Volume 611 Week 36 - Thursday 11 September 2003 
Volume 611 Week 36 - Thursday 11 September 2003 
[Volume:611;Page:8603] 
Thursday 11 September 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Speaker’s Observations 
11 September 2001 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite members to rise and observe a moment’s silence before business commences in memory of the events of 11 September 2001. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect. 
Business Statement 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House on Tuesday and Thursday priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill and the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 Just to confirm I ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether there is any chance of urgency next week. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 If the member is offering a negotiation I will be happy to meet with him on that out in the lobbies. Without his offer there will not be urgency at this stage. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I might ask the Leader of the House whether the Prime Minister will deign to pay a visit to the House to answer questions today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Points of Order 
Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise two matters with you related to events of recent days. The first is the question of whether over matters of order you regard it as appropriate to address the House first before you address the media. I refer to the press conference given yesterday by you as the Speaker of the House and also to the public comments made towards the end of last week regarding the actions of my colleague Shane Ardern MP. On a number of occasions in recent weeks I as Leader of the Opposition and as a parliamentarian have asked you to explain various decisions you have made related to the order of the House. On a number of occasions you have simply decided not to give an explanation—for instance in the matter of Harry Duynhoven MP and his disqualification from Parliament. 
Yet it seems that when there is media interest in a matter as opposed to parliamentary interest you are willing to comment on matters of order publicly before they are dealt with in the House. That happened in the case of your public comments on Shane Ardern last week then again yesterday when a matter of order arose when GE protesters came into the House and disrupted its proceedings. In my view you could have given an explanation today. But the matter of order was communicated by you through the media in what would have to be regarded as a very unusual process—that is by the Speaker calling a press conference regarding something that had happened in the Chamber. 
I have to say that that is leaving the Opposition perplexed. When we have asked for legitimate explanations of matters of privilege and order in this House you have at the very least given us brief and unsatisfactory explanations and on occasion offered us no explanation at all yet on other matters you have decided that it is fine to go out and make a range of public statements about matters of order even before bringing them to the House. I ask you to outline for us whether your taking these matters up with the media rather than with Parliament amounts to a change in procedure for the Speaker or whether we can regard the recent events as aberrations and that legitimate matters of order will be dealt with by you in the House where they are directly relevant to the processes of Parliament. That is the first matter. 
The second one is the subject matter of the press conference yesterday. As you will know the Opposition has expressed concern about the charge of disorderly behaviour being brought against a member of Parliament Shane Ardern. We understand that that decision was made by the police and there has been debate about the circumstances in which the police decision was made. Yesterday there were actions in this Chamber that by any definition fit disorderly behaviour. In addition to the fact that that behaviour disrupted the proceedings of the House in a way that is really quite unusual you saw fit to make public comments about the nature of that behaviour. We understand that the result of whatever processes occurred is that those people will not be charged with disorderly behaviour but that they have been issued with trespass notices. I believe that in light of different treatment for two sorts of protest actions—one by an MP and the other by members of the public—you owe this House an explanation about your role in the decisions that have been made. You have brought that requirement on yourself by making public statements yesterday about the nature of the protests and what actions you believe should flow from them. That is the second matter I want dealt with. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I was quite disturbed when I listened to the Leader of the Opposition’s comments because I am a member of this House and I was not even aware that you had made press statements about order to the press gallery and the public but not to us as members of Parliament. I would have thought that on a matter of order in this House if you thought it important enough as a minimum you would give those comments to us first. Even if you do not decide that MPs should get an account before the media—if that is how things now are—perhaps we could have an accounting from you afterwards. I am finding your conduct quite difficult to follow. 
In the case of Mr Harry Duynhoven we find that you knew about the matter and that you decided to refer it to the Privileges Committee. You tell us that no MP would like the Speaker to make an instant judgment about whether a matter ought to be referred to the Privileges Committee but when it comes to Mr Shane Ardern you are prepared to give an instant judgment to the media. Perhaps it was not instant because you gave it a number of times to the media. We need to have the Speaker reporting to us first not to the press gallery and the Speaker should certainly not be influencing others to come here. 
As this matter has been raised I remind you that I asked you a number of questions yesterday. I do not know whether you have got around to thinking about them but I would like to know whether the police did have your permission to come into this House and interview a member of Parliament. I am advised that the police are not allowed to come into the precincts of the Australian House of Representatives. So it is quite a serious matter. I would like to know whether they contacted you. If they did not will you make an instant ruling on that matter? When we go back to our rooms are we all to expect that police will be waiting at the permission of the Speaker to interview us? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to thank the members who have raised the point of order. I will give it consideration and I will rule accordingly when I am ready to do so. There have been two points made and I want to consider them. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In reflecting on both those submissions to you could I also ask your assurance that you as Speaker had no part in the decision back in 1999 when a member had been admitted to this House with charges outstanding—she was I understand facing charges of trespass on parliamentary property—which were subsequently withdrawn by the police and not pursued. I would like an absolute assurance that that decision was made by the Minister of Police the Commissioner of Police or whoever was in charge—and that you in no way had any bearing at all on the withdrawing of those charges Sue Bradford was facing as a result of her conduct here in Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I can give you that absolute assurance now. The other matters I will reflect on and I will give a ruling to the House shortly. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a similar point of order but not exactly the same as the point of order raised by the Hon Richard Prebble. The proposition in respect of which National seeks a considered ruling is based on this: that the police breached parliamentary practice by entering Parliament to interrogate Shane Ardern on 9 September without the express authority obtained in advance from you. Further the proposition is that in Parliament House the police are subject to your authority and their powers are limited by the powers and privileges of the House. Those limitations are not based on any presumed sanctity attached to the building but on the principle that Parliament should be able to conduct its business without interference or pressure from any outside source. 
As Mr Prebble has said it has been parliamentary practice in Australia for more than 35 years for the police not to have the power to enter Parliament to interrogate MPs without the express permission of the Speaker secured in advance. That issue is discussed—I just give a reference to the Clerk—in the Australian 
 House of Representatives Practice 
 at page 146. I am advancing the proposition that that should be the practice of this House that there has been a clear breach of it if you did not give approval to the police to enter the premises to interrogate Mr Ardern that the police are in breach of their obligations and that you should take action. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I said I will look at that matter. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One thing I think that is being overlooked here—and I would have hoped that it was made clear from the start—is whether Mr Ardern agreed to it. There have been members of Parliament before who have been the subject of questions by the New Zealand Police within this precinct. But on every occasion that I can recall it has been with the agreement of that member of Parliament. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I am aware of that fact and that is why I want to take advisement on this matter. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I want to say this. It is really not just over to what the Speaker thinks; if a member of Parliament wishes to assert his or her privileges the member need only do that where the police are concerned within the precincts of this place. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will take that under advisement. I will come back to the House. 
Questions to Ministers 
Genetic Modification—Moratorium Expiry 
1. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: In view of her statement reported on Sunday that “A two-year moratorium enabled us to work through the recommendations. That work will be completed when the moratorium expires on October 29.” will the work in fact be completed by that date? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Yes but please remember that the royal commission advised us that we were ready to proceed at the time of its report in October 2001. It expected that the work would be done simultaneously or under a call-in procedure. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What has the Government done to implement royal commission recommendation 10.6 that all parties work to resolve the Wai 262 and Wai 740 claims currently before the Waitangi Tribunal as soon as possible? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: That work is continuing. There has been work done with the Waitangi Tribunal on those particular issues. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Did the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification recommend a moratorium on the release of genetically modified organisms? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No. The Government sought a 2-year moratorium on the release of genetically modified organisms to allow us time to do some of the necessary work. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister explain why Labour while in Opposition made a huge deal with its moratorium of stopping a very small trial of a few hundred GM corn plants where every plant had to be covered in a waterproof and pollen-proof bag but just a year later turned a blind eye to an estimated 28000 GM corn plants being unknowingly planted in Marlborough Hawke’s Bay and Gisborne; and does she not now concede that the lack of testing of seeds was something of a joke and a political manoeuvre? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The member confuses the deliberate application and the conditions set around an application for testing or growing genetically modified organisms with the inadvertent contamination through importation of some—maybe—genetically modified seed. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Has the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry developed an industry code of practice to ensure effective separation distances between GE and non-GE crops as recommended by the royal commission in recommendation 7.7; if not how can her Sunday statement be accurate? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: When one takes an issue such as the code of practice around that one actually has to have somebody practising the planting of crops. What the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has already done is talk about the distances necessary when one is producing seeds and hybrid seeds and one wants to maintain the purity of that seed which is the same sort of question that relates to genetically modified crops. 
Larry Baldock 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the passage of the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill will ensure that New Zealand’s regulatory regime is sufficiently robust to safely address applications for the commercial release of genetically modified organisms in line with the royal commission’s recommendations; if so why? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes because it gives the Environmental Risk Management Authority all the necessary tools to consider each application on its merits—or demerits—to assess risks and benefits and to come to a careful decision based on all the relevant information. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How does the Government intend to address the fact that the lifting of the moratorium is likely to prevent fair resolution of some aspects of the Wai 262 claim? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: If there were an applicant who wanted to do some work on the tuatara—which would obviously impact on the Wai 262 claim—because the information is not there that would be just the kind of evidence on which I would expect either to do a call-in or to ask the authority to have people placed on it who would be able to move that some step forward. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Given that the moratorium has allowed the Minister’s Government time to receive recommendations from a biotechnology strategy and a biotechnology task force report why has the Minister taken no notice of those reports when it comes to reducing red tape for medium and high risk research and why has she insisted on adding ethical cultural and spiritual matters to her call-in powers which she knows will only entangle research applications in legal wrangling and costs as it would with the Resource Management Act? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Because that was one of the recommendations of the royal commission. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Further to my earlier question has an industry code of practice around buffer zones been developed—yes or no? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: An industry code of practice for seed purity and buffer zones is in existence but it is not there for genetically modified crops because there are no genetically modified crops. So we are taking the application from— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a case of a Minister wasting the valuable time of parliamentarians who have a limited time and a limited number of questions to ask. The Minister was being specifically asked first by my colleague as to whether there was a code of practice and her answer was in effect: “Well there being no plantings there’s no code of practice.” That is a nonsensical statement for a start and we use up valuable time now asking whether there is a code of practice—yes or no. But she goes into a long waffling answer and we are still none the wiser after she is three-quarters of the way into it. Can we have an answer please to a very important matter? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I wonder whether the Minister wanted to make any further comment because she has already addressed the question. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No I do not. 
Larry Baldock 
: If at any stage it becomes apparent that more work needs to be done before a particular application for the commercial release of genetically modified organisms can safely proceed will she use her call-in powers to delay the application until such time as the necessary work is completed? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The Environmental Risk Management Authority is required to decline applications if it does not have all the necessary information. What I have said is that I will use my call-in powers when applications have significant effects as is laid out in the law. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What work has been done in response to the royal commission’s recommendations? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The work completed in response to the royal commission’s recommendations includes the setting up of the Bioethics Council established in December 2002; the low-risk genetic modification regulations will come into force on the passage of the bill; Cabinet has considered papers on coexistence raised by the member opposite; economic research was completed in 2003 and has been published and is continuing; further funding was provided to the Environment Risk Management Authority to enable it to develop its framework for considering the economic implications of applications; the Biotechnology Strategy was released in May 2003; and additional funding— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The answer was too long. Supplementary question—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! Once I have called another supplementary question anyone interjecting will leave. That is the only warning. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect what we have had from you is a ruling that we cannot interject but what you have just heard is unadulterated rubbish from a Minister on a critically important matter. Members who are responsible and who have experience in this House are asking serious questions. The Minister has no recall powers—but she would not answer that question. There is no code of practice—but she would not answer that question. We are none the wiser and she invites interjections. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. That is not relevant. I have not ruled out interjections while the Minister is speaking and the member knows it. I have ruled out interjections while questions are being asked. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What has the Government done to implement recommendation 7.3—that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry develop a strategy to allow continued production of GM-free honey and other bee products and to avoid cross-pollination by bees of GE and GE-free crops? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is investigating the use of a geographic information system - based register of GM crops should they ever exist to mitigate the impact of flowering GM crops on bee products. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How are bee-keepers supposed to implement the ministry’s published preferred approach which is that they keep moving their hives 6 kilometres away from any GE crops when the Government seems very reluctant to divulge the location of crops and will she guarantee that this information will be available to bee-keepers who have no other option? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I think we are at cross-purposes. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is actually telling me—it may be telling the honourable member something different—that it is going to have a geographic information system - based register which I presume will be available to the bee-keepers concerned but not necessarily to protesters. 
Ministerial Confidence—Immigration and Health Portfolios 
2.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she still have confidence in her Minister of Immigration and Minister of Health? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes and yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can she have confidence in those two Ministers when neither of them knows what is going on within her portfolio with the Minister of Health producing separate figures for non - New Zealand and New Zealand - born people with tuberculosis that do not anywhere near add up to the number she gave for the total TB cases in New Zealand and the Minister of Immigration blaming everything on loopholes or her undying duty to United Nations conventions and individual rights even if that means allowing rapists murderers and abductors to stay in this country? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I can only reiterate that the Prime Minister has confidence in both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Immigration. On the matter of tuberculosis for example the Minister has been very clear about the number of people in this country with tuberculosis who end up in a hospital and they are very very small in number. The Minister of Immigration has moved in every case to close all the loopholes that were left by that member. 
Heather Roy 
: Will the reductions in the cost of prescription medicines to a maximum of $3 for everyone enrolled to access primary health organisations and for under - 18-year-olds and interim primary health-care organisations which was widely announced by Annette King in the Budget happen from 1 October as promised yes or no; if no how can she have any confidence in that Minister? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Minister of Health of course is rolling out primary health organisations right across the country but I would need the member to put down that precise question so I can give a precise answer on the date. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister not understand that the gap between the non - New Zealand New Zealand - born and total numbers is hundreds of people—or do we have aliens living in this country all of a sudden—and that between them those two Ministers have no idea what the true statistics are nor any sense of responsibility as to how that is affecting the health of the New Zealand population in general? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I am not aware of any aliens living in this country as raised by the member although there may be some in the House—we do not know. I say once again that the Prime Minister has full confidence in both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Immigration because both of them have been assiduous during the last 4 years in cleaning up the mess left by the previous Government which that member belonged to. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think even the most mealy-mouthed supporter of the Labour Party realises that after 4 years it has to take responsibility. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I said there were to be no comments during points of order—none at all. Mr Peters is entitled to make his point of order in silence. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The fact of the matter is that I am referring to a huge discrepancy between the figures released by Statistics New Zealand and those released by those Ministers. They cannot be reconciled. To then try to implicate me in respect of the outbreak of tuberculosis in this country is a disgrace and is palpably untrue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a very interesting debating point. It is not a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I would like to table for the benefit of the giggling member who calls herself the Minister of Immigration and the rest of the House— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What does the member wish to table? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I wish to table factual information that shows that apparently hundreds of people who have gone missing have got tuberculosis. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Maori Land Court 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: In light of the Prime Minister’s statement that “It is clear in the Government proposal that the Maori Land Court could not as the end point of its work on a claim go to fee simple title.” does this mean that the Maori Land Court will be prohibited from confirming customary title; if not why not? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The member is correct that the remedy of awarding a fee simple title is not available under the Government’s proposals. What is precisely meant however by a customary interest a customary right or a customary title is currently the subject of discussions surrounding the Government’s proposals. However I note that a leading Canadian authority on aboriginal title stated that one dimension of it is its inalienability. Of course as the honourable member will know alienability is a defining characteristic of a fee simple title. 
