Volume 630 Week 11 - Thursday 30 March 2006 
Volume 630 Week 11 - Thursday 30 March 2006 
[Volume:630;Page:2343] 
Thursday 30 March 2006 
Madam Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Next week in the House priority will be given to the Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill the remaining stages of the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 3) the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill the Criminal Procedures Bill the New Zealand Council of Law Reporting Amendment Bill and the first reading of the Local Government Law Reform Bill. 
As previously indicated the third reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill is set down for Thursday. I understand there may be a Privileges Committee report available for debate that day and as it would normally take priority I will be discussing with the other parties the seeking of leave to ensure that the New Zealand Sign Language Bill is taken first. There should be time on Thursday to deal both with that bill and with the Privileges Committee report. On Thursday the House will sit at the ringing of the bell due to the official luncheon in honour of His Excellency Mr Wen Jiabao Premier of the People’s Republic of China. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I am not sure whether I heard correctly but did the Leader of the House indicate that the Privileges Committee report would be dealt with by the House next Thursday? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 My understanding is that the report will be tabled on Wednesday. If that is the case then under the Standing Orders it takes priority as the first item of business on Thursday. As the member will be aware the Business Committee has already set down the New Zealand Sign Language Bill for Thursday and people will be coming to the House for that occasion. So if that is the case I will be talking with the parties about whether we could take the Privileges Committee report after the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. I am not expecting that the luncheon will delay the start of the House too much on Thursday next week. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 Could the Leader of the House indicate to us whether if we were to agree to those proposals he would also seek leave for the House to continue its business until the report of the Privileges Committee was fully debated. So rather than breaking on Thursday at 6 o’clock—if it comes to that and it may well do—we would continue to debate the report through to its closure in order that the debate on a Privileges Committee report is not broken by a 3-week adjournment. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I will consider that matter but we will just work through the timetable. I doubt for example that the New Zealand Sign Language Bill will take the full 2 hours of debate given the experience of that bill so far in the House. 
Speaker’s Rulings 
Questions for Oral Answer—Quotations 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I gave a ruling yesterday on the use of quotations in questions and replies. This was a subject that I had promised the House last week that I would consider—see  
Hansard 
 23 March at page 2136. Following my ruling a point of order was raised about why I had not addressed an issue that also arose last week concerning the capacity in which Ministers can be questioned. I point out that that issue arose on 22 March. I was not asked then nor did I promise to give a considered ruling on that matter. Members should be careful in raising points of order that they accurately recall events in the House. Now that the matter has been raised I will give some consideration to it and come back to the House with a ruling as soon as possible. 
Points of Order 
Questions for Oral Answer—Questions to Spokesperson 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is an important point of order in respect of Standing Orders 370 and 371 and relates to questions to the Government. My point of order relates to a press release by the Government today in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimons who is stated to be the Government spokesperson on energy efficiency. The core of our parliamentary democracy is the capacity to question members in this House on their responsibilities. The advice I have had from the Clerk’s Office is that it is not possible for me to lodge questions to Jeanette Fitzsimons despite the fact she is the Government spokesperson on energy efficiency. The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority has a vote of nearly $20 million a year. Its officials have advised me that indeed Jeanette Fitzsimons is the person in charge of that. Madam Speaker I do not necessarily wish you to give a ruling off the cuff because I think that when the Standing Orders were written it was not envisaged that members from an Opposition party would have responsibilities within the Government but I think you do need to give a considered ruling. Members need to be able to question members who have specific responsibilities—in this case Jeanette Fitzsimons as the Government spokesperson on energy efficiency. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think this matter is very clear. Standing Order 369 obviously relates to questions to Ministers; it is absolutely specific in that respect. Of course the Minister responsible for these matters is the Acting Minister of Energy the Hon Trevor Mallard. Standing Order 370(1) does of course state: “Questions may be put to a member (not being a Minister or the Speaker) relating to any bill motion or public matter connected with the business of the House of which the member has charge.” But that is always interpreted very narrowly. If the member cares to think about it he will see that it is in his own interest and that of the Opposition that it is interpreted very narrowly because sometimes obviously the Government thinks about whether it could somehow invent some questions for Opposition spokespeople on a variety of matters on which it might be interesting to have them under parliamentary scrutiny for an extended period of time. I am sure that narrow interpretation will continue to be the case. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I have heard enough thank you. The member has had an opportunity to put his point we have had a response and I have had advice. The Speaker of course is not responsible for how members are described outside this House. In the context of the Standing Orders however as has been noted under Standing Order 369 only Ministers can be questioned. However it is correct that under Standing Order 370 other members may be questioned in limited circumstances and those circumstances relate to business before the House. 
Tabling of Documents 
Wine-box Inquiry 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table question for written answer No. 4381 from Ken Shirley to Jack Elder about payments made in respect of legal expenses. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Business Statement 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I have just been reflecting on the information given to the House today by Dr Michael Cullen who is the Leader of the House and the Deputy Prime Minister in which he indicated that he understood that the Privileges Committee would table a report in Parliament on Wednesday and would be debated on Thursday. The Privileges Committee has been meeting over a particular matter. Today the most recent meeting was closed to the public and the determinations of that committee are not public. Given that I as a member of the committee cannot tell members when that report will be tabled how at this stage can he so confidently prepare the House for a debate on the report? He is not a member of the committee and should not have the information. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 Obviously reports are given to all members of this House. I was very careful to say “I understand” that the report may be available for debate next Thursday. Those sorts of decisions are discussed in the Business Committee and elsewhere. It is a matter of good order in this House to indicate we have already committed ourselves to an item of business next Thursday and that therefore we should consider how we manage that business in that particular circumstance. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Noting that the Privileges Committee is an important organ of this Parliament I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister can assure us that the Labour and Government-supporting members of that committee have not been in some sort of collusion to predetermine an outcome from that committee? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I am sure that is so. I am not sitting on that committee on that particular case for the very obvious reason that I am one of the shareholding Ministers of the organisation that is being charged with a privileges offence. But if the member is trying to tell me that his colleagues never report to his caucus about what goes on in select committees then I would strongly recommend that they adopt that practice in the future. 
Questions to Ministers 
Taxation—Effective Marginal Tax Rates 
1. SHANE JONES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What recent reports if any has he received indicating that effective marginal tax rates should be increased? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have received reports suggesting that payments under Working for Families should abate at a rate that would mean that a person on a parliamentary salary of $118000 with five children would not receive any payment under the scheme. This of course would mean a higher level of abatement and therefore higher effective marginal tax rates. For the person referred to yesterday with 20 children to be abated out by that level of salary would imply an abatement rate of 70 percent and an effective marginal tax rate of 109 percent on all income above $60000 a year. 
Shane Jones 
: Has he seen any reports that indicate support for avoidance measures to rort the Working for Families scheme? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have seen reports suggesting that a dual-income family with five children where one income earner is paid $118000 per annum would be paid money under the Working for Families scheme. Of course this would be true only if the family failed to declare the second income in the household. I hope that no one in this House would encourage the latter behaviour which would of course be a serious rort of the system. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How is the Government encouraging people into work when a person on the domestic purposes benefit with three children who increases his or her wages from work from $10000 a year to $25000 a year would face an effective marginal tax rate of approximately 90 percent leaving that person with less than $1700 of that extra $15000 earned? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: May I thank the member for the opportunity to answer that question because yesterday the National Party asked questions implying the abatement rate was far too low. Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith is now asking a question saying that the abatement rate is far too high. I just wish the Opposition could work out this scheme and get their answers consistent from one day to the next. In any case he is using the old abatement rates not the new ones. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Could the Minister please explain how the old abatement rates are being used when the figures I have used were supplied by the Inland Revenue Department yesterday as applying from 1 April this year—does the Minister not even know his own portfolio? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is very interesting but my response to the member is that abatement rates at some point in coming off benefit of about 90 percent have been in the New Zealand system at any time since it was instituted otherwise the member is getting up and asking me why somebody on $100000 a year is still getting the domestic purposes benefit. 
Income Per Capita—OECD Ranking 
2.  
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does her Government still have the objective of returning New Zealand’s per capita income to the top half of the OECD; if so when does she expect this to happen? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. No target time has been set. 
Dr Don Brash 
: What does she think of the recent stagnation of the New Zealand economy with a real risk that we are already in recession and with the virtual certainty of very poor growth over the next several years—so poor that our economy has been described by one major bank as being “in the cack”? What does she think that recent stagnation and very poor prospects will do to our ranking in the OECD? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am sure the member is praying for exactly such an outcome but I have much more faith in New Zealanders and our economy than he does. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Can she confirm that unlike in 1997 and 1998 there is no Asian crisis currently under way that there have not been successive years of drought and that therefore in the absence of major external shocks the Government has managed to bring us to the brink of recession all on its own? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There is an old saying that one swallow does not make a spring. This country has just gone through something like 20 consecutive quarters of strong growth. The member is well aware that when the exchange rate of the dollar goes high and impacts on exporting there is a period of rebalancing. That is exactly what the economy is going through. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Contrary to the claims made in the last question can the Prime Minister confirm that during this Government’s period of office there have in fact been 2 years of drought that we have had a massive outbreak of international terrorism a war in Iraq— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Both after I had been called for a point of order and during the asking of that supplementary question the relatively new member who sits on the front bench of the Opposition was running a series of interjections. I know that the Opposition supports the principle of one law for all and that principle should be applied to him as well. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is early in this particular session. Members are all on their final warning today and that includes one for the level of barracking. It was at the maximum level in response to the last question. So would all members please get on and let us have a question time where we can hear both the questions and the answers. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I will repeat the question. Can the Prime Minister confirm that contrary to the assertions made in the previous question we have experienced 2 years of drought under this Government plus a number of serious floods a major terrorist attack that led to an international crisis around terrorism a war in Iraq— 
Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but Mr Smith interjected twice during Dr Cullen’s question. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I know he did. I am sorry Dr Smith but I specifically did not take action the time before when the question was being asked. I put everyone on a final warning so would you please leave the Chamber until the end of question time. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Point of order—I apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I am frequently accused in this House of not upholding the Standing Orders. I try to be as fair as I humanly can to enable a robust debate to take place. The matter was raised before. I gave a final warning and you interjected twice Dr Smith. It is not a question of an apology; it is a question of in fact obeying the rules. So I ask you to please leave the Chamber. You may of course come back if you have a primary question and certainly you are permitted to come back at the end of question time. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: As I was saying can the Prime Minister confirm that contrary to the assertions in the previous question there have in fact been 2 years of drought a number of floods a major outbreak of terrorism a war in the Middle East in Iraq and that oil prices have risen from about $20 a barrel to over $60 a barrel which is a far higher increase than occurred during the late 1990s? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can indeed confirm that under the Labour Government there have been some 20 consecutive quarters of strong growth despite all those conditions—circumstances that I consider far more difficult to deal with than the Asian crisis was which the then National Government exacerbated by cutting spending. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that Dr Brash has put at issue the response to the Asian crisis of 1997-98 which in the Government’s view as it points to the future was the appropriate action: the then Treasurer ensuring that there was significant liquidity and a greater social welfare health and education expenditure or Dr Brash tightening the currency at that critical time? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Madam Speaker— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think I understand your point of order about whether that is a responsibility and whether it is within the question. Would the member care to relate the question to— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Dr Brash put at issue the Asian crisis and response of 1997-98— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The member should sit down. I am speaking. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Mr Brownlee you must allow the member to finish and then you can have your say. Would both members please sit down. As I understand it—and I may have misheard—when the member Winston Peters rose I assumed he was taking a point of order. I hesitated before the Rt Hon Prime Minister responded because I was reflecting on whether the question was in fact in order. I will take the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ point of order and then Mr Brownlee’s point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point of order is that Dr Brash put at issue the response to the Asian crisis of 1997-98. What is important with regard to that is that one needs to know what a Government’s likely response would be should such a thing happen again: the response of the then Treasurer to ensure that liquidity in the market and confidence were retained in New Zealand or the very opposite response from Dr Brash—the then Governor of the Reserve Bank—to tighten liquidity which is all a fact? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: So the question asks for an opinion on a situation. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no hesitation in backing the then Treasurer’s approach on that. Dr Brash was known for high interest rates which crushed the economy regularly. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the report in  
The Economist 
 of 6 February that the OECD itself is increasingly criticising GDP as a way of measuring well-being because it ignores inequality pollution and the depreciation of natural and built capital and does she agree that we should instead aspire to a high ranking in social environmental and cultural well-being? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member is right in saying that GDP rates per capita are not the only indicator of well-being although they are significant. Of course average rates can also disguise very great polarisation between the very wealthy and the very poor. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that in 1999 New Zealand ranked 20th out of 30 OECD countries and that the latest figures show we are still ranked 20th out of 30 and does it make her despondent to think that even during a period of strong international prices and good growing weather we have not been able to get even close to No. 19? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: No I do not have that sort of despondent personality. I know this economy has been growing for 20 quarters on end which is a far better result than Dr Brash—with his crushing policy on exporters—had for this economy which he jolly nearly wrecked. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Prime Minister think we will ever meet the objective of getting to the top half of the OECD when although the Minister of Finance has said that the first step in doing so is to raise our sustainable growth rate to 4 percent Treasury has said that our sustainable growth rate in the future will only be around 3 percent? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government has a series of policies that aim to have New Zealand with a higher sustainable growth rate over time. Those policies are working. They have produced 20 consecutive quarters of growth. The very minor minus 0.1 percent of the last quarter may cheer Dr Brash and his despondent personality but it will not depress this Government which has produced years on end of strong growth. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I seek leave to table the article I referred to from  
The Economist 
 of 6 February entitled “Grossly distorted picture”. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Climate Change—Cross-party Agreement 
3.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues 
: Does he agree with British Prime Minister Tony Blair that “in terms of the long term future there is no issue that’s more important than climate change”; if so will he support a cross-party agreement on the seriousness of this issue and the broad parameters for the way forward? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Yes and yes. The Government support for a cross-party agreement would however be dependent on New Zealand responding assertively to the threat that climate change presents. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree that a first objective would be to form some agreement on the degree of seriousness and urgency of climate change and of the need for action soon? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: That would strike me as a very good place to start. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Is the Minister aware of any examples internationally where there has been cross-party support for climate change policy? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes we can learn lessons from those in other countries. I would particularly instance the Dutch and the Canadians both of whom have had experiences we can learn from. I await with interest the response of other parties. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it fair to expect cross-party support on an idea enunciated by Tony Blair Prime Minister of the United Kingdom when one of the MPs in this House has described him as an “absolute liar” and “somebody he cannot stand” even though he has not met him and who has further said that anyone supportive of such a meeting is “sucking up to the pommies”—views expressed by Tau Henare this morning on Paul Holmes’ show in respect of Tony Blair? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I have seen that transcript. I must say that I think the issue is now no longer Tau Henare’s behaviour as much as it is his leader’s response to it. I would like to know what the Leader of the Opposition intends to do. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister think it might be possible to reach agreement that there needs to be a price on carbon throughout the economy to give business certainty about investment; and is he aware that the former National Minister for the Environment Simon Upton told this week’s climate change conference that a carbon tax would be the simplest most effective and most transparent tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that all parties that had rejected it should eat humble pie and reconsider? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I am aware of the Rt Hon Simon Upton’s comments and I do believe that having a price on carbon is very valuable. If however we were not able to achieve that we could achieve some measure of success by ensuring through other policy measures that capital investment was made in a way that took into account the carbon issues surrounding climate change. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Can the Minister confirm that subsequent to his extraordinary mishandling of this portfolio he has asked the Prime Minister to relieve him of the portfolio in the forthcoming reshuffle? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am the Acting Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree with economist Steve Hatfield-Dodds from the climate change conference that under all economic models cutting emissions significantly has only a minor impact on the growth of GDP; if so is he concerned that sacrificing the future of the planet for the sake of a minor slow-down in GDP growth might not be sensible prioritisation? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I regret that I have not seen that particular economist’s remarks but it is a matter of fact that the carbon tax effect on GDP was so small that we could not quite manage to measure it accurately. 
Elective Surgery—Ability to Meet Need 
4.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What mark out of 10 would he give the Government’s ability to meet New Zealanders’ need for elective surgery? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 A mark of 5½—higher than was ever the case under the previous National Government. New Zealand’s health system scores a pass mark because it is a good health system staffed by a dedicated workforce that we can all be proud of. The reason the mark ought not to be more than 5½ is that our workforce continually seeks improvement and this Government continually supports that attitude. We will never be complacent. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister think of anything worse for the mother of an 8-year-old boy with a brain aneurysm that if it ruptures can lead to brain damage major stroke or death than—and how can he countenance—a health system that sees two long-awaited surgery dates for this boy cancelled? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member should think twice before bringing individual cases to the House. His colleagues do not do so. They give me information privately in order that I can progress issues. This issue is being progressed. 
