Volume 666 Week 54 - Thursday 16 September 2010 
Volume 666 Week 54 - Thursday 16 September 2010 
[Volume:666;Page:14055] 
Thursday 16 September 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 When the House resumes next week priority will be given to progressing the Electricity Industry Bill. Wednesday will be a members’ day. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Deputy Leader of the House could inform us of which stages he intends to take the Electricity Industry Bill through. I know there are aspects of that bill where a regime comes into force during the adjournment of the House I think and I ask whether it is the intention to go through to the third reading of that bill. Also we started a bill last week and we had thought we would make some good progress on it this week maybe even getting through to its third reading. But for reasons unknown to the Opposition and maybe the Government could shed light on this it seems that the Identity Information Confirmation Bill has met a rather curious stall. If he could explain to us the reason for that we would be well and truly honoured. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 We did not see that one coming! In respect of the second matter my experience is that we will get on to it as these matters are best dealt with quickly. In respect of the first part of the member’s question I am sure that once the Leader of the House returns from Christchurch he will be in a position to give the member a clearer indication of how much progress will be made on the Electricity Industry Bill. But he can be assured that some progress will be made. 
Responses 
Colleen Brown—Statements by Hon George Hawkins MP 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hereby present a response under Standing Orders 155 to 158 on the application of Councillor Colleen Brown relating to a reference made by the Hon George Hawkins on 8 September 2010. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That that paper be published. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Criminal Justice System—Minister’s Views on Rehabilitation 
1. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is it his view that the justice system should provide rehabilitation and give people the chance to change? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes where appropriate. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree with Peter Williams QC that the justice system should give recognition to rehabilitation and repentance and that the David Garrett case clearly demonstrates why it is valuable to recognise repentance? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: In respect of the first part of that question I have already said in relation to matters regarding rehabilitation that where appropriate that is the case. In respect of the second part of the question I do not have any ministerial responsibility for that particular issue. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree with the comment made by Garth McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust that David Garrett deserves a second chance; if so how does that approach sit with the punitive and irrational “three strikes” policy adopted by his Government? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: In respect of issues of rehabilitation I have already answered the question: yes where appropriate. In respect of the second matter relating to the “three strikes” legislation Government policy has seen that legislation introduced and my understanding is that it is working well. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he support the clean slate legislation brought in by the Greens with the support of others which wipes the convictions of people who committed crimes in their youth but who have since stayed on the straight and narrow or does he share the view of the ACT Party that such laws are “anti-morality” and “seek to airbrush history”? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The Government has no plans to change the clean slate legislation. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree that Mr Garrett’s actions from over 20 years ago show why we need a justice system that has a quality of mercy and that allows for the possibility that people can change? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call on the Minister to answer he has made it very clear that he has no responsibility for any actions of Mr Garrett. The member may just rephrase that question a little to try to bring it more within the Standing Orders. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree that the actions of people who have done things many years ago that they have since come to regret show why we need a justice system that has a quality of mercy and that allows for the possibility that people can change? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I have already said that broadly where appropriate that is the case. But as members will be aware Speaker’s ruling 152/4 indicates: “Members can ask hypothetical questions but Ministers do not need to respond to the hypotheses.” 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he believe that everyone is human and that the justice system needs to give everyone the opportunity for redemption even when their actions are offensive and hurtful to the families affected; and does he believe that his Government’s adoption of the “three strikes” policy reflects those beliefs? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Most people I have met are human. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree that although it is a natural and human reaction to want revenge when someone close to us is hurt by crime we cannot build a justice system that is effective at keeping people safe by basing it on a philosophy of an eye for an eye and that his Government policy is taking us down that route led by the ACT Party? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No I do not believe that Government policy is leading us down that route at all. There is a combination of different policy strands some of which are preventive some of which are rehabilitative and some of which relate to sentencing and the punitive end of the justice system. 
Hon Annette King 
: How many chances to change does he believe people should get and does he agree with David Garrett MP who stated: “after receiving two warnings of the consequences we must assume that” the offender “will go on committing similar offences”? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: In respect of the first part of the honourable member’s question the number of chances will vary on a case by case basis. 
Earthquake Canterbury—Progress of Recovery 
2. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery  
: Is he satisfied with progress on the recovery from the Canterbury earthquake so far? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: Yes. The member will know that on Tuesday night we passed the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010 with the support of that member her party and indeed all parties in this House. In that sense we have set in place the ability for Canterbury to now progress on its path to recovery. 
Hon Annette King 
: In light of the Prime Minister’s statement on 7 September that “The Government is prepared to step up financially to rebuild the region.” does that include regional roading? Local authorities are now saying they will require a rate rise and a loan facility to pay for the repairs to regional roads; was that what the Canterbury people understood would happen from the Prime Minister’s statement? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Yes the Government is aware of the issues relating to roading—and indeed infrastructure—and we will continue to discuss those matters with the people of Canterbury walk alongside them and give them assistance where it is needed and where we can. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has he received a report from the Insurance Council of New Zealand stating that an emerging problem for the reconstruction in Canterbury is the shortage of labour and materials; if so what planning is taking place to ensure that sufficient labour is available in Canterbury and that other regions that also have urgent needs for labour and materials at this time are not significantly disadvantaged? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Yes. Again we are aware of those issues. We are working with the construction companies and the likes of the master builders and the Certified Builders Association to ensure that as best as we are able we can organise the labour force both in Canterbury and across this country to provide the resources that are necessary. We are also in discussions as to whether there is a need for us to bring in people from overseas to assist. Again those decisions are under discussion and will continue to be made as we make progress. 
Hon Annette King 
: What progress has been made on requiring building companies involved in the reconstruction to include training for the over 1000 unemployed people in the region who already have some experience in construction and building as identified last week by the Minister for Social Development and Employment who said the Government was working on such a policy? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Again it is under consideration. We are just 12 days out from the event and those matters are being considered. All forms of resources are being considered. 
Hon Annette King 
: In light of a question raised last night at a public meeting in Kaiapoi attended by over 1000 people will the Government put together a package to compensate homeowners who have suffered major capital value loss; if so what will that package include? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I wish I had the specific answers to all the member’s questions because of course those questions have been asked by the people of Canterbury. We are working as hard and as fast as we can to get specific answers to all those sorts of questions. The member is right to reflect them because they are the sorts of things the people of Canterbury want to know. As a Government we have to be careful about the way we progress this matter but we are working with the Insurance Council the insurance companies and the banks to see how we can assist in that regard. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has he read the letter from the New Zealand Law Society that was sent to him a week ago which asks for the Government to take a lead role in solving the emerging problem of transitional insurance cover for people who were in the process of buying and selling homes when the quake struck and which is now leading to a logjam and having a flow-on effect on house sales in other parts of New Zealand; if so is the Government considering acting as a transitional underwriter of insurance cover until this issue is sorted out? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I cannot say specifically whether the Minister has read the letter. I certainly have not. I cannot speak for him; I do not know. I can tell the member that the Minister is in discussions with the Insurance Council insurance companies and banks to see how this matter can be dealt with. 
Television Switch-over to Digital—Completion by 2013 
3. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What recent announcements have been made regarding digital switch-over? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Earlier today the Government announced that New Zealand will complete the switch-over to digital television by 2013. Our election promise was to achieve digital switch-over by 2015 at the latest. With 70 percent of New Zealand households now watching digital television we believe that it is time to make a formal announcement of the digital switch-over date so that the public broadcasters retailers and installers can make preparations for a seamless transition to the digital environment. 
David Bennett 
: Why has the Government chosen 2013 as the completion date for digital switch-over? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Digital television gives the viewer the benefit of enhanced reception better picture quality and more channels. The switch to digital television will free up radio spectrum which will be ideal for fourth-generation mobile technologies. This will provide New Zealanders with access to faster mobile broadband services with improved coverage. Completing digital switch-over by 2013 will bring forward the economic benefits for New Zealand which are estimated to be between $1.1 billion and $2.4 billion over the next 20 years. 
Chris Tremain 
: Which regions will be the first to complete the switch to digital television? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The first regions to complete the switch to digital television will be Hawke’s Bay and the West Coast in September 2012. They will be followed by the rest of the South Island in April 2013 and the lower North Island and Gisborne in September 2013. The rest of the North Island will be completed in November 2013. A comprehensive communications campaign will be launched later this year to provide additional information and support about digital switch-over. The Government is allocating $37 million over 4 years to support a smooth transition to digital television. 
Chris Tremain 
: What will the old analog spectrum be used for? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Digital television technology makes more efficient use of radio spectrum than analog technology does. Switching to it will free up a large amount of spectrum in the 700 megahertz band for new uses. We expect that one of the principal uses of the spectrum will be for fourth-generation mobile technologies which will give New Zealanders access to faster mobile broadband services with improved coverage. This will allow New Zealand to keep pace with international developments in radio communications and information technology and will be crucial if New Zealand is to increase productivity and enhance economic growth. Today’s announcement supports the Government’s economic growth agenda and is great news for the country. 
Early Childhood Education—Policy Initiatives 
4. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What policy initiatives has she developed for early childhood education? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 As I announced in Budget 2010 funding of $91.8 million will be invested in participation projects in high-priority areas over the next 4 years. These will include intensive community-led participation projects like supported playgroups language and culture projects and targeted support for priority families. This is in addition to the Counties-Manukau participation project which has placed hundreds of extra children into new early childhood education services. And there is more to come. 
Sue Moroney 
: Is she proposing a group to undertake a full review of the value of investments in early childhood education? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I certainly am particularly because of the huge growth in expenditure for early childhood education. That cost has skyrocketed over the last 5 years without a commensurate increased participation by children in early childhood education particularly in some areas of this country. We are certainly looking at the costs of early childhood education. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. I asked the Minister whether she was proposing a group to undertake a full review of the value of the investment in early childhood education but she did not answer that very specific question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought she said there was an investigation of investment in education. I thought she confirmed to the member what she was asking. I might be wrong there but that is what I thought I heard. The Minister is not disagreeing with me. 
Colin King 
: What is the Government’s top priority for early childhood education? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The Government’s top priority for early childhood education is to make sure that those children who are currently missing out and whom we know will benefit the most from attending like the 25 percent of children in parts of Counties-Manukau for example get the opportunity to experience good-quality early childhood education. That is why we are spending almost $100 million on that initiative over the next 4 years. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why have the group and its term of reference been planned in secret without any consultation with the early childhood sector? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I can assure that member that there is no group. I have announced no group. This Government has not decided on a group. 
Hon Heather Roy 
: Is it Government policy that sessional kindergartens are to be phased out and replaced with full-day licensed care where the emphasis is on making a profit as opposed to the child-centred family-based ethos of kindergartens? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No the Government has no such policy. But kindergarten associations make the decisions about which services they provide and how they are provided. 
Hone Harawira 
: What initiatives has she developed to respond to the Education Review Office’s research earlier this year that revealed that only 40 percent of all centres had processes in place to identify and respond to the aspirations and expectations of the parents and whanau of Maori children? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: That is an excellent question. I met just yesterday with a group representing about 45 iwi that have relationships with the Ministry of Education. Early childhood education is one of the five areas in which we are looking to work together to ensure that early childhood education services are culturally responsive. We are looking at how we can both provide—both iwi and the ministry—ways to work together to ensure that that happens. 
Sue Moroney 
: For the sake of clarity has she taken a proposal to Cabinet for a group to undertake a full review of the value of investment in early childhood education without consultation with the early childhood education sector? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No. 
