Volume 615 Week 49 - Wednesday 25 February 2004 
Volume 615 Week 49 - Wednesday 25 February 2004 
[Volume:615;Page:11287] 
Wednesday 25 February 2004 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Low-wage Earners—Conditions 
1. HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What progress has the Government made in improving the conditions of low-wage earners? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Excellent progress. This Government has increased the adult minimum wage from $7 an hour in 1999 to $9 an hour in 2004. This is in addition to the lowest unemployment rate in decades 4 weeks’ annual holiday and 12 weeks’ paid parental leave. 
Helen Duncan 
: Has the Minister received any reports on the effects of employment relations reforms? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes. As Treasury advice on the reforms reflects although wide ranging they are unlikely to have a big impact. This is in marked contrast to the comments made by Dr Brash who believes we should remove all minimum employment standards including a minimum wage minimum holiday entitlements parental leave and equal pay. 
John Key 
: Did the Government make the decision to raise the minimum wage before or after it saw the  
Herald 
-DigiPoll on Monday; and if we are to believe it was before would she describe the timing of the announcement as desperate or coincidental? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: As I am sure the honourable member is aware there is a process that takes place for a determination in this matter that started sometime last year. Therefore the timing of it was of course appropriate. It was time to be announced. 
Peter Brown 
: What progress has the Government made in its 4 years of office in improving the lot for people employed casually—working people who would like a permanent job but are forced to take casual employment? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The member raises an excellent point and that is why in all the reforms we have not made the distinction between full-time and casual employees. 
Haparangi A4—Settlement 
2.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: In respect of the reported $1.6 million Haparangi A4 settlement what is the total amount to be paid to the proprietors and is he happy with all the details? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 In respect of the Haparangi A4 the total settlement was based on the cash payment of $1.6 million plus the return of Crown shares in the property. I am happy that it has been settled. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I take it that the Minister is happy because he is unaware of the background details which include the proprietors of Haparangi A4 being given a request for an account that totals $825585—well over half of the receipts to the Haparangi A4 proprietors—and when will he do something about the Treaty of Waitangi industry and all the teat-suckers who are on it? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Any costs associated with taking this action are a matter for the claimant and his or her legal advisers. There are a whole lot of teat-suckers who have more than their snouts in the trough— they have their whole heads in it. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: Why did the Government settle with the owners of the Haparangi A4 trust? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The Maori owners and descendants of former owners of Haparangi A4 took action in the High Court against the Crown in 1996 on a number of causes of action relating to the Crown’s administration of the block since 1933. Officials recommended that settlement should be completed on the commercial aspects of settling the High Court action without specific admission of legal liability. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does this new tough talk from the Minister of Maori Affairs about treaty teat-suckers not only having their snouts in the trough but their whole heads reflect a total buy-in on his part to the U-turn that Helen Clark has announced on the Government’s attitude to Treaty of Waitangi and other race matters? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Like my trim slim new look I have always said that and I am trying hard. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the Minister takes that attitude then what steps did he or any of his colleagues take to find out the facts behind the preparation of this claim and what steps did he take to ensure that the details were brought before the Maori Affairs Committee or his office as the presiding Minister or is this sort of practice to go on with the people the taxpayers and Parliament being totally ignored as what is right and fair? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The settlement is totally kosher and it is fair. Any business after the settlement related to the cost is between the people we settle with and those who are creditors to those people. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister not understand his own responsibility in allowing the proprietors to be forced to go through a process controlled by one group of people namely Sir Graham Latimer and the Crown Forestry Rental Trust where $825000 is claimed of a $1.6 million settlement to 21 operations of which 15 are in some way associated with the law—and why we need 15 different law firms or practitioners I do not know—and six others are also to be paid out before the owners get anything at all? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: My understanding is that 23 need to be paid out and certainly there is a long history of people who have sucked off this industry. We are doing a lot better than people did in 1996 and 1998 when they paid out in relation to the kiwifruit settlements in Tauranga. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the Haparangi A4 creditors demand that sets out the $825000— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the $92 million-dollar settlement for the Maori owners of the kiwifruit industry who were owed a duty of care by Treasury and the former Government and never got settlement until I arrived on the scene. 
Document not tabled. 
Schools—Network Reviews Invercargill 
3.  
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Will he cancel the current round of school reviews following the report in the  
Southland Times 
 that a meeting of Invercargill representatives of primary and secondary schools education unions and the city council “felt it was inappropriate to proceed with anything assisting with the review such as making submissions or collecting data.”; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 No. The Invercargill community has gone through the process and many people in the area are now seriously looking ahead to grasp the opportunities they will get when the changes are implemented. I have said I will look very closely and carefully at submissions before I make my final decisions. If people choose not to give me additional submissions then they will be at some disadvantage. 
Rod Donald 
: Will the Minister concede that his decision to suspend future school reviews has galvanised opposition to the current round of closures and does he now agree that it would be more sensible to extend the moratorium to the 11 districts currently under review? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes and no. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What are the potential benefits of completing the school reviews in Invercargill? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Currently there are over 3500 spare spaces for students in Invercargill schools. The sum of $33 million will be freed up if those proposals proceed. 
Katherine Rich 
: Why should Invercargill parents and kids be disadvantaged just because their school reviews fell on the wrong side of two bad polls for his Government? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Invercargill parents will be advantaged by having a higher quality of education through funding that is currently being wasted on maintaining empty buildings and unused grounds being made available for extra teachers computers teacher-aides and other things that will enhance education. 
Pita Paraone 
: Notwithstanding the Minister’s response to the reviews being conducted in the Invercargill area will the Minister consider reviewing the position with regard to the Kawakawa-Moerewa area in order to meet the aspirations of the Ngati Hine people to have an educational institution of which they can have a sense of ownership; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yesterday when I responded to that question both that member and the member sitting in front of him who knows the issues very well were supportive of the direction I was taking. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Does the Minister agree with the view of Business and Economic Research Ltd that the current round of school reviews “appear to have little relationship to the economic development strategy of the appropriate region”; if not can he confirm that at no stage during the review process was he briefed by officials from the Ministry of Economic Development as stated by Jim Anderton in a response to a written question? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have had discussions with people from Business and Economic Research Ltd. I have had a look at economic impact reports. I have seen indicators for South Canterbury for example which 2 years ago had 4 percent growth in domestic product but a 4 percent drop in the number of school-age kids. There is a relationship and I think the relationship is that strong schools mean that people want to go to areas and schools that are tipping over mean that they want to leave. 
Rod Donald 
: In the face of threatened legal action and civil disobedience from school boards teachers and civic leaders to his plans to close 71 schools would it not be less stressful on all concerned if he extended the moratorium? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I cannot protect people from self-inflicted stress from their taking legal action. 
Rod Donald 
: Finally does he not agree that it would be better to cancel the current round of reviews and focus the available resources on ensuring a smooth transition for those schools that do want to close in the light of his statement yesterday that it will be impossible to get the builders necessary to do all the work to have the schools open for January next year? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think the member should take a lot of care in generalising from a very specific comment about an affected area. 
Reducing Inequalities Policies—Reported Comments 
4.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her reported claim that to advocate that New Zealanders should be dealt with on the basis of need not race is “divisive” and “a desperate campaign by a beleaguered party”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I stand by my view that the Orewa speech set out to divide New Zealanders against each other. Media coverage since would suggest it has and that is not something the National Party should be proud of. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Given her Government’s spectacular U-turn on these issues does she stick by her statement made in the House on 17 February that: “I have no second thoughts about a policy approach designed to pit white against brown and rich against poor in New Zealand. I will fight that to my last breath.”; if so does she now admit that her Government’s policies have been designed to pit white against brown or is this U-turn just a desperate move by her desperate and beleaguered Government? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I certainly will fight to the death against those policies of privilege preached by the Opposition because I happen to have a vision of society where people work together and do not set out—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not mind the odd interjection but there are far too many. The Prime Minister is quite entitled to have an answer I can hear—some interjection yes but that sort of interjection no. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I happen to have a vision for a society where we go forward together and do not see policies based on privilege for the rich leaving a large marginalised brown underclass in their wake. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister have any reports that suggest that before the Orewa speech regardless of its content Dr Brash had ever raised anything to do with the Treaty of Waitangi or those issues in his maiden speech or at any subsequent time before the Orewa speech? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have been around politics a long time and I can certainly remember no such previous interest by Dr Brash—ever. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement made by Jonathan Milne in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
that one of the justifications for special assistance is “that Maori have never recovered from having their entire economic base taken in the 19th century”; if so does she agree that the current National Party campaign relies on the denial of colonisation and dispossession? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: On many occasions I have found myself not in agreement with Mr Milne but I would agree that dispossession of the poor is something the National Party is very interested in continuing while it redistributes towards the rich in this country. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Was she sincere when she said that to advocate that New Zealanders should be dealt with on the basis of need not race to quote her is “divisive” and “a desperate campaign of a beleaguered party”—was she sincere when she made those comments some weeks back; if not why has she changed her mind? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I said from the outset when that speech was leaked to the Government that it set out to be divisive. It has been divisive and anyone looking at our media in the last month can see what it has done and the bruised and hurt feelings of Maori throughout this country. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: In light of the comments referred to in the original question and also the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday that the consensus relating to treatment of issues concerning Maori had been shattered what steps does the Prime Minister now think ought to be taken to re-establish a national consensus on that issue? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As the member says I have indeed referred to the shattering of what has been a consensus between Governments for many years on how these kinds of issues are approached and I have referred to the need to find a new balance. I think there is a time now for voices of reason and moderation and I look forward to working with the member on that because I know that is where he stakes his place in politics. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Will the Prime Minister admit that her new position on divisive legislation is motivated by polling information or will she tell the House that she has agreed all along with Dr Brash and her new Coordinating Minister Race Relations who told the  
Dominion Post 
: “The treaty is in quite a few Acts and there are principles sitting there quite inconsistently and in some cases incoherently”; if not why not? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have seldom found myself in agreement with Dr Brash on anything because he brings a lot of baggage to this job across privatisation pension cuts and many other things that are abhorrent to me. So the last thing I would find myself in agreement with him on is his setting out to divide Kiwis on this basis. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: What principle has driven the U-turn by her Government from race to needs-based and why does she not accept that she and her Government were completely out of step with 90 percent of New Zealanders and indeed with the centre-right of this nation? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I pride myself on being out of step with the right 100 percent of the time. That whole question has a false assumption which is that this Government and Governments before it have set out to divide on the grounds of race. That is not so. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Will she concede that it is her Government’s policies in particular her policies around the seabed and foreshore which are proving to be an absolute debacle that have led to the huge buy-in to the issues raised by Dr Brash to such an extent that she has tried to change this debate into a racial issue going to the extreme extent of appointing Mr Mallard of all people as the Coordinating Minister Race Relations? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The questioner could not possibly have said those words with a straight face and he did not. I have said throughout on foreshore and seabed— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I said them with a straight face and I seek leave to say them again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member is overdoing it a little bit. The member has sought leave. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member’s face was as straight as it was when he went around south Auckland and would not admit to a single Maori group that he would cut its funding which we saw on  
20/20 
. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: That’s right. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: “That’s right.” he says—and that is where we get specific. There is not a single thing he would change. That is the truth. Addressing the issue of the foreshore and seabed I have gone the length and breadth of the country over the past 8 to 9 months saying that this Government will not settle for exclusive possession going into the hands of any group but that we will also respect customary rights—and I heard Mr Brownlee on  
Morning Report 
 this morning say there are customary rights that should be respected. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Grasping at straws. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is very very lucky indeed. I said the next person who interjected during a question being asked was going to leave. He is very lucky indeed and that is his final warning. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Can I ask the Prime Minister as to whether before Orewa and that Damascus experience there was anything of any substance different between the National Party’s policy and Labour’s as best evidenced by the fact that Doug Graham got a knighthood for what he was doing and is now adviser to Dr Brash? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have not been able to find differences of substance. I would say that this Government has been more generous. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first one is the text of my speech in the general debate the first one after I became the leader of the National Party in which I expressed grave concern about the Treaty of Waitangi. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. [ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry Dr Brash. There is to be no comment during points of order. 
Dr Don Brash 
: I seek leave to table the preliminary results of a survey conducted in the Northland electorate of Maori members on the roll which showed that 88.75 percent of those Maori supported the idea that the treaty should not be used as a basis for creating greater civil political or democratic rights. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I seek leave to table Mr Brownlee’s words recognising that there are customary rights that should exist. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is it her understanding that customary rights in these circumstances can be given only to Maori not to Pakeha? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In the way in which they have developed under the common law which is not unique to New Zealand—that is my understanding. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table a very well-known speech by the then leader of the National Party Jim Bolger in 1990 promising to settle everything to do with Waitangi in 10 years which we will receive today with a sense of déjà vu. 
Document not tabled. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—Performance 
5.  
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Has she received any reports containing recent assessments of ACC’s performance internationally? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes. An Australian report on workers’ compensation comparison shows that although 6 years ago Accident Compensation Corporation and Australian levies were similar New Zealand rates are now on average 65 percent less than those of Australia. This gives New Zealand a clear competitive advantage in most industries. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Can the Minister explain why the Accident Compensation Corporation’s levy rates are now so much lower than those in Australia? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: There are a number of reasons. As the Accident Compensation Corporation has focused more on injury prevention and rehabilitation—in line with legislation that this Government introduced in 2001—we have kept our workplace injury rates down compared with Australia and have provided much more effective rehabilitation. The corporation’s administration costs are about one-third of Australian schemes. We have far fewer disputes and that is in part due to the corporation’s no-fault principles. 
Peter Brown 
: Is the Minister aware of any reports or letters that indicate the concerns that physiotherapists have with the endorsed provider network scheme particularly in Auckland; and if she is aware of those concerns can she give the House an assurance that she will address them positively? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am very aware of concerns that some physiotherapists both in Wellington and in Auckland have with the Government’s proposed roll-out of the endorsed provider network scheme. Their primary concern is the agreement which the Government reached during the piloting of that for there to be no co-payment in response to an increased subsidy to the health provider—in this case the physiotherapist. That group of physiotherapists believe that it is their right to continue to charge. I cannot therefore guarantee that that issue will be satisfactorily resolved but I am happy to continue to work with them on it. 
Steve Chadwick 
: How is our scheme generally viewed overseas? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Frankly with envy. As well as the levy achievements that I have just outlined the accident compensation scheme has cushioned New Zealanders against the impact of substantial worldwide hikes in private insurance premiums. Many observers around the world will be wondering why on earth National—if it ever gets the chance—plans to privatise the Accident Compensation Corporation and expose New Zealanders to similar costs inefficiencies and uncertainty. 
Primary Health Organisations—Funding Maori  
6.  
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What methodology was followed to produce 20 percent extra primary health organisation funding for each enrolled Maori for all deprivation and age levels and what specific needs does this extra 20 percent funding address? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I ask the Minister to answer the question I inform members that she did contact me earlier and advise that the specific answer to the question was seven pages in length. Of course she cannot give all that out in the answer that she is giving now but I have told her that she can have a little longer time than usual. At the end of the question she will seek leave to table the full answer. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The methodology has been on the Ministry of Health’s website since 2002 and what follows is an indication of the methodology used. Step 1: (a) assemble historical utilisation rates by age and gender; (b) multiply (a) by $35 per consultation for under-sixes and by $25 per consultation for all others; (c) weight the product of (a) x (b) by anticipated increased demand and additional needs—children only; (d) add the historical practice nurse subsidy; and (e) add $1.78 per person for health promotion. Step 2: using the above rates apply weightings for ethnicity and deprivation of 20 percent. Step 3: add high users and so on. The 20 percent weightings for ethnicity and deprivation are applied to the primary health organisation to provide services to improve access for the most needy. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: How long does this go on for? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Mr Speaker you gave me permission to make my answer a little longer than usual; I do not think Mr Brownlee heard you say that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought that the Minister stuck within the ruling that I made. 
Heather Roy 
: Was the Ministry of Health’s head of clinical services Colin Feek correct about the 20 percent ethnic weighting for primary health organisations when he stated: “I’ll be quite honest—that’s a slightly arbitrary figure” and that: “We just felt that 20 percent weighting was enough to shift the balance. We don’t have any science behind it.”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Dr Feek was correct in that the weighting applies not just to ethnicity. The Ministry of Health decided on a 20 percent weighting by looking at previous services that had worked and used that figure as a weighting in the formula. There is no exact science behind it—it is very difficult to get exact science. It is important to know that the weighting is not just for ethnicity which is the only thing ACT concentrates on. There are also weightings for age gender and deprivation. 
Dianne Yates 
: Of the factors that attract funding for any public health organisation which category attracts the highest level of funding? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The highest level is derived from having a high use health card—for people with the highest need. If people have a high use health card regardless of whether they are black white brindle rich poor young or old they attract the highest amount of funding. It is obviously a needs-based policy. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Is the way that Dr Colin Feek has described the ethnicity weighting the usual way to determine how to spend a huge amount of taxpayer money—that is there was no science behind it; it was just plucked out of the air as an arbitrary figure—and when will the Minister admit that the implementation of primary health organisations has been a disaster for patients who have high health needs but are denied cheaper health-care because they are not of the right race or do not live in the right location? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I do not agree because people with the highest health needs as I have just outlined are those who have a high use health card. They attract the highest level of funding regardless of whether they are rich or poor no matter what colour they are and regardless of whether they live in Kaitaia or Invercargill. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Has the Minister seen the  
Decades of Disparity: Ethnic mortality trends in New Zealand 1980-1999 
 report which provides compelling evidence that one reason that Maori health is poorer and is in need of targeted assistance is the new-right reforms of the 1980s and 1990s; and given that evidence what does she think would be the likely impact of another term of a new-right Government on Maori health? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may comment on the first part of the question. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I think any move to new-right politics would be disastrous on the health of the poor the needy and those who are relying on a Government like this to ensure they get better health-care. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In light of the Minister’s claim in question time last week that in addition to the 20 percent Maori funding allowance primary health organisations also get “20 percent more if they have a majority of people who are elderly or young” will she table the formula that shows that 20 percent allowance for age and if she cannot will she admit she was wrong and apologise for misleading the House? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The formula is available to the member. I think she needs to listen to what I said. The funding is built on a basic formula and then has add-ons to it. I am happy to give it to the member if she has not been able to get it off the Ministry of Health’s website. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: When will she admit that the implementation of primary health organisations has been a disaster for patients who are denied cheaper health-care because they are not of the right race or do not live in the right location for doctors only 9 percent of whom think primary health organisations will improve patient care and for district health boards which are picking up the pieces—for example by Middlemore Hospital in relation to the primary health organisation that has gone into liquidation—and stop this experiment that is doing irreparable harm to primary care in this country? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: More has been done for primary health-care in terms of the investment of money and concentrating on the needs of New Zealanders under this Government than we have seen in many decades. I take heart from my meeting this week with the Independent Practitioners Association Council the organisation that represents the doctors who are in the primary health organisations which came to me and said those doctors believe the primary health organisations are the way of the future and they want to work constructively with us. 
Deborah Coddington 
: If the primary health organisation funding was really needs-based instead of race-based would the formula not have true causative factors like obesity and smoking alongside age and gender as measures of health needs instead of race; is she not just guilty of stereotyping? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: If the member wants to put in obesity and other issues like that I would say she would be guilty of stereotyping. What we have in any formula are some key components. Some of the key components that are recognised not just in the health funding formula but in the formula that was devised for decile funding in schools by I think Dr Lockwood Smith include such things as ethnicity lower socio-economic status and so on. That has been accepted in New Zealand for many years. 
Stephen Franks 
: If the Minister considers that it is not race stereotyping to have a race loading because she hides it amongst four or five other factors what is it that generates the race loading? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I find it remarkable that that member does not know that the health status of Maori and Pacific people in New Zealand particularly is worse than that of other New Zealanders. That is not stereotyping; it is a fact. They die 9 years earlier than other New Zealanders they have more cancers in every category except skin cancer and in almost every health statistic that is available Maori Pacific and low-income New Zealanders are worse off than other New Zealanders. Do we not want to address those issues? Yes we do. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: I seek leave to table the funding formula which shows the 20 percent funding allowance is based on race not age. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the Minister want to table her answer? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is on the website. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister advise the House whether Maori get their fair share of superannuation and whether they get their fair share of rest home entitlements? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: That is a very good question because in terms of paying taxes Maori pay taxes too—but 0.57 percent of Maori are alive after the age of 65 years in comparison with around 14 percent of the population that is over the age of 65. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I believe that the Minister should be given an opportunity to avoid misleading the House. She appears to be saying that a stereotype is not a stereotype when it is statistically true. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. That is a debating point. 
Hector's Dolphins—Tagging 
7.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Will he urgently review the proposed tagging of endangered Hector’s dolphins with satellite-linked transmitters; if not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 No. I have looked into this matter and given careful consideration to the criticisms that have been raised. I am satisfied that the trial using ultra-light tags on just three Hector’s dolphins is well designed with meticulous attention being paid to the welfare of the dolphins. Satellite tagging is used routinely on marine mammals overseas. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister acknowledge that tagging dolphins is an invasive procedure which involves capturing them by their tails dragging them into a boat drilling three or four holes through their dorsal fins and bolting the tag in place and that as well as causing these exquisite creatures to suffer it may put their lives at risk—therefore why would the Department of Conservation not use other safer techniques that give better information about dolphin distribution? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Handling any endangered species carries risk but my department is interested in the conservation of those species. We have great experience in using electronic tracking devices. I remind that member that but for tracking devices we would not have been able to save the kakapo which is a far more endangered species. 
David Parker 
: Why is more information needed on Maui’s dolphin? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: There may be 150 or fewer of these dolphins left. Time is not on our side. Trying to find these dolphins in thousands of square kilometres of ocean is like looking for needles in a haystack. Aerial surveys are helpful but we urgently need to know more about their daily and seasonal movements. Satellite tagging could give us those answers. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Would the Minister explain why the Government is prepared to spend more on a sophisticated monitoring system for dolphins than it is for people on home detention and repeat sexual offenders? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have the privilege of being responsible for endangered native species. That question might be better directed towards another colleague. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does the Minister think that any discomfort and small risk to the dolphins is preferable to their ending up in a can of tuna; and does he also agree that the Department of Conservation is having a bad day indeed when even its old allies the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and the Greens are opposing their efforts to save an endangered species? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The Department of Conservation and indeed myself have a real sense of urgency about saving Maui’s dolphins. There may be fewer than 200 of these creatures left and we have to take every means we can to try to save them. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister acknowledge that the information that could be obtained by the use of transmitters and satellite tagging is unlikely to be robust enough to support for example further restriction on fishing methods and therefore is unlikely to contribute much to the long-term protection of the species? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I must stress to the House that the activities that the Department of Conservation will be involved in during the next few days on this issue are just a trial. Just three specimens will be involved. If the trial is successful and provides us with opportunities for further conservation action then we will certainly look at that. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why did the Department of Conservation go against the advice of its own scientists as well as conservation and animal welfare groups; and is not the almost unanimous outcry over the proposed trial from groups and individuals who are usually highly supportive of the department’s efforts on species conservation good reason for the Minister to put the proposals on hold at least to allow further investigations into their validity? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I would concede that there is debate over these techniques. That is why we are involving ourselves in a trial involving just three specimens. If the trial shows that there are conservation actions we can take we will certainly take them because we are determined to try to save Maui’s dolphin. 
Employment Relations Law Reform Bill—Unions 
8.  
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
 to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by her statement relating to the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill: “every employee remains totally free to choose whether they wish to join a union. Employees have a right to make a genuine choice and protecting choice is a stated aim of the Act.”; if so why? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes because the choice is protected by Part 3 of the Employment Relations Act and its amendment. 
John Key 
: Can the Minister confirm that the incoming Minister of Labour Paul Swain along with Cabinet colleagues John Tamihere and Jim Anderton were all opposed to her changes to the Employment Relations Act because they recognised that that was nothing more than compulsory unionism by stealth and does she believe that that was the reason she was mercilessly shoved to one side by the Prime Minister; if not why not? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I am sorry but I cannot confirm that for the honourable member. We always have vigorous discussion and all points of view are put in our policy making unlike the National Party where there is only one voice and no discussion. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Does the Employment Relations Act and its amendment meet all of our international obligations to protect freedom of choice for employees and employers? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes. The Employment Relations Act complies with the principles underlying ILO Convention 87 and also Convention 98. 
Paul Adams 
: In light of the emphasis in the Employment Relations Law Reform Bill on facilitating collective agreements arising from a genuine bargaining process is there any guarantee that those workers who want an individual agreement instead can get one if a company decides to offer only collective agreements in order to save on negotiating costs; if not do employees really have the right to make a genuine choice? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes the employees do have a right to negotiate an individual contract with their employer and if the employer declines to give them that choice that would bring into question whether the employer was complying with the legislation. 
John Key 
: Does the Minister believe that her sacking as Minister of Labour is in any way linked to the fact that she has foisted a set of labour laws on New Zealand business that are unbalanced and anti - freedom of choice; and now in the face of plummeting poll ratings how long does she think it will take the incoming Minister Paul Swain to reverse completely her amendments? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I am happy to stand by my record in terms of the employment relations framework. As has been indicated we have the lowest strike record we have had in years. We have had increased productivity we have had low employment and we now have a framework in which the vast majority of disputes are settled without disagreement through the Mediation Service. 
