendment Bill which essentially is Part 5 of the original bill the Wine Bill. 
New Zealand finds itself in a situation that unfortunately it is quite used to as a primary producer—that is it is at the mercy of countries that talk the wonderful free-enterprise talk but do not walk the free-enterprise walk. Those countries impose every regulation upon us that they possibly can—essentially to put up what we have come to call “non-tariff barriers” to exports from our country or imports to theirs. We believe that this regulation is another one of those barriers and it has precipitated the need for this bill. We cannot do anything about that; what we think has nothing to do with it—the European Union decides and has the right to decide what it imports into those countries. It puts these things in place and we simply have to go along with them. 
The current chairman of the Primary Production Committee Mr David Carter said that the main Wine Bill would come along some time later and he referred to a number of submissions that had been made on that bill. One of the things that we have noticed is that a lot of them surround what winemakers see as the excess regulation that is to be imposed upon them. Unfortunately that is the way of the world. We have lived through a couple of administrations in this country that have tried to tell us that that is not so—that we could do whatever we wanted to do and the market would prevail. But that is not the way it is in the countries we export to and we are having to fall into line with that. In its formative years many years ago the wine industry was largely able to get its act together within a reasonably benign environment but it is when the wine industry expands and comes to exporting that we find ourselves up against the cold harsh realities of the wide world. That is what has happened here. 
I do not want to bring you into the debate Mr Speaker but I know that you have an interest in this subject yourself and are regarded as somewhat of a connoisseur. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I most certainly do. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: Mr Gerard Eckhoff who is a member of the select committee takes exception to any of those nasty commercial imperatives being put upon wine. He believes that the winemakers’ art is just that. 
Darren Hughes 
: He thinks it is spiritual. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON 
: It is almost a spiritual experience. Mr Eckhoff speaks about a lot of wines that I do not know the name of. I am sure they are very expensive and very nice wines but I do not see this business in quite that light. I am sorry to disappoint the member on that. This is an export business and like most of our successful export businesses it is based on the land it is commercial it is subject to regulation and unfortunately that is what is being put in place in this bill. It is not what we perhaps all want but it is what we all must do. We support this bill. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 This is a very important bill but as I have said in previous contributions the Wine Makers Amendment Bill is an inappropriate title. This bill should be about the export of wine and that is what should be in the title. There is nothing more important to this wine industry than the exporting of it. I agree with my colleague Mr Woolerton that while we do not like the bureaucracies and controls that have been placed around the industry we must do this to comply with the regulations of the European Union. If we must do it then we must do it. 
I look forward as I am sure we all do to a day when the New Zealand wine industry has names that are recognised worldwide. To a small degree some of our wines like Cloudy Bay are recognised throughout the world but French wines like Chateau Lafitte Chateau d’Yquem Neuf du Pape and Chateau Margeaux are names known throughout the wine-drinking world. Everybody knows of their expertise. I note that Mr Keys has obviously sampled a bottle of Chateau d’Yquem—at the appropriate time I am sure. But that is what we are striving for in this industry—that is to achieve the excellence and the names that those wines have got. I am not at all certain that we will do so under this bill. 
I want to draw the attention of the House to a point that I think is extremely important. It is simply that as I mentioned earlier it is the exporting of this wine that is crucial. But I am not at all certain that this bill will allow for a free and full exporting of our New Zealand wines. Clause 147 requires the director-general to make available to winemakers for inspection free of charge or for purchase at reasonable cost the requirements of the European Union. That is perfectly fair and reasonable. But how does that help the exporter? How does the exporter of this wine know whether Chateau Cold Creek has actually met the requirements? I do not think that will happen. What we can potentially find is duopolies or monopolies or even the Wine Institute becoming— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Oligopolies! 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Yes oligopolies—an effective export authority. They will be the people who determine whether Chateau Cold Creek can leave this fair land of ours and be enjoyed by somebody in France Spain England or America. I do not think that is appropriate. The strength of the wine industry especially the wines from France—and that is the standard most should strive to achieve—was as the direct result of the negotiants. They were the people who exported the wine around the world. They put their label on the wine and one fell or rose on the strength of the quality and ability of that exporter. But this bill does not assist winemakers who are not exporters to allow for the free and full flow of that wine overseas. I have real difficulty accepting that we will have an equivalent or a wine export authority determine the future of this wine. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That has nothing whatever to do with this bill. Will the member come to the bill. It has nothing to do with the wine authority. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: I am sure that members who have listened to this debate know that the bill is about the requirements to be placed on labels of export wines and if that information is not freely available to an exporter then how on earth will that wine be exported? That is the point that I am making. We all agree that that information must be there on the label. Egg extracts are an important issue. We fine the wine with egg extracts so are we to put that on the label? These are real issues and we have effectively glossed over them. It is hugely important that whatever information is on the label is something that will help the export of our wine. I am not quite sure whether that particular information must be placed on the label to meet the requirements of the European Union but it is an important point. If this information is not freely available to all exporters how on earth will this wine be exported? That is what this clause of the bill is all about. It is not directly about the making of the wine; it is about ensuring that the wine meets the requirements so that it can be exported. That is the fundamental issue I am trying to draw to the attention of this House to ensure that we actually do address it. 