Earthquake Canterbury—States of Emergency Update 
5. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: What is the update on the Canterbury civil defence states of emergency? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I am pleased to say that the three mayors of the affected districts in Canterbury—that is Selwyn Waimakariri and Christchurch—have today lifted the states of emergency in their districts. This was 12 days after the 7.1 magnitude earthquake hit Canterbury and left its trail of devastation which thankfully did not involve any loss of life. A lot of things have happened in those 12 days to the people of Canterbury. With the ongoing aftershocks that they continue to experience it must feel like a very long 12 days. However given the magnitude of the earthquake it is important to note that 12 days is quite a short space of time to have essential services restored to most people and life back to relatively normal. The civil defence emergency management group plan worked well in ensuring the safety and security of the people in affected areas. This was due to the incredible efforts of the Canterbury civil defence group and the Canterbury local authorities involved supported in Wellington by the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Why were the states of emergency in Canterbury extended yesterday? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: The states of emergency were extended for 24 hours to ensure a smooth transition from a state of emergency to a state of urgency under the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010. There was still some legislative work to be completed yesterday and the mayors in the affected areas decided to retain the declaration to ensure a smooth and safe transition to the recovery phase in Canterbury. The three mayors in the region Bob Parker Ron Keating and Kelvin Coe have shown true leadership during this difficult time in Canterbury. I commend them for their work above and beyond the call of duty. I extend this commendation to all the officials—civil defence local government armed forces police education and health—as well as the many volunteers whose physical work and acts of kindness have shown the true spirit of Canterbury. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Is the Minister aware that the use by civil defence personnel and the councils of green yellow and red stickers to identify immediate and apparent health and safety risks to occupiers of property is being treated as a status report on whether a residence can be lived in; if so what steps is he taking to address this inappropriate and potentially dangerous situation? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Yes I am aware of that issue. Indeed I have had discussions about it today with representatives of the three local authorities. There has been ongoing publicity about that issue to try to get an explanation of what those certificates actually mean. They are certificates of the moment; just because a house has a green sticker today does not necessarily mean that it will have a green sticker tomorrow. That depends on aftershocks and other issues. Basically their significance may change on a day-by-day basis. Unfortunately there is not enough knowledge among the public about what those certificates represent. We are doing our very best to get that knowledge out. I have asked the councils today to give further explanation about what they mean. The member is quite right to raise the issue and I am glad she has because it gives me a chance to explain further that the certificates are of the moment. Basically a green sticker means that a house is safe at the moment— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: No it doesn’t mean it’s safe. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Well it means that people can occupy the house at the moment but it does not mean to say that that situation will remain; further studies will need to be done and information given to the owners and the occupiers. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I fear that in asking that question I have allowed the Minister to repeat the error that is being publicly made out there. The green stickers do not mean buildings are safe— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot dispute the Minister’s answer by way of point of order. The member can use a further supplementary question to question what she believes may be an inaccuracy in the Minister’s answer. I am perfectly happy to let her ask a further supplementary question but it will have to come out of Labour’s total number of supplementary questions. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If it is helpful I am very happy to discuss this matter with the member after question time. If she thinks there is an issue to be debated I am happy to make further statements publicly so that information can be distributed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the Minister’s contribution but it is not actually a point of order. Does the member wish to ask a further supplementary question to clarify the issue? 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Can the Minister confirm that the green yellow and red stickers identify whether a building inspector in a 10-minute check has perceived an immediate and apparent health and safety risk and do not mean that it is safe to occupy a property? A green-stickered house may be dangerous and a red-stickered house may be safe. 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I will endeavour to clarify this matter because it is important and I am sorry if it takes a moment to do so. As I said these stickers are of the moment. A green sticker means that when a house was last inspected it was considered able to be occupied. If a house has a yellow sticker it means that it is dangerous to enter; people can but they must not occupy it. If a house has a red sticker people must not go in that property. The point is that with all of these things there has to be further examination: there has to be structural examination of the houses and there has to be examination of the foundations of the properties. All of that work is being carried out now as methodically and as rapidly as we can but we do not yet have all of the information to be able to say for certain whether a house is absolutely safe. The green sticker is merely an indication of the situation at the moment. It is really important for people to understand that. The member may be right: it may well be that a house that at the moment is considered to be safe may not necessarily be so in 5 minutes’ or 2 days’ time. We are still endeavouring to ascertain that information. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Is the Minister aware that the stickers are being used as a marker for eligibility for emergency grants by the New Zealand Red Cross Canterbury Earthquake Commission; and what steps will he take to ensure that this is rectified? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: No. I must say that that is the first I have heard of that issue. If the member wishes to give me further information I will certainly explore that. That is the sort of thing I need to know so that I can address it and I thank the member for bringing it to my attention. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table “Fact Sheet—Emergency Grants” which requires people to have been issued with a red or yellow inspection certificate to qualify. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I seek leave to have this question held over until the Minister of Finance is present in the Chamber on the grounds that the material is both technical and important to the status of South Canterbury Finance under the deposit guarantee scheme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
South Canterbury Finance—Treasury Evaluation of February 2010 Acquisitions 
6. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Did Treasury evaluate the net effect on South Canterbury Finance’s position of the February 2010 acquisition of Helicopters (NZ) Ltd and Scales Corporation shares including the effect of the transaction on the recoverability or impairment of South Canterbury Finance’s $75 million loan to its parent company Southbury Group Ltd? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: Yes. In this transaction the assets mentioned were to be acquired by South Canterbury Finance and paid for by the issue of shares. Under the terms of the deed of guarantee such transactions can proceed where a Crown-approved independent expert provides written certification that the transaction is on arm’s-length terms. In February 2010 South Canterbury Finance approached Treasury about the transaction. Treasury approved separate experts to review each transaction and received favourable responses on 28 February. Treasury’s view of the transaction was that at worst it made no difference to the Crown. It boosted the equity in South Canterbury Finance but lessened the equity in Southbury by an equal amount. That view has proven to be correct and I do not believe the cost to taxpayers was impacted by this transaction. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why did the independent reports provided to Treasury by Simmons Corporate Finance and Northington Partners certifying that the acquisitions by South Canterbury Finance of Helicopters (NZ) Ltd and Scales Corporation were on arm’s-length terms as stated in South Canterbury Finance’s  
Prospectus Number 60 
 not also include an evaluation of the effect on pre-existing loans and exposures to Southbury Group and on South Canterbury Finance’s position as prior-charge secured guarantor of Southbury Corporation’s pre-existing convertible notes? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I can only confirm again that under the terms of the deed of guarantee such transactions can proceed where a Crown-approved independent expert provides written certification that the transaction is on arm’s-length terms and that was the basis on which the independent experts were asked to look at the transactions. As I said in my answer to the previous question Treasury’s view of the transaction was that at the worst it made no difference to the Crown by boosting the equity in South Canterbury Finance but lessening the equity in Southbury by an equal amount. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In reaching the conclusion that the transaction made “no difference to the Crown” did Treasury consider whether after the acquisition Southbury Group and Southbury Corporation would be in a position to repay their loans to South Canterbury Finance? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Once again I say Treasury was in the position of evaluating its view of the transaction in terms of the exposure of taxpayers which was its focus throughout this exercise and it was Treasury’s assessment that the movement of those assets into South Canterbury Finance was at worst neutral in terms of the exposure that the Crown had under the deposit guarantee scheme. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Let me try again. In the event—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Comments are perhaps unhelpful but the member is asking a serious set of questions and it is important that they be heard clearly. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In the event that those loans were not able to be repaid how could it possibly be that the net impact of that series of transactions was neutral? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: When I went to school all of those things had to be assessed on the basis of the balance sheet of the companies. The reality is that Treasury was in the position of having to make recommendations to the Crown based on its knowledge of the companies and the various loans that the member speaks of. In its view the movement of those assets would at worst have a neutral impact on South Canterbury Finance and its equity and that is the advice it gave to the Government. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How can both of the Minister’s statements to the House on 15 September be true: first that a significant proportion of the $831 million provisioning in the 30 June 2009 Crown accounts was related to South Canterbury Finance and second his statement the same day that work done on statutory management and receivership options for South Canterbury Finance “probably did not occur until this year”; and can he therefore clarify to the House when work started on statutory management or recapitalisation options for South Canterbury Finance? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Treasury assessment of the impairment to the Crown’s accounts that could be caused by the deposit guarantee scheme was in place as the member knows in August 2009. I do not have any information to hand that suggests that any of the discussions in relation to statutory management or anything else are different from what the Minister has previously advised the House. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I fear that the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House because he has just told— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It is a serious point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that the member plans to raise a serious point of order but he should not preface it in that way. I will listen to the issue of order. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: The Minister has just told the House that that provisioning was done in August 2009 but it was in the Crown’s accounts to 30 June 2009. Both statements cannot be correct at the same time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate that the member is raising a serious issue but he cannot litigate the answer by way of a point of order. The member could seek a further supplementary question from his team and question the Minister specifically on that issue. I hear the issue that the member is raising and he could use another supplementary question to explicitly question the Minister on that. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table  
Prospectus Number 60 
 of South Canterbury Finance Ltd dated 20 October 2009 which sets out the relevant background and provisions on the Scales Corporation and Helicopters (NZ) Ltd transactions identified earlier. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Earthquake Canterbury—Homes with Damaged Chimneys 
7. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Will Cantabrians whose chimneys have been significantly damaged by the recent earthquake be covered by the Earthquake Commission to replace their old log burners or open fires with new efficient heaters? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Yes. The Government thinks it is important for both air quality and future earthquake safety that we replace as many old chimneys as possible with efficient gas heaters pellet heaters clean log burners or heat pumps using Earthquake Commission recovery funds. Christchurch has long had a significant air pollution problem and statistics from all of New Zealand’s major earthquakes—Murchison Napier Inangahua and now Canterbury—show that more deaths and injuries are caused by brick chimneys than by any other cause. This is an opportunity to rebuild a safer and cleaner Christchurch. 
Louise Upston 
: Has the Minister received any reports on the number of chimneys that collapsed due to Canterbury’s earthquake? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes. The Earthquake Commission reports that 15000 chimneys came down during the Canterbury quake. Also a number of injuries from collapsing chimneys have been reported to the Accident Compensation Corporation. This initiative involving potentially 15000 households at a cost of $7000 per home is an effective investment of up to $100 million in making Christchurch both safer and cleaner. 
Education National Standards—Support for Schools with Poor Numeracy Results 
8. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What support will be available in 2011 to schools that have very poor numeracy national standards results in 2010? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The implementation of national standards is a 3-year programme and the ministry will not have that data until the third year in 2012. However for schools that self-identify as having a number of students with very low numeracy results in 2011 professional development in numeracy will be available. The new student achievement team will also be operating in 2011 focused on front-line targeted support in schools. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: When will she announce her milestones for progress towards her objectives for the proportion of students achieving the national standards? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: When they are ready. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has the Minister decided the milestones for progress towards national standards that she will announce when she is ready? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No these are not my milestones. These are milestones that that member has been asking for and I have no intention of announcing them before we have decided them using the independent advisory group that is advising me on what milestones might be appropriate. 
Allan Peachey 
: How will the $36 million announced for national standards in Budget 2009 be spent? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The $36 million will go towards new intervention programmes currently being developed for students who need extra support in reading writing and maths. We need programmes in place that provide tailored specific and concentrated support for students and teachers. These programmes will be monitored closely to ensure that they are making a difference for students. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is it still the Minister’s medium-term objective that all students other than those identified by the Ministry of Education as having special needs will achieve the numeracy standards? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: That is the intention of having standards. Evidence is clear that if clear goals and clear steps to achieve those goals are set then we can lift student achievement. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: When will that happen? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: That will happen at different rates for different students over the next few years. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has the Minister taken to Cabinet any paper that includes milestones for her objectives as she has indicated to the House today? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that progress towards good policy is measured by milestones? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: If that is what the Prime Minister said; I always agree with what the Prime Minister says. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is she therefore being consistent in saying that she agrees with the Prime Minister on milestones but has none for her own most important policy? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I repeat for that member: this is a 3-year implementation programme. We are not even through the first year of that so the member should give the sector a break. There will not be any results going to the ministry before 2012 and the system is being rolled out as we speak. 
Hone Harawira 
: Has she read the report “Creating strong achievement gains for Maori children in English-medium mathematics classrooms” which shows that a focus on developing the relationships between students and teachers produced strong achievement gains for Maori students; how will cultural competency be factored into national standards? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: There is very good evidence that shows now that the recognition of a child’s culture and language and the relationship between teacher and student can contribute strongly to lifting student achievement. The purpose of the national standards is to provide benchmarks so that we get early indications of where students are not progressing as they should be and that will have an enormous effect on young Maori for whom the last 9 years of a Labour Government have seen very little progress in lifting their achievement. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I could not tell then whether in answering the question for my colleague the Minister was quoting from an official document with the milestones in it. If she was I ask for the Maori milestones to be tabled even if the Pakeha ones do not exist— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will check with the Minister about whether she was quoting from an official document. No she was not. 
Earthquake Canterbury—Support Offered by Department of Corrections 
9. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What support is the Corrections Department offering to Canterbury community groups and individuals to help with earthquake recovery? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 The Department of Corrections has a labour force of around 2400 offenders on community work who are available to help with the earthquake clean-up. The department has set up a special 0800 number for people in Canterbury to call with job requests. The number 0800 COMWRK—that is 0800 266975—can be used by both community groups and individuals who need assistance. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What sort of assistance have community workers in Canterbury be providing so far? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: To date the community workers have mainly been helping civil defence to clear debris and heavily silted areas in Kaiapoi. Today they are working alongside civil defence and the army to clear debris from State housing properties in Christchurch and St Paul’s Church in Kaiapoi. Tomorrow workers will be helping clean up one of the school properties at Kaiapoi which has remained closed since the earthquake. I encourage people who need help to call 0800 COMWRK. 
Employment 90-day Trial Period—Workers’ Rights 
10. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she stand by her statement to the House on 14 September 2010 that the 90-day trial provisions “do not take away rights”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Labour 
: Yes. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does the 90-day trial remove the right of an employee whose employment agreement is terminated in accordance with the 90-day scheme to bring a personal grievance or legal proceedings in respect of that dismissal; if not what does section 67A(2)(c) of the Employment Relations Act mean when it says: “the employee is not entitled to bring a personal grievance or other legal proceedings in respect of the dismissal.”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The full Act is not in front of me at this point but the point of the trial period is that employees have the opportunity to voluntarily enter into a trial period. We see the fact that people are getting jobs as a result of these trial periods where they previously did not have them as an expansion of their opportunities. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does the 90-day trial period remove the right of an employee who is hired and fired under the scheme to request the employer to provide a statement in writing of the reasons for dismissal within 60 days after being advised of his or her dismissal? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government made sure there were a number of protections in this law: it requires any trial period to be entered into by written agreement it allows the trial period only for new employees it retains good faith it protects employees against discrimination and it ensures employees on a trial period are treated the same as all other employees as regards leave wages and other entitlements. I think the good-faith provision answers the member’s question. 
Darien Fenton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a fairly straightforward question about whether the 90-day trial period removes the right of an employee to request the employer to provide a statement within 60 days of being dismissed. I do not believe the Minister answered it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will invite the member to repeat her question because it was quite difficult to hear both her supplementary questions. I accept that they were quite detailed. It was probably not the member’s fault; I am not happy with the performance of the sound system at all. I invite her to repeat that question without loss of any supplementary questions. I realise she is trying to ask some quite specific questions. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does the 90-day trial period remove the right of an employee who is hired and fired under this scheme to request the employer to provide a statement in writing of the reasons for the dismissal within 60 days after being advised of his or her dismissal? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government has always said that the good-faith requirements to be communicative and responsive with employees—which I think is what the member is alluding to—imply and include telling employees why a trial period has not worked out. In fact in a recent case Judge Colgan agreed that the balance of good-faith duties in section 4 tend to favour a requirement on employers to give such explanations at the time of giving notice. Yes it does. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Could the Minister explain why the Labour Party and its union friends are so adamantly opposed— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: One as experienced as the Hon Sir Roger Douglas should know that he can ask the Minister whether he agrees with things but the Minister certainly does not have to explain at all what the Labour Party may believe or say. The Minister has no responsibility whatsoever for that; I would have expected the honourable member to know that better than anyone. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I say to my old colleague that he could probably rephrase his question by asking the Minister why he voted against— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat immediately. I am at a loss for words. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Does the Minister agree with me when I say that the Labour Party and its union friends are adamantly opposed to young people whom the education system has failed getting a foothold on the employment ladder and would he agree with me that the 90-day trial provision allows this to happen very easily? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I agree with the member that the 90-day trial period gives employees who are struggling to get jobs opportunities to obtain those jobs. Department of Labour research has shown that 43 percent of employers who use the trial period would not have—or were not likely to have—employed that person without the trial period which tends to bear out the member’s assertion. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does the 90-day trial remove the right of employees to have the opportunity to comment on information about their proposed dismissal to their employer before the decision is made? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I have said in answer to previous questions the 90-day trial period requires the retention of good faith. The good-faith requirements are that employers be communicative and responsive with employees. That includes telling employees why the trial period has not worked out. Other good-faith provisions also apply. 
Darien Fenton 
: What rights does a former employee of HRV in Napier—who was sacked under the 90-day trial scheme and given no reason and was then told by Work and Income that he will have a 13-week stand-down for the unemployment benefit unless he files a personal grievance claim—have when the 90-day scheme has removed all of his rights to take a personal grievance claim? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Obviously I do not have the details of that case to hand. I invite the member to bring that information to the attention of the Minister so that she can respond directly. 
Earthquake Canterbury—Government Assistance with Uninhabitable Homes 
11. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What is the Government doing to assist people whose homes are not habitable following the Canterbury earthquake? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Housing New Zealand Corporation has been working very well with private sector landlords the community housing sector and the Ministry of Social Development. However we know that a number of people have been living with family and friends and will want some sort of longer-term options as their houses are being rebuilt so we are wanting to increase the housing pool in Canterbury. Today I announced the Housing Emergency Lease Programme. In this programme we will be asking Cantabrians who have a second home—it might be a holiday home a farm cottage or a house that would otherwise be for sale—to see whether they are willing to lease that short term to Housing New Zealand Corporation for 2 3 or 4 months. Housing New Zealand Corporation will carry the lease pay the rent and have a tenancy agreement. This way it manages the tenancy and collects the rent but it guarantees rent to the householder and provides a no-hassle tenancy service. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Will funding that is currently budgeted for upgrades or replacements of State houses in other areas be reduced in order to meet the increased demand that is likely to flow out of the Housing New Zealand Corporation projects in the Canterbury region; if so where does he envisage that money coming from? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: It is fortunate that Housing New Zealand Corporation properties are covered by Earthquake Commission payments just as normal properties are. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I acknowledge what the Minister has just said but it did not actually address the question that I raised. I asked him whether money would be taken from other regions in order to put it into the Canterbury region. Saying that the Earthquake Commission— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It seemed to me the Minister was saying that the Earthquake Commission would cover the cost with regard to Housing New Zealand Corporation properties. That is what I interpreted from what the Minister said. If that is what the Minister is saying then the member cannot litigate it by way of point of order. He can ask further supplementary questions. 
Chris Hipkins 
: But that wasn’t my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member now seems to want to argue with the Speaker which is not a very good idea. But just to make sure that I am not misunderstanding here I believe that the member asked where the cost would come from. What I interpreted from what the Minister said was that it would be covered by the Earthquake Commission so it would not come from any other Housing New Zealand Corporation regions. I might be wrong and if I am wrong then I hope the Minister will point that out to me. But he does not appear to be wishing to. 
