Volume 616 Week 53 - Tuesday 30 March 2004(continued on Thursday 1 April 2004) 
Volume 616 Week 53 - Tuesday 30 March 2004(continued on Thursday 1 April 2004) 
[Volume:616;Page:12273] 
Tuesday 30 March 2004 
( 
continued on Thursday 1 April 2004 
) 
Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Last night I mentioned that National supports this bill. It is a very important piece of legislation. But what I was concerned about was that this bill had its genesis 2 years ago when it had its first reading and then went to the Law and Order Committee and yet it has only now surfaced again in the House 2 years later in 2004. That is in my view an absolute insult given the importance of this legislation. This is an important bill and we support it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Good. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: But I make the point to the member that although we support the bill it should have come back to us at least 2 years ago instead of sitting around. We know of the problems in the world today with regard to terrorism. In fact if we were to look in today’s  
Dominion Post 
 in the world section we would see the headline “Foiled—the terror bombers of suburbia”. So what we see around the world whether it be in Madrid in Bali or in other areas like the Philippines is that terrorism is at its height—and it is growing. 
While we may think that here in New Zealand we are geographically isolated and that nothing will ever happen to us a Government that has its mind on the issue of terrorism should be protecting its citizens. The primary role of any Government is to protect its citizens and what this bill does is to allow the surveillance organisations to be able to intercept telecommunications legally. I note the commentary on the bill and I will quote from it because there are some misconceptions about what the bill does. The commentary on the bill under the heading “Background” states: “The bill does not change or extend in any way the existing powers of surveillance agencies to intercept communications.” It also states: “This legislation is necessary to prevent law enforcement and national security capability being seriously eroded because of technical issues related to telecommunications networks.” So the bill will plug the loopholes in order to make sure that we do have effective intelligence systems and that our surveillance capabilities are the best in the world and will be kept up to date with the changes in technology. 
September 11 the Bali bombing the recent Madrid bombings the bomb materials found just recently in London by the anti-terrorist squad and the point I made about the headline in the  
Dominion Post 
 today all show that terrorism threats around the world are growing and they could come very close to home. I am sure that all New Zealanders will support this bill. The Government’s primary role as I mentioned before is to make sure we are vigilant and do have in place the methodologies needed to be able to legally intercept any communications that may be to the detriment of our country and people. The bill will allow the law enforcement agencies—that is the surveillance agencies—to have that capability and we need to support that. One of the problems we currently face is that some digital and Internet technologies do not permit the monitoring of communications and information where necessary with the interception technology that we have. Many New Zealanders have digital phones; probably every member in this House has a digital phone. They are very common and we want to make sure they do not become a serious threat to society. 
Our telecommunications industry must be able to legally intercept illegal communications. That in essence is what this bill provides for. The police the Security Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Security Bureau must have at their disposal the valuable tools provided for in this legislation to legally intercept communications. National is happy to support this bill. 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise in support of this bill. This bill does not make it any easier for the police or the Security Intelligence Service etc. to get interception warrants. But it does mean that when those authorities get their warrants telecommunication providers will have a duty to assist them and will have the technical capability to intercept calls that are passing over their networks. I commend this bill to the House. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be opposing this bill as it has done previously. We do not see the need to grant these powers to the police and the intelligence agencies at this time. No objective case has been made either in terms of this bill or of the other bill that authorises such interceptions—the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) which passed through the House a year or so ago—that we would catch many more criminals be they terrorists or anyone else through the exercise of these powers. In our opinion the downside is much greater than the upside. No one doubts that by having greater surveillance be it electronic interception cameras in the streets or whatever else it is we could catch more criminals. But we have to make an objective analysis of the situation. With any advance in surveillance or security powers we have to analyse whether the downside with regard to issues of privacy and civil liberties is greater than the upside. We believe the downside is greater than the upside. 
The argument being advanced so far in the debate by several speakers including the last is that we live in a new era of terrorism. Unfortunately Ron Mark basically said that if the Greens were affected by terrorism they would think differently from how they do. I thought I would start at that point. Just over 20 years ago on 27 March 1984 I was living in Wellington and was on my way down the Petone motorway to go to a meeting of the Wellington Trades Council where I was a delegate from the railway workers union. On my car radio I heard about a bombing at the Wellington Trades Hall. One of the people I expected to see at that meeting was the caretaker of the hall Ernie Abbott whom I knew well and talked to a lot. When I arrived at the meeting I heard that he had been blown up by a terrorist bomb. 
The second incident—there have been only two terrorist incidents in New Zealand over the last few decades—occurred on 10 July 1985. Friends of mine had come in on the  
Rainbow Warrior 
. They were active in the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific Movement and I knew that other friends of mine were visiting the  
Rainbow Warrior 
. I was living in Auckland at that time and when I heard that there had been a bomb on the  
Rainbow Warrior 
 I was very fearful for their safety. So the idea that people in this House and myself in particular are not aware of the problems of terrorism and of its effects on those closest to us is quite wrong. I think what needs to be borne in mind is that those two incidents of terrorism were terrorist acts against left-wing and progressive people. The idea that people of my political persuasion are not on the receiving end of those things and do not understand them is completely wrong. 
We hear talk that we are not in a benign strategic environment and that there is a whole new era of terrorism but we need to look objectively at the situation. We need to look at Australia where there has not been recent terrorism but there is a history of terrorism. Terrorism was much more prevalent in Australia in an earlier period—particularly that committed by some Croatian neo-fascists who set off a whole lot of bombs. If we look at the other countries that have been mentioned we see that there have been some very dramatic terrorist acts over the last year or two particularly those in Spain in Bali and on September 11. In the cases of Madrid and Bali because of the placement of the bombs there was horrific loss of life which we have all been very sad about. We have been pleased that the Bali bombers have been brought to justice and we hope that the Madrid bombers will be as well. 
 If we look historically at the incidence of terrorism in Spain we see that in earlier periods it has been much higher than it is currently particularly with regard to the ETA bombings and historically in Indonesia the incidence of bombing was much greater before September 11 2001. In Britain the incidence of terrorist bombings was historically much greater throughout the Irish Republican Army period. Looking at Europe as a whole we see that with the Red Army faction of the Baader-Meinhof gang the Red Brigades and all the rest of it there was a much greater incidence of bombings in an earlier period. Leaving September 11 aside the interesting thing about the United States is that the period from 1998 until now has been a historic low point in terms of terrorism compared with earlier periods when there were the Symbionese Liberation Army people bombing Oklahoma and the Weather Underground Organization people etc. So the idea that we are in a new age of terrorism is statistically false. That is not to say that there is not a problem particularly one generated by concerns in the Islamic world and in extremist sections of the Islamic community but the idea that one has to have these powers now is incorrect. 
When talking about a benign strategic environment one must first examine where the problem is of countries going around and invading and occupying other countries. The prime problem with the world today is that there is only one country the United States together with its allies doing that. Unfortunately New Zealand is being dragged along with the United States in one instance. The United States had invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. That is the cause of a lot of the upset that exists throughout the Islamic world which unfortunately gives some of the Islamic extremists a degree of support for the horrific actions they carry out. One has to remove the cause of terrorism and particularly to address the cause that has been highlighted over the last week: the continuing occupation of Palestinian lands by Israel. That has been a running sore and has caused a lot of the terrorism we have seen over the last decades. In fact Palestinian terrorism in earlier times was internationalised. That occurred at the Munich Olympics and in a lot of aircraft hijackings. In order to really root out the international forms of terrorism by small groups and non-State actors one has to deal with the underlying problem in the Middle East region rather than be part of the problem by for instance sending the New Zealand SAS back to Afghanistan. 
New Zealand is involved in electronic surveillance already particularly through the Waihopai Valley tracking station near Blenheim which is part of the US-led Echelon five-nation network. What has that involved us in? It has involved us in very nefarious activities. It was exposed recently that the network had spied on Kofi Annan and other UN officials and there were reports in the Australian media that New Zealand had received a transcript of one of those interceptions of Kofi Annan. Unfortunately the Government has pleaded the need for secrecy on security matters as a reason for not reporting to the House whether that is true. I think what that issue and the whole issue of Waihopai which now links up with Echelon shows is that the use of electronic interception is part of New Zealand being an intelligence dependency of particularly the United States and alongside it of Britain Australia and Canada. 
The explanatory note on Supplementary Order Paper 197 with regard to this bill which has just been put forward and which members will talk about later shows again that there is unwarranted interception through Waihopai—that is interception without a warrant. That is explicitly allowed in this bill and it is very dangerous because it means that we can be involved in such things as spying on Kofi Annan or—this also became public about a year ago—the National Security Agency issuing instructions to its overseas partners such as those in Britain and presumably in New Zealand to launch spying on UN delegates—particularly on those from countries that were believed to be wavering on a United Nations resolution prior to the American invasion of Iraq. For us to be involved in that sort of thing by using the electronic intelligence this bill authorises and puts into practical effect would be quite wrong. We know that electronic intelligence is used for nefarious purposes and that the intelligence agencies themselves are very untrustworthy. 
There is huge debate going on in Britain in Australia and in the United States in particular about the way in which intelligence is being altered and manufactured. That can be done very easily with regard to electronic intelligence. The material coming through into computers can be altered manufactured and reinterpreted very easily. So that is a very dangerous road to go down when the New Zealand intelligence agencies and to an extent the police are in a dependent relationship with such overseas agencies. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will be supporting the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill but it is a qualified support. There are many aspects of this bill that are not desirable and in an ideal world they certainly would not be our preference because they do impinge on civil liberties and freedoms. But we have come to the conclusion that in the troubled world we are now in with the international terrorism we face these measures are on balance necessary and therefore we support them. However in supporting them we always want to be assured—and we seek assurance—that adequate checks and balances are in place so that our freedoms and individual liberty can be upheld to the greatest extent possible. 
Mr Locke from the Green Party who has just resumed his seat made some very interesting points. He raised the issue of the bombing at Wellington Trades Hall that killed Ernie Abbott many years ago. It was a tragedy and a murderous act but it was probably undertaken by a deranged individual or by someone who was acting individually with malice. What we have in the world today is warfare. It is no longer conducted by State nation against State nation but rather by determined terrorists who are highly organised and well funded and who are deliberately attacking what they perceive as Western values and the concepts of international free trade. 
The interception of telecommunications in our modern high-tech world is important. All nations of the Western World do such interceptions and it is important that we have cooperation and the exchange of information. If anything I regret that this country is out of the intelligence loop and is on the fringe of it. We are out of the main intelligence loop because of this Government’s position on foreign affairs matters and security issues. That is regrettable because it does expose us to threats that we may not otherwise be exposed to. While our Prime Minister may think we live in a strategically benign region that is not the case. There has been the Bali bombing and there is an unstable situation throughout Melanesia and now in Polynesia. 
I believe the measure of screening phone calls the work that is done at Waihopai with the Echelon programme and other actions that cause so much angst to Mr Locke are on balance required and there are appropriate and proper checks and balances in place for that. We know that Osama bin Laden does not carry a cellphone any more. He is probably holed up somewhere on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and time is running out for him. But if it were not for the level of monitoring of cellphone information and traffic he would still be running his operation freely and using his cellphone to talk to his operatives around the world. So that is just one rather graphic example of the need for these forms of monitoring. 
Again Mr Locke raised the issue of the 10 July 1985 tragedy of the  
Rainbow Warrior 
. Yes that was an act of terrorism. It was an act of terrorism committed against the sovereign State of New Zealand by another Government in fact. But we should bear in mind that we caught the two General Directorate for External Security operatives—from memory I think that Prieur and Mafart were their names. Four people got away. If we had had proper cellphone monitoring—if cellphones had been used to the same extent in those days as they are now—would we possibly have caught the other four? That is the mirror image of the argument that Mr Locke put to us. Yes the bombing of the  
Rainbow Warrior 
 was a tragedy and yes it was an unlawful act. I think that France deeply regrets that act; it was caught and exposed for doing it. That was a criminal act by France back in 1985. 
Since that time the stakes have grown. We have had the Manhattan bombings of the World Trade Center and bombings in Bali Madrid and Baghdad. Just this week in the UK seven people I think were arrested with—I forget how many—tonnes of ammonia nitrate obviously for a very major bombing operation in the UK. My understanding is that they were caught substantially through the monitoring of cellphone traffic. In our modern high-tech world we have to weigh up on the one hand the question of an impingement on civil liberties against the fact on the other hand that without security we cannot have freedom. We have the incredible irony that we cannot have security without freedom and we cannot have freedom without security. That is the exact situation we are facing. It is really on considering that balance that the ACT party lends its support to this bill. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to talk about the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill. But before I go to some of the substance of it I would like to address some of the concerns raised yesterday by the honourable Simon Power who questioned the duplicity of this Government for arguing about the requirement for such a bill given Labour’s insistence on New Zealand’s benign strategic environment. 
Simon Power 
: That’s right. Good point. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: It is a very good point. To partly address it I would like to say that although we were given advice that yes New Zealand is still in a benign strategic environment underlying that is a sense of unease about the way the world is progressing. Whether we like it or not we will be dragged into the net of worldwide terrorism. If we look at it it is no coincidence that it came up recently in the news media that the second most powerful member of al-Qaeda might have slipped into New Zealand on two occasions. So for whatever reason we are caught up in the net of international terrorism. We have not yet been attacked but I do not share the optimism of the Green spokesperson Keith Locke that we are living in a benign strategic environment. All I say to him is simply that we have a troubled world and Keith Locke is probably the most appropriate person to talk about that point. In my opinion and given his views he is a troubled man speaking out in a troubled world. 
Speaking to the substance of the bill the bill is necessary—in fact it is essential if we are to ensure that law enforcement and our national security capability will not be compromised due to changes in technology. The bill places a legislative obligation on all telecommunications network operators to intercept communications when authorised to do so by a warrant from a lawful authority. The bill also imposes—in concert with the technological regime of interception—reasonable assistance to police the Government Communications Security Bureau and the SIS. It should be noted that although the bill gives those operators the capacity to intercept communications it does not expand the powers of the respective agencies that can make use of it. I think that is a vital point. It should also be pointed out that this legislation is not unique but puts us on a par with other nations such as the UK Germany our cousins the Australians across the ditch and the US. 
A question debated at some length during the Law and Order Committee process—a high-powered select committee process I might add under the sterling leadership of Martin Gallagher who with his razor mind corralled us into really understanding this bill—was who will pay? Although there was some debate regarding the amount and about how the apportionment was to be considered it will be the Government—or should I say the taxpayer—who will pay for the technological requirements imposed by the bill for existing fixed and mobile phone networks. There will be a phased implementation process to provide the industry with the opportunity to put in place the necessary changes. 
I suppose the real conundrum of the bill is the inevitable clash between the issues of law enforcement and the right to individual privacy. Somewhere somehow a balance must be struck and I believe that the bill in light of the very real threat to our security since 9/11 achieves that. The simple truth is that the right to individual privacy can only be guaranteed by having the ability to enforce our security and this bill is the means to do it. The rights to privacy that we in New Zealand value so highly should not be unduly threatened or compromised by this bill. At the same time we must not romanticise our privacy to the detriment of legitimate security concerns. 
I make mention of the other point not yet raised and it is that putting aside the international threats to our security one of the prime reasons that this bill is being put before us is to also combat the internal threat—the threat to security and safety posed by criminal organisations. A fundamental part of this bill now gives the technological advantage to police and security agencies so that they can access information against for example gangs and drug barons who use New Zealand as a way to profit from the P epidemic at the expense of the public and against the relationship those criminals have overseas in bringing these drugs into the country and organising criminal activities. United Future supports this bill as it properly balances the needs of internal security with our right to privacy. 
My last comment at this point is simply to suggest to those people who do not see a need for such a bill that they reflect on the fact that they now have the freedom to voice their concerns about so-called intrusions into their rights to privacy because we have put in place security measures to ensure that freedom in the first place. I find it very odd that individuals are against legislation of this sort. What would they replace it with? I am left only with the conclusion that they would replace the ability to guarantee our safety with such technological innovation with measures such as throwing psychiatrists at the terrorists and criminal organisers and looking upon them as simply misguided individuals. 
That is not the way forward. This bill addresses some of the legitimate concerns we have in this country about threats of both an external and internal nature. It would be good to see all parties of this House send the very same message. Sadly that does not seem to be the case because the Greens have romanticised their freedom and clearly do not see that freedom as having been hard won by innovations such as the ones that this legislation proposes. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That this bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 In the debate on the second reading we have now had the opportunity to listen to the extensive contributions of members regarding the overall theme of the bill. It seems to me that except for Mr Keith Locke and the Green Party the House is more or less in agreement on the provisions of the bill. I particularly enjoyed the contribution of Marc Alexander who gave us a bit of an insight into what went on in the minds of the members of the Law and Order Committee during the deliberations on the bill. 
However we now turn to the more in-depth and detailed analysis of the bill which we will examine part by part. I am disappointed that the Minister in the chair Rick Barker was not prepared to go clause by clause but nevertheless we will proceed to work our way through it part by part. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right. We will work our way part by part. 
We begin as it were at the beginning with some definitions. It is interesting that in this modern age the definition of “number” which we would have assumed would relate primarily to either a phone number or a letterbox number now includes an Internet address and an email address. Telecommunications companies are being required by the bill to meet certain technological standards to ensure that the interception of messages by various surveillance agencies is forthcoming. 
I am not sure whether it is easier or more difficult to intercept an email message or a telephone message and I will certainly be interested in the Minister’s view on that. I am not sure whether Ron Mark or perhaps the Hon Ken Shirley could assist on that point but I am sure the Minister will have the information at his fingertips. I do not have a clue. I am technologically inept when it comes to these things and I would appreciate the Minister giving the Committee a guide as to whether the same technologies can be used for both those mediums. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Chairman I can usually stick up for myself but if this banter is going to occur across the Chamber are we to get some order around here? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
SIMON POWER 
: Thank you. I appreciate your intervention. That was very helpful. I would like to see a very quick explanation from the Minister as to whether one technology takes care of all those matters defined as a “number” in clause 3 “Interpretation” or whether there are a variety of technologies. I simply do not know the answer to that question. I am sure that it would take the Minister only 2 minutes to advise me of that. 
However as is the custom to point out in this part of the debate the purpose and principles of the bill in clauses 5 and 6 go to the heart of the legislation. Members either hold or do not hold the view—and it really is a fundamental one—that the strategic and intelligence environment we live in has altered. On one side of that argument we have every party in the House except the Greens saying it has changed. In that camp we also have the Australians and the British who passed legislation long before this House got to the issue at hand. We have the Australians and the British both saying that we need new technologies to deal with surveillance requirements in this ever-changing world. 
It seems to me—not unsurprisingly—that the Greens are on somewhat of a limb here. I look forward to the further contribution in the Committee stage of my friend Keith Locke who will at least give the Committee an opportunity to hear the alternative view to that of Australia the UK and nine-tenths of this House. 
Actually this bill gives no further powers to surveillance agencies— 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I am glad that the previous speaker mentioned the question of whether we have a benign strategic environment or are living in a new era of terrorism because in my second reading speech I went through it objectively country by country and although I did not give the exact statistics the pattern is quite clear. It behoves members like Simon Power to come out with counter-statistics. There was greater prevalence of terrorism in the world in the 1970s and 1980s. That is clearly demonstrable. Particularly in the more advanced countries the prevalence was much greater. 
To deal with the other question which was about which countries are invading other countries today and occupying them there is one country that is leading the charge: the United States. That is the reality. In so far as there is a change in the environment it is the danger from the United States invading other countries and occupying them and leading to huge upset throughout the Islamic world. 
To get on to the technological question the technology is different in terms of intercepting emails. One of the problems is that one can intercept millions and millions of emails very easily whereas in previous times the intrusion on privacy was limited by the technology—listening to phone calls transcribing them etc. was very time-consuming. In the Law and Order Committee mobile probes were described which can be put over a particular line to draw down particular emails from a particular person’s email address. One can of course go more broadly than that in terms of interception technology. Emails can be intercepted according to keyword systems or combinations of systems which makes it even more dangerous. 
I will deal briefly with the amendment proposed by Rick Barker set out on Supplementary Order Paper 197 to the definition of “other lawful interception authority” in which he goes over the authorisation for the different agencies. At least the police have a reporting procedure and one can get the number of interceptions. There are various controls in relation to the police and that at least is a step forward. The reporting procedure of the Security Intelligence Service is much more sketchy. It just has to report the number and average duration of interceptions. The Government Communications Security Bureau really has no reporting procedures and that is particularly dangerous because as the explanatory note of the amendment states it covers the authority of the Government Communications Security Bureau “for foreign communications to be intercepted without an interception warrant or a computer access authorisation:”. 
That question of computer access—hacking remote access or whatever one wants to call it—was condemned by the Privacy Commissioner in the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) which gave authorisations for that sort of thing to groups such as the Government Communications Security Bureau. There is no reason to grant that power. If there is reason to think someone has something dodgy on his or her computer—and it is happening a lot in terms of people involved in child sex pornography—we can go to that person’s residence seize the computer and look at it. One does not need that power of remote access. It is very spooky to a lot of people including the Privacy Commissioner that someone’s computer can be accessed remotely and files can even be altered deleted or changed. That is specific in the Australian legislation. It is not specific in this legislation but it is implied. So one does not even know that the police or the security services have been into one’s computer. 
The complaints procedure becomes very difficult too. The complaints procedure in relation to electronic interception is quite difficult because how does one ever know one has been intercepted to start with even if the results of that interception if they are wrongly used or mistakes are made could very much affect one’s future life if one ends up on some database as being in email communication with some terrorist group or whatever. It can be very damaging if that happens. That is one of the reasons why the Green Party thinks the downsides for civil liberties are actually greater than the upsides. Earlier speakers have said that any sophisticated terrorist or criminal can get round any electronic interception very easily. One uses throwaway cellphones and so on. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 First I want to make it very very clear in what will quite clearly be a broad-ranging debate and contribution on the various parts that I understand and accept the Green perspective and that of Mr Locke. I have admiration for Mr Locke in one respect: he is always consistent in his view and he is brave enough to express that view no matter the criticism that may be levelled at him by myself my party and other parties. There are many people in this country who have put on uniforms—and I have been one—to defend Mr Locke’s and the Green Party’s right to say the sorts of things they say. I do not think he would put on a uniform to defend my right to say what I say but I have done it for him. 
But I have to say that in all the concerns he and the Green Party have expressed about this bill I have not heard what the alternative is. I ask Mr Locke to table in this Committee now a Supplementary Order Paper; to put up amendments that would deal with the issues that he sees are of concern. If this man and his party believe there is an alternative to this measure for stopping international terrorism they should table it. They should talk about it. They should tell us what it is. 
The sad fact of life is that terrorism is now with us. Regardless of what we may think of this legislation and the ability of the telecommunications companies to comply with it—that is interpreting and intercepting our phone calls—that is the price we pay in a free society if we are to guarantee that freedom. The legislation is there in terms of the orders and warrants required and the compliance that is placed upon the Security Intelligence Service the police or anyone wanting access to this information and the protections are there within the High Court. 
I would say to Mr Locke that he should read today’s paper. He should have a look at page B1 of the  
Dominion Post 
. The Green Party should read what has just happened in Britain with the discovery of 500 kilograms of nitrous oxide. They should read about the 700 police the 24 raids and the intention of people to hit soft targets. I know that the ability to intercept my phone calls has an impact on my life but dare I suggest that having my head blown off and spread across three city blocks would likewise have an impact on my life. If I am to provide the people of this country with the ability to go to a McDonald’s restaurant to go to a KFC restaurant to go to a place that is considered a soft target but an American asset and be safe I have to accept that some constraints will come upon us and there will be some encroachment into the privacy of our lives. 
This is not wanted. This is not ideal. This is not what the men who are represented in the plaques around us commemorating the various battles they fought saw for this country. But sadly this is the reality of life. When there are people who are prepared to make their point by blowing up trains full of commuters killing and maiming thousands of people one must accept there have to be adjustments to our way of life and to some of the issues of privacy that we might have previously thought sacrosanct. 
In answer to Mr Power yes already there is the ability to intercept and interpret emails and faxes and that happens now. But this issue has been with our security people for some time. Every politician in this House wants a secure cellphone so that the other parties do not pick up him or her everyone wants a secure walkie phone in the home but someone has to provide the means to allow our security agencies to intercept calls on the occasions when they suspect that the individual using that device is planning or involved in terrorist activities. 
This is not the ideal. This is not what we foresaw 5 or even 2 years ago as being what our country would have to do. But this is now the reality of life and if we are to be responsible about protecting our citizens protecting our families and protecting this nation and the people who come here—be they tourists businessmen or immigrants—this is necessary. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Just before I call the next member it has been brought to my attention that we may have heard a cellphone ringing in the Chamber. Can I just say to members that they should give their full attention to the proceedings of the Committee. We should eliminate all unnecessary distractions from our duty. Cellphones should be switched off within hearing of the debating chamber. All members can be alerted to urgent messages by messengers or via the party whips. Any cellphone emitting sounds from the public gallery will be confiscated and the owner ejected from Parliament. I also refer members to Speaker’s ruling 16/2: cellphones are not permitted in this Chamber when switched on. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I would just like to follow up the exchange I have been having with Simon Power. He said that the Greens and I are out on a limb because our analysis of the situation differs from that of Australia Britain and the United States. To argue just on that basis—that because other bigger countries that we have had a longstanding— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member. I realise this is probably technically not a point of order but as a point of clarification I never mentioned the United States. I said Australia the UK and nine-tenths of the people in this Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to the member that that is out of order. There is a Speaker’s ruling about misrepresentation. If members feel they have been misrepresented in what is being said they can take a point of order at the end of the speech and clarify it. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I take Mr Power’s clarification. If he did not refer to the United States I take that point but I think he has done so on other occasions and in general the people who run his line of argument pay great attention to what the United States Government says about these matters. One of the problems of this bill is that it is a bit of a reflex reaction to what other Governments are saying. We can even see it in the commentary: “The bill is similar to recent overseas legislation”—in Australia and the United Kingdom in particular. I think it is being driven by that rather than by any real domestic need. I explained the two terrorist incidents that have taken place in New Zealand one of them 20 years ago and one of them 19 years ago. There is no indication that we are under any particular threat at the present time and there is no objective reason from the point of view of dealing with terrorism for introducing this legislation at the present time. 
I think the downsides are much greater than the upsides. Even Mr Mark said that we wished to have privacy with our own cellphones and electronic communications. That is very important but if we want to have that privacy we should not give the power to intercept to secret organisations that are largely unaccountable in the way that the Security Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Security Bureau are. We might say that they would not affect us and that we can trust them but if we look around the world we see what has happened with intelligence agencies—their spying on dissidents of one type or another on a whole range of issues. Material has come out for instance on the way that the FBI and J Edgar Hoover spied on all kinds of people from different cultures: black activists Martin Luther King Charlie Chaplin Paul Robeson and all sorts of people. 
Hon Member 
: Commies. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Well that was the problem. Everyone who was a dissenter was defined as a Commie and had to come before a committee and confess he or she was communist name friends and all the rest of it. People were naming other people who had no political background just to get off the hook. It was a very dangerous situation. We can say that that situation does not exist now and that Helen Clark or Don Brash would never do that sort of thing to us but we have to establish our legislation and the powers we give to intelligence agencies in particular such that they cannot be abused by a Government that has a rather vindictive approach to political dissenters. So we do not want to go down— 
Ron Mark 
: Don’t say that about Helen. It’s not nice. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Mr Mark is casting aspersions against our Prime Minister there I think. But we do not want to go down that track of giving the agencies of Government those powers unnecessarily. 
The technology matter that Simon Power referred to is very important because it means two things. The first is that many people can be intercepted much more easily than in the past with letter opening and telephone tapping. It is actually the volume of those interceptions that creates a problem too. There might be one or two other people in New Zealand called Simon Power and one of them might have nefarious associations that show up in a big surveillance sweep—particularly when keywords come into it. Poor old Simon Power might be on some database because somebody up in Whakatane who has the same name has received an email from an Islamic person in Yemen—or possibly even two emails. That is double trouble—that Simon Power’s name would be put on a list and all sorts of things would flow from that. All that information is exchanged internationally so the wrong Simon Power could be put on a database in America. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I have just a couple of quick points really in response to some of the comments from the Green spokesperson. There is confusion over a couple of things. First of all the Greens seem to suggest we are living in some sort of benign world where there is no real threat to New Zealand’s security. That is clearly not the case. We are not isolated from the international community and there has to be a means by which we allow our security services to be able to protect us and give them the technological ability to do so. The delusion that the Greens seem to be under is that we are not important enough in the world to constitute any kind of threat at all. If that is an inhibition on our future involvement in the world then that is a price I do not think anyone is willing to pay—including the people who actually died for the establishment of the freedoms we currently have. 
