Volume 611 Week 36 - Wednesday 10 September 2003 
Volume 611 Week 36 - Wednesday 10 September 2003 
[Volume:611;Page:8519] 
Wednesday 10 September 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Privileges of the House and Speaker’s Actions 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise this point of order at the first available opportunity and I make it particularly under Standing Order 22 which relates to the privileges of the House. I was extremely disturbed to see on television last night pictures of police officers in this building interviewing members of Parliament. I was even more disturbed to discover that we are now having a member of Parliament being prosecuted and I say to you that you should reflect on this matter. It is your job to stand up for the privileges of this House. I have no doubt at all that this prosecution has come about solely because of statements that you have made and that the Prime Minister has made and other Ministers inviting a member of Parliament to be prosecuted for a matter that has occurred within the precincts of this House. 
We have our own disciplinary procedures. We have the absurd situation of a member of this House admitting to art fraud a member of this House engaged in insider trading with nothing happening about those and now just a back-bench MP standing up for his own constituents on a matter that rural New Zealand feels very strongly about. I say to you that I believe it is your press statements that did that. You should consider that it is your position to stand up for the rights of MPs and not to invite police into this building to charge a member of this House. It creates an impression that we are becoming a police State. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to say that I did not invite any member of the police force to do anything. I made it perfectly clear that I was not going to interfere in this way at all and that maintains my position on that subject. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to reinforce the concern that my colleague Richard Prebble has drawn to your attention. One of the difficulties here has been a failure on your part to explain your actions in respect of members of Parliament who find themselves in one way or another at odds with the law. You were offered an opportunity when Harry Duynhoven was in that situation to explain your actions to the Parliament. You failed to do so. Mr Prebble has offered you that same opportunity in respect of the Standing Order that he believes may not have been complied with. I want to reinforce the point and take it further by requesting you to explain in both those cases the reasons for the actions you took or for your lack of action. In the case of Harry Duynhoven the concern of Parliament was the lack of action; in the case of Shane Ardern as my colleague Roger Sowry pointed out yesterday it was what we might call “most unbridled enthusiasm” on your part to take action and make public statements. We believe that Parliament is owed an explanation. It is critical to the credibility of the Speaker’s office that Parliament knows why you have acted as you have so that it can make a judgment on the credibility of those actions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If members wish to raise a matter of privilege there is a proper way to do it—and they know that. Prosecutions are a matter for the police not the Speaker. I did give a detailed ruling on the Duynhoven case. 
Questions to Ministers 
Foreshore and Seabed—Development of Government Proposal 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statement that she had heard that “traditionally Maori did not consider they owned those areas but they were most certainly kaitiaki. Now there may be the genesis of the answer in that.”; if so what specific work is the Government doing on changes to its original proposals on the seabed and foreshore? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. The concept is encompassed in the Government proposal. 
Hon Bill English 
: Noting comments from yesterday’s hui by one participant that he detected “a considerable shift in the Government’s position” and that the Government “had options up their sleeve which we have persuaded them of” could she explain to the House what shift the Government has indicated at the hui and what new options are being considered? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Perhaps as Dr Cullen was reported as saying yesterday also people are now getting into the detail of the proposal. 
David Benson-Pope 
: What recognition is there already of the kaitiaki role of Maori? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There is considerable recognition in the law—for example the Resource Management Act 1992 passed under the National Government requires that decision makers under that Act must have regard to kaitiakitanga which is defined as the ethic of guardianship by tangata whenua of an area in accordance with tikanga Maori and as including the ethic of stewardship. All territorial authorities have been working with this concept for a decade. There are also references to kaitiaki in the Fisheries Act 1996 the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act all passed under a National Government 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How does the Prime Minister reconcile Dr Cullen’s publicly reported assurances to Maori in the Marlborough hui yesterday that the Maori Land Court would be left to define “customary rights” and not the Crown by statute and her own assurances she has given privately—for example to a law firm—that customary rights would be limited by statute; or is the Government saying one thing to Maori at the hui and another thing to the public and that is why the Government does not want television to report it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is clear in the Government proposal that the Maori Land Court could not as the end point of its work on a claim go to fee simple title. I know that ACT is far more interested in property rights than customary rights. Our opinion is that Maori generally are very interested in the customary rights element of the proposal. 
Bill Gudgeon 
: If the Government is discussing a co-partnership with Maori on the foreshore issue what are the Government’s intentions concerning the co-partnership? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: In the detail of the Government proposal there is reference to systems for acknowledging those who have mana over or ancestral rights of association with an area. There is then further reference to what rights could ensue from the acknowledgment of mana over or ancestral rights of association with an area. As I pointed out in answer to an earlier question the concept of kaitiakitanga and the ethic of stewardship are now well embedded in the law. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the Prime Minister consider taking the kaitiaki or guardianship concept as a starting point that it might yet prove possible to give ownership to all the people of New Zealand over the foreshore and seabed as guardians of these assets for present and future generations? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That is inherent in the concept of public domain. The principles the Crown set out include also the principles of regulation but in upholding Maori customary rights undoubtedly the concept of kaitiakitanga will be important. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is she dancing around the pinhead with all sorts of new expressions and concepts many of which do not belong in this country—[ 
Interruption 
]—like the republican idea of a public domain? Why is she doing that when she actually said on the day after the Court of Appeal decision that she would clarify the law to ensure that the ownership of the foreshore and seabed lay with the Crown? Why is she backing down on that statement? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I said that day was that there would need to be clarifying legislation. I am looking forward to the member making it very plain to Maori audiences that he believes there should be legislation for Crown ownership. That is not the message he wants to get around to Maori. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister explain just what the Government means when its spokesperson Margaret Wilson says that the Government is now interested in taking a stronger co-management perspective; can she reassure the House that she is not headed down the path of a partnership arrangement for owning and regulating the seabed and foreshore? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I recognise that concepts of partnership are completely alien to the National Party. What I will say is that the notion of kaitiakitanga is a very deep one to Maori and that that party when in Government legislated for example in the fisheries legislation for there to be management devolved to iwi over fisheries areas. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Prime Minister now seeking to back down from her very words on the day she and Margaret Wilson put out a joint press statement that they would clarify the ownership of the foreshore and seabed as being with the Crown which is precisely what she said; and with regard to her invitation to me is she not aware that we made a statement on day one as well and that unlike her we are not backing down from it? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The statement I made was that there would need to be clarifying legislation—and there will be. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: My supplementary question to the Prime Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is the only warning today. Mr Prebble alone has the floor. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder why it is that when a person on this side of the House interjects during a question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was actually a person over there. 
John Carter 
: You were looking at this side of the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry if I was. It was a person on the Government benches and I gave that person—and everyone—one warning. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Would the Prime Minister clarify the answers she gave to my supplementary question when she enunciated the novel legal principle that customary rights are not a property right; if that is her view why does she not front up at one of the Government’s 11 huis to see how she gets on? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: That of course twists what I said. What I said was that ACT was very interested in property rights and could not give a damn about customary rights. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has done it again. I am quite happy to go myself with her to a hui and have her explain how customary rights are not property rights. I would love to be there. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows that is not a point of order. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by her statement that: “I am the most modest Prime Minister I know in my opinion.” and does that modesty extend to admitting that she has backed down on the statements made a couple of days after the Court of Appeal decision first came out when she confirmed what most people thought—that the Crown owned the beaches and the seabed? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government has put out a clear proposal. It is in listening mode and unlike the member I have a lot to be modest about. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the remarks comments and reportage from the Prime Minister on day one before she did her somersault. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those statements. Is there any objection? There is. 
Education—Best Evidence Synthesis 
2.  
Dr ASHRAF  
CHOUDHARY 
 (NZ Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What feedback has he received from the education sector on the publication of the Best Evidence Synthesis research? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The feedback I have received to date has been very positive. The best-evidence research draws together educational research and evaluation evidence about how to improve learning. It draws on evidence not on theory or ideology. I have spoken to a number of people within the sector since the material was released and I am very pleased to hear that the research has been generating very positive discussions in staffrooms around the country. It will be of great assistance to teachers in improving classroom practice and to the Government in setting professional development and other priorities. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: What are some of the findings of this research? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The research has found that within the education system the quality of teaching practice by teachers is the largest influence on the achievement of children in schooling—greater than school-level influences and other factors such as classroom programme curriculum resources or socio-economic environment. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: To what extent are the best-evidence syntheses informing the work on benchmarking of qualifications being carried out in the compulsory sector so that what teachers are paid can be related to skills and knowledge most closely associated with positive learning outcomes? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The quality of teaching practice and how it relates to the salary system is something that is certainly part of those discussions and the Ministry of Education is drawing on this for that purpose. It is fair to say that there is not always unanimity on the point. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Can the Minister confirm that Best Evidence Synthesis research applies scientific strategies that limit bias to their assembly critical appraisal and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic yet seeks to exclude so-called poor-quality studies via explicit validity checks; and can he tell the House what explicit validity checks were employed in the case of the studies he has just mentioned because I am sure we are all dying to know? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: As far as is possible looking carefully at the research to ensure the research is based on evidence is the validity check that is important. A number of researchers have relied very heavily on theory or ideology in their research. What this does is work out what actually works not the sometimes questionable material that sits behind it. 
Immigrants—Deportation Appeal 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What does she intend to do about Hassan Ahmed Shaqlane who has won an appeal against deportation from New Zealand whilst serving an 8-year prison term for rape and kidnapping? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I signed a deportation order for Mr Shaqlane on 30 May 2002 because I was satisfied that he ought to be deported from this country. Mr Shaqlane won his appeal to the Deportation Review Tribunal which is an independent tribunal. I am awaiting Crown Law advice as to whether this is a case that can be appealed. I note that such an appeal can only be on a point of law. I am advised I will have Crown Law advice by the end of next week. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Having regard to the fact that there was an Immigration Bill before this House just last week and there have been countless examples like this and she was aware of it at the time she signed the deportation order why had she not changed the law to get rid of this flotsam and jetsam that is threatening the safety of New Zealand citizens? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I think the member is confused with another loophole in the law that was closed in the Parliament last week. It is not this loophole that was mentioned on the front page of the  
New Zealand Herald  
this morning. This is an individual who exercised his independent right to appeal to the Deportation Review Tribunal. I will not do what the former Minister of Immigration did and comment on the nature of the decision of the Deportation Review Tribunal which led the  
New Zealand Herald  
to comment in an editorial: “The Government’s apparent dismissal of the Deportation Review Tribunal looks like another heavy-handed cloven-hoofed political blunder to rank with the Tourism Board. It’s not it’s worse. The tribunal is not simply an instrument of public policy like the Tourism Board; the tribunal holds judicial power over the fate of individuals.” 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What steps has the Government taken to address the concerns of victims of crime in deportation matters? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As a result of this very instance happening once before while I was the Minister of Immigration I raised with the Minister of Justice the need to amend the victims of offences legislation so that victims of crime could have their concerns raised directly with the Minister before any deportation order was signed and so that they could make representations to the Deportation Review Tribunal. In 2002 this Government introduced the right of victims of crimes to be heard by the Deportation Review Tribunal which is something that that side of the House never addressed. 