Auckland Transition Agency—Award of Computer System Contract 
12. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: When he said in the House yesterday that the Auckland Transition Agency “ran a tender to deliver an enterprise resource planning system” was he referring to merely the $14.3 million contract for the implementation of the Enterprise Resource Planning system or was he referring to the full contract of $53.8 million to deliver the Enterprise Resource Planning system? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Acting Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 The total cost of the Enterprise Resource Planning system is budgeted to be $62.3 million. That information was made public in May. A limited tender was run for the delivery of the Enterprise Resource Planning system. This includes meeting the entire cost of implementing the system. The total budgeted cost of $62.3 million covers both the pre and post - 1 November 2010 costs. 
Phil Twyford 
: How can he say that when the Auckland Transition Agency’s own discussion document clearly states that the company SAP was awarded the contract on the basis of an internal evaluation and no competitive tender? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Because as the member knows SAP has been delivering services in Auckland. It has been in discussion with the Auckland Transition Agency. There was a discussion with nine companies and four were selected to combine to deliver the service and that is what has happened. 
Phil Twyford 
: How will Auckland ratepayers ever know that they are getting value for money from the Enterprise Resource Planning system when they were denied an open tender process which would have saved them millions of dollars? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: They will know when they contact the council and get the very efficient service that they will get post - 1 November. 
Phil Twyford 
: How does he reconcile the failure to tender the full $53 million contract for the Auckland super-city with his statement that in setting up the Auckland Council “The emphasis throughout has been on ensuring no undue burden is placed on the ratepayers of Auckland.”? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Easily. The councils currently spend $90 million a year on services. There were always going to be some extra costs in putting a combined network across the council. That is costing $124 million as opposed to $90 million. The actual extra cost is minimal compared with the service that people will get. I have every faith that the Auckland Transition Agency and particularly the new council will deliver a grand service for the people of Auckland. 
Question No 4 to Minister 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I waited until the end of questions to Ministers and I apologise to Ms Fenton for delaying her question to the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I wish to raise a quick point under Standing Order 372(2) relating to questions being allocated on a basis that is proportional to party membership in the House. The roster I received this morning showed that question No. 4 was to be in the name of the Independent MP Chris Carter. I see that question No. 4 was asked by a member of the Labour Party. I was wondering whether we could have some clarification about what arrangements are now in place between the Independent MP and the Labour Party. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 They are similar to the situation that existed with the Hon Maurice Williamson Brian Connell and many other members of Parliament who did not remain with the party they were elected to represent. It is a matter between the parties when they reallocate questions. If a member is unable to be here and asks another party to take the question on his or her behalf it is a matter for that party. Supplementary questions are often traded between the parties in this House; so too can primary questions be traded. We are grateful to the previous examples of National members who have run into trouble in this respect. It has been very helpful to research those as we have come to similar arrangements on this side of the House. 
Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I wonder then whether the shadow Leader of the House might be able to give an indication as to when a Labour question will be traded back to Mr Chris Carter on his return. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Hon Annette King whether she has quite finished. 
Hon Annette King 
: No. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I should not have to remind her that if she has not finished the Speaker might ask her to leave the Chamber. But I will accept her peace signal. Members well know that there is a practice whereby parties can swap questions. It happens all the time. There is no need for them to be returned or anything like that. It is a matter between the parties and does not involve the Speaker although I fully accept the member’s desire to have that matter clarified. It is a matter for the parties and I accept the advice of the parties where questions have been swapped. 
Question No. 12 to Minister 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table a discussion paper from the Auckland Transition Agency. It details the fact that no tender was given for a $53 million information technology project. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? It appears there is objection. 
Questions to Members 
Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)—Submissions 
1. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has received 279 submissions on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) and numerous other form and letter submissions. 
Darien Fenton 
: Can he confirm that every submission that includes individual comments which includes over 3000 of the submissions that he refers to as “form submissions” will be treated as a unique submission that requires consideration by the select committee? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would imagine that the way the select committee considers submissions is a matter for the select committee not for the chair of the select committee. Therefore I cannot accept that question as being within order. 
Question No. 11 to Minister—Amended Answer 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I need to correct my answer to the supplementary question asked by Chris Hipkins. High-value properties have separate insurance and are covered by the Earthquake Commission. Others are covered by Housing New Zealand disaster insurance on which there is a $10 million excess. That will not come from upgrade and maintenance costs from other areas. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate that from the honourable Minister. 
Question No. 5 to Minister 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 Further to question No. 5 and the issue concerning the green yellow and red cards I seek leave of the House to table an explanation that has been sent to the local authorities which are publishing it today and documents from the website that set out very clearly the meaning of the green yellow and red cards and their implications. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the committee present its final report on or before 16 December 2010 and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Amongst other things this bill will implement actions from our Safer Journeys road safety strategy for addressing New Zealand’s high level of road deaths and injuries. It focuses on two areas where we believe we can make a real difference: young inexperienced drivers and repeat drink-drivers. Essentially we want to ensure that our young people have the skills and the experience to be safe on our roads. This is a top priority for the Government because last year 32 percent of people killed on our roads were under the age of 25. That is not just disproportionate; it is tragic. 
This legislation seeks to increase the minimum driving age from 15 to 16 years lower to zero the legal blood-alcohol limit for drivers under 20 and allow the New Zealand Transport Agency to strengthen the restricted licence test to encourage 120 hours of supervised driving practice. We are also looking to improve the road safety education available to young people and to increase access to it; to consider vehicle power restrictions for young drivers; to allow approved courses defensive driving and Street Talk to be undertaken in the learner licence phase; and to consider tougher penalties for breaches of restricted licences. 
We can debate all we like which of these initiatives is the most important but the reality is that most Australian states have most of these laws in place and our youth fatality rate is 60 percent higher than theirs. We cannot continue to ignore that statistic. None of these actions is a silver bullet on its own but when combined they will make a real difference to the road toll and to the safety of our young people on the roads. 
The other area we are really focused on in this legislation is drink-driving particularly recidivist drink-driving. This is important because drink-drivers are responsible for one-third of all deaths on our roads. If we can make an impact in this area as well as for young drivers we should see a significant reduction in the road toll. 
In terms of drink-driving the legislation will lower the limit for drivers under 20 years of age from a blood-alcohol level of 0.03 to a zero blood-alcohol level. It will subject repeat drink-drivers to a zero blood-alcohol limit for 3 years after they receive their licence back. It will provide for infringement offences and the associated infringement penalties for the breach of zero drink-driving limits. It will allow courts the option to require repeat or serious drink-drive offenders to use alcohol interlocks after a mandated 90-day disqualification. Interlocks must be used for at least 12 months and can be removed only where the offender shows a violation-free period of 6 months reducing to 3 months if an approved alcohol assessment is also completed. Offenders will be subject to a zero blood-alcohol content limit for the 3 years after the removal of their interlock. This legislation also increases penalties for dangerous driving causing death. 
In regard to the adult drink-drive limit this bill legislates for changes to allow us to carry out research to determine the actual level of harm caused by drivers with blood-alcohol levels between 0.05 and 0.08. This information is not able to be collected currently. It is important that we have all that data before we make what would be I believe a far-reaching change. The important thing is that debate in that respect continues. There is no final decision either way but we will have certainty in a couple of years’ time when the research is certain. 
Primarily this bill is about road safety. It is not always the sexiest of topics but it is very important because we all use the roads and we are all at the mercy of whoever else is on the road at the same time as we are. Driving is a serious job and many of us I am sure have been guilty at times of not treating it as seriously as we should. In the spirit of transparency—with an emerging theme of parliamentary confessions this week—I acknowledge that my own personal driving record in the past has not been perfect. I have been fined a number of times for speeding and once for careless driving—fortunately nothing in recent times. It is the responsibility of all of us to drive carefully on our roads. We will never be able to prevent all crashes but we can make an impact by better preparing our new drivers and instilling in them good habits. We can also keep the most dangerous drivers off the roads. 
As well as improving road safety this bill will improve the efficiency of our land transport legislation by removing duplicated legislation and streamlining the rule-making process. Changes to the land transport rules process will allow rules to be made by Order in Council like other secondary legislation. This is quicker and less complicated than the current rules process. Improving efficiency is a key goal for the Government. It supports other efforts such as ensuring that whenever possible new rules are introduced on either 1 April or 1 October so that keeping track of changes is more straightforward for affected industries and the public. 
I believe that the provisions in this bill will have a very solid impact on our country’s high levels of road death and injury and send clear messages about the dangers of drink-driving and the impact of drivers who cause death. At the same time we will use this opportunity to simplify and clarify our transport law helping to improve efficiency by allowing the repeal of duplicated legislation. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 The Labour Party will support the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill this afternoon. There are many areas in the bill on which we find agreement and I will touch on some of those. I will also mention some of the areas where we do not believe the bill goes far enough. 
I was fascinated just on a procedural point that when the Minister of Transport began his speech he moved yet again another truncated referral motion to the select committee not only to change the select committee process but to allow the committee to meet at the same time as the House is meeting. Once again there was no explanation given by a Minister as to why that has happened. That is happening far too often and we will not support— 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: It was to get the legislation in place. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The Minister was not good enough to tell the House that fact and indeed if he had spoken to the Opposition he might have found some support for that given that some of these measures could take place this summer if they were properly shepherded through. But time and time again bills come through like this. Indeed recently we were asked to believe that the Arts Council bill needed to have a truncated select committee process. An arrogance comes through from the Government and that is regrettable. 
This bill ought to have been one that the Minister could build enormous political support for because some of its measures do enjoy support across the House. But unfortunately like so many of the other things that Steven Joyce has done he has got the optics right—he has got all the marketing the buzzwords the presentation and the media releases right—but he has not got the actual grunt and the substance right at all. There is no better example of his failure of leadership than his failure in this bill to reduce the blood-alcohol limit for adults from 0.08 grams to 0.05 grams. He has not been able to get that through in this bill at all despite the overwhelming evidence—the 300 studies over 50 years that exist—that says the adult alcohol limit is just too high. The Minister knows that. Everyone knows that the Minister thinks that personally. Everyone watches him answering questions in the House week after week on this topic looking increasingly uncomfortable about the fact that he knows his policy position on it is completely wrong. 
The Minister said this bill brings into effect Safer Journeys. That is true and if we go to the Safer Journeys documents and read the response of the Ministry of Transport to submissions in the consultation process that it undertook we find that one of the reports that was issued in March this year was called  
Further Information on the Proposal to Lower the Adult Drink Drive Limit to BAC 
—blood-alcohol content— 
0.05.  
The document backs up the Minister’s personal opinion as to why that should happen. It makes the point that all the research exists already. Yet the Minister refuses to act. Why does he refuse to act? It is not because the arguments are not strong enough; we have been able to disprove that week after week in this House. There is an array of international research—and New Zealand data is used in that research—that shows there is an impairment for drivers whose blood-alcohol level is between 0.05 grams and 0.08 grams. That is beyond doubt. No Government speaker today will get up and say he or she does not believe drivers within that range are impaired. I challenge Government members to do so. If they are so concerned that research does not exist let any of them go on the record of the House and say drivers are just as safe at 0.08 grams as they are at 0.05 grams. I guarantee that none of them will do that. In their hearts they know that is not right. 
But the Minister said one of the reasons that he was concerned about reducing the limit was the need for public support for that. He was also very concerned in a poll-driven way that there be public support to increase the driving age. I think the blood-alcohol issue is one example of the situations in which Steven Joyce has advised his National Party political colleagues in the wrong way. We know he is an expert on polling and focus groups and he is a very principled man in terms of running on the basis of what focus groups and opinion polls think—that is how he makes many of his decisions. But he got this one clearly wrong. The One News Colmar Brunton poll 
showed that 67 percent of people wanted to see the blood-alcohol content lowered. This bill does not do that. 
When Steven Joyce was confronted with those figures—previously he has said the Government would need public support in order for legislation on that to go through—his only response was that support for it would need to be higher than 67 percent. He said on Newstalk ZB it would need to be 75 percent before he would support making a change to the legislation in that respect. Putting aside the fact that he is prepared to sit in a Government that received 45 percent of the vote—it was fine to form a Government on the basis of 45 percent of the vote—when it comes to a change in policy in this respect one needs to have a 75 percent majority. Steven Joyce has put that forward as a whole new argument. 
So this is now the big bold position in this bill: we will do 2 years of research we will empower committees to decide whether to lower the blood-alcohol limit and we will unleash an army of analysts across the crash statistics of New Zealanders drivers to see whether that should happen. This is the staunch leadership on road safety that members opposite are demonstrating! Those members get up and say they are proud of the Safer Journeys programme yet what happened? When it came to a tough decision they ran for the hills and appointed a committee to decide on that issue for them. In 2 years’ time beyond the next general election they are prepared to really show some leadership. So if it is an easy decision they are in for it boots and all with a glossy document. But if it is a tough decision they will do an opinion poll run a focus group and if they are still not sure after doing that they will kick the decision out for 2 years and let the analysts say what they think about the issue. 
I hear my friend the Hon Tau Henare on the other side of the House asking about what Labour did. Well I could spend the balance of my time talking about that because when Labour left office in 2008 we had the lowest road toll since 1959—20 years after that member was born. Twenty years after that member was born in 1959 we saw the lowest road toll ever. That just goes to show that we were taking measures on road safety. But we can park that up. I ask National members opposite this: is it an argument to do nothing because 9 years of a Labour Government did nothing and 9 years of a National Government before it did nothing and 6 years of a Labour Government before it did nothing and 9 years of a National Government before it did nothing? Are we really being told by members opposite that unless something has happened before—that is nothing happened yesterday—there is an excuse to do nothing tomorrow? We are talking about road deaths in our country every single year and we know that one-third of our road deaths are associated with drink and with drugs—and that is before we get into the issue of serious fatalities—yet the only political argument that members opposite can put up is to say “Oh well it didn’t happen during the time of the Labour Government.” 
But let us hang on a minute because two other measures in this bill those to raise the driving age to 16 and to have a zero blood-alcohol content tolerance for drivers under 20 are in legislation that is sitting before select committees right now and they were introduced by the previous Labour Government. So if the argument is all about what the previous Government did can members opposite tell me why they have included into this bill provisions that have already had a first reading in Parliament and are washed up in select committees? One of those committees is chaired by David Bennett so of course surprise surprise it has been stuck there for a while and has not been able to return to the floor of the House. When it comes to the principle of road safety we have measures included in the bill that are not strong enough because the Government lacks the political motivation to do them properly and we have measures included in the bill that were started by the previous Labour Government and which have been marooned in a select committee during the 2 years of this Government. 
Let us not hear the arguments from National members opposite that the only reason not to lower the blood-alcohol limit for adults is that the previous Labour Government did not do that. That cannot be their only answer. If their only other argument is that there is not enough research I tell them that 300 studies clearly show the effect that alcohol has on drivers. If members do not want to read the 300 reports that is fair enough; they can go to just this short little report of 22 pages which the Ministry of Transport prepared for Steven Joyce. It goes through and explains how in every state of Australia—do we remember the country that once upon a time we wanted to catch up with; do we remember that country—that has lowered the blood-alcohol limit to 0.05 grams there has been a drop in fatalities and a drop in serious crashes. When we are talking about human beings and alcohol it is impossible to imagine that the findings in Australia could be any different at all to those in New Zealand. The Government is putting up just the flimsiest of arguments in order not to act on these issues. 
We support the Government in lowering the blood-alcohol content to zero for young drivers. I would like to know why the Government is doing that when there is no New Zealand research on it. There is actually New Zealand research of course in the same way that there is research for adults. The Government is saying it will not move to lower the limit for adults because there is not enough research but it is happy to move to do that for young people. We support the Government in lowering the limit for young people—I stress that—but it is using these arguments fast and loose. These are political responses to matters that should be beyond politics. 
