Volume 612 Week 40 - Tuesday 21 October 2003 
Volume 612 Week 40 - Tuesday 21 October 2003 
[Volume:612;Page:9299] 
Tuesday 21 October 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Obituaries 
Rt Hon Frank O’Flynn 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I regret to inform the House of the death on 17 October 2003 of the Rt Hon Francis Duncan O’Flynn QC who represented the electorate of Kapiti from 1972 to 1975 and that of Island Bay from 1978 to 1987. He was Minister of State Minister of Defence Minister in charge of War Pensions Minister in charge of Rehabilitation Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Associate Minister of Overseas Trade and Marketing from 1984 to 1987. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with his wife Sylvia and the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for his memory. 
Honourable members stood as a mark of respect. 
Questions to Ministers 
United States—Prime Minister's Meeting with President 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did she raise with President George W Bush during their 12 minute pull-aside in Bangkok the speech on United States - New Zealand relations prepared by United States Ambassador Swindells for delivery at Victoria University earlier this month; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 No because there was no reason to. 
Hon Bill English 
: Noting that President Bush has said he wishes to complete a free-trade agreement with Australia by Christmas is the Prime Minister aware of the serious costs to New Zealand if that occurs and can she tell the House what those problems are? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The best information firstly is that the economic benefit to Australia is relatively small—that is the official Australian analysis. Secondly it is unlikely to get any rapid access for agricultural products particularly beef. Thirdly there may be some investment diversion. But fourthly in so far as there is any benefit to Australia as it is our largest trading partner some benefit will flow on to New Zealand. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Did the Prime Minister discuss with the President of the United States the “neither confirm nor deny” policy on nuclear ships? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. The United States policy on this issue is well established and is unlikely to change in response to calls from the leader of a minor party in a small country. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does she think that on reflection perhaps she and her Government are reading a wee bit too much into the significance of the 12-minute pull-aside in view of the fact that all APEC leaders had at least 12 minutes with President Bush and the fact that a long string of APEC countries received flattering comments from the President immediately prior to that meeting? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government is not attempting to make too much of the meeting but the meeting was a very friendly one and President Bush continued to make very friendly comments about New Zealand including about our contribution to the war on terrorism. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Did the Prime Minister suggest during her meeting that New Zealand would surrender its nuclear policy as some political parties in this Parliament have suggested we should do? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No because in part the President might well have asked for further information about the views of various political parties. It would have taken far too long to explain the differing views of the National Party on this issue. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that one political party in this House—namely the Progressives—is so beset on its roller coaster ride to oblivion that it is painting other parties’ policies on the question of nuclear-capable and nuclear-powered ship visits in a totally maliciously false light? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister cannot answer a question about what another party is doing. That is up to the other party—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Bill English 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just want to reflect for a moment. Perhaps the member could repeat the question. I think he did actually have it in order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Bearing in mind that the Progressive party is a part of the Government is the Prime Minister aware that a political party on a roller coaster ride to political oblivion is so beset with its journey that it is now painting other political parties in this House on the question of nuclear-capable and nuclear-powered ships in a totally false light à la Mr Robson’s latest newsletter? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No because it would be impossible to misrepresent the National Party’s position; it has had so many that any possible statement must be true. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think the Prime Minister answered the question. Winston Peters’ question was about the way that New Zealand First’s position has been misrepresented by Mr Robson—nothing to do with the National Party whatsoever. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not hear the member mention his own party but if he was doing that perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could make a brief comment. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No I am not aware of that. I am aware that the New Zealand First Party has consistently stood in favour of the ban on nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister tell us what benefits New Zealand has derived from her warm open friendly and insulting relationship with the US apart from photos and headlines that could conceivably bear any relation to the contribution New Zealand has made with its significant troop commitments on the other side of the world; and when is she going to have something to show for all the grovelling? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: New Zealand has committed itself in support of the reconstruction of Iraq and against the issue of terrorism not in order to grovel—although that is an interesting indication of why the member might do such a thing—but because they are the right things to do. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call question No. 2 I am advised by the Minister that she has a slightly longer answer than usual and I will take that into account with supplementary questions. 
Burrows Family—Department of Child Youth and Family Services 
2.  
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Does she stand by her initial response to written question No. 9993 that contact between the Cremen-Burrows family and the Department of Child Youth and Family Services “has been largely historic and was with various members of the family and extended family” and her initial response to written question No. 9723 that “None of the previous contact has been related to the care and protection of Coral or her brother Storm.”; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 No. Neither of my written responses to those questions was correct and they have subsequently been corrected. Since lodging the answers originally I understand that Mr Burrows made a further contact with the Department of Child Youth and Family Services on 21 January this year. His call was received but was not classified by the recipient of the call as a notification. A notification is a phone call to the department’s call centre that requires further investigation. As a result of information about that call an independent investigation has now been announced into whether the department’s system for recording telephone calls is adequate whether Mr Burrows’ call was dealt with appropriately and how any issues arising can be addressed in the future. The findings of this inquiry will be made public. 
Judy Turner 
: Why were details such as the 21-minute telephone call to the department on 21 January by Coral’s father only disclosed in the Minister’s follow-up answer to a written question and does the department always need an entire month to locate the records of important and lengthy telephone calls? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Part of the terms of reference of the independent investigation will cover the very questions the member has asked in her supplementary question. The originating call was not recorded because it was not considered to require further investigation so it is not on a database. One of the questions the investigation will cover is whether the non-logging of calls that are not then escalated to an investigation is appropriate. 
Georgina Beyer 
: What steps have been taken to assure the public that they can have confidence in the department’s ability to provide care and protection for our children and young people? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I have welcomed the chief executive of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services’ announcement of the independent investigation for precisely that reason—so that the public can have confidence in the department’s ability to provide care and protection for our children and young people. 
Katherine Rich 
: How does the Minister reconcile her comment that the call was not recorded as a notification with one made by the Department of Child Youth and Family Services spokeswoman that “any concerns”—not some concerns—“reported to the centre about the well-being of children are treated as notifications then recorded and investigated”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The social worker who receives the call at the call centre makes a professional judgment about whether the concerns raised require further investigation. In the case of Mr Burrows’ call that professional judgment was that no further investigation was required. 
Katherine Rich 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked how the Minister reconciled her comments with the Department of Child Youth and Family Services spokeswoman’s specific comment that any call to the department was treated as a notification—not some calls but any call. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the Minister did address that part of the question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How is it possible that a 21-minute call that dealt with a man called Williams who has 91 convictions for violent assault and all manner of mayhem which have been brought to the attention of the department did not graduate to being a notification of the matter; what sort of a department is she running when that matter is put aside as being of no importance whatsoever? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am not aware of the content of the phone call or whether any assault or particular allegations were made about the man who is subsequently facing the charge of murdering Coral Burrows. That is part of what the investigation will determine. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In light of the overwhelming failure of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services in this tragic case and the attempted cover-up will the Minister support a select committee inquiry into the operation of this department which under her Government’s stewardship has had a record 17.5 percent turnover of social work staff and a record 89 percent increase in open cases to 24895 and if she will not support that sort of inquiry why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In my view the credibility of the independent investigation into the specifics of this call how it was handled and whether our process for recording calls and logging notifications within the department is satisfactory will bring us all as parliamentarians the information we require to assess what future changes might need to be made. At the invitation of the select committee I would be very happy to discuss this issue after the findings of the inquiry have been made public. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister taking any steps prior to the reporting back of the investigation to ensure that Department of Child Youth and Family Services staff who take calls have both enough life experience and sufficient professional training to be able to detect—to at least some degree of accuracy—which callers are likely to be genuine and when the subject of the call is serious? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As the member will know we have taken considerable steps over the last few years to ensure the increased professionalism of social workers including the recent introduction of the registration process. That on its own will not produce the results the member wants but it is a significant contribution towards that. Any other findings that are discovered by the independent investigation will be made public and acted upon. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister explain why an inquiry into whether Mr Burrows’ telephone call was dealt with appropriately and into whether the department’s system for recording and actioning telephone calls is effective is required considering that an evaluation of the department’s call centre was commissioned in 2001 or were the results of the previous evaluation never implemented properly? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes that is the case. A previous investigation into the operations of the call centre was made. Obviously it has not uncovered all the issues. This is one that was not picked up adequately during that review and that is why we are having an independent investigation. 
Katherine Rich 
: Can the Minister explain how a tearful father can ring the Department of Child Youth and Family Services talk about concerns for his kids’ safety and about their behavioural problems talk about heartbreaking things like a little girl soiling herself due to distress talk for 21 minutes without one note being made and that not be deemed a notification? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is not clear at this stage that no notes were taken of the call. It will be up to the independent investigation to determine the appropriateness of the notification. I think it would be quite irresponsible of me to determine whether that case was dealt with appropriately upon the call because I have heard only one side of the conversation. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that an inquiry such as the one regarding the Burrows case was inevitable and will continue to be inevitable while the Department of Child Youth and Family Services continues to operate under the pressure of mounting systemic problems such as gross underfunding high staff turnover problems with retaining experienced staff and difficulties with providing a timely response to cases until they are of extreme urgency? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: One of the reasons that the Government agreed to undertake a first-principles baseline review when asked by the department in December last year was to look at those very issues. When the department was originally set up by the National Party immediately prior to the 1999 election it was significantly underfunded and clearly lacked the infrastructure it needed to bring two major departments together and deliver adequately and—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is enough interjecting on this question. I want the answer finished. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In my view the findings of the baseline review reflect that original neglect and I am delighted that our Government has now the opportunity to finally put it right. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hope the House is not going to operate according to rules that state that answers to questions can include the implication that the National Party is to blame for Coral Burrows’ death and that the Minister has no responsibility for her own department. Of course that will be greeted with interjections because it is objectionable. This Minister answers questions here precisely because she has the portfolio responsibilities—as she has had for over 4 years. To then create disorder by accusing the Opposition of being responsible for the bad behaviour of her department will lead to interjections. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Of course it did and it led to a lot of interjections. I let a lot of interjections pass before I intervened. I let the interjections grow to a point where I then judged that I could not hear the answer and that is when I stepped in. I certainly allowed plenty of interjections. 
Katherine Rich 
: Is the Minister now telling the House that there could be notes of the conversation as a result of the call; if that is the case why did Child Youth and Family Services deny all knowledge of any call whatsoever when Ron Burrows first made his allegation? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: My understanding is that yes notes could have been recorded as a result of that call but that has not been finally confirmed. My further understanding is that the department said that there had been no notification which means the process of the call being escalated to the point where it requires investigation. That was part of the personal apology from the chief executive of Child Youth and Family Services to Mr Burrows. 
Community Service—Attendance 
3.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: How many people sentenced to community work in the year ended 30 June 2003 failed to turn up in time to complete the full hours scheduled for the relevant day and how many have been punished for that failure? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 In the year to 30 June 2003 27936 offenders were sentenced to community work. All had between 12 and 24 months to complete their hours. During the course of the year formal breach of sentence review action was taken against 6206 offenders. Most would have been breached for failing to report when required. This represents about 22 percent of offenders starting a sentence during the year and is similar to the rate for periodic detention and community service in previous years. As was the case for periodic detention a number of offenders would have received warnings from their probation officer and did not need any further follow-up action. 
Stephen Franks 
: My question was “How many people sentenced to community work in the year ended 30 June 2003 failed to turn up in time to complete the full hours scheduled for the relevant day and how many have been punished for that failure?”; not “How many have been prosecuted?”. I ask the Minister to answer the question that was asked. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I tried to explain two things to that member. First of all since the Sentencing Act changed people can now complete their sentence between 12 and 24 months. So therefore sometimes people have a 24-month period to complete it. Secondly as in many cases that happen under periodic detention if people fail to report they are given a warning—they are rung and they turn up and that is not counted. The point of the matter is that I have tried to answer the question on the information I have and I have given the member accurate figures. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What happens to offenders who have committed a breach? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: The offender will go back to the court and the court can impose a fine of up to $1000 impose a prison sentence for up to 3 months or impose a further community-based sentence. This is no different from the punishment system under the previous Government where offenders who breached periodic detention were often sentenced to more periodic detention. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why is the Government breaching its own good-faith mantra by agreeing to a negotiating guideline that sees the Department of Corrections wanting to send community-work staff home unpaid if no one turns up when those staff should more appropriately be telephoning or tracking down the significant numbers of non-attendees of community work? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Any employment relations are not the responsibility of the Minister. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: You set the guidelines. It’s your policy. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That previous Minister will know that that is not the responsibility of the Minister. It is between the Department of Corrections and the appropriate union. 
Ron Mark 
: Is the Minister concerned that his failure to ensure that persons who have had up to $30000 worth of traffic fines issued by the police and written off by the Department for Courts in place of community work carry out their sentences is undermining the work of his colleagues who are valiantly attempting to reduce the road toll by issuing quota tickets hand over fist like an eight-armed octopus? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As the Minister of Transport I am concerned about people who are not fulfilling their obligations. It is important that people who are sentenced to whatever form of detention—be it imprisonment or community service—fulfil that time. 
Stephen Franks 
: Given the revelation that in some cases up to 60 percent of offenders may not turn out for community work sentences—instead of trying to cut the hours supervisors are working why does the Minister not ensure that they are paid for as many hours as it takes to find the offenders do the paperwork and ensure that they are punished so that it is never again worth treating a community work sentence as optional? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Firstly that is an industrial dispute as the member knows. With any industrial dispute statistics are usually the first casualty. The reality is that the 60 percent figure mentioned by that member is simply not true. Even if the figure were 40 percent which has been mentioned somewhere else that would mean that around 16000 offenders were not turning up and that is simply not true. Those figures are being bandied around and will continue to be bandied around until the matter is settled between the department and the union. 
Stephen Franks 
: What percentage level of non-compliance would the Minister consider acceptable and what level of unpunished non-compliance if any would he accept given the inability to answer the earlier questions? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: If one looks at the annual report of the department—even though I acknowledge to the member that it is early days—one would see that compliance for the first full year is around 89 percent. The department has set its objective at 70 or 80 percent which is about what it was under the previous Government. The department thinks that it will probably settle back to that. The reality is that in the current annual report which was submitted to Parliament last week 89 percent of compliance is the result that has been achieved. 
APEC—New Zealand Trade 
4.  
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
 to the  
Minister for Trade Negotiations 
: What benefits to New Zealand trade emerged out of APEC discussions? 
Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations) 
: 
 The APEC economies at this week’s meeting committed to re-energising the Doha round negotiations which are vital to us as a small trading nation. It is only through the World Trade Organization negotiations that we tackle major problems such as export subsidies. 
Tim Barnett 
: As well as the boost to regional and multilateral trade relationships what bilateral trade enhancement was achieved? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The most significant was the high-level agreement with the Thai Government to progress a trade agreement with New Zealand with the ambition of having it ready to sign at next year’s APEC leaders meeting. That may have significance for our dairy trade. We also had the opportunity to explore issues further around potential trade agreements with several other economies. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Why should New Zealanders believe that there is any likelihood of a free-trade agreement with APEC partner the United States—currently negotiating with Australia—any time soon given that we are not even on the list of potential negotiation partners? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The member should be aware that there is encouraging support amongst the United States business and political communities for a trade agreement with New Zealand. Our embassy in Washington and the business community in New Zealand make continuous efforts to advance our case as do Ministers and the Minister for Trade Negotiations when in discussions with the US administration—despite the opposition from the Opposition I may say. 
Dail Jones 
: Whom does the Minister think he is fooling with this answer because despite having spent over 100 days overseas since the last election and having spent probably in excess of half a million dollars on these matters he has achieved nothing new and his ineptitude almost matches that of the Minister of Immigration Lianne Dalziel but he is not quite as bad as that yet? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: The member should eat his heart out. He will never have this job. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like the Minister to make a little bit more—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One hundred days abroad and after his expenditure of probably about three-quarters of a million dollars if I take into account his staff and no results “Eat your heart out. I’m the one who’s enjoying the gravy train.” cannot be an answer 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just said I would like the Minister to be a little fuller in his answer. 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: Any trade Minister would need to spend 100 days abroad or more to do the job properly. 
Rod Donald 
: Notwithstanding the Minister had the same level of ambition for a free-trade deal with Hong Kong and that has not come off how in all conscience can the Government be seeking a free-trade agreement with Thailand when that country has an appalling record of exploiting tens of thousands of children when its minimum wage of less than $1 an hour is below the cost of living and when the Minister well knows that thousands of jobs in New Zealand particularly held by Maori and Pacific Island workers would disappear in what is left of our clothing sector if any such deal did come off? 
Hon JIM SUTTON 
: I have every confidence that our agreement with Thailand when it eventuates will be of benefit to both countries will increase employment in both countries and by that being done in Thailand will put it in a stronger position to address the sorts of problems the member refers to. 
Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Test Results 
5.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Does she stand by her replies to written questions Nos 9460 9461 10050 and 10051 in September and October 2002 in which she stated that samples of corn seed were collected from Talleys and Seed Production Ltd by MAF and sent to GeneScan Australia for testing that Novartis paid for the tests and owned the results and that Novartis verbally notified ERMA and MAF that the results were negative for genetic modification; if so why? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for the Environment 
: Yes the Minister stands by the advice she was given. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: How does the Minister reconcile those answers with evidence given to the Local Government and Environment Committee by Syngenta previously Novartis that it had decided not to proceed with those samples and said: “We do not have any record of sending samples from Talleys or Seed Production to GeneScan. We have no records. There are no results. This is an issue about which we know nothing more than that.”? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I cannot know what is going on in the select committee of course but I can say that there was no time when any person in any company from any country advised any department of this Government that there were any positive tests from that corn at all. 
David Parker 
: Approximately how many seeds were tested in the year 2000 and why were they tested? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Tens of thousands of seeds were tested. The reason it was such a large number is that the first test suggested a positive. We now know the reason for that was that the first test was faulty because the known negative control also suggested a positive. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting that during the election campaign Minister Pete Hodgson and Minister Jim Sutton both said there were further tests not in Nicky Hager’s book that showed the test was not contaminated and that in the answers to two written questions in September and October specific tests on seed production and Talley’s samples were referred to the Minister said those samples were taken they were tested and they were negative but the select committee has now found out they do not exist how many more cover-ups will we find in this Government’s claims over “corngate”; if not where are the tests? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were three questions there. The Minister may comment on two. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: This particular batch of corn has been tested much more than any subsequent batch of corn that has ever come into New Zealand. Apart from the first test which is now known to be faulty all the tests that have been carried out by any company in any country have proven negative—whether they have been amalgamated or disamalgamated and whether the seeds have been gathered from growers and then put into one sample or gathered from growers and put into more than one sample. No matter how one looks at it the chances of finding a positive test in this instance are lower than finding that dear old D8 in the Manapouri tunnel. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Did the Greens come to the Government and the Minister outraged resolute determined and resolved with their heartfelt and grave concerns before the Supreme Court Bill was passed last week or is this a matter of principle flying out the window again? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is a very good statement but it is not a matter over which the Minister has control. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I presumed you might make that mistake so I asked whether they came to the Minister with their concerns before the Supreme Court Bill was passed. That is just a matter of timing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If that specific question can have either a yes or no answer the Hon Pete Hodgson may answer it. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I do not know. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I assume that you will not accept that the Minister has addressed that question. He did not stand and he did not seek the call. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is perfectly correct. The Minister will now stand and call me. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I regret I do not know. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: How did the Minister give the replies stated in those written questions referred to in the primary question when the evidence now from the company responsible Syngenta is that those examples do not exist and never did exist? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Because that was and is the advice to the Minister. 
Larry Baldock 
: Can the Minister advise the House again why she knows that the first test conducted by Crop and Food Research was wrong? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Yes. When testing is undertaken a control sample known to be negative is tested alongside the sample under investigation. In the instance of the first test both the sample and the control suggested a positive. Therefore the test itself was faulty. Had it not been faulty we would not have had tens of thousands of seeds tested or “corngate” or a select committee inquiry. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Can the Minister clarify for the House whether we are to believe the Minister for the Environment’s answer—that samples were taken from Talley’s and seed production parts of that batch of corn that they were tested and were negative—or the evidence presented before the select committee by both the Environmental Risk Management Authority and the company that those tests never existed? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The former proposition was and is the Minister for the Environment’s advice. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister think it is satisfactory that Dr Hannah of the Environmental Risk Management Authority who drafted the replies to her question still asserts that that advice was received from Novartis but has no file note of his conversation did not ask for copies of the test results and cannot recall the date of the call or precisely who made it and to whom; and why does the Minister still believe that that advice was correct? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I cannot speak for Dr Hannah’s memory of 3 years ago or for the memory of the multinational biotechnology company but I notice that the member asking the question prefers to take the advice of the company. That surprises me. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: If the Minister for the Environment maintains that indeed the samples were taken and the tests exist as she told Parliament last September will a commitment be made by the Government to provide the test to this House? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The Government has no written record of the tests—as I understand the House was advised by way of answer to the written question that gave rise to this question of the day. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: While the committee is still endeavouring to determine whether the correct advice was received by the multinational corporation or Dr Hannah and has no view on that matter does the Minister think that this vagueness complete lack of written records or even requests for test results in a case of this importance is the sort of attention to detail and accuracy that we can expect from New Zealand’s regulatory authority when it is managing the risks of GE release? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I repeat that whether the two tests the member wishes to bring to the House’s attention were carried out were carried out by way of amalgam with another sample were not carried out were carried out but not reported or whatever—no matter which of those many many permutations is the truth of the matter—there is another truth: tens of thousands of seeds were tested by many different agencies in three different countries and reports of those tests were made available to the Government. No such report looked like being positive except for the first one which turns out to be now known as wrong. 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the last seven issues of  
robson-on-politics 
—found at www.progressive.org not “oblivion”—to show that the Rt Hon Winston Peters was wrong to say that I had mentioned his party’s nuclear politics. I have talked only about its attacks on immigrants. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a press statement from Mr Robson which totally debunks what he has just attempted to table in the House. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House 
Burrows Family—Department of Child Youth and Family Services 
6.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: When Department of Child Youth and Family Services spokeswoman Christine Langdon said that Child Youth and Family had no record of Ron Burrows’ call and they had “rigorous processes in place for recording notifications” what are these “rigorous processes”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 I am advised that when receiving a call the social worker determines the facts of the situation the immediate and future safety of the child or young person and whether in his or her professional judgment there is sufficient concern to justify investigation. If investigation by the Department of Child Youth and Family Services is considered necessary the call becomes a notification and is logged on the department’s computer system. 
Katherine Rich 
: Does the Minister agree with another comment from the Department of Child Youth and Family Services spokeswoman that “any concerns reported to the centre about the well-being of children are treated as notifications recorded and investigated”; if so why was Ron Burrows’ tearful 21-minute call—detailing issues that would upset most parents—not notified recorded and investigated? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: No not all calls received by the call centre of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services are determined to be notifications and recorded when the call is received. The social worker who receives the call makes a professional judgment about whether further investigation is warranted. 
Moana Mackey 
: What has the Government done to ensure that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services has the resources to respond appropriately to information received regarding the care and protection of children and young people? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: From the end of 1999 to the end of 2002 the Department of Child Youth and Family Services received an increase of more than 50 percent in baseline funding. In January of this year the Government agreed to a Department of Child Youth and Family Services request for a first principles baseline review the outcome of which will be announced shortly. 
Barbara Stewart 
: Has the Minister consulted any other Ministers to seek assistance for the Department of Child Youth and Family Services in addressing child abuse and neglect; if so what have they suggested? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The issues surrounding the call for a baseline review impacted directly on the ability of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services to deliver its statutory and other Government policy requirements and obligations. That has involved very close consultation and work with other colleagues. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: How can the public have any confidence in the Department of Child Youth and Family Services inquiry into this case given that a previous inquiry into the department’s involvement in the deaths of two Masterton schoolgirls who were killed by their stepfather Bruce Howse in 2001 has been delayed four times and has still not been released 18 months later; and in light of accusations of Government interference why will the Minister not support an independent inquiry by a parliamentary select committee? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I will answer all three questions as much as possible but I do find the terms “independent” and “select committee” slightly oxymoronic. Frankly I would have more faith in the independence of Ailsa Duffy QC in relation to the specific inquiry that was announced last week by the chief executive of the Department of Child Youth and Family Services. In relation to the report into the deaths of the two Wairarapa girls my understanding is that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services has agreed to withhold its response to those murders until the response of the Commissioner for Children is released and that response has been delayed for a little while. The reason it has been deemed better for both reports to be released at the same time is to reduce further trauma for the family and the community. 
Katherine Rich 
: In light of Mr Burrows’ comment that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services call centre told him he would have to substantiate the claims he had made before action was taken how does the Minister expect parents who are worried about child abuse unsafe conditions and older children wetting and soiling themselves to substantiate claims if that is the new benchmark to get the Department of Child Youth and Family Services to do anything? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I am advised that substantiation of claims is not necessary before a call becomes a notification and that will be one of the issues that Ailsa Duffy will be investigating. 
World Heritage Committee—Membership 
7.  
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: What are the implications of New Zealand’s election to the World Heritage Committee? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Our election gives New Zealand the opportunity for the first time ever to be part of the decision-making process within the World Heritage Committee and to promote the heritage values we believe in. It was an excellent result by New Zealand. We won by the biggest-ever margin on that committee—top equal; one of 22 candidates. That shows the very high regard for New Zealand internationally and the effective campaign that we ran. It also gives us the opportunity to have heading our delegation paramount chief Tumu te Heuheu who has continued the leadership work of his forefathers in conserving the natural and cultural heritage of this country. It is really good news for New Zealand. 