Marc Alexander 
: What is the cost to the taxpayer of an 8-year prison sentence for Hassan Ahmed Shaqlane and in light of the fact that that offending vermin has already cost the taxpayer two court trials would not a one-way ticket to Mogadishu be a cheaper option? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: As Minister of Immigration I am not responsible nor am I able to answer the question in respect of how much it costs to keep him detained for a criminal offence. However I repeat to this House that it was this Government that gave the victims of crime the chance to be heard. This particular case was heard 6 days before the new law came into effect. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could the Minister tell us why she is pleading incapacity when she is the very Minister who had us sitting here overnight and early in the morning under urgency to overturn a High Court decision and sending out 20000 people who were not criminals while she can defend this criminal? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am not defending this criminal. I signed a deportation order. That individual has the right to appeal to the Deportation Review Tribunal. We are making a decision now as to whether we appeal that decision. What is more is that it existed when that member was the Deputy Prime Minister—exactly the same rules applied at that time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister making up a hopelessly incompetent and weak defence when she had laws passed here under urgency that caused 20000 non-criminals to have their applications totally overturned that day against a High Court ruling that she sought to appeal; and how can she say that in this case she is acting in a way that is consistent with her behaviour in July of this year—or is she just plain hopelessly incompetent? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The legislation allows individuals to appeal a deportation order signed by me and that appeal right existed when that member was the Deputy Prime Minister. When I was in a situation once before where somebody who had been convicted of very serious charges had had a deportation order overturned by the Deportation Review Tribunal I went to the Minister of Justice and sought a change to the law so that the victims of crime could have a say. I am not going to comment on the nature of the decision of the Deportation Review Tribunal. To quote from the  
New Zealand Herald  
in 1999 “It would be disturbing if the Government has declined to reappoint tribunal members because the Minister of Immigration did not like its decisions.” That is what happens when a Minister of Immigration speaks out against judicial decisions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There were too many interjections during that answer. I want the Minister to have the opportunity to answer. Some interjections are permissible. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why is the Minister making this country a soft option for every rapist kidnapper and murderer—which are the cases she has had before her—and why has she not taken action on them and is she going to deport the African who has knowingly infected New Zealand women with AIDS—yes or no? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I have taken action in the particular case that the question was about—I signed the deportation order. That member has no right to raise in this House the ability to remove an appeal right when that member did nothing for 2 years when he was the Deputy Prime Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I point out that if I did not have a right to raise it I am certain that you as the most experienced parliamentarian here by a long way—and having regard to your knowledge of the Standing Orders—or the Clerk would have raised it with me. But let us please not have this trade union lawyer describing what my rights are. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has a perfect right to raise the point he raised and the Minister has a perfect to give the answer she gave. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Our colleague Mr Peters raised a specific issue of a case involving a man who knowingly infected New Zealand women with HIV and Ms Dalziel did not answer that question. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I make the point that the matter is sub judice. The individual has been charged; he has not been found guilty. 
Economy—Duality of Results 
4.  
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is he concerned with the apparent duality of our economy whereby one side of the ledger registers good health—robust growth lowering of unemployment and inflation—yet the other side exhibits clear signs of ill health with a widening trade deficit and a marked decline in foreign direct investment; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Can the Minister explain the point of New Zealand having “one of the world’s most open regimes for foreign direct investment” when as Professor Peter Enderwick of the Waikato Management School points out New Zealand’s economic environment is beset by factors that have actively discouraged foreign direct investment such as Government intervention in key industries uncertainty over property rights and infrastructure constraints like roading and electricity? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: If New Zealand did not have reasonably strong inflows then I doubt that the New Zealand dollar would be up at the levels it is and the exporting sector would be doing rather better. We would not have a two-speed economy. 
David Parker 
: What factors are driving the deterioration in the current account? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The primary circumstances are weak world demand and a relatively weak US dollar that has led to the New Zealand dollar going up against it. That of course leads to an increase in imports and a reduction in exports. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is it not true that at a time when the export sector is under considerable pressure from the appreciation of the New Zealand dollar the Government should be doing everything possible to ease pressures on export industries and not burden them with increased compliance costs proposals to extend minimum holiday entitlements more complicated occupational safety and health requirements and taxes on methane emissions? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I note that while the Government is concerned about the present position it is nothing like as bad as the situation that occurred in 1994-95 when the New Zealand dollar was allowed to rise to US70c. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister concerned about another kind of duality in the economy whereby on the one hand we have an apparent lowering of unemployment while on the other hand thousands of jobs are being lost at present in sectors like forestry clothing information technology and so on; and if he is concerned what is his Government doing about it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In any modern economy there are sectors that flourish a bit better than other sectors. The fact is that any job losses recently have been largely concentrated on a few relatively small sectors notably certain parts of the timber processing area that services the United States market—where there has been some very serious downturns. Generally speaking the labour market remains extremely buoyant. Indeed that is one of the reasons we have a large current account deficit. 
Gordon Copeland 
: What assurance can the Minister give that the Government is addressing the drop of more than US$1.5 billion in foreign direct investment in New Zealand over 2001 as reported by the UN-sponsored World Investment Report 2003? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government’s growth and innovation framework and the associated sectoral strategies are very much designed to encourage large-scale investment within New Zealand but I do not think that that has been the major driving factor in terms of the present current account situation. As we have just recently seen in the galleries there is a good deal of imported goods within this economy. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Does the Minister recall criticising the Reserve Bank’s implementation of monetary policy in the mid-1990s when there was a similarly difficult tension between a very buoyant domestic economy and a high exchange rate putting great pressure on the export sector and is he finally willing to concede that situations of this kind are rarely caused by monetary policy and were not in the mid-1990s? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No not entirely. Even though two-speed economies recur from time to time the skill of the driver can still be quite crucial. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Noting those answers is the Minister serious about addressing the significant trade deficit and fall-off in foreign direct investment—when he failed to mention or to confront those issues or problems during his recent speech in Singapore? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have had very strong feedback on the speech in Singapore from some rather unlikely sources and modesty forbids me from naming them. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Proposal for Consultation 
5.  
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What assurance can she give that her Ministers attending hui on the foreshore and seabed are upholding the four principles in the Government’s 18 August 2003 “proposals for consultation” paper? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 A firm one. 
Stephen Franks 
: How does the Prime Minister reconcile Dr Cullen’s assurance to Marlborough Maori yesterday that the Maori Land Court would be left to define customary rights with her private assurance to a select group that those rights would be delimited by statute and has television been barred from hui in case it reports discussion that would show that the so-called principle of certainty will mean nothing when activist judges are left to make up the law as they go? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The member will be well aware that the Government’s proposal prevents the Maori Land Court from issuing fee simple title over these areas. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm statements she made on  
Mana News 
 at quarter to 7 in the morning to make sure that most New Zealanders did not hear them when she said that she expected there would be a much stronger role for Maori in these processes? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is about that question. We have generally had a practice of allowing reasonably broad and liberal interpretations of the Standing Orders particularly around the use of epithets imputations etc. It is difficult to appear on  
Mana News 
 at any other time than at quarter to 7 in the morning because that is when the programme is broadcast. To imply some kind of conspiratorial theory around that is not appropriate within the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As far as I am concerned that comment was not necessary to make the sense of the question right. I would like the question asked without that comment in it. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a matter of fact that most New Zealanders do not hear  
Mana News 
. Are you now ruling that we are not allowed to state a matter of fact just because the Prime Minister does not like it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not doing that at all. The question can be asked without reference to that particular point which is a matter of opinion. I do not know how many people listen to that programme. I do but then I perhaps get up earlier than most. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a pretty serious matter if you are now allowing the Government to start editing out the Opposition’s questions. The reference is absolutely part of the question. The Prime Minister is prepared to make statements on  
Mana News 
 at a time that has been scheduled so that most New Zealanders will not in fact hear it including Maori. I am a former Minister of Broadcasting and there were often complaints about the bad timing given to the programme. That I think is a crucial part of the question of whether the Prime Minister will now answer the question while the rest of New Zealand is listening. In fact it would be great to see whether she is prepared to front up at a hui. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: That is not the point. The point is that in the question there was a direct imputation that the Prime Minister was deliberately appearing at that time in order to avoid most people hearing—[ 
Interruption 
] Members by interjecting even though improperly under the Standing Orders are confirming precisely the point I am making. That imputation is not necessary to the question.  
Mana News 
 is on only at quarter to 7 in the morning. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me say that statements of fact can be included in questions only if they are strictly necessary to render the question intelligible. Could the member restate the question and I will allow him to do so. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the ruling you have just made can we assume that you will apply the same ruling in response to the Government’s answers to questions in which there are often suggestions imputations and all sorts of things. If that is the standard then that is fine from the questioner’s point of view but I assume that the same standard will apply also in respect of Standing Order 372 under which the replies are not meant to have any such statements but often do. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I wanted to rule out everything that was said along those lines hardly anything would be said at question time. As far as I am concerned I am prepared to allow a little bit of give and take as all members know. I have been here long enough to allow that to occur. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to re-ask the question. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Prime Minister willing to go on the 6 o’clock news on both television channels to make the same kinds of statements that she made on  
Mana New 
—a 
programme not heard by the majority of New Zealanders—outlining the Government’s back-down on positions of kaitiaki co-management and a much greater role for Maori in resource processes? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I am very happy to go on television news to talk about the 1998 customary fisheries regulations in which a National Government gave to Maori the right to make general fisheries regulations. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like the Prime Minister now to address the particular question which asked whether she was prepared to go on television to discuss the same sorts of issues that she discussed on  
Mana News 
. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: People will get the same answers to the same questions. I might say that  
Mana News 
 will be delighted at the advertising it has had today even if the Leader of the Opposition never gets up early enough to hear it. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How come you can rule out the part of the question that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I did not. I allowed the question to be restated and the— 
John Carter 
: You ruled out the comment Mr English made about the Prime Minister yet you do not rule out the comment the Prime Minister made about the Leader of the Opposition. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member cannot get away with that. As far as I am concerned I want there to be a reasonable flow. I allowed the member to ask a question. He asked it in a perfectly responsible and reasonable way and in fact got his point across just as well. That is why I allowed it. As far as the Prime Minister’s answer is concerned her last sentence was not in order and will be disregarded. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you have ruled fairly on that. I just wonder why it required the intervention of my senior whip to get you to make that ruling. The statement was quite audible to you when it was made. You sat and took no action until the point of order was raised. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the point of order was raised the minute the Prime Minister made the comment and the member knows that. 