Road safety should not be a left-wing or a right-wing issue; it should be a parliamentary responsibility. I feel very disappointed that Steven Joyce is playing such a strong political game on this rather than working constructively across the House. I believe that if he put up a bill to lower the blood-alcohol limit to 0.05 grams nearly every single member of Parliament would support it. He would get over 110 votes for it. I have a bill in my own name that I know has the support of the majority of members of this House. 
David Bennett 
: Come on Darren it’s not about you. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: No it is about the drivers in this country I say to Mr Bennett. That is exactly what it is about—the drivers and the people of the country. That member who has never once spoken out against his own Government has never had the guts or the strength to get up and say he believes something other than what his Government is saying. For reasons unknown he plays the yes-man card but doing that will result in no reward for him. That man will never be a Minister so he should get on and support something decent. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 That was Darren Hughes the Opposition’s spokesperson on transport. In 2 years of being the Opposition’s spokesperson on transport he has had only one suggestion which was to lower the minimum blood-alcohol level. He has done nothing else in regards to transport in that time and he has provided no leadership in the sector for his party beyond that. The only reason he is doing it is because he is seeking to be populist. He is trying to be another Winston Peters trying to take advantage of a situation when the reality is we need to do that research—research that the previous Labour Government refused to do. When it was in Government when it had the power to do it it did not do it. Now we have to do it so that we can make an informed decision. Labour did not do the research and now we have to do it. Labour members tell us how low the road toll was when they were in Government and that they did not need to make any of these changes. That is the Labour mentality. Yet now they say it is important to make those changes. 
So what has suddenly changed? What has changed in 2 years? All it is is that Darren Hughes is being populist and trying to get his name in the newspaper. He knows there is no publicity for him because he has no vision and no passion for the transport sector. Everybody knows that. He does not care about building up transport and infrastructure. All he is looking for is a populist argument that can get his name before Parliament. That takes away from the real nature of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—a bill that is here to provide important avenues to improve road safety for New Zealanders. 
The road safety process that has been undertaken by this Government is huge. We have dealt with drugged drivers which the previous Government failed to do. Now we are looking at the minimum driving age. We are looking at tougher sanctions for serious and repeat drink-driving offenders. We are looking at the future of the lawmaking process to make sure we take into account all of the decisions and all of the research available. This is good legislation and shows that the Minister of Transport has a desire to make real progress on transport safety. The  
Safer Journeys: discussion document  
has been the impetus for many of these reforms. They are reforms that National and I believe this Parliament will support because they are in the best interests of New Zealand’s drivers. They are in the best interests of our transport sector. The Government is not going out there just to seek populist comments unlike Labour members who have no vision for transport. That is the reality of the situation. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 That was a very unpopular speech from a very unpopular member David Bennett who likes to talk about unpopularity. I think he is probably an expert in unpopularity particularly when it comes to talking about trains between Waikato and Auckland—boy is that member confused about that issue! As my colleague Darren Hughes said we will be voting for the first reading of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. We support it because we have done a lot on road safety over the last 9 years—a lot of what this bill builds on although there are gaps in it and I will get to those. It builds on Labour’s own programme called See You There—Safe As. Do members remember that? It was an excellent road safety programme that touched on many of the areas that the Government is now promoting through its Safer Journeys programme. As I say a lot of good work has been done and I will acknowledge that. 
This is a very comprehensive bill and again I join my colleague in saying that I am disappointed about its fast track through the select committee process. I am a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and we are quite busy. We have a couple of major employment law bills in front of us with hundreds and hundreds—indeed thousands—of submissions to be heard in a very short time frame. Then here we have very serious legislation about road safety being rushed through as well. I think the chance to consider what is in this bill will be curtailed by that process. 
I want to talk about two issues. The Minister did not say anything about them but I am interested in two things. One issue is the provisions around work time the tightening up of logbooks and the chain of responsibility in relation to truck drivers. The second issue I want to talk about is young drivers and increasing the minimum driving age from 15 to 16. In 2009 there were 54 people killed in truck-related accidents and 1133 people were injured. Economic factors are having a direct impact on the death and injury toll in this industry. So although I am pleased to see that there will be a little bit of tightening up around the work and logbook rules and although I am also pleased to see the reference to chain of responsibility I do not think that it goes anywhere far enough. 
A lot has been done on truck safety over the last 9 years—15 years in fact because there was an inquiry into truck crashes in the late 1990s. We had a horrific accident injury rate and a lot of things have been done. There have been safety improvements and truck injuries have reduced; even though one person a week still dies in a truck-related accident as a percentage of all road users the number of people dying in truck-related deaths and injuries is actually flat-lining. 
But the problem that is not being addressed and that this bill does not address in the trucking industry the transport industry the road freight industry—which is growing massively; we know that freight will increase massively over the next 30 years—is the hypercompetitive nature of the industry the very tight margins for the business and the unsafe contracting that is going on for owner-drivers. 
Back in April there was a story in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
about some owner-drivers and what was happening to them. It was a horrific story about what was happening to them and the link between the way they were being treated through their owner-driver contracts and unsafe and dangerous driving. So I proposed to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee at that time that we should look at an investigation. Of course that was just dismissed out of hand and the Government voted against it. But this is a serious issue. Truck drivers have talked to me about the problems in their industry with unfair and unsafe contracting for owner-drivers leading them to drive up to 100 hours a week—the limit is 70 hours a week. They are scrimping on maintenance and they are taking risks that impact not only on them and their families but on all road users. It is an industry-wide problem with trucking companies which are squeezing owner-drivers. 
As I said it is a highly marginal and competitive industry and the monopoly at the top of the transport industry chain or the supply chain—a duopoly—in our supermarket industry squeezes the prices downwards. So it is not just the contractors who are contracting with the owner-drivers; it is the people above them the people at the top of the supply chain and that is where chain of responsibility comes in in relation to health and safety. 
Drivers have been saying to me that they are so cash-strapped that they often take risks by not repairing their trucks to save money. I have heard some awful stories about them running down their inside tyres to the rims—big trucks have two tyres—because they cannot afford to replace them. They have also been telling me that it is very common for truck drivers to fall asleep behind the wheel to drive without certificates of fitness and repair work to save money to fiddle logbooks and cover up illegal hours to rack up debt on credit cards and bank loans and to remortgage their homes to cover living expenses. As a result of that they suffer horrendous marriage and family stress. There is a lack of holidays because of course as contractors they have no rights and no bargaining power. They have told me that this all adds to the pressure of the job which includes night shifts and being on call 24 hours a day. 
These drivers are on our roads and this legislation does nothing to deal with the problem. It fiddles with the work-time rule—the logbook rule—and it fiddles with the chain of responsibility. When we look at the chain of responsibility legislation which Labour brought in we see that there have been very few prosecutions and the legislation has been in place for a couple of years. I was pleased that in July I think there was a big prosecution and conviction of an Auckland transport firm for allowing its drivers to breach work-time and logbook rules. It is good that there was a successful prosecution but there have been very few of them. The health and safety of these drivers and other road users should be the responsibility of the people who are requiring them to work these hours but that is not happening. So I have been looking very closely at the chain-of-responsibility provisions—even though the Minister did not mention it—in this bill to see whether it makes any difference. As I said there is one truck-related death a week and many injuries and it is still going on week after week. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: You’re going on a bit long. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: The other issue I want to talk about is the issue of the driving age I say to Mr Henare. I thought he might be interested in this. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: No I’m not actually. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Well we are supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee and we would be very interested to hear evidence about what difference if any raising the driving age to 16 will make. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Why don’t you want evidence on the blood-alcohol level? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: We have got it from every other country and that is what the select committee process is for. Putting the driving age up is like plucking low-hanging fruit. It is one of those things that everybody says will fix the problem: let us pick on the young people and put up the driving age but without finding out whether it will make any difference. I am looking forward to hearing from some young people during the select committee process. As I said Labour is supporting this bill. We will listen to the arguments and we will make a decision about the driving age at the end of that. 
As Darren Hughes said we could have done something about the zero alcohol tolerance for under-20s some time ago. A bill called the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill has been languishing at a select committee for 2 years. In March this year we offered the Government support to fast-track that legislation. We said we should do it. What happened? Absolutely nothing. Our support remains on that issue as does our offer to fast-track that legislation. However what we are doing with this bill is picking low-hanging fruit picking on young people. Let us make sure that we look at the real issues and I hope we will have genuine opportunity to do that at the select committee. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. I rise to speak on behalf of the Green Party on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Road safety is hugely important. Already this year 265 people have died on our roads in Aotearoa New Zealand causing huge suffering. I have personally experienced as no doubt have others in this House loss through a truck-related accident and the loss of my best friend and my godchildren is still in my heart more than 20 years later. 
Bad driving is not just about alcohol and youth but about a range of social and economic issues which Darien Fenton alluded to in her speech. It is a very very important issue to all of us and to all our families. However recent progress on road safety has been going backwards. Compared with other highly motorised countries our safety record is poor with a fatality rate double that of Sweden and the United Kingdom. 
The Green Party supports making our roads safer and will support this bill’s referral to a select committee where we will attempt to improve it. Although we support initiatives to improve road safety and reduce drink-driving we believe that not all the initiatives in the bill will achieve their desired effect. We believe that targeting the blood-alcohol levels of under-20-year-olds only scapegoats young people and overlooks the fact that Aotearoa New Zealand has a pervasive drinking problem. Alcohol and drugs contribute to a third of all fatal crashes. The single biggest thing this Government could have done to reduce the road toll was to reduce the blood-alcohol level to 0.05 but unfortunately there is no provision to do so in this bill. The  
Safer Journeys  
report estimated that this would save between 15 and 33 lives every year and every death on the road is a tragedy. 
This bill attempts to promote road safety with methods such as increasing the driving age from 15 to 16 making the legal blood-alcohol concentration level—or BAC—zero for under-20-year-olds and introducing tougher sanctions for drink-drivers. It allows the police to gather blood evidence from drivers involved in serious or fatal injury crashes who have a breath-alcohol reading of between 250 and 400 micrograms per litre of breath. Also it brings some rules about enforcement—about parking bylaw-making powers etc—from older transport legislation into the Land Transport Act 1998. 
The Green Party is a great supporter of taking drunk and drugged drivers off the road. Driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol contributes to a third of all fatal crashes and results in 119 deaths and 572 serious injuries each year and we often forget that those serious injuries come at an enormous cost and stress to everybody concerned. Since 2000 we as a nation have made no further progress on reducing the number of deaths and serious injuries occurring from drink-driving. For 15 to 19-year-olds and 25 to 34-year-olds the trend has actually been worsening. The social cost of drink-driving is $833 million. 
Our current legal blood-alcohol concentration is 0.08 for adults. This equates to consuming six standard drinks within 90 minutes for an average man—a fact that was notoriously demonstrated by the claim of the Minister of Transport Steven Joyce that he could drink three-quarters of a bottle of wine and still be within the guidelines. We agree with the Minister’s description that the existing legal alcohol limits for drivers are ridiculous. 
The World Health Organization recommends a blood-alcohol concentration of 0.05 as a key to reducing drink-driving. France achieved a 30 percent reduction in drink-driving fatalities when it lowered its allowable blood-alcohol concentration from 0.08 to 0.05. New Zealand Transport Agency analysis suggests that 15 to 33 lives a year could be saved by such a move here with an estimated social cost saving of $111 million to $238 million a year. Who would not want to make that saving? Which of us parents and grandparents would not want our tamariki and mokopuna to be safer on the road? We could solve this long-term issue by taking a braver step than this bill allows. 
We are disappointed that the Government has chosen to place the blame on young people rather than highlight the most important recommendation to come out of the Ministry of Transport’s  
Safer Journeys 
 discussion paper. If this “keystone” element to saving lives on our roads is not addressed at the select committee the Green Party will move an amendment in the Committee stage to lower the alcohol limit for adult drivers to 0.05 micrograms per 100 millilitres to move our limit in line with that used by most countries. We are keen to look at other measures to reduce the terrible toll that alcohol is causing on our roads. We believe that reducing drink-driving needs more emphasis on treatment and not just on stricter penalties. We are looking forward to the select committee consideration which will allow greater investigation into how the bill might be improved to better achieve its aims. We will also raise important civil liberty questions raised by the expanded rights of the police to gather evidence from drivers suspected of being under the influence. 
In looking at raising the driving age from 15 to 16 years our caucus and our members challenged ourselves to look seriously at the issue and the evidence that our 15 to 17-year-olds have the highest death rate in the OECD. The Green Party supports raising the driving age to 16. However we look forward to hearing at the select committee submissions from rural communities and from young drivers who live in areas with very little or no public transport and God knows there are plenty of those. We would like to investigate the possibility of having exemptions for 15-year-olds where public transport alternatives are not available. This is a very real issue. Any of us who have lived in rural Aotearoa know that there are many regions where we need to talk about this because our tamariki are trying to get to school and events and they do not always have any options in regard to public transport and they can sometimes be very good drivers. 
Safer transport journeys are not limited just to the speed limit blood-alcohol levels drugs or driving age. This road safety bill fails to address the fact that pedestrians and cyclists are the most vulnerable road users. 
This bill is too narrow and unchallenging. The focus is heavily weighted towards vehicle safety and direct deaths and injuries caused by our road system. If the Government was taking a really broad look at road safety it might take a leaf from the Green Party’s submission on Safer Journeys and point out that it is now well-established that as many people die as a result of pollution from road vehicles as are killed on our roads directly. In addition greater reliance on cars as our primary means of transport is exacerbating our current obesity epidemic. Then we have people in this House like me who are wimps and do not want to ride a bicycle because we have seen too many people knocked over by mad drivers yet we would like to be more competent and far more fit cyclists. 
Our submission on Safer Journeys emphasised walking and cycling priorities including lowering urban speed limits supporting the 1.5m campaign encouraging a modal shift out of cars to safer more healthy modes of transport and broadening the current narrow focus of road safety to look at the wider impacts of our driving culture on health such as addressing obesity and the hidden particulate road toll. If we are to achieve Safer Journeys then we need a wider vision for road safety—one that incorporates indirect as well as direct casualties from transport. If we are to achieve Safer Journeys then this bill should propose ways of reducing overall levels of vehicular traffic whilst simultaneously encouraging investment in more active modes of travel like walking and cycling. 
The Green Party does support Safer Journeys for all Kiwi and urges the Government to do more than just scapegoat young drivers. It should lower the blood-alcohol level for all drivers and adopt a broader and far more holistic vision for road safety. Thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare. I note a couple of things when I look through the stats on this take. The first point is that Polynesians drive less often than Pakeha—probably because we cannot afford cars as much as they can—but we get hurt in more accidents; the rate is three times higher than for non-Maori and we die more often from car accidents. The figure is 20 percent for Maori compared with 8 percent for non-Maori or 20 out of every 10000 for Maori compared with eight per 10000 for non-Maori. 
The second point is that Maori children are injured a lot more often than non-Maori in car accidents. A big part of that is about where a lot of Maori people live. For example Tai Tokerau and more specifically the Far North District Council has more unsealed roads than any other district in the whole country. It is a problem made worse by the fact that our rating base is not strong because of low socio-economic conditions. So there is not a lot of spare money to spend on roading improvements and on top of all that our roads are subject to massive wear and tear from forestry trucks as well. So the state of our roads is a major factor in that area as it is down the coast as well. 
Then there is the state of a lot of the vehicles on our roads. I see a lot of them up close when I am hitchhiking around the north and I do not mind admitting that I have got into some pretty dodgy looking vehicles over the last few years. But people have to use their cars and keep them running even without a warrant and registration because there is very little in the way of public transport which is another major factor. 
Driving behaviour is a problem common to all but it is made worse by our road conditions. There is too much speeding too much drinking and too little use of seatbelts. 