Hon Bill English 
: If customary title is on the Government’s agenda as a compromise as Trevor Mallard has suggested could that customary title amount to any form of rights of exclusion by the holders of that customary title? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As I said precisely what is meant by a customary right or a customary title is currently the subject of discussions surrounding the Government’s proposals and no conclusion has been reached because the discussions are ongoing. 
Tim Barnett 
: Why has the Government proposed that a fee simple title not be available? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: A fee simple title gives the right to alienate land and therefore could prevent access to the foreshore and seabed. 
Dail Jones 
: Is the Minister wrong when she says a customary right cannot be alienated bearing in mind that New Zealanders and specifically Maori are concerned that their customary rights have been alienated by way of sale and in a non-restorative way as in the Marlborough Sounds and that the real question is what is the Government going to do to compensate those New Zealanders whose customary rights have been alienated and cannot be restored? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The points raised by the member are precisely those that are under discussion at the moment. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Can the House take it from the Prime Minister’s answers today and yesterday that the Maori Land Court will be able to create any sort of title to the foreshore and seabed in favour of Maori short of fee simple; if that is the case why is there reluctance to front up at a hui? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The matters raised by the honourable member are precisely those that are under discussion at the moment. 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: Can the Minister clarify precisely what the difference is between collective customary title and fee simple title? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: There is considerable academic and judicial opinion on precisely what that means in various jurisdictions. That is why it is important that we do have a discussion through the hui and with others members of the community as to precisely what the terms mean in this context. 
Hon Bill English 
: Now that the Minister has ruled out fee simple title which makes land saleable and the Government has said that that is definitely off the agenda will she rule out any kind of customary title that gives rights to exclude New Zealanders from the beach? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The matter raised by the honourable member is precisely one of the many matters that are under discussion at the present time. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm the answer she has just given: that the Government does not rule out customary title that would include rights to exclude New Zealanders from the beaches? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The fact that the Government has ruled out a fee simple title would obviously exclude it. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister now changed her mind between two different questions as in answer to the first question she said that the Government would not rule out exclusionary rights going with customary rights and then when I asked her again she did not seem to know what she was talking about? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I think the confusion here is over what precisely is meant by “customary title”. In my answer to the first question I said that was why we would have to look at that because in other jurisdictions “customary title” would mean that the land could not be alienated and that is inconsistent with the fee simple title notion. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a 24 June  
New Zealand Herald 
 article that states: “Prime Minister Helen Clark said ownership of the seabed and foreshore had long been considered to lie with the Crown and legislation would clarify that.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is. 
Immigration Act—Deportation 
4.  
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Why did she seek changes to the law to enable the voices of victims to be heard in deportation cases? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 As a result of the Deportation Review Tribunal decision in the Zoraja case—a case involving sexual violation—I was concerned that victims of offences were not able to be heard in the deportation process. Given that the deportation decision involves the balancing of competing interests I felt that was a serious omission in the law. As a result I wrote to the Minister of Justice who submitted it to the select committee which agreed to add it to the Victims’ Rights Act. The Act now requires both the Minister and the tribunal to have regard to any submissions made by a victim of an offence. Unfortunately that law came into effect 6 days after the hearing of the Shaqlane case. 
Darren Hughes 
: Are there any other changes in the law that could be considered as arising from that case? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is important that there is a right of appeal to the tribunal. As Minister I make a decision on the papers. The tribunal has the advantage of hearing the evidence directly on appeal. I note that the previous Government did not itself amend the law even though the tribunal overturned deportation orders in circumstances that the Minister of the day publicly disagreed with. It would be wrong to decline to reappoint members of the tribunal because the Minister of Immigration did not like its decisions as was alleged against the then Minister of Justice the Hon Tony Ryall in 1999. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the Minister is so concerned about the rights of victims in deportation cases why did she ignore requests from the victims of Mohammed Saidi who preyed on vulnerable New Zealand women bearing in mind that he was a bogus refugee a suspected drug-smuggler a suspected people-smuggler and had links to a fundamentalist terrorist group but about whom she wrote to his former wife the following: “Sometimes these avenues considerably lengthen the time a person can remain in New Zealand but it is essential that their case receives a fair hearing and that the principles of fairness and natural justice are applied.”; when did she show any compassion then? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: If that member would like to table all the correspondence I have had with that individual it would be very clear that I have made very strong representations to that individual in terms of how sympathetic I feel towards those women. I make the point—and that member should make the point to others—that that law existed when he was the Minister. At least I made changes to the law that meant victims could be heard in our deportation process. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Do probationary periods of residence apply to recent residence permit holders; if so how do they apply? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes the Immigration Act allows the Minister to order the deportation of a person who is convicted of an offence committed within 2 5 or 10 years of being granted a permit depending on the length of the sentence that could be imposed. There is no question of double jeopardy as asserted by some community groups. Residence is a privilege not a right. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the Minister’s answer to the question prior to the last one does she not realise that the person about whom I talked was to be deported but she herself decided that he should not be? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I did not. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Oh yes you did. In short the Minister said: “To hell with the victims”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not actually say anything but I know that the member was referring to the Minister who may comment. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: My recollection is that the decision in the Saidi case was determined by the Removal Review Authority which made a determination that he could remain in the country and apply for residence on the basis of his new relationship. I did not have any say in the matter whatsoever. I continue to make the point that if the member wanted to do anything about the immigration rules in this country then he would have changed them when he was the Deputy Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was too long an answer; the last part should not have been said. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek to table the various letters from this very conscientious and hard-working Minister who allowed that person to get permanent residence under her time— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those letters that the Minister— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: You want the full picture don’t you? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has already said she will allow that to occur. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 Noting that Mr Hodgson is not available to answer this question I seek leave to hold the question over to the next sitting day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to hold the question over. Is there any objection? There is. Please ask the question. 
Agriculture—Agricultural Emissions Research Funding 
5.  
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: Has the Government withdrawn or declined part-funding any research aimed at decreasing agricultural greenhouse gas emissions and increasing productivity? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) 
 on behalf of the 
 Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: The Government’s investment in research into agricultural greenhouse gas emissions is now more than five times what it was in 1999. Researchers compete for this funding and while some have succeeded others have not. 
Hon David Carter 
: Is the Minister therefore aware of a project at Lincoln University that was being funded two to one by the private sector which could potentially reduce nitrous oxide emissions by 80 percent and is now under threat because it was rejected in the latest Government funding round? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I have been informed of that situation. The reality is that applications for money from the Foundation for Research Science and Technology in this area are 300 percent over-subscribed. It is not the Minister’s role to make judgments on which projects should be supported but the reality that so many people are making applications indicates a growing awareness of the importance of this issue and the enthusiasm with which mainstream organisations are taking it on board. 
Janet Mackey 
: Will the Government continue its current level of investment in research into agricultural greenhouse gas emissions? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Yes the Government intends to continue investing almost $5 million a year of taxpayer funds in agricultural greenhouse gas emissions research. As I said earlier this is more than five times the level invested in 1999 under the previous Government. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: How many carbon credits of the 4 million recently released by the Government and appropriated from the wider agricultural industry have been given to Meridian Energy for supposed climate-friendly developments in New Zealand and how many carbon credits from the same source have been given to the agricultural industry to fund research into supposed climate-friendly developments such as methane emissions from livestock? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I cannot answer that question as I am not aware of any carbon credits being allocated either to Meridian Energy or to farmers although I am aware that any farmers who put some of their land or forest into permanent protection will receive the credits for that. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Does the Minister have concerns regarding the criteria that the Foundation for Research Science and Technology must use when deciding on applications given that research projects that are of obvious value to New Zealand’s economy are being rejected; if so what will he do about it? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I believe that the Foundation for Research Science and Technology is well focused and assesses all of these applications in a very fair and comprehensive way. They are all very important. As I said before the fact that there are so many applications for research focused on agricultural greenhouse gases indicates a growing awareness of the situation and its importance for New Zealand’s economy into the future. 
Hon David Carter 
: Is the Government not now planning to invoke the flatulence tax until 2012 as stated in a newspaper article written by the member of Parliament for Invercargill Mark Peck who also stated in the same article that farmers would now be the recipients of the transfer of their own carbon credits? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: That member is not correct. There will be no emission taxes until 2012 in respect of the agricultural sector. What has been proposed—and might not yet be necessary—is that the agricultural sector be asked to contribute towards a research levy to the tune of $8.4 million. The Government is actively engaged with industry leaders in an attempt—and I am sure a very optimistic attempt—to reach a suitable outcome in that area. 
Hon David Carter 
: I seek leave to table an article written by Mr Peck entitled “Never let the facts spoil a good story”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table the article. Is there any objection? There is. 
Contaminated Sites—Remediation Programmes 
6.  
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What progress is the Government making towards implementing remediation and instituting clear management programmes for all high-risk contaminated sites? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 This week Cabinet agreed to give all regional councils access to an expanded Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund to investigate and clean up contaminated land in their areas. This is a significant step towards removing the unwanted legacy of contaminated sites by 2015 which is one of our key environmental election pledges. 
Jill Pettis 
: Which sites in particular will get priority for the $9 million worth of funding in the extended Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Contaminated sites can pose a severe risk to human health and to the environment. Therefore we will give priority to those sites that present the highest risk to people’s health and their environment and where landowners do not have the financial resources to undertake the work themselves. We will work in partnership with regional councils district councils and landowners who have the local knowledge and technical expertise to investigate and remediate the contaminated sites of concern. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does she agree that all New Zealanders have a right to know whether they are living near or on a contaminated site and what progress has been achieved in developing a public register of all contaminated sites in New Zealand? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Regional councils have made some progress—not 100 percent progress—towards establishing a list of contaminated sites in their own areas and the fund we have set up is an incentive for them to complete that list and have it accessible and on record. 
Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Contamination Reports 
7.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: How does he reconcile his statement to the House on 9 September regarding testing of suspected genetically modified sweetcorn that “One needs to get a positive result for both parts to get a positive test.” and the Prime Minister’s statement of 11 July 2002 that “… in order to conclude that there might be GE presence you have to have positive tests across two gene sequences.” with the protocol on GM contamination in sweetcorn seed imports? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: Easily. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Research Science and Technology were referring to tests for the only available GM sweetcorn variety Bt11 which requires positive tests at both ends to give a positive result. This contrasts with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry protocol established some months later which also accounts for potential cross-contamination by GM maize varieties some of which contain only one of the gene sequences. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why did the Minister say “some months later” when the protocol on GM contamination in sweetcorn plants was agreed to by the Environmental Risk Management Authority the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on 18 June 2001—a whole year before the Prime Minister’s misleading statements and 2 years before Pete Hodgson’s incorrect statements? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: From memory an interim protocol was established and published on 19 December 2000. It was followed up by a protocol that included both sweetcorn and maize—and therefore this follows on the answer I have already given—and that has since been revised again. 
Mark Peck 
: What varieties of GM sweetcorn exist and how many of the test gene sequences do they have? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: There is and has been only one variety of commercial GM sweetcorn. It contains both gene sequences. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If that explanation is correct why does the protocol on GM contamination in sweetcorn—not corn—issued a year before the “corngate” issue arose say that there are 10 varieties of which the Prime Minister’s statement is correct for only four and most important that we are to conclude that there is GM material even if there is a positive test for just the 35s gene sequence? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The protocol developed at that particular time included the possibility of cross-contamination between some maize and some sweetcorn. It also pointed out that in an event of such cross-contamination it is visible to the eye and does not need absolute testing. That is the specification of a thing called a dent—one can see the difference in the plant and in the seed without having to test it. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why do the Minister and the Prime Minister think that the only possible source of contamination is from commercially available varieties of corn when there have already been cases of public record where corn has been contaminated with varieties that have not been commercially released? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: At the time the quotes are referring to—the testing that was done at the time of the GM scare in November-December 2000—the best advice of the scientists was that the corn being brought into the country could contain Bt11 because that was also grown in the particular valleys where the corn seed came from. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that the Prime Minister herself has said on National Radio that she does not have a strong interest or background in science why would we believe her view over the protocol signed off by the Environmental Risk Management Authority the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on the GM contamination of sweetcorn seeds? Which is correct—the Prime Minister’s statement or the protocol that was signed off on 18 June 2001? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I go back to the answer to the original question which said that the questions being answered by both the Prime Minister and Pete Hodgson were with regard to the testing of sweetcorn at that time whereas the protocol is about sweetcorn maize and possible cross-contamination. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table not a protocol on any other type of maize but the protocol on GM contamination in sweetcorn. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Conservation Department—Tourism Sector 
8.  
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: What initiatives has he taken to improve cooperation between the tourism sector and the Department of Conservation? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 On Tuesday I announced at the New Zealand Tourism Industry Association’s annual conference a number of initiatives I have taken to build a strong tourism-conservation partnership with mutual benefits. These initiatives include improvements to the processing and monitoring of concessions setting nationally consistent policies on visitor use and access to conservation areas and reducing pressures on the tourism hotspots by spreading visitor numbers over wider areas. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Can the Minister elaborate on the gains for conservation and tourism that he sees in such a more collaborative approach by both sectors? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I see a win for both conservation and tourism. For example a disused quarry at Oamaru has been transformed into an expanding colony of little blue penguins or korora. Numbers have increased from 14 breeding pairs to over 100. This initiative has led to better protection of the penguins and it attracts a growing number of tourists each year. 
Rates—Legislation 
9.  
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he agree that the Local Government Act 2002 and other recent Government legislation have contributed to the large increases in rates many ratepayers have faced this year as stated by Local Government New Zealand President Basil Morrison? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 No. The Local Government Act 2002 makes it clear that it is the responsibility of a council’s elected members to make decisions on the services that a council provides. Those members are of course accountable to their communities for that. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What option did those local authority representatives have for dealing with the added compliance costs that the Minister’s Government has added to local councils—for example extra dog control building control and prostitution and gambling regulatory functions—how is it their decision on those costs? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: While it is appropriate for local authorities to fund services that principally benefit their communities local authorities have a wide range of funding mechanisms to recover those costs. 
Moana Mackey 
: Has the Minister seen any reports about the financial impact of the Local Government Act on local authorities? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Yes. I have seen a report in which the Southland District Council’s chief executive Michael Ross stated that the Local Government Act was based on sound principles that would benefit ratepayers. His mayor Frana Cardno said that the Act is actually saving funds because we have the ability to work together. 
Jim Peters 
: How does the Minister reconcile the recent rates rises which are the first in a long-term process of meeting the costly obligations under the new Act with the Minister’s statement in June that the Local Government Act 2002 would “make it harder for councils to increase rates without good reason.”? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: From 1 July this year the Local Government Act 2002 became operative. In the setting of rates in the next financial year councils will be obliged to engage with their communities in determining those rates. 
Rodney Hide 
: Will the Minister be supporting my Local Government (Rating Cap) Amendment Bill being referred to a select committee or is he worried that local bodies will be coming to Parliament to submit to the bill and putting the blame fairly and squarely on this Government? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is the Minister disagreeing with the president of Local Government New Zealand Basil Morrison who has conducted a survey of all the local authorities with the largest rate increases planned in the country and who says that those rate increases are because of the added requirements of the legislation of that Minister’s Government; why is he disagreeing with Mr Morrison and the councils and believing that he himself is correct? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I am pleased to report to the House that I engage very regularly in discussions with Basil Morrison and will continue to do so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member must address the question. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: There are many things that Mr Morrison and I agree on. There are some things we disagree on. What I can tell this House—as I have just done—is that Mr Morrison and I will continue to dialogue with each other. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: In order to assist the House can I table the report of Local Government New Zealand which confirms what Mr Morrison the president said and rejects the Minister’s claim? 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Tranz Rail—Toll Holdings 
10.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: In the event Toll Holdings does purchase Tranz Rail has the Government got an arrangement with Toll Holdings to purchase the rail track and are there any assurances of major track or operational development? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Finance 
: Yes and yes. 