I am not exactly sure of the number of small winegrowers who will be faced with a significant cost in their export of those wines especially if significant cost structures are involved in meeting the European Union’s regulations. Maybe cooperatives will spring up as a result of this requirement. But given the opportunity to excel I am sure that the industry will do so as long as we do not shoot ourselves in the foot and impose upon ourselves wine authorities that will be the total determinant of whether we can export wine that has met the requirements of the European Union. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 The member who spoke before me has perhaps made some excellent points. His experience of wine may be a little deeper than mine but I trust that the member will make those points when the main wine bill returns to the House—that is of course if the 111 submissions that have been made to the Primary Production Committee on that bill do not carry the points that he has made. 
This bill as has been said many times comes from the Wine Bill and was Part 5 of that bill. According to the commentary it “provides interim amendments to the Wine Makers Act 1981 that facilitate continued entry of grape-wine into overseas markets.” The need to enact this part of the reform with some urgency is dictated by the European Commission’s new labelling regulation 753/2002 which outlines the conditions of use of particular statements on labels of wine imported to the European Union. The regulation combines a plethora of current European Union wine-labelling regulations into one and although many of the criteria are not new they are expected to be rigorously enforced. The regulation came into effect on 1 January 2003 when the provisions of this bill were originally envisaged to commence. 
The labelling regime is very important to the European market. The wine must come from where the label says it comes from as it is the culture of the Continent to attach some strong affiliations to the wines of different lands. The type of grape is also important. For varietals the wine must be made of 85 percent of the grape variety shown on the label. If there are two grape varieties mentioned their names must be listed in descending order. In addition there is now a need to show a lot number or bottling identification on wine going to Europe for the purposes of quality control. The concern is to identify wines that have had more than one bottling under the same label. If an earlier bottling or lot has scored a gold medal is it fair trading to give the impression that the bottling 9 months later is the same wine? Although all the submissions to the select committee that commented on Part 5 opposed the European Union regulation viewing it as a non-tariff barrier to trade they recognised the need for this bill to be enacted separately and speedily in order to ensure continued access to the European Union. 
There are now over 400 wineries in New Zealand and over 40 percent of sales are in the international marketplace. That is equivalent to 21 million litres at a return of $300 million. Those exports have tripled over a decade and as a party United Future does not want to stand in the way of future growth. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is pleased to support this bill. However we are not quite so sure about the motivation for the bill in the first place. I think we are being compelled to have this legislation by the European Union; it is certainly not coming from any pressure from within New Zealand or from the industry. 
The messages inherent in the European Union placing these stringent conditions on our exporters are interesting. The first message is that European consumers want country-of-origin labelling. That is a message that our own importers of pork and other food items should take very careful note of. The second point is that consumers want traceability of their product and the third is that consumers want high quality. 
I think it is very interesting that the wine glut being experienced in the United States at the moment—where prices of ordinary-quality wine have plummeted to about US$2 a litre—has not had any impact at all on our exports to the European Union or to other countries. The reason for that is that we are exporting very high quality wine. We are not affected by the glut because that is of wine of lower quality. 
We have very clear market signals from our consumers. First of all they want high quality and secondly they are prepared to pay for it. Inherent in that message is something else for New Zealand. First of all consumers want low or no chemical residue and secondly they want zero genetic pollution. In fact New Zealand winegrowers have already made it very clear that they will stay GE free because of the market signals from other parts of the world that have been made clear to them. New Zealand is already very clearly satisfying a highly discriminating highly knowledgable market and I think we can do even better. The market signals are clear. There is a demand as I said for nil chemical residue and nil genetic contamination and a demand for traceability and high quality. 
We do that very well with our organic wineries. If members speak to any organic winegrowers and ask them what their market demands are they will say they simply cannot grow enough to meet the demand. For all their food products demand is growing exponentially. This is the way of the future for New Zealand. We need to get away from the idea that we put more and more toxic chemicals into our wines and we need to get away from the idea that we need genetic engineering. 