On top of those factors a lot of Maori are young—very young—so in terms of death rates from accidents their rates are more than twice that of the rest of the population. For young Maori those rates are even worse: 14 per 10000 compared with just three per 10000 for non-Maori. Given the horrific statistics that apply to Maori particularly young Maori I was more than a little disappointed but not particularly surprised that in the whole 93 pages of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill Maori do not get a mention at all. 
So what can we do about it? Well one thing I have noticed is that local health providers are working with whanau to make sure that all kids have car seats and they are teaching everyone how important it is for kids to use them. Defensive driving courses help. I know because my mokopuna has been asking for money to do a defensive driving course to shorten his time on a restricted licence. That is two pluses for me: he learns to drive better and my lawns get mowed three times to pay for the course. 
The Street Talk defensive driving courses like those being run at the Manukau Urban Maori Authority in conjunction with Te Wananga o Aotearoa help drivers improve their driving behaviour. Fran Hokianga reckons—and I am not sure about this; it sounds pretty cool—that they see about 70 students a month. She tells us that the wananga has a 98 percent pass rate and that the 2 percent who do not pass are the ones who do not show up at all. So it is good to see those kinds of initiatives being supported in the bill. 
We support the proposed zero breath/blood alcohol concentration for drivers aged under 20 but we would make that the case for all drivers not just for young ones. Although it is true that drinking is a problem for young people it is true that drinking is a huge problem for our whole society and our kids are really just playing follow my daddy. 
We know that increasing fines does not work because they just stack up the odds against people and make them more devious and more dangerous. 
We do not like the police getting new powers for blood collection particularly given their deceitful record in getting DNA under dubious circumstances over the past few years. 
We do not support for a whole host of reasons the proposal to raise the minimum driving age particularly in rural communities and we are disappointed that there is not enough in the bill about road safety awareness for young drivers. The better informed they are the better chance there is that they will behave better particularly in crisis situations. 
The Maori Party will support the bill to go through its first reading to allow for Maori groups and individuals who have a stake in this issue to make submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on how they think the bill might be changed to improve services to Maori in the future. Our vote beyond the first reading will be determined by what we hear through the select committee process. Tena koe. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. One of the reasons—in fact the only reason—is the number of young people killed on our roads every year. It is not just the act of losing a young vibrant life; it is what that loss does to a family to the community to the school to the university and to that young person’s place of employment. It has such an effect on those around the victim and it leaves such a hole in their lives. 
I for one think that we have an opportunity to try to do something as our road policy says. Our road strategy is called Safer Journeys. It is about me as a person wanting to travel on our roads without the fear of something happening that is out of my control due to bad driving a person under the influence or what have you. So I am absolutely in favour of the measures set out in the bill and I cannot wait until it gets to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and we hold our hearings on it. I think we will find that yes there is an issue over the fact that one side believes that the blood-alcohol limit is too high and needs to come down. I think we will find that most people around the country believe that for young new drivers there should be a zero limit. They just should not get into cars when they have been drinking. The country also believes that a 0.05 limit is going a wee bit close to saying that the limit should be zero. So I think that allowing— 
David Shearer 
: It doesn’t say that. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Sorry? 
David Shearer 
: The surveys are that 66 percent of people support— 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Is the member going to take a call? I think that the member should have taken a call if he really feels passionate about— 
David Shearer 
: I will. I am. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Good. We will wait for his pearls of wisdom. 
It is imperative that we set out a schedule of things—or to use the buzzwords and all of that jargon milestones or key indicators—that young people should reach before they get their licences. Getting a licence these days is one of the biggest steps that we allow our young people to take. I think that 90 percent of young people out there are good drivers and responsible drivers. But it is the 10 percent or so who create havoc. There is havoc not only for them but also for the rest of the drivers and the community. 
I am passionate about the effects that drink-driving and poor driving habits have on our community. I have been part of it and I have seen bodies lined up on the marae aged 18 19 and 20. People say that that is a tragedy and a waste; I say that a tragedy and a waste sometimes cannot be avoided but this sort of stuff can be. You know it is not as if it is an act of God. This sort of stuff—this carnage—can be sorted out and one of the ways to do that is what we are doing here. 
In conclusion I tell the House again that I cannot wait until the bill comes to our select committee. I think that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee is a good select committee and I am sure that we will have a bit of fun with the legislation as well. Kia ora. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 This is an interesting scenario. I follow the Hon Tau Henare in the debate and in fact I agree with an overwhelming amount of what he has just said. That makes a good change and perhaps we are on a new path in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but I think perhaps not in the short term. 
I rise to speak in favour of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. Obviously this bill as others have mentioned is to put in place a number of key initiatives from the  
Safer Journeys: discussion document 
 which came out last year. It is the Government’s road safety strategy to 2020. The measures in this fairly comprehensive bill cover a range of aspects. They cover enhancing the enforceability of the current provisions within the Land Transport Act improving the safety of young drivers toughening the sanctions for serious or repeat driving offenders and clarifying and augmenting the powers of road-controlling authorities. 
We support the main aspects of the bill and I will talk about those. I start by saying that Labour believes in promoting road safety. As others have said many of the tragedies on our roads are tragedies that did not need to happen. The loss of people in this country and the implications for their families and friends and for our economy is terrible. So we support increasing the minimum licence age from 15 to 16 years. We support the zero limit for repeat drink-drivers. We support the alcohol interlocks for repeat offenders. We support doubling the minimum prison time for drunk drugged or reckless driving causing death. But what we do not support and this is where I do disagree with the Hon Tau Henare is this Government’s cop-out over not going through with the proposals to lower the adult limit for drunk driving from 0.08 to 0.05 blood-alcohol concentration. 
I will talk about that a little bit more because it is a very important issue for us but before I do I will talk about some numbers. One could call them statistics except that they are about people. The good thing is that over the past 35 years the road toll has dropped significantly so that is something to celebrate. However and this is what was shown in the work done on Safer Journeys the progress has slowed. The progress in reducing the number of road deaths has slowed and we really need to focus on what we can do to change that. The other thing that has occurred is that the number of serious injuries has risen by 6 percent since 2004. So there are some clear indications of things that we need to focus on. 
The other important bit of information I noted in this report was that compared with other OECD countries New Zealand has a relatively high rate of road deaths per head of population so clearly there are things we can do. Clearly other countries are doing some things better than us and we need to pick up those things and make some changes. This bill proposes a number of changes that we support. 
We are a highly motorised country; we use roads a lot. Some of that is to do with our geography and our demographics. We are spread out and we are quite a small population. Some of it has been about active choices and I will come back to that. But none the less even when we take that into account the figures still show that in a comparison of our level of deaths per vehicle kilometres travelled with the level in other countries we see very poor results for this country. Based on the 2008 results we have a road fatality rate of 9.1 deaths per billion vehicle kilometres compared with 6.5 deaths per billion vehicle kilometres in Australia. In France the figure is 7.7 deaths per billion vehicle kilometres travelled; in Ireland it is 5.7; and in the United Kingdom which is the best performer it is 5 deaths. This is about people. Those are not just figures; those are dead people. We need to take this very very seriously. 
I am glad that this bill will be coming before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I am looking forward to working on it. The costs of those deaths and those injuries are huge. They are huge for people and they are huge for families that have lost somebody whom they love. The cost of serious injury can also be huge in terms of suffering in terms of loss of income and in terms of relationships within families. 
A very moving story in a weekend newspaper—I think it was either last weekend or the weekend before—talked about a couple who were in a serious road accident. Both of them survived but both of them had very serious injuries. Neither of them has got back to full-time work. Their marriage has subsequently deteriorated and they have split up. The cost to their children has been immense and the cost to the taxpayer has been immense. So in terms of personal suffering and financial costs we see that this is a significant burden for New Zealand. Again I reinforce that we need to do something about it. 
One of the things that is mentioned in the  
Safer Journeys 
 report is as I have said our dependence on cars. I made the point that there is potentially a choice and particularly in our major urban areas we have some choices. We have choices about whether we favour putting more and more money into road transport versus increasing the funding put into public transport. There has been a clear difference between the previous Labour Government and the current National Government in this regard. The relative weighting of funding has shifted from what we were trying to fund under the previous Government more towards roads. Yet we know that if are talking about Safer Journeys public transport—for example using bus lanes in Auckland—is generally going to be safer than car transport. We know that getting trucks off the road and replacing them with the movement of freight by rail will be significantly safer. 
In fact again we see that there is no doubt at all that truck crashes are more serious. I quote from  
Safer Journeys 
: “Crashes involving trucks are usually more serious than those involving lighter vehicles because of their greater size and weight.” Of course this Government is also allowing even heavier trucks on to our roads. So there is a real road safety question. We need to shift more freight off roads and on to rail. We make no bones about it on this side of the House. Labour loves rail. We think rail has a really important role to play here in terms of safety. 
I note that some major improvements in terms of rail will be opened soon in Auckland. I am sure that the Minister of Transport in opening the Onehunga branch line this Saturday and a week later the New Lynn train station will acknowledge that these were initiatives of the previous Labour Government. I am expecting to see and I am sure I will see the Hon Steven Joyce up there acknowledging the contribution of the previous Government in initiating those projects. I look forward to both of them. 
This is an issue in the mayoral campaign as well. There is quite a key distinction between John Banks who favours roads and thinks that eventually we might get a bit more public transport and Len Brown who has a vision for public transport in Auckland. 
I want to go on to the issue of alcohol. Certainly my colleague Darren Hughes is to be commended for his work in raising the issue of the Government’s complete lack of backbone in relation to the issue of reducing the adult alcohol limit for driving. We do not agree with the Government’s cop-out in failing to move to lower the adult drink-driving limit from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. There is a weight of scientific evidence to back that up and we certainly support it. There is clear public support. Despite what the Hon Tau Henare said there is huge public support for the issue of moving the drink-driving limit. I am sure my colleague David Shearer will be talking about this a little more—it is overwhelming. I think we all know why. I want to quote from a Bay of Plenty trial where a number of journalists started drinking excessively to see when they would get over the current drink-drive limits. In that particular case each journalist failed a breath test after consuming eight bottles of beer or five glasses of wine. I am sure that most people in this House know that if they drank as much as that they should not drive. Thank you. 
Hon HEATHER ROY (ACT) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the first reading of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. ACT will be supporting this bill to go to the select committee although we have a number of specific concerns about some provisions of this bill that we would like to see raised there. 
As the Minister of Transport has identified New Zealand has a serious problem with road safety. When we compare our statistics—not confining ourselves to young people but across the board—with those of other countries we see that we are not doing well. I have often been heard saying that there is no one silver bullet. The three things we should be doing are what I call the three Es. The first is enforcement of the current laws. We should be taking those very seriously and doing a better job. The second is education about driving particularly for our young people but not exclusively. The third is engineering. Certainly the overseas experience is that particularly in Europe when there are well-engineered roads the road toll drops significantly. 
Here in New Zealand too many Kiwis in particular our young people take a somewhat reckless attitude to driving. This attitude is all too evident in the statistics. When we look at them we see that we far outstrip our nearest neighbour Australia in annual road toll fatality rates. ACT is pleased that this bill identifies a number of the core factors in these fatality statistics. The bill attempts to crack down on those who have not just once or twice but time and again shown themselves to be irresponsible behind the wheel. It allows the courts to impose an interlock sentence on those who have been repeatedly caught driving under the influence of alcohol. The bill also doubles the maximum period of imprisonment from 5 years to 10 years for those found guilty of causing death while driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol or of driving recklessly. Certainly we are in favour of that move. Such measures are to be applauded; in fact they are long overdue. They will target those who have shown scant regard for the safety of themselves and more particularly of others when driving. 
The ACT Party has some concerns as I said about parts of this bill. The concentration has largely been around the minimum driving age. We are not convinced that the benefits of increasing the minimum driving age from 15 to 16 years outweigh the negatives. I think a large number of factors need to be thought of when we consider this change and we welcome the opportunity to discuss them at the select committee. 
One thing I have always been personally quite swayed by is the experience of the insurance industry. It needs to look very carefully of course at the patterns of behaviour so that it can put in place the premiums that it charges. I remember reading quite some time ago—I need to dig this evidence out again—that the danger period is not solely dependent on age but is when a person has been driving for around 100 hours. They drive quite carefully to start with and with a little more caution perhaps than they do once they become more confident drivers. That is when the accident rates start to spike. It does not seem that the starting age impacts very much on that pattern of behaviour; it is the 100 hours beyond the starting point for that driver that is the period of higher risk. Those things need to be looked at in detail at the select committee; I am hoping to sit in on some of those discussions. 
For many people particularly those in our rural communities cars are the only means of transport available. In rural areas there is simply no public transport system—no buses and trains—available and most often no taxis either. I grew up in a very small rural community in East Otago where everybody usually started driving the day they hit 15 if not before. Certainly kids who grew up on farms were driving well before that day. My experience was that those who started driving before the age of 15 on private property usually turned out to be very good and safe drivers. 
Rural communities have difficulty with roads that are not always up to scratch and we need to take a large number of factors into consideration but we cannot ignore the fact that the lives of young people are impacted on if the minimum driving age rises to 16. Depriving young people of the ability to drive in many cases deprives them of employment and of sporting social and educational opportunities. That consideration must not be left out of the mix when we consider what we will do with this legislation. 
Although there can be no doubt that young people are overrepresented in accident statistics whether simply pushing their right to drive back by 1 year will solve the problem is questionable. Certainly if I come back to my 100-hour rule the answer to that question would be no. It means that we would just delay the same patterns by a year. All of those things need to be investigated carefully at the select committee. Raising the minimum driving age to 16 is an approach that will disadvantage thousands of young Kiwis through no fault of their own. 
I go back again to what is most effective when we look at how we tackle our shocking statistics on the road. The three Es are very important beginning with the enforcement of the laws that we already have. In many cases we race to put laws in place when very good laws already exist but are not enforced adequately. Rather than rush to put more laws on the statute book we need to look at what we have make sure that there are enforcement opportunities and make sure that they are being routinely taken care of. 
Education is also hugely important. It is easy to say that but it is the long-term approach and it is shown to change behaviour over time. Probably the best example is defensive driving courses. Those courses will be maintained in the new legislation. There will be the incentive of decreasing the period of restricted driving for those who undertake a defensive driving course. My understanding is that at the moment those on learner licences are not able to participate in defensive driving courses but this legislation will allow that to be a viable option as it should be. There is no wrong time to educate our young people about driving alcohol consumption and the like. 
The third thing is that we must not allow this legislation to let us take our foot off the accelerator on engineering—on the fixing up of our roads. I am pleased to say that that is happening. I had a holiday in the South Island at the end of last year. It is an area that I am well used to. I was amazed at how much better the roads are now than they were even about 5 years ago. That is continuing but we must make sure that engineering and maintaining safe roads continues unabated. 
The ACT Party will support this bill’s referral to a select committee. We will support that referral to allow the select committee to study the various provisions in the bill investigate what has worked investigate what works well overseas that we could adopt here and come up with a final bill that will adequately address the serious problems New Zealand has with road safety without unnecessarily and unfairly targeting those who are driving responsibly. It is very important that we get the balance right and we hope to make a contribution at the select committee to achieve that balance. Thank you. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I think it is helpful to measure these proposed changes against the road safety priorities that were set out in  
Safer Journeys: discussion document 
. That document very helpfully laid out areas of high and medium concern and also the areas for continued focus and emerging issues. It is helpful because there are an infinite number of road safety initiatives that could be implemented and those initiatives were certainly amongst the thousands of submissions that have been received. It is simply not possible to do all of them. 
