Volume 635 Week 32 - Thursday 23 November 2006 
Volume 635 Week 32 - Thursday 23 November 2006 
[Volume:635;Page:6781] 
Thursday 23 November 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
South Australia—Minister for the River Murray and for Small Business 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon. KarleneMaywald Minister for the River Murray and Minister for Small Business from the House of Assembly South Australia is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish to make her welcome. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week the House will go into a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 5 December priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Maori Purposes Bill the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill and the first readings of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Amendment Bill and the Social Security (Entitlement Cards) Amendment Bill. The House will also need to consider a notice of motion in relation to the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 That was a very extensive list given to the House by the Deputy Prime Minister. Could he tell us whether he intends at this stage to conclude the year with urgency in order that an adjournment debate might be buried in the late hours of the morning and therefore avoid media scrutiny? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It is possible that the member will have to get up in time for an adjournment debate in the late hours of the morning but it should not worry him too much—if it is over by midday he will still be able to get lunch. 
Questions to Ministers 
Tonga—New Zealand Defence Force 
1. Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What role is the New Zealand Defence Force playing in Tonga? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 The New Zealand Defence Force was sent to Tonga at the request of the Tongan Government to enable commercial aircraft to resume flights to Tonga and to facilitate a return to calm in the capital Nuku’alofa. The role of the New Zealand Defence Force in conjunction with the New Zealand Police is to support the rule of law and to restore an environment for the peaceful pursuit of democracy in Tonga. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: How long does the Minister anticipate the New Zealand Defence Force will need to stay in Tonga? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That we are there at all is a reflection of the level of shock and dismay of Tongan people at the massive damage to Nuku’alofa and the loss of six lives on 16 November. Since then the situation has been relatively calm. The king’s speech to Parliament today was positive. In his speech he encouraged rebuilding and reconciliation and invited Parliament to develop and put to him proposals for reform and a timetable for that reform. In these circumstances—and if the peaceful situation continues—the New Zealand Defence Force should be able to be withdrawn relatively soon. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Will the effect of the New Zealand Defence Force and New Zealand Police presence in Tonga be to entrench the current system? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: No. The purpose for our being there was to stop further loss of life and property and to help create an environment where reform and reconciliation could be progressed. It is of course for the Tongan people and not New Zealand to determine their political future and the way forward. However New Zealand has consistently expressed support for Tonga’s transition to a democratic and an accountable system of governance and on request as the Minister of Foreign Affairs has pointed out we have provided and will continue to provide further assistance to Tonga in order to help that transition to democracy. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister categorically assure the House that New Zealand troops will not be involved in any policing activity that could send a message inadvertently or not that we are there to protect the Tongan Government from the demands of its own people for democracy? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: As I have just said we are certainly not there to entrench the current status quo; we are there to protect lives and property. I note for example the Tongan Advisory Council yesterday put out a press statement in which it stated it unanimously supported the presence of New Zealand forces. But the democratic process will not be assisted by massive damage and loss of life. It will be assisted by an environment in which the authorities are encouraged to implement the recommendations of the national committee that was set up. That committee was supported by the New Zealand Government and it will continue to be supported by the New Zealand Government. There are no grounds for saying that New Zealand is there other than in the capacity of being a neighbour and a good friend and of creating the environment for progress. 
Laboratory Workers' Strike—Hospital Services 
2.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports if any has he received on the possible impact of the proposed week-long laboratory workers’ strike on hospital services? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: I have received reports that the impact is expected to be—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I have killed one off today already! On behalf of the Minister of Health I have received reports that the impact is expected to be significant but that contingency planning by district health boards is well advanced. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister confirm that public hospitals are now in high-level contingency planning over the laboratory workers’ strike and that this strike will effectively shut down all elective surgery in every public hospital throughout New Zealand and most elective surgery in private hospitals; and what action will he take to prevent what is becoming the worst industrial action in the health sector for some years? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is certainly true to say that a great deal of elective surgery will need to be delayed but not necessarily all elective surgery. That will depend in part on blood and blood products requirements and they may well take that position out of necessity. Of course the member offers no solution. If the solution is simply to pay the union what it demands then that is an interesting proposition; it is not the Government’s position on industrial matters. 
Maryan Street 
: What progress has been made in ensuring the provision of life-preserving services during the strike? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am advised life-preserving service provision has already been agreed and that this agreement was reached much earlier than in the three previous strikes this year. It in part perhaps reflects the fact that the same union negotiator and district health board contingency planners are involved. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does the Minister support the right of health workers including laboratory workers to strike; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes but clearly we hope that that right will be exercised with a great deal of thought given the impacts upon large numbers of people. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When any activity involving a laboratory test or the New Zealand Blood Service will be badly affected by the strike what action will the Minister take to prevent the cancellation of over 2000 elective procedures over a week-long strike as hospitals prepare to contact unlucky patients over the next few days? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I have just said life-preserving services will be provided; therefore there is not an issue in that respect. There will be delays in elective surgery. That cannot be resolved immediately unless the district health boards simply concede to the claims of the union. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has the Minister actually worked out that we have had never-ending industrial action this year meaning that thousands upon thousands of New Zealanders have been denied vital elective surgery; and is it not time that the Minister worked out that the consistent factor in this is a Minister of Health with an industrial relations policy that is divisive and is costing patients their operations? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the last point I do not have a clue about what the member is trying to say. If he is trying to say that the Government should give in to the union whatever its demands are that is an interesting position for the new National Party leader to take over from Monday next week. If he is trying to say that instead of that workers should be denied the right to strike then let us hear that very clearly from the National Party as well. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How many elective procedures will be cancelled before this Government acts? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think the member has already given a number which I have no reason to dispute at this point. He should also note however that the junior doctors’ settlement occurred last week. At the point when that occurred the National Party again was calling either for direct intervention or for the Government to concede all the claims. 
Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Is it not time that the Minister admitted that despite all the hype that he would deliver more elective surgery it is his inability to resolve industrial disputes that will mean that for the sixth year in a row this Government will deliver less elective surgery than in 2000 despite an extra $4 billion per year going into health? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As usual the member knowingly ignores the number of outpatient operations that occur which significantly affects the totals. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister tell the House how many thousands of outpatient visits will be disrupted since he was so happy to tell Parliament about the increased number of outpatient visits which will be severely curtailed by 1 week of industrial action? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I do not have in front of me the information to answer that question. I say to the member that he should front up. Is his solution either to ban strikes or to concede to whatever any striking workers ask for? 
Childcare Centres—Funding 
3.  
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What is the Government doing to address disparities in the numbers of childcare centres accessing the highest rate of funding illustrated by the fact that 85 percent of Christchurch City centres are on the highest funding rates whereas in Auckland City just 16 percent of centres are accessing the highest rates? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Acting Minister of Education) 
: 
 The funding rates for early childhood services are designed to reflect actual costs. Centres that employ more qualified teachers receive higher funding rates because they have higher costs. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Does the Minister recall his statement on 28 April 2006: “The 20 hour free policy will help to put quality early childhood education within the reach of all New Zealand families.”; if so how will he explain to those New Zealand families who want quality early childhood education at kohanga reo why no kohanga reo appear on the current list of approved early childhood education centres that will benefit from the new 20 hours free campaign? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Cabinet has agreed that 20 hours free will be available to kohanga reo that use qualified kaiako. But we also recognise that at this stage many kohanga reo do not fit the current definition of a teacher-led service. We are working very closely with Te Kohanga Reo National Trust and the New Zealand Educational Institute and the ministry along with the trust is confident that we will get to a better place. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why are only some of the kohanga reo eligible for the 20 hours free when the whole movement of kohanga reo—500 or so—is actually whanau-led which means they will not be eligible for the 20 hours free and has the Government now changed its policy on recognising whanau-led or parent-led early childhood centres for the 20 hours free? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: Kohanga reo have like all early childhood centres received substantial adjustments to keep pace with increased cost. They are also eligible for higher funding rates where they employ qualified teachers. A lot of work is going on at the moment in relation to the relevance of whakapakari and the utilisation of that. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I asked specifically about kohanga reo being whanau-led and the 20 hours free not whether the rates in different early childhood centres were to be addressed. I asked why some kohanga would be eligible for the 20 hours free but not all of them. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister did address the question but if he has anything more to add I am sure the member would like to hear it. No he does not. 
Moana Mackey 
: What is the Government doing to increase the number of qualified teachers available in the early childhood education sector? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The Government has invested nearly $500 million over the last 6 years to lift teacher quality. Initiatives to support teacher supply include 700 early childhood education TeachNZ scholarships incentive grants to early childhood services study grants and relocation grants and free recognition of prior learning. Through these initiatives the Government is on target to meet its goal of 100 percent in 2012. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Why have kohanga reo been left off the list for the 20 hours given that for example Hoani Waititi kohanga reo has three trained certified teachers in that kohanga reo? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am not too conversant in the exact facts about Hoani Waititi Marae knowing that Dr Sharples has a lot of whanau there. But let me be clear again. Cabinet has agreed that 20 hours free will be available to kohanga reo that use qualified kaiako. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: Does the Minister believe that the whanau whakapakari 3-year programme in professional development enables kohanga reo to access the 20 hours free early childhood education entitlement; if not why not? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: As I said earlier there is work going on between the ministry the board and other interested organisations. We certainly wish to recognise the use and validity of whakapakari and work in relation to putting it within the qualifications framework. 
Dr Pita Sharples 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I particularly asked whether they will recognise whakapakari since they have approved it as a 3-year course for training for early childhood. I specifically asked whether they recognise it and I did not get an answer. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question but as members know they cannot require a yes or no answer. But the matter was addressed. 
Immigration Service—Communication with Associate Minister 
4.  
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What did the group manager of service international attempt to communicate to the previous Associate Minister’s office when he confirmed to the House yesterday that “Mr Tavita the group manager of service international attempted to communicate with the previous Associate Minister’s office.”? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I am advised that he recalls attempting to raise concerns of a general nature unrelated to any particular case. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Why did the Minister tell the House yesterday: “There was no question as to the previous Associate Minister’s decision-making.” when the Department of Labour’s workforce deputy secretary Ms Mary Anne Thompson stated publicly on Thursday last week that the officials’ concerns were over the number of failed asylum-seekers who were getting those decisions reversed by Mr O’Connor following representations from Mr Field? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The member would do well to quote officials accurately. The concerns related to advocacy not decision making. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: What did the previous Minister of Immigration the Hon Paul Swain do himself with the information he possessed after being briefed by Mary Anne Thompson about the number of applications by failed asylum-seekers Damien O’Connor was approving following representations from Taito Phillip Field? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As we have already repeatedly explained to the member his action was to ask the deputy secretary to pass on that information to the previous Associate Minister. She attempted to do so via the group manager service international. It is quite clear however that the message did not get through. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: As this Minister confirmed to the House on 20 July this year that the Minister of Immigration is accountable for decisions made when ministerial discretion is being exercised why did the previous Minister Paul Swain fail to speak to his previous Associate Minister Damien O’Connor about the concerns raised with him by Ms Mary Anne Thompson—concerns that senior officials had about the number of cases involving failed refugee claimants who were being approved by Damien O’Connor following representations from Taito Phillip Field? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am afraid that there is no State secret waiting to be unearthed here. Notification processes were oral and did not reach their destination. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Is it correct that the Minister told this House on 24 August this year that “the Minister’s private secretary was informed but did not pass that information on to the Minister”—that information being the fact that Mr Siriwan was working on Taito Phillip Field’s house in Samoa—and that he told the House on Tuesday this week that “the Associate Minister’s private secretary has no recollection of that attempt to communicate” that attempt being the advice from senior officials of serious concerns about Mr O’Connor’s decisions in response to representations by Taito Phillip Field; if so why does the Minister keep blaming Damien O’Connor’s former immigration secretary when everyone knows she would have passed that information on to Mr O’Connor? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: It would appear in the first instance that the member has confused two different events and in the second instance has forgotten that it was he not I who identified an individual official in yesterday’s questions. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: When the Minister said in this House yesterday that “naming individual public servants who are unable to defend themselves hardly does a member of Parliament credit” what kind of credit does it do him the previous Minister of Immigration Paul Swain and previous Associate Minister Damien O’Connor to keep claiming that the respected and highly competent immigration secretary to Damien O’Connor Nicola Scotland failed to pass on to the Minister on two separate occasions two crucial pieces of advice from the group manager service international—one of the most senior officials of the New Zealand Immigration Service—when members of this House who have worked with Miss Scotland know she would have passed that information on? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In the first place I can only recount the facts as I am advised that they are. In the second place the member would be better advised to be attuned to the reshuffling of the deckchairs on his own  
Titanic 
. 
HIV/AIDS—Antenatal Testing 
5.  
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he been informed that antenatal HIV testing now available to pregnant women in the Waikato has already resulted in the discovery of one pregnant woman with HIV who is now undergoing treatment that will prevent her baby from being born with HIV and what is his ministry doing to ensure that such testing is available to all pregnant women as soon as possible? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: Yes I have been informed that the value of the antenatal HIV screening has already been demonstrated in the Waikato. All 21 district health boards are expected to have the screening programme in place by June 2008 although a great deal of work is required to make this happen. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is it correct that information on the HIV screening programme has been sent to every district health board but that the boards have not been directed to start offering the tests; if so why is such testing not considered a national priority? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: The member is correct; all district health boards were contacted in January about implementation of the screening programme. Although I understand the desire to have the programme implemented as soon as possible recent experience in New Zealand and internationally has shown us that we need to be mindful of the requirements of a successful national screening programme which are that it does not cause more harm than good. 
Sue Moroney 
: What provisions are in place so that women who are at a high risk for HIV can be tested even before the screening programme is fully implemented? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Any woman who believes she might be HIV positive or whose general practitioner or midwife believes she might be HIV positive can get free tests today. In fact any New Zealander who feels that he or she might have been exposed to HIV can have access to testing today. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Rather than creating a bureaucratic antenatal HIV screening programme why does the Government not add the HIV blood test request alongside other routinely requested antenatal blood tests such as for syphilis the rationale and explanation of the tests being that they are part of the routine pregnancy consultation between the woman and her maternity provider—that is part of best clinical practice? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: As with HIV screening which can be accessed today by any woman who believes she might be HIV positive a woman also has access to any other test she believes she might need to undergo. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Is the Ministry of Health aware of a new HIV test that can produce a result in 20 minutes and will it be encouraging the district health boards to make use of this test for antenatal HIV testing? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Yes I am aware that the New Zealand AIDS Foundation has started a pilot programme in Auckland with the 20-minute test the first of its kind in Australasia. It hopes to expand the programme to Hamilton Wellington and Christchurch next year. This is a very exciting development that will be watched closely by district health boards and the Ministry of Health. 
Corrections Department—Confidence 
6.  
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he have confidence in his department; if so why? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister of Corrections) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Corrections 
: Yes but there is always room for improvement. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections Barry Matthews sent an email to all of his employees on 24 May this year stating that the current review of the department’s head office “is not about cutting costs or reducing staff numbers”? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I cannot confirm whether he sent an email of that nature but I am sure that if he did he had good reason to do so. 
Simon Power 
: Can the Minister confirm that in contrast to the email from the chief executive dated 24 May an internal document for senior managers dated 12 May reveals that one of the project deliverables is to outline where savings can be made including “where staff numbers can be reduced”; and how can the Minister have confidence in his officials when they are less than upfront with their employees? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I cannot confirm whether the chief executive sent a letter or an email of that nature at all. It is an operational matter. I am sure that if he did he had good reason to do so. But I have to tell that member that in the last 2 years 1221 new Department of Corrections staff have been employed. 
Judy Turner 
: What possible justification can he give as to why his department fails to keep a record of the number of inmates with alcohol and drug addictions when it is accepted that alcohol and drugs are a major cause of criminal activity and antisocial behaviour and are widespread within New Zealand’s prison population? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: My understanding is that when inmates are convicted of a charge relating to alcohol or drugs the probation service holds those records and they are supplied to the Department of Corrections. 