Peter Brown 
: Is there any truth in the assertion which is circulating in both this country and Australia that should Toll be successful in taking ownership of Tranz Rail we will end up with only two main railway line freight services—namely Auckland to Wellington and the coal line into Lyttelton—and that Toll will switch much of the current rail freight on to road; is there any truth in that? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No because the development finance that is vital for the Toll takeover is subject to an agreement with the Government on a line-by-line project-by-project basis and that money is necessary. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What commitments has the Government made with regard to the track? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Three commitments: to secure the rail as a vital piece of the transport infrastructure; to buy back the rail network given away by the National Government for $1; and to invest $200 million over the next 4 years in maintenance and improvements. 
John Key 
: Can the Minister guarantee to the House that maintenance spending undertaken by Track Co. will in fact be the $200 million he just outlined and will not cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars more? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There is provision for more than $200 million to be spent if it becomes an infrastructural priority for this Government and I say to that member that his privatisation of this asset gave away one of our prize infrastructures. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would just ask the Minister not to indulge himself. 
Mike Ward 
: What are the priorities for the investment of the $200 million that the Government has committed once Track Co. is established? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Those priorities will be worked through by a joint working-group of the Government Toll and the subsidiary with the proviso that at the end of the process the Government has a veto power. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting those answers will the Minister give this House a categoric assurance that as a result of Toll purchasing Tranz Rail more freight will go from road on to rail—and not vice versa as is being claimed in Australia? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think that is just inevitable. 
Peter Brown 
: I seek leave to table an article in the  
Australian  
newspaper that says the exact reverse of what the Minister has said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table for Mr Mallard’s benefit a press statement from the Labour Party of 20 July 1993 stating that it agreed with the sale of railways but it did not agree with the timing. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to point out the fact that Richard Prebble was the state services Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Court of Appeal 
11.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Has the Government considered appealing or seeking a rehearing of the seabed and foreshore case in the Court of Appeal on the grounds that gave Pinochet a rehearing in the House of Lords; if so why has no application been made? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 “No” is the answer to the question. The reason is that this Government has every confidence in the Court of Appeal and in the judiciary generally. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why has the Government got that confidence and why has it not considered challenging that decision when the Attorney-General said 5 days after the decision that she would pass a law to overturn it; when it reversed 40 years of settled law; when it made other laws unworkable without regard for parliamentary sovereignty; and when in comparison with the conflicts of Lord Hoffman in the Pinochet case the appeal would be a no-brainer as the leading Court of Appeal judge had an unchallengeable appearance of bias in favour of Maori ownership of the seabed and foreshore whatever her actual state of mind? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the question is in order. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Court of Appeal decision was on one point and that was that there was a right to take the matter to the Maori Land Court. There seemed no reason for the Government to appeal that decision. 
Richard Worth 
: What stance will the Crown take on the appeal by the Marlborough District Council to the Privy Council given that the Crown is a party to the appeal and cannot withdraw from it because the Crown has to be bound by the appeal; will the Crown support the appellant—as it has in the past—or will it backtrack and oppose the appeal? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Government decided not to appeal in its own right. It knows there is an appeal and it will stand by whatever decision comes from that. 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is not an answer to the question that I asked. It is quite clear that the Crown is not appealing in its own right but it is a party to the appeal and I asked whether the Crown would support the appeal or oppose the appeal given that it is a party to it. 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I apologise; I thought it was obvious that we will take a neutral position. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why should we not conclude that the real reason for the Crown not appealing is that the Attorney-General wants a top court to be free to make politically correct laws that a House elected by the people would not pass; otherwise why would the Supreme Court Bill provide that the Chief Justice must in future sit on every case that goes to final appeal and end our right of appeal to an independent tribunal? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: This Government upholds the rule of law; an essential component of this is the independence of the judiciary. It is demonstrably clear from the member’s question that he does not. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Why did the Government not appeal the Court of Appeal decision? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Government considers that the questions raised by the Court of Appeal as a result of its decision can best be addressed through our working through the issues which is what we are doing in the present consultation process. 
Stephen Franks 
: Does the Minister think the House of Lords was wrong to hold that even a Pinochet had a right to be heard by impartial judges; and why is she ramming through the Supreme Court Bill which will leave New Zealanders at the mercy of a court that thinks it is OK for a judge to sit on issues on which he or she has shown in advance a passionate commitment to one side? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: There is absolutely no evidence of any bias—which is the allegation the member has made—on the part of any judge in the Court of Appeal. I note that there is a convention and a Standing Order in this House that we do not criticise judges personally; we may criticise judgments but not judges personally. 
Local Government—Ministerial Responsibility 
12.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he continue to stand by his statement that “As Minister of Local Government it is my responsibility and indeed my privilege to act as an advocate for local government.”? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I do. I am only too pleased to say that as Minister of Local Government I advocate local decision-making by and on behalf of communities. That is the purpose of local government and on that basis I can say that I am privileged to perform my responsibilities as Minister. 
Larry Baldock 
: As advocate for local government is the Minister concerned that developing by-laws to control brothels in response to the prostitution legislation will push rates up even further when for Auckland City Council alone the initial phase cost $35000 or is that just another case of local government having to pick up the tab for bad law? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Local Government Act 2002 requires councils to engage with their communities in decision making. Local by-laws relating to the sex industry should have public input. Whatever initial costings may occur in that consultation process will be balanced by agreed long-term local solutions to the issues of location and operation. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What steps has the Minister recently taken to engage with local government? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I regularly meet mayors and councillors. Over the last month I have attended a number of Local Government New Zealand meetings. I spoke to the Society of Local Government Managers conference in Palmerston North last Sunday and I am currently arranging a forum between Ministers and Auckland mayors and chief executives to discuss a range of issues relating to the Auckland region. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What is the point of all this engagement hui and meeting with local government when the Government takes absolutely no notice of that engagement; when one looks at the extra cost of the dog control legislation the proposed building control legislation the prostitution legislation and now the gambling regulatory functions what is the point? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: No Government has had more engagement with local government than this one. One very obvious example is the 6-monthly local government forums where the Prime Minister meets mayors and councillors. It is a very positive and productive relationship. 
Gordon Copeland 
: As the advocate for local government what is the Minister’s response to the inquiry from the Auckland City Council asking why the prostitution legislation keeps secret the names of those holding brothel-keeping certificates when individuals and businesses seeking liquor licences have to advertise their names; and is that not a perverse and most unsatisfactory state of affairs for local government bodies and the communities they govern? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Local Government Act 2002 contains clear bylaw-making powers that provide local government with full power over signage and location. Of course fees can cover the costs of those applications. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was not about signage; it was about those people who hold brothel-keeping certificates having to keep that information secret. That information is not available to the public. I also asked the Minister whether he thought that was a perverse and unsatisfactory state of affairs. I do not believe that he addressed my question in his answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Perhaps that part of the question could be addressed. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I will acknowledge that I did become confused with that question; perhaps the volume of noise in the House made it a bit difficult to hear properly. That requirement was passed by a majority of members in this House. It had the support of this Parliament. 
Larry Baldock 
: As advocate for local government does he concur with the view of Juliet Yates the chairwoman of the Auckland City Council’s city development committee that the legalisation of prostitution has handed the council a job it did not want which is a view supported by councillor Noeline Raffills who intends formally to express to the Government the council’s concern that it has to administer the new Act; if not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I would like to remind those councillors quoted that the sex industry already existed in Auckland—probably from the foundation of the city—but at least now the city has greater control over the industry and health and safety issues can be addressed. 
Rodney Hide 
: Why will the Minister not become an advocate for ratepayers and support my bill going to the select committee thus giving ratepayers a chance to tell Parliament what they think about rate increases and what they think about this Minister? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Local Government New Zealand has given me a clear message that it does not support Mr Hide’s bill. I was thinking about that as he asked the question and I remind him how we dialogue so well with other organisations. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not appreciate people shouting out like that. It is unbecoming and unnecessary. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The suggestion that Local Government New Zealand is on the take is an obscene suggestion. I ask that it be withdrawn and apologised for by Mr Hide. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: The first point is that Local Government New Zealand is not part of this House so one can say what one likes about it. The second point is that local government itself is putting up the rates and the Minister has indicated to the House that he does not give a hoot about the public. He is interested in his fellow politicians only. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s first point of order was valid. What is said about people outside this House is a matter of taste as far as this Parliament is concerned. 
Larry Baldock 
: As advocate for local government will the Minister give his full support to councils—Kapiti Rodney and others—that wish to ban completely prostitution from their areas by means of their bylaw-making powers and also to the Auckland City Council which wishes to seize the initiative to propose restrictive by-laws; if not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I will continue to dialogue with local government and encourage it to seek local solutions to local problems. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This Minister was asked whether he would support those councils seeking to ban prostitution within their boundaries. To get up and say he is going to keep on dialoguing with them—which must be a horrifying experience for all of them—is simply not good enough. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Horrifying it might be but the answer did address the question. 
Voting 
Point of Order—Maritime Security Bill 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It has been drawn to my attention that last night New Zealand First’s vote—and I think National’s and ACT’s—was recorded incorrectly as being against sending the Maritime Security Bill to the select committee. We are most certainly in favour of that and I seek leave to have our vote reversed. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 It is the same for National. We voted 27 in favour of the bill being referred to the select committee. We also seek leave that the vote be changed and accurately recorded. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will get the list but I am advised by the Clerk that that apparently was not the case. But certainly I will get the list and there is a perfect right to have that changed. 
Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill 
Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill 
Medicines Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
Debate resumed from 10 September. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill was 272 pages but has now been split into three bills. It was comprehensive legislation that failed abysmally to measure up to the standard that it should have reached. The bill originally sought to have 11 Acts of Parliament included under one Act to ensure the competence of health practitioners throughout New Zealand to be able to practise safely to protect the public and to assure quality assurance in the ongoing education and credentialing of people involved in health practitioner competence. The bill did not achieve that. In the Health Committee we worked very hard to try to make improvements to it. 
But it should not have been a political bill. It should have been the sort of bill that everybody round the select committee table could agree on and work on but that did not happen. One has to ask why. One has to sheet it back to the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health had not asked the ministry the hard questions in the development of the bill. She should have sent the bill back to the select committee. She should have sent it back for the ministry to go back to those people who were so concerned about the bill until she got it right until the ministry got it right and until people were happy with it. 
Some of the people included under the bill—physiotherapists occupational therapists and dental technicians—have Acts of Parliament that are very old dating from 1947 and 1956. They were very pleased to get new legislation. But the doctors the medical practitioners in this country absolutely opposed the bill. They work under an Act that was brought in by the National Government—the 1995 Medical Practitioners Act. The bill was supposed to be modelled on that Act of Parliament. Initially the doctors said that was fine because they are very happy with the 1995 Act. They think it has solved about 30 years of problems. They were happy for the bill to go ahead based on that. But that was not what happened. What happened was some very new things were introduced. 
One of those things was scopes of practice. They were not defined on paper. There were no academic pieces of work that people could subject to peer review to decide what exactly scopes of practice meant and how they would affect health practitioners in this country. There was no intellectual rigour applied to this concept. It is not practised anywhere in the world. The only place in America that thought it might go down this line has not implemented it because it has been too difficult. Scopes of practice have been described as cutting edge and as enabling legislation. The last time we heard that was on the Resource Management Act and members know what a mess that turned out to be. People do not know exactly whether scopes will be broad or narrow or how they will be interpreted. Only through case law when people turn up before the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal and other disciplinary tribunals will we actually get some strong concepts about what scopes of practice are. 
That is one of the major concerns that medical practitioners have. They want out of this legislation. Heather Roy and I worked to try to get medical practitioners out of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill but we failed because United Future would not support us. Otherwise we could possibly have moved ahead. 
The other concerns in this legislation are the powers of the Minister and there not being elected representatives on registering bodies. That is of major concern to bodies like that of the doctors who previously have been able to elect representatives. It is about professional competence and professions actually feeling they have some control of their profession; they are very unhappy that that is occurring under this legislation. 
One part of the original legislation will now become a separate Act when it is passed—that is the Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill one of the three bills that this major piece of legislation has now become. We agreed with that. That was a good part of this legislation. We worked hard on it in the select committee to make changes. We agreed with this part because it is based on the Cull report and develops a one-stop shop gets rid of the complaints assessment committees and ensures that all complaints about health professionals go to the Health and Disability Commissioner’s office. That is a very good advancement. We know from the Parry inquiry that it was the complaints assessment committee and the process of getting through it that caused most of the problems. I will never forget Colleen Poutsma’s husband saying: “If you are not very determined and very articulate you cannot get through this process.” That was not good enough and we do have to help people through the process. We welcome this change and we are pleased to see it. 
The other changes that have occurred are now in the Medicines Amendment Bill. At the moment the pharmacists are absolutely reeling because stat dispensing has come in and Pharmac has gone back to 3-monthly dispensing. This has seen a 30 percent reduction in the income of pharmacists. We are seeing rural pharmacy closures already. We are seeing interns having to do a fifth year to get placement to be fully registered. Half of them cannot get places now because the pharmacists cannot afford to have them. We see rest homes that had their medicines dispensed in blister packs now facing the costs of paying for stat dispensing—a significant increase when rest homes and continuing care units have had no increase in funding from this Government and have had massive increases in costs. In this situation pharmacists will be partly deregulated. They can own up to five pharmacies and up to a 51 percent shareholding. The Minister has an exemption clause that allows her to allow other ownership if it will improve health services within an area. 
Another area that the doctors were particularly concerned about was quality assurance. Over the last 8 years probably since the Medical Practitioners Act came in quality assurance has improved markedly in hospitals around the country. Complaints procedures and doctors nurses and other health professionals getting together to engage in quality assurance activities have seen a marked improvement from the 1980s when I first began practising as a doctor. Thirteen percent of people who are admitted to hospital suffer iatrogenic harm which means harm that comes from the treatment they receive—either from medicines from getting a hospital-acquired infection or from the treatment they have somehow harming them. It is absolutely essential that when one has a near-miss or something goes wrong or some unexpected event occurs in a practice the practitioner can actually sit down with people and look in a protected way at what went wrong so that he or she can improve those services so that he or she can say: “This was the problem. Let’s do something about it. Let’s make it better. Let’s improve the systems.” 
If quality assurance is not protected—and we did make some changes in the select committee but many feel we did not go far enough to protect quality assurance activities—then people will not voluntarily offer up information about what has happened or what has gone wrong. One case at Waitemata hospital—the Lachlan Jones and Malcolm Beggs case—was used as the reason that we now have to open up quality assurance. There are lots of different avenues for people to take a complaint—through the hospital complaints system and through the Health and Disability Commissioner’s complaints system. If a practitioner on the front line cannot look at his or her practice and do case reviews then that will be very significant. I do not wish to see a reduction in quality assurance activities. 
National has not supported this legislation not because the concepts were not right and not because we do not want all health practitioners in this country to practise safely but because the legislation was not consulted on properly and because there are things in this legislation that the practitioners especially the doctors are very unhappy with and they should know because they are practising on the front line. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 This legislation has had a long and varied journey—that is a petition in 1999 a member’s bill in 2001 and the Cull report all of which have set the stage for what we support in the House today. This has been an adventurous legislative project. To create legislation that would provide an effective regulatory regime to protect the public from harm and that would endure well into the future is no mean feat. One of the strengths of what we now have is that it establishes a framework for practitioners who are currently not covered by law to meet a raft of regulatory standards and to gain professional credibility. Among those now waiting in the wings to be included are psychotherapists acupuncturists and a number of natural health-care practitioners. 