The areas of high concern identified were reducing alcohol and drug-impaired driving increasing the safety of our young drivers safer roads and roadsides safer speeds and increasing the safety of motorcycling. Those areas are all either addressed in the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill or have been implemented in previous actions by the Minister of Transport—for example the measure on mandatory headlight use on motorcycles and the drug-driver laws that we have recently passed. But I will talk about the first two of the high-concern issues and they are the reduction in drug and alcohol - impaired driving and the safety of our young. 
In respect of alcohol I think it is a bit of a shame that this debate has been dominated by the Government’s strategy of gathering more data on the impact of reducing the blood-alcohol limit to 0.05 because in this area there are a number of very good and meaningful clauses in the bill about alcohol impairment. Lowering the legal youth drink-driving limit from 0.03 to zero lowering the drink-driving limit to zero for recidivist drink-drivers and the use of interlocks are all very very effective measures. The Labour transport spokesman challenged a member of the National Government to guarantee that driving at a level of 80 milligrams would be just as safe as driving at 50 milligrams. Well that guarantee will not happen and the reason it will not happen is that we just do not know. The data does not exist to support it. The gathering of the data— 
David Shearer 
: Whereas we do know about the alcohol. We do know that. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: No there is no data that says that a person driving with blood-alcohol content of 0.05 will cause an accident and that accident will cause impairment. The data has never been collected in this country so it makes very good sense to collect it. I find it ironic that the member Ms Fenton is quite happy to ask our youth for evidence on increasing the driving age from 15 to 16 years because it should be supported by good evidence before we do it but she places no such requirement on the really bigger issue I think of reducing the blood-alcohol level. 
Darien Fenton 
: There is already evidence—lots of evidence. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well we will hear about that in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I am absolutely sure but the data does not exist. 
I think the real issue that needs to be addressed—and that some of these measures will address—is that despite all of that an unacceptably high number of drivers continue to exceed the 0.08 level. Last year I think about 36000 people were convicted of driving while over that limit—36000. Despite the best efforts of our law enforcement agencies they will not catch every single person who currently drives when over the existing blood-alcohol level. We probably have several hundred thousand drink-driving incidents on our roads every year. Although I support the collection of data on the issue of whether the level should be 0.05 and 0.08 I very strongly commend the policies and the efforts of the police to reduce that shameful statistic. The introduction of zero blood-alcohol levels and interlocks for recidivist drink-drivers and the youth zero blood-alcohol level will certainly improve that statistic. 
I did not want to get into a political debate on this issue as we will get widespread support for it but Mr Hughes opened the door. In response to an interjection questioning why Labour did not lower the blood-alcohol limit in the 9 years it was in charge he said that a bill was introduced by the previous Government and the road toll had reduced under Labour. I am afraid that is simply not borne out by the statistics which show that in 2002 the 12-month road toll was 404 and in 2009 it was 406. It went up it went down and it went up again but it has basically slid sideways since the turn of the millennium. If we measure that in terms of deaths per vehicle kilometres we have very poor statistics. The statistics are also flat—declining slightly but not nearly as well as they are in other countries around the world. Over the period between 2002 and 2009 New Zealand had an 82 percent higher death rate per kilometre than in the United Kingdom a 60 percent higher rate than in Ireland and a 40 percent higher rate than in Australia. It is simply not true to say that the initiatives of the previous Labour Government were having sufficient effect. 
Everybody agrees even Labour members that this legislation is necessary. Despite that it is good that the vast majority of Labour members with perhaps the unanimous support of all members—I am not sure what the Greens are doing—will support the bill. It will provide a refreshing change I think for the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to work perhaps a little more collegially over the next few months on this legislation than it will on industrial relations legislation and I look forward to that. I commend the bill to the House. 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 As has been stated Labour will support the referral of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I think we can make some real improvements to the bill. As many other members have said this legislation is important. It is important in terms of the number of people who die or who are injured on our roads and it is also important in terms of the costs we incurred from the road toll. I want to speak to three points on which I think the Government is being rather inconsistent. I was not going to mention the blood-alcohol limit because Darren Hughes mentioned it previously but let me highlight a couple of issues. 
In terms of reducing the blood-alcohol level from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood let me quote one physician Professor Jennie Connor an epidemiologist from Otago University. She said that reducing the level from 80 to 50 will have four times more impact in terms of fatal road crashes. Alcohol is a factor in one in three crashes. 
The Minister of Transport said that if he drank three-quarters of a bottle of wine in an hour or an hour and a half he would not be fit to drive. In fact he said it is ridiculous that he would drive after drinking as much as that. Yet that same Minister is prepared to keep the blood-alcohol limit exactly the same as it is. The Ministry of Transport says that reducing the blood-alcohol limit would save 33 lives 680 injuries and about $200 million a year. I do not understand how that Minister can be different from the rest of us. Is he not able to take as much alcohol as the rest of us? I do not think so; he is a big person. Yet he says it is ridiculous that he should be able to drive after drinking to the level that people are allowed to reach today. 
I ask what is different about New Zealanders. What is so different about New Zealanders that we have to do more studies to try to explain why we should not move the blood-alcohol limit from 80 to 50 immediately? In Australia the limit is 50 in the UK it is 50 and in France it is 50 and they know they have already saved lives as a result of moving the blood-alcohol level down. What is so different about people living in New Zealand that we have to have more studies to see what excess blood alcohol does to us as human beings? It does not make any sense. 
I believe that what we are seeing here is a spin on a public relations exercise that has gone badly wrong. The Minister said in a number of statements that he was surprised that in a poll on this issue about two-thirds of New Zealanders supported a reduction in the blood-alcohol limit. He thought it would be closer to fifty-fifty or even lower. So he took a punt on it was surprised then could not go back. Thirty-three people will lose their lives as a result of the Minister’s decision not to lower the blood-alcohol level any earlier. 
I want to speak on another topic and that is the Puhoi to Wellsford road—the “Holiday Highway”. The Minister of Transport Mr Joyce actually called it the “Holiday Highway” at a recent infrastructure conference. He too believes that it is a holiday highway and is there to benefit people who want to go to the beaches around Omaha quickly in the long weekends as the Prime Minister does. There are two reasons for building that highway: one is the economic benefit and the other is safety. The economic benefits simply do not stack up. The rate of return is 0.8. So for every dollar we spend we get 80c back. In other words we will get less back than we will spend on the highway. When I have spoken to economists about this none of them could understand how we could even get to 0.8. Most of them think the figure is closer to 0.3. I am talking about a $1.6 billion—possibly $2 billion—piece of roading. Just think what you could do with $2 billion—or $1.6 billion if you want to be conservative. You could restore the health cuts lower accident compensation levies or fund the SuperGold card for the next 60 years. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! 
DAVID SHEARER 
: Yet the Minister of Transport has been talking about withdrawing limiting or restricting its applicability. That money—for a highway that will not even produce a return—represents 60 years of the SuperGold card 
The second reason given for building the highway is that it will be safer. The ridiculous thing is that 50 people will die on the roads while this new road is being constructed based on the average road toll over the last 9 or 10 years. There will be 50 more deaths. Let me explain this because there are other alternatives. 
The Campaign for Better Transport and the Auckland Transport Blog did some pretty good studies on some alternatives. For $320 million as opposed to $2 billion we could get the current road upgraded to three lanes get centres strips put through the middle of the highway get a Warkworth bypass and even get a new bypass that takes away the Schedewys Hill bends. It would generate three to four times the cost-benefit that the current scheme will. I am pleased to see that the Minister is back in the Chamber because I would like him to hear this. The $320 million scheme as opposed to the $2 billion one would give you 90 percent of the benefits at about one-seventh of the cost. Then you can use that extra money for the SuperGold card for example. I say to the Minister that the SuperGold card could be funded for the next 60 years with what you— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: On numerous occasions the member has brought me into the debate. Members cannot say “you”; that refers to the presiding officer. That is what I mentioned before—SuperGold card or not it is not me. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: I apologise for that Mr Deputy Speaker and for any reference that the SuperGold card might apply to you. As I said we could have 60 years worth of SuperGold card for the cost of one highway. 
I want to mention one last feature and that is the report which came out today done by the  
Herald 
-DigiPoll about transport in Auckland. It is really really interesting. When Aucklanders were asked what they wanted more than anything else in terms of transport 23 percent or nearly a quarter of Aucklanders saw the No. 1 priority as a rail link to the airport. That was really surprising. It well and truly exceeded any upgrades to Auckland’s roads. 
The other interesting thing that came up in that report is that nearly two-thirds of Aucklanders would like to see rail and road on the new harbour crossing. Again Aucklanders are changing their perspective on the roading outlook to one that is more mixed with public transport. Unfortunately that does not seem to fit with this Minister’s outlook in terms of his dedication to roads. 
Just the other day when the Minister was asked questions in relation to the Auckland mayoral candidates and what they believe is needed he said that roading projects are still to be built and that they should come before any talk of new rail projects. That is what he said in August on Radio New Zealand National. The Minister is not visionary; he is merely “rear-visionary”. He looks behind him to what people wanted before rather than at what people want today. Thank you. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I appreciate the opportunity to close the debate on the first reading of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I do not want to spend too long on the bill but I would like to address a few remarks to those 15-year-olds out there who are obviously going to be disappointed that they will be held back a year before they can get their driver’s licence. I would ask them to understand that it has been estimated that moving the age up just one year to 16 years will save at least four lives a year and will prevent 25 serious injuries and 148 minor injuries a year. That is significant. It is also estimated that in social-cost terms there will be a saving of about $38 million. 
I ask those young people to understand that the world has changed enormously since I got my driver’s licence very shortly after my 15th birthday 45 years ago but the driving age has not been adjusted accordingly. When I went for my test the first thing you did was ring up the local traffic cop said you wanted to take your licence test and they gave you a time. You showed up you hopped in the car and the first thing you did was wind down the driver’s window. This was so that when you came to do the right-turn test you could stick your arm out the window to indicate that you were changing direction or if you were stopping to stick your arm out and give the “stop” sign. If you were turning left you stuck your hand in the front of the windscreen to indicate to oncoming traffic that you were going left. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Order! I am not— 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: I am sorry Mr Deputy Speaker. I should have learnt from your reprimanding of my colleague the previous speaker David Shearer and you are quite right. 
So I put my hand across the front of the windscreen and indicated. If the youngster was unlucky he or she was required to stop on a slight slope and show the ability to start again without rolling back. The driver went around the block the traffic cop said “Yes son you’re fine.” and in 10 minutes one had his or her licence. There was much less traffic on the road than there is now. Cars were far less powerful. I do not think I knew 15-year-olds who had the use of their own car. It was a matter of massive negotiation with one’s parents. There was certainly no suggestion that one would drive to school. A lot of lawns had to be mowed in order to get the use of the car once a week if one was lucky. I hope that 15-year-olds will appreciate that there is very very good reason for this change being made. I think many of us would think that it is quite long overdue. I am pleased to see it happening. With that I commend the bill to the House and I support its referral to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee consider the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 
 that the committee report finally to the House on or before 16 December 2010 and have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House and outside the Wellington area despite Standing Orders 187 189(a) and 190(1)b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
Personal Explanations 
Careless Driving—Convictions 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation under Standing Order 349 in regard to my driving record. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: When I spoke of my own driving record in my first reading speech on the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill I was operating from memory. Subsequent to that speech I received a media inquiry as to the penalty I received. I reviewed my record from the Ministry of Justice. In fact I have two convictions not one for careless driving within a 2-year period in 1988 and 1989. 
Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill 
First Reading 
Debate resumed from 15 September. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction) 
: 
 The Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill is a double bill because last night as we introduced it we also introduced the Customs Amendment Bill. I am disappointed that Damien O’Connor is not going to take his 6½ minutes to speak on it because last night he got up and got so many things wrong in the first part of the bill as did “Sio” William Sio that I want to correct just two of them. I could spend the rest of the speech on them. 
First of all they said that the Government had increased the import transaction fee but that is not true. It has been $24.75 and it will stay $24.75. Then they said that it would apply to passengers coming in from travelling overseas. Damien O’Connor said that he was now nervous about coming back through customs because he might get socked with it. Well no he will not. The import transaction fee will not apply to any passengers coming through. It does not apply no matter whether they are over the $700 limit. The misinformation we got from Labour members last night including Su’a William Sio was that we had increased it. The other one was a cracker! It was that the Government had increased the fee to pay for the joint border management system that is coming. That is not true. It is a straight cost recovery for the transaction fee alone. That is where the expansion to cover a few items was. 
I will come to the bill. The bill will allow cost recovery of passenger clearance services at new and restart international airports. Let us get that clear—a new international airport. Let us think of a place that has not got one at present—for example Taihape. If Taihape wanted to— 
Jo Goodhew 
: Timaru. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: OK. I think our member from Timaru has a very good case for having an international airport. I am not sure it will happen soon but maybe one day. Timaru wants to get an international airport. We are saying in this bill that it is too easy to put up the case and have somebody else pay for things like the Customs Service the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries service and the Aviation Security Service. This bill will allow the Government to set a time frame—although in this legislation it is up to 3 years we have signalled we will go up only to 2 years—for which a new international airport has to charge the airlines and the users for the cost for the provision of that service. That is a sensible thing. After that has settled down and has proved to have some longevity—that it is not going to run for 3 months and then shut down—then that will be the case. 
In the case of restart airports this legislation does something different again. It gives a period of grace of up to 6 months—it will be put into regulation but the legislation says up to 6 months. Let us say we have an airport operating as an international airport and it decides it will no longer carry on so it shuts its international services. We have had this in the past and I can tell members that my Customs Service has faced a huge amount of costs to pay out for redundancies to close down operations to move the plant and equipment and to resettle the whole operation because an airport that was operating is no longer international. We are saying that if an airport is going to close there will be a grace period of up to 6 months which will be prescribed in regulation. During that time the airport might try to find another international operator. If it can find one in that time frame good stuff; it gets the operator and it carries on with the regime being funded for it. But if it takes 18 months before it decides to start again or if on a whim somebody says they will have a crack at flying some in there is no way it can expect the Government to pour a fortune of money into the system to get it all back up and running with aviation security Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries inspections and customs inspections only to find that it might last 3 months and then close again with all the associated costs. 
This bill is a component of the overall funding arrangements for passenger clearance services. It was actually agreed by the previous Labour Government and the aviation sector back in 2005. That is when the agreement for this came in. I think the previous Government got it right and I gave it praise for that 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Sorry? Can you repeat that please? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I will say it again: I give the previous Labour Government praise for getting this agreement through. This legislation will now confirm that. It is a good step in the right direction. I repeat it so that everyone is clear: it simply provides that if any city in New Zealand wants to start a new international air service into that town as Timaru may want to then the new airport will have to find the funding through its passenger charges and so on for at least 2 years—maybe a year but no more than 3 years because the maximum can be defined in the regulations as 3 years. The Government has as members will see in the cover note to the bill indicated that we are going to start at 2 years. 
Let us take another airport that is currently running. I will not give an example in this case because if I pick one there would be a kerfuffle with people running around saying that the Minister said in the House that that airport is closing. Let us take airport X which is operating out there as an international airport. If it decides that it will no longer be an international airport because an international airline is pulling out and will not carry on flying into this airport so it is not economically viable then a period of grace of up to 6 months will lie for that airport company to find a new operator to get it in and get it operating. We will give them that period of grace with no extra charge. If the airport does not do that the clock stops and it will then be treated as a new airport. 
This is a very good bill. It is heading in the right direction about putting some real responsibility on people as to how they behave and about how costs fall best where they lie. I commend the bill to the House. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I also rise to speak in support of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. Before the Hon Maurice Williamson does not get a chance to hear more of my speech I will give him a wee correction: my colleague is Su’a William Sio. I draw that to his attention in a constructive manner. 