Meanwhile back in this universe let us talk about the threat from the internal side of things. There are criminal organisations out there accessing technology that we ought to be able to intercept when we need to. We do not want to allow ourselves to be so overly focused on the external threats—as real as they are—that we dismiss the internal threats that exist. There are gangs in this country and criminal organisations in this country that use technology so if we have the legislative means to access their communication and to disrupt their criminal activity then I say that that is the kind of legislation we need to support. 
There are a couple of things also that have been missed in Part 1 and I want to pick them up. The first is that there are safeguards. The Green spokesperson seems to be of the opinion that once this legislation is passed everybody’s communication will somehow be listened into by everybody else. That is not so. This bill is all about lawful interception and about giving the capacity for lawful interception. Before that even occurs there must be an interception warrant. In other words there is a lawful process by which interception is made possible and it can be possible only if we have the technological means to carry it out. Providing that process is what this bill does. 
It also does another very important thing. With the pace of technological improvements it future-proofs the process. It does that in a couple of important ways not least of which is that it allows network operators to choose the mechanisms by which interceptions will be practicable. So we will not have to revisit this legislation every couple of years in order to give it teeth again. We will be able to pass this legislation in the assurance that it will have ongoing ability to access the technologies required in order for those interceptions to occur. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 There have been a number of contributions in this debate and in many senses it seems as if it is the whole of the Committee versus the Green Party and in particular Mr Locke. But in many respects I would like to support Mr Locke and express gratitude that he is making the points he is. They are very important points and although the ACT party supports this legislation let us not fool ourselves—these are draconian measures that impinge on civil liberties and freedoms. That is the view that Mr Locke is putting to the Committee and to that extent he is right. Where I believe he is wrong is in this issue—that in the current world in which we live and given the security risks we face there is a price regrettable as it may be that we have to pay as a society to ensure our freedom and security. It would seem and the evidence is abundant that without these measures we would have our freedoms and securities stripped from us. 
There is an incredibly bitter irony in that situation. It is not a comfortable situation; it is one that as a Parliament we should monitor closely to make sure that safety measures and backups are in place to ensure that those measures at all times are exercised and used only in an extremely appropriate manner. Where they are not we should be doubly vigilant to make sure that the authorities if they do abuse the measures are brought to account. There is in principle real concern with the measures but undoubtedly they are necessary and required. 
In talking of security and freedoms the irony is that the very nations Mr Locke seems to be defending are those that reject the Western values and ideals we enjoy and cherish. We only have to look at the Taliban in Afghanistan at Mugabe in Zimbabwe at any of the corrupt tribal dictatorships of Africa or at the fundamentalist Muslim States to ask what freedoms and securities they enjoy and compare the overarching freedoms and securities we enjoy in Western-type societies relative to other societies that generate such a threat. 
Yes under this bill any telecommunications network has to enable its systems to be monitored. It has to provide encryption codes and the like and it is common knowledge that most telecommunications traffic is monitored. Things like key words Echelon programs and other such things are realities in the modern world but on the other side what are the examples of the abuse of those things? I would put it to members that there are very few indeed. 
 We actually enjoy incredible freedoms that the technology gives us but the price we must pay in the world we live in with the terrorist threats we face is that the very tools that we use in our daily lives and which contribute to our freedom and enjoyment of life can be used against us by terrorists and the like. These measures are necessary to curb curtail and eliminate those illegal activities and threats. It is that balance that the ACT party has wrestled with and on balance we come down in support of this legislation. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 197 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Interception duties 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Somewhat deceptively the Committee could be misled to believe that the guts of this bill was in Part 1 but there are some interesting and potentially troubling issues lying deep within the wording of Part 2 and it is worth stepping the Committee through this. We will ask the honourable Minister David Cunliffe to answer this question as he might have a better idea of how its interpretation is to proceed. I would be interested in his views on this issue. 
Part 2 outlines the issues relating to interception duties but more particularly and potentially worrying is the issue around ministerial exemptions in clause 11. As I said earlier in this debate I was not lucky enough to be part of the select committee that considered this bill but it seems to me that the Minister may exempt any network operator from the requirements of section 7—to recap section 7 relates to network operators and the requirement that they have to have the interception capability; essentially the guts of the bill—if the Minister considers there are special circumstances that justify granting an exemption. Somewhat unusually when that type of provision is put in legislation the bill gives an example of where a Minister might consider an exemption. It states: “for example”—not surprisingly given that it is an example—“a pilot trial of a new network or telecommunications service”. 
Members should act with caution anywhere that a ministerial exemption exists. The reason for that is disturbingly contained in clause 11(2) which states that “The Minister may grant the exemption—(a) unconditionally;”. The Minister can unconditionally grant the exemption so that those telecommunications companies do not have to meet the interception capability required or the Minister can impose any conditions he or she thinks fit. “The exemption—(a) must be granted for a period of time that the Minister specifies; and (b) may at any time be varied or revoked by the Minister.” 
In those circumstances we are entrusting one individual with an extraordinary power to exempt telecommunications companies from holding the required capability for those interceptions to occur. At first glance I admit that may not seem significant. But upon closer inspection what is clear from that particular exemption is that we are creating a whole other regime for that Minister to operate within quite independently of the legislation that this Committee is currently debating and will more than likely approve. 
Our obligation as members of Parliament is to create an environment of certain and clear law not least because then the affected telecommunications companies know the boundaries that they are operating within. This legislation states that putting all of that aside it will allow the Minister to do whatever he or she likes. It will allow that Minister to grant exemptions at any point on any conditions and for any length of time that the individual thinks fit. This is no reflection on any one Minister—that would be too easy a target. But what I ask is how appropriate it is as a drafting exercise—and the Minister in the chair the Hon David Cunliffe might have a view on this—to create a legislative framework for telecommunications companies to work within to create certainty at some cost to those companies and then say that putting all of that aside we will let the Minister do what he or she likes; we will create an exemption so wide that the Minister can act outside of the provisions of this legislation should the Minister think that is the right course of action to take. 
On that point I would like to say that this is an opportunity for the Minister in the chair to stand and explain to the Committee why that is. If this legislation is necessary—and apart from the Greens nobody denies that this legislation is necessary—it seems pretty straightforward that if we are to create this interception capability then the very least we can do is give the telecommunications industry a degree of certainty. Effectively this legislation enforces that interception capability on the telecommunications industry. We can say to the telecommunications companies that this is the way in which this regime will operate these are the costs—which we will come to in Part 3 a fascinating part of this bill—that these companies will incur and this is how those costs are recouped. 
But in amongst all of this certainty and the framework that members have worked through by way of select committee and under urgency last night and this morning we give it all away. We give it all away by saying that the Minister can do as he or she pleases with regard to enforcing that interception capability. As a lawyer I ask only one thing from legislation. Actually I ask two things— 
Darren Hughes 
: What’s in it for me? 
SIMON POWER 
: No not at all. I ask only two things. Iwant clarity. I do not want judicial activism. We have seen what that can do and we do not want any more of it. We want clarity and we want certainty. I think members of the New Zealand public are quite entitled to form the view that if Parliament does nothing else—and let us face it; many members of the public question what Parliament does—it must provide clear and certain law. If we are prepared to pass through this Parliament legislation that gives the Minister such a gaping prerogative outside of the provisions of this bill are we serving the telecommunications companies are we serving the war against terrorism are we serving the New Zealand public appropriately? 
I see the Minister nodding. I do not think it is rough to ask him to stand and answer this simple question: “In what circumstances would the Crown envisage exercising or granting that exemption?”. There is a balance between the privacy issues that Mr Locke has raised and the security issues that I Ron Mark and Ken Shirley have raised so I think the Committee is entitled to know in what circumstances the Minister envisages that the Crown would exercise the gaping exemption referred to. I do not think it is an unreasonable request of the Minister to add a small amount of clarity and certainty to the debate around the interpretation of clause 11 in Part 2. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I was very interested in Simon Power’s comments because he was concerned about such extensive powers being granted to one person to grant exemptions under this legislation. It just reverberated in my mind that in another very current case that ofthe Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security one person is given extensive powers operating with secret powers that generally we do not know about and also getting it wrong. It was only after that person had expressed some apparent bias—on three counts in the court decision—that he could be taken off that case. Now he has resigned as inspector-general. But it just shows the danger of relying on individuals to get it right particularly in the areas we are talking about of interceptions and intelligence. So I share some common ground with my colleague Simon Power on that question. I hope he will support the moves of the Green Party to have a greater level of accountability surveillance and parliamentary accountability of our intelligence services the inspector-general interceptions warrant exemptions and all the rest of it. 
I hope we can work together on that to move beyond the present situation where we have only this Intelligence and Security Committee which is made up of the Prime Minister the Leader of the Opposition and their appointees. So it is not an MMP committee. It does not have any real powers. It has not had any demonstrable successes. We have the particularly bad situation in respect of the appointment of a new Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security because it is a matter of the Prime Minister getting her head together with Don Brash to make the decision. Other parties such as New Zealand First ACT United Future and the Greens are left out in the cold on this.So I do agree with Simon Power on that matter. 
Referring back to the requirements put on network operators in this bill any operators—be they Internet service providers be they telecommunications companies—there is a concern amongst some of them particularly Internet service providers that they will be required to cooperate with this and that not only will it cost them time and money to cooperate with the agencies in this interception but they will be in some way compromised by this particularly with their clients. That is a bad situation to put operators in. There are some operators—in relation to the previous debate around the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 6) as well—such as PlaNet Internet in Auckland or Plain Communications in Christchurch—that were worried about being drawn into this surveillance net. 
In fact one of the things that has come out of the discussion with Internet service providers is that there is some advantage in New Zealand electronic communications as being seen as surveillance-free—that is police and intelligence agencies do not get into them. It could be an international business advantage for New Zealand communications to be seen in that light. Of course it would not stop them from being intercepted when they depart our shores by the CIA FBI National Security Agency of America or whoever. But it would be a business advantage for the Internet service providers and telecommunications people for New Zealand to be surveillance-free and not have this sort of legislation going through. 
The bill actually goes beyond the Internet service providers and telecommunications companies and does cover for instance hotels with their communications networks. Hotels are for example required to cooperate in the interception of particular customers going through their PABX phone system etc. So it is drawing a lot of people into the net and I image that a lot of hotel owners do not understand they will be drawn into this. 
There is some advantage in the way the encryption provision is written—that is there is no obligation on the Internet server provider or the telecommunications provider to decrypt messages unless they have provided the encryption devices specifically to their customers. It is good that that exists but we have to realise that this bill is not just giving powers to the intelligence services and the police but also incorporating a lot of other people in the net and unnecessarily intruding on the privacy of the customers of Internet service providers and it could lead to a lot of problems. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I want to take a relatively short call on what I deem to be an extremely important bill. As I am sure the Committee is well aware nobody values the freedoms of New Zealanders or indeed speaks more about the freedoms of New Zealanders than the ACT party. We are after all a classical liberal party. We do not like the intrusion of the State into our daily lives. Yet when we live in a society we must also reflect and understand the times that we live in. From time to time in order to ensure the freedoms the democracies and the lifestyle that we most certainly enjoy in this country we might have to accept that the power of the State to intercept and to act on our behalf against those who would do us real harm is extremely important. Somebody once said that the price of democracy is eternal vigilance. I have possibly got that wrong but I am sure that members understand the sentiment. For that very reason we have to ensure that Big Brother if that is the right expression is eternally vigilant and does have the capacity to act on behalf of our free society. It is indeed a free society despite what some in the Green Party would say about the influence of this bill and the powers it gives the State to intercept communications etc. 
I very much doubt whether New Zealanders who read  
Hansard  
or are listening to this debate would be the slightest bit concerned if the Security Intelligence Service listened into my conversation with my wife this morning about the euthanasia debate. I have not the slightest problem with the State intercepting my emails my communications with my family or my friends. I am unsure as to why Mr Locke feels that if I get a call from overseas I should be concerned if it comes from Yemen—highly unlikely! But if it did happen that I knew somebody in Yemen I really would not be concerned about the Security Intelligence Service or anybody else intercepting that call and checking me out thoroughly— 
Ron Mark 
: One wouldn’t know about a member of the Greens. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Yes that is right. Those are attitudes that I believe reasonable New Zealanders—indeed 99.9 percent of New Zealanders—hold. They understand the difficulties that we in the Western World face and the need to utilise technology. It is pointless having technology if we cannot utilise it and if we cannot give the intelligence services the opportunity to intercept on our behalf. It is worth reflecting that many many years ago we used to erect barriers to protect our society; Hadrian’s Wall the Great Wall of China and the Maginot line were built. We had physical barriers in those days. But today with technology advancement and threats physical barriers no longer protect anybody. In fact we need the cyberspace technologies and so on to ensure that we pick up the transmissions of terrorists one to the other who would seek to do us harm. 
I also emphasis the point that it is not just a matter of external threats from terrorist organisations emanating from the Middle East and other areas; I personally find that there are huge threats in our society from the pervasive influence of gangs in this country. The police need interception powers to understand whatever it is that the gangs are planning to do. With the huge sophistication of the means that those people employ these days the police must have powers to equal that sophistication and must have the opportunity to act and reflect the concerns of our society about those internally who would do us harm. I suspect that most New Zealanders do not have a problem with that. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I would like to take a short call to respond to a point made by Gerry Eckhoff. He said he would not have the slightest problem with his emails being intercepted. Sometimes people use the argument that if they have nothing to hide why bother? There is a number of dimensions to the Green critique of this legislation. One of them is this straight question of personal privacy. Everyone has affairs he or she wants to remain private. We use computers and emails very extensively. Our whole life is often on our computers including very personal stuff—love life and all kinds of things that we do not want people intruding into. It is all very well to say: “Well if I’m squeaky clean and nothing I’m doing in private is going to get me into trouble with the law then I don’t need to worry about whether my emails are intercepted.” but one thing that is true in our society is that all these agencies are operated by real people with the full range of human emotions and foibles and everything else. 
One thing struck me when a former employee of the Communications Security Establishment in Canada which is the equivalent of the Government Communications Security Bureau here came to New Zealand a couple of years ago. He said that a lot of this interception stuff is rather boring so when he and his colleagues came across personal titbits sex stuff and what not they would watch or listen in. It is just human reality that there is interest in personal things. We have experiences going right back to the British royal family with the “Squidgy” tapes and everything else of people taking an interest wrong though it might be in the personal affairs sex life etc. of others. 
The problem is that the technology being authorised here involves such a large scale of interception and fine-tuning who is being intercepted through various filters—email origin destination numbers keyword combinations etc.—that the surveillance can be used in non-political areas. Up to this present time I have been dealing more with the political area of interception but even in the non-political area of personal privacy people can pry into our lives unnecessarily. There is provision in this bill for hacking by the Government Communications Security Bureau or the Security Intelligence Service—that is remote access to one’s computer and one does not even know. That could result in people searching around in other people’s files and taking an interest not just in political things but in very personal things. We do not need to go down that track if it is not warranted and the Green Party does not think it is warranted in the present circumstances in New Zealand. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Although I disagree with those arguments if I was to take them and accept them the very first question I would ask that member is what the alternative is. What does that member offer me as an alternative that would give me cause not to vote in favour of this bill but to support the approach that he might consider best suits our needs? The bottom line is whether we agree or disagree with the invasion of Iraq. New Zealand First made its position very clear on that issue and I know that it surprised the Green Party. We were opposed to intervention without United Nations approval. So we have agreed on that. But the point I make is those issues are irrelevant to our dealing with the problem we have here. We have the possibility of terrorist individuals and organisations and people involved in organised crime using telecommunications to do their business. What is the alternative to interdiction if we do not pass this legislation and grant these powers? I might well agree with many of the things Mr Locke said but I am waiting for the alternative. I have a horrible feeling that when we finish up today at 6 o’clock I will still be waiting for an alternative solution. 
I also want to address the points made by Mr Power not so much to criticise him but more to prod the two Ministers who have sat in the chair and said nothing. We have had two highly paid Ministers in the chair. Mr Barker sits there doing what I do not know. He has not offered one explanation to Mr Power. We had the other Minister who also offered no explanation. If I might help the Minister who is more highly paid than me who enjoys the pleasures and luxuries of ministerial facilities a big car and a flash leather chair I draw his attention to page 21 of the interdepartmental report. He might like to stand and answer Mr Power because the answers are all there if the Minister cares to do his job. Hello? I am still waiting. If I might prepare myself for future appointment to a ministerial position because quite clearly some people do not seem very intent on doing their job I draw Mr Power’s attention to the telecommunications interception capability departmental report dated 11 August 2003. He should go to page 21. The issue of the Minister granting exemptions is very well covered there in clauses 11 and 12. It states clearly that the Minister may exempt any network operator from the requirements of section 7. It goes on to talk about the Minister granting exemptions unconditionally or subject to conditions and the period that they may be granted for which the Minister must specify. But it goes on to further state that before granting verifying or revoking an exemption the Minister must consult with responsible Ministers. 
Simon Power 
: No one in that Cabinet! 
RON MARK 
: I say to Mr Power that if he had a bank of Cabinet Ministers headed by Don Brash would he be confident that in consultation with those Ministers his Minister could capably give an exemption? We are saying that the Minister will not have that power on his own; he will be required to consult. 
The National Council of Women—surprise surprise—supports the exemption clause. It said that the clause appeared to be fair to all parties. The Telecommunications Carriers Forum supports the exemption clause and said that it thought the bill should provide some guiding principles around special circumstances rather than provide an example. It went on about some examples in particular and said that further exemptions should be included in that provision. It submitted that exemptions should be provided where it is not cost-effective or practical to provide an interception or where it would damage the reputation or purpose of the product or service and that another exemption should be where a trial or limited network or service was being provided. The comment was made that it is appropriate to keep wide the grounds for granting an exemption to allow the legislation to be future-proof and that providing guidelines as to special circumstances might inadvertently limit those circumstances. The recommendation that was accepted by the committee was that there be no change to the clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3 Miscellaneous provisions 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 197 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to clause 19 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 With pleasure I move  
That the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill be now read a third time 
. We have had a useful discussion in the House and it is pleasing to see that in the Committee of the whole House members agreed 110 to 9 which means there is general agreement in this House on this piece of legislation. It is eminently sensible legislation. It does not as some people have tried to characterise it extend the powers of the police the Security Intelligence Service or other Government agencies to intercept material. What it does do is put obligations on the telecommunications providers to facilitate interception and to be technically capable to intercept communications going through their networks. 
The bill is not prescriptive in the way in which interception is to be undertaken. There was nervousness and some apprehension on the part of the telecommunications providers that they would need to have technologies embedded in their systems. The bill is clear that that is not the case. Telecommunication providers will have the opportunity to determine what technologies they deploy how and when and will be able to reduce their costs accordingly. What we are interested in is an outcome not necessarily a technological solution. This bill does that. 
I want to praise the good work of the Law and Order Committee. It has managed to bring together a number of amendments give assurance to the industry and resolve a number of issues. I am very pleased about that; it was excellent work. I think the House has had a very good debate on this legislation and we are well and truly agreed on the merits of this bill. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 On behalf of the National Party I would like to commence the third reading of this bill by saying—as we have through all stages of the bill—that we support the Minister’s legislation. I am pleased to hear the Minister say that we had a robust and reasonably good debate on the issues contained in the bill. I think that is true. I am a bit disappointed that the Minister did not take a call during the Committee stage when members raised two or three issues of a technical nature in particular around the ministerial exemption. But putting that aside I think it has been a debate that has at the very least put on the record a range of concerns and views that various parties have had over the passage and the content of this bill. 
Just by way of recapping some of those issues in the third reading style I think it is worth saying that legislation like this is finely balanced. It is a fine balance for members to pass legislation that on the face of it appears to interfere with the privacy rights of individuals and their ability to communicate directly with each other via telecommunication devices such as landlines telephones email and the Internet. But that is not what this bill does because as the Minister rightly pointed out—and those are not words that fall easily from my mouth—this bill does not increase the powers of various surveillance agencies. It requires telecommunication providers to meet certain standards in respect of interception capability. 
A number of issues have been raised in the bill about the costs of those interception capabilities. Issues have been raised about whether the Minister should have powers to grant exemptions at various stages throughout that process. I refer to the comments made by my colleague and friend Mr Ron Mark who said: “Well Mr Power don’t worry there’s a panel of Ministers who have to be consulted.”—a panel of what the legislation describes as responsible Ministers who have to be chatted to when these decisions are made. 
 I say to Mr Mark that that does not satisfy me. If members look at who the responsible Ministers will be in light of the current Government they will see that the Minister in Charge of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service is one and the Minister Responsible for the Government Communications Security Bureau is another. Presumably that is just the Prime Minister. Lastly and this is the really concerning bit I see that one of the responsible Ministers includes the Minister of Police. It gives me no confidence that the Minister in charge of this bill acting alone will be curtailed by that “panel of Ministers” as Mr Mark described it. 
There are some other matters contained in Part 3 that members did not debate at any length but are interesting issues that relate to the matter of costs and where those costs are picked up for those particular surveillance agencies and telecommunications companies. Clause 18(2) specifies that a surveillance agency must pay the costs referred to—that is the costs incurred by the network operator in conducting a surveillance—on “a date no less than 1 month” and I see that the select committee changed the period from 2 months to 1 month “after the date of the invoice or other appropriate document”. 
I am pleased to see the razor sharp minds of members on the Law and Order Committee picking up on that. Had that point slipped by the chairman and his diligent team network communication providers might have been out of pocket for 2 months. Lord knows it is unlikely that those companies would have been able to sustain that in their cash flows but I see that the costs are now required to be paid within 1 month. Well done to the select committee and its chairman for picking up on that point! It will be helpful to the telecommunications industry. 
More important though—and I think this is quite interesting because it is a Government-driven requirement that the standards of surveillance must be met—the select committee has deemed it appropriate to retain a clause in the bill that deals with the resolution of disputes over costs. I would have thought that that was slightly unusual. I would have thought that legislation that included such a clause was slightly unusual. Presumably the usual common-law remedies would be available to a telecommunications network company in the event that a surveillance agency did not meet its debts on time. However in this case we see that the select committee has deemed it appropriate to place in the legislation a particular provision relating to the resolution of disputes over costs. 
I guess the overall theme of the bill and what the House and the Committee of the whole House spent most of their energy on was whether the Government’s implementation of a bill such as the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill and the framework contained within it being that of national security was consistent with the assertions of the Prime Minister the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Minister of Defence pre- and post-September 11 that New Zealand continues to live and operate an incredibly benign strategic environment. I know that many members in this House from the United Party New Zealand First the ACT party— and to be fair the Green Party—addressed this issue during their second-reading contributions. 
But the Government cannot at a policy level have it both ways. It cannot assert in face of the evidence of Baghdad Spain Jakarta Bali and New York that we live in an incredibly benign strategic environment. It cannot deploy troops to Afghanistan and Iraq and still tell New Zealanders that we live in an incredibly benign strategic environment and then tell them that it needs legislation to help it collect information for national security. It cannot cut both ways. If we do not live in a benign strategic environment—which is what the National Party has asserted from a position long before September 11—then legislation like this would have been necessary back then as well. 
When it is clear that we do not live in a benign strategic environment any longer it seems to me that the Government needs to take stock of the way it produces its foreign policy statements. The best manifestation of that assertion is the bill before the House itself. If we did live in an environment where terrorism was not a reality then presumably the fears that Mr Locke brought out about the provisions of this bill and its workings would not be valid and this bill would not be necessary. In fact this bill is very necessary. National has supported it from start to finish and will continue to do so through the third reading. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 As chairman of the Law and Order Committee I rise to take a very brief call—obviously to acknowledge the necessity of this bill but also to be mindful of the appropriate checks and balances. Although the bill is essentially very technical in my view it is a profoundly significant and important one. 
I take the opportunity to acknowledge the good work of the committee—in particular the deputy chairperson Marc Alexander. I know that the previous speaker would join me in acknowledging the good work of the Hon Tony Ryall Brian Connell and of the Government members on the committee. I also thank Edwin Perry for his contribution and acknowledge his good work on the committee. He has now been replaced by Ron Mark. 
Finally this was in many ways—and I say it with sadness—an absolutely necessary bill. This is the reality of the times in which we live. We hope we have it right. We believe we have it right and I commend this bill accordingly. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support this bill in its third reading. I have to say that the debate and discussion we have had has been somewhat passionate. In general the views of members in the House are not shared by the Green Party and I want to put that on record. The one thing I love about this country of ours is that we are a democratic nation. We are free to express our views and to have our say. We are free to stand up for those views in the highest court in the land and to express them without any fear whatsoever that our ability to do so will be interdicted our lives threatened or that we will be trampled on by the boot of the State in order to silence us because what we are saying is not popular well-received or liked. 
In that respect I have to say that it is a good thing that we have parties in the House like the Greens. I probably will not be thanked for saying that by some of my political colleagues but it is. Because at least there is that voice out there warning and cautioning people as to the loss of privacy and rights. However I have to say that my views are somewhat different from theirs. This legislation has come about because of a need. What is that need? The need is based on the fact that we have organised crime in this country simple burglars who have the technology to defeat our law enforcement agencies and people who can roam around in cars at night. Take boy racers. The technology that boy racers have courtesy of the telecommunications industry is such that they give the police a very difficult time tracking their movements and curbing their unlawful activities. That is at the low end of the scale. 
At the higher end of the scale we have burglars who would break into one’s home and steal one’s possessions. They are able to carry out their unlawful business because they can monitor the police airwaves. Why? Because our police force does not even have secure communications. How ridiculous is that? I will not use the word that comes to mind. I would say that it is extremely ridiculous. It is exceedingly ridiculous that the criminal fraternity can intercept the police’s communications but the police are not in a position to intercept theirs. What does that do? It hamstrings law enforcement agencies and does not assist law-abiding citizens who have had crimes committed against them. 
 Then there is the gang situation. Gangs are dealing in an organised manner and on an international basis in the trafficking of drugs. They pose a greater threat to our community particularly to our children and as we are hearing more and more frequently to young vulnerable women whom young male predators would exploit through the use of drugs—drug rape. The case involving Mr Isherwood is an example. 
But at the top end of the scale terrorism threatens our very existence let alone our lifestyle. Sometimes we have to swallow a dead rat and accept that legislation such as the Crimes Amendment Act (No 6) the Terrorism Suppression Act and now the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill need to exist if we are to guarantee safety and security to our people our children and our country. Everyone knows that this will not solve all the problems. Terrorists by their very nature are extremely adept at subverting systems and at ensuring they remain undetected. But when we have reports that a person who is No. 2 in al-Qaeda may well have visited this country at least twice one has to consider that he might have brought a cellphone with him that it might have been a secure cellphone and that even if the police or the telecommunications companies had known he was here and had moved to intercept him they might not have been able to do so. That is a silly situation to allow to continue. 
Mr Power’s concern and lack of confidence in a future National Government Cabinet really gives me great concern. The fact that he does not believe he has confidence in future National Ministers led by Don Brash to review an exemption proposal being proposed by a Minister gives me great cause for concern. I would simply say to him that under a New Zealand First - led coalition Government he would not have those same concerns. I am pretty sure the clauses dealing with exemptions that the Government is passing could well be handled inside a Government that we are part of or leading. I understand his concerns about lack of confidence in Mr Don Brash— 
Hon Annette King 
: Where is the National Party? 
RON MARK 
: Yes where is the National Party? It is a shame that Mr Power is not able to listen to me here in the House but hopefully he is by other means. But I would tell him to take heart. He may not have confidence in his colleagues in a future National Government to exercise with confidence the duties and responsibilities under clause 11 and he may not have confidence in Don Brash in Tony Ryall or Nick Smith. But help is on its way: his party could always form a coalition with Labour. I am sure there is enough skill on that side of the House to overcome those deficiencies. 
I am somewhat distracted Mr Speaker because I have never in my entire time in this House been here when one party chooses not to be represented. I do not know whether that is outside the Standing Orders but it certainly has to be outside the Standing Orders in the eyes of the public for there not to be one National Party member in this Chamber—not one. So when the press is looking for an Opposition I tell them that they can come to New Zealand First. We are standing here representing the Opposition. We will handle the workload on our own. We do not need to hide under the skirts of the National Party. We are quite capable of representing the opposing views of New Zealanders. If Don Brash does not want to do the job then I am ready to step in with my leader Winston Peters to do it for him. It seems that he does not just run from debate— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will come back to the bill. 
RON MARK 
: He does not just run from this Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill. Not only have I not seen him representing his views but his entire caucus seems to be absent without leave. 