One of the most welcome aspects of this legislation is the new one-stop complaints structure. The old system involved multiple agencies undertaking separate investigations into the same incident with huge time delays difficult access for patients to the complaints process no centralised database to detect repeat poor practice and no powers to suspend practitioners when the public is at risk. This legislation addresses all those concerns and is consistent with the recommendations of the Cull report. 
The power-base of this legislation has been of concern to some submitters. There was of course a difference in those concerns depending on whether the submitter was a professional or a consumer. What we have ended up with is a series of provisions that empowers professional authorities and a balancing set of provisions that involves consumers and central government. After passing this legislative framework the Minister will after appropriate consultation and through Order in Council allow new professions to be added to the list of those covered by the legislation and will determine which activities should be restricted to certain practitioners. Professions will be able to appoint the members for each registration body but there is provision for elected members. 
That option is important as different professions requested different outcomes from that provision. Some did not want to have elections and others did. The either/or nature of this aspect of the legislation is a good compromise. The Minister can instigate an audit of an authority’s policies and procedures if it is concerned about its processes and the Minister can give directions to resolve disputes between professions regarding overlapping scopes of practice. It is hoped however that where overlapping scopes of practice exist the professions involved will work maturely through any issues themselves. 
Central controls on registration authorities are that each authority must have two lay members and that each authority must be separate from the association that represents a particular profession. It is interesting to note at this stage that while the doctors association had concerns about the legislation the doctors’ regulatory body the Medical Council did not and has supported it. 
The powers and responsibilities of registration authorities include setting the scopes of practice that everybody is so worried about; the power to set those is with the regulatory bodies and the professions themselves. Determining competencies and qualifications is their responsibility as is certifying individual practitioners and setting standards of clinical competence cultural competence and ethical conduct. 
There has even been some mocking of the inclusion of cultural competence as if this is some sort of new imposition on health practitioners. Hospitals have respected cultural considerations for years and no health professional wants to alienate patients through unintentional insensitive practice that leaves them feeling vulnerable or worse violated. Of course the registration authorities also ensure that professionals maintain their competence. 
United Future is pleased to support the third reading of this legislation and is pleased that there is a review clause ensuring that any tidying up that may be needed will be given due consideration. At the end of the day the best gauge we have as to the appropriateness of this legislation is feedback from some of those who are most affected by its implementation. During the Committee stage of this legislation I referred to recent communications received from many of the health professionals who immediately come under this legislation: the Dental Council the Nursing Council the Occupational Therapy Board the Dietitians Board the Psychologists Board the Opticians Board the Medical Radiation Technologists Board the Medical Laboratory Technologists Board etc. They have all supported the intention of the legislation. 
United Future is also pleased to hear of the hard work that is already well under way by professionals immediately affected by this legislation and looks forward to seeing the ongoing development of health practices not yet covered by it. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 As a first-time member of Parliament I have often been amazed at the scope of some of the legislation that has passed through this House. The range of legislation illustrates how regulated and legislated we are as a country. It also illustrates that perhaps there are too many people in here who have completely lost touch with the real world where most people live—people who just want to have a happy life and to get ahead people who are contributing to our presence in this House through their taxes and people who I suggest are getting more and more frustrated at the red tape and bureaucracy that they have to endure in order to run their businesses. In fact I know people with good business ideas who run a mile from that once they realise the course they have to run. But I digress somewhat. 
The record will show that New Zealand First opposed the legislation. But I also want the record to show the reasons for that opposition and to reassure the public of New Zealand that we in New Zealand First are not against legislation that ensures the protection of health consumers and the regulation of health practitioners as some people in this House would have others believe. 
As I mentioned during the early part of the debate the intention of this legislation is good. In fact any legislation that has the intent of assuring patient safety has to be good. However there has been a great departure from what was originally introduced. It looks good on paper to have legislation that brings all health practitioners under one umbrella with the safety of patients as its overriding goal. But I do not think enough consideration has been given as to how it will work in practice. Too much of it is theoretical and untested and I am not the only one who has serious misgivings about it. We can witness the distancing of medical practitioners from it. They want out and for good reason and I ask why? Perhaps herein lie some of the answers. They will have to work it all out on a daily basis and dare I say it define and apply the often referred-to principles of the Treaty of Waitangi which are conspicuous by their absence from this legislation yet are included in a number of other pieces of legislation. 
They are the ones who will have to comply with bureaucratic demands. They will have to figure out how scopes of practice and registration authorities will work in reality while there remains the possibility of political interference. They will have to deal with the issue of cultural competence conspicuous by the fact that no definition is given in the bill. They want out because they can see clearly that the bill does not do what it was originally presented to this House as doing. 
The passing of the legislation is a signal to them that the Medical Practitioners Act widely held to be workable and robust legislation is no longer good enough. They say that it is and we know that it is. If it ain’t broke why fix it? More appropriately if it needs only a spark plug why replace the engine? Without the support of the medical profession I suggest there will be difficulty ahead. I further suggest that we should heed the profession’s call before it is too late. 
Of course the irony of all that is that the legislation was to be modelled on the Medical Practitioners Act so that health-care professionals would be covered by more effective legislation. Medical doctors’ concerns about this legislation say it all. This legislation has completely lost any common ground it may have once had with the Medical Practitioners Act. Instead it has become a tangled web of bureaucracy with unprecedented powers afforded to the Minister. 
To say that some people within the health profession hold concerns with regard to those increased powers would be an understatement. The possibility for considerable political interference into matters of a professional nature provides the potential to undermine the very intent of this legislation—that is the safety and quality of health services to patients. 
Last night the Associate Minister in response to the many criticisms already expressed from those within and outside the health profession alluded to the fact that scopes of practice were not something new as they already exist. I tell the Minister that what is new about them is that this legislation now makes them a legislative concept. The lack of any wide discussion or consultation is the cause of much of the criticism. As the chairperson of the New Zealand Medical Association mentioned with the numerous alterations made during the passage of the legislation it is clear that the focus will be on narrow codified descriptions of each individual’s practice. Already it is not hard to imagine that narrow restrictive and bureaucratic individual codes of practice will influence employment contracts with district health boards. It is quite telling that doctors were originally amenable to the concept of the legislation. I cannot say that that is now the case. 
I urge that we reconsider the position in which we now find ourselves and take heed of the voices of experience and reason that are coming at us from all directions. As the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists recently mentioned the passing of the legislation would be the first time for a very long time if ever that legislation covering the registration and competence standards of the medical profession has been passed against the advice and despite the express opposition of the medical profession itself. 
The association also expressed its concern at the increased degree of political and bureaucratic control as an interference in the registration and standards of medical practitioners at the expense of professionalism. As a member of the Health Committee I was approached by many health-care providers and consumer groups that were deeply concerned about the implications of this legislation. I also heard and read submissions from many groups and individuals who will be affected by this legislation. I would be failing in my duty if I did not say in this forum that a lot of apprehension is out there. People are concerned about the implications of the legislation together with compliance costs and how scopes of practice will work. If this legislation is about the protection and safety of the general public then they are quite right to say that it should then be robust enough to earn the support of those experts in the field. They also note the irony in that much of the controversy surrounding the legislation could have been avoided had there been acceptance of some of the practical amendments offered consistent with the intent of the legislation. 
I also note that a number of health practitioners are yet to be included in the legislation not least acupuncturists from whom a large number of New Zealanders are able to have their health concerns addressed. I further note that the ministerial advisory committee on complementary and alternative health mentioned that there are in excess of 60 different alternative health services all of which will need registration if they are to be covered by the legislation. The bureaucratic obstacles afforded by this legislation will not provide any encouragement for those professions to want to be covered and could lead to possible undercover operations. However during the debate on the legislation New Zealand First expressed its opposition to much of it. We also supported certain parts of it; one particular part has given rise to the Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill. In keeping with that support New Zealand First will be supporting that particular bill. Essentially it deals with complaints about health-care providers and disability service providers and ensures that each complaint is appropriately dealt with. 
Finally I reiterate that both patients and providers must be confident in the processes in place to protect them. The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill does little if anything to inspire that confidence. Quite the contrary I maintain that health-care consumers should be at the centre of a bill that purports to protect them yet nowhere are patient outcomes shown as a major focus. Accordingly New Zealand First will oppose the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill and the Medicines Amendment Bill and will support the Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the third reading of what was the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill. That bill has now been divided into three bills: the remaining Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill the Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill and the Medicines Amendment Bill. Like my colleague in New Zealand First ACT New Zealand will be supporting the Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill but will oppose the other two bills. Our concerns certainly have not changed as the legislation has progressed from the bill that was initially brought to the House to the three bills that it now is. 
I have to say that this is a very sad day for New Zealand. It is a very sad day for health professionals whom the Government insists on calling “health practitioners” because in fact they are very professional and I think they deserve to be called “health professionals”. It is a very sad day for the health professionals of this country for several reasons. The first is that the Government has not listened to them. Many of the groups that came to the Health Committee—and we had slightly more than 250 submissions I think—had very similar concerns about scopes of practice quality assurance provisions the great amount of ministerial control that this legislation will allow and about elected members of authorities. The Government was unwilling to listen to those concerns and make the significant changes that would have made it much more palatable for medical professionals in particular—but some others too—to accept the provisions within this legislation. 
When the Ministry of Health issued its discussion paper in 2000 the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill was welcomed because the underlying principle behind the bill—of using the most modern health occupational legislation the Medical Practitioners Act as the basis of developing new umbrella legislation—was a very good idea and most of the professional groups agreed with that. However as time progressed things changed significantly and the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill that was finally presented to the House at the Committee stage was so far removed from the Medical Practitioners Act that in parts it was barely recognisable. 
It is a sad day also because medical practitioners are very unhappy with this legislation—so much so that they asked to be removed from it. They have made their concerns very well known and I put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to have them removed from it. The National Party and New Zealand First both supported my Supplementary Order Paper because they could see the damage that will be caused as a result of medical practitioners having to abandon modern up-to-date and very well-working legislation and change to the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill. It really is a retrograde step both for themselves in their practices and most important for patients when it comes to safety concerns. 
It is also a very sad day for the Pharmaceutical Society. The Pharmaceutical Society is an organisation that has existed for over 100 years. It has built up a great number of assets and operated very professionally over those 100 years and there has been a great deal of emotional attachment to the society as time has evolved. Certainly pharmacists are very sad to see that go. As time has gone on and it has become apparent that they will have to disband their society they have been making provision for that. But there will certainly be a great deal of sadness because of the emotional attachment they have felt to it and that is not necessarily a bad thing when we are talking about medicine and the care of patients. 
The legislation has been described by Ian Powell of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists as an ambitious dog’s breakfast and I think that sums it up quite well. It is certainly ambitious legislation. It will see the repeal of 11 Acts relating to different professions so that there will be one huge omnibus piece of legislation. It is hugely thick and hard to lift and it will not cover everybody’s concerns as huge umbrella pieces of legislation seldom can. Some groups were very pleased to see the introduction of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill. Physiotherapists and occupational therapists for example have been working under 1949 legislation. Practice has certainly moved on in that time. The legislation relating to dietitians has been in existence since 1950. For those professional groups it is time to move on and have up-to-date legislation. Although the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill is not perfect it will serve them better than the legislation they have at the moment. I myself feel that they would have been better to hold out for amendments to their own Acts but it is a move forward for them. 
One of my great concerns which I mentioned several times during the other reading debates and the Committee stage was the lack of a definition of “competence” in the legislation. Here we have legislation that is all about competence and patient safety yet competence cannot be defined. We were told at the select committee that it was too hard to define. If something is too hard to define how can it be in the title of the bill? How can it be a yardstick by which people must be judged? I say that it is near on impossible and for that reason I feel very sad that we are progressing with something that does not even have a definition. 
The concerns I mentioned that most of the professional bodies had were very similar. Firstly I want to talk about scopes of practice. Scopes of practice remain unresolved in the minds of the professional bodies. In particular there is concern about the intention of broad scopes of practice and there was much discussion about that. The professions were told that scopes would be broad but in practice they have been watered down by other wording that in effect implies narrow or personal scopes of practice. For some professions that will not be too much of a problem. Occupational therapists have already worked out their scopes of practice. In fact they have decided to have just one scope of practice so for them things will not change. For groups like medical practitioners who have lots of vocational branches that they work through by educational means the scopes of practice will be extremely difficult to determine and they will be extremely difficult to bring into practice. 
Another area of difficulty with scopes of practice is when there are overlapping scopes and several professions might perhaps perform one function. I think in particular of acupuncture. There are acupuncturists who want to be part of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill. I am told that there are physiotherapists in outpatient clinics for whom 70 percent of the time acupuncture is involved in the practice. Also many general practitioners these days perform acupuncture. So scopes of practice will be a nightmare to determine for areas such as those. 
I move on to quality assurance activities. In particular we are concerned about protected activities. The medical profession in particular and also increasingly other professions have operated very good quality assurance activities which have enabled the groups to learn from the mistakes that have been made. They have been able to do so in a protected environment and they are very worried now that this will not happen. If they cannot be offered protection those very valuable discussions will not continue because people will be fearful of the result of those discussions. That affects not only the professions themselves but also in a very large way—and I do not think that the Government has looked at this properly—patients whose safety will be compromised. The ministerial control in this legislation is very great and many of the professions are quite rightly worried about that. I will not go deeply into the issue because we discussed it at length during the Committee stage. However it is a justifiable worry for the professions. 
Elected members of authorities are also going. The Minister has made it very clear that she is not in favour of those even though the provision is in the legislation that they could possibly exist. She has said on several occasions that she in not in favour of them so the doctors the pharmacists and the dentists who elect members for their bodies at the moment will no longer have the ability to do that. This sad day I think needs to be noted. Today we need to say goodbye to professional self-regulation. What other professions do not have professional self-regulation? There are many. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Cunliffe may well clap but he should wait until he next goes to see his doctor. The fact that professional self-regulation is going is a very sad thing. Elected members of authorities are going and that too is a retrograde step. It is the professions themselves that know which of their members are best to govern them. It is not as though they have a majority holding on each of these things; it is just that these people are there to represent them. Today we are also saying goodbye to some of the improvements that came in under the Medical Practitioners Act—most particularly the improvements relating to patient safety. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be supporting this legislation but it does so with some very serious misgivings. The best amendment made to the legislation was the requirement to review the Act in 3 years’ time—a proposal I might add put up by the Green Party. As will many others we will be waiting very eagerly for that review. I am sure that some very important issues needing to be reviewed will be raised when that time comes. 
Certainly we agree about the need for a consistent transparent framework for the registration of health professionals and for robust consumer-friendly and streamlined disciplinary procedures that apply to all health professions. We acknowledge that consumers—or many of them—are disillusioned with the health system in particular the complaints system and that perhaps hundreds of men and women have been frustrated and humiliated and have suffered anguish and distress as they sought to pursue complaints through the health system. Many have suffered intolerable delays in trying to get their complaints through the system. It is extraordinary that in the past up to 14 different agencies have been separately able to investigate the same medical event. So there is an urgent need to streamline the complaints system and we hope that the creation of a one-stop shop recommended by Helen Cull and certain specific things such as the 3-week time frames will help to streamline the investigation of complaints in the health system. 
We also acknowledge that in the past some practitioners have been unfairly taken through the complaints system and that there is a need to protect health professionals from vexatious complaints which can be traumatic time consuming and cause them huge stress and financial loss even if they are eventually cleared of the charges. We believe that the ability of the Health and Disability Commissioner to dismiss vexatious complaints will help to protect practitioners from having to go through unnecessary trauma and stress. 