Nandor Tanczos 
: Does the Minister accept the comment made by the Corrections Association president Beven Hanlon following a number of incidents of serious violence in the prison system—including the terrible murder of Liam Ashley—that managers have a vested interest in categorising incidents as minor or as “not requiring official notification” because of incentive bonuses based on reducing incidents; if he does accept those comments does this not once again highlight the need for an independent prison inspectorate that is capable of properly investigating what is really going on in our prisons? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: My advice is that the number of serious assaults has remained constant at about 30 per year but there has been a steady rise in the number of minor assaults. The prison service acknowledges that given the nature of the occupation assaults and difficult situations will arise from time to time. 
Simon Power 
: Can he confirm that in addition to staff being told they would not lose their jobs the general manager also wrote to the Public Service Association (PSA) and the Corrections Association to tell them: “This review should not be regarded as a cost-cutting exercise.”; is this what the senior managers meant when they advocated a clear and transparent communications strategy to mitigate the risk of unsettling corrections staff? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: As I said earlier the Department of Corrections in the last 2 years has employed 1221 new corrections officers. That would fly in the face of what the member is saying in the House today. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My supplementary question did not address the number of employees or new recruits to the Department of Corrections. It specifically asked whether he was aware of a letter to the PSA and the Corrections Association. I understand the Standing Order but that answer went nowhere near addressing the issue of correspondence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As I understood the question it was about numbers and the Minister addressed the question. Does the Minister wish to make any further comment? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I answered that question earlier when I said that no I was not aware of it. 
Ron Mark 
: Why would there not be cuts in staffing at the head office of the Department of Corrections when over the last 5 years we have seen bungles incompetence reduced morale officers having sex with inmates and the entry into prisons of drugs and cellphones with head office apparently having no ability to stop it; why would we not want to slash the 100 analysts currently on the staff of the head office of the Department of Corrections? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: The incidents that the member described were definitely happening in the Department of Corrections before 1999. 
Heather Roy 
: How can he have confidence in his department when 62 personal grievance cases were raised with the department in the 2005-06 year—a much higher figure than for any other Government department—costing the taxpayer over $213000 to settle out of court? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I am not aware of the number of personal grievance cases within the Department of Corrections but I am sure that any employee who feels the need to lodge a personal grievance has the opportunity to do so under the new employment legislation. 
Simon Power 
: Can he confirm that despite the debacle surrounding the prison construction project it will not be part of the review of head office nor will other issues such as rehab programmes contraband or recruitment and retention problems; if so what is his response to New Zealand First’s statement that the review would cover all those issues given that those members claim that they convinced him to initiate the review in the first place? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: In answer to the first part of the member’s question in relation to the increased costs in the building of some prisons some of those matters are currently under a separate review. 
Judy Turner 
: I seek leave to table the Minister’s answers to written questions Nos 12496 12497 12498 and 12499 which express that the Minister does not consider that collating a record of inmates with drug and alcohol addiction is a good use of his department’s time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Heather Roy 
: I seek leave of the House to table an answer from the Department of Corrections to an Official Information Act request that shows that in the 2005-06 financial year 62 personal grievance cases were raised with the department and they cost the taxpayer $213000 to settle out of court. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Solar Water Heating—Kyoto Protocol 
7.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: How will the Government - Green Party solar water heating programme contribute to meeting New Zealand’s obligations under the Kyoto Protocol? 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 I am advised that each solar water heating system installed on a house will prevent about 1.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year or about 30 tonnes over its 20-year life; thus the 20000 new systems expected to be installed will save about 30000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year or close to 600000 tonnes over their lives. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that those 20000 new solar water heaters are the equivalent in carbon savings to taking 7000 vehicles off the road permanently? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I understand that to be the case. They are the equivalent of about 7000 cars which is a helpful contribution. On average installing three new systems is equivalent in carbon dioxide savings to taking one car off the road permanently. I am also advised that we can expect that each residential household of four persons will save around $350 per year in energy costs. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: What other recent initiatives besides today’s solar water heating will help New Zealand meet its Kyoto Protocol obligations? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: The Permanent Forest Sink Initiative which devolves Kyoto-complying carbon credits to forestry is one such example. The Labour-led Government is the first Government in the world to do this. At the same time as creating incentives for Kyoto-friendly forest growth the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative provides business opportunities for landowners and also improves water quality. 
Peter Brown 
: How many of the 20000 solar water panels have been installed up till now and when does he expect the 20000 to be fully on stream? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: None and 5 years. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is the Minister aware that hot water heat pump technology produces greater energy efficiency and climate change gains at less cost than solar water heating and that the Queensland State Government has extended its programme to support this new technology in parallel with solar water heating; if he is aware why is the Government supporting only a single technology when there are other technologies that can do the job better? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I am aware that in some situations that is correct and the matter is being addressed. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that the innovation fund set up under the solar water heating programme is available to applications from both heat pump initiatives and solar water heating initiatives and that the review in 3 years’ time once heat pump technology has been subject to better performance testing will look at whether other aspects of the programme can be open to that as well? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Yes I can. Further I am also aware that the Minister for Building Issues Clayton Cosgrove who is responsible for these efficiency standards in New Zealand has already instructed his department to look at these issues of water heating efficiency and other technologies. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that 20000 solar water panels over 5 years is really but a modest figure and would he consider recommending to the Government that it increases the subsidy which is very minor so that there is an even greater uptake? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I think this is actually a very significant advance and it is well designed. Jeanette Fitzsimons has been clear that one of the things that needs to happen here is the building of industry capacity so that we can deliver these units at lowest possible cost so as to reduce the need for subsidies. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: How does the Minister plan to reconcile the inescapable reality that New Zealand is an exporter of primary products with the emissions caused by our farm animals? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I agree that New Zealand’s emissions profile is very different from that of most countries and that that means we have to be very careful in future negotiations to try to have our special circumstances taken into account. That is why in response to a question yesterday I emphasised progress in the recent Kyoto negotiations in Nairobi which made reference to the ability of different sectors to reduce emissions through mitigation technology. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What is the Minister’s view of the legislation that pertains in Israel and Spain where solar water heating is mandatory in all new homes and does he see opportunities in New Zealand to require higher energy efficiency standards for water heating in new houses? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I have been advised that solar water heating is mandatory in countries such as Israel. Of course that country probably has more sunshine hours than is the average for New Zealand so the economics of that approach may be better over there than here. None the less I am aware that as I have just said the Minister for Building Issues Clayton Cosgrove has his department looking into that very issue. 
Child Youth and Family Services—Community Organisations  and Service Providers 
8.  
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she support the statement that: “Child Youth and Family is committed to improving our relationship with community organisations and service providers.” as asserted in its annual report? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 Yes. Child Youth and Family works with a wide range of community organisations and service providers and it should be committed to a strong relationship with these groups. However relationships need constant nurturing and there is always room for improvement. 
Anne Tolley 
: How does the Minister respond to the report by the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services responsible for over 500 social service community agencies throughout New Zealand which said that the hallmark of Child Youth and Family is “patch protection lack of co-operation and tunnel vision …” and continues to fail due to lack of support when she has been the Minister for all these 7 long years? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I regret to say that I have not been the Minister for 7 years. That remark is totally irrelevant as well as being factually incorrect—like most of the member’s contributions on questions. I disagree with what the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services said in its report and I said so publicly at the time. But I believe that the relationship between Child Youth and Family and that organisation is important and has been strengthened. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Why does the Government invest in improving its relationships with community organisations? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The purpose of these relationships is to ensure that New Zealanders get the help they need in the way they need it delivered—unlike the National Party whose purpose for building relationships with community organisations has nothing to do with helping out New Zealanders and everything to do with money. National builds relationships with community groups like the Exclusive Brethren and the Business Roundtable— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is not relevant. Would the Minister please be seated. The Minister knows that the second part of that answer was not relevant. 
Anne Tolley 
: Has the Minister seen the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services report which states that after all these years of her leadership as Minister Child Youth and Family has no real respect for community sector knowledge or volunteers; and does this not show that her department is reflecting her own personal arrogance? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I have read the report which actually does not say that at all; and no it does not reflect that. 
Anne Tolley 
: How does the Minister reconcile her glowing picture of community partnerships with Presbyterian Support East Coast which has shown that its funding from Child Youth and Family does not even cover the petrol costs of its social workers and is it little wonder that Child Youth and Family is failing so many of our most vulnerable children on her watch? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I received a copy of correspondence recently from the East Coast Presbyterian Support services outlining that very point but I have to say that across the country the over 200 providers who support the prevention of family violence received a 20 percent increase. That organisation was one of them and I commend it for its work. 
Anne Tolley 
: When Child Youth and Family offered Presbyterian Support East Coast $500 as part of the over-hyped family violence koha to community agencies what did she expect that $500 would do to combat family violence; and is she aware that Presbyterian Support East Coast has declined its $500 on the basis that it is an insult to its staff that it is “a small drop in an almost empty bucket” and that it demonstrates “a lack of understanding of the community by Government and MSD.”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I certainly do understand the strategic consideration that led Presbyterian Support East Coast to decline that increase in its contract price. But I also understand and support the fairness demonstrated by Child Youth and Family which offered to every single provider of family violence prevention services a 20 percent increase in its contract rate. Twenty percent of a small amount is a small amount; 20 percent of a large amount is a large amount. That was the increase in its contract price. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is becoming very difficult to hear the answers. 
Anne Tolley 
: Why after all her supposed effort during these past years is even the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services—once her greatest supporter—suggesting that she and her department are arrogant ineffective and bureaucratic? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I support that organisation’s ability to express its opinion freely and frankly. I would not seek any injunction to stop it from expressing its views. I happen to disagree with it. 
Accident Compensation—Physiotherapy 
9.  
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What recent announcements has the Minister made concerning ACC and physiotherapy services? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Recently I announced the details of a review of the Accident Compensation Corporation’s interaction with and funding of physiotherapy services. This review forms part of the confidence and supply agreement between the Labour-led Government and New Zealand First and I look forward to working closely with the member who asked the question on this very issue. 
Peter Brown 
: Will the Minister advise the House on what the review will encompass? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The review will examine the way in which physiotherapy services are funded and accredited. It will also look at the rehabilitation outcomes of accident compensation claimants as well as at the corporation’s relationship with the physiotherapy sector. 
Peter Brown 
: Has the Minister received any reports about the funding of physiotherapy services? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Actually I have. I have received a report that shows physiotherapy services were reviewed during the time of the last National Government. The review took place in 1992 and actually resulted in funding being slashed by 15 percent. A result like that will not happen under this review as our Government is committed to having an appropriately funded and a sustainable physiotherapy sector. 
Early Childhood Education—Free Hours 
10.  
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: How many 3 and 4-year-olds will receive 20 free hours of early childhood education from July 2007? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Acting Minister of Education) 
: 
 On behalf of the 
Minister based on current enrolments of 3 and 4-year olds in early childhood services Labour’s 20 free hours policy will be available for up to 92000 children. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why did the Minister promise at the last election that 92000 children would get 20 hours free childcare when in Auckland and Wellington over 70 percent of providers said they would not be able to provide it? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: There is mixed participation but certainly the Minister is sticking by the statement he made before the election and now. We are tracking towards 92000 early childhood participants. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Can the Minister explain the educational rationale for a policy that will fully fund a parent using early childhood care services for 4 hours per day 4 days a week but not a parent using services for two 8-hour days; and does not this policy discriminate against rural parents? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: As I said there are mixed assessments but certainly it will not disadvantage those people. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why did the Minister last week in the House deny knowing the existence of survey figures that show that over 70 percent of Auckland and Wellington providers would not offer 20 free hours and when the chief executive officer of the Early Childhood Council actually met with him before last week at short notice and discussed the same figures? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: A survey shows that most centres will not be able to offer free early childhood education. What we will be offering centres is a subsidy for 20 free hours. The rate is the crucial issue as to whether providers will take it up. That rate has not been set yet; we will announce it early next year. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why is the Minister now using the term “up to 92000 children” will be eligible for or have “available” to them 20 free hours when what he actually promised before the last election was that those children would definitely get 20 free hours under Labour? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: There are early childcare centres that do not even supply 20 hours of education per week. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: You broke your promise. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: We have not broken our promise. We will fund 92000 early childcare participants. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Which early childhood centres provide just 20 hours—or even fewer as the Minister just told the House—of early childhood education per week? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I do not know exactly which ones. But in the work to develop free early childhood education rates we are considering whether we need to have different rates for different areas. Rates will not be sufficient for centres in areas like Auckland—as I think that member is alluding to. The most recent data shows that the average cost is similar in rural and urban areas and that there is a wide range of costs in every area. The rate is the crucial issue as to whether providers will take it up. We will announce the rate early next year. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Can the Minister confirm that providers will be able to ask for optional charges and that this may lead to the awkward position—as one Clevedon provider recently pointed out—of having to tell a child: “You might have your togs honey but mummy hasn’t paid for this optional extra so you can’t swim.”? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The sector advisory group has given the ministry feedback on the simplest ways to implement the policy and the ministry has taken that into account. I do not know about youngsters not wearing their togs but as a youngster I knew a lot of Maori kids who used to swim in the river with no togs on. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am not sure whether it is a point of order but I ask for your clarification of what the last part of the Minister’s answer had to do with the free 20 hours. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the Minister did address the question. It may not have been to the satisfaction of the member but he addressed it quite fully. 
Community Assistance—Policy 
11.  
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector 
: What steps is the Government taking to strengthen the capability and skills of communities? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector) 
: 
 Recently I launched the Community Resource Kit. This kit contains practical information on setting up and running community and voluntary groups—for example advice on good governance financial planning and management. It is specifically useful for new or emerging community organisations. The Community Resource Kit is available online at www.community.net.nz for anyone to download. It will make a real contribution to strengthening the sector. 
Tim Barnett 
: What else has the Government done to strengthen the capability and skills of the community and voluntary sector? 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN 
: This Labour-led Government values the contribution made by the community and voluntary sector. Recent practical examples include Keeping it Legal: E Ai Ki Te Ture a resource kit to help voluntary groups manage their legal responsibilities; Managing Well a catalogue of information resources and support; and the Digital Strategy Community Partnership Fund 2006-07 round which I recently launched. This fund will assist communities to take full advantage of information and communications technologies and to use them with confidence. 
Horowhenua Health Centre—General Practitioners 
12.  
NATHAN GUY (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received if any on the Horowhenua Health Centre and how many GPs have been secured for the centre? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: I am advised that the MidCentral District Health Board received a report on this matter last week. The report informed the board of the very good progress with building the Horowhenua Health Centre and that negotiations are close to being finalised to secure four general practitioners for the centre. 
Nathan Guy 
: What input have local Levin-based general practitioners had into the overall design of the Horowhenua Health Centre and is the Minister concerned that health planner bureaucrats have failed to listen to what local general practitioners wanted incorporated into this new facility? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: The information I have is that the only person who has not supported or got behind the local initiative for the health centre is that member. 
Darren Hughes 
: How helpful is it to the people of Horowhenua for someone who has done no work on the health centre project to be actively undermining initiatives that my constituents support such as the Horowhenua Health Centre? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Not only is it not helpful to local people; it reveals that a small number of people want to see the project fail including a member in this House so that he can score political points. 
Nathan Guy 
: How does the Minister expect the Horowhenua Health Centre to satisfy the two clauses in the business case—which was signed off by Cullen and King in 2004— that talk about ensuring that general practitioners work at the new 12-doctor centre and that it is a central site for community after-hours care given that local general practitioners are staying put in their own practices and do not seem to be moving? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: I understand that the new facility will accommodate something like 12 general practitioners for after-hours services. It would be a good idea for that person actually to talk to the local district health board so that he can be better informed. 
Nathan Guy 
: Why does the monthly quality assurance report for May 2006 by AuditLink state that the primary and secondary care integrated model will not be fully operational until 18 to 24 months after the centre opens; and are taxpayers getting value for their $16 million investment? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: To the latter part of the question absolutely. To the first part of course there are time frames in place for the completion of the Horowhenua facility. In November 2004 capital was approved for the MidCentral District Health Board to build the Horowhenua Health Centre in Levin to replace the Horowhenua Hospital. The project was costed at around $16 million. In March 2006 construction began. In October of this year the MidCentral District Health Board reported that the construction was progressing very well. The centre is destined to open in April 2007. The member might even turn up on the day for the opening. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: The outgoing member. 
