Volume 642 Week 56 - Tuesday 18 September 2007 
Volume 642 Week 56 - Tuesday 18 September 2007 
[Volume:642;Page:11903] 
Tuesday 18 September 2007 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Corrections Department—Confidence 
1. RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in his department’s handling of employment issues; if so why? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes; because Barry Matthews is a respected chief executive. 
Ron Mark 
: Has the Minister read Judge Coral Shaw’s judgment in the Employment Court case involving the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections and RakaiTawhiwhirangi in which she condemns the investigative processes and the level of bias in the investigation conducted under the direction of Dave East the then Wellington regional manager who has since left the service amid allegations of corruption and inappropriate management practices; and whom would he prefer to have serving in the prison service: an officer who resists bribery and corruption or people like Mr East who have left under a cloud of allegations? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Yes I have read the Employment Court decision but as the judge has ruled the question of what remedies are appropriate from that judgment will be deferred until a further hearing on reinstatement has been held. Employment issues are the responsibility of the chief executive. It is not appropriate for me to make any further comment. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister confirm to the House whether representations were made on behalf of Mr Tawhiwhirangi to him and to the chief executive Mr Matthews and whether those representations pointed out that Mr Tawhiwhirangi was a straight shooter and an honest prison officer with long and creditable service and that the allegations against him were laughable and would fail at the Employment Court if the matter ever got that far? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I can confirm that I facilitated a meeting where that member Mr Mark was able to meet directly with myself and Mr Matthews. He was able to express his views and concerns at that time. I am confident that Mr Matthews took on board all of those things and made decisions accordingly. 
Ron Mark 
: Why at a time when the public is demanding that corruption be rooted out of our prison service has the Department of Corrections seen fit to prosecute and pursue—inappropriately we now know—the one officer who we know is not corrupt who did refuse bribes and who did refuse to perform a corrupt action; why did the chief executive and the department not listen to the employment authority’s decision and why did they seek to pursue this matter further in the Employment Court consequently losing again? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: As the Minister of Corrections I have been determined to ensure that the Department of Corrections does everything possible to identify and prosecute anyone in the department for unethical or illegal behaviour. I am informed that there are still matters to be investigated in relation to this case. I am not prepared to make any further comment. 
Simon Power 
: How many prison staff are currently suspended on full pay while they are being investigated and when will the Patten inquiry into corruption at Rimutaka Prison be completed? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Currently 14 prison service staff are suspended nationally—that is across the country. I understand that the Patten inquiry is coming to the point where it is reaching a conclusion. I look forward to that outcome. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister aware that for some time now going back as far as 2006 and even specifically in February 2007 many allegations have been made against a senior manager in the Department of Corrections—namely David East—who it is alleged inappropriately employed his wife and son in the department and allegations made also against the general manager of prisons Harry Hawthorn who it is alleged created a specific appointment so that his partner could be brought to Wellington and given a job; why have those allegations not been pursued yet the one officer who we know specifically refused a bribe and refused to act corruptly has been pursued and hounded and subsequently found to be free and innocent of all the allegations brought against him? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am not prepared to comment on the case the member refers to because there are further proceedings. I will say that allegations are made on a daily basis in the corrections system. It is part and parcel of the difficult environment in which corrections officers and managers work. All I can say is that we now have a crime prevention intelligence unit in each prison and a new investigation unit reporting directly to the chief executive. We are doing everything possible to check out any allegations in any part of the corrections system and deal with them as quickly as we can. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Definitions 
2.  
JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her reported statement in relation to the Electoral Finance Bill that “some definitions might need changing but Mr Key is exaggerating the impact of the Bill.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister consider that the Human Rights Commission’s non-partisan comment on the bill is also exaggerating when it states: “The bill in its current form represents a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish freedom of expression and the right of informed citizens to participate in the electoral process”; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes because the Government’s legal advice is that this is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
John Key 
: Why does the Electoral Finance Bill restrict everyone else’s freedom of speech in an election year while allowing the Government to spend literally millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on advertising campaigns and can the Prime Minister outline what big advertising campaigns the Government is proposing for election year 2008? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member would be well aware that under existing law the Government cannot be political in advertising campaigns. Further if the member wants campaigns against drunk driving to stop in an election year would he let me know. 
John Key 
: Does the Prime Minister want to reflect on the statement she just made to the House that the Government cannot be political in advertising in an election year because although she is probably aware that on 13 September 2007 the Ministry of Health released a media release stating that an advertising campaign would start around primary health care which would include amongst other things an 0800 call line she is probably not aware that I have in my hand something that was not publicly released—the instructions for those manning the 0800 call line which state that operators should push the Government’s message whenever they think there is a good opportunity to do so? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is a bit desperate. I assume the member does not want people to know that their doctor’s fees have virtually halved under current policy. 
John Key 
: Why in this document are call centre staff being told: “Here are some achievements and milestones in health over the past 6 years. It may help to tell callers about some of these.”—and then it lists every strategy policy or guideline that Labour has rolled out since 2001; and how does that help someone who is ringing the 0800 line? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is actually a duty of a Government to make sure that policies that are being pursued and the taxpayer is paying for are actually known about. 
John Key 
: What message does it send to the many thousands of New Zealanders who are sick who will know they will have to use Government money and access Government-provided health care for them to know that a top priority of this Government is to pour that money into an election advertising campaign in election year for no other purpose than to see Labour get re-elected? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is a great comfort to the general public to know how committed Labour is to a public health system and how the National Party’s plans are around privatisation and cutting public spending on health. 
John Key 
: Why does the Prime Minister not just tell New Zealanders what they probably already know: that the purpose of the Electoral Finance Bill is to limit the amount of money her political opponents can spend in election year while at exactly the same time the Government spends as much taxpayer dollars as it can seeking re-election; and in some countries of the world they have a name for that sort of stuff? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The purpose of the bill is to stop people like John Key working with people like the Exclusive Brethren to rort election spending law. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Can the Prime Minister tell the House what she was referring to when she said in the quote that is in the original question: “some definitions might need changing”; what definitions are they and what changes is she considering? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: A number of issues are coming through in the submissions. One is about the definition of election advertising. There are other issues being raised about thresholds for funding and donations and another about time periods. Those are all legitimate areas for discussion that the select committee is looking at. 
Heather Roy 
: What is the time frame for the Government to announce the changes to the Electoral Finance Bill and will there be an opportunity for the public to make submissions on these changes? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: A select committee process is under way. The normal course of events is for the Government officials to work with the select committee and at some point for Ministers to discuss what proposals might be worth considering and work with other parties on that. That is how a select committee process works. 
John Key 
: Why did the Prime Minister not just not answer the question I asked her before but say something that was blatantly not true: that the Government would not be using taxpayer funds to push political messages—when this document does exactly that; and is it not the priority of the Government to spend money on health services not on a propaganda campaign? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: At the end of today I am going to be launching a new campaign to promote women taking up cervical screening. That is what public health promotion is about. 
John Key 
: I seek leave to table questions and answers to support the Ministry of Health’s public information campaign where it quite clearly says that one of the things operators should do is push Government— 
Document not tabled. 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table the judgment of Judge Coral Shaw in the case of the Department of Corrections and RakaiTawhiwhirangi. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table an email dated 28 February outlining some allegations against Mr East and Mr Harry Hawthorn from the Department of Corrections. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Government Debt—Prudent Levels 
3.  
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any reports on prudent levels of Government debt? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes I have seen a report from Standard and Poor’s that says that this Government’s fiscal management has made New Zealand one of the best prepared nations for facing the challenge of an ageing population. I have also seen reports from bank economists highlighting the importance of our strong fiscal position in counterbalancing the large current account deficit a symptom of our poor savings record that KiwiSaver is designed to address—and the number of people signed up has now passed 150000. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister received any reports suggesting an alternative strategy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes contrary to this kind of strategy I have seen a report suggesting that we should be borrowing to spend more on roads although no doubt the borrowing will be used for a wide range of other purposes. Not only does this ignore the massive increases in spending on road-building under this Government but also it is inflationary and it will reduce our capacity to deal with upcoming fiscal challenges. And of course although it is espoused by Mr John Key it contradicts the constant calls for fiscal tightening by Bill English. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Has the Minister received any reports on how to best structure borrowing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I think Mr Key might be wont to say: “That depends on how you define borrowing.” I have seen a report suggesting that we do not have to call it borrowing if we get the money from overseas. Given that this report comes from the same National MP who has recently lobbied for the prohibition of water I hope that Mr Key has not been paying her too much attention. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that his Budget documents as released today show that he had planned a billion dollars in personal tax cuts but had to abandon them because he could not contain ministerial bids for spending and as a result we had the biggest spending Budget ever? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I can confirm that the issue was raised in the early discussion of the Budget. Of course rather than cut back on social services and rather than stimulate inflation the Government did not proceed which shows that the reason for not proceeding had nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with good economic management. Mr English is now saying that the Government should have run a looser fiscal policy. 
Electoral Finance Bill—Parliamentary Democracy 
4.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he stand by his statement that the Electoral Finance Bill “will help promote participation in parliamentary democracy”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: How does the Minister reconcile the statement that the bill will help promote participation in parliamentary democracy with the statement made by the Human Rights Commission—hardly an extremist organisation—that the regulation of third parties in the bill “makes a mockery of [the] clause … which refers to promoting participation by the public in parliamentary democracy.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I justify that because it is the aim of the bill to ensure that people are able to participate in a good fair and open election campaign which is the aim of a democracy. I am looking forward of course to the Human Rights Commission getting a chance to talk through its submission with the select committee. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Is the Minister concerned that some submitters to the Electoral Finance Bill believe that their rights of free speech will be inhibited simply because they cannot spend vast amounts of money on advertising or is he more concerned with protecting the one person one vote concept of democracy that is dear to most New Zealanders’ hearts? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I could not have put it better myself. Of course this bill is about ensuring that people cannot buy policies and cannot buy election campaigns. It guarantees that all New Zealanders will feel they are being heard being listened to and having a fair vote. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that under the Minister of Justice’s bill the Labour Government will try to buy the election because the bill will allow the Government to run a campaign on low-cost health care using political messages that would be outlawed if they were financed privately? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: No. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister elaborate on the last answer given that the messages included in the Ministry of Health’s instructions to telephone answerers would count as electoral advertising if they were coming from an organisation that was privately financed and not using taxpayers’ money? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I would say that it is entirely appropriate for someone on the end of a phone to alert a caller to the range of policies that may help him or her. That is what that taxpayer’s money is for and that is why those messages should be promoted to the caller. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister not understand that someone answering a taxpayer-funded telephone service outlining the record of the Labour Government on health would be making statements that are currently defined in law as election advertising and are therefore outside the law—so there will be one law for Government-funded advertising campaigns and another law for everyone else? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: What I understand—if I can take a concrete example—is that if someone rings the helpline for the family violence programme and if that person is referred to a publicly funded non-governmental organisation then that is a good use of taxpayers’ money. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that if someone rings the 0800 number described in the Government-funded advertising campaign for election year and if the person who answers that phone call points out four or five of the things the Labour Government claims to have achieved in health then that amounts to taking a position on a proposition associated with a political party and therefore it would be illegal if anyone else financed it? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member’s examples are getting more and more bizarre. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister give a definitive answer to Caritas and the example it has provided in its submission in which it says that the Catholic bishops’ campaign on poverty scheduled for election year will be caught as election advertising and therefore will effectively be banned and in which it also states: “We cannot easily see how the bill will distinguish between organisations such as the Exclusive Brethren and Caritas.”? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The member knows that the problem with the Exclusive Brethren is that they delivered a vast amount of material without identifying who they were. If anyone tried to track them down they could not be found. The amount of money they spent was always a matter of subterfuge as they tried to support the election of a National Government. That is the problem. If people are out in the open saying who they are and going about their normal business there obviously is no problem. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Catholic bishops’ campaign on poverty scheduled for election year 2008 be caught as an election advertisement and therefore make the Catholic Church subject to all the requirements of the third party regulations in this bill? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I think the Minister of Justice has made it clear a number of times that the intention of this legislation is to capture people like the Exclusive Brethren not the Catholic Church as in the example the member has pointed out—that is the Catholic Church going about its normal process of issue-based discussion and not supporting a particular party but simply explaining an issue. The member wishes he could find an example like this to make it stick but I am sorry he cannot. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Minister says that I am making it up— 
Hon Member 
: 21 percent. 
Hon Bill English 
: I tell the member to stop forecasting his own election result. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If members have finished we will have the question. 
Hon Bill English 
: If the Minister says that I am making it all up and the example is bizarre what basis does he think Caritas and the Catholic Bishops Conference would possibly have for the statements that they have made in their submission—that it will catch their campaign on poverty and that the bill does not distinguish between groups like the Catholic Church or Caritas and the Exclusive Brethren—or were they just making it all up? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: If I were the Catholic Church and if I were receiving a mail-out from the National Party I might start to worry as well. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With all due respect the Minister is the Minister responsible for this question and surely should address the question put to him rather than just making some flippant comment indicating to the House whom he is not. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the Minister like to expand on his answer please. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The substance of the question from Mr English was why the Catholic Church would worry. My answer was that it would worry if it was being communicated to by people on the National benches about this issue in a distorted way as it has been. That is the source of the problem. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Will the Minister ensure that the bill is amended so that the Catholic Church’s campaign can proceed given the facts that thanks to Working for Families this Government has cut child poverty by two-thirds and the National Party opposed the Working for Families package? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I will ensure that that takes place because of course this is the kind of good news that the National Party does not like but that ought to be told right across New Zealand. 
Police—Recruits’ Responsiveness to Maori 
5.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: He aha ngaahuatangakuawhakariteamotetahi tohunga nowaho ki te uru mai ki te whakawa ki te whakamatautautangata e tonoana hei Pirihimana kia tino mohiotiaaitoratou kaha aro mai ki te ahua o ngaMaori? 
[ 
What provision has been made for independent expert advice on the testing and assessment of people who apply to join the police to ensure that responsiveness to Maori is actively taken into account?] 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Independent expert advice is being provided by Dr Dave George. That advice is focused on the processes and procedures used by the New Zealand Police to determine minimum standards assessment methods and the consistent application of methods. Dr George is reviewing all relevant information and is due to report at the end of the month. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What recourse does a young Maori applicant from Rotorua have a man who graduated from a bridging course for entry to the police force in 2005 and passed all the requirements to enter the Police College yet was refused entry on the grounds that the police have information about a drug allegation involving him which is an allegation the whanau rejects absolutely an allegation that he has never been charged with or convicted of and an allegation that the police have refused to supply evidence about on the grounds that it would “amount to an unwarranted disclosure of the other individual’s affairs”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I understand that the member has been spoken to about this issue by Superintendent Wally Haumaha and knows that the police are looking at it. The issues are being worked through and the police say they will soon be at the end of that process. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is it acceptable that Megan Welch a recruitment manager in the office of the Commissioner of Police has confirmed that she “contacted the officer who had made the noting regarding drugs. He couldn’t remember him and didn’t know of him. I then spoke to other officers who knew the applicant and they advised that he is not the type to be involved with drugs. The applicant advised that he knew nothing about the noting and was not and never had been involved with drugs. I accepted his statement.”; and how can the Minister provide any reassurance that Maori applicants receive a just and fair hearing when they apply to enter the Police College? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The New Zealand Police takes seriously all applications but also checks out all applications. That member would be quick to his feet to question our allowing a person who was not up to standard to join the New Zealand Police. However I am also aware the member has been spoken to by Superintendent Wally Haumaha about this issue. The process is working its way through and the member will be informed of the outcome. I can say no more than that about it at this stage. In fact I know that the member has more information about it than he is letting on in the House today. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What is the Minister’s reaction to the finding in  
Police Perceptions of Maori 
 that one in seven officers who were questioned specifically disagreed with the proposal to recruit more Maori and over one in five disagreed with the proposal to promote more Maori; and how does she suggest such attitudes can be addressed? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The recruitment of men and women for the New Zealand Police is carried out by people qualified and trained to undertake that recruitment. Although neither the member nor I can be held responsible for the individual attitudes of some members of the police or the public I do know there is an active campaign to recruit Maori Pacific people and Asian people so that the New Zealand Police more reflects the face of the public that it wishes to police. 
Ron Mark 
: Is it not a fact that a very senior Maori police officer currently is not being employed by the New Zealand Police and is waiting to hear—in fact the entire nation is waiting to hear—whether he will be reinstated; and can the Minister tell the House why the department has not done any work at all in advancing settlement of the position of Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards in terms of whether he will return to work or be released from the service? Why has it not done anything? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: First of all the member knows that the Minister of Police has no responsibility for the employment of individual officers. Secondly the member is incorrect in saying that absolutely nothing has happened in the case of Assistant Police Commissioner Rickards. The department is working through the process and it is near completion. But the department does have to work through the process. There is a process in place. It is many years old. The member also knows that I announced in this House changes to regulations around the New Zealand Police so that the way we employ police and discipline them will change from the position that has existed for many decades. 
Forestry—Deforestation 
6.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Forestry 
: What estimates has he received on the level of deforestation this year noting that the  
National Exotic Forest Description 
 records net reforestation for every year from 1951 until 2003 but net losses of forests of 5000 11000 and 11000 hectares in 2004 2005 and 2006? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Forestry) 
: 
 The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is currently surveying forestry owners regarding their harvesting replanting and new planting for the year ended March 2007. Those results are expected to be published in early 2008. The most recent estimate of deforestation based on survey results is 12900 hectares in the year ended March 2006. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister aware that of New Zealand’s 40 million tonnes of projected Kyoto carbon liability 34000 tonnes—or 85 percent of that—is from deforestation; and does he agree with John Key that the No. 1 priority of any climate change policy should be reversing that deforestation? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: I certainly recognise the issue of deforestation and the Kyoto regime and its impact there. As to whether I agree with Mr Key it depends which statement I am asked to agree with: the one where he said that climate change was a hoax or the one where he said that climate change was the most important problem that faces mankind. If the member would like to tell me which one I am to believe then I could answer him properly. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What is forestry’s contribution to New Zealand’s economy and environment; and does the Government make a positive contribution to the development of forestry? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Forestry is our third-largest export earner and directly employs more than 22000 people so it plays an important role in New Zealand’s economy. The forest industry has told me as recently as this week that the New Zealand Wood campaign to promote and support the use of wood has more support across the sector than any initiative in living memory. I noticed it does not have Mr Nick Smith’s support. The Government is proud to be a major partner in that campaign. New Zealand Wood heralds a new collaborative way of working for the sector and the best is yet to come—that is the bad news for Mr Smith. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How can the Minister tell the House that the best is yet to come when after 50 years of records he has admitted in the House today that we are to lose 12000 hectares of forest this year—a year in which the Prime Minister says the issue is all about carbon neutrality; how can the Government possibly talk about carbon neutrality when we are to lose more forest this year than in any other year in New Zealand’s recent history? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: If the National Party has a new policy that will prohibit the agricultural sector from making the best economic use of land in New Zealand would he please announce it and make our day? 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What percentage of the total plantation forest has been deforested in the last 6 years? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Those figures make interesting reading because of the total plantation forest estate which is actually more relevant to this issue than any of the figures Mr Smith quotes. In 2001 0.1 percent was deforested; in 2002 0.06 percent was deforested; in 2003 0.1 percent; in 2004 0.1 percent; in 2005 0.4 percent; and in this disastrous year that Mr Smith goes on about 0.7 percent of the total forest estate in the country was deforested. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: To the— 
Hon Member 
: He’s like a block of wood! 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You can tell they are desperate! [ 
Interruption 
] When those members settle down I might give them my question. Does the Minister accept that the decision— 
Hon Annette King 
: He’s the biggest interjector in Parliament! 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I know those members over there have just lost another 12000 hectares of forest and they are a bit sensitive. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. Now when members start to chip across the Chamber one to the other disorder is created. Would the member please get on and ask his supplementary question in silence. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does the Minister of Forestry accept that the decision in 2002 by his Government to deny foresters carbon credits for their forests after the billion-dollar bungle the Government made on New Zealand’s Kyoto carbon balance and despite assurances by both National and Labour previously that those foresters would get the credits has adversely affected confidence in the forestry sector contributing to the chainsaw massacre that we witness all over New Zealand? [ 
Interruption 
] The  
Independent 
 referred to it as a chainsaw massacre and I think most New Zealanders would be appalled to know that under this Labour Government we have lost 22 million trees. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is this a question? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: We will be having the rest of this in silence because I cannot hear whether the asking of the question has finished and whether we want the Minister to address it. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The only information I have about promises made of the kind the member just suggested is about promises made by the National Party. This Government has never made any such promise— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes it did! 
Madam SPEAKER 
: In silence Dr Smith. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: We have to believe Mr Smith! The fact is that the chainsaw massacre is represented by these facts: the total forest area that has been deforested in the last 6 years was 26000 hectares. The total forests replanted over the same period in this chainsaw massacre were 122000 hectares. So we have planted 122000 hectares we have had 26000 hectares deforested and Mr Smith calls that a chainsaw massacre. Well I would want to know what a real chainsaw massacre might look like if that is one. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave to table the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry document signed by Pete Hodgson telling foresters they would get the carbon credits— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seeks leave of the House to table the official Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry figures that show that for the first time in 50 years tens of thousands— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that chart. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Transport—Future Challenges 
7.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What changes has the Government made to transport policy over the past 18 months to meet the transport challenges of the future? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Many but to name just a few: the hypothecation of all petrol tax providing a revenue guarantee to the National Land Transport Programme and a cost guarantee to the 5-year State highway construction plan which we are extending to a 6-year commitment; developing a long-term inter-modal transport strategy covering roading shipping rail public transport walking and cycling; and implementing a new funding and planning structure for the transport sector to provide more strategic guidance simplify the planning cycle and reduce planning churn. 
Sue Moroney 
: What reports has she seen supporting these Labour policies? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I have seen John Key’s first transport speech which he delivered last weekend. I was flattered at Mr Key’s endorsement of all the initiatives I have just mentioned. National has come to the Labour Party on roading. I have to say it is a pretty sorry state of affairs when a political party has to copy other parties’ policies and it is no wonder that Mr Key has become known as “Mr Me Too”. 
Sue Moroney 
: What investment has the Government made into roading? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Oh there is a lot of interest up here Madam Speaker. If you can get them quiet I will be able to give them the answer. [ 
Interruption 
] Come on Gerry cheer up—you had a bad caucus. Cheer up Gerry. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. As I said this chipping across the Chamber does not help question time in terms of all members being able to hear each other speak. Would the Minister please respond. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I was asked what investment the Government has made into roading. Central government investment in roading has doubled from $850 million in 1999 to an allocation of $1.7 billion in 2007-08. Just over half this money is spent on new roads like Harbour Link Dowse to Petone the northern busway the Mt Roskill extension and the Albany to Puhoi realignment B2 yet Mr Key says there has been an artificial cap on building new roads and we need to move out of maintenance mode. Well I have to say that it was the National Party that was in maintenance mode and it was a pretty sorry maintenance mode at that. I feel that someone is feeding Mr Key a load of manure. He obviously cannot see what is happening around him when he drives from the airport to his home in Paratai Drive. 
Public Health—Survey Results 
8.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he been advised of the finding of the Business Council For Sustainable Development survey which says that 78 percent of New Zealanders believe the public health service has worsened or stayed the same over the past 5 years; if so what is his reaction? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes I have. But given that the same survey showed that 78 percent of respondents also thought that doctors’ fees had stayed the same or increased in the past 5 years—when it is known that they have gone down—some of these emailing respondents may not be as well informed as we would like. Indeed if the Ministry of Health ever needed a reason to run a campaign to let people know that doctors’ fees are now lower and that it is now cheaper to get a regular preventive health check this survey is it. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Does this survey not show that despite spending an extra $5 billion a year on health New Zealanders have noticed no improvement in the health system and New Zealanders are saying they are waiting longer and longer for health care across the board? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member has not noticed that about a year ago we finally got to a situation where folk who were going to be promised elective surgery got that surgery reliably within 6 months. That policy was put in place by the National Government in the late 1990s; it now works. It may be that some of these emailing respondents have not recently had a hip replacement. 
Lesley Soper 
: Were views expressed in the survey about taxation and public health services and the quality of patient care? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The survey showed that 62 percent of respondents prefer to pay taxes into a health fund ahead of personal tax cuts—62 percent. Also far from services getting worse 67 percent of New Zealanders thought that the quality of patient care had stayed the same or improved over the past 5 years. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How can the Minister say that New Zealanders are more satisfied with the health system when despite spending an extra $5 billion a year it is clear that the survey he has just quoted from shows that more and more New Zealanders are waiting longer and longer for elective surgery longer and longer for emergency and after-hours care and longer and longer for chemo and radiation therapy; and is that not the reason why the Prime Minister should give him his marching orders in 2 weeks’ time? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I say sorry to Mr Ryall for letting the facts get in the way of a good story but here is a fact: there are more elective surgical services done in New Zealand public hospitals now than there have ever been. That is a fact. Here is another fact: 67 percent of New Zealanders thought that the quality of patient care in this country had stayed the same or improved over the past 5 years. I do not know why New Zealanders think that but that figure is from the survey the member has asked me about—that is what the survey says. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is it not another fact that despite doubling the health budget in 7 years the number of New Zealanders getting elective surgery on a per head of population basis has gone up only 5 percent in 7 years? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: We have a concession from Mr Ryall. After 2 years as Opposition spokesperson on health and for the first time in my time as Minister of Health my opposite number has said that the number of elective surgical services has gone up. What will he do with all his press statements that have been saying for month after month year after year that the number of elective surgical services has been going down? What will he do with those press statements? Will he now issue a repudiating press statement? What will he do? 
Housing—Initiatives 
9.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What initiatives has the Government taken to improve access to quality affordable housing for low-income New Zealanders? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Quality affordable housing is a fundamental commitment of Labour Governments. This morning in Miramar the Prime Minister the local MP Annette King and I visited the first State house built by the first Labour Government 70 years ago. Since 1999 this Labour-led Government has reintroduced income-related rents helping over 106000 households with affordable rents so far; acquired 7372 new State houses helping to make up for the more than 13000 houses National sold in the 1990s; retrofitted 14000 State houses; tackled 4500 overcrowded homes; and halved the rate of turnover in State house tenancies building stronger and more stable communities. That is no doubt progress that the first Labour Prime Minister Michael Joseph Savage would have been very proud of. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What reports if any has the Minister seen about alternative approaches to social housing policy? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have seen a report advocating a back-to-the-1990s policy of selling State houses allegedly to their current tenants. This was supposedly the policy of the last National Government but in fact the reality was that 10000 of the 13000 houses were sold to speculators. John Key needs to explain how National’s supposedly new policy is any different as it is clear from income data held by Housing New Zealand Corporation that for the majority of State house tenants buying the State house they live in is completely out of reach—that is why they are State house tenants. 