David Parker 
: Will New Zealand be seeking to represent the region on the committee as well as the heritage values of this country? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: New Zealand stood for the position on the World Heritage Committee as a country with three important world heritage sites of its own that it is committed to preserving but it also campaigned on the basis that no country in the region had ever been represented on the World Heritage Committee. In that sense we stood on behalf of all Pacific Island countries and will be working to ensure that they have input and that their voices are heard also for the first time in that forum. 
Emergency Response Unit—Internal Investigation 
8.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does he believe that the Department of Corrections’ internal investigation into the emergency response unit meets the requirements of transparency accountability and integrity? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Generally yes. Within the constraints of the Privacy Act as much of the investigation’s findings have been released as is possible. Members of the emergency response unit were held accountable for their actions and disciplined and systems have been changed as a result. 
Ron Mark 
: How can the Minister say that it meets those requirements when the investigating officer Mr Tony Dyer on Saturday 18 October stated: “Managers being investigated were able to refuse to be tape-recorded; managers could refuse to be interviewed until after they had received full transcripts of the witnesses’ interviews and in some cases a copy of the questions we intended to ask; managers who were controlling the investigative process had clearly been involved in some of the decisions being made and were now being investigated; and senior managers went on leave when they were required for interviews.”? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: Yes I have seen the article that the member refers to. I think it is fair to say that virtually all the allegations made in it are true except the one right at the end which I am investigating. They have all come out before. The reality is that with the way the system worked natural justice meant that the people who were being accused of things had a right of reply and it seems that that is one of the things the member is upset about. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: In light of the public debate regarding the “goon squad” a prison officer being charged with smuggling methamphetamine into Rimutaka Prison and now news that five prisoners are taking the Public Prisons Service to court on allegations of cruel treatment why is this Minister intent on abolishing the private prison contract with the Auckland Central Remand Prison and replacing it with the very same Public Prisons Service that is causing him so many troubles? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: If that member wants to defend the record of private prisons around the world I am very very happy to provide him with that information. The reality about the private prison is that that is a Government commitment which we are going to honour. Although we cannot talk about that particular case I am interested once again to hear that member sticking up for criminals instead of prison officers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member withdrew and apologised for that last sentence which he was going to be required to do. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: What should people do if they have any further information regarding the emergency response unit? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As I have said previously if people have any new information they should pass it on to me the State Services Commission or the Ombudsman. I am still waiting. 
Marc Alexander 
: By whose authority was the emergency response unit given funding how much was allocated and given the grievances arising from both inmates and corrections staff as a consequence just how much has the “goon squad” so far ended up costing the taxpayers of this country? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are three questions there. The Minister can answer two of them. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: That is quite detailed information and I do not have it in front of me. If the member wants to put that matter down as a question or come and see me I will be happy to provide him with the information. 
Ron Mark 
: If the Minister were to receive in confidence the names of prison officers—I repeat prison officers—who are prepared to state on oath to an independent investigator that aspects of the department’s evidence presented to investigators regarding the death of inmate David Rewi Haimona were at variance with their observations of the events that key persons who witnessed the events surrounding the death of inmate Haimona were never interviewed and were specifically excluded and that affidavits were put in front of prison officers for them to sign that contained falsities would he immediately ask the State Services Commissioner to launch a totally independent inquiry into that evidence or would he simply do as he is continuing to do and cover up for inept management by the Department of Corrections? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As I have said to that member both publicly and privately I would welcome some new information. As the member knows I am considering a range of options but if the member were to give me in confidence the names of those people of course that would be part of my decision making in looking at where we should go. I have said that to the member on many occasions. 
Marc Alexander 
: How does the Minister expect the public to have confidence in the department when he has blocked attempts to hold a select committee inquiry into the activities of the “goon squad” and blocked both scrutiny and accountability on questions of payouts as a result of those activities—calling them employment related and hiding under that—thereby denying taxpayers who must fund these payments the right to know where and for what their money is being used? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: As far as the select committee inquiry is concerned I have ruled that out and I have given very good reasons for that. As far as acknowledging payouts is concerned those are employment matters which come under different rules and that is the way it should remain. 
Marc Alexander 
: Why was Tony Dyer a member of the “goon squad” investigative team told to use a specific format and not to use detail but when the report was completed the 
detail was deemed to be insufficient for its findings to be supported and the Minister subsequently decided to block United Future New Zealand First and National demands for an inquiry when surely his rationale being based on the veracity of that report must itself be flawed and undermined by the report’s 
stated lack of credibility; if not why not? 
Hon PAUL SWAIN 
: I have seen these allegations and they have been looked into. But as I said I do not have a closed mind on where we should go to next. I am asking for new information that can help us decide where we should go from here. 
Employment—At-risk Young People 
9.  
JILL PETTIS (Labour—Whanganui) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education) 
: What approaches is the Government working on to help at-risk young people get into employment or further training? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education)) 
: 
 Last Friday I launched the trial of Youth Pathways. It is a new programme for young people who leave school with no concrete plans to put them into employment or further training. Ninety school leavers in three locations will receive one-on-one guidance through a support transition programme run by Career Services. That programme is one of a number of initiatives designed to ensure that by 2007 every 15 to 19-year old is engaged in appropriate education training or work options that will lead those people into long-term economic independence and well-being. 
Jill Pettis 
: What other initiatives does the Government have in place currently to help at-risk young people to get into employment or into further training? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Heaps. But to pick out two of the initiatives that are outstanding I would mention the Modern Apprenticeships programme which is focused on 16 to 21-year olds and currently involves 5739 participants. The programme recently received a boost of $600000. It is so popular we needed to put more funding into it. I also mention that the Prime Minister and I announced further initiatives like Youth Pathways as part of a $56 million education and training school-leaving age package in the last Budget. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Is the fact that the number of students being officially allowed to leave school before they are 16 has doubled in the last 5 years because of the reduced capacity of schools to cater for these students; and is he satisfied with this appalling increase? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The question is better directed to the Minister of Education but since I happen to be the Acting Minister of Education I will on this occasion try to answer the member’s question. These issues are of concern to all of us—that young people are leaving school at that time. That is exactly why the Minister of Education has been putting in place programmes to ensure those young people are not truant are not suspended; they are at school where they belong. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Maori Land Court 
10.  
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Will the Government be asking the Maori Land Court to adjourn foreshore and seabed cases before it for “somewhere in the order of six months”; if so what is the Government’s time frame for finalising the foreshore and seabed policy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House)  
on behalf of the  
Attorney-General: 
 The Government will be making an application to the Maori Land Court to adjourn foreshore and seabed cases to provide more time to complete its consultations and clarify the law but no specific time frame has been set. It is certainly hoped that consultations will be complete and the policy details announced this year. 
Richard Worth 
: When Crown counsel Mr Doogan told the Waitangi Tribunal yesterday that he could not say for sure whether the Crown was “committed to maintaining” the so-called four principles was he telling the truth or was he misleading the tribunal and in fact the four principles remain in force? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Neither. But the four principles do remain in force and I will be ensuring that Crown counsel are better briefed before they reappear on Thursday. 
Stephen Franks 
: Will the Attorney-General undertake that the Maori Land Court will one day be allowed to decide on the claims that are before it and to define customary property interests as promised by Dr Michael Cullen to the Omakau hui; if so how will the principle of certainty sit with the bias that appears when the same judges are wearing their Waitangi Tribunal hats? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Attorney-General is committed to fulfilling any promises made by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen. The member raises a very interesting issue about people wearing two hats one of the Waitangi Tribunal and one of the Maori Land Court. I suspect that is an issue the Government may want to look at in the near future. 
Richard Worth 
: Arising from his answer to a supplementary question in what specific way will Crown counsel be “better briefed” at the next appearance? What was the shortcoming in the information provided to the Waitangi Tribunal by Crown counsel on behalf of the Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In Maori terms there was a failure to have a kanohi te kanohi meeting between the Ministers and Crown counsel. 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Not only was it impossible to hear that answer it contained foreign language references. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes could the Minister repeat his answer? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The answer I gave was that the failure was probably the fact that there was a failure to have—to use Maori language—a kanohi te kanohi briefing between Ministers and Crown counsel. That means face to face. 
Algerian Refugee—Security Risk Certificate 
11.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: Does she agree in light of the Ahmed Zaoui case that the “framework for issuing security risk certificates … has been shown to have serious flaws”; if not why not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 No. This is the first case that has tested Part 4A of the Immigration Act inserted in 1999. Given that the hearing of the appeal to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security which was made at the end of March this year has not even begun yet it is too early to draw conclusions about whether there are any flaws in the process. 
Keith Locke 
: Does she agree with the  
New Zealand Herald  
editors that to deny Mr Zaoui even a summary of the accusations against him—as the Inspector-General has so far decided—is a breach of natural justice and against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act; if not why not? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No I do not agree with the  
New Zealand Herald 
’s 
editorial any more than I agreed with the  
New Zealand Herald 
’s 
decision to print the man’s name and his photograph after my specific request not to do so back in December last year. 
Dianne Yates 
: How are the individual’s rights in cases involving national security balanced with the public interest when classified security information cannot be released? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Section 114A of the Immigration Act which sets out the objects of Part IVA states that the balance is best achieved by allowing an independent person of high standing to consider the classified security information and approve its proposed use. The Ministry of Justice vetted the bill that brought in this part and after some changes were made to the original draft it considered that it achieved overall consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act thus there was no requirement to report in terms of section 7 of the Act. That is another reason why I do not agree with the  
New Zealand Herald. 
Keith Locke 
: Is she aware that in other Western jurisdictions there is an allowance for a summary of the classified information without endangering the safety of any person who is a source to be provided to the accused person and that such a provision is in section 38 of our Terrorism Suppression Act passed by Parliament last year; is not this in contradiction to what she has just said and why does she not support a summary of the classified information being provided to Ahmed Zaoui? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: My understanding is that a summary was in fact included in the interlocutory decision of the Inspector-General. I make the point to that member that the Security Intelligence Service cannot operate effectively without cooperation from overseas counterparts. Overseas intelligence agencies require the service to give cast-iron guarantees that certain information supplied by them will be kept confidential. That is a quote from the from the Ministry of Justice compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report and I am happy to table it in the House. 
Keith Locke 
: Will the Minister apologise to Ahmed Zaoui’s lawyers for attacking them for pursuing all possible legal avenues particularly in the light of very strong criticism from the Law Society of her attack on the lawyers; and is it not the lawyers’ duty to do everything possible for Mr Zaoui who faces possible torture and death back in Algeria if the refugee status he now has is finally overridden by the security risk certificate process? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The point I was making was that it was a bit rich for the lawyers to be arguing that his continued detention was the fault of the Government when in fact they were the cause of the delay in having this matter heard. As I said the appeal was lodged in March this year. It was deferred until after the Refugee Status Appeals Authority decision and there have been further interlocutory matters. I draw that member’s attention to the rules of professional conduct for barristers and solicitors which state: “A practitioner should not make any statement to the news media relating to proceedings which have not been concluded which may have the effect of or may be seen to have the effect of interfering with a fair trial.” 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Speaking about these lawyers and Mr Locke for that matter can the Minister tell me firstly how many fundamentalist Islamic countries did Zaoui pass on his way from his place of origin to New Zealand and secondly what is the exact cost now to the New Zealand taxpayer of having this person in our country? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I do not have that information with me although I do have a copy of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority decision. If the member wants to look through that he will see that it makes it very clear which countries Mr Zaoui travelled in. He left Algeria I believe some 10 years ago. He had been living in Malaysia for a number of months if not years before he chose New Zealand. He selected New Zealand as the destination which is made very clear in the decision. In respect of an update on the amount of costs I understand that they are over $60000. 
I seek leave to table the Ministry of Justice compliance with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report of 12 August 1998. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Small Business Advisory Group—Benefits 
12.  
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
 to the  
Minister for Small Business 
: What benefits does he expect to flow from the appointment of the Small Business Advisory Group? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Small Business) 
: 
 Last week I announced the appointment of the new Small Business Advisory Group. This group will ensure the Government hears the views of people in real small businesses which can be very different from what big business bureaucrats or academics are telling us. On this side of the House we believe that the best people to tell us how to support small business are those involved in running small businesses day to day. 
Mark Peck 
: How was the group selected? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Over 240 applications for the positions were received. The nine members appointed represent a diverse range of sectors and regions. The most important factor in selecting these nine members was hands-on experience in small business and strong networks within the small business sector and in their communities. The appointment of this group combined with other initiatives such as implementing over 80 percent of the recommendations of the business compliance cost group represents at least 95 percent of potential benefits to business. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Algerian Refugee—Ahmed Zaoui 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from Keith Locke seeking to debate under Standing Order 376 the transfer of Ahmed Zaoui to Auckland Central Remand Prison. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative responsibility of the Government but I do not believe that the transfer of a prisoner requires the immediate attention of the House by way of an urgent debate. The application is declined. 
Land Transport Management Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Land Transport Management Bill be now read a second time 
. I would like to thank members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the excellent work they have done on the bill. The committee listened very carefully to the many considered submissions it received and the bill has been improved as a result. I would like to offer a special word of thanks to Helen Duncan who chaired the select committee for the most part but had to step aside towards the end of the committee’s considerations for health reasons. Thanks also to the Hon Roger Sowry who stepped in at short notice to complete the process. 
The bill broadens the focus of land transport funding encourages more long-term planning and allows for greater funding flexibility. The bill also represents a further example of the ongoing collaboration between the Labour-Progressive Government and the Green Party on transport issues signalled in the cooperation agreement signed after the last election. I would also like to acknowledge the input of the United Future party particularly around issues to do with alternative funding transport mechanisms. 
The bill reflects a multimodal approach. It is an important step in implementing the New Zealand Transport Strategy. I was heartened by the support that the principles underpinning the bill received from submitters. However many submitters sought changes to improve the implementation of the bill. Some thought that the decision-making framework set in the bill was too complex while others were concerned about consultation. Many submitters also called for more funding tools to be made available in addition to the bill’s tolling and public-private partnerships and others argued that these provisions were too restrictive. The select committee has addressed these issues. 
The bill integrates the New Zealand Transport Strategy into land transport funding and management decision-making processes. The bill’s purpose reflects the New Zealand Transport Strategy’s vision as do the objectives of Transit New Zealand and Transfund New Zealand. The strategy’s objectives are used as important criteria for decision makers to take into account. Decision makers need to make decisions after carefully considering and balancing each of the strategy’s objectives. The committee has worked hard to ensure that the decision-making criteria throughout the bill have been made as consistent as possible whether as Transfund approving funding for a busway or the Minister making a decision on a tolling scheme. Overlaps and duplications have been addressed. 
Some submitters argued strongly that efficiencies should be included in the bill as an explicit decision-making criterion. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has recommended that this be done. In my view efficiency is implicit in the concept of sustainability which is ingrained in the bill’s purpose and elsewhere. None the less I believe there is value in stating this explicitly. The committee has recommended that it become one of Transfund’s criteria for approved funding and this is a good proposal. This is a critical decision-making point of the bill. Transfund of course is responsible for allocating some $1.2 billion of land transport funding. 
The committee has also recommended explicitly linking the key documents in the bill with the bill’s purpose. These documents include land transport programmes prepared by Transit and local government the  
Annual National Land Transport Programme  
prepared by Transfund and  
Regional Land Transport Strategies  
prepared by regional councils. This approach strengthens the relationship between these documents to the bill’s strategic framework. Land transport programmes and the national land transport programme are also combined with 10-year financial forecasts. This ensures that programmes have a long-term view. 
The committee also recommended that the strategic nature of regional land transport strategies be emphasised by requiring that strategies identify the transport outcomes sought by the regions and the strategic options for obtaining these outcomes. To underpin these changes the membership of the committees that prepare these strategies also needs to be changed. Regional land transport committees will now need to consist of interests that reflect the objectives of the New Zealand Transport Strategy as well as representatives of local government Transfund and the Land Transport Safety Authority. The regional land transport committees must also take into account the views of network providers like Transit. 
Regional land transport strategies will also need to contain a traffic demand management strategy. Traffic demand management is becoming an increasingly important way of dealing with the pressure on our roading infrastructure. It is simply not possible to build our way out of congestion. Traffic demand management measures can range from better integration of traffic management systems to travel blending which incorporates the use of more than one mode of travel within a single journey. Other examples include walking school buses teleworking and special public transport services for major events. 
The bill also allows regional councils to own public transport infrastructure and services. The committee has suggested deleting the complicated approval process set out in the bill and instead utilising the provisions of the Local Government Act. This is a very good proposal and I support it. 
A number of submissions raised concerns about a new power for the Minister to give instructions in relation to funding priorities. This was set out in clause 14 of the bill as introduced. The committee has recommended that this power be deleted and instead that we rely on the Minister’s powers to issue general directions on Government policy as set out in schedule 1. The power to use directions was carried over from the existing Act. Such directions must be published in the  
Gazette 
 and presented to the House. The Minister cannot give directions on individual projects. 
There were concerns expressed that the bill’s consultation requirements were far too onerous. The bill as introduced provided for consultation on land transport programmes 10-year financial forecasts and tolling and concession agreements. It should be remembered that the existing Transit New Zealand Act provides for consultation on land transport programmes with many groups. The recommendation to combine programmes with 10-year financial forecasts means that a whole layer of consultation has been removed by the committee. There was also some inconsistency between the lists of groups that should be consulted and the committee has recommended changes to address this issue—another good change. 
The committee has also recommended a closer link between the new Local Government Act and the Land Transport Management Bill. Local authorities which are responsible for 80 percent of the land transport system must consult under the provisions of the Act. The principles and processes under the Act have been brought into the bill to give greater clarity about who should be consulted and how they should be consulted. In addition it has been made clear that local government does not need to consult under the provisions of the bill if it has already consulted on its long-term council community plan. This was something that local authorities called for in their submissions. Further the tolling and concession agreement provisions provide that consultation is not required if there has already been consultation under the bill or any other enactment on the proposal to toll or enter into a concession agreement. 
As far as tolling and concession agreements are concerned the bill as introduced puts into place a generic framework for approving tolling schemes and concession agreements. Tolling schemes require approval by Order in Council while concession agreements require ministerial approval. At present toll arrangements require special legislation. Many submitters supported the Government’s move to make these tools available as an alternative way of funding roading projects. While some argued for strong conditions for such schemes many felt that the provisions were too restrictive. When dealing with roads which are so critical to communities a balance needs to be found between the need for public control and private sector investment. 
A major issue that concerned many in local government and the private sector was the requirement for approval at a very late stage in the process. There was concern that this would discourage investment because there would be an unwillingness to invest in developing projects if there was no certainty that approval would come. The committee has arrived at a very good pragmatic solution. Early conditional approval can now be given after the Minister has considered core criteria such as whether the project would contribute to the purpose of the bill and the outcome of any public consultation. Conditional approval can then be issued. This means approval can come before tenders are issued and the successful tenderers can know with certainty what preconditions they need to meet before beginning tolling or entering into a concession agreement. 
The committee has also ensured that the decision-making criteria for tolling and concession agreements are as consistent as possible. There are however some unique features of such arrangements that need to be considered. The bill as introduced made it clear that tolling could be used only for new roads. Existing roads could be included only if there was an engineering reason for them to be included. Many submitters argued that tolling should be possible on existing roads and some went so far as to say that widespread tolling should be allowed such as the congestion pricing in London. The committee quite sensibly concluded that allowing such schemes would go well beyond the policy of the bill. The Government has some sympathy with the argument that more funding tools should be made available. To this end the Government is working with the Auckland region to investigate such approaches and would look to include any new mechanism in future legislation if required. The committee has none the less recommended that there should be some additional flexibility to include existing roads where the existing road is physically or operationally integral to the new road. The toll revenue though must be used for the new road. The committee has also made it clear that emergency vehicles should be exempted from tolls. 
As far as concession agreements are concerned there was concern that the bill was too inflexible in how it treated risk. For example the public sector was precluded from compensating the private sector if traffic forecasts were not met. Such issues are normally matters for commercial negotiation and have been removed. However a broader provision has been included that will not deter future options of sustainable transport solutions. The committee has recommended that leasing be allowed for concession agreements. The bill as introduced allowed only licence agreements. Leasing is a more familiar instrument for investors so this change will give them greater certainty. The successful Melbourne City link project uses leasing. 
Some submitters argued that the proposed term of 35 years should be extended. The committee was satisfied that a term of this length was suitable for most purposes. It has however recommended that the term can be extended for 10 years if there are exceptional circumstances two-thirds of the way through the concession agreement’s term. 
In summary the select committee has made some very very good changes to the bill and I recommend to the House that it now be read a second time. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—National) 
: 
 This is a bill of lost opportunities but I will come to that in a moment. I want to start by wishing Helen Duncan the chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee all the best. I know she would want to be here today to speak on the bill. The submissions heard on the bill agreed almost unanimously with the principles in the legislation. However they almost unanimously disagreed with the detail. Submitter after submitter said that they supported the bill in principle but that its detail meant it would not work. 
It became apparent during the select committee process that we could make this bill work. I wrote to the Minister and offered the National Opposition’s support in working with the Government to deliver legislation to the House that would enable Auckland’s roading issues to be dealt with public-private partnerships to grow and roading issues in other parts of the country to be dealt with by a combination of road tolls public-private partnerships congestion charging and allowing Transit to borrow. The Minister and the Government chose to ignore that letter. They did not respond to it at all. Instead they chose to ditch the United Future party—transport was one of the major issues for that party when it came to the House—and cuddle up with the Greens to deliver back to the House a Labour-Green bill that every group that came to the committee has since said will not work. The Automobile Association said the bill would not deliver. Business New Zealand made the same sorts of comments—namely that the bill fails to solve the problems. The Auckland chamber of commerce said the bill is a wasted opportunity by the Government. The Road Transport Forum worried that the bill would not deliver on the Government’s roading objectives at all. The Employers and Manufacturers Association in Auckland was damning in its criticism of the bill. 
Every group lined up and said that the bill would not work including the Minister. The Minister said in the House today that it became apparent that we want to give Auckland a whole range of new options to be able to develop its roading network but it is not in the bill. That is why a joint action group was set up to work in parallel with the legislation and report early next year. If we are to believe the Minister the Government which just a few weeks ago voted against National Opposition amendments to allow for widespread congestion pricing and no doubt will vote against them in the House in a few weeks’ time—the Minister nods that it will—will come back in March full of spring in the new year and vote for them. It will decide that the joint action group will deliver what this bill cannot deliver. 
I tell people in Auckland that this legislation is a lost opportunity. The Government is stringing them along. Aucklanders need to know that this Government is engaged in a cynical exercise of stringing them along and trying to make them believe that the same Ministers and the same Labour Party members who will vote against solutions in this House over the next few weeks will miraculously change their minds and vote for those amendments in March. We do not believe that. More important as I travelled around Auckland I noted that the vast majority of groups in Auckland did not believe it either. This bill has been years in the pipeline. The Minister’s predecessor the Hon Mark Gosche promised it 4 years ago. He promised it would solve Auckland’s problems but it does nothing of the sort. 
I shall talk about some areas where the bill lets Auckland and New Zealand down. It will not deliver Transmission Gully for Wellingtonians. No one believes it will. In fact the other weekend Darren Hughes told people to stop whingeing. He told Wellingtonians to stop whingeing about Transmission Gully that there was not the money to do it and that the money was going to Auckland. The people on the Kapiti Coast are still struggling with that. The bill will not deliver Transmission Gully. It will not deliver any public-private partnership other than the Tauranga Harbour Bridge. We have gone through so much and have listened to so many submissions for nothing. The groups that looked at the bill when it was introduced said it would not work. They went to Mr Swain who told them to make strong robust submissions and the Government would change the bill. The groups made strong robust submissions and the Government did not change it. Mr Swain decided to cuddle up with the Greens rather than change the bill. 
I am worried about some other parts of the bill. The international financiers who came before the committee said that 35 years would not work and when we talked with them after their submission they said that 35 years plus 10 would not work. Why will the Government not listen to them? Why will the Government not listen to the people who are financing projects around the world? When they say this will not work what does the Government not understand about that? 
I am worried about a bill that defines land transport as coastal shipping so that land transport money can be diverted into coastal shipping subsidisation. The foreign flag bearer that comes to New Zealand from the Panama Canal and picks up some freight and carts it around New Zealand on its way back to South America will be subsidised by the New Zealand taxpayers from their road transport fund. They do not think their petrol money is subsidising foreign-owned shipping companies. Why have Labour and the Greens insisted on that being in this bill? Why have Labour and the Greens consistently voted against a cap being included in the bill to stop the raiding of petrol money so that a maximum of only 10 percent can go into public transport? Labour and the Greens have consistently voted against that. They want an unlimited amount of road transport money available for things such as public transport. Road users will be appalled when they find out that that is what will be happening to their money. 
This bill has been a lot of effort to get a second bridge in Tauranga. That is the total upshot of this bill. I say to the House today that the National Party will be moving a series of amendments through the Committee stage—the sorts of amendments that the Minister is whispering around Auckland he will support next year. We will test the Government and the Auckland Labour members to see whether they are prepared to vote for the solutions—solutions that the Mayor of Auckland tells us Labour members are pretty keen on in private. We will see whether they are pretty keen on them in public. We will see whether they are prepared to vote for them in public. I do not think they will. I think that Labour Party members are saying one thing in Auckland and a different thing in Parliament. The Auckland Labour members will be tested on that over the next few weeks. I think that will become a test for this Labour Government. 
The lack of transport infrastructure is hindering economic growth in this country—nowhere more so than in Auckland. The Government had an opportunity to go with any political party other than the Greens. National New Zealand First ACT and United Future are at one on fixing that problem. Labour and the Greens are committed not to solving the problem but to making it worse. 
Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I congratulate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which I now chair on the work it has done on this bill. Like the two previous speakers I would like to acknowledge the work of Helen Duncan. I hope she is listening today to the outcome of the work that the committee has done. 
It is interesting to be able to follow a National Party speaker on a Land Transport Management Bill. Most of the National members are not old enough to remember National’s last attempts when it was in power but I have not forgotten. When I became the Minister of Transport I found a dusty room full of rubbish called “ 
Better Transport Better Roads 
”. That document was vilified by everybody in this country and there is only one brave soul on the Opposition side of the House who is still promoting it. He has been suspended from the National Party but he was still brave enough to get out there this year and tell Auckland people at a meeting I went to on the North Shore that that is the real answer. The National Party people who turned up to that meeting did not have a prayer; they did not have anything to say about transport to those interested local body people. Why? Because as with everything else the National Party does not yet have a policy on transport. National members say we should give them some time. They have been working on it for 15 years and they still have not come up with any answers—not a sausage. We can see that up and down the country after 9 long years of that party and a few of its cohorts being in power. There was a transport deficit in this country that people are still seeing and still bemoaning. 
This Government in 4 years already has a proud history and track record of overcoming many of those transport problems. What were they? Mr Key who will speak for the National Party will ask why we do not have efficiency right at the front of this bill. That will be in his speech. I offered some advice to Mr Key at the select committee. I said he should go to Northland and to the East Cape. This is where Governments told people to plant trees in order to become rich. Those people were told the trees would grow to maturity in about 20-odd years would then be cut down and taken away and the people would make a fortune. Well the theory was correct. The problem was that the previous National Government neglected to build any roads on which to transport the logs that were cut down in Northland and on the East Coast. Why? Because efficiency ruled National’s so-called transport policy. The only way to get a road built in the Northland and East Cape areas would have been if enough people had died on those roads. That was how that Government decided on the funding of roads—enough deaths on a road equalled a new road. 
If we went to Auckland where I live we could not travel very fast because the roads had become more and more clogged with 5 percent more traffic going on them every year. What was National’s solution? Nobody had died. People could not move because of the congestion so they were safe and that Government said it was sorry but it was not going to build a single project in Auckland in 9 years—and it did not except for a road for Murray McCully called the Albany to Puhoi realignment (ALPURT) to enable him to get to his Northland bach. That is why National built that road; it was pure pork-barrel politics. The previous National Government built that motorway to get people out of Auckland but forgot to join it to anything so that they could get to it. People had to spend an hour moving through Auckland’s snail-like traffic to get up to the brand new motorway built to enable Murray McCully to get to his holiday home in the north. Efficiency will be what the National Party says is missing from the purpose of this bill. I invite Mr Key to get out there do his job and head a little bit north where he will see what efficiency did to sensible decision-making. It was overwhelmed by the madness of the cost-benefit ratio system which made no sense to anybody in this country except for the National Party politicians who were too lazy to get on and design anything different. 
When I became the Minister of Transport I went around the country and listened to people. A Minister of Transport who listened! That was a new thing for local government and transport interests. They had not had one who did that for so long with Mr Williamson and Mrs Shipley that it was a very rare event to have somebody who was prepared to listen. Out of that listening came the policy that has been put into this bill by the current Minister and is now before the House. It will deal with a great many of the problems that transport faces and that New Zealanders face throughout this country. 
Again National rubbishes the fact that some money will be spent on public transport. When National was in power public transport funding was frozen for 5 years at a particular point in time. Why? Because the National Party’s position was: “Public transport is going to be a small difference and the projects that are on the books are very expensive.” Since we became the Government public transport funding in this country has doubled. We now have about 25 percent growth in the use of public transport. That is people on a bus on a train or on a ferry—not in a car clogging up a motorway. Opposition members say it is terrible that we are spending money on something other than a road. Well they would have people clogging up the motorways and moving nowhere rather than have the very valuable transport corridors in Wellington and Auckland used to take significant numbers of people and put them in trains instead. It is far friendlier to the environment and much better for the business traffic that is trying to get around those cities if more people use public transport. 
According to the National Party it is a crime to use the money to fund public transport and ease congestion. Where else in the world is that approach taken? Absolutely nowhere but in New Zealand under the National Party’s policy. Members should talk to the private sector operators who are running public transport. Stagecoach one of the big bus companies that operates internationally cannot believe the growth it is achieving in Auckland because it is so much better than anywhere else in the world. The company’s chairman regularly comes down here and is just open-mouthed at the results his company is getting in terms of carrying more people. More New Zealanders are using public transport. What is wrong with that? Absolutely nothing! The most common-sense approach to a roading system that is clogged is to get more people off it and using an alternative. That is far more efficient than to have everybody sit in cars all on their own clogging up a motorway and polluting the environment. We have to offer choice and that is what this bill is about. 
This bill is about looking for the sensible choices and the sensible choices are in many cases roads. That is why in Auckland right now there is motorway building like we have not been seen in Auckland for 15 years. The major choke point of the Auckland motorway system the “Spaghetti Junction” area is actually having work done on it. It had been left absolutely devoid of any plans—no money; nothing—by the previous National Government. National just said it was too hard to fix that choke point so it would go and build another road somewhere in the rest of the country because somebody had had a terrible accident on it. It was too hard for National to figure out how to solve that curly problem in the middle of Auckland. 
The people down on the Auckland waterfront said to me that they need a motorway to go down to the port. At the moment it stops about 3 kilometres short of it. That motorway junction is well under way; Mr Swain opened a major piece of it not so long ago. Trying to go to Auckland airport via the Puhinui way through Papatoetoe was a big problem. What is there now is a very new and very very efficient interchange which was badly needed. The plans for Auckland are many. Opposition members ask: “What about the rest of the country?”. Bill English said that if Aucklanders want more roading projects in Auckland then they should pay for them. He did not say that 5 years ago; he said that last February. So the message from Mr Sowry rings very loudly in Aucklanders’ ears compared with his leader’s snub to Auckland ratepayers and taxpayers. 
I see that on the weekend a wonderful road between Tauranga and Rotorua cutting 30 minutes from the travel time has just been opened. The local mayors applauded that as a wonderful project. So I say to Mr Brown that this Government is looking after that part of the country. This Government has also listened to the people of the Waikato who said the cart track we have called State Highway 1 between Auckland and Waikato is no good. The previous National Government left it for so much time while so many people died on it that it looked more like a cemetery than a State highway. Now I drive from Auckland to Waikato and hear all the grizzles about the roadworks that go on for kilometre after kilometre. 
This is a good bill. It is practical and it backs up the Government’s actions with a law that will take us into the future. I congratulate the Minister and the select committee on their fine work. This is a forward-looking bill and is balanced in its outlook. It takes common-sense solutions and it will be good for all New Zealanders long into the future. When that  
Better Transport Better Roads 
 document is in a museum as an oddity this Government will be seen as having got on done the work and listened to the people in local government and in the transport industry who knew what they were talking about. As a result we have a very fine bill for this Parliament to pass. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Let me start by expressing on behalf of New Zealand First our sympathies to Helen Duncan and we wish her all the best. I know she would have liked to be here to debate this bill as it has been reported back but she cannot. So on behalf of my colleagues I express our best wishes to her. 
I am disappointed in Mr Gosche’s speech. As a former Minister he did not touch on this bill at all. He told members what the National Government did not do—he was correct—and he told us what he has done but it does not apply to this bill. This bill is about generic road tolling: establishing road tolls wherever whenever. This bill is not about what National did not do. Although it might possibly address some of the shortfall it is not aimed at the National Government in particular. It is aimed at establishing road tolls wherever whenever. 
New Zealand First will not support a generic road-tolling regime nor will average New Zealanders. They do not want to see road tolls established here there and everywhere. But I do not think that that will occur if one examines the bill. I think this is a phoney bill about generic road tolling. The only area where I believe there is a strong chance of a road toll being established is in Tauranga the city where I come from. There will be a road toll on the harbour bridge where only about a year ago it was taken off. Now it will go back on on the harbour bridge link project. That link project qualifies by all the criteria to be a State-funded road—a State highway. Indeed Transit executive management recommended to the board that the project become a State highway and should therefore be funded out of petrol taxes but the Transit board refused. The board overruled its management it refused and it will not give one reason why it will not recommend that the road become a State highway. 
This bill is setting up Tauranga for road tolling in a most unfair manner. I am disappointed that Larry Baldock is supporting the bill. He is telling the people of Tauranga to support road tolls—never mind that the road should be a State highway and should qualify for State funding. He is saying: “Support road tolls. If you do not you are a whinger.” Larry Baldock is telling people not to be whingers. 
Larry Baldock 
: Just giving them a choice. 
PETER BROWN 
: I say to Mr Baldock that they should not have to have a choice. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Hobson’s choice it’s called. 
PETER BROWN 
: Hobson’s choice—that is what it is called. The harbour bridge link project in Tauranga should be funded—all $140 million of it—by petrol tax road-user charges and what have you. The people of Tauranga should not be asked to pay again. 
There is an old saying: “Do it once do it properly.” This bill does not do anything once and it certainly does not do it properly. What we should be doing in this country now is identifying the total cost that is needed to bring our roads up to par; identify the areas and identify the total cost of what is required to bring them up to par. There are various estimates on this ranging from $6 billion through to $10 billion or even $11 billion. New Zealand First believes we should look at borrowing the funding to address the issue in a meaningful manner and in a reasonable time frame. 
It is absolutely disgraceful for the Prime Minister to come out and say that Transmission Gully is 10 years away before it can even be contemplated. That is absolutely disgraceful. I recognise as Mr Gosche appeared to state that the roads in this country have been starved of funds for years. Motor-vehicle levies have been used for the wrong reasons. Eighteen and a half cents per litre of petrol goes into the consolidated account. The consolidated account is almost awash with money but the motorist is paying 18.5c per litre of petrol into the consolidated account. That is something like $600 million a year—very close to $600 million a year. 
Despite what the Minister said I believe the other day in the House petrol consumption is going up in this country. Vehicle numbers are going up and notwithstanding that the modern vehicle is more economic in fuel use petrol consumption is going up. So there are more and more payments of 18.5c per litre per year being collected by the Government. Some of that money should go back to the road users—some of it. Eventually it is our belief that all of it should go back but in the initial instance to address the shortfall and the problems we have in roading we should be borrowing money. We should be funding that debt to get our roads up to speed and up to the level that the motorist requires. People are dying almost every weekend every year on the roads in New Zealand because road design is not up to par. The roads in this country are not adequate. 
We have 92000 kilometres of roading in New Zealand and only 60-plus percent is tar-sealed. Mark Gosche referred to a new road going between Tauranga and Rotorua. That is not a new road; it is a stretch of road that has just been tar-sealed. It has been waiting for tar-seal for years. It has been progressively tar-sealed bit by bit and been waiting for years to be completed. The car is here to stay. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: Oh no! 
PETER BROWN 
: The Minister disbelieves that. Does he think that because he is going to pay $3 million to people to get on their bicycles or go walking—as the Greens want—people will get out of their cars in any meaningful numbers? I tell the Minister that if they do there will be more people killed on the roads than ever. There will be more pedestrians and cyclists killed right away if they are put to walking and cycling. 
Brent Catchpole 
: They’re certainly not going to use the trains in Auckland. 
PETER BROWN 
: That is another issue but for the short term we have to address the issue of roading in this country. In my view we should have motorways going the whole length of the country. Motorists pay and we should have a motorway from Auckland through to Wellington and southwards. Indeed there should be other motorways crossing the country both in the North Island and the South Island. 
Roading and roading costs have been seen as a cash cow to fund other ventures. Now we can afford it so we should be putting more back into roading. We cannot do it in one hit by using the petrol fund money but we can borrow the money and use the petrol fund money to pay the debt. In a relatively few years we could pay off some major projects in this country. The Minister knows it. That is why he is bringing in another bill to address Auckland issues. In another bill I believe he will announce something in December or early in the New Year. He knows that this bill does not go anywhere near addressing Auckland issues. He is nodding. This is just a sop to let people know that he is trying to do something. The only thing that is likely to result from this bill—and if I have my way it will not—is another toll being put on the Tauranga bridge. 
The Minister had to have a provision inserted in this bill—I think it is part of clause 53—to say that tolling can now apply in exceptional circumstances when there is no alternative route. The legislation when first brought to the House was quite firm—there had to be an alternative route. But now it is weakened to the degree that in exceptional circumstances an existing route can be tolled whether or not there is an alternative route. This bill will result—and I believe it is the Minister’s intention—in a new toll being imposed on the Tauranga Harbour Bridge. Let me say to members that New Zealand First will oppose that all the way. I do not know how Margaret Wilson will front up and say she is supporting this bill when she tried to claim a lot of credit for taking off the last toll. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party is totally opposed to this bill and I am surprised that when the Minister stood up he did not more effusively thank the Green Party for its support in writing this bill. It is one of the worst-kept secrets in Wellington that Heather Simpson and Roland Sapsford were the real authors of this bill. Roland Sapsford is the Greens’ chief policy person and works directly for Jeanette Fitzsimons. His title is “Advisory Group Coordinator” according to one of his business cards which also has the Parliamentary Service crest on it. He is also one of the campaigners who are particularly against the Wellington inner-city bypass and he is a spokesperson for the pressure group Campaign for a Better City. 
I believe that Paul Swain has his heart in the right place in respect of this bill but his problem has been that many of the details in it were nutted out when Mr Gosche was Minister of Transport. My understanding is that officials were told by Ms Simpson what to write and if they gave advice that was not welcomed that advice was either ignored or they were told to go away and try again. I also understand that Mr Sapsford was involved in the process all the way through and had a strong involvement in the bill’s development. 
Despite all the work from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and all the submissions we now see that efficiency is only one of the criteria to be used when roads are planned. But whose money are we using here? It is money obtained through road-user charges. A sum of $2 billion a year is collected from road-user charges and at present not even all of that is used on roads. This bill will not add one new kilometre of motorway to the existing network. 
When this bill was announced and people were asked about the eastern motorway in Auckland Judith Tizard asked why that should proceed just so that people who lived in Pakuranga and Howick could have an extra half-hour in bed in the morning. Where does that arrogance ring a bell? It is the same sort of breath-taking arrogance we had from that Associate Minister of Transport when people complained about their rates being increased to fund railways that no one will ever go on because they will not go anywhere near the North Shore. She told those people to sell their houses and buy new homes. When there was an outcry that vehicle emissions testing would raise the costs of warrants of fitness she told them to buy a new car. 
As members have already pointed out the other issue is that this tolling will apply only to Tauranga. That is a classic example of the return to parish-pump politics which we got rid of years ago. It is one of the ways Labour has used to get support from United Future and it has used this bill to keep the Greens happy. Under this bill tolling of existing networks will be allowed only in exceptional circumstances. If the situation in Auckland at the moment is not exceptional I do not know what is. 
Mr Swain talked about a new mechanism in future legislation that will solve Auckland’s traffic problems. Why not bring it into this bill right now Mr Swain? He has had a golden opportunity to solve something that was started 30 years ago. That is when the western bypass and link-ups through Avondale and across the top were put on the planning board. They have boasted about starting on “Spaghetti Junction” which has just added further to the confusion. Instead of developing “Spaghetti Junction” the western bypass should have been developed—then we would have gone somewhere not just to solving the problem of the loss of economic growth in Auckland but the loss of opportunity for business. Business people in Auckland especially out in eastern areas like Tamaki a big commercial area can get out and do business only between 10 o’clock in the morning and 2 o’clock in the afternoon. The rest of the day is destroyed because they are sitting in those huge parking lots we call motorways. That situation contributes to vehicle emissions and dirty air in Auckland. 
Road-user charges will now also be used for coastal shipping. That will mean a redistribution of taxes—again collected from the motorist—to subsidise New Zealand’s shipping organisations which are crying because they have been subjected to more competition. Those taxes will be used to create more jobs for wharfies. 
This bill will not deliver private sector involvement. As I said we had the opportunity to get Auckland’s motorway solutions addressed in the same way they have been addressed in Sydney and Melbourne. We heard from international financiers like Macquarie Bank which asked for the 35-year limit on concession agreements to be flexible—sometimes less than 35 years sometimes more. But what did we hear? We heard the Green member—who does not even like cars and who has a huge bias against them—declare that to him 35 years was ample. That person is someone who makes jewellery for a living but who knows more than Macquarie Bank about what is flexible or not in terms of a concession agreement. 
As the Hon Roger Sowry said we listened to all those submitters who came before the select committee thinking that they would make a difference. Mayors from Auckland appeared and gave very emotional submissions. They were people who cared about the people in their city and were trying to do something about the problems. There were submissions from people out in the country like those in the Wairarapa where there are huge problems with the funding of roads. Why did we even bother? 
 We now see that the Government will set up a new company called Track Co. We already know that there will be an exclusive deal for Toll Holdings to operate on the rail-track that was purchased by the Government. Under this bill Toll Holdings will be subsidised by motorists to prop up Track Co. That will directly benefit an Australian company that has signed an exclusive deal with the Government to operate on the rail-track. Motorists will get nothing from this bill and if we look at the consultation process we see that everyone from Maori to the Historic Places Trust has to be consulted. That is what the Greens get in return for supporting Labour on the Supreme Court Bill. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons has proudly said that as a result of this bill “transport” in New Zealand will no longer mean just the car and the motorway. The strategy means that rail bus ferry barge bike and footpath gain equal status. As Peter Brown said the car is here to stay and we must get used to it. Green parties around the world have recognised that. Three years ago in 2000 the  
Financial Times 
 reported that the Green Party in Germany had embraced the car. I quote: “After years battling against motorways petrol-guzzling motorists and anything that slows up a bicycle Germany’s environmentalist Green Party has taken a step towards ending its rage against cars.” Here is the most important bit: the strategy paper from that Green Party went on to acknowledge that “for women the car means security on the streets at night and the possibility of combining family and career. For the old and handicapped it is a synonym for independent movement.” That is why there is such a bias against the car because it symbolises freedom and people’s ability to choose. The Greens hate anything to do with freedom of choice. 
Mark Gosche said it all. He could not defend the bill at all—all he did in his speech was attack National. Well attack is the best method of defence. Mark Gosche said that ACT did not want money going into public transport. ACT does not mind money going into public transport as long as it is money from people who want to use public transport. But why should motorists be forced to fund coastal shipping cycleways walkways and railways they do not use when they cannot even plan their journeys across Auckland so that they arrive on time? This bill is a dog and ACT will not be supporting it. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 Much is made in this place of the issues that divide us and our points of difference. The Greens have been pleased to work in tandem with the Government on this bill. It is a good piece of legislation it is a modest piece of legislation and it is a modern piece of legislation. It is not legislation that is way out or somehow beyond the pale. It is an attempt to bring New Zealand’s transport into line with that of those places that have managed to keep people and products moving and to look after the health and well-being of their communities and their environments. 
The Land Transport Management Bill is a key component in addressing New Zealand’s land transport strategy. It finds support from such diverse groups as the Council of Trade Unions the Business Council for Sustainable Development and the public health authorities. The bill sets out a framework for establishing safe sustainable integrated responsive transport systems and we are pleased to support it. We are pleased to see it here. In a planet that is living way beyond the capacity of the environment to sustain this legislation is culture-shifting legislation and makes better solutions possible. It has become very clear that we have not been able to solve our transport problems simply by building more roads—no communities have. They may work briefly but if building roads worked London Los Angeles or wherever we like to look—indeed we need look no further than Auckland or even my own home city of Nelson—where roads have been built for many many years now would be free of traffic problems. Clearly they are not. 
We have been pleased to be able to be part of changing some of the more complicated elements of the bill. An example of this is the simplification of the consultation procedures. Local communities must have a say in the transport solutions for their communities. The inclusion of local government consultation processes is an important part of that and they are included in the bill. People need to be consulted but not re-consulted and if an issue has been covered once and the community has had a chance of having a say on it that should be enough. We are pleased to see that the consultation procedures are robust but not excessive. 
Amongst some of the more contentious issues in the bill is the provision for demand management. When Jeanette Fitzsimons’ traffic management member’s bill came before the select committee its detractors labelled it as anti-business. They claimed that it was an infringement of their rights. In fact most businesses operating in a businesslike way will examine their issues from both sides of the spectrum. They will ask whether there are ways they can minimise the problem rather than simply throwing money at it and in fact that is what transport management is about. We are looking for the bill to provide measures to cater for problems that affect us by not simply throwing money at them but asking whether there are ways we can minimise them. 
Without exception when the submitters who said that Jeanette Fitzsimons’ bill was anti-business were asked whether they were seriously telling us that when they are sitting on a motorway going nowhere and going there extraordinarily slowly in Auckland when they are surrounded by products and people moving just as slowly and getting nowhere very very slowly there are not occasions when they would rather that some of those people had found another way of getting there they said they were not opposed to that but they just did not want to be regulated. I said: “Well if we get the regulation bit out of the way what if we can make those other choices more attractive? What if those other choices were more cost-effective?”. Without exception they said: “Well yes I guess if you can do that that sounds reasonable.” That is what land transport management is about. It is about managing demand. It is not simply about throwing roads at it. 
This is not cutting-edge stuff. New South Wales and Western Australia have transport strategies that identify motorcar dependence as a major problem. Demand management is about addressing that problem not by banning motorcars but by providing more attractive and cost-effective solutions that address not just meeting the needs of the transport disadvantaged—that is those who cannot drive who choose not to drive or who cannot afford to drive—but providing choices for the movement of products and people whoever they are. 
How will the Transfund programmes contribute to New Zealand’s transport strategy and the intentions of the Land Transport Management Bill? They have to look beyond simply building roads and catering for cars to solutions that meet the objectives of the bill and address the problems associated with our motorcar-obsessed society. The first problem is congestion. Simply building more roads inevitably encourages more cars. We have seen it in Auckland. We have seen people move to the end of the motorway but their respite is brief. Bit by bit those roads become even more full and the congestion in the inner city becomes even greater. The air pollution issue with cars is well established and kills more people than accidents do. Water pollution due to the runoff from our roads is a major issue. There is the risk issue in that the more cars we have the more vulnerable people are on the roads. There is the health issue which is not just about pollution but also about the sedentary lifestyles imposed on people who are brought up with the idea that the only way of getting to places is to climb into cars. We have to provide other choices. There is also the cost issue in that motorcars are an extraordinarily expensive choice. 
The bill sets out objectives that address those issues. They include to assist economic development to assist safety and personal security and to improve access and mobility. That is for all New Zealanders—not just those who have motorcars but those who do not or who are unable to drive. That affects all of us for some of our lives. Friends of mine say they like driving; I say OK so if they are sitting at home and their kids ring up at midnight from 20 miles away and say come and pick them up do they say “Yippee!” and climb into their car? I do not think so. 
 Other objectives are to protect and promote public health and to ensure environmental sustainability. Some folk were concerned at the failure to include efficiency in the objectives. We believe that efficiency will always be a factor but are concerned at the likelihood that if it became an overriding concern it would undermine those other objectives in the bill. 
Deborah Coddington spoke about Roland Sapsford. We all of us have advisers in this place we all of us have experts to advise us and Roland Sapsford is such a person. He has had long experience dealing with transport issues and that is why we employ him in our office. That is a reasonable thing to do. I am a maker of jewellery; that is what I do. Deborah Coddington is a journalist. I do not think that undermines her right to be on that committee and to have an opinion. I just do not happen to agree with her opinion. 
Am I opposed to motorcars? No of course I am not nor are the Greens. We recognise that our cities were designed around motorcars. Our cities are as big as they are because of motorcars. But getting them to be used in ways that are sustainable is an essential part of the management of them. The freedom to choose was an issue raised by Deborah Coddington. The Greens are in favour of choice and this bill is in favour of choice. What it says is that before we build another road we should examine the other choices. We should examine whether we can make public transport more attractive. 
I sat on a train from Waitakere into the city. I can tell members that I had to wait for half an hour at a derelict railway station without any seats because the shelter about 100 metres away had had the backside kicked out of it. The trains were grotty and when I was looking to find out where to get off my train I saw that all the signs had been graffitied over. I could not tell where I was. It seems to me that there are some fundamental ordinary things that we can do to give people choices. That train was half an hour late at 5 o’clock at night I might add. We need to make those choices more attractive and more reliable. 
We need to make sure as well that people can actually use their legs. Our young people are likely to die younger and to linger whereas the present lot that are dying are dying older and are dying quickly. The next generation is likely to be larger fatter and to have type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease and part of that is because they are brought up to travel everywhere in the motorcar. They do not walk. They do not cycle. For some of our trips walking and cycling are reasonable options they are healthier options and they are less expensive options. We share the concerns of the entire House about the inability to move people and products around. This bill is an honest attempt to do that. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 It has been a long process since the draft legislation was presented to us last year and it is satisfying to see the changes that have been made to the bill being debated in the House. United Future made the provision of alternative funding options for land transport a priority in our confidence and supply agreement which stated that we would ensure that new transport legislation is introduced and passed that includes provision for alternative funding options to facilitate the accelerated development of new roading infrastructure. We did this because we are painfully aware as all motorists in New Zealand are that the roading network in this country has suffered from a lack of investment over the past two decades at least and that the traditional methods of funding are not going to be sufficient to allow New Zealand to catch up with what the Minister of Transport himself has called a major infrastructural deficit. 