Darren Hughes 
: Mr Brownlee should not be talking about outgoing members seeing as he will be packing up his office all weekend; he should be the last person in Parliament to say that! Can the Minister tell us on how many occasions in the 1990s the people of Horowhenua received $16 million in health projects for items like the Horowhenua Health Centre; how many times did that happen? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: Due to the good work of the local member $16 million has been committed to this very very important project without any help from the member who asked the primary question. 
Nathan Guy 
: With the building costs escalating from $13.9 million to $16 million and with this health centre due to open in a few months where will the extra $2 million come from? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: The member was told that $16 million has been committed to the project. It is actually running on track. 
Nathan Guy 
: Who will cover the $2.5 million - odd from land sales required for the project if there is a local iwi claim and it ends up in the Office of Treaty Settlements? 
Hon MITA RIRINUI 
: There is the matter of a Treaty claim over the area but that matter will be dealt with separately from this particular matter. 
Nathan Guy 
: I seek leave to table the business case sign-off in 2004 which states that a critical mass of general practitioners is required at this new $16 million health centre— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Nathan Guy 
: I seek leave to table the 2006 quality assurance report which states that the primary and secondary care integrated model will not be fully operational until 18 to 24 months after the centre’s opening. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 8 to Minister 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a letter from Presbyterian Support East Coast in which it declines the $500 koha on the grounds of its being an insult to its staff. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Business of the House 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Following discussion between the whips I seek leave for Government orders of the day Nos 3 to 7 to be taken as one debate. Clearly separate votes will be taken on the individual bills. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Income Tax Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Income Tax Bill be now read a first time. 
 Later I shall recommend to the House that the bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for consideration. 
This bill marks the final chapter in a massive project that began with the recommendations made by the Valabh committee way back in 1992. I acknowledge the work that Arthur Valabh has done for various Governments through a number of consultative tax committees over the years. The recommendations of his 1992 committee were to refine the structure of the Income Tax Act and to progressively rewrite it in plain language part by part. This bill completes that task. 
The purpose of the rewrite of the Act is to make the legislation easier to understand and apply which in turn will make it easier for users to comply with their own tax obligations. For that reason the drafting of the new legislation has been done in a new plain-language style. Where possible the bill avoids unnecessary legal or archaic terms and repetition between various parts of the Act. When referring to the Act readers should be able to understand the way the tax rules have been written and apply them without confusion. Sentences have been shortened where possible and the language used is more concise. Legal terms and phrases such as “hitherto” and “hereinafter” have been culled or replaced with more modern language. In addition some areas of the legislation have been consolidated for greater clarity while other changes in this bill aim to improve the overall structure of the Act. In the matter of style the changes in this bill are significant although the overall intention of the Act and its meaning remain the same. 
 As a result of the sheer size and complexity involved in this project it has been completed in four stages. The first stage was the rewriting of the Income Tax Act 1976 which resulted in the Income Tax Act 1994. The second stage focused on refining the structure of the Act and rewriting its core provisions and was completed in 1996—something as Minister at the time that I remember well. The third stage the rewrite of Parts C to E of the Act was completed in 2004. As I mentioned this bill represents the fourth and final stage of the project. It contains the redrafted Parts F to the end of the Act. It re-enacts and consolidates Parts A to E and it renumbers various sections contained in those parts. 
Several intended small policy changes to the legislation are also included in the bill and they have been subject to the usual public consultation process. Once enacted this new Act will apply to income derived from the 2008-09 income year. 
At 2704 pages and in four volumes this bill is a massive achievement for everyone involved. It reflects the work of a small team of public and private sector drafters and tax policy analysts over a number of years under the watchful eye of the Rewrite Advisory Panel and its chair Sir Ivor Richardsdon. They have done a magnificent job and I pay a particular tribute to Sir Ivor for his vigilance and conscientious dedication to this task over a long period of that time. 
In that regard I also refer to comments made as recently as August by the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer in an address to the Law Commission. He said: “The most innovative accomplishment in New Zealand tax law has been the re-writing of the tax legislation in user-friendly language and an easy to use format. This sounds a simple enough process but it was so difficult that Australia gave up on it. … This whole process has been accomplished in New Zealand without much fuss and with modest expense. It is a considerable achievement.” I agree entirely with that sentiment and add my congratulations to all of those who are involved in the rewrite project. 
I underscore Sir Geoffrey’s point that we have now with this legislation completed the project. Our Australian counterparts failed to do so. The British have looked at rewrite legislation and have also not managed to achieve that. Sir Ivor and his advisory panel the rewrite team and everyone who has been involved in this process can be very proud of the achievement that this bill represents today. So it is with much pleasure that I commend the Income Tax Bill to the House. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 In rising to speak to the first reading of this quite momentous Income Tax Bill I would like to make it very clear that National will be supporting this bill. After all we started the process in the 1990s and the House has heard the Minister of Revenue refer to some of the history. This work does go back a long way with the passage of the Income Tax Act 1994 being really the first part of the process. As a former deputy finance Minister like the Minister of Revenue I well remember some of the process along the way with the rewrite of the core provisions that were completed in 1996; so it went on. 
In fact although the work is an extraordinary piece of work one has to recognise that for most people the more than 2000 pages involved in this tax bill would really be viewed as good bedtime reading for insomniacs because despite the simplification and the use of plain language it is still quite heavy going. Having said that I must say though that I also support what the Minister of Revenue has just said about the extraordinary contribution of Sir Ivor Richardson. Sir Ivor has a knowledge of and an ability to handle tax law that is certainly unique in New Zealand and possibly unique in the world. His contribution to this process has unquestionably been quite extraordinary. 
As the Minister has just pointed out to us the key aim of this rewrite is to reduce compliance costs by making income tax legislation more clear through the use of plain language. In fact if one refers to the Government’s explanatory note of the bill it is interesting that it believes the rewrite of this bill will improve voluntary compliance with our tax laws because taxpayers can more easily identify and observe their income tax obligations. National agrees with that objective and accepts that that argument spelt out in the first paragraph of the explanatory note makes a lot of sense. 
But I have to say this Government tends to take one step forward and two backwards because although this bill simplifies the structure and wording of the Income Tax Act at the very same time that the Government is doing this it is proposing new complexities that will add a whole additional layer of complexity to our income tax legislation. I refer to the proposals of the Government to change the taxation of international investment income which will be part of this income tax legislation eventually. It will add quite massive complexity to this legislation where so much effort has gone into simplifying it. 
Also the Government is discussing at the moment a number of issues around tax credits—namely for research and development export market development and skills development. They are relevant to this bill because Parts L to O of this rewrite cover our law around tax credits. Yet at the very time this bill tries to simplify and clarify our tax credit legislation we have the Government proposing a whole raft of new tax credits. 
National accepts that research and development export market development and skills development are worthy causes; there is no argument about that. But we think that some thought ought to be given to how best to make sure our businesses in New Zealand can pursue effective research and development export market development and skills development. 
 But it is interesting to note that back in 2000 after this Labour Government announced increased spending for research and development in the 2000 Budget it wrote in an official research and development document: “We opted for a grants approach because we considered that it was better safer and fairer than tax concessions.” Having considered the whole issue of the need to do more around research and development back in 2000 the Government said it would not go down the tax concessions path because grants are more effective and fairer. Here today just a few years later for some reason this Government has now done a big flip-flop and is saying: “How about we now bring in tax concessions for research and development?”. 
Even the Government’s recent business tax discussion document stated: “It is generally undesirable to favour some business activities over others.” yet here we have the Government saying that it will pick winners and will favour businesses that put more into research and development and into export market development. Businesses that put more into skills development will be favoured compared with other businesses regardless of how much they contribute to economic well-being to economic growth and to productivity improvement. There may be other businesses that can prove they have actually achieved greater productivity contributions which is what this country desperately needs yet they will not get the favoured tax treatment by this Government if it pursues these proposals. It is relevant to this bill because Parts L to O cover all those issues of tax credits. 
I say to this Government that it is worth reflecting on what John Shewan raised just the other day. Back in 1981 just before I came into this Parliament—just before Annette King came into this Parliament; I see she is actually listening to this—we had and I want to get the facts right 90 tax concessions listed in the 1981 tax info pack. People like Annette King would remember the chaos that caused the New Zealand economy and the way that it stifled New Zealand’s economic growth. Our economy lost direction as businesses including farmers would pursue tax concessions like supplementary minimum prices instead of focusing on the market and on how to extract the greatest value out of the market. Instead of focusing on how to respond most effectively to the market people ran their businesses to maximise the tax benefits available under various Government policies. 
I make this point. In my 22 years in this Parliament I do not believe that any member of Parliament any Minister in a Cabinet has sat there and thought: “How can I dream up some tax concession that will screw this economy really effectively and will really produce a weird perverse outcome that will result in the economy growing more slowly?”. I do not believe that any member of Parliament has set out to put in place tax concessions with the intent that they would do that kind of damage. Yet our history is littered with the perverse outcomes and consequences of politicians thinking that this little bit of tax remedy here this bit of tax credit there and this bit of tax help here will produce a good outcome. Our history is littered with those kinds of tax policies producing perverse outcomes and interfering with the way our economy responds to the market reducing the effectiveness of our productivity improvements reducing this country’s economic growth and reducing the well-being that our economy can deliver to the people of this country. 
The other area where the Government is now looking to add layers of complexity at the very time it is simplifying tax with this bill is the taxation of international investment income. Again it is part of our Income Tax Act. The Government had set out—for some ungodly reason—to impose a capital gains tax on investments in former “grey list” countries. Of course the Government ran into a wall of opposition from New Zealand taxpayers. It has now done a big U-turn and has brought back a proposal for Parliament to consider a 5 percent fair dividend rate. What a misnomer! 
Clearly it still has an element of capital gains tax in it because it is above the international dividend rate averaged over any time period one wants to look at. It treats funds and individuals differently. It has a de minimus for individuals. It will see wives and children even pets treated as shareholders. It leads to exemptions for certain companies like Guinness Peat Group. It leads to a complexity of policy that even one of the Government’s key policy advisers has said he would probably not attempt to comply with it; he would just pay 5 percent across all investments because it is too complex to try to comply with. Less honest people will avoid it because it is so complex. They will avoid it and not pay their taxes. 
Although we support this bill which seeks to simplify and clarify our tax law it troubles me that this Government takes that one step forward while it takes two steps backwards with the way it is looking at the moment to introduce a plethora of tax credits and a very complex system for the taxation of international investment income. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 I rise to speak in favour of the bill. A number of good comments have been made to date so I will not prolong the debate but will just say that this bill is non-controversial even though the previous speaker took us into some controversial matters not related to the bill. This is essentially a technical rewrite of our Income Tax Act and as a result there are no policy changes in it. The strange thing I suppose for the select committee is that it is the one time that a select committee has to make sure that no policy has changed. This will be an interesting perspective for a select committee given that most select committees are looking to ensure that the policy changes that have been taken to the select committee by legislation are implemented. 
The purpose of the rewrite has been to clarify the tax code by redrafting the Act into modern plain language while retaining the original meaning and intent of the provisions. I remember always that great quote from John Shewan a tax consultant who said on radio: “Explaining tax law to people is like trying to explain television to a goldfish.” I hope that as a result of this rewrite the goldfish will finally get it. 
 As Peter Dunne the Minister of Revenue has said this has been a project over four stages begun by the previous National Government in the 1990s and today heading towards completion under a Labour-led Government and under the guidance of Peter Dunne. As has been said the bill we are debating today is really a rewrite of the remaining parts of the Act and this represents the fourth and final stage of the project. The changes contained in the bill are of two kinds: changes made in the interests of simplicity and clarity and changes approved by the rewrite advisory panel in consultation with professional tax groups. 
So this is a major piece of work and a number of people have been involved in this project for a very long period of time: Ivor Richardson who has been mentioned; Arthur Valabh; and others. This is world-leading legislation and I commend it to the House. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 Likewise New Zealand First supports the Income Tax Bill. As previous speakers have mentioned the only thing small about this bill is the title. I think these things come in inverse proportion. Often we have bills that are only a few pages long with huge titles; this bill reaches to four volumes and 2704 pages—if I heard the Minister right—and has a very very short title. I do not personally know Sir Ivor Richardson but if he was able to shepherd this thing through to make sense of our tax law and bring it into modern-day language he must be a mighty man indeed and I commend him for the work he has done. 
It is important that tax law in New Zealand is in simple plain language that is reasonably easy to understand. We pride ourselves in this country on the high proportion of tax compliance and the fact that it is voluntary tax compliance. I think most people in New Zealand understand that tax is fair. They can see where the money goes; it goes into our roads our education system our health system and many other things that at some point in our lives—and that is the important thing—we participate in to quite a heavy degree. When we are younger we participate in the education system and we know that in the last years of our lives it will be the health system that we draw down on quite heavily. 
It makes me annoyed sometimes when such an emphasis is put on avoiding tax. I think people should not exactly rejoice in the fact that they pay tax but they should recognise that in a fair and moderated society that wants to see a reasonable amount of egalitarianism we will have to pay our fair share of tax. If one person does not pay tax another will have to make up the difference. So it is very important that the taxation system is understood and that people have a will to comply with it. Otherwise it becomes a hugely expensive burden on people. 
In saying that I commend Mr David Butler a man who has come to our shores and run the Inland Revenue Department for a number of years and is now heading off to Paris. As a member of the Finance and Expenditure Committee—and I am sure Dr Lockwood Smith would agree with me—I have felt that Mr Butler understands more than anything else the nature of taxation in New Zealand and that we should in all circumstances resort to such things as law courts only at the last hurdle. I am sure that Mr Butler would have some sympathy with Dr Lockwood Smith in his desire for such things as simple tax; we have talked to Mr Butler about these issues. But at the end of the day we do want other things in society as well. Taxation must be a part of our lives because in this country we are not prepared to see such things as beggars in the streets. We take care of this through a far more caring society than perhaps is the case in other countries that do not pay so much. 
New Zealand First also makes no bones about the fact that we agree with the policy of incentives in the tax system. I know that runs against some other parties. But I worry when we talk about extremes. It is true that previous regimes went to extraordinary lengths and that we had an overly complicated system of carrot and stick shall we say. In the reforms of the 1980s post these extremes in my opinion we went far too far the other way. This has cost the taxpayers in various ways. I can think of Air New Zealand the railways and many other things where we reacted too strongly and the reforms went too far and too fast—certainly in my opinion and I suggest in the opinion of New Zealand First. 
So New Zealand First is in favour of tax incentives. We welcome them because we believe that if they are used moderately and they are modest in what they want to achieve they provide very very good signals to the population of New Zealand. We believe that the signals in the taxation system can be read more readily and reacted to faster than almost any other signal that is put into the system. In this society we cannot get into the business of paying people to act in a certain way but we can certainly incentivise their behaviour through the tax system. New Zealand First believes that it is right that we do and the current Government of the day is moving in that direction. Like I said before—and to agree with Dr Lockwood Smith to some degree—we do not believe that tax incentives should be as extreme as those of the past. 
 But to mention one extreme behaviour as far as finances are concerned and not to mention the other extreme is I think putting a wrong picture on it. Certainly with MMP as we have it today we have less opportunity to go to extremes because consultation with a number of parties is always required to get legislation to this House let alone through the House. To us the fact that many parties must be involved is one of the safety valves of the MMP system. 
I was explaining to somebody the other day that if the Government needs to pass legislation—and we all know this of course—obviously it will consult the biggest Opposition party first. If it gets the numbers there that is great it can just move ahead with confidence and that is the case in this bill. If the Government has to involve other parties—if the main Opposition party is not keen to comply—then it has to go further and so on and so forth. It is that very important process that makes it far harder for extreme Government behaviour that may have manifested itself in past years or decades to occur today. Thank heaven for that. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 The Income Tax Bill is the final instalment of an income tax legislation tidy-up project. It is a mammoth bill with indeed volumes of parts and clauses transitional provisions binding rulings and accrual determinations. Let me say from the outset that the Maori Party places great emphasis on policy advancements in the area of income tax. Our motivation is clear: we want to raise the standard of living of all individuals in this country especially those on lower incomes. 