Ann Hartley 
: What reports has he received on ways to reduce pressure on the elective surgery system? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I have seen one report that directs public hospitals to manipulate elective surgery thresholds to conceal from the public growth in waiting lists. This was not just a report; it was a direct order from a former Minister of Health Bill English. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What would he say to the mother of this 8-year-old boy as she tries to explain to her son why his operations are being cancelled? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I will not speak in a public arena about a private case unless the person involved puts his or her name in the public arena first. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is it taking so long for kids like this boy to get this vitally needed surgery yet if the brain aneurysm did erupt he would get the operation all right but at the risk of brain damage a stroke or death? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I will say again that this case has been raised with me privately by two of the member’s colleagues who have been in discussions with my office yesterday and last night. I do not feel it is ethical for me to put a lot of personal detail into the public arena but if I were to do so it would change the context of the member’s position significantly. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How would he answer the mother’s question that surely it would be cheaper and safer to operate on her son in a controlled environment rather than in an emergency situation? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I will say again that this is an issue that has more than one side to it. I will not put the other side in the House because I do not think that is an appropriate thing to do but I urge the member to please get across all of the detail of this case; he can get it from his colleagues who understand it better than he does. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Can the Minister please explain why another 143 people have been promised neurosurgery by the Auckland District Health Board but are still waiting and worrying after 6 long months? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Auckland City Hospital has gone through a very significant transformation in recent times and this has been shown particularly in the area of cardiac surgery and elsewhere. The member’s colleague breathlessly raised some minutes in respect of Auckland surgery just 2 days ago. Those minutes were 3½ months old. The response to those minutes has been that an action plan has been developed and it is now partially implemented. 
Apples—Australian Market Access 
5.  
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Trade 
: What action is New Zealand currently taking to secure access for New Zealand apples into the Australian market? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 New Zealand yesterday raised the issue of apple access into Australia at the World Trade Organization (WTO) Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures in Geneva. This is the third time that we have taken the matter up at that committee and received strong support from others such as the United States. Today New Zealand has forwarded a formal submission to Biosecurity Australia in response to its draft import risk assessment. In both cases New Zealand has strongly and clearly demonstrated why Australia’s proposed quarantine measures are not scientifically justified and must be changed. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What consultation was undertaken in putting together the submission to Biosecurity Australia and does it have the support of New Zealand’s industry body? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The submission is a detailed and technically rigorous 102-page document drafted by Biosecurity New Zealand in close consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The industry body Pipfruit New Zealand was closely involved in its drafting and is supportive of the submission. The submission expresses the significant concerns of both the Government and industry about the conditions that have been proposed for our apples’ access. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: How is it that this course of action was not followed years ago like when National was the Government? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: National members who tend to be lions in Opposition were lambs when they were in Government. I think the then Minister of Trade said that he did not think that the WTO was the appropriate area. I know that nothing actually happened under the National Government on this issue for 9 years. 
Craig Foss 
: Does the Minister agree with the Australian Apple Access Group which had in its submission on the draft import risk assessment that the final import risk assessment report be released by 30 June 2006 and if this date is not achieved what action will he take? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I have seen that from the apples action group. That group knows of course that the timing is in the hands of Biosecurity Australia; it is not in our hands. It is possible of course at any time to take this matter to the WTO disputes process. The difficulty is that the moment we do that the import risk assessment process would stop immediately and the WTO process I am advised would take 3 to 6 years so we would be shooting ourselves in the foot to do what that member is implying we should. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
: 
 The Hon Dover Samuels was with us in the select committee only an hour or so ago. I am sure he is on his way to the House. I seek leave to have the question dealt with later in question time. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Economic Development Associate Minister—Policy Development 
6.  
PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Economic Development 
: What part has he played in general policy development as an Associate Minister for Economic Development since taking up the role? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
 on behalf of the  
Associate Minister for Economic Development 
: Dover Samuels has been involved in policy development at several levels with a particular focus on economic policies that have enhanced Maori participation in the New Zealand economy. He notes that Maori unemployment has more than halved under this Labour-led Government so his work is obviously paying off. 
Phil Heatley 
: Has the Associate Minister seen the statement in the  
Independent 
 of 22 March by a Mr Dover Samuels who claims to be a former district councillor complaining that 400 days after the aquaculture legislation was passed no aquaculture management areas had been established and that there was “huge frustration” amongst coastal Maori about the unworkability of the legislation and can he tell the House whether as Associate Minister for Economic Development he is able to confirm this sorry state of affairs? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: On behalf of the member the answer to the first part of the question is yes. 
Phil Heatley 
: Has he seen the statement in the  
Independent 
 of 22 March by a Mr Dover Samuels complaining that: “A number of hapu in my area are just so frustrated that nothing is happening” and that he “intended to pursue the AMA aquaculture issue further with PPSC members.” and can he advise the House whether he is able as Associate Minister for Economic Development to confirm this sorry state of affairs? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: On behalf of the Hon Dover Samuels the answer to the first part of the question is yes. 
Phil Heatley 
: Has he seen a statement in the  
Independent 
 of 22 March by a Mr Dover Samuels that in relation to aquaculture economic development he “intended to pursue the AMA aquaculture issue further with PPSC members.” and can he tell the House why he then voted against a committee inquiry into aquaculture only 2 hours ago? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: On behalf of the Associate Minister for Economic Development the Hon Dover Samuels in answer to the first part of the question yes. 
Phil Heatley 
: Can the Minister explain why he was speaking out in the  
Independent 
 against the aquaculture legislation for his local hapu in his local area yet voted against an inquiry on aquaculture only 2 hours ago? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: On behalf of the Associate Minister for Economic Development yes. [ 
Interruption 
] The question was: “Can the Minister explain …”. Yes he can. 
Phil Heatley 
: Has the Minister seen the report on Television One’s  
Te Karere 
 programme last night that said: “His political future looks uncertain and there is a possibility of him losing his ministerial position.” and is he aware whether this is because his senior colleague the Minister for Economic Development Trevor Mallard has no confidence in him? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: On behalf of the Hon Dover Samuels Associate Minister for Economic Development the answer to the first part of the question is yes. It is also his understanding that the Minister for Economic Development has confidence in him. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table the  
Independent 
 article in which Dover Samuels speaks out against aquaculture. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Phil Heatley 
: I seek leave to table my appeal to the Primary Production Committee for an inquiry into aquaculture which Dover Samuels voted against. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Landcorp—Maori Land 
7.  
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Ki tana whakapono e tika ana ma Kaporeihana Whenua e hoko te whenua ki tetahi rangatira tumataiti ara te whenua i murua mai ra i te hunga Maori hei pa tuwatawata; mena ae he aha ai mena kao he aha ai hoki? 
[ 
Does he believe it is appropriate for Landcorp to sell land that was taken from Maori for defence purposes and then transferred to Landcorp to a private owner; if not why not? 
] 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 I expect all State-owned enterprises to comply with the State-Owned Enterprises Act and the Public Works Act. I am advised that Landcorp’s policy is to alert the Office of Treaty Settlements before commencing any sale. If the Office of Treaty Settlements does not want the land then it is offered for commercial sale subject of course to the caveats in the State-Owned Enterprises Act. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: What consultation took place with the hapu of Tuwharetoa Hikairo and Whanganui about the sale by Landcorp of the Taurewa sheep station which is part of the seven Tawhai north and Okahukura Maori land blocks taken by the Crown in 1913 as a defence training ground? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Although I am not briefed on all operational matters to do with Landcorp it is my understanding that the procedure is as I referred to previously. From memory there would have been a section 27B memorial placed on the land so that if in the future a claim is successful then it would be resumed by the Crown and offered through offer-back provisions to the original owners. I am also aware that Tuwharetoa led by the leader of the member’s party’s new friend is doing a lot of work in that area. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Government intend to learn the lesson of Paraparaumu Airport which was taken from Maori was eventually sold on to private interests despite the policy and the legislation requiring other action and was the subject of a select committee examination which all happened under the National Party when it was last in power? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am one of those who hope we can learn the lessons of history from that case. I think it is fair to say to both members who are asking about this particular issue that the relationship between the Minister responsible and the purchaser of the land is not quite as close as it was in the case of Paraparaumu Airport. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Did the Minister not think it unusual that the land was advertised for sale a week prior to hearings of the Waitangi Tribunal inquiry into the national park taking place at the Chateau Tongariro which is only 5 kilometres away from the Taurewa Station? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I was not aware of that timing. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Why has the protective mechanism for surplus Crown land failed to protect the surplus Landcorp property at Taurewa particularly in terms of the possibility of land-banking that property? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is my understanding that as with a number of other cases of this type before the land was disposed of the Office of Treaty Settlements was notified. Even if it had not been the section 27B memorial—the caveat that sits on the title—makes it clear that the land can be resumed into Crown ownership if there is a finding of a sort that the member obviously wants. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why were the Okahukura and Tawhai land blocks not offered back to the original owners when the Government decided it no longer needed them for defence purposes and can we take it that the lack of due process followed is an indication that the Government is prepared to have one law for all dogs but many different laws for Maori land law? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I have no idea of when that land was transferred from the Ministry of Defence to Landcorp. Landcorp obviously has hundreds of thousands of hectares and many many blocks around the country and unless I am asked questions that detail a particular block I cannot answer those questions. I do not carry the details in my head of how those thousands of land blocks were obtained. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It now seems to be a practice of Government Ministers simply to say that not enough detail has been provided in questions so they cannot give the answers. In this case the question is pretty clear. It is about Landcorp selling land that was taken from Maori for defence purposes then subsequently transferred to Landcorp prior to the sale. It would seem to me that a Minister looking into this issue in the 4 hours this morning that he had to look at it might have simply asked the question of how many blocks taken from Maori for defence purposes Landcorp has sold. I do not think the number would be a particularly large one. For the Minister to say he is unaware indicates that he is completely uninterested. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his point of order. The answer may not have satisfied the member but the Minister certainly did address it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: As a matter of precedent to be followed in this case how was the much-vaunted one law for all applied in the case of the Paraparaumu Airport sale? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: It is a long bow. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: My understanding in that case— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Point of order— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I have some sympathy with you Mr Brownlee actually. I know that the question is being asked in the context of an ongoing series of questions but maybe the specific supplementary question could tie it back please. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. With respect there is a recently passed law in this country that states that if the Government is selling any land that was procured under the Public Works Act then it must first offer it to the owners or family who first had that land taken from them. It is a pretty fundamental principle I am trying to enunciate here. We have a question about one law for all and I want to know whether as a precedent for the future the Government intends to follow “the” law or the one applied in the Paraparaumu Airport case. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. That is a clarification and it does relate to the principal issue. Would the Hon Trevor Mallard please address the question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Obviously the Government will follow the law and encourage all State-owned enterprises to do that. The one caveat I should make clear to members is that these laws have been passed at different times and I am not sure when this land was transferred from the Ministry of Defence to the Department of Lands and Survey or to Landcorp. Therefore if the particular block had been named I would have been able to get the history of it. Of course as the Minister for State Owned Enterprises I can say that these are operational matters and that it would be absolutely wrong for me to tell Landcorp who to sell the land to and who not to sell to. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Is the Minister aware that the land taken during World War II for a military airfield at Raglan was turned into a golf course in 1969 which resulted in a massive dispute for the people of Tainui-Awhiro led by Eva Rickard and does he not think it ironic that the Taurewa Station is also being sold for the purposes of developing a golf course and grand apartments? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I certainly am well cognisant of Eva Rickard’s work around Raglan and I would not count on a non-Maori owner doing that development yet. 
Family Start Programmes—District Health Board Funding 
8.  
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Is he satisfied that all district health board funding for Family Start programmes is being correctly applied; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 No not entirely. 
Judith Collins 
: Is the Minister satisfied that Family Start contracts awarded through district health boards have been contracted in a manner untainted by personal considerations and benefits? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member may be aware that one such contract involving the Southland District Health Board is now currently under investigation and has been for a matter of weeks. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Why has the Government increased investment in Family Start? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Because Family Start works. Last year the Government funded a $10 million expansion of Family Start to 11 new sites bringing the total to 27 programmes around the country. Family Start is about building strong families and enabling them to work towards bright futures for our children. 
Judith Collins 
: In what way were the best interests of the most vulnerable children in Invercargill put first when the Southland District Health Board rejected Barnardos’ proposal and awarded the $3.6 million Family Start contract to a trust reported to consist of three family members two of whom hold senior positions with that very same Southland District Health Board?  
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The two people who hold senior positions with the Southland District Health Board have both stepped aside pending the results of a financial audit. The transfer of the Family Start programme to a new trust has already been effected and the children and families of Invercargill have noticed seamlessness. 
Judith Collins 
: When did the Southland District Health Board first become aware of potential corruption within Murihiku Whanau Services and its administration of Family Start Invercargill and how much of the $3.6 million contract has been paid to Murihiku Whanau Services so far? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Southland District Health Board carefully does not use the words “potential corruption” and neither do I. There are however certainly more questions than answers around that contract at the moment. I am not sure when the board first became aware of the issue and I cannot remember when I first became aware of it either but it was about 3 or 4 weeks ago. 
Judith Collins 
: How many other Family Start contracts have been awarded by and to the same people? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not aware of any. 
Judith Collins 
: Is the Minister satisfied that no other district health boards are awarding Family Start and other contracts to trusts run by board members and senior management staff; if not will he now ask all district health board members and senior staff to disclose their personal interests in the millions of dollars that should be going to our most vulnerable families? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am advised that the other four Family Start programmes funded through district health boards—that is the Waitemata District Health Board the Wairarapa District Health Board the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board and the Otago District Health Board—continue appropriately and to a high standard. 
Exporters—Government Assistance 
9.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: What steps is the Government taking to assist exporters enter key overseas markets? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Substantial through the Beachheads programme export awards and Export Year. The Beachheads programme provides office solutions clustering with New Zealand companies access to expert and market advice and support and an entry point to the contacts and networks needed to grow an export business. Beachheads is in place in the United Kingdom the United States Singapore Dubai and soon my colleague Jim Sutton will open it in Tokyo. Seventy high-quality companies—and I emphasise that; they have to go through a rigorous selection process—have joined the programme so far with 35 in the last year. 
Jill Pettis 
: What other steps is the Government taking to ensure that our export performance improves? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We have designated 2007 as Export Year in order to help improve New Zealand’s productivity and growth. 
Transit New Zealand—Commercial Investment Projects 
10.  
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Is he concerned that Transit New Zealand’s active opposition to a number of commercial investment projects is significantly impeding economic development right across New Zealand and what does he intend to do about it? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister of Transport) 
: 
 No but I freely acknowledge the tensions between the desire for local economic development and the desire for Transit to ensure that State highways are not congested within a decade or two of being built. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Is the Minister concerned that the Rodney Economic Development Trust which is contracted to implement the Rodney District Council’s economic development strategy has calculated the cost to the district of Transit’s policy at 6251 lost jobs and $129 million in lost export earnings? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am aware of issues in general around the Rodney district particularly in Wellsford and Warkworth. Warkworth is a very interesting case in point because now the proposition is that there be a bypass built around a bypass because of earlier land-use mistakes. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: That was 50 years ago! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If it was built 50 years ago I ask Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith whether that means that in every town in this country we continue to build a bypass around a bypass around a bypass. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: A triple bypass! 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It is a triple bypass. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: Can the Minister give a good example of Transit New Zealand working in close cooperation with developers to achieve economic development in the region? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I can give many examples but the member asked for one example. So I would offer the successful Smart Growth programme in the Western Bay of Plenty which to date has been predicated on a strong commitment to collaboration and partnership between Transit local authorities and developers. That partnership is called Access from memory. It is a significant level of cross-agency collaboration and the benefits of Smart Growth are apparent in a number of planning exercises currently under way in the Western Bay of Plenty area. 
Peter Brown 
: Noting the Minister’s answer in regard to Warkworth is he aware that for some considerable period of time Transit gave the developers and the Rodney District Council encouragement for that development and pulled the plug at relatively the last minute; if he is aware of that can he explain why Transit took such an action? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I suspect there is a measure of truth in the member’s question and I suspect that the reason for that will be the passage of the Land Transport Management Act. The point about Warkworth or Wellsford if I may say this is not that the locals decide on a particular solution right or wrong but that the locals and Transit work together for a solution and if there is anything I can do to facilitate that I am happy to. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Does the Minister agree with the Rodney Economic Development Trust that Transit’s ability to listen to local concerns is so bad that “meaningful consultation is dead” and “there is no point in working hard to encourage international companies and investment if a Government department is hell-bent on stopping them.”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am aware of tensions in that particular relationship. But it does take two to fight. I would instance a few other examples: MasterFoods just south of Wanganui; Frankton Flats just out of Queenstown which itself was a difficult relationship until more recently; and Milton south of where I live in Dunedin etc. where Transit and the local planning folk have managed to work together to a mutually successful outcome. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Does the Minister recall giving a commitment to the people of Warkworth before the last election that: “If I am still Minister of Transport after the election or if not my successor will come to Rodney in October for 2 days. We will travel between Wellsford and Warkworth meet with everybody and bring the Auckland Regional Council and other interested parties to get this resolved.” and given that we are only 1 day away from April of the following year has he done so yet? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: It would be a pleasure indeed to return to Rodney and meet with John Law and others again. Just now my diary makes that a little problematic. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: Does the Minister believe it makes sense for a knowledge economy zone in Rodney the largest industrial development in Auckland to proceed with only 15 percent of the planned investment because Transit New Zealand refuses to spend $5 million on motorway on-ramps and off-ramps? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Intuitively my inclination is to challenge the figures because if $5 million would buy an 85 percent improvement in economic development it would be the sort of thing that Transit would want to fund. 