At this point I want to express my appreciation to the officials who have worked long and hard to support the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in its consideration of the bill and the submissions made to it. Throughout the process I have appreciated the Minister’s commitment to the legislation and his genuine concern to see the bill enacted as an enabling tool for the development of New Zealand’s transport system. I thank the chair of the committee Helen Duncan and pray for her health at this stage and wish her well. I thank also the submitters who took the time to put forward many excellent proposals for change within the rather limited original bill. 
In fact so many new ideas and concepts for funding have been raised that it has become apparent to the Government that a second bill will be needed to address further funding strategies to assist the Government to reach its goals by 2010 and United Future is looking forward to working with the Minister of Transport on that legislation. United Future is committed to the goal of achieving an integrated safe responsive sustainable and efficient land transport system for New Zealand. Our families our businesses our tourist visitors and all our road users in general deserve Parliament giving its full attention to this priority of making our entire transport system and particularly our road network worthy of a developed nation in the 21st century. The bill that has returned to the House from the select committee is very different from that which was sent to the select committee after its first reading. It has been the subject of much discussion and negotiation and although United Future has endeavoured to recommend improvements to the entire bill in response to submitter concerns we have particularly concentrated on the parts that involve alternative funding. 
Submitters raised concerns about the complicated and possible duplication of consultation and I am satisfied that this issue has been improved considerably. Some are still critical and complain that there is still too much consultation but I think it is time they discovered the reality of business and community life in this new rapidly developing age in which we live. Although consultation can be costly and time consuming when it is done properly it can also contribute to major savings in both time and money as appeals and stalling tactics can be avoided if people feel that their opinions are respected and they are listened to at the beginning of a process. Aligning the consultation to local government processes has made very good sense. 
I believe that the concerns expressed regarding the need for the Minister’s prior approval of concession and tolling agreements have been satisfactorily addressed. The removal of the prohibition on the transfer of risk and the opportunity for an extension for an additional 10 years are welcome improvements. It is important to note that one of the greatest impediments to the development of private involvement in roading in New Zealand is our small population and relatively low traffic volumes which do not make some projects as economically viable as they would be in Melbourne Japan or Singapore. However despite this limitation we believe there are projects that can attract meaningful partnerships between the public and private sectors and this bill provides a workable framework for those agreements. 
Much has been said by the Government and the Green Party about a multimodal approach to our transport system. We accept this and support it. It makes good sense to be promoting all forms of transportation even walking and cycling which can help reduce car dependency and improve public health. We support the need to develop public transport via rail and bus services and we welcome the investigation into how coastal shipping can make a contribution to the movement of some freight in some locations. We acknowledge the work done by Green members on the bill and we thank them for their hard work. 
The problem we have is that suggestions that can make some improvements are sometimes hailed as being the only solution—that somehow we do not need more roads. It is at this point that we beg to differ in our approach. United Future does not accept that the New Zealand transport infrastructure deficit can be fixed by buses trains bikes and barges alone. It needs massive investment over the next 10 years in building new roads and improving old roads all over this country. We know that Auckland has needs and that so do Tauranga Southland and Wellington. In fact there is not a region in this country that would not benefit from more investment in roads and the roading infrastructure. We have State highways with inadequate passing lanes. We have one-lane bridges that are embarrassingly unsafe and antiquated in the 21st century. We have level crossings that still claim lives all too regularly as well as corners humps and hollows that should have been fixed a long time ago. 
For this reason we are concerned that in the attempt to address the problems facing us Transfund should not use finance raised from road users to assist disproportionately the other modes of transport. I do not think that road users both private and commercial are too concerned if a few million dollars are spent on cycleways or even on subsidising public transport where they can see real tangible results in the reduction of congestion. But we believe they have every right to be angry about further plundering of the National Land Transport Fund for projects that are driven more by ideology than practicality. Subsidy of alternative modes of transport for environmental or social reasons must be balanced by a requirement to consider efficiency before the cost of those subsidies are taken from the pockets of New Zealand motorists. This year Transfund announced that already 12 percent of its revenue was being spent on non – roading-related expenditure and we have some concerns about that trend developing even further. 
We welcome the amendment already adopted in clause 20(3)(c) that establishes that Transfund may approve funding if the activity contributes to Transfund’s objective in an “efficient and effective manner”. However we do not believe that this is strong enough and that is why I have tabled amendments to clause 3 “Purpose” and clauses 70 and 79 which we will be debating in the Committee stage. Efficiency does not have to mean waiting for people to die on a particular road before that road gets fixed as has been the practice in the past 20 years. It does not have to mean a return to the old cost-benefit ratio” of the National Government. We can use common sense and find a balance between efficiency environmental sustainability and social responsibility. 
United Future’s role in this legislation has two major objectives: firstly that motorists—both private and commercial—cyclists pedestrians and passengers including our 2 million visitors each year would be able to move about this great country of ours as safely as possible and with the minimum of delays caused by congestion; secondly that all freight the produce of our economy would be able to travel from supply to market in the most efficient manner possible. This would make a huge contribution to the goal of returning New Zealand to the top half of the OECD and providing our families with a better income upon which to live. United Future does not have a problem with subsidising one mode over another if it can be clearly shown to result in greater efficiency for everyone concerned. That is why we ask members of this House to support the Supplementary Order Papers I have lodged for consideration in the Committee stage. 
Some members have made reference to the clauses relating to Tauranga and its proposal to build a second bridge. I am very proud to have been able to contribute to giving Tauranga people the choice to solve their traffic problems. Have we listened to submitters? Yes we have. We had a steady stream of submitters from Tauranga—the Tauranga District Council the Western Bay of Plenty Council Priority One Western Bay of Plenty the chamber of commerce—who all came and asked us to give them the tools so that they could fix the problem themselves. That is what this bill does and I am happy to support it. United Future will support the second reading of this bill and we look forward to the debate in the Committee stage. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of the Land Transport Management Bill and to support the effort made by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and by my ministerial colleagues. I think New Zealanders welcome the provisions in the bill which produces for the first time a long-term integrated and coordinated approach to land transport funding and management. The key thing which some speakers have already dwelt on is that this bill is not solely about roads; it is about rail it is about alternatives—such as public transport—and it is about the promotion of cycling and walking. The bill is long overdue and it will go a long way to addressing the inactivity and inaction that so many parts of our country—in particular the north—have suffered from. 
When we consider that this bill is not just about road transport it is easier to understand the opposition that has already been articulated by the ACT party. Members may not know that the ACT party has considerable expertise in the road transport trucking area as evidenced by its leader’s membership of the board of Mainfreight. So I am rather disappointed that Mr Prebble has chosen not to come down to the Chamber to use that expertise to talk about that issue. Because of that focus on road transport we can understand what sits behind the ACT policy to oppose wider alternatives in this area but I would welcome a contribution from Mr Prebble in that regard. I am also pleased that he takes advantage of that directorship of Mainfreight to top up his meagre parliamentary salary and I am sure he makes good use of that $35000 per annum. 
Darren Hughes 
: What! How much? 
DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: He receives $35000 per annum for being a director of Mainfreight. The real reason that Mr Prebble is unable to share his wisdom and experience with us is that he is at this time rather than being in the House— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) 
: 
 I would like to join with the Minister of Transport the Hon Paul Swain and the other members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in wishing the previous committee chairperson Helen Duncan the best for a rapid and successful recovery. 
I would also like to take a moment to thank the officials who worked with the select committee as we went through the bill. It was a long and arduous process and they served the committee well if I may say so in providing us with a great deal of information. 
This is a very sad day for the New Zealand Parliament—very sad indeed. We have a Minister who is trying to shepherd through the House the Land Transport Management Bill a bill that he paraded up and down the country telling people it would be a saviour for New Zealand roads and especially Auckland roads. This bill will do anything but put road building in the fast lane. Aucklanders are frustrated because for 4 years we have heard the rhetoric from the Minister of Transport that this Government will fix the problem. Then he tried to strong arm the Auckland mayors; he did not want them to speak out against his bill—at least not publicly. Then he took months and months for submissions—between photo shoots on any scrunty little corner he could find in the New Zealand countryside. Then lo and behold he did something we have not seen from a Minister for a very long time in this country: he went up and down the country and begged people to oppose his own bill! He said: “Write the strongest submissions you can against this load of”—I cannot say the word in this House but I think Michael Cullen once said it in the form of phonetics. The Minister told people to write the strongest submissions they can against it. Why did he do that? Because he knew that the bill was hopeless legislation. 
It was so hopeless that he even gave up on it before it had come back to the House for its second reading and he dispatched another group the joint officials group saying: “Away you go officials; see if you can tidy up another bill before this bill even comes back from the select committee.” We all know that up in Auckland the joint officials group is working on the “de-Greened bill”. This Land Transport Management Bill is quietly known as the “Green dream”. It is Jeanette Fitzsimon’s one success in this Parliament—the “Green dream”. I might add that this bill was introduced at the very time she introduced her own little adaptation on New Zealand’s transport crisis—the Road Traffic Reduction Bill which would have introduced the modern-day equivalent of carless days. That probably comes as no surprise when people look at the make-up of the Green representation on the select committee—namely Mike Ward a man who does not even drive a car. 
What does this Government know about transport? The only thing it knows about and does very well is giving out speeding tickets. Up and down the country there has been a 200 percent increase in the issuing of speeding tickets. But this Government does not know anything about fixing roads. It does not know anything about providing legislation to deliver more roads. The promise that this Minister once made that the Land Transport Management Bill would be the legislation that would allow highways to heaven is just la-la land stuff. What does this bill do? Does it attempt to tackle the three very important parts of road construction in this country? Does it tackle the consent process? No it does not and we will talk about that in a moment. Does it look at the structure of roading in Auckland or in New Zealand? No it does not. Does it look at providing serious alternatives to funding? No it does not. 
One might ask why structure would be important. Well consider this for just one moment. In Auckland alone bodies such as Auckland Regional Transport Network Ltd the Auckland Regional Council seven territorial local authorities Transit Transfund New Zealand and Infrastructure Auckland are working on transport all with different agendas and all working in different locations. [ 
Interruption 
] That is right; another piece the “de-Greened Bill” is working on that—I accept that. But that is what is happening. 
What has the Minister delivered with the Land Transport Management Bill? He has delivered living proof that coalition agreements matter more to this Government than fixing Auckland’s transport crisis. The Government wants to forget about the billion dollars of lost economic activity that takes place because Auckland’s roads are in crisis. It says: “Let us not worry about that. Let us worry about making sure that if it all turns to custard in 2005 and we need to bring the Greens back in they will be very happy with us. That is what we are worried about with this legislation.” It forgets about the employers who came to our select committee on their hands and knees and begged us to deliver legislation that would fix the crisis in Auckland. It forgets about the people who move to Auckland in their droves from external and internal immigration; every day there are 49 new residents in our fair City of Auckland bringing with them at least 25 cars. There is not a skerrick of hope of a solution in this bill—not a hope in Hades. 
There is a crisis in Auckland and the people of Auckland are worried. We have a motorway network that has been on the books since 1963 and needs fixing. It will cost a great deal of money. It could be $4 billion or $5 billion. Frankly in my opinion it could be north of $10 billion. It will be a huge amount of money. If the Land Transport Management Bill had been written in the right way it could have provided a great opportunity to leverage that funding. It does not do that at all. 
I make this prediction: just like the emperor with no clothes Paul Swain will go down in New Zealand’s living history as the Minister with no roads. It will be a sad conversation around the dinner table when Paul Swain goes home and his wife says: “Honey how were those 3 years that you were Minister of Transport?”. He will look across with a long face and say: “Well it is no surprise we got thrashed in the 2005 election by the great new National Government. No wonder that was the case because I will always be remembered as the Minister with no roads.” What an indictment on 3 years of performance! He is a Minister who showed such great promise earlier on when he was out there petitioning against his own bill. The things he was saying against his own bill were absolutely right. He knew they were right but he was in caught in the haze of Green that descended upon his office. That is right; in between Morris dancers Jeanette Fitzsimons came up with this bill and stuck it on his desk and he followed it. 
Mr Assistant Speaker may think I am just a National MP making a few comments— 
Darren Hughes 
: He would be right. 
JOHN KEY 
: That is true. I would encourage him to do a little research and listen to what business has said about this wonderful legislation. The Employers and Manufacturers Association said the bill is hopeless Business New Zealand called it a red light for road users the Auckland City Council said it is only half the toolbox the Automobile Association said the overall effect will be bad news for the majority of New Zealanders and the Road Transport Forum said a disgraceful Government is “putting through Parliament legislation deliberately designed to increase the extent to which they can fleece road users and waste more money simply to buy the support of the Greens”. What a sad situation! 
As time is on the decline I want to make some specific references to the public-private partnership provision contained in the bill. In particular I say to the Minister what a wasted opportunity this has been. Worldwide the evidence is hugely compelling of countries that have adopted correctly drafted legislation of this kind and have crafted a solution for their nations: Australia the United Kingdom Ireland Germany France Switzerland have all used public-private partnership legislation. We know from a report I happen to have in my hand from Standard and Poor’s that everything contained in the Land Transport Management Bill is the opposite of what those people are telling us. I have gone through this document late into the night to see exactly what the report is saying. It is saying we should not provide prescriptive legislation we should not have a time frame of 35 years we should not provide a free alternative and we should allow existing routes to be tolled because then we would have some surety and would get high-quality investors putting up real private sector capital and providing a solution. 
This bill fails. It is a tragedy for the people of Auckland; it is a tragedy for the people of New Zealand. There is only one winner—Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Green Party. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to follow “Johnny Cash” the real Opposition spokesperson on transport. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Order! 
DARREN HUGHES 
: Mr Key—sorry. We heard more during that speech about what the National Party stands for than we heard from the current temporary deputy leader of the National Party who happens to hold the shadow transport portfolio. We heard more from Mr Key than we heard from Mr Sowry at the beginning of the debate. I welcome his contribution. I say to Mr Key that before the House is legislation introduced by the Government of New Zealand that will try to do something about land transport in New Zealand and not just talk and whinge and whine about it. That is what National members are doing in this debate. They had 9 years in Government to try to bring together a policy for New Zealand to change the way land transport was designed and funded in New Zealand. They did absolutely nothing about it despite the crocodile tears we hear in here today about the Auckland roading situation and about other areas of New Zealand. They wax lyrical about it but they did not bring a single bill to Parliament to try to make a positive difference about it. National’s only solution was the same solution for every problem which is sell sell sell. That is the only thing they wanted to do. 
I congratulate the Minister of Transport Paul Swain on bringing this bill to the House. I think it will make a real difference. [ 
Interruption 
] The member interjects: “Will it make a difference in my electorate?”. I believe this bill will. 
John Key 
: How is the economy you inherited? 
DARREN HUGHES 
: The economy is doing very very well. It has looked after the member in particular quite well. In my electorate I am looking forward to being able to use this bill as a tool for some of the infrastructure developments that we want to see in the Greater Wellington region. Mention has been made of Transmission Gully. I believe absolutely that this bill brings us closer to Transmission Gully not further away. It gives us the chance now to get together with the Wellington region and to work out a proposal to try to get funding for the road. But it will be difficult. Greater Wellington will have to lead on that. But we have a problem: not all of the Wellington region agrees with the road but we have to try to make sure we build the support for it. 
So I invite other members of Parliament to be positive in the debate and try to make a difference on it so we can get the road built rather than just have the whingeing and the negativity which will not make a difference. We might even invite list members to be part of that. We might invite list members who live in the Wellington region to flick a switch and come up with an idea rather than the constant kind of criticism that we are getting. Wellington’s future will succeed only if we are all working together. I welcome the public-private partnerships that are part of the bill. It is a very good thing to have that in the law as a kind of innovative solution. 
When I talk about being positive it does mean that Winnie Laban in Mana Peter Dunne in Ohariu-Belmont the Kapiti Coast District Council and the Porirua City Council and Greater Wellington as a regional council have to build that support more broadly within our region to make sure we can build those roads. This is a good bill because it gives us a chance to get that done. I welcome it and I know that the Minister of Finance will be putting in the appropriate funding in that regard. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 That was a wonderful example of the member not speaking with his Minister of Finance before opening his mouth. First I would like to acknowledge Helen Duncan the chairman of the select committee handling this bill. I would like to join my fellow MPs from New Zealand First in wishing her all the best. I found her to be a very fair chairman during the select committee and we appreciate all the help she gave us. I would also like to thank the officials for all the work that they put into this bill. They have done a wonderful job. 
As far as the bill is concerned it really will not do anything for the congestion in Auckland or the economy which really is based largely in Auckland. A billion dollars is lost to the economy because of the congestion around Auckland. Goods cannot be transported throughout the country because when they arrive in Auckland they cannot be offloaded and transported easily. Sure that benefits other parts of the country—Tauranga for instance and that is fine—but Auckland and the economy around Auckland is suffering badly. I would like to look at one particular area—that is the Albany to Puhoi realignment (ALPURT). This bill has set ALPURT back. 
Dail Jones 
: Where is it? 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: The ALPURT project is up in Orewa north of Auckland. ALPURT has all of the resources in place to go ahead and should have been completed by December of this year. I repeat that: it should have been completed by December this year. The agreement with Orewa was that the termination of the existing motorway would come to an end and the motorway would be taken out of the middle of Orewa and moved on to the ALPURT extension. That will not happen and we now believe that Transit has applied for an extension of not just 1 or 2 years but 7 years for ALPURT. That is because it has now discovered that it can toll it. By tolling it it throws out all of the consents and the consultation that has been in place right up until now and the project has to go back to be relitigated and consulted on for the wider community because there has to be an alternate route. That route was never consulted on during the original process. Tolls are the bane of that project and because tolling is seen as a means of funding that road it will be set back a lot further. 
Funding should have been available for this stretch of motorway. It would have taken the traffic out of Orewa as was promised by December of this year had this Government released the petrol tax and the road-user charges. The Government has put so much of those charges away into the consolidated account. In fact the Government even put a 4.7c a litre tax right throughout the country to pay for Auckland’s roads. I ask the Government where that 4.7c a litre went because it certainly has not gone to Auckland’s roads. The Government needs to answer that question. The rest of the country is suffering because it is paying extra money supposedly to go into Auckland roads but it is not going there. I ask the Government to answer this question: where are the taxes going and why is it putting so much tax away into the consolidated account? 
Roads and the motorway networks throughout the country and in particular around Auckland have been underfunded for decades simply because the taxes have not been used on the roads properly. There has been an unwillingness of successive Governments to use the taxes for other things outside of roading and public transport. What is more there has been a failing of successive Governments to plan long term. Auckland roads were originally planned nearly 40 years ago but the funding and the resources were never planned with that. This bill will not provide that funding or those resources. 
It is suggested that the funding should be applied for on an annual basis. How can a whole motorway section be planned annually? The Governments says: “But we can’t provide the funding any earlier than that.” I suggest that planning not 5 or 10 years out but 25 to 35 years would be a much better way of organising the progress of transport in this country. If we plan for the funding and allocate the funds accordingly then those plans would be put in place and would have been put in place if successive Governments had planned as far ahead as that and Auckland would not be suffering these problems. It is the same with Wellington. Wellington would not be suffering the same problems if long-term planning had been put in place as well as long-term financial planning. 
A lot of funding in this bill is to go to coastal shipping—money transferred from the roads. Petrol tax and road-user charges will be put into coastal shipping. This is not just for New Zealand flagships; it is for international flagships. How can we justify putting money that should have gone on roads and public transport into foreign-owned shipping to transfer goods around New Zealand? It does not make sense. This Government does not make sense. 
We have seen a huge brand-new railway station built in Auckland. It is a magnificent place. I was there for the opening and it is awe-inspiring. We had to wait half-an-hour for the first train to arrive as it was running late and every train since has run late simply because the funding is not there to provide the network of rail and the upgrading of the rail that should have gone with the planning of this. They have bought 40-year-old rolling stock to provide for the transport and 40-year-old rolling stock keeps breaking down. They have repainted on the outside and put new seats in but they have not upgraded the workings of the system; therefore it is continually breaking down and never on time. 
Every region around the country desperately needs better funding and planning from this Government yet it continues to sit on its hands and not provide that funding. I wish Darren Hughes would be listened to by his Minister of Finance and have that funding available as he promised. He quickly promised that. I saw Dr Cullen cringe knowing that Darren Hughes was promising money that would never be made available because he knew it would be spent elsewhere. To rely on tolling to fund these roads is really not good enough when one has the finances in the consolidated account from petrol tax. It should be used on roads and on public transport. It should not be wasted on foreign shipping or elsewhere. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Land Transport Management Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a second time. 
Business of Select Committees 
Reporting Dates 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the date by which the Local Government and Environment Committee reports the New Plymouth District Council (Land Vesting) Bill to be extended to 30 April 2003. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That urgency be accorded the passing through the remaining stages of the Counter-Terrorism Bill the Copyright (Parallel Importation of Films and Onus of Proof) Amendment Bill the Retirement Villages Bill the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill the Wine Bill the Criminal Justice Amendment Bill (No 7) the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care) Bill the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill (No 2) and of any bills into which those bills may be divided.  
Urgency is being moved in order to gain extra sitting hours so as to enable a range of Government business to be dealt with by the House before rising for a short adjournment. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That urgency be accorded. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
Business of the House 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 Despite the fact that the House is in urgency I seek leave for it to have question time on Wednesday and Thursday in the normal manner. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Counter-Terrorism Bill 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Counter-Terrorism Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Members and the public would think that a bill entitled the Counter-Terrorism Bill would be an accurate description of its purpose. Indeed in part it is. National is supporting this bill and its implementation of the conventions on plastic explosives—chemical tracing thereof Semtex—and also the nuclear proliferation issue. Those are perfectly laudable things to do and one would expect them to be in a bill about counter-terrorism. The question I have for the Minister and I would like him to rise to speak to this because it is an issue that was dealt with at length by the— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Can I remind the member that we are dealing with the title. It is a very narrow debate and the member must stick to the title. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Madam Chairperson if you had not interrupted me you would have perceived precisely the point I am about to make. One would think that a bill entitled the Counter-Terrorism Bill would be confined to that. 
The Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee raised the issue with the Minister as to why this bill had some much wider provisions relating to the Crimes Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act. Those provisions may be desirable in their own right and indeed as the Minister has said in the past some of them are related to counter-terrorism—the need for tracking devices and things of that nature. The concern however is this. The title should be accurate. It should direct members of Parliament and especially members of the public to the purpose of the bill—what it is actually about—and it does not. 
Certainly part of the bill is about counter-terrorism but part of it is about general amendments to the criminal law. Submissions were made by the Law Society in particular and by various specialists who presented to the select committee. Members in the Chamber who were at the select committee will know what I am talking about when I say that the broader issues had to be drawn to their attention. They received at best cursory attention except when they had to put in supplementary submissions. That is simply not good enough. The Minister should take on board the injunction from the select committee. 
I would like the Minister to speak on this point to assure the Committee that this kind of practice will not continue—that bills will be more accurately described—and that a bill that has general propositions about the criminal law as desirable as they might be is not nevertheless described only as the Counter-Terrorism Bill. Why for instance did we not get a title that said something like “Counter-Terrorism and Amendments to the Crimes Act Bill”? That would have been a more accurate description. 
Members may ask why I have not put in a Supplementary Order Paper to that effect. Well frankly it would be pointless. The time for that is at the introduction of the bill not at this stage of the process. I am not going to put in an amendment. It would be too late. This is about directing the information to the public and to members at the time of the bill’s introduction not about what we do in the Committee of the whole House and not about what the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper does which is to divide the bill into separate components. That is all necessary and desirable but it does not address this central concern. 
I am concentrating on this issue because I think an important point of parliamentary procedure is that it is the Government’s duty to properly inform the public what bills are about. National does support the measures. We broadly support not just the counter-terrorism measures but also amendments to the Crimes Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act. What we are concerned about however is this creeping habit—one born of arrogance—that says the Government does not have to inform the public and can do just what it likes. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 My speech will probably help the previous speaker Wayne Mapp. He said that he did not move an amendment to the title but I have moved an amendment to the title which I think he will vote for because it does accommodate his concern. The amendment is to delete the words “Counter-Terrorism” in the title and replace them with the words “Crimes Amendment and Counter-Terrorism”. It is then clear to anyone reading the bill that it concerns both issues. As Wayne Mapp pointed out there are not only amendments to the Terrorism Suppression Act—that is amendments relating to terrorism or counter-terrorism—but there are also amendments to the Crimes Act the Summary Proceedings Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act. I hope that the title I have proposed will meet with the approval of the Committee because it is more appropriate. As indicated in the second reading speeches by Wayne Mapp and also by Peter Dunne there was concern in the select committee that the bill tried to incorporate two quite different things—namely an amendment to our criminal legislation and amendments to the Terrorism Suppression Act. 
Unfortunately I was not able to get the committee to agree to split the bill into two. There was a clear interest to split it into two and have one bill dealing specifically with amendments to the Terrorism Suppression Act and the other bill dealing with amendments to the other three criminal Acts that I referred to. It would have been important for the whole process of discussion because I do not think we got quite the number of submitters particularly on amendments to the criminal legislation that we might have had if the bill had been correctly titled. People may not have realised that there were so many general amendments to criminal legislation under a bill called the Counter-Terrorism Bill. 
An additional problem is that when general amendments are incorporated into the criminal law under the Counter-Terrorism Bill people are scared off a bit from critically examining them. One of the phenomena today in the post - September 11 environment is that people are scared of being seen as soft on terrorism. They are a bit more scared to look at any changes that come forward under that title for fear that they will be deemed to be soft on terrorism. The case of Ahmed Zaoui that is going on in New Zealand right now is an illustration of why an amendment should have been made to the title at the beginning as Wayne Mapp indicated. 
