Volume 612 Week 38 - Tuesday 7 October 2003 
Volume 612 Week 38 - Tuesday 7 October 2003 
[Volume:612;Page:8869] 
Tuesday 7 October 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Zimbabwe—Commonwealth Membership 
1. LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (NZ Labour—Mana) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What view has New Zealand expressed on the attendance of Zimbabwe at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Abuja in December and on the continuing suspension of Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 New Zealand strongly opposes the presence of Mr Mugabe at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) in Abuja. I have registered that view with the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth and indeed formally and individually with every member country in the Commonwealth. New Zealand supports the continued suspension of Zimbabwe for as long as it continues to abuse human rights and undermine the rule of law the freedom of the media and the democratic process in breach of the values of the Harare Commonwealth Declaration agreed to collectively by the Commonwealth in 1991. 
Luamanuvao Winnie Laban 
: What information does he have on the likelihood of Mr Mugabe attending the Commonwealth meeting in Abuja? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The information I have is that President Obasanjo of Nigeria has not issued and will not be issuing an invitation to Mr Mugabe to go to Abuja. President Obasanjo will be aware that the leaders of a number of countries including New Zealand would likely not attend CHOGM if Mr Mugabe were present. The question of Zimbabwe’s suspension will almost certainly arise at Abuja. Our position is that we must treat Zimbabwe consistently with the other countries that have been suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth. Those countries must stay suspended until they come back within the values agreed to and endorsed in the Harare Commonwealth Declaration. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister agree that we can best promote strong Commonwealth action against the Mugabe regime if we do not imitate Mr Mugabe and detain politicians for months at a time in poor conditions without specific charges as we are currently doing with Ahmed Zaoui and if we do not subject them to secret trials based on secret evidence from intelligence agencies as we are also doing with Mr Zaoui? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The difference between New Zealand and Zimbabwe is that the Government in this country operates within the rule of law; Zimbabwe operates outside the rule of law. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: What is the Government’s reaction to reported claims from Zimbabwe that the opposition to its continued membership of the Commonwealth and its pariah status have been inspired by the current Secretary-General thus leading to its calls for his replacement and will New Zealand be not only supporting Mr McKinnon’s reappointment but also lobbying actively with other countries to ensure that he is reappointed? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The decision to suspend Zimbabwe was made by the troika consisting of the President of Nigeria the Prime Minister of Australia and the President of South Africa. I think the secretary-general has carried out his responsibilities appropriately. Certainly New Zealand supports the re-election of Don McKinnon as Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. I put that to the Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Auckland and it was endorsed unanimously by the leaders at the forum. That same forum also unanimously endorsed the need for Zimbabwe to remain suspended while it continues to suppress human rights and work outside the rule of law. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Legislation 
2.  
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement regarding legislation on the foreshore and seabed “I don’t think it would be possible to pass legislation this year.”; if so what date does she expect legislation to be introduced? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes and when it is ready. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: In light of the fact that no law is currently stopping the Maori Land Court from issuing freehold title to Maori what guarantees can she give the public that while she stalls by delaying the legislation we will not see title to the seabed or foreshore granted? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I understand it there is still an appeal on the books to the Privy Council on the matter by another organisation. Even if claims were to be heard it is expected that it would take some time to get anywhere near the end point the member is talking about. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: How extensive has the Government’s consultation been on the foreshore and seabed issue? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It has been exceptionally extensive. Over 2000 written submissions have now been received from a wide range of individuals and organisations. I know that Government MPs have attended more than 45 public meetings in communities around the country. Ten formal hui have been held with Maori. Ministers have met with more than a dozen recreational and other user groups and are due to meet with Local Government New Zealand this week. We have distributed 15000 copies of the document for consultation and have received over 650 other requests for information. 
Dail Jones 
: Which current legislation does the Prime Minister expect will be amended—for example will the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act or the Territorial Sea Contiguous Zone and Exclusive Economic Zone Act be amended to give effect to the Government’s intentions? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The legislation to be amended will be that that requires change arising out of the refined proposal. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: As it has been indicated that 38 cases will be brought by various Maori iwi and hapu for the foreshore and apparently the Government’s approach is that because the Marlborough Harbour Board has brought a case to the Privy Council those cases will not proceed can the Prime Minister explain why the Government itself has not either joined the Marlborough Harbour Board’s case or itself appealed to the Privy Council? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government judged that this was an issue better sorted out at home. It is worth noting that since 1927 no Maori case that has gone to the Privy Council has succeeded from the Maori point of view and that the trend has been to send cases back to New Zealand. I might also say that the Marlborough Harbour Board went out of existence I think when the member was in the Government party. 
Metiria Turei 
: Why is there any need for any legislation other than a simple amendment to the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act to ensure that customary titles not be converted to fee simple titles and sold given that that is the Government’s stated bottom line and no tangata whenua have sought a fee simple title over the foreshore and seabed? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am not sure that I followed that question entirely but the member will know that from the way the Court of Appeal decision came out it would be possible to go all the way to fee simple title—something ACT seems to approve of. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Why is the Prime Minister hiding behind the pending appeal to the Privy Council by another party—to use her own words—rather than keeping her original promise to New Zealanders that she would legislate to ensure Crown ownership? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have said on many occasions that was not an original promise from me. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why does the Prime Minister persist in denying that she—on day one of this issue after the Court of Appeal decision—said that the Government would clarify the position to ensure that the ownership of the foreshore and seabed lay with the Crown let it go for months and now somehow has every journalist lying and her telling the truth? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have been very clear in this House over a number of months as to what I did say. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Did her attendance at the hui that discussed this matter inform her of the reasons that this legislation should not be introduced this year? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Just as the member could not attend a caucus today nor did I attend hui. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am just waiting. There will be people leaving the Chamber if I cannot hear a point of order in silence. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: That in no way answered the question. In fact the National Party caucus meeting is tomorrow and I will be attending it. I want to know whether her attendance at the hui helped to inform her as to her decision to delay the legislation. If she did not attend the hui then she can tell us. I am sure she was not hiding. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the Prime Minister answered that in the second part of her answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You cannot possibly believe that there was a reasonable answer in the second part of the Prime Minister’s statement. I want to take you further to the question before that asked by Mr Peters which was a very simple question that asked the Prime Minister why she was not prepared to stick by her original statements when this issue first came to light for the public. Her answer was simply that she has been very clear about her statements. If the Prime Minister gives us answers like that and you accept them we might as well not turn up. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: On many occasions the Prime Minister has pointed out that she did not make the statement that members of the Opposition claim she made. Eventually that will get through to the Opposition. As for the other point made by the member the Prime Minister made it clear that she did not attend any hui and therefore—[ 
Interruption 
] I am sitting next to the Prime Minister and I heard her very clearly state that. As there was no hui she attended she is in the same position of ignorance as we all are about the National Party caucus today—what happened there. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not warn people again about interjecting during points of order. Mr Peters has a perfect right to be heard in silence. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will recall that the evidence for questions on this issue provided to you as Speaker—or to the Clerk—recited both the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General Margaret Wilson who is the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations as having said that. It was repeated by every journalist the next day but now when we provide you with evidence that that is the authority for us saying that she said it she gets up in the House today and says that she has been very clear about her statements. But she is not very clear as to whether she is a liar or the media are. That was my question. Did she tell the truth and are they lying or are they lying and she is telling the truth—or was it obvious to everybody? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The first part of the answer was arguably unnecessary but the Prime Minister did address the question in the second part of her answer. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Does the Prime Minister regret not being able to fit her attendance at any of the hui into her diary; if so what is she going to do about it now? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no regrets at all. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Prime Minister why when she and the Attorney-General were quoted the next day as having said that they would introduce legislation clarifying that the ownership of the seabed and foreshore lay with the Crown; and when every journalist reported that in her name and in Margaret Wilson’s name she has the audacity to come to the House now and deny that she said it in the first place—or was that just spin for the first 2 weeks to get the lie of the land? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am very clear about what I said which was that clarifying legislation would be required. 
Methamphetamine—Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy 
3.  
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What action has the coalition Government’s Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy taken to date to combat the methamphetamine drug problem in this country? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Since becoming chair of the ministerial committee I have overseen the implementation of the methamphetamine action plan which has been allocated $8.6 million in this year’s Budget for police and customs initiatives as well as $2.55 million for the development of community action programmes; the reclassification of methamphetamine to a class A drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act so that anyone convicted of importing manufacturing or supplying the drug now faces up to life imprisonment; and work to put in place successful protocols by the police and pharmacies to limit the domestic supply of precursor chemicals such as ephedrine and pseudoephedrine. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: What are the next steps the coalition Government proposes to take in its fight against this dangerous drug? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Cabinet has agreed to lower the presumption of supply in relation to methamphetamine from the current 56 grams to 5 grams. This measure will give police the ability to prosecute more suppliers of that dangerous drug. It will help police and customs in their fight against methamphetamine and it is expected to begin its process through Cabinet by the end of this month. Pseudoephedrine is an ingredient in the manufacture of methamphetamine and the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs has recommended that it be classified as a class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act. I have accepted that recommendation and the Ministry of Health is in the process of consulting the industry on that measure. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: In light of the fact that families cannot get their P-addicted children into drug rehabilitation facilities which are bursting at the seams or into acute mental health beds because there simply are not enough of them when will the Government put its money where its mouth is and start saving these young people’s lives? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The inadequacy of facilities to cope with mental health and drug problems is not a new issue and I can say that over the last 3 years this Government has had an average of six Ministers attending each meeting of the ministerial group. The last time the National Party had such a meeting one Minister turned up so members opposite should not accuse this Government of inaction when the last Government led by the National Party did nothing whatever about this issue. 
Craig McNair 
: Can the Minister confirm that police previously dedicated to seeking out methamphetamine laboratories where the drugs are made have been pulled back from those duties to assist with the outbreak of homicides that have occurred in various parts of the country over recent weeks; if so what is the likely impact of that action on methamphetamine supply and availability on the streets? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I cannot comment on the operational arrangements the police make on a daily basis but I can say that this Government has taken measures to strengthen police action against methamphetamine use and those actions are being implemented by the police. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: What action is the Government taking to separate the market for hard drugs from the market for cannabis; a policy that according to the Health Committee was a stated aim of the Dutch Government and has resulted in Holland having one of the lowest rates of hard-drug addiction in the Western World and no methamphetamine problem? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Contrary to what the member believes at the recent Vienna conference on drugs the Minister of Health from the Netherlands advised me that although his country had had a relatively benign attitude to cannabis it was now facing an explosion in the production of hard drugs and the Netherlands now had a very bad reputation around the world for exporting hard drugs. I would recommend that the Green Party review its whole policy of being soft on any drugs whatsoever because it does not work. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister intend to continue allowing not-for-profit community organisations such as the Foundation for Alcohol and Drug Education to bear the financial burden of immediate community education on methamphetamines while we wait for the implementation of the community action programmes early next year; if not why not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: There are dozens if not hundreds of organisations that do very effective and valuable community work in drugs rehabilitation and so on. The Government cannot fund all of them of course. At the present time it is engaging in a programme to develop a residential treatment unit for young people associated with the drug court in Christchurch. It is funding a number of organisations assisting with drug problems but every organisation in New Zealand that does good work cannot expect to be funded by the Government. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Has the Minister seen the United Nations statement that New Zealand has the third-worst drug problem in the world; and since the problem with methamphetamines has occurred almost entirely while Labour has been in power how does he explain his continual support for this “soft on drugs” Government? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I did not hear the last bit— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: This “soft on drugs” Government! 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I would recommend that the member who asked that question listens to or gets a transcript from the interview on National Radio where a reputed researcher on drug matters in New Zealand said that that report from the United Nations had no validity whatsoever in any scientific analysis of a country’s reputation in terms of drugs. The second point is that if this Government is “soft on drugs” I suggest that the member ask those people out in the community who now know that anyone dealing in drugs like methamphetamine faces life imprisonment under class C reclassification which the previous National Government supported by ACT never even got around to doing. 
Peter Brown 
: What has Cabinet agreed to with regard to people who drive under the influence of drugs as shown on that television programme on Sunday where some people are apparently killing other people and getting off relatively scot-free? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: It may come as a surprise to the member but this Parliament and the Cabinet of the Government on this side of the House make the laws; the police and the judiciary apply them. That is the way it will stay as long as there is a rule of law in New Zealand. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: I seek leave to table a press release from last year showing that young adults will lose a valuable lifeline when the Hanmer youth clinic is shut down by this Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I seek leave to table a document that shows that the last time the ministerial group on drugs met under the National Party one Minister attended. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Agricultural Levy 
4.  
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
 to the  
Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change 
: When will an announcement be made on the future of the agricultural greenhouse gas emissions levy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Convenor Ministerial Group on Climate Change) 
: 
 Any announcement will follow the outcome of discussions with the agriculture sector. 
Hon David Carter 
: Does the Minister share the optimism of his office spokesperson who was quoted in the  
Otago Daily Times 
 on Saturday as saying that it looked as if the Government would end up “avoiding the need to bring the levy in”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Time will tell but if it does happen that will be the Government’s first preference. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Does the Minister see any advantages in a statutory levy rather than in voluntary funding from the agricultural sector for that research? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government’s preference has always been for voluntary funding and we are pleased that the sector is reconsidering its position on that. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Why will the Minister not admit that the proposed methane emission research levy on farmers was a mistake and would do nothing for world greenhouse gas emissions? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Should the research into methane emissions prove to be a little successful moderately successful or even very successful it will have small medium or large effects on greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore it is worth doing because it puts more money on our farmers’ bottom lines. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: Why will the Government not withdraw the proposed methane research tax immediately in light of the Ravensdown Fertiliser Cooperative - Lincoln University announcement that a new jointly developed product started 10 years ago could achieve the Government’s Kyoto target even if it were only half as efficient as the first research results show; and is this not an example of just how far the Government is behind the nineball in terms of its relationship with the rural sector? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That research is very encouraging although it is yet to be tested in the field. I understand it is approaching that phase now. It has of course been funded by the taxpayer and by industry in the past. In other words it is a very good example of how research can make a difference. 
Hon David Carter 
: Could the Minister explain to the House what is the difference between a back-down on the flatulence tax and a “back-up” a term the Minister used in the House on 4 September? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It seems that it is within the bounds of possibility that the agricultural sector and the Government may be able to move back up to being the first preference of us all. 
Parole Board—Principles 
5.  
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is he satisfied with the provisions of the Parole Act 2002 which state that as a guiding principle for the Parole Board “the paramount consideration for the Board in every case is the safety of the community.” yet the rights of victims are simply “upheld” and victims’ submissions “given due weight”? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes I am satisfied that the safety of the community is and should be the paramount consideration of the Parole Board. It is also very important that victims’ rights are upheld and their views heard and given due weight. Under the Victims’ Rights Act and the Parole Act all victims—for the first time—have the right to make submissions to a parole hearing either orally at an attended hearing or in writing. That is a real advance in victims’ rights over what went previously. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister explain in what way he is satisfied that the rights of victims are upheld when Morgan Fahey for example was released after serving only 3 years and 4 months of a pitiful 6-year sentence for sex crimes against 11 women patients—including the rape of a pregnant woman—yet one of Fahey’s victims was unaware of his eligibility for parole and others stated: “I would like to see him die in there.” “I don’t ever want to see him again.” and “How could they let him out when he’s spent 30 years having a field day with women?” 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Victims of Morgan Fahey did take up the right to be present at the Parole Board hearing and to make submissions to the board. If any victim was not notified it may have been because she did not put herself on the victim notification register. The member might like to check that out with the person concerned. In respect of the sentence of Morgan Fahey he was sentenced 3 years ago and it is not for a politician in this House but for the court to determine what sentence is given. In this case he committed 13 offences—11 sexual assault offences one rape offence and one sexual violation offence. The judge at the time thought that a sentence of 6 years was appropriate but of course the sentencing laws have changed since then including the requirement that the maximum sentence be given for the worst type of offence. 
Tim Barnett 
: What are the rights of victims in respect of parole hearings? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Under the Victims’ Rights Act and the Parole Act both passed last year all victims have the right to make submissions to parole hearings. Those on the victim notification register will be automatically notified in advance of the hearing date. A victim may make an oral submission to a hearing. If it is an unattended hearing written submissions may be made. In fact the Parole Board will go to the extent of visiting the victim in his or her home so that it can hear those submissions. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Can the Minister explain how the Parole Act protects community safety when New Zealand’s youngest-ever murderer Bailey Kurariki—after serving only 1 year of a 7-year sentence and who has had 12 incident reports in Kingslea in the last 2 months and he has shown no remorse—is today being considered for home detention and could soon be returned to a home where even the Minister’s own officials reported there is no control over him and he never went to school; where is the community safety in that “soft on criminals” attitude? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is asking me to make a comment on a hypothetical situation because to the best of my knowledge the Parole Board has not yet made a decision. Therefore it would be wrong for me to guess what decision it might make. As the member knows well the Parole Board is an independent statutory body. It works under the legislation passed in this House but its decisions are its own and may not be interfered with by that member or by me. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister explain to the House why the Parole Act allowed someone like Morgan Fahey to be paroled last month when his application for home detention was turned down just 3 months earlier? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The comments I made to the previous question are appropriate to that question. I am not privy to the information the Parole Board has or hears; nor may I interfere with its decisions. 
Marc Alexander 
: Is the Minister satisfied that the rights of victims are upheld when offenders are paroled showing no signs of remorse—as in the case of Morgan Fahey who while giving an interview in prison said: “Whatever I did at the time I was doing it I did not know that what I was doing was wrong.” and who was found with pornography and old patient notes in his cell—if the Minister is satisfied why; if he is not what does he intend to do about it? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The Parole Board while it has as its paramount consideration the safety of the community and obviously has judged that this man is not a threat to the community may also take other factors into account. However I did read with interest the member’s own comments describing Fahey as a sad and pathetic shadow of the status he once enjoyed; that he has paid the price for his offences over and above his prison term including the loss of his honour his city councillor role his luxury home and his right to practise medicine. 
Government Members 
: Who said that? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That is what the member said. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister agree that in upholding the rights of victims the parole law should be dictated by the bad deeds committed by criminals like Fahey before their conviction rather than the good behaviour they may ostensibly demonstrate after the fact by making offenders fulfil their entire sentence so as to restore the intrinsic value of punishment so that victims can feel that justice has actually been done? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As the member is aware the Parole Board now has the discretion if it decides it is appropriate to keep an offender in prison for the full term of the sentence. This particular offender was sentenced under the old legislation so automatically had to be released at two-thirds of his sentence in any case. 
State Housing and Elective Surgery—Waiting Lists 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Is she concerned about the number of New Zealanders on waiting lists for elective surgery and State housing and how many New Zealanders are on each list? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I am satisfied that good progress is being made in both areas. Eighty-two percent of newly referred patients are now seen by a specialist within 6 months compared with 66 percent in the 1998-99 year. In respect of State housing the 12379 applicants on the waiting list represent a smaller number than the number of State houses sold off under the previous National Government of which Mr Peters was for a time part. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Prime Minister how many people were on the elective surgery list. She made no attempt to answer that. It is all there in the question. The last few words are: “and how many New Zealanders are on each list?”. That member who is meant to be the Prime Minister comes down to this House after a long rest and cannot answer even a simple question as to what the numbers are in the two categories. She gave the number for the second category—in a very diverse answer to do with the Government I was associated with—but on the question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will please be seated. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I have not finished Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down now. The member will come to his point tersely. He has not yet raised a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I have raised a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked you why you have allowed the Prime Minister to get away with not answering the first part of the question to do with how many New Zealanders are on each list. In this case it had to be firstly elective surgery which is implicit in the question and secondly State housing. When she got to State housing having ignored the first part of the question she then started to blame me for the past which is not any matter for which she is responsible. So she has erred on three grounds and why have you not got up and stopped her? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because she actually addressed the question. She gave the figures that were required. She added comments in as well. I heard her mention the number of people on waiting lists for State housing and the member acknowledged that. When she came to the question of waiting lists for elective surgery I heard a figure given there. The Prime Minister certainly addressed the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Well then I ask you to tell the country what the number is that I am seeking in respect of elective surgery. Tell us all now. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Mr Speaker I most certainly am prepared to support you in that you cannot make the Prime Minister give an answer but I really think you should rethink the reply you gave to the Rt Hon Winston Peters because you suggested that the Prime Minister actually had given the number of people waiting for elective surgery. If you were involved in active politics you would know that the number of people who are waiting for elective surgery is the country’s best-kept secret. Nobody knows that number. The Government makes sure it does not keep the numbers. Hospitals are told they are not allowed to keep the numbers. That is a complete secret. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That might well be but that was not the issue raised. Two figures were given. I am not here to judge whether the figures are accurate; that is for the Prime Minister giving the figures and for members asking supplementary questions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect we have come back from a break from the House. We have all been led to believe by the media that we are going to get some sort of new transparency from the House in this term. I want to ask you as to how it is avoidable on this question to say how many New Zealanders are on each list. The first number required of course is the number of those on waiting lists for elective surgery. How could she possibly have answered that by putting up some sort of 6-month waiting list percentage? As the Hon Mr Prebble rightly points out it is the number of people on those waiting lists that we want to know; so does the whole country. For the Prime Minister of all people—not some junior Minister but the Prime Minister—to come down here and get away with her answer and be allowed by you to get away with it is a democratic disgrace. I want a bit of accountability in this House from her and from you. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not make comments about me at all. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Well I have. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member makes any further comments he will be leaving the Chamber. I am warning him of that right now. As far as I am concerned I heard an answer given. Perhaps the Prime Minister might like to restate the answer. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you heard an answer then the Prime Minister has answered the question; but you did not hear any answer to do with the subject matter and now you are asking her to expand on it. My point is this: why do we always have to waste the time of this House by having to ask for questions to be answered in the way they are in every First World democracy particularly the ones we share the English language with. This is a disgrace. I am making my protest on behalf of myself and my colleagues and I believe it is generally shared by every informed observer of this process. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member might believe that but that is not my point of view and that is not the point of view I want to adhere to here. Ministers are asked questions and Ministers reply. I invited the Prime Minister to restate the answer she gave. If she wishes to do that I would like her to do so. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am happy to advise—supplementary to what I advised in a rather full answer earlier—that the number on elective surgery waiting lists amounts to 31785 of which a very small number are the refugees and new migrants Mr Peters despises. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Now there you go! She had the figure. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the member in a minute. I am going to be sending somebody out—somebody who makes a comment. I am very close to doing that. Only one person speaks in a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Mr Speaker there you go—she had the figure. If you wish to send anybody out you should send her out and make her an example for this Government—and her Ministers. It is not a laughing matter to threaten to throw out members on this side of the House when she is clearly in breach of the spirit of question time in this House. In my view that is a disgrace. You should send her out and make it a lesson for the first time for a long long time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I want to say is this— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further assistance on this matter. I will make that decision and I will make it alone. As far as I was concerned I invited the Minister to make any further comments if she wanted to. She did. She made an extra comment. That does not come off anyone’s question time at all. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to make two points. The reason it does not come off anyone’s question time is that members of Parliament and in this case Mr Peters had to take extreme action—which included a huge amount of provocation I have to say of yourself—to get the Prime Minister to give an answer to a question she had on notice. She can sit there and shake her head but she did not give the 31000 figure. She hid that figure until under extreme provocation she eventually stood up and gave it. At the end of the day unless there are some guidelines for times when Ministers have answers and choose not to give them but then give them under duress a bit later on during points of order you can expect nothing else other than lots of points of order because if anyone takes up extra questions that is just a way of those questions being used up. Mr Speaker I do not know whether the next time you attend the Labour caucus you will lay out the rules to the Minister or whether you will send a memo to Ministers on the way they answer questions—spell it out more—but at the end of the day for the sake of this House’s transparency we need to ensure when Ministers have the answer that they give it rather than us having to wheedle it out of them through points of order. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Mr Speaker perhaps the next time a National Party caucus is held you might attend it to tell its members that the requirement is for Ministers to address questions and the member needs to understand what that actually means. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: There is a Speaker’s ruling that states that if an answer to a question can be given then it should be given. While I do not want to associate myself with the tone in which some of the points of order have been raised with you I have to associate myself with the point that is being made and I think you should make it to the Prime Minister. In this particular case a question was given under notice. It asked for a particular number and it now turns out that the Prime Minister always had that number. No one in this House could misinterpret this question as not asking for the number of people on waiting lists for elective surgery. The Prime Minister in having that figure and then choosing not to give it to the House when asked is holding Parliament in contempt. It would be very helpful—I have invited you to do this before and perhaps you could have a think about it rather than doing it today—to have a formal ruling by you stating that if a Minister has the answer to a question then it is unparliamentary for the Minister to fail to provide that information to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker does not write answers for Ministers or judge the quality of answers. The guidelines are that questions must be addressed and in that regard Dr Cullen was right. On reflection perhaps the point the Hon Richard Prebble made is also one that is worth considering. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When the Prime Minister was asked as to what the number was in respect of the elective surgery list why did she not get up and just tell the House the straight direct and honest answer that was provided to her by her staff when she came down to the House; or is she just into full-scale evasion mode most of the time? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Answers should not be over lengthy and a lot of information was in the first one. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned about the 25000 patients who were dumped from the waiting list because under this Government people have to be sicker to get service and how many New Zealanders does she think thought her credit card pledge to reduce waiting lists would be achieved by having patients simply dumped from the list? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The residual waiting list process has been around for quite a while. The numbers removed at this time are considerably fewer than the 58000 dumped when that member’s party was in Government. I am satisfied that more surgery than ever is being performed that a lot more money has been put in and that we are getting very good results in terms of the numbers being seen by specialists within the first 6 months and then being referred for treatment. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Prime Minister so little concerned about the effect if we add the people who were tipped off the list to the 31000 then add the number of people who are on State housing lists which all up comes to 68000; why is she so contemptuously unconcerned about those people who are living in anguish and agony awaiting breast heart eye joint orthopaedic and hip operations to name but a few or who are living in squalor and in overcrowded conditions while she spends tens and tens of millions of dollars on a whole lot of illegal immigrants and reconciling some Afghans who when the situation has been stabilised in their country are not to be reconciled there but of all things here? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am sure the member is not really interested in knowing that out of over 63000 State tenancies last year 154 went to refugees. It has been the practice of Governments for many years to make sure that refugees are appropriately housed in the community. I for one would want to see that practice continue. 