I finish by saying that we should focus seriously on the need for this bill. If members of the House have any concerns may I mention a few names: Riyadh Istanbul Manila Bali Baghdad Australia—the various plots there—and Great Britain. If people are still in any doubt having listened to those names they should consider the tens of thousands of victims and then read section B1 of today’s  
Dominion Post 
.  
I said a long time ago after the attacks of September 11 that one needs to be very very careful of the people we are dealing with internationally when there are people who openly state: “Why kill a tiger if you can kill a lamb?”. That gives one an indication of the mentality and the drive behind the things they do. New Zealand is not a benign country. For anyone who wants to make an impact on the United States or Britain there is no softer target than New Zealand. I sincerely hope and pray that we never see the day when we have people come into this country determined to make an impact a political point by killing Americans Australians or Britains on sovereign New Zealand soil. I simply say to people who would oppose such legislation that they should think about those things because not only will Americans Australians and Britains be killed there will be collateral damage that will involve innocent New Zealanders.  
Members may think that my thoughts are a little far-fetched but I know these people. I lived and worked in the Middle East for 6 years. My job was in the Defence Force. My speciality was inside a special force and I worked with some very very good people who dealt with these issues on a day-to-day basis. We are not a benign little country. We are part of the global community and we are as vulnerable as anyone else to a terrorist organisation that may seek to make a point regardless of the consequences involving innocent bystanders and people who played no part in the situation that they the terrorist organisations find themselves in. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be opposing the third reading of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill. We have said all along that the capacity to intercept emails will catch a few more criminals but the serious criminals will all be able to get round the interception systems by using anonymisers encryption code words Internet cafes hotmail addresses throwaway cellphones or whatever it might be; it is very easy. All the big fish whether or not they are terrorists will get round the systems. However millions of people will be affected because of the scale of the interception—even Waihopai intercepts millions of communications—and it will affect the privacy of many. As I said earlier everyone has some very private aspects to their lives—be they personal family friends sexual or whatever—that they do not want intruded upon. We have so much on our computers and in our emails that is very private to us. 
Also large-scale electronic interception leads to a lot of mistakes. There have been plenty of examples of identity confusion in the big security scares in Europe involving bombs on planes. Recently a plane was stopped because of a 9-year-old kid on it who clearly was not a terrorist. He just had a similar name to somebody on a huge database that presumably got out of control. Another way mistakes are made is when people use email. They do it very quickly using irony saying the opposite of what they mean and using extreme language. Things can easily get out of context. We can see that with intelligence agencies even in the case of Ahmed Zaoui. 
The tape the Security Intelligence Service produced in evidence in that case is clearly just the tape of a tourist. He has himself on it. He did not mail it off to al-Qaeda. He brought it with him in luggage to New Zealand when he applied to the Immigration Service under his own name knowing he would be interrogated. I will lend it to any member who wants to look at it. Obviously the Security Intelligence Service has got it completely wrong in describing that as a “casing” video. That indicates that people can get the context completely wrong and that applies in the area of emails likewise. 
There are examples from around the world. There is one from the Communications Security Establishment in Canada in terms of interception. One Canadian was put on a database because of two emails that were intercepted. In one she referred to her son’s play “bombing”. The word “bombing” was picked up in a keyword search. She used a similar word in another email then she was put on a high-security database. The way that this sort of mass interception operates and the way the results are recorded are very dangerous. We all receive hundreds and thousands of emails from people and if we receive two emails from those who are believed to be suspicious people on a database rightly or wrongly then we could be put on a particular list. There is no real control over what use is made of those lists and who might have access to them or over where they go around the world and over who uses them in the wrong context—using those errors effectively against us perhaps when we travel. 
 The consequences of these mistakes can be hugely inconvenient. I mentioned the case of the airline. A lot of inconvenience was caused to passengers when the airline got a person’s identity wrong. We can look at the example in Afghanistan last year when the Americans claimed that a particular alleged terrorist or Taliban member was deemed to be in possession of a certain cellphone. So the Americans fixed the location of that cellphone when it was turned on bombed the place and killed nine kids. That was a very bad incident and even the idea of bombing someone on suspicion of beingthe person with that cellphone or email address or whatever is very dangerous and it shows how out of control some of those agencies are in reality. 
The other point is in relation to crime fighting. It is actually quite inefficient and a wrong use of resources and a wrong set of priorities to concentrate on electronic intelligence to the extent that is happening in America Australia and now it seems New Zealand. The budget of the Government Communications Security Bureau the electronic interception agency in New Zealand is much greater than that of the Security Intelligence Service and that is a waste because the idea that we can really get to the bad people just through this huge expenditure on electronic interception of cellphones emails or whatever is wrong. 
We see examples of that day to day with the Americans themselves who presumably in Iraq have electronic surveillance across the whole country. But can they actually track down the people who are letting off these bombs across the country? I have not seen much evidence that they have been able to. A reliance on electronic interception for crime fighting rather than on people on the ground doing the hard yards in the traditional way leads to a false sense of complacency particularly when the agencies doing this are largely unaccountable and have political biases. 
That is the problem. Behind these walls of secrecy there are political biases which have been disclosed in some of the debate that has taken place in America Britain and Australia today. There have been cases recently such as when Colin Powell went to the United Nations before the Iraq war and had all those pictures of mobile biological warfare labs and everything else. Even though Hans Blix and others were saying at the time that it was all wrong they went ahead with it. Now it has been proved that it was all fictional and that there was no proper checking. It was creative intelligence for a political purpose and that is what is happening today. 
Unfortunately New Zealand by following along with this legislation under the impetus of pressure from the United States Australia and Britain is part of our being an intelligence dependency and getting it wrong. I think this has come out in the Ahmed Zaoui case. It came out in the court judgment yesterday too in a quote from the director of the Security Intelligence Service where clearly the Security Intelligence Service was most worried about getting offside with these overseas intelligence agencies. Accuracy or the rights of Ahmed Zaoui come second to that. 
The quote from the Security Intelligence Service director in the court decision yesterday was: “If Mr Zaoui with his public record were allowed to settle here that would indicate that New Zealand has a lower level of concern about security than other like-minded countries. That would impact adversely on New Zealand’s reputation with such countries and thus on New Zealand’s international wellbeing.” The fact that Ahmed Zaoui has been framed in overseas countries and those lies have been circulated by overseas intelligence agencies is secondary to the consideration whereas the Refugee Status Appeals Authority actually analysed all that evidence provided now by the Security Intelligence Service and showed those cases to be frame-ups. So that is the problem we can get into when we get into this area of dependency on overseas intelligence agencies. 
The material is all classified and it is a circle of secrecy. Every country says: “We won’t give you information unless you keep it absolutely secret.’’ so the public of those countries including New Zealand cannot even find out what is going on. We saw a case of that recently when I asked the Prime Minister whether media reports were true that New Zealand had received transcripts of interceptions of conversations of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan we were told that it is all secret and we could not be told. 
There is a problem too of this interception authorisation being extended in two bad ways. At the present time it is just origin and destination numbers of one particular person that interception is to be focused on but we could quite easily get into a system like the American Carnivore system or extend what happens at Waihopai where a combination of key words is put into the system and a lot of people get caught in that net. 
The other dangerous proposal that is coming up—and it has come up in Europe; there were references in the  
Guardian 
 last October—is the demand that records of all the emails and phone calls be stored by the telecommunications agencies and Internet service providers for a year so that the agencies can look back over a whole year of people’s private lives as reflected in those records. 
So I think we must vote against this bill. It is an intrusion on our privacy. It is giving extra and unwarranted powers to intelligence agencies that have been found wanting and we do not need it in our situation. We are not seriously subject to terrorist threats. We have not seen terrorist incidents other than that carried out by the French intelligence agency in 1985 and the bombing of Trades Hall in 1984 and I do not think it is envisaged that these powers would result in the interception of French intelligence communications. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future in support of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill at its third reading. This bill ensures that technology is not a barrier to effective national and international security standards. Amongst other things it essentially fixes a loophole in the Act passed in 1987 that allows for only voice messages to be intercepted by the authorities. This predated the widespread use of the Internet and email and so was grossly out of date. The bill places a legal obligation on network operators to have the technical capacity to intercept and monitor communications when an interception warrant is issued by the High Court and authorised by police the Government Communications Security Bureau or the Security Intelligence Service and has the agreement of the communications company. There is a process in place. 
Network operators will be required to have the capability to isolate and intercept communications authorised obtain relevant information about the cause intercept unobtrusively while protecting the privacy of other communications and obtain the information in a usable format. 
There will also be a legislative duty to assist all service providers to provide reasonable assistance to the surveillance agencies in executing an interception warrant within their technical capability and on a cost-recovery basis. Network providers have indicated some concerns over not being able to fully recover costs or compensation incurred with an interception warrant as their own staff may be required to provide technical assistance and that would take them away from their normal duties not to mention the use of premises and systems. The Government has indicated that it will pay for interception capabilities of existing fixed or mobile voice networks implemented within 18 months of the legislation being enacted not for Internet and email services at a cost of up to $3 million. This applies only to those networks in operation as at 12 November 2002 the day the bill was introduced. 
A 5-year phase-in period for other networks is aimed at helping to reduce the impact on the industry. If undertaken with general upgrades the transition time will allow network operators to continue to choose systems designs and specifications for their own purposes. Compliance costs have been estimated at $12 million over the next 5 years and a submission to the select committee from telecommunications companies although disputing the estimated cost of compliance upon further consultation with a number of other providers found that the original figure was confirmed as being reasonably accurate. 
The theory is that whenever a periodic upgrade occurs in the future the requirements established by this bill will be considered by providers as a matter of course. However if such requirements prove difficult to achieve then they might serve to inhibit the introduction of new technologies. The committee amended the bill to make it clear that network operators and service providers have the freedom to choose where and how they provide interception capability. 
 There are concerns that by creating higher barriers to entry to the industry this bill will impinge on product design development and innovation. Although this is addressed in clause 5 “Purpose” in the context of the New Zealand telecommunications environment competitors already find it difficult to compete with the monopolistic advantages held by Telecom New Zealand. In this respect the good news is that the US European countries and Australia are seeking international user requirements that would require interception capability to be a standard design feature of new technology and it is difficult for manufacturers to ignore the consumer muscle those markets can flex. 
It is worth remembering that the surveillance agency is liable to pay for the costs in each instance of assistance provided by a service provider. The select committee amended the bill to require surveillance agencies to pay the bill within 1 month rather than 2 months to lessen the financial burden on operators. The Law Commission initially suggested that those costs be recoverable through the District Courts but I am pleased to see that the onus to recover costs is clearly spelt out without the need for this kind of action. 
It is also relevant to point out that similar legislation in Australia under the Commonwealth Telecommunications Communications Act 1997 and in the United Kingdom under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 require network operators to cover the costs of ensuring ongoing interception capability. 
The select committee heard submissions in support of the bill from the Police Association and even representatives from the telecommunications companies that supported the intent of the bill recognising the need for interception capability to keep pace with technical advancements. United Future gave conditional support to this bill on first reading subject to scrutiny by select committee. It was our concern that this bill must not alter or increase powers of surveillance agencies at the expense of protecting individual human rights. In this legislation the High Court warrant is intended to allay concerns about protection of privacy. Because of the need for police to seek a warrant to gain access to a network each time the bill is not likely to encroach on existing privacy laws. We would be more concerned if surveillance agencies were continuously listening to communications traffic without needing warrants to do so. The interception capability requirements also specifically refer to privacy including the ability to exclude communications that are not authorised to be intercepted. 
Having said this the bill is clearly a response to the increasing threat of terrorism in the wake of September 11. In the case of the Bali bombing we have already witnessed the use of modern telecommunications by conspirators in the form of text messaging. This bill would bring us into line with the legal requirements for interception capability already in place in a number of countries including Australia the United Kingdom Germany and the Netherlands. But this bill avoids some of the draconian measures in some of those other laws such as the British Act for example which forces the surrender of encryption fees on threat of a 2-year jail sentence. Nevertheless passing the legislation adds further weight to our claims that we are contributing to the war on terror. 
Information is one our most powerful weapons in the fight against terrorism as we saw earlier this week in the pre-emptive raid carried out by authorities in the United Kingdom. There will be many conspiracy theorists and the Greens are amongst them I suspect who will see this bill as increasing the powers of police and other law enforcement and security agencies to undertake surveillance and this was reflected in some of the submissions to the committee as well. However the bill does not extend in any way their existing powers; it merely enables them to keep pace with future technological changes. 
I think members also need to keep the implications of this bill for domestic crime uppermost in their minds. This is something that I reiterated during the Committee stage. A member of the police electronic crimes unit described the current ability to access only some channels of communications used by criminals as being like police being allowed to breath-test only people driving white cars while people in coloured cars can simply get away. They are unable to capture evidence and bring it to the courts simply because they cannot get their hands on such evidence. 
Non-voice communications were not the only problems for police. In 2001 the Government signalled that it would require public telecommunications networks to be interception-capable but it emerged that Vodafone New Zealand did not have this capability and police said that their ability to combat crime was being seriously eroded because of that. The value of interception capability to police cannot be underestimated. Even without the ability to intercept Internet email and some voice traffic in the year to June 2000 police obtained 32 interception warrants and 132 people were prosecuted for crimes where evidence of intercepted communications was used. Most electronic crimes investigated are of the old-fashioned kind such as drugs fraud sexual offending and indecent publications but which have an electronic component. 
United Future welcomes the bill and supports it wholeheartedly and unreservedly in the fight against both the external threat to our security and the internal threat to our security from crime organisations. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 Very briefly I say the ACT party will be supporting this legislation—certainly not unreservedly though and I do not believe any member of Parliament who has studied this bill should accept it unreservedly. In an ideal world we would not favour these measures because they are an intrusion by the State into what we regard as basic freedoms civil liberties and privacy. But on balance we have come to a firm view that we do not live in an ideal world—certainly not in these times—and it is for those reasons that this bill is necessary. The bill is certainly not accepted without reservation; it is accepted with considerable reservation. But we will be voting for it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question is  
That the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill be now read a third time 
. Those in favour will say “Aye” of the contrary opinion will say “No”. The Ayes have it. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Please excuse my failure to realise what was going on. The Greens are voting against this bill. Is there a second vote to be had? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have actually passed the bill but I can take the leave of the House that we have a vote. Is there any objection to my restating the question? There is. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I seek leave for the vote to be taken again on the third reading of the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to take it again. Is there any objection? There is not. I will return then to the situation where I state the question. I ask members to please pay attention. The question is  
That the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Telecommunications (Interception Capability) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a third time. 
New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill enters a cultural environment that has been strengthened by the additional resources allocated to it by the Government and Parliament over the past 4 years. We made that investment in order to ensure that New Zealand’s cultural infrastructure is demonstrably robust and sustainable. With that knowledge and commitment we celebrate the institutions and people who enrich our culture as well as enable New Zealanders to participate in our culture and to have access to the many strands that make it up. Our commitment to the creative sector saw an injection of funding in 2000 to place some of our most cherished national cultural institutions on a secure footing base—in many cases for the first time. 
The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is one of this country’s flagship cultural institutions in which New Zealanders have taken great pride and pleasure for nearly 60 years. A suite of excellent regional orchestras complements the role of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra thus ensuring that a wider New Zealand audience has ready access to orchestral music of very high quality. New Zealanders are very well served by our orchestral institutions but the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has not always been well served by the financial and legal parameters imposed on its operations. Since it was established in 1988 there has been very little change to those parameters. The capital funding of $3 million allocated to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra in 2000 established a more stable financial base for its functioning. At the same time this Government allocated an extra $1.4 million annually to ensure that the orchestra would be adequately resourced. With this bill we address the legislative platform of the orchestra’s operation. 
The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is currently a Crown-owned limited liability company. It is operated within a commercial framework in keeping with the provisions of the Companies Act. However as the owner and principal funder the Government does not necessarily expect the orchestra to achieve operating surpluses. Although the orchestra is required to remain financially viable its prime responsibility and role is to deliver world-class performances of orchestral music to New Zealand audiences throughout New Zealand. In doing so it helps to build a distinctively New Zealand cultural environment. 
In 2000 the current company structure of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra was reviewed in the context of the State Services Commission’s programme of reforms of Crown entities. The purpose of establishing the orchestra as a limited liability company had been to use the provisions of the Companies Act as an incentive to the board to act prudently in its financial management. Those provisions have had little effect on the orchestra’s operations. Moreover the company structure does not reflect this Government’s primary interest in the orchestra which we have already described. Therefore one of the primary purposes of this bill is to change the status of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra from a limited liability company established under the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act to an autonomous non-company Crown entity. That structure will ensure that robust accountability requirements and the obligations of the board to act prudently in financial management are maintained. However it does not in any way imply that Governments or Ministers could direct the choices made by the orchestra. 
An important principle underpinning this bill is that of artistic freedom. The bill will ensure that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra operates without ministerial direction in all artistic matters. That reflects a well-established principle that cultural sector Crown agencies operate at arm’s length from the Government without ministerial direction. That principle is embodied for example in the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa Act and in the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act. It empowers those cultural agencies to pursue their objectives and perform their functions while promoting and maintaining freedom of artistic expression with no direct political intervention. Robust governance and accountability requirements are included in the bill and the board will be accountable to the Government through the collective and individual duties imposed on its members and through its reporting requirements under the Public Finance Act. 
The principal Act does not prescribe the orchestra’s purpose and functions nor does it spell out the Government’s or Parliament’s expectations of it. Therefore the second primary purpose of this bill is to clarify the orchestra’s role as a touring national orchestra by establishing in legislation its principal objectives and functions. The principal objectives and functions will provide a common understanding about the orchestra’s responsibilities and scope. The principal objectives describe in broad terms the leadership role that the orchestra is expected to take in the New Zealand cultural environment. The orchestra will provide New Zealanders with symphonic music performed to international standards and encourage the development of New Zealand music musicians and composers. The functions expressed in the bill reflect the high-level expectations of the orchestra. They include ensuring that the orchestra presents a broad repertoire of orchestral performance including New Zealand works and recent works encouraging the development of New Zealand musicians and encouraging the development of New Zealanders’ knowledge and appreciation of music. 
The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra’s board and management have been actively consulted during the development of the bill as has the general public. Creative New Zealand and the four major regional orchestras have been briefed on the bill’s contents and progress and all relevant cultural and artistic agencies had the opportunity to make submissions on its content during the Government Administration Committee hearings. The bill was first read in February last year and was referred to the Government Administration Committee. The committee received 15 written submissions and heard five oral submissions. I thank the select committee for its excellent work. Some issues were quite hotly argued and I am sure that the debate in the House will reflect that. 
Submitters strongly supported and endorsed the general intention of the bill. The issues that they raised focused in particular on the objectives and functions set out in clauses 8 and 9. That those clauses attracted the most attention was to be expected as they specify the orchestra’s purpose and function for the first time in legislation. Given the orchestra’s very high profile as a flagship performing arts organisation there was high interest amongst the submitters in general—in particular amongst those from the music sector—in the Government’s expectations of the orchestra and in the nature of its contribution to the cultural life of New Zealand. It was reassuring that the proposed amendments to the orchestra’s principal objectives and functions generally sought to provide an extension or a refinement of or to give greater emphasis to the existing provisions of the newly drafted bill and did not propose fundamental changes to it. I thank all the submitters who took the time to look at the bill. 
Some submissions on the principal objectives provided textural amendments that became overly detailed and potentially proscriptive. Those amendments were rejected. The objectives and functions are articulated at a sufficiently high level to allow the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra executive and board to develop the orchestra’s strategic and business plans independently and to agree to a statement of intent with the responsible Minister. Accordingly the select committee did not recommend any amendments that would limit the orchestra’s flexibility in that area. We will go through the amendments as we go through the Committee stage so suffice it to say at this stage that the committee made four major recommendations for changes to the bill. I thank the committee for that excellent refinement of this legislation. 
I add one further point. I am aware that in considering the role of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra in the bill the select committee had its convictions in relation to the vital part played by New Zealand’s regional orchestras confirmed. This legislation does not necessarily affect those orchestras but I share the committee’s view about their vital place. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is extremely important to New Zealand and to New Zealanders. So too are the regional orchestras and I am confident that that importance will be acknowledged by the support they receive through Creative New Zealand and by the collegial support they will receive from the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. 
The Government is particularly pleased to see the performing arts community including the regional orchestras and the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra responding so positively to the intent and spirit of this bill. The community recognises and respects the invaluable service that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has provided to New Zealanders during its very long history. It is an irreplaceable feature of our cultural landscape. As Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage I look forward to seeing our national symphony orchestra flourish within the appropriate legislative framework and to its continuing wonderful performance as an artistic institution. I am confident that the ongoing cultural benefits that accrue from the Government’s commitment to the orchestra will benefit all New Zealanders. I thank the individuals and groups that made submissions on the bill and I am grateful to the members of the select committee and the other parties in the House for working so constructively on it. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Mr Speaker thank you for the opportunity to speak on this unnecessary New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. I must admit that the very thought of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra fills me with great enthusiasm. National very much supports the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and very much supports the concepts of artistic independence and artistic excellence but we do not support a Labour Government bill enshrining the orchestra in unnecessary legislation. It is quite ironic that the Prime Minister Helen Clark praised the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra saying it is iconic—and so do we—yet she wants to enshroud it in all sorts of unnecessary legislation and to prescribe its functions and objectives. The question really is when is a symphony orchestra not a symphony orchestra and the answer is when its functions are enshrined in Helen Clark legislation. Just what is it in the genetic make-up of the New Zealand Labour Party that makes its members unable to resist the temptation to involve State control in every piece of legislation they can think up? 
In this particular case the Government has the gall to suggest that it is in the name of artistic independence. The policy statement in the explanatory note of the first reading copy states: “The primary purpose of this Bill is to change the status of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra … from that of a limited liability company established under the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act 1988 to a non-company Crown entity. … The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act 1988 does not prescribe the Orchestra’s purpose and functions nor government’s expectations of it. As a limited liability company the Orchestra operates within the requirements of the Companies Act 1993. Consequently it is expected to carry out functions that are commercial in nature.” 
What is wrong with that? Why prescribe the functions and objectives of an organisation that thrives and flourishes when it is given the ability to do so? It is quite quite ironic that the Prime Minister of New Zealand who so enthusiastically praises the orchestra and its past successes now wants to destroy them. 
When one looks around at some of the world’s greatest orchestras it is quite obvious that those with some of the finest artistic performers and with absolute quintessential creativity have organisations that owe their very existence to obeying commercial principles. I think of the London Symphony Orchestra the London Philharmonic Orchestra the Chicago Symphony Orchestra the Cleveland Orchestra and the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra. They are all orchestras that exist on being absolutely responsive to the public—not to a Government prescription which is exactly what the Labour Government wants. Here in New Zealand we have only to think of the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra. That is a very successful orchestra that operates extremely successfully with no legislation and with a cost in terms of Government help of about 15 percent per year of that of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. 
Some of the world’s finest orchestras are in America and this is the prescription that encapsulates them: “An organisational structure that canonises the music director a volunteer support system that creates serious tension between the art of music making and the business of orchestral management and a reliance on community sponsorship that juxtaposes popular taste with the moral virtues of serious art.” It is quite extraordinary to look at the principal objectives and functions that the Labour Government has dreamt up for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. I go immediately to clause 8(c) which states: “to be a leading New Zealand performing arts organisation with a role in the development of a distinctively New Zealand cultural environment:”. What does that mean and why does it have to be prescribed in legislation when we have had a New Zealand Symphony Orchestra that performs extremely well? The Government admits—in fact it cries from the rooftops—how well it has been performing but oh no the Labour Government wants it to develop a “distinctively New Zealand” cultural aspect. 
It gets worse. The functions in clause 9 include: “(f) to carry out any other functions consistent with its principal objectives as agreed to by the Minister after consultation with the Orchestra:”. The Minister has to be brought into those objectives and functions. The Government just cannot help itself. On the one hand we have the Labour Government saying what a great orchestra it is under its present structure. But oh no the Government has to enshrine and entangle it in prescriptive legislation. It cannot help itself. 
There has been a little bit of debate about the board structure itself. Again there is an enormous irony there. There has been quite a lot of thought about putting a player on to the board. There are many orchestras around the world that do that. But no the Labour Government says: “Let’s be pure on governance when it comes to the $10 million Symphony Orchestra but when it comes to the $8 billion district health boards oh no we have to have a majority-elected system. We have to have a majority-elected system when it comes to $8 billion but when it comes to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra we are going to be pure.” The Labour Government has perpetrated some awful confusion on us and at times it is very hard to keep up with it. The very cost of the legislation—$1 million—surely would have been far better put towards the musicians themselves but no let us drag it through the House and the select committee for the cost of $1 million. 
I want to recall an experience I had listening to the Shanghai Orchestra that visited New Zealand 20 years ago. In the first half of the concert it played the  
Yellow River Concerto 
 and  
Taking Tiger Mountain by Strategy 
. It was an awful plodding boring experience. But in the second half of the programme it played traditional Chinese music that had been generated and had evolved through thousands of years of experience and was played with a whole range of orchestral instruments. It was pure magic. The clear contrast is that of State-controlled music versus that of an orchestra given its head. This bill that the Labour Government is perpetrating is most unfortunate. The Government praises the orchestra as it is yet it wants to shackle it quite unnecessarily. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is carrying out a superb job as it is. The National Party wants it to flourish and we wish it all the very best without this unnecessary legislation. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 As chair of the Government Administration Committee which heard the submissions on this bill I wish to support it. I particularly want to thank the members of the orchestra who set a very enjoyable precedent by playing a little mini-concert for the committee. We thank them for that and it was a pleasure to have them at the committee. The bill does not mandate that a member of the orchestra be a member of the board but it distinctly states in schedule 1 that the board should include a balance of members with financial and artistic awareness. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
:  
It is my pleasure on behalf of New Zealand First to speak once again to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. I have had the opportunity to read the report from the Government Administration Committee. We do not have a regular member on that committee so I have had to keep in touch with what is going on. In reading the report I am pleased that the committee has given such broad recognition to the submissions that have been made to it. As the previous National Party speaker said this bill restructures the orchestra from being a company under the Companies Act 1993 but he did not quite make it clear that it now becomes an autonomous non-company Crown entity and the existing limited-liability legislation is brought to an end. As the commentary indicates: “In becoming an autonomous Crown entity the Orchestra will be subject to the reporting requirements set out in the Public Finance Act 1989.” That is important for us all as members of Parliament; if the taxpayer is going to make money available to the orchestra there should be a mechanism by which the taxpayer has some opportunity to consider the way in which the money is being spent and in this case it will be in terms of the Public Finance Act. 
The select committee is quick to point out and New Zealand First supports this view: “Notwithstanding these requirements in artistic matters the Orchestra will be able to operate independently and without ministerial direction.” That is clear from the functions provision of the legislation as well although that does not seem to have been quite recognised appropriately by the previous National Party speaker. 
All the regional orchestras around New Zealand will be pleased that on page 2 under the heading “Recognition of professional regional orchestras” the select committee has taken the trouble to refer to the work done throughout the country. I think recognition should be given. The committee states: “We note that the bill does not provide any recognition of New Zealand’s professional regional orchestras such as the Auckland Philharmonia and the Wellington and Southern Sinfonias. The Auckland Philharmonia commented that the bill’s lack of recognition of other professional orchestras could be interpreted to mean that the Orchestra is the only professional one in New Zealand. The Philharmonia expressed its concern that such an interpretation could preclude government support and recognition of professional regional orchestras. 
To address the Philharmonia’s concern we would have supported the inclusion of a preamble in the bill to provide for the formal recognition of New Zealand’s professional regional orchestras. However as the bill was introduced without a preamble one’’—unfortunately—“cannot be inserted by way of amendment to the bill. We therefore wish to offer our support and recognition of New Zealand’s professional regional orchestras that serve New Zealand audiences so well. Our intent in providing this recognition is to ensure that enactment of the bill does not see the preclusion of government support and recognition of our professional regional orchestras.” 
I would expect that all the professional regional orchestras in the country should bear that in mind if there is ever any problem with regard to recognition and appropriate financial support from time to time. This House greatly appreciates the work they do. I seem to recall that in my first reading speech I mentioned in particular the Auckland Philharmonia the Wellington Sinfonia and the Southern Sinfonia and I am pleased the select committee has taken the matter forward. 