David Bennett 
: How does the Minister explain the large increase in legal services incurred by Transit being an overexpenditure of $2.5 million in 2004-05 and Transit increasing its legal fees budget by $2 million for the 2005-06 year—costs that related to submissions on land-use applications—and what will the Government provide to applicants in those hearings so that they have equality of representation in any court or council hearing? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: If it is true that Transit New Zealand has been overexpending its legal budget by $2.5 million I would simply suggest that that would be a whole lot less than having to build a bypass around a bypass around a bypass. 
Transport Safety—Improvements 
11.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister for Transport Safety 
: What has the Government done since the establishment of the transport safety portfolio to improve transport safety in New Zealand? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 A lot actually. The Government has introduced a number of important changes to improve safety across all modes of transport since the establishment of the portfolio of transport safety in July 2004. Of particular note is the continuing reduction in the road toll. The Government has passed key legislation to enhance the framework for safety and security in line with the Government’s transport strategy objectives and this includes changes to Acts of Parliament regulations and rules covering a wide range of safety and security improvements across all modes. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is the Minister aware that 80 people have died and a further 70 have been seriously injured by trains—a total of 150 people—in the 4 years to June 2004 which are the latest figures that I could find and does he believe that to be satisfactory? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: First the question relates to the period before the initial question; the question the member just asked relates to the period before the portfolio of transport safety was established but I will still do my best to answer the question. I tell the member that a large number of those fatalities regrettably occurred not at level crossings but at places where people were illegally on the railway track. I am particularly concerned when train drivers are faced with the horror and trauma of a person standing on the tracks in front of them with obvious results. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Is the Minister for Transport Safety embarrassed by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 article today that shows that he is the only Cabinet Minister—or member of the executive actually—to have had two self-drive accidents and is he even more embarrassed by the fact that the road toll which has been declining for the last decade turned round and started increasing directly at the time he was appointed Minister for Transport Safety? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Well I never asked that member those sorts of questions when he was the transport Minister but perhaps I should have because I would have had a great deal of fun. I can tell the member that yes it is quite correct that my ministerial car has had two minor scrapes to the paintwork one attributable to me and one to my spouse. I can also tell the member that I am pleased to be able to say that the road toll for the last 12 months going back from today is 380. I would like to see it improve further. I have not put out any statements on that because I am aware that these things can go up and down when we have a bad month a bad holiday period or a spell of bad weather. What I can tell the member—[ 
Interruption 
]—if the member is prepared to listen is that 380 people have died on our roads and that is the lowest-ever figure for a 12-month period back from today. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister share my view that the Government has addressed many of the safety issues as far as the New Zealand shipping industry is concerned by making it difficult for the industry to survive? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I cannot claim the credit for the last part of the member’s comments. Mr Williamson might like to take a bow here. What I can say is that there have been significant initiatives in terms of maritime safety and I am very proud to have played a part in those. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Will the Minister commit to making changes to the legislation regarding level crossing safety including barrier arms and vegetation clearance given that 36 percent of fatalities and over 40 percent of cases of serious injuries caused by rail collisions occur at level crossings? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The member’s figures are correct but I also want to tell the member that many of those crossings would be closed if they had to have barrier arms and items of that nature put in place because it would simply be uneconomic to keep them open. Many of those crossings are actually legitimate crossings with very low vehicle loads such as crossings to farms and so on. But the level crossing issue is one that causes myself and ONTRACK considerable grief simply because of the stupidity of many of the people who drive through crossings when the warning signs are there and the bells are ringing. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Should Toll NZ have an explicit responsibility to provide clear indications such as a headlight on at all times and several toots of the horn when their trains which can slice through motor vehicles like a hot knife through butter are approaching level crossings; if not why not? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: It is an absolute requirement of all locomotives working on Toll Rail operations to have their headlights on at all times. Whether the horn is sounded is largely dependent on the operational policy applying depending on the type of crossing the location the time of day or night and whether it is in an urban environment etc. I think we would have a lot more complaints if the horns were sounded in the way the member suggests on every occasion day or night whether or not there are vehicles nearby or any other matter. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: I seek leave to table a graph of New Zealand’s road toll showing the massive turn-round in the positive direction in line with the member’s appointment to the transport safety portfolio. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I seek leave to table a document from the Ministry of Transport entitled  
Rail Safety Targets: Position Paper December 2005 
. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
District Health Boards—Laboratory Contracts 
12.  
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports if any has he seen on the tendering of district health board laboratory contracts? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have seen a number of reports particularly relating to processes currently under way in the Wellington region Otago and Southland. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Has he seen the views of Hutt Valley general practitioners who say that their collaborative working relationship with the current labs are at risk and that patient service may suffer and how does he think that a district health board facing a $10 million dollar deficit can do a job better? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes I have seen the views of the Hutt Valley general practitioners and I am aware sadly that the private contractor—or one of the private contractors—currently providing the service is running a public relations campaign over the names of five pathologists and targeting patients. Service coverage and access are matters for the district health boards which must assure me that patients overall will not be negatively affected. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Are all district health boards proposing to bring community laboratory services in-house? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No not all district health boards are proposing to bring community service laboratories in-house. Many district health boards are putting laboratory services out to tender but the tender results differ. In Otago or Southland for example the outcome may well be that the private sector wins out over the public sector. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How can taxpayers be sure that a district health board considering awarding itself a major contract is not a conflict of interest and that the tender costings do not involve any cross-subsidy from another part of the district health board? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: As the Minister of Health it is my expectation that district health boards conduct their operational affairs in an appropriate manner. I have been advised that in the case of the Hutt District Health Board and Capital and Coast District Health Board tender processes for laboratory services a probity auditor was appointed and has not raised any concerns. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Has the Minister seen reports by the New Zealand Medical Association that state there is a risk that laboratory services will become fragmented and why are some district health boards contracting out their laboratory services to the private sector because they get better services yet here is a Wellington district health board that wants to do the complete opposite? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: One assumes the market is at play. I have a question for the member: why when she cancelled Southern Community Laboratory’s contract in Auckland when she was on the board of the Auckland District Health Board and it complained to the public and to the Minister saying that the sky was going to fall in did she not do something about it? Why is it that that member took a rational decision then but wants to do populism now? 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: When was the last time the Government took over something from the private sector that maintained quality and cost less? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I am not sure but quite possibly when we bought back Air New Zealand or when we took back rail. If the member is asking about the health sector it was quite possibly when the West Coast District Health Board stepped into primary health. I seek leave to table a one-pager by Valley Diagnostic Ltd which states to patients that this may be bad for them and that they may not be able to get testing within their region any longer. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 11 to Minister 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I did not want to interrupt my colleague Dr Blue’s question. When Minister Harry Duynhoven sought leave to table a document there was objection to it being tabled from the member Dr Cullen. He is pointing to Minister Mallard. In fact the Minister Harry Duynhoven did table a document. There was objection and it should not have been tabled. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 Can I please make it clear that I did withdraw my objection. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I was not sure whether there was an objection which is why I asked whether there was. Frequently there are murmurings around and people do in fact when it is repeated either object clearly or do not. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The point of order is that as Speaker you did not put the question again as to whether there was any objection. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I did. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well we did not hear it over here. It was very clear on this side of the House that there was objection from the Minister and that was not clarified from our point of view. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I apologise. I will speak louder next time. 
Meat Board Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I move  
That the Meat Board Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee for consideration and that the committee present its final report on or before 27 July. 
The Meat Board Amendment Bill clarifies the provisions within the Meat Board Act 2004 regarding the allocation of access to meat export quota markets. The bill will uphold the original objectives of the Meat Board Act 2004. But by removing potential ambiguity in the original drafting the legislative framework will ensure that the Meat Board can continue its longstanding practice of allocating quota to producers of export-qualifying meat who are registered meat exporters regardless of whether they currently export meat products. 
The bill also clarifies the fee collection powers of the board. Once again this is to remove a potential ambiguity to make it clear that the board may charge fees to applicants for quota whether or not they have exported meat. I wish to make it clear that the bill does not modify the original objectives or intent of the Meat Board Act 2004 or the policy of the Meat Board in regard to the allocation of meat quotas or the charging of fees. The sole aim of the bill is to remove potential ambiguity and thereby improve business certainty for all market participants and for the Meat Board which is the administrator of the meat quota allocation. 
The bill then is technical in nature and limited in scope. In these circumstances I anticipate—hopefully anyway—that the committee’s consideration will be of shorter duration than usual. 
Under the Meat Board Act 2004 the Meat Board allocates monitors and manages all tariff quotas for meat of New Zealand origin. These quota markets in the European Union and the United States enable New Zealand meat products to enter those markets on preferential terms with low or zero tariffs. Our meat industries are very much dependent on export markets. Around 83 percent of lamb production and 87 percent of beef production is exported. Approximately half of all New Zealand’s meat exports go to the European Union and the United States tariff quota markets. I must say to the House that when I was speaking to the National Farmers Union in the UK recently I found that farmers in Britain were a bit gobsmacked to hear those figures and find out how export-oriented our agricultural sector is. 
Quota access is of significant value to the industry obviously and to the economy. The viability of New Zealand’s meat industry depends to a significant extent on sustainable access to these preferred markets. Since at least 1997 the Meat Board has allocated quota on the premise that meat industry participants who produce export-qualifying meat and hold an export registration certificate are eligible to receive quota—whether or not they are currently exporting meat products. Export registration certification is easy to obtain and does not limit the number or type of exporters. The amendment bill will reaffirm the Meat Board’s approach to quota allocation which will ensure that the financial benefits associated with New Zealand’s preferential access to quota markets will potentially be widely available to industry members. That is the point of the original Act which this amendment bill will clarify. It includes some 30000 sheep beef and dairy farmers as well as those involved in the meat-processing and exporting sectors of the meat industry. 
Although the New Zealand public may not fully recognise the economic and social importance of our land-based industries the Government—and I am sure many members of this House—see the primary sector as critical to both our economic and social well-being. New Zealand primary industries collectively provide two-thirds of our export goods. Primary industries therefore provide the foreign exchange to pay for imported goods and to maintain our living standards. Put simply New Zealand’s social and economic well-being is dependent upon the success of our primary industries. There will be no First World health education environmental or even infrastructural systems unless those sectors of industry are successful in New Zealand’s interests. 
Over the last 15 years productivity growth in agriculture forestry and related industries has outperformed the rest of our economy. Again that is a fact I do not think many New Zealanders fully appreciate. Although the New Zealand economy recorded relatively modest average productivity growth of around 1.3 percent during that period our primary sectors averaged productivity growth of 2.8 percent which is more than 100 percent of the national average. Other manufacturing industries achieved just 1.1 percent. Those are remarkably successful figures. 
The meat industry makes a significant contribution to the New Zealand economy in terms of its contribution to the gross domestic product employment and export earnings. From 1986 to 2002 the contribution of agribusiness to New Zealand’s economic performance rose from 14.2 percent of GDP to 16.5 percent. So rather than those industries being a set of sunset industries they are in effect a set of sunrise industries that we should be very grateful to have on our books. In the year ended June 2005 $4.6 billion worth of meat products were exported which accounted for around 15 percent of the total value of merchandised exports from New Zealand. 
The New Zealand meat industry is a high-performing and very productive sector by international standards. It has continuously improved its productivity over the last few decades. The industry has also achieved significant product development over the last 30 years. In 1971 90 percent of export lambs were sent overseas in carcass form; today it is less than 5 percent. Many of us will remember times when freezing chambers around New Zealand were full of frozen lamb carcasses which were then rendered down for pet food or fertiliser. 
The profitability of sheep and beef farms over the last 5 years has been very good. We need to build on those successes if we are to confront the challenges our economy faces. Some of those challenges of course are the need to harness our creativity the need to join global networks and work together to maximise our potential the need to be customer focused and the need to adapt to the rapid changes of the global economy. To achieve those things we need a competitive domestic meat industry. By clarifying the quota allocation and fees provisions in the Act of 2004 we will promote business certainty in the meat industry and thus maintain the meat industry’s substantial and positive contribution to the well-being of all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (National) 
: 
 National will support the Meat Board Amendment Bill going to the Primary Production Committee. New Zealand’s access to the quota markets has been hard-earned by this country over decades and it is of huge economic value to our economy. So we look forward to the submissions we will receive on this bill and I as chair of the select committee look forward to bringing the bill back to the House in a position where it can then be passed into law. 
The original Act to which we are moving the amendment is the Meat Board Act of 2004. I was told at a meeting last Monday of the need to make the amendment. I was contacted by the Minister’s office and I was briefed in confidence about the issue. On this occasion I thank the Minister very much for arranging the briefing. It gave us a chance to understand exactly what the bill was about. I also take this opportunity to say that there will be times when a Minister needs to brief members of Parliament who are not part of the Government in strict confidence and I implore members of Parliament to always treat that confidence carefully. It would be a very difficult situation if members were to treat that confidence lightly—it would make it very difficult for a Minister to be in a position then of being able to brief a member of the Opposition on a matter. So I appreciate the Minister’s involving National in that briefing. 
As I understand matters the reason for this legislation relates to the possible ambiguity of the 2004 Act. At this stage I make no judgment at all about whether the Act as passed in 2004 is in fact ambiguous. Suffice it to say that I accept the advice given by the officials through the Minister that there is indeed an issue around that. The process now allows any party interested in the matter to make a submission to the select committee and we will then consider the points of view raised. 
 I recall the issues quite well at the time of the 2004 consideration when the select committee grappled with the issues of access to meat quota. If I recall the issues correctly there were two significant issues that we needed to get our heads around as a select committee. One was a mechanism that did allow any new entrants to ultimately have some access to the quota markets. From my point of view on that select committee I was keen to ensure that there was a process by which a new innovative company establishing itself in the market here in New Zealand as a processor of meat suitable for any of the quota markets at least had an opportunity to ultimately get access to those markets. I cannot see any legitimate argument for the quota markets to be closed off on some historical basis and restricted to those people who had previously been there. If that was to happen the only thing we would successfully do from a “New Zealand Incorporated” point of view is stifle the necessary innovation still required in the meat industry. 
The second issue that I recall we grappled with at the select committee was an issue whereby if any particular participant had access to the quota market and it looked as though towards the end of any particular season the participant had not used that market to the fullest extent possible then there had to be a mechanism by which quota could be traded between the players. I fully accept that argument again on the basis that at the end of the day this Parliament should be concerned about the way that “New Zealand Incorporated” can maximise the benefits of those quotas. So in my mind there clearly needed to be a mechanism to allow an end-of-season adjustment between the players involved in the quota markets. 
I have no doubt that when this bill is before the select committee all the parties who have an interest in access to quota markets will be given a chance to come and air those issues again. As the chair of that select committee I am sure that I speak for the other members of the select committee many of whom were not sitting on it at the time of the 2004 election when I say that all members of the select committee who do work well together will have the opportunity to revisit this matter via the submission process. I am sure that all the arguments presented by submissioners to the select committee will be discussed and well and truly examined in the select committee process. 
I note that the Minister has given us a 27 July deadline and then asked that we hopefully progress this matter quicker than that. I can almost guarantee that we will be able to do that. The select committee workload at this stage is not very busy. In fact at the select committee today I took the opportunity to try to bring more work before the committee. I was taken by the comments of the Associate Minister for Economic Development the Hon Dover Samuels when he publicly raised the issue of the lack of progress in aquaculture. He said he was quite happy to work with members of the select committee to see whether we could assist the Government out of a bind that it has obviously got into whereby past legislation has absolutely gazumped further development in aquaculture. 
I put it to the select committee today that maybe the Hon Dover Samuels was indeed a man of his word and would be prepared to work with us to see whether there was a way to fill in some of the spare time we have on the select committee initiate an inquiry and assist the Government. I was absolutely staggered I must say when the Hon Dover Samuels then voted against us initiating that select committee inquiry. I guess from the point of view of the Hon Jim Anderton that does just clear the desk and give us plenty of time to look at these issues and call for submissions. Hopefully I can get this bill back into the House as quickly as possible—and substantially before the 27 July deadline. 