I think the interesting thing about what the European Union is imposing on us is that it is a regulation that is a non-tariff barrier to trade. I think that is a very interesting concept for us. It means that another of our big markets is actually moving away from free trade. It is increasing the barriers to trade. Think about agriculture in the European Union and in America; in both places it is very very heavily subsidised. For instance last year the Americans moved to increase subsidies to their agricultural industry by $400 billion over 10 years. That is not free trade. I think what the European Union is doing in imposing its regulations on us is protecting its own. I support it in doing that. The European Union has a right to protect its own and we have to abide by its regulations because it is a big player but I think we need to be very clear that what it is doing overall is not free trade. 
I am very pleased to say that the Greens support this bill and I think we join every other party in the House in doing so. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the third reading of the bill and in doing so I am pleased that we have such good legislation before the House that has been through the select committee process. 
Hon David Carter 
: It’s about time. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: The select committee was very ably chaired by the Hon David Carter with the support of the Hon Damien O’Connor Mr Clayton Cosgrove and several other very fine Labour Party people on the Primary Production Committee. The bill has the overwhelming support of the industry and I think that is the most important thing. We have a Government that knows how to have industry reform in a way that builds support in the community as opposed to the botched industry reforms of the National Party when it was in Government. It is good to be passing a law that has the support of people who work day to day building up this important New Zealand industry. I think that speaks volumes for the partnership approach that the Labour-Progressive coalition Government takes. I support the bill. 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 I rise in the joyful capacity of a member of Parliament. Seldom do we have the opportunity to discuss a topic as important as the Wine Makers Amendment Bill or a subject quite as pleasant as wine. I join my colleague the Hon David Carter on behalf of the National Party in strongly supporting the passage of this legislation through the House. 
I want to draw on the comments made by Mr Gerry Eckhoff and to a certain degree those made by Darren Hughes who I think do not understand this bill. Mr Eckhoff spent some time discussing what was wrong with the bill and saying that our industry may fail in some way to put the correct label on wine or to do the right thing and may fail in its internal perception of this bill. That has nothing to do with this bill. This bill is totally driven by what the European Union demands of our industry. Nor as Mr Hughes said is this bill about economic or industry reform. This is something driven by the European Union and the demands on our industry. It is an external-looking thing. 
But in supporting the passage of the bill I do so against the backdrop of an already hugely substantial and growing industry. It is worth noting that the purpose of the Wine Makers Amendment Bill—given that I hold the view that not all members of Parliament understand it—is to enable New Zealand exporters to fulfil new obligations that the European Union has announced will be implemented in respect of wine imported from third countries such as New Zealand. In particular the European Commission is imposing a new regulation and if New Zealand wine exporters fail to comply it will prohibit the export of New Zealand wine to the European Union which represents a huge part of our market—Britain in particular. 
I think it is worth reflecting just for a moment on how substantial the wine industry in New Zealand is and on its growth. In 1992 just over 10 years ago there were only 166 wineries in New Zealand; today there are 398. Over 10 years ago only approximately 50 million bottles of wine were produced in New Zealand; now about 100 million bottles of wine are produced. Ten years ago we earned $34.7 million in export dollars; today we earn about $271 million. So this is a very growing and significant industry. It spans 1000 miles of our country and it has grown in 10 districts. The importance of this legislation to the industry is very very clear and members who simply drive around their electorates or any parts of New Zealand will recognise that. 
When researching this speech I came across a fact that I was not aware of and that is that the growing of grapes covers the largest area of any fruit crop grown in this country. Grapes for wine are grown on 17400 hectares. When we compare that with 12200 hectares for kiwifruit or 11000 hectares for apples we see that the wine industry is huge. And it will get better and it will get better in some part because we will be able to export more product. The industry will mature and we will be able to export more because of the passage of this bill. 
I believe that wine plays a very understated role in the export-led economy of New Zealand. I have heard it said and I believe it that wine is a flagship for New Zealand. It represents everything about New Zealand that is great—that we are clean we are fresh and we are diverse. It really is wonderful. The swift passage of the bill will help that image. 
But I want to make one very important point. In passing this legislation we help collectively to protect the image and reputation of the New Zealand wine industry. In that respect I wish now to disagree with the member of the Green Party Ian Ewen-Street who said that the industry does not want this bill. I disagree. The industry does want this bill because it will protect the collective reputation of our wine industry. [ 
Interruption 
] That is very important; I agree. Parts 1 to 4 of the original bill are a vastly different proposition and we will come down to the House and debate them at some time. 