As I said this is a bill that Labour supports. It was introduced by David Carter in his biosecurity portfolio. As the previous speaker the Hon Maurice Williamson outlined it is a sensible provision. It looks at the cost of providing customs and biosecurity services to new international airports and also to international airports that close down and then start up again—and I will come back to that in a minute. Those services are significant they are required to be provided at international airports and there is significant cost associated with them. As I have said from our position we support the bill. We have to seriously invest in services that protect our country from invasive foreign pests. That is very important given the nature of our economy and I will talk a little more on that shortly. 
New international airports clearly place a significant added burden and require additional investment in biosecurity and customs services. They should bear a part of the cost of that significant investment. From our perspective the requirement to provide some sort of cost recovery needs to be balanced against the economic development interests of regions that new international airports may service. The example given previously was the potential for an international airport in Timaru. I personally cannot see that happening anytime soon but should that be the case then the economic development interest would clearly be there. 
In looking at this bill in a little more detail I note that it essentially provides for cost recovery of aviation security biosecurity and customs traveller processing in relation to scheduled international flights that arrive or depart from new or re-established international airports and international flights where on request travellers are processed in a non-routine manner at any international airport. That could be at an existing international airport that is outside of the normal schedule. 
The objective of the bill is to reduce the Government’s exposure to an unpredictable or unlimited liability in relation to the processing of travellers. The previous Labour Government looked at that issue in 2004 as has been mentioned. It consulted on and discussed this matter widely with regional councils and businesses. It chose at that time to reduce the cost recovery period for providing customs and biosecurity services to just 1 year. Its members were concerned that a longer period would have issues around economic development for regions. Since that time both Rotorua and Invercargill have established international airports and they have removed two of the primary objectives of the policy. 
We think that the bill probably goes too far in proposing a 3-year cost recovery period; 2 years might perhaps be a fairer balance. We are keen to discuss that balance in a select committee. As members can see I am sure that this will be a very constructive discussion. We are basically on the same page here. The discussion will be on the detail. 
As I said the previous Labour Government put considerable effort into consulting the public when it looked at the prior legislation. There was a discussion document and a number of objections were raised which the Government listened and responded to. The difference between that legislation and this legislation is that this legislation has not been well signalled. There has been no consultation—not even a press release heralding the arrival of this bill. 
However it is fair that new international airports should pay their fair share of the cost of customs and biosecurity arrangements. As I said earlier the issue of biosecurity is one of the most significant economic issues for this country. Given our dependence on our primary industries getting it right in terms of biosecurity is absolutely fundamental. We could devastate entire industries and huge earnings for our country by making mistakes in this space. 
Prior to coming to Parliament I was a member of the previous Government’s Food and Beverage Sector Taskforce. The task force looked very closely at a number of areas related to this bill because the food and beverage sector is a significant part of our economy. It always will be in my opinion because it is something that we have a natural advantage at. Despite our distance from many of our markets we do it remarkably well. But we must have really strong regulation and support in areas like biosecurity. It is interesting that biosecurity is one of the few areas of regulation we can talk about that everyone agrees on. Even those people who say that we should not have too much regulation and that we should get rid of all the red tape know that in terms of biosecurity that is not the case. 
I also note that I did my Business and Parliament Trust placement with AsureQuality. I was very impressed by the work that it and others do in the biosecurity area. They are dedicated to this cause and dedicated to securing the place of our primary industries in our economy. So I would just like to acknowledge their work. 
We were very concerned last year when the jobs of 54 staff from MAF Biosecurity New Zealand were cut. We think that was very very foolish and that those cuts should be reversed. Those were front-line positions—and this Government talks a lot about back-office and front-line positions—that were vital to protect our country against foreign pests and organisms that could wreak economic and environmental havoc. 
I say again that this bill is about the viability of our country. Our economy is very very dependent on our primary industries so I urge the Government to look at that issue and reconsider the loss of 54 staff and the relative cost of that compared with things like the $10 billion cost that foot-and-mouth would cause if it ever took hold in New Zealand. I hope we can get some agreement on that across the House in the spirit of cooperation on the important issue of biosecurity. 
The main provisions of the bill are cost recovery at new and re-established international airports. Charges for processing travellers will be specified in regulations. The bill will specify the costs that may be recovered and the methods of charging as well as the limit of the time period for cost recovery. At the moment the bill talks about a maximum of 3 years with a lesser period able to be prescribed by regulation. I think there will be quite a lively discussion about that at a select committee. We should take account of the submissions that will be made on the issue of the appropriate period of time for cost recovery to apply. 
At the expiry of the cost-recovery period the cost of aviation security services will continue to be recovered. However the charges will then fall directly on the airline but biosecurity and customs services will be funded by the Government after that cost-recovery time period. I think that is recognition of the private and public good aspects that are in place with things like aviation security biosecurity and customs. 
There is a grace period for international airports that are being re-established. The grace period allows an airport company to find a replacement airline within a reasonable time. During that time the processing services could remain in place which is important. So we may have an international airport Rotorua for example where for some reason the carrier decided to vacate that spot. That scenario is unlikely—I am not sure but I assume that the international service from Rotorua is Air New Zealand—but let us for argument’s sake say that a carrier decided to vacate that spot. Clearly there would be a strong desire to get another airline in place. The grace period would mean the airport company could do that before the cost-recovery period would take place. 
Those are main points I want to draw to the attention of the House. Although this bill may not feature as one of the sexiest bills to hit the House it is fundamentally important. I can see that the member across the House Shane Ardern who is very concerned about primary production—as I am—can see the importance of this. I commend this bill to the House. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is very happy to support the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. This uncontroversial and very reasonable bill will internalise some of the enforcement costs associated with international travel particularly in terms of biosecurity. 
Last year there were almost 30000 flights into New Zealand and they brought in amongst other things 4.5 million people. Obviously as an island nation our air links are incredibly important to our relations with the world and our economic prosperity. But equally as the previous speaker Carol Beaumont pointed out biosecurity is one of the most significant economic issues in New Zealand. We need to be vigilant about biosecurity in order to protect our primary production base from introduced pests and species. One of the great advantages our primary production sector has over the rest of the world is its relative freedom from numerous pests and diseases. So obviously the Greens strongly support the notion of taking stronger measures to maintain that status by having strict border security quarantine and internal biosecurity capacity. 
As the previous speaker mentioned it is ironic that on one hand we are taking all these extremely vigilant and very worthwhile steps at airports to protect our biosecurity but on the other hand the Government is eliminating 54 staff from MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. Equally because of our obsession with free trade and despite our vigilance about airports we are extremely lax in other areas. 
For example we are considering bringing in Australian honey even though it is completely unnecessary. We have a wonderful honey industry in New Zealand and we have no need for imported Australian honey. We know that imported Australian honey may harbour new and quite devastating diseases that could be a precursor to colony collapse disorder which we know is killing bees on a massive scale all around the world. We are prepared to bring in a completely unnecessary product like Australian honey even though we know that Australia imports honey from China and other places and mixes it with Australian honey. We know that Australia has diseases that we do no have here. I think one is called Israeli acute paralysis virus or something or other—a very strange name. Australia has these diseases yet we are prepared to bring in this unnecessary product—God knows why—that could result in the wiping out of bees in New Zealand. How absurd is that! 
We are also allowing frozen pork carcasses to come into New Zealand even though we know they may bring in new diseases. Indeed we think a disease has come into the country via imported frozen carcasses. Australia will not allow them into the country but we let them into New Zealand because I presume we have an obsession with free trade and are not prepared to stand up and oppose it. 
Last year a disease came into New Zealand and devastated tomato production. There are suspicions as to how it got into the country. It may very well have got in through some of the imported produce we allow into New Zealand. It is interesting that we import $3.5 billion worth I think of food into New Zealand every year. We import vast quantities of fruit and vegetables and there are concerns that the disease that affected potatoes and tomatoes— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Try relating it to the bill. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: —in such a devastating way last year came in with some of the imported produce that we allow so freely into New Zealand without adequate controls. The relevance of my speech to this bill which some National members are agitating about is that on one hand we are very stringent and rigid at our airports—which the Greens think is a fantastic thing and strongly support—and on the other hand we are so lax in relation to produce coming into New Zealand that can bring in devastating diseases. I refer to diseases that can devastate whole sectors of our primary produce industries as they already have done—for example the diseases affecting tomatoes and potatoes which came into the country during the last few years. Now we have the prospect of a disease coming in that might devastate our honey industry. The most likely cause of the pork disease that has come into the country is frozen pork. In the meantime we are busily cutting 54 staff from Biosecurity New Zealand at the same time. So this bill does not make a lot of sense. 
Nevertheless the Greens are pleased that at least we are allowed to have strict aviation security at our airports where we do not have to worry about free trade with other countries. This bill will allow that same strict biosecurity at new international airports it will internalise some of those enforcement costs and it will also reduce the Government’s exposure to liability in relation to the processing of travellers. We think that is fair. 
In conclusion the Greens hope that the very strict rules around biosecurity that are envisaged in this bill will actually pertain to other areas in New Zealand and in particular that New Zealand will be more vigilant about the vast amount of produce coming into this country and its ability to bring in diseases that will devastate our primary production sector. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill 2010. This bill enables the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the Aviation Security Service and the New Zealand Customs Service to recover costs associated with providing passenger processing services at new and restarting airports. Members on this side of the House think that is a wonderful thing. It is good to see that the House is pretty much in unanimous support of the bill. It is a wonderful bill and I look forward to its passage through the House. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. I stand to say that the Maori Party will be supporting the first reading of the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. Thank you very much. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 The Labour Party supports the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill. It recognises the cost of providing customs and biosecurity services to new international airports and that those costs are significant. The Government is replicating services already present in international airports and the cost of replicating them in new smaller airports is significant. So the Government is basically saying that it wants to recoup its costs in relation to smaller international airports. 
Labour supports this bill. We recognise that we must invest in services that protect our country from invasive species and foreign pests at new international airports. It does place an added burden on our investment in biosecurity and customs services and therefore new international airports should realise some of those costs. The activities carried out in international airports basically revolve around processing travellers and visitors. Some of the activities carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry under the Biosecurity Act are to ascertain whether goods in possession or control of the traveller may be cleared for entry into New Zealand under section 26 of that Act. 
Some of the goods we are talking about are animals and animal products such as live animals pets birds and meat products whether fresh or cooked; dairy products including cheese milk milk powder and eggs; fish honey feathers and all those sorts of things. It is really important that biosecurity staff are in place to check that these things are not entering the country because they jeopardise our primary products and our agriculture and horticulture industries. We cannot afford to have that happen. 
Another set of activities carried out at international airports by the Aviation Security Service under the Civil Aviation Act is screening travellers and travellers’ baggage and ensuring the safety and security of the civil aviation system. Basically that means checking that people are not taking weapons and other illicit objects on to planes and also ensuring the safety of flights. Of course those of us who travel appreciate the fact that we need to have a safe air system. 
The last set of activities carried out at international airports by customs under the Customs and Excise Act 1996 is determining a traveller’s eligibility to enter or leave New Zealand establishing whether goods in the traveller’s possession need to be charged for duty and determining whether a traveller has prohibited goods or exports or otherwise. Some of the restricted items that customs checks for are weapons firearms flick knives objectionable articles and images illicit drugs and drug paraphernalia and also endangered species of flora and fauna. 
We need to recognise the costs that will be imposed on the Government from replicating those sorts of services in new international airports which will be smaller. The Government is saying I think quite rightly so that there should be some recouping of those costs. If we take Rotorua International Airport as an example we see that it has only a couple of flights a week. However it has to replicate the staff and services that are provided in an international airport the size of Auckland’s airport. Auckland International Airport is the second-busiest airport in Australasia so what is happening there every minute of every day would occur for only a couple of hours per week in Rotorua. Replication of the environment and the services would incur significant costs and it is only fair that the costs are recouped. 
As I have said Labour supports the bill. We recognise that replicating those services comes at a huge cost to the Crown and that any international airport should have to realise part of those costs. We have a high number of international airports per capita—we have seven. Auckland is New Zealand’s busiest airport and the second-busiest in Australasia. There are international airports in Wellington Christchurch Dunedin Rotorua and Hamilton and there is one other that I cannot recall. There is a huge cost in making sure that when travellers come into New Zealand everybody is screened. 
By 2016 there will be 3 million international visitors a year coming into New Zealand. Of course most of them leave so that is 6 million movements through customs and through international airports. That is a lot of people. There will also be 2.5 million New Zealanders leaving the country—we would like to think that they all come back too—so that is another 5 million movements. That is 11 million movements of people throughout our international airports. The majority of them will go through Auckland Wellington or Christchurch but some will go through Rotorua and Hamilton. We need to have our biosecurity our customs and our aviation security people in those small airports and that is a cost that the Government would like to recoup. 
It is suggested that the period of time in which the Government will recoup those losses will be 3 years. We believe that the bill goes too far in proposing a 3-year cost recovery. The Labour Government in 2004 with similar legislation proposed a 1-year cost recovery period. We are thinking that we should split the difference between a 3-year cost recovery period and a 1-year cost recovery period and maybe make it 2 years. However that is something that can be discussed at the Primary Production Committee and nutted out to decide exactly what will be the best time period for the cost recovery. 
I also agree with what our colleague from the Green Party Sue Kedgley said about biosecurity staff numbers. We have a big emphasis on biosecurity and making sure that we have the staff there to protect our primary products: agriculture and horticulture. However in the last year the Government has cut 54 staff from MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. Those cost cuts must be reversed. It is essential that we have the staff and the services to protect our economy because agriculture and horticulture are important to our nation. These are front-line positions that have been taken. They are vital for protecting us from foreign pests. 
We need only to look at today’s  
New Zealand Herald  
to see an instance of a pest getting into New Zealand. OK it was not at an airport. The pest was a boa constrictor that came across in a container I think in a consignment of palm trees from Guatemala of all places. A boa constrictor is fairly easy to see in a container but we are talking about the smaller pests and organisms that may arrive in people’s luggage or baggage or on the bottoms of rugby boots. I recall when I went to a rugby tour in Australia that we had to produce our rugby boots and they had to be cleaned and sprayed. It was the first time that they had ever been cleaned or sprayed in about 5 years of playing rugby. But the boa constrictor incident is a case in point of where we have to be really careful about protecting our borders from these unwanted pests. That boa constrictor was found by biosecurity staff so the cuts to that department must be reversed. With that I reiterate that Labour supports this bill’s referral to the Primary Production Committee. Kia ora. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I commend the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill for consideration at the Primary Production Committee. Thank you. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 That was a very very short speech from Mr Allan Peachey; I will take a full 10 minutes. Anyway it looks as if he is going from the Chamber. I am delighted to speak on this Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill and at very short notice actually. I did not know I was supposed to be speaking. But as always— 
Hone Harawira 
: You’ve got 10 minutes—use them all. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: Mr Hone Harawira should not worry about it. He should keep up the good work he is doing out there in the Maori Party. 
But I will go back a step in terms of the biosecurity needs of this country. This country is an agricultural country and we are dependent on—our income comes from—agriculture. We are dependent on the export of our agricultural products; whether meat milk products fruit or vegetables we are dependent for our income on exports. So we have to make sure as have successive Governments over many many years that we increasingly safeguard our borders. Whether stuff is coming through an airport or by ship we have to ensure that these islands of ours are protected from all the nasties the pests and the insects that might come into this country. Once those pests and insects get established in New Zealand then we have a real problem. As we know pests have become established here in the past so we have to make sure that does not happen again. This bill is another effort in promoting biosecurity in some of the new airports particularly in relation to cost recovery. I agree with the Minister that we have to make sure that the cost is recovered and that there has to be a sharing of the cost between the Government and the new airports because that is important. 