There are some very positive aspects to this legislation but other aspects of it cause us serious concern. Our particular concern is the degree of control this legislation gives any Minister of Health in this or any future Government over all the health professions in New Zealand. It gives the Minister the right personally to appoint up to 14 members of every governing authority established under the legislation and that power will give the Minister considerable control over the members of all the governing bodies in the land. Every member of an authority who is appointed by the Minister will be in a very real sense beholden to that Minister for his or her reappointment and that will act as a strong incentive not to rock the boat to toe the line and so forth—just as it does with all the appointed members of district health boards. We have noted how the personally appointed chairs of district health boards around New Zealand have sought to keep controversial or difficult issues out of the media and to try to control the members of those boards. That is a very real concern as is the fact that the Minister has the power to resolve any contentious or unresolved issues to do with scopes of practice. The Minister also has the power to decide what will be and what will not be a controlled activity. All those things will have very significant and far-reaching effects. The Minister—and the Minister alone—will make those decisions. 
We were very surprised that United Future did not support our amendment to establish the democratic right to allow up to 50 percent of members of a health profession to elect members of their authority. Electing members of the authority would give members of a profession some sense of ownership over that profession. It would also mean that its elected members would not be beholden to the Minister of Health for their appointments so the amendment would have given the health professions some important independence. 
I am astonished that United Future did not support that amendment as all parties in the House apart from Labour did. The Green Party managed to get an amendment through the Committee stage that says that the Minister may come up with regulations to allow some practitioners to be democratically elected. We will be watching that very closely and looking forward to the Minister promulgating those regulations. That is one of many measures we will be scrutinising in the review to make sure it has happened. 
Like others we have huge concerns about scopes of practice becoming narrow and restrictive. In acupuncture for example—as the previous speaker mentioned—how does one decide on scopes of practice where three different professions are practising acupuncture and how will that issue be resolved without it being to the detriment of acupuncturists who are outside of this bill? That is something else we will be watching extremely carefully. 
One of our overriding concerns is that this bill leaves virtually all the detail of the system to be decided by regulation after the bill has been adopted. It basically gives no parliamentary scrutiny to all of the serious issues that have been addressed today. We have this parliamentary mechanism called an Order in Council which I do not think the public fully understands. It may sound nice but it is a secret mechanism that involves no parliamentary scrutiny. All of these things will be able to be decided by Order in Council without any parliamentary scrutiny and we have enormous concerns about that. 
We are delighted that pharmacy was not deregulated. There was an attempt to deregulate all pharmacies in New Zealand but the Green Party used its influence to oppose that as did all the pharmacies in the land. That provision was contained in the original bill but has been dropped and we are enormously pleased about that. 
Finally we are extraordinarily concerned that acupuncturists—who have been seeking statutory recognition for 20 years and who made very strong recommendations on this bill—are not covered in this legislation. If this bill were focused on consumer protection acupuncturists would have been one of the professions covered. I believe the decision not to include acupuncturists was a purely political decision just as it was a political decision to include osteopaths. Osteopaths were given an assurance at the last election that they would be included and we are delighted that they are but there is no reason not to include acupuncturists. Arguably acupuncturists have a much stronger case than osteopaths because acupuncturists who poke unsterilised needles into people can cause huge harm to the public of New Zealand—more harm than most. Acupuncturists are very aware that unregulated persons can set themselves up as acupuncturists and bring the entire profession into disrepute not to mention the risk of harm to others in New Zealand. 
Steve Chadwick 
: They will get there. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: The chair of the Health Committee Steve Chadwick who has been very supportive in trying to get acupuncturists together assures me they will get there. I hope she is right and I can assure members that I will be watching this issue very carefully. I am worried that medical acupuncturists who are already covered by this bill will seek to keep out in a patch-protection way those acupuncturists who are not covered by it. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am proud to be given an opportunity to speak in this third reading debate. It was difficult to sit quietly and listen to the cant and misinformation of the Opposition during the previous two stages. As the Health Committee chair I was responsible for the select committee stage and we were always aware of the task ahead and the long-term implications of the bill for over 73000 health practitioners in New Zealand. It is those practitioners that I would like to thank today. They worked collectively with us on the need for one consolidated piece of legislation that covered 11 health professional groupings. I also wish the 23 other health groupings good luck with the work they will need to undertake in order to be included in the legislation by Order in Council. 
Our commitment to get this legislation passed completes a policy undertaking in 1999 to review health occupation legislation. This has been an exciting and a long—not rushed—journey with representative groups communicating together over this issue for the first time in decades. There has been a genuine sense of goodwill in finding common issues of professional practice and then working on the points of difference under the framework of this bill. 
I thank the officials from the Ministry of Health for their commitment to this task. I will not name them—the approach has been a collective one under the leadership of Karen Poutasi and Gillian Durham. They have ironed out the varied challenges of interpretation and misinformation with the registration bodies the colleges and the councils. Consultation and the development of this law have not been rushed as the Opposition has suggested. The ministry met with professional groupings for 3 years after the discussion document was put out and work will begin in earnest with groups such as acupuncturists once this bill is passed. The ministry will then lead this work and the ongoing discussions acting as a resource to the professions. 
I would also like to acknowledge the leadership of the Minister Annette King. Unlike previous Ministers she has had an open-door policy for the professions to work through commitments such as pharmacy ownerships and the establishment of professional councils for dentistry midwifery osteopathy and pharmacy. She has stuck by her word and her commitment. 
Pharmacists are not disappointed. They are delighted with this Government. Aspects that do require more work such as the protection of quality assurance activities were resolved with the appropriate groups such as the clinical advisory group of District Health Boards New Zealand. They were the experts we worked on to get those aspects ironed out. It was critical for us all that the sector worked on wording that gave practitioners confidence about the role of clinical audit review and protection of significant-event case reviews as opposed to commissions of inquiry police investigations or inquiries under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act. 
I appreciated the members of the committee who worked with us collectively to make this legislation as robust as we could. The legislation has to be sustained for many years even though there is a 3-year review provision. I am pleased to see it there and thank the Greens for that. I want to thank the members of the committee who gave their input and who do understand how health professionals think behave and enact the intent of the law in their relevant spheres of professional practice. This legislation is also about public safety and cultural competence to practise in very diverse clinical settings. Those on the committee familiar with professional aspects brought a balance; others brought a valid consumer counterbalance to a dominant medical view. 
Many other health professionals who want to be deemed valid practitioners in an ever-expanding health environment will now work towards inclusion in this legislation. It is a tool that will bring practitioners together through registration competency oversight and the management of professional complaints. That is unprecedented and it is exciting for the field of clinical practice in New Zealand. That approach will also ensure public safety and some of the members of the Opposition from the medical profession have forgotten that that was one of the key principles of this legislation. 
I would also like to thank the office of the Health and Disability Commissioner for its work and Ron Paterson. His was a major contribution towards ensuring that we made the one-stop shop provisions for complaints as robust as possible. That system is now so much more streamlined than the 14 agencies that currently deal with complaints. I want to get to those health practitioners who worked with us and then in June announced that they were withdrawing their support for this legislation. 
Patients have asked me to explain the difference between a nurse a midwife and a doctor. Under this law there are very few differences because the relevant registration bodies remain as they were under the previous registration authorities for those professional groupings. The dominant right to self-regulate is something that we have been determined to break down and it goes into this legislation. We are pleased to see that consumers are included which will provide a counter-balance to those medical practitioners. As a Government we were not prepared to compromise that view. On reflection even though the two groups concerned previously said that the Medical Practitioners Act was an imperfect beast they have at least remained consistent in their concerns about the extent of the Ministerial powers proposed in this legislation and their assertions in favour of professional self-regulation. 
In 1999 we undertook a review of the Medical Practitioners Act and those concerns were addressed then as well as part of the review and rejection of the Medical Practitioners (Foreign Qualified Practitioners) Amendment Bill. We then built on the robustness of the Act. What Opposition members fail to understand is that 110 of 167 clauses in the Medical Practitioners Act are carried over into this bill. They should relax—making good legislation takes time and Professor John Campbell the president of the Medical Council of New Zealand says just that in the latest doctors’ magazine. For over 2 years through each stage the Medical Council has been involved in the development of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill and the resulting legislation. I am sure that we will be able to move on with those professionals. The Minister has always had an open door. 
When this legislation is passed it will have to sustain future Ministers of Health and administrations and during the Committee stage we were all acutely aware of that. This legislation was an ambitious task but I remain very optimistic of its outcome after today and I am well aware of how leading-edge it is considered to be in terms of the health practice field in New Zealand. I am proud to support this bill. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to take a brief call and support my colleague Steve Chadwick who ably chaired the legislation in the Health Committee assisted by officials from the Ministry of Health. I also recognise the fine leadership in the health portfolio of my friend and colleague the Hon Annette King. She has done a fantastic job on this bill and I welcome its third reading in the House. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 What a case of denial the Government has on this legislation. The Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill is hugely important and has now had two additional bills split off from it—the Medicines Amendment Bill and the Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill. I appreciated the Associate Minister of Health the Hon Damien O’Connor’s complimenting me on my work on the Health Committee when he spoke last night. However he is so much out of touch that he failed to recognise that I was not a member of the committee. That is a reflection of just how much out of touch the Labour Government is and the Associate Minister of Health is in terms of managing the resolution of this legislation. His lack of touch and knowledge absolutely reflects the summation of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists when it commented on this legislation by saying in essence that: “The revived HPCA Bill continues to threaten the capacity to ensure standards of care and safety through a major encroachment on professional self-regulation and a major enhancement of political and bureaucratic control in this area.” 
One of the major themes that should have occurred today was that finally a Government managed to get agreement from the various health practitioners and parties involved with the evolution of this legislation so that it would truly support the health services of the New Zealand people well. I absolutely agree with my colleague from ACT Heather Roy that it is a tragedy that the Government has failed in that and while Stevie— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member may not use personal names. I refer to Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement). 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I had not quite finished my reference but I take note of your comment. While the honourable member for Rotorua Ms Chadwick has mentioned that there is something in the order of 73000 practitioners in this country she has failed time and time again to recognise that medical and surgical specialists take on some of the most onerous responsibilities in the field of health. The fact that neither the New Zealand Medical Association nor the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists has supported this legislation is a huge indictment on the fact that the Labour Government has continued not to listen to them. I reject Ms Chadwick’s comments when she started to quote the Medical Council which indeed has been in contact with the Government over the last 2 years. But the other bodies have lamented that there has not been ready access to the Minister of Health. Time and time again she has ignored what they have said and brushed them off. I would agree with those headlines; making good legislation does take time. This Government has failed to achieve that. 
There is almost a sense of déjà vu because there was a possibility of that some 4 weeks ago in the second reading of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill when I held up the bill and said that I did so with considerable dismay. That dismay was first at the fact that the bill had not achieved the unity that it should have—that opportunity was lost—and second at the fact that it was of immeasurable size. Much to my further dismay this legislation is no longer 272 pages long but is now about 291 pages long—again an absolute morass of the bureaucratic complexity that this Labour Government seems to feed on wherever it possibly can. That was indeed the case when it brought in the health and disability bill 2 years ago which heralded the most complex health system New Zealand has ever seen with its 21 district health boards. 
We should not lose sight of the main purpose of this legislation which is said to be to protect the health and safety of members of the public by providing for mechanisms to ensure health practitioners are competent and fit to practise their professions. I say again for the record that it is vital to remember the summation of the medical specialists: that in essence the revised legislation continues to threaten the capacity to ensure standards of care and safety. 
On the more positive side the National Party has indeed supported Part 8 of the original bill which encompasses the Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill. Again I think all parties recognise that there have been some horrific tragedies over the last 15 to 20 years in New Zealand: firstly the National Women’s Hospital cervical cancer inquiry followed by the Gisborne inquiry with regard to Dr Bottrill and more recently the Parry inquiry. The Parry inquiry in itself was a huge tragedy and it exemplified the fact that there were so many different agencies dealing with health matters and reporting that the situation was totally out of hand. So we all recognised the useful suggestions made by Helen Cull in terms of the one-stop shop and the very strong work that Mr Paterson the Health and Disability Commissioner did in helping to evolve this very useful Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill. I believe that it will stand the test of time in its usefulness. 
Again as an indictment of the lack of insight of the Minister of Health I just recall that  
New Zealand Herald 
 article where Sandra Coney brought up the huge concern about the reflex reaction of the Minister of Health when she wanted to dob in incompetent health workers. Fortunately the Minister did listen to that and she did respond but it seems incredible that we have a Ministry of Health where the deputy director Dr Gillian Durham said the legislation would make it a statutory requirement for health workers to report colleagues if they felt they were working below standards. She said a complaint would prompt a competency review of the practitioner. The aim was to tip the balance in the mind of health professionals from their duty to a peer to their duty to the public to ensure that the safety of the public was their primary consideration. Undoubtedly a “blame and shame” environment was being suggested. Fortunately that has been revised to a certain extent and that has to be a great relief. But it did take a lot of pressure on the Minister of Health before she was prepared to do even that. 
I also want to comment again on the lack of consultation recorded by the New Zealand Medical Association. It said: “Quite simply we have no confidence in the policy development process or the consultation process behind this bill. We believe that the lack of adequate consultation has led to a number of major deficiencies within the legislation.” It went on to say this regarding professional self-regulation: “The opportunities for greater concern by the Ministry of Health and by politicians are substantially increased to the extent that it is doubtful that effective self-regulation can continue.” I brought in an amendment to the Committee suggesting that one of the major purposes should be the recognition of professional self-regulation as the basis of health practice in New Zealand and the Government rejected that. I believe that that is a sad indictment on the failure of this Government and this bill. 
MOANA MACKEY (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I rise to pay tribute to my colleagues Annette King the Minister of Health and Steve Chadwick the chair of the Health Committee for all the work they have done on these bills and for all the consultation that they have undertaken with the relevant parties to ensure that this legislation is robust and acts in the best interests of the people of New Zealand who are the consumers in this industry. These bills clearly do that. I support the third reading of these bills. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 This is the sort of legislation that we in the Opposition would like to be able to support and we will support the later part of the original bill today which is now in the Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill because that deals with the disability provisions and we are in complete agreement with those provisions. 
However the chair of the Health Committee Steve Chadwick is so lacking in leadership that she could not get up here today and thank the members of the select committee in the proper way. She wanted to imply that some of us were not cooperative which is a lot of rubbish but we certainly were cooperative. She said she wanted to thank those of the committee who had worked with the Government in a constructive way yet we worked constructively all the way through the process on this legislation. It was a long process and if Steve Chadwick does not have the gumption today to thank those people I will do so. I now thank Pita Paraone Heather Roy Dr Lynda Scott Sue Kedgley Judy Turner Nanaia Mahuta Dianne Yates Anne Hartley Dave Hereora and Steve Chadwick—and I do that because the leadership of that select committee is so lacking. 
What did Steve Chadwick do in her speech? She grovelled to the Minister dear Annette King and said she was wonderful. We had another speech from young Darren Hughes and what did he do? He grovelled too. Then what did Moana Mackey the very very nice young member of the House and the select committee do? She got up and had a grovel too. So that was three grovels. That was all that those members had to say and that is probably about right. They also insulted everyone else who did not agree with them. 
The United Future party is voting for this legislation and I accept that. It is in bed with the Government and that is fair enough. However United Future has said that it has a couple of concerns about the legislation. Every Opposition party shares those concerns but unlike United Future we are not all rolling over and cuddling up to the Minister. One of the concerns is about the Minister’s powers. Even United Future has concerns about the powers of the Minister because this Minister is so far from talking about professionalism among health professionals that she is actually all about putting them down. She does not like health professionals to be a stroppy educated lot; she wants them all to be nice appointed people who owe their position to the Minister and that is not right. 