Sue Bradford 
: On this anniversary of the building of the first State house in New Zealand is the Minister intending to pick up the recommendations for action—such as establishing a homeownership programme to provide at least 2000 first home buyers each year with a chance to buy their own home—put forward just the other week by the Salvation Army in its report  
Rebuilding the Kiwi Dream 
; if not why not? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: Last night together with the Prime Minister and other Ministers I met church leaders including leaders of the Salvation Army and we discussed this very issue. We explored a variety of options for how we can improve housing availability on the supply side. We will work with church leaders and other interested groups to meet the very real issue that we have in this country which others—Australia Canada and the US—are also facing. 
Sue Bradford 
: Why does the Government continue to provide such a relatively low amount of money from the Housing Innovation Fund towards community-sector affordable housing initiatives especially when so much hope has been given to this sector over the last 5 or 6 years in terms of policy promises and so little has actually been delivered on the ground? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: The fund the member refers to—the Housing Innovation Fund—is one that the Government has committed over $99 million to. That is quite a considerable sum. We have done some fantastic partnership deals. In addition to that $99 million - plus we have also had one-off grants like the $220 million that has gone to Wellington City; plus of course buying out Auckland City’s social housing. This Government has shown a real commitment to providing social housing for New Zealanders. 
Phil Heatley 
: With that answer in mind could the Minister please explain why after 8 years of his Government the relative cost of buying a house by every single measure in every single region is the highest in New Zealand’s history? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: What I can explain to the member is that we have had record falls in unemployment and we have had strong growth for 8 years. We have a very prosperous country. As that member is the representative of the people of Whangarei I would like him to explain to those on the waiting list in Whangarei why when National was in power 229 State houses were sold in Whangarei 180 of them to speculators. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That was a very long answer to the question that was asked but it was hardly addressing the question. If members think about the way the Minister started and then continued they will realise that the question that was asked was completely ignored. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The part of the Minister’s answer I heard was addressing the question; the rest I could not hear. If members wish to hear the answers to questions I would ask them to desist from their barracking. 
Phil Heatley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In my question I asked the Minister to explain why housing affordability is the lowest ever in this country. His answer was to ask me to explain why. How can the Minister ask me to explain when I am the questioner? I would like an answer to my question about affordability. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have addressed the question of whether the Minister— 
Phil Heatley 
: He didn’t. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please leave the Chamber. I am in the middle of giving my ruling. As I indicated before in the first part of the answer the Minister did address the question. He then went on to add some irrelevancies but in the first part he did address the question. 
Phil Heatley withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The question was about housing affordability but we had an answer from the Minister about unemployment figures. He then posed a question back to the member about Whangarei. How can that possibly be within the Standing Orders that require a Minister to address the question? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is not for the Speaker to address the quality of the answer but the first part was certainly addressing some of those factors. The second part was irrelevant—I accept that—but the first part was not. 
Accident Compensation—Employers’ Liability 
10.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does she agree with the principle that employers should be responsible for work-related accidents? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes I do as expressed and defined consistently in accident compensation legislation since 1992. I also agree with the principle that accredited employers should continue to have the right to determine themselves whether an injury is work related or non - work related and to revoke that decision if after reconsidering the facts they change their view. 
Anne Tolley 
: How does the Minister justify the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) billing the AFFCO works in Wairoa $1 million for the ongoing medical care of a young man shot by Black Power during a work break outside the factory in 2003; is this not bureaucracy gone mad? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: AFFCO made the decision to accept that claim as a work-related injury. Because AFFCO is an accredited employer it made the decision as per the legislation. AFFCO as an accredited employer under section 65 of the same legislation could have revoked its decision if when it reconsidered it it changed its mind. It made the decision. It was handed over to ACC a year later because it was a complex case. ACC is required to bill AFFCO for its responsibility which is $1 million under AFFCO’s stop-loss cover decision which it signed up to. It signed the contract. It made the decision. It is liable for the responsibility. It made the cover decision not ACC. 
Anne Tolley 
: Is it Government policy that employers rather than ACC should pay the ongoing medical costs of employees who fall victim to vicious crimes committed outside employers’ businesses? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The definition of work-related injury has been consistent in the legislation since 1992. In the case the member has referred to in her primary and supplementary questions the worker concerned was inside a security fence on AFFCO property in a car-park which has a sign next to it saying “Employee-only Car-park”. Under AFFCO’s own determination the worker was in its workplace and therefore it was liable for the decision and was responsible for cover. Actually that is what private insurance companies would have decided as well. 
Anne Tolley 
: Can the Minister explain what is work-related about someone being shot in an ongoing gang war whilst on a work break and whilst sitting in a car in a car-park that provides car-parks for AFFCO workers but also for people using the next-door public park grounds and a retail butchery—totally out of the secure control of the employer? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: If the member considers those are the facts then I suggest she goes back to the AFFCO board of directors and asks them why they made the decision to give that injured employee work-related cover. It was their decision. They made it in April 2003. They had every opportunity under section 65 to revoke it. They never revoked it. 
Darien Fenton 
: Could the Minister please tell us how the Accredited Employers Programme works? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I can. Under the Accredited Employers Programme the accredited employer can determine first of all whether there is an injury and secondly whether it is work-related. If it is work-related the accredited employer is responsible for paying entitlements to the injured worker up to the agreed level. Accredited employers also have the right under the legislation to revoke their own decision; if they think they have made an error they can revoke the decision. 
Anne Tolley 
: Can the Minister confirm that AFFCO has made direct representations to her over this ridiculous case and that she has refused to intervene; if so can she justify why employers in New Zealand should have to pick up a tab of as much as $1 million for gang violence which this Government has allowed to run rampant? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am unable to confirm that the first-ever incidents of gang violence occurred after the election of a Labour-led Government; I am not sure that that is a fact. I can confirm that an intermediary—with utmost confidentiality according to his request— presented the AFFCO position to me via email. I passed it on to ACC and asked for its consideration. I was told that it was 2 days before the final decision was made on an agreed settlement and that ACC thought a settlement might be reached. I decided—appropriately in my view—that it was not right for the Minister for ACC to intervene in what was clearly and according to the legislation AFFCO’s decision which it decided to change its mind on when it realised how much the claim would cost. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The member is on a point of order. We will hear it in silence. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table a copy of a letter from ACC to AFFCO dated 15 October outlining that— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table a letter from ACC to AFFCO dated 9 June stating that ACC would continue to— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table a letter from ACC to AFFCO outlining that the injury does fall within— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Gisborne Herald  
that quotes the Mayor of Wairoa pleading for an end— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Gisborne Herald 
 dated 11 April detailing that the— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Anne Tolley 
: I seek leave to table an article from a  
Dominion Post  
of November 2003 outlining the three— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Immigration Bill—Classified Information 
11.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Will he reconsider the provisions around the use of classified information in the Immigration Bill in light of the recent outcome of Ahmed Zaoui’s case; if not why not? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Immigration) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Immigration 
: The new Immigration Bill sets out a clear process for making decisions when classified information is used. This will allow the Government to manage those non-citizens who are a risk or a threat. The better processes proposed in the bill should ensure such cases are dealt with quickly. The classified information system under the bill incorporates all the advantages of Part 4A of the current Act and seeks to overcome its disadvantages through providing clearer and more closely prescribed systems. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister attempt to change the Immigration Bill so that in all future immigration appeals that involve secret information the appellant will have as of right a summary of each and every secret allegation or will the Government continue down the path of overturning the High Court decision in which Mr Zaoui won the right to a summary of the secret allegations against him? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: I am sure the member is aware that under the bill the Minister of Immigration will decide whether classified information should be used if publicly available information cannot be found and New Zealand’s reputation or security is at stake. This will ensure that decisions can be made using all available information. In the Zaoui case the Refugee Status Appeals Authority could not access the classified information on Mr Zaoui when making the decision. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Does the Minister agree that in the case mentioned we have witnessed the worst kind of premeditated queue-jumping with New Zealand’s legal system being manipulated at a cost of over $3 million to the taxpayer; and given the experience of this case is it not time for our laws to be tightened to ensure that that can never occur again? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Part 4A of the Act was enacted on 1 April 1999 as an amendment to the 1987 Act by a National Government. I am advised that the Zaoui case is the only time that Part 4A has been tested since it was enacted and that is why the Government has a bill before the House to change the legislation. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Minister not accept following on from his previous answer that although as he rightly said the Refugee Status Appeals Authority did not get access to all the classified information it was only when a summary of that classified information was made available to Mr Zaoui and his defence that Mr Zaoui could prove his innocence and in that respect does he not think that the Immigration Bill makes things worse by widening the use of secret information against appellants and even allowing the Immigration and Protection Tribunal set up under the bill to withhold that secret information from the appellant contrary to the decision in the High Court case that Mr Zaoui took? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: What I do accept is that this Government has a responsibility to ensure that our borders are secure from threats from non-citizens. I believe that the legislation this Government has proposed will do just that. 
Police—Assistant Commissioner’s Employment Status 
12.  
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What progress if any has been made in resolving the employment status of Assistant Commissioner Clint Rickards since his suspension in 2004? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I have no responsibility as the Minister of Police for the employment of individual police officers; this is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police. However I am advised that good progress is being made in resolving the employment status of Assistant Police Commissioner Rickards within the current police employment relations framework. As the member knows the current framework which is many decades old has its failings. These are being—[ 
Interruption 
] Can the member hear? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well he would like an answer instead of the patter he is getting. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: They have a very sour member over there today. He is very sour. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Again we will be hearing questions and answers in silence unless members restrain themselves. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: As the member knows the current framework which is many decades old has its failings. These are being addressed by the introduction of revised regulations and a code of conduct that I announced recently and that will be in place by the beginning of next year. 
Chester Borrows 
: Are cars issued to high-ranking officers used primarily for police business; if so why would a new car be issued once the officer’s primary purpose had been extinguished and he would not travel a single kilometre on police business? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: My understanding is that senior officers within their standard contract have the provision of a car. It makes up part of their total remuneration. I happen to have a copy of the contract. This contract for senior officers has been in place for a long period of time. In fact members will be interested to know that this particular contract has been in place since the early 1990s and has been based on a standard State sector senior management contract of arrangements that were prevalent at the time. 
Chester Borrows 
: Can the Minister confirm that senior officers who are issued with cars are able to use taxpayers’ dollars to pay for the petrol in these cars for personal use? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I cannot confirm that. It would depend on the contractual arrangements that officers have. All I can say to the member is that Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards has a contract that enables him to have a car. He receives it in exchange for a proportion of his salary. It is part of a standard contractual arrangement the basis of which has been in place since the early 1990s. 
Chester Borrows 
: Will any future employment settlement reached with Mr Rickards require Cabinet or ministerial sign-off? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I cannot speculate on what will happen to Assistant Police Commissioner Rickards. I agree with the president of the Police Association Greg O’Connor who said last night— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am interrupting because I think this is relevant. The Minister clearly did not hear the question. The question was whether there would be any sign-off from either the Minister or Cabinet which is nothing to do with an agreement and nothing to do with a settlement or anything else. The question was whether the amount would be signed off by the Minister or Cabinet; it is pretty simple. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The answer is equally simple. I cannot speculate on the outcome of a tribunal hearing that is yet to be had on Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards. I do not know the outcome—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Members wanted an answer; please have the courtesy of hearing it in silence! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: —and regardless of what members of this House might think that member of the police is still a member of the police and he is entitled to have the full processes followed. I would imagine that members opposite would be the first to complain if it was one of their mates and the processes were not followed. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister tell the House why after such a long period of time no dates have been set for an internal tribunal hearing and why no charges have been proffered against Assistant Police Commissioner Clint Rickards? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is my understanding that a tribunal date if not already set is about to be set. I do not know where the member is getting his information from but I can only go on what I am advised. I have advised the House today that a conclusion of this issue is close. 
Chester Borrows 
: Does the Minister stand by the Prime Minister’s statement regarding the decision by the police administration to promote Mr Rickards four times after it became aware of allegations against him and that it was a case of the police “looking after their own”? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I can confirm for the member that it was the Prime Minister who said that she had doubts when Mr Rickards’ name was brought to her as a potential Deputy Police Commissioner because allegations were swirling around him at that time. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Swirling? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Swirling around him. Letters and comments had been made publicly around this particular police officer. It was the Prime Minister in fact who said she did not believe that Mr Rickards was a person suitable to be a Deputy Police Commissioner. He was subsequently appointed Assistant Police Commissioner by a process that is not the responsibility of the Minister of Police or the Prime Minister. 
Chester Borrows 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. In the Minister’s answer she referred to a copy of the contract. I wonder whether she would table that before the House. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I am sorry. If the member wished that issue raised he should have done so at the time. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not make the Standing Orders; the members make the Standing Orders. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Let me read you the Standing Order. It is Standing Order 368 which states: “Whenever a Minister quotes from a document relating to public affairs a member may on a point of order require the Minister to lay the document on the Table. The Minister must then lay the document on the Table unless it is of a confidential nature.” I do not see any mention of a time exclusion on when the point of order should be taken. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think there is. There is a small word “whenever” at the start of that particular sentence. So the point of order must be taken whenever it happens not some moments later. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: In my answer to the member I did not quote directly from the contract. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That is the point really. Listen very carefully: the Minister did not quote from the document. She certainly made reference to the document that is true but she did not quote from the document. That is what the Standing Order relates to. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am concerned by the way in which you have dealt with this matter because the document whether it was read from or quoted from was referred to on a number of occasions throughout the exchange. You have insisted that when people table documents or have other things to say they do so at the end of a question period. I think that Mr Borrows acted appropriately and I ask you to reconsider whether we have to go down the road of the tight definition of Dr Cullen’s view that the moment a Minister quotes from a document—or appears to—the House should break into a point of order to test whether a document has in fact been quoted from. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but I will follow the Standing Orders. They are quite clear on this matter. If members wish to change them it is up to them to do so. I have noticed that on other occasions whenever the matter was raised members were only too happy to leap to their feet to raise points of order. On this occasion the Standing Orders were not followed; I have to follow the Standing Orders. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I seek leave to table the pro forma individual contract document that I have with me which is pursuant to section 76 of the Police Act. 
Document not tabled. 
Voting 
Correction 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Last Thursday when the House was considering the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill the result of the vote on the question that the bill be now read a second time was incorrectly announced as Ayes 71 Noes 49. The correct result is Ayes 70 Noes 50. 
Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I wonder whether the Minister would care to take a call and advise the Committee of the likely cost to water suppliers of complying with this legislation as introduced and now as amended. The reason why we ask that question is that there has been huge variability in the advice from officials from the ministry and from Local Government New Zealand about the likely costs associated here. 
The Health Committee heard at one stage that the cost of the bill could be between $50 million and $250 million based on standards and processes that existed some years before the bill was introduced. We subsequently heard as I am sure Mrs Goodhew will confirm that $300 million was the estimate provided by officials. Local Government New Zealand then came before the select committee and advised that it thought the cost for local governments and water suppliers to comply with the legislation would be more in the vicinity of $800 million. Understanding the costs on local government goes to the heart of the select committee’s deliberations. 
As the Minister will be aware there was an incredible amount of ongoing discussion with the representatives of local government about what costs they would have to face as the predominant suppliers affected by this legislation. At the end of the committee hearing Local Government New Zealand advised it was still in opposition to the bill because of the costs. Although Local Government New Zealand welcomed the changes to the bill it did not believe that they mitigated the concerns it had about the burdens that would be put on ratepayers and consumers of water who pay through charges. We would like to know from the Government what the current expectation is of the costs to local governments and water suppliers from what is being proposed in this legislation because that goes to the heart of the concerns that were expressed by communities. Communities are concerned about the costs they will have to carry as a result of this legislation. 
I would also like the Minister to provide the Committee with more information about what impact the changes the select committee proposed will have on the compliance costs of various users. We know that very small drinking-water suppliers will now face some different rules from what was originally proposed in the legislation. Different sized water schemes face different obligations. But can the Minister actually provide us with the detail as to the nature of those costs because those costs have moved so much. In the bill as introduced the regulatory compliance statement talked about $50 million to $250 million as I recall. The select committee then heard from officials that it was more up to $300 million. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: They keep going up and up. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: They kept going up and up as Mrs Blue said. 
Then Local Government New Zealand said the cost was $800 million. So we would like to know what those costs were when the bill was introduced; what the Minister now understands those costs will be now that the bill has been amended; and what mitigation the Government is proposing in order to provide a pragmatic solution for communities. This was the concern of Local Government New Zealand. It remained opposed to the bill because of the burden it would put on ratepayers and consumers. I think the Minister should provide the Committee with an indication of what the Government now thinks the compliance costs associated with this bill will be. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) 
: 
 Mr Tony Ryall has raised the concern that goes to the heart of the matter as regards this bill—that is the costs imposed on local government. The amounts we have heard at the Health Committee have just grown exponentially as the bill has gone further and further through the select committee process. When we started off the estimate was for a couple of hundred million dollars and then some officials came back from a conference and said that it looked as if the cost would be $375 million. Local Government New Zealand came before the select committee and said the cost would be $800 million. When we tallied up the imposition on local government it turned out that it would cost $2.3 billion over 10 years to implement these changes—changes to a law that quite frankly seemed to be working pretty well. 
The reality is that we do not have these terrible water-borne epidemics in New Zealand. We have not really heard enough about the problem to which this bill is meant to be the solution. It seems to be a solution without a problem. We heard some sort of vague evidence about sewage having been leaked into Lake Wakatipu about 20 years ago but how that related to drinking water was never quite established. We heard some vague stuff about there having been an outbreak of typhoid in Wisconsin and that there had been some problems in the Soviet Union. There was a further story about some problems with non-compliant water in Milwaukee. But we did not really hear enough about the situation in New Zealand. We heard a lot of confusing evidence about campylobacter but then we pointed out that actually campylobacter is a disease found primarily in chickens and it is a disease of poor food-handling. So we came back to the problem that this bill was a sledgehammer solution to crack a walnut. 
Who will pay again? It will be the poor old ratepayers and the taxpayers. It will be local government paying $2.3 billion over 10 years. I think that it is a sad indictment on the Minister—and I really hope he will get up and take a call at the end of my speech—that with all the problems we have in the health-care arena in New Zealand the Government thinks that its highest priority is pushing through this Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. We do not have elective surgery in this country. We do not have enough beds in our hospitals. People cannot get the services they need in emergency departments. But still this Minister’s priority is to look at the drinking water. 
I ask the Minister how many people died over the past year from an outbreak of contaminated water in New Zealand. Was it 100? Was it 50? No it was zero. But how many people died in our accident and emergency departments because they could not get access to the care they wanted? I would not like to quote the figure but there has been enough of the issue in the papers for quite some time to show that that is where this Government’s priorities should lie. But of course when it comes to health we have a Government whose concern is to go up to North Shore Hospital and unveil a statue that is meant to shed light in places where despair has set in. The best place for that statue may well be the Labour caucus room. But this Government rather than turning around and walking away from the site of that statue and going into the North Shore Hospital emergency department—where the real problems in the health system come to the fore—is focusing on the issue of drinking water. I would like the Minister to get up and tell us where the problem with our drinking water actually lies in this country because frankly at the Health Committee we were struggling to find a problem of a magnitude that required this level of response. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: You don’t seem to know about the quality of our drinking water. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Oh Lianne Dalziel over there has got something to say. Not doubt she will get up in a moment and give us her opinion as well; we need the evidence. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I’m just gob-smacked that you don’t know about the quality of our water supply. 
Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The member says she is amazed we do not know there are problems with the quality of the water supply. She has a great opportunity to take a call and tell us as has the Minister and as have other Labour speakers. Frankly throughout this whole inquiry we did not hear any real evidence; all we heard about was the level of costs. 
This Government reckons it is great at consulting people but I tell members it is not consulting Local Government New Zealand. That is the other thing; apart from the issue of costs Local Government New Zealand told the Health Committee it has not been adequately consulted. Twenty councils came before the committee and said they will be paying over $2000 a head to enact this legislation. Two councils said they will be paying over $4000 a head. In response the Government had said that it will provide some help with capital expenditure funding. That is all very well but the real cost to the ratepayers and taxpayers of New Zealand will be in ongoing expenses. Those expenses will amount to $2.7 billion over 10 years. That is a heck of a lot of money. I would like the Minister to get up and tell us how he can justify that amount. 
We know that this Government is a tax-and-spend Government and has been very very happy to crank up the expenditure on health during its term in office. Spending has gone from $6 billion to $12 billion and one could argue that that has delivered very little in the way of tangible health outcomes. The Government is good at taxing and good at spending but it is not good at coming up with the solutions needed to fix the health problems in this country. Frankly the health of our drinking water is not a problem of the magnitude that requires this bill as the solution. 
My other colleagues will be further expanding on these themes. We will debate this bill pretty hard. We have made our concerns widely known and now Labour members need to stand up and justify why the Government is prepared to impose $2.7 billion of costs over 10 years on the ratepayers of New Zealand. I look forward to hearing about that. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 If that last speech was quality debate then we are easy on this side of the Chamber. We are really happy if that speech was quality debate. Not one person on the other side of the Chamber has got up yet and said that clean water matters for a health system and that clean water is a basis of a society. No one has got up and said that but we have heard Dr Jonathan Coleman the smoking doctor from Auckland get up and say we do not have a problem. Well in Auckland we do not. 
In Auckland there is clean water. The providers of clean water in Auckland have come to me into my office and said: “Can you please pass this bill.” I asked why because they already meet the standards. They said they want legislative backing to ensure that they never lower their standards from where they are now. They said they want that standard in legislation. They want to make sure they can go to their stakeholders and say: “This water is clean because we’ve made it clean and because we must make it clean.” They travelled from Auckland to Wellington to say that. 
Where does Dr Jonathan Coleman the smoking doctor live? He lives in Auckland. Where does the next National speaker Dr Jackie Blue come from—the one who would have got up if I had not taken the call? She comes from Auckland. Where does Mr Tony Ryall come from? He comes from Tauranga and Tauranga meets the standards. But I will tell the Committee a couple of places that do not. The Catlins do not meet the standards and the Cardrona ski field does not meet the standards. 
I will tell the Committee what happened at the Cardrona ski field. Some sewage got caught up in some fresh water-supply. They had the water going out sitting above the mountain and the water for going in below. As a result there was an outbreak of poisoning. How do we know that? We know because a number of people came to the attention of a public health doctor on the ski field. We would not have known otherwise. That is a really important thing about water—most water-borne disease is not diagnosed. And it is not OK to require the proof of the need for clean water. Dirty water—water that contains a lot of coliforms; water that contains a lot of material that should not be in clean water—is just not OK in 2007. 
But there is a problem and that is that water supplies are often managed on behalf of very small populations. It is not fair for those very small populations to have to bear the burden of a very substantial infrastructure deficit. It is not fair and it is particularly not fair when sometimes those water supplies have to be made bigger to cope with perhaps a summer rush of tourism. That is not fair. So this good Labour Government said: “We can help.” We went to Local Government New Zealand and said we could help meet the costs and would do so according to a formula. I think the money we said we would put in was 153 million bucks. I am not sure but it is of that ilk. That money is there because this Government invests in health instead of rushing to give tax cuts everywhere. That is the difference. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Aw! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The woman who has just left this Chamber saying “Aw!” wants to see water banned. She is the woman who wrote to a ministerial colleague on this side of the Chamber saying that dihydrogen monoxide is something she is terribly worried about and wants banned. She is an expert on water—dihydrogen monoxide! That is the quality of debate we get from that side of the House. That is the quality of the debate now. 
Mr Ryall said he wants to know what the costs are. Well I will tell him about costs. The costs have been inflated by the National Party since this bill came into the House. That party purports to want to be the Government one day yet on the issue of clean water all it can do is add a zero to the costs and say the bill costs too much. Well it does not cost too much if we take the zero off. Mr Jonathan Coleman with his $2.7 billion—wherever he got that from I have no idea. It sounds like a couple of zeroes to me. That member ought to be a little more particular about his estimates. So should his leader. His leader went to the Local Government New Zealand conference in Dunedin and gave a quote for a water supply in the Catlins. The problem was that the quote was out by more than tenfold. 
How do we know what the real cost is? Well the Ministry of Health sent an engineering team in to do it. The local council because it did not trust the ministry sent its engineering team in as well. So they came up with two quotes and Mr Key took the bigger of them and added a zero and then a bit more and put it into his speech—as if he was telling the truth! This is a guy who continues to shift and in this case he just shifted a zero on to the figures to make his argument look better. The truth of the matter is that New Zealand purports to be a modern nation and a modern nation needs a modern water-supply. It is really basic. It is like saying that 200 or 230 or 250 volts will do. Well no; it will not. It has to be spot on. And water has to be spot on. This Government is co-investing with local governments to ensure that we move step by step towards a cleaner water-supply for all New Zealanders. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I take great pleasure in standing to talk on Part 1 and to respond to the Minister’s comments. I am not sure why he denies all the information that submitters gave us at the Health Committee. That information is based on the financial risk they believe their organisations and ratepayers will be faced with. I am well aware the Government has said it will give Local Government New Zealand $150 million to help out with meeting the costs of implementing this bill. However the chairperson of Local Government New Zealand said in a press release that he believed the bill would cost $800 million. So $150 million will not go very far. 
 We heard a lot of concerns during the select committee process about that $150 million and about how the process to get one’s hands on it was potentially bureaucratic—was potentially full of hoops to be jumped through. In fact Local Government New Zealand was terribly concerned about who would actually qualify. We heard concerns expressed by various members of the select committee and the Maori Party representative Tariana Turia was particularly concerned about smaller poorer communities around New Zealand that may have their ability to apply for that money affected by some wealthier residents in those local areas. That certainly was of concern to people in those parts of New Zealand. 
I want to go back to something I reiterated in the second reading of this bill: the National Party completely supports the premise that drinking water should be safe and should be clean. But at the same time the National Party realises there is a cost to be met in achieving that across New Zealand and believes that the cost should be representative of the gain that is made. 
I will spend a moment talking about the Balmoral No. 1 Rural Water Supply Scheme committee that submitted to the bill. The conclusion in its submission was that its water supply was already safe. It believes that its water supply is safe. We know that 24 percent of the water supplies around the country have not been demonstrated to be safe but that is simply because they have not actually had to be demonstrated to be safe rather than to be proven to be unsafe. The submission from the Balmoral No. 1 Rural Water Supply Scheme committee also stated: “Current drinking water standards are delivering safe water to us now. The cost of meeting the new standards is too great for small rural communities. They are already struggling.” And the Clutha District Council which the Minister has already mentioned stated: “Principles underlying the reason for the legislation are seriously flawed and based on poor science. The cost burden of complying for small urban and rural communities is just too high.” 
Of course we know that Local Government New Zealand has taken an unusual stance on this bill and has maintained that it has principled opposition to the bill. Members can imagine whether Local Government New Zealand was thinking that that would reflect on its ratepayers—whether its members thought they would have to stand up at meet-the-candidates nights and say they did not favour people having safe clean drinking-water and say that to all the people they hoped would elect them. Well that is not what they are saying. They are the protectors of the ratepayer’s purse. They are saying they simply do not believe they can afford this legislation they are asking whether another way can be found and they are telling us they have principled opposition to this bill. 