We know that 1.9 million taxpayers in the 2004-05 financial year earned $25000 or less. It is evident that the fruits of economic growth so frequently lauded in this House have not resulted in the equitable distribution of wealth. We question the fairness of tax rules that allow the wealthy to receive income free of tax while those on low incomes pay tax on every dollar they get. We believe that tax reductions should be driven by improved efficiencies and savings in the public sector. Our long-term aspiration is to review all Government systems and expenditures including outgoings for and on behalf of the Maori partner to the Treaty for efficiencies and savings that can be identified. These are the goals and indicators that the Maori Party would look to a healthy income tax infrastructure to provide. 
Yet what do we have here? The bill is merely a redraft of existing policy. In effect the re-write project illustrates the futility of concentrating on the somewhat trivial details when the wider tax context and the thinking that drives it is in crisis. It is an opportunity lost. The explanation for the changes is that the rewrite project will be completed by re-enacting Parts A to E consolidating amendments made to those parts since the commencement of the Income Tax Act 2004 and then rewriting parts F to O in the same style as Parts A to E. Well I suppose that means something to Mr Dunne and this Labour-led Government but what does the bill actually do? The Maori Party of course supports the move to make the legislation clear. If taxpayers can understand their obligations by those obligations being set out in plain language and within a consistent structure it is much more likely that they will be income-tax compliant. But the basic problem is that the touch-up job that is being applied today will happen without any changes to the essential policy content. 
Where are the proposals to raise the maximum level of income that a person may earn before tax kicks in thereby ensuring that beneficiaries and low-income earners do not pay tax? They are not in this bill. Where are the strategies to reduce personal tax rates across the board? They are not in this bill. Admittedly some minor changes have been made. They are changes made in the interests of clarity or simplicity and changes approved by the re-write advisory panel in consultation with tax professional groups. There is also a rather bizarre bit of legalese which is included as a cautionary note in this bill. It states that if in the initial years of the Act’s operation it is found that the Act produces a different result from that which would have been produced under the current Act the Government will promote a remedial amendment to correct the position from the date of the commencement of the new legislation. Now I am trying to work that out. Is that a guarantor’s clause for the Government so that if it all turns to custard then the Government can write it off as a United Future mistake and claw back some brownie points with the voters? 
The Maori Party will not be supporting this bill. We have been looking at the policy context around income tax in quite a different way to a simple cosmetic exercise to dot the i’s and to cross the t’s. We have been asking questions around the very myth of the benefits of growth. In current philosophies the tax argument appears to be confined on the one hand to cut taxes for more investment and therefore more growth or on the other hand to maintain taxes for social services. But the key question is the very basic relationship between tax and who gets rich and who stays poor. In whose interest does the current tax policy really work? Where does the money come from for the growth and who really benefits from it? If we look at tax with quite a different set of eyes—say under the framework of a genuine progress index—we may find that those who are being rewarded by tax incentives are actually those who are exploiting natural resources. Is that really progress? How does the bill fit with the Government’s newly acquired concern for the environment and its new green image if those tax incentives for environmental exploitation remain? As I have already said an opportunity for change has been lost. 
As this House should be aware by now the policy framework for the Maori Party is informed by our commitment to the awareness of genealogy of whakapapa of origin. We believe that everything has a whakapapa and everything has a genealogical base. This tax bill has a whakapapa and perhaps we should consider its parentage and its origins which are the crossing of welfare State tax collection to fund particular policy objectives with the enterprise State tax reductions and the introduction of user-pays. But what has been the result? The result has been significantly lower tax for high-income earners but actual tax increases for “Joe Average” and the poor. By 1992 the changes made to tax policies meant that high-income earners paid 17 percent less tax and middle-income tax earners paid 8 percent more while those with the lowest incomes paid a staggering 35 percent more tax. Jumping forward to the present day those who have a student loan to pay off will likely pay in excess of 40 percent of their income in some form of tax: income tax; GST; student loan repayments; and now KiwiSaver contributions for their retirement. This partnering has not been fruitful for a great number of people. 
We have also scrutinised the bill to see whether this framework will produce the desired results of a creative community where the benefits including financial wealth creation potential through technological creativity are retained in the ownership of our citizens. We are thinking of the long-term vision not the tidy-up of today. We see tax incentives that will encourage entrepreneurship and make more surplus finance available for new business formation and for reinvestment. The Maori Party is motivated by the desire of tangata whenua to attain growth and sustainable prosperity measured by a genuine progress index. We are looking for long-term visionary approaches that maximise the wealth evident in our cultural capital our enterprise our entrepreneurship and our greatest resource our people. This Income Tax Bill does nothing to shift our sights forward and because of that the Maori Party will not be voting in its favour. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Income Tax Bill be now read a first time.. 
Ayes 116 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 5; United Future 3; ACT New Zealand 2; Progressive 1. 
Noes 4 
Maori Party 4. 
Evidence Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Evidence Bill be now read a third time 
. The Evidence Bill was introduced on 3 May 2005 by my colleague and predecessor in the justice portfolio the Hon Phil Goff. As a former Minister of Defence I am well familiar with the time it can take from the beginning of a project to its final implementation. But even the construction of large ships the refitting of planes and the introduction of light armoured vehicles are a mere blinking of the eye in comparison with the time of this project since its origins back in 1989 when the Law Commission was asked by the then Minister of Justice to examine the statutory and common law governing evidence and proceedings and to make recommendations for its reform. The Law Commission published its report on evidence and an evidence code a decade later in 1999 amalgamating the various aspects of the law of evidence. 
The proposals in the bill are generally based on recommendations of the Law Commission and the provisions of the evidence code. The purpose of the bill is to help secure the just determination of proceedings. It achieves this by providing for facts to be established by the application of logical rules providing for rules of evidence that recognise the importance of the rights in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 promoting fairness to parties and witnesses protecting rights of confidentiality and other public interests avoiding unjustifiable expense and delay and enhancing access to the law of evidence. 
While the development of the bill through to fruition has taken some time the outcome is in my view a very positive one. We now have a comprehensive piece of legislation that brings together many existing statutory and common law rules and principles relating to evidence giving this area of law clarity and accessibility of a type that it has not had for many many years. 
The bill also simplifies overly technical rules removes historical anomalies—and there are many of those that have accumulated over half a century—and brings the law up to date with current thinking and indeed current technology. 
In getting to this point we have been greatly assisted by the work of the Law Commission which spent a decade as I indicated before reviewing aspects of the evidence law publishing discussion papers and consulting widely with the justice sector including a wide variety of community groups academics officials and the legal profession and judiciary. 
 I also thank the Justice and Electoral Committee and in particular the subcommittee which was chaired by Russell Fairbrother for their excellent work. The bill as reported back from the committee contained a number of important amendments that all enhanced the operation and the effectiveness of this legislation. 
I also thank the interest groups—there are many of them—and individuals who made submissions on the bill. Because of these submissions changes were made to the bill that makes it better legislation. 
Finally and in particular I thank—as not all Ministers can do at this point in the development of legislation—members of the House almost universally for the constructive manner in which they have worked to advance this important legislative reform. 
The House should be proud of this bill. It tackles the complex law of evidence and includes reforms to the current law that are both fundamental and in my view long overdue. I am pleased to commend the Evidence Bill to the House. 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I join with the Minister the Hon Mark Burton in saying that the reform is timely and National certainly supports the third reading of the Evidence Bill. I can speak on behalf of Dr Worth in saying that he and I have really enjoyed our participation in the debate. 
This is the first comprehensive reform of the law of evidence for almost a century and it is well overdue. The Minister has paid tribute to a number of people and I consider it right and appropriate that I should mention certain people as well because the contribution of people in this huge project needs to be acknowledged. I too acknowledge the work of the Law Commission. I particularly mention Judge Margaret Lee a District Court judge who for a number of years was a law commissioner. She essentially oversaw the evidence project for many years. I certainly recall that from 1996 to 1997 I was one of those whom she approached to give advice to the Law Commission on a number of issues. The question for me was how to keep the code up to date after it had been implemented. I recall that in those days I was very much in favour of the equivalent of the Rules Committee looking after the matter because I did not think politicians should be looking too closely at the law of evidence. I must say that after 12 months in this place my views have changed. I think that these areas are too important to be left to lay people and that politicians do need to be involved in the reform of the law of evidence. 
I particularly pay tribute to the Minister’s officials especially Chelly Walton and Boris van Beusekom for their outstanding work over a number of years after the ministry took responsibility for the drafting of the bill and especially during the time that the bill was before the Justice and Electoral Committee. I acknowledge the numbers of people who made submissions on the bill. There were not a huge number of submissions but their quality was very good indeed. I particularly refer to the New Zealand Law Society. Sometimes in this place we think lawyers are interested only in money—well they are really I suppose—but the reality of the matter is that the society’s legislation committee plays a major public service role as a law reformer in terms of contributing to law reform. The famous American jurist Learned Hand once told law students at Yale that it is the Bar that makes the statutes. But more than that we all depend on lawyers to help shape the law both through statutes and through judicial decisions and it is fair to say that the New Zealand Law Society has made a huge contribution to this bill. 
I pay tribute to Hugo Hoffmann and Bill Moore of the Parliamentary Counsel Office. They assumed responsibility for redrafting clauses with good humour and diligence. I can recall on at least two occasions during the select committee consideration when light bulbs went off in the heads of a few of the members of the select committee—for example on clause 26. I think I was the one who said it would be a good idea if we incorporated the Judges’ Rules into the statute. Hugo and Bill gave wry smiles and went away and drafted a number of options for the committee. Then we decided it would be a very bad idea after all. A similar thing happened in respect of the work on clause 194A and post-legislative review. 
The select committee staff were extremely helpful especially Sean Rainey and CathAnyan. The special adviser Robert Fisher QC made a huge contribution to select committee discussions. I want to acknowledge the work of Russell Fairbrother who as the Minister said chaired the subcommittee; of Dr Worth; and of Nandor Tanczos. It is fair to say that we enjoyed the work and we are pleased with the work product. 
As I said this is the first comprehensive reform in 100 years. The bill is not at all like the Evidence Amendment Act (No 2) of 1980. That Act dealt only with three or four key topics. This bill is a fresh start in the law of evidence in almost every respect. Some said that there was no need for a comprehensive code of the law of evidence. I happen to think that those people were totally wrong. Some said judges and lawyers know the law. Well with respect they do not. Over the years lawyers in particular have become very sloppy when dealing with evidential matters and one of the purposes of the Act is to raise standards. 
As the Minister said the purpose is to help secure the just determination of proceedings by achieving the purposes set out in clause 6 of the bill. I particularly want to refer to paragraph (e) that we inserted in the bill. That clause has the purpose of enhancing access to the law of evidence. Until now the law of evidence has been scattered through texts and cases that are not readily available. As a result of the enactment of this legislation for the first time we will see the law of evidence readily accessible so there will be no excuses for people not knowing the basic rules. 
I particularly want to refer to the interpretation sections of the bill—clauses 10 and 12—because they herald the major change in the law of evidence. As clause 10(1)(c) states this Act is to be “interpreted having regard to the common law but only to the extent that the common law is consistent with” the provisions of the Act the promotion of its purpose and the application of the rule in clause 12 which deals with evidential matters not provided for. 
 When I sat down earlier today to think about the particular matters that I could highlight in the third reading I found myself highlighting quite a number of areas so what follows is a very brief summary of only some of the key provisions that will be contained in the new legislation. The rules relating to hearsay are brand new and I particularly refer to clause 18 which proceeds on the basis that hearsay is generally admissible in the circumstances set out in that clause. In Part 2 Subpart 2 has some major changes that deal with expert evidence. I particularly refer the House to clause 22A and the obligations that are incumbent on experts and the way in which they conduct themselves in civil proceedings. This is one area that the Law Commission may want to have a good look at in 5 years’ time if there continues to be problems with experts. 
Subpart 3 deals with a number of major topics including improperly and unfairly obtained evidence. I particularly refer to clause 26(6) which deals with the Judges’ Rules because before this legislation comes into force the Chief Justice has promised to set out some guidelines on that subject. Subpart 8 raises some major questions on the law of privilege and confidentiality. There are a number of key issues that lawyers will have to address there such as the privilege for communications with legal advisers in clause 50 the privilege against self-incrimination in clause 56 and the fact that it is not available for corporates and the replacement of the privilege for Anton Piller orders in clause 59. These are a number of areas that lawyers will have to upskill themselves on and that after 2011 the Law Commission may wish to review. 
Part 3 deals with the trial process. That too contains a number of areas that the Law Commission may want to come back and look at in a couple of years’ time. I particularly refer to clause 79 and I say one last time in relation to clause 88 that it is intended by this clause to restate the current law; the challenge has been on the part of the Law Society the officials and the parliamentarians to find the right form of words. 
In the course of this speech I have said that the Law Commission may want to look at this or that in 2011 and that is because of the all-important clause 194A which introduces a form of post-legislative review. After 5 years’ operation this legislation will go to the Law Commission for a very comprehensive review as to how it is working and I think that that clause provides a very good model as to the way we should proceed with legislation in the future. 
As the Minister said the evidence reform project has been a task that has taken many years indeed. It has taken probably far too long but not as long as the limitation project which the Law Commission has been working on for almost 20 years. But the question of the reform of limitation law is an issue for perhaps 2007; that is in the future. In 2006 we can at least be well satisfied that the Evidence Bill is soon to become law. 
My final point concerns clause 2. I hope that the legislation comes into force very soon but not too soon because regulations have to be drafted Judges’ Rules need to be reworked and lawyers and judges need to be upskilled. But once all this has been done may the new era begin. So National supports the bill thanks all those who have been involved and very much looks forward to the future. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I endorse the comments made by my friend Mr Finlayson in his third reading speech. He canvassed much of the material that I wished to touch upon. I have thanked already in my second reading speech the officials the advisers the specialist adviser and the other members of the Justice and Electoral Committee for their work and I merely restate those thanks because they cannot be repeated often enough. 
In my third reading speech I will address one of the challenges put before us by some very highly qualified judges who addressed the committee. They advised that in their opinion any attempt to codify the law of evidence—and particularly this attempt—would be too prescriptive. They were of the opinion that the courts have been very good at sorting out the necessary rules and that there was a danger in prescriptiveness. That challenge was met by a submitter—and unfortunately neither the officials nor I have the name of this submitter but I suspect that it may have been Sir Ivor Richardson. I will read from parts of the submission from that person who is anonymous in the documents available to me. 
This person wrote: “The common law has been and is a hugely important feature of English and New Zealand law. But first it can be fuzzy at the boundaries. And second there is not a single source to which you can go for enlightenment. Textbooks do their best to summarise explain and critique. But you have to go to the decisions of the Judges—which may involve studying quite a large number of judgments in various jurisdictions—and see how the law has evolved in NZ and elsewhere. As well past decisions do not as a matter of course contain checklists let alone a common checklist of relevant factors to be taken into account in reaching a judgment in your particular case.” 
That writer then went on to note that this presented a huge difficulty for trial lawyers and judges some of whom when appointed do not have extensive trial experience and that the work of the appellate courts as a result was demanding and perhaps more onerous than it should have been. 
This submitter concluded as we all concluded: “The Law of Evidence is a crucial element in the administration of justice in our courts—what material can come before the court and how it should be assessed.” In his opinion busy lawyers and judges needed clarity and consistency as base values in the law of evidence. 
That was the challenge we met as a subcommittee and that challenge was clearly met by the Law Commission in its draft report. The recommendations in that draft have been carried through substantially in the Evidence Bill which will hopefully become part of the law after today’s sitting of this House. 
The difficulty demonstrated by this was also raised with us by a group of authoritative lawyers who in a group submission opined about the difficulty of the hearsay rule and the requirement for notice. Their opinion was that the requirement for notice would effectively be a form of defence pleading. That of course is a danger we must be careful about because the element of defence work is always to be in a reactive position and not to enter into a trial in a way that is too prescribed. The element of surprise—or withholding the hand—is an important aspect of defence work. 
The notice required for the intention to lead hearsay evidence which is found in clause 19 is prescriptive at the outset. But there are certain tests that can be passed so ultimately hearsay evidence can be led on oral application to the judge during the trial. The formal steps are there if appropriate; if not appropriate then less-formal steps can be applied. 