It is true that for a long time people were scared to look closely at the Ahmed Zaoui case and discuss it in the public arena because they might get linked up with that guy he might turn out to be a terrorist and then they would be labelled as supporting terrorists. It was only in the months after he was imprisoned last December and as the debate has proceeded that people have been a bit more confident in coming out into the open and saying perhaps it was wrong that the security risk certificate procedure could override and cancel the refugee status determination proceedings at the level of the refugee status branch. The Refugee Status Appeals Authority can be overridden by the secret procedure of the Minister of Immigration in her putting down the security risk certificate on Ahmed Zaoui and then the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security operating in secret and not even giving Mr Zaoui or his lawyers any information on what the accusations are against him can determine his future and perhaps send him back to torture and possible death under the Algerian regime that he fled from many years ago. 
I think that is an indication of the problem of putting things under a title like “Counter-Terrorism” We also see that in the United States. Generally its criminal law has a lot of checks and balances and a Bill of Rights to back it up but one can look at Guantanamo Bay and at the abuse of due process and civil liberties in that area under the guise of counter-terrorism. About 650 people are sitting in Guantanamo Bay and a lot of them have been there for a couple of years. They could be there indefinitely. I think it was US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld who said that they might be there until the war against terrorism is over. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 It is not often that speeches on the title can be evocative and romantic. Certainly in the course of these short comments it is not my plan to meet that high threshold standard. However I would like to make several points to a crowded Chamber and a large number of alert listeners. Those comments do centre on the title the “Counter-Terrorism Bill”. I am very much aware that there has been already before the House a Terrorism Suppression Bill which has passed through its stages. There is always a niggle at the back of the minds of those who serve in the intelligence community centring on the words “counter-terrorism”. Certainly in the context of objectives to be achieved terrorism suppression—albeit that that name has already been taken—is a much happier phrase. I see Government members nodding in acquiescence to that view and so they should. 
In looking at the name of the bill—the “Counter-Terrorism Bill”—the starting point I suggest is to explore briefly what a terrorist act is. Although that is not defined in this particular bill it certainly was in the Terrorism Suppression Act. That Act had associated with it three conjoint elements in the test. As members will recall the first element of the test was that the act was carried out to advance an ideological a political or a religious cause. The second element of the test was that the act was intended to induce civilian terror or perhaps to unduly compel a Government or an international organisation to do or not do something. The third element was that the act was intended to cause one of a number of outcomes. Without going through that material those outcomes included destruction of or damage to property and the introduction or release of disease-bearing organisms. 
Whilst I have no quibble with the word “terrorism” in the title of this bill it is the word “counter” that I may perhaps take exception to. When I say I may take exception to that I need to qualify that. As we know this bill in terms of its title will have a short future life. That is because the bill will be divided in a dramatic way into six separate bills. It will lose its present title upon that event occurring if Supplementary Order Paper 163 is passed. Supplementary Order Paper 163 proposes that the bill be split into six wholly separate pathways. Those pathways would see this legislation variously called the Crimes Amendment Act the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Act the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Act the Sentencing Amendment Act and the Summary Proceedings Amendment Act. So although there are good motives behind the previous speaker’s comments which were intended to convey a more correct appellation in terms of the title to the bill it is too late for such comments. He sought to embark upon a pointless exercise because the Counter-Terrorism Bill of tonight will shortly be renamed in the ways that I have described. 
The previous speaker made—and of course Dr Mapp in his usual fluent style similarly made—the point that some philosophical issues relating to the title are well discussed I would assert in the commentary on the bill as reported from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Under the heading “Approach to new provisions in the bill” a philosophical argument is raised based on views expressed by Professor Matthew Palmer whom I hold in the highest regard that terrorist acts are no different in many cases from normal crimes such as murder or bombing except for the political ideological or religious motive behind the terrorist acts. So there is a policy argument that needs to be well addressed here. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I take the point made by the preceding speaker that we are looking at a bill that will shortly be split into the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Act the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Act and the Summary Proceedings Amendment Act. As far as the title is concerned a wide range of titles is possible and certainly will happen. A suggestion was put forward by the Greens member that the bill should be called the “Crimes Amendment and Counter-Terrorism Bill”. New Zealand First supports this legislation. We are strongly in favour of all action to support law and order and to take action against terrorist activities including those with ideological political or religious causes and we support the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service aspect of the legislation. 
One sometimes wonders where the Greens are coming from in this Parliament. Here they are opposing the Labour Government. Legislation has been passed that has gone though the House purely because of Green support—I think of the Supreme Court Bill in particular—but they are raising objections to this bill. If the Greens were sincere about being an Opposition party they should have opposed the Supreme Court Bill as well as this bill rather than keeping the Government and its policies in place. But they just want to allow the Government to run for the 2 or so years that it has to go—unless Miss Helen Clark waves the white flag earlier than usual—and to collect whatever is coming to them in the meantime. The Greens have no regard for the proper constitutional way of doing things which makes things difficult for the Labour Government. Instead they supported the Labour Government on the Supreme Court Bill and then opposed it on the genetic modification legislation. The only consistency about the Greens is that they will do everything possible to keep the Government in office even though that means that their views on the genetic modification legislation are ignored defeated and destroyed by the Government. 
I now get back to Mr Locke’s view that this bill should be called the “Crimes Amendment and Counter-Terrorism Bill”. His may be the only opposing view to be expressed in the Committee. The time to have really dug his toes in and to have tried to get some support for his measure was before the Supreme Court Bill was passed. He should have told the Government what to do with that type of legislation because the appeal rights and suchlike of the Counter-Terrorism Bill—which is about be divided into a number of different bills—that people may wish to have enforced would have been better considered by an independent body such as the Privy Council rather than by the bodies that currently exist in New Zealand. 
When Mr Locke opposes the bill he also supports Mr Zaoui. We know that Mr Zaoui has been banned from a couple at least of European countries because he is a terrorist. Why on earth should anyone in New Zealand want that person to be retained here? Mr Zaoui had the opportunity to go through 17 different countries in the world all of which have rejected him and here we have the Greens wanting to support him. That is quite an extraordinary state of affairs. Mr Zaoui is a person who got on a plane to come to New Zealand destroyed his passport on the way here and then expected us to throw out the welcome mat for him. It is an extraordinary state of affairs. The Greens talk about wanting to protect our country and our environment from germs and suchlike but they seem to have no hesitation in allowing any type of person to come into this country and create any type of terrorist havoc. There is a great inconsistency in the way that the Greens—and Mr Locke in particular—look at these measures. 
The New Zealand First Party will support this bill as it always does with regard to legislation that implements good law and order and that will ensure that ideological political and religious causes are not supported by terrorist activities. We look forward to supporting the bills into which the Counter-Terrorism Bill will be divided pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 163. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I would like to follow up some of the points made by the previous speaker about the title of the Counter-Terrorism Bill and whether “counter-terrorism” is an appropriate term. I took a very moderate approach in my first speech. I wanted to address the main issue of two different types of bill being incorporated into one with disadvantages for the public and for Parliament. The question posed is also whether this bill will really put counter-terrorism into effect—that is really opposing and reducing the incidence of terrorism throughout the world and particularly in the Islamic world which has most of the instances of terrorism at the present time. 
One of the criticisms that have been made including by submitters on this bill and on its predecessor the Terrorism Suppression Bill is that the definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Suppression Act is much too broad. It does not target only people who support those who use violence against and create terror amongst civilians; it also covers within the very broad definition of terrorism in that Act people who seriously disrupt an infrastructure facility in a way likely to endanger human life. One does not even need to intend to endanger human life to be covered under that definition. All that one needs to do is to fulfil two other criteria: first to unduly compel a Government to do something—which many politicians are accused of—and second the motive has to be political religious or ideological. Richard Worth made a point about the singling out of politically motivated acts and referred back to Matthew Palmer’s comments on that very question. 
I find that rather strange because sometimes a political motivation can lead to terror and very bad things that we all want to condemn. We have incidents in our own history such as the 1981 Springbok tour when people protested—including many members in this Chamber at the present time—and got involved in quite disruptive activity that could possibly be covered under this bill. The fact that they were doing it for a political reason—that is they were against racial injustice and South African apartheid—was used in court in their favour. That is the reality. Other people do things for a religious reason in a positive humanitarian way in terms of non-violent civil disobedience. But if in relation to real terrorism we really want to have justice we have to go back to treating all actions in terms of this legislation as being fundamentally the same if they have an intimidatory effect on a civilian population and cause real violence and death to people. The motivation is not what counts; it is the nature of the act and whether it is against what is in effect our criminal legislation. So do we need to have this layer of anti-terrorist offences on top of our criminal legislation? 
Another amendment to the title that I could have put forward might have been the “Counter-Terrorism (Except State Terrorism) Bill” because this bill and the preceding Terrorism Suppression Act target a particular form—killing wounding or inspiring fear in civilians—of terrorism: terror caused by non-State agents. We can see an example of that when we look at the recent terrorism in Indonesia. Everyone is very conscious of the horrific terrorist bombing in Bali that was commemorated recently. Everyone is very conscious of that terrorism and rightly very opposed to that. They welcome the fact that the perpetrators have been brought to justice and punished. We all agree on that. But within Indonesia there is another form of terrorism that kills wounds and maims many more people than in the Bali bombing did. That is not to excuse the Bali bombing but to point out that in Aceh today the Indonesian Government through its military is terrorising the people of Aceh killing many of them and pushing many of them out of their homes and the places they live in. That form of terrorism is killing more people than the Bali bombing did. Terrorism cannot be balanced on a scale. We cannot say that the Bali terrorism is any better or any worse than that in Aceh but in terms of the number of people killed more have been killed in Aceh. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 The ACT party will be supporting the Counter-Terrorism Bill and its various derivatives. The debate on the appropriateness of the title is very interesting. It has gone along the path of whether it is the nature of the act or the motive of the perpetrator that defines something as terrorism and that is a legitimate debate. 
ACT certainly upholds the rights and freedoms of individuals and in many respects would probably have views that are not too dissimilar to those of the Greens. 
 We also acknowledge the role of the State and the powers of the State that are necessary to uphold those rights and freedoms. But that is where we can come to a dilemma: the powers of the State can reach a point where in purporting to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals they actually erode them. As legislators I think we should always be very mindful of that fact when we give powers to the State because there are some quite awesome powers that legislators give to various States and some States do abuse those powers—that is reality. 
But like it or not the world has changed. We are in a war against terror there are unforeseen consequences and we need to play our part in it. It is important though that we do not get carried away with the rhetoric and the emotion of the time and overplay our hands. But there is no doubt in my mind—and certainly ACT’s position is quite clear: we support appropriate measures to give powers to our Government in cooperation with other likeminded Governments to combat what has become international terror perpetrated on a planned international scale. The scale on which that terror is now being enacted is something we have not seen before. 
We note the various components the bill is being split into: the Crimes Amendment Bill the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill and also the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill. Each one of those is a sensible component and we understand and support the reason for it being separated at this stage. However I still have considerable reservations—and I suspect that the Minister in the chair does also—about the breadth and direction of these powers. I guess my plea to the Minister—and the ACT message to him—is to always remember the rightful role of the rights and freedoms of individuals and civil liberties. There is a point where excessive powers in the hands of the State will begin to trample on the rights and freedoms of individuals. That said the ACT party supports this bill—not in its entirety as my colleague has pointed out but the overall direction of it. 
Various comments have been made about the plight of Ahmed Zaoui with regard to this issue. On that issue I do not have sufficient information and I am not sure that anyone has. I think it is very dangerous for members of Parliament to leap to conclusions without adequate information. We are being denied access to that information which is regrettable so it comes back to having faith that the powers that be are exercising those powers judiciously and appropriately although we can never be sure of that. But at face value I am certainly not convinced that Mr Zaoui is a terrorist as some would purport. The very fact that he is fleeing from a corrupt regime speaks volumes in itself. A very corrupt regime in Algeria has put him on the top of its wanted list which I think is a useful example of the propensity for emotion to overrun logic and common sense. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. United Future members—and I know they are only new—have been attempting to get the call and they have not had an opportunity to contribute to the debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The question has been accepted. The Clerk will conduct a party vote. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I do ask that you reflect upon the reasonableness of your decision though because the United Future party has not had an opportunity to contribute. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 1 be agreed to: 
to omit the words “Counter-Terrorism” and substitute the words “Crimes Amendments and Counter-Terrorism”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 17 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Noes 100 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to and clause 1 agreed to. 
Clause 2Commencement 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 Clause 2 is the commencement provision of the Counter-Terrorism Bill and National supports this bill and its enactment in the divided way that Supplementary Order Paper 163 proposes. But I would like to draw the attention of the Committee to what seems to be a clear anomaly in respect of clause 2 and to invite the Minister who has a very detailed knowledge of this bill and all its intricacies to make some short and relevant comment on what I now say. 
There is no doubt that in the select committee process which saw the bill looked at by the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and reported on by it it was seen as appropriate to significantly change clause 2. Subclauses (1) and (2) of the bill as introduced—which provided that clauses 13 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 and 23 of the principal Act and clause 13B of the Terrorism Suppression Act were to come into force on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council—were struck out. I ask the Minister why it was seen as appropriate to make the significant changes that the committee did and why it is that the Minister supports and the Government presumably supports the changes that have been made. The select committee has now proposed that clauses 3 to 34 and the schedule come into force on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General but there is also a note that one or more Orders in Council may appoint different dates for different provisions and also a second provision that deals with other possibilities. 
So if one looks at clauses 3 to 34 in the context of this bill it is to be seen that they certainly spread across a large number of parts. For example they are spread across Part 1 where amendments to the Crimes Actare numbered in clauses 3 to 8. Then in Part 2 we see a similar spread with amendments being made to the Terrorism Suppression Act. In Part 3 there is a similar spread with amendments being made to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Act the Sentencing Act and finally parts of the Summary Proceedings Act before we come to clause 34 which inserts a raft of provisions relating to the important subject of tracking devices. I would like to ask the Minister why it has been seen as appropriate to have this significant change made in the bill. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I think the points Richard Worth has raised about the commencement date are important—that it is really left to Orders in Council and that we do not quite know what will go on. When it gets to the question of Orders in Council I hope that wisdom will prevail because we do not want to rush into the commencement of the provisions in this bill. That is particularly important in this climate at the present time when people—even members of Parliament—are getting so stirred up about terrorism in a way that it is affecting their rationality and ability to discuss questions of terrorism or of who might or might not be a terrorist in a rational way. So the longer the commencement date is extended the better and I would prefer to have it in this commencement clause that none of the provisions will take effect for 5 years. That would give a proper cooling-down period—not only in New Zealand but around the world. We could take stock a little of some of the infringements of civil liberties in the name of the fight against terrorism—as we see in the matter of Guantanamo Bay which I mentioned before—and there could be time for people to settle down and look at this whole issue in a calm way. 
We have seen today an illustration of why the commencement date should be extended. People have been going on about Ahmed Zaoui both in this debate and in question time and trying to treat him and describe him as a terrorist when the good people on the Refugee Status Appeals Authority who spent months on the matter delivered a 223-page judgment that completely cleared him of all charges of terrorism. But there is an attitude out there and amongst some people in the House that those very skilled people in that area should not be taken account of and that we should just say he is a terrorist. Another example of why the commencement date should be extended is that when one reads the newspapers one sees an example of the Ahmed Zaoui case again. When he was sent to Paremoremo prison in December last year if one reads the papers of that time there was almost an assumption that he was a terrorist. He had been called a terrorist so there was an assumption he was a terrorist. That is the climate we are acting in at the present time so we should not have an early commencement date. 
The police themselves got all carried away in that matter—and they are supposed to be the enforcers of our law. They looked up a website of a chap called Lyndon LaRouche an extreme right-wing nutter who has run for US President is a conspiracy theorist and all the rest of it. The New Zealand Police tapped in their computers and in their security risk certificate for Ahmed Zaoui on 11 December last year they told people to look at that LaRouche site to find out that Ahmed Zaoui was a terrorist. Of course Lyndon LaRouche was just regurgitating the propaganda of the Algerian regime—a murderous regime that had sentenced him to death in absentia. 
Jim Peters 
: What about the French court? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: That is a good call from Jim Peters on my right. The French court is an interesting case. In the year 2000 I think it was— 
Richard Worth 
: 2001. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: In 2001 French court officials said they would have a go at Ahmed Zaoui for something that he and a few other people were supposed to have done in 1993. They tried to make out that he was involved in some terrorist conspiracy. Did they notify Ahmed Zaoui—who was readily obtainable—that he was being brought before a French court 7 or 8 years after that alleged event? No they did not inform him. Did they give him any chance to defend himself? No. What was the nature of the charges? They were gone through by the Refugee Status Appeals Authority in great detail and found to be completely wanting. That was the reality. When in the French court they did convict him did they say they would extradite the guy to go back to France? No they said they would give him a suspended sentence—hardly what they would do for a real terrorist. 
It was not a process of justice and the Refugee Status Appeals Authority got all the evidence together talked to all the people who knew something about the situation and decided that it was a completely phoney process of justice. I think it is an illustration of my point. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I remind members again that this is a debate on the commencement clause. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 The Chairperson is right; this debate is on the commencement clause. I am not sure from the previous speech what Mr Ahmed Zaoui had to do with this but I do want to speak very briefly about his case because as a number of members will know—certainly Mr Locke—I have had a little to say about it over the last few weeks. It is important that some of the facts come out—facts that are on the public record. 
Ahmed Zaoui was convicted in Belgium after a 5-day hearing—a bit like a District Court or High Court hearing in New Zealand—of having associations with the Armed Islamic Group (GIA). He was then sentenced and deported. He went to Switzerland and was deported from there. He was convicted in absentia in France. Well perhaps that is a questionable procedure but the key point is that he was convicted after a full hearing in Belgium. Yet the Refugee Status Appeals Authority felt that it could sit in New Zealand and adopt some kind of appeal court process for Belgian proceedings. In the absence of any evidence out of Belgium was the prosecution evidence from Belgium presented in New Zealand? The answer is no because there was no evidence from the prosecution in Belgium. We effectively had the Refugee Status Appeals Authority acting in practical terms only on information from the defence. I guess that if one hears only from the defence one may well believe them. 
But there is a more serious issue here and all the defenders of Mr Ahmed Zaoui neglect it entirely. In New Zealand we have a two-stage process. The first is the issue of the national security risk certificate. It is worth bearing in mind that Mr Zaoui is not a resident or a citizen but a person who entered New Zealand illegally and we are entitled in this country to ask whether people who enter our country constitute a national security risk. After the certificate is issued we go further. We then have a special procedure that is dealt with by an independent person the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. That person is not a bureaucrat I might add but a highly respected retired High Court judge whose job it is to assess independently the issuance of that certificate. I am on the record as are others as saying the decision of that person Justice Greig should be the determinant of the case and that he should be able to be left alone to get on with his job. He is appointed for that very purpose. 
One would think on hearing from Mr Locke that Mr Zaoui’s lawyers cannot make submissions to the Inspector-General but they can. Further we heard in the Chamber today that there is a synopsis of what has occurred against Mr Zaoui. So I think it is important that we stick to the facts but recognise that in the case of Mr Zaoui we let the proper processes take place and he gets an independent assessment from the Inspector-General. 
It is wrong for those who support him—Mr Locke and Mr Robson—to pretend that we do not have fair processes. We do. 
This country has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars—through legal aid through a lengthy hearing in the Refugee Status Appeals Authority and now before the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—taking Mr Zaoui’s interests into account. But more important given that he is not a resident or citizen we should be taking the interests of this nation into account. This is not the time to look at these issues through rose-coloured glasses. We have to take a realistic approach. I trust retired High Court Judge Greig to do the right thing and Mr Locke should do likewise. That decision should be determinative. I do not expect Mr Locke to say should the decision be adverse to Mr Zaoui that we should then continue to defend him. The question here is whether we trust our institutions to protect public safety. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Let me start by saying that we are discussing— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: We are talking about the commencement date. 
RON MARK 
: Yes that is what I thought. We were talking about clause 2 “Commencement” but with Mr Locke having opened up with such a tirade he has expanded the debate under the normal conventions allowing people such as Mr Mapp to respond. I simply want to make one comment on the Zaoui case—the case that Mr Locke outlined in his argument against the commencement date. From where New Zealand First stands Mr Zaoui would not be causing any discussion any debate or any conjecture as to whether he is a terrorist had he been dealt with as the illegal entrant into this country that he is—end of story. 
Mr Zaoui came here with some documents trashed them presented himself without documentation and claimed political asylum and refugee status. Mr Zaoui should have been put on the first aircraft back to the country from whence he came and we would not be wasting time and taxpayer dollars debating the merits of his perceived case. That is precisely where I stand on that issue. I cannot for the life of me understand how Mr Locke can go out there and talk to people about how they do not get adequate funding to pay for free health-care for children under 6—they are all having to shell out of their pockets now—while at the same time Mr Zaoui is consuming hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of legal aid of SIS time of court time and of jail time all courtesy of the taxpayer. 
It is interesting looking at the commencement date and I would like the Minister if he has a moment to take a call. The Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper refers to sections 10 to 23 being deferred and coming into force on a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. The remaining provisions will come into force on the day after the date on which the Act receives the royal assent. What does that mean? If we look at the wording in clauses 10 to 23 we notice straight up that we are looking at amendments to the principal Act that being the Terrorism Suppression Act. People need to remember that this bill enhances and makes some modifications to the Terrorism Suppression Act to make it more effective. Mr Locke has suggested that we should defer the commencement date by 5 years. I ask members of the Committee to take a quiet moment to read clauses 10 to 23 and consider for a moment the impact on our ability to deal with the suppression of terrorism if we deferred this bill for another 5 years. We are talking about improving the principal Act by adding reference to the Nuclear Material Convention and the Plastic Explosives Convention—conventions that we have signed up to conventions that we have pledged to support and that we have passed legislation to ratify and make meaningful. 
I say to the Minister what are the implications of deferring the bill for 5 years? Can the Minister help enlighten Mr Locke as to what the implications of a deferment for 5 years would be? Clause 11 “Interpretation” states: “Section 4 of the principal Act is amended by inserting in their appropriate alphabetical order the following definitions: ‘duly authorised military device means an explosive article including but not restricted to shell bomb—’ ”. We are talking about clauses that I understand are essential in enhancing the Terrorism Suppression Act and making it more meaningful and effective and to allow us to comply with previous conventions that we as a nation have agreed to. 
The notion that we can sit here and breathe through our noses and take time to reflect ponder and gaze at our navels whilst we allow people to “calm down and overcome their fears of terrorism”—unduly founded as Mr Locke would have us believe—is nonsensical. In the very short time of less than 2 years since the attacks on the twin towers we have seen bombing incidents all over the world and terrorism—far from decreasing—is increasing. Soft targets such as New Zealand are considered lambs to the slaughter by people who would further their own political agendas around the world and there will come a time as other countries harden their internal defence systems when places like New Zealand will be seen as the only attractive and viable target. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Very briefly the vast majority of this bill will come into effect as soon as the royal assent is achieved for the Act. However there are two areas that will come into effect when there is an Order in Council—those are clauses 3 to 7 and clauses 10 to 23. The common-sense reason is that structures need to be put in place and regulations need to be drawn up before we can practically implement them but they will be implemented as soon as possible. There is no question of those provisions being delayed unnecessarily and certainly not for 5 years. These are measures needed to counter terrorism and other forms of serious crime. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 The amendment provision gives us the time to think about whether we are panicking or whether we are rushing. The ACT party believes that clearly there are sensible things that every country must do about terrorism that evil is real and that people who do not care about the innocents they hurt in the cause of securing their political objectives are a special kind of threat. The normal response of criminal law to these people should properly take account of the fact that they prey on victims with whom they have no natural connection who would not normally be seen as targets and who can therefore feel a particular horror about being victims. 
On the other hand the ACT party is concerned about some of the same factors that Keith Locke raised on behalf of the Greens though not the concerns about Ahmed Zaoui—the commencement could not come quick enough for us if it related to Ahmed Zaoui. I think the supposition that the Greens and other defenders act on is that he has some kind of entitlement to be here and in ACT’s opinion only New Zealanders have a right to be here. Anyone else is on a privilege and there is no requirement to extend that privilege simply because someone claims to be a refugee. That is grace and favour and Mr Zaoui has abused our hospitality. 
Coming back to the commencement I wish that it were being delayed because I think it is almost inevitable that in a passion we do things to our own law that we should not be doing. I look for example at the new offence of causing disease or sickness in animals. It looks to me as if someone from the Green Party for example could make it an offence to sterilise possums with GM. I know that that is never intended but the problem is that when people are legislating in a passion they take these well-meant words and do not look at them closely simply because there is a panic and a rush to get new powers or to at least look as if they are trying to give new powers. I use the new clause 298A about causing disease or sickness in animals as an example. At first sight it could actually make it an offence to spray mosquitoes but of course that is not likely to cause major damage. 
 But it certainly could be that that clause might one day be used for political purposes to confront people like the Greens who have a genuine concern about a proposed response to an animal pest and therefore the criminal law could be misused. It is not fanciful. In the United States a law against mob racketeers has been misapplied in all sorts of spheres including throughout the securities industry. The “RICO Act” the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act has been very much misapplied. 
Another example of haste is new section 307A “Threats of harm to people or property” inserted by clause 7. It looks to me as though anti-smokers could be targets or perhaps people against certain drugs or drug companies because they will intend to disrupt the commercial activity of a particular kind and it could be argued that they will therefore create a health risk to one or more people. That is just the kind of unintended consequence that a long delay in the commencement could be used to iron out. The Minister should take that on board. 