Jill Pettis 
: Have policies in respect of the health and housing needs of refugees changed in recent years? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No. I understand that essentially the same approach has been taken to the housing of refugees in the community including in respect of State housing and in meeting their health needs which are often quite considerable. It is a good thing about New Zealand that the practice has been the same under a range of Governments including when Mr Peters was Deputy Prime Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I would like to table the comments made by the Prime Minister when I was Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister when she blatantly complained about New Zealand First being far too influential in driving down the number of immigrants and refugees. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those statements. Is there any objection? There is. 
Medicines—Subsidies 
7.  
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What steps has the Government taken to improve access to subsidised medicines? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The Government has increased Pharmac’s budget for community pharmaceuticals to $566.6 million. This represents a 10 percent increase over last year and recognises the growth and demand for medicines particularly for improved access for people in primary health organisations. 
Dave Hereora 
: What other initiatives has Pharmac taken to ensure that getting the medicines that doctors prescribe is easier for patients? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Pharmac has reintroduced all-at-once dispensing as from 1 October. For most patients especially those with chronic conditions such as heart disease or diabetes it will be easier for them to get their medicines. Overall all-at-once dispensing will mean that 71 percent of prescriptions will be dispensed in one go and this will be more convenient for many people. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: What is the Minister doing to address the rest home dementia and geriatric hospital patient issue knowing that every one of those patients has his or her medications changed frequently and 3-monthly dispensing will cause huge wastage of medications increased costs for the rest homes and their clients and major storage compliance and safety issues? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The changes that were made to the stat dispensing proposal enable individual patients to have medicines dispensed either 3-monthly or monthly. I welcome that member’s support of the changes that were made to the proposal when she wrote to Pharmac and congratulated it. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked specifically about rest homes geriatric hospitals and dementia units. The Minister did not address that issue in any way. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker I point out that people who live in rest homes and other institutions mentioned by that member are individuals. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point was made. The Minister addressed the question. 
Supreme Court—Appointment of Judges 
8.  
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Will she have the final recommendation on who the judges appointed to the Supreme Court will be and is it her intention to follow the recommendations of the panel? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
:  
Yes and yes. 
Richard Worth 
: Why has she created a Clayton’s panel to advise her on appointments to the Supreme Court when she has already said and had reported in the media that she is likely to make appointments exclusively from the Court of Appeal; what is it that each member of the panel will contribute to the process? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I am following the same process that the previous Attorney-General has followed with the exception that I have supplemented that panel with an additional member. The reason this process is being followed is that there are seven members on the Court of Appeal. Four recommendations will be made—five if one includes the Chief Justice who is included—so it is not known automatically who will be there. That is why I need advice from the panel and I do not believe that it is a Clayton’s panel. 
Dail Jones 
: How can the Attorney-General say she is following a process that has been followed before when the Privy Council has never been abolished before and this is an entirely new process for the establishment of a Supreme Court; and will she consider the judges’ names that are to be forwarded being notified to say the Justice and Electoral Committee so that the committee can give some consideration to the appointments that are to be made and its meetings to be held in camera? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: All judges who are appointed are High Court judges. In that sense as I have said I am following the process that has been set down but supplementing it in recognition of the fact that this is for the Supreme Court. Why the matter has not been referred of course to the select committee is that to do so would be contrary to what I understood the select committee wanted; it did not want blatant political appointments. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Why is the Minister apparently not prepared to follow constitutional conventions and avoid any suggestion of political bias or interference by simply appointing the most senior judges from the Court of Appeal? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: That is why I am following the constitutional convention that has evolved in this country—that is by having recommendations from a panel. In this instance there seems to be no reason to change that practice. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister agree that the issue of judicial appointments goes well beyond the Supreme Court; and following her discussions with the Green Party what consideration does the Government intend to give the issue of a judicial appointments commission to make judicial appointments in general less political? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I understand that during submissions on the bill the Green Party raised that we should follow the UK example of setting up a discussion paper and inquiry into whether we should establish a commission to recommend judicial appointments. I have already indicated that I am very comfortable with proceeding with that and hopefully a discussion paper will be available in the new year. 
Richard Worth 
: Did the Minister not deal with judicial appointments in the Judicial Matters Bill because she wanted to be able to appoint the Supreme Court effectively by herself in a triumph of social engineering; if not why does the Judicial Matters Bill not deal with judicial appointments as the Justice and Electoral Committee was led to believe that it would? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: I am following the normal practice in making judicial appointments. I am following the process that was established prior to this Government by the Attorney-General in the previous National-led Government. I see no reason to change that practice at this time. The Judicial Matters Bill came long after the Supreme Court legislation. 
Genetically Modified Crops—Canadian Experience 
9.  
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Will she agree to visit Canada before the Government lifts the moratorium on the growing of GE crops so that she can see at first hand the problems Canada is experiencing as a result of growing GE crops as outlined in the recently released report by Canada’s Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food; if not why not? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 No. There are much more cost-effective ways to gather information in this age of telecommunication. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why on earth would she not want to visit a country that has been growing GE for 7 years to see for herself at first hand the consequences or does she not want to face up to the fact that growing GE in Canada has resulted in widespread contamination a loss of premium markets in Europe and Asia damage to the international perceptions of Canadian produce and loss of confidence amongst consumers in the integrity of the Canadian food supply? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I have no need. I can get information on most of that huge list in the question by ringing the Canadian High Commission going on the Internet and talking to a number of people. I do not have to visit a country and cost the taxpayer much-needed money. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: How can she be confident that the Environmental Risk Management Authority will be able to make adequate economic risk analysis on a GE food application when her own Government has demanded that the methodology be improved and this work does not have to be reported until October 2004? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The member has confused two different work streams. The methodology used by the Environmental Risk Management Authority will be completed by the time the moratorium lifts. The further work being done by Treasury on economic effects is certainly not due until the end of 2004. But we have much information including the wee gem that the Canadians have not suffered any loss in their overall export markets because of what they grow in genetically modified products. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Has the Minister seen any information to support her view that a cautious case by case consideration of applications to release GM technology will not harm the economy following the expiry of the moratorium at the end of the month? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes I have. A recent Otago University study interviewed key people in the European food markets and found that negative sentiment about genetically modified food does not transfer to general perceptions of country image in relation to food quality and food safety. Nor does negative sentiment transfer to unrelated non-GM products. In other words the expiry of the moratorium on applications to release genetically modified organisms will not harm New Zealand’s clean green image as some in this House claim and the cautious application of GM technology is the appropriate way to proceed which the Canadians are about to adapt as they have stated in that same programme that the member quoted from. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If the Minister is so confident of her position—unusual as it is—why will she not ask the Prime Minister to allow a conscience vote on this issue so that the Labour Party can express without the whip being applied its real view on this issue? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I am absolutely confident that even if there were a conscience vote Labour colleagues would vote sensibly on a case by case decision. 
Sue Kedgley 
: What is her response to the Canadian farmer who said in an interview published last week: “They told us GM food would help farming but it has brought nothing but trouble and now we are trapped in a giant experiment over which we have no control. Once you open the door to GM you may never be able to close it again. We were also assured cross-contamination would not happen but the fact is that GM is out there nobody can control it the stuff is spreading no one can stop it that is what is so scary.”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister may respond very briefly. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The difference between Canada and New Zealand is that Canada has no form of conditional release. The only way it could make an assessment was on some environmental contextual assessment. It cannot assess for economic benefits. One of the things that is different between Canada and New Zealand is that we are setting up a process under the legislation before the House for case by case for modifications for conditional release for the setting of conditions that will prevent us from going down the way that Canada experienced with GM canola. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If the price farmers receive for non-GE canola is damaged by the nearby growing of GE canola—as that Canadian report shows—why does she support a field test of GE onions in preparation for a release of those onions in New Zealand that could damage our $100 million onion exports which are mainly to countries that are very resistant to GE food? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The only price loss was for a period of time when the Canadians were denied a market entry into the European Union. When they changed their market across to Japan Saudi Arabia and I have forgotten the two other countries their market price recovered. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Appeal to Privy Council 
10.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Why did the Government decide not to appeal the Court of Appeal decision in relation to the Marlborough foreshore case to the Privy Council? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 The Government considered that the questions raised by the Court of Appeal as a result of its decision could best be addressed by working through the issues which is what we are doing in the present consultation process. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Has the Attorney-General seen the press reports of distinguished lawyers such as Paul Cavanagh QC and former Land Court Maori lawyer Marcus Poole at ACT’s foreshore conference on the weekend stating that the Court of Appeal decision was wrong in law; given this is it not irresponsible for the present Government not to appeal the decision to the Privy Council? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes I have seen the opinions of those two lawyers. I have heard the opinions of many other lawyers. All lawyers give opinions. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What is the Crown’s role in the appeal? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: The Crown is no longer a party to the appeal and therefore will not be participating in the hearing of the appeal. We have played a neutral role in the appeal so far; for instance we did not oppose the granting of leave to appeal which I understand is yet to be heard and determined. 
Richard Worth 
: When the Attorney-General said that the Crown is not a party to the appeal why is she misleading the House when the Crown is a party to the appeal albeit that it has decided to abide by the decision of the court on the appeal; why is it that there has been a history by the Crown in the Maori Land Court the High Court and the Court of Appeal to argue that the foreshore and seabed are the exclusive property of the Crown and now the Crown is wimping out on that argument? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: It is true we were certainly a party to the Court of Appeal decision. We are not a party in the sense that we are pursuing an active role as far as the Privy Council is concerned. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Attorney-General give a categorical assurance to existing owners of private title to the foreshore that following the chain of events arising from the Marlborough decision title to the foreshore that is now privately owned will not be taken away or removed without full and just compensation? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: Yes. On previous occasions we have given that reassurance and there seems to be no reason to depart from it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is the Attorney-General prepared to repeat in the House the statement she made to me—when briefing me on the Court of Appeal decision—that Crown Law advised the Government that the decision was wrong and the foreshore did belong to the Crown; given that is the real reason that the Government will not appeal to the Privy Council because to do so would admit that the Government’s decision to repeal appeals to the Privy Council is a dangerous mistake? 
Hon MARGARET WILSON 
: No. It is not surprising that Crown Law which argued and lost would think that its argument would be better heard yet again in another forum. I think that is quite normal for any party in such proceedings. The reason we are not proceeding is in terms of the answer that I have already given the member. 
Business Compliance Costs—Australia / New Zealand 
11. H V ROSS ROBERTSON (NZ Labour—Manukau East) 
 on behalf of  
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Commerce 
: What reports has he received comparing business compliance costs in New Zealand with Australia? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Recent reports from the Auckland Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the New South Wales State Chamber of Commerce highlight the higher compliance costs faced by businesses in Australia our largest trading partner. This is most notable in areas such as GST compliance superannuation and payroll tax accident compensation and occupational health and safety. These figures highlight why New Zealand is a great place to do business and why the idea of packing up and moving to Australia is not that clever. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: How do the figures in the report compare with other international evidence? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: The 2003  
Index of Economic Freedom 
 published by the Heritage Foundation and the  
Wall Street Journal 
 ranks New Zealand third in the world for economic freedom compared with Australia which ranks ninth. The report which noted an increase in economic freedom since 1998 goes on to describe New Zealand’s regulatory regime as relatively light and transparent and commented that it is easy to establish a business in New Zealand. In its 2002 economic survey the OECD commented that the quality of Government regulations and their administration in New Zealand is generally of a high international standard. 
John Key 
: Why have the Small Business Advisory Group appointments not yet been announced when the Minister said that they would be announced by the end of June; and can he confirm that the delays are because the Government cannot find business leaders who will not challenge the policies it has said are not open for debate or review—such as an overhaul of the Resource Management Act? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: I am delighted to advise the member that quite contrary to his views we had hundreds and hundreds of applicants—in fact 640 high-calibre applicants. They took a hugely long time to vet and the Government is about ready to announce some very capable and superb applicants in the very near future. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Is the Minister aware that New Zealand producers of dietary supplements will face dramatically higher compliance costs if they are forced into a trans-Tasman therapeutic goods administration—with no gain in safety when compared to a strengthened New Zealand regulatory model—and this may force many of them to relocate to Australia; if so why will he not step in to protect these businesses from such a fate? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: No. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the Government have a modest goal to ensure business compliance costs are not quite as bad as in Australia or does it have an ambitious goal to eliminate red tape as far as practicable in order to give New Zealanders a true competitive advantage in the global marketplace? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: We prefer the ambitious one. 
Proceeds of Crime Act—Effectiveness 
12.  
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Has he received any reports from the New Zealand Police on the effectiveness of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991; if so what do those reports say? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. The Police has advised me that in the year to date eight restraining orders have been obtained to the value of $1.468 million. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Noting that cash is the lifeblood of criminal gangs can the Minister explain why drug-dealing gangs are escaping unscathed from the Proceeds of Crime Act when official documents from the Government show that so far this year not one dollar has been confiscated from a convicted drug dealer—not one dollar? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I think that the member should have listened to the original answer. Can I say that since 2000 about $3 million has been obtained as a result of restraining orders. That will probably be the case this year as well. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Noting the Minister’s boast about collecting $3 million since 2000 and noting that $3 million was collected in 1999 alone is the Government’s support for decriminalising cannabis interfering with its decision making in dealing with drug-dealing gangs considering that the Government promised to do this within its first 6 months of office? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Marijuana is not getting in the way of the police doing their job. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want the Minister to give a little bit of a further answer to that. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: The police do concentrate on serious crime. They take a very tough line on drugs of all sorts. In fact the police have just finished a major methamphetamine bust called Operation Choker where they have made approximately 30 arrests. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: If the Government is seriously reviewing the Proceeds of Crime Act will it consider the features of the highly successful Western Australian Proceeds of Crime Act where the police and the Parliament have got serious on dealing with the criminal underworld who are responsible for the P scourge infesting our country? 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: I hope to have a report in 2 or 3 months on options that the police have. We are looking at all sorts of options— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Four years. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS 
: Well Tony Ryall can wave but it is not much good. I can tell the House that we are looking at all options. Western Australia is not the only one—we are looking at Europe. We will come up with a law that is tougher than the 1991 Act that that member’s party introduced. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table the statement of Mr Goff in 1999 that: “The Proceeds of Crimes Act has not worked effectively against organised crime and the public will not be impressed at the belated recognition of this.” 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Question No 5 to Minister 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 During the course of my supplementary questions the Minister of Justice—deliberately I think—misled the House on some of the words that I used in one of my documents. He did not quote some of the other aspects of my document which included such comments as— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is a proper way to do this. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: I do seek leave to table the document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wants just to seek leave to table the document he may do that. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the document that I quoted from and I have highlighted the areas that I have quoted to show that I have done so accurately. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Points of Order 
Question No. 4 to Minister 18 September 
Dr DON BRASH (NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. On the last sitting day during question time I asked Mr Cunliffe for a comment about compliance costs. I believe he made a quite erroneous answer to the House. I wonder whether he will correct that misleading impression. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Although that is not a point of order I can tell the member that I discussed the matter just before the House sat. The member has been discussing the matter with the Clerk and if necessary he will be making a statement to the House. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Tariff Reductions 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a number of applications for debates under Standing Order 376. Rod Donald seeks to debate the Government’s decision to reduce the level of tariffs on imported goods. The decision is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but I cannot regard a decision on the level of tariffs post-2005 as requiring the immediate attention of the House by way of an urgent debate. 
Transmission Gully 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Hon Peter Dunne seeks to debate a statement by the Prime Minister regarding the building of the Transmission Gully project. While the Prime Minister did respond to a question on the project she did so without changing Government policy at all. In these circumstances there is no particular case of recent occurrence to give grounds for a debate. 
Crimes Act 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Murray Smith wishes to debate an announcement by the Minister for Social Development and Employment that section 59 of the Crimes Act which permits reasonable force against children will be repealed. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility but as the Minister indicated that a time frame of 2 years and legislation will be needed to effect it there is no ground for an urgent debate on it today. 
Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill be now read a third time 
. The purpose of this bill is to protect consumers entering into and through the duration of credit contracts consumer leases and buy-back transactions. The bill achieves this purpose by updating and strengthening the information disclosure requirements thus enabling consumers to make informed decisions about consumer finance transactions. Flexible but fair rules relating to fees and interest charges on credit contracts are set. The bill closes the loophole exploited by buy-back operators in the housing area and empowers the Commerce Commission to enforce the new legislation including the buy-back provisions. 
I acknowledge the very efficient and timely manner in which Parliament has progressed this bill. I acknowledge the work of the select committee and the work of parliamentary counsel and officials on the legislation. I also want to acknowledge that this is a major consumer law statute and represents a milestone in providing consumer rights to New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I would like to report that during the Committee stage the Opposition parties drew to the Committee’s attention a number of flaws in this bill that the Government refused to acknowledge. Not only did we tackle the Government about the inadequacies of the compliance costs statement involved in this bill and not only did we draw to the Government’s attention the unfair and cumbersome administrative burden that would go on New Zealand finance companies in particular but we drew this important notice to the Government. This bill is supposed to be about improving the provision of information to New Zealanders who borrow money from second-tier financial institutions; it is supposed to be about providing those New Zealanders with more information so that they can be more aware of the cost of the credit and the responsibilities that they may have. But this Opposition in a united way pointed out to the Government that its very first goal in this legislation will not be met. The Government said very clearly that this bill was about providing full information on the cost of credit for consumers—but it does not. It does not because it fails to capture the fees and charges of brokers involved in financial transactions. It fails to capture recording the charges of brokers involved in financial transactions. 
I give members the example of the many New Zealanders who may want to consolidate their debt or may need to travel overseas for a funeral or may need money to buy a new car. They go off to “Quickloans Ltd” and borrow for example $5000 to do so. The Government’s bill fully allows for the full cost of that credit to be disclosed in the documentation. But many New Zealanders go and arrange their consumer finance through a broker. There are brokers in New Zealand who charge quite large percentages for their fees but the average charge is 10 percent. A broker will say: “I will arrange a $5000 loan for you and I will take a 10 percent commission.” He or she will advise the finance company of his or her appointment and the finance company will approve the loan and send $4500 to the consumer and $500 to the broker. But all that the documentation shows is that the person borrowed $5000; it does not have to say what the broker’s fee was. In some situations the broker’s fee is added to the actual amount of money that the person wants to borrow. This bill does not capture that charge. 
The Committee stage went on for 6 or 7 hours and the Minister in the chair Judith Tizard took only a handful of calls—virtually amounting to one call—in order to address the concern that Opposition members were raising. The point is that this bill fails to capture that $500 that goes to the broker. It fails to have it declared in the transaction—in the information that is required in the bill. We moved amendments that required that information to be included. The Government says that all of that is caught by the description of fees but the point is the fees relate to the transaction between the finance company and the borrower. The transaction involving the broker is outside that contractual arrangement and therefore does not have to be declared. Therefore the person who is borrowing the money is not fully aware of the costs associated with that borrowing. 
During the Committee stage the united Opposition parties made that point time and time again. Mr Catchpole will agree; he stood up and talked from a south Auckland experience about why it is important to have that money declared. Sandra Goudie from Coromandel made the point to the Government about the need to do something about it as well. Deborah Coddington from ACT also pressed the Government about why brokers’ fees are not being included in the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill. 
We did that because we do not want Government members going up and down the country trying to convince New Zealanders that they have improved the level of information associated with consumer finance. They have not because there is a huge loophole. The Opposition was told that there are finance companies in New Zealand that are considering changing their entire commercial operations so that all their offices will operate on a brokerage arrangement rather than on an agency arrangement. That is a pretty dramatic step. Those companies know that the brokerage fee does not have to be declared; it does not have to be on the document that is available for consideration of various quotes that a person may be seeking. That is serious. There are a whole lot of people who go to the second-tier lenders who want to be fully informed of all that information and want to know what the full cost of their credit is and that information will be not provided by the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill. 
That is a major loophole that the Government is inviting finance companies to drive their tractors straight through. Because we told the Government that that would happen it will be culpable for the confusion that happens when brokers’ fees and charges are not included in the borrowing and people say: “But the Government said that this was the full cost of my borrowing and that all the information would be declared on this one piece of paper.” It is not. 
We say that it is disrespectful to Parliament for the Minister Judith Tizard to come to the House and say that this is a bill that will provide full information to borrowers when it does not. We also say that it is disrespectful of the Government to introduce a bill in which the compliance cost statement is woefully inadequate and does not cover the considerable compliance costs associated with upgrading forms and procedures to comply with what is required in the bill. Small businesses are what run these finance companies. We should respect the effort and the service that they provide to the public and the Government should have had the decency to tell Parliament how much this legislation will cost those finance companies because that cost is passed on to consumers. We think it is disrespectful for the Minister to know that she is leaving a huge loophole in the bill and to do absolutely nothing about it. I tell members that we will be back here within 18 months in order to fix that loophole. We have warned the Government what will happen we know that there will be an amendment and I will be the first one to say to Judith Tizard: “We told you so. You should have listened.” 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 United Future supports the third reading of this bill. It is part of a reform process of the Credit Contracts Act and the Hire Purchase Act and will replace those Acts. It follows the line of other Acts that have been implemented by Parliaments over the years—in particular the Consumer Guarantees Act the Contractual Remedies Act and to bring up living memory even the Door to Door Sales Act. Those pieces of legislation were all designed to address the imbalance of bargaining power between commercial enterprises and consumers. 
This bill and bills like it fly in the face of pure market ideology. ACT at least and National—well I think National; I am never quite sure what National thinks these days—support the pure market ideology. In essence that ideology says that everyone is in an equal bargaining position and that market forces will ensure that no one gets ripped off—or at least that if people do get ripped off then it is their right and choice to have that happen. That ideology says it is their fault if they have not been properly informed and they will learn from that so at the very least the Government should not interfere. 
However we are very well educated by programmes such as  
Fair Go 
 and  
Target 
 in particular to recognise the reality that even well-informed consumers can be trapped by unscrupulous commercial operators and that there is a need to protect consumers against commercial operators who know information that consumers cannot possibly know. Even if consumers buy the simplest of goods the people who manufacture and market those goods will inevitably understand the nature and quality of their goods and the purposes for which they can be used far far better than consumers who are trying to address all sorts of different goods during their lifetimes. 
The difficulty we have in our society is that we will always find people who use enterprising ways to get around whatever laws are put in. This bill is an endeavour to keep pace with some of the entrepreneurial ideas that such people come up with in order to avoid their legal obligations and to ensure they can market products in a way that unwitting consumers will get sucked into and that they the entrepreneurs can profit by. I note that this bill in particular has gone through a long gestation period. The law was reviewed over a 2-year period from July 1999 to July 2001. The bill has had extensive input since the 2-year period when the review was done. It has of course been through the select committee process where it was further examined in depth. The difficulty is that our commercial world has lost a lot of its moral sanction yet it can operate only where there is a degree of morality in existence and in particular a degree of trust. Even commercial businesses such as car dealerships—which over the years have perhaps borne more than their share of the brunt of criticism for unscrupulous dealing—have people listening to their salesmen when buying cars. Although people may take precautions such as arranging independent checks they still need to rely on the information provided to them in order to buy anything like that. 
The difficulty we face when dealing with fraudsters who will use any legal device to rip off consumers is to know how far Parliament should go in order to protect people from themselves. The balance that has thus far been struck—which this bill follows and which I believe is the right balance—is the knowledge that we cannot stop consumers from going into those sorts of transactions or using their money in the way that they wish to use it. All we can do is to ensure that they have as much information as possible in a format that is easily read and brought to their attention so that they make their decisions as intelligently as possible. Thereafter if consumers want to throw their money at something that is in fact not worth the paper it is written on then that is a choice they must be free to make. In some cases it is appropriate that people are required to obtain independent legal advice before entering into transactions and we find that happening already in the law. But at the end of the day even a lawyer giving independent legal advice—as I know from my own experience—must always say: “Well that’s my advice but you need to make the decision.” People unfortunately sometimes do make decisions contrary to good advice and find themselves entrapped. 