In moving around some of my colleagues I have picked up a great fear that allowing hearsay evidence in trials will mean a completely new face to our criminal courts and in fact our trial courts. I have listened carefully to what my friend Mr Finlayson has said. His experience in the civil courts is probably not too dissimilar to my experience in the criminal courts and I think we both agree that the fear of hearsay evidence is misplaced. If we look at the tests before it is admissible—those of reliability and necessity; the reliability of the hearsay evidence and the reasons why it is intended to be led—then we find that fear is dissipated. One need only look at those exceptions that already exist to the hearsay rule such as resgestae evidence—hearsay evidence that is allowed because the test of reliability is inherently passed in the making of a resgestae statement. It is not foreign to our criminal law to allow hearsay evidence. It is unusual but it is not foreign and the resgestae test is already surrounded by the prerequisites of reliability and necessity. With modern-day communication with people speaking from various sources—and the speed at which many events happen in modern society—going to the best evidence is really a prerequisite which will be understood by lawyers and lay people alike. 
One of the beauties of the Evidence Bill when it becomes law is that the busy lawyer in the District Court particularly the duty solicitor—a position reasonably recently evolved—and the overworked legal aid lawyers will have in one lengthy but hopefully clear statute the rules of evidence that they can expect to be applied and can expect the judge to recognise in the pressure of those very busy courts. 
Before I conclude this speech I will just touch on the right to silence which in clauses 28 and 29 we have effectively retained. It is my view that this is an aspect of our criminal law that needs to be reconsidered. Once the Law Commission with its 5-yearly reviews—as dealt with in clause 194A—has examined the workings of the new concept of allowing hearsay evidence guarded only by the tests of reliability and necessity then perhaps we can also re-examine in 2006 or 2011 whether the right to silence impedes or helps the pursuit of justice given that the people who make up the vast bulk of New Zealand society are literate and well educated and given New Zealand Bill of Rights Act enforcement and the necessity for control of our police force and enforcement authorities. 
Finally a matter that has not been dealt with is Subpart 5 in Part 2 dealing with the veracity and propensity clauses. We have tried to restate the law of propensity more clearly—as perhaps it was several years ago—and have set out some clear prerequisites for allowing propensity evidence. We made a careful change which we trust was not pedantic in changing the word “truthfulness” to “veracity” so when calling evidence as to the veracity of a witness we are not impinging on the ultimate test for the court: the truthfulness of the evidence. The rationale behind that of course is that an honest witness can be a mistaken witness and a mistaken witness can be a convincing witness. The real test of the reliability of a witness is his or her veracity rather than the truthfulness of the content of what the witness is saying. We have dealt with the question of expert evidence already. 
In conclusion the changes made in the Committee of the whole House to the definition of “document” and to the cross-examination duties are very worthwhile changes. I believe this bill will enter into our legal lexicon as a very workable manual for those appearing in the busy courts. I commend the bill to the House. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I rise to give a fairly short speech in the third reading of the Evidence Bill and to indicate that the Green Party continues to support this bill as we have all the way through. I will give a short speech because I think that some of the specific details of the bill have been very well canvassed by previous speakers—by the excellent speeches of Russell Fairbrother Chris Finlayson and of course the Minister—so I will not attempt to re-cover ground that has already been covered. 
This bill is an example of Parliament at its best in some ways. Of course Parliament has an important role in terms of testing ideas having rigorous debate challenging the Government and holding the executive to account. But it also has an important role simply in passing good legislation. 
That is what we have in this case. We have seen various parties coming together to work cooperatively and in a thorough manner through the details of this important legislation in order to ensure that we are passing good legislation and that is the role of good parliamentarians. 
I think it is a tribute to the Law Commission and the lengthy work it did on this matter that the legislation has passed through the select committee process with some changes but relatively unscathed. A concern in this House in past times has been the way in which a lot of important work that the Law Commission has done has ended up being shelved. It has produced important law reform work that has not proceeded because there has been no political heat around it so perhaps this legislation is a tribute to the Law Commission—although one could also argue that there is a fairly sparse Government agenda at present which is allowing some of these matters to proceed. Nevertheless that does not diminish the fact that this is an important reform in order to bring the law of evidence up to date to clarify the law to codify parts of the common law and also importantly to allow greater access to the law of evidence. 
 Speakers have mentioned access to the law but that includes access for law students lawyers paralegals—and lay persons as well. It is important we remember that the law is not for parliamentarians lawyers and judges; it is actually for ordinary people. So the importance of having law that is accessible to ordinary people cannot be overstated and that is why we made the provision of better access one of the purposes of the bill. That is not to say that it is simple access that access is easy or that the law is an easy subject to understand; it is complex stuff. Nevertheless to have a place where ordinary people can go and at least get a handle on some of the main points of the law of evidence I think is enormously important and I am very pleased that that will happen. 
The review mechanism that Mr Finlayson referred to is also an important part of this. There is actually a process to allow the workings of the legislation to be reviewed and amendments to be suggested. 
Previous speakers have thanked all those many people who were involved with this bill in its genesis its development and its passage through this House. I reiterate those thanks because it has been a collective task with a large number of people doing enormously detailed and thorough work. 
Finally on top of that I add my personal thanks to Ministry of Justice advisers; to the Justice and Electoral Committee which gave such helpful advice; to the clerks of the committee; to the Parliamentary Counsel Office which provided such fantastic advice as well; to the special adviser the Hon Robert Fisher; and to my colleagues on the subcommittee all of whom were lawyers apart from myself. They were enormously helpful to me as a lay person sometimes struggling to understand complex material. They were always willing to provide me with advice and information and to give serious consideration to what must have often appeared to be naive questions on my part. They were also willing to take on board some of my suggestions. So thank you. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Madam Speaker. Kia ora tatou te Whare. First I congratulate Nandor Tanczos on being the only non-lawyer on the committee. It is something to be congratulated on. Often we give too much credence to the words of academics and lawyers when in fact reality is best served by ordinary people. 
In a paper delivered to Te OruRangahauMaori Research and Development Conference in 1998 Justice Eddie Durie spoke about values and ethics and Maori research based on his experiences as a Judge of the Maori Land Court for 20 years and as chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal for 14 years. Judge Durie’s conclusions about evidence law and Te Ao Maori are relevant to our reading today of the Evidence Bill. He said: “Part of the problem even today is that the judges through no fault of their own have been called upon to assess the mores of a society still largely foreign to them. This leaves scope for those who would profit from the situation with dubious but compellingly presented evidence to pull the wool over the judge’s eyes. … Conversely reliable evidence may also be improperly used or badly understood by judicial officers.” 
These statements are very much in line with the findings of the Law Commission that a change in approach by judges and lawyers is needed to achieve the desired reforms in evidence law. Their recommendation that common sense should be applied as to what is relevant and what should be included may require them to look again at their own existing knowledge because a question arises as to what is relevant and who defines it. 
Again I refer here to Justice Durie: “Researchers must set aside their distortions of past judicial precedent and its present-day effect. They must come to a better understanding of Maori society if they are to measure past conflict and conduct in a cultural context. To understand that society they must look inside its thought concepts philosophy and underlying values and avoid interpretations from an outward appearance. … It will be important to consider the poetry the songs the legends the proverbs the idiom and the forms of speech-making.” I have taken the time to quote from the good judge because his views are critical at this point in our history as we strive to ensure that knowledge is culturally relevant. If we are to move to a justice system that reflects Aotearoa properly we need to ensure that the Maori world view is integrated and respected throughout including the provisions of the evidence code. 
In that light both Parliament and the judiciary could benefit from a landmark study completed by Dr Nin Tomas earlier this year. Dr Tomas is Ngati Kahu and the first Maori to have completed a PhD in law at the University of Auckland. Her topic was Maori custom law—tikanga Maori—and its influence on land in the Tai Tokerau and in particular the Papatupu hearings held early last century. The hearings were held in te reo Maori before committees of rangatira steeped in the tikanga of Tai Tokerau and were about the Maori system of land entitlement. During the course of her study she found a coherent system of principles based on whakapapa whanaungatanga mana and tapu supported by the concepts of mauri and wairua. She explains the relationships between these principles practices and values as being integral to an understanding of law. 
Dr Tomas’ thesis also describes contemporary situations in which legal arguments seem to have plucked tikanga Maori out of thin air to support evidence without considering the framework of values needed to give coherence to the argument. Her thesis is a vital addition to the knowledge pool that can enhance the quality of debate in schools in courts and indeed in our parliamentary chamber. These are weighty issues and if we are to make our laws coherent and workable for the 21st century we must also ensure that tikanga Maori is considered properly and not by random choice. 
I also wanted to pick up an issue raised by my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell during the second reading about consultation. He recognised the contribution of the Law Commission the Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer Dr Warren Young Helen Aikman and Justice Durie. He commended the Maori advisory committee and acknowledged the contribution also of important submitters such as Annette Sykes Moana Jackson and Maui Solomon. I also acknowledge the comments that both Russell Fairbrother and Richard Worth made in recognising the significant role that our Chief High Court Judge the full Supreme Court Justice Baragwanath and the Hon Dr Robert Fisher made in enhancing the final outcome. 
But the issue that arose between Mr Flavell Mr Fairbrother and Mr Worth struck at the core of the cultural clash to which I am referring. Mr Flavell said that although he recognised the contribution of the various bodies of experts it was disappointing that there was no formal forum in which hapu and iwi or Maori organisations were met. This goes back to comments made by Justice Durie and Dr Nin Tomas about cultural context and about understanding the principles of mana tapu whakapapa and whanaungatanga and what they mean to tangata whenua. As Mr Tanczos rightly noted consultation should not be just with judges juries lawyers and lecturers if it is to have any real meaning within Te Ao Maori. The laws of evidence have meaning to whanau hapu and iwi as well and they have as much right to be heard as the legal or academic fraternity. 
I look back at a Law Commission report from 1999  
Te Tikanga o te Ture: te Matauranga o ngaWahineMaori e pa ana ki tenei—Justice: the Experiences of Maori Women 
 which included the following statement: “The Treaty guarantees three things: protection partnership and participation. But we are never allowed the participation or the partnership for Maori. You haven’t got protection if you haven’t got participation or partnership.” It says a lot about how Maori see their participation in the world and their desire to ensure that whanau hapu and iwi are actively involved as part of the effective operation of the Treaty partnership. 
The Maori Party will be supporting the Evidence Bill at this third reading because we believe that the enhancements are useful the recommendations from the Justice and Electoral Committee are helpful and indeed that Messrs Fairbrother Worth Finlayson and Tanczos have done a good job. But we hope that the issues raised about matters such as tikanga Maori Maori customary law consultation and the cultural basis or bias of knowledge will continue to exercise the minds of all members in this House. Kia ora tatou. 
Bill read a third time. 
Third Readings 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the Electricity Amendment Bill the Gas Amendment Bill the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill the Ministry of Energy (Abolition) Amendment Bill and the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill be now read a third time 
. 
These bills represent the Government’s ongoing commitment to the safe delivery and use of electricity and gas and to the delivery of good health outcomes arising from plumbing and drainlaying. The bills will ensure continued access to safe and reliable energy for our everyday use and for use in industry and ensure electricity and gas supply safety management systems that minimise the public’s exposure to risk. 
The Electricity Amendment Bill and the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill update the occupational regulations provisions for electrical workers plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers by delegating registration and licensing to the Electrical Workers Registration Board and the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board. An important feature of these two bills is that they provide for the continuation of a registration and licensing regime recognising the investment made by tradespeople who obtain their qualification. 
The registration and licensing regime will be more flexible to allow for specialist registration categories and for competencies to be specified for the particular work authorised under each registration category. Another important feature of these two bills is to provide for competency-based licensing. This will ensure that before a worker is issued with a new licence he or she is competent in specified areas such as the use of new equipment and the changes in standards and regulations. 
These two bills continue employer licences in the electricity and gas industries. These licences have been used for over 10 years and are an alternative to individual worker licences but they still require the same high level of competency of workers. 
Nothing in these bills reduces the need for competency in the workplace. In a workplace requiring electrical and gasfitting skills either individuals who are registered and licensed must be employed or the workplace must have an employer licence. 
During the Commerce Committee’s consideration of the Energy Safety Review Bill it became evident to the Government and the committee that there was a breakdown in the relationship between the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board and the Plumbing Gasfitting and Drainlaying Industry Training Organisation. Earlier this year in an acknowledgment of these concerns the Hon Dr Michael Cullen Minister for Tertiary Education ordered an independent review on the relationship between the board and the industry training organisation. 
The Commerce Committee took into account the recommendations in this report and related them to the bill. As a result the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill now provides greater guidance to the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board on its role and on the procedures to be followed establishes increased accountability of the board to the relevant Minister and provides greater clarity about the respective roles of the industry training organisation and the board. 
The Electricity Amendment Bill and the Gas Amendment Bill require safety management systems to provide a framework for the owners of electricity generators greater than 10 megawatts and require the owners of the electricity and gas distribution systems to take responsibility for developing their own safety regimes. This approach acknowledges modern risk management concepts and has widespread industry support. 
The Electricity Amendment Bill and the Gas Amendment Bill provide for new offences including offences in respect of a person intentionally or negligently creating a risk of serious harm or significant property damage and offences in respect of breaches of the occupational licence conditions. Penalties for serious harm to a person or serious harm to property have been increased to reflect those in the Health and Safety in Employment Act. 
 The transitional arrangements of the Electricity Amendment Bill and the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill include carrying forward the existing registrations and licences. These also allow the registration boards to commence work immediately on defining new registration categories and standards and the terms and conditions of registration and licensing. The Electricity Amendment Bill and the Gas Amendment Bill require some existing regulations to be updated and also require that some new regulations be introduced. This work will be done in consultation with the industry and other interested parties. 
Energy is critical to the economic growth prosperity and social well-being of all New Zealanders. Plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers play a significant part in contributing to this country’s good health outcomes. These bills are an important part of ensuring continued consumer confidence in the energy industry by promoting the safe supply and use of electricity and gas. The bills will provide greater assurance of safety to consumers wanting work undertaken. They will also make it easier for tradespeople to gain competencies that are relevant to their particular areas of work. 
I again commend the chairperson of the Commerce Committee Katherine Rich and the members of the committee especially Maryan Street for the work they have done on considering the Energy Safety Review Bill and the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill. To all those who made submissions to the select committee and to Hazel Armstrong I express my appreciation for their time and their views. 
Finally the work that has been done on this legislation by officials has been tremendous and that is evident in the acknowledgments that officials have received from both sides of the House. I especially thank Evelyn Cole Jim Green and Scott Murray for their dedication patience and hard work. I commend this bill to the House. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to stand in the House and take part in the third readings of these five bills. It is clear that the job at hand was quite an ambitious one. Members will recall that we started off with the Energy Safety Review Bill which attempted to create the five bills that we are debating finally in the House today. 
It is an example of how members of Parliament can work really well together as a whole. National of course did not support the first draft of this legislation but through the select committee process there was around the table a genuine desire to come up with something suitable for the industry—for all of the electrical workers plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers in this country. 
I would also like to acknowledge the work of Minister Harry Duynhoven because it was clear to me that he had a genuine interest in coming up with the best law for the industry. He did not have that traditional approach: “This is my bill. It’s right; everybody else is wrong. Push it through.” He had a genuine belief in the select committee process; in the role of taking submissions and listening to people and making changes as a result. In one instance he even came to our committee and we were able to have a round-table discussion about parts of the bill. That was hugely useful and enabled us to forge a new pathway for the bill. In contrast some Ministers I have to say think that not communicating with chairs and slagging them off publicly is the way forward. I believe that a better way is to work closely on issues like this that matter to the industry. 
Initially the legislation began as the Energy Safety Review Bill. It was a little ambitious and although there had been some consultation with the industry there were 30000 electrical workers who felt that they had not had their say sufficiently. So one of the things we found with the submissions process was that some members of the community were coming before us and getting involved in the political process for the first time. It was the first time they had appeared before a select committee and made a submission. Plumbers in their 50s and 60s and electricians who had never thought about engaging in politics before were concerned about what was in the legislation. It was great to see a different section of New Zealand society coming and having a chat with us. I know they did that up and down the country with their various MPs as well. 