I note that the Greens have expressed their concerns about that as well. I would like to pay tribute to the speech that Sue Kedgley gave in which she clearly said that. Those of us who sat through the hearing of the huge number of submissions on this bill along with all the hearings held during the adjournment and all the time spent out of the House on this legislation all felt that we were really really working well together. Of course we cannot all agree on everything but at least on the Opposition side of the House we can be decent about it and do not insult someone for disagreeing with us. 
The Minister does not like the provision in the Medical Practitioners Act that allows medical professionals to elect some of their members. Why is that? It is because they might think they are representing some doctors or because they might be elected by doctors because they actually know something and we cannot have that. It is shown in the papers that despite our many many attempts all we could get out of the Minister was that if she feels like it she may decide at some stage to allow medical practitioners and all the other health professionals to elect one member—or maybe more than that if they are very very good and constantly say how good the Government is to them which just will not happen—out of a total of 14. That is just sheer arrogance. 
This Minister does not respect health professionals—so much so that she will not even allow them to be called “professionals”; they are now to be called “practitioners”. Those people who give their time and effort in undergoing many years of training in all the different areas of health are now to be called “practitioners” and not “professionals”. The best way to get professionals to act in a professional manner is to treat them as though they are professionals. If we treat people as though they are professionals the chances are that they may actually be professional. But this Minister cannot risk doing that because if people are professional they will be independent and robust and they will certainly sort out that Minister. We can see why the doctors’ magazines state that 48 percent of the doctors surveyed want Dr Lynda Scott to be the Minister of Health with 8 percent saying that they want the current Minister of Health. That is something—8 percent. 
Heather Roy 
: And 8 percent want Dr Paul Hutchison. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Oh and 8 percent want Dr Paul Hutchison! 
Heather Roy 
: And others. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: And others? That must be Heather Roy! 
One of the other areas that we are concerned about is that the Minister is the final arbiter on the scopes of practice. What could that Minister possibly know about scopes of practice? We have a situation where scopes of practice are untried in a country; we are to be the guinea pigs. One of the constituents in my electorate rang in the other day and said she wanted to stop this legislation because it had nothing about patients in it. So I told her to contact Annette King before the end of today. But I do not think that will make a scrap of difference because I do not think the Minister really cares about it. Nor does the chairperson of the Health Committee; she really does not care about it. 
One of the other things that the Minister will be able to do is to state what “restricted activities” are for professional groups. How would she know about that? The professional groups are the right people to decide those things because they are the people who know their own competencies know the stresses they work under and know their conditions of work. They do not need a bureaucrat and her other little bureaucrats to tell them how to do that. 
Let me go on to an area that has given me a tremendous amount of interest: the cultural competence area. Every time I mention that in the House I get a barrage of abuse from the Government side and I must say I do quite enjoy it that the Government members show their colours—finally. Every health professional who will now be called a health practitioner must be registered and must show not only that he or she is ethically and professionally competent—and we have no problem with that—but also now that he or she is culturally competent. That term is not defined and when an area like that is not defined it raises serious concern. I can see that provision being used to stop overseas health professionals from coming and working in this country. The midwives association has already said it will be able to use it to stop the terrible midwives coming in from overseas who are not culturally competent. When asked in the select committee which ones they were talking about they said the Australian midwives. That shows the level of pathetic political correctness that this bill is all about. It is all about sucking up to political correctness—sucking up to the Minister and giving her all the jobs forgetting the poor old patients and the poor old people who actually do the work and giving everything to the Prime Minister and her mates. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise in support of this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Ayes 70 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a third time. 
Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 70 
Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Bill read a third time. 
Gambling Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Gambling Bill be now read a third time 
. I want to thank the members of the Government Administration Committee and the staff of the Department of Internal Affairs. Gambling is a complex issue. The challenge is to balance the harm against the benefit. I believe that the bill achieves a good balance. This is reflected in its four main objectives which are to control the growth of gambling to reduce the harm caused by gambling to ensure that gambling raises funds for the community and to ensure that the community has involvement in decisions about access to gambling. The bill seeks a restraints approach to gambling. 
The Supplementary Order Paper in my name amended the bill to allow the Lotteries Commission to sell its products by way of remote interactive gambling. I would like to thank United Future for supporting the Government on this amendment. Over the course of time this should mean a little more money for the community. At the same time I want to assure members that the Lotteries Commission’s products will remain relatively harmless. The TAB has run remote interactive gambling on the Internet since 1998. I am confident that this bill strikes an appropriate balance and will significantly improve the current system. I commend the bill to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Today is a sad day. It is a sad day for the families of New Zealand. I note that United Future members are here laughing smiling and thinking that it is all just too funny. It is not funny. This bill has some very good provisions. I would like to record that I have given the Minister some credit for them and I am sure he is aware of that. There are some good provisions but there are also some shocking provisions and the allowing by the Lotteries Commission of Internet gambling has to be the worst anti-family provision. It is on a par with the “lesbian father” type of provision that this Government has brought in. 
The United Future member might like to roll his eyeballs and smile and smirk. However on the one hand he said: “It wasn’t us. The Government did it. Labour forced us into it.” but on the other hand he has also been quoted as saying: “We’re particularly pleased with the changes allowing the Lotteries Commission to move into Internet-based gaming.” He also said: “It was brought in by the Government at the request of the Lotteries Commission.” So it is all its fault! That was confirmed in Parliament this afternoon by the Minister of Internal Affairs George Hawkins—so it is all his fault! United Future members cannot make a decision in favour of it—but they really did. That is quite clear. They knew this provision was coming but they did not alert the public or the people who voted for them. They kept quiet and let this happen. 
That is so sad. It is so sad because not only is this opening up the gates to Internet gambling but also it is opening the gates to Internet gambling by a State-run agency—that is the Lotteries Commission. That is so bad. It is as bad as if they said: “Let’s just let the Lotteries Commission now sell and promote cigarettes and alcohol—and worse than that we will make it a monopoly situation. In New Zealand only they will be able to do it.” That is exactly what we are doing here. 
Plenty of people have said that they would have been quite happy to look at—and certainly I would have been happy to look at—Internet gambling on the basis of a Lotto-type thing so that every Saturday people could go on the Internet rather than have to go down to the shop. A lot of people would have said that that was fair enough. But that is not what we are talking about here. When we had a proper look at this Supplementary Order Paper we realised that it was not that at all and that it was all about allowing online casinos. Any sort of online gaming will be ripe for the Lotteries Commission. 
When members of the Lotteries Commission last came in front of the Government Administration Committee I asked them what they had in place to deal with problem gambling and what they knew about problem gambling. I am very passionately concerned about problem gambling. I have seen what it has done to so many New Zealanders and in particular those in south Auckland where I live and which I represent. It means that so much more money will now come out of local businesses. 
If we go to the Minister’s electorate of Manurewa for instance we see pokie machine after pokie machine. At least the people who play on those machines have to get out of their beds take themselves out of the door trot down the road in a form of dress and play their game and then presumably run out of money. But in this case they will be able to go online with credit cards and they will not even have to get out of bed to gamble. It is a 24-hour activity and it will take money out of the communities that can least afford to lose it. That is the sad thing. We are not a party that says that people should not be able to go to a casino or play pokie machines but we do say that we have to have a safety net there for people who are unable to stop themselves when they should stop. 
I heard a member of United Future say the other day that 1 to 3 percent of people in New Zealand have a gambling problem. I am sure that that is exactly what he said. When I was chairperson of the Casino Control Authority we were told by all of the experts that anything from 3 to 6 percent of people had a gambling problem. The figures are now coming out that in the Manukau City area it is more like 9 percent. That is a big percentage. If we take generally two or more adults in a house we are talking about quite a large number of households affected very very badly by problem gambling. 
In problem gambling it does not matter how many ambulances are put at the bottom of the cliff. Would it not be a lot better to stop people actually falling over in the first place? This bill will not help that. It will very much hurt the very people whom we in Parliament should be doing our very utmost to protect. I note that the member for the Progressive Coalition is here and he is always going on about problem gambling. As I understand it he will support this bill. 
Hon Member 
: He’s not. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: I think he will vote for it. 
Heather Roy 
: He’s disappointed. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: He is disappointed but he will vote for it. What is the point of that? I am sure all the 10000 or so people who voted for him will be disappointed; they will want their money back. 
These people are saying that some of the things are so good that they just have to go along with it but sometimes we have to say that some of the provisions are so bad that we have to say: “No we’re not going to do a deal.” That is what United Future could do. The Government could not go in with the Greens. Green members have made their position absolutely clear. They have let the people of New Zealand know and they got very excited over that particularly all the people in the pub charities industry. They all knew about it and they would not have a bar of it. The Government had nowhere to go and United Future was in a position where it could have forced this change but it did not and that is a tragedy. 
Can we just move briefly to the pokie machines outside of casinos. These people have really got their act together. In particular I would like to say that the Charitable Gaming Association has been very good with putting in place codes of practice and best practices. These people after a lot of criticism including I have to say from myself before I came into Parliament have moved themselves to a position where they can be very proud of the work they have done. I am sure they will continue to go on to do even better work—because they are the people who actually get the money back out into the communities into the sports clubs and into arts groups out there letting the little people get some of it back and good on them for doing so because someone has to do it. 
So in essence this bill is a disappointment in a major way. Internet gaming is a bad bad move but there are other provisions that we are happy to support and the Minister is aware of that. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to outline some of the general reasons before I get more specific as to why we are supporting the bill. First of all it is a consolidated approach to gaming in New Zealand rather than the mishmash of the old statutes. The bill provides opportunity for community involvement in the extent of gaming in communities and it limits harm from gaming with the introduction of an integrated problem-gambling strategy paid for by the industry. There are limits on opportunities for under-age gambling by clearly defining the types of venues in which gambling can take place. It will reduce the number of pokie machines around the country by about 3000. It extends the moratorium on casinos which is in line with the public mood on the issue. However it does increase the accountability of the non-casino gaming-machine industry markedly by ensuring clear distinctions between pub operators and donating committees of trusts. It provides for electronic monitoring of all gaming machines allowing anyone to apply for grants not just pub-approved groups increased reporting requirements to the Department of Internal Affairs and extra enforcement powers of licence conditions for the department’s compliance team. It establishes an independent gaming commission to hear disputes and to hear appeals by the industry against Department of Internal Affairs licensing decisions and it ensures the future viability of the New Zealand Lotteries Commission. 
United Future has been assailed from all sides as lacking common sense betraying its supporters and being anti-family because of the role it played in securing the passage through Parliament of the Gambling Bill. I just note the comments of the previous speaker Judith Collins. She on the one hand privately came up to me and said that we had got a good deal and things were improving in the Gambling Bill. She then turned around last night for example and apparently at the eleventh hour wanted to appeal to our sensibilities to change our stand. Having not received one phone call from her all we can conclude is that it is nothing more than a cheap publicity stunt. But that seems to be 99 percent of her warbling. 
Some critics seem to be motivated by a visceral dislike of all forms of gambling and therefore they seem to think that the Gambling Bill is all about banning the activity. Not so! The bill arose from a longstanding review of the whole industry and was designed to regulate gambling not ban it. United Future took a pragmatic common-sense view that we should deal with reality as it is not what it could be. 
Internet gambling which already occurs in New Zealand cannot be prevented without cutting New Zealand off electronically from the rest of the world. We decided that at least some of the money that now goes overseas should be retained in New Zealand and used for the benefit of the New Zealand community. In other words money that currently fills the pockets of overseas providers of Internet gambling will upon enactment of the bill be a source of revenue for the gambling levy and hence be part of a solution to gambling problems and not exacerbate the problems as they currently are. The Greens’ approach to not allow for this—and I gather from Judith Collins that it is also the National approach—would be nothing more than sticking their heads in the sand and believing that the problem does not exist. 
Incidentally it should be noted that the Lotteries Commission not United Future sought originally to run Internet gambling. I have to apologise for my earlier media release. My words were ill-chosen and I accept that. What I really wanted to say was that I was happy with the provision for the Internet simply because we could now redirect some of that money towards problem gambling rather than allowing all that money to fill the pockets of foreigners who set up those Internet provisions. That is really what I should have said. I was not accurate and I do apologise for giving the wrong impression in my media release. 
It may suit the political purposes of the Greens to castigate United Future but it was United Future that moved to ensure New Zealand’s problem-gambling programmes would benefit from Internet gambling. That is exactly what I am talking about. United Future has been berated for supporting the establishment of a Gaming Commission to oversee the industry instead of letting the Ministry of Health set collect and spend a levy on the industry to fund problem-gambling programmes. We see the commission as independent from political interference with transparent accounting practices and support from the industry as well as the health-care providers in order to treat problem gambling. In other words the Ministry of Health will be properly scrutinised with regard to both the level of the levy and the menu of options best suited to effectively treat problem gambling. 
Here I have to make just a couple of points. United Future sought provisions to ensure that the commission not only was independent but was seen to be independent and that there was the insertion of provisions clarifying this in the Supplementary Order Paper that required the Department of Internal Affairs to ensure a clear separation of staff involving gaming and those working for the commission. This is an interesting point that has not been brought out yet but the commission will be able to engage its own experts which ensures that it receives independent advice. 
The Green plan was to see the levy swallowed up by the health bureaucracy and distributed by anonymous Wellington-based committees with no obligation to help the communities from which the money came. For all we know the money would go on liberating gay whales. One has only to look at tobacco taxes which are promoted by the ministry. Only a very small proportion is spent on anti-smoking measures and it is easy to see the danger of letting the Wellington bureaucracy get its hands on the money. 
Regarding community involvement in the new gaming venues our position has been that we provide for all sites to be set up after October 2001 to be subject to territorial authority policy approval. It would have been nice to extend it to all previously existing venues but the fact is that existing operators have legal rights that Parliament should not be willing to legislate retrospectively over the top of and that goes against basic constitutional convention. If one looks at pokie profit-distribution systems our position has been against centralisation. Money raised locally should be distributed locally. Thanks to us the Government is not forced to deal with Greens intent on centralising profits from pokies. 
The fact is love it or hate it many aspects of New Zealand society are supported by fund-raising efforts of the private trusts that operate gaming machines. We are talking about clubs and recreational organisations local sports clubs emergency services lung cancer research arts culture and other philanthropic purposes church-based social services capital works and building projects for the churches themselves community urban rejuvenation projects such as park restoration inner-city beautification and so on. 
I am happy for my colleagues and I to be judged over the term of this Parliament and we proudly stand on our record for our actions in promoting the Families Commission for influencing Labour in a more common-sense direction in its social policies agitating for better tax policies that benefit New Zealand businesses and families battling against the spread of prostitution and drug-taking in our communities promoting victims’ rights and so on and especially for our contribution to a stable Government working with Labour in a constructive and professional manner. 
Finally I express my thanks to the Minister George Hawkins for the reasonableness and openness with which we negotiated this bill and its finer points. 
JUDITH COLLINS (NZ National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I wish to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 343. I believe that my honour was impugned by the previous speaker. When I spoke to the previous speaker I certainly did congratulate United Future on some of the changes it had been able to bring forward in this bill and I have made it perfectly plain to the House that I was very pleased with some of the changes in the bill. I certainly have not ever said that I congratulated them on letting Internet gambling come into this country. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 The aim of the Gambling Bill—formerly the Responsible Gambling Bill—is to reform the law relating to gambling in New Zealand by repealing and replacing the Gaming and Lotteries Act and the Casino Control Act. Although this Government may trumpet other objectives the reality is that the bill will have serious consequences for sports cultural and service organisations. The potential for political patronage is a real concern. Alterations to the distribution process may well be called for but the proposals subject to political appointment and pressures will not meet community needs and will not reflect the interests of particular communities. There is potential for further behaviour modifications by the politically correct brigade in the Labour Party. As well as jeopardising the flow of grants to community groups it is likely that the dramatic increases in levies and administrative costs will further reduce the pool of available funds. 