I look forward to working through the issues on the select committee which now includes as a member Colin King member of Parliament for Kaikoura. On looking through the notes we have I realise that it had previously slipped my mind that he was a director of Meat and Wool New Zealand and therefore a director of the New Zealand Meat Board which examined these quota issues right up until his recent resignation. So among the many experts we have around our select committee we will have Colin King member of Parliament with an absolutely intimate knowledge of the discussions that have occurred within Meat and Wool New Zealand and within the New Zealand Meat Board about the way the legislation has been working. In fact from the point of view of a former director of Meat and Wool New Zealand we will know whether the board itself had any concerns or whether the officials and thereby the Minister are the ones with the concerns. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: I need someone to reflect my intimate knowledge. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Indeed Doug Woolerton interrupts and says we need someone to replace his intimate knowledge of the industry. That is true. 
It still defies belief that Doug Woolerton was taken off the Primary Production Committee. After years and years of valuable service the New Zealand First leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters told Doug Woolerton the party no longer wanted him to make a contribution to New Zealand agriculture and therefore he was taken off the select committee. As a reporter said to me not 2 hours ago that particular committee must be one of the select committees in Parliament that truly does not reflect MMP. It has four National members of Parliament and four Labour members of Parliament. None of the smaller parties are represented on that select committee at all and I say that is a shame for the select committee. 
I will finish by taking the opportunity after talking about the valuable contribution we expect from Colin King to acknowledge in the House today his replacement on the board of Meat and Wool New Zealand: Andrew Fox a well-known North Canterbury farmer. He is also a director of PPCS Ltd so I am not sure which particular camp he will be in when he appears before us at the select committee. But I take this opportunity to congratulate Andrew Fox on his election to Meat and Wool New Zealand; I sure he will make a valuable contribution to it. We look forward to the bill coming to the select committee and I assure members of our complete cooperation in order to get it back here as quickly as possible and in good shape. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
: 
 I will take a brief call in support of the bill. 
Hon David Carter 
: Oh do 10 minutes. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY 
: I thank David Carter. He has been a good chair of the Primary Production Committee of which I am a member and I am delighted that his party will support the bill at the select committee. I look forward to a good discussion there. I say to Doug Woolerton that we do miss him. He was a good member of that select committee in the last Parliament and we miss him. 
This is a very small bill that is really more of a technical nature. It is important that this issue should be fixed. It is important that all the meat we produce in this country is properly exported. This bill will ensure that we allocate access to quota markets to meat industry participants who hold export registration certification whether or not they currently export meat products. This bill removes any potential ambiguity and thereby improves business certainty for all market participants and the Meat Board at any stage of our meat quota allocation. The bill will ensure that the financial benefits associated with New Zealand’s preferential access to quota markets will continue to be available to the wider New Zealand meat industry optimising positive economic outcomes in the domestic market. With those few words I support this bill. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I also rise in support of this bill going to the Primary Production Committee. It is important that that important select committee—the most powerful committee in Parliament I would suggest—look at the bill. But the question that remains of course is this: how come so soon after the legislation was passed in the first place we are back considering these amendments? I guess that in the fullness of time the officials may be able to explain that but what I think it demonstrates—and the Minister certainly touched on it in his opening comments—is that things are not always as black and white as some of our officials and some members of Parliament might think. So I say to the select committee of which I am not a member—I was at one stage but not at the moment—that it should make sure that it goes through the detail with a fine-tooth comb so that we are not back here having to amend it again. 
It is important that Meat and Wool New Zealand—the Meat Board as has been referred to in the bill—has the ability to manage the quota. The reason for that is that we have markets overseas that have taken years to build up. The Minister of Agriculture noted in his comments how important those markets are to the social and economic well-being of New Zealand. I agree with him entirely and I thank him for his comments. In fact I was heartened to hear them from the new Minister. The Minister was of course in the Lange Government for a little while—the very Government that said this was a sunset industry and the sooner 8000 farmers walked off the land the better. So I was heartened to hear the Minister say—and it is obvious to anybody who spends more than 30 seconds studying these industries—how important they are to New Zealand. 
As the Minister said 87 percent of beef is exported as is 88 percent of lamb. That makes New Zealand unique. Nowhere else in the world would one find an economic producer of protein-based land-based products where the export content of what is produced is as high as that. In fact in most cases the exact opposite is the case. Mostly one finds that 80 percent 90 percent or up to 95 percent of what is produced in a country is consumed in that country whereas New Zealand has to go out into the world compete against huge multinationals and succeed. So I thank the Minister for the initiative of making sure that the quota management system is handled well. 
Not too many New Zealanders actually know what such industries do and what this industry is about. The New Zealand Meat Board—operational name Meat New Zealand—exists to further the interests of New Zealand’s 32000 meat producers. I got these figures from the parliamentary Bills Digest but I suspect that the figure of 32000 is too light. I suspect that it is bringing meat producers down to trade names rather than individual farmers or producers. I suspect that the figure is too light but I am able to be challenged on it. I know that there are 70000-odd farmers in New Zealand and I also know that the dairy industry which one would not consider to be linked with this is 40 percent of the meat industry. So it is a meat producer even though its main income would be registered as being dairy-product producers. So I challenge that figure. I have no facts or basis on which to challenge it I just suspect that it is wrong. 
The board is there to manage the interests of those producers and it is funded through a levy on stock slaughter. Its main purpose is to develop and enhance market access. That is its main purpose. I have to say having just attended a recent meeting with a large number of my colleagues—in fact I think 32 National caucus members attended the meeting which was a very good meeting—I was heartened to see just how strong the leadership in that industry is and where it is going. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Where were the rest? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: The member opposite interjects. We have heard a lot recently about National members interjecting during question time. I know that some people are annoyed by how many National members are here now. I hasten to add that it particularly annoys the Rt Hon Winston Peters who I know can only ever round up two or three of his own team to support him at any one time. But the fact is that there are 48 National members here and 32 of them were at the meat and wool meeting just recently. So I say to the member that we are 100 percent behind this industry and this process. This industry produces $4.6 billion and we overlook that. This industry is often dusted off as some insignificant group of cow cockies from the back of the hills somewhere. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: How much? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It is $4.6 billion. The Minister said that this economy is very dependent—I would go so far as to say almost totally dependent—on these land-based industries. So we cannot place too much emphasis on the importance of this kind of legislation. The New Zealand Meat Board has a particular role in the regulation of market access and that is what this amendment is about. We cannot have ambiguity in the market about who controls the quota. We must have tradability and we must have the right regulations in place. I was heartened to hear the chair of the select committee the Hon David Carter a very good colleague and obviously the Opposition spokesman on agriculture say it is hugely important to make sure that that tradability is maintained. I agree with him entirely. 
It is also important however to make sure that the quality of the product exported to those markets measures up to the standard that is put forward in the quota access. If we do not have those quality assurances in place markets can be damaged beyond repair very quickly. Any ambiguity in respect of what meat should be exported to a tariff market and how and when is absolutely untenable. If that exists in our Act then we need to fix it. I am sure the select committee will carry out its work very diligently and the Minister will pass the bill through the House. 
Can I finish by saying that this industry is built on the backs of hard-working mum and dad farmers out there in New Zealand. It is not built on the backs of bureaucrats or officials or structures based in Wellington and we often forget that. We talk in lofty language about the significance of some of these structures but we forget that we need the producers out there battling away every day to make sure that the product—which it is undisputed is the best in the world—is produced efficiently. 
That I guess is why it is so important for the Government to provide the right infrastructure for those people to get on with it. In recent times we have seen a Government that has started to take us down the track of losing sight of those basic fundamentals. The fact that we must have competitive access to markets is part of it. It is absolutely important. But the other side of the equation is that we must have a Government framework in place that allows those hard-working farmers in New Zealand who produce this product—the most efficient farmers in the world; the people who produce the best product in the world—to get on with that job and not be tied up in all sorts of brain-dead regulation that spills out of this place and throws up a roadblock in their faces. 
One of the things that we learn about this industry the moment we look at it is that it has gone from being a bulk commodity almost 19th century industry—part of the first Industrial Revolution as it were—to being a very high-tech value-added industry. I say to the House today: watch this space. If members have a look at some of the new developments within the meat industry and at some of the new initiatives around wool development pasture development and meat development they will find that this industry has a strong future. And it will still be a leading industry in this country for three four or five generations despite the fact that most of the Government’s energy—and I am not talking just about the current Government; it is not a political statement—goes into putting all sorts of barriers in its place. I say to the Government that it should take a look at what makes this industry efficient get out of its road and let the industry get on with it. 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First supports the Meat Board Amendment Bill because we believe in exports and we believe in making right everything that will assist our farmers to export to foreign countries where every single barrier—both tariff and non-tariff—that can be put up against our exports is put up. We must make sure that we have the legislation right to enable our people to go about their business because there are men and women who work their butts off around the world on our behalf to make sure we gain entry into these countries. It is all very well to be talking about getting the beef off the farm and about what should happen with shipping and all of that sort of thing but unless we can make the regulations work that enable us to enter these countries on favourable terms we are fighting against the weather as we say in farming. It just will not happen. I was going to use another colloquial term but I thought I had better not. 
I think it is also right to remember as this legislation is passed through the select committee that this industry is constantly changing. As previous speakers have said the industry has gone from being a commodity industry—mainly carcasses shipped overseas—to being an industry dealing in all sorts of finer meats packaged meats fancy cuts etc. I am absolutely positive that the select committee even without my presence will make a good job of this. I am alarmed to hear that only Labour and National are represented on it but nevertheless I am sure that under David Carter’s able chairmanship this bill will be progressed quickly. 
I personally do not think it will be quite as easy as one would imagine it should be. I think that this will be shall we say an unexpected chance for people who did not think they were heard properly the first time to come along and have a second bite of the cherry. I am sure the experienced members of the committee realise that. When we take meat into another country or any produce into a quota market in another country that is seen as a privilege enjoyed by members of meat-processing industries and so on. There are always new entrants to the processing industry—and Mr Carter referred to this earlier—who want to push the barriers. They say we should be able to export without going through this bureaucratic nonsense without going through the Meat Board and without having to rely on these sorts of regulations. 
 It is very difficult but necessary to keep those people in some sort of order and to say: “Hang on sunshine first these criteria must be met then we will look at your applications.” Again as the Hon David Carter said one does not want to stifle enterprise but that has to be balanced against—excuse the language—stuffing up the markets that have been put in place by previous generations. 
There is also a change down on the farm in this industry led from the markets to have what we can call “from the pasture to the plate” tracking. Great sophistication is entering the farming and production chain in the way of tagging and electronic tagging in order to follow one single beast from a farm right through to the supermarket counter and on to the plate. I commend the industry for that because it is a huge undertaking. I must just say being a little bit controversial that that is one reason why I cannot understand the outrage of farmers towards the so-called chipping of dogs. In every other part of their industry the chipping or electronic tracking of animals is right at the forefront of what the market is wanting. It wants those animals tracked from the paddock to the plate so it is rather naive and quite unbelievable for farmers to say that there will be a big industry built around tracking dogs. That is nonsense because the whole industry is involved in that process as we speak and the chipping of dogs will be seen as just another addendum to that as time goes on. 
As mentioned by Shane Ardern this is a huge industry and it is one that we in New Zealand First take a great deal of interest in. If we are looking to address our balance of payments problem in this country—brought about by too much consumption and not enough exporting—industries like this are the only places we can look to for the sort of bulk money that we need to address those balance of payments deficits. 
Everybody knows that a small percentage increase in a big industry will be what produces the dollars rather than rushing around looking for the silver bullet as in the new industries that have years and years of start-up time and are simply incapable of doing the job. So it is the land-based industries that will help this country with its balance of payments deficit it is the land-based industries that sustain our standard of living and it is those that we must protect. 
I do not have much time like many farmers—or in my case ex-farmers—for ticket clippers. Mr Ardern mentioned those. We see far too often people who are to one side commenting and involving themselves in discussions on this industry. They are not directly involved in the industry they do not take the risks and they do not put up the money but they have all sorts of ideas about how these things should work. In my experience they are very big on talking about getting a share of the industry. They always want to get their foot in the door. They always want to take a percentage of the profit without taking a percentage of the risk. It is bills such as this that are designed not necessarily to keep those people right outside of the door but certainly to make sure that they serve their time before they come in the door. We certainly understand that aspect of the industry. 
I just close by commending the Minister of Agriculture Jim Anderton. Like Shane Ardern and the Hon David Carter I well remember when perhaps the Minister was on the other side of the fence from where he is now. I commend him on a speech he made in England—I think it was in Birmingham. I do not know how many farmers there are in Birmingham but that is where the conference was held. He made the point that within a few hundred kilometres of that conference centre were something like 80 percent of the serious customers of the British market who ate that sort of produce. In our case we are many many thousands of kilometres away yet we are still able to compete with them unsubsidised by the good efforts of our mum and dad farmers who have been spoken about before. I commend those people. New Zealand First supports this bill. It is essential that it be passed. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Hopefully it is no secret to those of us gathered in the House today that Maori tangata whenua have earned their livelihoods through the spilling of blood on abattoir floors throughout the country over many years. Indeed my first holiday job was at Gear Meat Processing at Petone feeding the chain and picking up mountain oysters. Minister Horomia would no doubt confirm that they are delicacies in his area of Tolaga Bay on the East Coast. My honourable colleague from the north Mr Harawira also did his training in the freezers and on the gut floor of the now-closed Moerewa freezing works. He considered himself at that time not a freezing worker but a meat processor and now of course he is a parliamentarian. Our co-leader Dr Pita Sharples prepared the sheep for slaughter. He was in the shearing gangs that produced fodder for the works. Our other co-leader as this House will well know was an amateur vet. She was involved in the artificial insemination of her dairy herd the bobby calves of which ended up in the meat-processing industry. 
 So for the record the Maori Party has 100 percent involvement in the meat sheep and dairy industries. Almost 32000 are employed in meat processing and manufacturing many of them tangata whenua. What I am saying should not in any way diminish the contributions of other people—the farmers and former meatworkers who are also present in the House. I mihi to them all. Tena koutou. 
The industry operates major plants in Dargaville Karaka Waitoa Paeroa Te Kauwhata Tirau Te Puke Horotiu Te Kuiti Taumarunui Waitotara Waipukurau Takapau Oringi and other locations—locations where coincidentally there is a Maori workforce to support the kapata kai the food cupboard of Europe. Of course there are all the other locations where meatworks have been closed. They exist no longer and we must never forget the impact of the devastation of the closure of the meatworks such as Tomoana and Whakatu in which hundreds of families felt the impact of poverty unemployment and alienation. 
Meat industry products account for about 17 percent of New Zealand merchandise I am told. The figures are astounding really. Between 1998 and 1999 91 percent of lamb 83 percent of beef and 79 percent of mutton were exported overseas. In real money terms as I understand it New Zealand exports more than $4 billion of beef sheepmeat and goat meat with 65 percent of it going into quota markets that rely on country-specific tariff quotas. 
This bill is another example of legislation being posited as standing as a model for Aotearoa meeting its international treaty obligations relating to quota markets. The question must be again asked in this Chamber about how the Meat Board Amendment Bill honours the obligations the Crown has to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This House should be aware that both the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal have determined that the principle of partnership includes the obligation on both parties to act reasonably honourably and in good faith. Indeed the courts have also found that an aspect of the obligation to act in good faith is the duty to make informed decisions through consultation. The Waitangi Tribunal has emphasised the value and appropriateness of consultation in upholding and strengthening the Treaty partnership. 
Yet what do we have here? Maori meatworkers we have contacted in the very recent past—in fact this morning and yesterday—about this bill have absolutely no idea that it is even on the Table. But it gets worse. It seems that the bill which the Minister is promoting as “optimising positive economic outcomes in the domestic market” has not even been passed through the hands and by the eyes of stakeholders in the industry. Meat Industry Association of New Zealand policy adviser Dave Harrison said that the bill had taken the organisation by surprise. The media reports him as commenting: “ ‘The bill’s been a bolt out of the blue for us … It was done without consultation—we haven’t had a chance to form a view on it.’ ” So the Maori Party has to ask whether this is another case of policy change by stealth. 
Although we were told that access to quota markets will be kept open to all registered meat exporters regardless of one’s previous export history the question has to be asked as to why the Meat Industry Association did not know about something of such fundamental importance to its core business. More important why did Maori meat producers not know about this change? Maori produce 15 percent of New Zealand’s total meat for goodness’ sake! Multiple-owned Maori incorporations also tend to be among the country’s biggest farms in stock-number terms. Collectively Maori are the largest natural grouping of pastoral farmers in New Zealand—farming an effective area of 720000 hectares and growing. Some impressive initiatives have also been pioneered by Maori in the meat industry. We recall a group of Maori entrepreneurs who bought a third of the shares in the Richmond meat plant from the Meat Board. They subsequently sold two-thirds of their stake to Dunedin-based PPCS. 