The bill contains a functions clause and slightly more emphasis should be given to it than has been given. The functions are set out in clause 9. In particular paragraphs (a) to (e) look at the actual work the orchestra does and ensure it is given independence in so far as those functions are concerned. Any involvement by the Minister is set out in paragraph (f). Paragraphs (a) to (d) ensure that the orchestra presents a broad repertoire and encourages the development of New Zealand musicians the appreciation of orchestral music and the development and expansion of the orchestra’s audience which is perhaps one of the most important things—to make sure there are bums on seats when the orchestra comes to town. In general from all the advice I get the orchestra is especially appreciated in the regional areas of New Zealand—more so sometimes than in Auckland for which I can speak with some degree of authority. Paragraph (e) describes the function of providing a touring orchestra. 
All those functions are performed without any advice from the Minister because paragraph (f) states that the orchestra is “to carry out any other functions consistent with its principal objectives as agreed to by the Minister after consultation with the Orchestra:”. So presumably if the orchestra wants to go off to London it has to consult the Minister about that before it comes to that decision. Equally important in paragraph (g) is the function “to co-operate with other institutions and organisations having objectives similar to those of the Orchestra.” That brings us back to those regional orchestras and suchlike and perhaps to some of the smaller ones. The Bach Musica which meets often at Auckland’s St Matthew-in-the-City is one of those that I am sure would be taken into account as well. 
In looking at the principal objectives of the orchestra New Zealand First is concerned that not enough recognition is given to the orchestra being a full-time professional orchestra and we propose an amendment to clause 8(b) at the Committee stage. Clause 8(b) just says that a principal objective of the orchestra is “to provide an orchestra that—”. Some of the submissions have indicated that that does not necessarily mean a full-time orchestra and one can take that point. All sorts of interpretations come up when we look at legislation after it has been passed and the opportunity to amend the legislation and make it abundantly clear is here and now. The Hon Brian Donnelly proposed to move an amendment. Unfortunately he is not here today so I am doing it on his behalf. We intend to delete the words “an orchestra” and insert in their place the words “a full-time professional orchestra”. The insertion of the word “full-time” will put the matter beyond doubt. I hope we will have the support of the Government and the House. 
The other amendment we have is to clause 9(g) which reads “to co-operate with other institutions and organisations having objectives similar to those of the Orchestra.” After the word “Orchestra” we would like to have inserted “to the extent that it does not compromise the Orchestra’s ability to fulfil its other obligations” which is a fair enough statement. So New Zealand First will be moving those amendments. We see other amendments with regard to a players’ committee meaning a committee of players in the orchestra established for the purpose of fair representation and we do support the concept of fair representation. We will be supporting amendments along those lines. 
There has been some criticism of the Government by the National Party with regard to the nature of this bill. Of course that is fair enough. That is what Parliament is all about. We are here to criticise each other and find out what others’ views are. I look forward to the next National Party speaker telling us whether it is a National Party proposal to sell the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra in the event that the National Party should become the Government. I go slightly further: one of the vehicles that carries the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra’s playing is Radio New Zealand which includes Concert FM and I would like to know as an avid Concert FM listener whether the National Party has a policy to sell Radio New Zealand or perhaps to curtail Concert FM. National may regard it as a station that is not needed in society. So will Concert FM go if there is a National Party Government? I would not support that at all. I do that from purely selfish personal interest. I wake up to Concert FM in the morning and I go to bed with Concert FM at night and I declare my conflict of interest my personal interest in the matter straight away. If National Party members criticise the Government and other parties which is fair enough it is beholden on us in New Zealand First to ask the National Party whether we will see the end of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra if National becomes the Government. Will we see the end of Concert FM if National becomes the Government? Its members are silent now but I expect we shall hear something from them on this issue before the debate is concluded. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 The Greens will be supporting this bill. It is good legislation. To prescribe that a principal objective and function of the orchestra is support of New Zealand music and composers is an important part. For a long time New Zealanders have had the idea that the bit of our culture that distinguishes us is the bit that the tangata whenua bring to us—we take great pride in that—and that has been our culture. In fact we have a very strong artistic culture from our European heritage too and the orchestra is an important part of that. 
It is a very good orchestra. It not only gives strength to the best of our music but also gives strength to our up-and-coming musicians. In the space of the last month I have been to two orchestral performances in Nelson one by the Nelson Symphony Orchestra and the other by the Youth Orchestra in Nelson. Both of those orchestras contain very young musicians who are looking for a career pathway and the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra provides that goal for them. 
In terms of the membership of the board we have some difficulty with the exclusion of player membership. In fact although there is the possibility of a player being appointed it is fairly clear that the management of the orchestra is not keen on that and the Minister in charge of the bill does not seem to be keen on it either. It seems to me that with the level of expertise memory and experience contained in the orchestra it makes very good sense to have orchestral membership on the board. The Greens will be putting forward an amendment to substitute a subclause that makes provision for player membership on the board. For those who suggest that perhaps the interests of the players might override the broader interests of the orchestra I would suggest to them that the requirement that board members play a lesser role when considering issues with which they have an interest greater than that of the public at large probably means that in fact that would not be possible—that a player member would have to take a lesser role on issues that affected the orchestra’s members. 
I would suggest too that the orchestra have a single member on the board. That member would be one member out of five to eight members; if that member wants to convince the rest of the board of the virtue of his or her ideas he or she would have to put up a pretty persuasive case. Such a member would bring unique knowledge not only of the music but also of the practical implications of the decisions that are made and their effect on the day-to-day running of an orchestra. For that reason it is important that the board membership includes a player member of the orchestra. 
It has been suggested that another amendment would make it possible for the Minister to appoint both the chief executive and a player member. It would be unusual for the chief executive to be a member of the board. The chief executive will always be there and although not having a voting role will have a very great influence on the deliberations of the board. 
We will support the bill but with that amendment. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is not supporting this bill. We do not see that it is necessary and we are not quite sure why the Minister is putting it forward. We are not sure what she is trying to fix—what is broken. On reading through the legislation it appears to me that we are actually making the situation worse than it is at the moment especially when we see it being brought in under urgency. 
If we look at the history of this legislation we see that there are some very serious anomalies in the bill and there are some serious omissions from it. On reading the history of the legislation I see that some of the most important submitters to it—the player representatives themselves—have been ignored. I wonder why that is so. I wonder why the Minister is so averse to having a representative from the actual orchestra on the board. Is there an assumption that because one is creative and artistic one therefore has no knowledge of governance and financial matters? That is an arrogant assumption. There is no evidence that just because somebody can play a musical instrument to the standard of being in a national symphony orchestra that person does not have the ability to sit on a board and take part in the daily indeed annual running of the orchestra. 
The primary purpose of this bill is to turn the orchestra from a limited liability company into an autonomous Crown entity—in other words as my colleague Heather Roy said during the first reading so that it cannot go broke. One would doubt whether any Government would let the orchestra go broke because even if they do not like going to listen to the symphony orchestra everybody in New Zealand likes having it there. If their children learn musical instruments membership of the orchestra is something for them to aspire to. Indeed as a parent who has forked out thousands of dollars for musical lessons I know it is an incentive for urging one’s children on to practise. 
If we take the annual report of the symphony orchestra for the year ended June 2002 we read that the chief executive stated in his overview: “In most months of the 2001-2002 year we recorded better than budget income and lower than forecast expenditure. This reflects sound management underpinned by sure-footed artistic decisions that have resulted in significant increases in audience numbers through the country.” If we take that on its own we have to wonder why we are bringing in this legislation. 
If we go a bit further we see chairman Selwyn Cushing lamenting the fact that sponsorship has been dropping off. I think that two of the main sponsors Air New Zealand and Telecom New Zealand did not continue their sponsorship. Maybe that is what the Minister is trying to fix with this new legislation. If the organisation cannot go broke maybe corporates will be more prepared to sponsor it. But I would argue that the reason that corporate sponsorship is dropping off from organisations like the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Opera New Zealand etc. is because companies in New Zealand—small and medium as well as big companies—are facing increasingly high compliance costs. They are spending more of their profits on having to comply with legislation that we put through this House in urgency and outside urgency. 
We have only to look at what has gone through in the last 18 months to see legislation that has forced companies to spend more of their profits not on sponsorship of things like the symphony orchestra but on things like health and safety stress management and now increased holiday pay. That had already been built into wages over the years but now it has to be added on top. We will see more and more sponsorship of those sorts of organisations drop off unless we get serious about improving the economy in this country and let companies and individuals keep more of their own money so that they can become donors or sponsors. Simply passing legislation to turn something into a Crown entity will not solve that problem. 
If we take clause 8 we will see what the principal objectives of the orchestra are. The orchestra will be required to perform music “to an international standard”. Says who? Who will police that? What will happen if it does not? Will they take out the piano player and shoot him? Will they sack the lead violin? Why are we legislating for those sorts of things? Another objective is to provide an orchestra that has “strong community support”. It already has strong community support. How do we legislate for an “artistically imaginative” orchestra? It is ridiculous that we are introducing those sorts of terms into legislation. 
Being “artistically imaginative” is something people are born with. They can develop it through hard work they can hone it they can improve it but we cannot legislate for it. A symphony orchestra is simply made up of a number of individuals all of whom have artistic imagination. We cannot pass legislation and by law order a group of musicians to have artistic imagination. It seems to me that this Government is reaching new heights in ordering and bossing people about and telling them what it expects them to do. 
I come back to the issue of board membership. We will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper introduced by Mr Marc Alexander of United Future because it seems to me that—despite the Minister standing up and saying that she supports artists and everything in this country—by not having a representative of the artists of the orchestra on the board she is not supporting the artists at all. 
The players committee made submissions which were very well set out on why there needs to be a representative of the permanent players on the board. That has been totally ignored. I would like the Minister to take another call and explain to us why she has deliberately left that provision out of the legislation. Why is she so adverse to it? It is not simply an oversight; it seems to me to be a deliberate slight to the players in the symphony orchestra. 
The Minister would obviously rather read her newspaper than consider how the players in the orchestra feel. Perhaps if one of them were good at knitting he or she would get on the board. I would argue that we cannot have the board of a symphony orchestra without a representative from the musicians on it and that is why we will be supporting Marc Alexander’s Supplementary Order Paper when it comes to the vote. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I do not mind at all having a little bit of an opportunity to sing the praises of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. I am an avid follower of the orchestra. I think it is rightly recognised as one of the leading institutions in the arts sector and we should all be singing its praises. National supports artistic excellence and artistic independence and the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has shown itself to represent the best of that. The opportunity to sing its praises is certainly welcomed. 
However the time of this House is being taken up with a bill that is overly prescriptive and overly controlling of an institution that is being asked to maintain its artistic independence and artistic integrity. That in my view is rather unfortunate and totally unnecessary. I recall some words that Minister Maharey said when the bill first surfaced. He said that nothing in the legislation would diminish the Symphony Orchestra’s artistic independence or integrity. He said it would continue to act without ministerial or indeed parliamentary direction in artistic matters. He said it would be required to seek to contribute to the development of a distinctly New Zealand cultural environment—whatever that is. This Government is great for adding provisions to legislation that seem to indicate that the one-size-fits-all concept is right for New Zealanders. New Zealand has a multilayered multicultural environment and one has to have a little bit of sympathy for any organisation or institution that has that as its primary objective. 
This is a Government that applauds the artistic independence and artistic integrity of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra yet after reading clauses 8 and 9 which set out both the principal objectives and functions of the orchestra we have to wonder if this Government means what it says about maintaining the artistic independence of our cultural and artistic institutions. This bill is very prescriptive. It brings more State control into an area where we want to encourage creativity and artistic imagination. Even though the Minister was at pains to reassure New Zealanders that there would be no ministerial interference again we have to wonder. Because if the Government means to be this prescriptive—and I would echo the comments of Deborah Coddington—what happens if the orchestra does not deliver on the prescription? What do we do about the orchestra if that does not happen? 
The bill states that one principal objective of the orchestra is “to provide the public of New Zealand with live and recorded performances of symphonic music performed to an international standard.” Who measures the international standard? How do we measure that? If in someone’s view it does not reach the international standard do we then “can” the orchestra? These sorts of provisions in legislation in my view are stupid. They are a nonsense and they become meaningless because there is no way of measuring whether such music is being performed to an international standard. That is mostly because somebody has to make a judgment on that and the judgment of Helen Clark may be different from my judgment. 
This bill is an overkill. It purports to be a supporter and a maintainer of artistic independence and integrity yet in its establishment and powers it sets out some pretty prescriptive provisions. National certainly does not support that. If we want artistic creativity to fly then we have to have a supportive framework and some provisions for financial accountability—because taxpayers’ money is involved in the Symphony Orchestra. But those provisions should be as few as possible otherwise the board scurries around worrying whether it is applying the prescription and always with the Minister hovering over it. 
Even though clause 14 relates just to governance where does governance begin and end? We are not sure with this Government most of the time. Clause 14 talks about the role of the Minister. It says that the Minister may review the operations of the orchestra even though clause 16 states that the orchestra is independent in all artistic matters. We cannot trust that sort of thing when the bill is laying down a prescription for the artistic activities of the institution. This legislation is a bit of a worry—it is a bit of an overkill. It is typical Labour Government State control and typical Labour Government State prescription. What happens when the prescription is not followed? Who knows? How do we measure it? Who measures it? We cannot measure it. These provisions are entirely unnecessary and inappropriate. National opposes this bill most strenuously. 
The other point I want to make in that regard is that there is probably some reservation on the part of our regional orchestras about the closeness of the relationship that will develop under this bill between the Minister the Government and the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. As we all know we have some wonderful professional regional orchestras. I remember a concert that the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra held about 5 years ago in Rotorua’s redwood forest. It was absolutely marvellous. I am pleased that the select committee was of a mind not to give the Symphony Orchestra recognition that would seem to give it favoured status over and above the regional orchestras. I think that is very important. 
Overall though this bill has taken up the time of the House which it should not have done. We last debated it in urgency and here it is again. If we mean what we say about wanting to encourage creativity imagination and artistic integrity in the arts sector then our watch over those things should be minimal. This bill is way over the top and is not appropriate in any way. 
I applaud the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. Of course it knows it needs a certain amount of accountability but outside of that it should be left to do what it does best and what it has done in the past—that is continue to favour New Zealand audiences with symphonies and music of the highest order. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to make a contribution on the second reading of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. The introduction in the commentary on the bill states: “The main purpose of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill is to clarify the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra’s role as a touring national orchestra by prescribing in legislation its principal objectives and functions.” Well that is wonderful. I have never thought there was anything wrong with its role. I echo some of the comments made by the ACT member Deborah Coddington who said there was nothing broken about it at all. We knew what the role of the orchestra was and I guess it is a traditional role that did not need to be defined particularly. But if the orchestra’s role needs to be defined that is fine. 
The commentary on the bill also states: “The bill intends that the Orchestra will operate in a responsible manner”—we are all grateful for that—“and maintain its financial viability while meeting its principal objectives in performing its functions.” The orchestra’s financial viability is determined by the amount of money that basically the taxpayers have to fork out for it. So what will the orchestra do for the taxpayer dollar? The fact that the orchestra performs its functions of touring and allows the New Zealand taxpayer to access the considerable talents embodied in it are matters that we would definitely like to see entrenched as part of its role. 
It was an election policy of United Future in 2002 to ensure that the national orchestra is put on a sure long-term footing. I believe this bill addresses that issue. A Crown entity is a better structure in which to situate the orchestra than the present governance arrangements so we are pleased about that as well. More generally ensuring the long-term survival of the orchestra by prescribing its functions and obligations in legislation is important because as the national orchestra the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is an important part of New Zealand’s culture and identity. The Symphony Orchestra plays a valuable role in projecting New Zealand culture to an international audience by capitalising on symphonic music as an international language while presenting something uniquely Kiwi in composition and performance. The orchestra also plays a vitally important educational role in fostering the development of young performers at home. 
One of the problems that we have always had with regard to this bill concerns board membership. United Future has tabled two Supplementary Order Papers that ring-fence a position on the board for a player from the orchestra. If we have a quick look at clause 13 which sets out the role of the board we see that three provisions stand out. Firstly the board has the authority in the name of the orchestra to exercise the powers and perform the functions of the orchestra. We have no complaints with that. Secondly all decisions relating to the operation of the orchestra must be made by or under the authority of the board. We have no problem with that either. Thirdly the board has all the powers necessary to carry out its function. Again we have no problem with that. But one of the most important aspects of the role of the board is to truly represent the orchestra so as to allow members of the orchestra or at least a voice from the orchestra to sit alongside the other members of the board and push for their case—whether artistic management or otherwise. That would be reasonable and democratic. I find it astounding that this Labour Government is trying to deny players the ability to voice the concerns that members of the orchestra will have from time to time and that orchestra members will not be able to take part in board decision-making processes. So United Future has tabled two Supplementary Order Papers with a slight variance that ring-fence a position on the board for a player from the orchestra. 
It is vital for the good of the whole of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra as an entity that players be represented on the board by at least one player. Let us face it—it is their orchestra. It is both New Zealand’s Symphony Orchestra and the players’ orchestra. It is the way that the players express their life—through their music and through their instruments. They ought to have a voice on the board. In order to ensure that the clarity of the players’ position is made fulsome through the board management we should ensure that the board always contains at least one person who knows orchestral life from the inside. It is all very well to have a bunch of managers sitting there but if they are not in tune with the players and if they do not understand and appreciate the manner in which the orchestra actually provides the music in terms of its charter responsibilities then how on earth can the players’ interests be well represented? Currently over 30 personnel and management lie between the players and the board of governance. How are the players supposed to be heard through all of that? I suggest they are not being heard at all which is one of the reasons why we are pushing so hard to have player representation on the board. 
I cannot for the life of me understand why the Labour Party which prides itself on trying to give voice to every minority group it can find under any rock in this country is declining the opportunity to give voice to the very people it is to have governance over in this legislation: the players themselves. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I look forward to the support of some of the other parties in the House for either one of my two Supplementary Order Papers. The consultation provisions and practices provided for in the bill are clearly inadequate. The present situation does not allow time for detailed discussions and the board may be unaware of the fact that a player’s perspective would be important or useful on other issues not raised in the half-hour monthly consultation meetings. In other words the players are overlooked. If the orchestra members themselves are allowed to participate on the board as of right it will match successful overseas practice—for example in the Sydney symphony orchestra. Why do we want to be so out of tune and out of step with other orchestras around the world? Why do we think that our players are incapable of actually thinking being on the board and contributing to board decisions? 
We know that a player member of the board would face many challenges from both sides of the organisation. However providing the right kind of player representative one who is well briefed on governance responsibilities and who understands the need to act in the best interests of the orchestra is not beyond the capability of the players. If the players are smart enough to be as good as they are at playing an instrument members should trust me when I say they have a brain! Players’ brains and vocal chords ought to be used to articulate their concerns. Information would be able to flow not just to the board but also from the board. That would mean players would have greater understanding of board decisions—something that does not take place at the moment. It is almost as though we do not want members of the orchestra to participate on the board because we want to keep them in the dark just like mushrooms—and we all know what mushrooms grow in! Conflicts of interest may arise for a player representative particularly around wage negotiation time but that is not an insurmountable problem. It is successfully traversed in other orchestras by having the players’ representative stand down during that period and I do not see why such a practice could not operate here. 
Contrary to the Government’s opinion I say having a players’ representative on the board would not be a disaster. It has not been a disaster for other orchestras around the world. It would add to the experience and integrity of the board. It would also greatly improve player-board relations and encourage greater representation from the people for whom this bill is supposed to matter most: the people of New Zealand and the players themselves who provide their artistic endeavours for the public. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Government Administration Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Clearly Part 1 of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill is very important because it includes both the commencement date and the purpose of the legislation. I want to make just one point about the commencement date. If one looks at the legislative history of this bill one can see that it was introduced on 10 December 2002. Once again one does wonder why this Labour Government would dawdle its way through such an important bill that is to do with a national icon take 2 years about it and then rush it through under urgency. The Government certainly conforms to a pattern of doing that. As my colleague said the Government should learn how to manage its workload a hang of a lot better than it has managed it over the last 4 years. 
Far more important than that is the purpose of this bill which is to establish the orchestra as a body corporate under the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act and as a Crown entity for the purposes of the Public Finance Act. It would be very useful for the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Tizard to take a call to explain to the House why for years she has said that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has attained some of the finest performances around the world has become an icon in New Zealand’s history and has achieved both artistic excellence and independence under the present legislation when she has now turned round and said no the Government is to destroy that model and bring in classic Labour Party command and control. That seems ironic. Hopefully the Minister will explain that—or was she not really sincere in her comments about the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra over the last 10-15 years? 
The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra started in 1946 and it has an extraordinary record. As I have said before the National Party absolutely supports it. We want to see it flourish in an atmosphere of independence. After all one of the strengths of the present legislation is indeed that as a limited liability company the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra does not require prescription as to its purposes and functions nor as to the Government’s expectations of it. That is a great quality. Why is this Labour Government so insistent on wanting to bring in a whole set of prescriptions? 
Further down in the purpose of the legislation I notice the question of providing for the governance of the orchestra for the duties of the board and for administrative matters. I have pointed this out before but I think it is worthwhile emphasising. If indeed the Labour Government was to be consistent—and heaven help us it has a legacy of being very inconsistent— 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Tell us about Don’s tax rates! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: I ask Mr Clayton Cosgrove to tell us why with an $8 billion budget for the health system he insists on majority-elected health boards yet when it comes to the $10 million budget of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra he wants a pure governance model. We are not against that but we think the Government should be consistent. We think that the Government should have appropriate experts dealing with an $8 billion budget just as it has with a $10 million budget. 
Again I say it would be very helpful if the Minister would take a call to provide us with an explanation of why this Government is not being consistent in terms of its view on managing an $8 billion budget compared with a $10 million budget. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I welcome the opportunity to take a call in the Committee stage of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. Part 1 sets out the commencement and the purpose of the Act. I have previously described this bill as an overkill and my colleague Paul Hutchison demonstrated that pretty concisely. I took cognisance of Clayton Cosgrove’s interjection when Paul Hutchison was talking about taxpayers’ money. He is certainly right; this is $10 million worth of taxpayers’ money. We have a whole lot of taxpayers’ money going into the district health boards. The governance structure of the orchestra is set out in a way that just makes for a laugh at the way that the Government has structured the district health boards. There are majority-elected boards in the health sector and here in this bill there is little provision at all for a similar sort of representation on the orchestra’s board. So I think my colleague did ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Tizard a good question and I am sure she will answer it when she thinks it is the appropriate time to do so. 
The purpose of the bill is to establish the orchestra as a Crown entity under the Public Finance Act. This Government in its judgment came to the conclusion that the orchestra’s previous structure under the Companies Act was not in the Government’s view meeting the commercial framework and that it appeared to have had minimal impact on the orchestra’s trading performance. However I wonder whether this new structure will contribute to the overall purpose of the bill which is as I understand it to propose a framework that will encourage artistic independence and artistic integrity. I wonder whether it was necessary to make the changes that are proposed in this bill. 
The purpose clause also sets out the principal objectives of the orchestra its functions and its powers. We will come to that in a minute. But the National Opposition has already signalled that those matters are overly prescriptive. In my view if one states a prescription one should do something if the prescription is not delivered on. When debating the functions and the objectives of the orchestra members will see that in essence although it may be easy to be prescriptive it is not as easy to figure out what one may do if the board cannot deliver on that prescription. We will come to that issue in due course. 
New clause 3(d) inserted by the Government Administration Committee states that one of the purposes of the legislation is to: “provide for the governance of the Orchestra the duties of the board and for administrative matters”. We have said already and we will be saying this again when we come to part 2 that all that those purposes demonstrate is that this certainly is legislation from a Labour Government. It is about State control and State prescription and there is room for ministerial direction. Clause 3 states that ministerial direction is only to be in relation to governance. But when one is prescriptive about the objectives then clearly it is envisaged that if there is a view that the objectives are not being delivered on then there will be ministerial intervention. I have no doubt about that particularly under a Labour Government because that is the way that this Government has behaved in all the years it has been in Government. 
It is clear that the New Zealand public is getting sick of that. The public is getting sick of the nanny State—of State control and of the State prescribing everything. Now we are prescribing how we expect the Symphony Orchestra to perform and that just will not do. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 We now have moved on to the Committee stage and we are talking about Part 1—clauses 2 to 5. This part deals with the purpose of the bill. I would say that the purpose of this bill was to totally stuff up the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and as Georgina te Heuheu said turn it into a State-controlled orchestra. In the Minister’s haste to turn it into a State-controlled orchestra she is totally ignoring the importance of the duties of the board of the orchestra and she is ignoring the interests of the players in the orchestra—people who have spent a lifetime getting themselves to the stage where they can be chosen and have the honour to play in a symphony orchestra. I cannot help wondering that if this orchestra were the New Zealand hip-hop orchestra made up of hip-hop performers the Minister would give those performers a lot more regard and respect than she is giving the first violinists leading flautists and soloists with the Symphony Orchestra. We spent $26000 on sending a—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask that member to tone down her interjections. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I do not mind interjections but I thought running commentaries were out of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes they are. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I call on that member to take a call if she has got something constructive to say; she says she will—good. I ask the Minister to stand up in these times of cultural relativity and tell us why hip-hop performers are deemed to be more important than players in a symphony orchestra. The Minister laughs; well that is the respect she holds for players in the Symphony Orchestra. She has laughed them off the board. They are not allowed any representation on the board. It is the arrogant “We know best.” attitude that an artist or creative person cannot think and cannot be involved in the governance of the Symphony Orchestra. It is a shame. It is a disgrace that we are not going to allow creative people to be members of the board. 
I question the National Party’s wisdom. Its members have indicated they will vote with the Labour Government not to allow a member of the players’ committee to be represented on the board. I think the National Party should take another call and explain its reasons for not allowing that. ACT members do not support this bill—it will go through anyway—but we do support the amendments of two of my colleagues from United Future and the Greens that state that the Minister must appoint a players’ representative on to the board; otherwise we will end up with a Symphony Orchestra board made up of people who are great at running a company or very well versed in kaitiakitanga the tangata whenua or the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi—if they did know what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi were they would probably be the only people in New Zealand who did—but have no knowledge about the creative direction and creative purposes of a symphony orchestra. 
I do worry about that because elsewhere in this bill the orchestra is required to play to an international standard required to promote New Zealand music and required to promote New Zealand musicians. There will be no one on the board who knows about all those things who knows about international standards who knows about New Zealand music who knows whether New Zealand music is good or rubbish. It is no use playing music just because it is New Zealand music; if it is not good music the audiences will simply stay away. The purpose of this bill is to turn the orchestra into a Crown-owned entity as opposed to a limited-liability company so it cannot go broke even though it does still have to be financially accountable. But if the audiences stay away what will the Minister do when she has no one on the board who knows about the actual musical creativity of the orchestra? The Minister still has not given us a reason why she is so averse to players being on the board and I ask her to do that. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 It is difficult to understand why player representation is not wanted on the board. It might be argued that player representatives could put the interests of the players ahead of the broader interests of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra but that is unlikely to happen. When the interests of the players are greater than the interest of the public at large their representatives would have to declare that interest. 
It could be argued that such representation is not a common thing to do but that does not stand up either. If we look at the boards of tertiary institutions we see they have both student and staff representatives and that works very well. I might add that most of our tertiary institutions have much broader interests much more diverse interests and much larger budgets to administer than the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. 
It is in the interests of all board members to work collaboratively. Each is a minority and his or her views will be adopted only if he or she can convince the other board members of their merit. Regional orchestras have player representation. Australian orchestras have player representation. Who else is likely to bring the same combination of passion and knowledge about the core business of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra? Who else is able to bring the same level of experience or memory of the practical implications of decisions? 
Board membership is not a position for just any member of the orchestra but with 90 educated intelligent experienced and passionate players for the Minister to choose from I have no doubt that it will be possible to come up with a musician with a mix of experience in the areas of administration governance the community and the arts that complements the contribution of the other board members. Members of the orchestra are parents. They are members of the community. They will have been on school boards of trustees. They will have held other administrative positions. I know a number of those people. They are extraordinarily intelligent and educated individuals with a broader knowledge than just simply the knowledge of playing in an orchestra. They are the kinds of people that I would have thought were wanted on a board. They would bring a level of expertise that nobody else could bring. They would bring a level of experience that nobody else could bring. I would have thought that that experience and expertise would be vital to good decision-making. 
I have been on decision-making committees and I have noticed that when decisions are made for people who are not represented those people are resentful. I suspect that a measure of resentment would grow around a decision to exclude the players. When I think of the flare with which the players presented their submission to the Government Administration Committee I think it is the kind of flare that the orchestra could do with. They came and played; they gave their submission with a bit of flare and with a bit of buzz. If we fail to pass an amendment that will undermine the effectiveness of the board. If we pass it it will bring about a new measure of trust between the board members and the players. The legislation is good and on everything else in it I would say “Go to it!”. It will enhance the position of the orchestra. 