Metiria Turei 
: Will the Government apply its principles of open access regulation for future generations and protection of customary interests consistently to foreshore and seabed and prevent the sale of the Westhaven Marina into private ownership or do those principles apply only to Maori-owned land? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I do not have the details of the Westhaven Marina here with me. 
Stephen Franks 
: Will the Government define in statute the limits to customary rights over seabed and foreshore to distinguish between valid and invalid claims; if not how can New Zealanders be sure that judges will not invent or revive Maori customary interests that neither Parliament nor the common law would recognise to make customary rights an exclusive race privilege? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I have stated several times there is a clear limit being placed in the proposal that prevents the Maori Land Court from issuing a fee simple title. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does she agree or disagree with the following statement reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 today: “Signs of a thaw in the stand-off between the Government and iwi leading the foreshore and seabed issue emerged yesterday after a hui on the tribes’ home turf.”; are there or are there not signs of a thaw in the stand-off? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The Government has now been listening at three hui. It appears we are beginning to be heard on the details of the proposal. 
Housing New Zealand—Community Renewal Projects 
6.  
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What community renewal projects are being undertaken to refurbish Housing New Zealand Corporation properties? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Work has begun on the $27 million Talbot Park community renewal project in Glen Innes Auckland. The project involves the modernisation of over 100 State house apartments and improvements to parks roading lighting and streetscapes. It also proposes that 59 existing Housing New Zealand properties will be demolished to make way for 97 new homes. We look forward to working with local authorities and to their playing their part to enable this and other neighbourhood renewal projects to occur. 
Georgina Beyer 
: Can one assume that other State housing modernisation and maintenance projects are being undertaken? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Alongside the six community renewal projects in Fordlands Aranui Clendon eastern Porirua Talbot Park and Northcote this financial year Housing New Zealand intends to complete energy efficiency retrofits on 2500 State houses modernise 600 State homes and undertake $124 million worth of maintenance. That is a huge improvement in investment in the quality of State housing every dollar being necessary because of the neglect under the National Government. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: In light of the fact that Housing New Zealand is now increasingly renting well-maintained houses from private landlords as part of its total rental stock why does the Government not start selling some of the stock that is rented to long-term tenants so they can have a real chance of homeownership? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I distinctly heard an interjection in the background. If I could identify that member he would be going. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: The Government does of course support homeownership and it has just introduced a trial mortgage insurance scheme. But no we are not going to sell houses. The National Government sold 13000 of them and that is why we have a problem now. 
Deborah Coddington 
: As well as the refurbishment the Minister is boasting about will he confirm that from 1999 to 2002 taxpayers spent $30.5 million repairing damage done by tenants to Housing New Zealand properties but recovered only $10 million of it from tenants and that taxpayers are subsidising this destructive behaviour to the tune of $20 million; if so what is he going to do about that? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: I do not have the figures with me obviously but I am willing to get them for the member. I am even willing to get them for the member who is the National Party spokesperson on housing although I am not sure who that is. Of course the Government takes a very strong approach to people who want to damage property. We want to make sure that Housing New Zealand houses are well looked after. I think the reason that they were not during the National Government’s term is that the Government then was just a landlord and people did not respect the houses they were in because it did not respect its tenants. 
Deborah Coddington 
: I seek leave to table answers to my written questions to Mr Maharey stating that damage done by tenants from 1999 to 2002 cost $30 million. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those. Is there any objection? There is. 
Foreshore and Seabed—Media Ban from Consultation Hui 
7.  
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: What role if any has Te Puni Kokiri had in banning media from recording seabed and foreshore consultation hui? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Te Puni Kokiri has had no role in banning the media from recording seabed and foreshore consultation hui. It has been up to the local whanau hapu and iwi to determine the role of the media in each of the consultation hui. Te Puni Kokiri’s role has been as the facilitator between the local whanau hapu iwi and the media. 
Katherine Rich 
: How does the Minister reconcile that statement with a media advisory from Te Puni Kokiri to the media stating: “Re hui at Omaka Marae tomorrow please note that media may attend the powhiri but cannot enter Wharenui during hui. Interviews can be conducted before and after the hui.”? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: The email was subsequently corrected to make it clear that the restrictions on the marae were at the request of the local people and that was not the actual wording in the email. 
Katherine Rich 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In order to correct the record for  
Hansard 
 purposes I was reading an extract from the original email that was sent. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order but the member has made her point. 
Mahara Okeroa 
: What role has the media played in each of the foreshore and seabed consultation hui? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am more than satisfied that the media interest in attending and recording these hui has been well catered for. The media have been able to record the powhiri; sit in and take notes of the meetings; interview Ministers before and after the hui; interview participants before during and after the hui; and have been allowed time to film set-up shots before the hui begin in the wharenui. 
Katherine Rich 
: When taxpayers are paying for these hui and it is the Government that has decided when and where hui will be and when the Government had the option to hold those hui in places where the media were allowed to attend but the Government did not take that decision how does the Minister explain the ban on media recording and reporting speeches when they are delivered at hui? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: There was no ban. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is this House to take it that the Government’s definition of consultation on the foreshore is this: there will be consultation paid for by the taxpayer; the Prime Minister will not be fronting; non-Maori will not have an opportunity to have an input; and the media which the New Zealand public rely on to get their information about this hui are to be banned—and that this Government is hand in hand with such a ban and with such a consultation process as that email shows? 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: There are three parts to that question. Can I address them? Firstly I reiterate that it has been the local people’s wishes that they have uninhibited time to deliver in the wharenui. It is culturally inappropriate to try to remove that. We go into committee in councils and in the local parishes and we do not let the media in. Let me also assure the member that on the way through non-Maori people have been at those marae and they have respected the request of the local people not to talk. The other issue is that in respect of the past three hui the local people have ensured that those hui have been hui for local people and even national Maori organisations have been asked not to enter the discussion. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister may have forgotten but he said he would address the three parts of the question. He forgot to cover the bit about the Prime Minister not fronting. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member did address the question rather extensively. 
Katherine Rich 
: When today his colleague Trevor Mallard criticises mainstream media coverage of foreshore and seabed hui does he appreciate the difficulty in giving fair and accurate coverage when media are banned from recording and reporting speeches as they are delivered during hui? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That cannot be authenticated. I have made no such comment today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made the statement that he has made no such comment. The Minister may wish to comment—[ 
Interruption 
] What did the member say precisely? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The question was about my comments today. I have made no comments today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Without the word “today” in it the question is in order. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I have little enough time to look after 15 percent of this population; but certainly if those comments were made they were made by that Minister. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is required at least to address the question. To state what the question stated certainly cannot be taken as addressing it. We already knew that the Minister had said that. What we wanted was the Minister to address the question and maybe—and this might be hoping too much—to answer it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think the point the Minister is making is a fair and absolutely correct one. He is not responsible for Mr Mallard’s comments; Mr Mallard is responsible for his comments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is absolutely correct. 
Katherine Rich 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on the point of order. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I really thought listening to the points of order that you would have stayed with the rulings you have given in the past which have been that the Minister may comment on the issue. The Minister as Minister of Maori Affairs was asked for his comment on an action taken by another Minister. He was asked to comment as Minister of Maori Affairs. That is totally in order. In fact we see questions that contain direct quotes from Ministers being transferred to other Ministers for answer and you have allowed those transfers on a regular basis. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That does not occur in this particular question. The Minister was asked to comment on what another Minister said. He chose not to comment. He is entitled to do that. 
Katherine Rich 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was not actually asking the Minister of Maori Affairs to explain or comment on the points made by Trevor Mallard; I was asking him whether he appreciated the difficulty of mainstream media giving fair and accurate coverage of hui when they are banned from actually covering and recording speeches as they are delivered. So the emphasis really is on whether he appreciates the difficulty faced by the mainstream media. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate that point being raised by the member. Perhaps the Minister could address that particular question. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I say again that there was no ban. Can I also point out about the cultural tensions—that two of the first shots on these hui were about Maori aggression to the Government and there was somebody doing the wero holding a wooden stick a spear in their hand in a very warrior-like welcome which one will go a long way in this country to see again. The press need a bit of help with some of the cultural insensitivities that our people feel are unethical. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on the series of points of order that took place the number of them that were needed from several members of the Opposition for you finally to accept the point that yes the Minister could elaborate. That is what is happening time and time again in question time. I ask you to reflect on that so that we do have a question time that works in the sense that Ministers are not given the appearance of being shielded by the Speaker but rather asked to address the questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is certainly not the case or the member would not be raising points of order. As far as I am concerned it is valid to insist that an answer is given. I did so and that was done. 
Katherine Rich 
: I seek leave to table two documents the first being the media advisory from Te Puni Kokiri to the media explaining the ban on the marae. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Katherine Rich 
: I seek leave to table a second document being the New Zealand Press Association article where Trevor Mallard criticises mainstream media. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Small Business—Reports 
8.  
H V ROSS ROBERTSON (NZ Labour—Manukau East) 
 to the  
Minister for Small Business 
: What recent reports has he received on the increase in the number of small to medium enterprises? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister for Small Business) 
: 
 According to the Ministry of Economic Development’s report  
Small to Medium Enterprises in New Zealand: Structure and Dynamics 
 which was launched on Monday evening the number of small to medium sized enterprises in New Zealand has increased by 2.7 percent in the last 12 months. At the same time the number of Kiwis employed by small to medium sized enterprises grew by 2 percent. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What initiatives is the Government taking to support New Zealand’s locomotive of growth the small to medium sized enterprise sector? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: A huge number. To name a few: establishing a small business advisory group involving small business in the heart of Government and a small to medium sized enterprise directorate in the Ministry of Economic Development; implementing over 80 percent of the recommendations of the business compliance cost panel to represent at least 95 percent of potential benefits of the cost reduction. We are also the first Government to take small business seriously enough to appoint a Minister for Small Business. Shortly my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe will also be releasing a discussion document  
Tax Simplification 
 targeted directly at small businesses which will be wide and far-reaching. 
Lindsay Tisch 
: Does the Minister believe that the increase in compliance costs over the last 12 months experienced by 98.2 percent of the 760 mainly small to medium sized businesses surveyed last month by KPMG Peat Marwick and Business New Zealand has helped or hindered the growth of small to medium sized enterprises which are becoming smaller—and why? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: No. 