Over the last 2 weeks the Primary Production Committee has been hearing submissions on the Food Bill which has taken many years to come to fruition and to Parliament. We have been hearing from a range of submitters: from importers exporters city councils and district councils to food manufacturers. One of the issues that I have been asking submitters about is imported foods. We have very high standards of food in this country but I have been really worried about some of the food that is being imported. As members can appreciate I buy food and spices that come in from overseas and a couple of weeks ago one of the sachets that I opened had some insects inside it. It was awful! That is what I have been talking about in the select committee too. We have to be very very careful with all this food coming in particularly from some of the developing countries unfortunately that do not have the high standards that we have in this country. We have to ensure that all the imports whether vehicles or food or people coming into this country do not have the nasties all the pests and insects coming in with them. 
This bill is another effort to ensure that we have good biosecurity controls at the airport. We have the trained dogs for this purpose and we have the trained staff. It was very sad that although the Government is promoting these bills as my colleague from the Green Party said earlier last year the Government pretty much let around 55 people go from MAF Biosecurity New Zealand. That is not really acceptable; that is very short-term thinking. If we cannot ensure our borders are secure from the potential invasion of insects and pests in this country then we will be very sad and sorry in the long term. This bill ensures that in new airports such as Rotorua or anywhere else appropriate measures are taken in terms of having trained security staff and dogs. 
In the meantime staff have to make sure that all the travellers and visitors to this country do not bring any unacceptable stuff here but it keeps happening unfortunately. I often watch the programme  
Border Patrol  
on television. It is fascinating to see some of these people bringing in stuff that is really unacceptable. These people say they did not know. They brought in some apples and some other foodstuffs and maybe sometimes they genuinely did not know the requirements of this country. But members can just imagine some of those foodstuffs that are coming here such as seeds or even spices. As I said I personally saw these insects in that sachet of food which had been brought here and I was horrified. I had to personally burn the damn thing to ensure that they did not breed here. At the same time some of these foods that come here are outdated and on the way—God knows how long they take to get here—the pests develop inside the food material and end up in the shops particularly some of the dairies and small ethnic shops unfortunately. Those businesses tend to bring in food that is often not really acceptable. To that extent the biosecurity people need to be more vigilant. They have to have more monitoring. 
I know that in the end it is an issue of resources. I understand that but at the same time some of the food that gets in here is not really acceptable from a biosecurity as well as a food safety point of view. This is a major issue of food safety for a lot of our people who consume food that comes from overseas. It is not so much about what we are sending out but what is coming into the country which really concerns me. Over the years my scientist colleagues at Massey University and I have done a lot of work ensuring that the biosecurity steps in terms of laws and policies are backed by proper science. Over the years I know that AgResearch has done a lot of good work in promoting the weed scientists and the pest and control people. It has done a lot of work ensuring that they have good border security and also ensuring that we do not get any diseases and pests coming into New Zealand. 
Some of these issues have been brought up— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: It’s a maiden speech and a valedictory in one. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: No. This speech is coming off the top of my head. All my work and research that I have done over the years is still up there. I have not forgotten. Even after 8 years I have not forgotten all the agriculture work that I have done. Members do not need to worry because all the information is there. I am personally aware of this work in agriculture pasture land crops and animals. Some of these chaps from towns have no idea—like my children frankly—what we are talking about. But I like you yourself Mr Assistant Speaker Barker come from a farm. We have worked all our lives on a farm; we know what is required in this country. 
Agriculture is the basis of this country. All our income all the living standards that we have today have come from the farmers of this country. I have said many times and I know some of the farmers from rural areas will appreciate the fact that this country is dependent on agriculture. We have to protect our people from the diseases and insects that come into this country. There are simply no two ways about it. We have to ensure that we do not get any insects and pests coming into this country. I know that Mr Assistant Speaker wants me to hurry up but this is a subject that I am delighted to talk about. I am pleased to support this bill. Although it came from the Government Labour started this bill. Members have to remember that we have done a lot of work in this area to promote this legislation. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 The Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill is a great bill and it took a National Government to move it forward. We are delighted to see that happening and we look forward to its successful progress through the select committee. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I move  
That the Primary Production Committee 
 consider the  
Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill that the committee report finally to the House on or before 15 November 2010 and have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions) and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
Motion agreed to. 
Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Committee stage of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill to be taken as one debatable question with multiple calls. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of the progress of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. Getting through the name of the bill we are currently considering reminds me that the speakers on the previous legislation had they been confronted with debating a bill called the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill would not have got away with their 20-second calls because it takes longer than that just to say the name of the bill. 
This is one of those unusual situations where the original legislation which was the cause of a lot of debate and a lot of serious consideration in this Chamber was to my recollection supported unanimously. This bill just amends that legislation. We have had the same degree of consideration for this bill. It has not been a party political issue at all and I was really pleased at the proper consideration that the Health Committee gave it. I pay tribute to the chair of the select committee Dr Paul Hutchison and the other members. I think we all took this issue seriously. I found it quite frustrating on some occasions. Some really interesting debates were raised during the submission process that were clearly out of scope but we all wanted to debate them anyway because they were interesting. We restrained ourselves and I think we should get gold stars and probably a week’s leave— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: A chocolate fish. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Is that in addition to the gold star? 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I’ll put a gold star on the chocolate fish. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: A gold star and a chocolate fish for our restraint in not getting into the other issues! 
From a serious point of view it was really important that we did not open the debate up broadly because this is a contentious issue. We did not want people to have expectations of changes in the overall regime of this legislation rather than just the specific technical amendment it seeks to achieve. 
I have a serious question for the Minister in the chair Dr Jonathan Coleman who is an Associate Minister of Health. He has a lot of experience—not necessarily in this specific area but certainly in the health area—rather than the Minister who is in charge of the bill the Hon Simon Power. He may not immediately be able to answer this question but I tell him that it is a serious one. Before I put it I ask him to flick through the bill as amended by the select committee and reported back to the House. As I said this is unanimous. This is not a point-scoring exercise; I want to hear the answer to this question from the Minister’s perspective. Did we get it right at the select committee? From the Minister’s perspective have we now clarified the one single point that this amendment bill sought to clarify? 
The reason I am concerned about it is that there was no politicking in it and no argument about it—we all wanted to get it right—but we have nearly rewritten the whole amendment bill. The bill seeks to clarify beyond doubt the situation making clear the storage period—it has other amendments as well but this is the most important one—of sperm eggs and embryos. That is important in terms of the requirements for fertility clinics to use them or dispose of them. I ask the Minister to reflect on my first question: have we got it right and does this now make it really clear what the storage period is in terms of when it starts and therefore when it will finish? 
If it does the second question is how we got it so wrong when the Minister introduced the amendment bill in the first place. What caused such a significant change of opinion between the bill as introduced and the bill that is now being reported back to the House? I have no doubt at all about not only the sincerity but also the competence of the officials. I think they worked really diligently with a committee that was genuinely interested in the goings-on and with submitters who had no ulterior motive actually but to get it right. Some of the submitters had different views about what might have been the outcome but interestingly enough of the submissions we received not a single one opposed the intent of the bill to clarify the 10-year period. All of the submissions we received either supported or did not oppose the intent of the bill with regard to the clarification of the 10-year storage period. 
Doubt was also removed about the roles of the relevant committees in extending the storage limit. That was another quite difficult area for us to work through. We sought to clarify the specific role of advisory committees and what their mandate was and also the role of the ethics committees. 
This area as members would understand has a lot of human emotion attached to it. A large number of couples are unable to conceive other than through in vitro fertilisation treatment. It is important that the law is clear so that we never ever put a couple in the situation where their expectations about the significant procedure they are about to undertake are interfered with because of something that is not clear in the law. Having that sort of tension laid on a couple in this situation would be totally unacceptable. 
As I said I would like the Minister to consider that genuine question. I am delighted that the Hon Simon Power is now in the position where he has relieved himself of the public duties that he was attending to to the point where he will be able to take a call in this debate. For his benefit because the battery may have been a little flat on his transistor radio as he walked into the Chamber I will repeat what is a genuine question for the Minister responsible for this legislation. I want a response to this question from his perspective: did the Health Committee get it right? We made substantial omissions amendments and insertions to this legislation during a very rigorous process at the select committee. We had highly competent and attentive officials. Members of the select committee paid a lot of attention to the submissions and worked really hard to get it right and we want it to be right. So I would like the Minister to say whether he is satisfied having read every amendment that we have made that the select committee is reporting back the bill in a way that makes him confident that the lack of clarity in the original legislation is now made crystal clear. 
The second part of that question is why if we got it right the bill that the Minister introduced got it so wrong. On every page of this bill— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Oh that’s harsh. That is very harsh. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Not from the Minister’s point of view. I want to know what happened in the process. It is a technical bill and it seems odd that significant amendments have been made to every single part of the bill. The parts were amended withdrawn or replaced. I ask what happened in that process. Was it because some submitters who came before the select committee read the legislation entirely differently from the way that the Minister and his officials had read it? Did they have completely different views about what was meant? We did hear that; National list MP Michael Woodhouse will testify to that in his contribution I am sure. Some submitters read the legislation and had quite a different view about it than the view that we had. Human understanding and perception could be a big part of that. 
I am keen in the remaining few minutes of our opportunity to further amend this legislation in the Committee stage to make sure that if any further amendments are needed we make them now. I have not seen the Minister presenting any Supplementary Order Papers to the Committee and I am encouraged by that. I assume that means he is satisfied in which case he has only one question to answer. That question is what happened from his perspective between the introduction of the bill the submission process the consideration and the outcome which is so different from the legislation we had in the past. 
The final point I make is one that is disappointing. In a bill like this—particularly where there is no political debate; there is no party political difference on this legislation—it would be very helpful if— 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Mr Chairman— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I’d like to take another call. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Well that is up to the member. I thank the member for her contribution. I heard only the last part of it but given the number of times that she went over the same point I assume that the minutes leading up to that point had been spent covering the same points as well. 
I assure her that I am satisfied with the amendments to the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill that came from the Health Committee. The reason that those changes were made is that that is exactly the way the parliamentary process is designed to work. As I said in the second reading debate—I think the member was here for that debate as well— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Hanging on every word I was. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
:—that is right—the clarification of the grace period and various other matters that were seen by the committee to require sharper clarification than perhaps in the first draft was carried out in a diligent and pragmatic way and for that I am grateful to the committee for its work. I believe that the parliamentary process has worked in the way it should in that we now have a bill that satisfies those concerns. There are no further amendments from the Government nor am I aware of any further amendments from any other political parties. 
To that end I suggest that we get on with passing this legislation to return some certainty to the lives of those couples who are waiting for this legislation to bed in and do what it is supposed to do. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am very happy to take a call on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. I am a little disappointed to have to withdraw the chocolate fish offer; at this stage it is being held in suspension. I am sure that the member Ms Dyson who said she would take another call is open to redemption and I will tell her why the chocolate fish was withdrawn. But if it is replaced I think the gold star would be more appropriately attached to a chocolate egg given the subject of the bill that we are considering in Committee. The reason the chocolate fish offer has been withdrawn is that in the member’s efforts to criticise the Minister for what she said was on the face of it a complete rewrite of the bill after it came to the Health Committee she cast a criticism on the officials who were supporting the select committee through the consideration of the bill. I think that is grossly unfair. 
I will start by commending the officials who I think did an outstanding job of articulating and answering the questions of the select committee and the submitters about what the bill meant and about what was intended from a policy perspective. Yes on the face of it it looks as though it is a pretty substantial rewrite but it is a technical deletion of one clause and a replacement of another clause which in substance does not have a lot of changes to it. I commend the officials. I think they did a really good job. 
There was bipartisan support across the committee for the bill. In short answer I can add to the Minister’s answer to the question of whether we have got the bill right in terms of the policy intent by saying yes we have. I am not a Minister so we can call that my pitch for ministerial office but I am quite confident that we have got that right also. 
However some quite tricky questions were asked of the submitters particularly the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology that I think were outside the scope of the bill. That was largely where the debate was centred. We have solved the initial policy problem which was to give clarity to when the clock starts and when it should stop. I will touch on probably the more material change that the select committee recommended and that was in respect of whether the 10-year time frame should be a hard stop and therefore someone would be in breach of the Act on day one after 10 years had expired. We had a discussion that was more about the science behind that than about the time period and we certainly had the advantage of not only the officials’ counsel but the chairman’s counsel. The chairman has a great deal of experience in this area from his professional background. 
I was particularly interested in some of the recent legal changes in the United Kingdom. Changes to the equivalent legislation there have seen an extension to the regulations to allow in certain circumstances for the storage of embryos gametes and eggs for up to 55 years. That caused quite some consternation in the House of Lords. Lord Howe criticised the revised regulations that allowed embryos gametes and eggs to be stored for up to 55 years—not because of any particular problem with the science but because of the very dodgy ethical dilemmas that this produced. Incidentally the United Kingdom regulations were called the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Statutory Storage Period for Embryos and Gametes) Regulations a name that is twice as long as that of our legislation. The United Kingdom also had the benefit of somebody with a great deal of experience in that area. Lord Robert Winston who is a lifetime peer and also one of the world’s leading fertility scientists stressed that longer freezing times are not likely to produce a health risk. 
We can also enable extensions by allowing for the 10-year limit not to be a hard close. There are plenty of reasons why it might not be appropriate to dispose of embryos and gametes after that period so I think that was a very sensible change. I commend that change. I look forward to hearing from the member Ruth Dyson to see whether she can earn her chocolate egg with the gold star. I commend the bill to the Committee. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 First of all I acknowledge the very clear response of the Minister of Justice; it was given in a less pleasant way than I would have expected but it is Thursday night and I guess it has been a busy week for the Minister. It is unusual for him to revert to that kind of response but it was a genuine stating of his position which is that he is confident that the Health Committee in its amendments to the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill has got it right. That is important to the Health Committee. 
I was interested to know which part of the process he considered we had not got right the first time. I am asking a process question but it does not matter; we can ask a student to write a thesis on it at some stage in the future. It is not often that a technical bill that at the time it is introduced everyone thinks will fix an issue comes back to Parliament quite substantially altered. That may have been a direct result of the submissions. That in itself would be worthy of some comment in my view because many people ask what difference it would make if they put in a submission on a bill. This bill would be a great example: everyone was trying to fix it and the submitters themselves made a difference. 
I am more keen on chocolate fish than on chocolate eggs I say to the member David Bennett but if he wants to alter the offer to something more appropriate to the subject of this debate that is fine. However if the member was implying at any stage that I was criticising the officials then he was not listening to my speech. I made it very clear that the officials not only were competent but were engaged in open and exemplary behaviour. I was seriously impressed with the competence they showed in dealing with a group of members of Parliament who had not dealt with this issue in any detailed way before. We had not been on the select committee in the past that dealt with the original legislation. The officials were starting at kindergarten level with us and I think they did an extraordinarily good job. I was merely interested in the process question. 
The final point I wanted to make before the Minister leapt to his feet to take the call is that with a bill of this nature particularly when technological advances are moving at such a rapid pace—we do not know what will happen overseas let alone in New Zealand in this space—in my view and in Labour’s view it would be very helpful to have an automatic review mechanism included in it. We were quite surprised that the original legislation did not have that mechanism. It has become more common. I regret it was not supported by National but it was certainly supported by Labour and the Greens at the select committee. I strongly recommend that in future in the next amendment bill—because it is outside the scope of this bill—a review mechanism is included in the Act. I think it would be advantageous. It would ensure that we did not get ourselves into difficulty in the future. I commend that to the Minister’s thinking. 
Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Sittings of the House 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 As the House has made such good progress today I seek leave for the House to rise. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
The House adjourned at 5.39 p.m.