Painted Apple Moth—Spraying West Auckland 
9.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Biosecurity 
: Is the goal of the aerial spraying programme in west Auckland to eradicate the painted apple moth; if so why? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister for Biosecurity) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Biosecurity 
: Yes the goal is eradication. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry estimates the potential economic impacts to planted forest horticulture and amenity values associated with the spread of the painted apple moth to range from $58 million to $356 million over the next 20 years. There are also possible impacts on market access and the conservation estate. 
Larry Baldock 
: How can the Minister reconcile that answer with spray programme project director Ian Gear’s comment made when he announced a halt to the spraying in Hobsonville and Meola Creek that the battle is being won as there has been a reduction in moth numbers; and does this mean that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is in fact having to admit defeat in the battle for eradication and that the ultimate goal is now one of “spray to reduce” rather than “spray to eradicate”? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No it is the reverse in fact; it is actually a victory. The scientific experts advising the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry have recommended a reduction in aerial treatments as no sign of moths has been discovered in certain areas for some time. Apart from one moth found in the week ended 18 January no moth has been caught since May last year so we are confident that we are winning the battle against the moth. But we cannot afford to take any chances. The reduction will be on an area-by-area basis and the discovery of any remnant moth colonies may trigger further aerial operations. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What is to stop there being further moth incursions into New Zealand? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Continuous improvement in biosecurity. This Government has spent more than $50 million a year more in baseline biosecurity funding than previous Governments and we have ensured that 100 percent of inward aircrew and passengers as well as sea containers are checked. More risk material such as giant African snails is being stopped at the border now because we are looking harder. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister assure the people of west Auckland that the department has in place sufficient monitoring controls to prevent the resurgence of the moth a return to spraying and all the subsequent inconvenience and possible health risks associated with it? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The department obviously from an economic basis is absolutely sure that it will continue with the surveillance and with the stopping of passage of vegetation to ensure that we do not have a re-incursion. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister also assure the people of west Auckland that when the programme is all done and dusted and the show has left town the department will continue to have measures in place to advise or treat health problems not immediately apparent at the time of spraying? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes. 
Treaty of Waitangi—Ministerial Responsibility 
10.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Coordinating Minister Race Relations 
: Can he explain what is meant by the Prime Minister’s reported comments “Mr Mallard will also take responsibility for general issues concerning the Treaty of Waitangi such as the place of references to the treaty in legislation. There has been no clear ministerial responsibility in this area at all.”? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Coordinating Minister Race Relations) 
: 
 My understanding of the Prime Minister’s comment is that while there was some responsibility within the Maori affairs portfolio for the treaty issues from a Maori perspective and there was responsibility for settlement of historical grievances with the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations there was no Minister with clear overall ministerial responsibility in respect of the place of the treaty. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Will he accept the offer—given the absolute mess that Labour and National have created in this area—of New Zealand First to apprise him of the questions that we have asked in this House on countless occasions over many years and the offer to sort out the legislation now? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This Minister is always happy to have all reasonable assistance. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: When the Prime Minister said that Mr Mallard’s responsibility would be for general issues concerning the Treaty of Waitangi such as the place of reference to the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation did she tell him that she had previously delegated that specific role to the Hon Tariana Turia and I quote from the previous delegations under the name of Tariana Turia: “Responsibility for treaty clauses in legislation”; did she also tell him why Tariana Turia was being replaced and can the Minister confirm that that was for a degree of incompetence in that role? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: There are a number of questions there. I think the key point I want to make is that Ms Turia’s delegation was from a Maori affairs perspective as a delegation from the Minister of Maori Affairs. I think the Prime Minister described my view as an overview—a helicopter view. Anyone who thinks that Ms Turia is not good at putting her point of view is just very very foolish. But it does not surprise me that Gerry Brownlee thinks that. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Speaker are you going to let that go? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Since the member has taken offence I will ask the Minister to withdraw that very last comment. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw. 
Work and Income Service—Placements Auckland 
11.  
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What is the Ministry of Social Development’s Work and Income Service doing in the Auckland region to assist professionally qualified migrants find suitable work? 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Work and Income has a number of programmes to assist migrants into work. One of these is a partnership between Work and Income and the Auckland Chamber of Commerce. This has been very successful. Already almost 200 people have participated in the programme with over half getting permanent work in their relevant professions. I would like to record my appreciation for the contribution by the Auckland Chamber of Commerce and its members who have made the programme a success and I look forward to seeing it grow in success over the years. 
Dave Hereora 
: How does this work experience programme assist migrants to find work? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Because the Chamber of Commerce takes a lead role in the programme it opens up opportunities for migrants to gain work experience in the New Zealand context. The prospective employer gets a better understanding of migrants’ abilities and creates a situation more likely for a successful employment outcome. The programme is so good that in the last week the Chamber of Commerce has been approached by 40 new employers interested in the scheme. I look forward to the chamber having continued success. 
Bill Gudgeon 
: If Work and Income is making an effort to assist professionally qualified migrants to find suitable work would the Minister give a categorical assurance to this House that this will not be done at the expense of our own citizens? 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Some of these migrants are citizens of New Zealand but I want to give that member an unqualified assurance that it is not at the expense of any other group. In fact this Government and Work and Income have been outrageously successful. We now have the lowest unemployment record in New Zealand for 16 years and we should all congratulate the service on that. 
Local Government—Maori 
12.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Maori Affairs (Social Development) 
: Does she stand by her comment on National Radio yesterday that: “It’s very difficult for Maori people to get into local government because of the so-called democracy of one person one vote.”; if so why? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister of Maori Affairs (Social Development)) 
: 
 Yes that is the view that I hold and if I am mistaken perhaps the member could help me. 
Katherine Rich 
: Has the Minister raised her concerns about “so-called democracy of one person one vote” with the Prime Minister and Cabinet and what kind of democracy would she like to see operating here in New Zealand? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: The kind of democracy that I would like to see operating in New Zealand is the politics of inclusion not exclusion. 
Mita Ririnui 
: Is the Minister aware of any information that relates to Maori representation in local government? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: The local government website shows that only 5.5 percent of Maori people are represented. That does not compare favourably with our representation in this House which is 16.6 percent under MMP. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does the Minister now accept that she made an incorrect statement on the  
Nine to Noon 
 radio programme yesterday when she claimed that Maori were not guaranteed a certain number of seats at council tables under legislation passed by her Government; if she does not accept that then how does she explain the provisions of the Local Government Act that were passed by her Government that provide for separate race-based electoral rolls and separate guaranteed race-based seats at council tables—how does she explain that? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: My understanding is that the legislation provides that local government can make its own decisions about how voting will take place. 
Katherine Rich 
: Following her comments about inclusion does she stand by her comments in that same interview that Maori deserve special rights because “We can’t go anywhere else. We’ve got nowhere else to go home to. We can only be here.” and where does she think seventh-generation non-Maori New Zealanders can go because the doors to Scotland certainly are not open anymore? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I certainly believe that tangata whenua as the indigenous peoples of this land have rights as guaranteed under article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi. I think it would be best if that member put that question to seventh-generation New Zealanders. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders and  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 provide for the Speaker to grant extra questions when questions are simply not answered. It appears to me that a number of questions have simply not been answered; the Minister has just parroted slogans. Is this an occasion when you might grant a few extra supplementary questions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. 
Katherine Rich 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In my previous question I used a question word “where”. When one uses that word one expects an answer to include a location of some sort. I asked where the Minister expected seventh-generation New Zealanders who are not Maori to go and I did not get an answer to that question. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Do you want me to answer the question Mr Speaker? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: Well I have never ever said to any New Zealander whether first second third or seventh generation that he or she needs to leave this land so I am unsure of why the question has come. 
Katherine Rich 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the Minister runs the risk of misleading House. When we see headlines like “Turia suggests Pakeha can go home” the implication is that if we do not like special treatment for Maori we have some other place to go. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I thought any member of this Parliament could write the headlines in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 I would be very keen to apply. 
Mita Ririnui 
: Is the Minister aware of any local level initiatives to promote Maori participation in local government? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: We are all aware in this House of the good work done by Environment BOP to ensure the inclusion of Maori people. 
Katherine Rich 
: I shall ask the same question again. If the Minister has made comments that Maori deserve special rights because “We can’t go anywhere else. We’ve got nowhere else to go home to. We can only be here.” where does she think seventh-generation non-Maori New Zealanders can go if they disagree with this Government’s special treatment of Maori? 
Hon TARIANA TURIA 
: I have already answered that question. With regard to the newspaper report that the member was floating in front of us I think she should put that question to the New Zealand Press Association reporter who misquoted me. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I seek leave to table a transcription of the  
Nine to Noon 
 radio programme yesterday that clearly shows that the Minister made an incorrect and misleading statement. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that transcript. Is there any objection? There is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table details in respect of Environment BOP that demonstrate Maori will go from being three of 14 members to two of 11—and how that increases the ratio I do not understand. 
Document not tabled. 
General Debates 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. What an extraordinary range of opportunities the Government has served up to the Opposition to discuss in the general debate today. We could talk about the amazing back-down on school closures throughout this country. The tough education Minister Trevor Mallard went up and down the country and fronted up to audiences and was absolutely resolute—and remains so—about the need to shut down schools. But after the results of two polls Helen Clark panicked and the policy is dead. 
We could talk about the equally spectacular turn-round the back-down on the seabed and foreshore legislation. The only problem is that on  
Morning Report 
 today the Prime Minister said she did not know what Trevor Mallard had told the caucus although a few of the members had contacted her overnight. She said that she was more scared of them than any poll and she said that nothing had changed. So everything is back to where it was last December. The people whom Katherine Rich spoke about—whether first second seventh eighth ninth or 10th generation non-Maori New Zealanders—are dispossessed of any interest in the seabed and foreshore. 
I could talk about the sidelining of Margaret Wilson the hapless labour relations Minister. She is out of that role because of her extreme leftist views or extreme pro-union views. In her place we have the friendly face of the Labour Government—namely small Paul Swain who will attempt to inveigle his way into the hearts of business people by telling them that the Government is not going to do this. He will say: “Put in your submissions and we’ll listen.” But at the last minute those people will be slam dunked. 
We could talk about the slap in the face for the Maori caucus—the absolute slap in the face for every Maori member in the Labour Party in being told in effect they are too incompetent in their ministries their select committee involvements and their interactions in the caucus to hold such an important portfolio as race relations. Because race relations is such a sensitive area the Prime Minister has chosen the “genteel” Trevor Mallard to take on the role of smoothing the waters. 
These are all issues that should be debated and talked about. However the big issue of the week is the despicable and disgraceful involvement of the Prime Minister in the release of a document from her office; a document privileged between her as the member of Parliament and the person who gave that document to the office—if in fact it was legitimately acquired—and not only putting that document out into the public arena but being involved in the crime of using that document in respect of someone who had gone to her asking for help. 
 We need to look very clinically at this issue. I will be followed later in this debate by my colleague Judith Collins who has a great deal of further information to lay on the Table. It is inconceivable that a Prime Minister who concerns herself with every detail of the Government’s activities—apart from the seabed and foreshore because apparently no one tells her what is going on although she has a reputation for dealing with the minutiae of Government activity—would not have known what documents were coming out of her electorate office. I think most people in this House faced with a staff member releasing a document from a constituent’s file without the constituent’s permission or the member’s permission would be sent down the road—immediately. This Prime Minister who is so fastidious about all matters says that she was happy to leave the judgment on this issue up to her electorate office staff. 
I do not accept that. I have a strong view that the Prime Minister last Monday knew that the document concerned had been given to Lianne Dalziel by a staff member in the Prime Minister’s office without the permission of the person mentioned in the document and without the permission of the Prime Minister herself. The other explanation is not believable. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I will ask the National Party members through this debate one question. What will they do about people like Lily Fraser? For the people who did not see  
20/20 
 Lily Fraser was the Maori doctor in south Auckland who met Gerry Brownlee. He was asked the question: “Would this woman who met all the standards to become a doctor who passed the exams without anyone knowing she was a Maori—because there was a number on the bit of paper—be allowed to be a doctor under a National Government?”. That was the question. What did Gerry Brownlee say? Gerry Brownlee said: “Well that’s not our call. In fact it never would be under a National Government.” But what did Don Brash say? Don Brash said that not only would she not be allowed to be a doctor but also that he would cut the university funding. That is what he said. He said that if the University of Auckland continued with that approach then they would have their funding chopped. They would go out of the system. It is their choice. Gerry Brownlee says that Auckland University is faced with a choice. It can either have Government funding—millions of dollars tens of millions of dollars a year—or it can have Lily Fraser. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Their choice. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is the call that Auckland University has to make. Who really thinks it is the university’s choice in that case—whether they are going to have their entire Government funding stopped by the National Party for encouraging competent Maori doctors. That is the call. 
Ron Mark 
: That’s close to blackmail. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well that is the approach. Let us look at one or two other issues. [ 
Interruption 
] No. At one stage we have Gerry Brownlee saying: “Yes she can become a doctor.”; Dr Brash says: “No she cannot.” 
I want to ask some other questions of this dithering Leader of the Opposition. When asked whether he would appoint a Minister of Maori Affairs what did he say? He said: “I haven’t crossed that bridge yet.” He has thought about this issue deeply considered it for years—but he had not crossed that bridge yet. Would he axe Maori television? “I’m not sure.” says Dr Brash. That is a decisive approach on the part of the Leader of the Opposition! Would he abolish Maori scholarships? “Oh! I’d like to think about that.” says Dr Brash. It is all very well to swagger up to Orewa and make a speech but what I think is important is when Dr Brash jumps into an area about which he knows very little—other than his one experience in the area as Governor of the Reserve Bank when he set up scholarships for Maori. Those scholarships were so successful that he doubled the number of them. If he were still the Governor of the Reserve Bank I could call him a hypocrite but he is not so I cannot. 
What we have is someone who says one thing out there and has one set of practices. He makes a speech and he has some strong views in that speech but in the end when the hard questions come he says he will cut the funding from the university. I understand he has apologised at the moment to all the Maori doctors for suggesting that their exam standards were lower because he knew that would be untrue. Why he made it up and told lies out there—I know he cannot lie in here—I do not understand. But what I really do not understand is why now he cannot answer some of these fundamental questions. Why would he cut the university funding? Would he appoint a Minister of Maori Affairs? If National members really want someone who has thought about these issues they should appoint Winston Peters as their leader! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member on my right knows that the word “lie” cannot be used in this House. I ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: There was no apology. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes he did. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No there wasn’t. He did not apologise. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Will the member withdraw and apologise? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Do I take it that the inference around that statement is now struck out of the  
Hansard 
 record? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has withdrawn and apologised and I think that is the main thing. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: So he is able to use the floor of Parliament to accuse an honest man of lying and then have it put in the record of the House? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The issue has been dealt with and it is up to the individual member and the Hansard Office as to how it is actually dealt with. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was aware of course that one could not use that word in relation to comments that members have made in the House. I wonder whether you could rule on what redress members have when someone says outside the House as Dr Brash did something that was untrue; something they knew to be untrue and later apologised for. What redress do we have in this House and how can we draw attention to those sorts of inconsistencies of approach? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The party that is under attack should be able to contribute to that point of order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just want to rule on it and if the member is not satisfied he can come back to me. No matter what is said it is a personal reflection upon another member. It is covered under Standing Order 116 and members know full well under Speaker’s ruling 40/3 that calling a member a liar is an offence against the dignity of the House. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Today New Zealand First offered Labour a way out of the tangle it is in over the foreshore and seabed. We offered Labour New Zealand First’s 13 votes to place the foreshore and seabed in Crown ownership to hold in trust for all New Zealanders. All we ask in return is for the Crown to have legal title that will eventually be extended to other parts of the environment. Traditional rights can be of use and can still be protected but they must not be described as a property title. A property title means ownership and I believe that simply will not be accepted by the mass majority of New Zealanders of all backgrounds. 
The present mess worrying hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders is the result of years of treaty madness. Labour and National have been equally insane and they have their fingerprints their DNA and their blood all over their hands. The record proves it. No amount of Damascus-type experience will change that in 2004. The essence of sound politics is to be consistent—to say what one means and to mean what one says. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Ha ha! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: National members find that rather comical because it has come as an absolute surprise to them. But who was it that threw me out of the darned caucus the day after I opposed the Sealord’s deal? It was that party over there the party that seems now to say: “We’ve had no part in this mess.” Who was it that gave Doug Graham a knighthood for his Treaty of Waitangi mess and waste in enormous areas of Maori development in New Zealand? It was the National Party. 
New Zealand First has always held to the principle of being consistent and we will help the Government to get rid of the vague treaty principles that have been infecting legislation since the 1980s. Whilst I am at it where is this man who is a lion in front of the Rotary clubs and a lamb in Parliament? Where is this new orator I keep hearing about from the New Zealand media? They say this man has struck some great chord. Do they not understand that it will fade away very shortly? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Ha ha! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh they will laugh but they will not be laughing— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: What did he say today? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: That is right. Where is the person who is meant to be out there leading the charge on this issue? Well unfortunately he has listened to Gerry Brownlee and it will not be long before it will be a jerrycan of issues. 
The New Zealand First Party was formed on issues like this. In our founding principles we say we believe in one law for everybody. Can that be found in National’s policy? No it cannot. Can it be found in Labour’s policy? No it cannot. We are talking about destiny and to those people in National who think they will win the next election I tell them to stop dreaming; it is not going to happen. It is simply not going to happen. No amount of ACT party support with its 1 percent in the polls will be of any merit whatsoever. 
At the last election we campaigned on fixing three things in 3 years. One was the Waitangi industry and separatist development in New Zealand. That was our campaign theme: to get rid of the treaty gravy train and separate development in this once-great country. Now is the time for action. Now is the time for putting aside the past and doing something concrete with regard to New Zealand’s future. It is not a time for political correctness. It is not a time for the political tyre kickers the bandwagoners and the political poltroons in the National Party who as I said have their DNA all over this issue. They might have had a bright shining light in respect of this issue but it is one on which they have no belief and commitment. As Mr Mallard rightly points out every time Don Brash is asked what his policy entails he does not know the answer. When he is asked: “Will you do this?” he says: “Well I haven’t thought about that yet.” or: “Will you get rid of this?” he says: “No I haven’t really come to that bridge yet.” 
Pita Paraone 
: Waiting for Georgina. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: What has happened to Georgina te Heuheu? Well he cannot tell members that either. It is a mess. How can he make a speech and claim to be definitive without having any background knowledge of what he would intend to do and what his policy is? In this party called New Zealand First is the image of New Zealand the way it will be one day very shortly. Here are people of all backgrounds: European Maori Scots Irish— 
Hon Member 
: Chinese. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: —part-Chinese. But we stood on one franchise. Unlike those National people we disowned ever going down a path of double franchise and we are here today as no other party is with fair representation. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Fairness in government—and indeed good governance—is about respecting cultural difference and not favouring one culture over another. Real leadership in our country should draw people together not tear them apart. It is about giving people a fair go. Contrast the actions of the Prime Minister with those of the Leader of the Opposition. Helen Clark has demonstrated throughout her whole political life a commitment to engaging in a positive way with the increasing diversity that is the reality of our country. Two weeks ago I attended the Chinese Lantern Festival in Albert Park with the Prime Minister. Last week we attended a sports event organised by Muslim youth. Next week we will attend an event organised by the Ghanaian community in Auckland. 
The Leader of the Opposition seeks to divide our communities. He is not embracing the diversity that is a reality of our country and indeed of the whole world now. He seeks to take us back to a sort of golden age—which means of course white and middle class. In reality that was never the case in our country. Right from the earliest times of European settlement we have contained racial and socio-economic diversity: Dalmatians Chinese Indians joining Scots Irish and English and others in the early settlement period. We had a great division of wealth. The Irish from whom I trace my descent were the working class in those days and were actively socially discriminated against. Indeed from the earliest times we put a poll tax on Chinese migrants and imposed on them legally enforced racism. Since the time of the treaty we have been a diverse and multicultural society and that is indeed no bad thing. Accepting difference and embracing diversity is positive. It creates social stability and promotes a fairer community for everyone—not just for European New Zealanders not just for Maori New Zealanders not just for Chinese New Zealanders but for everybody. 
What are the options if we do not do that? Let us cast our minds around the world and see what happens when people get involved in race-based policies. Everyone here grew up with the struggle against apartheid. We know what the effects of that system were on South Africa. It blighted that country’s development for many generations and it pays the cost today as it drags itself out of that system. In Northern Ireland where some of my ancestors came from there is today a community divided against itself. The simplistic analysis would be that it is about religion yet religion does not divide us here in this country. The situation in Northern Ireland is compounded by history and by a sense of grievance. We too will enter that world if we embark on this dangerous path of race-based policies. If we give a minority in our country a growing sense of oppression a growing sense of not being listened to a growing sense that their needs in health and education are not being met and a sense that their own cultural identity is being suppressed and is not being developed or accommodated then we will go down the path of Northern Ireland Sri Lanka Spain with its Basque issues or Turkey with its struggle against the Kurds. Those are the living realities. Those are political situations that the world faces today because of diversity and difference not being accommodated. 
Because of the speech at Orewa we face a real chance that that is the path we could embark on. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that he should beware. Since 1840 this country has attempted—at times less successfully than at others—to embrace diversity. Successive Governments whether they be Labour or National-led have embraced Maoridom and sought to accommodate that separateness—to meld us together as one people. We are not all the same and we can probably never be all the same. We can never be all the same but we can be equal. If we start saying now in 2004 that we are the same and people have a sense that we are not trouble is ahead. 
Again I remind the House of Northern Ireland Sri Lanka Spain Turkey and many other examples in the world today. That is the danger the Leader of the Opposition has opened up. I say to him that he should beware of the lessons of history. This country began as a partnership between peoples in 1840. Sometimes that has been an unhappy partnership but we have kept it peaceful. We have all the recipes for violence. Let us not go down that path. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Why was Lianne Dalziel untruthful? She was protecting her leader. In this instance all roads lead to Helen Clark. Lianne Dalziel was untruthful about how the media got the “guinea pig” letter. She was untruthful to the New Zealand Press Association on Monday 16 February. She was untruthful on Radio New Zealand’s  
Morning Report 
 on Wednesday 17 February and she was untruthful to Television One’s  
Sunday 
 programme later that same morning. In the House later in the afternoon she confessed. Yet Helen Clark did not sack her. Helen Clark’s reaction was: “Well she has been misleading.” The Prime Minister supported her because Ms Dalziel was supporting the Prime Minister. 
On Wednesday morning Ms Dalziel was protecting the Prime Minister when she refused to say how the “guinea pig” letter had got to her but she did say that it was sent independent of TV3. In fact if we can believe anything said by the Prime Minister’s office or by Lianne Dalziel the “guinea pig” letter was sent not once but three times in one month to Ms Dalziel’s parliamentary office—first on 3 February then on 13 February and again on 16 February. Why was it sent again and again? 
Are we expected to believe that Helen Clark’s electorate office sent through the “guinea pig” letter three times within 13 days or is it true that the second faxing was done by the Immigration Service? We do know that the “guinea pig” letter did not come from the lawyer’s office. It was never in the lawyer’s office. The lawyer received the decision from the Refugee Status Appeals Authority and a covering letter. She took the covering letter with her when she went to see the girl. The lawyer made some notes of legal advice and drew a guinea pig because when she talked to the girl about different pets the girl did not know what a guinea pig was. Did the lawyer get the girl a pet? Yes she did but it was not a guinea pig it was a cat. 
The lawyer gave the “guinea pig” letter to the girl to keep. It was kept by her bed and the last time the lawyer saw that letter was the day the girl was bundled up drugged and flown out of the country on Thursday 12 February. 
 The State Services Commissioner has now published terms of reference for an inquiry into the actions of the staff of the Immigration Service and the Parliamentary Service. Will it do any good? No it will not—not a bit. The inquiry will not be able to look at a whole lot of different things including the role of other groups in obtaining the “guinea pig” letter—in particular the role of Shakti the group that is headed by Farida Sultana who just happened to be working out of Helen Clark’s electorate office at the relevant times. 
It will not be able to look at the role of the Prime Minister’s ministerial staff. It will not be able to look at the role of the Prime Minister in perpetrating untruths around the media as her press secretary was doing as late as 5.30 last Thursday night. How do I know this? Because I saw her press secretary doing it. The inquiry will not be able to look at why Ms Dalziel could not tell the truth about the leaking of that document who she was covering for and why it took until Friday afternoon until she was sacked. Finally it will not be able to look at why Helen Clark tried to stop the media from investigating this matter—because she did. 
Are we expected to believe that this Prime Minister did not know about this matter? Are we expected to believe that this Prime Minister did not know what her close friend of 30 years Joan Caulfield was doing? Are we expected to believe that this Prime Minister tried to shut down media interest in the story but did not know what her own Ministers and staff including her press secretary were doing? 