Mike Ward 
: What measures can we look forward to from the Government to encourage Government agencies to purchase from these small to medium sized New Zealand businesses? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: This Government has taken significant action in exploring those opportunities and a number of announcements in that regard will be made shortly. 
Paul Adams 
: Noting his answers is the Minister confident that these small enterprises are able to continue to thrive and grow when as detailed in the recent compliance cost survey by Business New Zealand and KPMG Peat Marwick such enterprises do bear disproportional compliance costs? 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE 
: Yes. 
Mental Health Services—Auckland Region 
9.  
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Why are mental health services in the Auckland region described as a “time bomb” by staff and why have the number of beds at Waitemata District Health Board’s acute unit Taharoto been reduced from 41 to 35? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Acting Minister of Health) 
: 
 The so-called time bomb went off years ago with Waitemata. We have been faced with putting the pieces back together again and we are doing that. Bed numbers have not been reduced from 41 to 35 at the Taharoto Mental Health Unit. Three beds have been temporarily closed. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Along with the temporary closure of beds how many of the 20 extra nurses and therapists the Minister of Health promised in June have been recruited and why have the big solutions to the big problems in Auckland’s mental health services that she promised in December last year not been delivered? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Following the review last year there has been a workforce development plan. All the district health boards in the Auckland area are working together to deliver mental health services. Instead of the competitive environment of the previous Government this Government is ensuring that all district health boards work together to provide mental health services to people in Auckland regardless of where they live when and where they need those services. 
Steve Chadwick 
: What has happened in Waitemata since the review of the Auckland mental health services? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Firstly two non-governmental organisations have been contracted to deliver packages of care within acute units. Secondly an additional five short-term packages of care have been funded to respond to the demand on acute services. Thirdly five respite beds have been purchased. The funding was specifically to address the problem of unwell clients being held in police cells. Fourthly for the medium term a non-governmental organisation has been contracted to provide six intensive support rehabilitation beds. Fifthly agreement has been reached to expand the number of forensic inpatient beds with a total of 22 new beds coming to the region. 
Heather Roy 
: What medico-legal protection will she offer mental health workers with patients who need to be in hospital but are not because she has failed to provide a safe environment for them or will those health professionals be hung out to dry just like all the others when tragedy next strikes? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: We do acknowledge the pressure on mental health workers not just in New Zealand but throughout the world. The very reason for the temporary closure of beds is to ensure that staff can adequately carry out the level of care that they want to provide for those mental health patients. 
Sue Bradford 
: As the Minister says that this crisis has been going for a long time and there has been the Auckland review detailed workforce planning and the range of measures the Minister has just been talking about why is the crisis in the Waitemata District Health Board getting worse rather than better; why are the staff continuing to take the extraordinary step of going to the media to say: “Look this is real this is happening now we need help now.”; and what is the Government doing about that? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I will try to answer a couple of those points. We accept that there is extra pressure in Waitemata. There is some restructuring occurring. We understand that three to four managerial positions are likely to go through voluntary redundancy. That will mean there are more clinical staff on the ground to carry out the services that are needed. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Why would nurses and doctors want to work in the failing mental health system which is stressed to the limit under-resourced and has sick patients discharged too early to make way for even sicker ones; and when will the Minister of Health deliver more acute mental health beds for Auckland as she has repeatedly promised especially in light of the fact that hospital beds are even more scarce since police refuse to hold mentally ill patients in their cells? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: There are more mental health services in the Auckland region. We are delivering those on a regional basis so that there is not competition between the health entities as occurred under the previous Government. We have new child and youth services and new family service positions being established as well. This Government is quite proud of its record in mental health. The funding has gone from $594 million in 1998-99 to over $860 million in the last year under this Government. 
Ministerial Confidence—Immigration Minister 
10.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: On what basis does she claim that the Minister of Immigration is a conscientious and hard-working Minister? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 On the basis of my personal knowledge. I note that that opinion is shared by the head of the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) who said recently: “Lianne Dalziel has done more to have a sensible policy than any Minister of Immigration I can think of before her” and he added: “I just don’t see where Winston Peters is coming from.” 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Instead of tirelessly repeating that unmitigated drivel why does the Prime Minister not tell the 23-year-old New Zealand - born woman who may be paralysed for life after having been shot in the back by an illegal Afghan immigrant Wali Javad Allahayi that that situation would not have happened had that man not been allowed into this country in the first place by that incompetent irresponsible Minister? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: A crime like that is deplorable whoever commits it and I hope the full rigour of the law will be applied. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Prime Minister again why she repeats that statement about competence hard work and conscientiousness when we have in this country under her administration and under that Minister these immigrants and refugees guilty of rape murder numerous kidnappings abductions blackmail fraud and forgery—all of which have cost this country a fortune; and can she tell the victims of those crimes how responsible for that that Minister is and she is herself as Prime Minister? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Every New Zealand Government has admitted refugees; every New Zealand Government will find that a very small number will let it down. The Somali whom Mr Peters was drawing attention to earlier was admitted to this country when Mr Peters was Deputy Prime Minister. I do not see him taking personal responsibility for that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could you ask the Prime Minister to verify what she has just said rather than making it up as she goes along? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows full well that if that is the case he has the recourse of writing to me about it. 
Genetically Modified Sweetcorn—Prime Minister's Comments 
11.  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her statements in respect of “corngate” on National Radio on 11 July 2002 “I believe in total disclosure on this.” and “I’m not putting any restrictions on anyone talking about this.”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 The statement was made on 11 July the day after the Hager book appeared when I said officials should come forward to brief the media on what had happened—and they did that very day. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Will the Government instruct GeneScan Australia—a 100 percent New Zealand Government - owned company—to appear before the Local Government and Environment Committee inquiry so that we can question it about the test results that go to the core of whether the corn was contaminated; if not does it not seem extraordinary that a company owned by the taxpayers of New Zealand is not accountable to a select committee of this Parliament? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: This issue has been raised a couple of times before and as I recall the advice I have had was that the Government could not instruct it. If I could make my own views clear I think it would be preferable if the company did come forward but I do not believe we have the ability to instruct it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What sort of example does the Prime Minister think she has set for Syngenta the company that imported the seed and refuses to front and GeneScan Australia the New Zealand - owned company that did the testing and refuses to front by her decision despite making a number of phone calls and despite receiving a number of pieces of advice and her own department playing a key role as the Prime Minister; the question is this— 
Hon Steve Maharey 
: Can we have the question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member concerned knows he is not allowed to interject while questions are being asked. He will leave the Chamber. 
Hon Steve Maharey withdrew from the Chamber. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What sort of example does the Prime Minister think she is setting by refusing to front before the select committee when the company at the centre of the inquiry Syngenta is refusing to appear and so too is the company GeneScan Australia; and why does she not set a good example by fronting answering the questions and thus ensuring that we can get those other companies to answer as well? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There is clearly a considerable difference between the position of seed importers and seed testers at the heart of the issue and the position of the Prime Minister—who was frankly very peripherally involved. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Is the Prime Minister saying that she cannot force GeneScan Australia to appear before the select committee because while it is 100 percent owned by the New Zealand Government it is registered as a legal entity in Melbourne? That may be the legal position but surely with her Government having two Ministers as 100 percent shareholding Ministers why will she not instruct them to instruct that company to make that information available to the select committee; and does she not think it curious that the four critical samples—and they were the largest samples—that each showed some GM contamination were not made available or is it that those samples do not exist any more? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As I said this issue has arisen a couple of times. As I recall the advice I have is that the Government is not in a position to instruct them to appear. I really cannot add to that. I suggest the member put down questions to the responsible Ministers for the Crown research institute or State-owned enterprise or whatever is the holding company. 
Biosecurity—Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety 
12.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: Will the Government ratify the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety before it comes into force tomorrow following ratification by the 50th signatory; if not why not? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade 
: No. There is insufficient time to undertake the ratification process domestically. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why does the Government not support the right embodied in the Cartagena protocol of countries to decide for themselves whether they allow the introduction of living genetically modified organisms and the right to use the precautionary principle when making decisions? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: The Government does support countries’ rights. 
Tim Barnett 
: Since the Government is at the forefront of GM regulation why does it not ratify the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety now? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: New Zealand’s domestic regulation for managing genetic modification is already consistent with and in some ways stricter than the protocol but we are not prepared to short-cut the proper ratification processes including community consultation and parliamentary debate. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is one of the countries’ rights that this Government supports the right of the United States to send genetically engineered grain capable of being eaten or planted to developing countries as food aid without informing them that it is genetically engineered and hence without those countries’ prior consent? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: I am unaware of the particular case that the member is referring to. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Given that the Cartagena protocol may be a possible defence against World Trade Organization cases like the one that the United States has taken against the European Union over genetically modified organisms and that New Zealand has registered third-party status in tacit support of the US position is that the reason the Government will not proceed with ratification of a protocol it helped to negotiate in January 2000? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: No it is not the reason that we are not proceeding. The European Union moratorium does allow certain genetically modified lines to be imported into the European Union and grown in European Union countries such as Spain. Those are the lines that were permitted before the moratorium. Therefore the reason for banning some GM lines and not others may not be the matters of biosafety covered by the protocol. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: When the Government said: “In all trade and economic agreements we will ensure that the Government’s ability to regulate as it sees fit for the protection of the environment is not compromised.” did she realise that current World Trade Organization rules take away that ability and why will she not support a protocol that strengthens that ability for developing countries that do not have strong biosecurity arrangements? 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: It is argued that there is some conflict at the moment between the biosafety protocol and World Trade Organization sanitary and phytosanitary agreements. That debate is speculative and will be worked out at the first meeting in February.  
Question No. 10 to Minister 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I seek leave to table an extract from a Deportation Review Tribunal decision in respect of the Somali referred to in question No. 10 who was granted residence in October 1997. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
General Debates 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Today the police have announced that they are going to prosecute Shane Ardern MP for disorderly conduct. 