That the orchestra is to enhance and promote New Zealand music is a plus. There is an idea from the way that others have spoken that somehow New Zealand music is not worthy of being listened to and will not be popular. In fact any good orchestra will put together a concert mix that brings the kinds of people it wants to have in its audience—namely all New Zealanders including people who want to listen to New Zealand music. 
The Greens will be supporting the bill but we make a strong plea for the addition of player representatives on the board. The National Party’s amendment states that both may be appointed. “May” is not good enough. If we are not willing to put player representatives in there is it likely to happen? I suspect not. It is simply about making the board more democratic. “May” is not good enough. The amendment I have put up reads to omit subclause (2) of clause 12 and substitute the following clause: “The board must consist of not”— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member’s amendments are to Part 2. 
MIKE WARD 
: OK. Thank you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has more time but I just make that point. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Part 1 is the part to which the amendments from Marc Alexander on Supplementary Order paper 199 apply. The first inserts the definition of a “players’ committee” which means “a committee of players in the Orchestra established for the purpose of player representation” and the follow-on amendment to schedule 1 requires that “the Minister must ensure that the membership of the board includes at least 1 person nominated by the players’ committee.” New Zealand First supports that concept. I am rather surprised that the Government which usually tries to have a union representative involved in various boards and suchlike has opposed that view. I look forward to hearing the Minister indicate whether she supports or opposes the concept. In particular if she does oppose it would she give us a reason for doing so? 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 199 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 4 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 78 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Establishment structure and powers of Orchestra and related matters 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Part 2. Clearly it is the main area of the bill that deals with the offensive parts— the principal objectives and functions of the orchestra. Our side of the House has made it very clear that they are quite unnecessarily prescriptive and will only lead to huge confusion. In particular clause 8(c) requires the orchestra “to be a leading New Zealand performing arts organisation with a role in the development of a distinctively New Zealand cultural environment”. We hope the Minister will take a call to tell us exactly what that means. Surely it is far preferable to let that distinctive New Zealand cultural environment evolve spontaneously without prescriptive legislation. 
If one looks around the world at the great independent orchestras such as the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra the London Symphony Orchestra the London Philharmonic Orchestra and the Cleveland Orchestra there is just absolutely no doubt that all of those are independent orchestras that have demonstrated the highest pinnacle of artistic endeavour and none of them have been enshrouded with this sort of prescription. 
 Let us go on to clause 9 “Functions of Orchestra”. There we see the requirements the Labour Government wants us to put in. They include: “(a) to ensure that the orchestra presents a broad repertoire of orchestral performance …”. Has it not been doing that for years and years? They go on: “(b) to encourage the development of New Zealand musicians:”. Once again the orchestra has a clear track record of doing exactly that. Part of the reason for the orchestra’s existence is to do exactly that. The orchestra has been a shining example of achievement because without this unnecessary legislation literally hundreds of young New Zealanders have been able to develop and evolve their skills—not only for the benefit of all New Zealanders but also in terms of their international contribution. 
The functions continue: “(c) to encourage the development of New Zealanders’ knowledge and appreciation of orchestral music:”. One could continue going through the list only to find that these things are all happening anyway. Why have the legislation? Hopefully the Minister will take a moment to explain to us what the difference is and tell us whether the orchestra has been carrying out these functions. I say it has and I challenge the Minister to say anything to the contrary. 
We should bear in mind that the function under paragraph (f) states: “to carry out any other functions consistent with its principal objectives as agreed to by the Minister after consultation with the Orchestra:”. If we look at the current situation we will see that no such requirement is needed. The orchestra has flourished without it; it is quite clearly unnecessary. 
However when we go to the provisions relating to the board again we have the dilemma that has been discussed already. It is terribly important to have a clear governance role in respect of the orchestra. There are all sorts of practical difficulties that can occur particularly where the Government is the main contributor to the funding of the orchestra. In this case it is $10 million a year and the box office and corporate collections amount to about $5 million a year. There is no doubt that conflicts of interest will arise—if indeed there are difficulties—if employees are involved in the governance of their own organisation in this set of circumstances. That does not mean to say that in future sets of circumstances it would not be inappropriate. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This is a disappointing day for the Opposition parties in Parliament because if it had not been for the National Party cuddling up to the Labour Party we would have had an amendment through to make sure that there is a player representative on the board of the orchestra. Why the National Party wants to cuddle up to the Labour Party is beyond me but we have seen a clear demonstration of that here today and it has prevented a player from having a position on the board. 
We had the Labour Party cold on this one. All the other Opposition parties the Greens ACT and New Zealand First plus United Future and the Progressive Party—and I must congratulate them on giving their vote to us—voted to have a player representative on the board of the orchestra but the National Party said it did not want that and it stymied the amendment. What a shame! What has got into this National Party? Is it part of its plan to sell off the orchestra because there is no need for it any more? That is the National Party policy is it not—to spend money on the basis of need? But here we have the National Party killing an initiative of all the other Opposition parties. What a shame! What a disgrace! 
As far as the amendment from Mr Hutchison is concerned I suggest he reads the bill—in particular clause 39(2) of Part 4 in Schedule 1 which makes it clear that the chief executive must not be a member of the board. He seems to want the chief executive to be a member of the board but it was a clear consideration of the legislation that the chief executive should not be a member of the board. I am looking forward to a ruling from the Chair at some stage indicating whether his amendment is in order because it is clearly inconsistent with the rest of the bill and does not take into account my reading of clause 39(2) in Part 4 of Schedule 1. Needless to say New Zealand First cannot support that amendment. 
New Zealand First has moved a couple of amendments to Part 2. We want to make it clear in clause 8(b) that the orchestra is not just an orchestra but a full-time professional orchestra so there can be no doubt in the mind of the public and the Government in dealing with the orchestra that that is the case. We have another amendment to clause 9(g). 
Dr Hutchison made some comments about why there are changes and suchlike. Clearly where public money is involved the bill provides as I have said already that the reporting requirements should be as per the Public Finance Act. That is one of the reasons for this legislation. 
I do not intend to take any more of the Committee’s time except to repeat how disappointed I am that the National Party should cuddle up to the Labour Party and prevent a player representative from being on the board of the orchestra. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I share Dail Jones’ disappointment. I wonder how the Minister thinks the players will feel about her rejection. Who else has a greater interest in the success of the orchestra? It is their professional status that is on the line. Let the Government reflect well on that status. Players are going to make good decisions—the kinds of decisions that ensure that the orchestra is regarded well in the community. They have every interest in working cooperatively with the board to make sure that the decisions made are in the best interests of that board. 
Who has a greater investment in the orchestra? I do not know how many members know of any young musicians but I imagine that most of them have experience of young people growing up with a passion for music. It is all-absorbing and takes up a vast amount of their lives. Those who end up in the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra are the cream of these. I have taught such young people and they are not just musicians; they are extremely intelligent able capable individuals who play a full part in the life of their schools. 
Including players as members of the board is essential to the proper functioning of the board. Not only that it would bring a flair and an excitement to the board that would not otherwise be there. I have served on an arts council and I have chaired a community arts council with other artists. These people bring a passion and commitment to their work and knowledge that others cannot bring. They also bring a creative flair to that work. It is not just about making businesslike decisions—that is extremely important and there will be board members who will ensure that happens—it is also about bringing a creative skill to the work and that makes their presence highly desirable. 
My amendment to clause 12 is: “To omit subclause (2) and substitute the following subclause: (2) The board must consist of not fewer than 5 members and not more than 8 members (including the chairperson) appointed by the Minister. One of these members must be a permanent player of the orchestra appointed by the Minister after consultation with orchestra players.” 
As I said before the inclusion of the chief executive on the board would be unusual. The chief executive has a very large say in the running of the orchestra. That person is the one employee of the board and will have a great deal of influence in advising the board and providing information to it for many of the decisions it makes. That influence is very keenly felt at all times. The influence of the board members is less likely to be felt. 
We will continue to support the bill. It is a good bill that supports a very grand and important cultural institution in this country. But it is really important that a player representative is included on the board. We will be disappointed—and I am sure the players will be bitterly disappointed—if they are once again rejected. I would like to think however that since the Minister can appoint she will take into account the submissions of New Zealand First ACT United Future and the Progressives in support of this amendment. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 Part 2 is the main part of this legislation. I would like to guide the National Party if I can. What we have here today is MMP working. We have United Future New Zealand First the Green Party and ACT all agreeing that there must be provision in this legislation for a representative from the players in the orchestra to be on the board. It is really important that we do not have a board that is concerned only with financial and governance matters. Sure they are important—they are vitally important—but the players’ committee submitted to the select committee that they wish to be on there because that is how this legislation will be put in place. We must have someone there who knows about the artistic and musical objectives of the orchestra. They need to know what is of an international standard and what is good New Zealand music but the National Party and the Labour Party are united in their opposition to having a representative from the players the actual people in the orchestra on the board. 
I am puzzled as to why that should be. All I can imagine the reason as being is that they think that because some people are artistic and can play a musical instrument they have absolutely no knowledge of financial matters and that it should all be left to the people who know best. This is what MMP is all about and I would urge the National Party to change its stance. Why is it that we cannot have a player on the board? Is it because the Prime Minister does not want a player on the board and wants to have total control over the orchestra? 
This bill is about control. It is overly prescriptive. It goes into excessive detail as to what the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra must and must not do. For instance it must be artistically imaginative and must play to an international standard and the board is required to make sure that these things happen. How can the board ensure that these things happen without having someone on the board who is actually part of the orchestra—an actual player in the orchestra who is down in the orchestra pit at the cliff face doing what really matters to get those people into the venues and listening to the orchestra? Without it it just ain’t going to happen. 
What happens if these board members do not meet the principal objectives which I have just spelt out a few of which are so prescriptive? If they do not meet these objectives the Minister has the power to remove them from office. So here we have an impossible situation set up—absolutely impossible. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is being set up to fail because National and Labour will not allow a representative from the orchestra to be on the board to ensure that the principal objectives are carried out the principles that only a member of the orchestra can be fully knowledgable about. Only an orchestra member can be fully knowledgable about how we get to those principal objectives and how they are carried out. Only a member of the orchestra can do that. 
The Prime Minister does not want one on the board we know. She wants to control the orchestra and the National Party does not want one there and I would advise them very strongly to think very carefully about the way they vote and I would also remind people that this is why they need the ACT party in Parliament. If the National Party is in Government next time it will need ACT there to remind it about how MMP actually works. That is why we will be supporting the amendment that has been put forward by Mike Ward of the Greens to clause 2. His amendment states: “The board must consist of not fewer than five members and not more than eight members including the chairperson appointed by the Minister. One of these members must be a permanent player of the orchestra appointed by the Minister after consultation with orchestra players.” We are not dealing with a State-owned enterprise. The orchestra is a Crown-owned entity. There is a difference. 
There may be an objection that there is a precedent to be set. Well if we are going to have legislation that controls and rules how our Symphony Orchestra operates—an organisation that is by its nature made up of a number of creative individuals—then the orchestra must have a representative on the board. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on Part 2 of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. I am not sure whether the Minister has taken a call but I would like the Minister to take a call and explain to us why it is that her Government—or the Minister really; I know she puts a lot of effort into arts and culture—has seen fit to be so prescriptive and I will refer to the prescriptive nature of the bill in a minute or two. I have had the good fortune to be able to spend some time in that sector as well but I have real difficulty with the situation that we are seen to be promoting cultural artistic integrity and artistic independence on the one hand but on the other hand loading the orchestra up with these very prescriptive objectives and functions. I see the Minister writing some notes and I do look forward to her taking a call to explain that tension. 
There certainly is a tension. I have already said I think this bill is an overkill. It is extremely important that there is a framework to ensure accountability for taxpayers’ money—$10 million. In some respects $10 million is not as much as the bulk of funds that go to other organisations but $10 million is still $10 million. I certainly can see the point in ensuring a proper framework for financial accountability but I personally cannot see the point of objectives that spell out things like the those set out in clause 8 “Principal objectives of Orchestra”. Clause 8 states: “(a) to provide the public of New Zealand with live and recorded performances of symphonic music performed to an international standard: (b) to provide an orchestra that—(i) is highly skilled and artistically imaginative; and (ii) has strong community support: (c) to be a leading New Zealand performing arts organisation” and so on and so forth. 
Has not the orchestra been doing all that anyway and without having it prescribed in legislation? I want the Minister to take a call and tell us what it is that has been missing in the activities and the performance of the orchestra in past years that makes it so important for this House in urgency to spend an inordinate amount of time on this bill that sets out piece by piece what it is that we expect this orchestra to do. 
Clause 9 sets out the functions of the orchestra and this is like telling the orchestra how to suck eggs in my view. The orchestra is the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. It has shown its creativity its imaginative approach to its tasks in former years and in clause 9 its functions are set out. It must have a “broad repertoire of orchestral performance” and it must “encourage the development of New Zealanders’ knowledge and appreciation of orchestral music:”. It has been doing that. It must “encourage the development of New Zealand musicians:”. The orchestra has been doing that and it will continue to do that. It does not need any of those functions set out in legislation. 
Another function listed in clause 9(f) is “to carry out any other functions consistent with its principal objectives”—and here is a bit that deserves special mention—“as agreed to by the Minister”. Now what does that mean? So clause 9 (f) states: “to carry out any other functions consistent with its principal objectives as agreed to by the Minister after consultation with the Orchestra:”. As if clause 8 and clause 9 do not have enough prescription! There is room in clause 9(f) for the Minister to have some more say. 
 I am not sure about what but then I guess it is not surprising when there is a Government like the current one which thinks it is necessary to have a nose and an arm and a leg and everything in all that these institutions do. In particular it thinks it is appropriate to do that in an institution that we all want to fly with artistic integrity. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I just want to make a couple of observations as this bill progresses and one is this. The Labour Party which traditionally has always stood by the working man and working woman of this country refuses to stand up for the rights of the representation of the working people of the orchestra—the players themselves who have been denied a voice by this Labour Government. Why one has to ask? They are talented individuals who ought to have representation on a board. They are not a bunch of idiots whose sole claim to fame is the fact that they can play beautiful music. They have brains and they have the right to have representation. 
For a party that prides itself on giving voice to minorities to now turn around and deny that voice to the players it reeks—it absolutely reeks. How National can come aboard and jump into bed with Labour on this I have absolutely no idea. When all the other parties are trying to work constructively to allow the very players to have their right to be represented on the board why deny representation? That is what I ask National. Who is National answerable to in terms of support—is this where it is coming from? Are those members scared of somebody on the board—is that who they are answerable to and is that why they want to deny representation to the players? Who are they afraid of that they would rather climb into bed with Labour than work constructively alongside all the other parties? It is absolutely shameful. 
The players would add quite a lot to the board. They would provide a players’ perspective and a voice for the legitimate concerns that players want addressed. This would promote understanding of orchestral issues. Giving players a voice on the board would allow them to advance artistic experience from an artistic point of view which is something Labour is deciding not to provide and something that National—for some obscure reason—is deciding to go along with Labour and agree with it on. 
The one question I have to ask both parties is why they do not trust the players. Why do those parties not trust players to have a voice on the board to allow them to say what needs to be said for their own interests? Those members want to hear their music but they do not want to hear their voices and that is utterly shameful of both of those parties. 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I rise in this debate to answer some of the questions and assertions that have been made. The role of the board of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is to run an orchestra that in the 2002-03 year reported turnover of about $15 million; only $10.124 million of which came from the Government. 
It is the biggest performing arts organisation in New Zealand. This legislation will change it from a Crown-owned company a limited liability company under the Companies Act of 1993 to an autonomous non-company Crown entity because the Government recognises that the role of this organisation is to run a world-class New Zealand touring orchestra throughout New Zealand providing the best board support the best management the best players and the best music. New Zealand deserves that and we need it to express our culture here in New Zealand. 
The players have absolute rights to be heard at an artistic level in terms of the operations of the orchestra and indeed the players’ committee meet regularly with the management and the board and provide a wonderful contribution at every level. However the fact is that this orchestra is being brought into line with other Crown-owned entities so that there is clear accountability clear performance requirements and clear outlines for everyone involved. 
Clause 14 in schedule 1 “Administrative provisions applying to board and further transitional provisions” talks about conflict of interest. If a player or particularly the chief executive officer were put on the board those people would be put in a position where they would be in conflict of interest because they benefit from the decisions the board makes like terms and conditions of their employment. The board needs to make the decisions it needs to make and this Government is very passionate about workers. The rights of the players are absolutely protected and encouraged and the present board is doing a wonderful job raising corporate sponsorship and raising the visibility of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. 
I am truly delighted to see ACT members being such staunch advocates of the workers and I will be looking for their support in holidays legislation and labour legislation. But of course it is crocodile tears because those members oppose the bill—as does National. Paul Hutchison has asked us why we are putting up detailed legislation. Let me tell National and ACT members it is because the music community and the public of New Zealand are scared that if there were ever a Government with National or ACT in it it would destroy the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. I take it from the speeches that National and ACT have made in this House today that they would destroy the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. They would withdraw the Government funding and see the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra destroyed taken out of New Zealand’s culture and I want absolute assurances from those parties that that is not what they intend. I am deeply concerned by the tone of the ACT and National speakers and I say to them that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is absolutely vital in New Zealand to music across the board. I am disgusted at those members’ approach. They say they care about the orchestra music and the players but no one in those two parties cares at all. 
The role of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is a very broad one. I say that all of the amendments on the Supplementary Order Papers are not possible in terms of the work of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. For example one of the amendments put forward by Brian Donnelly wants the orchestra to be described as a full-time professional orchestra. Right well the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra right now contracts its players for 25 hours a week. Members in this House will say—as will I am sure those who are attacking hip-hop and everything else that is happening and is good and energetic in New Zealand culture—that it is outrageous that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra players play only 25 hours a week. Well of course they do not—they teach. They are mentors. They are involved in chamber music and string quartets. They are involved in schools and universities in opera and in the vast range and full variety of music in this country including wonderful contemporary music and including hip-hop. What I say is that if we had a definition that all of the orchestra must be made up of full-time professionals presumably that would mean that we would not let students in at all. This is a ridiculous set of amendments that should be rejected by the House. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Part 2 of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. That was quite a rant and a rave that members have just heard from the Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. I would like to contest some of the points she was making. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: It’s called a crescendo. 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is right; it was a crescendo. We will come to the musical terms in a minute and see who knows some of them. She says that New Zealanders deserve the best and she is quite right—we do deserve the best. But this bill will not provide the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra with the best environment in which it can thrive. 
The clear fact of the matter is that the Government does not trust the players. Mr Alexander was quite right in the comments he made and the members from other parties who support Mike Ward’s amendment were also quite right. There is a very clear reason for a player not being part of the board—unless we can persuade the National Party to join our ranks over here—and it is that the players are not trusted. Quite why that is I do not know. The boards of trustees for schools have student representatives. Many boards have representatives of the people they represent and they are the best people to provide the good advice that the boards need. Nobody disputes that that advice is needed. The Minister said the players meet with the board 
anyway. Nobody gives better-quality advice than somebody who has voting rights on a board. If the Minister were honest with herself she would admit that. 
Clauses 8 and 9 in Part 2 are another indication that the players are not trusted. Clause 8 discusses the principal objectives of the orchestra. Clause 8(a) states: “to provide the public of New Zealand with live and recorded performances of symphonic music performed to an international standard:”. I ask the Minister how on earth we can legislate to reach an international standard. Will the Minister take responsibility for judging that? Will she say whether the first violins’ vibrato is vibratory enough? Will she say that the flautist is playing pianissimo instead of piano? What will she do to the pianist who inadvertently mixes his upper and lower mordents? Will it be the Minister in the chair who decides that? The definition of “Minister” states: “the Minister who under the authority of any warrant or with the authority of the Prime Minister” so perhaps the Prime Minister will decide whether the upper mordent was played correctly or whether it should have been the lower. Maybe she does not know the difference. It would be nice to know who will determine that. It is clearly unrealistic to legislate that the orchestra play to an international standard. 
Clause 8(b) states: “to provide an orchestra that—(i) is highly skilled and artistically imaginative;”. I notice that there is no definition of “artistically imaginative”. Perhaps the Minister would like to tell us what exactly that means. No she does not know. If it cannot be defined why has it been put in the bill as a principal objective that the orchestra must reach? 
Clause 9 “Functions of Orchestra” is just as absurd as the principal objectives. Clause 9(a) states: “to ensure that the orchestra presents a broad repertoire of orchestral performance including New Zealand works and recent works:”. Will we have a quota? Will we have a 25 percent New Zealand music quota in the same way that radio stations are supposed to play that amount? The Minister yawns. I ask her whether New Zealand music is not up to scratch or whether 25 percent is not the right level of quota that she is going to tell us we need to hear. Another function is “to encourage the development of New Zealand musicians:”. I contend that the people who pay good money to go and listen to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra want good-quality music. Sometimes they like to hear New Zealand music but they want to go along and hear good-quality symphonic music. We know already that it is to be of an international standard. 
The ridiculousness of those two clauses is really beyond belief. The power of the Minister—from the definition of “Minister” the Prime Minister could be involved too—leaves this measure wide open for political interference as is much of the legislation that has come before this Parliament of late. The ACT party will not support this part of the bill. It will support the amendments. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First has a couple of amendments to Part 2 before the Committee. One amendment is to delete the words “an orchestra” and insert in their place the words “a full time professional orchestra”. One of the reasons for that is set out in the submission of the players’ committee to the Government Administration Committee. The players’ committee made the point that if the legislation does not specify that the orchestra is full-time future Governments may attempt to achieve the objectives with a part-time orchestra. It is essential that the orchestra is full-time if excellence and the orchestra’s other objectives are to be achieved. The phrase “full-time professional” occurs in the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra’s mission statement. If it is good enough for the mission statement why can it not be in the legislation? It is as simple as that. 
Another amendment is about ring-fencing a board position for a player. That amendment is in the name of Mike Ward. New Zealand First will support Mike Ward’s amendment. We are astonished that the National Party should not want to support such an amendment. It shows that the National Party and the Labour Party are up to their old tricks and are still playing the old game of working together to stop other parties in an MMP environment from exercising their views. It is such a simple little amendment and is supported by even the Progressive party. United Future the Greens ACT and New Zealand First also support it—what a combination from the left to the right! We are prepared to support Mike Ward’s amendment but the National Party is again cuddling up to the Labour Party and does not want to do so. The National Party did the same at the time of the confidence vote at the beginning of this year. It really has not changed its spots. 
In clause 9(g) New Zealand First also wants to add after the word “Orchestra” the words: “to the extent that it does not compromise the Orchestra’s ability to fulfil its other obligations”. We do not want the orchestra to be too bogged down by some of the provisions set out in the legislation. We want to make sure that there is a ring-fenced board position for a player who will provide a useful perspective and a range of experiences and skills in all board deliberations and activities. That will match overseas practice. What is wrong with our orchestra going about it in exactly the same way as overseas orchestras? Dr Hutchison has mentioned overseas orchestras from time to time. Why should our Symphony Orchestra’s legislation not match overseas practice as well? 
I am terribly disappointed that Dr Hutchison withdrew his amendment. Perhaps he realised it was totally out of order being in conflict with Part 1 and clause 39 but it was very disappointing that on the one hand he gave some indication that he might support the United Future amendment or the Green party amendment but in the next breath he decided to pull out altogether. It seems to be a very unusual state of affairs on National’s part. I request the support of members of the Chamber for New Zealand First’s other amendments. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (b) the words “an orchestra” and substitute the words “a full time professional orchestra”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 39 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 78 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to clause 9 be agreed to: 
to add to paragraph (g) the words “to the extent that it does not compromise the Orchestra’s ability to fulfil its other obligations”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 30 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 87 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Mike Ward to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2) and substitute the following subclause: 
(2)The board must consist of not fewer than 5 members and not more than 8 members (including the chairperson) appointed by the Minister. One of these members must be a permanent player of the orchestra appointed by the Minister after consultation with orchestra players. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 78 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to clause 12 be agreed to: 
to amend subclause (2) by adding the words “ one of whom shall be representative of the permanent players of the orchestra”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule 1 Administrative provisions applying to board and further transitional provisions 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to insert after the word “governance” the word “ artistic”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 199 in the name of Marc Alexander to add new subclause (2) to clause 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 39 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 78 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Marc Alexander to add the following new subclause to clause 1 be agreed to: 
(2)In addition to the criteria set out in subclause (1) the Minister must ensure that the membership of the board includes at least 1 person nominated by the players’ committee. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 78 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
Schedule 2 Amendments to other enactments 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
Clause 1 Title 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Associate Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill be now read a third time 
. This legislation once again demonstrates this Government’s commitment to ensuring the ongoing availability—and excellence—of the arts culture and heritage of this country to the people of New Zealand and everyone who visits us. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra a flagship performing arts organisation makes a vital contribution to the development of New Zealand’s unique cultural environment. 
We had some comment during the course of the debate about the need for the breadth and depth of New Zealand culture to be reflected and I was recalling the absolutely wonderful concert that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra played during the recent International Festival of the Arts. Tan Dun probably the pre-eminent Chinese composer of symphonic music conducted a performance that every New Zealander whether or not interested in symphonic music whether of Chinese European Maori or any other background would have found the most uplifting and exciting bit of contemporary music he or she had heard for a long time. It was an example of the excellence the breadth and the depth of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. 
This orchestra was founded in 1946. It gave its first public performance as the National Symphony Orchestra of New Zealand in 1947 and has continued to maintain its status as New Zealand’s greatest orchestra. For 57 years New Zealanders have had the pleasure of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra’s performances of primarily symphonic music which are of international standard. The board is sure of that the management is sure of that the players are sure of that and the public affirm that. This legislation now acknowledges that level of excellence and requires it to be ongoing. The legislation specifies for the first time the Government’s expectations of the orchestra by setting out the orchestra’s principal objectives and functions. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Act 1988 which will be repealed on the commencement of this bill did not prescribe the purposes or the functions of the orchestra nor the Government’s expectations of it. 
I find it deeply concerning that the National Party and ACT oppose this legislation. I think it is the first time in history that we have seen this sort of split between the Government and the Opposition on a national institution of this sort. I am deeply concerned and I want absolute assurances from the National Party and ACT that if they ever get into Government again they will not set out to destroy this orchestra because that is what I take from their opposition throughout the Committee stage and throughout the course of this bill. I believe they are threatening the existence of one of the most important cultural institutions of this country. It is the first time ever that we have not had bipartisan support for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. I am deeply concerned and my concern and the concern of the rest of New Zealand results in the need for a bill with this sort of detail—so that the next Bill Birch or the next Don Brash coming into this House does not destroy the absolute foundations of our culture. 
The primary purpose of this legislation is to change the status of the orchestra from a limited-liability company to an autonomous non-company Crown entity which will ensure the orchestra can fulfil its functions in both artistic and cultural terms and can be efficient effective and accountable in financial terms. I believe that it is a much better format and structure for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. This legislation also clarifies the orchestra’s role as a national touring orchestra by explicitly specifying its principal functions. Although its principal objectives and functions are aspirational they do require some subjective decisions to be made and some subjective views to be held. I am deeply concerned that this is the first time we have ever had National and ACT opposing the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra across the board across the whole of this legislation. 
Those objectives and functions emphasise the orchestra’s leadership role and its central role in New Zealand’s cultural landscape and also require the orchestra to promote and encourage New Zealand symphonic music and composers and the performance level across New Zealand. When I think of the work that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra has done to promote people like Gareth Farr probably New Zealand’s finest composer today wonderful composers like Jack Body and Douglas Lilburn’s work and its promotion of New Zealand and New Zealand music I consider it has excelled at every level. I do not understand why the National Party and ACT want to destroy this fabulous organisation. This legislation will give the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra some measure of protection so that any Government coming in cannot destroy the orchestra without bringing its intentions to Parliament and making really clear what it is doing. 
In meeting those objectives of course the orchestra must operate in a financially responsible manner retaining its financial viability. This bill will require it to do that. It will also require it to have regard to Government policy on matters of general administration that are consistent with the principal objectives and functions. It is indicating a degree of autonomy for the orchestra right across the artistic area while also defining its relationship with Ministers and the Government. In all artistic matters the orchestra will be empowered to operate independently and without ministerial direction. That provision reflects the well-established arm’s-length principle for funding cultural agencies that operates in New Zealand and internationally. 