We found that we needed an innovative way to develop a new path for this legislation. We decided that the best thing to do was rip the bill in half and to focus on electricity in the first instance and plumbing in the second. The aim was to get the first part back to the House earlier and dealt with but it is nice today that we are looking at five bills together. 
The original Energy Safety Review Bill amended five different Acts at once: the Electricity Act 1992 the Gas Act 1992 the Ministry of Energy (Abolition) Act 1989 the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 1976. If we look around the House each and every one of us wants a safe environment for energy. No one here wants anyone to turn on the lights at night and be electrocuted. Each and every one of us has an expectation about the standard of safety that New Zealanders should rely on when they are dealing with electricity or with plumbing etc. 
In this legislation we were revamping occupational regulations and regimes and most of the debate ended up being about whether to retain registration. I think there were some within officialdom who wanted to move to a tidier way of doing things and just have licensing. The argument was that that made it easier for the general public to discern the standard and qualifications of the people whom they were commissioning to do either electrical or plumbing work. Registration ended up being one of the main things that concerned those working in the industry. 
It soon became clear to all members of the select committee that people who had registered as a plumber or as an electrician felt immensely proud of that registration and looked at it as the pinnacle of their qualifications. Even though some plumbers who came before our select committee had not looked at a drain in 20 years some of these old guys said: “I’m still proud to be a plumber and I still want to be registered as a plumber. I still carry my card.” I mentioned that in my second reading speech but I know that the Minister is also very in tune with this. I know that Minister Duynhoven who has registered as an electrical worker still carries his card around in his wallet. 
The Electrical Workers Registration Board said: “Registration is the capstone of our members’ qualifications.” One of the things that I think the select committee can be very proud of is that we had the debate on that issue and we retained registration for the industry. 
There was also concern about the removal of classes. Some electricians said: “Well if the Electrical Workers Registration Board is going to determine classes we feel anxious about what those classes of registration might be.” So once again the select committee made the change and we retained that provision. 
We also made changes to the regularity with which licences have to be renewed. It was initially proposed as 2 years but we decided that that was going to bring too much of a regulatory burden and that is why we pushed it out to 5 years. I think in doing that we will still preserve the safety regime that we have as well as minimise some of the costs—including red tape costs—for many of the workers who keep our economy going. 
We also made some changes to the disciplinary procedures which I think will speed things up and make a difference for those who commit minor breaches as well. 
It is important to say some thank yous. I would like to thank members of my select committee and as I said before there is not a dud around that committee. They are people who have come around the table with a genuine desire to create law that works and to listen to submissions. Although we will still have our debates we will act on those. I thank the Minister and the officials. I think the officials genuinely enjoyed having the ability to go back and do a second and third round of consultation. I thank Evelyn Cole Becky Whimp Jim Green Michael Chapman and Scott Murray in particular because I think they did a very good job of distilling down some quite complex law and technologies into a form that the select committee could understand. 
Before this legislation none of our members sat around thinking about drains plumbing and electricity but I have to say that I have really enjoyed working on this legislation. My colleague Chris Auchinvole who came in to chat to me just before said that he really enjoyed working on this legislation as well. 
Although I am sure there will be some things that are not 100 percent as the industry would like I believe that this is a good example of the select committee process at work. It has developed law and has taken the time to iron out potential pitfalls to iron out potential loopholes and to put something in place for the industry that is simple practical and a recognition of the way many plumbers and electrical workers feel about their work. That is why we are particularly glad that registration has been retained. Thank you. 
MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I rise to speak to the third reading of these bills. At the risk of revealing the extent to which peace broke out in the Commerce Committee I want to join with others in congratulating Katherine Rich on the way she chaired the select committee. It was appreciated by all members of the committee but I speak for the Labour members in particular. It was greatly appreciated by us and I know that it was also greatly appreciated by the Minister. He apologised for not arriving in the House in time to make this speech because of weather conditions outside and a delayed flight but he did want me to repeat what the Hon Mita Ririnui said in his third reading speech on his behalf—that he did appreciate the work of Katherine Rich and of the select committee. 
I want to make a few points in summing up the whole process around these bills which relate to electricians plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers. The registration and licensing system that Katherine Rich spoke about a moment ago was a critical part of this. I suppose this is the moment when I want to pull back from some of the minutiae of these bills and go back to their original purpose. Originally the licensing system was to be simplified somewhat and instead of having a dual system of registration and licensing it was proposed that a licensing system only would apply. But after strong representation from tradespeople about the significance of registration to them and to their identification as tradespeople in their respective trades it was clear that a registration and licensing system needed to remain for two different purposes. Registration is the recognition of a qualification. Licensing however gives the public and everybody who ever employs an electrician a gasfitter a drainlayer or a plumber—and most of us do at some time employ those people—a sense of confidence about the competence in an ongoing way of those tradespeople. The licensing system which requires regular updating does mean that consumers can be confident that they are getting an up-to-date skilled practitioner. 
 There were two other high-level issues that we have often lost sight of in debating these bills. One is the importance of the safety of the public. When plumbing gasfitting drainlaying or electrical installation is carried out—whether it is in a private home for a business or on a main arterial route for the transmission of power energy or water—public safety is paramount. One of the prime purposes of these bills was to ensure that the safety of the public could be maintained through proper regulation and proper licensing. Similarly the safety of the workers is equally important. Workers who participate in what are dangerous or potentially dangerous activities in the installation of energy services and appliances should be protected by proper legislation regulation and procedures. 
The next item that I draw attention to is the different classes of licensing that emerged in the progress of these bills. They reflect quite simply the changes in technology in each of these trades. I learnt more about electrical transmission and who is qualified to work on bits of the electrical transmission process than I ever thought necessary. I thought I just flicked a switch on and it happened. The licensing of competence to attend to big electrical installations or big gas installations for example and to have the ability to repair maintain and install energy delivery across a whole range of kinds of energy has required a differentiated licensing system so that we know that people who are qualified in one area will not suddenly shimmy up a pylon and consider themselves to be competent in that area. That part of the legislation addresses the issue of worker safety and it goes again to the question of public safety. 
We discovered some problems in the course of considering these bills and we addressed them on the way. To those who made submissions to the select committee—and to Hazel Armstrong in particular who prepared a report for the Hon Dr Michael Cullen in respect of plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers in particular—I say that we are really very grateful. The Minister expressly wishes to convey his appreciation to those submitters and to Hazel Armstrong for giving their time and their views. They did make a palpable difference to the way these bills finally emerged. 
I also thank the Minister as Katherine Rich did for his cooperative intervention and collaboration with the select committee. It was really important that we achieved the desired outcome regardless of where things had started or of different positions between political parties. On these bills the select committee worked as one; it was a very constructive and useful process. As a brand new member of Parliament I think this is the first set of bills that I have seen from beginning to end and ushered through the process from their introduction to their third reading. I think that what we did was a model process with very capable chairing with a Minister who was prepared to listen and make some changes and with very clear policy purposes from which there was no dissent. There was no disagreement and we were able to proceed with the very able support of the officials. 
It is a pleasure to see these bills through. This legislation will make a difference to the tradespeople involved and it will make a difference to the delivery of energy services in New Zealand. 
CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill which forms a part of the combined set of bills before the House this evening. This bill has a special place in my evolution in Parliament in that it was the first bill that I dealt with on a select committee. It is also special to me in that members of my family have been involved in the plumbing profession for many years and own their own plumbing businesses. So I have taken a keen interest in this bill from the start right through to the finish. 
It seems somewhat ironic that we stand here today debating this bill given the events that have happened this afternoon. I take this opportunity to thank my leader Don Brash for the work that he put in to help me into Parliament and for his awesome effort within the National Party in taking us from 20 percent of the party vote to the point of nearly winning the last election. I will always remember his personal support his help to me and his utmost honesty. I recognise that in this debate this evening. I have a lot of respect and always will for my leader Don Brash and I say thank you to him. 
It does seem somewhat ironic with regard to the events that have gone before to be talking about the bill tonight. I echo the thoughts of Maryan Street and thank the select committee acknowledging the work of Maryan and of Katherine Rich who did a fantastic job of chairing the committee through a series of key issues about the bill that came right from the start. We got right through to the end on those issues. 
 Some of the key issues were the negotiation of our way through the separation of the bill; registration and licensing which is a key issue and which I will spend most of my time tonight discussing; and changes to the board which came about from the Hazel Armstrong report. 
I would like to think that members of the select committee particularly Chris Auchinvole and myself played a key part in the provision for the composition of the board. We were interested in the structure of that board and in making sure it had representation from the profession. The Minister I think will agree with me that it is all very well having Government-appointed people on these boards but if they have not had an involvement in the profession right from day one and if they are not currently registered and carrying a current licence it is very difficult for them to have a real empathy with the industry. So it is great to have that representation on the board particularly with the impact that licensing and ongoing professional development will have on plumbers drainlayers and gasfitters. From that point alone having the experience of people who have to be licensed on a yearly basis themselves will be an excellent step forward and will ensure that the continuing professional development requirements are not too onerous and that we do not lose too many plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers in the twilight years of their careers because of that. 
The Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill began its life as part of the Energy Safety Review Bill which has been canvassed tonight. The original aim was to repeal and replace the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 1976. As we know the Act covers the registration licensing and disciplining of some of our key professions. The fact that they are some of our key professions should not be overlooked. The plumbing profession for instance has played one of the key roles in New Zealand in terms of health outcomes. If members look back over the last century they will see that plumbing has played a bigger role than even the medical profession in improving health outcomes for New Zealanders. We often forget the importance of clean water in our homes our businesses and indeed in this Parliament as well as the expulsion of that waste water once it goes down the drain and the need to get it away cleanly. Ensuring the health of our communities is of the utmost importance. 
So the plumbing profession is a key part of our industry and of our nation. Therefore it is important that the people who are tasked with doing plumbing work are qualified and have the necessary licences to make sure that they are performing their jobs to the level that is needed. We need to be sure that the men and women tasked with repairing drains and sanitary appliances are up to the job. 
To move back a step I remind members that the bill began as the Energy Safety Review Bill but morphed into the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill. This was for two reasons. Firstly the feedback from plumbers drainlayers and gasfitters when the bill was first introduced into the House was not good. They felt that they had not been consulted clearly by the board and they were confused about the requirements of professional development particularly the non-technical requirements. All of a sudden they had thrust into their faces the fact that they might have to do Microsoft Word or PowerPoint courses. Many of those plumbers who had been in the profession for many years just could not see how those courses related to their profession and why they would have to spend time out of their businesses—and away from doing the job that they knew best and had done for 30 years—in front of a computer learning skills that they did not feel would be of any use to them. 
The second reason the bill was separated was because of the significant issues that arose between the Plumbing Gasfitting and Drainlaying Industry Training Organisation and the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board. That second issue came down to a breakdown in the relationship between the board and the industry training organisation. It was highlighted by the real urgency over the number of plumbers who were not being passed through the system. In 2005 the board passed and gave registrations in plumbing to only 11 percent of the national certificate qualifiers; in 2003 there had been a 39 percent pass rate. There was major concern not only in the industry but in the wider community that the number of plumbers going forward would be significantly down on that. 
It is interesting that once Hazel Armstrong was employed to do a review it became abundantly clear that there was not just a breakdown in the relationship between the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board and the industry training organisation but also a breakdown in the way that plumbers were being financed through the Tertiary Education Commission to go through their qualifications. It had started out as the standard training measure programme where plumbers were funded at the rate of $3000 to do their qualifications. The likes of Unitec were able to get on to a system where they could use the equivalent full-time student model and for the same plumbing outcome put plumbers through the course for $8500 which is significantly higher than $3000. We were seeing fewer plumbers coming through—there was only an 11 percent pass rate in 2005—yet at a higher cost to the country. So that certainly created a major problem. 
So it seemed sensible that the bill was carved in two. It allowed the Energy Safety Review Bill to go ahead unimpeded and allowed us to do a complete review of the submissions from the plumbers to try to iron out some of the issues they had and for Hazel Armstrong’s report to come through so we could take the recommendations from that report and feed them into the bill to make sure we got the right board structure and the right accountabilities back to the Minister and in turn to the general public. 
I would now like to turn to registration an issue that came through the submissions loud and clear. The initial bill recommended that registration be moved on and that we look at a licensing-type system only. However it came through loud and clear in the submissions from just about every plumber in the country that registration was the pinnacle of a plumber’s qualification and was something that needed to be retained. In fact I got an earful from my own brother Mark who has his own business. He had worked—in his case—for more than 3 or 4 years to get to registration level and there was no way that he wanted to see that go. The committee accepted that retaining the registration recognised the investment that plumbers had made in obtaining their qualification. So in the end we proposed the dual registration and licensing system. That detail is spelt out in Part 6. 
The licensing system was somewhat confusing and this is what concerned many plumbers. There were two parts to licensing a technical part and a non-technical part. Going forward plumbers will have to do professional development and obtain 16 credits. Eight of those credits will be technical credits with skills such as modern pipe-fitting—a whole range of skills that relate to the plumbing job. The non-technical credits going forward will relate to the types of things that I talked about before: PowerPoint presentations first aid and a range of other peripheral-type activities that may add to the profession but that are not part of the core competency of the profession. What we learnt however was that the non-technical element was non-compulsory and that the plumber could do his or her continuing professional development by doing only the technical parts. Once that message is communicated through to the plumbing fraternity there will be a lot of relief. We will not see plumbers up in arms and I think that that is certainly a good step forward. 
I will close tonight with reference to some plumbers in my own area who have now been through this. They are comfortable that the retention of registration and of licensing will be excellent. Before I sit down I will just quote Carl Symmons a 30-year-old gasfitter who believes that there should be ongoing competency. He believes that it is a good thing for the profession that it will maintain the standards of his profession and that overall the bill will be a good step forward. 
I will close by thanking the Commerce Committee for its work and thanking Katherine and the Labour members on the committee. Again I acknowledge the work of my leader Don Brash and I thank him for everything he has done for me. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 It was just another Wednesday in Wellington on 30 August 2006 but suddenly gas supplies in the central business district shut down after a burst water main infected the pipeline with water and gravel. The 60-year-old high pressure water main just outside Parliament beneath the intersection of Bowen Street and The Terrace burst and water flooded 30 kilometres of the central city network. About 1000 customers were affected including even the very influential customers of Copperfields and Bellamy’s. Nearly 200 business owners faced delays. Commercial buildings hotels and restaurants could not heat water cook or provide heating or air conditioning. The hospitality industry estimated that it incurred a loss of about $5 million. It took 21 days before the last customers were finally reconnected. The fact is that 130 holes are still to be repaired in this city now renamed the “Home of Swiss Cheese”. 
The crisis highlighted the vulnerability of an ageing infrastructure. It also brought home very strongly the often invisible but vital role that gasfitters drainlayers and plumbers play in the maintenance of our major utilities and the significance of workers involved in energy safety—as are electricity workers and those involved in health and safety. The industries we are discussing today are central as part of the team keeping New Zealanders healthy. The drains and pipes that comprise our central networks take away waste as well as make sure New Zealanders have access to water that is safe to drink. Plumbers and gasfitters are a critical component of the complex web of health and safety arrangements that enable towns and cities to function. 
So the Maori Party is happy to support this collection of bills in the interests of public and worker safety. We support the proposals to repeal and replace previous provisions with improved requirements regarding the registration licensing and disciplining of plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers. The bill also contains mechanisms designed to assure the public that people engaged in these services are competent to undertake that work. 
The issue of competency and safety is one the Maori Party has a particular interest in. It was because of our interest in safety matters that we took up the advice offered by the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union and suggested an amendment to remove the ability of the Electrical Workers Licensing Board to issue practising licences to employers. The Energy Safety Review Bill sought to revamp the issuing of employer licences which allowed employers to hold practising licences on behalf of their workers. The amendment we put forward was suggested by the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union in its submission to the Commerce Commission. 