There are two aspects of this bill that particularly please me. One is the requirement for disclosure to guarantors. I have faced that problem in my legal practice over a number of years in situations where somebody signs a guarantee and thereafter the terms of the guarantee—in particular the weight of the obligations placed upon the guarantor—are increased without the guarantor even knowing that let alone consenting to it. That happens in husband-and-wife situations where the husband may be running a business and the wife signs a guarantee that covers and is secured by the family home. The husband can increase the debt of the business and get the business into difficulties without the wife being aware of it. Then the home is suddenly lost because the amount of debt at stake is a lot more than the wife even contemplated. It happens in parent-and-child situations and the mother-and-son situation is perhaps the most typical of those. A young son trying to set out in business may persuade his mother to allow her home to be used as security for an advance. Then the mother finds all of a sudden that the home is stripped out from under her because the son either through bad dealings or simply through misfortune has got himself into financial difficulties. It also happens in small companies where the directors and shareholders are called upon to provide guarantees of the company and then do not have the information the company is generating in order to see how it is going and to understand that the risk they have placed themselves under has increased. 
In my practice particularly with guarantors I got to a point at which whenever a bank required a guarantee I would endeavour to limit it to a fixed amount to a specific loan to a specific period or even to a combination of all those. Effectively the extent of the guarantee could not then be increased without the guarantor’s specific consent to do so. I know that more than once I provided a provision and a bank guarantee stating that the guarantee would cover only a loan numbered 12345 or whatever the number was. In the situation where the bank subsequently over the years refinanced that loan into other loans it then found that the guarantee was not effective because it was restricted. That problem often occurred in situations where the guarantor was unaware of what was going on. So I welcome the fact that guarantors will now know a lot more about the information that has been provided. 
The second area that I am particularly pleased to see provision made for is the buy-back schemes generated over the last 5 to 10 years which have become a bit of a plight. That area falls under the comments I made before about people finding enterprising ways of getting around the law which in this case is the provisions of the Credit Contracts Act. I remember 5 to 10 years ago having a client come to me with some papers about a buy-back / lend scheme. I found that very quickly I was smelling a rat. The papers and the scheme were complex and seemed to be trying to get around the legislative restraints. When I realised that a private company was putting great efforts into marketing a get-money-quick scheme the alarm bills started ringing. When I realised that the company was targeting older people and other vulnerable groups in society with its project the orange lights started flashing. It was not hard at all for me to find that the scheme was untenable. The clients concerned were looking to sell their home for less than its value with an option to buy it back within a certain period of time if they could afford to but otherwise they were selling it at a great loss. Usually I found that clients looking at those schemes were unable to obtain finance from more legitimate sources such as first-lender banks. They had got themselves into debt with credit cards or moneylenders and realistically the likelihood of their being able to repurchase their homes was not particularly high. I strongly advised against the buy-back transaction and it did not go ahead. 
I am very pleased to see that the provisions concerning buy-back schemes are there in the bill. I am also pleased that my colleague Paul Adams was able to increase the penalties which started at $30000 for such schemes. The Commerce Committee put that penalty at 3 months’ imprisonment and a sum of $200000. My colleague’s Supplementary Order Paper increased that to 3 years’ imprisonment and a sum of $200000 and I think that such sanctions are important. 
United Future will support this bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 There is unfortunately a growing trend developing within the current Government that sees legislation such as this pushed through the House fairly quickly subjected to a Committee stage that has absolutely no relevance or meaning—where the legitimate concerns of members of Parliament are raised with Ministers and rejected—only for the legislation to be passed and then a short time later subjected to change through the statutes amendment process. So far this year we have seen bills like the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill passed where the Opposition stated there was a clear problem with some of the definitions and the Ministers rejected that but now just 3 months later that legislation is subject to a statutes amendment change. 
The Hon Tony Ryall in his speech outlined a very serious flaw in this bill: if someone is to arrange a loan that is subject to a brokerage fee there need be no disclosure of that fee. This bill allows finance houses to reorganise themselves from agencies into brokerages and a person taking out a loan to be none the wiser about the overall costs of that loan. I predict as did Mr Ryall that in a couple of months we will see the Government quietly sidling up to members of the Opposition and saying it sees there is a problem here and wants to slip an amendment into the “Statutes Amendment Bill (No 1) 2004”. I say to the Minister and everybody else involved that they should not bother knocking on our door because it will require a full bill to be brought to this House to sort that out. 
One of the interesting things about this bill is that it is designed to let those New Zealanders who borrow money know the full cost of that. We have just been through the exercise of explaining that they may not know the cost in all cases but let us assume that everybody plays the game fairly. It will be a good thing that those New Zealanders who are borrowing money understand the costs involved. But it may be interesting to consider for a minute why so many New Zealanders need to get the sort of consumer credit we are talking about—why so many New Zealanders need to load up their credit cards to the gunwales and why so many retailers in this country cannot move stock unless it is with some sort of a “payday may” or some other interest-free arrangement that effectively entices customers through the door under a credit contract. The reality is that the vast majority of retail sales in the household lines—whiteware appliances furniture and various other electronic appliances—are done through a consumer credit contract. I think the reason for that is that in the last 4 years New Zealanders’ incomes have become extremely squeezed. 
The Government is out there saying how wonderful it is skiting about its massive surplus of $5.6 billion— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Overtaxing the people. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —and overtaxing poor workers in order to achieve that $5.6 billion surplus. We read in the newspapers that the average income of New Zealanders rose recently to a point—and this is nothing to skite about—where income from wages and salaries is now set at some $332 a week! 
Jill Pettis 
: Because we want everything and our parents went without. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I heard the junior Government whip say that people are too greedy—that workers want too much and that they expect everything. 
Jill Pettis 
: We don’t say that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: When people are earning $332 a week and the Government is saying they are well off I do not blame them for getting a bit keen to have one or two extra things in their life to make it slightly more comfortable. We have a Government that identifies problems out there—like the buy-back schemes that have affected so many Maori families— 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Don Brash doesn’t agree with that. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —and have the Hon John Tamihere all hot under the collar yet he is going out there and he is going to pass this bill which makes the conditions of buy-back schemes much clearer. He says that that is good for Maori. I tell him that $332 a week as an average wage and salary income for New Zealanders is not good for Maori or for anybody else. [ 
Interruption 
] What we get— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member who does handle interjections but the member who is interjecting will not do so again during this speech. She has been interjecting in the second person and I am not to be brought into the debate. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well we will have to turn the heaters on because we will all be shivering after the heat we have been subjected to from that member in the last couple of minutes. 
I make it clear that the problem with this bill is that while it does some good things—while it tidies up a whole lot of aspects of credit information for consumers and while it does do some good things in creating a definition of what buy-back schemes are and how they should operate—it fundamentally misses the point that New Zealanders do not earn big incomes and that is why they borrow so much. It is a disgrace that a Government can say to New Zealanders their incomes have gone up the average wage and salary income is now $332 a week and they are well off and the Government will put in place some consumer credit legislation so that when they have to borrow for the kids’ uniforms to get the bikes to get them to school to get the family car or to fund the mortgage etc. then the rules around that are to be a whole lot better for them—and is this not a good Government! That misses the point that a Government should be looking to increase the disposable income of families in this country and this Government is not doing that. 
I want to comment about the legislation itself and about a concern I have. Much of the interpretation of this legislation will be open to the courts. I do not have a problem with the courts enforcing the law. But I am worried about the courts giving an interpretation of it because one of the key points in this bill particularly with regard to the buy-back schemes that have caused so many families so much angst is the issue of whether the activities of the lender are oppressive. The bill states that if the credit contract consumer lease or buy-back transaction is oppressive then that contract lease or transaction can be reopened by the court and conditions can be reapplied. Clause 93(b) provides that a matter may be reopened if “a party has exercised or intends to exercise a right or power conferred by the contract lease or transaction in an oppressive manner;”. We now have an idea of what an oppressive approach would be but we are leaving it up to a court to decide exactly what that is. That will make it very difficult for some minor credit contracts to be exercised by legitimate finance houses which will be uncertain about what “oppressive” may mean. It may be oppressive to even ask for a payment from someone who is living on a benefit for example. A loan may be oppressive if someone claims that he or she simply cannot afford to repay it and a court could instruct that the loan need not be repaid. 
So whilst there is much gloss being applied by the Government in respect of this bill there is a murky underside. I want to restate the proposition I laid down earlier: one can make all the rules one likes about credit but if people do not have enough money to live on—and New Zealanders whose average wage and salary income has just gone up to some $332 a week are struggling—then we will see more and more of them going into debt because of this Government’s policies. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Associate Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 First I would like to thank my colleague the Minister of Consumer Affairs Judith Tizard for her work on this bill. Although the bill has a number of applications I would like to focus on the impact it will have on housing buy-back schemes. Earlier this year I became aware that a number of my constituents in the electorate of Tamaki Makaurau many of them from the poorer parts of south Auckland and many of them elderly people had lost their homes or were under threat of losing their homes through housing buy-back schemes. That led us to lay complaints with the Serious Fraud Office the Banking Ombudsman the police Auckland District Law Society and the Commerce Commission. Upon further investigation it turned out that although the buy-back schemes were most concentrated in Auckland they were also operating in other parts of the country including Christchurch and Tauranga. Investigations by the authorities involved continue and I am confident that those whose conduct is found to have been illegal unprofessional or unethical will face the full consequences of such behaviour. 
I would also like to commend the Minister of Commerce Lianne Dalziel for her efforts in bringing to account the companies involved in operating housing buy-back schemes. In June she moved to place into statutory management eight companies that were operating buy-back schemes. That prevented the immediate sale of a number of families’ homes. No other Government would have taken such quick and decisive action in that regard. This Government also set up a hotline so that victims of housing buy-back schemes would get help and alert the Government to the full extent of the problem. The people duped into those scams were not greedy people hooked into get-rich schemes by their own greed as Rodney Hide would tell members. Not all of them were the most sophisticated people in the world; they were ordinary honest hardworking Kiwis. They were people who through years of hard work and saving had sometimes built up a substantial equity in their homes which they were offered the chance to use in order to help family members to be on-financed into their homes. They took that opportunity. People entered into those schemes without independent legal advice; the same people who gave them legal advice also acted as lawyers for the finance companies. 
Amendments to the bill will protect consumers against future loses through such schemes and will provide remedies for those already involved in those deals. The bill will ensure that any consumer entering into a deal has received independent legal advice. 
Simon Power 
: Throw the notes away and speak from the heart! 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: It will prevent the sale of property without court permission where full disclosure has not been made or independent legal advice has not been given. Furthermore the bill’s provisions relating to oppressive conduct will provide consumers with remedies against scam operators. The member for Rangitikei knows about oppressive conduct particularly with regard to the caucus he is in. Together those elements of the legislation should put an end to buy-back schemes. Similar provisions in Australian law against unconscionable conduct covering credit arrangements banking transactions and financial advice particularly for disadvantaged groups have been effected and I expect that this legislation will carry similar weight to that in protecting consumers. 
I am glad to be part of a Government that acts promptly to put an end to scams targeting innocent New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose the third reading of this bill. What was the Consumer Credit Bill is now the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill and the aim as we have heard is to repeal the Credit Contracts Act 1981 and the Hire Purchase Act 1971 and replace them with this new legislation that covers credit contracts and consumer leases. 
I will refer to some of the submissions that have been made on this bill. The Financial Services Federation for instance made some very valid points. It said that the Credit Contracts Act is an extremely well conceived Act. It is settled law and it has generally worked pretty well over a period in which we have seen significant growth especially in the sector of household borrowing. So it does seem a pity to see that Act thrown out. There has been valid criticism of that legislation in that enforcement has been difficult but I argue that that aspect could have been fixed without rewriting the entire Act—a point that has been argued since 1988 but seems to have fallen on deaf ears. It seems to me that we did not need to go down this whole expensive process and come out with legislation that is confusing to say the least. 
I ask members to look at what Simon McArley wrote in the  
National Business Review 
 last year. He is senior lawyer a specialist in commercial law in Auckland. What he stated about the law was that there was a perceived imbalance between borrower and lender and that the existing law does not provide adequate redress for unfair behaviour by lenders. 
There may be some merit in that perception. That may not be the reality but there may be some merit in the perceptions. As we debated this bill during the Committee stage we heard stories about usury schemes. We heard about some of the buy-back nonsense that needs tidying up. But I ask this question of the Minister: if a power imbalance does exist why does it cease to exist simply because the borrower is borrowing for business purposes? 
One of the essential faults of this bill is that it leaves businesses out in the cold. It does not cover business transactions. I know that if the Minister were here she would say that that is in order to reduce compliance costs but that is actually not the case. It is impossible to see how excluding businesses from what is supposed to be simplified statutory procedure actually reduces costs. That is a non sequitur; it does not make sense. 
Let us turn the argument around. If including businesses in this legislation would have increased compliance costs for them then that means the Government is actually quite happy to increase costs for individuals for families who are borrowing for working people and for sole traders. There are many sole traders in this country who pay GST and accident compensation and who have to comply with all the other strangling red tape such as the occupational safety and health legislation. Why should they be subject to the increased costs that this legislation by the Government’s own admission will now deliver to them? 
This bill favours big business. Clearly a large business can use resources to hire lawyers to ferret out unfair terms and wield commercial clout but those businesses comprise less than 20 percent of the New Zealand business community. More than 80 percent of businesses in this country employ fewer than five people and those businesses those owners share the same concerns and needs as the average consumer who is covered by this bill. And why is that? It is because those owners and operators are average consumers. I cannot see why they have been left out of this legislation. 
Let us look at the new protections that the Minister thinks are inappropriate for new businesses. Briefly those protections are simplified disclosure requirements—that is setting out clear and useful information about the transaction so that informed decisions can be made—a 3-day statutory cooling-off period in which to evaluate the disclosure and properly consider borrowing decisions; a prohibition on unfair fees and bank charges; and stronger and more easily enforceable remedies when lenders do not follow the rules. Well all those areas have been the basis of complaints from small businesses in the past but now the Minister is quite happy to cut those small-business voices out of realistic consumer protection and I do not see the fairness in that. 
As my colleagues in the National Party like the honourable Gerry Brownlee have already said there is still much confusion over several clauses in this bill. Once more we are seeing the passing of legislation that will actually be a feast for lawyers and an absolute nightmare for people who are trying to comply with confusing legislation that just raises the uncertainty stakes. For instance if we look at clauses 56 to 58B I think it is which cover the buy-back transactions and the definitions of “occupier” and the disclosure provisions we see that the transferee must ensure that the occupier has independent legal advice and so on. That is fine but if we read on a bit further to the following clauses we see that every transferee must ensure that a copy of the terms is given or sent to every occupier under the transaction. 
We go from dealing with “an occupier” to suddenly “every occupier”. Presumably this is under one transaction therefore one piece of land is being dealt with. Is the transferee liable because he or she did not know or did not try to find out how many occupiers there are for the transaction or inform them about all the terms and conditions? That is not clear. 
There is also the issue of loan sharks. I argue that this bill will not stop loan sharks. In fact it will make it easier for them to operate because credit is going to become more expensive and as I have already said rich people can get lawyers to guide them through the legislation and pay for it. But what about poor people? They also have a need for credit and they will now be driven to the back-door credit agencies and the loan sharks. 
 I predict that we will see more of the underworld area of lending where recovery is gained through a brick through the window; or the other downside of that form of lending which is that the people who cannot afford it and should not be in debt end up in even more debt because they are high risk. They go to the lenders of last resort and to cover the risky situation they are in they end up signing up to the most dreadful terms and conditions and putting on the line even more of what meagre property they have. 
Finally I would just like to address the hardship clause. This really is a farce. It allows people to welsh on their debts and it is telling that creditors who submitted were unanimously opposed to this. Under the current legislation there is nothing to stop creditors from negotiating with lenders if they get behind on payments. In fact most creditors know that it is better and more sensible if there is a hiccup to negotiate through it rather than call in the debt abruptly and put the debtor through and have the chance of getting nothing out of it. 
The legislation is now far too loose. Debtors will be much more able to give creditors the runaround by using illness injury loss of employment or the end of a relationship to have the terms changed. If the creditor does not allow it to be changed then he or she can apply to the court and this could delay it for years. 
This is bad law. It will make credit harder and more expensive for small-business people it will send poor people to loan sharks and the ACT party opposes it. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I welcome the return of this bill to the House this afternoon for its third reading. We look forward to its implementation. This updating of the laws around the provision of consumer credit is well overdue. The addition of buy-back transactions to deal with the dreadful scams that have recently come to light and which the honourable member John Tamihere has done so much good work on only makes this legislation even more timely. 
The Green Party strongly believes that the State has a role to play in protecting the most vulnerable in our community to the extent that it reasonably can. I trust that as the bill comes on stream we will see a real clean-up of a lot of the worst aspects of third-tier lending and an end to the iniquitous buy-back schemes that lead all to often to the loss of an innocent person’s home. 
During the Commerce Committee consideration of this bill the Green Party was pleased that the committee saw fit to seriously take on recommendations from some submitters particularly church and community groups working with people suffering from the impact of some of the worst excesses of third-tier lending to include hardship provisions in the final draft of the bill. The Green Party supported the desire of these submitters to strengthen the original bill and we pushed for the addition of clauses that mean that a debtor who unexpectedly faces hardship such as illness injury loss of job or the end of a relationship has a right to apply to have the terms of his or her credit contract changed. 
Debt is one of the most exacerbating causes of extreme poverty and family hardship in New Zealand today. I commend the Government for taking action to strengthen protections for consumers in these areas. I hope that as the bill is put into practice it will achieve its avowed goals of bringing to an end the most unfair oppressive and exploitative practices of some parts of the credit industry. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on this bill. Generally New Zealand First is supportive of any initiatives by this Government to improve to protect and to safeguard consumers’ credit contracts and in particular with regard to buy-back schemes. In that regard the Government is to be commended for bringing this to the House at this time. It is timely because we have seen a huge influx of the buy-back schemes that have trapped people into tremendous debt making it virtually impossible for them to get out of those debts. 
Changes to the previous legislation are long overdue and it is timely that we now determine and enshrine in legislation those matters that need updating and improving. I have previously spoken on this bill and have alerted the House to some areas that require further fine-tuning if this bill is to be successful. If it is to be successful complete and robust then these changes will need to be made later on. As Gerry Brownlee mentioned there are one or two other issues—brokerage fees being one—and I will touch on those in a moment. 
Once the new bill becomes law it will be far more difficult for unscrupulous lenders to take advantage of the often desperate bargaining positions of some of their customers by charging fees and interest rates that border on exorbitant. 
The most important part of this bill is Part 3 because this is where the Government has had to act swiftly and take into effect the buy-back schemes. These deals have left families in destitute situations unable to recover their homes. These schemes came about in fairly recent times and they hit with a vengeance. It is very important to protect the unwary from the extraordinary lengths to which some people will go to trap the most vulnerable into a situation that they will have no way of getting out of. These schemes are set up in such a way that the individual borrower transfers his or her property to the moneylender under conditions that make it virtually impossible for that borrower to recover his or her property. 
Simon Power 
: It’s called a mortgage. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Under real mortgages the interest rates and the conditions are not so oppressive that it is impossible for people to get their property back. These schemes have left people in a situation where they have lost not only their home that they tried to borrow money for but often the homes of relatives who had put up the finances to try to help them out. 
A section in the bill covers independent legal advice. This is a very important part and one that is essential if these people are to get the proper advice and not be trapped into these schemes. However it must be enforced rigorously. One of the concerns during the Committee stage was that the independent legal advice would be recommended by the lender. This is unsatisfactory because obviously if the lender is recommending the legal advice then that legal advice will be leaning towards the lender and not be independent of that lender and it will therefore create a problem for the people borrowing and may even leave them in a situation where they may be entrapped again. 
Clauses 115 and 116 allow for the older Acts that this bill replaces to continue to apply. These clauses allow creditors the choice to elect for the Acts to apply in contracts that were in existence prior to this law coming into force. However it does not allow anywhere for the debtor to have that choice. I am disappointed that debtors are excluded from this option because there are a number of very important issues in this bill on which a debtor would have recourse to a better deal rather than just the creditor having that option. 
Those clauses allow for the creditors to decide whether they want buy-back schemes to remain under those old Acts. If we consider that the buy-back schemes were legal under those old Acts then I am afraid that people who are already trapped in those buy-back schemes will not have recourse under this bill. During the parliamentary Committee stage I asked the Minister to take a call on that to assure the people who are already trapped in these schemes that they would have a safeguard under this bill but sadly that Minister would not take the call to alleviate the fears that people have over the buy-back schemes. 
The Minister’s failing to continue to assure people has meant that they now will be in a position where they have no recourse. In regard to clauses 93 and 96 relating to reopening of credit contracts we were hoping that those clauses would provide the consumer with the means of getting out of some of those contracts. But unfortunately clauses 93 and 96 relate to oppressive contracts. 
Buy-back schemes were legal under the old Acts; even though we considered them to be oppressive they were legal. Therefore if the creditor chooses to continue with those schemes under the old Act unfortunately I fear that people will not have recourse under those particular clauses in relation to the oppressive nature of a contract. That to me is a very sad situation particularly considering that many of those schemes are so oppressive in real terms that if those two clauses give the lender an out then I am afraid the bill will fail and as Gerry Brownlee suggested will have to come back to the House in the new year not just as a short clause but as a full bill to try to rectify those problems. 
In the previous debate on this bill there were suggestions that an education scheme be set up to try to educate people in the better management of their finances and try to avoid the schemes that these contracts are setting up. If this bill is successful then I suggest that it would be a wonderful model to set up an education scheme in schools where people can learn how to avoid the financial difficulties and traps that many people in lower socio-economic situations get themselves into particularly gambling and other means of throwing their money away and not putting it into the correct means of saving and budgeting. If an education scheme were put in place then I think many of the measures that we have had to legislate in this bill would not have needed to be legislated for. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am delighted to rise very briefly in support of this bill and recommend its speedy passage through the House. 
LINDSAY TISCH (NZ National—Piako) 
: 
 There have not been any major changes to the credit contracts that we have operated under for many years. The bill provides for the repeal of the Credit Contracts Act 1981 and the Hire Purchase Act 1971. This has come about because over time we have seen changes—the deregulation of the finance industry and the role that computerisation and technology have played. The concepts of the Hire Purchase Act and the Credit Contracts Act were relevant for the 1960s and 1970s but today of course they have gone by the by. 
The bill does refer specifically to individuals and persons as opposed to business. One of the shortcomings that we found in this bill is that it is silent on business. It does not relate to business enterprises yet it is our view that businesses are very much affected by credit contracts and by the way that individuals who enter into contracts can now cancel those contracts and get out of them. On the other side the creditor who has supplied the services and provided the finance can be worse off. I will cover that more specifically later on. 
There are other shortcomings that came to light during the Committee stage. I never got a response. I asked a number of questions. In fact I spoke on each part in the Committee stage and I put some specific questions to the Minister about the shortcomings that we saw. It was interesting that Government members would not take a call either. They were not prepared to stand up and answer the queries I had yet this is a Government bill. 
The first issue that I want to draw the House’s attention to an issue that I spent some time on is clause 24 “Right to cancel consumer credit contract”. Subclause (1) states that “A debtor under a consumer credit contract may cancel the contract by giving written notice ...” and that 3 days’ notice is required. Well that is fine and that will be allowed. But if we were to take that further and look at what happens if those goods that have been taken are used within those 3 days the contract is cancelled and those goods are returned we see there is no provision in the bill for compensation. We had some very good submissions that were made by the New Zealand Law Society and the New Zealand Retailers Association. They said that if someone purchases some goods and then the contract is cancelled it is a fact that goods depreciate immediately and in some cases by 25 percent. A 25 percent depreciation is not uncommon; that is what can happen. Yet the creditor the retailer the wholesaler or whoever it is—the person who has provided the goods—at that stage is left out of pocket because the bill is silent on the whole issue of compensation. 
That issue comes up in clause 27 which is another clause that I was concerned about and spoke in the Committee stage about. It concerns the effect of cancellation of a consumer credit contract Specifically clause 27(1)(e) states: “unless the contract otherwise provides the debtor is liable to pay to the creditor—(i) any reasonable expenses necessarily incurred by the creditor in connection with the contract and the cancellation of the contract; and (ii) if property is returned to a creditor that has been damaged while in the possession …”. That is fine. I have no difficulty with that whatsoever. But the point that I make here is that no compensation will be paid for the loss of value. 
The classic example and the one that I used during the Committee stage is that if a person goes into a car yard and buys a new car what happens as soon as that car is driven out of the yard? The value of that car is diminished. If that person wants to resell that vehicle he or she will not get back what was paid. I made that point during the Committee stage and the Minister was not prepared to take a call and nor where Government members; they were not prepared to explain why when we had had those submissions from the New Zealand Retailers Association and the New Zealand Law Society those provisions were not included. 
Another shortcoming in the bill that I believe needs to be reiterated for future reference is that as we heard earlier from the Hon Tony Ryall and Gerry Brownlee it is a possibility that the Government will come back in a short time and by way of statutes amendment legislation want to make some changes. Another concern that I draw members’ attention to is the hardship provisions. They enable debtors to alter credit contracts. Examples could be because of illness injury loss of employment or loss of a relationship. There could be a number of reasons why one would want to alter the contract. But the provisions do not apply if one has exceeded the credit limit or been in default of a payment. They do not apply to that. 