On Monday the Prime Minister made a series of statements about the actions of Shane Ardern MP. She said that driving a tractor up the steps of Parliament was disorderly and that his actions were not acceptable. Today I want to compare the situation of Shane Ardern with that of modest successful Prime Minister Helen Clark. He drove a tractor up the steps of Parliament and she knowingly signed a painting that she did not paint. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Since I began my speech Mr Mallard has made a continuous stream of interjections and I suggest to you that that is outside the Standing Orders. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I have made two points—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: It is a longstanding convention that members will hear a point of order out. Members know that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I have merely made two points. One is to ask where Maurice Williamson is—[ 
Interruption 
] There used to be a rule that members’ points of order would be heard in silence; does that rule apply to the Opposition or only to the Government? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members that under Speaker’s ruling 51/5(3) there are not to be any running commentaries during speeches. I am not going to tolerate speeches being broken up during the general debate. There are only 5-minute speeches and in this case I am going to ask the member on my right to desist interjecting. I ask the Hon Bill English to continue his speech. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Here are some questions. Helen Clark knowingly signed a painting with her name. Shane Ardern drove a tractor up the steps of Parliament. Did the police interview Shane Ardern? Yes. Did they interview Helen Clark? No. Did Helen Clark answer the questions the police put to her? No. Did Shane Ardern answer the questions put to him? Yes. Did Shane Ardern cooperate with the police? Yes. Did Helen Clark cooperate with the police? No. What are the relative penalties for those two actions? For forgery it is 7 years’ imprisonment for disorderly behaviour there is a $1000 fine. The forgery charge was much more serious and it was not pursued. Not only did Helen Clark not cooperate with the police but as the police report points out the evidence was destroyed after media commentary that there could be charges but before “the active police investigation began”. 
This is the same Prime Minister who is condemning Shane Ardern MP who invited the police to prosecute him and it is an outrage. Was the Solicitor-General called upon for constitutional advice for Shane Ardern? No. Was the Solicitor-General called upon for constitutional advice for the Prime Minister? Yes. Did the Solicitor-General counsel against prosecution in the case of Shane Ardern? No. Did the Solicitor-General advise against prosecution in the case of Helen Clark? Yes and the police say that he strongly advised against it. 
However it was not just the Prime Minister who was at fault. Chris Carter the orange boy for the Prime Minister was asked by police to provide telephone records relevant to the inquiry. He declined and said: “If you want to get them you may but it will lead to all sorts of very bad publicity.” That is what Chris Carter said. He is a Minister of the Crown and that is what he said. Did Shane Ardern sign his police statement? Yes. Did Chris Carter sign his police statement? No. He refused to sign the statement and the police said they did not believe what he said. 
The pattern is becoming very clear. Some members of this Parliament are subject to the law—the Opposition members. Some members of this Parliament are not subject to the law—Labour members of Parliament like Harry Duynhoven who broke the law and was saved by the Government; Chris Carter who lied to the police; and Helen Clark who refused to cooperate with them answered no questions would not be interviewed and had the evidence destroyed. Yet she gets up on national television and accuses our member of Parliament Shane Ardern of disorderly behaviour and invites the police to prosecute him. 
I say we have had enough. Mr Speaker needs to make very sure that he is not dragged into these matters. What actions did the Speaker take to protect the privileges of this Parliament? Today he would not explain yet he seemed to be—gave the appearance of being—in communication with the same modest successful non-cooperating lawbreaking Prime Minister when it came to Harry Duynhoven. Helen Clark conducted herself as a member of Parliament above the law and she got away with it. The alleged offence concerning Shane Ardern is much less serious. It was an impulsive action in a protest by an MP representing his constituents and he got prosecuted. We want answers. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have to draw to your attention the fact that you gave a specific ruling early on during the continuous interjections from Mr Mallard. In your ruling you said you would not allow that to occur yet after that ruling—and I was not going to interrupt Bill English’s speech—I counted 11 interjections. There were 11 interjections in the last 4 minutes. I want to know why you did not enforce your ruling. You had already given a ruling to Mr Mallard about his continuous interjections but you allowed him to roar continuously all the way through the speech. 
The reason I bring this to your attention is that every single Wednesday during every general debate it is the same—same Minister same possie same routine same ritual and again I have to say that the Opposition has had enough. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to the member that I acknowledge what he said. But the reality is that this has been a robust debate. The member did not impugn the Hon Bill English’s reputation and because there has been a bit of toing and froing in this particular debate I have allowed it to continue. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a serious case when you give a ruling at the beginning of a speech. I want to point out that this happens every single Wednesday—not just today. Every Wednesday when the Leader of the Opposition leads the debate two things happen: firstly Speaker Hunt leaves the Chair and somebody else comes in and secondly Bill English has to raise a point of order to stop Mr Mallard from interjecting. It is the same every single week. This week you ruled that you would stop the continuous stream of interjections. You were approached by the senior Opposition whip and rather than breaking the speech he brought to your attention the fact that Mr Mallard was continuing to interject. Then following that there were another 11 interjections. I have to ask where the fairness is and when the Speakership will start backing its own rulings. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 First of all can I deal with the facts of the matter. It cannot possibly be true that every week Mr English gets up and leads the general debate because the National Party leads this debate only 1 week in 4. There is a rotation. 
The fact that Mr Speaker tends to leave the Chair after question time is irrelevant. Much more important is the fact that in this particular context during that speech there was an orchestrated series of interjections by National Party members themselves. There was a series of rhetorical questions from Mr English and a well-orchestrated series of responses from his back-bench colleagues. There were at least 20 interjections in unison from the entire National Party caucus present in Parliament so Opposition members can scarcely complain when they receive a reasonable amount of return interjections from this side of the House. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 First of all you can dismiss the points raised by the Leader of the House because the statements made by Opposition members during the Leader of the Opposition’s speech certainly were not breaking up his speech. So it was a frivolous point of order. 
I am disturbed to hear that a whip approached you during a speech to try to influence your rulings—if that is correct it is very wrong. No one may approach the Speaker except by raising a point of order. So if an Opposition whip did try to approach you he should not and he most certainly should not on a matter of order—that has to be done by way of a point of order. Having said that I think you should actually rebuke Mr Mallard. He is sitting in a position of prominence where he can interject over the live microphone of the Speaker. He has a strong voice. What I particularly object to about Mr Mallard’s interjections is that they are grossly out of order. He cannot ask where a member is—and that is what he was doing. He was calling out and asking where a member of Parliament is. That is an interjection that is out of order. When he was pulled up he then repeated it which again was out of order. I think it would be a reasonable ruling if you were to say to Mr Mallard that if he wishes to stay in this debate for the rest of the afternoon he should be silent unless he gets a call. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank all honourable members for their contributions. They have certainly been taken into consideration. First of all I did not rule out all interjections. I ruled out vociferous interjections and Mr Mallard was more restrained after he was warned. Secondly Mr English made a hard-hitting speech. Some interjections can be expected but not so much as to drown out another speaker. The Speaker will not allow a member to be drowned out. Thirdly in relation to the point raised by Mr Prebble there is nothing wrong with a whip approaching the Chair. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 That is a very serious matter. Are you now saying that instead of raising a point of order we just stroll up to your chair and start whispering into your ear matters that no one else is able to hear with a purpose of influencing the Chair? I suggest to you that that is grossly disorderly and if I thought that that was going on every time anyone comes to speak to you and if I believe they are doing it in order to influence your rulings we will have many points of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 It is fairly rarely that Richard Prebble and I agree but on this matter we do agree. Maybe the right approach is to have a considered ruling later. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The Speaker encourages members to speak privately to him. This has always been done. It happens all the time. In fact there are times when members approach the Speaker to ask what order of speaking they are entitled to take. It happens frequently and it is one thing that will continue to happen. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is absolutely nothing wrong with someone going up to talk to the Speaker on a matter such as what the order of speakers will be or a suggestion of that sort. But what I think I heard was a whip approaching you to suggest that you make a ruling on a matter of order. If someone wants to raise a matter of order he or she should do so by raising a point of order and there is a very good reason for that—the whole House should know what the matter is. If the Speaker encourages the two old parties to do that then we ought to have him back because he most certainly should not. If a member wants to raise a matter of order the Standing Orders are quite clear. He must do so by calling and saying that he is raising a point of order. He most certainly cannot raise a point of order by whispering in your ear to influence you. In this particular case you clearly took no notice which was the right thing to do but you most certainly should not suggest to members that they should now raise points of order by approaching you and secretly whispering in your ear. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What Mr Prebble has said is correct. However we then get ourselves into difficulty. Obviously we do not want to interrupt the flow of a member’s speech. Given that the Speaker had already made a ruling as you had the reason that I approached you in the Chair was to make the point that Mr Mallard was not abiding by your ruling. I did not want to interrupt the flow Mr English’s speech but I asked that you make sure your ruling was carried out. I asked you to do that. The point is that if a ruling is made and abided by then there would be no need for a whip or anyone else for that matter to come up to you in the Chair and ask for you to carry out the ruling that you have made. That is the fundamental point here—if we have total discipline in the House from the Chair as we on this side of the House ask for then we will not have these difficulties. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There was nothing improper in Mr Carter approaching me. If there had been then I would have said so at the time. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you are in grave danger of making a ruling that I have never heard in this House before. The procedure for raising points of order is clearly set out in Standing Order 84. Standing Order 84 states that a member may raise a point of order and that the point of order takes precedence over any other matter. Mr Carter was clearly raising a point of order with you but he was doing it in a way that is grossly disorderly. No member may approach the Speaker privately and raise what is a point of order. He has just said that he went to you and suggested to you that you should rebuke another member. I understand his dilemma—he did not want to raise the point of order—but that is the dilemma we all have. We all have to make that judgment and one cannot get around the fact that one does not want to disrupt one’s own leader by going to see the Speaker. I say to you that you most certainly should not be encouraging that. If Mr Hunt is telling you that we should do that then when he returns to the Chair I will raise the matter with him as well. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 As the member who raised this matter I agree totally with the Hon Richard Prebble. I know that the National Party senior whip does as well. It is not the way we wish to conduct business. We wish for the speakership of this Parliament to enforce the rules of the Parliament. We wish for the leader of the National Party to be able for once to give a 5-minute speech in this House without a concerted effort being made by the members opposite to deliberately break up his speech by way of forcing points of order. We wish that when you make a ruling you back the ruling. If we can get all of those things then we will not have whips approaching the Chair. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 This is a very important day for Parliament because all manner of members have had a chance to take part in the debate. I think we have spent enough time on this matter. More important I point out that having to handle Mr Mallard is like taking candy from a baby and I have never protested about it in the whole time that I have been in Parliament. So why should anybody else? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Members can talk to the Speaker about anything that they wish. They may not try to intimidate the Speaker. It is up to the Speaker as to what if any action he takes. I chose to take none in recognising the points that were made. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Members and those listening at home may remember that before all those points of order a person was screaming into the microphone. It is a kind of a worry the way that the leader of the National Party—he is not really the Leader of the Opposition any more; Mr Peters is clearly the person who has that role—gets up here time after time. By the time he has finished after 5 minutes he has basically just screamed himself hoarse. All we can do is to have sympathy for him. I cannot remember what he said. I could not hear most of what he said because his own members behind him kept up an unbroken chanting of interjections the whole way through his speech as though they did not want him to speak. It was a remarkable performance. He was trying to scream above his own back-bench members who were trying to overwhelm him all the time but in the end we just feel sorry for him. 