As National members have already said in the second reading debate of this bill there was significant interaction between the select committee and Local Government New Zealand. I believe that to the latter’s credit and to the credit of the committee significant gains and significant improvements were made in this particular bill as a result of that interaction. But Local Government New Zealand was still very concerned about the lack of cost-benefit analysis. It was very concerned that there was not a robust link between drinking water and the gastrointestinal diseases that are recorded in New Zealand. It also talked to us of its concerns about the impact on its long-term council community plans and we have heard quoted the costs for the capital expenditure and operational expenditure figures for those plans and the costs for those two district councils—Queenstown Lakes and South Taranaki—with figures exceeding $4000 per capita per annum. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 In this Committee stage debate on the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill one thing is crystal clear—if members will excuse the pun. The thing that is crystal clear is that if this country was unlucky enough to have a National Government in place that Government would not be promoting safe drinking-water and it would not be putting this bill forward. It is very clear from this debate that National does not care about the health benefits of having safe drinking-water. In particular it does not care about having safe drinking-water in rural communities and I personally was quite astounded to hear that during the Health Committee’s discussion. 
I am a member of the Health Committee and it was very interesting to observe the National members on the committee arguing that if people choose to live in rural areas they should expect lesser standards for their drinking water and perhaps lesser standards in other issues as well. I was very surprised to hear that from National members because as a Labour member of Parliament living in a rural area I know that people living and working in rural areas do not believe that themselves. They want good safe drinking-water and they believe they have the same rights to a healthy lifestyle as urban dwellers and that is at the heart of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. It is crystal clear that National would not be promoting such a bill should it become the Government—or would it? It is never very clear with National at the moment. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman said before that during the select committee process he did not hear enough about the need for safe water. Perhaps he should have been listening to the same submitters I was listening to. More important perhaps he should listen to one of his own colleagues Dr Nick Smith who said— 
Hon Member 
: I’d never listen to him. 
SUE MORONEY 
: I certainly would not but I believe that Jonathan Coleman should because Dr Nick Smith said that 24 percent of our drinking water being unsafe is an appalling statistic and that enforcement action is needed. Those were the words from Dr Nick Smith on this very issue yet Dr Jonathan Coleman—yes he is from the same party believe it or not—got up in this debate and said he had not heard enough to satisfy his need to know about the need for safe drinking-water in this country. I say to Dr Coleman that if the Health Committee process was not robust enough for him and he did not hear enough in that process then perhaps he should just talk to his own caucus colleagues and see whether they can find out just what the National Party’s position actually is on this issue. 
I congratulate the officials on the work they did. It was the officials—not the select committee as the previous speaker alluded to—who did all the very detailed and very important work. The officials worked with Local Government New Zealand to ensure that all its concerns were heard in this process and they worked to ensure that the select committee could make practical recommendations that would actually deal with the issues raised by Local Government New Zealand so that we can ensure we have healthy and safe drinking-water and so that there are standards in place that all drinking-water suppliers need to meet whether they be in rural or urban areas. 
I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate those many local authorities who meet the standards currently—and yes they do that voluntarily. They do that because they are responsive to the needs of their ratepayers and because this bill has been well signalled by this good Labour Government—this good Labour Government that does not spring surprises on anybody. There have been many years for local government to understand what its citizens and ratepayers were demanding with regard to drinking water. They have had many years to come up to scratch and most of them have done that. 
I congratulate those local bodies who have taken their responsibilities seriously in this regard and I say to those local bodies that have not yet come up to scratch that this measure is for the greater good of the country. It is about health. I despair about the health professionals opposite who say they are not convinced yet of the need for safe drinking-water; it is something that many of us on this side of the Chamber—even though we may not be health professionals—understand. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 It was very interesting listening to the Minister take a call. If he thinks the National Party for whatever reason is taking a wrong unethical or amoral position why is it—I ask the Minister though he has gone he has fled the Chamber; I am sorry I should not say that—that local government has such vehement opposition to this bill? Local government members came in front of the Health Committee and their submissions were absolutely vehement. They were firmly opposed to the bill for its cost to local communities and particularly to rural communities. Those local government members are the defenders of communities so surely if they felt this bill was valid was right and was there to help communities they would be backing it to the hilt. Even when they got into a huddle with officials—and there was lots of consultation back and forth letters written and meetings—they still after all the amendments remained principally opposed to this bill and I think that says a lot. 
Their main opposition was the cost. The bill puts far too much cost and a burden on to ratepayers and it is the local rural communities that will carry the burden. As Jonathan Coleman said the bill is a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. We had these widely varying estimates of what the bill will cost. First of all the figure was $50 million and then it ranged from $50 million up to $275 million. It was staggering; the numbers kept going up. At the New Zealand Water and Wastes Association conference in 2006 the estimate went up to $300 million. There was no stopping it in sight. Then the local government people told us in the select committee that no it was none of those figures; it was nearer $800 million. That is a phenomenal amount of money and no wonder eyes were widening and everyone was being incredibly surprised by the figures that were coming in to us. 
No affordability of this bill has been factored in; there has been no common sense. Nor has the effect been factored in of how the bill will affect small suppliers who in many ways are doing a community service by helping out their neighbours with local water supplies. What will they do in the face of this huge cost compliance and bureaucratic machine coming their way? They will simply turn the tap off. Who will pay the penalty for that? It will be local rural communities. We had a number of examples of small councils that will have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars per head of their population. 
Jo Goodhew made a very good comment in the second reading of the bill when she referred to Pete Hodgson’s comment in the first reading that water can never be made completely safe but that on the other hand he wants ratepayers to foot the bill for something we cannot reduce the risk of and for something we cannot ever make completely safe. It just seems ironical. 
National does not oppose clean safe drinking-water. Water is essential to life and we believe that New Zealanders should have access to safe and clean water but this bill is not the vehicle to give it. This bill is not going to work. Its cost to local communities will completely bog the mechanism. 
There has been very little evidence that New Zealanders have had any problems with water-borne diseases. Members on the other side keep bringing up overseas examples like Milwaukee and talking about campylobacter in food. But chickens carry campylobacter; it is not often water-borne at all. When the Institute of Environmental Science and Research did a presentation to our select committee it was actually quite revealing. One would think that we had had typhoid and cholera epidemics galore and that hundreds of people had died but in actual fact the examples given were over 20 or 30 years old and for the last decade only four cases were presented to the Health Committee. 
One case occurred in 2001 at a rural school in Hawke’s Bay where there was a problem with faeces from cattle getting into the source water. Apparently the problem there was an ultraviolet machine that had not been working. The second example was in Banks Peninsula in 2004 and the problem there was an effluent pipe in a septic tank that had broken down and was discharging into a spring-fed drinking-water supply. There was a third example at a Nelson camp in 2004 but when I read through the actual detail I saw that a link could never be proved so that really was not an issue. I agreed with only one case that of the Cardrona ski field in 2006 and that was a legitimate issue. There was a problem with the effluent overflow that went into a stream and the drinking-water supply was not registered. The treatment comprised filtration and ultraviolet treatment but the cartridge did not comply with the requirements of drinking-water standards. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise as a member of the Health Committee which over a fairly lengthy and careful period dealt with the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill in order to support its passage. 
The bill was introduced to deal with the risk posed to over half a million New Zealanders receiving water from community drinking-water supplies that do not meet the New Zealand drinking-water standards. It was introduced to ensure that all New Zealanders have access to safer drinking-water—the water they deserve—and because the current situation with purely voluntary standards had reached its limits. 
There has been on the one hand a series of carping speeches from members on the National benches who under Mr Ryall have taken the unbelievable position of opposing this bill as unnecessary. On the other hand the National Party has done another flip-flop. Dr Smith has suggested that a high percentage of our drinking water is unsafe but Dr Coleman and Dr Blue have said that we have the best standard of drinking water in the world and that this is a problem that does not need fixing. So it appears the National Party is both very concerned and deeply unconcerned about the quality of New Zealand’s drinking water. 
Darren Hughes 
: That’s before Jacqui Dean’s position! 
LESLEY SOPER 
: And that is before Mrs Dean’s position. 
I say to National members that this bill addresses a very serious issue and my part of the world illustrates it. In February this year there were two separate incidents where sewage leaked into Lake Wakatipu the drinking-water source of New Zealand’s premier tourist destination. There were two other known spills in 1984. In 2006 the Cardrona ski resort suffered an outbreak of disease when sewage contaminated the drinking-water supply causing over 200 known cases of gastroenteritis. 
In my former life when I visited schools throughout Southland and South Otago I as a lifelong water drinker was often warned in those rural schools not to drink the water unless it was thoroughly boiled. I well remember only a few years ago several visits to one particular school in South Otago where the risk from water was so high that the school almost closed on more than one occasion. 
The National Party may pretend not to acknowledge it but the fact is that New Zealand has on average 17 water-borne disease outbreaks a year that affect up to 200 people. Then there is the much larger problem of individuals getting sick from their water which the Institute of Environmental Science and Research estimates at up to 34000 cases every year. 
Since the bill was introduced in June last year the select committee and officials have had an intense period of submissions and discussions that has led to improvements in this bill. Some local councils and Local Government New Zealand had concerns over planning processes priorities and costs and sterling efforts were made on all sides to work through the issues to reach the point we are at now. One of the key amendments recommended by the select committee was around the duty of suppliers to take all practical steps to comply with New Zealand drinking-water standards. After consultation the select committee recommended provisions that give suppliers more certainty. The bill says that if suppliers have a public health risk-management plan and if they are implementing that plan they are deemed to be taking all practical steps. 
Another really important amendment that addressed concerns was the amendment to the date on which suppliers become subject to the legislation’s legal duties. Smaller suppliers obviously need more time. Local Government New Zealand was concerned about the compatibility of the dates in the bill with planning processes under the Local Government Act 2002. The select committee recommended an adjustment to those dates giving suppliers between 1 and 2 additional years. Another important amendment was to allow for the special circumstances of rural agricultural drinking-water suppliers—the suppliers providing most of their water for irrigation or stock and only a small portion for domestic use. 
Finally the Government has instituted a Drinking-water Assistance Programme which will supply some $154 million towards meeting the costs of improving the quality of water. I am sure that the Clutha District Council in my area was very pleased to hear about that. It was I am sure even more pleased to tell the scientific truth about the cost of new drinking-water infrastructure for Owaka. Mr Key the leader of the National Party cited a cost of $750000—I repeat $750000—for 200 ratepayers in Owaka. He made that statement at the Local Government New Zealand conference in Dunedin—very publicly. The Clutha District Council the actual operator of the supply estimates that the cost to comply fully with the standards will be between $10000 and $55000. Enough said. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chairperson— 
Darren Hughes 
: Oh you must be kidding! 
JACQUI DEAN 
: You know it must be awful being a backbencher in a dying Government. All that those members have left is to go “Snap snap snap” like unhappy little dogs knowing they are heading for oblivion. 
I have had a fascinating week. I have never had so much media attention in my life. It has been fantastic in my electorate—you know the electorate of Otago the one I took off David Parker—with the attention I have been having in the last week from the media. People have been ringing me up and saying: “Good on you Jacqui. Keep going; you’re doing a fantastic job.” So I say to you backbenchers in a dying Government to keep on with your snap snap snapping and by the way just keep looking for another job— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask the member to speak to the bill. Also she should not bring the Chairperson into the debate. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: There is no problem here that requires a multimillion-dollar fix. I know that because I live in a rural community. I live in the rural community of North Otago and I can tell members something. The North Otago local authority has been in the business of providing water for over 100 years. For 100 years the people of North Otago whether they have lived in the township or out in the country as I do have been drinking the water. And guess what? We are all just fine and dandy. 
I stand before the Committee today as an expert on all issues to do with water. There is no problem that requires the multimillion-dollar impost on local authorities—and by the way on ratepayers—that this bill seems to want to put on to people. I have here a press release from the Hon Pete Hodgson put out in January 2007. In it he crows about one National member saying one thing and another National member saying something else and that is absolutely fine. Then at the bottom of the press release—I am not sounding as hysterical as the Minister of Health normally does when he is wound up but I will do my best—he says with a sort of a cringing feeling in his bones because he knows that Labour is now 14 percent behind in this polls—“This Labour-led Government will be contributing $154 million over the next ten years to small communities to help them get their drinking water supplies up to standard.” Really fantastic! I can tell members that the citizens of small communities from throughout my electorate of Otago which I took off the now-list MP David Parker— 
Darren Hughes 
: You’re kidding yourself. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: So says the junior whip in a dying Government that is 14 percent behind in the polls. All that those members can do is snap snap snap. But never mind we will get back to the bill. 
The Minister of Health said that $154 million would be available. The only problem is that nobody can get their hands on it. It is all very well announcing a fund and getting people’s hopes up but what happens if nobody can get hold of it? What happens if one is a farmer in Oturehua in the South Island who knows that his water scheme is being infiltrated by chloro—what are they called? Chloroforms? You see I do not drink chemicals clearly—from the local sewerage system because of the Otago Central Rail Trail. He knows he is going to have to do something about the water scheme and seeing this announcement from the hysterical Minister of Health about $145 million he thinks that will be the saviour. The only trouble is that the money is not available. 
How do I know this? I know because this poor farmer came to me and said: “Hang on the hysterical Minister of Health has said there’s going to be $154 million available. I’ve been to see him. I can’t get any of it. We have a water supply that we know we need to upgrade.” The Minister speaks with a forked tongue as usual. He puts the money up but there is absolutely no follow-through. Here we are in September 2007 about 2 years later and has this farmer got the money to upgrade his water supply? No he has not. So this is the Labour-led Government that is famous for talking the talk but not walking the walk. Is there a problem? No there is not a problem. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I have been listening to the debate with some interest and I think we need to set out a few principles relating to it. Nobody wants anybody in New Zealand to drink water that will do them harm. I think that is a pretty good principle to start with. The next issue we need to address is what we actually need to do to fix up what may be wrong. What have we determined is the error? A couple of examples have been given involving contamination at Wakatipu and Cardrona and I will speak to those a little later. But I see here quite a comprehensive bill of 80 or so pages that is just about making water suitable for people to consume. The mischief really is not defined. I think our team has said quite clearly that this is over-elaborate legislation that will add significant costs to a whole range of people who are out there consuming water. The Minister in the chair the Hon Parekura Horomia has a somewhat agrarian background and I say to him that this bill is a little bit like treating scrotal mange with a hammer. I think he understands that term and that the proposal in this bill is serious overkill for what is said to be a problem. 
I want to pick up on a point or two made by Lesley Soper who spoke earlier in the debate. She said she visits schools or used to visit schools in her area. Well I actually visit a few schools too. I think what I will do is copy the  
Hansard 
 record of her debate and send it to the likes of the Gorge Road School and the Otatara School in the electorate of Invercargill which I visited recently. They have pleaded with me to oppose this legislation because of the costs it will impose on schools that are not in a reticulated area. The question that needs to be answered by those on the other side who are promoting the bill is what they will do for the operations grants of schools that will be impacted on by significant increases in the costs of running their schools purely and simply as a result of this legislation. The Otatara School is in the Invercargill electorate and it is in quite a large suburb of the Invercargill City Council area that does not have reticulated water. Every resident every business and every entity in that suburb of the city has to rely on rainwater or bore water. The cost that this legislation will impose on that suburb alone will be such that I think we need to circulate the  
Hansard 
 record of Lesley Soper’s speech to those people as well so that they can get an impression of how she is quite happy to overload costs on them through an overkill piece of legislation. 
Let us take another part of the Invercargill electorate that Lesley Soper is so desirous of representing—that is Stewart Island. Again there is not a great deal of reticulation on Stewart Island. The people of Stewart Island make up a wonderful community. They actually seize the opportunity to look after themselves. One of the things that the island’s population of 380 people did was to build its own community centre. It spent $1.4 million resulting from a lot of entrepreneurial activity on building that community centre. One of the ways in which the people there fund the ongoing maintenance and management of this community resource is by catching the water off the roof and selling it as pure Stewart Island water. But I have just read the bill. Those people in Stewart Island will not now qualify without a whole lot of expenses so this legislation will kill their little fund-raising scheme. Stewart Island pure water will no longer be available without some considerable expense to those who are managing that fund-raising experience. 
Let us go back to the two illustrations that have been given where there is contamination of sewage—Lake Wakatipu and Cardrona. It is appalling that there is contamination of sewage but will this bill stop that? Surely there has been a breakdown in sewage management on the part of the people who are responsible for ensuring there is no contamination. We can pass all the legislation we like but if we have legislation that says to keep the brown stuff away from the white stuff and it is getting mixed up we do not need legislation to fix the problem. We need to sort out which pipe goes where and have someone on the ground who understands what is important in delivering clean drinking-water. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to stand here today and talk to the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I would just like to say a brief hello to those people who are in their cars in the traffic going up to the Kapiti coast Nathan Guy’s area. These people will have left at 4 p.m. so they could beat the rush and get out of the traffic jam. They will come up to see Nathan some time. 
I have had a quick look at this bill and my understanding is that it is really about water-borne diseases and making sure that New Zealand has water that is safe for everybody to drink. Nobody in the National Party would disagree with the fact that we need healthy drinking-water in New Zealand—we do need healthy drinking-water and we have it. 
I am a mother of three young children and we drink a huge amount of water in our house. The quality of the water is important to my family as it is to everybody who has a family and consumes litres and litres of water a day like my family does. We are very concerned about the quality of our water and I must say that we have not had any problems at all with the quality of our water. My mother who lives up in the Hawke’s Bay has not any problems with the quality of her water. At the weekend I was on Waiheke Island which has tank water and there are no problems with the water up there either. I am standing here as a water drinker for 38 years and I seem to be pretty healthy as do my colleagues over here who are also water drinkers. 
We have heard Dr Jonathan Coleman talk about this legislation. He has referred to it as a sledgehammer for a walnut. It is interesting. I looked back to see who was on the Health Committee which looked at this legislation. There was Dr Jonathan Coleman Dr Jackie Blue Jo Goodhew and Tony Ryall who were extremely high-powered to be on this Health Committee and very representative. They actually understand what water-borne diseases do to people. Of anybody we in the National Party have the more qualified members and the depth of understanding of what happens to our communities in the health sector when we have water-borne diseases. There just are not any water-borne diseases. 
During the select committee process there were many many submissions and from them came the fact that in the last 10 years only four water-borne diseases have been identified. None of those cases was due to the water itself; they were due to conditions around the water. As my colleague from Invercargill Eric Roy said those incidents were actually about sewage and not about the water systems themselves. Will this bill stop mistakes such as those that happened in those four cases in the last 10 years? This bill does not address the problem. We have a bill here that does not address half the issues of how the problems happen. 
This bill has become quite a major thing in this House at the moment. But we would like to think that the priorities of the Government are the accident and emergency department in North Shore or the neonatal units having to fly babies to Australia—or threatening to—or perhaps maternity services and how one cannot get lead maternity care. What are the priorities for this Government? Are they really with clean drinking-water or they about getting people into accident and emergency departments? Is the North Shore accident and emergency department a priority? Are the neonatal units a priority? [ 
Interruption 
] The Government members say: “No no no—talk about the bill.” but I am talking about real issues that many people face. I tell those people travelling up the Kapiti coast to Nathan Guy’s area that he is more than aware of these issues as well and more than aware of the priorities of this Government. 
Many councils made submissions on this bill and their biggest concern was the cost. The Government has said that it will put some capital expenditure into this but at the end of the day who will pay for this “sledgehammer for a walnut” situation? It will be the ratepayers. The ratepayers will be made to pay and pay over and over. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 In this debate on the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill members of National have been outlining our concerns. We have been asking a number of questions about the cost. The Minister did not take a call— 
Hon Member 
: He did. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: He did take a call but did not provide a suitable answer to the question about the cost. 
One of the issues it would be most interesting for members to hear about concerns the fact that we were told by members opposite about these various Ministry of Health numbers and how reliable they were. I asked my colleague Dr Jackie Blue to bring us a copy of the submission that was given to the Health Committee by Bob Buchanan Mayor of Rangitikei District. 
Darren Hughes 
: Oh yeah mad old Bob. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Mr Darren Hughes called him “mad old Bob”. That is not a very nice way for Mr Hughes to describe a mayor in his community. It would be quite unparliamentary for me to use the description that Mr Buchanan probably uses to describe that young outgoing member from the Horowhenua. 
Mr Buchanan said he was reading an article in August 2004 that showed a map of New Zealand with an effect indicator of water-borne diseases with the Institute of Environmental Science and Research as the supplier of the information. The information showed that Rangitikei was amongst the places in New Zealand with the highest figures for water-borne and drinking-water diseases. Mr Buchanan phoned the New Zealand Water and Wastes Association to get information from the Ministry of Health. The Ministry of Health got this information he said from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research. He then told the select committee about this story. 
He received from the Whanganui District Health Board an assessment of health needs for the area that showed that the Rangatikei District water-borne disease rate was five times higher than the national average in 2003. That really worried him as he was the mayor when that epidemic broke out in his area of 15000 people and no one had ever told him about it. Upon inquiring with the district health board it appeared that this incident had happened at a Marton kindergarten and that 12 children were involved. The mayor said that he thought this was odd because at least five kindergartens in Marton are all connected to the very same water supply as that kindergarten where apparently an epidemic happened. The mayor says in his submission: “I smelt a rat and started investigating.” Mr Bob Buchanan standing for mayor again— 
Darren Hughes 
: No. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No he is not. Well that is a great loss. Anyway Mr Buchanan approached all the kindergartens and he says: “No kindergarten could ‘remember’ this outbreak but several were happy to tell me about the poor conditions that opposition ‘kindys’ have surprise surprise??? A visit to the local and only Medical Centre in Marton could not recall this. Whanganui DHB on interview by myself admitted that the ESR ‘gathered’ info on notifiable disease outbreak. ESR with some reluctance admitted”—and this is important—“that the system for investigating such reports was such that any information forwarded to MOH had a caveat that only 50% of cases reported were covered by some form of investigation that possibly confirmed that this outbreak was due to intake of water.” 
That letter shows that the information the Government uses to justify this legislation is not reliable. 
 One of the questions we kept asking the officials and Government members was whether we could prove that this was a problem that required this sort of sledgehammer approach and that would put huge cost burdens and compliance on local government. We really did not get a satisfactory answer to that question. 
The National Party view is that communities should have a greater say about the risks and the level of risk they want to carry—because of the cost—in these sorts of areas. We want a local solution to those local problems. We are also concerned that the Government could not put a finger on how much this is going to cost local governments and consumers. 
Nathan Guy 
: How much? 
Mark Blumsky 
: Lots. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The former Mayor of Wellington tells me that it would cost a lot. That was pretty much the message we got from the local governments that came before the select committee and certainly from Local Government New Zealand. The submission from the Mayor of Rangitikei District Mr Bob Buchanan was a most useful submission. He actually said further that Clutha District Council had similar information to his as did the chief executive of Waimate District Council. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 That was a wonderful contribution by my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall. Was it not a fascinating submission from the former Mayor of Rangitikei? He tried to work out what was going on in his community in the face of these strange numbers he was hearing about and reading about. The Institute of Environmental Science and Research was not investigating 50 percent of them. That is the science—that is the unreliability of the data we have. Yet we now have a bill with costs ranging from $75 million up to $800 million. We do not know the size of the problem or indeed whether there is a problem.  
I agree with my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall. Local communities should have a say in the level of risk they carry. There should be local solutions for local problems. The local community should have a say. They are having no say with this bill which is so bureaucratic so heavy-handed and so micro-managing to the nth degree. They will be completely rolled by this bill. In fact the financial cost is so considerable that it will be detrimental to the functioning of local communities. 
Local Government New Zealand was vehement in its opposition to the bill as I have said before. It was totally vehement. Local Government New Zealand is a defender of local communities and local standards. Surely if it felt that this bill should be passed it would have backed it. Local Government New Zealand staff huddled with the officials and amendments were made. I will talk about some of those amendments shortly. But after all the discussions and all the toing and froing Local Government New Zealand is still principally opposed to this bill. That says it all. And the Mayor of Rangitikei’s submission says it all. 
Our own investigations of the problem of water-borne diseases also confirm the fact that we have not had outbreaks of cholera and typhoid. We have not had deaths. In fact the submission from the Institute of Environmental Science and Research showed only four cases in the last decade and of those four cases there is only one—that of Cardrona ski field—that I could say was probably a valid and legitimate claim. 
Some amendments were made to the bill. There is a new category for rural agricultural drinking-water suppliers with much more flexible obligations in respect of their drinking-water standards. There is a new definition called “neighbourhood drinking-water supply” which is based on the number of people it supplies. Generally speaking suppliers serving fewer people are given more time to comply. Time lines are staggered up to 2012 before suppliers face legal action if they do not comply. There is also a new definition called “temporary drinking-water supplier” which applies to temporary events such as music festivals and school farm camps. This was defined so it would not capture small shearing gangs visiting a property. The time lines have been changed so that the suppliers can align themselves with the Local Government Act 2002. 
There was a response to the concern which many people expressed that there were going to be significant upgrades and that suppliers would have to include that in their local planning. There is a new definition of “all practicable steps” which the councils must take to implement the standards to include affordability. That has also been defined. The bureaucracy this bill creates is absolutely staggering. It is actually mind-blowing. A whole new sector is being evolved and job creation is evolving out of this bill. 
In Part 1 there is a whole section about drinking-water assessors and designated officers. There are a number of amendments that relate to these particular people and to these new jobs that have been created out of this bill and this bureaucracy. The drinking-water assessors are appointed by the Director-General of Health. They assess the performance of drinking-water suppliers notify designated officers—which is another new job that is created—and drinking-water suppliers on any non-compliance and provide information to the Deputy-General of Health. They assess the competence of persons to analyse samples of raw water or drinking water and to calibrate equipment and so on and so on. There are a number of amendments about drinking-water assessors and designated officers. 
The job of “designated officer” is as I said a new job. Designated officers have a number of functions. They have to check that the directions of the drinking-water assessors are complied with. These designated officers also have quite wide-ranging powers. With all this new bureaucracy and the proliferation of new personnel there has to be a process to review the decisions of drinking-water assessors and a register of drinking-water assessors and so on. Is it any wonder that the estimates on this bill have absolutely bloomed? We have heard about them as being a moving feast. As the Health Committee heard first it was $50 million then it was wide ranging up to $275 million. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
MARK BLUMSKY (National) 
: 
 I was not actually going to speak on the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I was in the House doing a little bit of homework and started listening to the debate which is a tragedy in its own self in many respects. It came to me that I just want to share with members some facts about a trip I undertook as part of the local government team for the National Party. I am not on the Health Committee and have not had any involvement in this water debate. 