If the creditor does not agree to a course of action that the bearer is proposing it could be that the debtor goes to court. This is where we move into the area of cases being taken to court. There will be huge compliance costs. This Government is renowned for increasing costs. That is its hallmark. In the last 4 years compliance costs have been increased at every turn. One area that we identified in the course of the Committee stage was the costs involved and the inability really of the creditor to enforce a contract. If the debtor decides that the creditor is not playing ball he or she has the right to take the case to court and we will end up with a huge compliance cost regime. 
Another clause that caused me concern was clause 111. In every piece of legislation that the Government brings in it seems to be hell-bent on doing things by way of Order in Council—that through regulations it can increase costs. That is what clause 111 talks about—that the Governor-General by Order in Council can make regulations for the purposes stated. Well it is just another way to increase the tax take. It is just another way to add compliance costs on to those businesses and those individuals who are finding it extremely difficult. Gerry Brownlee articulated very well the issues about the disposable income of people and the extra costs that will be incurred. It is interesting that the  
National Business Review 
 of 3 October states: “Spring of discontent. Businesses seething privately over high taxes and galloping compliance costs”. 
Simon Power 
: What did they say about Margaret Wilson? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: There you go. It says: “Ministers may think they are reducing them but in fact business groups”—and we have plenty of examples of business groups and others—“are saying that those things are getting out of control.” So that was an issue that we identified and talked about. The Minister was not prepared to take a call at the time about clause 111 “Regulations”. 
Mark my words: within a very short time this Government will want to make amendments to this legislation by way of statutes amendment legislation to streamline the process that we are going through now. We are concerned about that and we are flagging it now. Although the concept of the bill is fine and there are some minor changes that actually improve the position—and we have no disagreement with that—there are still the shortcomings I have mentioned of compensation and of regulations and the way in which they can be applied. The other area of major concern that the bill does not allow for is brokerage fees and that is another story in itself. But if full disclosure is wanted—and that is what the bill states—then brokerage fees should be included. They are not included and that is a major shortcoming of the bill. 
JANET MACKEY (NZ Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise in support of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Bill. I commend the Minister for her initiative in putting forward this legislation to address the serious concerns about the industry. I congratulate the select committee on its work. It is probably an ongoing regret of the whole nation that members opposite did absolutely nothing about this issue in the 9 years they were in Government. 
Bill read a third time. 
Personal Explanations 
Question No. 4 to Minister 18 September 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 On question for oral answer No. 4 on 18 September our previous sitting day I responded to a supplementary question and referred to a survey on business compliance costs. In the response I may have used the phrase “at least 80 percent”. The response I had presumed I had made and certainly had intended to make in line with my briefing notes was “up to 80 percent”. I have ensured that the  
Hansard 
 records are in line with what I thought I said. I wanted to draw the attention of the House to this as a matter of personal integrity and because I am interested in maintaining the highest standards of debate in this House. 
Supreme Court Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon MARGARET WILSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I move  
That the Supreme Court Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill before us has been closely examined over the past 9 months by the Justice and Electoral Committee and I congratulate that committee on its thorough and careful consideration of the bill. The committee received 315 submissions and held hearings with 106 of those parties. I understand that the committee vigorously debated many of the features of the bill. In addition members of the committee attended a national hui on the New Zealand courts system in Taupo to listen to the views of Maori represented there. I commend the committee for the way in which it has engaged with New Zealanders to consider the bill. 
The committee’s work was preceded by 3 years of consultation and policy development by the Government. It began with the release of a Government discussion paper  
Reshaping New Zealand’s Appeal Structure 
 in December 2000. Public submissions on that paper emphasised the need for an independent two-tier appellate structure above the High Court if New Zealand appeals to the Privy Council were to be ended. In 2002 a ministerial advisory group reported on the key features of the Supreme Court Bill and that report provided the basic features of the bill. 
This is a significant bill for all New Zealanders. It will give all New Zealanders for the first time the opportunity to have their cases heard at the highest level. That has been denied to many New Zealanders up to this point. The bill will also enable the legislation passed in this House to be interpreted at the highest judicial level by a New Zealand court. No longer will the final Court of Appeal be available to a privileged few. At long last New Zealand will be in control of its own legal destiny. 
The bill has provoked vigorous debate. That is healthy and appropriate in a democracy such as ours that values freedom of expression. What has not been appropriate however is the personal denigration of members of the judiciary. Such comments have cast unjustified doubt on the independence integrity and capability of our senior judiciary. Therefore it is important to place on the record that New Zealand is well served by a fine and capable judiciary ably led by the Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias. That fact is attested to and acknowledged both within New Zealand and also internationally. 
What then is the effect of this bill? It ends the jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to hear New Zealand appeals and it removes the statutory limits that restrict the final opportunity for appeals to courts other than the Judicial Committee. In essence the bill establishes the Supreme Court of New Zealand as the final Court of Appeal for New Zealand. Before I consider the committee’s report I wish to give notice that I will move a Supplementary Order Paper during the Committee stage that will address minor and technical amendments establish a new position of Chief High Court Judge and clarify the commencement date for the Supreme Court Bill. 
I now turn to the principal amendments recommended by the majority of the committee. The committee recommended the purpose clause explain more fully the reasons for the establishment of the Supreme Court—namely that New Zealand is an independent nation with its own history and traditions; that important legal matters including legal matters relating to the Treaty of Waitangi should be resolved with an understanding of New Zealand’s conditions history and traditions; and also that there be improved access to justice for all. The purpose clause also affirms our commitment to the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament. 
The committee further recommends changes to the provisions governing leave to appeal. Clause 13 containing the leave criteria has been restructured to read that the Supreme Court must not give leave to appeal unless it is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice for the court to hear and determine the proposed appeal and that the interests of justice require the hearing of appeals involving a matter of general or public importance including a significant issue relating to the Treaty of Waitangi; or a substantial miscarriage that may have occurred or may occur unless the appeal is heard; or a matter of general commercial significance. The Supreme Court is not limited to these grounds if the interests of justice require an appeal to be heard. The Supreme Court will be required to give reasons for the refusal of a leave application but these reasons may be stated briefly and in general terms. 
The committee also recommends that the Supreme Court should comprise the Chief Justice and four or five other judges. The majority of submissions on this clause thought a court of five was insufficient to cover situations where a member of the court was unavailable. I welcome this amendment to clause 17. This will provide greater flexibility in matching the judicial resources of the court to the workload as it develops. The workload is likely to take some time to build up. For that reason I intend to nominate four judges for appointment to join the Chief Justice in the initial Supreme Court. 
Changes have also been made to enable the appointment of technical advisers in any case before the Supreme Court. Members of the committee believe that it is important the Supreme Court should have the ability to appoint a technical adviser when the need arises. However it is expected that this provision will be rarely used. 
The committee further recommends the transitional provisions be extended so that the Privy Council may determine an appeal arising out of a successful application for leave or special leave to appeal to it against the decision of a New Zealand court made before the commencement of the Act or a decision of the Court of Appeal made after the commencement of the Act in a proceeding whose hearing was completed before that commencement. 
The committee also recommends a number of minor and technical changes for the purpose of clarifying the bill as well as a number of consequential amendments. These amendments are set out in detail in the commentary on the bill. 
The committee considered whether overseas judges should be available to sit as acting judges on the Supreme Court from time to time and decided against so recommending. The ministerial advisory group had also recommended against the use of overseas judges after consideration. 
The committee received submissions on a number of other matters that could not be considered within the scope of the legislation. There were two significant issues that did not directly affect the provisions of the bill but merit further consideration. The first relates to the judicial appointments process. Since I announced the Government’s decision to end appeals to the Privy Council and establish a Supreme Court I have consistently acknowledged the importance of appointments to this court. For that reason a panel comprising the Chief Justice the Solicitor-General and a lay representative Sir Paul Reeves will advise me in making recommendations to the Governor-General for the appointment of judges of the Supreme Court. I note some members of the committee are interested in establishing an independent body to appoint judges. I have recently announced my intention to prepare and release a public consultation document next year with the possibility of establishing a judicial appointments commission. The United Kingdom is undertaking a similar process. It is important that such a proposal is considered carefully. 
The second issue outside the bill’s scope relates to New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. A number of submissions raised concerns about those arrangements. The committee is considering conducting an inquiry into New Zealand’s constitutional matters. 
The proposed amendments to the bill are important improvements and I would like to thank all the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee for their valuable contribution to the development of this bill and all those submitters who gave of their time to contribute to this important development. It is important to note that since I introduced the bill in December last year the United Kingdom has announced its own plans to establish a Supreme Court. It is proposed that the domestic jurisdiction of the Privy Council to hear appeals on devolution matters from Scotland Northern Ireland and Wales be transferred to that Supreme Court. On 1 April 2003 the Privy Council’s appellate jurisdiction in UK medical disciplinary matters was also removed. The Caribbean community is establishing its own regional final appellate court and 10 countries will soon withdraw from that jurisdiction. This leaves New Zealand the Bahamas Brunei and Mauritius as the only independent Commonwealth countries using the Privy Council. 
In conclusion the Privy Council has provided a valuable service to New Zealand on a limited range of legal matters. The need for a more accessible system for New Zealand’s final appeals on a full range of our law has haunted successive Governments. It is time we entered the 21st century and time for New Zealanders to take responsibility for their own legal system. This bill enables us to do so and therefore I commend it to the House. 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During the course of her speech the Attorney-General mentioned she would lodge a Supplementary Order Paper. It is very important for the House to know just when we can see that. It is unfortunate that so soon after hearing submissions and reporting back to the House we are faced with a Supplementary Order Paper. I ask the Attorney-General while she is still in the House to give us some indication whether we will see the Supplementary Order Paper today or perhaps later this week. I know that this may technically not be a point of order but it is raised to help progress the debate in a proper manner. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for that. It is not really a point of order and I will leave that to the discretion of the Minister. 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 This is not a good day for the Government and it is certainly not a good day for this Parliament as we come to the second reading of the Supreme Court Bill. I say from the outset that National is strongly opposed to this bill and will take whatever steps are necessary to see in due time the repeal of this legislation and the restoration of a court structure that has served this country particularly well. 
In commenting on what the Government proposes is the objective of the bill a good starting point is the introductory material set out in the commentary. One of the defined objectives is improving access to justice. This is a claim that the Government has made on a number of occasions. We in this Parliament have had an opportunity to judge the sincerity of that objective. We have seen on a number of occasions that the claim of improving access to justice is a hollow one. Here we have another illustration of that. 
This morning an interesting thing happened. United Future had supported this bill out of the select committee. In other words United Future wanted to see the Privy Council scrapped and this new court put in place. But this morning it changed its mind—for good reason I think. Anyone who carefully reflects on the merit of this legislation will see that it is hugely flawed. National’s position can be quickly and shortly stated. We see no reason for this legislation apart from a desire on the part of the Government to implement Labour Party policy. 
Much could be said against this bill in the short time that is available. I will confine myself to making some points by way of summary. The reasons for retention of the Privy Council include these: first it is a court of acknowledged excellence. In the course of the submissions we heard a former New Zealand Chief Justice said: “The Privy Council certainly is an extremely high-class polished Rolls Royce service. There’s no gainsaying that.” I ask rhetorically if this is a great service—which it is and many of the submitters acknowledged that—why we are doing away with it. 
The second proposition I would like to advance is that the major users of the Privy Council—which include business interests and Maori—are opposed to the abolition of rights of appeal to the court. I think it is instructive to refer to comments the Attorney-General made in the  
Independent 
 on 10 October 2001. In that article she was reported as saying that it was of substantial importance that the business community agreed with any legislation to do away with the Privy Council. What is the reality? The reality is that the business community is strongly opposed to this legislation. 
The third point I would like to make is that some people—not strongly and not well—advanced the argument that as a matter of national identity New Zealand should no longer defer to an overseas jurisdiction. There is apparently an aspect of colonial cringe in retaining appeals to the Privy Council. What nonsense that is! The reality of the modern world is that many countries have ceded sovereignty in a number of ways. New Zealand has entered into a number of international conventions which is just one example of where sovereignty has been ceded. More significantly many countries have chosen to look to outside adjudicative bodies for the resolution of disputes. Even countries that are not members of the European Community seek to use the adjudicative mechanisms set up by the community for the resolution of disputes. New Zealand will follow a contrary course and move against the stream if this legislation is passed. National’s simple position is that justice transcends nationalism. 
My next point is that the committee heard from a number of people with active involvement in business and investment who said it was of critical importance that investment interests had confidence in the domestic legal system. The evidence we heard persuaded us that the Privy Council as the final appellate court for investment and business interests provided substantial confidence in the New Zealand legal system. 
My final point in this short summary of why we should keep the Privy Council is that issues of substantial constitutional substance should be subject to referenda. So it is that the parties of the centre-right which might well include United Future—if United Future is a centre-right party and sometimes we wonder about that—are actively promoting a referendum. We have set in motion a train of events under the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act and we believe that debate on the bill should not proceed further until the outcome of that course of action is clear. 
It has been more than 30 years since we have faced a measure of this constitutional significance. If the bill passes on the numbers then as the numbers look tonight—as we stand on this second reading—it will pass with a margin of three. That has to be the most slender of margins for what is hugely significant legislation so on regaining office in 2005 National plans to seek to re-establish rights of appeal to the Privy Council—if that course is possible. The Privy Council will still be around in 2005 and we plan to negotiate with the British Government to restore the right of appeal. Other changes we would seek to negotiate with the British Government include making the Privy Council a court accessible by leave and for a greater range of interests. 
We have sought in a constructive way to suggest changes to the bill to make it more workable. We have major reservations about the appointment process for the proposed Supreme Court. For a number of reasons we do not have confidence that the Attorney-General will make appropriate recommendations. These include her track record particularly in respect of quasi-judicial appointments. I can name a number of cases where her judgment in making those appointments seems to have gone sadly astray and been wholly flawed. 
I am bound to say that some of her recent appointments to the District Court have also attracted a degree of scrutiny both from District Court judges and others outside the profession. She has set in place an advisory panel which she obviously thinks represents some answer but I simply note that she has chosen who will be on that panel. She is not obliged to accept the panel’s recommendations and in any event she has said publicly—and it has been reported in the media—what her plan is and who will be appointed. That is why it was said in question time today that the advisory panel is simply a Clayton’s device. National would like to see greater transparency in the appointment of judges. One of the suggestions made which I personally support is that judges should be appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. The method of appointment would be the same as that for the Ombudsman and other senior statutory appointees. 
My final point is that judges of the new court have the potential to shape the legal and social landscape of New Zealand in a significant way. We have seen this in its most dramatic form with the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in respect of the foreshore and seabed. It is wrong that judges should be appointed through a limited political process. 
TIM BARNETT (NZ Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 As chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee which spent 9 months dealing with the Supreme Court Bill I rise a proud person to speak to the process that the select committee went through and to comment on some of the particular changes that we pushed for. I will talk about the challenge we faced the work we did the report we produced the changes we made and the issues we raised. 
I think Mr Worth is quite right to say that this is a historic debate. The legislation is obviously of historic importance. In the absence of a written constitution we can reasonably say that this legislation is not only about access to justice but also has a constitutional edge to it. The challenge faced by the select committee was to make sure that the various groups in our society who were particular consumers of the Privy Council were properly engaged with the select committee process and also that the wider community reflecting the increased number of New Zealanders who will have access to the new Supreme Court could have their voices heard. If members look at our report they will see that Maori legal interests commercial interests and community interests all had a say in the process the committee went through. 
The committee inherited the ministerial advisory group report and we inherited a history—not only of the Labour-Alliance Government and the Labour-Progressive Government but also going back to the National Government in the 1990s—of attempts to deal with the issue of the Supreme Court. It is a matter that is certainly being dealt with now in the party political environment but that has also exercised many minds in this Chamber over the last 15 or 20 years. 
In addressing the legislation the select committee first of all gave 4 months for consultation so that we generated in total 315 submissions. The committee heard the submissions around the country at great length—they averaged over 30 minutes per hearing. We also identified a number of prominent individuals to whom we gave extra time to make sure that we were making decisions and producing recommendations on an informed basis. After hearing the submissions we then spent another 2 months deciding how to take matters further. 
The report produced by the committee essentially tells the story through a combination of chronology followed by a clause-by-clause analysis. Thanks to Murray Smith the committee started off by inviting submitters not only to look at the details of the bill but also to go back to the policy questions behind the legislation. I thank Mr Smith for that proposal and I think it enriched the work of the select committee. The commentary identifies the questions that we put including the fundamental one of whether the right of appeal to the Privy Council should be abolished maintained or extended. 
 The report to the committee then looks at the environment which both the previous speakers have mentioned of the Privy Council looking at reforming itself and the British Government addressing those issues but also the prior consultation and prior debates within the New Zealand Parliament on these issues. The report then goes through the submitters grouped into legal Maori business and other submitters and identifies the main arguments on either side and the report goes into that in much more detail than any other select committee report I have seen. Again I think it is proper for any reader to be able to identify the range of arguments and I was not in the least worried that the length of arguments against the bill in the report was very slightly greater than for those in favour of the bill. We are not trying to produce a propaganda document here; what we are trying to do is to explain to readers now and in the future exactly why the select committee came up with the decisions that it did. 
We then went on to look at some of the particular arguments around the legislation. The budget is obviously an important argument. It was itemised and it appeared in the process of the committee considering the bill. The cost to litigants is a matter of great debate. I think most people would imagine that a court sitting in Wellington would be a bit cheaper for New Zealanders using it than would a court overseas. There were one or two particular factors about the Privy Council—existing mainly thanks to the British taxpayer—that might mean we do get some things somewhat cheaper than we might do from the Supreme Court. But the reality is that the system being established here will be both more accessible and more cost-effective to New Zealanders choosing to access it and the report of the select committee details why we believe that to be the case. 
We then moved on to look at the issue of referenda already mentioned by Mr Worth. We noted that no other country that has made the same decision that we are looking at making in the next few days has held a referendum in the process of making that decision and I did not hear any arguments to counter that. Clearly there is a constitutional aspect to this legislation but we have to draw a line between when referenda are appropriate and when they are not. It was pretty clear from the majority of the select committee that the debate had been a lengthy one going on for a number of years but that the issues were clear and that New Zealanders were not faced with such a loss of rights to counterbalance the increase in rights they would get through access to a new Supreme Court that a referendum would be an appropriate way to go. The report details both the history of referenda in New Zealand and also the arguments of submitters on both sides. 
We did hear at length from Maori submitters and some very clear points were made by them about the relevance of the proposal to the relationship between tangata whenua and the Crown. We thought it was useful to add into the legislation a purpose clause that reiterated that Parliament is the supreme decision-making body in this land but at the same time also recognised that the court existed in an environment where the Treaty of Waitangi was of importance. I thank Jack Hodder the Wellington lawyer for his very powerful submission which I think made all the committee think again about those issues to very useful effect. 
We considered the issue of consultation with Maori which my colleague Mita Ririnui will be speaking more on later but our committee did engage at a very high level with Maori recognising the particular relevance of this proposal to them. We looked at the issue of the first appointments to the Supreme Court and we noted the comments made by the Attorney-General leading up to the introduction of the legislation. We supported the concept that the appointments should essentially be drawn from the current membership of the Court of Appeal so far as that is possible. 
I note what Mr Worth said in terms of judicial appointments. I think the concern of all the people on our select committee about aspects of the way judicial appointments have been made in New Zealand was something that was reflected in our report. I am very pleased that the Attorney-General has responded by announcing that the Government will be consulting on those issues in time to come. 
We then went on to look at the qualities of judges. We went on to look at a particular phrase in the legislation that we unanimously decided was inappropriate which was the phrase “tikanga Maori”. The legislation as it came to the select committee said that matters to do with the treaty or tikanga Maori would automatically get leave to the Supreme Court. We felt that to leave what is such an ill-defined phrase for the court to work out was not necessarily a good way to go. 
I want to just touch on one or two other issues. The issue of overseas judges exercised the committee. I think a number of us went into that debate with very open minds and were persuaded by the power of argument over those issues. Retirement age of judges was touched on and that is a debate that may well come up again. Just to back up something the Minister said in terms of our recommendations at the end I point out that the committee unanimously supported the need to continue the debate about New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements and in principle we supported the concept of an inquiry into those issues. All of us were conscious of a number of matters that were raised by submitters that were not appropriate to be dealt with in this legislation but indicated that a debate has begun in this nation and that the Supreme Court legislation formed part of that debate. It is appropriate that it be captured not by a Government but more appropriately by a Parliament. Our select committee felt that we were maybe a body that could take that debate a bit further. 
That really goes through the broad approach that we took to the legislation. I want to thank the committee for their good humour. Obviously we were sharply divided politically on these issues. I thank particularly the Green and the United Future members for coming into the committee with an open mind. They gave support for the legislation coming in but did not necessarily support it going out from the committee. Both were persuaded by the arguments and were open to discussion in that process. I really very much regret that United Future has subsequently changed its mind but I do thank Murray Smith in particular for his support for the legislation going out of the select committee and for the constructive role he played. 
I want to respond lastly to one point mentioned by Mr Worth which was the issue of “Why do it?”. We deal with the abolition of the link with the Privy Council because we as a nation want to move forward. We have to mature and part of that maturing process is to establish our own Supreme Court. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I would like to thank all the staff who helped us in the select committee. I would like to thank the chairman as well even though he expressed no thanks to New Zealand First. I thank the chairman for making sure that any request we had with regard to material and suchlike was followed up; I cannot think of anything I asked for that was not made available. I would like to thank the staff for taking the trouble to find all that information and from time to time offering things that I had not thought of myself. 
This was a very interesting piece of legislation. New Zealand First’s view on the matter is set out in its manifesto and we adhere to our manifesto. We believe that there should be no repeal of the right of appeal to the Privy Council until a referendum has been conducted amongst the society of New Zealand and that prior to that referendum there should be a 2-year discussion and education on just what is involved in abolishing the right of appeal to the Privy Council. 
Instead of having a wide open public debate on this issue with people being well informed and a Parliament with a broad support for any decision that is made in this respect we have a very very sad situation at the moment. We have a situation where by a majority of about four this minority Labour Government the Progressives and the Greens will force a very substantial constitutional change on New Zealand. This is a substantial constitutional change. Such a change should be passed by this House only by a 75 percent majority. Instead it will be barely 50 percent. That is an utter disgrace if we believe we are a Western-style democracy if we believe in consensus and if we believe we are mature enough to move forward together. This is not moving forward together; this is the Labour Party the Progressives and the Greens with a majority of about four forcing their views on the Parliament of New Zealand and the public of New Zealand. 
 They are forcing their views on the Maori people of New Zealand. Every submission from a Maori group was opposed to this legislation and we had any number of submissions from Maori groups. The Treaty of Waitangi means more to Maori than it means to anybody else because some of us who went to university in the 1960s and studied history and constitutional law barely touched on the Treaty of Waitangi when we studied but it is part of tikanga Maori for the Maori people of New Zealand. It is part of their way of life and is ingrained in them. Again and again and again they said that they do not want appeals to the Privy Council being abolished until some clear constitutional arrangements are set in place. That was the crux of the Maori submissions to the select committee. 
Those Maori submitters who were present at the venue in Rotorua will recall the leader of New Zealand First the Rt Hon Winston Peters making it clear that submissions from Maori groups should be heard on marae not in hotel rooms here there and everywhere. I put the suggestion to the select committee that we should go to various marae around the country and a list was made available to the select committee. We have seen how this Government will go around the country to various marae in order to hear views. But did it take up the point about hearing the Maori people’s views on the abolition of the right of appeal to the Privy Council? The answer is “No”. The Government had made up its mind. It was not interested in the views of the Maori people despite the fact that the Maori people of New Zealand were totally opposed to this legislation. 
I turn to one of the points made by Nandor Tanczos when the bill was introduced. Nandor Tanczos the spokesperson for the Greens said on 17 December 2002: “The select committee should look at the possibility of holding hearings on marae for example. I understand that has happened with other bills before the Maori Affairs Committee. It would be useful to do the same here because this is an issue of constitutional importance.” What was Nandor Tanczos’ view when that came up before the select committee? 
Hon Georgina te Heuheu 
: Lie down. 
DAIL JONES 
: There was no interest. He was not interested in going to marae. He was given the chance. That is the Greens. I cannot recall any support from the Greens and I leave it to Georgina te Heuheu to comment on that later on if required. Where was Nandor Tanczos in the select committee banging away for hearings of submissions on various marae around the country? He was nowhere. The Greens have done a deal with the Labour Party on other legislation and they could not give two hoots about constitutional matters as far as New Zealand is concerned. They could not give two hoots about the views of the Maori people of New Zealand. On 17 December 2002 Nandor Tanczos said: “We are guided by our policy which states that removing the Privy Council appeal rights or any move to a republic would need to be preceded by full dialogue between the tiriti partners to agree on how the tiriti relationship would be given effect to in any new arrangement.” 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Who said that? 
DAIL JONES 
: Nandor Tanczos said that on 17 December 2002 in this House. That is in  
Hansard 
 Volume 605 at page 2795. Did he do that when the bill came before the select committee? No way! The Greens have sold out any support that they were looking for from the Maori people and what do they get in its place? I think he is glad that the Clean Slate Bill might become a Government bill. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: That’s the deal is it? 