It is the union’s view that employer licences have the potential to compromise the safety of both workers and the public and should be disallowed. We agreed with the union that it is essential the electrical workforce comprises highly trained people whom its fellow workers can absolutely rely on. It gives workers confidence to know that their colleagues are properly trained and able to hold their own individual practising licences rather than licences being held by the employer. We also shared the concern of the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union that business costs and skill shortages may result in employers choosing to opt for less trained or experienced workers therefore putting other workers and the public at risk. The crux of the issue is about ensuring frameworks for adequate employer investment into the training and skilled development of workers. 
It was a matter of great disappointment to us that the amendments put forward by the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union—the largest trade union in Aotearoa—were voted down by all parties except the Maori Party and the Green Party. We appreciate the efforts of our colleagues in the Greens to always look out for the interests of workers. 
The experience of competency and safety issues for Maori employed in this workforce also takes on another dimension in the context of cultural safety. Tamati Kruger working at the time for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry as a project coordinator in the Eastern Bay of Plenty has written about the involvement of Maori plumbers in the industry. He told the story of one young plumber confronted by a number of local plumbers who had joined forces to try to put him out of business. According to that young plumber: “I took a lot of Maori work off the other plumbers in this area. And with the Maori population being quite high here a lot of it was their work. That’s what it boils down to … I feel pressured a lot of the time when I’m in town.” 
The Maori Party knows that raising comments such as this one often leaves people feeling uncomfortable but we cannot raise the issue of public and worker safety without addressing the importance of protecting and achieving cultural safety in every occupation in which Maori and indeed workers of all cultures and ethnicities are working. If we are committed to the health and well-being of all New Zealanders we must make it a priority that public and worker safety including cultural safety is given urgent attention. 
On the subject of shortages in the workforce I tell members that a 2005 Colmar Brunton survey showed that employers expected to be short of 594 registered craftsmen 450 plumbers 139 gasfitters 177 drainlayers and 132 apprentices by the end of that year. That is a total of 1492 staff. The Department of Labour has also identified the serious and immediate skills shortages of these workers. I wonder whether anyone else in this House has ever tried to get a plumber or gasfitter at short notice or in an emergency—they are like the proverbial hen’s teeth. For evidence of the nature of the crisis one has only to think about the situation for Canterbury residents this past winter when a chronic shortage of plumbers hugely exacerbated the hardships of below-zero temperatures that caused water to freeze and pipes to burst thus leaving many homes without water and heating. 
The Commerce Committee’s report back recommended that the legislation be passed with a range of amendments. We believe that the select committee process has addressed a myriad of concerns raised and that the committee is to be congratulated. The report described appropriate responses to issues such as consultation and role clarification between the industry training organisations and the board. Initial proposals to change the licensing system have been greatly modified in line with minimising cost and maximising safety. We are pleased also with proposals to enable the public to recognise a licensed worker easily by way of making these registers publicly available. That is consistent with the requirements of building practitioners under the Building Act 2004. We support such advances in the ongoing progress for accountability and transparency. In that line we are also pleased to support improved procedures for addressing complaints against workers with enhanced enforcement provisions. These are all positive moves and they contribute to our decision to vote in support of the legislation. However we note that as with the previous bill there will be compliance cost increases for workers and businesses. We remain unconvinced of the real value of these increases in terms of public and worker safety. 
Finally I tell the House that the Maori Party will support the series of bills brought together under the auspices of the original Energy Safety Review Bill and the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill in the interests of the public health and worker safety of Aotearoa. Thank you. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 The Energy Safety Review Bill had its first reading in Parliament on 21 June 2005 and today is 21 November 2006. The gestation of a baby takes about 9 months so I guess it is appropriate that today we are bringing to an end two gestation periods and we have two bills as a result. However today due to the split of the bill Minister Duynhoven will end up with quins. So it is a day of good things to see these two bills at last progress through to this third reading. 
I will concentrate my remarks mainly on the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill and I say first of all what a tremendous surprise it was for me as a member of the Commerce Committee to see plumbers and drainlayers from one end of the country to the other—some of them well into their 50s and even their 60s—come all the way from places remote from Wellington and for the very first time in their lives come face to face with a select committee. 
We were confronted with quite a wave of anger from those men for two reasons. Firstly they said they had not been consulted in relation to this legislation. Secondly they said that they had completely lost confidence in the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board. They were for example very upset that they would be given competency tests when some of them had been registered as plumbers for 30 years or more in areas such as how to use various Microsoft computer programmes. I can tell members that many of the old-timers said to us that it was all too hard. By gosh they got our attention—and Mahara Okeroa will vouch for this—when they then said to us: “As a matter of fact it’s all become so tough that we think we’d better just give the game away.” That is not good news when the country is already very very short of well-qualified plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers and these are the most experienced people in the profession. 
Our next big surprise was to learn from the aforesaid Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill that only 11 percent of those who had sat National Certificate of Educational Achievement exams were able to pass the registration exams set by that board. The result was that some young trainee plumbers have now sat that exam for 2 3 or more years and have still not passed it. Therefore we have a number of young plumbers who have now been in training for more than 7 years and still do not have registration. I have talked to some of them. People say to me that they are perfectly capable young plumbers they are doing plumbing every day but they have not been able to get through their examinations. The employers of some of those young men also said that the situation was not good enough and that they had lost faith in the board. 
It quickly became clear to the committee that there was a completely dysfunctional relationship between the board on the one hand and the industry training organisation for plumbers drainlayers and gasfitters on the other. There was a complete mismatch. The board had picked Australian examinations and expected New Zealand - trained apprentice plumbers to be able to sit and pass examinations for which they had not been prepared. An example that one of them gave to me was in respect of last year’s exams where there was a big section on ducting which is quite common in Australia but less common on this side of the Tasman. Therefore they basically did not know what the answers were because they really had not been trained in that particular part of plumbing. 
I will pay my compliments at this stage to Dr Michael Cullen who having been apprised of this complete breakdown in the whole system very quickly had the good sense to bring in Hazel Armstrong to investigate the situation. Hazel Armstrong reported back to Dr Michael Cullen and the result of that report was the sacking of the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board and the total replacement of its membership. That was a very important development not only for our committee but also—more important—for the trade itself to think that we now have some people who are really listening and will change the habits of that board in the future. 
These realities have been taken into account in the redrafting of the legislation which is now here for its third reading. This legislation puts in place a framework that will ensure that the dysfunctionality of the past cannot be repeated in the future. We have curbed and altered the powers of the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board—which by the way I wish well for the future because it really has some ground to make up. We hope that it will be able to do that because it is vitally important for the future of the plumbing drainlaying and gasfitting trades that we turn over a new page. We need to have good cooperation in the whole training system so that apprentices are properly trained and are able to be prepared for examinations. They will then be able to become registered and beyond that become licensed and go on to become effective tradespeople. 
I will go back just to one point with regard to the examinations. In its report back to the House the select committee has recommended that the board and the industry training organisation—together—arrange refresher courses and for the next 2 years or so allow failed trainees to resit their examinations at about 6-monthly intervals. The current situation is made worse because trainees have only one chance every 12 months to sit the exam so if they do not pass they have to wait another whole 12 months. We had representations also from the mothers of apprentices who said that this was a real injustice. Their sons had been working for ages had sat their exams and no one was passing them. Their lives were just ticking away. Some of them were moving into marriage and some of them were becoming dads—and they still had not become registered tradespeople. We heard that claim from submitters and we were asked to do something about that situation in order to give these people some opportunities to resit their exams and get through the registration process so that they can get on with their lives. These people are the innocent victims of that complete breakdown and dysfunctionality that came into being between the board on the one hand and the industry training organisation on the other. 
When we look at it objectively the select committee had two separate problems. On the one hand we had the old guys who were all saying: “Hey we’re out of here; this has all become too hard.” and on the other hand we had the new apprentices coming through not being able to pass their exams to become registered. And this was against a backdrop where as Dr Pita Sharples has pointed out we were already short of plumbers and drainlayers. So the situation was serious and it was urgent. I agree with those who say that there was fantastic cooperation on the select committee with regard to this matter and I might say that the cooperation level went up considerably when I made it very clear to the Labour members and to the Minister that I—as the member of the committee holding the balance of power—would not be supporting this bill unless we went away and did a complete rewrite. That effectively is what has happened in the months since then and that is one of the reasons why this legislation has taken so long. We had to take the time to get it right. By the way I should also say that the Minister was very very supportive once the reality of the way the legislation would go became clear to all of us. 
I will conclude with a few observations. I have a friend who is a radiologist. In his holidays he goes to India where he works in the slums practising medicine and radiology. He told me a story from when he was at university. One day when his professor thought that the class was becoming too arrogant and proud his professor said to the students that plumbers have done more for human health on this planet than all the doctors and surgeons put together. My friend said that all the students laughed and thought it was a great joke but having come back from the slums of India where people do not have good plumbing and good drainlaying—good systems—he decided that what his professor had said was just the simple truth. I also think that it is the truth and we do need to recognise the sometimes unheralded contribution that this profession makes to our society. 
I will conclude by saying that we are very happy therefore to support this very good legislation. I add my thanks too to those who have cooperated with us—the various officials whom Katherine Rich named and the other members of the committee from both National and Labour. I also thank Dr Michael Cullen for his contribution Hazel Armstrong for her very good report and the Minister for his cooperation in the whole process. It has actually been a very enjoyable experience and it is a good day to celebrate that we have reached this point. Thank you. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not think that I will take a long call because New Zealand First was not on the Commerce Committee but we did follow the legislation as best as we could with some interest. When the legislation first came to the House it was entitled the Energy Safety Review Bill. The select committee clearly worked very hard and was very conscientious and by all accounts every member cooperated with every other member which is an amazing feat in itself. The select committee split the bill into two bills fairly early on in the piece I gather and formed the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill. Since then the residue of the Energy Safety Review Bill—if I can put it that way—has been split into four other bills: the Electricity Amendment Bill the Gas Amendment Bill the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill and the Ministry of Energy (Abolition) Amendment Bill. So all in all this one Energy Safety Review Bill has turned into five bills. We are debating here all five bills and I understand that there will be a vote on each individual bill at the end of the debate. When this legislation came to the select committee we were guided by the explanatory note at the beginning of it which clearly outlined some concerns about these trades. 
The other amazing fact about this legislation is that the National Party members have had a complete change of heart; an absolute change of heart. When the bill came to the House initially— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: It’s called a flip-flop. 
PETER BROWN 
: Well it could be called a flip-flop but I want to give those members a little bit of credit—they are having a bad day today so let us give them a little bit of credit. 
When the bill came to the House initially National members were saying that it was bureaucracy gone mad or more red tape—something along those lines. The Minister nods. They were quite scathing. I have listened to the National Party members here and I compliment them on their speeches. The chairperson of the Commerce Committee Katherine Rich clearly recognised that there were some major concerns within these trades as did the member Chris Tremain who spoke with some passion on the legislation. I thought that that was amazing. When the bill first came into the House the National Party members were totally opposed to it and they now recognise that there were some major concerns. 
Mr Copeland who was on the select committee indicated in his speech that it sounds as if the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board was completely out of touch with the industry—so much so and I listened with amazement that Dr Michael Cullen instigated a ministerial review headed by Hazel Armstrong to look into this whole issue. The board—if I understand Mr Copeland correctly—was sacked in its entirety. That is how deep the problem was. Anybody who doubts that plumbers—again Mr Copeland illustrated it very well—play an important part in society need only go through the experience of having a septic tank overflow to know just how important plumbers and drainlayers are. I can tell members that it happened to me once in my life and I worshipped the ground that the drainlayers and plumbers walked on when they arrived. 
Brian Connell 
: The member’s still in it! 
PETER BROWN 
: Brian Connell has got well out of it. I think the member over there might be in it. This bill has turned out to be not only important to this country but also absolutely essential. Dr Pita Sharples told us that there is a shortage in the industry of close to 1500 people—and by industry I mean plumbers gasfitters electricians and their apprentices. This country needs these folk and we need to support them. 
The second page of the commentary—and this concerned me when I read it—says: “We are very concerned that only 11 percent of the national certificate holders who sat the plumbing registration examination in 2005 passed.” Eleven percent passed and at that point in time we were doing nothing. That should have been a warning signal—well it was and I compliment the Minister Harry Duynhoven. It was a warning signal for the Minister. But it should have been a warning signal for all of us. 
One thing that nobody on the select committee has mentioned is the review of the legislation. The commentary on the bill states: “We recommend requiring the administering department to review the operation of this legislation three years after it commences and report to the Minister who will present the report to the House.” That is how serious this is. The select committee members had to say that it may not have got it right yet that they wanted a review of this legislation and they wanted the Minister to report it to the House. So we might be in a comfort zone but we are not there yet from reading that. 
This bill has turned out to be essential for the benefit of New Zealand and New Zealanders. New Zealand First will support the five bills that were formerly part of the Energy Safety Review Bill. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I endorse the sentiments of most members today in respect of this bill. As Minister for Building Issues I have some interest in the trades and this regime is likely to fall within the interest of my department in the future. 
As the member of Parliament for Waimakariri I also say that like other members I had good folk in my constituency who had sat the exams and participated in the training process. I am a layman and not a plumber gasfitter or electrician but as a layman looking at what those people had done and in taking advice from Mr Duynhoven and others it appeared to me that they had indeed been hard done by. I think that in 2004 34 plumbers got through. Given the nature of the building industry and the building boom the trades are in huge demand and it appeared to me as it did to others that the dysfunctional nature of the relationship between the board and the industry training organisation had contributed to the lack of passage through the system of good and genuine people who had the required skills. 
Indeed I think Harry Duynhoven the Minister deserves credit as does the select committee for peace breaking out. Peter Brown made a very good point when he aptly noted that the National Party had somersaulted—flip-flopped changed its mind had a bob each way; and I can think of several more phrases—but the chairperson Katherine Rich had done a very good job in bringing some common sense to the debate as Harry Duynhoven said. 
Hazel Armstrong’s report as initiated by the Minister of Finance Michael Cullen will stand the test of time. It was pivotal in identifying the very very dysfunctional relationship between the industry training organisation and the board. What followed from that was a number of resignations. I will not say there was a clean out but a number of changes were made to the board that were necessary I think to get some new blood and new life into the regime. I suppose if one were a tad cynical one could say to the National Party that the process was a template for how one could change personnel ditch one or two people and then rekindle like the phoenix from the ashes an organisation that might have some aptitude some resonance and some relevance. 
Gordon Copeland 
: They have to pass a big exam in 2008. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Mr Copeland points out that after it has done that the National Party will have to pass an exam in 2008. Well that remains to be seen. They have blown away a few people restructured and tried to sort out the odd dysfunctional relationship here and there. Mr Brown talked about septic tanks; I think we have seen the political version of a septic tank implode today. 
 But let us get back to the serious nature of the legislation I agree with the speakers who have said that the contribution made by plumbers gasfitters and electricians is huge. Their industries are vital industries like a number of other trades. For example if an electrician put the wrong wire in the wrong hole then like Rodney Hide we would all end up dancing with the stars as it were. Serious damage can be done to life and limb. That has to be acknowledged and those people have to be acknowledged for the skill and responsibilities they carry. 
So like others I commend the bill to the House. I hope that the constituents in my patch who sadly were impacted on by some of the carnage that occurred in this organisation will now have a chance to resit or resubmit to achieve their dream of becoming the plumbers gasfitters or electricians of the future to contribute to our community and as most of these people are business people in their own right in doing so to contribute in that way to our economy. In conclusion I hope that the National Party will take note of the process this industry has gone through in terms of re-establishing itself and rising again and maybe politically it can learn some lessons from that. 
Electricity Amendment Bill read a third time. 
Gas Amendment Bill read a third time. 
Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill read a third time. 
Ministry of Energy (Abolition) Amendment Bill read a third time. 
Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Bill read a third time. 
Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed from 21 November. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 It is a great day for a speech and I am very pleased to be able to take a call. I appreciate the fact that you have called me Mr Deputy Speaker. When I last spoke on this bill I made a number of points and I would like to take the opportunity to recap. 