Last year I was travelling down south and visited some small rural councils in the Mackenzie country Waimate and Ashburton—that part of the world. It was quite an enjoyable trip because it was just after the dog microchipping debate. We had a lot of fun talking about the problems the Government had encountered with regard to that debate. We were also talking about waste because a select committee was doing a lot of work on waste. Those councils were very proud of the work they had done in waste minimisation and waste recovery. They were very proud of the fact that the work they had undertaken was having quite a significant impact and was not costing the ratepayer too much. In our conversations with the councils we started to talk about the issues that are confronting them given that they are doing so well in the areas I just mentioned. They all said that the problem they now have is the impost that the Government is putting on them—on small rural councils—in regard to standards. I asked what on earth they were talking about. They started to talk about water standards. That is when I first became aware of the bill we are currently debating. 
The issues that those councils could not come to grips with were quite simple. Those councils in many places have 30 or 40 bores or water sources that feed their population. They gave me an example of one water source that feeds seven farms. They made me aware of the fact that as part of the infrastructural demands of this legislation they would have to put in some significant infrastructure and a lot of money in order to bring the water that has been feeding those seven farms for many many years up to scratch as the new bill demands. They could not understand the need for that. The water has been feeding those seven farms for many many years. There has been no problem and no problem was expected. Yet they will have to put in infrastructure to the value of hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to meet the requirements of this bill. The councils just could not understand the logic of doing that. 
One of the things we have not discussed or talked about in this Chamber is the situation when the water is not drinking water per se. The water source the council was going to have to bring up to scratch not only fills the teapot but also feeds the farm. The thing the councils made me aware of at the time is that this legislation brings water up to a standard that is not necessary—in this case for sure—to feed the crops. Ninety-eight percent of the water that comes out of that water source is to be used to water the crops; 2 percent is to be used to fill up the teapot. 
The councils could not really come to grips with the impost that this Government was putting on them in regard to that infrastructure. It is a whack on the ratepayer—it is a big whack on the ratepayer. I have heard the Minister talk about the $153 million or $154 million that he is putting into the pot to sweeten and soften the cost impost. I can tell the Minister now that he is hundreds of thousands of dollars light. Local government has made that clear. It has costed this measure it has done the homework and it knows that this will be a huge cost on it. 
This comes at a time when there has been a rates revolt around the country and it is at a time when the inquiry has come out and said that local government actually has the tools and that it is just overspending. It is just putting in gold-plated infrastructure. The inquiry led by David Shand was very clear when it stated that local government does not need to spend as much as it is spending. It said local government does not need to gold-plate everything so it should just cut back. So what does the Government do? The Government says to those people that it knows the councils have been feeding those farms and people have been drinking that water for hundreds of years just about but guess what it wants them to gold-plate the water supply. The Government wants them to gold-plate that water supply which will cost the councils a lot more and can members guess who pays? The ratepayer pays. And can members guess what happens? There is a rates revolt. That just does not seem fair. 
I go back to Tony Ryall’s comments when he made it clear that we should let the locals sort out the local solution that they need in order to bring their water up to standard. As the councils said to me at the time they do not need to invest tens of thousands of dollars in order to put this water in; they just need to buy a filter for each tap so that when people fill up the teapot with water from the tap the water is of good enough quality. Thank you Madam Chairperson. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chaiperson. Standing Order 137(3) talks about the closure motion. This is a very contentious bill particularly with regard to the costs involved for rural New Zealand and a lot of National members would still like to seek the call. They still have some valuable contributions to make to the debate and I ask that you consider that please. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I can assure the member Nathan Guy that I will certainly take that into account as per Standing Orders and in light of the speeches we have had. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I rise to take another call because there were a number of matters I did not canvass in my previous address. I wanted to look at elements of this part of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill in order to add some clarity to the process that the Health Committee went through. The timetable for drinking-water supplies to comply was of enormous concern as has been mentioned by other members. Local Government New Zealand and individual councils all made the case that they needed to be able to fit in any necessary compliance with this bill with their long-term council community plans. That is all part of their planning process. Therefore it was extremely necessary that the bill had dates that would allow for the alignment of its time frames with the Local Government Act 2002 planning cycle and with the Drinking-water Assistance Programme as well. So amendments were made that have made the bill significantly better. 
Another issue of significant concern to my electorate and to many other rural electorates was rural agricultural drinking-water supplies. Again as has been mentioned by other speakers the concern was that we would have an awful lot of water that would be of a very high quality—and expensive as well—and that we would be feeding it to a lot of stock. In the course of the select committee process we managed to get around that by adding this definition: “ ‘rural agricultural drinking-water supply’ means a large medium minor small or neighbourhood drinking-water supply from which 75 percent or more of the water supplied—(i) is used for the purposes of commercial agriculture; …”. I just say for the record that this issue is still causing some concern in my electorate because the fact that it is actually for commercial agriculture causes concern for suppliers who have a lot of what we would call lifestyle blocks where they are not always making money out of the stock but they are feeding that stock an awful lot of drinking water which has become of quite a high quality and very expensive. 
So that part of the bill still causes some concern in rural New Zealand. I hope that concern is proven to be unfounded. Time will tell I expect. 
A number of councils noted their concern about the definition of “reasonable steps”. In fact new section 69G which is to be inserted in the Health Act by clause 7 does not define “reasonable steps” because a decision was made that defining the term could limit the steps that could be taken and apparently there is other legislation where the term “reasonable steps” is utilised. So we are hoping that that will become clearer to the people who are supplying the water as time goes on. 
We also put some extra clauses in to define “all practicable steps” because it was very very important for affordability to become a factor there. Once again the Health Committee worked hard to get that sorted out so that it was presented in an acceptable way and so that cost would become an acceptable factor in this bill. 
I just want to talk about two other things in relation to the bill with the first being the public health risk-management plans which are now a requirement. Public health risk-management plans are pretty scary sorts of things I think for someone who is new to putting them together and smaller suppliers are wondering what they are and whether this is a huge amount of bureaucracy. Again I hope this will be seen for the benefit it will bring in terms of assessing risk and mitigating its effects wherever possible. Again we would look then at “all practicable steps” and affordability would come into that assessment. 
One of the issues raised in the select committee was around the drinking-water assessors. I read in one of today’s newspapers that environmental health officers are in very short supply and this issue was canvassed during the select committee process. I am assuming that these people are in fact environmental health officers and perhaps the Minister would like to take a call on that. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 147 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 1 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to other enactments 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Part 2 includes debate on the schedule. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to take a call in the debate on Part 2 which is quite a wide part. It refers to responsibility for local government in respect of restricting water supply. It restricts water supply in a number of circumstances related mainly to the non-payment of costs. The wider issue of costs to consumers and the ability to pay is important. Similarly Part 2 contains information about meetings in respect of notifications from territorial authorities on land information memoranda. It also includes the revocation of the former Water Supplies Protection Regulations which is an issue because it raises the level of disparity of standards and in the schedule there is a discussion about various changes to those standards. 
National is particularly concerned about the costs to local government associated with these changes particularly as the supplier to various water schemes. Throughout the submission process on this bill we heard a wide and divergent number of views on the costs that this legislation will have on local government as a water supplier. The reason that the cost burden on the supplier is important is that in most cases those costs will be transferred either to the ratepayer or to the user of the water through whatever mechanism—charging—a local authority or water supplier might use. 
The costs have been quite variant. When the bill was introduced we heard that the costs were between $50 million and $250 million which is quite a significant variation. We had further advice from the officials that the costs could be up to $300 million; then Local Government New Zealand estimated the cost to be much closer to $800 million. If the cost is at the higher level of that range that would have a significant impact on communities and that is the reason National members have asked this question of the Minister: “What does the Government think the cost to water schemes to comply will now be?”. 
We have also asked the Government where the problem here is. We have asked it to please provide us with the data and the information that shows there is a significant public health risk associated with these changes. Our experience in the Health Committee was that the information being supplied to justify that is not reliable. We state in our minority view that the public does want good-quality water but that it is a trade-off because there is a cost associated with the various levels of quality and we have wanted the Government to give us an indication on those costs. 
Mark Blumsky 
: Where did the $154 million come from? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We do not know where that came from. Is this the $154 million in terms of the subsidy? 
Mark Blumsky 
: Yes. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Well that is another set of figures that the Minister has not yet taken a call on to discuss. 
I would also like the Government to talk about what impact this legislation will have if it is passed as amended. There is no doubt that some useful amendments have been made to the legislation that if it is to pass will make it more workable. But I wonder whether the Government will explain to us what the burden will be on a person in a lifestyle block or in a farming community who supplies water to his or her neighbours. What will the liabilities and obligations on such people be? I suspect that not one member of the Government has been in a position whereby he or she has taken water from a neighbour’s bore. Many members on this side of the Chamber including myself have been in the position of getting our domestic water supply and the supply for our block from our neighbour who had a bore. A pipe comes across it is connected to one’s system and one is on. It is a very neighbourly arrangement. I did not really pay for it. I maybe gave the neighbour a couple of bottles of wine at the end of the year. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Whisky? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No. It was a very neighbourly arrangement—and that is repeated throughout the whole of the country. I wonder whether a Government member would take a call to explain the original requirements on that person before the legislation was changed and what the requirements on people who are supplying water to their neighbours on a friendly basis are now. I think members will be surprised to know that when this bill was first introduced there were going to be significant burdens on such parties. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise again to speak on Part 2 of this Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. I am very fond of water. I think water is terribly important to us in New Zealand and to me personally water is very important. I would like Government members to tell the Committee because we are very interested to know this how they are getting on with their scheme. This Labour-led Government said that the Minister of Health would contribute $154 million over the next 10 years to small communities in order to help them to get their drinking-water supplies up to standard. I would like the Minister of Health or one of the many Ministers who has sat in the chair to answer that question. In my electorate which is made up of small communities that administer small expensive water schemes those who have tried to get some of that pot of gold from the Government have found that it has not been forthcoming no matter how hard they have tried. 
The commentary on the bill states: “We were informed that most of the large and medium-sized supplies already comply or almost comply with the Drinking Water Standards for New Zealand 2000.” It goes on: “We understand that these suppliers will have little difficulty in complying with the 2005 standards.” Well that is just fantastic. It is fantastic for Auckland and Wellington; it is fantastic for Hamilton and Christchurch. But it is not fantastic for the small rural and provincial communities around New Zealand and in particular in my electorate of Otago. 
In speaking to Part 2 I just want to draw to the attention of the Committee the submission from the Waitaki District Council. Waimate is a small rural community in South Canterbury that is soon to become part of the Waitaki seat. The Waitaki District Council manages the Waimate urban water-supply scheme and six rural water schemes within the Waitaki District. I can assure members that the thought of the implementation of this legislation fills that council and that community with dread. The reason it fills the community and the councillors with dread is that they know full well that it will be not a matter just of the costs associated with the implementation of this legislation but also of the amount of work officer time and the cost to the community that will come from both the upgrades themselves and the time that officers will have to spend on making alterations to the council’s planning documents as required under Part 2. 
The submission from the Waitaki District Council states with reference to the tap-and-cap assistance schemes that it is aware that there are also a few community supplies within the district that are not managed by the council. That makes the situation even more difficult because they will also need to access the subsidy programme if they are to improve the quality of the drinking water they supply. In other words they cannot do it all by themselves. That council is concerned that the criteria could disadvantage these communities through their possible shortfalls in preparing a public health risk-management plan an inability to find the local share of any subsidy granted failure to provide an enhanced level of operator-expertise capacity or sustain ongoing whole-of-life operational maintenance and renewals costs. 
That paragraph spells out the concerns not just about privately owned small rural provincial water schemes but about those schemes that are administered by the local authority. Some small water schemes have been just fine for the last 100 years and were put in the ground by the local farmers. There are still some farmers in my region whose fathers put in those schemes and who until very recently were the only ones who knew where the pipes were; other than that it was a matter of digging and hoping when there was some work to be done on those schemes. We are talking about small community water schemes here which are owned and paid for by farmers through water committees or by small local authorities who simply do not have the resources to comply with the onerous responsibilities of the requirements in this legislation. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 Part 2 is a very small part of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. It contains five clauses two of which are about consequential amendments and revocation. There has been quite an amount of talk from the Opposition in regard to this legislation. I seem to recall that the council in my own area—New Plymouth District Council—made a submission on this bill which said it supported the bill. I am told the council supported it because it has already made the necessary investment. That was very controversial at the time—years and years ago—and it resulted in a complete overturning of the local council a change of mayor and all sorts of things. The council made a big investment in water quality and the reason for doing so was that the people in the area wanted to have an assurance of water quality. I think water quality is very important. 
There was much debate earlier about the small local authority - type water schemes the importance of them and the costs involved. I think a bigger cost has not been taken into account by some of those who have spoken against this bill. For example what is the cost to our tourist industry of an outbreak of a water-borne disease in one of our small tourism resorts—perhaps in a skiing village a lakeside resort a motor camp or something like that? What would be the cost in terms of the reputation of New Zealand of a severe outbreak? Those issues are all very easy to bleat about. 
The bill has some particular provisions. One of the things that Mr Ryall talked about was that a particular supplier may be supplying water from a bore to his or her neighbour next door. He asked about the current impositions on that supplier and what they will be after the passing of this legislation. Well Mr Ryall forgets about the Building Act. The Building Act actually requires the owner when water is being supplied to a building to be able to assure himself or herself that the water being supplied is of sufficient quality for human consumption. In other words if a person owns a building that person has to be able to assure himself or herself and any tenants or other people to whom water is being supplied that the water is of potable quality. If someone is supplying water under an ancient agreement that has been in action for some years at the moment—as the member said—it may be done by grace and favour. The water may be supplied in return for a couple of bottles of wine a year or what have you. That is a contract if you like—and it may not even be formal—between the supplier and the user. If there is no written contract—and presumably a written contract would spell out the quality of water—then I guess that the Building Act provisions will have to be the ones that apply. 
Additionally the bill has a lower threshold so that if a grace and favour supply—the goodwill kind of supply—is to fewer than 16 permanent residents it falls below the threshold of “neighbourhood drinking-water supply” and so is not covered by the majority of the provisions in this bill. In other words I guess the matter reverts back to being one of common sense and cooperation between neighbours on such a supply. It goes back to the Building Act provisions which say that the owner of a building is responsible for ensuring that the water supplied to that building is up to the quality required for human ingestion—that is potable water. 
Therefore I think that much of the static that we are hearing about this bill is on the basis of “We don’t want to pay an additional cost to ensure that our water is safe for people to drink.” We should seriously look at that attitude and ask whether it is a suitable attitude for the 21st century. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 Gosh it will be fun to respond to the comments made by the Minister in the chair Harry Duynhoven. His is an interesting attitude. It really comes down to this fact—and I will read to the Committee from the Local Government New Zealand submission which states: “The local government sector is on the whole supportive of the outcomes that the bill is trying to achieve but has a number of concerns.” Its biggest concern is money. There are other concerns which I will touch on in a moment. 
One of the things that concerned local government—and we had submissions from a number of the councils—was that the Local Government Act 2002 requires local authorities to consider the social cultural economic and environmental well-being of their communities in their decision making. They also have to consult of course. The local authorities are already doing that. It then comes down to particular councils and what their ratepayers think are the highest priorities. They have to uphold a number of Acts—for example the Health Act and the Building Act. They also have other priorities—solid waste and human waste disposal road safety recreation facilities etc. 
But what we have here is drinking water being singled out as a priority above all of the other issues. That was of considerable concern to Local Government New Zealand. The Kaipara District Council made this comment: “The proposed legislation overrides the community engagement principles of the Local Government Act 2002 and disenfranchises our people.” Local government in my own electorate in the form of the Timaru District Council commented to me that it has prioritised the treatment of waste over many of the other responsibilities of the council—it has spent millions and millions of dollars on it. The Prime Minister herself has said that the rest of New Zealand’s councils should follow the Timaru District Council’s example when it comes to waste disposal. It has spent an awful lot of money on waste disposal because that is what the ratepayers wanted even at considerable expense. But all of a sudden councils are now given this other priority that supersedes all else and ratepayers are told that whether or not they think they need it it should be got on with. 
It is of considerable importance that we realise local authorities are 20 percent of the suppliers but—and this is the important bit—they supply 70 percent of the water. So an awful lot of suppliers are not local authorities. An awful lot of suppliers will not be able to supply their own water under this bill because they cannot afford to improve the water supply. 
I will make another couple of comments. It would be interesting for the Minister to respond and tell us if clean drinking-water is so important—and the National Party certainly believes that it is—why we still have some self-suppliers such as schools and some hospitals failing to meet the standards or having poor monitoring. Because it is not covered by this bill. This legislation by any stretch will not solve all of the problems. There are 624 schools and early childhood centres that are not connected to council water supplies—in other words they are self suppliers—and 537 will not have to comply even though they either fail the standards or have poor monitoring. 
It was interesting to hear the Minister talk about grace and favour of water suppliers towards their neighbours. It is interesting that that is what we will have to rely on and that there was common sense before. 
 Let us talk about common sense. Common sense would indicate that we would pay for solving a problem. But then we get back to the point that we have not defined the problem. In fact in the case of the Rangitikei District Council Bob Buchanan was telling us that he found that the statistics were horribly horribly wrong. The Institute of Environmental Science and Research does not have a good way of collecting these statistics and therefore the whole science behind this bill is questionable—we have said it over and over again. In fact we have councils saying: “Show us the numbers. Show us that campylobacter is caused by water rather than by chicken.” when we know that largely the response to campylobacter is to clean up the act when it comes to the selling of poultry. We know that most of the notifications about campylobacter are not related to water. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 70 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Maori Party 4; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Field. 
Noes 49 
New Zealand National 48; Independent: Copeland. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule agreed to.  
Clauses 1 to 3 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 In taking a call on clauses 1 to 3 in particular I would like to talk not only about the wider principles associated with the bill but also about the commencement date and the ability a future Government might have in order to have a more flexible and phased implementation of this legislation if the costs require. We heard a very interesting debate from members on the National Party side highlighting the major areas of concern we have with this bill. We have been concerned about the fact that the Government cannot give us a firm indication about the cost of this bill as amended to local governments and other water suppliers throughout New Zealand. As members have said the original advice in the bill in its regulatory statements attached to the bill was that this would cost between up to $50 million to $250 million. The select committee was subsequently advised that it would be more in the vicinity of $300 million and Local Government New Zealand came forward and estimated $800 million. Since that time there have been some changes to the bill which I think in many ways will mitigate some of that cost. But the Government has been unable to provide us with any indication of what those costs would be. 
The second area that we have sought information from the Government on is a further clarification of the problem that the Government is seeking to cure. Of course everybody is in favour of safe drinking-water but the question is at what cost and whether the current drinking-water is unsafe. 
We asked the Government to provide us with evidence of drinking-water diseases and the consequences of them. Some members opposite gave us standard numbers that have been trotted out from time to time. But we were able to refer to the evidence of Bob Buchanan the Mayor of Rangitikei District which cast some doubt over those statistics when he talked about the fact that his district had indicated in official data that it had some sort of epidemic of water-borne diseases and his research found that even the people collecting the data said that only half of it was ever investigated or confirmed. 
So there really is an issue here of what the problem is and what it will cost. We have not had any answers to those questions from the Government at this stage. Having said that I think some sensible changes have been made in the select committee that mitigate the worst elements of this bill. There is increasing flexibility about neighbourly water supplies. I notice that the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven called it a grace and favour water supply. I thought that was very unusual. “Grace and favour” is a rather regal phrase I say to the Minister. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I thought that was your phrase. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No we never use the words “grace and favour”. Goodness me! That is a rather regal phrase. I get my water from my neighbour through grace and favour! Grace and favour is— 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: It’s a Taranaki phrase. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is a Taranaki phrase! Some changes have been made to those who get their water through grace and favour from their neighbours and I think those are more flexible arrangements. But I thought the Minister’s comments about— 
R Doug Woolerton 
: Farmers use that term all the time. Is the member not aware of that? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Oh rubbish! They absolutely do not. There are some changes that I think will be sensible. I must admit though that on hearing the Minister’s description earlier about the Building Act and all these obligations I was a little worried about what was going to happen with that. Also I think the very good amendments that have been made by the select committee are the changes that will allow a future Government a more flexible time line for the phasing in of the various requirements that were put in. I think they will be useful amendments to allow that to happen. I think the Government will find that this is going to be a lot more expensive than it thinks. The Government will not actually put a number on it. I invite the Minister in the chair who I must say should be congratulated on at least trying to participate in the debate and convey some information to get some advice on what are the expected costs to local governments and water suppliers because it goes to the heart of the bill. Everyone wants quality but depending on the quality it is a cost. Surely local communities should be able to make the decision about what level of quality suits them and is in their best interests. For a Government that talks about its close relationship with local government it is remarkably ignorant of local government’s view. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) 
: 
 I follow that most excellent speech made by the Opposition spokesperson on health and next health Minister Tony Ryall. He made an interesting point about local communities which I want to pick up as I speak to the title and commencement of the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill. The point I want to pick up which Tony Ryall so eloquently made is the one about local authorities undertaking a cost and benefit analysis for any project that comes their way and as part of that cost and benefit analysis—and I am not talking about grace and favour here; I am talking about cost—[ 
Interruption 
] I do not even know what grace and favour means. 
We are talking about water here. This is a serious issue. [ 
Interruption 
] Ah here we have it—a Minister in a dying Government. We had the D team and we had the backbenchers who were understandably disappointed because their political careers are over before they started just about. But now we have moved forward. We are now on to the C team of Ministers who are about to become disappointed and whose only recourse is to sit on the bleachers and go snap snap snap. I want to thank them again for the attention they are giving me. I love water. The attention I have received over this issue has been most gratifying. In my electorate of Otago which I wrested from David Parker who is now a list MP I have had the most wonderful support and the most wonderful attention so I say thank you to those Ministers who are sitting on the other side of the Chamber. They are very quickly realising that with Labour at 14 percent behind National in the polls and the poll results getting worse every day they have very little left to do but to go snip snip snip and snap snap snap wherever they can. 
But I will return to the bill and to its title and commencement. This bill has caused a lot of worry for local authorities throughout New Zealand. In my last contribution to the debate I noted that metropolitan areas and cities are mainly compliant with the provisions of this bill but that small communities and small local authorities are not. This Government has ceased to listen. It is out of touch with its constituency if it thinks a bill that suits Aucklanders will suit rural and provincial New Zealand. Perhaps that is part of the reason that the Government is 14 points behind National in the polls. Clearly this drinking-water bill is causing an awful lot of anguish for local authorities because of the costs it will impose. 
The Waitaki District Council has spent $12 million on upgrading its water scheme—no thanks to the Government. The council had a fear that if it left that hugely costly project for any longer it would just become more expensive. I wonder how many other local authorities have imposed or are imposing huge costs upon themselves because they are fearful of what will come through in these drinking-water standards. What about the very real fear felt by those in smaller drinking-water schemes about the costs of upgrading their drinking water and how they will pay for that? How will people who live in provincial New Zealand be able to fund their $2500 share of the capital upgrade of a drinking-water scheme? 
This dying Government has stopped listening to people. It is driving this bill through assuming that because Aucklanders and Wellington people whose water supplies are mostly compliant can afford it then the good people in the provinces can also afford it. I tell the Committee from my experience that people in provincial areas in small towns and on fixed incomes cannot afford $2500 as their share of the capital needed for this upgrade. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 It is a privilege to follow Ms Dean because she is the lady who has just given us a speech about— 
Jacqui Dean 
: An excellent speech. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: She says it was an excellent speech. She said she wanted to ensure that water is provided for everybody yet just a little while ago she was writing to the Minister asking for the banning of dihydrogen monoxide—that terrible substance! I tell the member that our view of water—H2O—is about ensuring that the water provided to the people of New Zealand is safe for them to drink. That is what this bill is about.  
Ms Dean went on to mention grace and favour—which was also mentioned by the speaker preceding her Mr Ryall—and she actually said she did not know what “grace and favour” meant. What I was responding to was the sort of goodwill supply that her colleague Tony Ryall was talking about. He said it might be a neighbour providing water to another neighbour from a bore for perhaps a couple of bottles of wine a year or something like that. 
I said to Mr Ryall that if it was contracted then obviously there is a requirement in the contract for the quality of the water. If it is a grace and favour supply where there is no contract but someone gives the supplier something such as a bottle of wine or a dozen beer for the privilege of sharing the water then that is a very different arrangement. That is a goodwill type supply it is for fewer than 16 permanent residents and most of the provisions of the bill do not apply. They are covered by the Building Act of course but that is about all. 
This bill is about providing quality water for the people of New Zealand. Although National has spoken a lot about the costs of providing a quality water-supply we have not heard about the costs when the supply is not of sufficient quality for human consumption. I think that is the nub of the issue. 
JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) 
: 
 I want to start straight off by saying: “No Minister we haven’t heard about the costs to New Zealand of water-borne diseases because they haven’t been adequately measured.” Every time we hear Government members say we need clean safe drinking-water free of campylobacter we realise they are off on the wrong tangent because people can get campylobacter from eating chicken as well. Water-borne diseases have not been adequately measured so that issue has not been mentioned. 
I want to wrap up the debate by mentioning something I did not have time to cover in my previous speech. Submitters to the Health Committee expressed very significant concern about this bill and its effects. They said the effects would not be fully known until the bill was implemented. Therefore the select committee has recommended that the Minister be required to make annual reports to Parliament on the implementation of the bill for 5 years following its enactment. I must say that that is a fairly good safety mechanism but it is an indication that we could not be satisfied that the information before us was giving us adequate information about how the implementation of this bill would affect ratepayers. 
I reiterate that the National Party supports all practicable steps being taken to improve drinking water and drinking-water standards and that where there is a clear link between contaminated drinking-water and resultant infections—that is the essence of the matter—the water suppliers be required to take action to prevent reoccurrence. That is absolutely fair and reasonable. However it is our view that avoidance of all risks carries a very high cost for ratepayers. In particular I have said that some drinking-water suppliers are incredibly pristine and we hear from local residents that the water tastes fantastic but these particular drinking-water suppliers have learnt that they may have to treat that water; so it may not always continue to taste that way. They may have to do that because there is a possibility of contamination to that drinking-water supply. 
The National Party has repeatedly said we believe that New Zealanders who live in rural or remote parts of the country accept the risk that living in those parts of the country carries with it. We could use the example of trampers. They tramp in all manner of places and carry with them little pills or whatever to make sure the water they drink is treated prior to drinking. In other words they are mitigating the risk for themselves. We just say that New Zealanders do not mind sorting out how to look after themselves but they are thoroughly sick of nanny State—the Labour-led Government—telling them that it knows better how to look after them. 
Included in the significant improvements in the bill is that suppliers who are implementing an approved public health risk-management plan will be deemed to comply with the requirement to take all practicable steps to comply with the drinking-water standards. I have already touched on the longer time frames that align with the Local Government Act 2002 and the creation of the new category of drinking-water supply that gets around the supply to stock of drinking water called the rural agricultural drinking-water supply. There are different and more flexible obligations in that section. 