DAIL JONES 
: That is the deal. That is one of the little deals on the side. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: And have marijuana convictions quashed. 
DAIL JONES 
: All those people with little marijuana convictions will have them squashed as will people who might have been protesting at one stage or another in the early 1980s. That is the sort of deal we will be getting with the Greens. The Greens will protect all those marijuana-smoking types who have minor convictions; that is what they will get as a quid pro quo for supporting the abolition of the right of appeal to the Privy Council whereas the Maori people of New Zealand have asked the select committee time and time again to support the retention of the appeal to the Privy Council. 
Of those who made oral submissions to the select committee 74.5 percent favoured the retention of appeals to the Privy Council. That is just one of the many statistics in the select committee report. Most submissions from Maori oppose the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council. An early submitter who supported the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council and who spoke in his own right was Shane Jones. I give him credit. He came along and said that he had some experience of appearing before the Privy Council. I should draw to the attention of the House Sir Tipene O’Regan’s experience of appearing before the Privy Council as well. I had never met the gentleman and I was extremely impressed by his submission. I can now understand why Ngai Tahu have done so well. He gave us an example of his experience with the Privy Council. The case was being put by a QC who was perhaps from Wellington or Auckland and Sir Tipene O’Regan made the point that he was staggered by the poor pronunciation of Maori by the New Zealand QC and he was amazed and delighted by the wonderful pronunciation of Maori by the judicial officers of the Privy Council. 
The absolute claptrap and nonsense that we get in the House from some members—that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council does not care at all about Maori—should be tossed out of the window. That was a clear example. As a user of the Privy Council Sir Tipene O’Regan who supports the continuation of appeals to it really opened my eyes to the way in which the Privy Council was far and away ahead of some of the lawyers from New Zealand who appeared before it insofar as things Maori are concerned. He made the very good point that he is a user of the Privy Council. He has been there used it and seen how it works as opposed to some of the judges who gave submissions to the select committee and said that they wanted appeals to be abolished. They were the judges the people who make the decisions and they are in a different category altogether. But the users of the Privy Council—the Maori groups and the business groups in the main—want it to continue. 
As far as access to justice is concerned we will be spending another $21 million in capital costs to set up a new Supreme Court—if the Greens continue with their folly and it goes ahead—and $4.5 million per year on running the court. There is no support in this country for this bill. There was no consultation by the Labour Party before the bill was introduced. It should not proceed. This is a very sad day for all of us in New Zealand. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party to totally oppose the Supreme Court Bill. It will abolish the right that New Zealanders have had throughout our history to be able to appeal to the Privy Council. There is no doubt at all that the courts are part of our constitution. It is an abuse of power for a minority Government to change by a simple parliamentary majority of three an important part of our constitution. I am pleased to see that the United Future party has come out against the bill but every member knows that if there were to be a conscience vote this bill would fail. The Labour Party has had to whip its members. There are members of the Maori caucus in the Labour Party who are opposed to this bill. If there were to be a free vote in the House this bill would not pass. This is part of our constitution and a true majority for it does not exist. One can tell that I am right by Government members’ reactions. I challenge them. If that is not so we should have a conscience vote. 
We do not have a written constitution. Our Westminster constitutional conventions are guarded only by the willingness of the Government of the day not to change the constitution unless there is an overwhelming parliamentary majority—members suggest that that should be at least 75 percent of all MPs—or by the New Zealand tradition of having a referendum. This Government is not following either. Our Attorney-General Margaret Wilson is the most dangerous politician not just today but in this country’s history and I include among those Sir Robert Muldoon. 
 Margaret Wilson has her own agenda which the public of New Zealand does not support. She is seeking to create the socialist republic of Aotearoa and honourable members should make no mistake about it that abolishing the Privy Council is an important step on her agenda. That is what we are facing. Labour is now going to put through this bill—and it is a minority Government—with the help of the extreme left Green Party. They have no moral majority to make this stance and I say that it is an affront to our Westminster democratic system. 
Let me turn to the merits of the Privy Council and I can speak with some authority because I am the only member of Parliament who has taken a case to the Privy Council. I have actually been there. Members might say that I am biased because when I went to the Privy Council I won. But I want members to consider this matter including the members interjecting— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Prove it! 
Jill Pettis 
: You can’t win elections though. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I say to those two members who are interjecting that I did so as a member of Parliament. I had a situation where Television New Zealand a State institution published a lie on television. The lie was that it was claimed that I as Minister for State-owned Enterprises had gone to the State-owned enterprise unit and deleted a whole lot of information from that unit’s computer that would have shown I had been up to naughtiness. In fact that was a fabrication. I had never logged on to that computer and I went to the Government computer service which said that no files had ever been deleted. The service actually kept a record. So it was a lie from day one but State television repeated it. I then went to the Court of Appeal which said that as I was a member of Parliament I could not have my day in court because of parliamentary privilege. 
I appealed that to the Privy Council which overturned the decision of the Court of Appeal unanimously. Since then there have been dozens of academic articles written and every one has said that the Privy Council was right and the Court of Appeal was wrong. I say that there will be a future member of Parliament who will have his or her career destroyed by a local New Zealand court just as I had—or would have had. Why did I win at the Privy Council? In this country—[ 
Interruption 
] The member may not know this but in this country I am a controversial figure. The Court of Appeal is a local court but the Privy Council had never heard of Richard Prebble so its members just looked at the case’s merits. What do we want from our final court? We want an unbiased professional court that will look at merits not personalities. That is what the Privy Council does. 
But let us take a more recent case. What members are asking is whether what the Court of Appeal has said in the Marlborough case is what we want from our judges in future. Here is a New Zealand court deciding to overturn a decision that is not just 40 years old. It does not go back to 1963; it actually goes back to 1877. I tell members that if that case were appealed to the Privy Council we know that the Marlborough court case verdict would be overturned. It is wrong. We have a Court of Appeal with unelected judges engaged in activism. 
I say that to members opposite who have had to have 10 or 11 huis and who have had to have their whole programme disrupted by a court suddenly deciding something that no Government would have done—that the Crown no longer owns the foreshore and the seabed. Would a Labour Government have introduced a bill like that? No it would not have. No party in this House would have introduced it but we now have unelected judges prepared not to interpret the law but to make it. I say to members of Parliament that this is a crucial point they have to consider. Do we want to live in a parliamentary democracy where members of Parliament pass laws and have to face the people every 3 years on their stewardship or do we want a system where unelected judges—appointed by Margaret Wilson the most dangerous politician in New Zealand—believe that they have a mandate to pass laws that Parliament would never pass? 
I have no doubt in my mind where I stand on that. I am in favour of democracy; I am in favour of Parliament; I am in favour of the people of New Zealand being able to pass their laws. I say that Margaret Wilson and Helen Clark when putting forward this Supreme Court Bill know that they are establishing a court that will pass laws that even they cannot get through the Labour Party caucus. That is the reality and this legislation is a challenge to our constitution. It is a challenge to our Westminster parliamentary system. 
Margaret Wilson’s agenda is to create a socialist republic of Aotearoa—something that she could not get the public of New Zealand to agree to. How do we know that? Because if this Government thought there was support for this bill who would doubt that the Government would call a referendum? Of course it would. It would love to have a referendum but it knows what the result would be. The Government knows that a majority of New Zealanders do not support Margaret Wilson’s socialist agenda. It knows that a majority of Labour voters do not support Margaret Wilson’s agenda. I say to this House that the Marlborough court case will turn out to be just the start of a series of cases by unelected judges not interpreting the law but creating it. 
We have in the Privy Council a safeguard—a constitutional bulwark against judges deciding that they do not want to interpret the law any more but to make it. The Privy Council has had a proud record of providing sound impartial lawmaking and it is reckless for the Government to do away with that. But it is worse than that. It is a constitutional outrage to do away with it by a slender parliamentary majority of three and to do that only by applying the Labour Party whip to those members of the Labour Government also opposed to it. There is no parliamentary real majority and the Greens should vote against this bill. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I would like to begin my speech by echoing some of the words of Dail Jones in terms of his thanks to Pat McCabe and the team who advised us during the Justice and Electoral Committee proceedings. The quality of the advice was extremely good and impartial. I think all committee members owe the advisers a vote of thanks for that. I would also like to thank Tim Barnett for his chairing which was both fair and open-handed in its approach. Again I think all committee members would probably agree with me on that so I would like to begin on that note. 
As Tim Barnett said in the first reading Green Party members took the position that we would support this bill going to the select committee although we were uncommitted about whether we would support it further than that. We were looking forward to taking part in the select committee process and working through a number of questions in some detail. The select committee process was very good in terms of doing that and in clarifying some of the concerns we had. 
The question has been put whether the Greens will continue to support the bill now that United Future has decided to oppose it. The Greens will be supporting the bill on the basis that it is good legislation. Our position on the bill will not be determined by United Future’s position as that would be quite improper. So the Greens will be supporting this bill through the remaining stages. 
For me one of the crucial factors was that the select committee process brought me to the opinion that this bill will finally give this country a fully functioning final court of appeal. That point was made quite strongly by Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Francis Cooke. Sir Geoffrey said the Privy Council simply did not have enough New Zealand cases to fulfil the function of a final appellate court which is to clarify and develop the law of New Zealand so far as that is appropriate for the courts. The ministerial advisory group also made the point that the role of a Supreme Court is traditionally to correct errors and clarify and develop the law in the context of the individual cases before it consistent with the limits of judicial decision-making. The Privy Council is not fulfilling that function nor is the Court of Appeal able to fulfil it because it is too overworked. Again and again the select committee heard submitters say that the Court of Appeal is a very effective workhorse court but is too overworked to survey points of law exhaustively and clarify their application in a manner that one expects of a final appellate court. 
Francis Cooke made the point that final courts of appeal do not determine technical legal issues where it is a simple question of right or wrong but they do decide the appropriate rule to apply within the community. That was the subject of quite a wide-ranging debate in the select committee. Is it the role of the courts simply to apply the law in a black-letter fashion or do they have an interpretative function? It is interesting that the opposition to the bill fell on both sides of that argument. Some submitters said they opposed this bill because it would lead to judicial activism in the way that Mr Prebble referred to earlier. Other submitters—like the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties—said they opposed the bill because the Privy Council was becoming increasingly activist and they wanted an activist court so we needed to retain the Privy Council because a Supreme Court would be too technical and black letter. So one of the difficulties is that the arguments are going both ways. 
I believe it is appropriate for the court to interpret the law and apply it within the particular community and the Privy Council is increasingly recognising its own incapacity to fulfil that function. Submitters pointed out that the Privy Council now declines to overturn New Zealand Court of Appeal decisions or to determine matters in cases where there is a policy component. That is exactly what various people are talking about when they say it is important that we have an appellate court that has some appreciation of local conditions. 
Some people made the point that we get superior judgments from the Privy Council; that we get much better justice; that they are wonderful judges and we cannot hope to come anywhere near their quality. That is premised on a number of different assumptions. One is that New Zealand has less able raw material and I simply do not accept that. Again after hearing the submissions I do not accept that we are not capable of filling the bench of a final court of appeal. If we look at how highly regarded the New Zealand law profession is internationally I think that bears that out. 
The other thing is whether we get superior judgments anyway. Jack Hodder makes it his business to compare the decisions of final courts of appeal and he is regarded highly by many members of the select committee including some opposing the bill such as Stephen Franks. He said that the Privy Council judgments were amongst the least satisfactory in the world of those final courts of appeal he has looked at because they were non-detailed and single. If I remember the quote correctly he said the judgments of the Privy Council were singular and cryptic. That is what people are holding up as the superior law we are getting from the Privy Council. 
The problem is not that the Privy Counsellors are not able—that is not the case and I would not want anyone to think that was my point. What we did hear in the select committee was that there is a lack of interest among the law lords for sitting on the Privy Council because as far as they are concerned it is small fry. They are dealing with minor matters and they have much more interesting things to do sitting on the appellate committee of the House of Lords. So the Privy Council depends—at least to some degree—on ring-ins. In light of the changes that are going on in Britain that is extremely important because in June this year the British Government announced plans for a United Kingdom Supreme Court to replace the House of Lords appellate committee. We know that medical disciplinary issues have already been removed from the Privy Council and that the proposal for a United Kingdom Supreme Court intends that devolution appeals—from Scotland Northern Ireland and Wales—will transfer to the Supreme Court. They are probably the most interesting thing that the Privy Council has to deal with at this stage. 
OK at this stage it is true that no proposal has been made to end the Privy Council but it is difficult to imagine how it will survive the changes going on in Britain. Once it loses those devolution cases once the Caribbean nations—the CARICOM 10—move to their Caribbean Court of Justice which is what they are talking about what will the Privy Council be left with? It is predicted that the appeals that the Privy Council has to deal with will go down to 24 and 12 of those will come from New Zealand. Getting senior judges to sit on the Privy Council will become an increasingly difficult problem. If the Privy Council survives at all it will be a sad shadow of its former self and the question is whether that is what we in New Zealand want for our final court of appeal. 
I would like to quickly address some of the points raised by Dail Jones. He made up a number of things in his speech including the Green position on hearings at hui. In the same way he released a press release during the select committee’s consideration of the bill and when the committee bailed him up saying it was a breach of privilege he said it was not a breach of privilege because he made it up. Because the decision he said the select committee had made had not been made it was not a breach of privilege. That is his position. Dail Jones says he wrote a letter to the committee about having hearings on marae. He did write a letter to the committee but he did not bring it to a vote at the committee. I was waiting for him to bring it up for discussion because I was very interested in that discussion. Unless he brought it up when I was visiting the toilet—to make sure he could score a cheap political point—as far as I am aware he never brought it up at all so the contention he made in his speech is quite false. 
In terms of Maori issues there were a lot of submissions from Maori and various points were made. There was a very real fear that this bill is an attempt to belittle the treaty and that was one of the reasons that the select committee moved to amend the purpose clause and make clear reference to the Treaty of Waitangi. The Greens would have liked a much stronger reference in that clause but we were convinced that that was properly the subject of its own debate and that is why we are very keen to support the idea of an inquiry into the New Zealand constitution by the Justice and Electoral Committee. I think that will go some way to address some of the concerns because a number of submitters said they did not oppose a New Zealand Supreme Court but they wanted it to be in the context of a constitutional debate. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 The demise of the Privy Council is in my view inevitable. United Future saw the writing on the wall at the beginning of this year. It was reinforced by my visit to the Commonwealth Law Conference in April and in the papers that were presented there. That demise is coming about for four reasons. The first is the withdrawal from the Privy Council of most of the Commonwealth countries. The Caribbean is the latest one we have heard of and that represents 40 percent of the Privy Council’s current caseload. 
Secondly there is the pressure on Britain to abolish the House of Lord’s judicial division in order to comply with European requirements for separation of powers. That will take away the UK disciplinary cases—a further 20 percent of the council’s current workload. That will leave New Zealand cases at 20 percent with 20 percent coming from five other small Commonwealth nations. 
Thirdly there is pressure on the UK through Europe and the slow “Europeanisation” of UK law such that it is moving away from a strict adherence to Commonwealth loyalties to a position more loyal to European directions. 
Fourthly there is the issue of the resources within the Privy Council chambers in Downing Street. The facilities and the research material have not been improved and seem to be becoming more and more inadequate. 
This year things moved apace. By the middle of the year Britain announced moves to set up a Supreme Court and it is clear that that will happen sooner rather than later. Just recently senior civil servants have advocated that Commonwealth countries should be told to find other forums. Senior British judges will be sitting on the Supreme Court bench and there is strong commentary within Britain that they will be too busy for Privy Council duties. In a forum in England in just the last few days Sir Thomas Legge QC said that non-UK users of the Privy Council should be politely invited to consider alternative arrangements and that the UK should not be burdening its Supreme Court judges with Privy Council work. People such as him carry a lot of influence and although his position is not the position of the British Government it is an indicator of the way the thinking is going there. We will shortly be left with the second and third XI sitting on the Privy Council. 
A lot of the objectors to the bill said: “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” That call is wrong. If it is not broken now it shortly will be. I give it 5 to 10 years maximum but given the pace in England currently it could be less than 5 years and we will need to decide as a nation what is to replace the Privy Council. In general United Future believes that this bill does that adequately. 
However it is one thing for the Government to be doing the right thing. There is always a second issue and that is whether the people want it. This is a significant constitutional change and the Attorney-General admits that. It is imperative therefore that there is strong public support for it. It is also important that there is strong political support for it which there is not although I think it is rather hypocritical of National to oppose the bill when it has proposed this very thing in the past. There is more than a hint that National has done so solely because it is a Labour proposition. First-past-the-post politics is alive and well in the National Party. 
Fifty-four percent of the submissions opposed the bill and 40 percent were in favour. Of the oral submissions 76 percent were opposed and 23 percent were in favour. Key sector groups opposed to it were business the legal fraternity and Maori. So although the bill might be the right idea—perhaps premature but only slightly—the Government has failed to sell it and that comes down to marketing. The Government’s and the Attorney-General’s approach has killed it in the public’s eye. Simply put they have not taken the public with them. That has come about through a lack of trust in the Government and if there was one message that came out of the Taupo hui it was that Maori do not trust the Government. The fact that I keep getting emails saying there is no reason to abolish the right of appeal to the Privy Council shows that events in Britain have clearly not been adequately conveyed to the public. 
United Future members opposed the first reading of the bill. We did so because we considered that there had been a lack of public consultation. The public discussion documents put out by the Minister focused on what should replace the Privy Council not on whether it should be replaced. In fact until United Future successfully extended the select committee consideration of the bill to include the question of whether the right of appeal should be abolished that question had not been directly put to the general public. The Attorney-General’s blinkered approach meant that she did not even consult United Future before the bill was tabled. It was just expected that the numbers would be there. 
So what were the key objections that came through from the submitters? The first was the immediate appointment of the bench and there was a real suspicion that it would be politically biased. We tried to curb that by suggesting that following whatever consultation she wanted the Attorney-General would need to announce who would be on the first Supreme Court bench and that the announcement should happen before the bill went through. Alternatively as is explained in the commentary on the bill we suggested that the bill itself should effectively make that provision if the Attorney-General would not. 
The second objection was to the long-term relationship in terms of the appointment of the judiciary and United Future has been the party that has been pushing for a judicial appointments commission. We will be retabling the proposal I tabled at the select committee which is that the Judicial Matters Bill be widened to include consideration of a judicial appointments commission. 
There is a lack of confidence amongst the business community in our Court of Appeal bench as a result of some of the decisions it feels have been wrong. Whether or not that is correct it is nevertheless the perception within the business community and it is a strong reason for its wanting to continue with the Privy Council. To try to meet that objection we proposed that there should be overseas judges. Some of the business community indicated that they would support the proposal if whenever a case of commercial significance was to be heard two out of five of the judges were overseas judges who had specialised in commercial law. However there were still many who had gone past the point of agreeing even on that basis that the bill was the right way to go. 
In terms of overseas judges I was also personally concerned that there was no point making it mandatory to use overseas judges until we could get them and I can do no better than quote from the commentary on the bill: “The United Future member notes that the Attorney-General’s advice that no one could confirm the possibility that serving British Judges could be available infers that no one discounted the possibility either. Nor it seems was the possibility of recently retired Judges being available adequately explored by the Attorney-General. The member is disappointed that his request for direct consultation with the relevant overseas legal officers has not been met. The member feels this issue has not been properly explored and that the question of the availability of sitting Judges from comparable jurisdictions has not been adequately investigated.” 
The third area was the constitution. Maori in particular were concerned about the constitutional status of the treaty and felt that needed to be dealt with before other issues surrounding the constitution such as the court structure and the Supreme Court in particular were dealt with. 
If the select committee inquiry had been conducted first raising the question of whether we should abolish the right of appeal to the Privy Council in favour of a Supreme Court and that model had been outlined maybe we could have taken the public with us. Foisting a Supreme Court Bill on the public without adequate consultation and on the basis that the thing would be simply put through put the backs of the public and the business community up right from the start. The result has been a distinct lack of public confidence. A vote of 63 to 57 is inadequate for a proposal like this and it is wrong for the Government to go ahead on the basis of those numbers. In fact I would say that it is foolish for the Government to go ahead with it. There is no political endorsement; there is no public endorsement and United Future therefore believes that this is a reprehensible step on the Government’s part. 
United Future has been slow to get to that position. The Opposition opposes; that is its job. It has no real effect; it simply opposes. The Greens eventually managed to do a trade-off and I suspect that the Land Transport Management Bill was the price that was paid. United Future members listened. We listened first. We knew we were in a position of influence and in the end we consulted we listened we heeded and at the end of the day—given the public’s views about the matter—we had no alternative but to oppose. Because of the moves in Britain I suspect that within 5 years we will be back to address the issue again and I hope the Government of the day manages the process somewhat better than it has this time. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 In the view of the Progressives this is a day to celebrate in the New Zealand Parliament. It is an important step forward towards the independence of this country and it is a very proud day for me that there are three parties of the left—Labour the Progressives and the Greens—supporting this position. 
I count today as being as important as New Zealand taking its steps away from dependence on British colonialism by giving itself a Citizenship Act. I count it as being as important as ending the cringing that occurred during the First World War when we allowed British courts to execute our soldiers. I count it as a step away from the cringing of the Second World War when we kept our soldiers in the Middle East at the behest of Winston Churchill to protect British oil interests when the Australians brought their soldiers home to protect Australian soil. It has taken a long time for us to take the steps to be a sovereign nation. 
Our laws are not passed by British Parliaments; our courts should not enforce laws through a British court system. It has taken a long time to reach this position. The New Zealand public have actually moved to be New Zealanders a long time before many of the conservative parties in this Parliament. I am not sure what underlies their appeal to the populace because the populace is actually asking for a New Zealand that holds its head up high. That is very clear. 
I find it strange too that those conservative parties in this Parliament who say this bill is a constitutional outrage have not assembled their forces here to fight it. How many times in this Parliament have I and others heard that the sky will fall in if a certain measure occurs? Are those members who are frightened that the sky will fall in busy digging shelters somewhere? I do not think so. I do not think there is sincerity behind their position. 
 If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel then I think the constitutional argument often is as well because terrible things have been done in this Parliament in terms of New Zealand’s independence. One of them which the ACT leader took part in was to sell the public assets that are our birthright. In opinion polls 97 percent of the population were against the sale of our assets yet that member pushed ahead with the sale of New Zealand’s vital assets in that period and set National up for the sale of many more. To me that is an outrage—constitutional or otherwise—and it was done in the face of what the New Zealand population wanted. If there were any doubt about that members should look at the election results of 1990 and through the 1990s. That will show them what an outrage the public considered the sale of assets to be. 
This step does not abolish an appeal right; it replaces an appeal right. We join so many other countries inside the British Commonwealth that have taken this step long before us. There is an argument running that this legislation is a step towards republicanism. I wish it were so for I am a republican but I do not pin my hopes on it. The historical evidence simply does not point that way. I believe that Australia abolished the appeal right in 1986 and Canada did it many years before but both are still a part of a system that has a monarch as Head of State. Is it a step towards those changes? It might be part of the debate on how we should become an independent country but it does not follow that republicanism follows from it. As I have said we just have to look at those other countries. 
What does it do in terms of giving the people of New Zealand access to justice? For a start it broadens the number of courts that can take an issue to a level of appeal that is now reserved for a very small number of people in New Zealand. I note that the National Party has said through its spokesperson Mr Worth that the Privy Council delivers a Rolls Royce service. Not many of us aspire or have the means to have a Rolls Royce service. As ordinary citizens we are happy to have just a good service but I think the term points to what the National Party ACT and United Future are talking about. The Privy Council is mainly at the disposal of large business interests. Of course others get there from time to time but in the main it seems to me that big business likes to use it as a weapon to bludgeon others: “We’ll take you to the Privy Council. You can’t afford to go there.” That is what “Rolls Royce service” actually means. That is why United Future has changed its opinion. United Future members have seen that the Business Roundtable wants to keep the Privy Council. They look to organisations like that to give them support politically financially or whatever—I am not sure. That is why they have changed their position because it is easier to appease and please that group than to advocate for the interest of ordinary New Zealanders. 
This new appeal level will reflect New Zealand’s talent. There has been an argument—apparently only in the British courts—that the best brains and legal talent are on the Privy Council. It must only be male talent because there is not one woman on the Privy Council. Presumably the conservative parties in this Parliament are saying that even in Britain with its large population women are not good enough to get on to the Privy Council. I do not think so. If they take the trouble to go through the list of the schools those judges are drawn from they will see that they are drawn from the elite public schools of Great Britain. Surely in a country that is founded on getting away from a class-ridden society and that has tried to develop a democracy where the poorest child can go through to hold the highest position in the land we are not going to bow our knee to that. 