This Prime Minister is worried. She is worried enough to drop her close friend of 30 years Joan Caulfield into the mud. She is worried enough to drop her close friend Lianne Dalziel as well. The Prime Minister is worried because she is involved and this State Services Commission inquiry is intended to leave her untouched. It will simply be a whitewash. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 It must be admitted that Don Brash’s Orewa speech and the subsequent rise in the National Party’s popularity in the polls is sending a clear message to this Parliament. Arising from the speech itself it seems clear to me that we are probably now in agreement on two points. The first is that the historical iwi and hapu-based grievances arising from breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi need to be settled and settled quickly. That is an issue that United Future has continually voiced support for since entering Parliament in 2002. My colleague Murray Smith has successfully appealed to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Hon Margaret Wilson for more resources in that regard. Likewise having listened carefully to exchanges in the House over the last couple of weeks it seems to me that all parties now agree that access to Government funding entitlements should be unambiguously based on need rather than on race—although personally I am not yet clear where the Green Party stands on that issue. I note that Don Brash is effectively repeating the dictum made famous by Michael Joseph Savage—namely “to each according to their need”. So while some things change others tend to stay the same. 
I draw the conclusion that Dr Brash’s speech has struck a chord with New Zealanders for other reasons as well. Many of the New Zealanders I encounter feel less than confident about their place in the world. They are seeking an answer to the overarching question: what does it mean to be a New Zealander? This is a question interestingly enough over which Don Brash himself stumbled during his interview with Kim Hill. In that context I want to renew United Future’s call for a national debate on the question of a written constitution. When the Prime Minister has been asked about this I have heard her say that we already have a constitution. If that is the case let us bring a sampling of year 10 students into the House to tell us about their understanding of the New Zealand constitution. Let us then compare what they say with the response from their equivalents in Australia the USA and the Netherlands—all nations that have written constitutions. I believe that we would find the difference to be like night and day. We would find the young people from those other three nations confident about what it means to be American Dutch or Australian. They would understand their rights and privileges and the way their Government works. It would be no accident; rather it would be the result of a deliberate educational programme in their schools aimed at empowering and emancipating their citizens. In contrast New Zealand has no such programmes because we have no such constitution. 
When voices as diverse as Sir Tipene O’Regan Chris Trotter and Peter Dunne begin to say that we need a written constitution it is incumbent upon us to read the signs of the times and be prepared to move forward and move forward quickly. With a written constitution—I say to Dr Brash—perhaps year 10 students younger and older students at our schools and all the rest of us can move forward to having a new and deeper understanding of and to being confident about what it means to be a New Zealander. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I congratulate Paul Swain on his appointment as Minister of Immigration and wish him well. A couple of important cases—that of a Sri Lankan girl and of Ahmed Zaoui—were mishandled under his predecessor and we would like the new Minister to look at them with fresh eyes. Both cases should have been approached with more compassion recognising that two people were really hurting and that with a little effort New Zealand could have ended their suffering. 
The first case is that of the 16-year-old Sri Lankan girl so heartlessly deported along with her grandmother on 12 February. Unfortunately the Refugee Status Appeals Authority got it wrong. The Associate Minister of Immigration Damien O’Connor did not correct the mistake and deported the girl on the basis that a care plan was in place for her in Colombo. 
Let us look at where the Refugee Status Appeals Authority got it wrong. It correctly judged that the girl had been subject to sexual abuse by members of her family and that she would qualify as a refugee on these grounds if she had a legitimate fear that she would be harmed if she were returned to Sri Lanka. However the authority was convinced that her family could help her in Colombo her uncle being a policeman etc. etc. It is clear from TVNZ’s  
Sunday 
 programme that family members other than her grandmother were not willing to help the girl and would not be available to protect her from what the authority admitted was possible revenge by one of her abusers. 
Associate Minister Damien O’Connor in justifying the deportation said that a care plan was in place and indicated that family members were involved. It transpired that no family member was contacted about such a plan and that the only plan—arranged just before the girl’s departure—was temporary accommodation in a Catholic convent. It was obvious to all New Zealanders that the girl was not fit to travel to Sri Lanka being so highly distressed and having not eaten for some time. To make matters worse she was illegally drugged en route. She is still very upset. The least the new Minister could do in recompense for this disgraceful episode is offer the girl and her grandmother a place in New Zealand if they wish to take it up. 
The second case grossly mishandled by the new Minister’s predecessor was that of former Algerian MP Ahmed Zaoui who has been imprisoned in New Zealand for over 14 months. The security risk certificate imposed on Mr Zaoui by Ms Dalziel nearly a year ago is clearly without foundation judging by the Security Intelligence Service’s summary of allegations which were finally made public last Friday. The summary refers to a video made by Mr Zaoui laughably called a “casing” video. As Mr Zaoui told me from prison last Sunday he would hardly have put his own face in a casing video or included it in his luggage when he flew to New Zealand to claim asylum under his own name. We will all now have to be careful about what we film on our holidays. The SIS absurdly stated that the videoing of a tourist bus and an Internet cafe is evidence of Mr Zaoui’s terrorist aims. The fact that Mr Zaoui a devout Muslim visited one of the two mosques in Hanoi was deemed by the SIS to be very suspicious. 
The SIS summary then repeats the accusations made against Mr Zaoui during court trials in Belgium and France and on his expulsion from Switzerland. Every last one of these accusations was thoroughly discredited and disproved in the Refugee Status Appeals Authority’s determination which came out after the security risk certificate had been imposed on Mr Zaoui. After the authority’s decision came out the then Minister of Immigration should have lifted the security risk certificate. 
 It should be noted that the Refugee Status Appeals Authority which met concerning the Zaoui case went to huge trouble to get all the relevant documentation from overseas—from Europe in this case—unlike the differently constituted Refugee Status Appeals Authority in the Sri Lankan girl’s case which obtained very little information from Sri Lanka. 
The fact is that the Refugee Status Appeals Authority in the Zaoui case has embarrassed intelligence services in Europe which retailed slanders from the Algerian regime against Mr Zaoui. But this does not justify us keeping Mr Zaoui in jail here. The security risk certificate against him should be lifted and Mr Zaoui should be allowed to take his place among us. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition wants to have a debate about important questions. I have some important questions. But first of all let us just recap on some of the answers the Leader of the Opposition has given in recent times. He has been asked whether he would appoint a Minister of Maori Affairs. The answer was: “I haven’t crossed that bridge yet.” Would he axe Maori TV? The decisive Mr Brash said he was not sure. Would he abolish Maori scholarships? “Ah I’d like to think about that.” he said. 
Well I would like to ask the National Party about its policies of need. The country is asking why Dr Brash needs $160 per week more to live on. Is it because he has come down from a salary of $550000 a year to $195000 a year? Is that a policy of need? To compensate him for that terrible drop in income he needs $160 per week? Is that the National Party’s idea of looking after need—Dr Brash’s need? Or maybe it is to help him wash his socks. He is well known for washing his socks. Maybe he wants to get somebody else to wash his socks for him. The amount of $160 a week would wash a lot of socks. 
Of course Dr Brash does not want poor workers to have a minimum wage of $9 an hour. No he is opposed to that. He does not think they should get 4 weeks’ holiday sick leave or anything. It would not cost $160 a week so he does not need that. Or maybe Dr Brash needs to buy more Neil Diamond CDs because as we know his taste in music goes in that direction. But for $160 a week he could go to The Warehouse and buy the entire collection of Neil Diamond—so no $160 a week is not to replenish his Neil Diamond CD collection. 
Maybe just maybe it is because he needs $160 a week to save for retirement because as we know the National Party does not think that elderly New Zealanders should get the level of superannuation they get now and it does not believe in Dr Cullen’s ideas that superannuation should be funded by a superannuation fund. So maybe Dr Brash needs $160 a week more in his pay packet to get ready for retirement in a couple of years because we know he is not too far off retirement. Or maybe he is thinking he will shift the age of retirement to 70 because that is the other way that National Party policy has gone—either cut the level of superannuation or put the age out to 70. 
So maybe the needs-based policy of the National Party is to give Dr Brash and his colleagues $160 a week to get ready for retirement. Or maybe it is to have the lumps taken out of their throats surgically. They have spent so much time flying back into New Zealand at the taxpayer’s expense the lumps have built up. People like Judith Collins who is well known for overseas travel would have a lot of lumps in her throat as she came back to New Zealand and felt the guilt of who paid for those trips along with Dr Brash who used to travel at the taxpayer’s expense. 
So we would like National Party members to tell us all about this policy of looking after people in need. I would like them to tell the people in my constituency who are on $20000 or $30000 a year why they get nothing and Dr Brash gets $160 a week. Why does he need that and they do not? Why do poor people in New Zealand not deserve a tax cut of $160 a week but Dr Brash needs $160 and therefore he should get it because the National Party believes in looking after people in need? 
This Government has dealt with the needs of New Zealanders rich or poor black or white brown or yellow or whatever they may be. If there are children in our community who are not immunised and need it we put programmes into place to make sure they are immunised. If a lot of those children are Pacific Island children it is quite sensible to use Pacific Island nurses to do the immunisation. But that is terrible according to the National Party. We should not do that. Well that is what Dr Brash says. But of course when Gerry Brownlee is confronted with it on a television programme he suddenly finds a new answer for the National Party. 
What are we to believe in this debate? In a debate one usually debates with someone who can at least keep the answer the same for more than half an hour. But not the National Party; no. We need to know all about its policy of need. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) 
: 
 There has been a sea change in politics this year and one has to say it is the centre right striking back against the damaging politically correct agenda that the Labour Government has been trying to thrust down the throats of unwilling New Zealanders. The catalyst was Don Brash’s speech. It was like a lightning rod where people have said enough is enough. They have rejected this Government’s creation of racial privilege at the expense of other New Zealanders. 
So what has been the reaction of the silent majority? There has been a dramatic shift in voter opinion that is unprecedented in New Zealand’s history and it has now caused National to be the leading party in this Parliament. What is the Government’s response? The answer is panic: an avalanche of spin of propaganda and of U-turns. We have seen U-turns over Maori privilege over school closures and now over the foreshore and seabed legislation. 
But I am here today to ask the Government for another U-turn. My Family Court (Openness of Proceedings) Bill was drawn in the ballot last week and I am asking this Government to change the way it has voted on that bill. Three years ago the bill was drawn and the Labour Government voted it down and I am asking this Government to send the bill to open up the Family Court to the Justice and Electoral Committee. That committee is dealing at present with the Care of Children Bill which is looking at the issue of openness in the Family Court. The committee members are well versed in this issue and I am asking this Government to allow the public of New Zealand to have a say about an issue that is extremely important to the way this democracy is run. 
Since 2001 concerns about the Family Court have grown. The Family Court in some areas is known now as a court of injustice. It tears children and families apart taking children away from their parents and grandparents; it perpetrates false allegations; and it fails to enforce court orders. It has even reached the stage where judges are ordering the court to be open so the public of New Zealand can see what terrible things are happening right in front of our eyes—except that we cannot see them because of the secrecy that generally prevails around the Family Court. 
People cannot speak out about what goes on in the Family Court through threat of criminal prosecution. Right now one of our colleagues the Hon Nick Smith is across the road in the High Court. He is facing criminal prosecution along with National Radio and one of our television channels because they spoke out about an issue before the Family Court that a judge had spoken out about. He is not facing criminal prosecution—only those others. 
I am calling for the Family Court to be open like our Youth Court giving judges the power to grant name suppression and to close the court on a case by case basis. It would simply align New Zealand’s Family Court with that of Australia’s and other Western countries. The benefits of an open court would be significant: open justice an increase in mediation instead of litigation a reduction in the number of cases going before the court and therefore a drop in the cost of legal aid to be met by the taxpayers of New Zealand. 
 There would be a fall in the number of child abuse cases because the two cases where judges have opened up their courts in recent years have exposed the disorganisation of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services in dealing with care and protection issues. If that department were open to public scrutiny its performance would improve and the number of cases of child abuse in this country would go down. 
I warn the Government that in 3 years the tide of public opinion has changed in favour of more openness in the Family Court—and that is not just public opinion; it is the opinion of the judiciary and the legal profession as well. Openness in the Family Court is an idea whose time has come. It is such an important issue because it is all about natural justice. I would like to see this Government support the bill going to a select committee. 
LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. I am pleased to speak after the ACT list MP Muriel Newman. We have listened to a range of views this afternoon about “need not privilege”. Let me pin the tail on the Government’s policies that address need and not privilege. Labour’s policies were outlined on a pledge card and we have delivered and are continuing to deliver on those policies. Our country is in good economic and social heart. I would also like to add my perspective as a woman of New Zealand and a woman of the Pacific to say how politics and representation ensure that needs policies and programmes go together. 
I came into this House in 1999 as a list member of Parliament because of the MMP system. Subsequently I won the general seat of the Mana electorate. MMP is a system that has ensured that the voices of people previously excluded can now be heard in Parliament. There are 120 members in Parliament. In the case of women for example there are now significantly more women in Parliament since MMP. In 1993-94 under first past the post 21 women were elected to Parliament and in 2002 34 women were elected. There are now 19 Maori members of Parliament three Pacific Island members and two Asian and ethnic minority members. All people have some representation in Parliament because of MMP which has provided a fairer wider representation. There is no quota system. Political parties have each chosen a list of prospective MPs who reflect New Zealand society. 
MMP is a system that meets the need to have a fair representation in Parliament of our pluralistic society. The first-past-the-post system tended to entrench privilege; MMP has led to greater equity and greater fairness. This Government has many examples where needs have been addressed through policy or legislative change. Maori and Pacific entry to medical training and Pacific Island recruitment to early childhood teaching are examples. As well equal employment opportunities encourage women to aspire to middle and senior management positions. These policies and programmes encourage those groups—which have been previously excluded—to enter a profession. That does not lower standards because all must pass on final exams and achieve merit to the same standard but it ensures there is greater fairness equity and representation among graduates and in professions. 
Evidence shows that the increase in numbers of graduates from groups in the health education and business sectors has led to greater participation and positive outcomes for those groups. A lot of my inspiration as a member of Parliament came from women like Sonja Davies our Prime Minister Helen Clark and my mother. Throughout their lives they have modelled a leadership of service action fairness opportunity dignity and security for all. 
I am proud of this Government’s performance in our nation’s leadership. We have delivered on our policies through our pledge card. Let me give members an example. The first pledge was: “Work with all sectors to create an innovative growing economy with more jobs”—and now businesses are flourishing and the unemployment level is down to an all-time low. 
I want to speak about my passion for being a member of Parliament and a member of the Labour Party in this Government. It came from a desire expressed by many communities of New Zealand to have Pacific women represented in New Zealand and also to celebrate a society of diversity and representation built on those foundations of fairness opportunity and dignity. 
Nation building is about strong diverse and thriving communities. I use the metaphor of ’ie toga in the Samoan language where the fine mat is woven by many hands. It has many strands weak and strong but all are colourful. It is in our weaving together including the weak fibres that we give strength to our unity. Nation building requires us all to ensure that all peoples can participate in the society and governance of this nation. We all have something to contribute. 
This Government has shown leadership in addressing the many needs of our different peoples. Our Government works in partnership with all communities to address their needs. We have passed our legislative programme and policies on need not privilege and we have demonstrated that through actions and results. Labour has provided leadership and partnership growth and innovation fairness and security opportunity for all and strong public services. We are building a strong confident nation. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 This morning I was in the electorate of the Hon Trevor Mallard the Minister of Education who is also now the new Coordinating Minister Race Relations. The mother of a child whose schooling is being turned on its head by this Labour Government said to me: “We used to think she had some integrity.”—referring to the Prime Minister Helen Clark. Can we blame that person for arriving at the conclusion that Helen Clark’s integrity has gone when her child’s schooling is being turned on its head solely because the school network review happened to take place before a series of political polls? That is what that parent feels. She feels that her child’s schooling is being turned on its head because the network review in her area—which happens to be Trevor Mallard’s area—was carried out before the series of opinion polls that showed that the people of New Zealand have had a gutsful of what Helen Clark and her Labour Government are doing to this country. I thought that that simple little honest statement from a parent spoke volumes—“We used to think she had some integrity.” 
Tom Scott’s cartoon in today’s  
Dominion Post  
says it all: “They said it couldn’t be done but as I pointed out to my Cabinet colleagues if you join enough of the dots you make stripes…”. Of course we all know that Helen Clark is a fairly skilled painter. We know that from her track record. 
After Don Brash’s very honest speech at Orewa in my electorate—I was there—Helen Clark mocked it. Do members know what she said in that smarmy way she says things? She said: “I wondered what the Orewa Rotary had done to deserve this speech.” She mocked it but now the grin is on the other side of her face because my people in the Rotary club at Orewa were the first to feel the honesty of what Don Brash said to them. As we know several polls later—Paul Holmes had a record number of respondents to his poll; The Rock FM showed that young people felt the same way; and there were historic shifts in the Television One and  
New Zealand Herald  
polls—we are seeing the U-turns. The race-based fundings the legislative references to the Treaty of Waitangi and the foreshore and seabed policies are all under review. All the school network reviews now have a moratorium on them—except the ones that took place before the poll results. That is the principle Helen Clark displays. She has all the colour-fast principles of a chameleon—a couple of poll results and the policies all change. 
Mr Speaker you will remember the last time that happened—but I must not bring you into the debate. It was in 1988. Not many members of this Parliament were here then. I was and I remember it so well. The date was 28 January 1988 when the then Prime Minister David Lange did the last Labour Government U-turn. He decided to have a cuppa. The only problem was that he did not tell Roger Douglas. Of course what happened? Not long after Roger Douglas resigned because when Governments lose their principle—when they actually lose their integrity—it is the beginning of the end. 
 We have seen it this time around because just as David Lange did not tell Roger Douglas that he was having a cuppa on 28 January 1988 neither it seems did Helen Clark tell the Maori MPs that the foreshore and seabed policy was up for review. What the newspaper tells us is that a delegation of Maori members was very angry. The members had not been told about the changes and were very angry and they went along to the Deputy Prime Minister to have a fight about it. As we saw in 1988 when the last Labour Government did its big U-turn in policy it is the beginning of the end—back then it fell to bits. Nothing demonstrates the divisiveness of this Government more than this simple fact: over the last 18 months it has had a huge programme of hui around the country to consult on its foreshore and seabed policy. There have been 11 hui held around the country not one involving non-Maori people. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 This is a debate about leadership. The last speaker should know all about leadership because those members have practised with so many leaders in this House over the last 4 years. Dr Smith was a member of the Cabinet that endorsed policies that this Government has carried forward. True leaders stop and assess where they are going if there is some challenge and this party is doing exactly that. We can be sure that many members of the National caucus privately agree—and have not disputed when it was reported in the newspaper just last Saturday—that if policies were assessed on the measuring stick of need the same people would largely continue to access the same or similar services. 
Leadership is about leading people not confusing them. What have we had since the famous Orewa speech made by the current albeit passing leader of the National Party? We have had confusion in the “Don and Gerry Show”. We have had a member visit the south of Auckland with a television camera and be shown service after service of Maori and Pacific Island providers. When he was confronted with the reality of the dithering position of the leadership of the National Party what response did he give on national television? He said: “Oh no we wouldn’t change that one. Oh no we wouldn’t change that one.” 
That same deputy leader—the leader in waiting the man who acknowledged he represents one of the most affluent electorates in the country which has no concept of the difficulties of race relations in New Zealand—has said that it is OK to have ethnic quota bases when employing Asian policemen to police Asian Kiwis. But is he saying that it is not OK to have quota systems for Maori doctors or to administer to Maori patients? 
The danger of this approach that we have heard in the last 3 weeks is the danger of divisiveness. Ron Mark identified that yesterday during question time when he raised a point of order quite appropriately during which he mentioned the attack by the leader of the National Party—the attack that is always made outside this House not in this House. Don Brash stumps out on the hustings and is very brave in front of party faithful and television cameras but when he has to answer for it in the House he is strangely silent and absent and the jocular face of the deputy leader takes the stand to bulldoze his way through without any finesse or accuracy. 
When Ron Mark stood and said that the effect of this divisive policy is that all Maori doctors and all Maori lawyers will be considered second class that was the sad truth. It took the former leader of the National Party to stand and say that in his case he knew of a Pacific Island doctor who qualified on merit. Of course all Maori doctors and lawyers get their degrees on merit under the same competitive system in which all doctors and lawyers train. The only reason there is any assistance to some minority groups in entering the universities is that they do not have the same privileged background as other groups. 
Our education system is endeavouring to level this out so that all people come out of the education system with the same opportunities rather than the opportunity of privilege. These days any entry to a law school or medical school is based on a quota of numbers. Any quota of numbers is therefore arbitrary as to where the cut-off point is. So we see the leader of the National Party running out and creating misunderstandings and shibboleths which he then endeavours to knock down. 
Opposition members say that the polls say they are right. Of course people who are misled by the media are going to respond with alarm and that is exactly what we get. But when they see the accuracy of the position we will see the turn of the tide. The Government is at present highlighting the fact that our distribution of wealth and our assistance to the needy in this country is needs-based and when that is revealed and recognised by even those opposite—those who behind their hands behind closed doors and in the media will speak out anonymously and say that they recognise this is needs-based but are too scared to confront the tidal wave of popularism pushed by their leader—then this country will move forward. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Points of Order 
Broadcasting—Sound System 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Whip—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I realise that significant resources have gone into improving the sound system in Parliament but I am not sure whether you are aware that there are still significant problems with the system. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes I am. In fact I have asked for this to be monitored every day. This is the first 4-week session and we will do some more testing in this area in the adjournment. If members have any thoughts or particular comments they could pop me a note about them. I would appreciate it and I do appreciate the member raising that point. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The problem occurred only during the last two speeches. It was OK earlier on but when Dr Smith and Russell Fairbrother spoke it was really bad. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: One of the reasons is that people speak too close to the microphone. People with strong voices should not go too close to the microphone. We are going to do some testing and I will write a little memorandum for all members. I thank them for raising those points and particularly also to Mr Tisch. 
Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation)  
on behalf of the Convenor Ministerial group on Climate Change 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment 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 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I need to draw to members’ attention the fact that there was a change to the Standing Orders that affect the Committee of the whole House. Before I call the first member I wish to remind members that recent changes to the Standing Orders have altered the way in which the Committee will consider the bill. Debate will now begin with the question that Part 1 stand part. Debate on clause 1 takes place at the end. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party in opposition to Part 1 of this bill and I do so for a number of reasons. The first reason is a philosophical one and that is that this Prime Minister of this Government who now knows her days are numbered has travelled overseas at the taxpayers’ expense all around the world standing on stages from one country to another and promoting herself in her next job whatever that may be. Most likely it will involve some kind of climate change United Nations tree-hugging green-type peace-leading type structure. I do not know what it will be but I am certain it will be something. 
In Part 1 of this bill it is all spelt out. What we have is members of a Government who went over to the other side of the world and ratified the Kyoto Protocol ahead of all of our trading partners. They then came scurrying back to New Zealand and tried to get some legislative framework around the idiotic position that they have taken and it is in Part 1 of this bill. 
What we have here in Part 1 is a definition of renewable energy sources. The select committee agonised over this. There were bits struck out bits put in new unanimous bits put in and some bits that had minority reports to them. So clearly there was a huge amount of debate around that. The end result is that we now have legislation that can only cause huge uncertainty in local authorities. 
It is good to see the Minister of Local Government here because I am sure there will be some questions for him about what various bits of this part actually mean. I am sure the Minister will be able to answer completely without any confusion at all so that all the local authorities out there understand. 
I will start with this quote from Clause 4: “renewable energy means energy produced from solar wind hydro geothermal biomass tidal wave and ocean current sources”. I am sure the local authorities will know exactly what all that means. But the Minister may also be able to answer as to which one of those is renewable and which one he believes may be questionable. There was a huge debate about geothermal because it could be the same as coal. It could be something we are mining from the earth that one cannot replace. Then on the other hand it could be something that goes on and on for ever. Who actually knows? 
Where were the science papers—I am sure the Minister or his advisers will have them—that state that that is renewable and energy sources such as coal are not? It stands to reason and is logical that if one digs something out of the ground such as coal and burns it and turns it into a different form well then it cannot be renewable. It does not come back. But is that not what one does with geothermal power? That is the first question. 
There are a range of other questions and here is one that the Minister I am sure will be right up to speed on. Why was it that the recommendations in the Owen McShane report when it came to reforming the Resource Management Act to bring clarity around some of these issues were not upheld? Why was it that the Minister for the Environment looked at the Owen McShane report at the beginning of the new Labour Government and said that none of this was for them and she would put a red pen through the whole lot? She was not going to have any of it. The Government was not going to reform the Resource Management Act so that it would take notice of some of those issues at that time. The report was put through two select committees chaired by Jeanette Fitzsimons and came back with no recommendation to bring about those changes that were recommended all that time ago. Now that is a question I am sure the Minister should be able to answer. Nobody else in New Zealand knows the answer to that but I am sure the Minister does. 
Then of course one gets to the crux of the whole thing which is greenhouse gas emissions and of course there has been a lot of debate about that. We have had the debate about the “fart tax” which of course was supposedly a greenhouse tax. 