In the policy development of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill player representation on the orchestra’s board was considered. Player representation was also raised as an issue in submissions. The players have a central and vital role of course. Without the players there is no orchestra and the players committee will continue to be consulted actively frequently and ordinarily by the board and the management. Of course the players are there but the crocodile tears we have seen shed by National and ACT saying they support the players while opposing the whole existence of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra are outrageous. I have much more respect for the other parties that have supported player representation being written into the bill in solid form but also have supported the legislation as a whole. They do not want the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra destroyed but National and ACT do. It is a general principle that special-interest groups are not represented on the board. 
I believe that the board is doing a wonderful job. I thank the board the management the players the friends of the orchestra and the public who support the orchestra. I believe that this legislation will support its independence artistic range and excellence clear accountability and the good use of public money. I say now to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra that we should get on with the music and make sure we protect the orchestra from the attacks of people in this Parliament who want to see it destroyed. 
Debate interrupted. 
Voting 
Correction 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I advise members that the vote on Mike Ward’s amendment to clause 12(2) of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill was incorrectly announced. The correct result is Ayes 78 Noes 41. 
New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak once again on the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill—an orchestra that the National Party believes should flourish and thoroughly supports. But we thoroughly support it in a climate of artistic independence and artistic excellence not in a shroud of prescriptive State control as the Minister wishes. 
For a moment in the Minister’s third reading speech it was quite refreshing to think that she was going to stay in  
lente 
 pianissimo  
mode. But no she wound up to an absolute cadenza of excitement with variations on a theme of Mount Egmont perhaps erupting but certainly not to be compared with that wonderful Egmont overture with its hugely wonderful emanations of magnificence. But no this Minister of the Labour Government unfortunately could not contain herself. She could not recall that she is one of a Government that has kept on saying what a great orchestra the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra is—under the present legislation that has allowed it to flourish. That legislation has allowed young New Zealand musicians to flourish and it has allowed the orchestra to become one of the world’s great orchestras. But no this Government Minister wants to enshroud it with functions and objectives that will only curb its freedom. 
I was quite fascinated to hear my colleague Pansy Wong say that when the title was discussed she suggested—in consideration of the way the Prime Minister and Government are wanting this enormous amount of prescription—that the name of this bill be the “Comrade Symphony Orchestra Bill”. That is the very sort of artistic decrescendo this Labour Government sadly is descending into. 
Earlier on I brought up the experience I had of the Shanghai Symphony Orchestra coming to New Zealand some 20 years ago. I said that the first part of the concert—the  
Yellow River Concerto 
 and  
Taking Tiger Mountain 
by Storm— 
had been such a dull boring performance. I wonder whether what we might be seeing now is the New Zealand equivalent—so maybe “Helen and the Dreamers Take Mount Taranaki by Central Control” or the “Hutt River Concerto” or the “Michael Cullen Piano Minuet”. But maybe that could be a little pretty. 
Undoubtedly it is a matter of great shame for the Labour Government that it has decided to shackle this treasured national orchestra of ours with such ridiculous functions and objectives as outlined in this bill. Why is it necessary for the State to say that this orchestra must have a role in the development of a distinctively New Zealand cultural environment? The Minister was not able to explain what that is. Surely the public of New Zealand would wish that that distinctively New Zealand cultural environment was something spontaneous that could sustain itself from the spontaneous wishes of that public. 
When one goes on and reads in clause 9 “Functions of Orchestra” that the Minister must consult the orchestra and has a very pivotal part in carrying out “functions consistent with its principal objectives”—as agreed to by that very same Minister—one is very concerned indeed. The structure of the existing limited-liability company is one in which the State has absolutely no expectation of what the orchestra plays or how it plays it. As my colleague from ACT Heather Roy pointed out before too long the State will dictate how the violins play. It is absurd but it is the sort of thing that could happen under this Labour Government and New Zealand’s national orchestra is far too precious for that to occur. That is why the National Party of New Zealand is so deeply concerned at the way this Government is trying to shape and mould one of our artistic icons. 
There has been a fair amount of discussion and concern about the board’s structure—[ 
Interruption 
] The member is quite right—and once again I think it is important to point out this Labour Government’s inconsistencies. Here—and quite rightly Mr Cosgrove—the Labour Government is being pure in terms of its governance structure. There is a $15 million budget but when it comes to the 21 district health boards with a budget of $8 billion the Government insists on boards elected by majority. When it is the big picture the Government has no concern for the financial disciplines that are so hugely important. 
Certainly there are whole variations in the structures of orchestras around the world and in some of the most successful orchestras such as the London Symphony Orchestra founded in 1904. It is an independent orchestra that has deserved its tremendous reputation by being supported entirely by the public with no Government help. It is absolutely sensitive to the public and absolutely insensitive to Government control. What do we have in New Zealand? We have the Labour Government making one of our icons more and more unresponsive to the very important disciplines of being both commercial and responsive to public concerns about the sort of music it plays. Oh no! What the Government wants to do is prescribe the music. That is anathema to what musicians and music lovers want. 
It is interesting that through the committee structure the orchestra has at present it has consistently met the board prior to every meeting so there is a two-way exchange of views between the board and the musicians. If one goes to the criteria for appointing board members in clause 1 of schedule 1 one sees it is important that: “In making appointments to the board … the Minister must in particular have regard to the need for members to have among them an appropriate balance of governance and financial skills and an awareness of artistic matters relevant to the role of the board.” So it is very clearly spelt out. 
This bill has certainly come from deep within the minds and genes of the New Zealand Labour Party. The essence of the question is should the ability of an orchestra to flourish and pursue artistic independence and excellence be curbed by unnecessary State-directed functions and objectives? The Labour Government says “Yes”; the National Party says “No”. This bill is off-key out of tune and even if the Labour Government flatly denies it its shrill crescendos of fortissimo make no difference to the fact that it is prescribing State control. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 This is a good bill that has had considerable debate in the House during this urgency process. The important principle underpinning this bill is that of artistic freedom. The bill will absolutely ensure that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra can operate without ministerial direction in all artistic matters. We are incredibly fortunate in New Zealand with the calibre and quality of the Symphony Orchestra. 
I am pleased to support this bill. It has had huge discussion during the urgency motion. I think the best thing we can do now is move it on and have it passed so that New Zealanders can continue to enjoy the high-quality music we have come to expect from the orchestra. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This legislation transforms control of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra from that of a limited-liability company to an autonomous non-company Crown entity. It allows the Crown which spends about $10 million on the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra to have some reporting requirements as set out in the Public Finance Act of 1989. It has been quite interesting in the last few weeks and months in this House to hear members of especially the ACT party criticise the way in which public money is spent. Time and time again there is criticism of how this money is spent where it is going and what is being done with it. Here we have a bill that allows the House to have more say over how public money is being spent yet the ACT party opposes it as does the National Party. There is a real inconsistency about the way in which they go about their business. Or is it because this is a New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and they want to criticise it? They do not want to get too involved with it and other people are more easily attacked by the National Party and by the ACT party. 
Regardless of that this bill will now allow greater criticism of Government expenditure by this body. In so far as control is concerned anyone who cares to read clauses 8 and 9(a) to (e) can see quite clearly that the Government can have no control over the provisions in those clauses. The only way in which the Government can have any involvement is with regard to carrying out any other functions. If the Government is going to do something other than as set out in clauses 8 and 9(a) to (e) only then can it become involved. Clearly if the Government does become involved everyone will be informed because that is the type of country New Zealand is. 
We wanted more involvement of the players in the decision making and in the ability to make comments on what was going to happen. One would have thought the ACT party would support that and of course it did. One would have thought the National Party might support that. But naturally enough when it comes to something that might get through this House from the point of view of other parties National opposed it. It cuddled up with the Labour Party in the Committee stage and prevented players from having a representative on the board. 
One would have thought that if the National Party were concerned about the way in which the board might act the way in which it might be interfered with by the Government and the way in which the board might be required to follow up Government policy the National Party would want a player on the board. But no no players on the board for the National Party! It opposed that entirely. 
It was disappointing to see the Progressive party the United Future party—the United Future party put up the amendment in the first place—the Greens ACT and New Zealand First all prepared to support an amendment to put a player on the board of the new organisation and the National Party opposed it. The National Party had its own amendment at one stage along those lines. One thought that perhaps the National Party wanted only to support its own amendment and be churlish and not support someone else’s amendment. In the end finally National withdrew its own amendment as someone realised that perhaps National had made a mistake and was possibly doing something that might improve the bill. It is very disappointing to see the National Party working in with the Labour Party in this way and obviously all concerned will take notice of the situation. 
New Zealand First moved a number of amendments. We wanted to make it clear that the orchestra was going to be a full-time orchestra. That was not successful. We put together a number of other amendments which had been supported by the players committee of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra but unfortunately they were unsuccessful. 
This is the third reading of the bill. Overall the bill has passed through the House. New Zealand First goes along with the legislation. It brings everything up to date. There are provisions in the bill that ensure the Minister cannot have absolute control and we look forward to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra continuing as it has done so well in the past. 
I use the word “continuing” of course because we know from the policy of the National Party that it would be the first to sell up or close down the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra if it became the Government. As we know the National Party is working on the principle of need. Is there a need for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra? I say that Dr Don Brash would say immediately: “No there is no need for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra.” Brian Connell seems to agree that there is no need for the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. If he does not agree with me he is being very inconsistent because it seems that “need” is a word that is used as defined in the minds of certain National Party people not in the way it appears in the dictionary. That is even more dangerous than simply just acting on the basis of need. 
As someone who enjoys listening to Radio New Zealand and Concert FM I say that I am also concerned that the National Party will sell off Radio New Zealand because there is no need for a State-owned radio station that runs things like Concert FM. Mr Connell is quiet now so that suggests to me that the sale of Radio New Zealand is very much on the agenda for Dr Don Brash and his party. I would like to hear the next National Party person who takes a call deny because he or she has spoken to Dr Brash about it that National will sell Radio New Zealand if it becomes the Government. Overall we are very pleased to support this legislation. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I know that Judith Tizard cares about the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra and this bill is an expression of that care. Who could doubt the Government’s commitment to the arts? Having spent a good deal of my life in the arts made a living as an artist for 25 years and spent a great deal of my time with artists I understand that they are a particular breed of people. They think differently they do things differently and they are by and large among the cleverest people I ever taught. I can recall the number of times that I had arts students who went on to do fine arts and the other teachers would ask why they did not do science geography or something else—they could do any of those things. 
Among the artists and the artistic community and I would say among the orchestral community we have people of very great skill very great ability and very great breadth of ability and skill. It is the kind of skill and ability that the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra in particular needs because an orchestra is not like any other Crown-owned entity. It is a special kind of organisation that thrives on creativity and flair. Most organisations thrive on creativity and flair but orchestras in particular do so. It would be a pity if this orchestra did not benefit in a very intimate way from the musicians being there as the board decisions are made. 
That is not provided for explicitly although it is in the bill that the Minister may appoint members of the orchestra and I am hopeful that she will do that. As I said I do not doubt her passion for the arts and her commitment to this orchestra. I am hopeful she will take advantage of the provisions in the bill to appoint members of the orchestra on the grounds of their ability—not simply because they are players but because they have the mix of skills needed. As I said before artists are normally integral parts of their community. 
I know a number of these musicians and I know of the roles they have played in other organisations in the community. They have governance skills they know about organisation they know about finances and they know about making music. The special flair they bring is an intimate understanding of the rigours of life in an orchestra. That is the kind of intimate knowledge that needs to be there as the board’s decisions are being made. It is not something that should be called on from time to time; the musicians should be in there and making their input as those decisions are being made. 
I do not share the Minister’s concerns that maybe National or ACT will demolish the orchestra should they get into power. Nor do I think the Opposition’s concern that Labour will dictate how the first violinists play is warranted either. I am sure we all have the best interests of this orchestra at heart and I believe that this bill will enhance the interests of the orchestra. As I said before I am hopeful that the Minister will look at the skills and background of the orchestral players who are nominated for the board and make the appointments on the basis of those skills. We will be supporting this bill. We are delighted to see it here and I know that it has the support of the majority in the House. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the third reading of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill. We do of course find ourselves in the ridiculous situation of debating this bill in urgency. It is hardly a hugely urgent matter that requires all 120 members of the House to stay until midnight for several nights to debate it. Plenty of members on the other side were yawning before so they are obviously feeling the strain. Urgency should be used for matters requiring urgent attention. ACT New Zealand will not be supporting this bill as we indicated in our speeches in the first and second readings. 
This bill restructures the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra from a limited liability company financially responsible for itself to a non-company Crown entity. That is the fundamental matter that the ACT party and I believe the National Party are opposed to. In the introduction debate Minister Maharey said that the bill is to ensure the orchestra’s financial viability. If we look carefully at that it means that the Government will not allow the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra to go broke or go under. 
Minister Tizard however in the Committee stage talked about how well things were going that the orchestra was doing well financially and said that only a little of its overall spending came from Government funding. If that is the case it raises the question as to why any action is required. When I was preparing my introduction speech I looked at the 2001-02 annual report of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. It said that it had recorded a better than budget income and lower than forecast expenditure and that reflected sound management underpinned by sure-footed artistic decisions that had resulted in significant increases in audience numbers throughout the country. So why is it deemed necessary to change the formula at all? I contend that this legislation is not necessary. 
The symphony orchestra has been very worried about sponsorship. Many members of the House will remember as I do the very successful tours the National Orchestra used to undertake to the provinces. We have not seen many of those of late. The orchestra put on successful summer pops concerts and they were very well attended by the public at large. It was able to do that because it had very good sponsors. I think BP Oil sponsored those tours. 
Clause 9 lists the functions of the orchestra and one of them is “to encourage the development of New Zealanders’ knowledge and appreciation of orchestral music”. I cannot think of a time when the symphony orchestra did this function better than when those summer pops concerts were held around the country. Not only did lovers of symphonic orchestral music go along but they were able to take their children because the music was wide ranging and had broad appeal. That cannot be said of many of the ordinary concerts that people go to. 
My children love going to the orchestra when they hear something they recognise. They cannot however sit through a 2-hour performance of very highbrow music. Some of the snobbery that exists I think in society today does not sit comfortably with the requirement in paragraph (c) of clause 9 “to encourage the development of New Zealanders’ knowledge and appreciation of orchestral music”. 
I turn to another issue in the commentary—that is the recognition of professional regional orchestras. There are several professional regional orchestras doing an extraordinarily good job. The Auckland Philharmonia is one and the Wellington Sinfonia and Southern Sinfonia are others. In fact the Wellington Sinfonia regularly plays for the Royal New Zealand Ballet when it comes to town. It is a very well-thought-of and respected sinfonia. 
The Government Administration Committee reported: “We note that the bill does not provide any recognition of New Zealand’s professional regional orchestras such as the Auckland Philharmonia and the Wellington and Southern Sinfonias.” It describes why that is not going to happen and concludes: “We therefore wish to offer our support and recognition of New Zealand’s professional regional orchestras that serve New Zealand audiences so well.” I am sure that will be of significant consolation to those orchestras! 
This bill is another example of the Government picking favourites. In this case it is the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. Far from setting out to destroy the symphony orchestra as the Minister stood up and ranted at us with claims that ACT and National are trying to destroy the symphony orchestra ACT pleads guilty only to trying to provide a level playing field for all professional orchestras in this country that provide enjoyment and entertainment for New Zealanders. The Minister is just scaremongering when she repeatedly says we are trying to destroy the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. 
When we look at the principal objectives and functions in the bill we see they are overly prescriptive and clearly unrealistic. How can anybody legislate for music to be played of an international standard and who will determine whether the music reaches that standard? And how is it possible to legislate for artistic imagination? What do we mean by “artistic imagination” and how can we legislate for that? 
I want to make brief mention of how particularly disturbing it is—and the ACT party along with United Future New Zealand First and the Greens made great mention of this—that there is no place for player representation on the board of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. ACT supported the amendments that were put forward in this regard as we felt very strongly that the players should be represented and be represented seriously by giving them a voting right on the board of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra. I will not go on to explain this in detail as the other parties have done it very well. 
The question arises of why the Labour Government supports this bill so vigorously. Well this bill is a symbol. It is a symbol that is reminiscent I think of the  
Titanic 
. The Labour Party is a bit like the sinking of the  
Titanic 
. We have before us a sinking vessel; it is going down slowly but the Government is standing up and saying: “Don’t worry. Listen to us. Do as we say and everything will be all right.” This New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill is being debated under urgency. The symphony orchestra is coming under greater State control being instructed what to do and how to play to international standards and with artistic imagination. Yet indeed the ship is sinking. But New Zealanders can rest assured in the knowledge that the band will play on. ACT New Zealand does not support this bill. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the third reading of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill and to reiterate that it was a United Future election policy in 2002 to ensure that the national orchestra was put on a sure long-term footing. I believe that this bill will accomplish that. A Crown entity is a better structure in which to situate the orchestra than the present governance arrangements. That is a big plus in this bill but unfortunately there are some quite large minuses and I will get to them shortly. 
The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra offers employment for many musicians in this country a cultural richness that comes from having musicians in the community and an essential support to other art forms—like opera ballet film and so on. It symbolises excellence and dedication in an artistic endeavour and it is evidence of cultural depth and maturity. It is a cost-effective way to provide symphonic performances of an international standard—something all New Zealanders can be rightfully proud of and have easy access to. 
 The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra as the national orchestra is an important part of New Zealand culture and of course. of our national identity as well. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra can play a valuable role in projecting New Zealand’s culture to an international audience by capitalising on symphonic music as an international language while presenting something uniquely New Zealand. That is something we should all be rightly proud of. 
The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra players committee wanted support for a player to be a member of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra board. That is not much to ask for really considering it concerns the governance of the members’ lives—how they express themselves musically and how they live day to day. For them not to be able to have a voice on the board is something this bill ought to have addressed and had the opportunity to address but because of the infamous coalition between Labour and National that opportunity has now been denied. The suggestion that the board should be redesigned with a wider governance structure developed to better bring the interests of musicians board management sponsors and Government into harmony so they pull together to secure an agreed objective for the orchestra was not too much to ask for. Unfortunately that has been overlooked and denied by this Government and by its supporting partner the National Party. 
New Zealand has a small economy and population and it needs to concentrate its resources into one internationally recognised national orchestra. The New Zealand Symphony Orchestra provides a quality benchmark for regional orchestras to aspire to and in turn regional orchestras provide a valuable training ground for future New Zealand Symphony Orchestra players. We do not have the luxury that other countries have of a large enough economy or population base to be able to fund more than one symphony orchestra at a time and to the extent it deserves. 
One of the things I stressed earlier about board membership for a New Zealand Symphony Orchestra player is that such membership is needed to provide a useful perspective and a range of experience and skills and to ensure the board always contains at least one person who knows the job from the inside. That absolutely makes sense. If one were to have a board running around talking about plumbing issues one would think that it would make good sense to have a plumber on the board. That is exactly the kind of argument I would push. ACT New Zealand First the Greens and even the Progressives also agree that that should be the case. It would also—and this is the important bit—match successful practice overseas. 
I suppose the most damning indictment of this Government’s view and its intransigence over the possibility of opening up the board to representation by players can be summed up by correspondence from a Sydney symphony orchestra board member: “It is particularly valuable for other board directors to hear of issues from the player’s perspective and then for the player to understand and explain the issues from the board’s perspective to colleagues in the orchestra.” It works overseas and it can work over here. For the life of me I do not understand how this Labour Government a Government that has a longstanding tradition of fighting for the rights of groups to be able to have a voice and to speak up for themselves can now in a very autocratic manner deny this group that right—the opportunity to voice its concerns. It is downright arrogance to assume that the players who provide so much in terms of musical talent should be denied the ability to embody that talent in a voice on a board that has everything to do with what they do and how they express their lives. 
Even more stunning is the fact that National has climbed into bed with Labour over this very issue. I want to know who got to National members? What personal relationship on the board of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra are they worrying about so that they will not agree to represent the players who ought to have a voice? That is what I would like to know. Where is that coming from? What are they afraid of? 
Lastly I would like to say that this is an MMP environment and we have a range of opinions throughout the House. I find it incredible that out of all the parties represented here United Future ACT New Zealand First the Greens and even the Progressives are all saying the same thing—why deny the right of the players to have a voice on the board? Then we have the two old parties—Labour which has gone back on its tradition of giving people a voice and National—both saying no. With their numbers those two parties have overruled a thoughtful articulated point of view from all the other parties. That is absolutely anti-democratic and anti-MMP. I think two parties should take a good long hard look at themselves and try to explain to the public why they are on the same side on this issue denying the right for people to have a say on the board. That is absolutely shameful particularly when we know that that representation can work very effectively overseas and does work well overseas. We are definitely behind in this game. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time. 
Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Second Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. The bill has been reported back from the Commerce Committee. I would like to thank the members of the select committee for the work they have done on this bill. In most respects the bill is identical to the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) that was introduced in 1999. While the original bill proposed a complete deregulation of licensing trusts removing all monopoly trading rights this bill takes a different approach. It allows but does not require licensing trusts to reconstitute as community trusts. The Government’s approach recognises that some communities may want to retain their existing licensing trust arrangements until a majority of the trust’s electors vote in favour of competition. 
The main purpose of this bill is to provide licensing trusts with the option of reconstituting as community trusts. It gives community trusts freedom to operate in industries other than the hospitality industry while ensuring that their activities remain accountable and transparent. Community trusts have a broader community focus and unlike licensing trusts their activities need not require them to be engaged in the sale of liquor. The members and electors of each licensing trust will determine whether the trust becomes a community trust. The process can be initiated by a resolution of the trust’s existing members. Electors will also have the option of calling for a poll on the issue as well. The residents of the former licensing trust district will elect the members of the community trust. Elections will be held at the same time as the triennial general elections for other local authorities. 
The bill also contains provisions that are designed to improve the financial performance and accountability of all licensing trusts. Those provisions will apply irrespective of whether or not a trust restructures itself as a community trust. Local licensing trusts will be able to carry out business outside their area without the need to first hold an expansion poll. All licensing trusts will be required to disclose in their annual accounts the remuneration paid to employees and senior managers. Licensing trusts will be required to hold annual meetings to account to electors for the effectiveness of their performance. 
There have been some amendments to the bill through the select committee process. After considering submissions on the frequency of elector polls the committee has recommended that it would be fairer for the polls to be held less frequently. The committee has changed the bill to ensure that an elector-requisitioned poll cannot be held within 3 years of an earlier poll. That is consistent with the regime in the Act that governs competition polls. The change does not in any way limit the ability of licensing trusts members to initiate a reconstitution of the board by resolution on an annual basis. Electors will continue to have the right to call for a poll whenever the members pass a resolution in favour of reconstitution. 
The committee also recommended the addition of a provision to clarify that a licensing trust would lose its exclusive trading rights upon its reconstitution as a community trust. It would be unfair for a community trust to hold a monopoly right within its district while being able to trade freely outside that district. The committee has therefore amended the bill to clarify that monopoly rights do not transfer to the new community trust. In response to a submission from the Auditor-General the committee has also amended the financial reporting provisions for licensing and community trusts. That change will improve the accountability of licensing and community trusts by requiring their financial statements to comply with generally accepted accounting practice. 
Part 2 makes a number of changes to the principal Act that are not related to licensing or community trusts. The bill incorporates amendments to the conditions applying to off-licences so that wineries can sell their own wine on Easter Sunday if they either grow the fruit or grapes on site or make the wine on site. The intent of this aspect of the bill is to reintroduce an earlier provision of the principal Act that allowed wineries to sell some of their own wines on any Sunday including Easter Sunday. Wineries will have to hold an appropriate off-licence to take advantage of that provision. 
Submissions to the select committee proposed that the bill be changed to allow wineries to sell the full range of wine produced under their labels regardless of where it is made or grown. However the committee considered that if that were permitted wineries would have a new broader right than they had previously enjoyed. The purpose of the provision is to aid local tourism and the committee considered that an extension of the nature proposed in submissions may erode the restrictions Parliament approved when it considered off-licence sales in 1999. The committee has therefore made no change to that aspect of the bill. 
The bill contains an important amendment to the principal Act to provide a legislative basis for controlled purchase operations. The amendment will ensure that the police can continue with those effective enforcement operations. The police district licensing inspectors and public health officials currently join forces to conduct enforcement operations to test whether bottle stores and other liquor outlets are complying with the Act. Those operations catch liquor outlets that break the law by selling alcohol to young people under the age of 18. Under-age volunteers go into licensed premises at the request of the police and attempt to purchase alcohol. Under-age volunteers are fully briefed by the police beforehand and only take part in the operations with the agreement of their parents or guardians. 
Controlled purchase operations have been conducted fairly widely throughout the country for the last 3 years. They are a highly effective method of assessing compliance with the Act. The police also obtain evidence from them for prosecutions and other enforcement actions. However a recent District Court decision has raised a concern that the young people who assist the police with these enforcement operations may be inadvertently breaking the law by purchasing alcohol. To address that concern the bill amends the Act to specifically provide that under-age volunteers who purchase alcohol at the request of a police officer during an enforcement operation do not commit an offence under the Act. 
The bill also contains an important technical amendment to provide for the staggered introduction of the requirement for a general manager of licensed premises to hold a prescribed qualification. The amendment is needed in order to provide for a transitional period during which general managers can obtain the qualifications they will need to comply with the general manager requirements introduced by the Sale of Liquor Amendment Act 1999. Submissions to the select committee generally indicated strong industry support for managers to be qualified. Concern was expressed in a few submissions over the content of the prescribed qualification and the possible consequences of the changes for existing trainers and their training programmes. The qualification itself is to be prescribed in regulation and is not a matter that is dealt with in this bill. 
The Hospitality Standards Institute which is the industry training organisation for the hospitality industry developed the Liquor Controller Qualification in 2000. I understand that the Hospitality Standards Institute consulted widely when it formulated the units that currently make up the Liquor Controller Qualification. The qualification is registered with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and is now widely recognised across the industry. However the Hospitality Standards Institute in its submission to the committee proposes a review of the prescribed qualification to ensure that it is still fit for its purpose. In view of the time-lapse since the development of the qualification further consultation concerning its content should take place in the course of developing the regulations prescribing the qualification. Consultation over the content of the regulations will allow the concerns raised with the select committee over aspects of the content of the qualification the status of existing trainers and their training programmes to be considered. 
Finally I understand that the committee also received a number of submissions on the restrictions that prevent supermarkets and grocery stores from selling Asian cooking wine and other food condiments containing alcohol. Asian cooking wines are prepared for culinary purposes and have been rendered unsuitable for drinking normally by the addition of salt. At present there is uncertainty as to whether supermarkets and grocery stores may sell Asian cooking wines and other food condiments containing alcohol. Although the committee was not in a position to address that issue I signal my intention to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee of the whole House that will allow supermarkets and grocery stores to sell those products under an off-licence. 
I commend this bill to the House. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 This is not a complex bill; it essentially falls into four parts. But I have to foreshadow that there is devil in the detail and it is somewhat unfortunate that the bill is constructed in the way it is. I am one of those members who sat on the Commerce Committee and foreshadowed our concern as noted in the commentary. 
The first part retains the existing monopoly rights of licensing trusts and makes minor changes to the powers of district-licensing agencies. I do not particularly have a problem with that component of the bill and will not be revisiting it. The second part permits wineries to sell their own wine on Easter Sunday. I strongly support that component of the legislation and will come back to that throughout the course of this debate. The third part provides exemptions for under-18-year-olds to assist police during controlled-purchase operations by ensuring that they do not commit an offence. That aspect of the bill does trouble me and I will argue against it. The fourth part establishes in statute that general managers must hold prescribed qualifications. On the surface that appears reasonable but I have some reservations that I will also address during the Committee stage of this debate. 
Clause 14 deals with Easter Sunday selling of wine. As I have foreshadowed I strongly support that. Essentially as the Associate Minister of Justice pointed out it will enable wineries to trade on Easter Sunday if they choose. As members can imagine it is strongly supported by winemakers across the country. The clause essentially reinstates a provision that was operating prior to the passage of the sale of liquor reforms of 1999. It was eliminated by a drafting mistake and this bill simply attempts to correct that error. Before 1999 Easter Sunday trading by wineries operated without public outcry; in fact the contra-position really did prevail as can be witnessed by the huge number of people who visited our wineries. 