The Minister is aware that I am equally concerned that unintentionally he has put hurdles in the path of people who want to use surveillance cameras. If members care to look at the definition of “tracking device” they will find that it covers a surveillance camera and as I read it that says that from now on if the police want to cooperate with a supermarket or even someone who wants to know where his own vehicles are going they have to go and get a High Court warrant to do it. It is an intrusion on anti-crime effort and that is a consequence of well-meaning people looking at law in haste and not examining it properly. 
The commencement clause should be delayed and the power to defer by Order in Council should be used in order to go back through this in the cold light of day and examine why we would want to ban the use of surveillance cameras without a High Court warrant which the legislation appears to do. I normally deplore commencement clauses that depend on a ministerial decision or on the Order in Council process. In this case delay would be desirable. 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 52; United Future 8. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Part 1 Amendments to Crimes Act 1961 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I want to speak on this part because I have some amendments to it relating particularly to clauses 7 and 8. Clause 7 is about threatening to do harm. One of the problems is that the definition—it is a bit like the definition in the Terrorism Suppression Act although this is not specifically about terrorism—is very broad because all one has to do to qualify under this particular clause is to threaten to do something that is going to cause significant disruption to a commercial activity or a civil administration in a way that causes a risk to health major property damage major economic loss or major damage to the national economy of New Zealand. They are very broad terms. People do not actually need to do the act; they can just even as of now threaten to do something. For instance some of the Maori involved in the battle for the foreshore and seabed are getting quite upset about their property rights as they see them. They are worried about the aquaculture. If they took some action against an aquaculture facility somewhere and caused major economic loss to one or more persons—in fact they do not need to do it; right now they need just to threaten to do it—then under this clause they could be up for quite an extensive period in jail. The terms are so broad that they could be misinterpreted. 
I turn to genetic engineering. Of course most people do not want the release of genetically engineered foods into crops and into the New Zealand environment but there are people even now who are threatening perhaps to take some sort of non-violent civil disobedience - type direct action in a way that could affect genetically engineered crops and that action could qualify under the definition in this clause. So just the threat of it now—or when and if this legislation passes through Order in Council or whatever it is—could mean that people are subject to quite a big penalty. 
New section 307A(2) inserted by clause 7—and one of my amendments relates to it—states that any strike lockout or other industrial action is not by itself a sufficient basis for inferring that a person has committed an offence. This is what is known as a comfort clause. There is a similar clause in the Terrorism Suppression Act. People can be a bit misled and say: “I can be a good protester and I won’t be covered by this clause because of those two words—‘by itself’.” But I have interrogated the officials and the legal people in this respect and they all say that the clause in both the Terrorism Suppression Act and in this bill is just a comfort clause. If someone who is involved in protest action does actually cause the effects I have just described he or she is still covered despite this comfort clause. But I have put forward an amendment. If people think that strikes lockouts and legitimate protests are protected under this clause then I have moved an amendment to cut out the two words “by itself” so it would be clear that people involved in strikes lockouts industrial action and other protest action will not be covered by that. But the Green Party is opposed to that whole clause because as I said it is quite dangerous. 
The other clause I have an amendment to is clause 8. Clause 8—and this also comes up in Part 3—enables the police to engage in fishing expeditions involving interception devices. There is already a provision for interception devices in the criminal law in order to try to get drug offenders under warrant and also in the Crimes Act in order to get serious offenders. The two amendments to this bill in Parts 1 and 3 mean that the police can say they want an interception warrant because of a particular offence that they think a person may have committed. Under these amendments once the police have the interception warrant they can then look for information on all kinds of crimes across the board basically. If there was a situation of the police misusing their powers a little bit they could use this measure. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Why is Mr Locke wrong? Because he is wrong. His error starts when he ignores how this section is constructed. People would have to do two things in fact not one. Their actions have to intend the effect of one of these offences: they have to affect the civilian population of New Zealand not just one person but the entire population or a large chunk thereof; and they have to do something that would threaten an infrastructure facility—something pretty fundamental. The next thing mentioned in the section is the civil administration of the country and finally the commercial activity. These are global concepts—actions cannot be narrowly focused. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Prior to the dinner break I was explaining why I believe that Mr Locke is wrong and I have taken this call because the meaning of new section 307A inserted by clause 7 is an important point. 
In essence two things are required. Firstly one has to have an “effect” and prior to the dinner break I listed the effects. They are things of widespread significance to New Zealand—that is affecting our civilian population the infrastructure facility civil administration or commercial activity. These are not individual activities in my view. They are something of general effect. That is how the words will be interpreted. That is the first test that has to be satisfied—namely an effect. In addition a “result” has to be intended. They are: creating a risk to the health of one or more people—admittedly that is narrower in the sense of numbers; causing major property damage; causing major economic loss to one or more persons; and causing major damage to the national economy of New Zealand. The fact is that those are accumulative requirements—the widespread effect leading to the result—both of which must be in the contemplation of the person. It is those two things together that would cause the activity to be caught by section 307A. 
Then on top of that as Mr Locke noted earlier there is the avoidance provision. So those things are not caught if they are derived from a strike lockout industrial action advocacy dissent etc. It is not a complete exemption. Mr Locke has put up a Supplementary Order Paper that would have those as a complete exemption. I believe he is also wrong there. What if the intended outcome of the protest or dissent were this widespread effect followed with the intended result? Surely one could not be supporting that kind of dissent. After all one might even argue that Hamas would otherwise be exempted. Yet they conduct terrorist activities on a daily basis which have these causes these effects and these results. So Mr Locke perhaps unwittingly perhaps not is almost advocating terrorism. It is extraordinary that he would do that and I cannot believe that he would deliberately do that. Even he I believe would not deliberately do that. But that is nevertheless a necessary consequence of his reasoning. 
Because the Government has taken only one call so far on this very important legislation I believe it is incumbent on me to explain the purposes in detail. This legislation should have the widespread support of the House and if the Government fails in its duty to explain the purposes in detail not just in a second reading speech but by analysis of the critical clauses—and certainly new section 307A is in that category—then it behoves the Opposition to undertake that duty. These are important issues. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I would like to reply to some of the points that my colleague Wayne Mapp has raised. He is trying to make out I think unsuccessfully that the threats of action have to be on some huge scale affecting everything in order to be covered by this provision. But when we look through the provision it talks about a threat to cause significant disruption to things like a board of trustees of a school or commercial activities of a particular type etc. Obviously we are not talking about something affecting a whole society; we are talking about threats of action that might affect just one entity one farmer or whatever. That is clear in section 307A(1B) in clause 7 where the results have to be of four types. One result is “causing major economic loss to one or more persons”. Therefore causing major economic loss to one person would qualify. 
Another result is “causing major damage to the national economy”. That is a very broad provision but how does one define that? It requires subjective political determination. Some people would argue that Monsanto even though it has declined as a company of late would potentially cause major damage to the national economy of New Zealand with its GE foods. From another viewpoint others would say that people who threaten to pull out GE crops are causing major damage to the national economy. It depends on where one is coming from. 
The examples I gave in my speech first time around are arguments that members might say are the kinds of examples the Greens would give about GE or the Maori debate over the foreshore and how they might affect marine farming. But take the example of farmers—and this is a recent example—threatening to block roads in response to the “fart tax”. That is an action; a threat. Under this provision people need only to threaten; they do not need to carry it through. That is what farmers did; they threatened to block roads because of the “fart tax”. Their action would come under this provision. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Come on! It would not. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: That is real. The member may not like it but that is the problem because this is a very broad provision. The result could be determined by political bias. 
I want to finish by explaining my amendment to omit clause 8 because that clause could allow for fishing expeditions by the police. The interception warrant under this provision can be taken out for a simple theft charge when the police suspect a person is guilty of theft and then a fishing expedition can take place and the person can be had up on a misuse of drugs charge or some other charge. This provision tends to undermine what has happened in the courts to date whereby judges are a bit careful about evidence and how it is gathered. To allow interception warrants to be granted on one little thing and then used for a whole wide range of offences can lead to abuse if the police force did get a little bit out of control and started getting a little biased against certain people and went on these fishing expeditions. 
So it is true as with any provision that upholds our civil liberties that one might say some criminals are getting away with it because the police got this warrant out on a theft charge and then they caught somebody on this other offence while using the interception device and so that is good. But if we want to make sure that the police are not taking out interception warrant after interception warrant and misusing their powers in this way then we have to restrict what they can do more specifically to the purposes of the warrant and not allow for fishing expeditions. 
That is how the law has operated up to date—with a balance between civil liberties and people not being subject to excessive surveillance on the one hand and on the other hand the police being able to do sufficient to catch most criminals in our society by in some cases using interception warrants. I think that both of these amendments are very important. I want to go back and talk about an amendment I raised at the start. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party to take the unusual step of supporting Mr Keith Locke’s warnings about these provisions in Part 1. I believe that this has been drafted hastily. It is drafted as a response to this Government’s desire to subordinate New Zealand to the United Nations and to look respectable. When we renege on defence and other contracts we have to do something to suck up to the Australians and to the Americans. In this case sadly it is by using the worthy cause of counter-terrorism to stick new provisions into our law that may well one day be misused for purposes that the people in this Parliament would never have dreamt of. 
Look at new section 307A to be inserted by clause 7 which is the new offence of threat of harm to people or property. This amendment has been further amended by recommendation of the select committee which I am sure thought it was doing the job that was necessary of making sure this law did not overreach. These kinds of provisions often come from countries that have none of our respect for law and order indeed and for the rights of individuals and for the importance of making sure that people are guilty before they are convicted. In this clause there is a 7-year sentence for threatening to do something that might have a result of creating a risk to the health of one or more people. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: No there are two stages. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Hang on. There are two stages as Mr Mapp quite correctly points out but taking it bit by bit— 
Dianne Yates 
: Dr Mapp. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Sorry Dr Mapp—yes Dr Professor Mapp! A threat—“creating a risk to the health of one or more people”. Think about that risk. A risk to the health of one person comes through promoting smoking. It comes through a myriad of activities that might be much better intentioned than promoting smoking. There is a risk to the health of one person if for example someone is opposed to a particular kind of therapy that he or she thinks harms many but helps one or a few people. 
Then we look at the other element required for this offence. It causes “a significant disruption of one or more of the following things … commercial activity in New Zealand.” I say to Dr Mapp let us think about for example those who oppose genetic modification. It could easily be that they are hostile to a drug firm that uses or produces a medicine with GM and want that medicine withdrawn because of their fears about the effect of the technology on a whole range of values in New Zealand. It could be Maori objecting to it because they believe that it is a fundamental problem simply to interfere with the foetus. The result could well be harm to one or more people. This provision does not have an exception for proper purpose or good faith or political debate. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Yes it does. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Where is it? 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Section 5(2) 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: That relates only to strikes and lockouts. Typically this Labour Government has said that if one is in protest advocacy or dissent that does not by itself imply the offence. The main provision simply says that there are three elements: a threat adverse effect to the health of one or more people and disruption to someone’s commercial activity or a sector’s commercial activity. All of those could be caused in the scenario I have pictured. I would say coming to it cold with no more than an hour or two to look at it if we can think of one scenario in that situation it should be telling this Parliament that this Committee stage in the House should be used to take a much greater care about the potential misuse of this provision. This could well be misused in private prosecutions. This could cause a great deal of misery to New Zealanders who are acting in perfect good faith. 
I mention also in Part 1 the provisions relating to causing disease or sickness in animals. I mentioned that the new section 298A would be capable of being used by antagonists to the introduction of a possum disease if they feared that that possum disease might also spread for example to commercial rabbits or poultry. It is perfectly capable of that use. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Listening to the debate whilst I do recognise and understand the concerns that have been expressed by the various members this is one area of debate that was given considerable airtime in the select committee process. Many of the concerns that Mr Locke is consistently raising—I give him full credit for the consistency of his views and for championing of those views—I am perfectly satisfied they have been well canvassed. 
Whilst I can accept and understand fully how he might feel that a particular Government’s propensity to carpet-bomb our entire country with 1080 poison might well be construed by some to be an act that is adverse and likely to cause grave economic damage to our economy if it were to become public knowledge throughout the rest of the world and might in some people’s interpretation be covered by this bill it would be interesting to know from the Minister himself how this Government would respond to charges brought against it by people on the West Coast and down south who believed that carpet-bombing the Blue Mountains with 1080 poison is in fact an act of economic terrorism. Consider the implications to our international markets to our meat industry if the world in general found out that we were dumping hundreds of tonnes of 1080 poison—a product that has been specifically banned and outlawed in the United States. Indeed in the United States they pay bounties of up to $20000 to individuals who catch other people in the act of distributing 1080 poison. I can understand that but I was given absolute assurance in the select committee that the way these subclauses have been couched is only to capture people who genuinely it is believed by the judges responsible for giving such warrants do pose a threat to the country the citizens of New Zealand and its economic stability. 
I can well understand how there are many people out there who believe that the mere election of a Labour Government is a threat to the economic stability of this country and might be construed as an act of terrorism committed upon it by some misguided New Zealanders who voted that way. It might be construed as an act of terrorism committed upon the country by United Party members who went into one election championing the centre right’s views and then promptly leapt into bed with Helen Clark in what some people might describe as a gross act of terrorism committed upon this nation. We do say such things with a little bit of tongue-in-cheek. 
I understand the concerns expressed by the ACT party and the Green Party with respect to civil liberties but I am on record as being one who has said on many occasions that we fail to see the wood for the trees when we are focusing on civil liberties. Mr Locke may well say that we are becoming guided by emotion and we need to take time to pause and consider more widely the implication of clauses 7 and 8. In fact the checks and balances are most definitely there. If the Minister would care to take a call and allay some of the fears that are raised in the various amendments it might go a long way to cause some people to reconsider their vote in support of those amendments that have been put forward by Mr Locke. 
Civil liberties are important. They are what separate democracies from dictatorships. I understand that. I understand that we have a duty and responsibility to protect the rights of people and their ability to express freely their disapproval of Government policies. But I am not one who looks upon expressions of viewpoints such as those that occurred during the Springbok tour as being a right or proper way in which those people should have been allowed to demonstrate their views. I look upon the Springbok tour demonstrations which some people held up as an example when we discussed this bill as acts aided and abetted by gangs organised crime and people who had ulterior motives. If this legislation would have seen many of those people locked up then I for one would have been quite happy about that. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 The provisions in this part can relate to terrorism and in fact they are aimed at dealing with serious terrorist situations that may arise. Equally they may relate to other outcomes where serious harm is caused that might not be terrorist inspired. It does not have to be terrorist inspired if people are doing significant property damage or harming the health of individuals to make that sort of protest or advocacy a crime. As Ron Mark mentioned if somebody smashed up a property in the course of a Springbok tour protest then he or she broke the law and should face the weight of the law. I say that as a person who was a Springbok tour protester. Protest is an important right in our democracy but it does not extend to the right to smash up other people’s property or harm other persons. That then becomes a criminal offence. It always has been that and always will be. 
Why have we put some of the measures in the bill? For example why have we put a 10-year offence in for causing disease or sickness in animals? I thought that would have been self-evident. We had a study done jointly by Treasury and the Reserve Bank on scenarios forecasting the effects of a limited foot and mouth disease outbreak. One of the most serious forms of terrorism or advocacy in this country could be to deliberately introduce something like bovine spongiform encephalopathy or foot-and-mouth disease. 
Ron Mark 
: Or a threat of it. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes I will come to the threat in a moment. The conservative estimate of the result of somebody doing that to our country would be a loss of around NZ$6 billion in the first year and a cumulative loss of $10 billion in the second year. When we consider the enormity of that Mr Locke should propose that we have more than a 10-year maximum penalty for somebody who would deliberately cause such chaos in New Zealand. 
I listened to Mr Franks’ examples. I think he was perhaps tongue-in-cheek but the idea that destroying a mosquito population would bring somebody within the scope of this law is patently incorrect. People have to cause a serious risk to the health or safety of an animal population and cause major damage to the national economy of New Zealand. If Mr Franks can follow through on his example and explain how wiping out the mosquitoes or the possums would cause serious damage then he might have a point. 
In relation to clause 7 which is in respect of threats or communicating information about an act that would be likely to have these particular effects clearly what we are aiming this to do is to deal with the situation that we faced in reality not so long ago with regard to the anthrax hoax. It is a very serious thing even as a hoax when people send white powder through the mail purporting that that might be anthrax; or there are the commercially disruptive effects of people saying that they have contaminated a food product on the shelves. Those are forms of terrorism and crimes. They should be subject to the full weight of the law and that is what this provision is about—with the safeguards against using those provisions simply against an action because it is advocacy protest a strike or a lockout: those things are not illegal per se. I hope such acts will never be illegal in this country. They will certainly never be illegal under this Government but when people commit acts that are designed to seriously damage our country property and people then why I ask Mr Locke should those people not face the full force of the law? 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I appreciate the Minister taking the call to explain the reasons why this is important why it is necessary legislation and what the intent is. There is no concern from the ACT party about the intent or the need for law in the areas stated. Our concern is about the unintended effects Law always has unintended effects if it is not carefully drafted and if there is not a very live concern to look for unintended effects. 
Despite Mr Goff’s reference to my flippant remark about wiping out a population of mosquitoes a far better example was provided by Mr Mark for the New Zealand First party. For example the white-tailed deer population in the Blue Mountains or the population in the Hokonuis is currently under threat from a 1080 attack through most of that area. Apparently the council that is funding it—or the Animal Health Board—is not prepared to take the precaution of potentially limiting it or using baits that will not appeal to the deer population there. Whatever one may think about the rights and wrongs of the 1080 campaign it is wrong to leave unnecessarily in our criminal law a new offence that can be used or misused against people who have no criminal intent and who believe that what they are doing is proper. 
To be fair this particular clause states: “without lawful justification or reasonable excuse”. I suspect that a regional council or Environment Southland approval would be seen as a lawful justification or excuse. But what about the councillors themselves? It seems to me that they will face attempts from those who oppose a 1080 campaign to bring them within the boundaries of this; and I think that within the words it will not be too hard. Taking on board the Minister’s passionate affirmation that the Labour Government would not be attempting to punish someone for a strike a lockout or advocacy that is not the point. Subclause (2) of new clause 307A provides something of an indicator of Parliament’s intent that this provision should not be misused. However it highlights the fact that there are a range of other activities that should have been similarly mentioned to signify to the courts that the elements of the offence could well be satisfied yet there should still not be liability. 
The lawful justification or reasonable excuse will I submit be in the eye of the beholder. When passion is aroused when the drug company for example is in the gun and there is demonstrated potential harm to the health of one or more people even though there is also demonstrated benefit to far more this provision does not on its face require a balancing. For example that might have been a sensible subclause (3) to enable the court to take into account the motives and the weighing of priorities and the balancing so that even though a commercial activity is significantly disrupted and even though there is a risk to the health of one or more people it would still be justified because there is a balance. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: What about clause 2? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I say to Dr Mapp that clause 2 by itself is not a sufficient basis for inferring. I am talking not about inference but actual proof. We could have all of these things. When we have a threat to do an act that is likely to disrupt commercial activity and spread anxiety about the drug companies’ activities and we have the risk to the health of one or more people we have satisfied the elements of the offence. I believe that if this Government had been doing its work properly it should have been more alive to the risks and should have been able to come up with better-crafted exceptions. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I have been criticised a little bit in the discussion and I would like to reply briefly. I appreciate Mr Goff getting up and making some comments. It is very good that he is explaining the position. I disagree with him because he said that terrorists could be doing these things but the examples we have come up with—and we could go on and on giving different examples—are from our domestic political situation. The reality is that apart from the  
Rainbow Warrior 
 bombing in 1985 there is not a lot of terrorist activity in New Zealand. This provision in the Crimes Act has a general application including against any terrorist who might happen to threaten but its application is overwhelmingly in relation to domestic political activity. There has not been a terrorist threat against New Zealand to date that I know of. 
But there have been all kinds of threats from ordinary New Zealanders. I mentioned the threat of farmers on the so-called “fart tax”. It is good that Mr Goff brought us back to the 1981 Springbok tour protest. Certainly if we are talking about threats and not actions—and this part is about threats—there were all sorts of threats before and during that Springbok rugby tour to get involved in disruptive process. The leadership of the anti-tour movement was saying that if the Springbok team came here there would be disruptive activities the blocking of motorways etc. and that transpired. So this provision would definitely have covered the anti - Springbok tour protesters. The blocking of motorways does have a fairly significant effect as happened at that time. 
Under clause 6 one does not actually need to disrupt very much to have the result under section 298B(b) of causing major economic loss to one person—a single solitary New Zealander as long as that person is part of a commercial activity of a particular type or in a particular school or something like that. This is just about a threat— 
Stephen Franks 
: Competition does that—causes major economic loss. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: Yes. So I think we have to see that this is a quite dangerous provision. I think the Minister said that protests “per se” are not being outlawed or affected by this which is a sort of synonym for the “by itself” provision in section 307A(2) in clause 7. In the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on both this bill and the Terrorism Suppression Bill which became an Act it was made quite clear repeatedly by officials and submitters that “by itself” did not mean that if one was on a protest or in a strike and personally did the things that are prescribed in the legislation one would not be as liable as anyone else; all that that provision is trying to say is that we are not aiming to get at protests or strikes as a whole but if strikers or protesters happened to threaten to do something that would significantly disrupt a commercial institution and cause major economic loss to one person then they can be up for 7 years in jail. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: The court is hardly likely to rule in that way. 
KEITH LOCKE 
: The Minister can say that but it has to be based on what the law says. At the present time sure we have a more tolerant climate politically and judicially but if there is a situation—and I again go back to the 1981 Springbok tour—where passions are raised and people on different sides are saying that those on the other side are bringing the country to ruin and all the rest of it all the things that Muldoon threw around then one might get a situation where people are given heavy sentences for just doing a political protest in a situation of great dissent and great concern. In that case a racist rugby team was being brought to New Zealand and people felt very upset about it not only because of what was happening in South Africa but because of the impact on race relations in New Zealand. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 In the interests of ensuring that history is not rewritten according to people’s foggy memory of what happened in 1981 let me remind Mr Locke and make it clear to the Chair what actually happened. But firstly I want to thank the Minister of Transport for standing up and taking a call; it is unusual under this Government to have a Minister take a call during the Committee stage and I really do appreciate it. Let me remind people that if this bill would catch people who protested against the Springbok tour by wearing helmets carrying shields and wielding batons then that is good—it would do what it needs to do. If this bill would catch a person who threatens to fly an aircraft into a packed grandstand full of people then that is good. That is what this bill is intended to do—to curb threats of terrorism and to curb acts of terrorism. If this bill would stop people from peacefully protesting outside rugby grounds holding their placards chanting their chants and calling for the rugby match to be cancelled then I would not be happy because that is people’s right—to protest demonstrate peacefully and exercise their democratic will. 
We discussed those very problems at length during the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee meetings. I do not share the Green Party’s view that this legislation would curb peaceful protest or peaceful demonstration. But if this bill stops people from hiring the Mongrel Mob to spearhead the front-end of their protest march which sought to knock down fences invade pitches knock people over cancel a game and cause massive economic loss job loss and loss of a day’s pay to ordinary citizens then I am not fazed by that because I do not see any of those actions as being their democratic right. People have a democratic right fought and paid for with the blood of our forebears in places marked on the wall of this Chamber but it is not a right to inflict their will upon people by force of arms. That is what I saw during the Springbok tour. We are all too glib at saying: “Oh these champions these heroes went out there and peacefully demonstrated.” What a load of rubbish! Pull out the videos! 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I did and I was proud to be on the Springbok march. 
RON MARK 
: Yes there were people who did. That honourable member might have been one of those people who demonstrated peacefully but there were people in the front ranks—it can be seen on the replay videos on the old films if members want to pull them out of the archives and look at them—who were gang members. They might well have been exercising a democratic right but some of us believe that they were there for the punch-up the destruction the mayhem and to inflict anarchy upon normal New Zealanders. Some people in this Committee might find some sort of credit or pride in being associated with people like that; well I do not. If this bill deals with people who will not protest peacefully then that is not necessarily a bad thing. If it deals with people who threaten to fly an aircraft into a packed grandstand so that a game would be called off then that is a good thing. But I remain absolutely assured from the explanations that the select committee had—from the long and lengthy discussion and from the amendments that were made—that it does not seek to curb one’s right to protest and peacefully demonstrate against laws Acts or regulations that the Government may inflict upon us. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 17 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Noes 100 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Motion not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 7 be agreed to:  
to amend new section 307A(2) of the principal Act by omitting the words “ by itself”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Motion not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 164 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The amendment to clause 8 in the name of Keith Locke to omit that clause is now out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 100 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Noes 17 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I have a few amendments to this part which amends the Terrorism Suppression Act. We need to go back because the amendments in Part 2 relate to the definition in the Terrorism Suppression Act. My amendments will improve the definition and in so doing improve the bill. 
My first amendment is to insert new clause 14B which changes the definition of a terrorist act. At present the definition has two aspects. First a terrorist act has to be for “an ideological political or religious cause and with the intention to induce terror in a civilian population.” I wish to keep that part in the definition but I wish to eliminate the section that states “to unduly compel or force a Government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.” As I think was implied earlier in the debate what does the term “unduly compel” really mean? Any sort of legal protest action or strike could be seen to be unduly compelling. Governments often feel that they are being unduly pushed around by the Post Primary Teachers Association perhaps the farmers marching on Parliament or whoever it happens to be. It would be best to knock out those words and just have “with the intention to induce terror in a civilian population”. 