Brian Connell 
: That was a U-turn! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That was a major U-turn unlike the ones that have been made recently the ones on schools and the foreshore. It was a major U-turn and the beginning of the U-turns. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 It was quite absurd was it not the idea of the Government taxing millions and millions of sheep and thousands and thousands of cows in this country for flatulence. Was it not absurd! Was it not good to see the U-turn. Was it not good to see the member Shane Ardern so eloquently demonstrating the absurdity of taxing those innocent stock going about their business in this country generating export dollars for us. It was good to see the Government do a U-turn on that matter. But the bigger goal and what Shane Ardern is taking on now is to see the Government do a U-turn on something equally absurd but more insidious and less obvious to the general public; of course I am referring to the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill. 
I am standing to speak on Part 1 the commencement date the purpose of the Act and the interpretation of the Act. What I find interesting about this is that the bill is presented to the Committee in order to more easily clarify section 7 of the Resource Management Act which requires efficient use and development of natural and physical resources. That is because it became apparent over the last 10 years that the Resource Management Act was inadequate in dealing with the efficient use of energy particularly from minerals. The benefits that the country the world and the atmosphere can gain through the use of renewable energy resources including that from minerals which are less often renewable unlike solar power and geothermal and so on were not dealt with so well by the Act. 
The National Party acknowledges the benefits of renewable energies. There is no argument about that. We are not extreme. We are not like the Greens. We are not going to suggest using renewable resources in the sense of putting plastic bags around the buttocks of various stock caged in our country and using that energy. We are not as extreme as that. 
Brian Connell 
: Do they say that? 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: They say that sort of thing. But we are saying that the use of solar power tidal power geothermal power biomass wave power ocean current sources and wind power as well as hydro is very beneficial to the country. But what seems strange particularly in clause 3 “Purpose” is that local authorities in planning for businesses and industrial development for energy users whether they be residential or commercial are allowed to plan for the effects of climate change. In other words they are allowed to guess whether the use of renewables is going to be positive or negative and guess whether the use of mineral energy resources will be positive or negative. But they are not allowed as is stated in paragraph (b)(ii) of clause 3 to consider the effects on climate change of discharges into the air of greenhouse gases. They are allowed to look at the potential effects but they are not allowed to measure them and consider the actual effects of those emissions into the atmosphere. That seems absurd to me. One can measure the effects and one can see whether they are beneficial or not beneficial. If they harm the environment and people know it people should be able to use that information in their planning and not just in the granting of resource consent but also in the granting of an extension of resource consent. 
I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven—who is sporting a broken arm because I know he was arm-wrestling David Benson-Pope to get into Cabinet and he lost—why it is that councils are able to plan for the effects of climate change but not measure it and use that information. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First does not support another selective amendment to the Resource Management Act. Just over a year ago this House had the opportunity to seriously review and consider the Resource Management Act and failed to do so. We now have this amendment bill and a further one yet to come to the House that is a selective amendment of an Act that requires major review. We understand that this bill that is before us gives effect to the Government’s energy and climate change policy and the elevation of energy and climate change matters as ones of environmental and sustainable management priority. 
We acknowledge the Government’s intention. We are aware of the Act of 2000 and the strategy of 2001. However our party did not and does not support New Zealand’s participation as a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol unlike the two major parties in this House. New Zealand First does not support Government and legislative bias of only renewable energy sources of power generation as this bill envisages in Part 1. 
In looking at Part 1 particularly with regard to the amended new clause 3 in relation to issues of efficiency effects and benefits there strangely lacks one major definition—that is exactly what is meant by “effects”? In the commentary the committee has stated that this is a term that is in the principle Act and need not be defined here. My first question to the Minister in the chair is: “Why did the Government not given an adequate explanation of the term ‘effects’ ”? Secondly what are the benefits? Thirdly—and probably most important for those who have to administer the Act for local authorities—where is the clear direction to local authorities on the real intention of Part 1? 
In default of a national policy statement in default of any non-statutory firm guidelines where do local authorities go with regard to this Act in their energy policies? We are aware that some councils have energy policies and some have anticipated some of the terms and the concepts in this bill but very few. This bill leaves a considerable frustration in the local authority area. There is no national policy statement in view; there is no significant non-statutory guideline or guidance with regard to the bill; and most of all and probably most important for local authorities they confuse absolutely the intention with regard to clause 3(b)(i) that the planning for this effect of climate change in their region will not be one involving ratepayer cost. I do not think that sufficient thought was given to the fact that plan changes will be needed and if not plan changes then there will certainly need to be considerable research done in order to initiate the consent process that will follow from the implementation of this bill in the future. 
The background material the scientific information and the guidance are just not there. I go back to the first reading where there was a Labour statement that a national policy statement was not needed and I refute that absolutely. Without guidance at national level this bill will not be easy to administer. 
However worst than that without national guidelines and a national policy statement we will have a disconnected state of administration council by council. This is particularly so because although in clause 4 there is an interpretation for climate change and one for renewable energy there is none that covers the cost of administering the effects and benefits of this bill. New Zealand First finds this a very strange piece of legislation and almost indicative of the haste that the Government has in other legislation as well where the intention arrives here in some bill form but the practical implementation of that is left for a further day. It is not good enough but most of all for most administering authorities it will certainly cause them some considerable disquiet. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will certainly vote against this foolish legislation brought to this House by this beleaguered Labour Government. It is a result of the Labour Party’s foolish adherence to the fundamentally flawed Kyoto Protocol. It is part of the Government’s foolish response mechanism and I can only predict that we will see more of this type of stupid foolish legislation in this House from this Labour Government. 
It seems that the Government has a fixation with renewables. I do not think that it actually understands the physics of that because no matter is created or destroyed; it is merely transformed. But somehow the Government is going to categorise what become renewables. 
I know that Mr Hodgson the Minister of Energy in this Labour Government has a fixation with wind. He believes that somehow by harnessing the wind we will solve our country’s energy woes. 
Brian Connell 
: So has Mr Benson-Pope. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Yes Mr Benson-Pope has a fixation with wind too but that is another matter. 
I believe that New Zealand is on the brink of an energy crisis through inaction and lack of planning and foresight by this Labour Government. At best a wind turbine generates 0.8 of a megawatt a year. Just to keep pace with our expanding energy demands we would need to build over 200 turbines every year. Just think what the landscape would look like if we were building 200 wind turbines across our landscape every year. Of course wind is intermittent and variable. I was reading figures just the other week and saw that in Denmark no power is generated for something like 37 percent of the time because the wind is not blowing. So wind power is not a reliable solution to the problem. It is certainly a contributor and I believe that it is a valuable contributor. I am not knocking wind turbines at all. They have a role to play but wind power is not the solution. 
This Government somehow thinks that tilting the Resource Management Act in favour of windmills and condemning coal will prove to be a solution for our energy woes. It will not. We know that the Maui gasfield is at the end of its commercial life—2007 will be the commercial end and it could be sooner. That is a huge problem for this country. We know there are huge deposits of lignite coal in the Southland deposits—50 Maui gasfield equivalents in the Southland lignite deposits alone. However because of this Labour Government’s mantras and foolish adherence to that flawed Kyoto Protocol coal is off. We cannot talk about coal. 
We have about 1000 years’ supply of coal deposits in this country to meet our energy demands—if we are prepared to use them. I know that the Minister in the chair Mr Duynhoven is sympathetic to that view but he has been railroaded by the rest of his colleagues. It is a shame he did not make it into Cabinet because he would have been a better Minister in Cabinet than the clod—who is the character the Government has just promoted? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I will not allow the use of the word the member used to describe the senior Government whip. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: What was the word? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows exactly what he said. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I am sorry I cannot recall what I called him. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is aware of what he called him. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: If I caused him offence then I will certainly withdraw—be that as it may. 
A select committee of this House went down to look at Project Aqua last week. In that project we have the modification of one of the few remaining rivers in this country that is unmodified—the Lower Waitaki. If we are not going to use our coal resources and if we are going to adhere to the policy of total emphasis on renewables then the country had better be prepared that there will not be an unmodified river left in this country. That is the reality of the situation. 
When I look at some of those definitions too I see that they are equally as confusing. Clause 4 states: “renewable energy means energy produced from solar wind hydro geothermal biomass tidal wave and ocean current sources.” Now solar energy is actually nuclear energy; it is radiation. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 The first point I want to make is that this is not the Kyoto Protocol bill despite the constant calls from others who have spoken in the debate before me. In fact if members look through the legislation they will find that the word “Kyoto” does not even appear. It appears once in the Local Government and Environment Committee’s commentary on the bill but it does not appear in the legislation. That is why United Future is able to support Part 1 and in fact the bill. We have made it clear that we are opposed to the Kyoto Protocol. I do not know why we any longer waste our breath on it because it is pretty well dead and buried. It is very unlikely that Russia will ratify it. Most people around the world are beginning to look at what they will do after the death of the Kyoto Protocol. 
Part 1 makes it very clear that local authorities are required to plan for the effects of climate change. As I said earlier it caused me some concern when I first saw that in the bill because of the huge range of effects people estimate that climate change may have on our landscape. It is clear that the Resource Management Act already requires local councils to take note of the effects and potential effects of future activity upon our landscape so this bill really only makes clear what the Resource Management Act requires councils to do. The New Zealand Climate Change Office and officials have assured us that they will give local authorities some good guidelines on what the band of climate change may be and what the effects could be. If that does not work in terms of giving clarity to local councils some national policy statements will follow. But these take time to produce and we have accepted a reasonable explanation that it is time to move forward in that regard. 
Secondly clause 3(b)(ii) requires councils “not to consider the effects on climate change of discharges into air of greenhouse gases”. I would have thought that Mr Shirley and others who have spoken in the debate before me would fully support that because that will remove any impediment to local councils being able to give consents to coal-fired plants. We in United Future rejoice in that. All we have to do right now is to change the ideology of the current Government with regard to its opposition to coal-fired generation. If that does not occur in this term perhaps the next Government to be sworn into the House will have a different opinion and will be able to move very speedily into releasing coal-fired generation across the country—because councils as a result of this legislation will not take into account the effects of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. We consider that to be a good step in the right direction. As Mr Shirley said earlier this legislation does not condemn coal. In fact it may well make it easier— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: It’s not listed in the renewables. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: We will discuss the renewables in just a moment. However we believe it is sensible to ask councils to take care of those things in clause 3(b)(i) and (ii) and that will result in good law for the Resource Management Act. It is crazy for us to put our heads in the sand and say that nothing is going on in respect of the climate around the world. There is some debate about whether the cause is greenhouse gas emissions and also about whether it is a cyclical thing as a result of increased heat coming from the sun. However it is caused it would be wise for councils to take into account the effects of climate change in their planning. United Future has no problem with supporting that. 
When we move to the definition of “renewable energy” we come across different terms like “solar” “wind” “hydro” “geothermal” “biomass” “tidal” “wave” and “ocean current sources”. All of those should be promoted within New Zealand to enable us to generate energy on a more sustainable and renewable basis. I agree with Mr Shirley that it is not possible for wind on its own to solve all our energy requirements. As we calculated when we were in Waitaki the other week it would take something like 5000 windmills to generate the power that Project Aqua will generate. So it is not a question of one of those things meeting all the requirements; it is a combination of all of them. In particular we hope for advancing technology in respect of tidal and wave technology that may enable us to generate electricity in a very very sustainable way. As I mentioned in my second-reading speech this is not so much about giving a leg up or giving an unfair advantage— 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 National will certainly not be supporting the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill. We will not be supporting it because it undoubtedly is yet another contribution to the entangled mesh of bureaucracy that this beleaguered Labour Government has placed around the Resource Management Act. Indeed this is a desperate and beleaguered Minister—and we have evidence in the chair there; he certainly looks a sorry sight. He has been playing around undoubtedly and desperately. 
Certainly if this legislation was to bring in efficiency and was evidence-based then we would look at it. But as we go over to the purpose clause and note that it includes the requirement for local government to take notice of the effects of climate change we then have to look at the Government’s own preferred package on climate change and this is what it says about it—this is vital: “The area of climate change is uncertain. We know the world has a problem but it is unclear exactly what will happen with the climate to whom and over what time frame.” This is the Government that has put in one of the most prescriptive and onerous pieces of legislation in terms of domestic climate change policy and it will affect all New Zealanders adversely way in advance of our trading partners like Australia and America and this is the Government that is further entangling us in this mesh of bureaucracy when it admits in its own preferred policy package that absolute confusion surrounds climate change. This bill is utterly inappropriate. It is absolutely premature and it indirectly imposes all sorts of distortions on New Zealanders both at the local government level and at the national government level and it indeed is a great folly because of that. 
I think it is important to spell out to the Committee the sorts of consequences that will be imposed on ordinary New Zealanders through the Government’s preferred climate change policies. The Government has said—and it has it on its website—that petrol prices are liable to go up between 3 and 6 percent in 2008; diesel prices by 5 to 12 percent; electricity 4 to 9 percent; gas 3 to 8 percent; and coal 8 to 19 percent. That is just domestic use. Ordinary New Zealanders are simply not aware of this because the Government sort of signalled it as being in the distant future. To make it even worse the industrial costs that will be imposed on New Zealand are for electricity 6 to 16 percent; gas 9 to 24 percent; and coal 17 to 44 percent in increased charges. That will have a huge effect on the New Zealand economy. Labour has done this whilst its own preferred policy package says that confusion surrounds the whole area. It is just arrant nonsense and it is an example of a Government that is undoubtedly way out of control. In the fine electorate of Port Waikato I have two examples of where this bill will absolutely conflict in terms of sensible planning. One is New Zealand Steel. That company will go bust unless it has a negotiated Government agreement. That is a huge distortion. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It is not surprising is it that the planet is in a mess when we look at the level of ignorance even among members of Parliament. It is not innocent ignorance but wilful ignorance despite the information that has been put in front of them time and time again. We heard Shane Ardern say that we have signed the Kyoto Protocol ahead of all our trading partners. It will be news to New Zealanders that we do not trade with Europe Japan and Canada any more. They do not count. People who care only about America are prepared to dismiss the rest of the world as though it does not matter. They signed the Kyoto Protocol long before us—we are playing catch up. 
Ken Shirley thinks the answer is coal. Well I guess if one does not really believe climate change is a problem at all then of course one would say to burn coal—never mind the mess it makes in every other way. The evidence for climate change is now overwhelming even if there are some uncertainties about the rate of the changes. 
It is clear now how the Minister has persuaded United Future to change its vote. It was against this legislation in the select committee and it is now for it. It is clear that United Future has been persuaded by being promised that in the next term of Parliament it can have coal just as ACT National and New Zealand First wish as well. That is a shame because it is not as Paul Hutchison said premature to get into climate-change policy; it is probably too late. It is certainly too late to prevent some of the effects and it may be too late to prevent even worse effects. 
Local government has been asking for this legislation. It wants to plan to avoid the sorts of floods and disasters that have been plaguing the lower North Island recently. Nobody can yet say that those floods were caused by climate change but there is no doubt that that kind of effect is consistent with what we can expect if climate change accelerates. Local government wants the tools to plan conservatively to prevent that kind of effect and the Ministry for the Environment has already produced substantial guidance. We do not need to wait for a national policy statement the work has been done it is there now and local government is able to use it. 
I want to propose an amendment to clause 2 because there is a bargain at the heart of this bill that may not be kept. The bargain at the heart of this bill is that the tools that regional councils have to take greenhouse emissions into account when they are considering air emissions are to be taken away in exchange for there being a national instrument which is a much more effective way of controlling them. That national instrument under Government policy will be a carbon charge in 2007. I have always been a bit concerned about the 3-year gap in-between but I am much more concerned now that it appears possible that the Kyoto Protocol will not be ratified at all. If the Kyoto Protocol is not ratified at all there will be no carbon charge there will be no national instrument and the only mechanism that exists to control greenhouse emissions will be what regional councils have been doing—and in a couple of cases quite successfully. 
Two very successful agreements have been negotiated on two new power stations to mitigate their greenhouse emissions. I believe that the coming into force of clauses 6 and 7 which remove the powers of regional councils ought to be linked in time with the coming into effect of a national instrument. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I do not like to interrupt the speaker but we are on Part 1 and she is talking about clauses 5 and 6 which are in Part 2. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson I point out that my amendment is to clause 2 which is in Part 1. That is where the “coming into force” is provided for. Therefore I need to speak to my amendment to Part 1 which is where clause 2 occurs. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. Maybe she might like to continue. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: It is worth noting in view of the things that have been said about carbon charges and the higher prices that they will cause that the money raised by a carbon charge does not go into a black hole and disappear from the economy. It is available to pay back in tax reductions elsewhere. Green Party policy is that we would lower income tax by the amount we collected from the carbon charge. We would pay a bit more for our fuel we would pay a bit less at the bottom band of our income—not at the top as ACT would like to do—by whatever we collected from the carbon charge. That money is available to go into the economy and achieve other things. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I want to say very strongly that National does not support the passage of this legislation. We do not support it on a number of fronts. The first reason is that this legislation is very muddled. I believe it will bring great uncertainty into the energy sector and without doubt it will impose additional costs on councils and ratepayers as they try to come to grips with what this legislation is trying to signal. 
This bill requires councils to plan for climate change when there is huge uncertainty about its causes and effects. Jeanette Fitzsimons conveniently overlooks the fact—and she will know this—that there are 17000 eminent scientists in America alone who say that the theories that underpin global warming are flawed at best and complete rubbish at worst. How then are we to expect councils to deal with this problem with any authority when we cannot even agree about it at national level let alone an international level? 
Jeanette Fitzsimons went on to say that it is unlikely that this protocol will be ratified. Does that imply that the rest of the world is ignorant just because we view this issue differently from the Greens? I do agree with Ms Fitzsimons on this basis—I believe we are going through a period of global warming. What I am not convinced about however is to what extent this is a man-made phenomenon. Given that why would New Zealand buy into what is a global problem and not a problem of New Zealand’s making? 
It might interest this Committee to learn that New Zealand contributes 0.02 percent of all greenhouse emissions. Yet we went at it headlong to sign into this Kyoto Protocol ahead of our major trading partners—as Mr Ardern said. This Government was prepared to put the people of New Zealand at a significant disadvantage on the basis that it wanted to sign into this protocol simply for a photo opportunity. In a very cynical way the people who were going to be asked to pay for this were the farming community of New Zealand through the imposition of a tax on flatulence. That was the beginning of the U-turns that have characterised this Government over recent weeks. They have been the biggest U-turns since David first spied Goliath. 
In Part 1 of the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill clause 3(a) deals with efficiency of the end use of energy. This to my mind is totally illogical. The message is that the Government does not really care how efficient one is in generating electricity but it is concerned about how one uses it. That is why this Government is promoting Project Aqua. It is not concerned about the best use of the resource; it is simply saying that it does not care how electricity is generated or what damage it does to one of our great national resources but in order to support its philosophical position it will have people sign on to Project Aqua. 
There seems to be a view that water in this country is an unlimited resource. I have news for those people. The recent report from Environment Canterbury makes it very clear that on the South Island’s east coast water is over-allocated. If that is seen as a renewable resource then I believe we are mistaken. We are going down a track that will leave New Zealand terribly exposed. I pick up Mr Shirley’s point—I believe we are heading towards a significant energy crisis in this country yet we are ignoring some of our best natural resources. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I would like to add my thoughts on this very important legislation. The Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill is legislation that National will not be supporting because it takes us backwards. Pieces of legislation such as the Resource Management Act mean that this Government captures opportunities for development. This legislation just adds another huge compliance cost and another hindrance to development to investment and to the growth of our country and our economy. 
I want to pick up on a couple of points that were made earlier by Mr Peters about clause 3 “Purpose”. Clause 3(a) talks about provisions relating to the efficiency of end use of energy the effects of climate change and the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy. Of course nowhere in this bill does it articulate what those concepts mean. I would have thought that when one talked about the effects of climate change one would have to know what that means. We need to look at what the effects are. They have to be crystallised in an argument and articulated in such a way that when I read this bill it is very very clear what those effects mean. 
If there are effects there will be benefits—which is what the clause says. What are the benefits to be derived? If this legislation goes ahead I want to know what the benefits of it will be. Again nowhere does it say what those benefits are. When I look from a strategic point of view at cause and effect cost-benefit ratios and those sorts of analyses those are the questions I want answered. I ask the Minister of Energy who has not taken a call yet. This is an opportunity for the Minister to put his mind to those questions because not only am I asking them but also they have been raised by Mr Peters from New Zealand First. They are not questions that should be glossed over; they are important questions. They form the basis of the bill because they are found in clause 3 “Purpose”. 
I want also to mention the point raised by my colleagues about coal resources. There are 800 900 1000—I have heard even up to 1500—years of coal resources available that we could be using to provide energy. With new technology coal can now be burnt leaving clean air. What coal can do for us has been overlooked. In my electorate of Piako Solid Energy New Zealand which operates the coalmines at Huntly cannot because of the restrictions of the Resource Management Act supply coal to Genesis Power the power station right next door on the river. So what is happening? Coal is being brought in from Indonesia. It is being trucked in from the Port of Tauranga 24 hours a day. It is coming across the Kaimai Range into Matamata where I live and is being stored in a quarry just out of Matamata. The unloading of that ship is a 24-hour operation so that 48 hours later it can be on its way again. That coal comes from Indonesia while sitting on our doorstep in Huntly is Solid Energy coal that could be fuelling the Genesis power station. 
Not only that; there is a problem with the trucking of the coal. The neighbouring farmers up Taotaoroa Road where the quarry that stores the coal is have to deal with a continuous stream of vehicles 24 hours a day. They have problems with noise and dust and the trucking interferes with the way in which they operate and do business. The coal is taken from there during daylight hours between 6 in the morning and 7 at night. It is transported over to Huntly during those hours because of the requirements of the local authority resource consents and it is dumped for storage. On Monday I had a deputation from the area where the coal is to be dumped on an open stockpile at Solid Energy and already there are huge problems with noise and dust in the preparation of the site. 
So we will oppose this legislation. 
MITA RIRINUI (Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit clause 2 and substitute the following: 
2Commencement 
(1)New sections 70A and 104E come into force on the day that a national carbon charge carbon trading regime or national environmental standard to control the discharge of greenhouse gases comes into force. 
(2)All other sections come into force on the day this Act receives the Royal assent. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 8 
Green Party 8. 
Noes 106 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to principal Act and transitional provisions 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise to speak on Part 2 with the same level of opposition to it as I had to Part 1 although there is something that my colleagues on the centre-right might consider: if this part were to achieve its real objective—which is to find a new job for the Prime Minister off shore—then we might change our vote. It might be a good decision to make! If it were to achieve that result—which is what it is really intended to achieve—then we might support it. 
It is good to see the real Minister of Transport Harry Duynhoven in the chair. Looking at that Minister who has his arm in a sling one can see what happens to the competition when there is a major reshuffle in the Labour caucus and the senior whip is promoted to a ministerial portfolio. Labour members know how to deal with the competition—that is for sure. It is called an honourable discharge—or “Labour Party politics” is probably a better term for it. 
Phil Heatley 
: Twisting their arm! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It is called twisting their arms—that is right. Part 2 of this bill is the part that deals with the nonsensical silly approach that has been applied by this Government. Did anybody hear all the major contributions from Government members on the merits—or not—of Part 1? I did not hear them. Did anybody hear them? Nobody heard them. Not even the Minister of Energy took a call to explain the stupidity of this legislation to any members of the public who might be listening. After not having heard a single Government contribution on Part 1 we are now debating Part 2 and are hopeful that somebody will explain to us why we need this nonsensical legislation. 
Let us have a look at what it does. Clause 5(2) states: “Section 7 of the principal Act”—which is the Resource Management Act—“is amended by adding the following paragraphs: (i) the effects of climate change: (j) the benefits to be derived from the use and development of renewable energy.” Let us explore that for a moment and find out what the use of renewable energy might mean. The first things that happened under this Government’s leadership—under the leadership of both the Minister of Local Government and the Minister of Conservation—was there was a proposal to build a hydro dam on the West Coast of the South Island. The Minister said: “Nope we can’t do that—no can do. That is a very important piece of conservation land 200 hectares of gorse—we can’t flood it in any circumstances.” Then we had an energy crisis. The Minister said: “We’ve got the answer to that. We’ll burn coal.”! As my colleague said we are not even going to use our own coal of which we have gazillions of tonnes—1500 years’ worth somebody said. We are importing coal from Indonesia. We will burn that coal to get us out of an energy crisis. 
Then we come to this legislation which states that emphasis must be given to using renewable energy. If that is not an oxymoron somebody better take a big deep breath and explain to me what it is that I am missing because something seems to be missing in that equation. I know that the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Energy is passionate about this. I have heard him talk about it. I am sure he will take a call and explain to me why I am so confused over the position the Government is taking in this legislation. It states that local government must take into consideration in its business the concept of renewable energy even though central government in a power crisis will use coal not hydro power—because we are not allowed to develop any more hydro dams and there are no more being developed that I know of. 