The select committee addressed other things. There were concerns about back-flow regulation which would impair the effectiveness of fire sprinkler systems. That has been addressed in the bill as well. There are now clearer definitions of procedures for consultation on the adoption of the new drinking-water standards and a clearer definition of a temporary drinking-water supply. It would be fair to say that in the initial reading of the bill many of the submitters took one look at it and thought: “What a bureaucratic minefield! What a huge amount of cost for us!”. We have managed to assuage some of those concerns but despite all this Local Government New Zealand remains principally opposed to this bill. We should heed its concerns. We know that the chairperson Basil Morrison thinks this may well cost over $800 million. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Clause 3 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1Amendments to Parts 1 to 3 of principal Act  
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity to start the debate on Part 1 of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill in its Committee stage. Of course National is supporting this legislation. 
When the bill was reported back to the House last week National was certainly critical of the Minister. I know that the Minister was a little offended by that criticism but I guess her hide has thickened up over the last 24 hours with the Clint Rickards story in the paper. We had every right to be critical and our criticism was not around the content of the bill which has now been well and truly tidied up by the Primary Production Committee. 
Darren Hughes 
: An excellent committee! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: That is a very good compliment coming from the Government side of the Chamber and I thank Mr Hughes for acknowledging the excellent work of the Primary Production Committee on this particular legislation. 
The point National was making about the Minister was that we would have expected better from an experienced Minister such as the Hon Annette King in getting the legislation into a tidy form before handing it to the select committee in the first place.  
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What a lazy member! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Now Mr Gosche is interjecting and accusing Annette King of being lazy! That is a most unfortunate remark. I know things are difficult within the Labour caucus but Mr Gosche is suggesting that Annette King is lazy. I would not have gone as far as that; I would have said that she was just busy with other portfolio interests and that perhaps she had not given enough attention to the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill before it came before the select committee. Anyway as Darren Hughes politely acknowledges the bill has been tidied up well and truly to the satisfaction of the House. 
The second point I was certainly criticising the Minister for was the length of time it has taken to get the legislation progressing through the House. The select committee did its job and reported back on 29 May. As far as I am concerned nobody within the Chamber is objecting to the legislation as is evidenced by the second reading debate that was held last week. It seems to me that if the Minister had been really on top of the case she could have gone to the Hon Michael Cullen as Leader of the House and done a deal to get this legislation on to the agenda significantly quicker than has happened. 
I will ask one or two questions just to make sure that the Minister is on top of the portfolio. I am interested in new section 8B to be inserted by clause 10 “Director-General may list as exempt substances generally recognised as safe”. I want the Minister to tell us whether that provision was included in the original legislation or whether it is a new provision. I think she is looking at the bill—it is probably the first time she has read it. 
Hon Annette King 
: There’s no need to be nasty! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: No I am keen to get an answer. I am very very keen to get an answer as to whether this provision was in the original Act or whether it has been brought in recently for the first time. Also I ask whether the Minister could give the Committee a bit of an indication of the sorts of substances she thinks will be eligible for such an exemption. After such a good job was done at the select committee we do not want to find now that the exemption provision is a means by which there will be too much of a relaxation of the standards that have been set. If the Minister is ready to take a call on that point I would be very grateful to receive her response. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I rise in support of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill as well and I would like to pick up on a couple of issues. I know that the Primary Production Committee chaired by our very able colleague the Hon David Carter did a very fine job in giving close scrutiny to the detail of this bill but a couple of issues should be fleshed out a bit in the debate here in the Committee stage. 
One issue is around data protection which is covered in the commentary on the bill. I am led to believe that the substantive part of the debate on that issue was outside the scope of the bill. So I am flagging for the Minister that perhaps at some stage in the future some consideration may be given to the issue of data protection. The reason for this is that concern was raised in the Primary Production Committee about the period of time—the 5-year period of time—for which new medicines that are introduced into New Zealand have protection before that protection falls over. It was submitted that that length of time perhaps is not in keeping with international jurisdictions or international practice and therefore some compounds or other medicines that could be beneficial to our agriculture may not find their way to New Zealand. 
We should bear in mind that agriculture is the biggest industry in this country—a very important industry that is often dusted over lightly by Labour and by Parliament in general—and that animal remedies are a very significant part of that industry. The fact is that we may inadvertently have the unintended consequence that some helpful remedies may not be finding their way to this country due to the amount of investment in intellectual property and there is concern that if those remedies are brought to this country it will become public knowledge long before the investment in this high-level technology can be properly realised. I know that the Minister is going to take a call and she may want to mention that. 
The other issue that some submitters raised as a concern was the whole issue of compliance costs. I am pleased to see that the committee in its recommendation said that because of the one-stop shop process that is now in place the argument around cost of compliance really did not hold much water. I am pleased to hear that because whenever one sees regulation or legislative change around medicines particularly animal remedies there tends to be a belts and braces approach used by officials—and I acknowledge the officials’ presence in the Chamber—and they tend to take a very cautious approach and rightly so to whatever remedies are out there for farm animals. That can sometimes put on a whole layer of compliance that is unnecessary. 
I see that the Primary Production Committee recommended a change from “prescription” to “administer” which is a very good amendment by the committee. I understand the complexity of that issue and the arguments of some groups—and I will not mention them—that clearly have a vested interest in making sure that they are the only ones that can be involved in prescribing drugs or in guaranteeing that those drugs are allocated in the correct way. Of course that adds substantial costs in some cases to the whole process. So I am pleased that the select committee picked up on that point and I am pleased that its recommendation was that those changes take place. 
I also say that as we move forward in the technological age that we are in at the moment some of the very sophisticated technology that is being applied to animal remedies as is the case in the health sector is being done in an ongoing and very fluid set of circumstances. So I imagine that this is not the only amendment that we will ever see being made to this particular Act and I suspect that further amendments will be made in the not too distant future. At that point I would seek the Minister’s assurance that the issue of data protection and the length of the period of data protection will be addressed. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 As a member of the all-famous all-knowing Primary Production Committee I certainly would like to take a call on what I consider to be quite significant legislation. It is not significant because it does anything extraordinary but it does lock in some security around the whole aspect of assurance and safety and that is crucially important to us. As Shane Ardern said this is New Zealand’s biggest industry certainly in terms of exports agriculture and primary production. It is important that we can have some assurance for those people who want to purchase or whom we persuade to purchase our products. So we have the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill.  
It is just pertinent I think to note at this time that across the diversity of what happens in primary production and what happens in agriculture there is an absolute plethora—a humongous number—of elements compounds chemicals and medicines that actually fit into this bill. Across traditional organic and biodynamic production—across every form of production there is—there are inputs that go into the production system. In fact I am looking in this New Zealand Food Safety Authority document  
Agricultural Compound Residues in Food 
 and I see that it states: “There are at least 500000 identified natural chemicals that are present in all foods”. By nature of our production systems we require inputs into those systems—we need to lift fertility and we need herbicides fungicides and pesticides. There are a lot of things that are needed in the system. So as I said it is important we have assurance.  
The bit I want to speak on is section 8C inserted by clause 10 which states that the “Director-General may approve agricultural compound as exempt in special circumstances”. We do not have to apply a rigorous application and approval system to every single thing that is out there. Many of these things are quite safe. We have been using forms of them since tillage and agriculture were first recorded about 4000 years ago and some of those remedies have been used since then. It is important that we actually reduce the cost of compliance and maintain the assurance. We need credibility we need integrity and we need to be able to do it in the most effective way and in the most cost-efficient way.  
I note that section 8C has a whole lot of prescriptive things where the director-general can as it were short-circuit the system. I am quite in approval of that because we simply need to get on with the business of doing what we have to do in terms of making available the most appropriate remedies additives and fertilisers that are available to agriculture—and by and large this bill does that. I have some concerns that the process can add some cost but certainly the will of those who have put this bill together is to maintain the assurance. My plea to them in this Committee stage today is that in the actual interpretation and effectiveness of this bill we have a process that does not add any more cost.  
One of the great dangers we have at a time when there is some prosperity particularly in the dairy industry is that we can get a little bit sloppy because there is enough juice in the system to be able to absorb some of those costs. If we get sloppy in times of good that has a serious impact when times are tighter. And tighter times will come. I hope they are a long way away; they certainly will not come under the next Government that is not very far away.  
We need to be quite vigilant about the interpretation of this legislation. We need to assure integrity in what we do but not apply costs that are going to impact on the agricultural sector. It is interesting to note that never before in the times of the consumerisation of our product has the consumer had such an influence. Today if one looks in the supermarkets one sees that there is more and more information and more and more traceability on products that are sold. So we need to be aware of that; we need to accede to that and apply this bill to our agricultural industry. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill in a very brief call. This is a bill that is supported by almost all parties I think and it is a very good bill. The Primary Production Committee did a lot of work on it. Frankly I was delighted with the amount of work the committee did in improving the original bill. It has made it much more user-friendly if you like.  
This is a bill about risk management in the use of pesticides and chemicals in the farming and forestry industries. It is very important that it is approved particularly—as the member on the other side said—in times of an expanding dairy industry when I assume there will be the additional use of chemicals and pesticides. So we have to be very careful that these chemicals that are used on our farms are used in a proper and appropriate way without causing any risks. 
This industry which is worth almost $400 million covers about 1000 pesticides and a couple of thousand other chemicals and compounds. It is important that all these chemicals compounds and veterinary medicines are covered in a proper way and that their use is safe so that they do not cause any risks to human and animal health. I am particularly pleased that this bill is ensuring that compliance costs hopefully are going to decrease. I am quite confident it will actually decrease the compliance costs and also that the regulatory control is in line with the risk management.  
With those brief words I commend this bill to the Committee. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 I just want to make one more comment on the two points that have been raised by my colleagues Shane Ardern and Eric Roy. I support them both. Shane Ardern was talking about this issue around data protection and then Eric Roy followed on saying that above all we need to maintain a firm hand on compliance costs and the costs of the products involved within New Zealand agriculture.  
The really interesting dichotomy with those two issues is around data protection. We had only six submissions on this legislation and from memory I think four appeared before the Primary Production Committee. All four raised the issue of data protection. I think the select committee was let off the hook a bit in that the whole issue was outside the scope of the bill so we were able to listen to the arguments and then were not able to take the matter any further.  
If we think about one of the most pressing issues facing New Zealand agriculture we will find that it is actually around resistance to anthelmintics—and to help Hansard out that is commonly known as drench resistance. Livestock within New Zealand are building up quite a resistance to the current three families of drenches and there has been a recent quite far-reaching announcement from an overseas country that it has found a fourth family of drench that could be available to break the cycle of resistance that is fast starting to impede agriculture. The interesting question then about a company trying to bring in new products such as this drench into New Zealand is it wants protection so that it gets a lead making it worthwhile to bring the product in and it gets a competitive advantage. It is natural business practice; one would expect it.  
In New Zealand we have data protection for 5 years and the select committee heard that in other jurisdictions—for example Australia the United States and in fact in most of the Western World—the amount of data protection is considerably more than 5 years. We were quoted 8 years and 10 years. I am aware that the Government is aware of the issue—though the Minister may not be—and it has put together an inter-Government committee to look at it which includes officials from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the Ministry for the Environment and certainly the Ministry of Economic Development.  
But the real issue is making sure that we have a significant period of data protection available for companies to warrant bringing these new products into our market which is not the biggest market in the world. But as soon as we give this data protection it will inevitably mean that other competitors are not in the market. Suddenly as Mr Roy alluded to the costs of remedies will then go up to the farmers and farmers in New Zealand cannot have it both ways. 
 Obviously the cheapest way to get the product to New Zealand is to have as many people as possible able to bring it in for other people to be able effectively to “steal” the data protection and get that product copied or similar and out into the market as quickly as possible. That delivers the cheapest product to the New Zealand farmer. But the risk is that if we go that way then there may be countries that say New Zealand is too small a market and that they will not go through the rigmarole of trying to get a product into New Zealand because of there being other sizable markets where they would be better off devoting their energies.  
I will be interested as to whether the Minister wants to make a comment on those big issues that were before the select committee. We were spared the difficulty of having to work through and balance the two criteria because as Mr Ardern alluded earlier it was actually outside the scope of the bill. But it is still an issue either for this Government in its dying days or for the next National Government after the 2008 election. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 First of all I would like to thank the Primary Production Committee for the work it did on the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. This committee has always been very harmonious in the way it has addressed issues on behalf of New Zealanders and my understanding is that it worked in its traditional way on this bill. I support the work of select committees in fact. Otherwise if they were of no value why would we have them? If we did not think select committees could add value why would we bother sending legislation that has been introduced to the House to them? 
We have seen with this bill that the Primary Production Committee did add value to the process. In fact it helped to improve the bill. So I was rather disappointed that the chair of that committee David Carter—whom I have a lot of respect for as a chairperson—turned it into some sort of political criticism of me. Obviously if one were a perfect person in a perfect world one would get every bill that was ever introduced to the House absolutely right and would never send it to a select committee. The fact that the select committee did some work on the bill and helped to improve it is an indication of how a good democracy works. So I was disappointed in the rather facile comments from the member in that respect. 
The other criticism David Carter made was that the bill took 4 months before it came back to the House for its second reading which was last week. We are now in the Committee of the whole House on the bill and I suspect we will have it finished by Thursday of this week. That means that the time it has taken from when it was reported back to the House to when it actually finishes will be 4 months. I think the member has a little bit of a memory loss about some bills that have been before the House. I do not because I have a very good memory and I know that under a National Government there were bills before the House that sat on the Order Paper for years. I also remember that under a National Government some petitions came before the House that were never looked at. So when I hear the bleating that it was 4 months before we finally got to debate the bill and pass it I think that those comments may have been made just for the sake of having something to say. I realise that Mr Carter was a little short of information for something to say. 
I also want to congratulate the New Zealand Food Safety Authority on the work it did on this bill. Although the select committee did some very good work on it I have to tell members and those who are listening that it was the officials of the Food Safety Authority who worked with the Primary Production Committee who brought to the committee’s attention areas where there could be improvement. In fact their suggested improvements to the bill resulted in their receiving an exceptionally complimentary letter from the Law Commission which wrote: “The impact of the actions by the members of NZFSA who were advising the select committee have been very positive. The select committee has taken the NZFSA officials’ advice seriously. Its report makes reference to the concerns raised by the Legislation Advisory Committee and recommended a number of amendments to address it.” So I think that what we have here is good work from the officials and from the Primary Production Committee and we are hearing that members in the Chamber believe we have a much-improved bill because of it. 
A number of questions were asked. Mr Carter asked whether any substances were generally accepted as safe in the original legislation. The answer is no. He asked whether the director-general was able to exempt an agricultural compound from the requirement to be registered in specific circumstances. The answer is yes. Another question asked about data protection. That issue was raised by two members then by Mr Carter in his last contribution. Mr Carter was quite correct when he said that the issue was considered to be outside the scope of the bill. I am informed that if we were to make amendments there would be amendments made to this Act but there would also need to be consequential amendments made to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The officials advised the committee that work needed to be done on that and that quite wide consultation would be necessary. I suspect that means it is not a dead issue but would require consultation and additional work. 
Also raised was the issue of regulatory costs. I think we always have to be concerned about the costs we impose on business particularly our agricultural sector. I think we have to be concerned— 
David Bennett 
: It’s the Labour Party! 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I realise that Mr Bennett does not know a lot about this even though he has taken a seat where he is better able to promote his voice. He is sitting next to my very good friend who knows a lot about this bill and who no doubt would make a very good contribution. I suggest he gives Mr Bennett a little bit of advice on what the bill is about. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I’ve been trying to do that. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Well done Doug. The regulatory costs are an important issue. One of the things the bill does impose is an obligation to avoid redundant regulatory control. It makes it an express requirement to consider controls already imposed under other legislation such as the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act or the Medicines Act. We are not trying to duplicate things do things twice or add additional compliance to industry in this respect; we are trying to ensure that we have a sound regulatory framework for products that can be dangerous. So I thank members for their contributions on this bill. I think it has been positive and I thank them for the work they have done. 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I just want to pick up on a matter that none of the speakers so far has talked about. In doing so I also want to demonstrate a level of statesmanship to the Minister in this whole situation.  
I refer to this whole cost compliance thing. One of the submissions that the Primary Production Committee received quite a bit of pressure on arose over the matter of why there are two standards for what are called finished-dose medicines. A lot of the remedies we use for animals are exactly the same as those used for humans particularly in the area of antibiotics. Antibiotics used for stabbing into people require a very high level of regulatory approval. The safety assurance around that is high. Then the question arises—and it was asked by the submitters—as to why we have to go through a whole new range of regulatory processes such as those under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act for something that has already been approved for use on humans when we just want to use it on animals. Most people would think that a higher level was being required for something that was of a lesser status.  
The answer is quite simple. Again just to show a little bit of the complexity around the whole thing we consume animals and the impact when these remedies are ingested might be quite different from when they are applied as a medicine in whatever form—be it a pill or an injection subcutaneously intravenously intramuscularly or whatever. What we actually want some assurances around is knowing exactly what the impact is when these are applied to an animal what the withholding periods are and all of those things. That is why there is in some ways a higher test for animals than there is for humans. So in not short-circuiting that we are recognising the assurance aspect that we want to give to animal compounds particularly in the medicinal area when finished-dose medicines are used. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2Amendments to Parts 4 to 8 and Schedules of principal Act  
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 In supporting Part 2 of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill I make particular reference to the powers that the director-general will be given by this part. Normally one would be a little nervous when one saw the wide-sweeping powers that will be given to that person—who is no doubt a very competent person. But in this case this is the exception. The reason for it being the exception is—as my colleague Eric Roy referred to just previous to my speech—that the kind of expertise and the speed at which technology and drugs are changing is such that we need a person with a very high competency level. We need a person with the department the officials and the advice that goes with the position of director-general. So in this case being able to give that kind of support to the director-general—and I am referring to the powers that the director-general will have and some of them he or she already has under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act—that is provided for in the amendments in this particular part of the bill is sensible in that regard. 
As I said earlier this is a large industry that is very dependent upon being competitive internationally. It is very dependent upon being able to have traceability of the products that we sell in the international market. What makes New Zealand unique is that we export in some industries up to 95 percent of what we produce whereas other jurisdictions around the world consume 95 percent or 100 percent of what they produce and import products from countries like New Zealand. So being able to go out into the marketplace with absolute surety about what we are doing and what we are putting into that which becomes food product through the animals themselves is important. It is something that needs a much higher level of scrutiny to what one would expect even in human health and human medicine because of the market demands around food safety. We have seen a bit lately in recent media about the safety of different products being imported into countries particularly the US from parts of the world where they do not have the same standards that we have. 
As we move further down the track of DNA traceability and are able to trace back to the source of product this will become more and more of an issue. Some of the technology that is being employed some of the market sophistication now is such that I am not sure whether New Zealand will be able to keep up on its own with what is almost a flood of demand coming our way. Having a person of the competency level that we would expect the director-general to have in a position to be able to make those decisions or at least to have an overview of those decisions and give advice to the Minister is essential in this particular Act. I say well done once again to the members of the Primary Production Committee for their work in regard to that. 
I also make reference to the relationship of this bill to Acts other than the principal Act. As I have said the bill makes reference to the Wine Act. Of course the wine industry is a growing industry in this country another major exporter and another industry that exports a high percentage of what it produces as opposed to having it consumed domestically—although the percentages are not as high in that industry as they are in our other more traditional primary industries. That is also important and I thank the committee for the work it has done on clause 48 and the amendments it has made in regard to that. The bill also has reference to a number of other Acts like the Meat Act the Dairy Industry Act and a number of others. I thank the committee for the work it has done on that. 
Just in closing I touch on one point. The Minister for Food Safety Annette King in reference to the bill said that the time it had taken had been by parliamentary standards pretty short. I agree; that is absolutely so. Maybe she might like to inform the Committee when the Conservation (Protection of Trout as a Non-commercial Species) Amendment Bill might make it on to the floor of the House so that it can be processed in a timely way—given that this Government is in the mind to get things processed in a timely way. I suggest that perhaps poor old David Parker who is now probably about the 15th Minister to have his name beside that legislation might want to bring it to the House so it can be properly debated. 
NATHAN GUY (National) 
: 
 I take a call on Part 2 of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill. There will probably be a few cockies around New Zealand who are listening to Parliament and hosing out their cowsheds as we speak and they will be interested to know that National is supporting this bill. In essence the legislation is a bit of a tidy-up as a result of reviews carried out in 2001 and 2004 and the bill pulls all of that work together. National is supporting that. 
Fundamentally the thing that is of particular note is that there is a 3-year review of the compliance costs around this bill. That will be very very important as we look forward. Although the officials have told us—and the Minister Annette King has as well this evening—that there will not be too many issues around compliance costs I think it is very important to have that 3-year review so that we can see how this rolls out. 
As the Minister will know this bill will have an impact on veterinarians around all of New Zealand. The Minister has been in front of our Primary Production Committee in the past. Of particular concern to rural New Zealand and a lot of farmers is the shortage in the number of veterinarians coming out of Massey University. The Minister’s department has been all over the world trying to attract veterinarians into New Zealand. This is really really important because at the moment we are unable to train enough. Farmers will be interested to know that it costs about $10000 per vet—if my recollection serves me correctly—to attract overseas veterinarians into New Zealand. Surely we need to do more promotion in order to ensure that we attract students to take up veterinary science at Massey University. 
We have also heard this evening about the data protection and how that was outside the scope of this bill. In the Primary Production Committee we heard from submitters who were able to tell us that around different parts of the world data protection is available for 8 and 10 years. I am pleased to know that a group is looking at this issue because I think it is fundamentally a very important part of this bill. I think that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry for the Environment are involved in looking at the issue. 
The other issue that I touch on is this fourth drench family that will potentially—when it comes into New Zealand—come through this bill as well. This is of great significance to farmers throughout New Zealand. Currently we have three drench families. There is a thing called drench resistance—so the parasites are building up resistance over time to drench families—and the fourth drench family that will hopefully arrive in New Zealand at some time soon is forecast to return about $100 million to the farm gate. 
In summary National is supporting this bill. It is a bit of a tidy-up to provide a one-stop shop. We look forward to seeing it roll out and we will be watching with interest over the next few years to see what impacts the legislation has on any compliance costs. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Clause 1  agreed to.  
Clause 2  agreed to.  
Clause 3  agreed to.  
Bill to be reported without amendment presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill with amendment and the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Aviation Crimes Amendment Bill 
Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Readings 
Debate resumed from 13 September. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 I will continue a little bit from where I broke off when the House rose during my previous speech. As indicated in my second reading speech I introduced Supplementary Order Paper 140 to clarify that body-scanning technology which presents an unclothed image of specific passengers cannot be used. It is important to note that technology in this area is improving and developing quickly. Earlier versions of the technology showed detailed unclothed images of the passengers being screened. However with developments such detailed images are now less likely to be produced. Manufacturers of the technology are aware of the privacy and dignity issues. Therefore solutions have been developed that achieve the necessary security outcomes while still maintaining the privacy of passengers. It is important that legislation preserves the privacy and dignity of passengers by not allowing technology that presents a detailed unclothed image of a specific passenger. That is why I introduced a Supplementary Order Paper which all parties in the House supported. 
There are currently no inflight security officer programmes in other countries in which the officers do not have a firearm capability. If New Zealand were to use unarmed inflight security officers I would expect that other countries would not see those measures as being adequate. Further if New Zealand were to require that foreign inflight security officers must be unarmed this could raise objections and problems with our air services agreements which enable us to fly to other countries and with our obligations to consider security requests from those countries. This would likely result in the cancellation of flights to those countries and would question the integrity of New Zealand’s aviation security. The parties in the House recognise that although the intentions behind Mr Locke’s proposed amendments were genuine it would be impracticable for us to adopt them. His proposed amendments were therefore defeated. 
I would like to offer my thanks to the Ministry of Transport the Civil Aviation Authority the Aviation Security Service the New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Justice which have all contributed a great deal of hard work and expertise towards the legislation. Finally I would like to thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for its work on the legislation especially the input of the Hon Mark Gosche who chaired the committee. I am also thankful for the support of most parties in the House for what I believe is important and necessary legislation. I commend the Aviation Crimes Amendment Bill and the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) to the House. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 National is pleased to support the passage of this legislation. New Zealanders are well known to be travellers and we welcome visitors. The tourism industry is obviously a very important contributor to our economic well-being. In order to enable our visitors to travel to this country with confidence and security and to enable our people to fly to other places in our planes it is important for us to abide by international aviation security measures. It is for that reason that National supports this legislation. 
I say once again that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has taken a very responsible and diligent attitude to examining the legislation. We have made some changes that I am sure even the Minister who was just on his feet Harry Duynhoven must appreciate. Two of the provisions in the legislation attracted the most comments and feedback during the submission stage. One of those provisions is about prohibited items that travellers might carry on to the plane through not knowing or not paying attention. According to the original legislation all those prohibited items would be taken away from those travellers and airlines or airports would have to keep a record of the items and store them away somewhere until people claimed them back. We were very persuaded by submissions from the various airline and airport officials and authorities that in order to do that we would probably end up building quite a few warehouses which might be larger than the airport itself in order to store those prohibited items. We were told for example that many visitors or people travelling overseas carry water. We have heard that the Hon Maurice Williamson bought some lovely perfume for his wife that was treated as a prohibited item. 
The select committee came to the conclusion that we should really adopt a more practical method which means that a prohibited item would be confiscated and destroyed. In order for that not to cause undue distress for the travellers and also for people who have to implement these measures like the security officers in the airport we would like to impress upon the Minister and the various authorities that they should make sure that very focused widespread promotion is mounted to let the public know that prohibited items will be confiscated and destroyed. We think that that is just a case of being fair. People should be very well aware of it. We want very clear notices to be put up at airports in order to give people one last warning that items taken from them will be destroyed to avoid the very distressing scenes that might happen there. 
At this juncture I want to bring in the Sikh community’s concerns. This community has felt that it has been targeted since the international sentiment towards the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The Sikh community has very very serious concerns that it has been targeted particularly because its men carry kirpans when they come of age. Kirpans are usually 6-inch-long soft-bladed ceremonial swords. Sikh men carry these swords with them all the time. Members of the Sikh community are very concerned about what would happen to them if they forget to pack away the kirpan in their luggage. I am grateful to Mr Mark Everitt of the Aviation Security Service who has agreed with the Minister’s consent to address the Sikh community in person about its concern. First of all Mr Everitt has assured those communities that they will not be targeted. He has also assured them that it will be written into the operation manual that if a search needs to happen then due care and respect will be given to individual privacy so as not to embarrass people in public. 
The Sikh community also suggested that there could be a box for kirpans provided at the airport for when people have forgotten to take the kirpan off and pack it in their luggage. The New Zealand Sikh Society is very happy to clear the box every now and then. Mark has taken it upon himself to find out whether that can be arranged. The Sikh community also—I think rightly—stressed the importance of promotional campaigns being mounted in the Sikh community and other communities that feel that they might be targeted because their practices are quite visibly different from the wider community’s practices. I would impress upon the Minister the need to send a message through the relevant authority that promotional campaigns should be targeted towards those communities in order to remind them that any prohibited item will be confiscated and destroyed. 