I look forward to many changes in this country but those of us who harbour the wish that we become as much of a socialist country as possible—in the sense that we have a country that is equal that is as democratic as possible—are not using this bill to smuggle those things through. If that were so I doubt whether John Howard would be a supporter of the Privy Council being abolished in Australia which I believe he was. I do not believe that those in Canada who voted for the abolition of the link to the Privy Council were secret socialists. If they were then their plan was not a very good one for history does not bear them out. We have here a day of celebration for anybody who wants to make sure that the institutions we set up reflect New Zealand’s traditions values and the needs of the New Zealand people. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 National opposes this bill and when we get back into Government in 2005 along with our supporters on this side of the House we will bring back appeals to the Privy Council. The loss of the Privy Council to New Zealand’s court structure will be a sad day for this country. It will go down as a day when Margaret Wilson the Attorney-General had her way with her socialist republican agenda. Maori members on the other side of the House ought to be worried about that. The problem is that this is a change that is being made against the will and the wishes of the New Zealand public. It is a change that will be made by a minority Government with only three votes to spare. That is why it is an outrage and as I said it is being done by stealth and to Margaret Wilson’s agenda and we the public of New Zealand are the recipients of that. However mark my words the public of New Zealand have woken up to her. They consider her to be one of the most dangerous women in this country because they can see that by hook or by crook she is setting out on a path to change the face of our constitution without their consent. That is where the outrage comes in. 
In case I forget I want to say that I am very pleased that United Future—now that we are back in the House having completed the select committee process—has indicated clearly that it will oppose this legislation. Members of the Greens however in their sort of dithery way right through the select committee process pretended in my view that they would take notice of the submissions particularly Maori submissions. Nandor Tanczos was quite vocal on the fact that he wanted to see where the weight of Maori opinion was and he said he had an open mind. Well I do not know what happened to his mind in the end. It closed—because he heard the majority of Maori submissions just as I did yet regardless of the fact that the majority were against the abolition of the Privy Council in the end Nandor Tanczos clearly went back to his caucus and said: “I’m happy with the bill.” It is to his and his party’s great shame that they happily stand up in this Chamber and babble on about Maori tino rangatiratanga. I have heard things from them about what that stands for that I have never heard from Maori people but that is what they do—they stand up and babble on about Maori tino rangatiratanga. When they had the chance to show they appreciated what that was and that they would support it what did they do? They turned their backs on Maori and showed in essence that they do not understand what Maori tino rangatiratanga is. 
I also want to turn to the Maori MPs in the Government. Seven of those MPs are in Government on the strength of the Maori votes. As I look across the House I see my whanaunga from the Bay of Plenty Mita Ririnui. We were both on the select committee in Rotorua as was the Rt Hon Winston Peters and no doubt he will say something just as damning of those Maori MPs. Miti Ririnui heard the severe opposition by Maori submitters to this bill. But it is kind of like: “Well yes OK we hear you Maori” but either they do not hear or they give no credence to the Maori arguments and I think that that is disgusting. Maori people know exactly what they are talking about when they talk about things like the constitution and the court structure. They have had so much experience of all of that over 160 years. They know exactly what they are talking about when they talk about the foreshore and seabed as well. Yet the Maori MPs have given no indication that they took any of the arguments from the Opposition on board. They have not replied which would have been normal courtesy in my view. It would have been in keeping with tikanga to go back to the Maori electorate and say: “Well we heard your arguments.” then discuss each of those arguments. That would have been tikanga but no the Maori Labour MPs will go down in this House with what I think will not be a proud record at all. They are helping Margaret Wilson to shepherd this legislation through. Goodness knows what they will do on the foreshore and seabed issue. They are in power on the strength of the Maori vote and they ignore that vote at their peril and that is what they are doing here in relation to this bill. 
The weight of the opinion before the select committee as we have been told a number of times already was that just over 70 percent of the submissions are opposed to the Supreme Court Bill. Given the weight of the opposition from business Maori interests representative groups like Local Government New Zealand and so on and Federated Farmers many many individuals and the legal profession as well I would think that this Government might have slowed down and decided that really there is no rush for this—because there is not. There is no rush for this. They might have taken it into their heads to think: “Well maybe when people come to us and say this is a major constitutional move and that it should not be done without the will of the public of New Zealand or a 75 percent majority in this House we will take two steps back and think about it and perhaps put it on hold.” But no they are determined to push this through. They are determined to push it through in the face of major opposition. That opposition was absolutely evident throughout the 4 or 5 months that we sat on the select committee. Nothing that Margaret Wilson or any of the Government speakers has said answers what I think were very valid cogent arguments put to us by those who took the time and delivered their submissions before the committee. 
The point about the Maori opposition—particularly based as it was on opposition to a constitutional change of this magnitude when issues like the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand’s constitution have not been properly debated or considered—and issues like that in my view ought to have made the Government slow down. Addressing those issues by way of changes to the purpose clause and the leave provisions does not answer the objection no matter what Nandor Tanczos might think. I am sure he thinks that Maori ought to be happy now because the Treaty of Waitangi is referred to in both the purpose clause and the leave provisions. Well he needs to think again because that does not address any of the arguments that they put and it will not satisfy the opposition that they brought to us. 
I think this is a sad day. We have come back from the select committee and I want to thank the select committee officials and the departmental officials. They were extremely helpful. But in the end I guess they have a little bit of responsibility in a way to bring back advice that basically supports what this Government wants. They certainly answered all the queries and the requests from the Opposition but ultimately I guess when it comes to the crunch this Government is embarking on a course of its own regardless of who supports it. I suppose that in a way the official advice probably has to reflect that. I do not mean any disrespect to the officials but I guess that is the way it goes. I come back to where I started—this is a sad day. It will be a sad day for New Zealand when access to the Privy Council is lost to us. The existence of an independent arbiter at the highest level of our court structure is something we are so fortunate to have and is something that we will all be the worse off for when it is gone. 
MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 I stand to take a brief call in this second reading debate on the Supreme Court Bill but before doing so I join some of my colleagues including Nandor Tanczos in congratulating the clerks officials and advisers to the Justice and Electoral Committee on their accurate and timely advice in assisting the committees to bring this bill back to the House. 
Is it not amazing that people say one thing in Opposition and say something else when they are in Government? I was listening very carefully to the previous speakers and the statements that they made in opposition to the abolition of the Privy Council. I too will make some statements about the strength of the Maori submissions during the submission process. I heard the question earlier on from the National Party member Richard Worth: “Why do away with it?”. Well I want to quote what a couple of his own party members said in 1994 and 1995. In 1994 the Hon Nick Smith said: “I am one of those who believe that the Privy Council has out-served its time.” Now that is exactly how we feel on this side of the House and surprisingly enough even though a lot of submissions from Maori were concerned about the abolition of the Privy Council many did say that it is running out of time and that its shelf life is almost up. In 1994 and in 1995 the Hon Maurice Williamson—admittedly at No. 28 on the National Party list—said: “I think the Privy Council is outdated.” In 1995 he also said: “We should not have to trot off to London for certain permissions on all sorts of constitutional matters. We should do it here.” Now it does not come any more accurate than that! I want to congratulate those members on making those statements. They probably would have had their legislation up before this House had they not been told to withdraw it by “you know who.” 
I want to speak briefly on the submissions from Maori groups and I congratulate Nandor Tanczos because he actually did listen to what they were saying. On the one hand they were saying that they have a concern— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Rubbish! 
MITA RIRINUI 
: The member will have his opportunity to speak. Maori did say to the select committee that they oppose the abolition of the Privy Council for one reason and one reason alone—because as yet we do not have a written constitution in place. That was the main concern of those groups and of course it is a concern to many of us. But we were able to satisfy those submitters by explaining that we are proposing a constitutional inquiry through the same select committee process and that by and large satisfied many of those people. The Hon Richard Prebble has described Margaret Wilson as the most dangerous politician in this country. Well let me tell that member something. Margaret Wilson has put the Treaty of Waitangi at a level that we can all debate. She has also made sure that it is included in much of our legislation. Members can be sure as well that when we come to a constitutional debate the treaty will be prominent. It is interesting that New Zealand First member Dail Jones’ idea of a treaty policy is having a hui on a marae. Well I tell Mr Jones that the treaty is bigger than that. It is about all of us having a debate. It is not just the Maori treaty— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What did Judge Hingston say at Rotorua? 
MITA RIRINUI 
: Well he actually said that he was speaking on behalf of the paramount chief of Ngati Tuwharetoa. What happened the next day? There was a disclaimer in the  
New Zealand Herald.  
What does Mr Peters think of that? I got it right. That member went to Rotorua not to assist those submitters in the process but to advocate for votes. That is all. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I am somewhat surprised to find that Mita Ririnui is not here to complete his speech. He said he would talk about a number of issues. He dealt with none of them in any substance and length and after 4 minutes he has resigned his position and left it to the House to get on with the debate. That underscores exactly what is going on in the world of Maori politics where the Labour Party is concerned. 
We have a system that has worked effectively in New Zealand for well over 100 years at no cost to the New Zealand taxpayer at all. The reasons for fixing something that is not broken must therefore be very compelling. Lord Cooke of Thorndon has described the retention of the right of appeal to the Privy Council as eccentric and an anachronism but wants—rather unusually—overseas judges to be on the Supreme Court. What is eccentric about providing an important constitutional safeguard in a country that has neither a written constitution nor an Upper House? What is anachronistic about the vision of a two-tier system of appeal? That is fundamental to the interests of justice and allows the full development of legal argument. Lord Cooke’s suggestion that the proposed Supreme Court panel of judges should include overseas judges is contradictory. That is another reason for the retention of the Privy Council which already provides that. 
What are the real advantages of this nation of 4 million people going judicially alone? Lord Cooke claims that including overseas judges on the Supreme Court panel would ensure diversity and resist the tendency to be isolationist or inward looking. Precisely Lord Cooke precisely! It is the independence and geographic remoteness of the Privy Council that provides the detachment that ensures its decisions are free from local concerns and agendas. Anyone who suggests that those sorts of agendas do not get a run in New Zealand has not looked into the wine box and I will deal with that issue shortly. 
Lord Cooke said that the people could not be trusted on this decision. 
Dail Jones 
: It made him tremble. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It made him tremble to think that the people may be allowed to make this decision. I do not want to criticise the learned judge other than to say that it makes people tremble more to think that without any mandate from the people of this country the judiciary would decide what our rules and constitutional precedents should be. That would concern people more than making the decision themselves. 
I say this in respect of the background of this legislation. A discussion paper titled  
Reshaping New Zealand’s Appeal Structure 
 was released three Christmases ago and that so-called discussion paper is now being touted as consultation in respect of the abolition of the Privy Council. It was no such thing and Margaret Wilson knows full well that it was no such thing. To many Maori the appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is seen as a symbolic link to the British monarch and as a protecting factor in relation to issues of concern. The lack of real consultation on this proposal is deplorable and every Maori member in this Parliament knows that where the Maori people are concerned and every other MP knows that where professional groups and others are concerned. A small group of pseudo-academics in the current administration is hijacking New Zealand’s constitutional processes and it will ignore public opinion at its peril. 
We in New Zealand First intend to be back in the next Government and the first thing we will do is to repeal this legislation and restore the constitutional arrangements we have enjoyed for over 100 years. That will be the first thing that we will do. To anybody who has any high and mighty ideas of promotion to the judiciary I tell that person or the institution that is thinking of promoting him or her that it will be a very short-term occupation—if any at all given the time it will take to set up the Supreme Court. 
I have this to say about the seven Labour Maori MPs. It comes down to this: the vote for this bill will be by a bare majority and the seven Labour Maori MPs in the Maori seats have betrayed their people again. 
Jill Pettis 
: Rubbish! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Here comes the fishwife to speak for the Maori members. The usual paternalism that emanates from Labour has her speaking for the Maori members now. It is the socialist version of the white man’s burden that Labour does not have Maori speak for themselves. That woman who just made it back in Whanganui at the last election and who will be beaten next time speaks for Maori. The seven Labour Maori MPs have betrayed their people again. They have ignored Maori leadership again. They have deserted Maori people and Maori institutions and beliefs again. They have distrusted the Maori people again. Anyone who knows anything about Maori society knows full well that from Kaitaia to Invercargill Maoridom is against this measure. 
Jill Pettis 
: Why did you deny you were Maori? 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I have never done that. How could the captain of the Auckland Maori team deny that he was Maori? I totally debunk that in one statement just like that. I hear that kind of lie often. But how could the captain of the Auckland Maori team for years claim that he was not Maori? I have debunked that already. I hoped not to hear that rubbish but I know that it is market day and anything can happen on market day. 
The seven Maori members in the Maori seats do not trust the Maori people. Instead they trust Helen Clark. They trust not the Maori people. Instead they trust Margaret Wilson who will not be in Parliament after the next election. She is a temporarily empowered Minister who is soon to go. She will write her stamp over the New Zealand system regardless of how unpopular it is. Margaret Wilson was president of the Labour Party during the 1984-90 period. Margaret Wilson knows—and books reveal this and it is confirmed by David Lange—that millions of dollars had been given by dubious businesses to the Labour Party to fund its campaign. At the same time Labour was implementing policies that were very destructive in terms of Maori employment and tens of thousands of Maori lost their opportunities forever. Six hundred Maori families went out of fishing between Mahia and Whangarei alone as a consequence of Labour’s changes to the fishing laws. That is the Margaret Wilson whom the Maori members trust but they do not trust Api Mahuika and every other senior Maori elder in this country. They do not trust the elders of Ngati Whakaue of Rotorua who got into the Maori members in a big way and in particular into Mita Ririnui. They gave the message very clearly. If Nandor or “Tandor” could not understand that it is beyond me. He said that the Greens would listen to the Maori people and would heed them. The Greens had no such intention. 
It is a fact that such an important issue as this has never passed this way. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not want to hear that rubbish from that woman over there. With the greatest of respect she knows nothing of the Maori world but she claims she is one. She should give us a sign of that because right now it is New Zealand’s best-kept secret. If the Maori people’s interests were given here in Parliament and that member’s own socialist views were to be asked for to balance them out we all know who would win. 
I say to those seven Maori members that at the end of the next election they will have found out just what a betrayal the Maori people have experienced at their hands. When the party vote comes in it will be all over. But the good news for Maori is that we in New Zealand First will be back and this legislation will be out. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 The Maori vote spoken about by the previous member is represented by rhetoric and bullying and that member knows very well that most submitters on that issue at the hui at Rotorua had not read the bill. That included former Judge Heta Hingston of the Maori Land Court who spoke loudly in opposition to the bill but who when I asked admitted that he had not read the bill. That was the substance of the submissions. The submitters were wound up by that member for the benefit of that member’s vote as he tried to curry favour with and mislead the submitters. 
Yet what has the Privy Council done for Maori? The Privy Council has done for Maori precisely what it has done for the rest of New Zealanders: very very little. In 2001 President Gault of the Court of Appeal said that 95 percent of the cases in New Zealand never go to the Privy Council and that the Court of Appeal is virtually the final court of appeal for most cases in New Zealand. That is because the jurisdiction to get a case to London is so narrow. And when people do get to London with their cases they often find it is a New Zealand judge who will preside. 
Let me take the case of Chris Wingate who paid $3.5 million in New Zealand to have his case defended. After the High Court had twice found in his favour he went to the Privy Council paying $1 million for English counsel. There his case was rejected in a judgment written by a New Zealand judge. That is not English justice; that is New Zealand justice delivered 12000 miles away. Those who have spoken against this proposal and most submitters have never been to the Privy Council. They have no concept of what it is like. They have the belief that the Privy Council is much better than our courts because it is a long way away in England and because it is free it must be far better still. Well Winston Peters is free to most people in this country but he is not admired by many of them. 
This bill will bring to all New Zealanders a right of final appeal before a court that is made up of people who understand and represent New Zealand. Recently in my electorate of Napier one of the country’s most profitable freezing works companies the Richmond freezing company was subject to an underhand takeover by a South Island freezing works PPCS Ltd. The High Court found that its efforts were dishonest. Recently the Court of Appeal released a judgment upholding the PPCS appeal and overturning the High Court judgment in favour of the Richmond freezing company. And what did that major freezing works say? It said it could not afford the cost of going to the Privy Council. So even in the commercial sector the most recent instance of a matter that should be taken to a higher court languishes undecided because London is too far away and too inaccessible. 
It is not just commercial cases that are affected by that. What has the track record of the Privy Council been in respect of Maori in recent times? It has been nothing at all; the cases are sent back to New Zealand for decision. Litigants who have no money whatsoever have to rely on a lawyer who is prepared to do the work for nothing and to go to London to argue the case because the cost of getting legal aid is too prohibitive. Many people are languishing in our jails right now who have taken good cases to the Court of Appeal and have been concerned about its judgments solely because that court handles nine times the amount of work of any other final appellate court in a Commonwealth jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal turns out 450-odd judgments a year whereas a final appellate court should address just 50 cases or fewer—as will the Supreme Court. 
When we get a final court of appeal—the Supreme Court of New Zealand—that handles a reasonable number of cases we will get considered decisions that reflect the major movements in our law in this country. It will give service to the people of New Zealand and give judgments that people will be satisfied with. We have the intellectual capability here because our judges are welcome to sit on the Privy Council. We have the training here and we will develop a Bar that will be able to argue at the final level of appeal. At present we have a Bar that is not experienced in arguing at the second level of appeal because so few of its members go to London. We will develop a jurisprudence that reflects New Zealand we will develop an expertise with our legal profession that will develop New Zealand and we will develop a respect in the Commonwealth for our judicial system—a respect that we engender in all activities in this country. 
I endorse this bill thoroughly because it brings New Zealand justice home to this country—justice by New Zealanders. It will be justice of a standard we all desire and we will get top-shelf decisions from our top judicial leaders. They will deliver judgments that will lead us into the rest of this century. I support this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 45 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Supreme Court Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 63 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Bill read a second time. 
New Organisms and Other Matters Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 18 September. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions ( 
continued 
)  
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 As many who have spoken on clause 2 have commented the commencement date outlines 30 October 2003 as the D-Day date. On that date the provisions contained in this bill will come into effect. As has been discussed three existing pieces of legislation will be amended. 
Since the Committee last met to discuss the issues further some interesting developments have taken place in various parts of Parliament grounds. No doubt those types of concerns will continue to be expressed in a way that has a visual impact on the nature of the bill and we will continue to have argument. 
The commencement date is important because it signals the end to the moratorium that the Government placed some time ago on the development of new organisms. We have seen an interesting flow of events since that time. I have outlined to the House on a number of occasions the issues relating to the Minister’s call-in powers which will come into effect on 30 October 2003. I look forward to going into some more detail on those during the debate on Part 2 and also on those matters relating to reverse burdens of proof which have been covered in earlier stages and will be covered in more detail in later parts of the debate. 
Concerns have been expressed by members on both sides of the Chamber relating to the role of local government in the enacting or otherwise of parts of this legislation and the confusion that exists around those issues as signalled at the Education and Science Committee by a number of members. I see that the chairman of that committee Brian Donnelly is nodding on that point. Those issues will be covered in detail by members on this side of the Chamber once we get into the debate on Part 2. But of course the important matter to focus on at this point—for the sake of keeping the debate relevant to the part under consideration—is that those clauses will be triggered by the date we are currently debating. 
Members on this side of the Chamber have indicated on more than one occasion that they are supportive of the bill in most phases. But the Committee has heard me express a number of reservations in respect of the two or three issues just raised. We on this side of the Chamber still reserve the right to continue to question the clarity of the law more than its spirit. Members will know that the National Party has supported the Government on the passage of this bill in general but we retain the right to express our concerns about the nature of its drafting and in particular the uncertainty that it will present for users of the mechanisms it creates. In the case of this legislation we should consider what that means for applicants and in particular what burdens they will have to incur by way of reversals of proof and connections of the causal links between harm and the release—if that occurs conditional or otherwise—of organisms going back to the original legislation. That is one of the issues in relation to which I do not believe that this legislation has been sufficiently well crafted. 
On a number of occasions I have raised the issues relating to the role of local government in this matter. I think the bill is appallingly crafted around those particular clauses and I had great concern when members of the Government who were on the select committee simply said that these things get sorted out in the fullness of time. Actually no they do not. What happens is that a whole lot of unelected people called judges get to make law in respect of very important issues like this. It is an abdication of the democratic responsibility of members of Parliament to allow that level of judicial activism. It is something I have seen occurring during my 4 years in Parliament and I am concerned about that level of activism. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I call the next speaker I remind members that we are dealing with Part 1 which is the commencement and we have already had 10 speakers on it. The Committee may wish to move on to the next part. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You were not here during the discussion the last time we were in Committee but it was pointed out to the Chair at the time that the two significant parts are this part and particularly Part 2. There was a little bit of leniency on the question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. Does he seek the call? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Yes I seek the call. This debate concerns the commencement date. Obviously the commencement date is critically important in terms of this bill because the moratorium comes off at 12 o’clock on the night before the legislation commences. The legislation aims to put in place a whole pile of recommendations from the royal commission for when the moratorium comes off. The Green Party put up an amendment that would make the commencement date 30 October 2008 and I want to explore the implications and effects of the passage of that particular amendment. 
The first question is whether the moratorium would be extended for another 5 years. The answer quite unequivocally is no. The moratorium is going to be lifted. The amendment means that we would have no legislation in place to accommodate some of those things. There would be no conditional release category available for the Environmental Risk Management Authority to apply to those applications that it may assess as requiring certain conditions to be put against them. There are other implications too. For example Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao exists at the moment purely and simply at the whim of the Environmental Risk Management Authority as there is no statutory obligation to have this consultative body with Maori in place. This bill makes it a statutory responsibility. There would otherwise be no statutory responsibility for the authority to consult Maori in this particular way. It is the Green Party remember that is the guardian of tino rangatiratanga yet it is wanting to take away for another 5 years something that New Zealand First would support because we believe that it is part of the whole process. 
The Green amendment would take away the extensive additional penalties for anybody or any organisation that is in breach of the rules of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. In other words somebody who brought in GE organisms without authority would face huge increases in the penalties involved. The Green amendment would for the next 5 years put those large-scale penalties—obviously with companies like Monsanto in mind—on the back-burner. There is also the issue for example of streamlining the importation of low-risk GE organisms which the royal commission accepted needed to be streamlined through the institution-based science committees. When the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Act was put in place everyone agreed that we should try to get them in place as soon as possible because it was certainly seen as an obstacle to some of the scientific progress in this way. This would be put once again on the back-burner for another 5 years. 
There is another thing that would be put on the back-burner for another 5 years and it is very interesting that the Greens should be asking for this. This particular legislation extends the reasons for which the Minister can use his or her call-in powers to include cultural and spiritual values. We do not believe that it makes a whole lot of sense to have call-in powers on that basis anyhow and probably there should be an extension of the commencement date right out to infinity. But the Greens are saying that they want to put it on the back-burner for another 5 years. It seems so inconsistent with the Greens’ position to put up an amendment like this to put this legislation off for another 5 years when many of the things in it comply with the very things the Greens have been asking for. 
The rationale is that if we put in place conditional release the chance of some commercial release increases. It does not make any difference at all to the field trials that are going on. They have been going on for the last couple of years funded I remind members with money that has been voted in a Budget supported by the Greens. The Greens have voted for the money for field trials and experimentation in GE technology and there has been no moratorium on those for the last couple of years. Development trials have still continued and there has been no moratorium on those. Yet the money for funding those trials was voted for by the Greens—not by the National Party even though it supports this legislation. I suggest that the position taken by the Greens does not make sense. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I am enthusiastic to talk about Part 1 but I must say by way of your interest Mr Chairman and the interest of my colleagues—who are heckling me more than those on the other side of the Chamber—that the interest would have been greater if the purpose clause which is in Part 2 had remained in Part 1 as we would also be debating that now. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts as to why the purpose was shifted into Part 2. Perhaps she could make a comment on that after my speech because I know that some members sit here with bated breath wondering and worrying why the purpose was shifted to Part 2. However I will speak on the commencement date. 
This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the royal assent which is 30 October 2003. I would like to clarify some confusion in the Chamber and out amongst the public which was brought about not least by some recent speeches made in the Chamber and by press releases to the public. The bill does not deal at all with the expiry of the moratorium. It only sets in place regulations that come into effect when the moratorium ends. 
 The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Act 2002 specified that the Environmental Risk Management Authority was not to approve any applications for the release of GM until after 29 October 2003—and we are well aware of that. The fact that the legislation we are now debating will come into force the following day is simply a management issue. When that GM moratorium is ended there will be regulations and guidelines in place to deal with applications of GM experimentation and release. At the time of the passage of that legislation back in 2002 just over 12 months ago I recall that without the passage of this bill now the law would revert to the framework that was in place previously—namely the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act of 1996. 
There is no vote to lift the moratorium on GM and that is a given. My suggestion to the Greens is that if they really wanted a vote on the extension of the moratorium they might have tabled some legislation themselves. It could have been quite possible for them to table legislation. I remember their protesting and running out of Parliament. I recall their calling in protesters to show off their brassieres up in the public galleries. I know they paid their relatives today to stand and lie out on the grass in front of Parliament stark naked. Apart from all the nudity and exposure perhaps the Greens could have done something sensible like present legislation to the House extending the moratorium. That would have been the sensible way of doing it. That is the kind of action this Parliament has done for well over a hundred years. I would suggest that in the future rather than the Greens reverting to streaking and all sorts of other ways of tackling legislation they could do it the way everyone else does it because it does tend to be successful. 