Let us have a look at that. I want to challenge one or two of the notions that were put forward by the Greens who of course support the Government in this nonsensical approach but who I notice voted against Part 1—and I congratulate them on that. United Future whose members have spent the entire time they have been in Parliament talking about this are now voting for the bill—nothing surprises me in politics any more—but the Greens to their credit did vote against Part 1 although I suspect it was for completely different ideological reasons from the ones I have just put forward. The Greens said that they would vote against it so I give them credit for doing that. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 I do not want to spend very long on Part 2 because I think that Part 1 laid out all the issues in the bill. Part 1 also laid out the problems which are repeated in Part 2. Clause 5(1) amends section 7 of the principal Act by inserting paragraph (ba): “the efficiency of the end use of energy:” and I have tabled an amendment to add the words “where this is practicable.” The issue that New Zealand First has is that the limitations in Part 1 are also there throughout the whole of Part 2. The reason for my amendment is that although the use of the term “end use” is an improvement it disregards all sources of energy. New Zealand First’s problem is that along with the present Government’s haphazard fragmented approach to power generation—and there is no better evidence than what was seen by those of us who were down in Waitaki last Thursday and Friday—and with a lack of coherence in practical terms notwithstanding the fact there might be coherence in legal terms there is no provision in Part 2 for non-renewable sources such as coal. 
In fact the issue of the use of coal throughout the bill becomes a real problem. I took into account the submissions made by the relevant submitters—including Fonterra which now uses coal as a source of fuel—that modern better technology means for certain there are reduced discharges of greenhouse gases into the air when coal is used. But this bill precludes that expressly clause by clause in Part 2. 
The other issue I want to raise again despite what has been said by others in the Committee is that this bill in its legislative form will impose issues for councils. There is no mistake about that. It is not sufficient for us to be told that non-statutory guidelines are of help. They are not and those who are seated behind the Minister in the chair Harry Duynhoven know exactly that. A national policy statement has legal impact in effect; non-statutory guidelines have not. Therefore I say again that unless the issue is very quickly remedied to influence the final form of this bill councils will have problems. There will be differing interpretations despite the excellent work done by at least two regional councils with regard to the issue of emissions in their current regional plans. Nothing in Part 2—and I will be very pleased if the Minister can clarify the matter for me and tell me I am wrong—makes that issue clearer for practitioners of the legislation should it be passed so they can work with certainty. Worse than that if there is a lack of certainty on the part of those who have to adjudicate upon and work on resource consents then there will certainly be an added cost for those who lodge applications. 
Lastly this bill notwithstanding the comments made by the Minister in his introduction speech will have a cost-added impact. The worst part about that for the Minister in the chair is that that impact is unquantifiable at the present time because there is no policy statement. New Zealand First then does not give any support to Part 2 even though it may be seen by some as a laudable attempt on the part of the Government to address the issue of reduced emissions. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I call the Hon Harry Duynhoven. 
Shane Ardern 
: He’s alive. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Not only is he alive he is also very well. I assure Mr Ardern whom I saw on Sunday evening that I already had a broken bone in my hand at that time as he will recall so it has little to do with the events of this week. 
The key objectives of this bill—and I want specifically to address Mr Jim Peters’ point—are to give greater weight to the value of renewable energy and to clarify the fact that energy efficiency should be a consideration regardless of the energy source. These are prime factors in this bill. 
One reason the Labour Party will oppose the amendment put forward by Mr Peters is our belief that to meet the provision he proposes would add extra compliance costs for both applicants and local authorities. The test in clause 7 already incorporates an assessment equivalent so the amendment would then be a duplication add further complexity without any real benefit and result I am sure in later court cases around those issues. 
Ms Fitzsimons put forward a motion during the debate on Part 1 to do with the timing of two clauses in Part 2. The motion referred to new sections 70A and 104E. Because councils are choosing not to apply controls on greenhouse gas emissions now to delay the introduction of new sections 70A and 104E would result in little change. Such a delay would also result in ongoing uncertainty for councils with regard to consent applications and associated litigation costs and would potentially result in duplication of controls when the carbon charge is implemented. The introduction of these new sections will provide certainty about the role of councils. There is no policy gap in the interim and more climate change policy mechanisms are being implemented than just the carbon charge. 
I come now to one of the prime criticisms of the legislation which is that Russia has not signed the Kyoto Protocol. What happens internationally if the Kyoto Protocol falls over? New Zealand was not one of the first to sign the protocol as is often claimed. On Monday of this week I was with Genesis Power in the Wairarapa where we looked at the extension project to the wind farm it has there. It was really interesting. One thing discussed during that visit was that Meridian Energy had recently been engaged in negotiations with an entity from the Netherlands with regard to carbon credits. The Dutch—and I can speak with some authority on this issue—are not renown for putting up money ahead of time if they do not see a benefit. Regardless of whether the Kyoto Protocol comes into force Europe is already progressing on that issue. Meridian Energy has been able to negotiate with and will be in the position of being able to sell carbon credits to the Netherlands. 
New Zealand is in the position of being able to say: “Hang on a minute. Why would countries do that?” They are doing it because they see that regardless of the cause of climate change there is climate change and a need to do something about it. That is the situation of the world we live in. We cannot prove today—at least I cannot—that climate change is a result of whatever events have occurred over the last century but we do know that climate change is definitely occurring. 
Therefore we have an obligation—and this Government recognises it—to do what we can to be part of worldwide action to ameliorate and do what we can to reduce the effects of climate change. The Dutch have recognised that and are putting their money upfront. New Zealand companies can do business with them. I am pleased to say that I sat alongside the Dutch Minister at the last International Energy Agency conference and we discussed just these matters then. The Netherlands is very serious as is Europe about this issue and I believe that the Russians will sign the protocol—but let us wait and see. In the meantime this Government is getting on with it. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Part 2 certainly perpetuates the nonsense that we saw in Part 1. We heard the Minister say that climate change is happening but climate change has been happening since Adam and Eve in time immemorial as my colleague pointed out. It is of huge concern that a very intricate bureaucracy and layers of legislation are being put into the bill when this Labour Government in its preferred policy package has clearly stated that confusion surrounds the issue of climate change. I think it would be useful if the Minister took a further call—and I say good on him for taking one call—to explain to us why when the Government says that there is much confusion that the area of climate change is uncertain and that it is unclear exactly what will happen to whom and over what time frame the Government is putting in all these extraordinary things like negotiated Government agreements which distort the markets and give the wrong incentives. Why is the Government doing this when it admits that there is so little knowledge about the root cause of climate change? 
I note that in clause 5(1)(ba) the efficiency of the end use of energy is referred to. Why has the Government not started doing the sort of sensible things that are being done in Europe in terms of making sure that we have efficient end use of our energy anyway—for instance with regard to motors? In Europe—the Minister has looked at what happens there—a system is in place to incentivise companies and manufacturers of motors so that if they have highly efficient motors then they get a gold star standard which is graded from levels 1 to 5. There are clear incentives to make that happen. We have an example of a company in New Zealand that has invented an energy-efficient brushless motor and is licensed to sell it in North America and all over Europe. But in New Zealand there are no incentives for companies to have that efficient end usage of energy. 
It seems absurd that the Labour Government has put into this bill an incredible framework of intricate useless bureaucracy and has not done the simple sensible things first. Instead it has forged ahead of our trading partners and we have the ridiculous situation whereby in my electorate New Zealand Steel which employs 1200 people directly and 5000 indirectly may well have to close down if the Government imposes the carbon credits that it is planning to impose. 
 Instead New Zealand Steel will get a negotiated Government agreement. That is fine. Then that company tells me that one of the most useful ways it could run its highly important plant—highly important to New Zealand—would be to use coal. The company is very prepared to use the most contemporary technology that there is but it would have no hope of getting a resource consent to do so—absolutely no hope. That is an indictment on the difficulty that this Government has put us into. On the other hand Genesis Power is planning and applying for a wind farm. Wind farms are great—absolutely great. I can see the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven with his genetic propensity—being a Dutchman—has great enthusiasm for windmills and wind farms. That is splendid. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It was interesting to listen to Paul Hutchison call for incentives for less polluting motors. Every incentive that has ever been proposed—whether it be a financial incentive through carbon charges making clean fuel more cost effective an environmental standard or whatever else it was—the National Party always opposes. So there we go; there are the incentives. That is how far we will get with them. 
It is pretty clear from what a number of members have said—and the latest is Mr Peters—that the coal industry has been doing a fantastic public relations job recently. The coal industry has been around the country persuading people there is something called clean coal and telling them it has the technology to not emit carbon dioxide. That is absolutely false. Nowhere in the world has anyone proved that coal can be burnt without ever releasing the carbon dioxide. It can be tied up for a wee while; it can be put down an oil well until it eventually bubbles out again but in terms of the long-term effects on the climate we do not yet have any way of burning coal without releasing all the carbon in the coal as carbon dioxide. We may have a way of doing that one day. When we do coal can be added to the list of clean technologies. At the moment we do not so let us forget coal and get on with what we do have. 
It is disappointing and quite worrying that the Government was not prepared to vote for my amendment to link the removal of the regional council powers with a national economic instrument. That was the genesis of the idea. The whole purpose of taking away those Resource Management Act powers was that greenhouse emissions are better controlled at the national level. That shows that the Government itself is very much in doubt now as to whether it will impose a carbon charge. It is now over 10 years since that was first tried by an environment Minister and he was knocked back in Cabinet. Simon Upton wanted to do that in the early 1990s and he could not get it through Cabinet. It remains to be seen whether anybody will ever get a carbon tax through a Cabinet. But in removing those regional council powers and putting nothing in their place we are left with nothing. 
It may be that councils are no longer looking at putting controls on greenhouse emissions but the Environment Court might well have done so. We have had three really important cases in the past. The first one was when Simon Upton called in the application for the Stratford power station and imposed carbon mitigation requirements on that power station. The fact that the then Government was kind of fooled and the requirements were written in such a way that they have not come into effect is a secondary issue. The second important case was when Greenpeace negotiated a side agreement with Contact Energy over its new gas-fired Otahuhu power station. That station has not been built but the consent is there. Greenpeace negotiated an agreement that it would not oppose the building of a new relatively clean gas-fired station if a certain amount of the very old very dirty and very inefficient New Plymouth station was closed down. That was a fair deal which had benefits for the climate. The third case was when the Environmental Defence Society had conditions put on the consent for the new Huntly gas-fired power station that effectively capped total emissions from the combination of the new and old Huntly stations so that Genesis Power could not go on saying that the new station was just to replace the less efficient old one and then continue to run both of them at full steam. So we have had three cases where the Resource Management Act has been used admittedly not as effectively as a national instrument could be used to try to control greenhouse emissions. We are now throwing that out and there is no commitment to put anything in its place. I think that is really unfortunate. 
I have seen all the arguments that the officials gave the Minister to tell the House as to why this amendment should not be supported. I saw those arguments last week and I do not agree with them. I think we can shoot holes in all of them but it is of course the Government’s right not to support the amendment. I have to ask how much longer we will take as a nation before we really do something about the biggest long-term threat to the global environment. We cannot hide behind the fact that there are still some uncertainties around how fast climate change will happen and what the exact nature of the local effects will be to avoid taking action on what is going to be a serious issue. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I know that members on the other side may think I am trying to close the debate down but I would like to make a contribution. I am supportive of the bill because contrary to the dinosaurs on the other side of the Chamber I believe that we do need to look at efficient energy. The whole South Pacific region climate change is a serious issue. I doubt that members appreciate that. We know about small island States. Most of Tuvalu a very low-lying island in the Pacific went underwater for over an hour last week. That could be attributed to the damage to our environment. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Absolute nonsense. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD 
: A dinosaur like Ken Shirley wants to say “Nonsense” but the whole world acknowledges the effect of the burning of fossil fuels and the greenhouse effect on our climate as well as the pollution of the environment. The sort of air we breathe as a result of the ever-increasing amount of carbon dioxide that is coming out of exhaust pipes of various kinds of traffic including thousands of cars is very damaging not only to the environment but also to the health of people. These are very important issues and this bill goes some way towards getting local authorities to acknowledge the problem. 
If people want to put their heads in the sand and ignore it they can do that all they like but certainly in our South Pacific region these are very serious issues that people will have to confront in the near future. We could see low-lying islands in the Pacific totally disappear as a result of the effect of greenhouse gases. The points that have been made by the Minister are very valid in relation to Europe. It is acknowledging the problem and getting ahead in developing renewable energy and greater efficiency in the way energy is used and that is a lesson we need to learn from the Europeans. I do not accept the large industrial nations’ arguments that we can for ever continue to burn fossil fuel and ignore the consequences. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is certainly opposed to this bill but I would like to rebut as part of this debate the comments we have heard from the Labour member who just resumed his seat. We all hear about rising sea levels as a result of climate change. That is where the United Nations model has most failed. There is no evidence to support its model. It keeps adjusting it down and down. We have 50 years of sea level records—oceanographic and tidal recordings—at Tuvalu at Honiara at Kiribati and all around the Pacific—and in the Tuvalu case Mr Field has just mentioned I invite him to go into the Proudman Institute’s website which shows 50 years of records and he will see there is no measured increase in mean sea level at all. Yet at every Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting the head of Tuvalu says his island is disappearing under water and all the other heads of Government say it is terrible and it is because of climate change. I invite Mr Field to look at the science. It does not support it. 
 Sure there are tidal surges. There have been tidal surges around the Pacific for ever and small islands sometimes suffer those tidal surges. As he knows on Niue there was a hurricane where the ocean surged 35 metres upwards and smashed the hospital—which was about 200 metres inshore—to pieces off the cliff face. Those are the sorts of surges we can have. But members should not say there are sea-level rises because the evidence is not there to support it. 
I would like now to address the Minister in the chair Harry Duynhoven and ask him to comment on these issues. The Government did a U-turn on the “fart tax” which is related to this climate change issue—a complete flip-flop on that—when it came under pressure. It was going to close all the schools and has now announced a 5-year moratorium. A big U-turn has been done on that issue this week. The Government’s closing the gaps and race-based policies have had a big big U-turn. They are now styled “needs-based” policies even though just a few weeks ago the Prime Minister said that that was a racist thing to do. She is now quite happy to go down that path. 
When the Government is on the trot with all those U-turns why does it not drop the nonsense associated with this climate change legislation? It should pull out of the Kyoto Protocol. It is not too late. The mantra is foolish that the Government is pursuing on that and it is trying to impose it on local government in this legislation. That will never work yet the Government persists with it. 
For goodness’ sake the Government should realise that it is down the wrong track and do another U-turn. After all it is on a roll and getting pretty good at U-turns now. So why should the Minister not go back to Cabinet? Another few Ministers have joined the Minister in the chair at Cabinet. Surely they realise that this legislation is a loser for the Government so they should do another U-turn. The country is getting used to that. We are expecting a few more U-turns now. It is getting to the stage that there is a new U-turn every day. Well this issue must be the next one on the Government’s list of U-turns. 
I urge the Government to pull out of the fundamentally flawed Kyoto Protocol. We should have never ratified it in the first place and this legislation is a consequence of that foolish adherence to that fundamentally flawed protocol. I am particularly worried about what is happening in the energy sector in this country. We should all be concerned about it. We have already heard from others in this debate about the price that is to be placed on coal—and in this legislation we are having all sorts of fast-track measures put in for the so-called renewables—but what concerns me most is the actual nationalisation occurring in the energy sector. 
One classic nonsense while legislation like this which is trying to promote renewables is brought to the House is that the Minister of Energy recently approved—and it is under construction right now—a temporary generator at Whirinaki. Thrown at that was $150 million of taxpayers’ money. It is a single-cycle gas turbine. It is actually a 747 jet engine that is fuelled on imported diesel. The idea is that $150 million of taxpayers’ money is thrown at it with the hope that it never has to be used—so that it sits idle and rusts—but if it is does ever have to be used it is the most inefficient and clumsy generation that we could ever have. 
But the Government panicked: “Oh we don’t want to go into election year facing an energy crisis so let’s do something. It doesn’t matter what. Just grab the taxpayers’ money and throw it at it.” It is a dreadful waste that is appearing at Whirinaki. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 The ACT member who spoke before me loves to rail on about the Kyoto Protocol and how we need to pull out of it but he seems to be missing what is happening around him. Normally he is very aware of what is going on in the world. Even the member sitting next to him Jeanette Fitzsimons admitted in her speech earlier that the Kyoto Protocol is dead. It is very very unlikely that Russia will ratify the protocol. Therefore even though our Government has ratified it it is very unlikely it will come into force internationally and many people are already rethinking and addressing the issue of what they will do post the death of the Kyoto Protocol. I was very encouraged to hear Jeanette Fitzsimons admit that because it has taken her a long long time to come to terms with that reality. 
However apart from Kyoto it is still important for us to address the issues of the potential for climate change as I said earlier and also to not leave it up to individual councils to have to deal with greenhouse gas emissions when they come to issuing consents. United Future members are thrilled this bill actually removes the responsibility of regional councils to deal with that. It is much better handled centrally and it will enable the Government—when it gets the policy right on energy generation—to be able to cope with it on a national level instead of leaving it up to individual councils to have different things going on in different areas. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons has put forward an amendment to this bill and earlier in her speech she indicated that maybe United Future had been tricked into supporting the bill on the basis that it would ultimately become quite a pro-coal bill. But we have never had a change of mind during this process. We supported the bill in its first reading and during the select committee stage we had some concerns as we often do with legislation. We were then able to make some constructive changes to the legislation so we are now able to continue to support it. That is the function we play in this Parliament. 
But Jeanette Fitzsimons has put forward her amendment and I have to say to her and to the Government really that if her amendment were to be agreed to in this bill then United Future would have to make a U-turn because it is exactly the thing we do not want to see contained within this legislation. A requirement for a national carbon charge is the very thing we do not want to see come in in New Zealand because it is anti-business. It would add costs to our businesses so United Future has always indicated that it is opposed to the imposition of any national carbon charge. 
In the absence of that carbon charge—and I think it is time perhaps that the Green member realised the wool might be getting pulled over her eyes—regional councils are no longer required to take into account greenhouse gas emissions and the field is wide open for generation of all kinds. It is true we must have generation of all kinds in New Zealand. It does not make sense for us to take one kind of generation over another. It does not make sense in this country that we import fossil fuel while we sit on a huge coal reserve that could be generating energy for us at a much cheaper cost. 
What is the effect upon our balance of payments when we import fuel to generate electricity but could be using our own resources in that regard? I have been down to the Waitaki River with the select committee recently and seen what the impact of Project Aqua could be on that river. Part of that project is driven by the ideology that will not allow other types of generation to be developed around the country so we tend to try to maximise every drop of water out of our rivers—therefore perhaps potentially doing them some serious damage. It does not make sense that we will not allow the Dobson scheme to go ahead for the sake of a small area of kahikatea at Dobson. It is a very sensible hydro scheme which we have been pushing for ever since we came into this Chamber and we will continue to do so in order for that scheme to deliver power for the West Coast a region very much in need. People pay very high prices on the West Coast for their power and transmission lines into the coast are not very reliable so it would be much better for us to generate power there. 
We will be supporting Part 2 of this bill because we believe that it provides for the things that are beneficial to New Zealand in the future. 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I would like to take the opportunity to respond to Jeanette Fitzsimons’ statements regarding the need for members of Parliament to read the facts and statistics and come to their own conclusions—simply because the Green Party is the worst party in the world for dressing down facts and spitting out spin. The Greens are very short on facts and always have been. Is it not absurd that they would have us import native timber from Fiji but not allow us to sustainably harvest our own timber from the West Coast? Is it not absurd that they would have us import coal from Indonesia burn it and send it into the lungs of our choking children but not allow us to harvest 800 years’ worth of coal in our own country? Is it not absurd that we are not allowed to use the renewable energy source of the Dobson Dam but we are allowed to put up wind turbines all over the country? They will be the first to pull them down when they are not aesthetically pleasing. 
I was amazed by the Green Party members during question time today when they were complaining about the Minister of Conservation tagging dolphins with an electronic tag that was to be picked up by satellite. In order to save the dolphin population the Department of Conservation will put a little tag into three dolphins. Sue Kedgley the Green spokesperson stood up and complained about the chainsaw that would come out of the Minister of Conservation’s boot. He was going to carve a hole in the dorsal fin of a dolphin and stick a 16-foot-long tag through the back of this fine mammal and we would track them all over the southern ocean. If we could not pick them up on the satellite we would see their blood spurt everywhere! The absurdity of it all of course is that the dolphins were to be tagged with something smaller than the size of an earring that Nandor Tanczos would wear through his belly button. It was to be picked up through the satellite— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to come back to the bill. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I am coming to the point. Facts were not important for the Greens and facts are not important for them in this bill. Wait until there is a public outcry driven by Green Party members when they find out that the Minister of Conservation is going to electronically tag plankton. There will be a public outcry from Green Party members because they are short on facts big on fiction and they are doing that in the debate on this bill. I say to Jeanette Fitzsimons that if she really wants to protest like the protesters of old and if she really supports renewable energy she should burn her bra. That is what she should do if she really believed in it. She does not believe the spin that she puts out in this Chamber or in the community— 
Jim Peters 
: Point of order Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I was just considering the same point. I think that is quite distasteful. The member can withdraw that remark please. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Protesters of old did that all the time; there was nothing— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I have asked you to withdraw that remark. 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: I withdraw and apologise. The point is that if Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Greens were really sincere they would have an informed public debate. They would acknowledge the truth about global warming: the fact that much of it is immeasurable; that there is concern across all parties in this Parliament about it; and that we want an informed and practical public debate. Bringing forward legislation such as this will not fix global warming. It will not fix it in Northland in Taranaki on the West Coast in New Zealand in the South Pacific or in the rest of the world. That is why we oppose this bill. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Jim Peters to clause 5 be agreed to: 
to amend clause 5(1)(ba) by adding the words “where this is practicable”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Noes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 54 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; ACT New Zealand 7; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clause 1 Title 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to take part in the title debate. I was very pleased to see Taito Phillip Field take a call in the Committee. As I think about the title and whether it is appropriate I wonder whether for the sake of argument we can allow that his proposition is correct that global warming is a global problem. I would then put it to him that if it is a global problem surely it deserves a global solution. How can it be a global solution if the major countries around the world are not prepared to be a party to that solution? Why should New Zealand wade in and make global warming our problem when we contribute only 0.2 percent of the greenhouse emissions worldwide? 
I am thinking about the title. Maybe we should call this bill the “Resource Management (Climate Uncertainty) Bill”. I am glad to see that we have a Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven who is prepared to take a call because I have a question for him. If we allow that there are benefits to be derived from the development of renewable energy and if we really believe that the Kyoto Protocol is the solution to the problem of climate change will the cost of fixing the problem leave New Zealand better or worse off? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Better. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Will the Minister take a call and explain why he believes that? Has it been costed? Does he understand that there is a huge body of opinion that says that no matter what we do around the Kyoto Protocol—even if the whole world embraced it—it would not change the climate outcome one iota? 
 The next issue I want to put to the Minister is this: if we allow that electricity demand is growing exponentially—and it is; it is outstripping supply—what will we do when the supply has been outstripped? Would the Minister care to take a call and answer that question? What will we do when the demand outstrips the supply? That really is the issue. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member needs to speak to the title. This is the title clause. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Maybe the title then should be the “Resource Management (Energy) Bill” because that really is the crux of the matter or the “Resource Management (Kyoto) Bill” because essentially that is what we are talking about. So my question to the Minister still stands. If energy is being used at a rate that outstrips supply what will we do then as a nation? Business in this country wants one thing above all else and Clayton Cosgrove knows that. The one thing that business wants more than anything else is certainty. Cost is important to business but certainty of supply is more important. That is why the title of the bill is I think a misnomer because it does not really deal with the substance or nub of that question. Would the Minister care to take a call on that? 
Maybe we can name this bill the “Resource Management (Steal Carbon Credits) Amendment Bill” because the Minister took a call—and I commend him for doing that—and waxed lyrical about some of his Dutch interests doing deals with New Zealand. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Not my Dutch interests—Dutch interests. I am a New Zealander. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Sorry he talked about Dutch interests doing a deal with New Zealand. I apologise to him. That was not the point I am trying to make anyway and I did not mean to offend the Minister. I am simply saying that there is a body of opinion in this country that believes that the carbon credits do not belong to the Government in the first place. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Who? 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: The forestry sector which Mr Cosgrove represents believes that and the farmers that he represents believe that. Maybe Mr Cosgrove should take a call and explain to them why the title of this bill is a misnomer. That issue goes to the nub of the problem. The answer that has been suggested—and again I will relate it to the title—is that maybe we should call the bill the “Resource Management (Wind) Amendment Bill”. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: That member would know. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: He probably would too! The member over there on the Government benches suggests that I should know about that. Actually I do not know a lot about wind generation other than that to have a huge number of windmills dotted across the landscape of this country will not only cause huge noise pollution but will be ugly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before I call Mr Ardern I advise members the vote numbers were given incorrectly in the vote on Part 2. The numbers should have been Ayes 62 Noes 54. I ask that members accept that correction. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise to speak in opposition to the title of the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill because it is very misleading. The accurate title should be “Get Helen a New Job Overseas Bill” or “Find a Position Internationally for the Former Prime Minister of New Zealand Bill”. Another title might be the “Mislead the Public of New Zealand Then Do a U-turn Bill”. 