My next amendment which is to insert new clause 14C deletes section 5(3)(d) of the principal Act. The problem at the moment is that section 5(3)(d) states that an outcome can be “serious interference with or serious disruption to an infrastructure facility if likely to endanger human life:” Under that provision one does not have to intend to endanger human life; one could just be performing an action that is likely to endanger human life so it is best taken out. Again the provision could apply to major strikes or demonstrations particularly if they affected hospitals or things like that—one could say that they endangered human life. We want to restrict terrorism to what is said in clause 5(2)(a) which is “to induce terror in a civilian population.” If that is done and then followed up by the outcomes being death or other serious bodily injury or serious risk to health then we are getting into legislation what is generally understood to be people’s concerns about terrorism. 
To somewhat repeat the debate we had on the previous part there is that comfort clause in the Terrorism Suppression Act that says that “to avoid doubt the fact that a person engages in any protest advocacy or dissent or engages in any strike lockout or other industrial action is not by itself a sufficient basis for inferring”… etc. etc. Again I think it would be best to move an amendment to withdraw those two words “by itself” so that it is quite clear that people engaged in protests and that sort of thing are not covered by that definition of terrorism. 
My fourth amendment relates to United Nations Security Council information. At the present time there is a rather strange provision in section 31 of the Act that states that information from the United Nations Security Council “is in the absence of evidence to the contrary sufficient evidence of the matters to which it relates.” We are just taking as gospel virtually what comes down from the United Nations Security Council. Of course we all respect the United Nations but from what I have been able to find out the Security Council does not have a full legal process when it works out its list of terrorist organisations. It is more a process of some country—most likely the United States—saying “here is a list of terrorist organisations.” It could also be another country as that would depend who was the dominant force in the United Nations at the time or who swung a bit of weight. Those “terrorist” organisations are rubber-stamped by the Security Council sent out and countries like New Zealand might adopt them. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I was anticipating in the previous call that Mr Locke would state that he would vote in favour of this part. It is a reasonable request when one considers what the part is about and it is not really about what he was talking about. This part is about implementing two conventions—one in relation to nuclear material and the other in relation to plastic explosives. I would have thought that even the Green Party would want to put on record that it is opposed to those things. Did we hear that statement from them? Unfortunately Mr Locke did not say that. He had the opportunity and maybe he will have a further opportunity but he needed to say it. 
The reason that he needed to say it is that it is a statement of one’s values. Are we willing to be upfront and say that the worst forms of terrorism are surely plastic explosives and nuclear materials? Surely we would say we were against those things. What Mr Locke actually spoke about were various provisions in new clauses 14B 14C 14D and 14E. Those provisions which were not properly explained by him are all about revisiting the terrorism Act and his general obsessions and concerns are there too. At best that is peripheral. It might be important to him to talk about that even if the rest of us think it somewhat irrelevant but at least this Committee could have been assured. 
I would like to think that the vote on Part 2 will be unanimous—118 votes unless the Progressive coalition turns up—but at least that the people present actually voted for Part 2 as an affirmative statement that in relation to plastic explosives nuclear material and harbouring terrorists we are as one. I know that is an extraordinary concept within this Parliament but in this country there must be some minimum line or common ground by which we can all say that those things have to be prohibited. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does it include the Wild Greens? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: The question has been asked as to whether that includes the Wild Greens. I would ask whether the Green Party is the Wild Greens because if Green members do not vote for this part that is exactly what they are. 
Mr Locke has taken one call on issues in this part but he needs to take another to say that he will vote for the two relevant conventions. After all one of the reasons the Government introduced this bill to the House was to implement those conventions. They make up an interlocking network of anti-terrorist conventions by the United Nations—an organisation not favoured by everyone in this House—and expresses pretty much universal human consent that certain activities have to be condemned in the most serious ways. 
Obviously National supports those provisions. We are not putting up amendments to this part but are taking the opportunity to say that on these issues we expect all New Zealanders to have a common view and to vote for those provisions. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to put on the record that New Zealand First will be voting in support of Part 2. The two conventions are specifically identified and detailed in the schedule as new schedules 2A and 2B and they are there for everybody to read. Even the strongest critic of this legislation should see that it is eminently sensible I would have thought that we sign up to those United Nations conventions. I take for example the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection. That convention seeks to obligate the signatory countries to ensure that plastic explosives that are manufactured in each country contain identifying agents so that they can be clearly identified by any of the law enforcement agencies that seek to provide security for aircraft buildings or anything that may be a terrorist target. Failure to comply with such international standards is to invite acts of terrorism. People who are caught moving manufacturing or in possession of such explosives can quite clearly be considered to be people who have only one intent in mind. There is no other reason to utilise such explosives. 
The provisions in Part 2 that deal with sentencing for offences relating to harbouring or concealing terrorists could if anything be criticised as being a little light. The penalty for harbouring a known terrorist is a term of imprisonment not exceeding 7 years. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: But then they’ll get parole. 
RON MARK 
: But they are eligible for parole at the one-third mark so they will be on home detention 6 months shy of 2 years and then out on parole. That is hugely light. The penalty for the use and movement of unmarked plastic explosives is a $500000 fine and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years which seems eminently sensible to me. 
For the life of me I cannot understand why a party that is so much in favour of a nuclear-free policy would not express its support at the first opportunity for this part of the bill. Failure to express that support immediately brings into question once again that party’s commitment. But we have seen with regard to the GE issue that the very same party when it had the opportunity to flex its muscles and demand that the moratorium be extended did not do so. It rolled over backwards. And we have New Zealanders being denied access to the Privy Council because the Green Party it may be said is not serious about the sorts of policies that its members say they hold so dear. But there is another speech or two to go on this part and maybe Mr Locke can assure us that he is serious about a nuclear-free policy and support for this part of the bill. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 This part is important for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that it enables us in New Zealand to ratify the last two of 12 international conventions against terrorism. It is important that we do that; it brings us into line with international requirements. We will probably be one of the first countries in the region that has ratified all 12 conventions and that is something we should be proud of. I think Mr Locke would generally support that. If he did not I would want to know why. Clearly we do not want people to be trafficking in unmarked plastic explosives or radioactive materials. One of the major threats to us would be the linking of terrorist groups with precursor materials or actual materials used in weapons of mass destruction. There have to be offences in relation to that. These provisions achieve that end and I hope that they get widespread support. 
The other major change is that the bill gives the Customs Service the power to detain terrorist property. The key thing—and the gap that existed—was the ability of terrorists to literally carry a suitcase full of cash across the border. People who follow terrorist activities or the activities of drug traffickers—and often they are one and the same thing—know that that is the preferred way of shifting assets. We want to get our hands on those assets before the event of a terrorist attack and not allow them to be used for a terrorist attack. That also fulfils one of the requirements under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373 in terms of the funding of terrorism. 
I am against the amendments that have been moved by Mr Locke. He is relitigating a decision already made by the House with regard to the definition of a terrorist act in the Terrorism Suppression Act. The other point that I find quite incredible is his questioning of the sufficiency of the United Nations’ information in relation to the designation of terrorist entities. I say to Mr Locke that he cannot be a part-time multilateralist. Either he is in favour of and stands behind the multilateral organisations or he does not. He cannot criticise others for being unilateralist when it suits them and then be unilateralist himself. Those designations are made only after proper work is done by an international body representing 192 countries and the decisions are often without controversy. Why the member would want to remove that provision from the bill is quite beyond me unless he does not believe in designating terrorist activities and being able to take effective action against them. Equally others of his deletions would stop us being able to seize the assets of a terrorist group that was carrying money across the border. We have to seize the assets if there is reasonable cause to suspect that that is the case and then we have the safeguards to apply afterwards. We cannot do it the other way round because that would not work. 
The impression the member leaves the Committee with deliberately or otherwise is that he deliberately wants to sabotage efforts that would enable us to stop terrorist activities. It is no good to say that we have not had terrorist activities in New Zealand yet so therefore we do not need these provisions. We need these provisions to ensure that we do not have future terrorist activities here to ensure that New Zealand is not the weak link in the chain that can be exploited by terrorist activities and to meet our international obligations. I thoroughly reject the amendments that the member has put forward. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 First off I would like to clear up a point that others have raised about whether the Green Party supports the bits in this part relating to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection. We do support them as I made clear in my first and second reading speeches. If members look at the minority report from the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that I authored they will see that it states: “The Green member supports those amendments to the Terrorism Suppression Act bringing New Zealand into compliance with the Nuclear Materials Convention and the Plastic Explosives Convention.” The problem I face of course with regard to how to vote on this bill—which is a problem a lot of members face—is that while this part contains that very good provision there are also some very bad provisions. So the Green Party on balance will not be voting for this part. But of course we welcome the fact that we will be adhering to that convention; this is just a normal problem that confronts members in the Committee stage of a bill. 
I want to complete what I was in the middle of explaining about eliminating the provision that enables United Nations Security Council information to be treated as sufficient evidence for the designation of a terrorist entity. The issue is not that we should refuse to accept United Nations Security Council information and say that it is all bad and all wrong because clearly a lot of it is not like that. But when we as a country receive that material as a result of a Security Council decision we should then put our own legal scrutiny on it and ask whether it is right. Sometimes it is wrong. In fact we have had to amend our legislation and we are in the process of doing so—it is in this bill here—because stuff designating terrorists that has come through from the Security Council has been found to be wrong. If the UN then sent out another thing saying it was sorry but it had got things wrong with regard to certain organisations under the Terrorism Suppression Act we had no way of amending our own designations to take account of the fact that the United Nations Security Council had made a mistake. 
We have to interrogate that information ourselves and put our own eyes on it because the process itself is done in New York. In fact the Minister can correct me and explain the court process whereby terrorist bodies are designated and whether they have any rights at all to come before the UN. I ask the Minister whether it is a process where there is a serious legal challenge of the evidence at the Security Council level. I do not necessarily think there is such a challenge. We do have to have the right as supporters of the UN to be able to interrogate any decision. One of the problems with the United Nations as the Minister well knows is that the Security Council can sometimes make wrong decisions because of its unequal structure and the power particularly of the United States but in general of the five permanent members. One can be a very consistent multilateralist without necessarily accepting the decisions of that organisation any more than we just accept and do not criticise the decisions of any political body—for example of this Parliament. We have to abide by the laws of this Parliament but we can still criticise its decisions. 
I go on to my final amendment in this series. It relates to the question of customs officers and the Minister has referred to that. My particular concern is that the New Zealand Customs Service which is not a skilled political agency of the State—that is not its task—is allowed under this provision to detain property not only from bodies that are designated as terrorist bodies but also from entities that are eligible for designation. A customs officer may say he or she thinks some property is from an organisation that may at some time in the future be designated as a terrorist organisation so he or she will snaffle it now. The Minister says that the Government is guarding against all possibilities or words to that effect. But the reality is that if Mr Franks comes into the country the customs officer may say he or she thinks Mr Franks may be designated a terrorist next week because the officer has heard some rumours about him and therefore he or she will seize Mr Franks’ bag. Mr Franks may at that point be the head of a big company. The minute that word gets out that his suitcase has been seized—by the Customs Service not by a political body—on the grounds that he may in future be designated a terrorist his perhaps multimillion-dollar company is banged dead because he is a suspected terrorist. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 The Committee stage of this bill produces strange bedfellows and not only at this end of the Chamber. I was very interested to hear the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade who again creditably took a call to explain the purpose of Part 2 and what the objectives are. I was interested to hear him say I think correctly that the primary gain from this measure and his main pride in it was that it enabled us to be the first country in the region to sign up to 12 conventions. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: No I didn’t say that in that context at all. The member should have listened to what I said. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am afraid that is the way I read it. The Minister did explain the substantive reasons for it but he spent more time gloating at the credit he will get from his colleagues at the United Nations for having been an early signer of those conventions. I ask Mr Ron Mark to think about that. That motive is probably why we have the Mercenary Activities (Prohibition) Bill before the House—the desire to look respectable to people whom most of us would not even want to be seen with; Mr Goff’s desire to be seen holding hands with Yasser Arafat. We are looking at nauseating crawling. 
I wonder whether any of this is related to the forthcoming visit of the President of China. As I read section 5 of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 China could argue that its treatment of Falun Gong falls within it. In New Zealand “to unduly compel or to force a government … to do or abstain from doing any act” would probably to most people involve an illegal act some kind of threat of violence something that all of us would already recognise as completely unlawful and the definition of a “terrorist act” simply brings it in. However we can well imagine that the Chinese whose President is about to be hosted by Mr Goff would consider that they were unduly compelled by a bunch of elderly people doing exercises in a courtyard because for them it is undue to have disagreement. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Do you reckon they will have another select committee inquiry? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Exactly. For those people it is undue to disagree with their Government. I say to the Minister that the problem is that as I read this—and I am anxious to be told if I have misread it—as I look at the elements of a “terrorist act” the only one that I can see that would possibly protect us from an anti - Falun Gong type of move is the one in section 5(3) that requires that there be a serious risk to health or safety. My problem is that many dictators argue that they can suppress dissent because it would cause riots. In Islamic countries they argue that they can suppress missionaries because otherwise they would incite Islamists against them. As I read this section and go through Part 2 it does appear to me that the President of China for example could call on our Prime Minister to hand over under the extradition treaty someone who had done something that in New Zealand would never be treated as terrorism but under the law of a country like that might well be defined as terrorism in a cynical act of political oppression. 
That is why I agree with Mr Keith Locke that this part does raise serious questions about whether it could be misused despite the very sensible parts of it and the things that we would love to be able unequivocally to support. The fact is the select committee did not look at section 5 of the Terrorism Suppression Act and did not take the opportunity to modify it to make sure there was a definition consistent with New Zealand’s respect for human rights as to what is undue compulsion of a Government. This leaves me with the concern that this provision could be used to seize the cash of organisations or political movements. Governments that we regard with abhorrence in terms of their attitudes to dissent and their attitudes to minorities could use it to seize that cash. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 164 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 14B be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
14BInducing terror sufficient 
Section 5(2)(b) of the principal Act is deleted. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 14C be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
14CProtection of protest and strikes 
Section 5(3)(d) of the principal Act is deleted. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 14D be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
14DLegitimate protest reaffirmed 
Section 5(5) of the principal Act is amended by removing after the words “is not” the words “ by itself”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 14E be agreed to: 
to insert the following new clause: 
14EUnited Nations Security Council information insufficient 
Section 31(1) of the principal Act is deleted. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 17 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Noes 100 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 15 be agreed to: 
to amend new section 47A(1) of the principal Act by omitting paragraph (d). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 17 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Noes 100 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Part 3 Amendments to other Acts 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I have a few amendments under this part. The first is an amendment to a section of the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978. It is similar to an amendment I moved concerning the Crimes Act in the debate on Part 1. I was worried about the fishing expeditions that could be launched by the police; that they could get a warrant—in this case under the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act—and use it for fishing expeditions in relation to a number of other offences. I will not go over that whole argumentation because it is basically the same as I used on an amendment to Part 1. 
The next amendment I have is to clause 33 which drew considerable discussion by very reputable people in the community including lawyers and lecturers etc. who were against this provision. They saw it as affecting a common-law right against self-incrimination. Several people submitted to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee on this clause. The problem is that a search warrant can be gained by the police under the inserted section for any offence at all—even the smallest of offences. The constable can enter the home of the person or tenant and if he or she owns or has a computer—as most people do these days—that police officer can demand to be given access to it and everything on it. The problem with that is that the person has to give encryption devices passwords ways to get around firewalls etc. in order that the entire contents of that computer are made available to the constable even if the warrant is for the most minimal of crimes. 
I do not know about other members of Parliament but I know that most of us have a lot of our lives on a computer. It can have our very intimate correspondence and often our files go back years. There are hundreds and thousands of communications and all kinds of things on our computers and a humble police officer going into our places for a small offence could have access to them and force us to incriminate ourselves which is against that common law. 
Again there is a safety provision. We have talked about these comfort provisions. New subsection (2A) of section 198B inserted by clause 33 states: “A person may not be required under subsection (1) to give any information tending to incriminate the person.” but the next two subsections go on to state that if information tending to incriminate the person is on the computer it has to be provided by that person who has to give those encryption devices. If general information elsewhere in the apartment let us say tends to incriminate the person he or she does not need to give it. So there seems to be a bit of a contradiction in this provision and I think it is wisest to abide by the wisdom of the many legal people who submitted to our select committee and to eliminate this provision. 
My next three amendments relate to the tracking provisions in clause 34. I was a bit concerned that the tracking provisions available to the police could be used for virtually any offence so I wanted the word “serious” to be put before the word “offence” in the new subsection 200B(2)(a). The two really substantive amendments that I want to move came from the Privacy Commissioner who made a substantial submission to the select committee. He put forward two ideas one of which relates to these warrants. In particular when an interception device is put on a person or vehicle or whatever it is—interception devices are very tiny things and can be put on people quite easily—prior to the gaining of a warrant then there should be some report as to why that happened because we do not want the police to get into the habit of putting tracking devices on a person prior to a warrant being issued. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 Part 3 of this legislation perhaps caused the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee the most difficulty. The reason—as has been explained in the second reading speeches and in other speeches—is that this bill goes much broader than just terrorism offences. The three powers relating to the interception of private communications the use of tracking devices and the requiring of people with knowledge of computer systems to assist with access to them relate not just to terrorist offences but to other offences as well. 
Mr Locke would have one believe that those powers relate to virtually all offences. I say that that is not correct and he would need only to look at clause 26 to see that it is not the case. The provisions relate specifically to serious violent offences. Many of those offences—as no doubt the Minister will say shortly—relate to terrorism but they are not related only to terrorism. They relate to other criminal and drug offences of a serious kind including the full range of cannabis offences. So the term “specified offence” is not the broad category that Mr Locke would have us believe. It applies to the serious end of offences. That is why National after carefully considering the issues decided it should support those provisions. In the fight against crime and particularly against serious crime the police obviously have to have the appropriate powers. That does not apply just to terrorist offences but also to other serious crimes. 
National’s concern related to introducing those general powers through a Counter-Terrorism Bill. We believed initially that it would be better to split the bill into two parts and refer the general provisions to the Justice and Electoral Committee or possibly to the Law and Order Committee. The Minister and his officials made submissions to the select committee as to why that could not be the case. The essence of the argument turned on the fact that these powers were necessary now to deal with terrorist offences and the fact that other offences were included was a matter the select committee had to be able to take into account. The Minister’s staff was sufficiently flattering to suggest that the select committee amongst its personnel had sufficient expertise to be able to make a fair and proper assessment of the provisions. Indeed on either side of the table at the select committee there were people skilled in legal issues who were able to make those determinations. So the argument was made and was accepted by the Opposition and therefore we are supporting those provisions. 
However I would re-state to the Minister our concerns about the titles of bills so that people are properly informed as to the full extent of bills. I would not like to see a bill presented to Parliament again under the label of “counter-terrorism” or under some such other label—perhaps on a completely different issue for that matter—that covered not just the things that the title obviously implied but also much broader issues. We would like to think as a select committee—and we did make reference to this in our report—that the Government has taken that particular issue on board. 
I want to close by saying that Mr Locke once again grossly overstated his case. It is one of those situations where he has produced somewhat far-fetched scenarios cast doubt on the general integrity of our democratic society and the institutions therein—Parliament the judges and the police—and would have us believe that we live in some sort of totalitarian State or at least if we do not live in a totalitarian State then all the machinery is there and the agencies of State are just waiting to seize the opportunity to grossly infringe the liberty of New Zealanders. I say that ultimately the sense of liberty of a people does not depend on the law but depends on the hearts of the people. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Part 3 is the part that really speaks to me of Government incompetence. After all the time the Government has had to get this bill right it is appalling that the bill is now so technically deficient. This is the part about which the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee in its report made it plain that it thought that tracking devices are used by only the police and the Customs Service and therefore it had created a code to govern the use of tracking devices in New Zealand. 
When I look at the definition of “tracking device”—and I have drawn this to the attention of the Minister but have received no explanation worthy of that description—I see the definition is that it is a device that: “may be used to help ascertain by electronic or other means either or both of the following: (a) the location of a thing or person:”. That could be a pair of binoculars. A pair of binoculars is a tracking device as is a telescope a public surveillance camera and probably a flag attached to a bicycle if it helps one to locate a person or thing. It probably also applies to a sticker put on a suitcase so that one can identify it on a baggage carousel. What a stupid piece of law it is when all those things can be tracking devices and suddenly according to the select committee the only people who use them are the police and customs agencies and the committee then makes a set of rules that requires them to apply to a High Court or District Court judge for a warrant. 
This is the type of law we get when we rush through—under cover of a great need anti-terrorism—a complete new code to cover something that should be completely lawful. There is no reason on earth why ordinary citizens cannot decide to put surveillance cameras on their own properties to locate things or people entering their properties. There is no reason why people should have to apply to the police or customs to install global positioning system trackers in their trucks to see whether those trucks are going to unlawful locations. What about the expectation that an employer will keep his or her employees safe and free from harm and for example prevent the use of company vehicles for transporting drugs? There is no reason why a tracking device should not be used by any individual in relation to his or her own property. But this part does not cover that. I have talked to members of the select committee. Dr Mapp has offered no reason other than that it had not been thought of to explain why a police flag on a bicycle a sticker on a suitcase or a pair of binoculars should now require as the law provides for a warrant from a judge. 
When the select committee members said they thought that only the police and the Customs Service used tracking devices they were clearly wrong. When the select committee members thought they were rejecting the Privacy Commissioner’s nonsense—because the Privacy Commissioner did come up with his typical nonsense about another set of rules on tracking devices—they did not achieve that. The select committee may have thought it was leaving ordinary citizens and the police free to track their own property and to use surveillance cameras if they wished in their own stores or houses. But it appears to me that they have not done so. The commentary on the bill makes the situation worse. 
I have put forward a simple amendment. It is hastily drafted but I believe that it deals with 90 percent—not all but 90 percent—of the error in this part. The amendment simply provides that this part does not apply in a way that would restrict the owner or the user of a property from consenting to a tracking device on his or her own property. That should be absolutely self-evident. We have the Minister in the chair when the House is in Committee so that the Minister can respond to this kind of thing at the last minute. We have that precisely so that the Minister can apply common sense and the judgment of reality to law and Parliament can amend bills before it is too late. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to confirm that New Zealand First will be voting for Part 3. But in recognition of the concerns raised by the honourable Stephen Franks specifically in respect of the definition of “tracking devices” and after giving his thoughts some consideration I would actually like—and I know that the Minister has been in a deep discussion with officials—to hear an explanation as to why we should not vote for Mr Franks’ amendment. I have some concerns about tracking devices. I think that television cameras are actually tracking devices as well and I am not sure that I would like to see them specifically excluded. But no doubt there will be some explanation as to why we are where we are. 
As I go back through the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee’s report on the bill I think there was some concern—and Mr Franks was quite correct; there was quite some considerable discussion—about the use of tracking devices. We did discuss the practicalities of preventing customs officers and the police from immediately placing tracking devices on baggage and on goods that were coming in through our international airports. We accepted that it is not always possible to seek warrants and to gain judicial approval in time to allow us to slap devices on some people—or on their property—as they enter our country. We hear time and time again that the funds for terrorist operations come from anywhere possible and that drug-running gunrunning and those sorts of illicit activities are always a good source of revenue for terrorists. The movement of recreational drugs—which I understand the Greens are not averse to—such as copious quantities of marijuana and other recreational drugs across our borders is of concern to New Zealand First and specifically if the profits gained from that go towards funding terrorist activities. There have been occasions where such goods have arrived in the country to be picked up—bags and suchlike. We have seen the Minister of Customs announce some rather hefty drug busts in the last month or so and I give full credit to the Customs Service for those busts. I think we need to be very aware that customs officers need to be able to react promptly but lawfully in such instances in order that we are able to track the movement of goods and thereby detain and arrest the people involved in those activities. 
But again noting Mr Franks’ concerns I think the definition of “tracking devices” probably does need a little further explanation. If we need to include television cameras then maybe we should do that. I really would defer to the Minister so that he can offer some explanation as to why his officials do not think we need to amend that definition or amend that clause as recommended by Mr Franks. I look forward to an explanation of that from the Minister. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 When I finished speaking earlier in the debate I was halfway through explaining my amendments and the amendments proposed by the Privacy Commissioner to the select committee. The first amendment related to the reporting procedure prior to the gaining of a warrant. 
The other thing that the Privacy Commissioner was worried about was that there was nothing in the bill that made it illegal for ordinary members of the public to track other members of the public virtually wherever they wanted. He proposed an amendment which I have listed here that does make it illegal to do that except in certain circumstances. Essentially the amendment to clause 34 to add a new section 200P states that a person commits an offence who knowingly installs uses or maintains a tracking device to determine the geographical location of a person or an object and in the case of a device to determine the location of a person without the express or implied consent of that person or to determine the location of an object without the express or implied consent of a person in lawful possession or having lawful control of that object. So that would allow for instance for taxi companies to use tracking devices. Every taxi-driver who is employed by a company like Co-op Taxis in Auckland or Wellington Combined Taxis knows that those companies have a global positioning system a tracking device. It is all done with the consent of the drivers. They know when they drive taxis that it is part of their job. So that would allow for legitimate tracking devices with consent. 
But what the Privacy Commissioner wanted to stop was the proliferation of ordinary citizens tracking other people. It can be done with very tiny micro devices these days—and they will get smaller and smaller. A person can attach it to another’s jacket and he or she can track that person for months. One can track which room in a house a person is in and all kinds of things. That invasion of privacy was what the Privacy Commissioner was trying to get at. He said there should be this general provision. He made the effort to word an amendment which I am putting forward here today. I think it is important because this section does involve privacy. 
The other provision I referred to was a police constable who is holding a search warrant for even the most minimal offence being able to force access to a person’s computer and being able to force that person to give over encryption devices and passwords. 