Our wine industry has a very formidable reputation. One need only look at Sauvignon Blanc as a great example. Prior to Sauvignon Blanc grapes being grown in the Marlborough region and the production of wine from that area it was largely an unknown wine. New Zealand has now set the world standard for that wine. That is how important our reputation is. 
I think it is also very important to understand one of the very important things about the passage of this bill. The labelling requirements will not only give comfort and assurance to foreign Governments but maybe most important of all will give assurance and comfort to the very consumers who will drink this wine. In that respect I think it is very important indeed. 
I do not want to take a lot of the House’s time but I want to point out one very small part of the bill. I refer to new section 26A “Director-General may notify or make available access requirements for overseas markets for grape wine” which is inserted by clause 147. Under this section members of the wine community are able to inspect the requirements for no charge and if they purchase them they have to be available at a reasonable cost. But being the wonderfully diligent member of Parliament that I am sure I am I looked at subsection (4) which states that there is nothing that prevents the director-general from charging for access to a website. That does not seem right to me. I believe that electronic communication will be an increasingly important way of communicating with our growing wine industry. I do not believe that the director-general should have the capacity via this bill actually to charge members of our growing wine industry to access the very information they need to make their businesses more successful. 
On that note I commend this bill to the House. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 As a member of the Primary Production Committee I support this bill. I note the contribution of Mr Carter and others on the committee. I think there was quite a bit of unanimity on this bill. It was efficiently dealt with. 
Hon David Carter 
: There always is. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Absolutely. Given the Speaker’s full endorsement of the industry I am driven to the point where I think that we should seek leave for the Speaker to take a call. I will not do so because I know it would be inappropriate but I know that he would probably like to take a call in respect of this industry. 
This bill is all about quality. As John Key has said it is about protecting our international reputation. We have a quality product that creates huge amounts of economic growth and jobs throughout this country. That quality product and its standards must be preserved. This Labour Government has facilitated many reforms in several primary industries notably dairy and pipfruit. When the Government has been presented with industry-mandated solutions and reforms it has listened to the industry and enacted those reforms. In doing so we now have a world-beating dairy industry as we have in wine and hopefully pipfruit as futher reforms go through. 
I endorse the bill. It is a sound piece of legislation. I commend colleagues on both sides of the House who were part of the Primary Production Committee for the way they handled the bill’s dispatch. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I think it is nice that this bill is so widely supported by all the major parties in this House and also by the industry that it concerns. I note that Part 5 of the original Wine Bill is being dealt with separately from the Wine Bill so that we can quickly progress it through the House in order to ensure supply of this New Zealand product to the European Union market. I also note that it is something that is being foisted upon the industry. I do not think for a moment that this industry wants to regulate itself as is being prescribed by the European Union regulators. 
There is no doubt as one sees when one travels all around New Zealand that the economy is enhanced by this industry which is developing quickly and I think it is developing quickly because it has not been highly regulated. I think people have been able to use a fair degree of entrepreneurial flair in creating an industry that is now starting to flourish. My concern though is that if we adopt the regulations too rigorously then we are going to over-regulate and slow down the growth of an industry that I think will play a critical role and make a critical contribution to our economy. 
When the Minister spoke on the Wine Bill he spoke very clearly and with some pride about the fact that he had consulted the industry widely. Being the nice gentlemanly folk that we are on this side of the House we took him at his word. I think he has established a precedent—if it continues—of wide consultation and we support that. 
I have said that the wine industry is something that is very clearly making a contribution to New Zealand. In my neck of the woods Rakaia it is fair to say that the industry is in a fledgling state. It has yet to mature but it is making a contribution. As we are in a very cooperative mood I would like to extend an opportunity to members to come to Rakaia and let me host them as we go around some of the vineyards and they can sample some of the splendid heartland South Island hospitality. 
Darren Hughes 
: Is the member serious? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I am very serious. As I said I understand the need for regulation but that leads me to something that really concerns me. How are we going to enforce the regulations? I have a vision of “wine police” looking after our wine industry. What concerns me is that I can see a bureaucracy being developed around our wine industry because we are responding to regulations that are being imposed on us. I think this is something that we should be very careful of. I can see lawyers and consultants licking their lips as they reach for a glass of our fine product which they will be in a position to afford. 
The issue of regulation is something that really bothers me. The Resource Management Act has an immediate impact on our ability to produce a quality product. 