It was interesting to note that the Minister in the chair Harry Duynhoven took a call. I congratulate him on it and also the Labour member who made a contribution in the last 2½ hours as we debated the bill. Both of them are learned and both gave very sound contributions. The only problem is that nobody on this side understood what they were talking about and that absolutely says it all. 
The Minister in the chair said that through some acquaintance with some Dutch interests in energy— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: No through Meridian. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: —through Meridian and in discussions with some Dutch colleagues—I guess it would be fair to say—there was believed to be an opportunity for New Zealand to trade in carbon credits. I understood that is what the Minister said. The Minister is nodding so that is what he said but here is where I have a difficulty. I understood that the socialists on the other side of the House were going to nationalise the carbon credits and take them for themselves. Now I am in a huge vacuum again. Maybe the title of the bill should be “The Minority Socialist Labour Government (Once it’s Found a Job for Helen Overseas) Bill” and then the “Nationalise the Carbon Credits Bill” will trade them at the expense of Meridian or any private or State-owned company in New Zealand. That would be a much more accurate description of the bill. 
Perhaps the Minister will take another call and clear this matter up for me because clearly I am now a little perplexed about how one can trade carbon credits with Dutch interests after they have been nationalised—[ 
Interruption 
] Clearly the State can; the Government can. There is no doubt that the State can trade those carbon credits if they exist and if it can find a market for them. But how does that help private enterprise or private generation or anybody at all who is interested in investing in the energy sector other than the State? 
It might help the State but what is the State doing in the Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill? I will tell members what it is doing. It is building diesel-powered generation it is building coal-powered generation and it is prohibiting the very thing that this bill stands for—renewable energy generation. If one goes down to Card Creek and looks at the Dobson Dam—200 hectares of gorse—a private entity that wants to invest and produce a hydro-power station in an area that is energy deficient and make it self-sufficient in energy on a side of the island where they have regular and reliable rainfall that is completely sustainable and could go on for 500 or 1000 years or for ever the same minority socialist Labour Government that is proposing this bill is saying: “No we’re not going to have a bar of that we’re not going to allow them to do that that is not within the precincts of what we will allow as the democratically elected Government of New Zealand”. But not for much longer; it is about to be changed. 
So the title of this bill should be the “Stop the Development of Renewable Energy Nationalise Carbon Credits and Find Helen a New Job Overseas Bill”. That would be a much more accurate description. Another title might be: “If I Can Create Enough Opportunities on the International Stage to Talk in a Whole Lot of Wiffle-waffle Socialist-type Platitudes About How I Can Save the World From all Sorts of Ills Then Somebody Overseas Might Find Me a Job Bill”. When it comes to the Prime Minister of New Zealand let us hope that comes true. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 Generally I think the title of this bill is a fairly good one but I have a couple of suggestions that might make what this bill is about a little clearer. It probably could have been called the “Levelling of the Playing Field (Energy and Climate Change) Bill” because really that is what the bill attempts to do. It is not about giving a leg-up to renewable energies but rather levelling the playing field. 
It is often more difficult to get consents for renewable energy projects because they intend to be more obtrusive. They intend to have more impact upon the public and therefore there can be more objectors to them—for example windmills or wind farms. If someone is able to perfect the engineering for tidal generation it will be pretty hard to get consent for sticking something in the middle of Tauranga Harbour for example. So this bill will help to level out the playing field. 
Another title could be “It’s Definitely Not the Banning of the Coal Bill”. That is one that United Future would like because that is the truth. This bill is not about banning the opportunity for coal generation. In fact we think it might actually give some assistance to it. It could be called the “Responsible Common-sense (Energy and Climate Change) Bill”. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Before the dinner break I was just making some comments about possible alternative titles to this bill. I think I mentioned that it could have been called the “Not the Banning of Coal Bill” because clearly this bill does not restrict the use of coal as a fuel. The final suggestion I would make is that it could have been called the “Common-sense Response to Climate Change and Not the Kyoto Amendment Bill” because it is really a common-sense response to our need to take care of issues relating to climate change without going over the top and signing up to the Kyoto Protocol which is a bureaucratic nightmare. With those comments I shall end my contribution. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking on behalf of New Zealand First I suggest that the bill be termed the “Resource Management (Transitional Change) Amendment Bill”. I wish to focus upon the words “Transitional Change” because the bill picks up on a stage when we were accustomed to traditional energy sources—when hydro coal and gas energy and more recently thermal energy were more common. In the course of recent years we have moved to more serious and concentrated thinking upon the value of wind power; we have the example of say Genesis Energy’s biogeneration plant; we have modern gas turbine stations; and particularly more recently a greater amount of thinking is taking place about the possibilities of the fossil fuel coal being used again not in its traditional sense but in a transitional way. Therefore that is an appropriate name change for the bill. 
Surely it is a transitional change bill when one takes into account the fact that alongside this bill there is—I have perhaps laboured this point but I will labour it again—no national policy statement that gives legal guidance to those who administer the Act. Until that is there this bill surely must be an incomplete answer to the energy issues and therefore it truly is a transitional change. Only when this bill in its enacted form has a national policy statement to go with it will there be some real guidance to those who would wish to operate under the bill. That includes not just councils but also those who make applications. 
I suggest that that will be even more so because with regard to this particular bill in its final form there is no established body of law. Therefore there will be uncertainty and inconsistency as to how this legislation will be applied. I strongly suggest to the Minister in the chair that until the requirements of a national policy statement are there this bill might jeopardise the ability of the Government to give effect to its energy policy. 
On behalf of New Zealand First I say that we do not find this title helpful—particularly in 2004—with regard to the whole nature of this bill which is incomplete and transitional. We suggest that the title “Resource Management (Transitional Change) Amendment Bill” would be a far better title and would more completely encompass the bill’s premature stage of development. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I can say in speaking to the title that ACT opposes the title. We opposed Part 1 we opposed Part 2 we oppose the title and indeed believe it or not we will vote against and oppose the bill in its entirety. This is thoroughly bad legislation brought to this Parliament by this minority Labour-Progressive Government. It is bad legislation. 
I will not dream up fanciful names. I think the way that Parliament spends time putting up all sorts of silly titles of bills has become a bit puerile—“It’s Not the Banning of Coal Bill” which we heard from United Future and titles like that. It becomes a somewhat puerile debate and certainly beneath the dignity of an ACT MP. So I will merely address the title make the point that this is bad legislation and again call upon this Government and the Minister in the chair to do another U-turn and another flip-flop. That is becoming habitual for this Government but Mr Duynhoven would actually be doing the country a service if he were to ring up his Cabinet Ministers tonight call a special meeting of Cabinet and tell them: “No folks this is doing huge damage to the country. We’re on a loser. We should pull this bill and do a flip-flop.” 
Mr Duynhoven should also tell Cabinet Ministers that they should withdraw the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol—that fundamentally flawed nonsense that this Labour-Progressive coalition Government has committed this country to. This bill is a consequence of that. It might be dressed up with the title “Resource Management (Energy and Climate Change) Amendment Bill” but it is the first of many. We will have a raft of this sort of legislation. Local government does not know what will hit it when this bill is passed into law. It is frightful legislation. 
It is not only the climate change aspect as mentioned in the title; it is also the energy aspect as also mentioned in the title. We in this country regrettably are facing a looming energy crisis. It is just starting to dawn on many New Zealanders. I know that the business sector is hugely alarmed at the crisis that will confront this country. Possibly as early as next year—which I remind members is election year—we could be facing one of the biggest energy crises that this country has seen. If this Government is prepared to do triple backflips and U-turns when it is enjoying great economic conditions thanks to Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson imagine the amount of flip-flops and U-turns it will be prepared to do when a cold draught is blowing up its majority due to bad economic conditions brownouts pensioners not being able to keep warm in winter and the power going off at 5 o’clock every night! That is the way we are heading because of foolish legislation such as this and this Government’s foolish adherence to the fundamentally flawed Kyoto Protocol. 
The Government has already confiscated the property rights of the foresters. It has stripped them of their property rights. The Government said it wanted a trading carbon model based on the sequestration of carbon. If that were true if the Government wanted a trading mechanism it would have left the property right with the foresters so that they had something to trade; instead the Government nationalised it. Everything we see from the Government on energy is all about central control and nationalisation. That is what is leading to the crisis and it is embodied in the title of this bill. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 46 
New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 24 February. 
Clause 1 Title ( 
continued 
)  
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I shall take a brief and final call in the Committee stage of this cervical screening programme legislation because I only want to redress some accusations that were levelled last night at myself and United Future by National member Pansy Wong. If Ms Wong had been a member of the Health Committee she would know that no one on the committee including myself ever discussed or suggested punishing women who opt off the programme. Ms Wong’s comments reflect politicking of the kind that leaves most New Zealanders highly disappointed in the parliamentary process. 
What I did was attempt to remind the House that historically women in New Zealand have a very good track record in working unselfishly for the benefit of others. That commitment to the common good needs to be promoted as part of this bill because every woman who participates in the programme contributes to its overall success or failure. 
For whatever reason women who opt off the programme are not cut off from access to cervical screening. My concern was and is that those opting off need to understand that the programme is the poorer for that choice. United Future believes that the right of women to opt off is essential but we would like them to make that decision when it is accompanied by all the information about the implications of their choice—implications both for themselves and for others enrolled on the programme. That is all I need to say at this point. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to speak to the title phase of the bill. I note the title has changed from the Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill to the Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill. In fact that is a very good change and one that I along with many other members of the Health Committee pushed for. Many committee members felt that not all screening programmes could be covered by the bill. They felt it was inappropriate that other screening programmes that might later come to light should be part of this legislation. Rather they felt those programmes should have their own legislation governing them. The rules and regulations surrounding cervical screening might be and probably are very different from those that would be necessary in programmes for prostate screening or breast screening for example. So the title is a good change and is very much welcomed. ACT New Zealand is supporting the bill in its entirety and is very supportive of the change of title. 
It is very important to remember that screening programmes are a public good. There were many discussions in the select committee and we spent a long time discussing the privacy issues surrounding screening programmes. I think they have been dealt with and we have reached a consensus. Compromises have been made but they are necessary ones if we are to save lives with programmes of this nature. 
The cervical screening programme costs $35 million of taxpayers’ funding a year. I put in a written question about the programme’s cost to the Minister of Health and that was the response that came back. That is a lot of money but it is important to remember that many lives are saved with programmes of this nature. Certainly there is very good international experience and research to support that position. 
In New Zealand we have seen significant improvements in the mortality rate relating to cervical cancer—particularly over the last decade and in fact over the last 20 or so years. Although it is difficult to specify just what exactly has brought about that change it is thought that the National Cervical Screening Programme has had a significant part to play in it. 
I really just wanted to take a brief call to address the title which in this case was changed part way through the process but for very good reason. ACT takes great pleasure in supporting this bill and we look forward to a further improvement in the mortality rate from cervical cancer in New Zealand as a result of the very good and cooperative work achieved through the processing of this bill. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I take delight in being able to take another call in the debate on this Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill. I agree with ACT’s Heather Roy in the sense that in modern days and in the recent history of Parliament all political parties seem to agree that the title of a bill should be more specific about and descriptive of its contents. To simply call the bill the Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill is not in itself very enlightening because screening programmes can cover a variety of programmes whereas this particular amendment bill is addressing the issue of cervical screening. 
I reflect also that the previous title the Health (Screening Programmes) Amendment Bill did not for the public who were listening to this debate throw a lot of light on the bill’s background and the very fine balance that has to be struck in its content. I think the background to the bill was due to the disastrous failure of the screening programme which led to the Gisborne inquiry. We have learnt how a lack of quality control and auditing in the programme led to disastrous results for the women concerned. 
The debate on this bill has not been easy even though the public may think that because most political parties agree with the bill its passage must be a matter of fact. But in the National caucus I certainly know of the deliberation and the consideration by our spokesperson on health Dr Lynda Scott. She had to go to great lengths to maintain the very sensitive balance of making sure the participation rate in the cervical-screening programme was high enough for the results to be credible while at the same time improving that programme by introducing an auditing process whereby women have to submit their primary health records for auditing purposes. 
Therefore I think this bill’s title should at least include words like “audit” and “halfway consent process”. Why do I say “halfway consent process”? Unfortunately the Minister of Health and the United Future party rejected an amendment by my very good colleague Dr Lynda Scott to the effect that when letters are sent to all the women who participate in the programme they are given the opportunity to say whether for personal or very valid reasons they do not want to submit their medical records for auditing—and they are still allowed to stay on the programme. It was to our great disappointment that the Minister of Health and United Future rejected that amendment. I think it is very punitive to say that women should be excluded because they will not give consent for their medical records to be subject to audit. That is why I think the words “halfway consent” should be included in the title. 
None the less our party will support the passage of this bill because we believe that an improvement in quality control is necessary to maintain the credibility of the programme. But we certainly want to reserve our position in order to see what impact the introduction of the auditing process has. We want to see whether the participation rate remains high and whether a quality audit is carried out with integrity so that women participating in the programme can have the belief that their records are being respected. I am delighted to be able to take a call but I certainly appeal to the Minister in charge of the bill to ensure that in future the title of a bill should be more descriptive of its content. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Greens voted against it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The result has already been declared. I called it and I heard nothing else. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Points of Order 
Party Vote—Health (National Cervical Screening Programme) Amendment Bill 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Just towards the end of the Committee stage as the Chairman was leaving the Chair—and he did so quite correctly—a point of order was taken by a member of the Greens who indicated that he had endeavoured to vote against the bill but for whatever reason had not been heard or perhaps did not express himself etc. I just want to point out that any party or member at any time can seek leave to correct a vote if they wish to do so and the member might want to take that into account at some stage. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I did in fact seek to register a vote against. I said “The Noes have it.” but I was not heard. I sought a party vote but I am a little new to this place. I noticed that when Mr Carter sought a point of order he was ignored as well. So I was not heard. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is seeking leave then? 
MIKE WARD 
: I am seeking leave to change the vote for the Greens. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There was no vote. 
MIKE WARD 
: I seek leave for a vote—because I did so at the time. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: There was no vote. What the member could do is seek leave to recommit the bill and we would have to go back into Committee and take the vote in Committee. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker I know that the House at the end of the day can do just about anything it wants I guess by leave but you may need to take advice from the Clerk. But I wondered in the circumstances whether it is possible to seek leave to amend the records in order to show that the Greens did want their vote recorded. That might be an easier way than recommitting the bill. I do not know that anyone would be keen to go back into Committee. But the member could seek leave. It may mean we have to suspend the Standing Orders and I do not know that we would agree to that necessarily. But anyway it is just a thought. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member could seek leave but nobody voted. There was no vote—that is what I am saying. So the member would have to seek leave for there to be a full vote. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that that vote was on the title. It seems to me to be a total waste of time to go back to the title. The Greens will have their opportunity in due course to vote fully against the bill. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That really is for the House to decide on leave being sought. If Mr Ward wants to test that remembering that anyone can deny leave that is his right. 
Peter Brown 
: I will be denying leave. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 In view of the fact that Peter Brown has already said he will not permit it there is no point in going ahead. So I will leave it. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: OK. Thank you. 
Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: I move  
That the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill contains empowering provisions that will allow Orders in Council to be made under the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act to implement two treaties. The first is the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court which supplements obligations in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to which New Zealand is already a party. The second is the amendment on the establishment and the privileges and immunities of delegation of the Commission of the European Community in New Zealand. 
Orders made on the new provisions will be broadly similar to those that already exist for other bodies such as the International Court of Justice the World Trade Organization and the United Nations. Although the International Criminal Court is based in The Hague much of its work will be undertaken elsewhere including on occasions New Zealand. 
New section 10D will allow Orders in Council to confer certain privileges and immunities that are associated with the functioning of the International Criminal Court and these fall into three categories. The first relates to the protections that the court itself needs if it sits in New Zealand. The second relates to protections for the International Criminal Court judges and staff and the third relates to other persons involved in International Criminal Court proceedings such as witnesses and lawyers. These protections ensure that the International Criminal Court and those involved in its proceedings can perform their particular functions or roles free of interference. 
At the Committee stage there was some concern that the bill did not make it sufficiently clear that privileges and immunities given to witnesses were limited in nature. New section 10D(2) states that the privileges and immunities that may be conferred are those “required” by specified articles of the Rome Statute and agreement. Those articles are spelt out with specific limits. Article 19(1) of the agreement for example provides that witnesses enjoy specified privileges and immunities “to the extent necessary for their appearance before the court and the purpose of giving evidence”. This is clearly not a blanket immunity. The Order in Council to be made under new section 10D will state that the purposes for which the particular privileges and immunities will be given are as set out in the agreement. 
New section 10E relates to the meetings of the States that are party to the Rome Statute and implements article 13 of the privileges agreement. It is standard practice for those who are attending international meetings in other countries as part of a Government delegation to have protections similar to those of diplomats. Those protections are limited in nature and in duration. Moreover the protections do not belong to individuals but rather to the State or the body they represent. Like the privileges and immunities mentioned in section 10D they can be waived. New Zealand representatives who attend meetings in other countries would be accorded such protections. We therefore need to be able to give them to others in the event that meetings are held here. 
The need for amendments relating to the European Community became apparent in the context of the implementation of the agreement concerning the office that the European Commission is setting up in Wellington. The commission proposes to open a new office this month and it is keen to have the requisite privileges and immunities in place in preparation for that opening. Accordingly I wish to record Phil Goff’s appreciation of the cooperation of other parties in allowing these amendments to be dealt with as part of this bill. 
The European Commission is defined as an international organisation not a country. The present Act contains powers for the conferral of privileges and immunities on international organisations but does not cover the establishment in New Zealand of delegations of those organisations and accompanying family members. The amendment provides a clear and explicit power to confer privileges and immunities on the members of the proposed European Commission delegation and their families. These privileges and immunities will be similar to those granted to the staff of diplomatic missions of foreign States recognising the similar role those delegations will carry out in New Zealand. 
At the Committee stage the question was raised whether there might also be a need to confer an amendment on the Consular Privileges and Immunities Act to cover the possibility of a consular office being established by the European Commission in New Zealand at some point. This would however involve a substantial amendment as that Act does not include a section encompassing international organisations. The European Commission has not indicated any wish at this point to open a consular type office in New Zealand. We consider that the present amendments appropriately focus on facilitating the opening by the European Commission of a diplomatic-type office in Wellington. 
The passage of this bill will clear the way for New Zealand to implement two international agreements. Firstly an Order in Council to be made under new sections 10D and 10E is the final stage in implementing New Zealand’s obligation relating to the International Criminal Court. The ratification of the privileges agreement will reaffirm New Zealand’s support both for the International Criminal Court itself and for the ideals it embodies. The order to be made under section 9AB will enable New Zealand to implement the establishment agreement with the European Commission and thereby facilitate the opening of its delegation office in New Zealand. The opening of such an office will serve to underpin and strengthen New Zealand’s relationship with the commission. I commend this bill to the House. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 It is kind of sad during the second term of a Government to see a Minister stand in the House in the third reading on a bill and read a speech that some official somewhere has written for him. Quite clearly the Hon Rick Barker has not a clue what this legislation is doing. He just read parrot-fashion a speech that some official somewhere had written for him and that to me is sad. It shows the shallowness of a Government that really has no depth beyond its front bench. 
The Committee stage of this bill was just a tad messy because what happened was that the Government introduced with support from the Opposition a Supplementary Order Paper to extend the provisions of the bill to cover not just the International Criminal Court and New Zealand’s commitments under the Rome Statute but the extension of diplomatic privileges and immunities to the delegation of the European Commission. We have no objection to that because obviously it is in New Zealand’s interests to have the European Commission delegation present in New Zealand but the Supplementary Order Paper 190 that was required to do it required quite a significant amount of amendment. 
What is a wee bit worrying is that I would not mind betting that not many members of the Committee of the whole House actually understood the detail of this Supplementary Order Paper at all. We were told that the Parliamentary Counsel Office added a subclause to it at the last minute and basically the Committee just had to accept the Government’s claim that it would be all right. The Supplementary Order Paper has not been examined by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and it really is not very satisfactory when the Government does that. 
The Government should have known that the European Commission wanted to set up this delegation in New Zealand. I understand that personnel are currently in Australia ready to take up this position in New Zealand so the Government should have known that this was required weeks ago and it would not have been very difficult to incorporate this material in the original legislation. It shows a Government that is a bit at sixes and sevens which I suppose is what happens once Governments start to do U-turns. They get in a mess and that is when legislation that is less than satisfactory can slip through the House. 
We have to be honest. While we all agree with the intent of Supplementary Order Paper 190 which is now part read into the bill I do not believe that there are too many members of this House who can absolutely assure the public of New Zealand that no clause in Supplementary Order Paper 190 will have any unexpected outcome that this House has not thought about—especially when subclauses are added by the Parliamentary Counsel Office. 
The Parliamentary Counsel Office does a wonderful job but it just shows a somewhat messy process. When the Government wants something done the officials and legal people at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade draft legislation and then the Parliamentary Counsel Office has to add a bit to it just before the Supplementary Order Paper is introduced into the House. It is not a very satisfactory procedure. 
The other thing that was notable during the Committee stage was that the Green Party tried to introduce its own Supplementary Order Paper. They wanted diplomatic privileges and immunities extended to all their mates in the non-governmental organisations. Keith Locke wanted all his mates in Greenpeace to have the diplomatic privileges and immunities that the embassies and high commissions of other countries have in this country. Keith Locke wanted the Greenpeace wallahs to be able to get tax-free grog and to be immune from criminal prosecutions in this country and all that kind of nonsense. It shows how out of touch with reality the Green Party is. 
I was the first one in this Parliament to say 2 or 3 years ago that it was a shame that someone who cared so much about this planet as Jeanette Fitzsimons did did not spend a wee bit more time on it. Others have copied my comments but I can claim that I was the first to say that in this Parliament. As for Keith Locke I do not think he spends any time on this planet. God knows how his intellectual processes work but I guess coming up with amendments like that and thinking that Parliament would accept them added a bit of humour to the Committee stage. 
However I think the public of New Zealand ought to be wary because it is that Green Party with its weird— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: And dangerous. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: —and dangerous ideas that keeps the Labour Government in office. The people of New Zealand need to know how damaging that has been for New Zealand—the transport gridlock in Auckland no progress on the Penlink toll road and the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 going nowhere are all Jeanette Fitzsimons’ fault and it is a weak gutted Labour Government that lets the Greens do that to it. 
Let me come to the other issue in the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill that causes me concern. I am someone who has had some experience of international treaties having been a former Minister for International Trade and negotiated treaties on New Zealand’s behalf. During the last phases of the Committee stage I mentioned that I was a great supporter of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements whereby the prerogative to negotiate international treaties is within the power of our executive Government. It holds the prerogative to negotiate international treaties. 
That is not the case in every country. I guess the best-known country that has a different arrangement is the United States of America. In the United States it is the Congress—and in New Zealand it is Parliament that is the equivalent of the US Congress—under the US constitution that has the prerogative to negotiate international treaties. Because it is totally unwieldy for Congress to decide on the detail of treaties from time to time it votes to give negotiating authority to the executive. That does not happen too often. During President Clinton’s entire administration—8 years—the US Congress did not grant him negotiating authority for international treaties. For some reason or other it did not trust President Clinton and his administration to negotiate international treaties. The Bush administration achieved what used to be called “fast-track” and is now called a trade promotion authority but the majority in Congress that voted the executive of President Bush the authority to negotiate trade treaties was not huge. 
Constitutionally that issue is quite an important one. I totally support the constitutional arrangement here in New Zealand whereby the executive has the power to negotiate treaties. Where I have a problem with this bill is in the way it is drafted. Any future negotiation with regard to the International Criminal Court and the articles of the agreement associated with the Rome Statute that the Government enters into automatically becomes part of New Zealand law—as provided for by new sections 10D and 10E. 
We have always argued that it is OK for our executive to have the authority to negotiate international treaties because anything that affects New Zealand’s domestic law is the prerogative of this Parliament. Only Parliament can actually pass legislation that alters our domestic law. The way this bill is worded changes that. As I read it any change to articles 18 to 22 of the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court that are within the area of article 48 of the Rome Statute would automatically change our domestic law. 
As someone who supports the prerogative of our executive to negotiate international treaties I believe that is a dangerous move. Only this Parliament should be able to pass legislation that alters our domestic law. This bill will enable agreements negotiated by the executive to change our domestic law and I think that is not wise. Despite that we will support this legislation. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to speak briefly to support the third reading of the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill. Many of the reasons why this bill is being promoted have been canvassed in the debate already and I do not intend to repeat them. Essentially this is a mechanical piece of legislation which gives effect to our agreement under the Rome Statute with regard to the International Criminal Court and also by way of Supplementary Order Paper 190 brings in the issue of representation by the European Commission in New Zealand. 
There is one point from the Minister’s speech that I want to comment on which I do not regard as satisfactory. I was the one who raised at various stages of the debate on this bill the suggestion that we ought to look at the status of the Consular Privileges and Immunities Act and I do not find acceptable the excuse that to do that would be difficult because there is not provision in that legislation—which largely parallels the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act—for agreements with international organisations. It is not a difficult amendment to draft. 