The Government issued a 65-page Supplementary Order Paper of amendments to the bill a couple of days before the bill was considered in the Committee stage. Those amendments were not available for public submissions and what is more that Supplementary Order Paper 132 made changes against the recommendations of the select committee that considered the bill and the public submissions. Today the third and final reading of the bill is being rushed through the House so that the public and other affected parties cannot possibly have time to consider the changes and make comments on them. New Zealand First views that practice which is becoming common with this Government as appalling and undemocratic. 
The Supplementary Order Paper contains many detailed technical proposals and amendments and some of the more important amendments are as follows. One is the prohibition on the granting of any further casino licences in clause 8A. Another is the removal of the clause that prevents the setting up of Internet gambling. That is against the express recommendations of the select committee and is done with the approval of United Future. It had the opportunity to shut that down but no it approved it. The dangers of Internet gambling are very complex and enormous. Internet gambling takes away the security and the support of the casinos and parlours that run casino machines but does not protect the individual operating on the Internet. The Internet leaves it wide open; there are no checks and balances and no way to stop people from operating. Unless some changes are brought in very shortly we will find Internet gambling running amok. It is an easy way to gamble to spend money and to run up huge debts. 
The Supplementary Order Paper allows the New Zealand Racing Board to operate racing and sports betting conducted under the Racing Act in a casino. New Zealand First supports any issues that put the racing industry back on an even keel and an even playing field. 
There is a definition of housie but the legislation does not provide rules or restrictions on practices carried out under housie. Neither the bill nor the Supplementary Order Paper addresses the tremendous number of rorts and schemes to get round the so-called limits on housie fund distributions. 
Schedule 1 adds conditions that must be attached to a casino licence. As one member asked the other night what on earth do salary arrangements have to do with a casino licence? That is nothing more than the politically correct brigade within the Labour Party influencing the operations of a casino. Salary arrangements have no place in the licence. 
The Minister of Internal Affairs has a huge influence. He is able to move the presiding member of the board just by supplying a written notice to the person then sending a copy to the board without any explanations and without any recourse laid out in the bill. Under clause 87 the Minister has discretion to permit more than nine gaming machines at nine machine venues. The Minister has touted that this bill limits the number of gaming machines and will limit the number of gaming machines in new venues to nine yet this clause allows the Minister discretion to increase that number. So pressure from corporate societies that are supportive of the Government will result in those societies receiving preferential treatment under this clause. This clause also allows the Minister discretion to increase the number of machines in venues that support the Government. That is political interference. This bill leaves things wide open to abuse and political favouritism. One can only ask about United Future’s accountability under this bill. It has agreed to this clause and will obviously ask the Minister to allow societies that are supportive of United Future to increase the number of machines in their operation. 
Local territorial authorities have the ability to control activities in their areas only up until they issue a licence. Once a licence is issued they no longer have control over what happens and if they suddenly discover that gambling is out of control and harming their community they cannot do anything about it. 
I would like to mention that New Zealand First believes that the racing industry has not been on a level footing with the gambling industry for a long long time and we support any clauses that bring racing back to a level playing field. New Zealand First views the racing industry as a hugely important industry for New Zealand particularly for New Zealand’s economy and exports. 
I would like to acknowledge the Minister’s willingness to provide members of New Zealand First with a briefing with officials. It was greatly appreciated. Unfortunately it was at such a late stage that after careful consideration we found we still could not support a number of the clauses within the bill. Therefore we are voting against the bill. 
Finally I would like to add that those who claim to have that elusive thing called common sense probably do not. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 At the Third International Conference on Gambling in New Zealand being held in Auckland today the Hon Damien O’Connor addressed participants by saying: “Problem gambling is a destructive addiction. There is widespread evidence of the harm that problem gambling is causing society. There has been a dramatic increase in problem gambling especially pokie machines. The figures paint a bleak figure of problem gambling in New Zealand and there is a higher concentration of pokies coinciding with areas of high deprivation.” I say to Mr O’Connor: “How true!”. How can a Labour Minister go in front of an international conference of people who really know in the deepest possible way about the downside of the gambling industry and acknowledge those obvious facts when just a few hours later in the House his Government with the help of United Future is intent on passing a bill that now has clauses in it that assist the promotion of problem gambling rather than minimising it? 
At 4 o’clock this afternoon that same conference in Auckland passed a resolution stating in part that it “expresses its alarm at the most recent changes in the Gambling Bill and calls on the Government and all parties represented in Parliament” to reject the late United Future and Labour additions to the bill and to support initiatives to allow local authority control over gaming venues community distribution of pokie proceeds and obliging Government to report annually on its overall income from and dependency on gambling proceeds. Although I report that resolution to the House because I think that if anyone’s voice should be heard on this bill it is the voice of those who work daily with the people whose lives are wrecked by the havoc that problem gambling causes I have little hope that at this late stage Labour or United Future members will be willing to change their minds despite the embarrassment that their position has caused them. 
Labour has come a very long way from its early discussions with the Alliance and the Green Party in the last Government when I think all of us saw hope that the bill we are dealing with today would be a truly responsible Gambling Bill. It was even called the Responsible Gambling Bill throughout most of its history; the fact that the Government Administration Committee chose at the last minute to delete the word “Responsible” from the title was indeed a prophetic indication of what was to come. 
I am one of the few MPs now in the House who sat through the entire select committee process on the bill. After months of submissions and consideration the committee in its wisdom decided to keep the clause that banned Internet and remote interactive gambling because of the evidence we had heard of its deleterious effect. Then just days before the bill came back to the House for its Committee stage a Government Supplementary Order Paper turned up as a result of a deal cut with United Future that reversed the select committee’s decision and allowed the Lotteries Commission—that is the Government—to proceed with one of the most pernicious forms of gambling available in the modern world. As Dave Macpherson the spokesperson for the community group GamblingWatch said earlier this week: “Internet gambling is to entertainment what Internet pornography is to sex.” As with pornography all around the world treatment agencies and Governments are concerned about the high rate of under-age access to gambling opportunities over the Net. Studies have shown that we already have a high rate of problem gambling among children and young people and I find it simply incredible that United Future and Labour have agreed not only to refuse to regulate against Internet gaming but also to promote it through what has become a most irresponsible bill. 
On top of that the Government and United Future in their wisdom have chosen to reject the decision of the select committee—which of course did include a number of Labour MPs at the time strangely enough—to ban banknote acceptors from gaming machines. That was done after we had heard evidence of the way in which banknote acceptors make it that much easier for addicted gamblers just to keep on going without having to get up from the machine for even the shortest of breaks. Pokie machines are now undeniably the source of most new gambling addictions in this country and are responsible for a rising rate of problems particularly among women. The select committee felt that anything we could do to slow the deliberately seductive way in which the pokies keep people playing was undeniably a good thing. However United Future was not on the select committee during the last Parliament and it decided not to listen to this sound advice. Labour also decided not to listen to it. They thought the idea of slowing addiction rates was not even worth bothering about. So again we are in the disgraceful situation where a bill that was supposed to be about harm minimisation has ended up being at least in part about harm maximisation. 
The third part of the Labour - United Future deal has seen the gambling industry itself being given a greater voice and hence influence in the process of setting the problem-gambling strategy and levy. Those are the people and organisations actually responsible for the problem in the first place and to give them a larger say is a dereliction of conscience and of common sense. The gaming industry also has of course a massive vested interest in keeping the problem-gambling levy as low as possible and throughout the select committee process its representatives made many arguments suggesting that the scale of the problem was exaggerated and the costs of dealing with it overrated. On the whole the sector is also keen to keep problem-gambling strategies focused on treatment rather than on the additional public health goals of health promotion and harm minimisation. Labour and United Future are entering very dangerous territory here. In fact this last issue is the most substantial and retrogressive of the changes engendered by their amendments to the bill. 
For the last 9 months or so the Green Party has been working with church organisations community groups and local government to try to bring about several critical and positive changes to the bill. We have fought a long hard struggle to try to persuade Labour firstly to allow local authorities to have control over all not just a few pokie venues and numbers in their districts and secondly to change the pokie profit distribution system to one that is equitable and publicly accountable. On the first of these—local government control—we have done a lot of research and discovered that in fact not one territorial local authority will have the ability to control more than 30 percent of the pokies in its district and that 15 councils nationwide will have no say over any of them because they were licensed before the magical date of October 2001. In George Hawkins’ own backyard Manukau City there has been an explosion of gambling exacerbated by the conscious choice of Pub Charity to site its machines in the areas where the poorest people live. The Mayor of Manukau Sir Barry Curtis and his council have fought a valiant battle along with many other local body representatives to try to get the Government to change its mind on this but to no avail. 
On the second of the two issues distribution the Green Party has been subject to much deliberate misinformation about our policy. As anyone who read our Supplementary Order Paper or listened to anything I have been saying over the last year will know what we are after is not some centralised bureaucracy with no local control over where the $200 million in pokie profit goes but rather a carefully balanced system between national and local needs that is aimed at sharing the proceeds fairly between sports and recreation arts and culture and broader community purposes. In our model fully two-thirds of the funding would have been distributed by a range of very local committees. However all of this was not to be. As I have said before this week Labour has completely disgraced itself by choosing to go with United Future on this bill. 
Contrary to the misconceptions that some MPs have deliberately promulgated lately the Green Party has never stopped being willing to negotiate with Labour on the changes we wanted made. We have always been willing to talk negotiate and compromise right up until the last minute. We have never to quote what Matt Robson said the other day “thrown our toys out of the cot” on this issue. It is just a myth. We did keep trying. Late on Monday this week when we had nearly given up hope of changing Labour’s mind we were made aware of the last-minute unanimous resolution of the New Zealand Council of the Labour Party this past weekend to ask its own caucus to reverse the deal with United Future and to support local government control and publicly accountable distribution systems. I know that there are many people in the Labour caucus who actually do support their own party’s representative body in its feelings on this issue. I am just sorry that they could not persuade their colleagues on Tuesday that it might be more important to honour that part of Labour’s heritage that calls for social and economic justice for all of our people rather than the part that sold out its members in the 1980s. 
History is starting to repeat itself for the Labour Party and I hope its MPs do some serious thinking about what has been happening over the last couple of weeks. Whose votes does Labour want in 2005? Are they those of the pokie proprietors and the Pub Charity administrators or those of the people whose lives have been devastated by problem gambling? Which party would those MPs rather work with for a better future for New Zealand—one that will not support a jot of industrial relations or other progressive legislation or one that shares the vision of that part of Labour that does want a better future for all its people not just those who already have money and power? 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 It has been a long and tortuous route for this bill. It started off a long while ago with the first reading in about April 2002 and there has been toing and froing between the parties with deals done here and parties pulling out there since then. I congratulate the Green Party on the principled stand it has taken on this bill. It realised that there were significant difficulties with regard to the bill and its members at least had the fortitude to stand up and say that the bill was not right. I do not agree with all the reasons that they have done that but at least they have had the fortitude to do so—unlike United Future which stepped into the breach. 
As a result of that we are to have many things that I think are retrograde steps for this country. We are to have Internet gambling interactive gambling— 
Hon George Hawkins 
: We already have it. 
HEATHER ROY 
: We are to have a lot more of it—online casinos. I notice in the bill that there will be no more physical casinos despite the experience in Rotorua that my honourable colleague Georgina te Heuheu told us about on Tuesday whereby the casino planned for that city missed out on coming into being by one day. 
I thought that the United Future member Marc Alexander gave a very anguished and defensive speech. He obviously feels that there are some difficulties with regard to the provisions of the bill in areas that he does not want to support yet the United Future party is going to continue to support it. I urge the United Future members when they vote to consider doing what the Greens have done in their principled stand. It is not too late for the United Future members to say that they do not agree with many of the provisions in the bill. 
ACT New Zealand opposes the bill for many reasons. It is interesting to note that the bill started its life as the “Responsible Gambling Bill’. The dropping of the word “responsible” from the title is I think an admission that there is little responsibility involved with regard to this bill. I could point to many clauses where that point is relevant and I will perhaps mention them as I go through my speech. 
The Supplementary Order Paper is a disgrace. I refer to Supplementary Order Paper 132 put forward in the name of the Hon George Hawkins the Minister of Internal Affairs. That Supplementary Order Paper is huge containing 65 pages of amendments to this bill. We heard from Sue Bradford that the Government Administration Committee spent a long time on the bill and had many many hours of discussion about amending bits here and there in the bill to make it better. Then at the last minute a Supplementary Order Paper came forward from the Minister with a huge number of amendments. Those amendments had had no scrutiny by members on the Opposition side of the House who had many valid concerns about them. The Supplementary Order Paper overturned many painstaking decisions that had been made at the select committee level. Worst of all it had no scrutiny from the public. There was no ability for the public to put forward submissions and to have their say which is what our process is all about. 
I recently spoke at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in the Cook Islands. I was asked to give a presentation on the New Zealand select committee process. The other delegates there were very impressed with our select committee process—the number of select committees we have the way we organise the readings of a bill and the amount of public submission that we have. Supplementary Order Paper 132 makes a farce of the system of democracy that we have in this country where the public are able to make submissions. That is one of the things that the delegates from around the Commonwealth were very impressed with—the amount of scrutiny we had—but there was no scrutiny of that Supplementary Order Paper. Many of the amendments that we see in this legislation now are there without any scrutiny at all. They just show that the Government decided to say that it knows what is best for this country and to tell people how to run their lives—particularly in this case in relation to gambling. 
I come back to the online casinos. I think it is a very important point that interactive Internet gambling will proliferate. It will make the problems with gambling much worse. Once upon a time people had to get dressed and go down the road to find pokie machines or go to the local casino. Now the temptation to gamble is there all the time in their homes if they want it to be. I suspect that the 3 percent 6 percent or 9 percent—the escalating number that we heard about from Judith Collins—of problem gamblers that we see in this country is set to escalate even further because of Internet gambling. Who do we have to thank for that? We can thank the Labour Government supported by the United Future party. 
I would like to come to the new structure proposed in the bill with the Gambling Commission. The commission’s structure sits at the head of the other structures. It is responsible for appeals and limited licensing. The Gambling Commission it should be noted will have no teeth and will not be independent. If we need anything it is to have a transparent process and an independent body heading up the gambling process. Underneath the Gambling Commission will sit the Department of Internal Affairs. Whereas once upon a time there was a vertical structure so that an organisation reported to those above it now the Department of Internal Affairs will have a horizontal structure. We will have policy for all gaming evolved there and enforcement will also be the role of the Department of Internal Affairs. The licensing and regulation of gaming machines servicing of the Gaming Commission and servicing of the New Zealand Lottery Grants Board will all be parked there. There is not a lot of transparency here. In particular the licensing and regulation of gaming machines and the servicing of the Gambling Commission should be part of the Gambling Commission in order for transparency to exist. 
The New Zealand Future member Brent Catchpole— 
Peter Brown 
: New Zealand First. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Sorry—New Zealand First. I do beg the member’s pardon; that was a Freudian slip. The New Zealand First member mentioned the huge amount of ministerial control that exists under this legislation. It is indicative of what is happening in a lot of the legislation that we see now. The bill that we debated prior to this one the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill also saw an awful lot of ministerial control. What we do not want to see is the power of the Minister to increase the number of gaming machines at some venues. Why is it the sole responsibility of the Minister to decide which venue should be allowed to have more than the allotted nine gaming machines? There is no reason for that at all. That system is open to abuse and it allows the Government to pick its favourites—something that we are seeing more and more as this Government’s term progresses. That too is another reason that the word “responsible” has been dropped from the title of this bill. What responsibility exists when one person has the power to do those things? It is just not right at all. 