Under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act the Environmental Risk Management Authority can approve commercial release of GMOs after notifying various authorities and it is that legislation that would come into play on 30 October if this bill is not passed and if it did not have a commencement date of 30 October 2003. That is why Part 1 dealing solely with the commencement date—that being the day the moratorium lifts—is so significant. Normally a commencement date is not so significant but this one certainly is. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak in support of the commencement clause. The entering into law of this legislation on 30 October this year will be the culmination of a very long process when one realises that the gazetting for the whole thing started way back on 11 May 2000. So it has been before the House for over 3 years. This process—which has taken more than 3 years—has been stalled for most of that time because of the moratorium. There has been a stalling and I think it has been well worth it. It will ensure that we have an environmentally regulatory regime that is among the most cautious and robust in the whole world. So it was time well spent. 
When it comes to protecting our environment our public health and our economic well-being every effort must be made to do those things. I believe the process has been as cautious as it can possibly be. It has been as cautious as possible short of stalling progress altogether. We note that the necessary partner for our cautious approach has been—and must always be—progress. The potential of genetic technology is too great I believe for our largely agriculturally based economy to be left by the wayside. The royal commission concluded that we should proceed with some caution and I believe 30 October 2003 is high time for us to begin. That is why United Future supports the commencement of this legislation which will impose the regulatory regime that will oversee all applications that come into effect after that date. 
There are some who still argue that we have not done enough and that the moratorium should be extended for yet another 5 years. In my view that is nothing but a blatant stalling tactic. There will always be something to which the opponents of GE technology can point and claim that we do not yet know enough about because we want it 100 percent safe. There will always be a reason that someone can give as to why the moratorium should be extended just a little bit longer. The tests of proof that the opponents of GM are demanding to have in place are so high that practically no technology would have been passed if we had applied this rule in the past. I am talking about developments that we all enjoy today such as electricity and even the motor car for that matter. 
I support the commencement of this legislation on 30 October 2003. Failure to do so would be a sign that we are no longer interested in either scientific or economic progress. As long as it is done in a considered cautious manner—which it is—I see no reason to delay this progress any longer. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Just to reiterate what the Hon Brian Donnelly pointed out to you earlier on that we did over a considerable length of time have reassurances from the Chair that Part 1— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: There are no reassurances but I understand fully what the member and Mr Donnelly are talking about and we do not have a problem. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party supports this legislation and in particular Part 1 which has but two clauses—that is the commencement and the purpose. We support the bill though with some considerable reservation. 
Our position is that we did not favour the moratorium in the first instance. We believed it was unnecessary. The Government of the day sought to put in place a moratorium which is actually an admission of political failure—an inability to grasp the issues before the Parliament or the Government. It is a kick for touch and it was done as we all know as a political manoeuvre in this instance. 
Notwithstanding that I acknowledge the very good work that has been done by the select committee and I acknowledge Mr Donnelly because I have heard some very good reports on the very thorough job done on this bill. I am sure that it has been improved in many respects. 
The commencement clause of course is very critical when one talks about legislation that is effectively coming out of a moratorium situation so commencement becomes very important indeed and I see no reason whatsoever to delay it further. I know there have been all sorts of campaigns and the Green Party and others have been deeply involved with those trying virtually to have an infinite moratorium. I think their preferred position would be to have the moratorium extended forever. That clearly will not happen. Others are lobbying hard to have food exempted and that would require qualified moratoriums that were ongoing. 
I have looked at that position rather closely and spoken with the many groups and it seems that they are really coming from a position of marketing and labelling—market perception. The people I have spoken to have no objection to the science at all but they fear that their customer base either in Europe or Asia may be averse to it. They want to paint themselves with and ride on the label of the clean green New Zealand image. They feel that if the GM-status of New Zealand changed it could jeopardise that image. 
I do not believe that is so. An interesting marketing survey that was recently done—I think Otago University carried it out as I recall—clearly showed in fact that that is most unlikely to be the case. As we know Europe has substantial GE-food products and indeed has a threshold level I think of 0.5 under the European standards so it really becomes a labelling issue as much as anything. It is time for New Zealand to move on. 
On that point I say that this Government has been exposed for its ridiculous policy of zero tolerance. Zero tolerance is a nonsense. The Minister knows that. I know she does and in appearances at the select committee has made it quite clear that the Government has put itself in a very awkward position by trying to cling to the pretence that it has zero tolerance when that clearly defies scientific reality. 
I note the streamlining of the importation of organisms of low risk. That is a useful improvement to the bill. I think that a lot of other measures could have been streamlined also. There is also an extension to the call-in provisions on cultural and spiritual grounds. ACT certainly opposes that. We believe that the provisions in the bill and the weight put on spiritual cultural and metaphysical issues are totally inappropriate and will be very problematic. I note there are a number of amendments in various Supplementary Order Papers that we will be discussing during the debate on this issue. We will certainly be supporting the Supplementary Order Papers that propose to drop those cultural and spiritual references which clearly are not appropriate in the context of the bill we have before us. 
ACT is supporting the legislation overall although we would like to see less prescription. We think that the regulatory regime to be put in place and the compliance costs are over the top. They could have been streamlined further and any future Government of which we are part will be looking to streamline them. We know that the New Zealand economy is based on our biological resources and that the new GM technology is critical for us and for our future. Therefore we believe that we should have a much more favourable regime than will be delivered under this bill. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I was not planning to speak again on Part 1 but as it happens statements have been made by a couple of speakers that cry out to be rebutted. 
I start with Mr Heatley who needs to read the bill. It is perhaps not surprising that he has not picked up on clause 39A which repeals the moratorium because it was not in the bill as introduced. It snuck in at the select committee without the select committee even being aware of it or discussing it. It just went through as part of what the officials brought to us in that last hasty meeting. Clause 39A does repeal Part 5A of the principal Act—quite unnecessarily so as Part 5A expires naturally anyway as a result of last year’s Act but they decided to have a belt and braces approach and expire it again in this bill. That is what that clause does. 
I turn to Mr Donnelly’s very elegant attempt to criticise the Green amendment in the name of my colleague Mr Ewen-Street. Mr Donnelly said that if the commencement of the bill is delayed for 5 years a number of terrible things will happen. First of all he says delaying the commencement by 5 years does not extend the moratorium. Legally of course that is true but as I pointed out in my speech in practice it does extend the moratorium because without conditional release there will be no releases. That is all the Green Party has ever tried to achieve. The moratorium is a means to an end. It is not an end in itself. Preventing release of these organisms into the environment is what we have always been on about. 
He then went on to say that it would prevent the legal establishment of Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao and that is true too. But nga kaihautu exists now. I do not think the Environmental Risk Management Authority is on the point of abolishing it if the bill does not go through. So I do not see that there is any great practical effect from that one. 
He then said that the very severe penalties would not be available and that is also true. However those very severe penalties are needed only if releases into the environment are approved and they do harm or break their consents. So there is much less need for severe penalties if this bill does not go through and there are no releases. 
He also pointed out that the streamlining of low-risk approvals would not take place either. That would be a shame because the Green Party— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Would the member please come to the commencement? 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: This is all about the commencement Mr Chairperson. I am speaking to the amendment in Mr Ewen-Street’s name. If the streamlining of low-risk matters has to wait 5 years that is unfortunate because the Green Party does not oppose streamlining of provisions for low-risk work in contained laboratories—we never have. But if that matter is put in the same bill as provisions that lift the moratorium then that is unfortunate and it just has to suffer. 
Finally Mr Donnelly said the call-in powers would not be extended. Well the call-in powers will not be needed either if there are no releases. 
So in fact Mr Donnelly’s objections to our amendment do not stand. I commend the amendment in the name of my colleague Mr Ewen-Street and I hope the Committee will vote for it. 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to speak on the commencement in Part 1 of this very important New Organisms and Other Matters Bill. Undoubtedly the commencement ushers in a new era of change from the moratorium that was imposed somewhat blindly but certainly bluntly by this Labour Government. It welcomes in an era in which there is a glimmer of hope that there will be an evidence-based scientific approach to new organisms in New Zealand. I say there is a glimmer of hope; National is supporting the bill only because of this fundamental scientific evidence-based approach that Labour is attempting to achieve but the glimmer of hope is somewhat shadowed by the fact that the bill is entangled in compliance costs and hurdles with particular reference to medium and higher-risk research. As I said earlier on the bill does streamline low-risk research but that should have happened 2 years ago when there was an opportunity with the earlier amendment bill. The Labour Government chose not to do it then which is very regrettable. 
However what is important is that one of the fundamental recommendations of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification was that it was critical for New Zealand’s future that research is continued. Here is a bill in which medium and higher-risk research is entangled in compliance costs and other such hurdles that are reminiscent of the difficulties that organisations like AgResearch had when they came to put in their applications. 
But the commencement of this bill has also highlighted the way that the Greens get themselves into a huge frenzy—a more or less maniacal morris-dancing mentality to which they have certainly risen on this occasion with some extraordinarily extravagant claims and often some very inaccurate claims. This is absolutely related to the commencement because in Jeanette Fitzsimons’ speech on the second reading we heard her say that there had been no testing done on GE foods. That is patently absurd. In fact the European Commission in its report pointed out that GE food is as safe as if not safer than conventional food because of the evidence of 400 different trials taken over 15 years. That statement was countersigned by 3500 scientists including 13 Nobel laureates and further countersigned by such organisations as the World Health Organization the United Nations the Royal Society and a whole host of other highly reputable organisations throughout the world. 
 I think that despite Jeanette Fitzsimons making these somewhat absurd and superficial claims it is important that she does look to mainstream peer-reviewed international literature for the evidence. It is quite clear that mainstream peer-reviewed international evidence shows that there have been no problems with food safety over the last decade. The evidence is quite clear in this country where we have been eating GE foods for 10 years that there have been no food safety problems. 
But this commencement also ushers in what one could describe as the era of the mediaeval Druid approach of the New Zealand First Party. Once again that party has almost reflexly chosen the populist road and wanted to extend the moratorium. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Ian Ewen-Street to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “30 October 2003” and substitute the words “30 October 2008”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 104 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Noes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Motion agreed to. 
Part 2 Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1966 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Now we are into the meat of this bill the biggest chunk— 
Shane Ardern 
: What GE meat? 
SIMON POWER 
: —no not GE meat—of the legislation and I look forward to this being one of four calls I will take on this part. This is the complex and detailed part of the bill and it needs the close attention of the Committee. I want to raise two very important points in my short contribution—but the first of many contributions—to this part. 
The first relates to the Minister’s power to call in applications. We see in the bill that the Minister may direct that he or she will decide an application if the Minister considers that the decision on the application will have “significant cultural economic environmental ethical health international”—I am not sure about the grammar there actually I say to the Hon Brian Donnelly from the select committee; I am not quite sure that that flows properly—but most important “or spiritual effects;”. This clause 36 is in effect the GE-voodoo clause because it is just nuts to be putting into legislation phrases like “cultural” or “spiritual” impacts. 
We spoke at length about this issue in the second reading debate and it is going to become a focal point of this part of the debate. I ask the Minister in the chair to take a call on it. She has been very quiet during the course of the Committee stage. An important and critical point to make is this: how are we as a country to measure objectively those types of criteria? I say to the Minister that the amendments offered by the National Party to omit the words “cultural” “ethical” and “spiritual” from that clause should be voted for across the parties in this Committee to ensure—[ 
Interruption 
] There goes Jill Pettis again scaring all the wildlife. The simple fact of the matter is that these clauses are unworkable. As a lawyer I say to this Committee that they are exactly the type of thing that only one group in our society will benefit from—the lawyers. Lawyers will make a fortune out of this stuff—so some good will come of it! 
I say to members opposite in the Labour Party that they should vote for Paul Hutchison’s amendment and get rid of this nonsense. They should show that they are credible and that the line they are taking is one of scientific reason and they should get rid of this nonsense. New Zealand First is offering an amendment similar to that offered by us on this side of the Chamber in the form of Dr Paul Hutchison’s amendment—the removal of the word “spiritual”—but it wants to keep the word “cultural” in the bill. I say to that party that it should get some backbone and should take out “spiritual” “cultural” and “ethical”. Let us start dealing in science. Let us start dealing with rational thought. 
With the greatest of respect to the Minister I say that what she believes is spiritual and what the rest of us believe is spiritual could be worlds apart. I suspect that that is probably right— 
Jill Pettis 
: You have been corrupted by the National Party. You used to be such a nice young man. 
SIMON POWER 
: Lord knows there has got to be a better place on this earth than having to listen to that! Maybe we do have something common on the spiritual front. But the simple fact of the matter is that those of us who are wound up about this coming Rugby World Cup may consider it to be spiritual. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I do. 
SIMON POWER 
: Of course the member does—and rightly so. Others of course have quite a different view of what is spiritual. This clause is nonsense—absolute nonsense. If we are to have legislation proceed on the basis of reason science and logic then clauses like this must be removed. They will be nothing but trouble and are worse than those currently contained in the Resource Management Act. These clauses will create nothing but trouble and nothing but uncertainty. 
I turn briefly to the issue that I have to say has most concerned me personally which is the issue of the shifting of burdens of proof. In Part 7A the pecuniary penalties and civil liability clauses the shift that the select committee agreed to worries me greatly. New section 124B(3) inserted by clause 48 previously stated: “The Court must not make the order if it is satisfied that the person did not know and could not—”. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Just referring to the comments of the previous speaker about the call-in powers and the criteria I say that New Zealand First certainly has an amendment ready. It does not go the full way of National’s amendment but we will be voting for National’s amendment and then there will be a back-up. If National loses the vote on its amendment that party can back ours. These provisions are a nonsense. I think I mentioned Druidism and that is basically what we are talking about here. That makes a mockery of this particular law. 
Part 1 of the bill is the guts of it and it has so many different quite critical parts that need to be discussed and debated here as we go through the Committee stage. I want to focus upon one area that is so important to New Zealand First. I would like members to remember that it was New Zealand First votes that ensured that the moratorium went on in the first place. It was not the Green votes. If members recall the Greens walked out and did not vote. New Zealand First voted to put on the moratorium because we believed there was some critical work to be done. We believed that the royal commission had implied that certain other things needed to be done before New Zealand started to progress any commercial applications. We said that come the time when the moratorium would cease to exist we would reassess the situation to see whether the Government had got its work in place. 
In some respects we are satisfied to a degree with the element of conditional release. We believe that that is a step forward in risk management—very much a step forward. Therefore we would be very supportive of this. However throughout all the submissions and throughout this whole process we have been looking very carefully at the evidence to ask ourselves whether the Government has got itself ready at this time to be able to do all the risk management around this new technology. We largely believe that it has got itself there except that what has come through very clearly is that once we start getting higher up the human food chain there is more and more economic risk. It is not that any real risk to health has been demonstrated but there is a risk in terms of consumers’ perceptions and consumers’ perceptions obviously make a difference when it comes to their decision making. 
I want to make the point that Ashraf Choudhary had one question that he continued to ask everybody. He asked whether there is any evidence that GE is doing any harm to human health. Every one of the submitters he asked said there was no evidence that he or she could put on the table. The Greens would argue that that is because the research has not been done. But we have to take as a reality that there is no empirical evidence or even theoretical evidence that there is harm. However what we do know from research is that there are fears within certain parts of our export markets that GE could possibly do harm and that we do not know all about it. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Fearmongers. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: There are all sorts of fearmongers out there. We know that the most sensitive markets to this are Europe and also Japan and some of the modelling that has been done certainly shows there are some real concerns in terms of whether we proceed down the path of commercial release of anything higher up the human food chain. 
The Government will argue that it does not really matter because in the next 2 years it is highly unlikely there will be any applications; certainly it will be at least 5 years before any ryegrass applications. So we are talking about quite some time into the future before any applications for commercial release of anything close to the human food chain happen. New Zealand First therefore argues why we are risking the image of New Zealand by saying we can go ahead with foodstuffs. We have no objection to our going ahead in some of the other fields. One of the things we picked up in Australia was that Ingard cotton has obviously not had any implications in terms of Australia’s exports of non-GE foodstuffs. So consumers are able to separate those things out but certainly they do have fears. 
One of the questions we asked of the Environmental Risk Management Authority—and even the Minister today could not tell us for sure whether the authority will have its methodology in place by the time the moratorium is lifted—is whether it can do an adequate risk-assessment of the impact on the New Zealand economy of an approval of release of a GE food into New Zealand. In looking at the model that is used we would say that yes it could probably give an assessment of what effect the release of GE-modified onions here would have on the export of onions. What the model does not show is what the impact would be on dairy products. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I would like to rebut some of the comments made by the New Zealand First member who has just resumed his seat. He started his speech if members can remind themselves saying he opposed everything that was not based on science and the evidential method and opposed all the cultural references. He then went on to observe that there is no evidence whatsoever of anyone becoming ill anywhere in the world caused by GM food. So he accepts the science and the evidence of that but he then says that because of some sort of mystical marketing perception New Zealand First did not support that position. That is a very strange stand to take I must say. 
There is also the contradiction that people are happy to have medicine with GM and we all want to see that in order to fight some of those terrible diseases. For example we know that the cholera GM organism is a living organism and it is in the environment and has saved millions of lives and that is great. But there is a difference between medicine and food. Medicine is actually in the body. One absorbs it internally into the bloodstream into the systems of the body. Food is just in the alimentary canal which technically is outside the body; it is in the tube that sort of runs right through the cylinder of the body. So there is no logic in saying on the one hand we will embrace GM for medicine because that is good but on the other hand we will not accept it in terms of food. There is no logic in that position at all. I would urge New Zealand First to rethink that part of its position. 
I support the National Party’s Supplementary Order Papers put forward by Dr Hutchison dropping this humbug about these new “cultural and spiritual dimensions”. Members will recall the Resource Management Bill where we had the huge debate because this Government had introduced the term “cultural landscapes” and “spiritual landscapes”. Under the heat of the Parliament it backed down. Thank goodness it did. But in this bill these sorts of terms creep in again. The Government is trying to put in something that is not scientific. I am not debunking people’s right to hold spiritual beliefs and cultural expression but in passing law that is essentially science it should be based on evidential science. If people want to believe in tooth fairies or leprechauns or hobgoblins or taniwha or whatever it is their right to do that. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: What do you believe in? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I could sit down with the member and tell him what I believe. I actually believe in evidential science above all. That is what this bill must be based on. Because once the Government starts getting into the secular and the metaphysical how on earth can one objectively make determinations and decisions based on those broad sorts of concepts? It is really a licence for all manner of delays and frustrations. 
I think the point was made by Mr Power that the lawyers are the ones who will make the money. We know that the law firms in Wellington already have whole floors specialising in this sort of “clipping the ticket” as do all the consultants. That is where the money goes. All that means is delays and upfront costs which reduce New Zealand’s competitiveness because it is non-productive nonsense. But that is what this measure will be introducing into this legislation. 
I am not sure whether the officials recommended it. I would hope not. I think this stuff is actually of the Government’s own doing. It does not belong in this bill and please we would like the Minister in the chair to take a call to explain why it is there. I am just trying to catch the attention of the Minister who seems to be engaged. I ask her to take a call and explain. Perhaps there is reasoning behind it. I cannot understand why there is reference to cultural and spiritual matters in this legislation. I do not believe that it belongs there. The ACT party says it does not belong there. There is no rhyme or reason for it. 
Overall we are supporting the bill. We are concerned about some of these measures and I have just outlined a few of them. I would like to think that as we pass through the Committee stage even at this late stage we can make amendments as we did with the Resource Management Bill. We did improve that by dropping those references that did not belong there. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I would like to speak on the five amendments in my name that are on the Table at the moment. The first is on Supplementary Order Paper 150. This amendment inserts new clause 6A which rewrites paragraph (e) of section 6 of the Act. It is a relatively small and narrow amendment to the Act but it fills I think an important gap. Section 6(e) is about matters relevant to the purpose of the Act and it states that the Environmental Risk Management Authority must consider economic benefit. At the time that the 1996 Act was drafted it was assumed that the environmental and health effects of new organisms might perhaps be negative that the economic effects of new organisms would be positive and that the Environmental Risk Management Authority was going to have to weigh up one against the other. It was not really envisaged at that time that the economic effects of releasing GE could themselves be negative in some circumstances so we have only economic benefits and not economic costs. 
We know now that it is quite possible to have severe economic costs from the release of genetically engineered organisms and that those costs to the economy are not the same as the financial effects on the person actually releasing the organism. So my amendment simply adds in costs to benefits and requires the authority to assess economic benefits and costs and in the process it applies to hazardous substances as well as to new organisms and I think that is an advantage as well. So I would commend that particular amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 150 to the Committee. 
I refer now to Supplementary Order Paper 149. The first amendment inserts new clause 6B which amends the section of the Act that deals with the precautionary approach. The Government has been talking about this constantly. If it has been saying anything about this bill it is that it is taking a very cautious approach but the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act states that a cautious approach is optional. It is not actually required that the Environmental Risk Management Authority take a cautious approach at all. It actually states that the authority should take into account the need for caution. If ever there was a prevarication that is one. 
The Act is actually based on an approach to risk that decides how much risk is acceptable and it requires therefore an ability to calculate the likely consequences of doing something and the likely probabilities of doing something and weigh up whether that outcome is acceptable. But one actually cannot do that if the risks are not known in advance. We are dealing here not with risk and probability so much as with uncertainty and in fact ignorance. In the face of uncertainty and ignorance about the likely effects of a new organism what we need is caution. 
So my amendment adopts wording from the Rio declaration of 1992—signed by the Government of New Zealand I have to say. It has similar wording to that used in the Fisheries Act which is law in New Zealand now and it makes the precautionary approach mandatory by stating: “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage lack of full scientific certainty must not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation”. That is standard wording used for the precautionary approach in many parts of the world in many bits of legislation. 
The second amendment set out on that Supplementary Order Paper is to clause 18. The amendment addresses the concerns of the many local authorities who came and spoke to the select committee and said that they wanted to have a say about whether GMOs could be released in their area. So it simply provides that when the authority has agreed to a release then the applicant must also get the consent of the local authorities administering the areas where they want to release it before that can occur. That is in the spirit of the Local Government Act which devolves authority and decision making to local authorities and puts them in charge of looking after the well-being of their people which is what local government was asking the select committee for. 
The third amendment simply extends the expiry clause of the moratorium and of the other matters that expire at the same time. It is not commonly realised that it is not just the moratorium that expires on 29 October but also a number of very important conditions around the use of living vaccines—animal and human vaccines that are themselves living organisms. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman for the opportunity to speak on this hugely important part of the bill. I hope that there will be opportunity for some repeated calls particularly because like Jeanette Fitzsimons I have put forward a number of substantial amendments which basically try to make this bill practical as well as scientifically rigorous. The Minister in her initial speech on this bill said that the Government decision in response to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification should take place by providing a practical framework for proceeding with caution in the management of new and genetically modified organisms while preserving opportunities. Yet we have a bill that is essentially sadly a Clayton’s moratorium because with the combination of the case by case analysis the public consultation and the ridiculous widened call-in powers it is almost impossible for certain applications to have any hope whatsoever of getting in. That is particularly so when it comes to medium and high-risk research which is the area that the royal commission made absolutely clear is vital—in fact it used the word “critical”—that New Zealand makes sure continues. 
I will make some comments on the widened call-in powers. When I asked the Minister the other day why she included “cultural spiritual and ethical” she said it was because the royal commission had recommended that to happen. In actual fact the royal commission recommended as one of its major conclusions the formation of the Bioethics Council. That has been put in place particularly to address those issues at a higher level. Secondly it also supported the Maori consultation committee which is attached to the Environmental Risk Management Authority. Undoubtedly with those two underpinnings this bill addresses cultural spiritual and ethical issues probably more so than it needs to anyway. But then to add in this absolutely absurd suggestion of “cultural spiritual and ethical” in a scientific method to work out risk analysis is clearly right out of place. 
At the select committee Sir Paul Reeves was asked whether he could explain to us the principles of the treaty. He could not explain them to us. He had no way of explaining them to us. As people in my electorate have said is it right that the spiritual cultural and ethical values of one group be given more importance that those of another group? I think that Simon Power made the point that the spiritual values of one person in New Zealand may be totally different from those of another. In the electorate that I am so proud to represent there are Maori there are Indians and there are Chinese in large numbers and their values are clearly vastly different and hopefully will be addressed at a higher level by the Bioethics Council. 
So putting those provisions in the bill as my colleague Simon Power pointed out is only going to give a field day to the lawyers and it is going to impose absolutely impossible hurdles on those sincere applicants who are trying to progress science and are trying to progress instruments that will help humankind and the environment. Instead this Labour Government as usual cannot help but impose impossible compliance costs on just about every piece of legislation it sees. 
IAN EWEN-STREET (Green) 
: 
 The explanatory note recognises that there are “enforcement and liability issues” associated with the release of new organisms. The key point of this is that GE release may potentially result in harm to individuals or the environment that is not covered by present law. The explanatory note also goes on to describe how a new statutory strict liability regime will be put in place. It sounds great but it is just rhetoric. If members look at the bill they will see that it does not happen. It fails to deliver. 
The strict liability regime described in the explanatory note is limited to compensation for harm caused by activities in breach of the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. If a GE release goes feral in some way there is liability only if the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation has been breached. If the law has not been breached there is no protection under statutory liability. In the event that say an application was in some way defective or perish the thought the Environmental Risk Management Authority made a mistake or there were unexpected adverse effects there is no liability. The applicant is within the law. 