The point I made in the debate on the second reading and at the Committee stage was that it seemed entirely logical given the similarity of those two Acts to combine them into one recognising that there will be situations where both diplomatic and consular privileges are being afforded to nation States—or international organisations in this particular instance—and there will be some occasions where that is not the case. My point was that to continue a situation where two largely similar Acts operate independently in the same area did not seem to me to make a great deal of sense and I do not think that the Minister’s response—admittedly on the advice of his officials—adequately represented that issue. 
I know because I have had an interest in the area for many years how rare amendments to both those Acts are. The circumstances that give rise to them are not common. It is not every day that we ratify an agreement to establish a body such as an International Criminal Court. It is not every day that an agency such as the European Union decides it wants to establish representation in New Zealand. Every time a situation like that arises we have to pass an amendment to the primary legislation. That is not a problem but my point is that we can minimise some of the difficulties because there are some situations today where consular privileges have not been afforded to States that we give diplomatic privileges to and they could be dealt with by dealing with this as one omnibus Act. 
I am disappointed that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade through the Minister seems reluctant to grasp that point. It is not a difficult issue. In fact I recall discussing some years ago with the Minister the prospect of a member’s bill to achieve just that goal. I was not told then that that would be horrendously difficult to do so I am very disappointed in the response that the Minister gave in that respect. I hope there will be a time when the issue can be revisited. While it does not arise in respect of an agency like the International Criminal Court which clearly will not seek to have consular offices or consular privileges it may well arise in respect of the European Union. The fact that it is not yet on the European Union’s agenda is hardly an excuse for not doing it and we are also acting a little slowly given that the European Union announced the name of the person who would be its representative in New Zealand at least a couple of months ago. 
This bill is non-contentious. I am certainly happy to support its passage as is United Future but I do make a plea that the issues that have been raised regarding the standardisation of the legislation not be dismissed as lightly as they have been by the Minister tonight. I know that the officials do not like extra work. I am sorry about that but I actually think that that is a logical step forward and ought to be entertained. With those words I am happy to indicate support for the bill. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to support the third reading of the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill. It is a very important bill and its extension of diplomatic privileges and immunities to representatives of the European Union will be very valuable to us in drawing closer to that important regional Parliament. We have had many delegations here. We are getting closer in all respects—politically economically socially and culturally—to the European Union and this bill will set us further down that track and remove an obstacle in terms of diplomatic privileges and immunities for European Union representatives. 
I think that it is important to look at the origin of diplomatic immunity as a background to some of the debate that took place in the second reading and Committee stage in particular. Diplomatic immunity is provided not because diplomats are superior beings who should be beyond the law and can commit crimes with impunity but because they are often in a country where the Government is quite hostile to their policies. Sometimes diplomats might be representing a country that is almost on the verge of war with the host country. The idea of diplomatic immunity is to stop harassment of or domestic hostility toward diplomats being expressed in some sort of frame-up or in some inadequate judicial process which could easily take place if a Government wants to promote more hostility towards another Government. Having diplomatic immunity is very important in that respect. 
Under this bill immunity is extended to the particular court process of the International Criminal Court. I think that the idea is to stop the proceedings of that court from being interfered with by domestic jurisdictions and by certain witnesses who may be politically charged. In the discussion at the Committee stage the name Milosevic was brought up and the example was given that a lot of people around the world would be hostile to him if he were the star witness at an International Criminal Court hearing in New Zealand. Nobody has great sympathy for him and nobody would want—from any simple moral basis—someone like Milosevic who has committed such crimes against humanity to be immune were he in New Zealand at such a hearing and had he committed some offence against our domestic law. But if we look at the broader context of universally protecting the International Criminal Court from interference then we would give immunity even to someone like Milosevic if he were a witness or defendant at an International Criminal Court trial in New Zealand. 
To extend that line of thinking certain nations are extending that jurisdiction in an extraterritorial manner in terms of the court cases that have taken place—or have begun—around the world against people who have committed crimes such as Pinochet and Ariel Sharon. In the Pinochet case Spain and Britain held court proceedings as to whether he should be tried. The Spanish wanted to try Pinochet. He ended up in Britain and there was a question over whether he should be extradited. All those proceedings occurred under the domestic jurisdictions of Spain and Britain. We could under the procedures of the International Criminal Court have hearings for war crimes or other crimes in relation to Pinochet and his colleagues’ activities in Chile. It could take place in London. We would not necessarily want those court proceedings to be interfered with by claims of domestic jurisdiction from Britain or if the hearing were held in Spain by claims of domestic jurisdiction from Spain. We would want the proceedings protected even though separate from the International Criminal Court hearing one might support Spain or Britain moving against someone like Pinochet. 
The Belgium Supreme Court last year said that Ariel Sharon could be put on trial in Belgium for the crime of genocide which he allegedly committed while he was Israel’s Defense Minister in 1982—he is charged with being responsible for the deaths of between 1000 and 2000 people in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. There is legitimacy in that trial proceeding against Sharon in Belgium but again we would not want that reality to interfere with an International Criminal Court proceeding. 
We even have the situation of overseas jurisdictions applying in the case of one of our citizens Helen Todd who initiated proceedings in a US court against an Indonesian general for the murder by Indonesians of Kamil Bamadhaj in East Timor a few years ago. I think that all those cases are very legitimate and they parallel what is happening in the International Criminal Court in terms of trying to bring to justice people who have committed crimes against humanity. I think it is important to include the immunities and diplomatic privileges applied in this bill in the proceedings of the International Criminal Court so that there is an integrity to International Criminal Court proceedings. 
With those few words I indicate the Green Party’s support for this bill. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party to advise the House of the reasons why we will vote against the third reading of this bill. We will do so primarily as a way of recording once again our concern that New Zealand’s sovereignty and the position of New Zealand’s service people on operations overseas may one day be very sadly affected by the operation of the International Criminal Court. Offering immunities to judges prosecutors and other staff of the International Criminal Court is not a matter that seriously concerns us—indeed we think that it is inevitable and sensible should the International Criminal Court ever operate in New Zealand. The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee chaired by the Hon Peter Dunne did the same kind of superficial job on this bill as was done on the bill passed in 2000—which this bill expands and makes more easy to implement. ACT will therefore vote against the third reading to remind the House that bills implementing international treaties should be taken very seriously indeed. 
The Hon Lockwood Smith mentioned that when we bring international treaties into our law by reference they could have meanings that we completely fail to anticipate. The direct purpose of this bill is to extend immunities that are very longstanding. 
 As Mr Keith Locke for the Greens said the immunities are an attempt to ensure that nations can be civilised with each other. Diplomacy cannot occur unless diplomatic agents can be sure they will not be taken hostage and their presence in a foreign country will not be used as a chance to exercise pressure and use them as symbols or targets for action that is really part of international position taking. 
We do not want any prospect of being seen in the company of nations like Iran which seized the American mission people and held them for over 200 days. We do not want to be seen as the kind of country that is simply unsafe and where diplomats can be insulted by robbery or crime or otherwise with impunity. So this bill should be relatively straightforward in that area but as well as our concern to make a point about the International Criminal Court we believe that this bill is a piece of clumsy drafting and the select committee did not seem to take note of that. 
The bill has added in power to exempt or give immunity to witnesses or other persons who may come in for International Criminal Court proceedings without recording that it is perfectly appropriate for New Zealand to confine any immunities to the sorts of risks that Mr Keith Locke mentioned—that is the risk of someone using New Zealand law to try to make political points by seizing people who have come here for a court proceeding and charging them with offences essentially relating to things that have happened outside New Zealand and perhaps many years ago. 
It is quite proper that New Zealand can reassure people coming here for International Criminal Court proceedings including witnesses who may be thugs in their own country or who may have robbed their own country taken their treasury and put it in Switzerland. Despite the foulness of their deeds if those sorts of people are to come here for court proceedings they need to know that they at least will not face New Zealand law in respect of that kind of matter in case that frustrates the purposes of the International Criminal Court. 
But I can see no reason whatsoever that they should be immune from the ordinary operation of New Zealand law for offences that they commit while they are here. Why should New Zealand allow yet another category of people to ignore their parking tickets at the bottom end; or their manslaughter offences at another stage; or even as I understand it their rapes? The Foreign Affairs and Trade Committee might for example have asked the Government just how many rapes or serious assaults have been committed by people with the benefit of diplomatic immunity in the period of the Labour Government. I would venture that it would shock people to know how often people with immunity do commit offences and in the case of decent countries get bundled home and in the case of other countries stay on as an affront to New Zealanders. 
There was no reason why this bill could not have made a significant distinction between people like the judges of the criminal court who could be expected to need a very wide form of immunity and the hangers-on some of whom we can almost certainly predict will be undesirables. Why should they for example be allowed to bring their liquor cabinets in without paying duty? There is nothing in this bill that tells us that will not occur. As an amusing aside we did find out that a bunch of European Union diplomats are hanging about somewhere outside New Zealand waiting until we pass this bill to get in. One wonders whether it is because their bags are clanking with bottles and they cannot bear the thought of paying their duty. 
Simon Power 
: And cigars. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: And cigars. Or is it because they have children they cannot control and they know they had better not bring them here until they have immunity for the traffic offences and worse that their children are going to commit? 
During the Committee stage the Minister in the chair was given a chance to explain exactly why there is such urgency and why the European Union mission members appeared to think New Zealand is the kind of country they cannot come to until they are immune from local law. Could it have had anything to do with the abolition of the Privy Council? Do they now fear that perhaps we have kangaroo courts here and there is no right of appeal to an independent judiciary?Perhaps the European Union has been watching what is happening and they realise that now they would be subject— [ 
Interruption 
]. The former? The member thinks it is the fatted— 
Simon Power 
: I think it’s the bottles in the bags. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The bottles clinking in the bags? Whatever it is it is puzzling to us that the Minister did not choose to explain why European mission members would be so afraid of our justice system. It does seem to me that at least the leaders of the missions might have taken the risk of being here on their very best behaviour without immunity and seen whether there was a problem while we put this legislation through at an ordinary pace. 
I want to come back to the principal reason why we are voting against this bill—this uncritical acceptance of the International Criminal Court. This is a court that the United States has not joined and that the United States is so concerned about that it has gone round to somewhere between 60 and 80 countries—we do not know exactly how many have signed up—and got agreements that these countries will not subject United States personnel to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. In other words the country that should be our chief ally has decided that this court is a risk to it and before it will have its servicemen deployed in many countries they must undertake not to hand its people over to this court. 
Whatever this Government may think about international agencies that is a very serious consideration for us. This court could be as the US fears a victors’ tribunal. It has undefined crimes. We have put into our criminal law in effect by proxy crimes that no New Zealand lawyer can define. No one knows exactly what the crime of aggression is going to be and it will be applied by judges who may share nothing of our history or our traditional respect for the rule of law—for rules known in advance and for the protective rules of evidence that are designed to prevent miscarriage of justice processes that are in effect glorified lynch mobs. We will not control who the judges are. 
This bill should have been rejected by more in this House to make the same point. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 National supports this legislation. I feel I must elaborate on this point given the statements by the member from the ACT party. I know that ACT has very strong feelings about the degree of involvement that New Zealand should have with international institutions generally. I think it would be fair to say that ACT takes a sceptical view not— 
Stephen Franks 
: A New Zealand first view. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: A New Zealand first view! I would say a sceptical view in the sense that it does not fully rule out engagement with international institutions. ACT members are realistic enough to know that New Zealand has to have an appropriate engagement but at the same time they remain suspicious of what I would loosely describe as the international project which is the broader extension of international law across the relations between States and also as it applies to individuals. 
This is something of a century-old project and what has been attempted through the course of that project is to provide a complete framework of rules and principles that will ultimately lead to peaceful relations between States. Members might say that sounds all very noble and idealistic and of course it is because the ultimate ambition of such a project is to prevent the scourge of war. 
 Whereas in domestic life crime and violence are always prohibited and are always so to speak outlawed activities in international relations war is permissible for self defence—be it immediate imminent or threatened. The war in Iraq was supported on the basis that there was an enormous risk from weapons of mass destruction and that Saddam Hussein had the most flagrant breaches of international humanitarian law. Most notable were the gassing of tens of thousands of his citizens and those of other countries and threatening to do the same as well. On top of that he was in gross and continuing breach of literally dozens of United Nations resolutions. 
So the international law framework is quite different. The use of armed force is permissible. It is not as if it is a matter of just the isolated force we might see from a police force. It is wide scale and it allows and accepts that innocent civilians will be killed. Broadly speaking there may not be accountability. So the international project is to try to minimise and ultimately eliminate that scourge of mankind. 
The creation of the International Criminal Court is part of the framework to reduce the scope and breadth of war so that it does not affect civilians to the extent it has in the past. Ultimately the ambition must be to eliminate war and in that sense the International Criminal Court is part of that framework. That is why I have consistently said to the ACT party—notwithstanding its concerns which I believe fundamentally to be imagined rather than real—that it should reverse its position. I certainly would like ACT members to acknowledge that when the House passed the substantive legislation in 2000 they would have then recognised the reality of that and at least accede to the legislation we will be passing today. I made that statement in my first reading speech. 
ACT members have of course raised various serious concerns. Mr Franks to be fair has done something that the select committee failed to do. That was to point out some of the deficiencies of the bill. I think everyone would acknowledge—and Mr Franks himself has acknowledged—it is appropriate that the judges the prosecutors and the registrar have immunities. But why would we extend on the face of the legislation that same kind of immunity to witnesses? It is worth bearing in mind whom those people are likely to be. They themselves will frequently be people who participated in the war crime itself and in a sense they would have been offered immunity to testify against a more serious criminal. Yet in this legislation on the face of it we are extending to them the immunities that might be expected of judges. 
I know that Government members if they chose to take calls—which they have not I note—would say that the immunity is of a different kind; that article 48(4) is different. But no one reading the legislation on the face of it would know that. I believe that because legislation is not just for experts but has important symbolic value accessible to the people then the legislation on crucial issues like this—this is not some passing matter—ought to be plain on the face of it that the immunity of such people is limited only to the extent of giving evidence. They do not have some kind of general immunity. That offer was made to the Government last night. It could have agreed to the Supplementary Order Paper I submitted to it and passed it into law. 
The Minister’s excuse—and it could be seen as no more than that—was that if she did that in this case then on every international convention she would have a statute that was a foot high. Well that is simply fatuous. The reality is that this bill deals with the International Criminal Court and with the most serious crimes imaginable. Surely in that situation it is important that Parliament signals as clearly as possible the difference between the witness who has received immunity to testify and the judge. I am disappointed in the Government that it did not take that opportunity. 
The other point I would like to refer to in passing is the extension of diplomatic immunities to the European Commission. Of itself that provision is perfectly sensible. No one would doubt that. But one has to ask whether it is really necessary to debate a Supplementary Order Paper on the same day it is introduced—that is yesterday—because of extreme public urgency. Is this a body that we have not had any association with for the last 40 years? Is it not the case that European Commissioners and their staff have visited this country numerous times and that we extend to them all the normal courtesies? What on earth was the case for the extraordinary urgency of the Supplementary Order Paper in that instance? It is bad parliamentary practice to introduce to this House legislation that distorts the very purpose of the original bill—which was about using the International Criminal Court—and to use that device to extend privileges to the European Commission as a matter of urgency. 
I would implore the Government to have some respect for this Parliament and to introduce legislation in a proper and timely manner so that it can be sent to a select committee to have the issues properly considered rather than have the extraordinary spectacle of legislation being done in haste—and I would be prepared to bet to be amended yet again by Mr Rick Barker in one of his numerous Statutes Amendment Bills. Those bills will be circulating later this year. He will say: “Oh by the way there was a minor error…” or was it a major error in that Supplementary Order Paper introduced without any consideration. 
I want to conclude on the point that the importance of the International Criminal Court cannot be doubted. It is important that we pass this legislation—but we do so with those caveats. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 109 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 8; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 9 
ACT New Zealand 8; Independent: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a third time. 
Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 The commencement and purpose clauses of the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill are fairly good indications of what is contained in the legislation. By that I mean that the purpose clause itself sets out firstly that the purpose of the bill is to implement the mutual recognition agreements which we on this side of the Chamber will be exploring in some detail during the course of the Committee stage. 
Secondly the purpose of the bill is to deal with certain types of unruly behaviour that may occur on an aircraft by providing penalties for that behaviour. Members will be aware that when the House considered this matter during the second reading I raised a number of concerns about the way in which that portion of the bill was drafted in respect of unruly behaviour and whether an adult having control over a minor was to be included in that legislation and in those offences. We will certainly be asking the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven to take a call and answer some questions on the nature of the care and protection of a child whether well-behaved or unruly who is the charge of an unruly adult. 
Thirdly the bill provides for “civil liability for delay suffered by passengers during domestic carriage”. My understanding of this particular portion of the bill is that currently there is provision for civil liability to be incurred by an airline in respect of delays and resultant economic loss—loss of opportunity one presumes and the like. However what this particular provision in the bill does is codify in a clear and substantial way the manner in which those particular charges and liabilities are to be dealt with and in fact—if memory serves and the Minister may want to correct me if I am wrong on this—the remedies that flow from those liabilities being enforced against a domestic airline carrier. 
I believe that the provisions contained in Part 2—without wanting to pre-empt the debate on that particular part which we will get to shortly—provide a large and wide-ranging scope of subjects given the nature of those three areas that I have just outlined. 
As we turn our minds and our thoughts for one moment to the commencement date one presumes that the Minister has a grand scheme in place. It is a pretty confusing commencement date because on the one hand—and I know that my colleague Brian Connell the MP for Rakaia is very keen to explore this particular point in a little more detail—we have sections 4(1) 5 6(1) and 7 etc. coming into force on 31 December 2003 or an earlier date as appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. So some sections come into force on that date. I see my honourable colleague nodding frantically because of course his knowledge in these areas far surpasses mine. That chunk is to come into force on 31 December 2003—well that will not happen. Presumably those particular sections will come into force on the date appointed by the Governor-General. The rest of the Act comes into force on 1 March. 
John Carter 
: That’s not that far away. 
SIMON POWER 
: Well it is not that far away as the senior whip quite rightly points out in my ear. We know that there are only 28 days in this month— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: There are 29 actually. 
SIMON POWER 
: My 5 years in this Parliament have been a blur. One would presume that the Minister has a grand plan for 1 March. This legislation will have to be moved very promptly indeed unless the Minister has tabled an amendment. Has the Minister tabled an amendment on the commencement date? He has. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I’m coming to that. 
SIMON POWER 
: He is coming to that. The Minister will take a call on an even more confusing aspect of the commencement date. We have some sections that came into force last year presumably making them retrospective now in the event that the Governor-General does not give her consent until after 1 March. What happens if the Governor-General does not give her consent until after 1 March? Has the Minister thought through what is clearly a confusing and difficult issue for him in the early days of the Committee stage of this bill? One would hope that he would take the opportunity to clarify these issues because he has not got off to a good start. He has not got off to a good start at all. 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to follow my colleague from Rangitikei Simon Power in exploring the matter of the commencement dates. I ask the Minister to give us a comment on this particular aspect because I was just starting to search through the bill to see what it meant. I only got to page 7 when it started to get to the stage of being just about impossible to know exactly what commences when— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Perhaps I can help the member. There are amendments on the Table that help the member. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Could my colleague pass me the amendments? It may help. 
Simon Power 
: Which ones would the member like? 
JOHN CARTER 
: The ones regarding the commencement dates. I hope they are not too clear otherwise they will take away a lot of my speech. I am looking at the amendment that states: “To omit from the heading to Part 1 the words ‘31 December 2003 or earlier’ and substitute the word ‘a’.” What does that mean? The second reads “To omit from the heading to Part 2 the word ‘March’ and substitute the word ‘June’.” All we know now is that the rest of the Act comes into force on 1 June. Is that what the Minister is telling us? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Yes. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well that is fine but it does not help me with the question I was going to ask the Minister which is: if we look at the commencement date clause 2(1) states that “sections 4(1) 5 6(1) and (2)” for example come into force on 31 December or on “an earlier date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.” I ask the Minister whether that is correct. That is what it says is it not? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: You’re on to it. 
JOHN CARTER 
: I am on to it. But it is confusing that clause 6(1) and (2) commences on 31 December so why does clause 6(3) not commence on the same date? I am trying to understand the difference between clause 6(1) and (2) and clauses 6(3) and 7 for example. I cannot see any rational difference. There may be a good reason why those provisions are left out and will now come into force on 1 June and the Minister might like to give some explanation about it. 
There are many other clauses the Minister might want to explain to the Committee and to the many people who will be listening as to what the difference is between those parts that now commence on 1 June and the rest that will commence on a date appointed by the Governor-General—because they obviously cannot come into force on 31 December 2003. Even I have clicked on to that bit. 
The second point I want to raise with the Minister is this—and he might want to help me because I am not that familiar with the bill; he might have clicked on to that— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: We can tell. 
JOHN CARTER 
: That is OK because I am doing my best—and I bet that the bell rings before I sit down. I want to get on to the purpose of the bill which is to implement the Australia - New Zealand aviation mutual recognition agreements. I want the Minister to clarify what that means. Does it now mean that Air New Zealand can negotiate a right or has a right to fly domestically in Australia? Is that where the legislation is going? Does that mean Air New Zealand can land planes in Alice Springs and take passengers from Alice Springs to Darwin? Are we expanding here— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Could well be. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Are we on to it? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: We’re on to it. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Really? Good grief! Very good so does that also mean that Qantas will continue to fly in here which it tends to do anyway and offer competition? In other words I ask whether what we are doing is balancing up. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: That’s right. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well I have to say that that is a positive thing. 
The Minister might want to comment then on what reports he has had of the implications the agreement has for Air New Zealand its ability to compete and its ability to fly as a successful airline in that field. Does the fact that it can expand into a population base of some 18 million— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: No 19 million. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Oh well let us not be pedantic—19 million. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I want to bring to the notice of the Committee that this bill reflects the current chaos in the Government. I say that because here we have an amendment tabled today by the Minister because the Government has only just realised the bill was being implemented on—guess when—31 December 2003. 
Simon Power 
: When was that amendment tabled? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Today. That is amazing is it not? This is a Government that has the full resources of the State behind it yet it does not realise until the very day a bill has to be debated that—gosh—“There is a big problem here Minister.” One can imagine the frantic phoning of officials to the Minister to ensure he got it right. It is reflective of the extraordinary U-turns about-faces and pragmatic approaches this Government is now taking. 
It is the little things that show the deep distress in the Government. It cannot even handle simple things like getting legislation in order. At least tabling a Supplementary Order Paper in a timely fashion would have shown that the Government recognised it was about to implement retrospective legislation. As I say it is something I guess we will see more of. We will see a lot more of this panicked action by Ministers under pressure and scrambling to keep ahead. There is a saying about ducks on the water: the pond is placid the ducks are going along smoothly but the feet are paddling furiously underneath. The problem now is that the water is no longer placid the feathers are ruffled and the panic is there for all to see. This kind of amendment is simply indicative of that and we will be seeing more of it. 
I want to point out a couple of other important measures in this legislation. One of them is the repeal of the Carriage by Air Act. I am sure the New Zealand First spokesperson on transport Mr Brown will be particularly familiar with that Act because it is a hallowed piece of legislation known by a generation of those who operate in the field of air carriage as containing the cardinal rules one has to know. I am sure that as a person long experienced in the carriage of goods Mr Brown will be lamenting the passing of that legislation—now to be buried within civil aviation legislation itself. Something that generations of carriers—and indeed law students through their lectures and practices—have had will now be submersed into this broader legislation. I guess there will be aviation lawyers out there tonight who will be lamenting its passing and having to revise their documentation and so forth because they will no longer be able to rely on that trusty piece of legislation the Carriage by Air Act. 
I want to conclude however on the important trans-Tasman mutual recognition agreements. We will be speaking at length to those. They are important. They signal a united market. I guess what that also represents—and this is perhaps the most significant issue—is this serious intent by the Government to destroy competition in the New Zealand marketplace which will inevitably have consumers paying more. Everyone is going to say that the trans-Tasman mutual recognition legislation around air services is a good thing—it is a single market. On the face of it I guess no one would dispute that but contained within that legislation is an intense explosion of costs that consumers will now have to bear because the legislation is one of the foundations of the merger between Qantas and Air New Zealand. Everyone in the country knows—even the Government—that the consumer will be worse off. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Perhaps I can help my learned friend Dr Wayne Mapp who I believe has some legal training. If he looks at the Supplementary Order Paper that I have just tabled this evening the dates that he refers to as having been scandalously not changed earlier etc. are two dates inside the bill—one is buried in the schedules and one is on page 54—that were inadvertently missed during the drafting and the earlier Supplementary Order Paper that changes the dates. I want to check with Dr Mapp that he has a copy of the bill in front of him and that he has realised that it goes right out to the fifties in page numbers. I think it is pretty important that he does look at it thoroughly. Can I just tell the member and other members who may be interested—and I think Mr Connell was going to speak at length on this issue as I was told by his colleague—that there are different commencement dates for different purposes. One of the reasons that we had different dates— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I am talking about retrospective— 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: No no not at all. This bill is not retrospective. The reason for an earlier start date originally being printed on the bill was that the Australian Government proposed to have its bill introduced and passed a lot earlier last year. Our bill was to follow. The Australian Government delayed its bill; it has not yet passed it. That is why its mutual recognition legislation and ours have to be kept relatively in step. 