We come to the conclusion that maybe we are dealing with an extremely angry desperate man. Why would Bill English not be desperate? There is 53 percent support for the Prime Minister and Mr English hopes that one day he can eclipse Mr Peters and get himself back to being the second preferred leader in the country. But he is on 7 percent. I would be angry if I were on 7 percent. I am on this side of the House and I am on the Prime Minister’s side but if I were in Opposition and on only 7 percent I would be angry. No wonder he is angry and desperate. No wonder he gets up and screams himself hoarse every time he has a chance to speak. 
The other reason he is angry is that Maurice Williamson is back. I would be spitting if I were Bill English and the maverick—not the martyr—was back. Maurice Williamson has not been sacrificed. He has been able to say whatever he likes. He is back here in the Paul Keating position at the bottom of the party waiting to rocket back through the ranks after everything he said. Of course he had a right to say the things he said. The National Party lost two elections. It changed its leader it has polled pathetically for over 4 years and it is not really in the running now with a leader who can promise to be the next Prime Minister. Mr Williamson had a reason to say: “We resemble the  
Titanic 
.” He said that somebody should get the orchestra to shut up and that everybody should be on deck manning the lifeboats. He said: “I haven’t criticised Bill English. I’ve talked about the facts. We need to deliver a performance that the public sees as credible.” Maurice Williamson has also said: “I guess Bill English is the 2000 equivalent of Bill Birch. Bill was a bit boring as boring as watching paint dry—and saying that is probably a bit unfair on paint. Mr English lacks the excitement charisma humour personality or talent to lead the National Party.” 
The last National Party conference was likened by Mr Williamson to a slow train crash. That is not much to say about the leadership of one’s party is it? It is not much to say about the National Party. It is not really something one would expect a person to be demoted for vilified for or threatened with excommunication for—then survive. Bill English likes to think he is in control of the National Party and here is someone who likes him so much that he is not stabbing him in the back; he is stabbing him in the front—and he still survives after all that. All I can assume—and Murray McCully the strategist of the National Party will know this for sure—is that Maurice Williamson has won. Members will remember that Maurice Williamson’s advice was—apart from all the things he said about the National Party—to narrow the National Party down. He said: “Don’t appeal to Maori don’t appeal to Pacific Islanders don’t appeal to young people superannuitants and beneficiaries. Don’t appeal to all those people because if you do you get a party that doesn’t seem to be able to appeal to our core constituency.” I am not sure who the core constituency is for Bill English—the people right of Dipton I guess are his core constituency. 
All I can assume—and I am sure that Murray McCully the strategist for the National Party will confirm this when he rises—is that Maurice Williamson is now one and the National Party under Bill English is officially now a minor party. National wants to appeal to a very narrow constituency of New Zealanders. It does not aspire to represent the wide range of diverse people who make up this country. It wants to fight over that little narrow centre-right part. National does not want to contest the national socialist position of the New Zealand First Party it does not want to contest the moral conservative position of United Future and it does not want to contest the scandal-busting position of the ACT party. National wants to establish its own position and its own position was revealed last week. It wants to represent people who drive old tractors. That is the constituency it wants to represent—the people who drive old tractors. Today in an hysterical speech the speech that led off the most important debate of the week in the House we heard the Leader of the Opposition—the would-be taker-over from Winston Peters as the Leader of the Opposition—spend his whole 5 minutes on his own constituency; he defended those tractor drivers. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The last couple of weeks have seen a couple of episodes that are sadly illuminating about the state of the Labour Party in Parliament as of September 2003. First of all we saw the strange affair of the Prime Minister’s attack on our co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons who must be one of the most assiduously hard-working and fair select committee chairpeople in Parliament. This unexpected verbal assault was accompanied of course by much publicised prime ministerial statements showing a kind of hubris which was thankfully not particularly visible from Labour in its first term after the 1999 election. Then this week the New Zealand Council of the Labour Party sent a unanimous message to its caucus expressing its “very grave concern at aspects of the Gambling Bill.” 
Jim Peters 
: Whose council? 
SUE BRADFORD 
: Labour’s council. Did the Labour members at their caucus meeting yesterday pay any attention to this memo? Apparently not as by 10 o’clock last night the Committee stage of the Gambling Bill had been pushed through at high speed and without any change of heart from the Government benches. With this bill the Government faced a number of stark choices: going with the Greens which would mean compromising so that local councils could control how many pokie venues they had and where; or going with United Future and allowing local authorities to control only 16 percent—one-sixth—of the gambling machines in this country. Likewise Labour could have gone with the Greens and stopped the Lotteries Commission getting into Internet gambling—one of the most pernicious forms of gaming now available—or they could have gone with United Future and taken problem gambling to a whole new level. On these and on at least three other critical issues Labour chose to go with the anti-family right-wing United Future party every time. 
This bill may well be the watershed marking the moment when we look back and say: “Yes there it was; that was the moment when Labour definitely turned to the right again—the moment they chose the gambling industry over the people they were elected to represent.” The ghosts of the fourth Labour Government have been haunting this Gambling Bill and in fact they are haunting Labour on the GE issue as well. We know from many polls that a majority of Labour voters and supporters do not support their leadership’s gung-ho support for the immediate lifting of the moratorium on GE release. As of Monday we have very clear evidence that even the party’s own leading internal body certainly did not want its MPs aligning with United Future rather than the Greens over the Gambling Bill. 
I am afraid all this takes me unavoidably back to the 1980s when for example David Lange as Prime Minister said that the Government was prepared to go on ignoring its own party’s remits—for years and years if necessary. How many times did the membership of the Labour Party tell the fourth Labour Government to stop change direction and move away from the new right? It never listened and members can see what happened. The Labour Party was destroyed or nearly destroyed and spent 9 long years in Opposition. 
On behalf of the Green Party I am making a plea to current Labour MPs: please do not let history repeat itself. Our party continues to be willing to work with Labour on the many areas we have of common concern whether of workers’ rights and welfare reform conservation transport or a host of other issues where sharing experiences and ideas can produce many useful forward-looking synergies. Labour does not have to dig another final ditch for itself as it did in the mid to late-1980s. That party does not have to succumb to the fatal temptations of what seems to be absolute power or to what appears to be the easier blandishments of the United Future right. 
There is a pattern for Governments who last for more than one term in this country a pattern into which this illustrious 2003 version of Labour seems to be falling. Somewhere in the second term those Governments come to believe they are born to rule and they simultaneously lose track of where both their own memberships and the voting public want them to be. Labour need look no further than to its 1980s predecessor or to the currently depleted National benches to see what happens when people in power—no matter how well intentioned—start to lose track of where they have come from. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 Today I want to reflect a little bit on that very fiery spirited address by the current leader of the National Opposition. Frankly I do not believe he is Leader of the Opposition. Not wanting to give faint praise I do not think he is the Leader of the Opposition; I think the “Leader of the Opposition” is sitting further along the bench. Bluntly no wonder Mr English— 
Pita Paraone 
: What’s his name? Winston Peters. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Well yes and I do not want to give Mr Peters faint praise but it is pretty obvious that the member for Tauranga can do 100 percent better than the member who spoke at the beginning of this general debate. When I listened to the Hon Bill English I was reminded that really the voice was rising. There was a concept of the rope supporting the condemned man and as the rope was being pulled tighter the voice was obviously reaching a higher octave. 
I believe that Maurice Williamson’s contribution and current situation are very very interesting. I do not know—and we are running bets on this side of the House—how long Maurice can and will stay quiet. We are running a bit of a sweepstake and the odds in my view are shortening. How much can Maurice stay quiet and will Maurice sit over there on the other side of the House with his binoculars looking on at proceedings— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement). The member may not use Christian names in the House. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Mr Williamson the member for Pakuranga. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That’s better. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Absolutely—and just how long will the member for Pakuranga sit there with his binoculars and stay silent? Because in his heart of hearts even though Maurice has been told— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but if he looks at Speaker’s ruling 6/1 (Supplement) he will see that he may not use a person’s first name. Members must be referred to by their titles their portfolios or their full names. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: OK. Even though the suspended National Party member for Pakuranga—currently suspended which means he has to seal his lips; I guess over time those sealed lips will start to crack at the edges—because you know in his heart of hearts that he will say— 
Richard Worth 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again that member is infringing the Standing Orders by now drawing you into the debate with the use of the word “you”. He is a senior member. Why does he foot fault so often? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: I appreciate the acknowledgement that I am a senior member and I thank the member for that. 
Maurice Williamson said there was little point in debating policies if National was never going to be in a position to implement them. Again in his heart members know that he believes “It’s a bit rich to blame the assistant tea boy when the ship’s sinking rather than the captain and the first officer up on the bridge.” That quote is from the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 29 July 2003. What is that programme with the line “My lips are sealed.”? 
Richard Worth 
:  
Teletubbies 
. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: OK. Indeed my lips are sealed but we know that in his heart of hearts that is what Maurice is seeking. The only crime Maurice has committed is that he is saying— 
Richard Worth 
: Point of order— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I know what the member is going to say. The member on his feet has again drawn the Speaker into the debate. He must refer to the honourable member or to the honourable Minister when he is referring to other people. He must not bring the Speaker into the debate. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER 
: Thank you Mr Speaker and I do apologise to you. Such is my enthusiasm for Maurice Williamson’s message. I believe that Maurice Williamson does have a message for this country and that he very eloquently shared it with the country until his lips were sealed by his colleagues. In their heart of hearts those colleagues from that bit of the Opposition know that Maurice Williamson is very very right in his observation of the destiny of that party under the leadership of Mr Bill English. In their heart of hearts they are scared of the member for Tauranga. They know that they are very very close frankly to being eclipsed by the member for Tauranga and that New Zealand First has the potential for being a major player in the Opposition. They know that and when we come to an election the best they can do is win 28 percent of the vote. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Today in question No. 10 I raised the subject of Wali Allahayi. He came with a false passport in 1999 when I was not a member of Government or a Minister. At the end of question time the Minister tabled a document to do with Hassan Ahmed Shaqlane—a different person—who was convicted of rape and kidnapping in August 2000 after Helen Clark had been appointed Prime Minister. She sought to defuse the situation by tabling the wrong document but here is the point: back then spokesperson Ian Smith—we know who he is do we not—said that deportation was “highly likely”. However the service had plans to bring the family together and it has done so since that time and that is the reason given by the appeal authority for not sending him home—that is that the family has now been reunited. It stinks to high heaven and the Prime Minister in her duplicitous way sought to come to the House to claim something totally different from the facts. 