Maori meatworkers have traditionally formed part of the backbone of the meat industry itself. They are men who because of the conditions they worked under aged before their time. However within the industry itself important steps have been made to demonstrate consultation with tangata whenua and I make particular mention of the Federation of Maori Authorities which almost a decade ago lobbied for and won legislative changes laying down voting procedures for the Meat Board and the Wool Board in order to encourage greater Maori participation in those two industries. The one farm one vote system was changed to a system based on production that recognises the greater size and productivity of Maori incorporations. The Federation of Maori Authorities says that this new system has generated greater Maori participation in the sense that more people are registering voting and attending board meetings. 
This determination by the industry is a very positive move that we would like to see replicated in the Meat Board. We recognise the contribution that Maori professionals such as Wayne Walden and Gina Rudland had in their membership of the Meat Board. 
The bill amends the 2004 Act to clarify that the Meat Board may allocate access to quota markets to meet industry participants who hold an export registration certificate whether or not they currently export meat products. I want to raise here the possibility that an opportunity could exist if Maori meat producers take advantage of it to form an entity to enable them to enter the meat export market. Is this an opportunity for indigenous marketing in relationships with countries such as Bolivia Colombia and Venezuela? It seems slightly ironic that while as I understand it AgResearch is currently right in the middle of a 12-stop tour of the North Island to encourage Maori dairy meat and wool farms to realise their potential and increase productivity here today we have a timely and significant opportunity to do exactly that. One wonders whether AgResearch is talking to the Minister. 
The whistle-stop tour is aimed at doubling Maori farm productivity from its current $800 million to $1.6 billion by the year 2020. We are not happy that yet again a significant piece of legislation is being processed on the shop floor as it were without the robust consultation that we suggest is desirable for any policy change. 
We will however support this bill through to the select committee to enable the Meat Industry Association meatworkers the Federation of Maori Authorities Maori meat producers AgResearch and other key players to have a say about how to strengthen the historical backbone of our primary industries. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the first reading of the Meat Board Amendment Bill and immediately signal that United Future will be supporting this bill—I expect not just through the first reading but all the way until it becomes the law of the land. As I mentioned in my general debate speech yesterday my own involvement in the industry—peripherally it must be admitted—was in the early-1980s. It was not just in the restructuring of the meat industry but in its total reformation. 
Shane Ardern mentioned it was a 19th century industry. I tell him that it was actually a colonial industry. About the only thing that New Zealanders owned in the meat industry was the meat itself. The meat was grown here processed mainly in British-owned freezing works shipped on British-owned ships across to the other side of the world went through British-owned wholesale markets then sold through British-owned retail markets. 
Shane Ardern 
: Vestey’s. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: Vestey’s in particular and by the time it reached the British housewife there was a mark-up of over 90 percent on what the farmer back in New Zealand got. That is colonial economics. 
We have moved on and it has been a great success. As I said I was one who was peripherally involved as a consultant in those days on that reformation and I am absolutely thrilled that all these years later we have such a successful and flourishing industry. In fact meat exports are 20 percent of New Zealand’s total exports. 
I remember when I lived in London in the 1970s my wife would go to the supermarket and ask for New Zealand lamb. She was told it was in the deep-freeze and when she opened the deep-freeze inside was a piece of stocking net and all one could see through the stocking net was fat and that was a leg of New Zealand lamb. [ 
Interruption 
] Unprocessed. It was amazing to me that we sold much lamb because one had to be motivated to buy that stuff. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: There’s definitely been a transformation. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: The transformation now of course is enormous in the way in which our meat is packaged cut and marketed. It is just a brilliant success story and long may it continue. 
The reason we support this bill is that it will continue the principle of free and open markets for meat exporters from this country. Te Ururoa Flavell who has just resumed his seat speculated that maybe Maori could form a cooperative meat exporting company and I said straightaway “Why not?”. They should go for it because the opportunity is there and under the present rules according to which particular set of lawyers one talks to—and Te Ururoa may not be aware of this background—some legal opinion says that in order to get access to quota markets one has to be exporting meat whereas the clear intention of that Act was no one can register as a meat exporter and become a new meat exporter. When one thinks it through if we stuck with the present position we would be closing the market to new entrants. 
I recommend to the House that if members ever have a spare night they should take out a video called  
Tucker: The Man and his Dream 
. It is a true story that happened in the early 1950s in the United States where the motor vehicle industry excluded a new player a man who was a brilliant innovative person. Eventually that led to America losing its dominance in motor vehicle manufacturing and surrendering it to the Japanese and the Germans. Members will remember the days when people used to joke about Harley-Davidsons and that the only reliable thing about them was that they were good for spare parts. The whole industry went downhill in terms of quality and so forth because no new blood was coming in. It became a closed shop. The last thing we need in the meat industry is to have a closed shop like that. We must remain open to new people coming in with new ideas innovation and energy which will ensure that we continue the very successful run we have had over the last 20 or so years in developing this fantastic industry. 
The other thing we have to remember is that while many of New Zealand’s international competitors—that is meat producers in other countries—can rely on a large domestic market in New Zealand our small population does not give us that luxury. Therefore it is remarkable that we have done so well. In fact the figure I have here is that 83 percent of all beef and veal produced in this country is exported. I think the comparable figure for mutton is 88 percent. This is a New Zealand success story and one that we should celebrate and encourage. That of course makes it even more important that we ensure we do have free competitive markets and that is all about allowing new entrants to get a foothold in the door so that we can bring the new blood that I mentioned into the equation. This is a great bill and we are delighted to give it our support today. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I rise in support of this bill. I would imagine that in the first instance many in the House might consider that I rise to declare of a conflict of interest. However when I was elected to this position as the member for Kaikoura I resigned my position on the Meat Board and therefore congratulate my successor in the northern South Island ward Andrew Fox a farmer from Scargill. He will do a wonderful job and he will have some interesting challenges ahead of him having been a serving director of PPCS. 
Given that we are talking about the Meat Board Amendment Bill I point out that at this particular time farmers are probably more interested in how the ram is joining with the ewes and what sort of lambing percentage they will have and they are still smarting over the fact that the Government decided there would be a microchipping process for all working dogs. Interestingly for 5 years now where I come from in Marlborough the council has been running two categories of dogs. It has a category for working dogs numbering 2500 and it has a category for non-working dogs numbering 6500. To register a working dog costs $15 and to register a non-working dog costs $45 representing the number of times the dog pound has been used by non-working dogs. There were 192 occasions in the last 12 months none of which were working dogs. 
I will get back to the Meat Board Amendment Bill. It is technical in the sense that the word “ambiguity” has been used. I would prefer to use the word “clarify” to reinforce the express purpose. 
When we talk about these details it has to be borne in mind that there is a huge history behind this quota management mechanism. A lot of it started as far back as 1882—when Mount Tarawera was blowing up—with the first shipment out of Port Chalmers of frozen meat. What grew out of that was a relationship that connected New Zealand to England because we were able to supply frozen meat which was very innovative at the time on the shoulders of and out of season to the lamb crop and meat crop over in the UK in the northern hemisphere. That being the case we built up a market because in fact we were complementing the existing home market by being able to supply lamb all year round. So that started way back in 1882. It was actually a wonderful thing for the sheep industry because up until that stage it was purely reliant on wool and rendering down the tallow of sheep. That shipment going out of Port Chalmers was a marked leap forward for the economy of this country. 
The Meat Board does not have all that long a history but it has quite a chequered history in the sense that at one stage about 1985 it marketed in a single-desk manner everything to do with meat in New Zealand. It was an abysmal failure and we have heard from other speakers today that the industry itself was controlled from England and there was no New Zealand ownership. Even what New Zealand ownership eventuated in the early stages was particularly shaky. We think of the Waitaki situation that occurred post-1985 and how the farmers had to put their hands back in their pockets again to put together models and structures of companies that would serve their interests best. They succeeded hugely especially in the South Island where they put together cooperatives in which farmers are shareholders and are able to capture value back to themselves. So successful have been the South Island cooperatives that when we look around today we see that one meat company PPCS owns 52 percent of the meat industry. It has paid for that with shareholders’ money and it is doing remarkably well. It is still capturing value back to itself. It was interesting that the Maori Party speaker talked about the business that was done by a group of Maori in taking over 16 percent of Richmond shares and selling them on to PPCS. I would say that that was the winning of the battle for control of Richmond by PPCS. So that is just of historical interest. 
Moving forward I just want to draw members’ attention to the Bills Digest that we were given. It concerns me a little bit that when we look under the heading “New Zealand Meat Board” in the “Background” section we see that it talks about participants in the meat export industry—as my learned friend Shane Ardern refers to 32000 meat producers. Well that is pretty comfortable. I have to take exception though with the mechanism that it states the Meat Board is actually funded by. It states that the board is funded by a levy on stock numbers slaughtered. In broad terms one could just about let that pass but it is not factually correct. The management of the quotas—the quota allocation system—is paid for by those participants who actually operate and move that meat over to the European or US markets. So I would like to see that corrected. I am sure the Meat Board would be horrified to think that it is still spending farmers’ money in managing the quota and I am sure that Federated Farmers’ Meat and Fibre Producers’ Council Chairman Ian Corney would be surprised to see that the Bills Digest actually says that when in actual fact he has been beavering away over the last 2 years to ensure that the meat companies actually pay their share in administering that quota. So let us just bear that in mind and look for some correction. 
I will mention two very important dates. In 1997 there was the move to put some controls management and accountabilities back on the Meat Board so in fact there was more attention given to what farmers’ and the industry’s expectations were. At that particular time the board was reinforced; it stopped being a producer board and actually became an industry board. That is when we got meat industry directors around the table. I believe that that was a very smart move because unless the industry is running in tandem with the producers there is no way to ever be sure that the best value is effectively being captured for the product in the quota market to be brought back to this country. So that has been very good. 
Where are we today? Well the 2004 Meat Board Act has been enacted and we are back here again to clarify some of the details. Anything that comes out of this process will not be changing anything because it is not broken. The process that has been run does have a new-entrance allocation situation. It has very very strict criteria for new entrance. My advice for people going into the meat industry is that instead of trying to get a minute or minuscule part of the quota they should get their mates together put their hands in their pockets flesh out the millions of dollars and buy an existing business because to actually gain significantly out of the new-entrance allocation is very hard—although in saying that I have to pay tribute to a particular individual inside the Meat Board who is about to retire Graeme Harrison. He put together and built up a remarkable organisation that is now called Anzco Foods Group. He benefited to use his own words greatly from the assistance of the new-entrance allocation aspect of it. 
I do not find that we will have too many difficulties working with this process. I welcome it as did the Meat Board itself when it heard that this bill had come before the House. I believe it took the board by surprise as well. A point we want to bear in mind is that the Crown owns the quota. Companies do not own the quota. A unique aspect of our quota into the European Union—there are 1200 quotas into the European Union—is that we manage them within New Zealand and on that basis we are able to capture the quota rent back to the New Zealand farmer industry and nation as a whole. Studies done at Lincoln University have established that the value of that quota is in the region of some $300 million annually. So it is very important that whatever we do we do it in a very level-handed manner and welcome people’s opinions. 
I am perfectly relaxed to see what does come out as a result of the process of this bill going to the Primary Production Committee. Having been a shearer and the son of a meatworker I am truly honoured to be on the Primary Production Committee and I am grateful for this opportunity to speak in support of the Meat Board Amendment Bill. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the Meat Board Amendment Bill be referred to the Primary Production Committee 
referred to Primary Production Committee 
 and that the committee present its report on or before 27 July 2006. 
Motion agreed to. 
Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Reading 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. Before briefly discussing the bill I will refer to a small matter that came up during the Committee of the whole House. A possible technical issue was raised. Chris Finlayson identified some references in the bill to the Law Practitioners Act 1982 that did not take account of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 which received the Royal assent as he correctly pointed out on 20 March. However that Act does not commence until a date is set by Order in Council. I anticipate that to be at least 18 months from now. The references in the Legal Services Act 2000 to the Law Practitioners Act 1982 will be amended at a later date to coincide with the commencement of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. I thought it was worth clearing that up for the member. 
This bill demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that an inability to afford a lawyer is not a barrier to accessing justice. The bill introduces changes that will update the financial eligibility criteria for legal aid which have not been reviewed since 1987. These reforms are important because access to justice is fundamental to the rule of law and therefore to the integrity of our justice system. Under regulations to be made once the bill is passed the pool of people eligible for legal aid will increase from around 765000 to some 1.2 million people. At the same time the bill introduces a mechanism whereby financial eligibility thresholds will be regularly updated to ensure that they keep pace with increases in the cost of living. 
The bill makes it easier for people to know whether they are financially eligible for legal aid by simplifying the income and capital criteria. A number of improvements have also been made to the merits test for both criminal and civil legal aid. The changes to the merits test provide greater guidance to both applicants for legal aid and decision makers as to whether a particular matter does qualify for aid. 
These are significant improvements that will enhance the transparency and I believe the consistency of legal aid decision-making. The provision of State-funded legal aid involves a careful balance between ensuring access to justice and the cost-effective operation of the scheme. It is for this reason that for a number of years the legal aid scheme has required the repayment of the costs of legal aid by those who are able to do so. Under these reforms a greater proportion of aided persons will repay some or all of the costs of legal aid. 
The bill introduces a more transparent repayment regime whereby aided persons are better able to assess the potential costs to them personally of legal aid and I think that that transparency is a significant and important improvement in the scheme. This will ensure that appropriate financial incentives operate with regard to the use of legal aid. Recovering legal aid costs also expands the pool of money available of course for other legal aid applicants. The bill contains a range of measures designed to improve the Legal Services Agency’s ability to recover legal aid debt. The agency is now able to require a person to commence or recommence payment of a legal aid debt for example if the agency considers that a person’s financial position has improved to a level that allows repayment and it uses incentives to encourage the repayment of debts such as the ability to charge interest on debt if a person defaults. 
Entitlement to legal aid is an important benefit which significantly more New Zealanders will be entitled to access under these reforms. It is therefore important that the agency receives good-quality information on which to determine a person’s eligibility for legal aid. A number of improvements have been made in this regard. For example an aided person or his or her lawyer must advise the agency of any increase in financial circumstances that could affect the aided person’s eligibility for legal aid. This obligation has been further clarified by the Justice and Electoral Committee. The bill now makes it clear that the obligation to inform the agency is not prevented by legal professional privilege. 
Overall the bill introduces greater transparency in the form of simplified financial thresholds and clarified merits criteria. The cost-effective administration of this expanded legal aid scheme is supported by a new repayments regime and improved agency debt management tools. The regular updating of the new financial eligibility thresholds will safeguard access to justice both now and into the future. Accordingly I commend the bill to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the National Party. We will be opposing this bill and we do so with quite heavy hearts because many of us here are lawyers. I would like to have my interest as a lawyer noted in this area. I am one of the lawyers in this House who has undertaken legal aid work for people—mostly in the family and employment areas and also in the civil area. Certainly I know that there are some other members of the House who have been criminal legal aid lawyers as well. Legal aid is one of those political hot potatoes that will never get us a vote anywhere and I think we can all agree on that as MPs. But what we do need to know and to keep in mind is the fact that legal aid is an absolute necessity if there is ever going to be any sense of justice when someone is involved in proceedings particularly when the other side of the proceedings is in fact the Crown or in other words the State. 
Of all the areas of legal aid criminal legal aid is the one that many people in society feel is a rip-off. In one sense they are right. It is a rip-off in that the people who actually have to undertake the work are ripped off badly by the system. Why is it important that people who are accused of being criminals—and in some cases are the most desperate criminals—are properly represented? It is a matter of access to justice. It is an issue that requires us to consider the costs to society the costs to us as a country and the costs to the person himself or herself when an innocent person is convicted of a crime. Those costs are huge and that is one of the reasons that the National Party is opposed to this bill. We do not think it goes far enough. 
National members do not think the bill addresses the very real issue which is that in both the civil and the criminal legal aid areas lawyers are simply voting with their feet and saying they do not want to be part of the legal aid system. It has a lot to do with the bureaucracy. Having done some work in that area I can say that the bureaucracy is huge. It has quite a lot to do with the fact that payments to the lawyers often come many many months after the bill has been rendered. In fact often the attitude towards the lawyers is that they are being done a favour when actually in many cases the lawyers are undertaking work for well below the cost of running a business. They do so because they have a very very real intent towards doing the best for their clients. I think that is something that is often forgotten by those who have only a very cursory experience in the matters of the law and the legal profession. It is a profession in which a lot of people give an awful lot and are just about sick of doing so. 
What we do know is that this bill aims to increase the number of people who will be eligible for legal aid to some 1.2 million New Zealanders. That is a huge figure. It is about a quarter of the population. It is a very very large figure and someone has to pay for it. Unfortunately in this bill it does not seem as though there will be enough money to pay for it adequately. The top rate for Crown solicitors—those with all the power all the expertise and all the resources of the State behind them—is $192 per hour plus GST and that is updated every year. I ask members to compare the rate of $192 an hour plus GST with what is currently paid and is available to our top legal aid criminal lawyers which is $130 per hour inclusive of GST. So that is where we are starting to get down to it. It is $121 an hour. 