For many reasons ACT New Zealand opposes this bill. Most of all we are worried about the ministerial control and also about the new structure that does exist. But the potential for the huge proliferation of online casinos Internet gambling and interactive gambling which the United Future Party needs to take a great deal of responsibility for has been a huge disappointment with this bill. 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I speak as the chair of the Government Administration Committee. Throughout two Parliaments we have had two select committees work on this bill and I thank those committees for the work they have done. I thank the officials and in particular John Markland for the work they have done on the bill and for being so long-suffering over what have been very controversial issues on which many people will never agree. 
The bill does some very important things. It limits the number of pokie machines in this country it gives local government the ability to have gambling plans it does make trusts more accountable by addressing their structure and it does address the distribution of profits by making that process more transparent and can I say much more fair. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise to the third reading of the Gambling Bill. At the outset I say as my colleague Judith Collins did that National opposes this bill. 
I commend the ACT speaker and the Greens’ speaker Sue Bradford who spoke before me. I do not normally necessarily agree with the position that the Greens take but I have to say that their stand—unlike that of United Future—has been completely principled and in that respect I certainly support them. 
 I take the opportunity to discuss for the last time the issue of Rotorua Casino Ltd. Supplementary Order Paper 109 which I lodged sought to enable Rotorua Casino Ltd to apply for and have considered a casino venue licence. That amendment would have allowed genuine consultation with the Rotorua community on a proposal to build and open a resort casino in Rotorua and would have provided for an independent assessment of the application community consultation and the distribution of the profits by a charitable trust. 
The background is that Rotorua Casino Ltd viewed as a serious injustice the moratorium on further casino applications that was imposed by Parliament in 1997. The moratorium prevented two of the six applications that had been lodged before the passing of that bill from proceeding. Of course one of those was from Rotorua Casino Ltd. The other was from a company that at its base was the Wellington Tenths. It is interesting that both those organisations were Maori based but I will say no more on that; given that all people in this country say they want to see Maori involved in economic development it is interesting that the two organisations that missed out were Maori based. 
Rotorua Casino Ltd sought to rectify that. At the time that the moratorium was imposed it was generally understood that the purpose of the imposition was to allow a complete review of gaming laws and the expectation was that casino applications would then be heard under the new rules. Of course we know that this bill has completely barred them. That decision might not have been so bad if there had been some logic behind it but if one looks at the bill one sees that one of the most pernicious forms of gambling will be allowed to spread right across this country so there does not seem to be any logic at all to the Government’s approach to gambling. 
Rotorua Casino Ltd wanted the opportunity as it had already invested so many resources and funds in 1997 to have an application considered. But it recognised that it would need to meet more stringent and comprehensive conditions had been faced previously by other applicants for casino premises licences and that is what it did. As embodied by the proposal in the Supplementary Order Paper Rotorua Casino Ltd had taken a very responsible approach to the issue and had taken into account a lot of the comments that had been made at the time of the 1997 legislation. 
One of the side effects of the moratorium has been to create a casino monopoly in New Zealand and substantial market dominance by one company throughout the country. This bill confirms and makes permanent that private business monopoly and that surely cuts rights across the business and competition policies that all Governments—particularly National and centre-right Governments—have. I would have thought that this Government in particular as it seems to have all the language about business and enterprise—although it does not actually deliver on it—would see the sense in that as well but clearly it did not. Essentially sitting behind the Rotorua Casino Ltd application were two fundamental issues. One was the right of communities to decide their own economic development to make decisions around what activities they see as enhancing economic growth and development in their own regions and the other was the injustice that had occurred with the moratorium in 1997. 
I want to spend a short time on some of the things that the Minister of Internal Affairs said the other night. On the issue of casinos and the fact that no more will be allowed he shouted out in the Chamber that the public does not like casinos. Well I ask who the public is because it seems that the public is the Labour Government—that that is who the public is. I imagine that those people who do not like casinos are not too crash hot in favour of any form of gambling anyway. 
That was such a stupid thing for him to say when this bill will see the spread of interactive gambling in any event. It will be worse. This legislation makes provision for a form of gambling that will be much worse than anything that the Minister talked about the other night. That is why I say there is no logic to this bill and that is a great pity. After a 4-year gap this House should have seen a decent piece of legislation that was comprehensive and consistent but this bill is not. It is not consistent at all. Government members make great noise about the fact that they are limiting the number of pokie machines and preventing further casinos but on the other hand the State will now sponsor Internet and remote interactive gambling. I ask what the sense in that is. [ 
Interruption 
] I want Dianne Yates a member from Hamilton to stand up and tell me the logic behind that because there is none. This way people do not have to get up and go out of their sitting rooms; they can sit there and gamble. How come that is OK and casinos are not? Members should tell me that. They should tell me how come that is OK. Well it is not. 
The Government should be ashamed of itself especially a Government that says it is family-based and all those things. However that is just a lot of rubbish. I deplore this legislation and the way that this Government has behaved on it. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 This is a good bill and I support it. 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I support the bill. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I missed both those speeches in my effort to stand up; they were so quick. I want to acknowledge from the outset that there are elements in this bill that New Zealand First thinks will improve the current situation. Indeed we would have supported them at the Committee stage had the debate been allowed in such a way that we could have voted on individual clauses. But it was a constrained debate on a part-by-part basis and very much rushed through and overall we had to oppose it. 
New Zealand First was not on the select committee so we had to come to terms with the bill by doing what might be termed “the hard yards”. We had to read it in its entirety we had to study the submissions as best we could and we had to listen to the debate in this House. We note that the select committee received 521 submissions the hearing of evidence took 33 hours and 48 minutes and a further 34 hours and 18 minutes were spent in consideration. We were not there—and it is a very difficult job to keep up with that level of work—but what surprises me is neither was United Future. It was not even in the House in any effective manner in the last term of Parliament and it did not have anybody on this select committee at all. I ask the chief whip of United Future: “Did you read the submissions?”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Did the “member” read the submissions. 
PETER BROWN 
: Did the member read the submissions? Did anybody in United Future read the submissions? He does not know. I think members can take that as being that nobody in United Future has read the submissions. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Would it have made any difference if they had? 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not know but we have good reason to believe that nobody in United Future read the submissions and nobody in United Future can address this House now and answer that question in a positive manner. United Future members have come to this Parliament and supported a Supplementary Order Paper that removes clause 217A from the bill as it was reported back from the select committee. Clause 217A banned interactive gambling. United Future has done a deal with the Labour Party to remove that clause. Its members have not listened to anybody read any submissions or done anything in the public arena whatsoever but they know better than anybody else. 
A few weeks ago my Death with Dignity Bill was defeated and a United Future member—I will not name him because I get on very well with him personally and respect his view—came over to me said he respected my sincerity but the Lord had spoken and my bill had been defeated. I ask United Future members whether the Lord spoke when the Prostitution Reform Bill was passed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There has been one reference to your bill but now we will come back to the Gambling Bill. 
PETER BROWN 
: Do they believe that the Lord is speaking to them so that they do not have to ask the public what they think of interactive gambling? 
In Australia the National Office for the Information Economy—whatever that is—has compiled a report for the Australians. I want to read some of the assertions made in that report: “The key social concerns that have emerged in the debate on interactive gambling are as follows: 1. Internet gambling will greatly increase the accessibility of gambling. Research shows a significant relationship between accessibility and the prevalence of problem gambling. 2. The special attributes of interactive gambling such as its ease of use and the type of products available may exacerbate the prevalence of problem gambling. 3. Interactive gambling will expose new audiences such as young people to gambling thereby increasing the potential for an overall increase in problem gambling. 4. Early intervention and support to problem gamblers may be more difficult to provide by the Internet than in current gambling venues. 5. Interactive gambling may have a further negative impact on the community through the narrowing of leisure choices and an increased gambling mentality with wider acceptance of gambling and the potential for increased isolation of individuals.” 
The report goes on to state in a bullet-point form—which I will read to this House—key points why the Commonwealth of Australia is concerned about interactive gambling: “1. Interactive technology provides an unprecedented level of access to gambling bringing gambling into the homes of Australian families. 2. Young people may be directly affected by increased accessibility to gambling. 3. Accessibility to gambling is the single largest factor contributing to problem gambling. 4. Australia already has one of the largest gambling industries in the world. 5. As a nation of early adopters of new technology and conducting transactions on-line Australia is a prime location for a rapid expansion of interactive gambling. 6. New interactive technology could attract new cohorts of gamblers and result in new problem gamblers and forms of problem gambling.” 
The Australians have seen fit to examine this issue in detail. What are we doing here? We are having little meetings behind the scenes in non – smoke-filled rooms with a Government that opposed interactive gambling when the bill was sent back from the select committee. I say that United Future members should be ashamed of themselves. They should be absolutely hanging their heads in shame. 
I know that Larry Baldock—he winks at me across the House—is going to address a church on Sunday. I want him to stand up and tell them—I will come along; the member invites me to come along and so I will. I think that what United Future is doing in this country is not only shameful but not even democratic. This is the party that stands for common sense. Its members say that they are the common-sense party. Matt Robson nods his head. Is it common sense to deny the public any representations on this sort of legislation? I know that Mr Robson is concerned about problem gambling in this country and I say to him that this is not the way to go. We should not do a back-room deal after all the select committee’s deliberations and considerations said no to interactive gambling. 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Is he voting for this bill? 
PETER BROWN 
: I do not know; we will hear that at the end though I cannot imagine he will. When Marc Alexander spoke in this House he said he had not had anybody appeal to him over the phone not to vote for this bill. I have tried to ring him in the House and could not but I have spoken to him personally and appealed to him and to other United Future members not to vote for this bill—not with the clause in it that provides for interactive gambling. If they vote for it they will be doing a disservice to young people and a huge disservice to the families in this country. They will never be able to stand up on a public platform—and certainly not with me alongside them—and say that they are the family party in this country because they sure ain’t. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 Peter Brown and I share a regard for common sense but we also share a belief in the wise words of the Italian Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci who said that common sense is often just shared prejudice. I am sure that Peter Brown and I have often talked about that. 
The Progressive Coalition is supporting the bill though we do not have as much to celebrate in the battle against problem gambling as we ought to given our absolute majority on the centre-left. Progressive’s position is perhaps best summarised by Richard Northey a former member of Parliament and now chair of the Problem Gambling Foundation. He says that the bill before us represents eight steps forward because it provides a tougher regime to control gambling than the present law of this land. That is why the Progressive Coalition supports the bill. We do not believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 
The Greens walked away because they were not getting everything they wanted and have now vowed to bring the bill down altogether. They would rather that the eight steps forward being made here today were not being made at all just so that they can have the emotional satisfaction of putting out a press statement accusing Labour of being arrogant. Sue Bradford talked in this House yesterday of the arrogance of Labour—a party that won over 41 percent of the vote last election which is two times more than any other single party. Yet when the Greens walk out on negotiations with Labour Labour and the Progressive Coalition have no choice but to find at least one other Opposition party to allow us to enact legislation that in Richard Northey’s words allows us to take the eight steps forward that we would not otherwise be able to take. In other words to take eight steps forward on problem gambling—as we are—we have had to turn to a conservative party which in this case is United Future. 
“Arrogant” means having or showing an exaggerated opinion of one’s own merit or ability and I know that Mr English would agree with that. Surely the test of any party’s merit or ability is the success it has in getting its policies enacted and in representing the people who voted for it. However I thank the Greens for voting for the Progressive Coalition’s Supplementary Order Paper on cutting and capping the numbers of pokie machines. We in the Progressive Coalition also reject banknote acceptors which make it easier for problem gamblers to throw their families’ dollar notes into gaming machines and we thank the Greens for supporting us on that. 
But again we wonder how United Future will justify its stance on gambling when it is supposed to be pro-family. I also note that United Future does not support the Progressive Coalition’s pro-family 4 weeks’ minimum annual leave bill; apparently the only families United Future wishes to strengthen are rich families. 
Standing Orders do not permit me to introduce a member’s bill to reform gambling laws this year but from next year I will put forward a member’s bill on behalf of the Progressive Coalition that really will be pro-family and do more to protect families from problem gambling. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Gambling Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 62 
Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 23; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Privileges of the House and Speaker's Actions 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Earlier today members raised a number of points of order relating to my conduct and the conduct of the police. I want to respond to those points before the House adjourns for the week. Members questioned statements that I have made outside the House on two incidents one involving Shane Ardern and the other involving a demonstration in the gallery yesterday. Let me deal with the latter first. 
I announced publicly yesterday afternoon that trespass notices have been issued against the demonstrators concerned. I considered it was appropriate for me to do this as soon after the incident as possible. I could also have informed the House of my decision and perhaps on reflection I should have done. However the issue of trespass notices following incidents in the gallery is not uncommon and it has not been the practice to take up the time of the House with them. Mr Prebble questioned why disorderly behaviour charges have not been laid as has occurred with Mr Ardern. As with Mr Ardern that is entirely a matter for the police. The fact that I have issued trespass notices does not preclude other charges being laid. Just as I did not interfere with the police over Mr Ardern I have not done so in this case. It is a decision for them. 
The statements that I made on Friday in relation to Mr Ardern were made in response to reported public comments by Mr Ardern that he had no regrets and would do it again. On reflection I feel I should not have responded to them in public and I apologise to the member concerned. 
The police indicated to my office that they intended to interview Mr Ardern. I regarded that as a matter solely for them. No question was raised as to the interview occurring in Parliament House and I was unaware of that having been the case. I understand from Mr Ardern that the police rang his office for an appointment which was made with his secretary last Tuesday. I do not regard that as satisfactory. Mr Worth drew attention to parliamentary practice in Australia and to the fact that the police exercise their powers in Parliament House under the general control of the presiding officers. Subject to any specific statutory differences I think that this is broadly the position in New Zealand too. 
In the year 2000 I issued to all members a circular on the serving of legal process on members emphasising that this should happen in Parliament House only with the agreement of the Speaker and the member concerned. The Clerk is in the process of revising that circular for reissue. I think it should also deal with the question of the exercise of police powers in the building. I want to discuss this matter with the Commissioner of Police with a view to devising appropriate procedures for police conduct in Parliament House. Those procedures should take account of our security needs while not infringing Parliament’s privilege of control over its precincts. 
Finally there is one other point that I wish to respond to. That is the allegation that has been made more than once that I have never explained my actions over the Hon Harry Duynhoven to the House. That is not correct. I gave a ruling on 23 July describing the course I was intending to follow and a second detailed ruling on 7 August explaining why I had acted as I did. These rulings are on pages 7211 and 7748 to 7749 of the daily  
Hansard 
. Some members may not agree with my actions. That is their right. But it is not true that I have never explained my position on that case to the House. I will make sure that a copy of this ruling is put in every member’s box eventually. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for those considered rulings. To follow up on the points you made about the process in respect of police activity in Parliament itself I wonder whether there is some way that you can communicate with the Commissioner of Police with some urgency because Shane Ardern’s office has been rung by the police four times I think today. [ 
Interruption 
] Was it more than four? 
John Carter 
: I’m not aware of the number. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well at least four times today his office has been rung by the police pressing for an appointment to enable them to issue a summons to Mr Ardern—in Parliament! This is putting a great deal of pressure on his secretary who despite our consistent advice not to agree to that may well end up doing so on the next phone call. I would suggest that you take up this matter with the police directly so that they understand that a summons cannot be issued in Parliament to a member of Parliament. If they could stop hassling Shane Ardern’s office for such an appointment it would be greatly appreciated. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the member’s point. It is properly raised and yes that will be done. I will discuss this matter with the Clerk and he can explain the proper procedures to the police. But I can assure the member that that will be done. 
The House adjourned at 5.48 p.m.