It is time for the Prime Minister to end the ministerial career of her bungling illegal immigrant-loving hand-wringing ineffectual incompetent no-hoper Minister of Immigration. A few days ago we received this open letter from Lianne Dalziel. In it she tells us why she cannot do a thing about an alleged Muslim terrorist because the United Nations will not let her. In an urgency debate in July 20000 people lose their applications or their rights but she says she is hamstrung in respect of that alleged terrorist. The letter is full of excuses. We have filed it in the wastepaper basket alongside the Labour Party’s immigration policy. It reminds me of the prisoner-of-war guard in that television programme  
Hogan’s Heroes 
—Sergeant Schultz whose famous comment was: “I know nothing.” She makes Sergeant Schultz look like an informed intellectual. Every time she is caught she knows nothing about it and she blames someone else. Her duties are being performed in a way that is an affront to all New Zealand. She has done more to destroy the fabric of our society than any other Minister I have seen in my time in Parliament. 
It is an indictment on the Prime Minister that she has let that novice Minister bring in planeloads of Third World ratbags and then claims she cannot deport them. What sort of Prime Minister lets a Minister of Immigration keep a convicted rapist in the country? What sort of Prime Minister lets a Minister of Immigration keep a convicted kidnapper in the country? What sort of Prime Minister keeps a Minister of Immigration who lets an illegal immigrant stay here to shoot a woman in the back while she is hanging out her washing? What sort of Prime Minister lets a Minister keep her job when an illegal African immigrant is raping New Zealand women infecting them with AIDS and condemning them to an early death? It is a shame. 
This letter from the Minister is two-and-a-half-pages of bleating about why she cannot do her job. It does not explain why we have to keep illegal HIV-infected immigrants here. It does not explain why North Shore Hospital and Auckland Hospital are bursting their seams with 70 percent of TB cases from the Third World that they have brought here. We are sick and tired of hearing the Prime Minister when asked in question time whether she has confidence in Lianne Dalziel saying: “Yes because she is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.” [ 
Interruption 
] I know it is market day—I can tell. 
I have news for the Prime Minister her useless Minister of Immigration and for all the Labour Party Klingons who are polluting this country with the riff-raff of the Third World. It is time to put the health and safety of our people first. We are part of the politically correct drivel about saving the world’s flotsam and jetsam. We do not believe in illegal immigrants bogus asylum-seekers or refugees living off the sweat of the New Zealand taxpayer. We will kick that irresponsible party off the Government benches in 2005. We will clean up the system. To use Oliver Cromwell’s famous words: “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart I say and let us have done with you. In the name of God go!” 
NANAIA MAHUTA (NZ Labour—Tainui) 
: 
 The Hon Lianne Dalziel is a hard-working conscientious Minister of Immigration. If anyone can fix it the honourable Minister of Immigration can. Can she fix it? Yes she can! She is a good Minister of Immigration. She is just one of many Ministers who represent a talent on this side of the House. That is more than I can say for that side of the House. I am a little bit concerned— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. I am having difficulty hearing her speech. I want silence. I do not mind the odd interjection but not running commentaries. Members should look at Speaker’s ruling 51/5 which states that a running commentary is out of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When I was speaking there were all manner of interjections from Mr Mallard the visiting fish-seller from Wanganui and all manner of people and I never protested or objected. We are long way away from that member. Really if a member cannot hack it in this Parliament he or she should find a new job. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. While I do not agree with the exact words or the tone of what Winston Peters the right honourable member from Tauranga has just said. I think it would be fair to say that the member was doing very well and there was not a problem. Members down in this part of the House could hear her pretty well. 
NANAIA MAHUTA 
: 
 The truth hurts—just a little bit of the truth hurts. If there is a Minister of Immigration who can fix it it is Lianne Dalziel. She is a great Minister and represents one of many talented Ministers on our front bench. That is more than I can say for a lot of comments from members on the other side of the House. I am a bit concerned about the comments about the leadership void in the Opposition. It is not just a reflection on the Hon Bill English. In fact it is a reflection on the whole of the National Party and people on that side of the House should be concerned about that. The leadership void that has been created has given rise to a lot of questions from the media about who will be next and who will fill that void. Is it going to be Richard Worth? I see him sitting up in his chair. Is it going to be Wayne Mapp who is looking proudly over here? Is it going to be Simon Power who is pretending to be disengaged from it all but has a wry smile on his face? That is the type of talk that has arisen because of the leadership void on the other side of the House. 
This is no abstraction. When the deputy chair of the Pakuranga branch of the National Party says something like: “There is an 80 percent dissatisfaction level among the National Party’s financial members with the quality of the party’s message.” what does that say? What do we see? We see Maurice Williamson suspended. I think the National Party is floundering in terms of the talent it can generate for new policy development new ideas a vision and a way of going forward. What do we see from the National Party? We see the politics of fear being stirred up in our society. We see the politics of divisiveness being stirred up in our society. 
Today on members’ day when there is a general debate when we have a whole lot of issues to debate here in the House what did the Leader of the Opposition choose to speak about? The Hon Bill English brought up the issue of tractors. That is the niche he wants to fill. That is the niche that the National Party wants to attract into its new-look party. It is like watching a B-grade sitcom—“… so are the days of our lives.” 
National Party members should be very concerned about the image they are presenting to the public because it will keep them at their current polling rates. While we are talking about polling rates on 22 August this year the National Party mustered up a stunning 23 percent. Given its stance on the beaches-for-all campaign with regard to the foreshore and seabed could it claw back further support? No it polled a stunning 23 percent. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Bill English got 7 percent. 
NANAIA MAHUTA 
: Even more than that as my colleague points out the Leader of the Opposition claimed only 7 percent. At a time when there is an issue that challenges us all as a nation what could the National Party do? It could muster only 23 percent as an Opposition. Who is the real Opposition? Those members should be very concerned about what they are presenting to their voters and to the niche market they are trying to fill. It is not going to work. Everyone in the House knows it and we should all be concerned because if that is the best they have to give then I cannot say too much about it. 
I recall the Hon Bill English being at a hui—the Maori Sports Awards at Ngaruawahia in 2001—and what did he say? He said: “Well you know we are in the Opposition we can say anything.” What kind of leadership is that? What kind of leadership does that present to the people of New Zealand on hard and difficult issues? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who said that? 
NANAIA MAHUTA 
: The Hon Bill English said that. It is unbelievable. When there is leadership like that when there is a lack of direction and when there are people pressing in from behind wanting the leader’s seat National has nowhere to go and it should be concerned. 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 Public confidence in the New Zealand Police is vital for law enforcement in New Zealand. Mr Speaker I think you need to know that public goodwill towards the New Zealand Police is rapidly evaporating in the face of its inconsistent and aggressive approach to a number of enforcement issues such as speed cameras but also its inconsistent actions with regard to members of Parliament. 
Firstly before I contrast the way Mr Ardern was dealt with by the police with the way the Prime Minister was dealt with I would like to turn to the role of the Speaker in this case. I am looking forward to the Speaker’s statement on how he will deal with such matters as they involve members of Parliament because the contrast is stark. The Speaker remained silent for days on the Harry Duynhoven matter. He sought legal advice and referred matters to the Privileges Committee then waited and said nothing. That silence was somewhat coincidental I am sure with the fact that it enabled the Government to change the law to erase the offence that Mr Duynhoven committed. Yet I note that the Speaker appeared on television news within hours of Mr Ardern driving the tractor up the steps of Parliament with that quote we often hear about “never in my 37 years” had he seen any action like that. But only a few days later we discovered that Mr Tizard had driven a tractor up the steps and I am sure that the Speaker will now recall that in his 37 years he did see reports in the newspapers of Mr Tizard driving a tractor up the steps. 
I will be looking forward to the Speaker’s advice on how he will deal with the way members of Parliament are responded to and I hope he will comment on why he seemed so keen to draw the public’s attention to what Mr Ardern had done. I certainly hope that those who might have suggested that there was some other intent will find that there was not. I would never believe that our Speaker would be involved in anything that would bring any disrespect to the Chair of the House. 
I would now like to contrast the way the New Zealand Police dealt with Mr Ardern versus the Prime Minister. I have had the opportunity this afternoon to reread the official police documents on the allegation of forgery against the Prime Minister of New Zealand. The police found that there was a prima facie case that the Prime Minister of New Zealand had committed forgery. The police went on to actually question the Prime Minister’s evidence. There is a quote here where the Prime Minister said she could not recall television coverage or any publicity about the original charity event. The report goes on to state: “It is however considered unlikely that Miss Clark or her staff were unaware of this coverage.” 
The police drew only one conclusion from the Prime Minister’s evidence and that is an important issue. The Prime Minister did not make herself available to answer police questions. She provided a statement that did not address some of the issues at the core of public and police concern. She refused to be interviewed by the police. Frankly in this quite weighty report the police point out that there was a prima facie case that the Prime Minister did commit forgery. The police go on to say that there was evidence of a conspiracy to defraud and that it might have been appropriate to consider other offences. 
The report also indicates that Mr Chris Carter a Government Minister gave evidence to the police. He refused to make his telephone records available. He further refused even to sign the statement he gave to the police. When it came to accessing his telephone records he threatened the police by saying that they could ask but that it could lead to some very bad publicity. This is all contained in the report which is absolutely extraordinary. 
So what did the police do? The police have discretion in these cases. In making a decision they have to weigh up the various mitigating factors and issues. The police decided that they would not take action against the Prime Minister because they thought the consequences would be too great. Why was that decision not made with Mr Shane Ardern? Was it because he is National and she is Labour? 
MOANA MACKEY (NZ Labour) 
: 
 As a new member of this House I have been surprised and disappointed at how little importance is placed on the facts by the Opposition parties when it comes to debates before the House. Firstly in relation to the corn inquiry it seemed strange to me at first that the National Party seemed to be so incapable of understanding the difference between the tolerance of uncertainty versus the tolerance of detectable levels—after all that is something that is almost intrinsic to scientists. I wondered why the Hon Nick Smith had to be told again and again how that worked. Then suddenly I realised it was not that he failed to understand it; it was that he did not want to understand it. I certainly hope that the biotechnology sector is sitting up and taking notice of how technologically inept the Opposition is when it comes to those issues. Let us make no mistake about the fact that the Opposition members will be out there wooing that sector at the next election yet they cannot understand even the basic fundamental principles of biotechnology. Who in New Zealand now knows what the National Party’s position is on genetic modification? 