Simon Power 
: Why cannot we pass ours until they pass theirs? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: That is exactly the point I am coming to. Most of the provisions of this bill come into force at the royal assent but the provisions with regard to the mutual recognition bit come into force at a date yet to be determined and to be in concert with the Australians so that we are not out of step with them. Dr Mapp asked me why I did not put that bit of paper on the Table weeks ago. Because the drafter told me only yesterday that he had inadvertently missed those two dates buried in the bill— 
Simon Power 
: Blame the officials. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Not at all I am not blaming the officials. I think they have done a cracker job in sorting this bill which has a number of provisions that are widely supported. 
I want to come to the comments on the issue of unruly passengers because I think it is one of the most important parts of this bill. In addition to enabling Australian airlines to operate in New Zealand under Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority oversight it complementarily allows New Zealand operators to operate in Australia under the New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority oversight. So that is the major feature of the bill. But the bill also deals with the security of passengers and crew on international and domestic flights in addressing the issue of unruly passengers regardless of whose airline they are on. The provisions relating to civil liability for delay I think referred to earlier from the old Carriage By Air Act continue. That was a matter of some controversy and the purpose of that is to give people redress if they are delayed in an avoidable way other than because of things like safety or weather issues. The provisions of the bill also bring the law in that area into conformity particularly with the accident compensation scheme and transfer various provisions from that Act to this Act. Also the  
New Zealand Transport Strategy 
 is a very important document put out by the Government in terms of our future in transport. Provisions of this bill contribute to aspects of the New Zealand Transport Strategy. I will leave it at that for now because I am sure members would like to ask a whole bunch of questions. I would recommend that they read the commentary from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which did a very good job in terms of the processing of this bill. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I thank the Committee for the invitation to make a contribution to this debate. I also thank my senior whip for giving me the opportunity as well. He knows that I have been thirsting to do this. I also thank my learned colleague Simon Power for making the Committee aware of my expertise in this area. However on reflection and given that my learned colleagues and the Minister have now dealt with this issue of retrospectivity so very well I do not think it is appropriate or necessary for me to relitigate this component but with one small exception—that is to point out that Mr Power made a slight error. However it has subsequently been corrected. He said that the commencement date would be March but what he meant to say was June. I do not blame him for getting it wrong because as the Minister has just explained the Supplementary Order Paper was put on the Table only today. That made it very difficult for people to get across it. We are a dedicated bunch and we read everything that is put in front of us but on this occasion it was not there in good time. 
I would like to take a moment to recognise as the Minister has already pointed out the good work that the select committee did on putting this legislation together. I was not a member of it but it is clear that the committee worked in a very cooperative and constructive way. The consequence is that we get good law. I really lament the fact that we cannot use this model more constructively across this House. It would be nice for the 80 percent of legislation that we all tend to agree with that we put some structure together where we could agree with that and the 20 percent that we do not agree on we could really have quality debate and get down to a punch-up on the issues that are extremely important to us and the points that really separate the parties in Parliament. 
I now turn to the purpose and introduction. I agree with the Minister that it is important that we all read the commentary and I have done that. The most important component of this bill is that it aims to remove the regulatory barriers to airlines operating under the air services arrangements with Australia by allowing progressive implementation of mutual recognition of aviation certification. This mutual recognition terminology is really just code for mutual cooperation and good sense. On that basis I commend the legislation. It is sensible legislation because it has to be good for the travelling public. It streamlines laws and more important it gives them teeth. It will give the travelling public confidence that the airlines and the aviation authority are taking their safety seriously and that their safety is paramount and that those who jeopardise that safety will be punished. 
That is something that we should all reflect on—punished in a way that is not punitive but basically reflects that we now believe that behaviour and safety in and around airlines is absolutely paramount. Members of this Parliament know as people who travel regularly that every time we leave home we expect we will return home safely but that is not something we can take for granted which is why I believe that the construct of this bill has been well-thought-through and it is very well considered. I again commend the work that the select committee has done. 
As I read through the commentary I could not help but reflect on the fact that the term for mutual recognition agreements “ANZA” is very close to that of Anzac. It is a pity that we do not take more seriously our Australasian security commitments. I lament the fact that our Anzac spirit is dying and it is something that I deeply regret. I give the undertaking that once the National Party is back in Government—and that will not be very long—we will put that right. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I hope that member will be allowed another call because I would love to hear what he meant by punishing people in way that is not punitive. That is one of the best “Orwellians” I have heard for a long time—that is positive punishment! I thank the Minister for taking a call to explain some of the issues we were puzzled about. I wish more Ministers would do that in the Committee stage instead of just sitting there and ignoring the debate. 
The ACT party supports this bill. I was part of the select committee that heard the submissions and watched very dramatic videos of what happens when dangerous goods are taken on to aircraft. However I think it is coming in far too early. We have not explored enough ways that we can actually deal with unruly passengers. For instance if we look at some of the articles that were written after September 11—and one of them was a very good one written in the  
Atlantic Monthly 
—we would see that it has been pointed out that we take everything away from passengers when they get on a plane and they are not armed with anything at all and there is absolutely no deterrent on the plane for people not to indulge in some sort of terrorist actions and a deterrent for other unruly passengers. 
Hon Members 
: Ha! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: National Party members laugh but if we take a look at El-Al the Israeli airline—how many million people in the world would like to blow that out of the sky—it has air marshals; it has deterrents; it has very very strict security and very well trained and well-aware people who travel on that airline. If a person were on a plane and there was the chance that in every seat there was a passenger who might be armed who is a law-abiding citizen it would perhaps deter that person from getting intoxicated and starting to attack people. If that is going to far—I am just suggesting these things and the Minister is looking pretty aghast—the officials could have considered the position of arming the aircrew. 
We had a classic incident on a Qantas flight last year where the aircrew were attacked with a pair of sharpened chopsticks. This poor air steward had nothing to defend himself with except his hands. That could have brought down the whole plane. That plane could have easily come down. What do we do? We continue to strip people of any form of self-defence when they go on to an aircraft. They are not even allowed a pair of tweezers any more. I would like the Minister to tell us whether any research was done on this. Maybe we could put it to democracy and ask the passengers what they think but then this Government does not favour “one person one vote”. So we had better not risk that. 
I would like the Minister to take a call to tell us what research went into this and whether he used the officials to look outside the square and to examine other alternatives. I believe there is some merit in revisiting the situation where we actually take all forms of self-defence off people when they go on to an aeroplane. I think there is another way that we could deter people. The bill states that it is the purpose to deter certain types of unruly behaviour that might occur on aircraft. I think there are other creative ways that we could look at this. 
I remember just after September 11 when some passengers boarded a plane in the United States to fly somewhere and the pilot instead of just saying: “Good morning ladies and gentlemen thank you for flying with us.” said: “Don’t be nervous. If anyone gets up and decides to hijack this plane you all band together and use whatever you can to attack that person.” 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 8; 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. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Harry Duynhoven to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 and Schedules 2 3 and 4 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We will take Part 2 and Schedules 2 3 and 4 together. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I will concentrate my contribution on this part on unruly passenger offences and leave the other parts to my colleagues Dr Wayne Mapp and Brian Connell to reflect their expertise in those particular areas if for no other reason. I shall concentrate on unruly passenger offences because the ACT MP Deborah Coddington finished her contribution by referring to passengers sort of banding together in some type of posse-like manner to destroy anybody on an aircraft— 
Stephen Franks 
: Smoking in the toilets. 
SIMON POWER 
: The member is quite right. We will have to give away all fun under this Government. That will be the next thing. The unruly passenger offences are worth having a look at because during the second reading I raised a couple of concerns I had about the way in which those clauses would be interpreted. I wonder whether the Minister would be kind enough as he has indicated to me that he would be to run through for me a couple of examples on how those particular sections would deal with those examples. 
We can see that every person commits an offence who fails to comply with any commands given to him or her directly by a pilot in command or indirectly by a pilot in command through a crew member. Are we now saying that a new rule of agency exists between a crew member purporting to carry out the instructions of a pilot in command or are we to believe that that particular individual—that is the crew member—is to identify to the passenger at the point that the instruction is given that he or she is acting on behalf of or indirectly by a pilot in command? In other words how is a passenger to know when he or she is told by a crew member to follow a certain command that that crew member is indeed acting with the authority of the pilot in command in giving that instruction? That is the first question I would like the Minister to address. 
Secondly I am very interested in the issue of any person committing an offence on an aircraft who behaves in a threatening offensive insulting or disorderly manner and uses threatening offensive or insulting words. I presume that the party who makes the initial decision as to whether that behaviour is threatening offensive insulting or disorderly or whether the words used by the individual are threatening or offensive is the pilot in command or in a more complicated fashion a crew member acting on behalf of the pilot in command. 
My second question for the Minister is who makes the decision as to whether the behaviour is insulting offensive or disorderly or whether the language is threatening offensive or insulting. Members can see where the difficulty lies. For example a passenger is trying to go to the toilet on the plane he or she is bumped by the cart it hits his or her knee and a word escapes from his or her mouth that otherwise would not in the normal course of events and under this legislation one presumes that that crew member could then say that he or she was acting under the authority of the pilot in command and would charge that individual for the use of threatening language. 
We need to be very clear about how those offences come about and clear about the means of carrying out the identification and prosecution of the offence. My colleague Wayne Mapp associate professor of international law is whispering in my ear that that will have to be tested in court. We would like to hear from the Minister how that process would work. 
The other thing I raised during the second reading that I am worried about is the event where a person may for example be intoxicated. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 First I congratulate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the excellent work it has done on this bill. I also congratulate my colleague Peter Brown on the hard work he put into the bill while on the select committee. My congratulations also go to the Minister who has taken the opportunity to explain a number of parts of this bill that were causing some concern. I suggest that more Ministers could do that during the course of the passage of bills. 
I want to pick up on the issue of unruly passengers. I note that the bill in the tradition of all other aviation bills continues to keep the pilot in command of the aircraft. The pilot is in complete control and command with the assistance of his or her crew and that is very sound. I was absolutely staggered by ACT MP Deborah Coddington’s suggestion that members of the public should be able to retain the means of self-defence and even weapons of self-defence. She pointed out that perhaps it would be all right to take on board a pair of tweezers. She then blew her argument away by saying that a passenger had used sharpened chopsticks to try to take over an aircraft and had inflicted some very serious injuries on a member of the crew. The suggestion by that member that passengers should be able to retain the means of self-defence and the ability to gather together was staggering. Where would that stop? Would it mean passengers would be allowed to take a revolver on board as a means of self-defence? I am staggered at that suggestion. But to get back to the crew and the pilot in command being in total control of the aircraft I say the most important part of the bill is that it has not changed that status. 
I now move on to the liability of an airline in the case of a delay. We know that there are times at Wellington Airport in particular when it is impossible to get an aircraft off the ground or even to bring an aircraft into Wellington—not so much because of the wind but often because without the wind fog or a cloud may roll in and visibility problems make it impossible to get an aircraft in or out. In that case the airline should never be responsible for the delay. But we do have airlines that overbook aircraft. It is a tradition in the airline industry to overbook aircraft to the point where airlines judge that they will have a certain number of no-shows and people who are unable to travel which will therefore bring passenger numbers back to very close to the capacity level. Those judgments are sometimes thrown out by the fact that everybody shows up. There is a problem then and the airlines have to bump people off the flight. In those cases the airlines most definitely should be held responsible for the delay in a passenger’s travel and they need to compensate the passenger in some way. Many airlines compensate affected passengers by either giving them meal vouchers or putting them up in a hotel overnight until they can catch the next flight out. That is sound practice and this bill makes an airline liable for those delays when it has been a deliberate case of the airline either cancelling a flight or bumping passengers off it. 
The cancelling of the flight is another means whereby the airlines if there is a very light passenger loading will for technical reasons—usually a complaint of a mechanical fault—cancel a flight. I know of airlines that do that on a regular basis. I am not suggesting that our national carrier does it but I am saying that other carriers that travel in and out of New Zealand definitely do it. They cancel a flight because they do not have enough passengers and they put them on to another flight. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I will take just a very quick call to sort out one or two things that are obviously puzzling people. First I say to Ms Coddington that I am amazed at her suggestion and that is all I will say about it. 
Regarding section 65J in the bill—in new Part 5A inserted by clause 24— in terms of crew members having the say over whether a person is unruly and whom the order comes from it has rightly been identified that the pilot in command of the aircraft is exactly that: the person in command. He or she will have to be satisfied that there is indeed an offence. So the person in charge the pilot will make the decision as to whether the passenger’s behaviour or language is insulting etc. Normally a crew member—usually a member of the cabin crew—would report to the pilot that the crew was having trouble with a passenger in say seat 65J or whatever it was say what was happening and ask what should be done. Major aircraft these days do contain means of restraining passengers usually by the use of the plastic cable tie type of arrangement. The crew can strap people into their seats by strapping their arms to the armrests. Those sorts of restraining devices are quite common because obviously some people react very badly when they are under the effects of alcohol or whatever. So the pilot in command can request that that action is taken. 
The pilot in command has to be satisfied that there actually is an offence. In the event that the offence is serious enough the pilot in command would notify the Aviation Security Service or the police of the offence before the aircraft comes into land. The aircraft concerned does not have to be a New Zealand aircraft; it can be any international aircraft or domestic aircraft that is landing at a New Zealand airport. The pilot in command of the aircraft wherever it has come from and whatever its nationality can request New Zealand’s Aviation Security Service or the police to meet the aircraft and the aircraft is regarded as still in flight even after it has landed and the door is opened until the pilot of the aircraft—the captain in charge—has determined that the incident is over and that the Aviation Security Service or the police has taken whatever action is required. I hope that clarifies the situation for members. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 It is a very difficult legal area to determine where the jurisdiction of New Zealand ends and the authority of the pilot begins particularly in dealing with unruly passengers. I think we can illustrate that with the recent case of the Sri Lankan girl who was deported. She clearly arrived at the airport in a very distressed state from all reports—television reports and others—and she was allowed on to the plane. Who was responsible for the offence of allowing that person who could according to a certain definition be described as unruly—in that she was definitely making a lot of noise—to get on to that plane? Under this provision here in this bill under the infringement procedure the pilot of the aircraft is supposed to inform the police about an unruly passenger. Well in this case the police were accompanying the unruly passenger and let that passenger on to the plane in an unruly state. The passenger’s state was such that I understand she was sedated. Under New Zealand law one cannot sedate someone against his or her will so who committed an offence there? 
Simon Power 
: Was she sedated before she got on the plane or on the plane? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: I understand it happened on the plane but that is something that perhaps could be investigated. Possibly the investigation that is under way could be expanded to cover that particular point. That case raises a problem and I think it shows that we have to have some consistency. If we had slightly more humanitarian immigration and asylum-seeker policies we may not end up with that sort of situation of pushing people on planes when they are in an unruly state of coming up against the contradictions in this legislation and of putting undue pressure on pilots to make those sorts of decisions about how to protect the interests of other passengers. 
I want to get on to another question. I do not quite agree with Deborah Coddington. In fact I do not agree at all that we should take on to planes items of self-defence and form posses etc. But I do spring to the defence of knitters. I have had a lot of complaints from knitters who go on planes. Some people are compulsive knitters. The situation is bad enough for smokers with the provision—and I support this provision—stopping passengers from smoking but I do not think we need to go further down the track against knitters. There are particularly compulsive knitters who do not have anyone to talk to who are on their own in a seat and who do not have a book to read. Those people want to knit and their knitting needles are stolen—and that is the only word I can use—as they get on to the plane. I think that we are really extending things if we think that the terrorist threat in the world today comes from a lot of people who look very harmless. Some of them are quite aged; some of them are in their 70s and 80s. But that does not matter—they get their knitting needles stolen from them. 
There has been a moderation in the seizure of items from people getting on to planes. When the measures first came in after September 11 I lost a couple of pairs of nail scissors. The law was then moderated a little and people had to have nail scissors over a certain length. My nail scissors get past the screening procedures now so that is a progressive step. I also understand with regard to knitting needles that there has been a certain relaxation for people with plastic rather than steel knitting needles. Sometimes people can creep by with plastic knitting needles. I do not know whether there is a minimum or a maximum length but I did hear—and perhaps I should not report this—that a friend of mine with steel knitting needles was let through the other day. So perhaps informally the situation is loosening up. I hear supportive comments from different parties in this House. If we got together and had a push on the question of knitting needles we may get an exception for them. We could even put forward an amendment to this legislation. I do not have the drafting skills to immediately construct an amendment but I would support such a change. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It would be worth reminding the previous speaker that a knitting needle—a steel one certainly—is actually capable of being used effectively as a stiletto and if we make an exception for little knitting needles what else would we be making an exception for? Why would we not make an exception for nail-clipping scissors for instance? It is really one of those situations where given the potential risk— 
Stephen Franks 
: What about sharpened glasses? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The member has seen the film. It is simply not appropriate to make those kinds of exceptions when it comes to aviation safety. In the past box cutters would have been seen as being something relatively harmless. We all know the consequences of that. 
I want to talk specifically about the mutual recognition provisions because these are clearly the most important part of the legislation and they are intended to create a single aviation market. By that I mean operators in Australia notably Qantas and Virgin Blue Airlines will be able to operate in New Zealand and Air New Zealand will be able to operate in Australia. Earlier the Minister observed in a conversation that if this provision had existed back in 1998 one would imagine that Air New Zealand would not have purchased Ansett Australia. That purchase led to the various problems that resulted in the Government bail-out. So clearly this is major legislation that builds the unity of the two markets. Obviously National will support that part but my concern is this: do the mutual recognition provisions then lead to the lowering of competitive barriers to mergers? Clearly it is the preference of the Government to allow a merger—in fact it desires a merger—between Qantas and Air New Zealand because the Minister Dr Cullen was adamantly opposed to the rescue package proposed by Singapore Airlines. The Government put every blockage in place to that and that ultimately cost the taxpayer a billion dollars. The clear intention was not so much the rescue of Air New Zealand by the taxpayer as to merge Qantas and Air New Zealand and I guess the Government intends to reduce its ownership through that mechanism. 
It has never been satisfactorily explained to the House exactly why the Government places so much importance on the Qantas - Air New Zealand merger as opposed to for instance the intervention by or involvement in Singapore Airlines. I have often wondered whether the intent is to take the view that Australia and New Zealand’s aviation companies essentially have to be merged to be a global player and the involvement in Singapore Airlines would have cut right across that. The Government seems to be willing to use New Zealand taxpayers’ money to achieve that outcome. With the mutual recognition agreements reached in November 2000 one wonders whether they are part and parcel of that overall process. 
I have a specific question for the Minister—and I know he might take the view that this legislation is not directly material to this; nevertheless it is an important question. Will the Government make an undertaking that there will be no legislation to override the decision of the New Zealand Commerce Commission which at least currently prevents the merger of the two airlines? It is a very specific question and I believe the public deserves an answer. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Can I help the member? My delegation is on the safety side. Perhaps he would like to put a question down for Dr Cullen on that issue. He is the shareholding Minister. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer but it does give rise to the implication that that is exactly what is intended. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I would like to suggest that Keith Locke move an amendment to clause 15A because I think that he is absolutely right—people who take knitting needles on to planes should be exempt. It would be very easy to draft an amendment and I suggest that he does so that we have an amendment in the bill that respects the right of knitters. Also I say to the Minister that it does not appear to me that there is a treaty clause in the bill. There is nothing in the bill that states that it must not act in a way that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I would like Mr Mallard to come down and explain why that is because I think it is an absolute disgrace that this bill does not respect the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. I turn now to New Zealand First which is obviously setting itself up to be the new coalition partner for Labour—if it thinks that Labour will be re-elected. That is a dance of the desperate if there ever was one. But I return to the issue of self-defence. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Let me answer you on the Treaty of Waitangi. The Australians don’t have the Treaty of Waitangi. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I thank the Minister. That is very wise too. They have Mabo. When I went to Cambridge there was an incident on the plane— 
Darren Hughes 
: Who paid for it? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: —Qantas paid for it—and everyone was told to return to their seats and do their seatbelts up. It appeared that somebody had run amok—one of the passengers was threatening to kill everybody on board. The Qantas aircrew managed to restrain him and handcuff him to the seat 2 hours out of Heathrow. If I had had a gun I would have quite happily put a bullet between his eyes in order to save 490 people in that jumbo jet. What is more important? The lives of 490 people or some nutter who cannot handle his alcohol on a plane and threatens to kill everybody else? To me there is no question. 
Brent Catchpole 
: What about tweezers? 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: The member questions not being able to take tweezers on to the plane. As Keith Locke pointed out it is probably quite sensible that one cannot take tweezers on to a plane because as Keith Locke says one could pluck people to death. The same is true of nail files—one could file them to death. Those thick-skinned New Zealand First people would be fine because one would be filing away for ever and it would take too long to kill them. 
I turn now to the provisions in the bill that deal with airlines delaying passengers and having to be responsible for that. We did argue about that at the select committee and it was pointed out to us that airlines do take their responsibilities very seriously voluntarily and if they muck passengers around they do in general help them out put them up and that sort of thing. What about the other way round which the bill does not deal with? What about people who delay an aircraft? I have seen members of Parliament sitting in the Koru lounge eating and holding up a flight. There are no prizes for guessing who that was. 
Brent Catchpole 
: They should be left behind. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Absolutely! They should be left behind because they disadvantage the whole airline. The whole schedule gets behind. There is no compensation for the airline in terms of that. 
Hon Members 
: Shoot them all! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: New Zealand First members are agreeing with me. “Shoot them all” they are saying. But I think that part of the bill went a bit too far. Perhaps the Minister in the chair Harry Duynhoven might like to take a call and explain. He is gesticulating at me and trying to talk to me in sign language with a bandaged hand and it is very difficult to read sign language from someone with a bandaged hand. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I start by thanking Deborah Coddington for the warning. She spoke briefly about New Zealand First going into coalition with Labour and then immediately spoke about courses on self-defence. I say to the honourable member that I have taken it on board—we will not get any closer than we are right now. 
There is one unique clause in this bill—probably several clauses—and it is a bit unusual. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has increased the fines for the carriage of dangerous goods and I think that some comment must be made on that because usually select committees are prone to reducing fines. Fundamentally there are two types of passengers who carry dangerous goods. One is the person who innocently takes on cans of paint or swimming-pool chlorine or something. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Or a swimming pool! 
PETER BROWN 
: Well chlorine can be used for a number of purposes and I say to the honourable member that the select committee was shown a series of videos about some very innocuous substances that when blended together give quite horrific results. So there is the type of passenger who innocently takes on some dangerous substance not knowing that it is a dangerous substance. Then there is the second type of passenger—who I think the select committee termed “the travelling salesman”—who specialises in carting dangerous goods from one part of the country to another and deliberately flouts the law. This bill hugely increases the fines for both types of passenger and I think that that is worth recording. 
One submitter in particular made the select committee sit up and take notice. I think he was from Qantas and I think he had flown from Singapore that day to talk to the select committee for half an hour. He explained some real concerns about dangerous and unruly passengers. He told us quite informatively in quite some detail about Qantas’ move—I hope he was from Qantas; I am either giving it a lot of credit or I should be referring to another airline but let us say he was from Qantas. 
Simon Power 
: Just say “an airline”. 
PETER BROWN 
: He was from an airline. He flew from Singapore. 
Deborah Coddington 
: A big one. 
PETER BROWN 
: It was a big one. He spoke about the training of air marshals. I know that the Minister takes safety very seriously but that submitter encouraged the select committee—and I regret not having it put in the commentary on the bill—to recommend that New Zealand get involved in the training of air marshals. That would give us the long-term choice about whether to go down that track. He recommended—quite strongly as I recall—that New Zealand have about 100 air marshals at its disposal. They could come from the army I think— 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: The army. 
PETER BROWN 
: —yes—or the police. It is worth considering and I regret that I did not endeavour to have that recommendation included in the report. One tends to think that those guys are just policemen or soldiers carrying guns discreetly but there is quite a lot to it. I will not go into the details but I was very impressed with the sincerity and the detail that that airline spokesperson gave us at the select committee. When one comes across an unruly passenger it is quite disconcerting. I have said this several times in the debate on this bill. I sympathise though with Keith Locke who cannot take his knitting needles on to a plane and knit away—probably making a hat for Nandor Tanczos or something like that. I have to say to Keith Locke that he just has to leave them at the terminal. He should give them to the security guards and buy another pair when he gets to Wellington or vice versa. Or he could have a pair in his desk here because sometimes the Speaker allows us to knit in Parliament. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Disgraceful. 
PETER BROWN 
: Disgraceful? 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: You lose all the stitches. 
PETER BROWN 
: I could not understand what the Minister said but I am sure that Hansard will record it and I will read it with interest afterwards. This is a good bill and New Zealand First will support it. 
Progress reported. 
The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.