The effects however on individuals or the environment are just as serious irrespective of whether they were foreseen or admitted by the applicant. Why should the Environmental Risk Management Authority provide what is effectively an insurance policy to private individuals who put in an application and gain consent to release genetically modified organisms for their personal gain when innocent members of the public have no protection? I think that that is a very reasonable question and members of the Committee should vote in favour of Jeanette Fitzsimons’ amendment. 
There are lots of types of damage that can be serious to the individual and one that I am not sure has been addressed is the idea of brand name. The wine industry for argument’s sake has spent millions of dollars promoting its “riches of the clean green land” brand. If there were a GE release in this country that for some reason went badly awry and this country became known as a GE country which it is in danger of doing what happens to the clean green image? It is very difficult to put a figure on that but it is none the less easy to establish that people have suffered damage. People have not broken any law yet they are being damaged and they have no protection in a legal sense. 
Basically the odds are stacked very heavily against the innocent. There is not even a requirement in this bill for the applicant to be a person of substance. It does not have to be a big company or a person who puts up a bond. The most likely scenario is that the people who put up the application will be a shelf company—“Monsanto No. 22 Shelf Company 1999 Inc.” So when something goes feral it goes out of business and that is the end of the story. 
I want to turn to section 124H(2)(c) which allows companies and directors to absolve themselves from liability if they “did not know and could not reasonably have known” of a breach. We have occupational health and safety legislation in this country. Surely the very least that a company engaged in GE release can do is to have a very very strict risk management programme. 
Simon Power 
: They will! 
IAN EWEN-STREET 
: According to this legislation they will not. It needs to clearly identify all of the risk and set out the responsibilities the audits the staff training and the reporting requirements. It is not good enough for a company to say that it did not know of a risk because it did not bother to look for it. It is simply not good enough. The Minister should also pause and ask herself for a moment why it is that big companies want to do this in New Zealand. Why do they not do it in America? If they put a GE release out in America and something went wrong they would be sued to blazes. The liability regime in New Zealand is pathetic. That is why people want to do it here. 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I stand to speak in favour of this bill but with some very deep reservations. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Remember Myrtle! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Clearly an agricultural piece of machinery is a new organism for that Minister over there! He has never seen anything like it in his life. [ 
Interruption 
] I would love to participate in the debate with the Minister opposite but I had better come back to the bill. I am disappointed that he left the chair because I am sure he could explain some of the questions I am about to ask the Minister with regard to this part. Is it not true that when Henry Ford first opened his factory the good residents of the area rose up and beat on the side of the factory with sticks wood and all manner of machinery because the machine that he would mass produce would kill thousands of people and frighten the horses? Is that not true? Can the Minister answer that question? The answer to that is that it is true. 
Are we are not in exactly the same situation here today where we are looking at high-tech modern state-of-the-art science-based technology and there is a fear of it— and justifiably there is a fear of it. It is the fear of the unknown and a fear of where it might go but at the end of the day will we become like those citizens way back at the time when Henry Ford manufactured his car who beat on the side of the factory because it would kill thousands of people and frighten the horses? That is where this Government is at with this issue. 
I would like this Minister present now to stand up to explain to us what “cultural spiritual and ethical” means with regard to this bill. It is simple enough. One can usually explain these things without too much effort. I am sure the Minister will be able to explain it in very simple language so that those of us from the country can understand it. I am sure that she will but so far she has not and it is still a question. Nobody actually knows what it means. 
The royal commission spent months and months and $6.5 million I am told—at the request of the Green Party as a deal done with the incoming Labour Government and the Green Party—pondering over this question and what did it come up with? Nobody actually knows. It said that it is a difficult issue to resolve. The Environmental Risk Management Authority has turned itself inside out over this question. It has spent hours going through what it means. It has spent months and no doubt thousands or millions of dollars I am not sure but it is certainly a huge resource being employed to try to figure out what this means and it does not know. 
I am sure the Minister will be able to answer this riddle. I am sure that Simon Power my very good colleague has got it bang on when he stated that this is the “most likely to buy the new Mercedes for the lawyers” part. I am sure that is what it is. I am sure it is out of concern for our poor hungry starving lawyers around the country that the Government has inserted this part. I am sure that that is so. I know that the member for Tukituki has a particular concern about the profitability of lawyers. I am sure that that is the reason that he insisted that this should be in the legislation but the rest of us really do not know why it is there and we would like that answered. 
I have one theory and the Minister can tell me I am wrong if I am wrong. I think it is a typical Helen Clark Prime Minister outcome where one can go around the country and tell businesses: “We’re lifting the moratorium. We’re going to do what the businesses want.” Then they can go across to the Green supporters and say: “We’re lifting the moratorium but we are tying it up in so much mumbo-jumbo hocus-pocus that nothing will ever go anywhere so you’ve got nothing to fear.” It is a typical Helen Clark Prime Minister outcome. She can also go to Maori and say: “Well we’re looking after your interests. We’ve put into this part of the bill that the Maoris are well taken care of. We’ve no idea what the hell it means but we’ve put it in. So you have nothing to fear from this Government. We will look after your best interests.” 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 When I left off—[ 
Interruption 
] The member for Tukituki yells out. He has a big workload signing all those JP nominations. He should get back to his huge workload which will consume him for months. Before we were interrupted I was talking about the issues of liabilities and penalties and changing burdens of proof in respect of issues in this clause. I want to say—[ 
Interruption 
] The member has shifted his seat to gain an advantage Mr Chairman. Members on this side of the Chamber just want a fair go. 
I refer members to the comments in the minority report of National and ACT in which we noted the advice from officials that there was nothing sufficiently different about genetic engineering from a liability perspective to justify a liability regime that is different in principle from those applied in other scenarios. That is an extremely important point and it is a point that the officials ran us through many times. The GE situation is no different in principle when designing a liability paradigm from any other legal scenario. Yet what do we see in the bill? We see new section 124B(3) inserted by clause 48—a small but significant change which I have to say has not only worn me down but has I am sure worn the officials down with my going on about it. I tell members that this is what the section did say. It stated: “The Court must not make the order”—that is a pecuniary penalty order—“if it is satisfied that the person did not know and could not reasonably have known of the breach.” That is the original standard that was applied which is a fair reasonable standard with a burden that lies more or less on the court actually to satisfy itself that a liability or a breach had not occurred. 
Now what has gone in by way of amendment is this: “The Court must not make the order if the person satisfies the Court ...”. So the burden shifts from the court being satisfied in its own mind—those sitting on the bench—that the applicant did not know or could not reasonably have known of the breach to the person—the applicant him or herself—having to satisfy the court that that test had been met. That is a significant change in the application of the burden. That is a substantial lifting of the hurdle of the burden on the applicant. There is no explanation as to why that amendment occurred when the officials told us in the Education and Science Committee that GE of itself does not demand a different liability regime from that which would otherwise apply in any other legal scenario. Government members have not satisfied members on this side of the Committee as to why that change has occurred. 
I say this to the Minister. I have been in this House now for 4½ years and on each occasion I have spoken on a bill when that Minister has been responsible she has taken a genuine interest in the course of the legislation that was proceeding through the House. I have watched that Minister listen carefully to submissions and contributions that have been made in the range of the portfolios that she has held and I cannot believe that on an issue as important as this—an issue that will lift this moratorium and in the minds of some create a very difficult situation—the Minister of the Crown responsible for this legislation has not once got to her feet to explain to this Parliament and to the people of New Zealand why those clauses relating to cultural ethical and spiritual values which we are all so worried about on this side of the Committee are in there and why the liability regimes imposed in this particular piece of legislation are different from others despite the advice of the officials. I say to the Minister that previously she has been prepared to stand up and make a contribution on pieces of legislation like this. I know the member is an honourable member and I ask her to take the next call make a contribution on those two points—which have been covered so many times by members speaking in this Committee—and enlighten us as to why the Government has made those changes. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am taking this call not because I have been invited to by the honourable member over there but because there are three issues that I want to deal with. First of all there is the issue to do with call-in powers. I can hear members commenting and there are obviously amendments saying please remove the words “spiritual cultural and ethical”. I think it is fair to say that this Government has spent a lot of time listening and it has obviously expended money as Mr Ardern pointed out in setting up the royal commission. The Government listened to the royal commission and but for one or two it accepted the 49 recommendations. 
The royal commission on whom was put a bishop à la an ethicist—at least I hope he is an ethical bishop—asked us to consider and expressly recommended this particular amendment which the Government agreed to. A call-in is a discretionary power for the Minister for the Environment. That is all that has happened. It is not how one makes the decision. A call-in is when probably something might arise that in generic terms has been alerted to me by the Bioethics Council. It might say: “There are a whole lot of things happening overseas in this particular area particularly with ethics and we are worried about them.” then one particular example of that generic one arrives in New Zealand in terms of an application. My ability as a Minister is to add one or two specific people if I call it in to the authority to consider it and I either reject their answers or I do not. So this is not about hocus-pocus. Ethics is for those of us who have been brought up by Dominicans something fairly serious and I know that spiritual matters can be difficult in a society that is largely not so spiritual—I cannot think of the opposite. 
Simon Power 
: Secular. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I thank the member. In a secular society it is difficult. But that is the reason. It is not actually the decision-making process; it is just adding two people to the authority—just as we had an ethicist on the royal commission. 
The member asked about the definitions. They are the ordinary standard dictionary definitions and I will not pull them out because there are probably about 10 and they can have fun. Now I will try to give an explanation on the reverse burden of proof which is an issue the member raised. The Government policy is that this provision requiring the defendant to satisfy the court that he or she did not know and could not reasonably have known of the breach of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is akin to a defence to pecuniary penalty proceedings. It is appropriate that the defendant establish the elements of the defence to the civil standard of proof in the same way that the defendant is required to prove any of the defences in the proposed section 124. I will leave it at that and again if there is an argument on it I am listening. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 While we are talking about liability I want to run through the speech given by Ian Ewen-Street. I put to him this scenario: he buys himself a car—I presume that even though he is a Green he has a car. He buys a car that has met— 
Ian Ewen-Street 
: I have a bicycle. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Well a bicycle then that has met all the specifications. But he does not have one—I had better use the car example. He makes sure he has a warrant of fitness he does everything right and he goes on the road and is completely within the Road Code. He does not break any of the rules—nothing. Then for some ungodly reason the steering wheel or another part completely shatters and he hits somebody. Here is the question: I ask Mr Ian Ewen-Street whether he should be liable—because that is exactly what he is saying to people who put in an application through this process and who follow all the rules and all the regulations. He is saying that if some unforeseen thing occurs then they should be fully liable. Now that was explained to us by the officials. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: He does not bang cars. He would understand that. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: No no he would argue that the way to get cars off the road is to make sure that those people could be sued for $10 million. That is it basically if one is in breach of the rules and that was explained to us. 
However I want to raise the issue of local government t because I think the local governments of New Zealand have been treated very shabbily with regard to this particular bill. On the one hand the Government is saying to local governments: “You look after the environment and not only that we want you also to consider the economic considerations educational considerations and all those things but when it comes to GE we are going to ride completely roughshod over you. We have made a policy decision—the Environmental Risk Management Authority is the body that makes those decisions and once the authority has made a decision then you will have no say about it in your rohe.” One would think that the Government and officials would have said: “OK this is a high-level decision a policy decision but we will sit down with local government and ask what the implications are in terms of how and what should go into this legislation to make sure that it’s very clear where authority lies where liability lies and where responsibility lies.” Instead the Government did not even sit down with local government. That is why the Minister of Local Government is saying to local authorities that they should make applications on every particular case and that is an absolute and utter nonsense. 
The reality as was clarified to us by the officials is that local governments do have the powers to make by-laws regarding GMOs but if they ever tried to enforce them their backsides would be sued off them and they would almost certainly lose. That was not 100 percent certain so the only way it could be absolutely clarified is if a case were taken to court and as my colleague Simon Power quite rightly pointed out that is not a satisfactory procedure. It is up to Parliament to ensure that we clarify what the situation is and by the time it got to that stage and it was pointed out to us exactly—because we went on and on about this—what the lie of the land was it was really too late for us to do anything about it without all the policy work that was required around a decision like that. 
In the end all we have ended up with—and this is one part we are very unsatisfied with—is that local territories we believe have been treated shabbily in the processing of this bill. It is most unfortunate but it is the reality and as a result of that we will be supporting the Greens’ amendment along those lines purely and simply to make the point that this is not the way we should be developing legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] No we have to make the point; we have to stick with what we believe in. It is a matter of principles. In this particular case local government came to us and said it wanted better clarification and wanted to know where it lay. We will have a situation where local governments put through by-laws that will have no effect. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 I raise again a matter that has been referred to on a number of occasions. It relates to concerns about the provisions allowing Maori to object to and have influence on the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s decisions on genetic modification and releases. The Minister did take a call and we thank her for that. She did that without needing to be invited by Simon Power although she addressed every one of his questions and looked at him the whole time. We appreciate that. However she did not address the key question raised in this debate by my colleague Paul Hutchison who represents a whole lot of people in Port Waikato whom we have heard about tonight. 
The key question was put to the Minister and I shall rephrase it: “Why are Maori getting three bites at the cherry in this bill?”. Members will notice that clause 8 contains a change in the eligibility criteria for appointment as a member of the Environmental Risk Management Authority. I shall read out the clause to the Minister to remind her: “Section 16 of the principal Act is amended by adding as subsection (2) the following subsection: ‘(2) In subsection (1) matters’—and we can go back and look at what ‘matters’ means—‘includes matters relating to the Treaty of Waitangi and tikanga Maori.’ ” 
That is the first bite at the cherry whereby the values spiritual beliefs and cultural heritage of Maori are taken into account in this legislation. But they get a second bite at the cherry and we see that in clause 10. The National Party and others have raised these concerns before about special provisions for Maori. Clause 10 provides for the establishment of Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao a committee with the express purpose of giving the authority advice and assistance from the Maori perspective on matters relating to policy and process. I am not arguing about that but it is a second bite at the cherry. However as if two bites are not enough Maori are allowed to have a further go. The third bite at the cherry is provided by clause 36. I believe that Paul Hutchison raised this matter with the Minister. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Must be a big cherry! 
PHIL HEATLEY 
: Do not be surprised. This Government gives Maori plenty of big cherries but Minister Samuels keeps rolling up for more. Clause 36 is titled “Minister’s power to call in applications with significant effects” and we heard about the call-in powers for cultural and spiritual effects. Subclause (1) states: “The Minister may direct that he or she will decide an application under this Act if the Minister considers that the decision on the application will have—(a) significant cultural economic environmental ethical health international or spiritual effects;”. Basically that gives the Minister carte blanche but of course Maori again get the opportunity by means of a complaint about the cultural or ethical approach of the Environmental Risk Management Authority or the ethical effects of any decisions made by the authority. 
Can the Minister tell us why Maori get the opportunity to have effect through membership of the authority and their qualifications; why they have an opportunity to have influence through Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao; and why they can have influence by going cap in hand to the Minister to see whether he or she will intervene under the provisions of clause 36 in terms of cultural ethical or spiritual effects. We want to know why Maori do not get just one chance like everybody else but get three chances. Can the Minister answer that question? I do not see anywhere in the bill where the Chinese community—and I know that the Prime Minister has apologised to the Chinese community so it is very close to her heart—gets an opportunity to have three bites at the cherry. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I draw the Committee’s attention to a very important statement made a short time ago by Shane Ardern. He is a straightforward sort of bloke. He “calls a tractor a tractor” and when he says something straightforward we should listen to him. He said that the introduction of genetic engineering technology is like the introduction of the motorcar. People objected because it would kill thousands of people. So if we have a technology that has the potential to kill thousands of people surely it is incumbent on those proposing it to show that there is some corresponding benefit. Everybody tells us that it was completely unreasonable for people to oppose the introduction of the motorcar even though it would kill thousands of people—and it must be millions by now—because the motorcar provided considerable benefit to society. Maybe we should put—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but interjections are getting a bit out of hand. I remind members to look at Speaker’s ruling 51/5 which provides that interjections are to be rare reasonable and relevant; and I might add restrained. It is beginning to sound like a hen house. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS 
: I think it is incumbent on those who wish to introduce this technology to show us where the enormous benefit will be from the release into the environment of living GMOs that would offset that very considerable risk. 
I want to return to the matter I was discussing in my previous contribution which was around the amendments on Supplementary Order Paper 149. I was saying that when the moratorium expires the expiry clause applies not just to the moratorium but also to some very important protections that were put in place in last year’s amendment Act and that are also about to expire. Those are about the question of animal and human vaccines and medicines which are themselves living organisms. They were exempt from the moratorium on release but last year—as a result of our efforts I have to say—two important conditions were included. One was that the GMOs could not exist viably outside the body of the animal or person to be treated so that we do not get a population building up in the soil of living GMO bacteria or viruses that will then be ingested by every other animal that comes along whether or not we want to dose it and so on. 
The second condition was that in considering such a thing which clearly has greater risks than just a chemical its efficacy for treatment ought to be compared with the alternatives. If there is no greater efficacy of a living GMO as a treatment then it should not be approved if something else will do the job as well. Both of those very sensible provisions expire at the same time as the moratorium and that is why I recommend my amendment to clause 39A which actually prevents that expiry. 
My amendment to clause 48 provides for strict liability if the organism causes harm even if the law has not been broken. It has been said many times that GMOs pose a risk no greater than other risks. If that were the case then it would be possible to insure against them. At the moment it is not possible at the retail level to get any insurance against harm from GMOs. That is the reason they must be treated differently. In fact when the Law Commission examined this matter last year it also said that these organisms do actually present different and potentially greater risks than other technologies. 
Finally I want to welcome an important although small change made by the Education and Science Committee to clause 13 which responds to many of the submissions. As introduced the bill states that an organism is not a new organism if it is an organism of the same taxonomic classification with the same genetic modification. That would mean that if the Environmental Risk Management Authority had approved a potato with a Bt gene in it and somebody else came along with a potato with another Bt gene as part of quite a different construct inserted in a different transgenic event lodged at a different place in the genome and potentially with vastly different effects then under the original wording that could have been held to be not a new organism. The amendment that has been made which adds “as specified in the approval” closes that loophole and only transgenic organisms produced from that particular transgenic event and covered by that particular approval will be regarded as not new. That I think is a move forward. It is one of the very few small improvements that were made in the select committee and I welcome it. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 It is welcoming to hear Jeanette Fitzsimons say that the amendments to the taxonomic classification are an area where the Education and Science Committee members did work together and achieve a small constructive improvement that everybody agreed on. But when the Minister got up and spoke on the call-in powers I was concerned that she skated over the reality of what they are. I think she has said pretty well in this Chamber that if there were an application for commercial release of a GE crop in the next few years then she would almost certainly use her call-in powers—and she sees that as almost impossible. I would like her to get up and explain to the Committee the real extent of those call-in powers if used in the fullest sense. As I say when she spoke on them she was very very peripheral and superficial. She skated over just how extensive they might be suggesting that they were of minimal importance. I think it is important that the Minister explains to the Committee just how potentially enormous those call-in powers can be even on some of the most well-researched applications that come through. 
The other thing I was interested in was that New Zealand First seems to have difficulty distinguishing between principle populism and the Greens—and I must say that that is an awfully difficult thing to have difficulty with. 
I refer now to the Supplementary Order Paper I have submitted on which I suggest that paragraph (c) be added to clause 4A in order to provide a practical framework for proceeding with caution in the management of new organisms while preserving opportunities. I think it is important for this provision to be placed in the bill. Certainly it is the rhetoric of the Minister but unfortunately she has omitted to ensure that this practical framework which was recommended by the royal commission has been placed in the bill itself. 
I go on to clause 18 because this provision indeed deals with one of the hugely complicated and almost impossible requirements of this bill in terms of compliance. It inserts new section 38A “Application for approval to import or release new organism with controls”. It states: “(2) An application for a conditional release approval must be in the approved form and must include— … (e) all the possible adverse effects of the organism on the environment;”. 
We discussed this at length in the select committee and clearly a case went to court and was ruled on. However to ask anyone to describe all the possible effects is nigh on impossible and I suggest to the Minister that my amendment to replace the word “possible” with the words “reasonable and practicable” is eminently sensible. I urge her to take note of that because as I have said in the explanatory note to my Supplementary Order Paper: “To include ‘all the possible side effects’ imposes an unrealistic requirement on an applicant. The High Court ruling in the case between ‘Mothers Against Genetic Engineering Incorporated’ the Minister for the Environment ERMA and AgResearch noted ‘to apply a literal meaning to the words creates an absurdity it would include effects known and unknown’.” The judge also went on to say: “The interpretation is to be approached with two principles of statutory interpretation clearly in mind: (a) the meaning of a statutory provision is to be ascertained from the text in the light of the Act’s purpose; and (b) Parliament is presumed to legislate in a manner that produces a practical workable and sensible approach.” 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I am just following on from Dr Paul Hutchison with regard to the wording of that particular clause. Members on this side of the Chamber argued very very strongly when the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Amendment Act went through that it was worded very poorly and would lead to litigation. It did lead to litigation in this case and the judge ruled that a literal interpretation would be an absurdity. In other words members of the Opposition were right all along. However now that we actually have a judicial ruling on it it would be another absurdity to put some other wording in there because it could be relitigated. We could be opening up the thing again. 
I want to refer quickly to the ministerial call-in power. People have not seen that this is a two-edged sword and that it is not there just to create additional risk management elements. We could have a scenario whereby a Minister was very keen to see certain applications proceed. Under the interpretation of an application having significant economic effects—and one would assume that any commercial application would have significant economic effects—the Minister could call it in put whomever he or she wanted on the Environmental Risk Management Authority board then ensure that the decision that came out at the end was in line with what he or she had really decided upon. That begs the question of why we have the Environmental Risk Management Authority in the first place—if the Minister has call-in powers to that extent. 
I go back however to the amendment that is very critical to New Zealand First. We would support this legislation and support the conditional release category being brought in if it did not apply to foodstuffs high in the human food chain. At this stage for applications along those lines we ask why we should add to the risk. When asked in the Chamber the Minister herself said that the first such application will be called in automatically. If it is going to be called in automatically then there has to be something special in the particular case for that to be done. 
We ask why we do not clarify the situation put it off for a couple of years make sure the methodology is correct make sure that we have done some of our research in terms of market perceptions then make a decision on it. It is not necessary at this point in time to rush ahead when we are dealing with some unknowns. Economists like Caroline Saunders have raised some of these issues and they have been ignored. New Zealand First has said that we should be sensible about this matter and go along those lines that we know will not have a negative impact upon our overseas markets but in areas where there could potentially be risk let us make sure that we proceed with extreme caution. In this case it seems that the Government is rushing ahead on an ideological basis—and it has had fights with the Greens on that—rather than on what the evidence seems to be suggesting. 
New Zealand First has taken a position on what the evidence is suggesting to us at this time and it has come through with this amendment. We will not be able to vote for Part 2 if the amendment is not supported because we believe that we would be putting New Zealand’s best interests at risk under those circumstances. We in New Zealand First have always said we should proceed with extreme caution and the Environmental Risk Management Authority did not convince us that it has the methodology in place. The Minister herself knows that as of this date the methodology is not in place yet the legislation is going to open up applications on 30 October for the commercial release of foodstuffs. We do not believe that that makes good economic sense so New Zealand First will be voting against this part if our amendment does not stand up. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ 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 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to insert new paragraph (c) in clause 4A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 31 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to insert new clause 4B be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 31 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 143 in the name of the Hon Marian Hobbs to clause 5 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 150 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert new clause 6A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 31 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 149 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to insert new clause 6B be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to section 11(2) in clause 7 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 31 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new subclause: 
(4)Section 38(1)(b) of the principal Act is amended by inserting the following subsection: 
(iv)The organism is genetically modified and is likely to directly or indirectly enter the human food chain. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to new section 38A(2)(e) in clause 18 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 31 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 142 in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to add new subsection (5) to new section 38A in clause 18 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 24 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 91 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 18 be agreed to: 
to insert after section 38A(4) the following subsection: 
(5)No application for a conditional release of a genetically modified organism which is likely to directly or indirectly enter the human food chain may be determined by the Authority. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to add new subsection (3) to new section 38(D) in clause 18 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 149 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to add new subsection (3) to new section 38D in clause 18 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 24 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 91 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to omit new section 38E(1) in clause 18 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 31 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to omit words from new section 38E(2) in clause 18 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 31 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to add new subsection (3) to new section 38J in clause 18 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the first amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to new section 42A in clause 20 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 31 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the alternative amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to new section 42A in clause 20 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 31 
New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 84 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendments not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 146 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to insert new clauses 50B and 50C be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 27 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b) of section 50(2) and substitute the following paragraph: 
(b)add a new organism or group or groups of organism that have adverse effects on the health and safety of people or the environment or are likely to harm New Zealand’s economic interests. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to clause 36 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (a) of section 68(1) and substitute the following paragraph: 
(a)significant cultural economic environmental ethical health or international effects;. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to clause 36 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) of section 68(1) the words “cultural” “ethical” and “spiritual”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 44 
New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 149 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to clause 39A be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 149 in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons to section 124G(1)(a) in clause 48 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 11 
Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 91 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 26; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Noes 24 
New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997 
Progress reported. 
The House adjourned at 10:01 p.m.