The other matter the Sikh community raised was the need to pass educational material on to the relevant authority so that people understand the religious importance that kirpans have for Sikhs. The Sikh community did not ask for an exemption even though it was informed that it could have one. I knew about this for the first time when we were told by Mr Mark Everitt that if one had a blade that was 3 centimetres long then one could actually carry it on to the plane. But despite that the Sikh community did not ask for an exemption. What it really wanted was respect for and an understanding of the religious importance of the kirpan. 
Another issue that has attracted a lot of feedback and submissions was the need for us to have security officers on board airplanes in the future. Pilots and enforcement authorities would like to have a lot more input into that provision. They are already concerned about whether having security officers on board would make flying safer or less safe and they are concerned about who would be in control and under what circumstances action could be taken. I understand through being on the select committee that the committee included in its commentary the comment that it hoped if that provision were to come into force that the relevant enforcement agencies would be involved so that people could agree on common-sense acceptable practices. 
National is pleased to have made a contribution through the select committee process. We understand the need to pass legislation that enables our people to continue to enjoy travelling to other countries and that enables visitors to continue to be able to visit our country. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 As the Minister for Transport Safety the Hon Harry Duynhoven pointed out in his speech earlier the Committee of the whole House debate on this legislation took place on the sixth anniversary of the attacks in America that happened on Tuesday 11 September 2001. I think everybody will remember those terrible scenes that unfolded on the television. Ever since those days the international aviation world has changed and it has changed dramatically. As I have said in earlier debates on this legislation we are doing things now that I suppose many of us would never have dreamt of having to do in New Zealand law some years ago. 
New Zealand is a long way from those tragic events and from many of the other acts of terrorism that have taken place on aeroplanes but that does not unfortunately leave us out of the loop when it comes to having legislation that enables us to ensure the safety of passengers flying within New Zealand and to and from New Zealand. Also as the Minister has pointed out there are international aviation agreements. There are standards that this country is required to meet both in the way we operate and in the way in which our law is written which do I suppose impinge upon the personal freedoms that all of us in this place hold so dear. It is a dilemma when we all want the right to be able to travel freely without impediment and without intrusion by bureaucracy or officialdom and we have to balance that against the need of people to be able to travel safely throughout the world and as I have said we also need to meet international obligations. 
So in dealing with this legislation we tackled some fairly fundamental issues in that respect. The thought of having armed officers on board aeroplanes flying in and out of New Zealand is one that none of us would relish and we probably all would like to be able to say that we should not pass a law that allows this. If we did not pass such a law and if international partners suddenly required that measure then very rapidly we would become an island that nobody could fly in and out of. So the way in which this legislation has dealt with that requirement is to allow for it to happen but it would not happen until a future Government a future Cabinet deemed it necessary to pass the next part if you like by an Order in Council which would authorise flights bearing armed officers to land in New Zealand and authorise those leaving this country to depart. That probably was the most difficult issue that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee dealt with and certainly the Air Line Pilots’ Association which I have listened to over all the years that I have been in this Parliament and I have taken great notice of has always opposed this. In theory it still does but it also recognises the need for the law to be able to be changed rapidly if we reach a point where New Zealand can no longer fly in and out of all the destinations that we currently are able to. Because of that factor it is with some regret I would imagine that most of us who support this legislation will pass it but that is the nature of what has happened internationally. Governments around the world are having to take these measures even though in the sense of preserving our personal freedoms they are less than desirable. 
As Pansy Wong indicated the committee looked at what was probably the one contentious issue beyond that which was of a much more minor nature. That issue was around the confiscation of items that people can no longer take on to planes and whether those items would be kept recorded and made available for people who wanted to get them back. In the end we were convinced by the airlines airport companies and others that to do this would lead to significant delays for passengers trying to leave New Zealand or trying to travel within New Zealand. So we amended the legislation—sensibly I think—to change that provision. 
In regards to the whole concept of being able to carry on to planes things that in the past we would have given no thought to I had my eyes opened when I was the Minister of Transport which was when we first introduced these types of measures by going to Auckland airport and seeing the types of things that people thought were acceptable. Many thought that when we banned pocket knives and scissors it was silly but if people had seen the array of weapons I saw that had been confiscated—great big daggers axes and all sorts of things that we could not imagine anybody would ever think were acceptable to take on a plane whether or not the law allowed it—then they would be convinced as I was that these sorts of measures were in fact necessary. Even during the course of dealing with this legislation I received an email from somebody who was highly offended at the thought that he would not be able to take a chainsaw full of petrol on to the plane and if it was confiscated then how dare we not give it back to that person. I think that we have to get these things into perspective. 
David Bennett 
: What’s the matter with Possum? 
Hon MARK GOSCHE 
: I know that David Bennett would like to carry his chainsaw on to an aeroplane. He is from a rural background and he is a lawyer also but even he would have to agree that a chainsaw full of petrol is something that we would not want to let on the plane at Hamilton airport. 
But some people think that that right should be protected so we have to listen very carefully to arguments about those sorts of issues because sitting in below that is the need to protect people’s privacy as much as possible and to be as least intrusive as we can be. Some of the measures that are allowed for in this law which will now be passed take that matter into account. The Supplementary Order Paper the Minister brought in around the scanning done through people’s clothing so that security staff can see a body underneath is definitely banned in this law and that is a good change that the Committee of the whole House passed without any member opposing it. Also security officers and people working in airports will take account of the right of people to have some privacy. 
 I too like Pansy Wong was very happy with the explanations that the officials gave us as to the way in which they will deal with people with cultural differences—particularly members of the Sikh community but not just that community because there are others who wear headwear and who carry significant religious items on their body. Extra training will be given and there will be good consultation with those communities to make sure that our Government departments and officials are aware of those needs. As a result of hearing that it was deemed by the House and the select committee that there was no need to make any extra changes to the bill. 
In conclusion these are extraordinary times in which we live. Six years ago nobody would have dreamt that we would have to do these sorts of things but events on the international scene—like September 11 in New York—have led to Governments around the world having to pass these sorts of measures. This legislation will enable New Zealanders to be able to continue to travel throughout the world as they have always done. I do not think there is any member of the House here who does not want to be able to get on the plane and visit Australia the United States and Britain as so many of them do on regular occasions—except for me. This law will allow those members who like to do that to get on a plane knowing they can land at the other end and at the end of the day that is a very important right too. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 That was the Hon Mark Gosche who by the sounds of it has never flown outside of New Zealand but I am sure that he would have taken that opportunity as a younger fellow both when he was in this Parliament and before he came to this House. 
There is one community group he forgot about. That group is made up of those people who do want to carry chainsaws on planes. In Hamilton we have a local identity who is known to carry a chainsaw at the rugby. Possum is standing for council. For all of those people who are from regions that do not have the joy and privilege of holding the Ranfurly Shield for more than a week I can tell them that they will see Possum at the local stadium. He will have a chainsaw on a cherry picker and he will boot it up throughout the game when the Waikato team scores—as we regularly do—then at the end he will throw out lollies to the kids. He is a local identity who probably would have been allowed to take a chainsaw on to a plane because it is part of his identity and his make-up. 
This legislation is pretty uncontroversial. Most of the parties in this House saw the need for it. It was based on an international consideration that we had to deliver something in this area. I think the Green Party is probably the only party that has seriously gone out against the legislation and made arguments against it but those arguments simply do not stack up. The reality is that we live in an environment where we have to pull our weight. We have an international airline that relies on us having an environment that gives it the opportunity to provide the services it needs to provide in order to be an international airline. As part of being the world citizens that New Zealanders intend to be we have to be part of the community and we have to have legislation and rules that fulfil the nature of what the community dictates in this circumstance. 
There is another part of the aviation area that is of relevance to New Zealanders as well. Mark Gosche touched on it when he talked about trips to Australia. This legislation will become more and more relevant because more and more New Zealanders are leaving New Zealand and our people leave by plane. They are leaving this country because of the rules and regulations that Government members dictate to people. This legislation will have a very practical impact on the thousands of New Zealanders who leave this country each year and do not return—the New Zealanders who go to Australia to make the most of the opportunities there when they should be making the most of their opportunities in New Zealand. That is a direct result of this Government’s policies and it needs to take responsibility for making a whole generation of New Zealanders leave. This legislation is also part of the Government’s attempt to do that because it enables our airlines to compete on a worldwide stage to take our people away to send them overseas to environments where they can prosper when they should be prospering here and making New Zealand stronger. 
In essence this is uncontroversial but needed legislation in an international context. I think that the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee worked together well to build legislation that covered most of the issues. There was some debate on certain issues to make sure that we had them formulated in a way that covered the potential considerations in regard to ethnic minorities. There is also the need to give the Government of the day the ability to make the calls. The reality is that New Zealand is a free peace-loving independent country and we probably will not have to engage inflight security officers at any stage but Cabinet still needs the ability to do that at some point in time if it is necessary. 
So this legislation is a bit of an insurance policy. We probably will not need to use it but it gives us the ability to have a set of rules that are compatible with our international trading partners and the world community as a whole. In essence basically all parties are supporting this legislation because they see the need for some kind of legislation in this area. The main issues have been pretty well dealt with by the select committee. National looks forward to the bill being passed and to seeing its implementation. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 It is a bit unfortunate that the New Zealand First spokesperson on transport and aviation Peter Brown is unable to speak on this legislation because assuredly he knows what he is talking about in this particular field— 
David Bennett 
: He’s a mariner! How would a mariner know about aviation? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: He has also been a politician since 1996 which the member has not been and therefore he has been able to explore these issues somewhat more fully than the member over there whom I am hearing from. 
Jill Pettis 
: He won’t last as long as that member has. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: No the member will not last as long as Peter Brown. Maybe we could have a little chat about policemen in St Petersburg but no we will not go there. 
I want to refer to three anecdotes. The first one is that when the September 11 attacks took place I happened to be at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Canberra with Arthur Anae and Georgina Beyer. The events of September 11 occurred overnight there and the changes that occurred to the security at the Australian Parliament overnight were amazing. Unbelievable things occurred in the fewer than 12 hours from the time that it occurred to the time that we re-entered the building for the conference. For example a whole pile of X-ray machines and a whole pile of other things were brought in. We in this Parliament will remember that one could not get a vehicle on to the property here without having it looked at underneath with mirrors etc. Obviously we have to respond to circumstances in a variety of different ways and these circumstances have changed. 
The second anecdote that I really want to talk about goes back to my teenage years. At that time a horrific murder took place. A guy who was trying to knock off his wife put his luggage on a plane—I think it was in Canada—then did not get on himself. The luggage was of course a bomb the whole plane exploded and 50 people were killed. Nowadays we just take it as read that if a passenger does not get on a plane the passenger’s luggage comes off. At times that is an inconvenience. One might be sitting on the tarmac while a search is being carried out for the luggage yet we accept that even though it could be said to be an infringement of our personal rights for the plane not to take off when it is supposed to take off. But personally I do not want the plane to take off if it has a bomb in the cargo hold. Therefore once again we have to make changes in changing circumstances. 
The third anecdote relates a little bit to the chainsaw story we heard from the previous speaker David Bennett. We came back to New Zealand from a Pacific Island and we had to come back via Brisbane. At that Pacific Island a member who happens to be still a member of this House had been staying in a five-star hotel with Little Lord Fauntleroy in a world heritage site while the rest of us were having to slog it out and do our tasks in one of the less savoury parts of the world. But when he was on this outer island this particular MP was given four big talking sticks which are huge things that one could take out a legion of men with. What does the MP do? He takes them on to the plane with him. It was an island service and the staff said: “OK you can do that.” But when we got to Brisbane and went through the security there the security guy said that the MP would not be able to take the talking sticks into the cabin with him. 
The next thing we see is the MP going up the escalator with the four sticks in his hand and the security guard asking where the hell the guy got to. So even when he was told he was not able to take the sticks he still wanted to take them—something pretty akin to a chainsaw—on to the plane with him. Fortunately airline staff trapped him up at the counter took the sticks off him and put them in the hold. I will not mention any names but I have to say that the MP concerned does not happen to be in the House at the moment. 
Those anecdotes demonstrate the need to make sure that the legislation ensures we are safe in a variety of different ways. Members may remember that it was box cutters that the guys took on board on September 11—harmless box cutters. We can go to the $2 shop and buy five of those things for $2. That is what they took on board and murdered their victims with. Members can just imagine what those men could have done with those big talking sticks and they can certainly imagine what they could have done with a chainsaw. 
I think the previous Labour speaker Mark Gosche actually got it right. We have to balance the need for people to travel safely around the world with the need for freedoms. As time goes on with experience changed circumstances a changed world and everything else we have to continue to balance those freedoms up against each other. As Mark Gosche has pointed out this is enabling legislation in some areas; it does not actually say: “Yes we’re going to allow security guards to have weapons on planes.” If that were the case the guy with the talking sticks could have been in serious trouble. It will be only if lots of people with those big talking sticks get on to planes that the legislation will be sparked through Orders in Council. 
Obviously New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation; we think it is sensible legislation. We think based on the reports that I have got back that the select committee worked very responsibly on the legislation to make sure that any of the wrinkles that may have occurred were ironed out. We believe that this legislation deserves the full support of the House. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is supporting this legislation despite its strong objection to the provision for armed air marshals to be on planes. We were disappointed that our amendments to disallow the arming of these inflight security officers were rejected at the Committee stage. 
The legislation is good at such things as determining secure areas in airports. However the endorsement of air marshals shows a general weakness in the approach of this Parliament and of some other Western Parliaments to security questions and how to deal with security risks in the post - September 11 environment. Rather than security provisions being the minimum required to protect the community—as used to be the case in a more relaxed New Zealand—there seems to be the attitude that the more security provisions there are the better. We are losing the balance that should be involved in security measures. On the one hand we want to help keep people safe but on the other hand we do not want to interfere with people’s freedom of movement freedom of speech or bodily integrity. 
Security is not about eliminating risk. First it is about looking at the circumstances objectively to find out what risk there is without taking any further security measures. Second it is about working out what risk would be acceptable. If there is not much difference between the actual present risk and the socially acceptable risk then we probably do not need to have any more security measures—in fact we might even need fewer. 
Members should look at our domestic airport checking systems. There has been a little moderation in checking in terms of the length of scissors allowed etc. but as far as I can tell there has not been any real assessment of what the current risk actually is on domestic flights that justifies so much heavier security than we have traditionally had—that is before the one particularly traumatic event overseas in 2001. We should always remember that there were many many more aircraft security incidents around the world in the 1970s and 1980s than there were in the 1990s or have been this century. There were many hijackings in the Americas Europe and the Middle East but we did not have such intrusive airport checking as a result. To my knowledge there has not been one serious security incident in New Zealand in the 6 years since 11 September 2001 on an international flight in and out of New Zealand let alone on a domestic flight. 
The mindset of absolute security can be quite damaging and inhuman. A few weeks ago I was passing through the security check at Auckland domestic airport followed by a mother with a little boy aged about 3. The toddler was carrying a little soft toy dog through the X-ray system and it beeped. The officer grabbed the soft toy dog and ran the scanner over it while the little boy balled his eyes out. I thought: “This is craziness. Have we lost all sense of proportion when we needlessly cause a little kid such grief?”. 
I am now used to putting anything in the little tray that might set off the security beeper when I go through the security door. But many travellers are not used to doing this so they have to go through the indignity of a closer body scan or pat-down. Maybe people are getting used to this security screening but I still think that it is somewhat demeaning. Excessively severe security measures are not in synch with the free spirited independent risk-taking Kiwi personality. I said that Kiwis were risk takers because I think we are amongst the world leaders in risk taking. Our most respected citizen Sir Edmund Hillary is a renowned risk taker as he is the conqueror of Mount Everest and he made an overland trip to the South Pole. Our All Blacks are admired for being big risk takers who will risk injury if necessary yet our Government wants more and more security measures against the minute risk of a terrorist incident here—and it is minute. 
The reality is hidden behind the propaganda of global terrorism which is a mythical concept. There is no such thing as global terrorism; it does not exist. There is only non-State terrorism in specific countries which is a result of those countries’ political or economic problems or their often wrong foreign policies. Most countries in the world are not subject to non-State terrorism and do not need to bother themselves much about it. That is the reality which has been proven by objective facts. In any case State terrorism is the greater problem as we ourselves have discovered with the only terrorist-related problems we have had being the French State terrorism against the  
Rainbow Warrior 
 in Auckland harbour; Israeli State terrorism when it tried to obtain fake New Zealand passports—quite likely to carry out the political assassinations for which Mossad is notorious—and more recently the Chinese Government hacking into our Government computers. 
In America Britain and Australia there is some danger of non-State terrorism and that danger is increased by their Governments invading Iraq. But there has been a gigantic security overreaction. I was in Sydney just over a week ago at a big protest to get APEC to take a stronger line on climate change and against the war in Iraq. It was a surreal atmosphere. Thousands of police had been mobilised with riot shields water cannons barriers and buses to arrest hundreds of people. The police were very provocative. They took a banner pole off a gent near me—his banner read: “Cage Bush not Sydney”—because his banner pole was over a metre long. 
As the leaders of the demonstration that day had repeatedly said it was going to be a peaceful demonstration and it was. The protestors responded to these police State - type measures with good Aussie satire. Banners read: “Show us your water cannon Big Boy!” and “Arrest all comedians!”. That last slogan referred to the jokesters who took a car disguised as a Canadian diplomatic car through police checkpoints with a dressed-up Osama bin Laden inside. Those comedians fooled the system and all of the Aussies cheered them. In reality if we have over-the-top security we only challenge people to have a go at breaching it. 
 The Draconian character of the APEC security measures was never really about enhancing security. It was all about demonstrating power—the power of the Howard Government and the power of the State behind him with mobilised armed forces and police. It was about the creation of fear in society which has been a major feature of the so-called war on terror that has been operating in Western countries since September 11. The more a society becomes fearful the more people will accept the stronger State greater surveillance of their lives and a weaker judicial system. Of course that helps right-wing political forces more than progressive ones and it helps people like John Howard to get elected. 
That is why it is so great that John Howard’s over-the-top scaremongering about APEC riots fell flat on its face. That is why it is so good that the terrorist slanders against Ahmed Zaoui were finally disproved and that last week the Security Intelligence Service after nearly 5 years of hounding him finally admitted that it had got it wrong. The SIS and all those forces that have bought into the war on terror—including unfortunately our own Government—needed a real live terrorist to justify all the extra security measures it was bringing in here and all the extra spending on the SIS the Government Communications Security Bureau and police counter-terrorism. The only problem was that there were not any terrorists in New Zealand—and still there are not—so they had to deem an innocent man Ahmed Zaoui to be the fall guy. Hopefully we can learn something from all this and get back to a more relaxed Kiwi style where through strong informal community life we look after each other rather than rely on a strong security State. 
Excessive security measures supposedly to confront some terrorist danger intersect with excessive angst in other areas of our life. We are developing what some have called a risk aversion culture. It is quite at odds with the traditional relaxed Kiwi culture. We find it more difficult to accept risk and to accept accidents. When kids are playing sometimes they hurt themselves and sometimes they kill themselves. But instead of accepting that that is life that we have the occasional accident as we did in the past there is now more of a tendency to wrap kids up in cotton wool. When a mentally disturbed person kills someone politicians and the media descend to label blame when often actually nobody is to blame. When we put mentally disturbed people rightly into the community occasionally one will lose control someone might get injured and someone might get killed. But that is an acceptable risk to take if we are to be humane to people who are mentally disordered. Let us go back to the more relaxed Kiwi way of doing things and actually take a few risks. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tenatatou katoa i te Whare. Last week was the anniversary of 9/11 and last week was also the anniversary of the death of Steve Biko. He was born on 18 December 1946 and died on 12 September 1977. Steve Biko was a noted anti-apartheid activist in South Africa. He was arrested under the Terrorism Act of South Africa on 18 August 1977. He was brutally treated and eventually he died on 12 September. Although the police claimed his death was due to an extended hunger strike an autopsy showed that he died from massive injuries to the head consistent with the torture commonly practised by the apartheid police of the time. Coincidentally 12 September is also the 26th anniversary of the last test of the 1981 Springbok Tour during which a squad was specifically named after the anti-apartheid hero Steve Biko. 
More important for Aotearoa last week was also the birth of probably the most important piece of international legislation ever for Maori. Thursday 13 September 2007 will be forever remembered by indigenous people all around the world as the day on which the United Nations General Assembly after 25 years of effort by indigenous people the world over voted to adopt the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. As we consider these bills today on security and seizures and on human rights I ask us to note that Thursday 13 September 2007 will also be forever remembered by Maori people all around the world as the day on which a select group of Maori MPs—namely the Maori Party caucus of Tariana Turia Dr Pita Sharples Te Ururoa Flavell and myself—along with MetiriaTurei of the Green Party expressed their full and formal support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 
Thursday 13 September 2007 will also be forever remembered by Maori people all around the world as the day on which another select group of Maori people—namely the Labour Maori caucus of Parekura Horomia Dover Samuels Nanaia Mahuta Mahara Okeroa Mita Ririnui and Shane Jones—stood alongside the Government in opposing the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Yes it is hard to believe but it is true. While the Maori Party was registering its support for the declaration Labour’s Maori caucus was not only voting against it but was laughing and making snide remarks about it while a Maori Party speaker was recording support in this House for the declaration. Yes that vote of opposition by the Labour Maori caucus and the disrespect it showed in this House will be forever remembered in the years ahead as a breach of respect for international indigenous rights. 
But I come back to the attacks of 9/11 which are very much part of the context of these two bills before the House today to provide enhanced security measures for aviation in New Zealand. As we consider these proposals on search and seizure the screening and searching of staff and other measures I want us also to be thinking more broadly about the whole context of political war. I refer the House to a comment made by David Horowitz a strategist who said: “Political war is about evoking emotions that favour one’s goals. It is the ability to manipulate the public’s feelings in support of your agenda. In this war the most potent weapons were anger fear and resentment.” That quote says a lot about the ways in which the doctrine of a war on terror and the deliberate build-up of fear and hostility drive the passage of policy and the way in which that doctrine forces us to react through the passage of bills such as these two the Aviation Crimes Amendment Bill and the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2). 
I note that the majority of public submissions presented to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee were mainly about prohibited items review processes devices or aids for searches and imaging technology. So it is timely for me to share some notes of my recent overseas trips which may be of value to this debate. The first was a trip I took to further my knowledge as a member of Parliament for an indigenous electorate Te Tai Tokerau. I decided to visit what would have been my electorate if I had been an Australian MP the Northern Territory. Visiting the Northern Territory to highlight the dangerous consequences and the inherent racism of the Australian Prime Minister’s plans to solve child abuse and alcoholism in Aboriginal communities by getting his filthy little hands on their lands for 99 years was never going to be a particularly difficult task. 
I could have been arrested for carrying a copy of Howard’s racist intervention plan which many people have described as “a weapon of mass destruction targeted against the indigenous people of the Northern Territory” on an internal flight from Melbourne to Alice Springs. That I chose not to do so says more for my intelligence than it does for the scant effort that went into producing that 500-page document. It was supposed to be based on the findings of the  
Little Children Are Sacred 
 report but it chose to completely and utterly ignore the 98 recommendations that are part of the report itself in the interests of a series of proposals designed to maximise Howard’s visibility prior to the Australian general election and to change legislation to open up the Northern Territory to mining companies liquor companies gambling companies and other enterprises which his plan was supposedly going to put an end to. 
John Howard’s racist intervention plan was deemed to be so dangerous to race relations in Australia that he had a clause inserted into the bill exempting the plan from prosecution under the Racial Discrimination Act. It was a clear demonstration that the authors of the bill intended that it would be racist so they covered themselves against any prosecution later on. If that bill is not a description of a dangerous weapon then I am not sure what is. 
Another somewhat less dramatic but equally relevant situation played out for me on my same break-out to Alice Springs—a report of which can be found on my website www.tokerau.co.nz which every member of this House received; it is entitled  
A Walkabout with Alice 
—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Donnelly that this one cost me $1100. One of the organisations I visited was the headquarters of the local tribal authority for the area the LhereAretepe where I was presented with two beautifully hand-painted boomerangs. These were not those quaint little ones that one throws and they come back. No no. These were the bigger ones with one arm longer than the other—the ones that do not come back. They are the ones thrown with the specific intention of hitting the target. They do not come back. I mention these boomerangs because although I had no intention of using them on the plane I have no doubt that if I had wanted to I could have caused considerable damage with them. 
When it came time to fly back home security refused to let me take them on the plane. “Sorry guys” I said “I ain't letting them go so you’re going to have to come up with a solution to this problem because they’re travelling with me.” Security staff called the Qantas security representative who called his head honcho. To my pleasant surprise the head honcho came up with the line: “Qantas does not consider boomerangs to be dangerous weapons. Let the man keep them.” 
That incident got me thinking about just what exactly gets through the system. I must say I was astonished to realise that a very dangerous weapon slips past everyone on every single flight that I have been on since 9/11—that is all those carry-on bags with collapsible metal handles which with very quick and relatively minor readjustment can be very quickly turned into extremely dangerous weapons. It made me realise that for all of the fuss that is made about terrorism—bottles of clear liquid plastic knives and forks nail clippers and having to put one’s shoes through the X-ray machine—current airport security is allowing carry-on luggage on to flights that poses a far greater danger than Mahara Okeroa’s long-suffering socks. 
I know that this bill is supposed to have serious implications but I really do have difficulty understanding why we have to restructure refinance and realign upwards the prices of flights within Aotearoa every time someone wants to take a shot at the United States for its war-mongering resource-raiding activities across the globe. The Maori Party accepts that the world is becoming a dangerous place to live and to travel especially for Americans and everybody else caught up in the American invasion of Iraq. Although we are supporting this bill we urge the citizens and indeed the governing authorities in Aotearoa to begin exercising far more independence and discretion in the way in which they view dangers in our world. Tena koe. Tenatatou katoa. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the third readings of the Aviation Crimes Amendment Billand the Civil Aviation Amendment Bill (No 2) and would like to get back to the substance of the bills having just heard some very entertaining speeches tonight in the House. 
These bills are serious and they include many issues of importance to our ability as a nation to respond to the ever-moving world of aviation security—particularly where there is a deteriorating situation as we have seen in recent months in Heathrow. Unfortunately the reality is that the world is not what it used to be—or at least how it seemed to be because by and large I think New Zealand has been protected from some of the threats and atrocities that other countries have faced for decades. Anyone who has lived in London in recent years will have been very conscious of the constant threat of bombings and conscious of the stories of those Londoners who lived through the IRA bomb blasts of the 1980s and 1990s and the more recent bombings of the 21st century. 
I was in Lockerbie—on one of my numerous OE travels—just before the awful bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 where it was blown to bits at 31000 feet and 270 people were killed. The hotel I was staying in just a month before became a huge crater in the ground and one can only imagine the horror of seeing the victims of that awful flight and of seeing the debris scattered over an area of 845 square miles in that picturesque little Scottish town. Although there have been hijackings bombings and kidnappings for decades there is no doubt that 9/11 and subsequent events have brought these things more into focus in our country. 