People might think that is quite a lot of money. However the way the criminal legal aid system works and the way the civil legal aid system works an hour does not necessarily mean an hour. An hour may well mean a day. I say that because particular rates are allowed for particular jobs. So in other words somebody in the Legal Services Agency has made a decision at some point that a particular job should take only X number of hours. But if a lawyer is acting for a client who is mentally distressed who has been traumatised by being brutalised by family members for years—by a father or husband or whatever—sometimes it takes significantly longer to do the job and do it properly. If a lawyer is acting for someone who is having his or her very first brush with the law in a criminal matter that person may need significantly more assistance and aid than the current legal aid requirement will allow. 
I understand that in a State-paid system a taxpayer-paid system one cannot please everyone and cannot always have all the money that is there for paying for oneself. But unfortunately what does tend to happen is that any incentive or ability for the lawyer to be able to do anything to help that client is something that the lawyer must pay for. For that privilege—for helping out the client in a pro bono way for the good of the client and for the good of the justice system—the lawyer does not get treated as though he or she has done something good for the legal aid system; those lawyers are often treated as though they have done everything bad and are trying to claim for something they should not claim for. So quite clearly we have a situation at the moment which the New Zealand Law Society has made very plain to this Government where lawyers are saying: “We will not do this work anymore.” Many of them do not want the hassle and are prepared to work less for more by doing work privately. Frankly as one of them in this House I cannot blame them. 
I also wonder about what has happened about the great public defender scheme and how that will be affected by this bill. So much was made of that in the Counties-Manukau area yet my contacts in the criminal lawyers’ association tell me— 
Russell Fairbrother 
: The criminal law fraternity voting for projects for criminal lawyers. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Oh yes Mr Fairbrother remembers them does he not? But they did not think much of him. They in fact tell me that that scheme is one that should be looked at and looked at very very carefully. I wonder how their costs are being looked at or how they are being judged against the people who are having to pay for their own offices their own telephones their own parking and everything else. 
This is a bill we would like to support if only it went to the very heart of the issue—which is that access to justice will not be served by extending legal aid to 1.2 million New Zealanders but not putting in proper provision for lawyers to actually do the work. That will make legal aid even worse than it is now because more and more people will feel that they can bring civil claims more and more people will feel that they will be able to have their time in court and there will simply not be lawyers prepared to continue to fund Government policy. That is why we are not voting for this bill—it does not go far enough to address the issues. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) 
: 
 I listened with care to the speech from Judith Collins and I find I have to agree with many of the points she makes having been a lawyer who has practised in the legal aid field in both criminal and civil law and having a spouse who practises in the civil area. But the points she makes are really for a different debate and the National members have fallen short in this Chamber and in the course of debating this bill by deflecting the argument away from the issues in the bill to an issue of more money for lawyers. 
This bill is not about fees; it is about widening the access to justice about widening the eligibility for legal aid and about regaining for taxpayers some of the money spent on the large legal aid bill. And this House should debate those matters because it has never set the level of fees—certainly not since Geoffrey Palmer came in in 1982 and by regulation increased the amount payable in legal aid at that time. Subsequent to that the setting of fees moved away from the House to the Legal Services Agency or its various predecessors. That was during the time of the National Government as well. It is well to remember that eligibility for legal aid has not been widened since 1987. It was not touched by National when it was in Government. What National did in fact was to reduce the legal aid rate in 1996. If we reflect on that history we see the reason for some of the mess we are left with. 
The emphasis that National speakers gave in deflecting this debate to one of fees rather than of widening the access to justice is a sad reflection on lawyers themselves. To argue in this House that an hourly rate of $121 net exclusive of GST is not enough for a sole practitioner to operate on is to illustrate the avarice and grandiose attitudes that many lawyers have. I had the misfortune to be invited to speak to a lawyers’ function before Christmas last year in Auckland. I went thinking it would be a convivial meal among legal aid lawyers. It was held at the Northern Club with suited men offering their services to wait on tables and it was the height of luxury. I became angry at what I saw as an abuse of the public purse by those people who were complaining at their impecuniosity. One of my critics who it turned out was a legal aid lawyer happens to be the spouse of a judge so the combined household income of that family would be close to half a million dollars. Yet his complaint was of inadequate income for the household. 
The legal profession suffers from a greed attitude and if the profession continues to deflect the arguments from access to legal aid on to the issue of fees and forgets that it also has a public-good element then this Government or any successive Government may be forced one day to step into the gap and take responsibility for the legal services the profession is failing to provide. No one can tell me that $130 an hour is not enough for a reasonable person to run a practice on and live off. A practice does not require buying expensive stock in trade; no hardware is required in the cupboard in order to practise law. It is a matter of intellectual property and a little knowledge of information technology. Law can be practised out of one room of a house or a garage. Many lawyers practise law out of the back seat of their car because it is such a fluid profession when it comes to servicing the legal aid community. So no one can stand here and tell me that $130 an hour is not enough to live off. It is not enough though when the profession is ratcheting out of the private industry hourly fees of $500-plus. Every lawyer wants to live like his or her peers and as many very competent lawyers choose to practise legal aid they look with some envy at the high rate of income that less competent lawyers drag from the private sector. 
The level of remuneration is an issue for the profession to address. It is an issue as to the public good associated with practising law and if the profession forgets its public-good obligations then this House may have to move to replace that aspect by further legislation. I would regret that day but while members of this House stand up here and cry “More for me! More for me!” and there are people in our community working for $12 an hour then those members have no sympathy from me. 
The instances given to this House by Judith Collins are true in one part but not true in another. An experienced lawyer who is competent in the area can negotiate with the Legal Services Agency for a rate that is appropriate to the particular trial and there are reports of that in the  
New Zealand Law Reports 
. For example the lawyers of Paul Darvell negotiated fees of something like $320000 over a long trial but that was for both a senior and a junior lawyer. One of the lawyers rejected that because it was not enough. So it is possible to negotiate with the Legal Services Agency for a fee above the guideline rate and it is possible to negotiate with the agency for a longer preparation time. 
The analogy between defence lawyers and Crown lawyers is basically flawed. The Crown must accept every instruction that comes from the police to the Crown. A defence lawyer or any other lawyer in private practice can choose the areas in which to market his or her services. If lawyers choose to do solely legal aid work then they do so in the knowledge that they will not have flash offices or the lifestyle of their more affluent colleagues who go into the private sector. Or defence lawyers can choose to mix legal aid with private instructions—a choice not available to Crown solicitors. To run that comparison of defence lawyers with Crown solicitors and then say Crown solicitors are backed by the resources of the State is to ignore the choice that is available and to ignore the different standards and obligations that apply. A Crown lawyer has to prove every aspect of a case; a defence lawyer has to pick one weakness and home in on that. Defence lawyers can sit tight on a long trial make only one speech and win a case. Those are different responsibilities—it is to compare apples with bananas rather than apples and apples. 
It is time we addressed the issue of fees front on. I simply say to the Bar that unless the legal profession revisits its public-good aspects there will continue to be “more for me” debates as we have heard in the House from the National members and successive Governments will be left with the obligation to move further to replace the public-good aspect neglected by the profession as reflected in the National Party’s arguments in this debate. This is a good bill and the country will be fortunate in its passing. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a short call on the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) and to express that we will be supporting the passage of this bill at the third reading. There is not a lot to be added to the debate. I think the bill has been covered quite broadly but I will take a little time to express the views of one lawyer whose opinions we do respect here in New Zealand. In this debate as Mr Fairbrother highlighted National has chosen to focus to a large extent not on access or increased access to legal aid. I have to say that legislation that increases availability of legal services to something like 450000 New Zealanders who otherwise would not have qualified has to be good legislation. At the core of the issue is the access to quality defence quality legal advice and quality legal support for those people who most desperately need it. 
The person who wrote to me pointed out that section 24 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 makes it clear that “Everyone who is charged with an offence—…(f) shall have the right to receive legal assistance without cost if the interests of justice so require and that person does not have sufficient means to provide for that assistance;”. That is correct. So on that basis women who have been beaten up by their husbands children who are the subjects of sexual abuse by their families and people—young people usually—who come up before the courts for the first time are protected by a lawyer. That is correct. 
Legal aid rates were increased by the New Zealand First - National coalition Government when the Rt Hon Winston Peters was Treasurer in 1998. But here is the rub: in 1999 once National had control of the Government benches by itself it reduced the rates back down to the 1996 levels. That is fact. That is interesting and the person who wrote to me pointed out he knew of no sector in the wider community that is still working today for 1996 pay rates. That is the point that many in the legal fraternity are pointing out today: the Legal Services Agency has not renegotiated those rates up. 
Kate Wilkinson 
: I worked for less than that. 
RON MARK 
: I know that member and I can assure the House she is a fine lawyer and she is worth every dollar she is ever paid. I can attest to that personally. That is Kate Wilkinson from Waimakariri whom I am talking about. Members may be interested to know that lawyers who work in the particular area of the gentleman who wrote to me are about to withdraw their services so he says in the duty solicitors scheme and more and more law firms around the country are refusing to do legal aid because of the grossly inadequate pay rates. That is a point the National debating team has consistently tried to make. 
The letter goes on to state that although it is easy to criticise legal aid and those lawyers who rip off the system the legal profession is not the only occupation where this happens—by crikey we have read about some of those involving accountants have we not—and there are means whereby the legal profession through the many disciplinary provisions enacted by Parliament tends to weed out incompetent lawyers. If we care to read the expulsions from the Law Society’s roll we will note that this does happen from time to time. 
The writer commented too that some of us might point out that some of the lawyers who represent these people would be better off not representing them because they are not actually perceived to be highly competent. The writer draws our attention to this because people who suffer as a result of poor-quality legal representation generally are first-time offenders who need legal aid most and who do not need a blot on their record. Such a blot can make it very difficult for them to recover in future life. 
The writer goes on to state: “Incidentally I have not done any legal aid work for about 15 years or more”—well I know why he was not doing it for 3 years—“other than the one-a-year odd job for a local person who needs help and it is normally about one a year.” His firm does hardly any legal aid work and he doubted that it would do more than 10 cases a year collectively now because of the reasons that he wrote of. 
Finally he stated that if lawyers did not do legal aid work and individuals entered pleas themselves we would find that the justice system would either grind to a halt or three times the number of judges would be need to be appointed three times the number of courts would be required and the police force would have to increase probably by another 300 prosecutors and more than 1000 police officers to cover the time delays and waste that would ensure. In most cases the duty solicitor or legal aid lawyer sets out the blunt facts to the prisoner. If the prisoner insists on pleading not guilty then at least the lawyer facilitates smooth operation of the trial. 
He goes on to say that the longest trial in New Zealand history was one undertaken in the court in Whangarei or Kaitaia. It lasted 82 days with the defendant defending himself on a fairly simple matter of theft. If this was allowed to run rampant there would be absolute chaos in our justice and law and order system and police officers would be wasting many hours and days at court because of the stupid activities of people who are stupid enough to commit criminal offences in the first place. Those were “just a few comments” written by Dail Jones QSO a former New Zealand First member of Parliament now the president of New Zealand First. 
I think we take on board those points from the lawyer’s perspective but I do take on board the comments that have been made that this is not the forum or the legislation to be debating that issue. That is possibly an issue that the Justice and Electoral Committee could take up as an inquiry itself and make recommendations on to Parliament and I am sure some National members might like to seek such an inquiry of that committee. I do not know that anyone would want to oppose such an inquiry quite frankly because we are all interested in delivering quality justice to those poor unfortunate Road Knights and Mongrel Mob members who so desperately deserve it! Some of us would like to ensure that they got another form of justice but there we go that is life. 
New Zealand First members support the bill. We have noted the plea for more money for lawyers. We note that there are grounds for such a request. We do not tend to be swayed by the politics of envy when people say: “Well this person earns that much money therefore they don’t need any more.”; we tend to look at things on a case by case basis. We all know that some lawyers are paid far too much for doing far too little but there is another bunch of lawyers out there who for some reason known only to them and the God that they look up to continue to throw themselves head first into social issues and hopeless cases time and time again in pursuit of achieving justice for those who are least able to access it. I commend lawyers such as that for their work and I wonder how the heck they continue to summon the energy to do that work and to commit themselves mentally to such a regime—often for people who only find themselves back before the courts again because they have learnt nothing in the first place. 
New Zealand First members support the bill. We look forward to the end of this debate so that we can get on to some more important matters. 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I will start by thanking Ron Mark for his very flattering endorsements. On behalf of National I rise to oppose the bill for many of the reasons that my colleague Judith Collins has given but it does go deeper than that. This bill significantly raises the financial thresholds of legal aid eligibility to such an extent that 1.2 million New Zealanders will now be eligible for legal aid—an increase of some 450000. The importance of State-funded assistance has long been recognised in New Zealand both from within the legal profession and from without. It is all about providing access to justice for those who are unable to afford it themselves. But access to justice under this bill is paradoxically the very issue being threatened. The right to legal representation is worthless if effective representation is not available. 
One could even argue that this bill by its very nature breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which provides for the right to counsel in the context of criminal proceedings and to natural justice in criminal and civil proceedings. This bill actually puts such rights in jeopardy. Making more people eligible for legal aid is meaningless if there is insufficient will and ability amongst the legal profession to offer legal aid services. This bill is worthless without lawyers. But this bill is not just about lawyers; it is about access to justice. There simply must be enough lawyers willing to do legal aid work for nearly twice the number of legal aid recipients. If there are not enough lawyers for the existing 750000 people now eligible for legal aid then how on earth will there be enough lawyers for nearly twice that number? 
Opponents argue and have argued that we want more money for lawyers. It is the envy-type mentality that cannot see that if it is not made worthwhile for lawyers to undertake legal aid work then they simply will not do it. Why should they? Legal aid work is not compulsory; it is optional. Whilst lawyers do recognise a professional obligation in providing legal aid services they are not a charity. There is a fundamental obligation on the State to provide adequate funding to ensure that access to justice is not threatened. Ethically lawyers do not have to undertake legal aid work. Some do not but many do out of a sense of professional commitment. 
We are aware that this bill provides that the legal aid rates may—and I emphasise “may”—be reviewed from time to time. What does that actually mean? It is uncertain and it provides no assurance whatsoever. It gives no comfort to anyone that the rates indeed will be reviewed and reviewed in the right direction. 
The Ministry of Justice in a 1998 report on the reform of legal aid considered the key features of an effective legal aid system to include equity efficiency administrative simplicity and timeliness. None of those aspects seem to have been included in this bill. The report stated that the principle of equity has at its centre the concept of equality of arms and identified that it was a well-established principle that applies not only to procedural matters during a trial but also in terms of the hourly rates paid to prosecution and defence counsel. 
Equality of arms is an essential aspect of the right to a fair trial. In criminal proceedings a person charged with an offence must have a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present a defence on an equal footing to that of the prosecution. It is wrong for the State to bring criminal action against its citizens then to restrict their rights to defend themselves. Well this bill does exactly that. It is not equality of arms and it is not access to justice when criminal legal aid lawyers and therefore their clients are at a significant disadvantage to their prosecuting counterparts. They have fewer resources. They do not have the resources of the police in support prosecutors are allocated more paid hours for preparation and the remuneration rates are less. 
This is not an argument that criminal legal aid lawyers should be paid commercial rates but there is an argument that there should not be such a significant lower differential between Crown and defence rates. 
The Legal Services Agency wants to establish a pool of competent legal practitioners who can provide legal services to ensure the availability of competent legal practitioners who can provide adequate and appropriate legal advice and to improve the availability and quality of legal representation advice and information. This bill does none of that. 
 Anecdotally there is a shortage of lawyers who are prepared and able to undertake legal aid work. In previous addresses I have given examples of a survey of family law legal aid lawyers that was conducted recently. Only 10 percent of all firms in the region indicated a willingness to undertake legal aid work—that is 30 out of 306 firms. I refer also to the firm that in no uncertain terms regretfully had to cease legal aid work for reasons of remuneration but also perhaps more important because of burgeoning burdensome bureaucratic requirements. 
Only two Blenheim lawyers do legal aid work. A headline in the  
Marlborough Express 
 of 14 March 2006 says “Struggle for legal aid may get worse” and the article states: “The Community Law Centre is already struggling to find Family Court legal aid lawyers and expects things to ‘quickly get worse’.” We have a problem with having sufficient lawyers to do the work and this bill does not address it. Another article states: “Law firms refusing legal aid cases” and that is the article that states that only two Blenheim lawyers are doing legal aid work. 
Experienced lawyers are withdrawing from legal aid work. In the interests of access to justice they need to be encouraged back to do legal aid work. Young and inexperienced practitioners no longer see legal aid work as a viable career option. They need to be encouraged. The legal aid system must have at least some inviting features to ensure that it is appropriately adequately and professionally resourced. We need able experienced and competent lawyers in order to avoid miscarriages of justice and to avoid appeals that will require even more legal aid payment and will be at more cost to the taxpayer. 