This bill is very overdue and the National Party strongly supports its passage. The reason we support it is that with the advent of new technologies—cellphone cameras hidden cameras etc.—surreptitious and covert filming of people in intimate roles or positions is taking place without their consent and knowledge and in circumstances when they would reasonably expect to be private. With the use of this technology people are able to infiltrate those intimate situations. In a few words we are dealing here with modern-day peeping Toms and the people of this country deserve to have legislation that gives them the protections they deserve. 
The point I was making in my interrupted call was that there was no point having legislation in place to give the police the authority to act if they were not resourced appropriately to take advantage of it. I gave a couple of examples one of which was the silly prosecution the police were bringing against the woman driver who crashed her car on the West Coast and who was down a bank for 2 days. I struggled to see where the public good was being met in that regard. 
When the debate was interrupted I was making a point—and I know my colleague Chester Borrows will also want to raise it in his contribution—in relation to the issue of covert audio recordings of people in intimate circumstances. I think there is a flaw in the bill in that it does not pick up this particular issue and I say to Government members that it is an issue they will have to revisit. Are people less violated because they have been listened to rather than watched in intimate positions? If a recording is made of people without their knowledge without their consent when they are engaged in an intimate act then I say that their privacy is invaded and that those people are due the same protection under the law as people will now have in relation to visual recordings of that activity. 
The last point I want to make is that a visual recording made with the consent of the parties involved is one thing but the distribution of that recording for wider public edification without the parties’ consent is another matter. An example that comes to mind is that of celebrity sex videos. One video I have heard spoken about regularly is the Paris Hilton video where she and her partner were filmed with their consent when engaged in sexual activity but the recording was then put on to the Internet without her consent—and in my view that is simply wrong. That is another issue in this bill over which there is a question mark. 
Having made those two or three points I conclude my contribution by saying that National strongly endorses and supports the bill. But I have drawn the House’s attention to two areas of exposure and I say to the Minister that he will need to address those quickly. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
: 
 As the previous chair of the Government Administration Committee it gives me great pleasure to speak on this bill. This bill came out of an inquiry into the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act after the issue was highlighted by Bill Hastings the chief censor at the time. When we were looking at that legislation we were looking at matters of pornography. As the previous speaker pointed out another issue always comes up; when we start talking about one area somebody says: “Hey what about this?”. 
This was a matter that Bill Hastings the chief censor and some other submitters brought to the committee’s attention. They said that now that we have the technology and people have cellphones with digital cameras in them we have a problem. Bill Hastings showed us some examples of people who had been sneaking cameras into dressing rooms at swimming pools gymnasiums and so on and not only taking pictures—which is an invasion of privacy—but also onselling those pictures. 
Bill Hastings said that this matter should be included in the Crimes Act and it has taken some time for this bill to come to the House. I am really really pleased that we have got it through to this third reading stage and that there will be an amendment to the Crimes Act. I thank Bill Hastings for pointing this matter out and I thank members opposite for pointing out other issues that have since come up such as covert audio tapings and so on which will also need to be dealt with. 
As has been said this bill is about peeping Toms and Thomasinas—to be politically correct in the language. It is about people using technology in ways that are not appropriate. This is not to say that people cannot take baby pictures and so on. This bill is about people who take films of other people and use them in ways that are to the detriment of those people and to the detriment of society in terms of what is considered appropriate. 
I thank the select committee that carried on the work that had been done previously. I thank all the officials and everybody who worked on this bill. I thank the present Minister of Justice Mark Burton and the previous Minister Phil Goff who agreed initially that this should become legislation to alter the Crimes Act. This bill has taken a long time; it has taken years. Sometimes good things in this Parliament do take a long time but eventually we get there. 
Once again I thank everyone who has been involved. I also thank the submitters. We sometimes forget those good people in the country who bother to read those advertisements in the back of the newspaper who bother to write in and give their opinions and who come before select committees to talk through issues. It is always good to thank them for their effort and their interest. In this case it is about keeping our society a decent society which is what I am sure everyone in this House would want. Thank you once again Mr Deputy Speaker. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I too rise in support of the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill. I am pleased to be able to support the bill. It deals with a situation whereby technology has enabled people to create or take advantage of opportunities to offend just as innovative New Zealanders have been quick in other fields where technology has moved on to use that technology to offend. 
I am reminded of the first piece of technology for peeping and peering that I became acquainted with—a mirror stuck on the bottom of a walking stick. That was 30 years ago of course. Deputy Speaker Simich may remember seeing that during a trip to the Police College museum in the early 1960s. It is a famous piece of equipment. However we have moved along. 
Brian Connell 
: Is that where I left it? 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: Yes one would certainly need to have reasonable eyesight to take advantage of a mirror on the bottom of a walking stick. 
One of the things that really bothers me is something that was raised by my colleague Brian Connell. It concerns two instances raised at the select committee. After initially being pooh-poohed we were given an assurance or at least an undertaking from the Minister of Justice that these things would be looked at. 
Members may recall an incident that I recounted to the House during the second reading whereby a young farm lad with a crush on the neighbour’s wife crawled under the neighbours’ house drilled a hole in the floor of the bedroom and audiotaped the night-time discussions that went on therein. Apparently he got his jollies from listening to that. 
Covert audiotaping of intimate transactions is a reality. It does go on. We can imagine the embarrassment if such things were published. Given the opportunity with the formulation of this legislation and the fact that the issue was raised with the Minister and an undertaking was given that it would be looked into and addressed it seems a real shame to me that that never happened. 
I also raised another example during the second reading in respect of constituents. A young boyfriend and girlfriend had taken intimate photographs of each other on a digital camera—something they had both consented to do. Then the relationship fell over and what do you know the intimate photographs that had been taken with consent were published on the World Wide Web. The young woman who had moved away from home and into a hostel was confronted with the fact that other boys living at the hostel had seen photographs of her. She had consented to those photos being taken for the particular purpose of her boyfriend having them but now everyone was able to see them. Members can imagine how she felt about that. That issue was raised with the Minister and again an undertaking was given that it would be looked at and considered in the final drafting of this legislation. 
 The reason why that action is not against the law in respect of this legislation is that an intimate covert video or image is defined as one made without consent. In the example I have just given photographs were taken with consent but published without consent. It does not seem that anyone has broken any laws in respect of that example. I find it quite surprising that given the simplicity of making a couple of amendments altering just a few words to account for that that was not done. 
Having been in the House only about 12 months I find it a bit hard to get my head round exactly how this place works all the time but I find it really quite amazing that our having been given those undertakings and knowing that people were looking at it no one got back to us to explain why it had not been included or was not going to go any further. If we want to do something about it we have to set about creating a new piece of legislation and that seems to be a bit of a waste of time. Addressing issues is exactly the reason why things are debated in the House and people bat issues backwards and forwards. 
The National Party agreed right from the start that we would support this legislation because it was addressing something that needed to be addressed. But having raised through the course of debate other points that needed addressing too—and given that in the experience of some of us in the House they were quite glaring omissions and could have been easily fixed—we have to ask why they were not fixed. Was it just a matter of climbing over the ego was it a genuine oversight or was there a serious look at the proposals and they were discounted by the officials and advisers and thus the Minister? 
Having said all that the National Party will be supporting the bill. It is timely. I attended a police symposium yesterday on how we will be policing in the future. Several points were made about how the role of the police had changed over time and the fact that when the Police Act 1958 was drafted there was only one bunch of people doing policing in this country and that was the New Zealand Police. Nowadays every piece of core business of the New Zealand Police is being replicated by some private operator in this country and for certain a number of different agencies both public and private will be policing and enforcing the issues in this bill. We need to take account not only of changes in technology and the way that people offend but of changes in technology and sociology I guess in respect of those who will be enforcing it. 
In closing I note it is a shame the Minister and the ministry have not taken heed of advice that was passed on in the course of the debate. There was the opportunity to deal with at least another two areas of offending. That is obvious and a real concern for people out there. They have missed that opportunity and it is a shame. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 Like other parties the Green Party is supporting this bill and it is probably one of those examples of broad cross-party consensus that a law like this is needed and that the issues around intimate covert filming are highly significant and that New Zealanders do need protection from this highly invasive activity. Because of technological development the scope for this has increased the scope for the publication and broadcast of these kinds of images has increased and it is not just a question of the invasion of privacy but also the humiliation in relation to the public nature of these kinds of recordings. So it is very appropriate that the House is passing this legislation. 
I think the Government Administration Committee did a very good job and I made reference to that in my second reading speech in relation to some of the details of the bill. In that regard a couple of the items I will mention in passing are the issues around exempting Internet service providers from being liable for images broadcast through their services and that is quite right. The select committee retained the distinction between those who have a recording in their possession as opposed to those who have it for the purpose of publishing exporting or selling. It was quite right that the committee did that. 
The other issue is in regard to the requirement on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the recording was in fact taken without the knowledge or consent of the person and the difficulty in regard to say images done overseas. The select committee made the decision to leave that in place and expressed the view that it is an evidential matter that should be dealt with in court on a case by case basis. I think that was also the right thing to do. 
I would like to touch on my disappointment around the issues that Mr Borrows raised because I remember that he raised those items during the Committee stage. There was some debate about whether he was correct in his analysis and on having read the bill more closely I think clearly he is correct. I do not see how one can read the bill in any other way than the way he has indicated—that is it does not include either audio recordings or recordings taken by consent but then published without consent. The whole point is that the offences covered in the bill relate to prohibitions on making an intimate visual recording; on possessing an intimate visual recording; or on publishing importing exporting or selling an intimate visual recording. But the whole point is that all of those offences rely on the fact that it is an intimate visual recording as defined in the bill which is a recording made without the knowledge or consent of the person. 
If it is a recording made with someone’s knowledge and consent the bill clearly does not prohibit the publishing of those images without the person’s consent. I think it is a real lapse and actually quite arrogant of the Minister to not have addressed that matter because he did assure the House as Mr Borrows has said that he would look into it. I have the  
Hansard 
 of my own speech given on 14 March and the Minister said very clearly that he was looking into it. So that is on the record. 
 I think it is a bit of an affront that he did not at least address the issue and either clarify that it was not his intention to cover those things or amend the bill. He appears to have done neither and I think that is a disappointment. 
The other issue that Mr Borrows raised was around audio recordings. I agree with him that it is not covered. On further reflection though on thinking about it there are real difficulties in covering that. How do we start to define what is an intimate audio recording? Intimate visual recordings are defined by the nature of the images—the fact that someone is naked engaged in intimate sexual activity or engaged in showering or toileting or other things like that or the recording is made under their clothing and so on. 
But if we are talking about an audio recording it is a lot more difficult to define. We cannot tell whether someone was naked when an audio recording was made. The matter would come to bear I guess when someone is engaged in sexual activity but even that is quite ambiguous. The sounds that people make during sexual activity are not always unambiguously sexual activity. I can think of having a very good massage as an example of ambiguity in terms of the sound. So I think the audio issue does raise some other complexities which maybe the Minister did not want to address but certainly the issue of visual recordings taken with consent but published without consent is quite straightforward and I think rightly should have been addressed and I am disappointed that that did not happen. 
Having said that of course that does not mean we will oppose the bill. We think it does provide important protections and in that regard we look forward to all parties hopefully supporting it. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not intend to take a long call. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Good. 
PETER BROWN 
: I thank the member for that. I think that much about this bill has already been said and it has been hanging around for so long now that it really needs to be passed this evening. The wonder boys and weirdos who get involved in this practice have to be stopped. We have to put a stop to them. This bill is addressing a sickening type of attitude that is coming more and more to the fore in this country and it is somewhat urgently required to address this practice. 
I think the National Party made some very good points when its members said— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What? 
PETER BROWN 
: We have to be fair. The bill does not include covert audio recordings. I think that is a legitimate concern also. If the matter was raised at the select committee I think there should have been some comment on why it was left out and why it has not been addressed. I think the bill would have been a lot better for addressing that. 
As for taking photographs or visual recordings with consent then selling them I think that is also a fairly sickening practice but I guess there is some advice there. If people are the subject of a recording or a video then they certainly want to keep control of it in their own hands. There is some opportunity to control it. But I agree that for it to be sold or put on the Internet without permission is not the way it should be done and this bill had an opportunity to address that. 
The third area that the National Party did not raise is that maybe we should look at putting some controls on emails that go from place to place. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That’s the next bill—the next one off the rank. 
PETER BROWN 
: That is the next bill is it? I thought the National Party had some interest in the transferring of emails from one area to another without permission. 
This bill needs to be passed tonight so I do not intend to take one second longer. New Zealand First will support the bill. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker; kia ora tatou. This bill is long overdue. The Maori Party supports the third reading of the Crimes (Intimate Covert Filming) Amendment Bill to penalise the making publishing or distributing of perve material recorded without consent by up to 3 years in jail. We support it because we well remember the racist imperialistic and pornographic images on postcards at the start of last century—photographs of Maori women with cloaks draped in such a way that one breast was exposed or of young Maori women lying around naked. In case members have a hazy memory of those times how about this for a fact? In 1909 alone 9 million postcards went out through the post office at a time when our population was only 1 million. In fact the sleazy exotic of the native postcard was heavily exploited. One could buy images of what were called dusky Maori maidens on postcards and paintings—and even see them in the early days of the cinema—all over the country. Jacqui Beets in her paper  
Images of Maori Women in New Zealand Postcards After 1900 
 describes how those maidens were posed with lowered eyelids and a shy come-hither glance to invite possession or ownership of a native woman and her land. 
Other writers in the Pacific also used the same intimate covert filming techniques to promote cultural tourism and land alienation as one juicy package. One Tongan writer described such voyeuristic filming as a major contributor to as well as a manifestation of a process of cultural invasion. That cultural invasion—that promotion of sex and the dusky maiden to sell postcards and promote colonisation—has finally come before this House. 
Beets concludes her study of the alluring Maori maiden theme by noting: “New Zealand postcards featuring Maori women thus suggest a policy of exploitation by early 20th century recorders and image-makers.” More than 100 years later we will finally see legislation pass to ban the filming and distribution of images taken of people in those situations without their consent. 
The Maori Party also supports the recommendation of the Government Administration Committee to include recordings made in any medium and images that use any device whether recorded or shown live because today’s criminals are as devious in their use of technology as last century’s photographers were in the posing of their models. To cover every angle we also support the view that the possession of such material for the purpose of publishing importing exporting or selling it should also be considered as grounds for a 3-year jail term. 
There was one particular issue that we felt was missed out of the bill and was missed by the select committee and we raise it here. The Law Commission proposed a dual response to intimate covert filming. It proposed that legislation should firstly criminalise the conduct and secondly ensure a remedy for victims through the Privacy Act. The Maori Party agrees wholeheartedly with that focus. The commission even recommended amendments to provide remedies for victims but this bill has completely missed out those amendments. The explanatory note of the bill states: “sentences requiring reparation will also ensure that the victims will receive some compensation for the harm they have endured.” yet oddly enough such compensation is not provided for at all in the bill. This bill also carries a penalty of 1 year in jail for possessing such material. We have to ask with so much attention being paid to the nitty-gritty why there is no detail on how to respond to the needs of those who have been victimised. It seems that this bill has been put together with the same piecemeal and ad hoc approach that we have seen with other bills put before the House this year. 
This bill also raises the question of who is watching the watchdogs. I note that if a person is with the Police the Customs Service the SIS or the Department of Corrections and he or she wants to do some snooping in relation to legal proceedings this bill protects that person as long as he or she clearly records the reason for snooping does it only during relevant times and restricts it to small areas gathers only relevant information and does not film in toilets or washrooms. That is the plan. The Maori Party also supports the idea of trying to keep controls on the watchdogs. We supported the Crimes of Torture Amendment Bill in order to tighten up the running of our jails and to prevent the abuse of power so we certainly do not want to create opportunities for an abuse of power in this bill.  
We hark back to the images that once reduced our women to the exotic innocent natives of the early 1900s as a reminder of why we should support this bill. With the advent of cellphones micro-cameras digital streaming Internet service providers and other mediums of electronic recording and storage the publishing and sale of such recordings to the voyeurs of the world has blown right out of control. We are disgusted at the practice and we are disturbed that those who endure the humiliation and shame of such an invasion of their privacy are not being compensated properly. We recommend further work be done to ensure their needs are met and we urge this House not to wait another 100 years before such victims can receive the justice they are due. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
Bill read a third time. 
The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.