Steve Chadwick 
: It’s done well for 9 years. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Yes the industry has done well but it is now getting to a point where it needs to expand rapidly and it needs assistance to do that. It will not get that assistance if it is impeded by being over-regulated. I do not want to take too much of the House’s time. I want just to sound a warning that if we over-regulate we will stifle the development of this fledgling industry. It still is a fledgling industry. It still has a long way to go. It has a lot of opportunity and a lot to commend it. But we must be careful that we do not stifle it. 
Bill read a third time. 
Government Communications Security Bureau Bill 
Third Reading 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to retake the vote on the third reading of the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought accordingly. Is there any objection? There is not. I return then to the vote on the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Government Communications Security Bureau Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 108 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to be pedantic but I raise with you a difficulty that the National caucus finds itself in in voting on this at this stage in that when this vote was originally taken approximately an hour ago we had 27 members of Parliament available to vote. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is perfectly in order for the member to vote with that number. That is perfectly in order and I so rule. 
War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2) 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 This is a great title for a bill. National supports the bill. I have pleasure in speaking in support of the title. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First definitely supports this bill. It has a really good bill. The title reflects the content of the bill and we will be supporting the bill through the House. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 Commencement 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 Clause 2 is concerned with the commencement of this legislation and provides that the Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent. In supporting that particular provision I would note that there has been a significantly delayed legislative history in respect of this bill which does the Government no credit. The interests of war veterans are important. We have a situation here where the bill was introduced on 12 December 2001. It was read a first time on 2 May 2002 and referred to the Social Services Committee. It has taken all this time—and it is not a complicated bill—to come back to the Committee for this stage. That is lamentable. I support the commencement date but do so in the context of significant delays by an uncaring Government. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 Like my colleague I note that this bill has been considerably delayed. It has taken a very long time to come through this House and New Zealand First believes that this bill should commence as soon as possible. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 Part 1 contains the substantive provisions although of course it is not the only part. The primary changes that have been introduced by this bill are well set out in the contents section. I would have wished that this particular part might have gone much further because there are a number of issues that war veterans would wish to see included in legislation of this type not the least of which is the introduction of something that was important and credible National Party policy at the time of the last election. I refer to the introduction of a veterans’ gold card which the war veterans’ community has sought now for a significant period of time. The current position of the Government which is that it is simply not prepared to acknowledge such concerns is a great shame. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 Like my colleague from National we believe that this part does contain the greater part of the bill. Its provisions are well set out in the contents. We believe too that this part meets the veteran community’s desire for its entitlements to be viewed separately from the wider social security system. We know that veterans are a very important group in our society to whom all of us here in Parliament and all New Zealanders owe a huge debt and we need to remember our returned service personnel. New Zealand First will definitely be supporting this part of the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There is a financial veto certificate in respect of the amendment from Barbara Stewart. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 53 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Miscellaneous provisions 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 National supports Part 2 of the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 2). It is a short part that contains only two clauses. The first has consequential amendments and the second appropriately deals with consequential repeals. I express dismay that the Hon George Hawkins who is the Minister in charge of this bill—the Minister in charge of Veterans Affairs New Zealand—has not taken it as a responsibility to speak in support of this bill. After all there are two Supplementary Orders Papers—the first is Supplementary Order Paper 53 and the second is Supplementary Order Paper 67—that stand in his name. It is a pity that a Minister with responsibility for legislation does not see fit to add his contribution to this important legislation. I would welcome some explanation from the Minister as to why he is not prepared to participate in this debate. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedules 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 Again I invite the Minister in charge of this bill the Hon George Hawkins to make some contribution to this debate instead of his continued muteness. It is scarcely satisfactory that on issues relating to war pensions he is not prepared to burden the Committee with his contribution and neither is any other member of the Government. What a tragedy it is that the Minister will not say something in support of this legislation. He should do so particularly in respect of Supplementary Order Paper 67 which is his amendment to one of the schedules that we are now talking about. He proposes a new schedule 11 which relates to the rates of veterans pensions and a new schedule 12 which relates to payments on the death of a veteran or a veteran’s spouse. The plan is to adjust the rates in line with an increase of 2.72 percent in the all groups consumer price index. It is not for me to explain those issues to the Committee and to those listening on the radio. The Minister should be on his feet talking about these issues but he will not do so. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First will be supporting these schedules. Like my colleague Richard Worth we are disappointed that the increase was a mere 2.7 percent. We would have liked a greater increase but we understand why this increase has not been given at this particular point in time. We will definitely be supporting this schedule. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Papers 53 and 67 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to schedule 1 and schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and schedules as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
The House adjourned at 5.29 p.m.