This issue is not just about criminal work. Victims of domestic violence or any clients for that matter should not have to shop around for a lawyer who is willing to do legal aid work. Clients who are desperately in need of help and justice clients who need quick and proper access to legal representation and clients who need the urgent protection of our laws are the clients who are being disadvantaged and who are not being helped by this bill. These clients are being denied their right of access to justice simply because the supply of lawyers who are ready willing and able to undertake legal aid work is dwindling. 
Brian Connell 
: Getting the B team. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: They are lucky if they get the B team. They are lucky if they get any team at all. The supply is dwindling because of the neglect and failure to address the issues that so urgently need addressing. This bill is well intentioned but it is imbalanced it is unfair it certainly does not address the issue of access to justice and it is flawed. And for that reason regretfully National opposes it. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Greens are supporting this bill. The key feature of the bill is the widening of eligibility criteria for legal aid. Some 400000 additional people will become eligible for legal aid. Income thresholds for legal aid have not changed since 1969 resulting in ever-increasing numbers of lower-income New Zealanders becoming ineligible for legal assistance. 
For many access to justice has become dependent on the ability to pay. The bill raises income thresholds and allows them to be set by Order in Council rather than by a lengthy process through Parliament. However the increases in eligibility do not go far enough. The passage of this legislation opened up the potential to increase collective eligibility for legal aid expanding the coverage into socially and ecologically useful areas. More often than not the only thing standing between an ecologically sensitive area and a wealthy developer is an impoverished hapu or community group. The need for environmental legal aid remains unanswered by this bill. 
The Greens were very proud to have got the legal assistance fund through the Ministry for the Environment in 2000 but it is a tiny amount of money—well under $1 million for all for the year. There is a cap of $30000 per case which does not go very far and is available only for cases in front of the Environment Court. It was a good start but we need to go further and we need to integrate environmental legal aid with criminal justice system legal aid. 
The way legal aid is to be administered under this bill will make the abuse of the service more difficult due to a better assessment of assets. People will be less able to hide their assets in order to qualify for legal aid. The Greens support the debt management provisions that the new legislation introduces. Where a debt exists there should be effective mechanisms to recover it. But debt recovery should not be the main thrust of the legislation. Legal aid should not become just a legal loan. We are talking here about the poorest people in New Zealand who are dependent on legal aid. 
The Greens also support the funding set aside for private mediation and restorative justice initiatives. It is obvious New Zealand is facing a crisis in our corrections system and the current punitive system is simply not working especially for Maori. Mediation and restorative justice are two initiatives that the Greens see as a positive political development. The Greens are also supportive of the changes to the interests of justice consideration by the additional consideration of previous convictions. This is a significant reform in the interests of first-time offenders especially young people as it supports the principle of early prevention. It is very important for youths to avoid a first conviction because it can lead to what Kevin Campbell has called a “spiral of offences and convictions”. 
Although we wish that in some respects the bill went further we are supporting its passage through the House. 
Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 There is an expression in Te Ao Maori: “Me he maonga awha” which describes a lull in the storm like a sudden pause in a furious debate. This bill returns to the storm of debate that has been in somewhat full lull since the torrid tirades that took place in this Chamber last night to justify locking up 12-year-old children in jail. The bill before the House last night promoted a view that the best solution for social dysfunction is punishment and seclusion from society. The bill before the House this afternoon is simply a variation on the same theme—another promo for prison. 
The Maori Party continues to oppose this bill because although it is branded in such a way as to address the issue of access to justice it instead perpetuates the ridiculous “lock ’em up” thinking that has led to the spiralling arrest conviction and imprisonment rates that bring international shame to this land. With this bill for criminal legal aid a new test will be introduced that places emphasis on likelihood of imprisonment. The bill as reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee declared that when considering whether to grant an applicant legal aid the agency must have regard to whether the applicant has any previous conviction whether the applicant has been charged with or convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment and whether there is a real likelihood that the applicant if convicted will be sentenced to imprisonment. 
As Mr Harawira asked during the second reading debate is it right that the Legal Services Agency usurps the role of judge and jury? What cultural values will be called into play? Our key concern with this bill as with the bills in this suite of law and order legislation is that it reinforces and endorses an approach that focuses on imprisonment rather than on restoration and healing. Instead of putting up only one system perhaps it is time for the administration of legal aid to represent other forms of litigation. I talked last night about my experiences with restorative justice approaches. The success of restorative justice is dependent on the ability to produce a climate of reconciliation and healing together with the acceptance of responsibility that a wrong has been done and needs to be set right. It is also dependent on a demonstrated and genuine attitude of commitment from all parties present as well as on regular monitoring. These are strategies that can work—strategies that do other than increase the incarceration data. If imprisonment is the only answer we are forever on a downward path of punishment. 
There are other systems that Aotearoa could turn to for precedent. For over 1000 years Maori have had their own criminal justice system—a system based on social responsibilities that link people to the wider community. At the heart of the system was the recognition that everybody had a responsibility to the wider community. Important too was the belief that all people have a tapu that is not to be abused by others. The Pacific practice of ifoga is similar to marae justice. The offender and whanau take responsibility for the crime and work to find a point of reconciliation in order to restore the mana of the victim and his or her whanau. Another example is that of the Navaho Indian tribe who have their own police force courts and prisons. Jurisdiction is shared with the State but the philosophy and the procedure are Navaho. Over the Tasman Aboriginal courts and circle sentencing courts are being trialled with the broad aims of reducing Aboriginal overrepresentation in prisons reducing the incidence of failure to appear in court and reducing the rates at which court orders are breached. 
How do we today put a stop to the criminal overrepresentation of Maori in the justice sector? Perhaps part of the answer lies in alternative models to seek restorative justice. The Maori Party has promoted the idea of a cross-party review of prisons and justice and we will join with Nandor Tanczos and others to begin this process. The Maori Party has always believed in the power of the collective and indeed has called for cross-party collaboration on issues such as the methamphetamine or P problem peak oil and addressing family violence. Indeed we issued our own challenge on 15 February 2006 about developing long-term community involvement in addressing offending. As I said on that day the solution to our overcrowded prisons and our excessively high per capita prison population lies within the community and not in bricks and mortar. We have to return to our communities—the very essence of our society—for both the short-term solutions to prison overcrowding and the long-term solutions to decrease the incidence of crime in Aotearoa. That is the big picture. 
I noted the release slipped out by Damien O’Connor yesterday that stated he welcomed the review into the regional prison development costs at the Spring Hill and Milburn prisons. Applying scrutiny to this project is commendable—indeed it is about time—but how much better it would have been to review the whole system once and for all. Just over a month ago the Salvation Army called on politicians to show what it called “ethical courage” and sign up to a multiparty accord that would stop the issue of crime and punishment being a political football. 
In its report on prisons and reoffending the Salvation Army made a number of recommendations including the development of a multiparty agreement to deal with issues of crime and punishment in a non-partisan way. Major Campbell Roberts director of the Salvation Army’s social policy and parliamentary unit commented: “Getting tough on crime longer and longer sentences might sound good but in fact they are ‘do nothing’ choices.” 
Major Roberts challenges this House with his statement: “Emotions will always play a part in any discussion of crime and punishment but our politicians should be leading us beyond rhetoric not encouraging it. Let us have reasoned researched debate about positive ideas. If we don’t then as a society we are doomed to spending more and more money on failed holding tanks. Prisons don’t make us safer they just make us poorer in every way. It is time for some principled courageous leadership to turn prisons around.” Now is the time to lead beyond rhetoric and to snap out of the mindset that prison programmes actually combat crime. Finally I am a firm believer in the view: “E kore tana puweru e maku i te pata ua!”. In other words a storm a shower of rain does not need to drench the spirit. 
So although we oppose this bill I want to leave the House with three ideas to consider. The first is that I am aware that the Legal Services Agency has introduced an annual survey of the supply distribution and assignment to legal aid providers. The Maori Party believes this will be a valuable monitoring tool for all parties as to the progress we can achieve in turning round the disproportionately high imprisonment rates. The real measurement of success in this new policy will be not in how many legal aid grants are given out or in how much funding legal aid providers receive; it will be in the downward trends—how many people are prevented from imprisonment how many offenders are inspired not to reoffend and how many families are saved from the impact of crime. The second good idea would be to vote down Ron Mark’s bill to build a prison for 12-year-olds. Finally the Maori Party joins with the Green Party and the Salvation Army to call again for a cross-party accord on reducing crime. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 The National Party opposes this bill for very good reasons. The whole concept of legal aid is based on providing a fair level of representation for those in need of legal assistance. The most vulnerable in our society need a standard of representation to enable them to defend themselves. That is National’s concern about this legislation. The bill does not address the fundamental concept of ensuring adequate representation. The bill fails to provide an adequate method and process for the calculation of legal aid to reflect the costs of providing such services. 
The bill extends the eligibility of legal aid and allows a further 25000 grants of legal aid per year. The thresholds will be regularly updated by linkage to the consumer price index. But there is no such regular update for the cost of the provision of the legal aid services. There needs to be a similarity between the eligibility for and also the payment of legal aid services. The legal aid segment of the legal profession is in crisis. The Government should be addressing the provision of legal aid services not just the criteria for accessing those services. 
One may ask: “What then is the problem?”. Well it is a matter of: “If you pay peanuts you get monkeys.” For a number of years under this Government legal aid lawyers have not had an increase in their legal aid fees. Add to that the high cost of administration of legal aid cases and there is then no incentive for lawyers to undertake this work. The result is situations such as we heard in this House of defendants preferring to go it alone rather than take on the risk of counsel they do not trust. This is compounding the problem as even the most needy are having to defend themselves. So we get a situation where vulnerable clients are getting insufficient representation. 
Some say that it is an issue for the profession and that the profession should have the ability to set the fees. If that is the case why was that not put in the legislation? We do not see in the bill that the profession has the ability to set the fees. It is simply not good enough to increase the eligibility without at the same time dealing with the provision of those services. 
We welcome any moves at a select committee to deal with this issue. So it is appropriate that Ron Mark has approached that issue and said the opportunity is there in the future. We encourage him to continue with that process. 
A novel approach suggested in this House was to make it a requirement for lawyers to serve as legal aid counsel at some point in their career. Although at first glance this may seem appropriate it has a number of problems. First most people in the law have no intention of undertaking and will never undertake court work. In fact it is possible to go through law school without even doing courses such as evidence. This reflects the fact that the law is becoming a generic degree and also that most of the work is actually in commercial conveyancing and specialist fields. A mandatory requirement could add to the injustices as untrained and uninterested lawyers may be required to represent clients. 
Secondly any attempt at specifications will be flouted. Lawyers traditionally will find ways around any rule. They will find ways and means to make themselves unavailable and even if they are made to do the work they will not represent the client with the conviction the client would require. 
Thirdly as a matter of fairness and equity lawyers cannot be expected to provide a public service requirement that is not required in other professions. Do we require accountants to do community group audit work each week for free? Do we require engineers to work for Transit one day a week at reduced rates? No we do not. We do not expect these things so why should we expect them from lawyers? 
Effectively we would be requiring a bonding regime for lawyers. Typically bonding regimes are suggested for expensive qualifications such as medicine or where there is a shortage of qualified persons such as in the teaching profession. None of these fundamental drivers apply to the law. Legal qualifications can be a relatively inexpensive form of university degree. Also we tend not to have a problem of not enough people wanting to become lawyers in New Zealand. Therefore it would be inappropriate to place a bonding regime on lawyers. 
The arguments of avoiding a culture of imprisonment advocated in this House are actually compromised by this legislation. Without a system providing for effective representation the likelihood of conviction and imprisonment is increased. Therefore an effective resourcing of the legal aid practitioners would be in the Maori Party’s best interest as it would provide for the effective defence of those requiring such systems. 
The reality is that legal services are like any other commercial service—one gets what one pays for. There is no inherent obligation on lawyers to be treated differently from any other profession and this Parliament cannot engage in such an unfair requirement. What it does show however is that if people want a certain level of legal service then they need to pay what the market demands for those services. The reality is that the Government is underfunding those legal services and this bill does nothing to rectify that situation. It is only through providing a realistic level of funding and a process to keep up with the increased costs of providing that service that true representation will be attained. With true representation those in most need will be given the protection the legal aid system is required to provide them with. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Legal Services Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 67 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 52 
New Zealand National 48; Maori Party 4. 
Bill read a third time.. 
Third Readings 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crimes Amendment Bill the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 2) the Immigration Amendment Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill the Privacy Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill and the Tax Administration Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
 This very interesting legislation makes a number of significant improvements in the law relating to the enforcement of fines reparations and civil debts. It will increase the effectiveness and the efficiency of fines enforcement and it begins a process of applying information technology to the filing of court documents. I will have more to say about that in a moment. However I will first take the opportunity to reply to some of the points that were raised during the earlier debates and clarify some possible points of misunderstanding. 
Much of the comment on the legislation has focused on the interception of fines defaulters as they depart from New Zealand. As fines defaulters are intercepted on their way either out of or into the country they will be expected to pay their outstanding fines or reparation in full. It is possible that they will be allowed to enter into time payment arrangements. That will be at the discretion of the District Court registrars. It is highly unlikely that a registrar would enter into a time payment arrangement with a defaulter who has been intercepted on his or her way out of the country. In addition to stopping the worst defaulters on their way out of or into the country this legislation will enable us to keep tabs on less serious fines defaulters. Defaulters who owe more than $1000 or who have a warrant out for their arrest will trigger silent alerts as they pass through New Zealand international airports. Once a silent alert has been triggered updated contact information will be provided by the Ministry of Justice in order to initiate enforcement action. 
It has been suggested that the outstanding fines balance would be reduced if the Ministry of Justice had access to information held by the Ministry of Social Development and the Inland Revenue Department. It has also been suggested that the Government should contract private debt collection agencies to enforce the payment of fines. I point out that the Ministry of Justice undertakes regular electronic data matches with the Ministry of Social Development and the Inland Revenue Department. In addition the Ministry of Justice also contracts with Baycorp to provide contact information on fines defaulters. The ministry is currently examining ways to improve the range and effectiveness of its track and trace activities. 
I listened to a number of speakers express their disappointment that the legislation does not go further in increasing the scope for data matching or the powers to deal with fines defaulters. However I point out that this legislation was never designed to be a vehicle for substantial reform of the fines collection process. Reform of the fines collection process is the purpose of a current review of the infringement system. That review will include extensive consultation with all interested parties and is expected to lead to a more comprehensive set of proposals on how infringements are used and how they are enforced. 
Along with the fines enforcement at airports initiative the legislature authorises the electronic filing of unpaid infringements in the court. That is a necessary precursor to improving the information provided by prosecuting authorities when they file infringements for enforcement in the courts. Better information means better chances of collection—it is just as simple as that. 
The infringement review will also focus on enabling the Ministry of Justice to identify problem defaulters at an early stage before they accumulate high amounts of outstanding fines. At present a number of those people come to court only after their fines have reached a level that is beyond any realistic assessment of their capacity to pay. Identifying those people earlier means that we can find other ways to address their behaviour before the stage is reached where the only realistic option is to consider remitting the fines. Those are only some of the substantial changes in the law relating to fines enforcement that I expect will result from the completion of the review of the infringement system. 
Before concluding I wish to say that this legislation has been in the House for some time. The main reason for that is that the Opposition parties for some unfathomable reason have decided to filibuster on this legislation. However I am really pleased it is here at this stage. I would also like to compliment Martin Gallagher the chair of the Law and Order Committee which oversaw this legislation on his outstanding work patience and diligence. He never lost hope that this legislation would be passed through the House. I commend this legislation to the House. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to take a call on this legislation so that I can reply to some of the things the Minister for Courts has just said. The first myth I want to burst is the fact that this legislation has been in the House since May 2003 and the Minister congratulates us on filibustering for that long. We are a fantastic team and we accept his congratulations with the good intentions with which they were delivered. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: This is the bill you’re supporting too. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: We will get to that. The legislation aims to improve the effectiveness of the Ministry of Justice’s fines and civil enforcement activities and the National Party thinks that that is a very worthy initiative. It is a step in the right direction. Accordingly we do support it but I have to say to the House that I foreshadow those comments with some significant reservations and cautions about lost opportunities which I will come to shortly. 
The original bill contained various amendments to the nine different statutes impacting on these activities—hence we are now debating nine bills as per the Order Paper—to extend the scope of information that the department can seek through information-matching programmes with other departments. Again the Minister in his call alluded to this and I want to come back to that in more detail. 
In particular the legislation creates an arrangement allowing the collections unit of the Ministry of Justice to compare its database of fine defaulters with the New Zealand Customs Service database of people travelling out of the country. This sounds good as far as it goes but in actual fact this legislation will be remembered more for its lost opportunities than for enhancing the effectiveness of fines and civil enforcement activities. 