There were quite substantial submissions to the select committee. One was from Alex Conte a lecturer in law I think at Victoria University. 
He was very concerned. He went right through all the common law and how this was an invasion of the person’s privacy and countered their right to avoid self-incrimination. If one is forced to give someone free access to one’s computer one might incriminate oneself. He did believe that there might be an extreme category of people who are terrorists and we might need to get into their computers. He did have an amendment that allowed access to computers in that particular case. He was very worried about it as were many other members of the legal profession. 
I think it is important and people are saying it more and more in the international debate on terrorism not to get carried away and bring in all sorts of laws that seriously intrude on people’s privacy or the other edge of it to try to protect privacy more. Of course this section does not amend the Terrorism Suppression Act. It amends the Crimes Act the Summary Proceedings Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act. But it does have provisions like the two provisions that affect our privacy very much. I think we should respect the good work of the previous Privacy Commissioner Bruce Slane. He was an expert in the field. 
 I think most New Zealanders want society to be free of that sort of tracking device. People are worried that in this modern age there are systems whereby little devices can be put on someone’s person and from some distance away the person and his or her movements can be monitored. I think New Zealanders want tracking devices to be used only in particular cases—for example serious drug crimes and such things that require the police to use an array of investigative weapons. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I shall answer a couple of points made by members and will start with a concern raised by Keith Locke. He said this legislation empowers the police to require assistance from a person where necessary—such as providing the password to access a computer. I put it to Mr Locke that this provision no more infringes upon a person’s rights—for example the right to silence or the right not to self-incriminate—than it does to require a person when the police appear with a search warrant to actually open the door. This provision is not a dangerous breach of rights. It simply applies the law to meet the needs of modern technology 
A recent case about 3 years ago involved the police physically picking up the computer of a lawyer and taking the entire machine etc. out of the office block. It would be much more satisfactory if the police when exercising a search warrant under the law to access a property to look for a particular product can access the material on the computer. It is warranted; it is protected. 
Mr Locke also raised a concern about tracking devices. I am not sure why he is so concerned about this legislation because at the moment it is not unlawful to put a tracking device on a vehicle; not at all. It is unlawful if the police have to enter on to premises or if they have to break or open or interfere with something to do that. That constitutes trespass. If anything this change in law places limits and clear safeguards on the police’s exercise of their authority. So this is hardly a matter of great moment for civil liberties either. In fact it goes some way towards protecting civil liberties in a reasonable way. 
With regard to Mr Franks’ proposed amendment I am sure he is sincere in what he is trying to achieve. I have consulted on his amendment. I have talked to parliamentary counsel and I have talked to the Ministry of Justice. Neither the Police nor theCustoms Service raised any of the concerns that the member has. I am advised that this legislation would not require any special act on the part of the police with regard to surveillance cameras. The cameras are not covert. They are there; they are open. Everybody knows they are there. The police do not have to enter on to premises that do not belong to them. They do not have to break and enter to put them up. I am told there is not a problem; that the definition is deliberately kept reasonably broad to take into account technological changes in the future and that this is modelled on international law—specifically Canadian law. No concern has been expressed by any of the parties that have some expertise in the matter that the implications of the legislation as it is worded and as tracking devices are defined would be problematic for the Police or the Customs Service. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I call Jill Pettis. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I am concerned the Minister has simply relied— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am sorry— 
Jill Pettis 
: Let him go. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I apologise. 
Jill Pettis 
: He’s like a child. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I believe that the comment made by the junior Government whip in relation to a colleague was unparliamentary and she should be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Jill Pettis 
: I never thought that being a mother was objectionable but if it offends the member I withdraw and apologise. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The Hon Phil Goff does the Committee the courtesy of explaining or responding to points raised in this debate and I appreciate that. However I am concerned that he has misled himself or has allowed himself to rely on the officials who are simply saying that because surveillance cameras generally are not covert then there is not a problem with the definition of “tracking device”. 
There is nothing in this legislation that states that this applies only to covert devices. If this tracking device definition stated “covert” then that might have been a relevant point. But it seems to apply to all tracking devices whether covert or overt. Indeed as I said in its terms it probably applies to officers who put a sticker on their suitcase so they can follow it on the baggage carousel. The select committee took the view that only the Police and the Customs Service seem to use tracking devices and the committee urged the Government to look at legislation to cover private use of tracking devices. Officials appear to have justified this weird definition solely on the grounds that it is done in Canada. This is hardly an encouragement to New Zealanders who look at the hoops that Canadians are now being put through by their weird Supreme Court. This is not a comfort to those who believe that people should be empowered to decide what they do with their own property and assets and how they track their own property. 
To be sure it is helpful to stop the police and others from inserting tracking devices that are not wanted. It is quite appropriate that the bill states what it does to govern the use of covert devices by the authorities. But it does not deal with the implication that there now is that if the police for example want to put one of their tracking devices—at the request of the owner of a vehicle or a shop—in that shop or vehicle then the police have to get a warrant. The police should not be under that burden. It is quite clear there is no exception in the legislation. There is nothing that states that the provision applies only where the tracking device is inserted where someone does not know or where someone does not approve. 
It is a shame the Minister is signalling that he is going to vote against an amendment that would have saved him from this difficulty. As I said to the Minister when someone has gone through $50000 worth of cost in trying to get the court to say what the officials say is common sense I hope the Minister will have the grace to feel embarrassed. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Motion agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 164 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 3 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 26 is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 33 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 34 be agreed to: 
to amend new section 200B(2)(a) of the principal Act by inserting before the word “offence” the word “serious”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 34 be agreed to: 
to amend new section 200B(3) of the principal Act by inserting the following new paragraph: 
(e)whether there has been any reliance upon the power contained in section 200G(1) and if so a report on the exercise of power and circumstances in which it came to be exercised. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Stephen Franks to clause 34 be agreed to: 
to amend new section 200G of the principal Act by inserting the following new subsection: 
(4)Nothing in this Part affects or restricts the installation monitoring maintenance or removal of a tracking device with the informed consent of the owner or lawful occupier or user of the premises or thing in or on which the tracking device is installed. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Noes 69 
New Zealand Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 34 be agreed to: 
to insert the following new section 200P in the principal Act: 
200P Offence of using a tracking device without authorisation or consent 
(1)A person commits an offence who knowingly installs uses or maintains a tracking device to determine the geographical location of a person or object: 
(a)in the case of a device to determine the location of a person without the express or implied consent of that person; or 
(b)in the case of a device to determine the location of an object without the express or implied consent of a person in lawful possession or having lawful control of that object. 
(2)Subsection (1) does not apply to the installation use maintenance or removal of a tracking device in accordance with: 
(a)a tracking device warrant issued under section 200C or renewed under section 200F; or 
(b)authority granted by section 200G; or 
(c)a removal warrant issued under section 200H. 
(3)A person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding$10000. 
(4)Where any person is convicted under subsection (1) the court may as part of the sentence order that the tracking device and any associated equipment be forfeited to the Crown. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Noes 108 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 100 
New Zealand Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8. 
Noes 17 
ACT New Zealand 8; Green Party 9. 
Part 3 as amended agreed to. 
Schedules 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I rise to support the schedules. There are two schedules here. One relates to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material which is a UN convention and the other relates to the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection. As has been said before in speeches I have made in the first and second readings and in the Committee stage the Green Party strongly supports New Zealand adhering to these two important conventions. It is important in relation to nuclear materials not only as part of the damage to the nuclear environment but also to the peace and welfare of the world that we do not allow the circulation of nuclear materials as prohibited by these conventions and this is quite relevant to some of the political events of today. 
I was reading in the news media—just last week I think—about Israel’s development of nuclear materials in the form of nuclear bombs. Of course these conventions go more to the raw nuclear materials. But the nuclear materials being used by Israel to make bombs are now being put on submarines so Israel now has nuclear weapons on submarines. Israel has been assisted by the United States according to the informed sources that various newspapers in New Zealand and around the world quoted. The United States Government was complicit in getting those nuclear bombs on Israeli submarines in contradiction of its declared opposition to some other countries having nuclear materials and being able to develop them into nuclear weapons. 
There was a lot of attention paid to Iraq. The United States claimed that Iraq was building a nuclear capacity. The inspectors had told the people well before they went there that there was not a nuclear weapons programme under way in Iraq. It had been finished in the early 1990s through the efforts of the UN inspectors there. 
Other attention is being paid to Iran and North Korea and I think rightly so. We do not want nuclear proliferation and we do not particularly want the presence of nuclear weapons in the Indian subcontinent. That is very dangerous in terms of what might happen in a war between India and Pakistan or in a major military conflict if one side or another resorts to nuclear weapons. It made me very worried when the President of Pakistan said about a year ago when it had a military standoff that the only reason India did not invade in a conventional sense was that Pakistan had nuclear weapons. 
We have a really serious problem here. Anything we can do in terms of reducing the existence of these sorts of nuclear materials and their circulation and their possible development into nuclear bombs the better. The same applies to plastic explosives. New Zealand is playing a lead role in the area of nuclear disarmament. We should look at it as both a problem with nuclear weapons and a health problem in relation to nuclear materials themselves. It has come out over the last day. The Hon Bill English made a statement that everyone read as the National Party moderating its nuclear policy or trying to undermine New Zealand’s policy of stopping the visit of nuclear-powered warships to this country—that he was not recognising that there is a danger in nuclear materials in the form of nuclear propulsion. 
While there are a lot of safety procedures in many of these nuclear power plants and with nuclear generators on warships the fact is that there still is a risk if something happens. A British warship has gone aground in the Tasman Sea recently. Ships can have accidents and if those accidents involve nuclear materials on nuclear waste ships or nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed warships it can be very damaging to the environment. We should definitely avoid that sort of thing. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I was not going to take a call on the schedules but I will do two things. First I will compliment Mr Locke because Mr Locke brings to this Chamber the alternative view that people fought and died to allow to exist. I will compliment Mr Locke because he is absolutely consistent. It does not matter what bill comes before the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee if it is a bill that in any way impacts on human rights or civil liberties Mr Locke is true to form and regardless of what sort of derision might be heaped upon him and his political party he will fight for those things he truly believes in. I give him full credit for that. 
However I am confused when the Green Party votes against Part 2 and then says it supports the schedules. The fact is that the schedules are meaningless without Part 2. Once again we have one of those situations where members of the Green Party stand up and say that they oppose the lifting of the moratorium on genetic engineering yet when presented with a golden opportunity to force the Government’s hand and stop it allowing the moratorium to be lifted they fade into the distance. They give up their vote for the abolition of the right to appeal to the Privy Council and roll over and play dead. 
Here again they had the opportunity to enshrine their beliefs within this legislation to endorse the nuclear material and plastic explosives conventions and what did they do? They voted against Part 2. To now stand up and say that they agree with the schedules and endorse everything they stand for—waxing lyrical about the evils of nuclear-power plants and nuclear-powered vessels and how supportive they are of New Zealand’s nuclear-free policy—means absolutely nothing. Is it any wonder that discerning New Zealanders are thoroughly confused by the positions Green members take? I would have fully understood had they opposed Part 1 and voted for Part 2 or said that they were opposed to the overall thrust of this legislation and voted against the entire bill. But to vote against Part 1 and Part 2—which enshrines the schedules—then say that they support the schedules does not make one ounce of sense. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: How does one implement schedules? 
RON MARK 
: Precisely! How does the Government implement the schedules and give effect to those two conventions if it does not have Part 2? I ask Mr Locke to take another call to clarify that for the record because when we get on the hustings and talk about nuclear policy nuclear-free New Zealand and the evils of nuclear-power plants in Australia Britain or wherever Mr Locke’s comments here will be raised to the fore and held against him. I do not think that is fair. He is clearly a very misunderstood person but the explanations he has given tend to lead us to that conclusion. 
New Zealand First will be consistent. We will vote for the schedules and for the entire bill. We acknowledge and respect Mr Locke’s commitment to civil liberties and the issues he has raised but this latest speech of his has certainly raised a great deal of confusion. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I am hopeful that we can get a bit of clarification about what happens if the status of these conventions is changed and whether a change automatically carries through into the relevant definitions in the Terrorism Suppression Act. The conventions that define terrorism and terrorist acts for the purpose of the bill appear in the Terrorism Suppression Act to come through in their form from time to time. I may have missed something when I was flicking through that Act trying to work out the interrelationship between the Act and this bill. The effect of the Terrorism Suppression Act is that the Prime Minister can simply adopt the definitions from these international instruments and is then able to designate and use them in a way that is outside the reach of this Parliament. I am anxious to hear that the definitions in these conventions—having been put in a schedule and therefore presumably carefully considered by the select committee—cannot be changed by the parties to the instruments without the approval of this House so as to have an effect on the way they are incorporated in Part 2. 
It is a relatively straightforward question and I suspect that there is a very simple answer to it. The definitions are either applied in their form from time to time irrespective of New Zealand’s adherence to any change or they are not. Maybe the answer is that they cannot be changed and that there is a single-party veto on change affecting us. Whichever way it goes I would be glad to hear that having solemnly considered these definitions in a bill schedule a change made by the other parties cannot then bind the New Zealand people and their Parliament. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I want to very briefly reply to Ron Mark but I thought I explained it before. This problem often confronts MPs and I am sure that Mr Mark has confronted it before. It is that a bill has a part that has some very good stuff in it and some very bad stuff in it and members can have an argument voting for or against. In this case I thought that the powers of customs to seize materials from people who were not yet designated terrorists was a bad part of Part 2 so on behalf of the Green Party I voted against that. However all along we said that we supported the good parts. That is one of the positive things about the passage of this bill—it has some good material in it even if there is a lot of bad material and we support the good material that has come through the process. It is very simple. 
Schedules agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Crimes Amendment Bill the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 2) the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill and the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 163 divided into the <Bill Titles> 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Third Readings 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crimes Amendment Bill the Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill (No 2) the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill and the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. These are important bills. They reflect New Zealand’s need domestically and internationally to be able to respond effectively to the investigation detection and prosecution of terrorist activity. These bills were preceded by the Terrorism Suppression Act which implemented resolution 1373 and also two international conventions relating to terrorist bombing and financing. 
The bills contain a number of terrorist-related offences such as participating in or recruiting members of terrorist groups. They also contain procedures for the designation of terrorist entities and the freezing of their assets. The bills implement two further international conventions relating to nuclear material and unmarked plastic explosives which are the final two of the 12 terrorism-related international instruments with which New Zealand is required to comply. The other measures in the bills are recommendations arising from a whole-of-Government review of possible gaps in New Zealand law that could be exploited by terrorists which have become a serious international problem following the attack on the World Trade Center and of course more recently in Bali. 
In a couple of respects these bills ensure that New Zealand has in place a comprehensive package of anti-terrorism measures. We are now fully compliant with UN requirements in this area in the event that it becomes necessary domestically to deal with planned or executed terrorist offending. The bills include a number of offence and penalty provisions and investigative powers. In addition the Government is progressing other initiatives that have a bearing on this issue—for example in relation to border control. 
The bills contain the following new offences to deal with the kind of offending likely to be committed by terrorists: improperly dealing with nuclear material radioactive material or unmarked plastic explosives; harbouring or concealing a person who has carried out or intends to carry out terrorist activity; causing sickness or disease in animals; intending to endanger the health or safety of an animal population and causing major economic damage; contaminating products such as food water or crops intended for human consumption; intending to harm one or more persons or cause major economic damage; threatening to do an act that is likely to cause major risk to persons property or the economy and intending to significantly disrupt the civilian population or infrastructure or the administration of Government or commercial interests. 
The bills make terrorism an aggravating factor for the sentencing of criminal acts generally. When murder occurs as a result of terrorist activity there will be a presumption in favour of 17 years’ minimum non-parole and that will be only the starting point. A judge will be able to impose a longer term than 17 years if he or she feels it is justified. 
The bills provide for the following investigative powers to ensure that law enforcement agencies can effectively investigate offences that may be committed by terrorists as well as other serious criminal offending. Firstly the use of tracking devices by police and customs officers. There are safeguards around the exercise of this power such as warrant requirement and obligations to report on the extent to which such devices are used. Secondly a requirement on persons to assist computer access in the course of a warranted police search by providing reasonable and necessary access information such as the computer password. Thirdly evidence of serious criminal offending including terrorism lawfully obtained by interception warrant will be admissible even if the warrant was issued in relation to a different offence—provided that the offence of which evidence is obtained is one for which a warrant could have been issued. 
These investigative powers are not limited to terrorist offending and there are two very good reasons for this. The first is an issue of principle. Terrorist offences are not a separate class of criminal offences. They are the same acts—murder bombing property damage and unlawful possession of restricted weapons for example but committed with a political ideological or religious motive. In the criminal law motive—the reason why the offence is committed—is only relevant to sentence. There is therefore no justification for particular powers to investigate terrorism that are not equally applicable to other serious criminal offending. The second reason is purely practical. It will not always be possible to identify before an investigation commences or even during it whether particular criminal activity has a terrorist motive. Drug smuggling for example may occur to finance a terrorist act but this is unlikely to be initially apparent. 
The Terrorism Suppression Act provides for the property of designated terrorist entities to be frozen. This bill includes two related measures. It gives customs the power to intercept and detain property crossing the New Zealand border where there is good cause to suspect that the property is owned or controlled by a designated terrorist entity or an entity that is eligible for designation. This is to prevent for example cash being carried over the border that would be frozen if it were in a bank account. Secondly the bill provides that the details of already designated terrorist entities can be updated in accordance with new information provided to New Zealand by the United Nations. This is essential for anyone including financial institutions who is attempting to reliably identify whether an entity with whom they are dealing has been designated. 
Many of the submissions on this bill emphasised the importance of allowing innocent persons to go about their lawful business. Unfortunately it is a reality in these times that terrorism is one of the greatest threats to that right. Quite rigorous measures that have as their goal the suppression of terrorism may therefore be justified and this is internationally recognised. However this Government has been careful in the development of this legislation to take into account concerns on the other side of the equation—specifically the need in attempting effectively to address terrorism not to institute measures that themselves would have an unduly restrictive effect on the activities of innocent persons. 
In conclusion this bill ensures that New Zealand has done what is necessary to implement the final two of the 12 terrorism-related international instruments with which we are required to comply and is therefore fully internationally compliant. The legislation contains offence and penalty provisions to ensure that should a terrorist act occur in this country we will effectively be in a position to prosecute those responsible. It creates new investigative powers with a view to ensuring that acts of that kind can be detected and prevented before they have a chance to occur. I consider that this bill strikes an appropriate balance between robust and responsible measures to deal with terrorism and protecting civil rights. I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 National supports the legislation soon to be Acts and we recognise that it does represent New Zealand adopting a whole network of conventions. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade noted earlier there are 12 of them. I appreciate that some people do have concerns about networks of conventions but I want to put on record that as a nation we do make common cause with the international community in this. In many respects the United Nations still represents the only effective mechanism whereby the community of nations can come together to represent its abhorrence against international terrorism and do it by conventions drafted by the most learned international lawyers and specialists in the world. It is right that New Zealand does adopt those conventions. 
I also want to put on record that I found it truly extraordinary that earlier this evening the Green Party could vote for the two conventions in the schedule but not do anything that would enable them to become part of the domestic law of New Zealand. If Mr Locke had understood our constitutional framework he would appreciate that one has to vote for the domestic legislation represented by Part 2 in order for the international conventions to have any effect whatsoever. 
I also want to refer to the fact that very recently the leaders of the Asia-Pacific nations at the APEC conference recognised the linkage between defeating terrorism and economic prosperity. The reality is that liberty and prosperity cannot thrive in a climate of fear. The objective of the terrorist is to have ordinary citizens communities and nations under the yoke of fear. It is a terrorist’s desire that doing so would create a climate of fear and repression. That does impose a challenge to democratic countries to find that balance between protecting our freedoms through defeating terrorism—and I stress that we have to defeat terrorism to protect our freedoms—but at the same time not legislating away those very freedoms that are the reason we are trying to defeat terrorism. I believe that the legislation does not do that and that the fears raised by the opponents of the legislation are fundamentally misplaced. They read into the motivations of our community the police the courts and this Parliament that they are agents of repression out to deny the liberty of subjects rather than serving the interests of our community and I have to say that is such a flawed approach. 
 National does believe that issues of this nature should be done on a bipartisan basis. It is important that Parliament as a whole expresses our defence of our basic freedoms. Those are things that should unite the parties across the House—the fundamentals of our society—and on those kinds of issues there should be an overwhelming position of support. On some provisions at least one would think that there would be unanimous consent. Even if there are some questions people should be able to put those aside and recognise the bigger goal. 
I also say that defeating terrorism requires that we work with friends and allies. I acknowledge that the Government has done much of that but I also say that there are caveats. This is a Government that still believes—and has said so through the Prime Minister—that there is a benign strategic environment. That is false. The strategic environment is not benign. It does not matter if Government members say: “Oh we mean it at a State level.” I ask Government members what they think was happening in the Solomons. Was that just a few people off to one side or was the very integrity of the State of the Solomons at risk? Surely they would recognise that it was. Similarly in relation to Afghanistan the very integrity of the State was at risk. The issue of a benign strategic environment is not just about a few extreme elements; it is about the fabric of unstable States threatening other nations. 
It is necessary that we look at the tools we have to defeat terrorism. I refer to our Defence Force which is not properly equipped. It is all very well for the Government to say: “What about when National was in office during those 9 years? You didn’t do enough.” The first thing members should recollect is that the beginning of the National Government represented the end of the cold war. Every single Western nation—in fact probably every nation—reduced defence expenditure during that period. Most nations then learnt the lesson that they had gone too far so by 1997-98 there was a build back. We are different; we have not done that. Our defence expenditure is now only 1 percent of gross domestic product and going down. 
Members on the Government side of the House may say that we are still doing enough but let me put these facts to them. Earlier this year the Government deployed the two Anzac frigates to the Gulf of Oman. We all saw the photographs on television of the two frigates side by side in the Gulf of Oman. That meant that there were no frigates at all in New Zealand. The point of that is that the deployment was about defeating terrorism and we denuded New Zealand. Surely a sensible Government would have taken some lessons from that and realised that it had gone too far; that our defence assessments of 1999-2000 were done in a different environment and we have to spend more. The Army is a similar case. Is a two-battalion Army which was perhaps realistic in the 1990s realistic today given the pressure on our defence forces? 
We do say on our side of the House that passing the legislation is a good thing—we need it—but we also have to take the practical steps to build our defence forces so that we can work effectively in cooperation with long-standing friends and allies—Australia the United States and Britain—and so that we can make the proper contribution. Far too many people are saying that we do not. 
I close on one point. Why has the Government not designated Hizbollah as a terrorist organisation when Australia has done so? Why have our two countries on something as fundamental as who is a terrorist taken different paths? So I want to say yes the legislation is good but we do have serious caveats and things of that nature. The designations and the state of our defence forces say there is a good deal more that has to be done if the Government is serious about defeating terrorism in concert with friends and allies. We look forward to when there can be a bipartisan approach on those things as well. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill and I am delighted to commend it to the House. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 That speech is what rates some MPs by the  
Sunday Star-Times’  
account— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Come to the bill. 
RON MARK 
: Well that speech was about the bill. This bill is the Counter-Terrorism Bill and I note with absolute amazement that the previous speaker had only about six words to say about it. New Zealand First has worked with Government members on this bill and I say it is worth considerably more than the six or seven words that the member had to say about it but I guess that is what will get him voted back in again next time round. I have to say a couple of things. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What’s that member’s electorate majority? 
RON MARK 
: Since the member asked—watch this space. That sort of arrogance from Alf Garnett over there will bring about the demise of the Labour Party. That member can take full credit for the diminishing vote that is occurring to his party right now and the vote that is swinging across our way. While that member sits there throwing comments like that across the House he is displaying his absolute upper-class arrogance which he is becoming renowned for. He is so out of touch with traditional Labour people. We will reap the benefits and I say to that member in response to his question watch this— 
David Benson-Pope 
: Winston and his national socialist party. 
RON MARK 
: The member himself is a representative of the people’s democratic socialist republic that they are ramming down the throats of ordinary New Zealanders. That member is displaying precisely the sort of arrogance that we love to see because it is helping us close the gap every day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Will the member come back to the bill. 
RON MARK 
: He challenged me across the floor. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I know but that is no reason to— 
RON MARK 
: OK but he deserves a good slap. This bill is good legislation. We have supported it all the way through. It is quite lengthy. It is over 2 years since 9/11 and the attack on the twin towers. It is just over 1 year since the bombing in Bali so I have to say to those members who said that this bill has been rushed and is being passed in haste I do not think so. There are many who would say that given the spate of bombings that we have witnessed in the last 6 months around the world in actual fact the bill has been a little slow in coming—but it is here. It adds to the Terrorism Suppression Act which dealt with financing and bombing. It deals with such things as threats to persons threats to the economy and the harbouring of terrorists. It increases powers of investigation powers of search and powers of seizure. It bestows upon authorities greater privileges and rights in terms of tracking and monitoring. 
However there is one thing that I have to say. This entire piece of work will be meaningless and this Government will be judged over the next period—however long it remains in power probably 2 years maybe 1½ years—on the effectiveness of this legislation at the front end at the sharp end if enough resources are not made available. We have seen a lot of legislation go through this House—legislation that we in New Zealand First have supported such as this which we felt was good legislation—but which has been rendered toothless and meaningless by the Government’s inability to place in the hands of the people responsible for giving effect to this legislation the adequate resources to do so. We sit here and wax lyrical about drug dealers drug traffickers and how they finance terrorism. 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)