Probably the most compelling reason why this part of the bill needs to be supported is that it facilitates tourism. This Easter many Kiwis will visit some of our most productive wine regions: Central Otago Hawke’s Bay Gisborne Nelson North Canterbury and. in case the good folk of mid and central Canterbury are listening those two areas are budding wine areas as well. Imagine going to a region over Easter and not being able to visit one of our world-class wineries! It would take the shine off the visit entirely. I see Mr Speaker is nodding and I am sure he and I agree very strongly on this issue. If this aspect of the bill is not supported then there will be 2 days over the Easter period when tourists will not be able to visit a winery and I believe that will have a negative impact on tourism. Tourists will simply go elsewhere and that I believe will be a tragedy. The impact on local tourism as I have foreshadowed will be significant. Tourists will become frustrated with our wineries and their owners. Tourists will not understand the machinations of our legislators. They will simply talk the industry down and by implication will talk the New Zealand tourism industry down. 
Clauses 25 and 26 are drafted to allow under-18-year-olds to purchase liquor on licensed premises at the request of the police—that is during controlled-purchase operations. I am a very strong supporter of the police but on this issue I draw the line. It is nothing less in my view than entrapment. If under-age drinking is a problem then let us fix that issue. If we have to reinstate a drinking age of 20 then let us do that but let us not turn hitherto law-abiding citizens into lawbreakers by simply entrapping them. That in my view is neither fair nor reasonable. 
Some submitters to the select committee argued—and I have to say very reasonably articulately and intelligently—that the damage from alcohol-related problems is immense and I believe them. I have seen it with my own eyes. But sending in children to trap people into selling them some grog—people who otherwise are extremely busy and law-abiding citizens—is simply not on. Sure some people will sell anything to anybody but the majority of our people in this country who work in this industry are responsible. Let us not punish the 99 percent of people who do a good job and try their utmost to uphold the laws of this land. A 17-year-old female who has gone the whole 9 yards in terms of putting on make-up and dressing to look older than she is—who is dressed to kill—could look anywhere between 20 and 30 years of age and I for one would not want to try to pick that person’s age. Such operations are simply not the answer. An owner may be vigilant and I am sure most owners are but they cannot be everywhere. I know a number of publicans. Ashley Johnston in Rakaia is one publican I know who drums into his employees that they must be careful. But mistakes will be made and it is unreasonable that publicans then get belted up regardless of their efforts to ensure that those mistakes do not occur. 
If we are really serious about this issue let us make proof of identity and age compulsory for everyone who is involved in alcohol purchase. Let us put the emphasis on the buyer and not just on the seller. Throughout the course of this debate I will be moving amendments to delete clauses 25 and 26. 
Clause 21 substitutes a new section 117A of the Sale of Liquor Act that requires general managers to hold a prescribed qualification. A number of submitters thought that was necessary but an even larger number thought it was overly bureaucratic unnecessary and extremely expensive. I am somewhat persuaded by the latter group. I will deal with it in more detail in the Committee stage; suffice it to say that I think the third unit that is being prescribed is big on theory and does not do much for common sense and good old-fashioned management in this industry. Experience and common sense count for a lot in my book and I cannot help but think that this matter is just another example of legislation and qualifications for the sake of them. No wonder compliance is eroding the very soul of our commercial workforce! 
Through the course of this debate I will canvass a number of issues that I strongly support and some I simply cannot. As we go into the Committee stage I will be looking to the Minister in the chair to listen to my concerns and try to accommodate me so that I can vote for this legislation but as it is drafted at the moment I simply cannot. 
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I shall make a brief contribution on this bill. As always the quicker we get this bill through the House the better it will be for the people involved in the sale of liquor in our country. The bill will provide more certainty for many of those within the sector. As has been stated the main purpose is to provide licensing trusts with the option of reconstituting themselves as community trusts if they so wish. 
I shall comment very briefly on Mr Connell’s comments about identification for people wanting to purchase alcohol. If I were on the other side of the counter and unsure of somebody’s age—and I agree that sometimes it is very hard to tell exactly how old people are—my policy would be: “No ID no alcohol.” It is as simple as that. 
As I said at the beginning let us get on and get this bill passed so that we can provide some certainty for those who are involved in the sale of liquor. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to deal with two main aspects of the bill: first providing existing licensing trusts with the option to reconstitute themselves as community trusts; and secondly the amendments to the conditions applying to off-licences so that wineries can sell their own wines on Easter Sunday. 
Let us look at the first provision which gives licensing trusts the option to reconstitute themselves. Licensing trusts set up under earlier Acts of Parliament have continued to go before the electorate to find out whether people wanted them to continue as licensing trusts. Some licensing trusts have reached a point whereby they want to change their trading aspects and reconstitute themselves as community trusts. A community trust has a much wider means of trading and also has the ability to trade outside its limited area. 
Unfortunately an anomaly exists in this part of the bill. The principal Act the Sale of Liquor Act has a list of existing licensing trusts in its third schedule. That list will have to be amended once a licensing trust on that list reconstitutes itself as a community trust and that is one area we will concentrate on during the Committee stage. 
Let us now look at the amendments to the ability of wineries to trade on Easter Sunday. The bill simply reconstitutes a situation that existed prior to an amendment in 1999 that for some reason suddenly dropped the ability of wineries to sell alcohol on Easter Sunday. That is a sad situation because as a previous speaker mentioned wineries are a huge attraction for tourists in this country. At this time of the year there are a lot of tourists and particularly over Easter local people will also travel—effectively becoming tourists in different areas. They will want to try the different wares of the wineries. Unfortunately under the current Act wineries are precluded from selling wine on both Good Friday and Easter Sunday which means that tourists in this country do not have an opportunity to try the very very fine award-winning wines of many of those wineries. The restriction put on by the Commerce Committee is that wineries must sell their own wines. That includes wines made from grapes grown on their properties but sent out for processing and brought back to the wineries. Those wines will be OK. We will explore that area further in the next stage of the bill. 
Another area I would like to look at quickly is the matter of young people being sent into pubs to try to trap publicans into selling them wine when they are under age. I must admit that that is straight-out entrapment. Unfortunately this bill has missed a golden opportunity to rectify a major problem in this country. We should have taken the opportunity in this bill to raise the drinking age and restore it back to 20. That would raise the age of young people found drinking on the streets. It is a shame that 12 and 13-year-olds are out on the streets drunk and it is a pity that this bill will not in any way rectify that situation. 
I agree with the amendment on the Supplementary Order Paper with regard to food condiments that contain liquor. It is an anomaly and the practice has grown. I warn that many so-called food condiments particularly those used by Chinese restaurants are purely wines. They do not necessarily contain salt additives as the Minister suggested. We need to ask the Minister to have the labelling of some of those condiments checked because it is an area where there could be a major problem. 
I have an amendment with regard to the reconstitution of licensed trusts. The bill contains a provision that when licensing trusts reconstitute themselves as community trusts they must notify the public. Notification is important because it signals a complete change of a trust’s structure. The amendment I have tabled reduces the percentage of electors requesting a poll from 15 percent to 7.5 percent. New Zealand First feels that it should be made easier to hold a poll because 15 percent is quite a large number of local people to get a poll running and 7.5 percent would make it easier. We feel that 7.5 percent is the figure that should be substituted in the bill. I will raise that matter again during the Committee stage. 
In summary the provisions in this bill that enable licensed trusts to reconstitute themselves are sound but we should be aware of the need to have the percentage required to hold a poll lowered. In respect of the ability of wineries to be able to sell wine on Easter Sunday the bill corrects an anomaly that should not have occurred in the first place. Finally we do not think the situation is satisfactory whereby children under the age of 18 are sent into pubs by the police to entrap those selling liquor. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party rises to oppose this legislation and asks the House some basic questions about its attitude towards liquor licensing the consumption of liquor and the sale of liquor. Would we not have thought in this day and age that we in this House would well understand the dangers of a monopoly? Why is it that we are entrenching in this bill monopoly licensing trusts for the sale of liquor in New Zealand? Is it not time we recognised that monopolies are bad? They do not look after the customers or the community and they do not provide a good service. Why do we carry on with the myth that a licensing trust elected and with a monopoly somehow protects people from the debilitating effects of excessive alcohol consumption? Are we in this House going along with the pretence that by having a licensing trust and a monopoly we are dealing with a serious problem? I do not think that any member in this House who votes for this bill believes that monopoly licensing trusts are the answer to any problem. In fact I would be very interested to hear a member in this House stand up and say that a monopoly and a licensing trust fixes the problem of X—and I would like to know what X is. How is it that in some areas we can get away without having a monopoly but in other areas we have to have them? Of course it is just raw politics pure and simple—no principle no philosophy and to hell with the consequences and effects of not doing the right thing. 
There is another problem this bill alludes to: our crazy rules and I say again our attitude towards the purchase and consumption of alcohol—as if banning the sale of wine or allowing the sale of wine from wine shops at Easter will solve any problem real or imagined. What is going on in our parliamentary colleagues’ minds if they think that hitherto not allowing wineries to sell wine on Easter Sunday has served a good purpose? We commend the move to allow that sale because at the end of the day it is up to the person who is buying the wine to make the decision to buy it and the person selling the wine to sell it. But does this exemption not underscore a problem we have with the minutiae and the detail we get into when we start looking at—the phrase of the bill—the sale of liquor. 
Here is another problem. How smart is it to prevent Chinese supermarkets from selling cooking wine and to have the time of the House taken up with the subject of whether a Chinese supermarket or a minimart can sell cooking wine? I look across at the Labour Party and ask its members whether they think a good purpose is served by preventing Chinese minimarts from selling cooking wine? Not one person’s hand has gone up. Then we have those members saying: “Oh it’s technically very hard to define what is cooking wine and what is not cooking wine.” but is that not the problem? 
Here we are in Parliament trying to divine these minute rules. What problem is our sale of liquor law trying to address? I listened to the Hon Rick Barker when he introduced the bill. He told me what the bill was about and I appreciated that. He said there were some moves forward and I appreciate those. But I did not hear once from him an explanation of what the amendments to the Sale of Liquor Act are to do and how successful they will be—not one. So what we have is a crazy set of rules that has grown like Topsy and there is no inspection by this Minister or this Government of its underlying rationale. 
Can we not trust people with some freedom? Can we not trust people with some responsibility? Can we not let the Chinese supermarket sell Chinese cooking wine? I have not seen the boy racers who so exercise the minds of members of this House out there sucking on cooking wine before going off on a drag race. 
John Carter 
: They’re pretty oily. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Well I do not know about that member’s electorate but that is not so in my observation. Again what is the problem we are attempting to address? 
Let me go to another concern—[ 
Interruption 
] It is always good to have Jill Pettis interject on a speech because whenever she gets up to speak we discover she has nothing to say. But when anyone else in this House gets up to speak we discover she has a lot to say. So I suggest to that member Jill Pettis that she do her work stand up and give a speech on the bill rather than sit on the side and interject. 
There is concern over the prescribed qualifications for general managers. What a lot of nonsense that is! It means more costs more requirements and more bureaucracy and the Minister never got up in this House to explain the problem he is attempting to address. It is just more expense. Here we have a Minister who is led by the nose by his officials to come up with more rules and more regulations. 
Do members know what we heard at the Commerce Committee? We heard the view that those regulations and requirements were put to this Parliament to favour one group of trainers over everyone else. I go back to the point made right at the start that that is to retain the monopoly. So why has this Minister allowed himself and this House to be used by a legislative process to give advantage to some trainers and to disadvantage others. Listen to this—this is unbelievable. I am reading from the commentary on the bill: “Concern that existing trainers and training programmes could be penalised by requirements that trainers be NZQA accredited will also be considered in the course of developing the regulations.” 
When that work has not been done does that not tell us this bill is wrong? Yet we are to take the Government on its word that yes it will do this and yes they will take on board those concerns. The ACT party is against this bill and will be putting forward some amendments to help this Parliament and to help New Zealand fix it. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is supporting the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2). Despite some of the comments made by members in this House we think it is a relatively non-controversial and straightforward bill that simply tidies up a number of regulations in bits of legislation around liquor sales that are well due to be tidied up. 
There is a saying about people who swallow camels and strain at gnats. Sometimes I think that is what happens in this House. I have seen some quite draconian pieces of legislation pass through this House unremarked upon by most parties but a piece of legislation like this seems to occupy a lot of members’ time attention and concern. So I was quite curious. 
Before I get to the specific clauses I would like to address some of the comments made by the previous speaker Mr Hide. He told us that ACT would oppose the bill and he complained about a whole lot of different things—things that the bill is exactly intended to fix up. So it is quite curious to hear him say he that would vote against the bill and then moan about the things the bill is actually intended to remedy. 
It was also curious to hear him talk about the interjections made by Jill Pettis. I did not hear any interjections from Jill Pettis. I think the House has been remarkably quiet today but of course Mr Hide is the king of interjections. It was curious to hear him complaining about interjections and spending a lot of time talking about Jill Pettis and her contribution. That clearly indicated that he did not have a lot to say about the bill itself. 
I move on now to the bill which does a number of things. It retains the existing monopoly and privileges of licensing trusts and Mr Hide talked about that. The Green Party supports those aspects of the bill. Mr Hide said that in his opinion those licensing trusts offered nothing to the community. He said they did no good service and were a hindrance to the community. But the issue is that the community chooses to have them and communities have the right to vote these things out. Some communities choose to do that and some do not. The issue is really about community decision-making when it comes to licensing trusts. That is what the Greens support and that is what this bill will continue to maintain in place—as opposed to corporate decision-making which is what the ACT party stands for. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: They’re mates. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: That is quite right. One of the things the bill does is tidy up an inadvertent change made under the previous legislation that stopped wineries selling their own wine on Easter Sunday. Brent Catchpole talked about that and we agree with his position on it. I have to say that the Green Party is usually opposed to extending the commercialisation of our public holidays. We think it is important that people have shopping-free days to spend time with their families and communities rather than simply— 
Rodney Hide 
: What about marijuana-free days? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Hide knows he should not interject against the member in front of him. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I do not know if Mr Hide wants to smoke marijuana but that is his business and not anyone else’s. 
Usually the Greens are opposed to the commercialisation of these things. We think it is important to maintain shopping-free days because they are actually about enhancing relationships in the community. But this particular clause is just fixing up an inadvertent change that happened when the previous bill was passed so of course we will support that. If there is a case for shopping to happen on Easter Sunday I think that a vineyard is most likely to make that case. 
One of the areas of concern—and the Green Party considered this a lot—is the issue around controlled purchase operations. This basically provides an exemption so that the police can conduct sting operations for alcohol as they do for tobacco. There are concerns about the use of entrapment and there are a number of areas in the law where entrapment is used. It is quite a serious civil rights concern but we do not think it is a concern in this particular example. We think the benefits outweigh the costs in this regard. 
The reason we took that position is that when this Parliament voted to lower the drinking age to 18—something I personally supported although I was not a member of Parliament at the time—the key thing was that that change should have been accompanied by strict measures to ensure that the age limit was actually adhered to. That can be done in two ways. One is to have good messages out in the community education about what is moderate use and re-enforcement of the idea that there is an age limit which is 18. But we have to police that age limit as well. When that legislation went through Parliament we saw the introduction of drinking-age ID. At the time I was concerned about that because we very quickly see how those kinds of things can become a de facto general ID that people are required to carry with them at all times. 
It is a curious thing but it seems that in this country we now need to carry ID for just about everything except buying alcohol. Those ID cards are being used for all kinds of purposes but because there is no policing of the sale of liquor to under-age people they become essentially meaningless in that area. So we think it is important to allow the police to check that people who are selling alcohol from licensed premises are actually adhering to the law and to their obligations—both legislative and ethical—to ensure that they are not selling to under-age people. 
The other point I will touch on quickly is the issue of district licensing agencies. Again this is just about fixing some rigidities that exist in the current legislation so we think that is a good thing. This bill does not address a number of other issues where some of the provisions need to be extended and things like that. We think that some of those questions are more properly placed in a different bill but in terms of what this bill is trying to achieve we think it does the job. 
The last thing I will touch on is the issue of rice wine—the Chinese culinary cooking wine—that Mr Hide again made quite a lot of. He criticised this bill because it did not address that question. Mr Hide will know if he bothers to look on the Table that a Supplementary Order Paper has been tabled by Mr Barker for consideration in the Committee and that it specifically addresses that question.So it is rather disingenuous for Mr Hide to complain that the bill does not address the question when he knows that Supplementary Order Paper 198 is on the Table to do that very thing. I leave it to members of the House and to people listening to this debate to form their own views as to the integrity of those comments. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 Basically United Future is pleased with most aspects of this bill. We had a major concern in the early stages of the drafting of the legislation when the Liquor Licensing Authority had the ability to review the hours that each of the clubs might operate in when it reissued licences. We could see that it would be a real burden for clubs but I am glad to see that that provision has been removed. 
I was fascinated by Rodney Hide’s speech about how bad monopolies are yet communities themselves are not monopolies. A community can choose how it will operate under this legislation. Therefore if a community wants to have a community trust it is free to do so. I found that very interesting because sometimes viewpoints can be very narrow. If only those who owned businesses had rights to do everything all the time and anywhere I do not think that would be a good society. 
Coming back to this bill I personally do not have a problem with the selling of wine from wineries on Easter Sunday yet I do not support open Sunday trading because I think that there are days in a year that need to be special—days that one needs to be able to put aside and take rest. I remember speaking on different legislation where I likened a year without any special days to a city without a park. Only the other day I wandered up the top of the hill to the rose gardens and I saw people in the midst of a very busy city Wellington just taking time to sit in a park where there was no commercial activity and they were indeed smelling the roses. I think we would be unwise to allow business to become such a focus in our calendar year that people had to go through the whole 365 days without any days that were different. 
We are also putting an amendment in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 14 of the bill that tidies up section 37(2) of the Sale of Liquor Act with what we believe is just another common-sense approach. I would encourage members who have perhaps not read that amendment to get one from the Table before we go into the Committee stage. Once again I think it makes sense and I like legislation that makes sense. I think it is unfair on wineries if they are not able to sell their wine on a day when they are open and having people come through while other similar facilities are already operating on that day. 
I pick up on Brian Connell’s point with regard to underage drinkers. I personally support the drinking age being raised again but when we have a law I think we have a responsibility to make it simple for those who are policing it so that they can operate effectively. I hear where Mr Connell is coming from—about the police sending in minors to check whether the licensee is selling to minors rather than taking the responsibility of just checking whether they have identification. For example if one is pulled up in a motor vehicle and the police think one is underage one does have to show ID to prove that one has a licence. I think it makes sense that the ones who purchase liquor should also have to show their ID. 
But I do not want to hinder the police in their work. I think there are enough challenges in trying to police the laws we have. I think we have too many laws in this country and in many cases the police have a great challenge in trying to enforce them. So if this bill makes it easier for them I support it. For example we in the motor industry have to show all the paperwork for everything required for a warrant of fitness on a car whereas I would prefer them just to come in with a car that had a defect and if we did not pick up the defect as a warrant of fitness inspector then deal with us on that case. So there are two sides to that argument. 
Basically United Future thinks that this bill is just tidy-up legislation. It is sensible legislation and again I would encourage members to pick up the Hon Peter Dunne’s amendment from the Table. It is a typical United Future amendment; it is just common sense and makes legislation work better and that is what we are here for. We are the friends of the nation and I thank you for being able to speak during this second reading. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question is  
That the amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by a majority be agreed to 
. 
Amendments agreed to. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I should have asked this before but I seek leave that the National Party cast a split vote. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is not. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 13 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I seek leave that the Committee be able to consider the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) as a single question except that clause 14 be taken as a separate vote. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Dunne has an amendment that would also need to be taken as a separate vote as a conscience issue and it should be included in the motion I think. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is therefore sought accordingly and to emphasise to people what that means it is one debate but when there is a vote Mr Dunne’s amendment relating to clubs and clause 14 are to be taken as separate votes. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Both my amendment and the other amendment relate to clause 14. I think therefore that we can simply take one debate and then recognize that on clause 14 there will be separate votes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will just say that again so that we know what we are doing. We are seeking leave for a separate question to have one debate and I will take that leave first. Is there any objection? There is not. Now I will seek leave of the House for the Committee to have the provisions of clause 14 relating to Easter Sunday wine sales and the amendment of the Hon Peter Dunne relating to clubs taken as separate questions when we come to do the voting. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is not. 
In Committee 
Clauses 1 and 2 and Parts 1 and 2 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 There are several things that I would like to draw to members’ attention. The first is a Supplementary Order Paper in my name that seeks to deal with the sale of Chinese rice wine or cooking condiments. It has been accepted for quite some time that these types of wines are undrinkable. They have not attracted excise duty because in customs terms they are denatured which means that they have had substantial amounts of salt added to them that therefore renders them undrinkable. Because they are undrinkable they are not excisable and because they are not excisable people did not think that they were covered by the Sale of Liquor Act. However investigations by some others have determined that they are covered by the Sale of Liquor Act. They are not a medicine and cannot be considered a medicine so the Sale of Liquor Act has to deal with them. 
In Supplementary Order Paper 198 I propose that these condiments can be sold as part of an off-licence under section 37(3) and that they can be sold in the likes of supermarkets. This is a similar amendment to that which Pansy Wong also foreshadowed and therefore we are talking along similar lines. I recommend my Supplementary Order Paper to members. 
The second amendment in the name of Pansy Wong seeks to extend the sale of these condiments to a broader range of shops. This falls foul of a second problem for us concerning the  
Lopdell 
v 
 Deli Holdings Ltd 
 decision. I recommend to the Committee that we oppose this amendment. There is some confusion in the Sale of Liquor Act about people having the ability to sell liquor. In the past people have been granted liquor licences when their principal business is food but their shops are not supermarkets. This is an issue and the court has ruled that where the principal business is food and the place is not a supermarket people cannot sell liquor. There are some complex issues at the back of this that I do not want to go into at this stage but I signal to members that it is my intention to come back some time later with a bill that will deal with those issues. I do not wish to deal with them today. Because the second amendment in Pansy Wong’s name goes into this area I propose that we vote against it. 
There is another amendment in the name of Brian Connell. He is seeking to knock out the provision that will deal with controlled purchase operations. I have heard that the basis of the amendment is the ACT party’s view that this is entrapment. But in my view the ACT party does not quite appreciate that Parliament has already passed legislation that has a similar arrangement in it—the smoking legislation. For a long time police have sent people who are underage into liquor establishments to see whether liquor would be sold to them as a means of testing whether the law is being complied with. 
Similar things have been happening with regard to smoking but in the case of smoking it is provided for in legislation. When one of these cases came before the court it was argued that by the police using—without the authority of the law—someone underage they were aiding and abetting the breaking of the law. The court said that that was wrong. This change in the law seeks to give police the ability to have a controlled purchase operation to ensure that people are selling liquor correctly to those who are aged 18 years and over. Let us be clear that if people vote for Brian Connell’s amendment they will take from the police a very powerful tool for enforcing Parliament’s wish. I say to members unequivocally that I am totally opposed to Brian Connell’s amendment and I support the bill as it stands. 
There are a couple of other issues. The first is that there are two other minor amendments that seek to change some of the dates on which these provisions come into effect. One will be the date on which the bill receives the royal assent changed to 1 April principally to enable the provision that will allow wineries to sell their own wine on Easter Sunday from this Easter. I think that that is a good idea. This amendment will give effect to that. 
The other amendment in the name of Mr Catchpole is to delete “15 percent” and reduce it to “7.5 percent”. I recommend to members that we vote against that amendment for two reasons. Firstly the current competition poll is set at 15 percent and I see no logic to have one poll at 7.5 percent and the other at 15 percent. Secondly in the very next new section 219F there is another threshold whereby the number of electors requesting a poll has to pass 15 percent and it is remaining unaltered. If we change one threshold to 7.5 percent as recommended by Mr Catchpole and have all the other thresholds at 15 percent we will simply create anomalies in the legislation for no useful purpose. 
I have one last point to make in relation to the comments made by Mr Hide. He has a couple of amendments that basically set out to de-license licensing trusts. Mr Hide has argued that Parliament should not make decisions about these that this should be simply a matter of principle and that we should let the market decide. On this side of the Chamber—and I recommend this to the Chamber as well—we believe that the public should decide. Licensing trusts are set up by a public ballot and the provisions make it very easy for the public to exercise a ballot for trusts to either maintain their monopoly licence or to lose it. On two occasions the Waitakere Licensing Trust has gone to a ballot and the people of Waitakere have made their decision. They want a licensing trust to be in the area and for it to have exclusive rights. A similar thing has happened in Invercargill. My view and the Government’s view—and I hope the rest of the Committee’s view—is that if the public want a licensing trust to have monopoly rights then the public should decide. Mr Hide and the ACT party should not tell the public what they can and cannot have. That is the Government’s view on that. Labour supports the legislation as it stands. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I have tabled three amendments. First of all I welcome the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper with regard to the sale of Chinese cooking wine even though it is very belated. I was upset because that issue occurred in November 2002 and this current legislation was introduced last year. At some time during the first reading I alerted the Minister to the problem it was causing council officials who knew that it was nonsense to ask Asian supermarket owners to remove all Chinese cooking wine from their shelves. Can members imagine advising customers that if they want to buy a bottle of Chinese cooking wine they have to get it from a bottle store? Nobody thinks of going to a bottle store to get Chinese cooking wine. The Minister did not see fit to foreshadow that he would bring in an amendment so all this time store owners and officials have been put under undue stress. 
I point out that when the  
New Zealand Herald 
 ran a story on Chinese cooking wine in February this year it concluded the article by stating: “Police and council staff in greater Auckland were unable to give examples of underaged drinkers being caught with Chinese cooking wine.” I was also interviewed by BBC Radio wondering what was happening in New Zealand that there was such a crackdown on the sale of Chinese cooking wine. Imagine stir-fried beef without Chinese cooking wine! I welcome the Minister’s amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 198 but I wish he had shadowed it a lot earlier so that it would not have caused that stress—and that would have saved me tabling an amendment as well. 
I want to take issue with the Minister about the amendment to clause 13 that I proposed. It was not to do with extending the privilege to other operators. Nowadays we have corporate gift operators and ethnic stores that make up gift baskets for festivals etc. that include a bottle of alcohol. In the past that has been handled by those operators getting an off-licence; that is if the Liquor Licensing Authority sees fit it can grant them that licence. But that practice can no longer happen because of a court decision. The court reckoned that the last amendment to the legislation that Parliament passed provided that supermarkets etc. cannot get an exemption to sell alcoholic beverages other than wine or beer. 
I do not think those other corporate gift operators have that in mind. That is why I proposed the amendment. It was basically to inject back some common sense into the Liquor Licensing Authority—to give it that discretion to allow those small ethnic stores and corporate gift operators to do that. 
My third amendment to clause 21 which I hope the Committee will see fit to support relates to training. The bill repeals section 117A of the principal Act and substitutes new section 117A “General manager must hold prescribed qualification”. Members of the industry informed the Commerce Committee that there was no consultation and the training manual that is now imposed on the industry is draconian. I have tabled an amendment stating that that particular requirement should not come into effect until the content of the qualification has been consulted on fully with the industry. It should also include only the unit standards 4646 and 16705. 
It is time for Parliament to support the industry in trusting it to be able to come up with common-sense solutions. After all we have demonstrated in the last amendments to the legislation that we passed that we did not do a good job with regard to the fiasco over Chinese cooking wine and we have removed a lot of the common-sense discretion given to the Liquor Licensing Authority. I certainly think that the industry as a whole has come to more maturity in terms of knowing what type of qualification and what sort of training is appropriate for it. I hope the Committee will support all my amendments. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I say good on Pansy Wong for moving those changes especially the changes relating to the transition to the training programmes. But why have the training programmes? That question has not been asked. Let me go through if I may the changes that I will be recommending through my amendments. There are three major ones. I have proposed a change to clause 13 because there is an anomaly whereby if one is giving a corporate gift basket and one puts a wee bottle of sherry or something in it that is actually against the law. I have tabled an amendment to allow that to occur. How sensible is that? It is a good amendment and I look forward to Mr Barker and his colleagues reading it and supporting it. 
I am pleased to see that the Minister in the chair Rick Barker has decided to allow Chinese cooking wine to be bought and sold in minimarts. I have an amendment here to do the same but he has obviously foreshadowed my move. I hope the Minister’s drafting is as good as mine because the officials advised the Commerce Committee it was not possible to draft such an amendment. That is what they told the committee. But suddenly after Pansy Wong and Rodney Hide both did it the honourable Minister Rick Barker said it would not be very hard to do so and has done it himself. I just worry that his amendment is not as good as Ms Wong’s and mine. 
I come to another amendment that must concern the Minister. Heaven knows how he keeps a straight face when he is paid each fortnight because what has he done? He has come along with a bureaucratic nightmare for the training programme for managers. It is loopy. Most liquor licensees and outlets are small businesses. The Minister is putting a requirement on them to get a different form of training which will cost $250 or $300 or so for the qualification. The Minister has not established a case that it is needed. There are thousands of managers of liquor outlets in New Zealand. They have all been trained; they all have certificates. What is the problem? Those required to hand their licences in are 0.1 percent. But oh no the Minister has come along with a high-cost bureaucratic process for giving out those certificates that I have to say favours some trainers over all the rest. I can only look at that Minister and wonder why that should be the case. He says he has consulted with the industry. Quite frankly he has not. He might have talked to his mates who like this bill but he has not spoken to the industry. 