Despite the constructive advice from Opposition members throughout the Committee stage the Government simply would not take that advice on board. It ignored it and now we are left with legislation that is philosophically sound but in practice is not ideal and in some aspects is fundamentally flawed. Let us get down to the detail and find out why. 
After listening to the Minister the casual observer and the casual listener would have been forgiven for thinking that people who are fines defaulters and who are attempting to leave this country by plane would be stopped at the airport unless they had paid their fines. The Minister said that to the House. He might have actually said that to his caucus because Labour members seem to have been taken in by that. He might actually be saying it to the man on the street but it simply is not correct. 
Under this legislation defaulters will be stopped only if first there is a warrant out for their arrest and second they owe $5000 or more in fines. The Government’s own advisers advised the Government that approximately 500 Kiwis fit that category and of that number they estimate that only about 117 will be stopped. To put that another way one defaulter will be stopped every 3 days. It could have been worse. The Government originally wanted to set that threshold at $10000 which would have reduced that number to 35 people. But because of the pressure exerted by the Opposition parties that threshold was reduced to $5000—and the Minister has the cheek to stand up and try to take the credit for that. It gets worse. There are nearly 483000 people who owe—and members should listen to this number—$671.7 million in fines. Those figures are accurate as at the end of December 2005. Of that number $367 million is overdue and no arrangement has been entered into to repay that money. 
National’s view is that if people can afford to travel overseas they can afford to pay their fines. We also believe that we should forget about the arrest warrant threshold. If people owe fines then we expect them to be paid before they get on a plane and go on their OE. We expect that as a fundamental privilege of living in this country people will meet those obligations. We do not mean entering into mealy-mouthed pay arrangements; we actually mean paying the bill. The only flaw I can see in that strategy is that some of these lowlifes who would otherwise have been going to Australia to live will end up staying in this country and that will probably lower the IQ of both countries. 
The Government hides behind the argument that if we do this lots of travellers will be held up at the airport so we should not do it. It conveniently ignores the development of the Advance Passenger Processing system for outgoing flights which enables early warning signals to be given to airline staff to stop or delay people from getting on those planes and to make sure that their bags are not loaded. So the argument that people will be delayed is a fallacy. The technology exists now to make sure that will not happen. 
The technology also exists to nail fines defaulters in larger numbers. The moment they attempt to buy a ticket a cross-reference to the Ministry of Justice would tell the ticket issuer that they have an outstanding fine and at that point they could be told that if they try to get on the plane they will be stopped and that they must pay their fines. We could get even tougher than that. We could actually tell those people that if they do not pay they will not go anywhere or we could take the money for their fares and remit it to the Ministry of Justice to offset the money that they owe fellow Kiwis. If we were really serious about it that is what we could do. The Chinese have a saying: “If you execute one you educate a thousand.” I am not advocating that but what I am saying is that if we start to train people and change behaviour the word gets around very quickly. 
Shane Jones 
: Ha ha! 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Even Mr Jones’ crowd would get it through their thick skulls that if they owe fines then they have to pay them. 
As the prospective purchaser of that ticket has just given all his or her details to the ticket issuer everyone knows where the defaulter lives and the next person who bangs on his or her door should be the bailiff with a hand out saying: “Oi you owe some money.” 
Using the Government’s own figures it is estimated that the full benefit of the fines enforcement measures in this legislation would add up to a total $1.5 million. That is right I ask the Minister is it not—$1.5 million? Did he tell the House how much it would cost to recoup that money? He was silent on that fact actually. It will cost $1.68 million to recoup $1.5 million in the first year and the Minister stands up and tries to convince this House that that is value for money. 
I told the House that there is $671.7 million in outstanding fines; $1.5 million represents 0.02 percent of the $671.7 million. Yet this Government would have us believe that it is serious about fines defaulters. Yeah right! 
I have one last issue I want to canvass. Why will the Government not allow more extensive information-sharing between Government departments in order to catch fines defaulters? The Minister tried to argue that the technology is not yet developed enough to do that. Well that is simply not true. The Government refuses point-blank to allow cross-referencing to the Inland Revenue Department and Work and Income. I can only conclude that the reason it does not want to do that— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: You should have listened to my speech. They do that regularly. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: The Minister has had a chance. He should shut up and listen. The only reason the Government does not want to do that is it probably would be attacking its own voting base. That is how cynical that crowd is. The Government has the technology it could enforce it and collect a lot more money but it refuses to. 
National supports the legislation because it is a step in the right direction but I lament it as an opportunity lost. It could have been far far better. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Standing Order 106(1) states: “A member who has spoken to a question may speak again to explain some material part of a member’s speech which has been misquoted misunderstood or misrepresented in the same debate.” The previous speaker said that this Government had done nothing about the Ministry of Justice giving the Inland Revenue Department and the Ministry of Social Development access to its information. In my speech I made it clear that the Ministry of Justice does exactly that. [ 
Interruption 
] 
LINDSAY TISCH (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 As my colleague Brian Connell has just said that is a debating point. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: You are quite correct. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: If you look at Standing Order 106(1) you will see that it is the member who has spoken to a question who may speak again. So the Minister is actually inviting Brian Connell to speak again—because that is what Standing Order 106(1) states. 
Brian Connell 
: Am I invited to speak Mr Deputy Speaker? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No. I think we will end it there. I needed to hear Mr Barker out before I knew what he was talking about. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to indicate to the House that New Zealand First will be supporting the passage of this legislation but I have to say that New Zealand First has also expressed to the Minister personally that this is only the start. The fact is that in 2002 it was New Zealand First that first exposed to this nation through written and oral questions the unacceptably high level of outstanding fines and payments that existed. The first thing that occurred to us in New Zealand First when we looked at this problem and started investigating further—long before the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill appeared at the Law and Order Committee on which I was sitting—was that for the $550 million we exposed as being outstanding at that point in time— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How much? 
RON MARK 
: —$550 million outstanding—we could have had free health-care for children under 12—not under 6 but under 12. That was based on the premise that funding free health-care for children under 6 was costing $254 million so $500 million-odd would have allowed us to fund free health-care for children under 12. That cannot be ignored. 
The mere thought that a bunch of law-breaking New Zealanders refuse to pay their fines refuse to front up and accept responsibility and refuse to put money across the counter—money that could easily have been targeted to assist the vulnerable the children of our nation—is totally unacceptable. So we were adamant that given the opportunity we would shut down some loops that allowed those people to escape their responsibilities. 
The presentation of the original bill before the Law and Order Committee on which I sat gave us that perfect opportunity. What a wonderful piece of legislation it was—sort of. It did look at such things as interdicting people who did not have the money to pay their $1000 fine but certainly had the money to go to Fiji for 2 weeks. Those people do not have the money to pay for their $5000 worth of outstanding fines but they certainly have the money to pay for the BMW they were driving when they accrued those fines. They did not have the money the care or the time to consider that they should pay the reparation owed to victims yet they were gaily jollying around the world globetrotting and enjoying their lifestyles. New Zealand First says that is not acceptable. 
Although we applauded the Government’s attempt to look at that situation we could not accept the limitations to the interdiction process which said that there has to be an outstanding warrant to arrest and that the level of fines has to be $10000. Ten thousand dollars! Who in the heck in this country among law-abiding citizens would allow themselves to accrue $10000 worth of fines? It is clear there is a criminal fraternity that rack up that amount of fines but even worse is the fact that we found out there are people out there in the criminal fraternity who do not have $10000 worth of fines—that is a joke—but who have up to $90000 and $100000 worth of fines and we now know of one person who resides in Australia and has over a million dollars worth of fines and reparation outstanding. That person sits in Australia right now happily enjoying a quality of life that he has no entitlement to. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Above the law. 
RON MARK 
: He is totally above the law. We are saying that this legislation does not go far enough and if we go to page 7 of the report on the original bill the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill and look under the heading “Targeting New Zealand fines defaulters in Australia” we see that that fact is stated clearly: “The bill does not provide for a reciprocal information-sharing policy with Australia.” 
If we read on we find out that the bill does not provide for extradition. Why not? Mr Connell the member for Rakaia is not wrong. I grilled the officials who came before us at the select committee. I have subsequently in private discussions said to the Minister that the fact that we are not sharing information not allowing the Inland Revenue Department to front up with information at the requests of the court and not giving courts statutory powers to go into the files of the Inland Revenue Department and Work and Income to find these people is absolute nonsense. It is nonsense because time and time again we heard from officials that the reason the courts cannot collect this money this $500 million or $600 million that is outstanding is that they cannot find the people. What a load of poppycock! Of course they could find them. If the Inland Revenue Department can find them then why can the courts not find them? If Work and Income is paying them a benefit why can it not tell the courts which bank accounts it is paying the money into? 
Then we find out a more ridiculous situation which is that these people having been found and dragged before the courts with the threat that they will be locked up if they do not turn up then sit down and negotiate how much they will pay. They tell their bleeding-heart story to the court’s officials and negotiate to pay $20 a month $20 a week $100 a month or whatever. They present information on their income to the courts and the courts have to accept that at face value. I am sorry but that is not good enough because I know that some of these people can have one two or three employers. If they are shonky enough they can also be registered for and be collecting the benefit. It is not good enough that the courts cannot go straight into their Work and Income file or their Inland Revenue file and say: “You’re telling me you can afford to pay only $100 a month. Well let me tell you that I know you have two jobs. I know you are also quietly and illegally collecting a benefit that you should not be getting. My estimations are firstly that you should be charged for that fraudulent offence and secondly that you can afford to pay $200 a month—end of story.” The courts should be able to tell the offender: “Sign up and pay this amount of money or we will see you locked up.” That is what should be happening. 
Members may ask why I am so passionate about this issue and why New Zealand First is so passionate about having another bill back before the House before 2008. We will be talking to the Minister until he listens and until his officials get the work done to bring this issue back to the fore and tighten it up further. Why? Because to not enforce the payment of fines is to totally undermine the justice system of this country to totally undermine law and order and to totally undermine the work of the men and women in blue who are protecting us in the streets day and night from these very thieves and robbers. If we continue to do that then we might as well not have the police. We might as well not have judges. We might as well just let these crims take over and run riot in this country and let this land revert back to the law of the jungle and the law of the gun. I do not want to see that. I want to see criminals who are fined meet their obligations. The only way we can do that is by strengthening this legislation even further. I pledge to ensure we do that. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I agree with Mr Ron Mark and also with the comments made by Mr Brian Connell who like me and together with Mr Mark was a member of the Opposition team on the Law and Order Committee in the previous Parliament. 
For those listening at home and for those in the House it is important to put this legislation into some context. It enables the Ministry of Justice to improve the collection of fines from fines defaulters in New Zealand. What we know is that the amount of outstanding fines in this nation has now exceeded $600 million for the first time ever. Large amounts of fines are owed. We also know that the courts are similarly wiping huge amounts of fines. If only the pain and anguish of those who are offended against could be so easily wiped. 
But the Government made big store of the fact that this legislation will give it the power to stop fines defaulters at international airports. When it made that announcement of course there was a big front-page story in the  
New Zealand Herald 
. Mr “Get Tough” Goff was going to have fines defaulters stopped at the airport as they tried to leave the country. Everyone thought that that was pretty tough. It is tough to say that if a fines defaulter is going to leave the country he or she will be stopped at the airport and his or her bags will be taken off the plane unless the fine is paid. I thought it was pretty tough. 
Then we came to the select committee. Doing our job as Opposition members do we asked how many people would be stopped at the airport under this tough new legislation. Do members know what the answer was? 
Lindsay Tisch 
: No how many? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Thirty-five. Of the tens of thousands of people who owed fines in New Zealand Mr “Get Tough” Goff said 35 people would be stopped at the airport. Well that is hardly worth an article on the front page of the paper is it? So after some quite intense pressure from the Opposition parties on the select committee the Government caved in and dropped the threshold at which fines defaulters could be intercepted at the airport to $5000. We thought that figure was not very good but—wait for it—I ask members how many people will be stopped at the airport under this Government’s “get tough on fines defaulters” law. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Well let’s hear it—how many? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is 117—zip. Only 117 people will be stopped at international airports in any one year to be prevented from travelling overseas. That is it—117 people will be stopped. That is one fines defaulter every 3 days. 
Is the Government serious about trying to whittle away the $600 million debt mountain that is owed by fines defaulters? It is hardly worth coming to this House to pass a law— 
Ron Mark 
: They catch more pensioners coming back. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Mr Mark says the Government actually catches more than 117 pensioners coming back. Well that tells us about the Government’s priorities. Do members know how much money the Government has estimated it will collect by stopping 117 people? It is $1.2 million. We have spent $1.2 million of public money with the amount of time and effort Parliament has expended to put in place this legislation. The sad part about this is that it is absolutely consistent with the approach the Government takes in all law and order policy. Whatever the headline is the substance never matches the rhetoric. 
National will support the passing of this legislation but when we are the Government we will change it so that more fines defaulters are stopped at the airport. We know we will have the support of Mr Ron Mark in making those changes when we are in Government. Let us have some legislation that actually has some teeth and that is designed to get some action for those many thousands of New Zealanders who are owed reparation by criminals and for the Crown which is owed $600 million - plus by fines defaulters in this country. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 It gives me great delight to speak as the chair of the Law and Order Committee and to acknowledge a previous speaker Ron Mark who is currently the deputy chair. I want to take an opportunity in this third reading speech to acknowledge all the members of the select committee that considered the original bill. 
I want to sound a positive note tonight because I think this legislation is a very very good step in the right direction. Negativity is easy but I acknowledge that my good colleague Ron Mark has issued a very clear challenge to the House and I believe that as a committee in terms of our scrutinising function over the courts we will be monitoring the success of this legislation. We are certainly hoping to see some significant gains. 
I want to be generous of spirit. I acknowledge the contribution of the previous speaker the Hon Tony Ryall. I acknowledge the very good contribution of that outspoken member from Canterbury Brian Connell. He is a good outspoken member and a real National Party MP because he says it as he sees it and that is good. If Brian Connell sometimes gives Don Brash a hard time that is too bad because Brian Connell is outspoken and that is nice to see. He made a good contribution and we miss him from the committee. 
I also take the opportunity to acknowledge the former deputy chair Marc Alexander in terms of his contribution. Of course he is no longer with us but he made a very good constructive contribution. Georgina Beyer Ann Hartley and Mahara Okeroa were the Government members and they made a very very good contribution as well. 
For those who are listening tonight I want to stress what this legislation is about because after listening to the previous speaker they could be confused. For the benefit of those who are not fully familiar with this wonderful and constructive legislation let us cut to the chase here. Basically what was the original Courts and Criminal Matters Bill about? It was an omnibus bill designed to improve the effectiveness of the fines and civil enforcement activities of the Ministry of Justice through interrelated amendments to a number of Acts. The passing of these bills will mean that the courts will be able to access information-matching programmes and send requests for information. This will improve inter-agency partnerships and strengthen our public services and will ensure that the public are fully aware of their rights and responsibilities and so increase fairness in the fines system. 
I spoke at the Committee stage around the issue of people leaving our airports and the need for greater cooperation between us and State and federal jurisdictions in Australia and I do not intend to go into that further. I think the Minister for Courts very adequately summarised some of the very positive aspects of this bill. 
As the chair of the select committee I thank all the departmental advisers and the submitters who helped us come up with some very constructive and positive legislation. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 The genesis of this legislation goes back to May 2003 so it has had a very long gestation period. Here we are at the final stage of the third readings. National supports the legislation but as our previous speakers have said there are certainly not the strengths in the legislation that one would expect. There are no disincentives for those who decide not to pay their fines. Those who want to go overseas can still opt out. 
If we look at what happened in the select committee we see that the original threshold which was set at $10000 was going to catch only 35 people at the airport. Under National’s pressure—as Tony Ryall articulated in his address—the threshold was dropped to $5000 but that is going to catch only 117. Yet there are thousands of people who owe money. 
The figures that have been talked about tonight are quite staggering. An interesting statistic that has not come out of this debate which I want to mention briefly is that in the year ended 31 December 2005 $41.5 million in fines were remitted. The initiative to catch the defaulters to try to recoup that money will cost $750000 annually plus a set-up cost of $938000. That is a total of $1.69 million. How much will come back? Members should listen to this: these measures will recoup only $1.5 million. A set-up cost of $1.69 million will recoup $1.5 million. It does not take much to work out that that is not good economics. 
This legislation is not tough enough. There was an opportunity for the Government to be hard on people who get away with not paying the fines that the courts have laid down. Although National is supporting the legislation when we are back in Government we will toughen up these provisions because it is New Zealanders who miss out and the fines defaulters are having a free ride. With that in mind we are supporting the legislation but we do have reservations. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crimes Amendment Bill the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 2) the Immigration Amendment Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill the Privacy Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill and the Tax Administration Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 115 
New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; United Future 3; Progressive 1. 
Noes 2 
Maori Party 2. 
Bills read a third time. 
The House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.