The first signs of that increased focus for the New Zealand people were the introduction of security screening on outbound domestic aircraft. Mountains of scissors pocket-knives bottle openers and other sharp objects were taken from passengers and we had to get used to the idea that these were all considered potential weapons. Then we got on to flights to the USA where we had to remove our shoes and go through an extra security check. More lately we have had to put our liquids and gels into clear plastic bags or have them taken from us. I understand why people feel like this is a restriction on our freedom—and it is. But New Zealanders like to travel to countries that are far less safe than ours and inbound visitors on overseas aircraft are critical to our thriving tourism industry. This means that we must accept some changes that may make us feel uncomfortable—particularly the idea of gun-carrying security officers on aircraft. Unfortunately in today’s much more globalised environment it seems necessary. 
These bills provide that should the need ever arise—and we hope it will not—armed inflight security officers will not be allowed to enter New Zealand on foreign flights without a full Cabinet approval process. Government policy in regard to inflight security officers is that they should not be deployed on New Zealand aircraft and reliance on ground-based security measures should be given more emphasis. The bills reflect this with a requirement that inflight security officers on New Zealand flights cannot happen without full Cabinet sign-off. That is as it should be. 
Other speakers in this debate in the second reading and in the Committee stage mentioned that the Air Line Pilots’ Association came along to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee of which I was a member and made a very compelling submission about inflight security officers. Like most of us the association is not that keen on the idea. It fully supports the current Government’s policy—that inflight security officers will not be deployed on New Zealand aircraft and that we should do everything possible to ensure security on the ground. However the association told us that should things change in the future in regard to international civil aviation requirements then pilots need to be assured of the appropriate training of inflight security officers—particularly as pilots are ultimately responsible for deciding whether a plane is safe to fly. One way to do this is for the Air Line Pilots’ Association to be consulted on inflight security officer training and this is included in the amended legislation. 
Another major change that other speakers have mentioned is in regard to the seizure and storage of prohibited items. We heard from submitters about the sheer volume of these collections including the mountainous bins that had to be stored somewhere on airport premises. This along with the requirement in the original legislation for airlines to provide for the recording storage and return of seized items to passengers was considered by the select committee not to be practical or reasonable and therefore the requirement to do that has been changed. I believe that most passengers now know that their Swiss Army knife cannot be taken on board an aircraft in their hand luggage and it is just tough that it has been confiscated. The difficulty arises when new laws or new rules are introduced such as the recent one around gels liquids and aerosols. It takes a little while for passengers to get used to this although it has been pleasing to see the proactive role played by airport staff in ensuring that passengers understand the requirements and are provided with a plastic bag prior to check-in. I congratulate those staff at airports because I think they have done a very good job. 
Another concern that has been raised and dealt with was whether the use of new imaging technology which can produce a naked image—such as the body-scanning technology being used in Holland—could be used under the provisions of the bill. There was quite a lot of media controversy about this. Again I am pleased the House has adopted the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper ensuring that this cannot occur. 
One issue in the bill that has not received so much attention was around background checks and the inclusion of an explicit power for the Director of Civil Aviation to require security checks for certain persons including staff who require an airport identity card. Apparently this already occurs so the legislation formalises an existing administrative process. The director’s powers are quite wide in that he can seek both unclassified information from a range of sources—for example courts and the police—and a recommendation from the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. I am always very wary of these kinds of intrusions into workers’ backgrounds and their rights in the process. So I was very pleased with the proactive approach in including a natural justice process which must be followed if a security check reveals information that could lead to the check being declined. 
 I believe the legislation has been enhanced by the select committee’s recommendation that where an application for a security check is declined on the basis of both classified and unclassified information the Director of Civil Aviation must advise an applicant of the fact that two sources of information have been relied on in declining the check. Similarly I was cautious about the powers of aviation security officers to screen and search airport workers. Although such searches can be conducted only by consent if the person refuses consent aviation security officers have new powers to deny the person access to the area to remove the person items or vehicles or to detain that person. If that person is detained he or she must be delivered to the police as soon as possible. 
On the surface these seem like quite Draconian powers but just as we have had to accept changes to security measures for passengers in the current climate in order to meet international obligations it appears we have to accept these powers. I hope that airport workers will be well briefed about their rights and responsibilities in these matters and it is incumbent on airport companies and aviation security to ensure this is done. I look forward to seeing the training programmes that will be implemented to make sure that these workers are protected in terms of their rights. 
I believe the select committee took its responsibilities very seriously and I want to thank the members of that committee; I think the House has responded accordingly. Again there are issues in this bill that none of us feel particularly comfortable with but I believe we have to live with them. It is good to be part of a very constructive approach to getting the best out of what is somewhat unpalatable but very necessary legislation. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I want to compliment my colleague Darien Fenton on a very excellent speech. I think her last sentence summed it up—this legislation is somewhat unpalatable but sadly very necessary. Unlike the speaker prior to her Hone Harawira who talked about his trip on Jetstar to Alice Springs I will give a brief analogy of when I discovered air marshals on an Air France flight to an Inter-Parliamentary Union conference I was attending in Ouagadougou in 2001. Doug Kidd and the then deputy leader of the ACT Party Ken Shirley and I were the New Zealand delegates. The irony is not lost because of course that was when the twin towers were hit and we were watching it on the television screens. Yet going from Paris to Ouagadougou in Burkina Faso I discovered for the first time that there were guys on the plane who were air marshals. They were on the plane because those routes were considered problematic. Of course the thing to reflect on is the professionalism by which people do these jobs. 
As I am sure previous speakers probably acknowledged earlier on in this debate I think it is timely to acknowledge the professionalism of security staff and how we are blessed with I think some really excellent security staff at our own airports in this country. The security staff by and large—not in all cases but mostly—treat the travelling public with absolute politeness and decorum. Their jobs are quite onerous and I want to compliment the men and women who do that job. Obviously passengers have their different personalities and sometimes can be quite harassed and stressed when going through customs but my own experience has been that security staff have treated passengers with remarkable politeness doing what is sadly a very necessary job in this current age. It seems to me that in point of fact the travelling public has by and large adapted well to these sad necessities. People obviously get into a routine do it and life basically goes on. But in saying that life goes on we should not underestimate the importance of this legislation. 
I also pay a big compliment to the Hon Harry Duynhoven on his contribution in his role as the Minister for Transport Safety and his officials on their work in making sure that we come up to a par with other countries. There is no doubt the bottom line is that if New Zealand is seen not to be conforming to best efficient international practice it will compromise our airline. It will also compromise flights coming to and from New Zealand and that is something that we just cannot countenance. As a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization New Zealand is obliged to comply with its security standards and again as I have just mentioned—and I am sure the Minister and other speakers have mentioned—failure to do so could damage New Zealand’s reputation and question the integrity of our aviation security. 
I guess in the end it is a matter of getting a balance keeping a perspective and obviously trying to do what is necessary and important but never dare I say it to use the typical Kiwi phrase to get slack because slackness could in the end potentially cost lives. I use the Ouagadougou experience purely because that was a conference of parliamentarians and I thought that would be the target of some sort of terrorist hit. The irony for us watching from this conference of high security was that it did not happen there; it happened to innocent office workers thousands of miles away in New York. Of course those terrible events have shaped events since then. 
I think it was particularly pertinent that Darien Fenton talked about the Lockerbie disaster and tragedy. As I understand it that involved baggage with a bomb being checked in by parties at one European city and then being transited through London. Then the people who were attached to the baggage as I understand it left on an onward flight. That of course was an awful terrible tragedy affecting people who were totally and absolutely innocent and subjected to that terrible heinous crime. The sad reality of it is that the whole point of all these aviation security measures is not an expression of some sort of authoritarian totalitarian State. The point of these measures is very pure and simple and that is to protect innocent lives so that our normal civil life can continue. That is just the sad reality of the situation that we now find ourselves in. This legislation is indeed important and I note the main elements of the bill again: to provide aviation security officers with the power to search for and seize items that are prohibited or restricted on aircraft; and to enable the screening and searching of airport workers. 
I think Darien Fenton very relevantly and in a very important way said that we have to in terms of some of that searching and screening have checks and balances to make sure that people are not falsely accused of things they did not do. I noted through the select committee reports very relevant things mentioned about members of our Sikh community who have experienced problems. We need to make sure that members of such communities in no way are disadvantaged in terms of basic human rights and notions of common decency and citizenship from doing work in airports and aviation precincts. We should make sure that those security measures allow for peoples’ dress codes and religious practices so that some of those searches and questions happen in an appropriate and sensitive manner. 
The bill also provides a power for aviation security officers to search passengers’ outer garments and undertake pat-down searches. As I said that has to be done in an appropriate professional manner. Mostly from what I have observed—as we all do going through airports to Brisbane Sydney or wherever—airport people do that very efficiently. It is now even done on our so-called main trunk routes. This legislation basically gives our aviation security the tools to do this. 
I join with the Minister and other members of the select committee to congratulate all the people working in aviation security in this country who I think do a very very fine job. I have always found they are really polite and a good team. I am not going to do a John Carter who spent time in previous debates telling us all about his mum. Actually I will. I was travelling with my 81-year-old mother and she had some sort of fluid or some sort of cosmetic and what really impressed me with the security guy in Auckland was that he was so polite. I am going to say it—it is something about being a New Zealander; there is something about our personality and who we are. I take my hat off to the politeness of people who do that job day in and day out. 
The serious point of this bill—and I think it was quite a good contribution from the member who told us about his trip to Alice Springs—is as Darien Fenton and others have said a sad necessity but I think the bill gives the tools to do this important work and to make sure we are safe. I want to close by acknowledging the wonderful wonderful work done by our aviation security people in this country who in my view do this necessary work with such professionalism and politeness. We are very indebted to them. 
Bills read a third time. 
Protection of Personal and Property Rights  Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 I move  
That the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This legislation amends Part 9 of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. This part provides for people to appoint attorneys to act for them on personal care and welfare and property matters should they lose mental capacity or the ability to communicate through accident or illness. 
The bill strengthens the provisions relating to enduring powers of attorney or EPAs in order to protect people who by reason of their heath have to rely on other people to make decisions for them on welfare and/or financial matters. More specifically the bill addresses the issues that were first raised by organisations concerned about the abuse of older people—abuse that could be prevented by better provision of safeguards in the legislation. These concerns were identified by the Law Commission in the first instance. The commission undertook consultation and in 2001 proposed changes to Part 9 of the Act. Further consultation was undertaken led by the Office for Senior Citizens in the lead-up to the amendment bill and of course again during the Social Services Committee process. 
Before looking at the specific amendments I would like to emphasise two important themes that underpin this bill. The first is that the interests of the donor are paramount in all aspects and applications of powers of attorneys. The second is that even where a donor loses capacity and the decision-making role is taken over by the attorney the donor still has the right to be consulted and the attorney has a duty to encourage the donor to continue to make decisions as he or she is able. This recognises that being certified as mentally incapable does not mean that a donor does not have a view or is incapable of expressing a view on any aspect of his or her life. 
To help the House understand what this bill achieves I will take the problems identified with the current law and explain what the bill does to address them. To ensure that enduring powers of attorney are not drawn up at the point where people are losing capacity the bill requires that when drawing up an enduring power of attorney the donor’s signature must be witnessed by a lawyer retained independently of the attorney who must explain to the donor the effects and implications of the enduring power of attorney and his or her rights. The witnessing lawyer must also certify that he or she has no reason to believe that the donor lacks mental capacity. Officers of trustee corporations and trained legal executives who work in legal practices can also carry out the witnessing provisions. This process will also allow the donor to express his or her wishes regarding various terms and conditions which will be included in the form of the enduring power of attorney and will prevent external parties with mischief in mind from influencing the terms of the enduring power of attorney in favour of the attorney. 
The implementation of the bill provides the opportunity to revise the forms of enduring powers of attorney so that they are much more helpful and responsive to the needs of people drawing them up. The bill will ensure that donors are provided with the information they need about the powers they are conferring on their attorney and their right to revoke an enduring power of attorney while they are mentally capable. To make this possible for a donor who has lost mental capacity temporarily section 100A inserted by clause 15 now specifically enables a donor to suspend an enduring power of attorney without revoking it. Where there are questions as to the donor’s mental capacity in making such a suspension his or her mental capacity can be determined by a relevant health practitioner. 
The bill includes the presumption of donor competence so that donors are not to be assumed to have lost mental capacity unless this is clearly shown. The way a person may imprudently manage his or her property affairs or make personal care and welfare decisions cannot be used as evidence that the donor has lost that capacity and neither can special patient status under the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992. The bill will require an attorney for property affairs to keep records of each financial transaction for which he or she is responsible as an attorney and provide those records to persons specified for that purpose in the enduring power of attorney. People will be encouraged to identify what accountability arrangements they want to apply once the enduring power of attorney becomes operational. 
It is now made very clear in this bill that attorneys will not be able to make personal care and welfare decisions for a donor unless and until the correct process has been followed. For insignificant personal care and welfare decisions if the attorney believes on reasonable grounds that the donor is mentally incapable he or she is able to exercise the power of attorney. For significant personal care and welfare decisions such as admission to care or relocation there must be a certificate from a health practitioner or a determination of the Family Court that the donor is mentally incapable before the attorney can exercise those powers. An attorney under the enduring power of attorney will not be able to act in property matters unless the donor is medically certified or determined to be mentally incapable except where the attorney was authorised to act in this area when the enduring power of attorney was created. The requirement inserted by the bill that the donor will be consulted applies to all decisions the attorney makes—significant or otherwise. 
Concerns about how to trigger the Family Court’s power to intervene are addressed through three measures. The first is the inclusion of a list of appropriate persons able to access the Family Court in any case without having to obtain leave of the court. This list includes the coordinators of the 25 Elder Abuse and Neglect Prevention services which are funded by our Government to offer assistance in the prevention of abuse of older people. This means that concerns about an attorney’s actions can be more easily brought to the attention of a Family Court so that a donor’s situation can be investigated. The second and also of assistance in situations of misuse of enduring powers of attorney is the wide experience of the Family Court in dealing with complicated matters involving differing views between family members. The third and this is not a matter arising directly from the bill but is certainly relevant is the additional resources that our Government has put into the Elder Abuse and Neglect Prevention services. In Budget 2005 our Government increased funding for these very important services from $842000 a year to $1.5 million ongoing. Elder Abuse and Neglect Prevention services are provided throughout New Zealand by Age Concern and a range of other organisations. These services do a wonderful job of providing assistance to victims of elder abuse including abuse that has arisen from the misuse of enduring powers of attorney. 
I am aware that Age Concern and other service providers are very pleased that this House has recognised the issues of misuse of enduring powers of attorney arising from Part 9 of the Act and they very much welcome the changes that are going through the final stages this evening. In response to the excellent submissions received from Age Concern and other older persons advocacy groups this bill includes a provision for these amendments to be reviewed in 5 years’ time and for a report to be prepared on the effectiveness of these changes and whether further changes are required. 
 Once the passage of the bill is completed there will be 12 months for the changes to be implemented. Implementation will include redrafting the different forms of enduring powers of attorney that are currently in the schedule of the Act as well as the forms to be used for certifying compliance with the new witnessing requirements of the legislation and for medical practitioners to certify mental incapacity. These forms will be prescribed in regulation so that they can accommodate the evolution of legal and medical practices and tests. Other forms and guidelines will ensure that appropriate processes are observed and will be drafted. 
Lastly but by no means least work will be undertaken by the Office for Senior Citizens to ensure that people become aware of the changes and how enduring powers of attorney can be used to prevent difficulties from arising in the future and to address difficulties when they occur. Entering into an enduring power of attorney is a very sensible precaution for New Zealanders to complete at any age. It is not just the prospect of loss of capacity in older age that can bring an enduring power of attorney into play but the possibility of injury illness or disease. It is better for people to make their own decisions about who should protect their interests and represent them than for the courts to be called on to appoint a welfare guardian or property manager using other parts of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act. 
I conclude by expressing my appreciation of the thorough and comprehensive consideration that members of the Social Services Committee gave to this bill. Also I acknowledge the huge amount of work that the officials from the Office for Senior Citizens and the rest of the team from the Ministry of Social Development devoted to the passage of this bill and members of other parties who gave support for its progress. I commend this bill to the House. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. As the Minister for Senior Citizens has described it is a very important bill to protect particularly those who are elderly or who may be suffering from a disability or mental incapacity. 
There are several somewhat curious aspects about the genesis and evolution of this bill but I too personally want to say how well the parties worked together. I was struck of course by the humility of the chairman who described his chairmanship of the Social Services Committee as excellent. Nevertheless we did work very well together and I think Russell Fairbrother did display a degree of excellence on this occasion. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: That’s hard to believe! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It is hard to believe my colleague says. Never mind. 
The important thing I was going to say is that this Act has not been reviewed since 1988. The Law Commission reported in 2001 and its findings have not been taken up by the Government for 6 years. All New Zealanders should regard that as a very serious omission because this is a sensible bill that is being supported by the Opposition. The delay by Labour has meant that a large number of disabled and mentally incapacitated people have not had the benefits of its upgrade. I believe that that is very serious. Once again it is an indictment on this Labour Government. 
I agree that some of the submissions were excellent. One in particular came from members of the New Zealand Institute of Legal Executives who pointed out that they have been very involved in helping with the paperwork regarding signing enduring powers of attorney and that they would be eminently capable of doing so themselves. All parties saw that this was appropriate and indeed members of that group now have that power. I think they pointed out that on average they do this two to three times a week—up to 200 times a year—and that they are probably the most competent of anyone to carry it out. So this was a very practical and useful thing. 
As far as I am aware one aspect that has not come up in the debate is a submission received from members of the family law section of the New Zealand Law Society. I am concerned about it for a variety of reasons. The first is that the submissioners state that although the proposals from the Government made in the paper in some respects go beyond what is recommended by the Law Commission they are disappointed the proposals do not go further. They state that the proposals would significantly advance the rights and interests of donors in respect of the establishment and activation of enduring powers of attorney but that significant risks would still be attached to the operation of enduring powers of attorney by unscrupulous attorneys. They say—and this is the Law Society itself—that it has been suggested that even in some jurisdictions with a registration system between 10 and 15 percent of enduring powers of attorney are operated improperly or fraudulently. What I was concerned about was that they went on to say that although the section was not aware of any research-based statistics in New Zealand anecdotal evidence suggested that abuse or fraud by court-appointed managers and welfare guardians would be on a very limited scale and certainly substantially less than the abuse by attorneys under enduring powers of attorney. In my view the important point is that according to the Law Society and as I understand it some of the academics there is no good academic research of an evidenced-based nature regarding this bill. 
I think that if indeed there is to be a review in 5 years’ time it would be incumbent on the Minister to ensure that there is in train careful monitoring of the new amendments and some evidence-based research as to what is actually going on. I think my colleague Judith Collins pointed out that these amendments are certainly not going to be the last changes to the Act. It will need continual progression as things change over time. I was very glad to see that the Minister put in a Supplementary Order Paper to make sure that if an individual was no longer mentally incapable then there were opportunities to suspend the attorney’s authority to act under the appropriate power. Obviously we support that amendment. 
At the end of the day the paramount issue is that the interests of the donor are kept right at the forefront and the attorney has a duty to encourage the donor to make decisions as he or she is able. National supports this bill in its third reading and is very glad to do so. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I too want to reflect the compliments made by the Minister for Senior Citizens Ruth Dyson in her third reading speech to the officials who assisted the Social Services Committee and also to the committee members who worked collaboratively on what was seen as a common desire to tackle some of the problems inherent in enduring powers of attorney. 
I do not think it would be overstating the case too much if I said that enduring powers of attorney are subject to misuse such as embezzlement. It is not overstating the case because that is the exact word used by the  
Laws of New Zealand 
 on the subject at paragraph 162. The instances of attorneys helping themselves to the donor’s belongings and failing to put people into institutions and failing to get them out of institutions are catalogued in the  
Laws of New Zealand 
 as they are in the case law. I commend to the House an excellent article in last week’s issue of  
New Zealand Lawyer 
 written by Maria Kaszmierow a barrister who summarises the changes in the enduring power of attorney and I think gives a very effective working summary. 
 The changes were criticised not on their merits by the previous speaker Dr Paul Hutchison. He made a complaint that it had taken 20 years since the first Act was enacted for it to be amended. With some tortured logic he attributed the blame to this Government. In an otherwise significant contribution to the House he failed to see the evolving nature of powers of attorney and of our society generally. In the 20 years—which is not a long time—since the principal Act that we are now amending was passed there have been large changes that significantly change the thrust of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act. Those changes are found in the opening clauses of the amendment bill which insert new sections 93A and 93B into the principal Act. 
I turn briefly to new section 93B. It is an entirely new section that goes at the beginning of Part 9 of the Act and it talks about presumption of competence. This section makes it clear that a donor is presumed competent until the contrary is shown. That competence allows for a wide range of tolerance for behaviour that may fall below the normal standard of care or diligence of the average person. Just because someone makes decisions that the average person would find strange it is not necessarily a definition of incapacity. So there always remains with the donor the presumption of competence. In today’s society that presumption of competence the acceptance of difference and the allowing of people to age gracefully is a powerful incentive for the way we live our life in this the 21st century. The addition of section 93B to the principal Act is a major philosophical change to the principal Act and it opens up the ability of individuals to live their lives perhaps in a somewhat cantankerous way or in other ways that may upset some but without invoking the very strong powers available under the enduring powers of attorney. 
To balance that out I want to flick across to the ability to review the attorney’s decision. This is found in clause 18 of the bill. Clause 18 addresses section 103 of the principal Act. Under the principal Act section 103 gives a very limited power to review an attorney’s decision. In all but one occasion a person seeking to review an attorney’s decision first of all requires leave of the court before the review by the court can take place. The only person under the present Act who does not require leave of the court is the donor; any other person must first obtain leave of the court before he or she makes out an application for a review. In keeping with the wider powers of general competence the new section 103 opens up the range of people who can apply directly to the court—that is without going through the process of seeking leave—to review an attorney’s decision. This somewhat reflects the developing case law. 
In 1997 Judge John Bisphan a very experienced Family Court judge in Christchurch in  
Hansen v Blaikie 
 considered what the factors were when deciding to exercise his discretion to allow leave. He identified about six or seven factors that he thought should be established before the discretion should be exercised. That was applied again by Judge Bisphan in 2000 and developed further by Judge von Dadelszen only 2 years ago in the Family Court when that erstwhile Hawke’s Bay judge was sitting in Wellington. So there has been a growing case law on the circumstances where someone should be able to apply for leave. 
Now we have clause 18 of this amending legislation which rewrites section 103 of the principal Act and outlines the classes of people who may apply directly to the court. By taking out the intermediate step of having to apply for leave the people who generally fall within the ambit of the discretion identified by Judge Bisphan back in 1997 are included as people who can apply directly to the court. In short the people who may apply for leave are the donor a relative or attorney of the donor a social worker a medical practitioner a trustee corporation and any welfare guardian. If the donor is a patient in any residential care then that place may also apply. Other than those very wide categories any other person may still apply for leave for review. So the regulatory powers of the court have been widened and access to the court is made available to the people who will have an interest in the welfare of the donor. 
I turn to clause 15 of the bill. This adds a new section 100A to the principal Act. The new section 100A relates to the suspension of an attorney’s power to act. Section 100 is a very short section that makes the enduring power of attorney a fairly permanent event. Under clause 15 the new section 100A provides that “A donor of an enduring power of attorney who has been but is no longer mentally incapable may suspend the attorney’s authority to act under the enduring power of attorney by giving written notice to the attorney.” It goes on to state: “An attorney whose authority is suspended may not act under the enduring power of attorney unless a relevant health practitioner has certified or the Court has determined that the donor is mentally incapable.” The new section 100A reflects the presumption of competence that is contained in the new section 93B which I mentioned earlier in this speech and it retains maximum control to the donor who has given an enduring power of attorney but who remains at the time capable of looking after his or her own affairs. 
In this amending legislation we have quite a tough penalty provision. There is a $5000 maximum fine on conviction for persons who knowingly give a false certificate to commit an offence. People who do that are liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $5000. So there are serious sanctions here for attorneys or individuals who give false certificates. That is important because the certificate given by an attorney is to be taken at face value by institutions or individuals who are asked to act upon it. Although the enduring power of attorney can be revoked the person then claiming to act under the certificate carries with him or her tremendous responsibilities to act with the utmost integrity. 
Enduring powers of attorney will no doubt continue to trouble the law because they can be easily misused but this amending legislation reflects New Zealand as it is in the 21st century. The legislation has the presumption of competence and it has tougher regulatory controls on attorneys so that they fulfil their responsibility with the utmost good faith and fidelity. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 That was a very worthy and frankly quite dull contribution from the member who has just resumed his seat Russell Fairbrother. Certainly the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill is a good bill and the National Party supports it. Of course it is quite stunning now to think that 19 years ago the then Labour Government considered that for some reason an attorney would not necessarily have to keep financial records when he or she was in charge of a donor’s property. I would have thought that was a pretty basic requirement and I think that most members in the House and certainly the public would think that if a person is put in the position of being an attorney for someone who is incapable of keeping and managing his or her own affairs the attorney would need to keep some sort of financial record of what he or she is doing on someone’s behalf. Certainly one would expect that. Unfortunately that was not done. It has taken 19 years for that to be corrected. 
I would like to hear from the Government exactly what sort of educational requirement there is at the moment. Is the Government advising the Law Society and people out there in the community who are attorneys on behalf of their relatives and family members that they will need to keep financial records having had 19 years of not having to keep one financial record? That seems to me to be something that is sadly missing from the bill. It would be very good for people to know what their requirements are. Most of us who are asked to be attorneys for people particularly under the enduring power of attorney system this bill is meant to deal with want to know what the rules are. If we are not told what they are then it is not very good to expect people just to know. Fortunately most people spend their life getting on and living earning income and paying the taxes that keep the country going; most people do not think about what is happening in this place. They do not know about the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. 
It is incredibly important that we let people know what their new requirements and obligations are. If we do not then they are hardly to be blamed for not knowing. Unfortunately the law does not excuse ignorance of the law. There may in the future be some people who are not aware of their obligations and who end up being in a very difficult position because they have acted in accordance with the law for the last 19 years without anyone telling them otherwise. I would be very interested to know from the Government and from the Minister in charge of this bill—whoever that might be; I think it is the Minister of Justice Mark Burton wherever he may be—just what the Government intends to do to advise people of their new requirements. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Don’t expect an answer from him. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: My colleague Chris Finlayson says we should not expect answers from the Minister. I must say to Mr Finlayson that the Minister has been very quiet on this issue—as he is on most issues these days. 