I say to the Minister that he should imagine how dumb it is that someone who is out there successfully managing a liquor outlet and who has his or her manager’s certificate has to retrain because of this legislation. That person has to get another certificate at an estimated cost of $150. It is a money grab by the private trainers. That is the problem. Those are the people who have been talking to the Minister and helping him rather than the Minister talking to the industry. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Ha ha! 
RODNEY HIDE 
: Rick Barker likes to laugh but he has not got off his chuff and gone and talked to the industry as the ACT party the National Party and New Zealand First have. They know what is going on. They know that there is no problem that needs to be fixed by making that change. 
I beg the National Party New Zealand First the Greens United Future—and I look across to Labour Party members—to support my amendments and vote against excessive bureaucracy. I ask them to vote against a grab by private trainers for money with the help of that lazy Minister and to vote against legislation that is before the Committee for no good purpose. I would love the Minister to get up and explain the problem. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Brent Catchpole. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Don’t shout! 
Rodney Hide 
: The useless Minister of Corrections too while we’re at it. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Stop shouting. 
Rodney Hide 
: Hopeless Minister! $1.3 million down the tubes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Where’s that electorate office money? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That shows exactly what the trouble is in this Chamber with regard to order. Ministers can call out and there is no problem. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Come to your point of order Mr Hide. 
RODNEY HIDE 
: I am coming to it. When members of the Opposition respond to Ministers who call out the Chair jumps on them. The Chair called “Order!” twice—we all heard him—the Minister carried on interjecting and the Chair did nothing. We ask you to protect every member in this Chamber— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask members to desist from calling out. Chaos may be the parent of creation but in this Chamber I will have order. I recognise what Mr Hide said but I did call the Minister to order. I asked him to desist from calling out and it was my understanding that he did desist. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I would just like to express my disappointment in Rick Barker for suggesting that the House vote against my amendment. New Zealand First feels that the threshold for a poll should have been lowered. It should have been made easier to call for a poll. I take the point that there are several different figures within this bill and we note that yes when a licensing trust has decided through its board of trustees to reconstitute it does have to tell the public. The bill is quite clear that the trust must notify the public and its trustees. But the bill then opens up a situation whereby the trustees and the public have to call for a poll themselves in order to be able to overturn the ruling of the board of trustees. We believe the threshold for that is too high and therefore we requested a lowering of that figure. I do express my disappointment that the Minister without allowing the debate to go forward has already signalled that he would like to see that amendment thrown out. I am disappointed in that. 
It all comes down to the basis of a licensing trust converting to a community trust. This bill allows that process to happen. The licensing trusts were set up with a definite restricted area in which they controlled every aspect of the sale of liquor excluding liquor sold by any supermarkets that moved into those areas. There was a case in Auckland during the last election where the supermarket chains set out to try to overturn the licensing trust. They regarded the financial disclosure requirements of the trusts as inadequate because they could not identify exactly what was the financial part of the liquor sales. So they wanted to separate that out. I am pleased the Minister did not allow that to happen because it would have set up a process whereby the supermarket chains would target trusts where they saw there were substantial gains to be made in liquor sales. That is an area we feel was important. 
I would now like to touch on the subject of wine being sold by wineries on a Sunday. This measure is just a means of bringing the situation back into line with what was the case prior to the 1999 amendment of the principal Act. We are in favour of that measure. It is to do with tourism. A large body of tourists moves around the country and has the opportunity to try our world-class wines. If tourists are in the country from a cruise ship for just a day or two they do not get that opportunity and it would be a sad moment to realise that New Zealand had lost a golden opportunity to promote its world-class wines. I would like to highlight a survey that was done by New Zealand Winegrowers. It surveyed 459 of its members from which it received 149 replies which is quite a high percentage when we consider that other surveys consider 1 or 2 percent to be a pretty good response rate. This was a very high response rate and of those wineries 138 agreed with allowing wineries to open on Easter Sunday. That is a clear indication that the wineries want that measure. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to take just a brief call because I know the Committee is keen to make progress on this measure. The United Future members will be voting in favour of the Minister’s amendments to clause 14 regarding Easter Sunday wine sales and also relating to the issues he raised in relation to Chinese cooking wines. 
I want to speak briefly to my own proposed amendment to clause 14 which makes some changes to section 37 of the principal Act regarding off-licence sales at clubs. The best way I can illustrate what I am seeking to do is by an example. I see my friend the Minister of Labour is standing in the lobby and I will just use “Swainy” as an example. If I were to go to the Johnsonville Club with “Swainy” who was a member of the Petone club we could both consume alcohol on site with our meal. But when we were going back to “Swainy’s” house to watch the rugby if I decided we should buy some supplies to take with us I could buy off-licence from the club but “Swainy” could not even though he is a member of a reciprocal club. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! The member will use the member’s proper name. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I am referring to a mythical colleague. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. I refer the member to Speaker’s rulings 26/7 and 26/8. A member’s proper name is to be used. 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I accept your ruling. I would simply say that the Minister and I have been friends for years longer than I care to remember and I hope this does not alter that greatly. 
The point I am making is simply that my amendment extends a provision that currently relates to on-site consumption to the off-licence situation. It is simply a logical move and I would commend it to the attention of members of the Committee. It does not actually change the situation very significantly because of the reciprocity issue that is at the heart of the club movement. I think that is probably the only explanation I should give. I suspect I now need to go and talk to the Minister of Labour but I do hope that members will support the amendment when it comes up later on. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 On the table are two amendments in my name that call for the deletion of clauses 25 and 26 of this bill. I raise these concerns because I simply believe that these are entrapment clauses and they are fundamentally unfair. The hypocrisy of the argument that says we can break the law to enforce the law is not lost on me. I do not believe there would a publican in the country who will not be trapped by these clauses if the police are determined to trap him or her. That is my major concern. I ask the Minister in the chair to reflect on the following situation. A 17-year-old female who has the whole 9 yards of make-up on and is dressed to kill goes into a busy bar. She is shoulder to shoulder with other punters. The person behind the bar who is stressed tired and has others waiting to be served simply asks what she wants and then does it. 
Brent Catchpole 
: ID please. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: That is true technically. But the reality is that it just will not happen like that. We are going to turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into lawbreakers. Is that what the Minister really intends? I do not think that is what he intends but that is what will happen. It is fundamentally unfair which is why I have proposed the amendments and why I ask members of the Committee to consider these amendments. We will be turning law-abiding citizens into lawbreakers. 
I know publicans licensees and bar managers across the country who sit down with their employees and say “Look be careful. Be careful that you don’t serve people who are under age.” But the reality is that it just does not happen like that. People come into a bar and I know what has happened. I know that situations have arisen where the police have had orchestrated “stings” and they have got their person. They have kept going back despite the fact they know the publicans concerned have sat down with their staff and said: “Look make sure you are careful.” Most of the people behind bar counters are just children themselves. They are 18 19 20-year-olds with their first job. They do not really care whether the publican or licensee gets hit for a $10000 fine but that is what will happen. Instead of those young individuals having any responsibility it falls on the shoulders of the licensee or publican. 
That is why I ask members to reflect on that. They must look into their hearts and ask whether that is fair and whether that is enforceable? The answer is no. The law is stupid law if we cannot easily enforce it. If we really want to deal with the issue we should at least have a discussion or debate about increasing the drinking age or say that if anyone wants to buy booze then proof of age and identity are compulsory regardless. We should put the emphasis back on the purchaser and not on the seller. If the Minister were to move such an amendment then this legislation would have wide support right across the nation. I ask him to reflect on that. I ask him to think about how this legislation if it goes through in this guise will be accepted across the nation. He will do his party immeasurable harm because the law will not be enforceable. 
Damien O’Connor from the West Coast must be having kittens when thinking about this legislation. Someone in a bar down on the West Coast will walk in and say: “I want a beer.” The question will come: “How old are you?”. Well I cannot repeat the type of exchange that would take place because it would probably be very unparliamentary but I can tell members that this legislation is just not going to be enforced. So I repeat my request to the Minister that he thinks about this legislation. Essentially it is not common sense. 
The other issue I want to address while I am on my feet concerns the regulations. I must say Mr Hide summarised that pretty well when he said the majority of people in the industry describe the legislation with regard to the regulations as a waste of time and money. It is repetitive because we already have two units that are reasonably well respected in the industry. This legislation simply loads that responsibility on to the publicans etc. when hitherto it was carried out by police and liquor licensing inspectors. It is simply not wanted. 
It is argued that the legislation requires a person to learn to deal with drunks assess when people have had too much booze and therefore refuse to serve them. But the training will take place in sterile environments. It is easy to assess someone else when sitting in an office where a makeshift bar has been created. Someone from the bar staff walks in and says: “Oh by the way my script says: ‘Are you drunk?’” and the other person says: “Oh yes. I’ve had a few.” The staff person says: “I’m sorry I can’t serve you.” “That’s OK.” says the other person and walks out. That is role play. It will not happen in reality will it? 
I used the example before of a busy bar. Would members imagine this situation? The music is blaring the bar is going off there are people shoulder to shoulder at the bar and someone stands there and says: “I want a drink.” The judgment call by the bar staff is: “Are you drunk? Are you too drunk for me to serve?”. Most of the time they will not even be able to hear the patrons let alone use judgment as to whether they are drunk. 
There is no better example of the impracticality of this issue than a  
Target 
 programme shown on TV3 last May. An actor walked into 10 bars and nine out of 10 served him liquor when he was acting drunk. When asked why he was served bar staff answered that they thought he was clowning around—and that is the reality of it. No one will be able to determine whether someone is clowning around drunk too drunk or not drunk enough. It probably suggests that the actor involved was not too flash either. 
Another area concerns me and it is really an issue I should address to Rick Barker the Minister in the chair because I have a letter he sent back to some constituents. The paragraph in question is this: “I understand that the Hospitality Standards Institute undertook a wide consultation process to formulate the qualification and that key stakeholders included members of the liquor industry the Sale of Liquor Act national trainers the Hospitality Association of New Zealand the Alcohol Advisory Council the Liquor Licensing Authority some district licensing agencies and the police.” I point out to the Minister that when I contacted those people they said that no one had spoken to them at all. 
I spoke to Swain and Associates who are major corporate trainers in this field and they told me they have large corporate clients including a supermarket chain. Many of them have up to 30 or more certified managers. According to their research none of those groups had been consulted. 
The Hospitality Association of New Zealand formerly known as the Hotel Association of New Zealand had this to say: “Our information is that the association has about 1800 members. If they claim the Restaurant Association has another 250 members it gives them a total of about 4300 members.” I tell the Minister that the total number of current licences operating in New Zealand is 15435. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 There are several matters I want to raise. Firstly I should have mentioned earlier the third amendment put forward by Pansy Wong which makes specific reference to course numbers. She thought the numbers needed to be in the legislation to ensure the industry was consulted. I agree with the intention of her amendment but I do not agree with its form. The Government’s intention is that once the legislation is passed regulations will be drawn up; and of course those regulations will go before the Regulations Review Committee. 
One of the requirements of regulations is that industry must be consulted. It may be that the hospitality industry training organisation will change the course numbers or make other changes. If we were to put course numbers in legislation it would be impossible to have the law comply. It would be complicated to get a law change in order to alter course numbers in an Act of Parliament. It is much better to have that dealt with by regulation. 
I have talked to the Hotel Association to the Beer Wine and Spirits Council and to others about it and explained how the process will work. It will be done in consultation with the industry so we agree on what the standards are and how the designations will be made. It will then be done by regulation. So if the course content and other circumstances change we can update the regulations which is much easier than getting an amendment to the Sale of Liquor Act. So although I agree with the intent of Pansy Wong’s amendment I think the process should be by way of regulation. I have given the industry my assurance that we will consult to make sure that that is what happens. 
Mr Connell claims there has been no consultation with industry over that training. I say to him that is not true. 
Brian Connell 
: That’s not what they’re saying to me Minister. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Well I say to the member that as one example I have personally talked about this matter on three occasions that I can recall with the Hospitality Association. If that is not consultation I do not know what is. If the association is saying it has not had consultation I would be surprised about that. 
The second matter I want to raise concerns the need for regulations. This is not being done to duplicate anything. The law was changed before to make manager’s certificates appropriate but we do not have a transitional process. This legislation will allow us to transit to the circumstances we have all agreed to. I think we do have to have some industry training. Mr Hide says “No” but I think we do. I do not have as dismal a view— 
Brian Connell 
: We have two units now. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: We are going to have those two units. I do not have as dismal a view as the member about industry training. I think that people are well trained and this provision will be well supported. 
 The third matter is about gift baskets which Mr Hide referred to. He makes it sound very simple—a gift basket with some alcohol put in and that can be sold everywhere. But that is not the case. What people are looking at in the industry is to be able to sell other sorts of food with beer: slabs of pizzas with beer and so on to order as takeaways. If that is the case it is well beyond what Parliament intended with the change in the Sale of Liquor Act. That is what is at the heart of the  
Lopdell 
 decision and it is the issue that I want to come back to so that we can have a clear steer on what the options are for dealing with those anomalies. 
I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Before we put the questions I understand the whips have agreed that instead of having personal votes they wish to have split votes. I seek leave that on the question of the amendments in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 14 and the amendment in my name that notwithstanding Standing Order 144(1)(b) the votes to be cast by a party on a party vote are to include votes cast Ayes Noes and recorded abstentions so we have split votes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT) 
: 
 I came back rather late and I am not fully conversant with exactly what is happening but I do want to take a call on this bill. It seems to me that it is just more ill-conceived and bad legislation that will affect a large number of people. 
The bill allows for the retention of licensing trusts. The real question is why. If we are going to reform this industry as it has been reformed why are we allowing the retention of monopoly rights—to be more correct—for licensing trusts? If a community wishes to have some sort of trust running whether it be a liquor store a hotel or indeed a grocer’s shop then I have no real problem with that. What I and I am sure my party have real problems with is the monopoly provision that no one can set up in opposition to this publicly owned entity. The real question is why. Is the trust such a fantastic commercial model that it is the only option or measure of success we can look at? 
I am led to believe that the return on capital of an institution such as the Invercargill Licensing Trust which has been around for yonks and has had total monopoly rights in that area is a return of just 1 or 2 percent on its capital. Most industries would go broke on that return yet that trust can charge its patrons in Invercargill whatever it likes and there is no option if one lives within its boundary. It is an outrageous situation. The Invercargill Licensing Trust will not become a community trust and lose its monopoly power—that will just not happen. 
There is another rather insidious aspect to some of these monopoly trusts. The reality is simply that much of the money these trusts disperse to charities comes from gambling—from one-armed bandits and slot machines etc. The money they make from their liquor sales and so on is because in many cases those hotels are saying to the clubs—the cricket club the bowling club the chess club or whatever it might be—that they will disperse the moneys to the clubs as long as the clubs buy their alcoholic requirements from them. That is well established and anybody in the industry knows that it occurs. If somebody else perhaps the local bowling club buys its product from somebody else it is told in no uncertain terms by the trust: “OK you’re buying your liquor from the Jeff Connell liquor store in mid-Canterbury so we will disperse our charitable funds to another club because you no longer support us.” Essentially that is blackmail and that is what this bill allows. It allows for continuous— 
Rodney Hide 
: It’s like what Paul Swain does in corrections. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: It is pretty much like it. In the limited time I have left I turn my attention to the question of entrapment which I am sure many speakers have spoken about already. I ask the Committee to imagine the situation where three young people walk into a bottle store—two are 17 and one is 18. They put $10 each into the kitty walk up to the bottle store person and say they want to buy $30 of liquor—a couple of dozen cans or whatever it is. Who then is the purchaser? 
Hon Rick Barker 
: The person who hands over the cash. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Absolutely; I would agree entirely with that. But if the police had been watching those two 17-year-olds handing over the money it seems to me that there is a really grey area there that this bill has not addressed at all. If there were a rugby match at Carisbrook and those young people were in the bottle store 5 minutes after the game when there was a huge rush then the poor old bottle store owner would get whacked. He would be fined very substantial sums of money because the staff were rushed off their feet. That is wrong and it is inappropriate in every aspect. 
If we are really looking at society and its alcohol problem we have to address the issue of the fivefold increase in the number of outlets. That is the single biggest reason why we are having this problem today. We should not blame the guy who is rushed off his feet in a hotel bottle store or the bottle store owner who makes a mistake because a 17-year-old comes who looks 25. If the youth is asked for his identity card he says that he does not have it but that it must be there somewhere. He looks near enough in age and behind him the next person is clamouring to get his or her supplies and be away. Why are we blaming that bar person bar owner or whoever it might be for the problems we face in our society? It is not their fault and I am totally and utterly opposed to that concept. 
Another issue that Pansy Wong and my colleague Rodney Hide have introduced is the problem of the Chinese wine and cooking condiments. What is sherry if it is not a cooking condiment? When a ham is roasting in the oven with a bit of sherry poured over it or a trifle for goodness’ sake has a bit of sherry in it is sherry not a cooking condiment? Members might think that these sorts of arguments are quite trivial but I am illustrating these points because as my colleague Rodney Hide pointed out the principle behind the whole concept is fundamentally flawed. It is wrong and that is why we start to get all those anomalies about Chinese cooking wine and sherries when we get into the ridiculous situation of trying to license and control the sale of liquor. It is wrong. 
We made a major mistake in this House just recently by imposing a “sherry tax” on the elderly. That was never the intention of this Parliament yet the Minister in the chair Jim Anderton rammed that through and we got a major problem out of that. That is all I have to say at this time but I regret deeply the thrust of this bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: In accordance with leave of the House a separate vote is to be taken on the provisions of clause 14 relating to Easter Sunday wine sales. In accordance with leave also granted this will be a split party vote. 
The question is that the provisions of clause 14 relating to Easter Sunday wines sales be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the provisions of clause 14 relating to Easter Sunday wine sales be agreed to. 
Ayes 104 
New Zealand Labour 44; New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 7; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 11 
New Zealand Labour 5; New Zealand National 5; United Future 1. 
Provisions of clause 14 relating to Easter Sunday wine sales agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brent Catchpole to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to amend new section 219E(2) of the principal Act by omitting the expression “15%” and substituting the expression “7.5%”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 13 be agreed to: 
to insert after subclause (1) the following new subclause: 
(1A)Section 36(4) of the principal Act is amended by omitting the words “or any other premises on which the principal business is the sale of food or groceries”.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: An amendment to clause 13 in the name of Rodney Hide is out of order as the question has already been decided. 
There is an amendment to clause 14 in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne. In accordance with the leave granted this will be a split party vote. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(2)Section 37 of the principal Act is amended by repealing subsection (2) and substituting the following subsection: 
(2)It is a condition of every off-licence granted to the holder of a club licence that liquor be sold or supplied pursuant to the off-licence only to— 
(a)any member of the club; or 
(b)any member of any other club with which the holder of the licence has an arrangement for reciprocal visiting rights for members of the club. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 98 
New Zealand Labour 38; New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 16 
New Zealand Labour 11; New Zealand National 5 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 14 be agreed to: 
to add the following new subclause: 
(1A)Section 37(3)(a) of the principal Act is amended by inserting after the word “Wine” the words “intended for consumption as an alcoholic beverage”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: An amendment to clause 14 in the name of Rodney Hide is out of order as the question has already been decided. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to omit all the words after “by repealing section 117A”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to insert in new section 117A of the principal Act after subsection (2) the following subsection: 
(3)This section will come into effect when the content of the qualification has been agreed by all in the industry and shall comprise existing proposed unit standards 4646 and 16705 only. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Rodney Hide to clause 21A be agreed to: 
to insert after clause 21 the following clause: 
21ARepeal of sections 122 and 123 
The principal Act is amended by repealing sections 122 and 123.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendments to clauses 22 23 and 27(1) in the name of Rodney Hide are out of order as the amendment to clause 21 was not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brian Connell to clause 25 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Brian Connell to clause 26 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 198 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to clauses 9 and 14 and the following amendments in his name to clause 2 be agreed to. 
to insert before subclause (1AA) the following subclause: 
(1AAA)Section 5 and section 4 (so far as it relates to section 5) come into force on 1 April 2005; and 
to amend clause 2(3) by omitting the words “1 April 2004” and substituting the words “the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent”. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek leave that we have a split party vote on this vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought— 
John Carter 
: We already have leave. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: But you don’t have leave to do so. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: But only on the other one. 
John Carter 
: I sought leave at the end of the second reading for our party votes to be taken as split party votes right through this voting and leave was granted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thought the member had so I thank him. I call for a split party vote. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 113 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 7; Progressive 2; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 6 
New Zealand National 5; United Future 1. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 and 2 and Parts 1 and 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 14 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Clauses 1 and 2 and Parts 1 and 2 as amended agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members of the Committee for their perseverance and patience. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. I thank the House for the passage of this bill and I thank the Leader of the House for giving it time. 
Easter Sunday trading was moved originally by Jeff Whittaker a former member of Parliament from Hastings. It was knocked out in 1999. After 4 years we have restored it and I thank him very much for that. 
We have also managed to tidy up provisions relating to the sale of rice wine and to transitional provisions for training. We have improved accountability for trusts and we have improved their democracy and efficiency. 
This is a very good liquor bill and I thank the House for its overwhelming endorsement of it. I encourage all members to turn up to Hawke’s Bay on Easter Sunday and enjoy a tipple of fine Hawke’s Bay wine as this bill enables them to do. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I start by clarifying an issue that I spoke about during the course of the Committee stage. I think I gave the impression to the Committee and to the Minister in the chair in particular that the Hospitality Association of New Zealand had not been consulted. That in fact was not the case. The point I was trying to make is that the association represents a minority position not a majority position as the Minister would have us believe. My point was and still is that there has not been wide consultation about the regulations aspect. 
I find myself in a position where I cannot support this bill yet there are components that I very strongly support—in particular Easter Sunday trading for wineries. But I find myself in a very difficult and complex position. I had to vote against the controlled purchase operations because I am more strongly opposed to the issues of entrapment. Despite my suggesting amendments to enable these provisions to be deleted the Committee saw fit not to agree to them. I accept that is the democracy we work in. 
I am concerned about how that aspect of the bill will operate. I have sent out a loud warning that I feel that some people in the industry and across this country will be victimised by the police. I want to put it on the record that I am a very strong supporter of the police but on this occasion I think this legislation goes too far. The ability of people in the industry to deal with the issues of entrapment I now think have been taken out of their hands and I believe we will live to regret this day. The Minister had his opportunity and decided that it was not of sufficient concern for him to take heed of what I was telling him and change his vote. 
The practicality of trying to enforce this legislation will result in it simply not working. Law-abiding citizens across this country will be turned into lawbreakers and that I have to say disappoints me immensely. Who amongst us can say that he or she would be able to tell someone’s age without proof of identity? I still beseech the House that we should have considered lifting the age limit or at least making sure there was compulsory proof of age when people go into hotels to purchase liquor. That would have taken the onus completely away from the owners and would have put the onus on the person buying the liquor. With those comments I thank members for their indulgence. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I would just like to take a quick call in this debate. I said most of what I wanted to say in the second reading and in the Committee stage. But I would just like to highlight the fact of licensing trusts being able to reconstitute themselves as community trusts. That is an acceptable way of changing their business practice. We were disappointed that we were unable to get the threshold for the poll lowered but we accept that democracy is the key there. 
On the point of entrapment that Brian Connell has been going on about we expressed some concern at the beginning but if there is any opportunity to stop the blatant misuse of bars selling liquor to under-age people then we say that every effort should be taken to prevent that practice. We go further to say that the age limit should have been raised in the bill. There should have been a clause that reinstated the age limit back to 20 years and that would have reduced a lot of the under-age drinking problems of drunken kids in the streets. 
There is already a requirement to check for IDs. There is also a requirement that the age limit is strictly enforced and it is up to the bars to follow that process. If there is the slightest bit of doubt people are asked for proof of age. Even if a person looks a little bit over age he or she should be asked for ID and proof of age. So it is up to the barkeeper and there should be no out for those bars that blatantly flout the law. 
On the subject of the wineries being able to trade on Easter Sunday that is just a reinstatement of an error that took place in the last amendment legislation of 1999 and that gives the opportunity for wineries to open on Easter Sunday and provide a service to the tourism industry. Tourism is a huge industry in this country and this change is just bringing it back into line with what it was prior to 1999. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are pleased to support this bill through its third reading. We are pleased to be able to support the passage of the bill to this stage. I will not go into great length about the different clauses of the bill. I have already canvassed those issues during my second-reading speech and other members of the House have spoken at some length about them already and I am sure other speakers will continue to do so. 
We are pleased to see that a couple of sensible amendments have come out of the Committee stage. The first concerns reciprocal visiting rights around clubs put up by the Hon. Peter Dunne. It was good to see something sensible come from Mr Dunne in that regard so I thank him for that amendment. The other issue concerned culinary wines rice wines and so forth. Amendments were put up by different members but the one put up by the Minister had been properly drafted and should proceed. It is good to see that finally cleared up. We think the bill is better for those amendments and we are pleased to see it go through its final passage. 
RODNEY HIDE (ACT) 
: 
 As I said earlier the ACT party opposes this bill. I was interested to hear from members who said that a monopoly is a choice that people make. That seems to me to fly in the face of cultural diversity and recognising that minorities have a right and a view. If we say that voting 51 percent makes something right then I think we in this country are in for a rather rough old spin. It seems to me that not everybody in an area wants to buy their alcohol from a licensing trust. It seems a bit tough that the majority can impose that will on them. I would have thought that Maori members opposite in particular would recognise the fact that rights cannot be taken away just by a vote. 
I am pleased that the rice wine issue has been addressed. However I do worry about the Minister who never bothered to address it until Pansy Wong and the ACT party introduced amendments in the Committee stage and made it an issue. The Minister had the opportunity to fix that issue a long time ago. We have to say that sometimes we overprescribe what New Zealanders can and cannot do in order to enforce morals better behaviour and the way in which we think people should live their lives. When we get down to defining what is a supermarket a Chinese supermarket what is Chinese cooking wine and what is not Chinese cooking wine then fundamentally we should rethink some of the ways in which we go about our legislation. 
I am very disappointed that the Minister managed to persuade Government members to vote for training of general managers of liquor outlets. It is an unnecessary bureaucratic measure. It will impose costs on people to the advantage of particular trainers and no problem has ever been identified that this particular legislation is addressing. I heard the Minister say that he will develop training programmes in consultation with the industry. That is recorded in  
Hansard 
 and I hope that he is as good as his word and that his concept of consultation is better than the consultation he has delivered in developing this bill. 
Certainly it is a lot better than the $1.3 million worth of phoney consultation the Minister of Corrections Paul Swain got himself involved in. So I hope that his consultation is a whole lot better than the $1.3 million of fake consultation with the Tainui people that unfortunately has seen a fallout with the Tainui people today. I believe that the Department of Corrections took advantage of a difficult situation with the Tainui people. I do not blame the Tainui people. I blame the Department of Corrections that has caused untold mischief in the Waikato and amongst Tainui. The fact that Minister Paul Swain can make light of it and laugh at it is a disgrace. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I take a very brief call to support the third reading. We welcome the amendments that have been passed particularly those clarifying the situation on Easter Sunday and those regarding rice wines. I was particularly grateful to the House for the support it gave to my own amendment regarding off-licence sales to reciprocal members of clubs. I think that will be a positive step forward. 
The only other observation I want to make and I am sure the House will indulge me very briefly to make it relates to a comment made by Mr Catchpole suggesting that lifting the drinking age to 20 would curb under-age drinking problems. It reminds me of a visit I made to the electorate of the member for Otaki when I was a member of the Government in the 1980s to discuss the Government’s economic changes and someone got up at a meeting and said: “We’re all in favour of the Government’s economic changes. Why couldn’t the Government have waited until all the old people had died first before we brought them in?”. I think of the same argument in the context of Mr Catchpole’s point that if we raise the drinking age we resolve all our under-age drinking problems. The issue is far more complex than that. I do not have the time or the interest to go into it this evening. I think this bill is a good one. We should support it and then we can all go home. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that there is some uncertainty as to whether the leave that was granted carries on to the third reading. National has a split vote so I seek leave for a split vote on the third reading. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
that the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 105 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 21; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 14 
New Zealand National 5; ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time. 
The House adjourned at 5.42 p.m. (Thursday)