Christopher Finlayson 
: Particularly the Electoral Finance Bill. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Particularly the Electoral Finance Bill. It is incredibly important to recognise that enduring powers of attorney are a very very important issue. They are the sorts of things we need to put in place. [ 
Interruption 
] Unlike the member interjecting from the other side Ruth Dyson they are things that I have experience of. They are not to be entered into lightly. They require a tremendous amount of responsibility on behalf of the donee but at the same time people need to know what their obligations are. I have not seen anything from the New Zealand Law Society stating what the new rules will be. I would like to see them. I hope the society is listening and that it will do something about it because the last thing we want is for well-meaning relatives and friends to be put in a position where they have breached the law because we have changed it and no one has bothered to tell them. 
In conclusion I would like to say that this bill is a good bill but we need to let people know what the new requirements are so that they do not unwittingly breach the new rules and do not in their innocence find themselves in a very difficult position with people who may wish to take them on in a legal sense. That is something we need to address. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to speak on the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supports this legislation as does every other party in this House. That is the best indication that we can ever get that the legislation is non-controversial and is as right as it can possibly be. We have heard from many of the other speakers that this is a very important bill. The bill follows many of the Law Commission’s recommendations. It is timely that after a considerable period this bill has now been reviewed. 
We know in this House that elder abuse is a critical social issue and will continue to be so with an ageing population. This bill is designed to prevent the abuse and neglect of older people and people with mental incapacity through the misuse of enduring powers of attorney. It actually strengthens the provisions relating to enduring powers of attorney so that the welfare and rights of vulnerable people are better protected than they have been. Their welfare and interests should always be the first and most paramount consideration. It is absolutely essential for any society to ensure that vulnerable and disabled people have the greatest possible protection under the law in relation to establishing enduring powers of attorney that the person’s wishes are carried out and that his or her personal care and welfare is safeguarded as much as it can be. 
I have seen first hand that the role of enduring power of attorney is a huge personal responsibility. I know that my mother carried out this role for my great-aunt when she was in residential care in the last few months of her life. I saw the huge amount of thought and action that was involved in ensuring that my great-aunt had the best possible care for her last few months. So it is pleasing to see that this bill tightens the requirements around the creation of an enduring power of attorney. It had to be clarified so that there was no mistake. We know it is a huge responsibility. 
This bill tightens the provisions relating to gifting in the context of an enduring power of attorney. Most important it provides easier access to the courts for anyone with concerns about an attorney’s actions. Many examples were identified by the Law Commission. We need to prevent and deter unscrupulous attorneys from abusing or misusing their authority. We were pleased to see that there is greater transparency with financial records. That is absolutely essential for the family and any lawyers involved. This bill addresses many of the concerns in relation to the misuse or abuse of enduring powers of attorney. It needed to be done. We were pleased to see too that attorneys’ decisions can be reviewed while they are actually acting under the enduring power of attorney. 
In New Zealand First we approve of the limit imposed in the bill on the number of medical examinations needed to determine a loss of capability. A person does not need to be sent to multiple doctors to be deemed mentally incapable—and neither should they. 
We are pleased to see that the Government has invested quite considerably in the resources and services for elder abuse. It is very necessary. We know that Age Concern welcomes the changes that have been made in this bill. A number of cases that have been brought to Age Concern’s attention are attributable to the misuse of enduring powers of attorney. I would say that no one in this House could approve of that. 
In conclusion New Zealand First is very happy with the changes that have been made. We know that this bill is a very important measure. We are dealing with people at the most vulnerable stages of their life. New Zealand First supports this bill. We believe that it is the correct measure at this point in time. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the Green Party to make just a brief contribution to this debate. A number of things have already been said on the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill and members have already canvassed the arguments particularly well. I will simply reiterate that the Green Party supports a couple of things in particular in relation to the bill. One is around the presumption of competence which members have referred to previously. As has been said this is a philosophical shift and one that we thoroughly approve of. Simply because someone has made use of the ability to grant an enduring power of attorney it does not mean that he or she should be presumed to be incapable or unable to understand their affairs or make any decisions in regard to them—in particular we support the provision that a person must be presumed to be competent to manage his or her own affairs have the capacity to understand the nature of decisions foresee the consequences of decisions and communicate decisions about matters unless the contrary has been shown. New section 93B(2) as inserted by clause 6 states: “A person must not be presumed to lack the competence described in subsection (1)(a) just because the person manages or intends to manage his or her own affairs in relation to his or her property in a manner that a person exercising ordinary prudence would not adopt in the same circumstances.” 
 Well there were probably a number of occasions when I have managed my own affairs in a way that a person exercising ordinary prudence might not have done. Nevertheless I still think they were good decisions. 
Hone Harawira 
: Great decisions. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I thank Mr Harawira. 
I think it is important that the bill recognises that people may choose to exercise their affairs in various ways. Some people can make eccentric decisions; there is nothing wrong with that. We like a bit of eccentricity. It adds a bit of spice variety and flavour to life—and there is no reason that a person should be denied the ability to behave eccentrically with regard to their own affairs. So it is important that this provision is in place. Similarly it is also true that someone can be without competence temporarily but that situation can change. We think it is important that that factor is recognised in the bill and previous speakers have also mentioned this point. 
Before I finish there are just a couple of other things that I will touch on quickly. One is in relation to new section 98A in clause 12 which talks about the exercise of enduring power of attorney. New section 98A(2) states: “The paramount consideration of the attorney is the promotion and protection of the welfare and best interests of the donor while seeking at all times to encourage the donor to develop and exercise his or her capacity to—(a) understand the nature and foresee the consequences of decisions … and (b) communicate such decisions.” That is important. I have perhaps not had the experience of some of the members who have already spoken but I know of cases where people exercising powers of attorney have behaved in ways that clearly were not in the best interests of the donor but were certainly in the best interests of the attorney. So there needs to be that protection to ensure that the obligations of the attorney are clearly stated and particularly that there is an obligation for attorneys not just to passively treat the wishes of the donor but to actively encourage donors to act on their own behalf. 
Also one of the obligations is to facilitate the integration of donors into the community to the greatest extent possible. This is as has been said a bit of a mind shift and it is an important one because hopefully we have moved beyond the day when people who need some assistance in one matter are presumed to be incapable of making decisions or unable to make decisions on their own behalf or to know what is best for them. This issue cuts across the board. It applies not just in this area but in many others as well. So we support the bill. We think it is a step forward and like other members of the House we look forward to seeing its passage. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou. When I rose to talk on the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill at its second reading I shared with this House my own personal experience and that of our whanau as we had been through the care and looking after of the welfare of my late sister Hine. I talked about the responsibility of making decisions for someone who has entrusted faith in you to act on his or her behalf. I believe that the concept of an enduring power of attorney fits pretty well with the values and principles that express a Maori world view. The values that I talked about in that last speech are things that we reflect on in terms of our commitment to kaupapa—such as manaakitanga whanaungatanga kotahitanga kaitiakitanga whakapapa and rangatiratanga. These are all essential means of protecting and preserving personal care and welfare. They are values which we in the Maori Party at least consider to have universal application. They are values that if respected and applied will lead to spiritual intellectual emotional and physical well-being. 
It is against all of this background that I must talk about two concerns that have arisen about these values during the life of this bill. The first one is the revelation of the incidence of financial abuse and social neglect that Age Concern has identified many older people being subjected to. What we are talking about here is our kuia our koroua—the older people. These are the ones whom we turn to for guidance who maintain our tikanga and dignify our ceremonial protocols; they are the keepers of our culture. These are our leaders who are supposed to protect and nurture our young who identify potential and who sustain and give life to our hauora—our spiritual health. It is not on from my perspective that our koeke should suffer from abuse and neglect at a time in their life when they should be cared for. 
 The second shocking statement that came through in the course of this bill was a comment made by the member for Rotorua Steve Chadwick in response to my korerolast week. That member suggested that Parliament could not legislate for manaakitanga or kaitiakitanga and that what was needed instead was trust. OK well that is a view but I believe that this bill in drawing upon the strength of whanau in making explicit the obligations of attorneys to act in donors’ best interests and in motivating attorneys to encourage donors to exercise their own competence regarding their personal care welfare and financial affairs is all about manaakitanga kaitiakitanga and trust as well. Those concepts are not mutually exclusive. One can follow kaupapa and tikanga Maori and recognise Western values of mutual respect all without conflict. It should not be a case of either-or. 
This bill provides us with an opportunity to put into statute what Pakeha academic Jane Kelsey described as her vision for the nation in an address on Waitangi Day 2006. In her speech at Te Tii marae Professor Kelsey stated: “Annie Mikaere has argued that tikanga Maori with its ethical foundations in whaungatanga manaakitanga and kaitiakitanga should provide the basis for law in this land. That makes perfect sense. … As Pakeha we need to take responsibility for tilling that ground in our families communities and institutions where we have power. … Despite the Maori-baiting of the major political parties there is an enormous amount of goodwill and a shared commitment to building a Tiriti-based future in this land.” Building a Tiriti-based future in Aotearoa may very well come about by the type of legislation we see here today in protecting personal and property rights through the enduring powers of attorney provisions. 
The central issue surely is how we put legislation in place that better protects vulnerable people. These vulnerable people may be differently abled they may be Maori they may be elderly or they may be unwell. What will be common to all is that their state of general health and well-being leads them to being incapable of making or communicating decisions. The impact of abuse and neglect which is both hurtful and hidden can occur to anyone of any ethnicity any age or any social grouping. Against all of these variables the protection and promotion of the rights of people who are not able to manage their own affairs must surely be our united priority. Whether we consider the quality of care we are seeking to encourage as manaakitanga or whether we consider it as trust is really not relevant. What is relevant surely is that we commit to doing something to make explicit the desirable standards and relationships that put quality care in place. 
A value basis to the decisions we make in this House has never been more apparent than that following the recent killings across the country. Wayne Moore the acting headmaster for Auckland Grammar school told the thousand-strong congregation that had gathered to mourn the death of Augustine Borrell: “Our government and politicians they seem to lack the collective moral strength to be effective to bring about changes … moral fibre is judged on how well society upholds the dignity of life in the womb in the home and on the streets.” I say that the concept of an enduring power of attorney if operating according to tikanga Maori is all about demonstrating the collective moral strength the collective moral fibre to put into practice policy and procedures that give dignity to human life. 
 There were two other events of recent occurrence that I think have some relevance to the debate we are having on the protection of personal and property rights for those who may be compromised or vulnerable through health and personal conditions. The first was the announcement of a stab-resistant flame-resistant fabric being modelled at this year’s Fashion Week. In describing the AgResearch initiative the selling point was that the fabric is able to resist penetration by a knife and is “developed to protect the wearer from the ever changing and sometimes hostile world we live in”. 
The second event of relevance was the release yesterday from the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee issuing a new draft code of welfare for dogs which outlines the minimum standards of welfare and best practices for anyone responsible for dogs. So if I am reading it right in the last 24 hours the nation has responded to the crisis emergency of recent stabbings shootings and gang and street violence with the news of a stab-proof vest and a code of welfare for dogs. I am not criticising either of these two initiatives much but I am repeating what Wayne Moore has challenged us to do—to make the commitment towards creating the quality of moral fibre to uphold the dignity of life in the womb in the home and on the streets. Manaakitanga kaitiakitanga whanaungatanga kotahitanga and rangatiratanga are all elements along the journey towards achieving the moral strength that we require as a nation to know we are committed towards making the changes necessary to bring back the concept of collective caring. 
In regard to tiakitanga the Maori Party suggests that the amendments made in this bill strengthen the legislation on paper so that the personal welfare and rights of vulnerable people are better protected. But what we need to see in person is support and promotion to enable proper protection of the personal and property rights of persons who are not fully able to manage their own affairs. 
We in the Maori Party fully support the provisions set out in this bill. The provisions address all of the five types of misuse identified by the Law Commission and in doing so make clear the obligation of the attorney to act in the donor’s best interests. The key challenge facing us all is to ensure that whanau and family relationships are sufficiently strong enough for the task we are setting to be effective and to make the change and difference. It is a task that we in the Maori Party truly believe that Maori and Pakeha alike are up to—that we can draw on our cultural values our unique concepts of care and our traditions to ensure that we give priority to the well-being of all. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I stand on behalf of United Future to speak to the third reading of the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. I am a trustee for my mother’s financial affairs. Although that is actually different from an enduring power of attorney it is an interesting first step. 
Currently we the trustees advise my mother on the day-to-day management of her financial affairs always ensuring that she understands her options and ensuring that her wishes are met. This is not because she is unable to make decisions but like most people she likes to bounce her ideas off other people. This journey that we take together means that should she become less able or less competent we will hopefully shoulder additional responsibility well-versed in a clear knowledge of her preferences. My role is counterbalanced by other family members who are also trustees and by a trusted family accountant. 
However this very workable family arrangement does not clarify how we should act should our mother’s health and competence take a turn for the worse. The enduring power of attorney is a very deliberate and specific decision made by donors to empower those who are literally to take up their final say on matters related to their care and the use of their property. This bill strengthens the legal provisions that protect donors at a time when they are probably at their most vulnerable. This is the legal mechanism that one hopes never to have to use. 
United Future supports this third reading and in particular the greater accountability requirements for attorneys. Public education I think is an important next step after this bill becomes law. I think that the National member Judith Collins made reference to this in her speech and I agree with her on this. An enduring power of attorney is a significant option and the public need to be made aware of what this amended Act will now mean for them. Therefore United Future would like to encourage the Government to make this a priority. 
We happily support the bill’s passage and I would like to finish by commenting on how pleasant it has been to work on a bill that has enjoyed such general support. I thank all those who made submissions at the Social Services Committee and I also thank those who advised the committee. We are very happy to support this third reading. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to rise tonight to support the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill. The bill amends Part 9 of the principal Act. This was really the first time the Act had been looked at in 19 years so it was important that we had a good look at it. 
I thank the officials who helped us and guided us through the bill as well as the members of the Social Services Committee which was chaired by Russell Fairbrother and deputy chaired by Judith Collins. We worked well on this bill. We worked hard to provide a bill that would protect the most vulnerable in our society because that is what this bill is actually about. It is about enduring powers of attorney. Those who need those powers to be instated are the most vulnerable in our society—those who are mentally incapable and those who are elderly. 
It was very important that we got this bill right and we spent time on getting it right. It has taken 19 years for the bill to get here. It is looking good and the Supplementary Order Papers have added a lot of value to the bill as well. 
 In fact this bill came about because of a review that was carried out by the Law Commission in 2001. The commission published a report entitled  
Misuse of Enduring Powers of Attorney 
. That report is what started this bill and its amendments so I congratulate the Law Commission on the report which started the ball rolling. 
The sad thing about it is that it took 19 years for the bill to get to this House and it has taken 6 years since the Law Commission produced its report in 2001. That seems to be a common theme coming into this House. It has taken some time to get legislation into the House after a review has highlighted that there is a need for change. Two other bills that I spoke on recently have had the same thing—they have been very delayed in getting here. One was the Official Information (Openness of District Health Boards New Zealand) Amendment Bill and the other was the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. Both of those bills had time delays in getting to Parliament. They have been through Parliament now and that is the important thing. 
We should consider that issue. Why is there such a time delay to get these reviews’ recommendations into bills? That issue is something that needs to be addressed as does the speed at which the reviews’ recommendations are addressed. 
The purpose of this bill as I have stated is to increase the safeguards against the abuse of elderly and disabled people who are our most vulnerable. Certain changes came into the bill. One of the changes was about legal executives. The New Zealand Institute of Legal Executives put a fantastic submission before the select committee and talked to us about why legal executives should be allowed to witness a donor’s signature on an enduring power of attorney. The institution put a great case to us and the select committee listened and changed the bill accordingly to reflect legal executives now being able to witness a donor’s signature. 
Certain conditions were associated with the change. One of those conditions was that the legal executive should have 12 months’ experience. Another condition was that they be registered and supervised so that they are able to witness a donor’s signature. That requirement was to protect the legal executives and ensure that they are qualified to witness. National totally endorses that requirement. 
We also had submissions from law centres which were very concerned about the costs of the changes to the enduring powers of attorney. We took those concerns into consideration as well. The law centres said that with these new amendments fewer people would get enduring powers of attorney because of the increased cost involved. Those people who are listening tonight and who are concerned about the increasing cost may like to note that the law centres actually do enduring powers of attorney for free. I do not want to inundate the law centres with people wanting enduring powers of attorney but they do them for free and do a wonderful job in our society. 
The other consideration when looking at costs in this bill was whether lawyers in the same firm could witness an enduring power of attorney signature. There was concern that there could be a conflict of interest but the committee considered that two lawyers in the same firm could witness a signature. That was a major amendment to this bill as well. 
The other concern was in relation to medical certificates which was quite a contentious issue. The committee decided that medical certificates were not needed to make decisions that are not considered significant on matters of personal care and welfare. Every time somebody with an enduring power of attorney wants to go to do something minor such as buying groceries and he or she needs money to do it the lawyer will not now have to get a medical certificate to state that the person is incapable of doing that. The lawyer can make the decision and just go out to do it for that person. That was a good step forward. 
Another concern was that the bill did not require that an attorney be satisfied that the donor is mentally incapable when making decisions on significant matters. We distinguished between significant and insignificant matters. If it is a significant matter the attorney will now have to be satisfied that the donor is mentally incapable. It was quite important that we make that distinction in the bill. 
The donor also has to pay for medical examinations that are reasonably required for the purposes of certifying his or her mental incapacity. That means that if there was a significant issue the attorney would have to go to get a medical certificate to state that the person was incapable of making those decisions. Incidents were coming through in submissions that this system was being abused. A bit of “medical certificate shopping” was going on to ensure that the attorney would find a doctor who would say a person was medically incapable. The committee decided that the donor would have to pay for only one medical examination in order to ensure that the abuse was not there any longer. 
Another amendment was made that in situations where a donor is unlikely to gain mental capacity a medical certificate could remain valid indefinitely. That amendment was for those people who have conditions that will deteriorate and who are just not going to get better—and there are many people like that out there. This amendment was to ensure that those people could have a medical certificate that would remain valid until they passed on so they would not have to keep going back to a doctor and getting certificates when they were not getting any better and circumstances were not going to change for them. 
In all National supports the third reading of the bill. We congratulate the officials and members of the select committee on the good work they have done. 
Bill read a third time. 
Succession (Homicide) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Succession (Homicide) Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill flows from the Law Commission’s review of the well-established principle that a killer cannot inherit from his or her victim’s estate. The rule recognises that it would be repugnant to allow a killer to profit from his or her wrongdoing and addresses society’s condemnation of the prospect that a killer might benefit in that way. The Law Commission’s report was published as part of its broader examination of succession law which also gave rise to the recently passed Wills Bill. Following the Law Commission’s analysis of the general rule that a killer cannot benefit from his or her wrongdoing by inheriting from his or her victim the commission concluded that the rule was well accepted but that it was unclear how it should be applied in some cases. The commission recommended enacting legislation to clarify the general rule. The commission is an important law reform source and I thank it for its contribution. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee undertook a thorough and efficient analysis of the Succession (Homicide) Bill. The committee’s amendments to the bill take their lead from the commission’s original proposals and improve the bill’s operation while still being consistent with its underlying policies. I am grateful to the Justice and Electoral Committee and to submitters for their thoughtful consideration of and comment on the bill. The contributions which built on the work of the commission have been of real assistance in creating an effective statutory framework. 
 The bill has a number of important interrelationships with other statutes that affect the distribution of estates such as the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 and the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. The committee made some important technical changes to the bill that will improve those interrelationships. The key principle of the bill is that a killer should not be allowed to benefit from his or her wrongdoing but neither should he or she be deprived of independent and pre-existing interests. The committee’s changes are consistent with those principles. The committee also improved the wording of certain provisions and the processes for establishing whether an alleged killer comes within the scope of this legislation. The bill helpfully clarifies how the general rule that prohibits a killer from benefiting from his or her victim’s death applies and that is commendable. The last thing a family needs while mourning the loss of their loved one is a legal debate over the distribution of the victim’s estate. The bill will reduce not only the number of disputes but also the scope of any disputes that do still arise. 
I commend this bill to the House. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 The National Party supports the third reading of this Succession (Homicide) Bill. Indeed its members worked diligently on the Justice and Electoral Committee to ensure that some changes were made to the bill to improve it and I will talk about those in the course of this third reading speech. 
But before I do so I will make a couple of preliminary comments about the good work undertaken by the Law Commission in the 1990s in relation to what was called the succession law project. The purpose of the project was to review and reform certain legislation. The first was the Wills Act of 1837 and as the House knows we recently passed legislation to update that particular law. The second was the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act of 1949 and nothing has happened to reform that important piece of legislation. Thirdly we had work undertaken by the Law Commission on the Family Protection Act 1955 and the Matrimonial Property Act 1963 and as yet nothing has happened there. Finally work has been undertaken on the Administration Act 1969 and nothing has happened to give legislative effect to the work of the Law Commission there. 
But one piece of work where the Law Commission did report in 1997 to the then Minister of Justice Doug Graham was succession law and the difficult issue of homicidal heirs. It is a well-known principle—indeed it is an ancient legal maxim—that no person may profit from his or her wrongful conduct. I would observe however that I showed that maxim to Mr Groser shortly before I began this speech and he commented that it is a useful legal principle that has no application to politics as anyone who is familiar with this Labour Government would recognise. 
Putting that to one side it has been said for many years that no person may profit from his or her wrongful conduct. As an English court said in 1914 and I apologise for the sexist language: “A man shall not slay his benefactor and thereby take his bounty.” So the principle has been well understood for many years and a question that immediately arises is that if the principle is so well understood why is legislation needed? Why do we have to pass into law the Succession (Homicide) Bill? 
I think there are four reasons which were usefully summarised in the Law Commission’s report. They can be summarised in this way. The first is that although the general principle which I have outlined is well settled how it is to be applied in the particular circumstances is uncertain and I will demonstrate that when I come to look at some of the provisions of the statute. So what we have done here is try to clarify certain matters that when looked at from a general principle have been unclear. The second point and I think this is well made by the commission is that without legislation the New Zealand courts when considering each problem as it arose would have to eventually decide all the unanswered questions. But as we well know leaving it to judges has its price in terms of uncertainty and there comes a time when it is the responsibility of the legislature to clarify certain principles by statute. The third point and this is one that I found particularly interesting when reading the Law Commission’s report is that far more homicidal heirs’ cases arise than I had thought. The Law Commission’s report in 1997 outlines some of those cases and I am not going to dwell on them here. The final point is that legislation would remove doubts about whether judge-made rules concerning homicidal heirs can as a matter of constitutional law override properly the express provisions of the statute governing distribution on intestacy—and I am referring of course to the Administration Act 1969. 
So for those reasons legislation was required. I am very pleased that this bill was introduced and referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee and that a number of changes were made as a result of the submissions. There were not many submissions but those that were received were of a very high quality and a number of important changes to the legislation were made. Those changes improve the legislation considerably. Let me summarise a couple of them. The first deals with an amendment to what is clause 8 and the issue of joint tenancies. The point that I would emphasise is that where one joint tenant kills another joint tenant in circumstances that amount to homicide then that will be treated as converting the joint tenancy into a tenancy in common. That will ensure that a spouse or partner who kills cannot reclaim the joint tenancy interest under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. 
The second major change and it was one I still reflect on because I hope we got it right concerns restrictions of claims. The bill provides that a killer who has a valid claim against the estate of a victim is entitled to make an application in respect of that claim under the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949. That will not apply and will not permit an application to be made where a testamentary promise is expressly provided for in the victim’s will but it does permit such claims to be made to ensure that a killer will not necessarily be deprived of the benefits of a prior testamentary promise made by the victim for services provided by the killer regardless of what is contained in the will. As the commentary on the bill states that change did cause some consternation. As I say I think we have it right but I am still not entirely convinced so we will have to see whether there are cases that deal with promises made—not contained in a will but outside a will—that fall within the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949. 
The third major change that I want to mention—there are some other minor ones which I will not dwell on—deals with clause 15. It establishes the process for proving whether a person is guilty of homicide for the purposes of the bill. We in the select committee recommended it be extended to apply to cases where a person who is alleged to be guilty of homicide has been prosecuted in New Zealand in respect of that homicide but has been acquitted other than on grounds of insanity or where the prosecution has been stayed or withdrawn. When one reads clause 15 one sees that the issue has to be proved on the balance of probabilities. 
The final point I wish to refer to concerns simultaneous deaths. We had a look at the relationship between this bill and the Simultaneous Deaths Act 1958 and we were satisfied that if both the killer and the victim die simultaneously then the killer would be treated as predeceasing the victim. 
With those changes and a couple of other minor ones I believe that this is good law. I believe that the legislation is necessary and I endorse what the Law Commission report stated in 1997. I join with the Minister in thanking both the Law Commission and the Ministry of Justice officials—Sarah Lynne is one who immediately springs to mind—who have done excellent work on this bill working with the select committee. Although I hope the legislation will not be invoked very frequently it certainly closes a gap that exists in the law and as I said for very good constitutional reasons these things should not be left to judges. So National supports the third reading of this important statute. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 There is a gap in the law only if one regards the common law as an inferior form of law to statute law. The Succession (Homicide) Bill of course still requires some common law definition because it defines homicide by referring to “intentionally or recklessly” killing someone but it does not clarify the circumstances of recklessness. However I imagine it would follow very much the definition of homicide in the Crimes Act. That of course would then include a person who was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter after having run a defence of provocation. Presumably it would also cover a reckless driver—someone who had in contemplation— 
John Hayes 
: A speeding Prime Minister? 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER 
:—the member can make jokes about this but it is not really a very funny subject nor is the member’s joke—that his or her driving may lead to death which is perhaps a lower standard than that under the Crimes Act. So although this bill does take into our statute law the common law there still does remain a degree of common law imported into the definition of homicide. 
Homicide is simply a death caused by an unlawful act. The threshold for manslaughter is much lower than that in the Crimes Act so not all deaths caused by another person particularly by a spouse will result in a loss of right to succession. It is met only when people hold the intent to kill and that is proven by a court or where they act in a way where if they turn their minds to it they are so reckless that death is likely to follow and sadly death does follow. 
 So I agree with my learned friend Chris Finlayson that this bill is not before time. It delights in being an elegantly simple bill but it still of course has that lacuna in the definition where it comes to the term “homicide”. However that is probably a good thing when we talk about our common law tradition because it retains the ability of the courts to look at the circumstances of any particular killing that falls short of a conviction for murder. The third reading of this bill does represent an important step in the development in our law as we move to codify what has previously been a longstanding common law tradition understood by many in general terms but perhaps not in detail. I dare say that before the passing of this legislation many criminal lawyers who defend homicide cases day in and day out will have had difficulty in determining when a client was entitled to succeed under the estate of the person he or she had killed. To a large extent this bill now tidies up that lacuna in the law and I look forward to the development of the common law on the definition of homicide in giving a clarity to the term “recklessness”. Because there is a wide variety of situations in human affairs it is entirely appropriate that there be that area for the development of the common law as this legislation bill is carried forward on to our statute book. 
Including this area of law in a statute is long overdue. It reflects no radical departure from the common law but it does make the position crystal clear on our book for today. I support the bill. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.