That brings me to the matter of the foreshore and seabed. The National Party has decided that slogans are an adequate substitute for consultation and policy—which does not surprise me—and came up with the fantastic slogan “one standard of citizenship”. I suggest that the subtext of that actually means “I am sick of uppity Maori speaking out when they’re unhappy” or “treaty claims are so last century”. Or how about: “Now that we’re no longer chasing your votes we no longer care about your rights.”? The fact is that the National Party is suggesting two standards of citizenship: one where people’s rights are upheld and the other where those rights are ignored and eliminated. It is a shame that the National Party is not as passionate about one standard of living as it is about one standard of citizenship. This Government is about one standard of living for all New Zealanders and we are working for that every day. 
That leads me as a new member to a sad and cynical conclusion: the Opposition does not care about the issues that face New Zealanders. It does not want to help New Zealanders; it wants only to make them more afraid of their problems and issues. I say to Mr English that this country needs a leader who can propose serious solutions. It needs a committed Government to provide and implement those solutions; it does not need sloganeers. Maybe Mr English should stick to what he outlined in the  
Dominion Post  
by pretending to be the Prime Minister in the quiet room off the Beehive theatrette with Helen Clark’s old desk. I am sure Mr Sowry could perhaps bring along his teddy bear collection and they could play at being the Cabinet. After all Mr Sowry is no stranger to the region of make-believe as he fantasises about being the member for Otaki all the time. However I am told that even in that forum Mr English would still struggle to get the numbers. 
The fact is that Mr English is not capable of running this country. He claims he is a nation builder and a proud New Zealander; yet only a few weeks ago we found out that he had a photo of the Australian netball coach on his fridge because the Australian netball team was the world champion and now that our team is the world champion he thinks he might quite like to have a photo of the New Zealand coach. It is not that I am suggesting that Mr English should be rolled as leader of course. We in the Labour Party would be quite happy for him to stay there as leader of the National Party for long as he wants. I think he should be that party’s leader for ever. In fact I think I feel a member’s bill coming on. Perhaps the “Bill English (National Party’s Perpetual Misery) Bill” might be in order. 
Bill English’s conspiracy theories I have to say are starting to rival those of his colleague Dr Nick Smith. Mr English now thinks that the Prime Minister years and years ago had a hand in determining the time slot of  
Mana News 
 so that decades on she could make comments on the programme at 6.45 a.m. and not be heard by most New Zealanders. How is that for a conspiracy theory? That honestly does rival Nick Smith’s theories. 
That brings me to New Zealand First—and I see many of my New Zealand First colleagues sitting on the Opposition side of the Chamber—and to a comment on the matter of immigration that was made last week by Mr Peters in one of the more appalling speeches I have heard in this House. I wonder how many of his New Zealand First colleagues would be prepared to go out to the people in the ethnic communities migrant communities and refugee communities—many of whom provide important services within their communities—and give that speech to them. 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I did not take a point of order during the member’s amusing speech but I would like now to seek the leave of the House to table the police report on the allegation of forgery against the Prime Minister from which I quoted during my speech. It is to the Deputy Commissioner of Police and is dated 21 June 2002. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I want to talk about a matter of some constitutional delicacy. It arises from the foreshore and seabed debate that the country is now engaged in. Yesterday I watched two Ministers of the Crown being humiliated. They are going through days of distraction from their real duties. They suffer hours of indignity as they have to listen to speeches that are variously full of impassioned pleas nonsense and thinly disguised insult. Dr Cullen admitted to—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just want to caution the member on my right that there have been far too many interjections. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Dr Cullen was forced to admit that “public domain” was replacing “Crown ownership” because the latter term was “too confrontational with Maori claims to ownership”. Now of course the Crown is renouncing ownership of the foreshore and seabed. Why are we in this position in this country? How did that happen to a competent and popular Prime Minister? More important how do we ensure that this disgrace is not the natural order for Ministers of the Crown? 
What has brought Ministers to this situation? There is something other than the logic of their own position as Chris Trotter points out in today’s  
Independent 
. It is overweening judges. On 19 June the Court of Appeal decided to make law instead of applying it. The Ninety Mile Beach case had stood for 40 years. Sixty years earlier than that Salmond our foremost lawyer and most of this country had believed that the Crown was the source of title since 1840 and that the foreshore was clearly owned by the Crown unless otherwise alienated. On 19 June the Court of Appeal made a radical decision. It should simply have told Parliament that it thought the law was mistaken and invited Parliament to fix the law as soon as it had gone through the sort of process we are going through now. Instead the Court of Appeal caught the Crown unprepared—shamefully unprepared but unprepared. Why was it flat-footed? The reason I believe is that the “sisterhood” is planning to usurp our constitution. The Supreme Court Bill is planning to give to judges the role of being able to pass law that Parliament would never pass but the judges jumped the gun. They went ahead before the rest of the “sisterhood’ had said to do so. 
The Court of Appeal decision was led by a judge who should not have been on the case. She had at the very least an apparent conflict of interest. In Britain where it is thought that these things matter a bit more and apolitical unbiased justice is important the Pinochet case was reversed for much less. A new hearing was ordered there when Lord Hoffman was shown to have links with Amnesty International which had appeared in the case. Dame Sian Elias should have excused herself from this particular case for the same reasons. Dame Elias has been passionately partisan in treaty matters. Before her appointment she described my scepticism about sanctifying the treaty—if it was widely shared among lawyers—as a cause for her despair about New Zealand’s future. Dame Elias made her enlightened legal name in work for Maori claimants and much of it was pro bono. Without that work she would have been too inexperienced and too little-known to be appointed to her high office even with the drive to make the courts more gender-balanced. 
This is not to say that a judge is incapable of applying an unbiased judgment to a matter where he or she has represented clients before being appointed as a judge. Barristers are often simply silver-tongued paid mouthpieces for their clients. But in those cases Dame Elias was campaigning for her adopted cause; she was not simply a barrister. And it gets worse. In 1985 Dame Elias was the losing counsel in the Manukau iwi case seeking ownership of the bed of Manukau Harbour. The Waitangi Tribunal said it was crystal-clear that the Crown owned it and tossed the case out. She has now reversed that. Of course Dame Elias’ presence does not necessarily mean that the court was biased but it is the appearance of bias that matters. She may have addressed the case with completely impartial judgment but it is the appearance of impartiality that the House of Lords said matters. Here where a radical decision was delivered where the role of Parliament was usurped by unelected judges where Parliament which can be subject to the will of the people was not given the opportunity the Chief Justice should have disqualified herself. 
This case is a classic example of the limitations of our country’s small size and of the reason that it is so valuable to have a right of appeal outside the smug little group that controls justice in this country. Those judges are convinced that they are virtuous enough to determine race policy even where the politicians have been too cautious to tread and these legal breast-beaters have invented doctrines that are legal nonsense in order to cover their tracks. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister of State) 
: 
 My speech today is about honesty in politics particularly with regard to National’s maladies. By that I do not mean melodies of the musical kind; I mean maladies of the disease and sickness kind. Talented people have been dismissed from the National Party. Why for example was an MP as talented and decent as Belinda Vernon relegated so far down the list that she is no longer here in the House? She should have been on National’s front bench. Let us look at the talent or lack of it on National’s current front bench. What did Belinda Vernon do wrong? Did she back the wrong leader perhaps? If we look at National’s front bench we see two out of the seven members have been here one parliamentary term and yet they have leapfrogged well over the heads of many of the other National members. 
Let us look at some honest comments. There are some honest comments from National people. Let us look at John Upton Pakuranga’s deputy chair of the National Party. He says that there is an 80 percent dissatisfaction with National by the party’s financial members the quality of the National Party’s message could be compromised and the front-bench members of the party would be crazy to ignore the fact that in the eyes of the public they still have not got their act together. I think that is a pretty honest comment from a National Party person. He has certainly been very honest and forthright about the way that the party has treated Maurice Williamson. 
Let us look at the honesty in the way that National has treated people. We can look at things like Mr English’s treatment of the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Clerk when he made in his own words—“a very bad error of judgment that lasted about 2 minutes—absolutely no defence of that. I could not offer any.” That is Mr English’s comment about his own conduct when he made threatening comments towards the Deputy Speaker and the Clerk a few years ago in this House. What about Mr Brownlee who strong armed a National Party member who was being thrown out of a conference and later had to settle I think at $8500 in a civil case against him? What about Nick Smith over the years and his court cases—November 1992 October 1996 November 2000 December 2000 2002 and 2003? One or two of them he has won but many of them have been right off the rails. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has alleged that I have been in court in 1992 in 1996—I have never never appeared in a court hearing. I would ask the member to desist from spreading untruths. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. If the member has taken offence which I understand he has would the member please withdraw? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I withdraw if the member has taken offence. But I did not say that he had been in court. I said those were cases that were often dealt with in the courts. But let us look at the allegations used. [ 
Interruption 
] I will move on from that. Perhaps I should just table the list. 
We have seen a number of occasions when National really is in some trouble. We have some issues where National will never let the truth or the facts get in the way of a good story. Let us look at the way that Mr English and the National Party have reacted to different situations around the country. For instance we can look at the so-called “flatulence tax” and the honesty in that debate. Who signed the Kyoto Protocol? Was it the previous National Government? Why has that not been in the media and where is National’s level of honesty on that issue? I ask Dr Smith this: who stated that emissions should be part of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations? Was it a Labour Government? Oh no it was the previous National Government. Where is the honesty in that? Why was that not said by National members out on the front steps of Parliament when they had all the farmers out there? Why have National members not been honest with their own constituency? Why have they not fronted up to their own constituency and said that was the position that they had advocated for? They wanted the emissions from animals to be included and now even though farmers have an exemption until 2012 when other industries have to pay carbon taxes years sooner than that why do we still have the nonsense cant and absolutely misleading comments from National Party members? Why are their own people the farmers who support them so confused about this whole issue that they write National Party research note letters and put them in the media? 
I am rather tired of the dishonesty in this House. There is a real difference between an experienced member of Parliament deliberately breaking the law and the position that I found myself in. I find the National Party’s continual raising of that as though I had deliberately broken the law to be something that is less than honest or desirable. I have been absolutely honest—in stark contrast with the farming members of the National Party who have not been out there on the hustings telling their own constituents what the real position is and why the National Government of the day insisted on emissions from animals being included in the Kyoto Protocol negotiations. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Rubbish! 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I invite that member to go back to his chair and to look at the previous National Government’s own Cabinet minutes. The National Party cannot have it both ways. It claims to represent the farming community and yet it is absolutely dishonest with farmers. I know that the levy per animal—not a tax on emissions but a levy per animal—is deeply unpopular with farmers. But at least it is a straightforward and an honest solution. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member quoted from a list that he said he had here. I ask that he table that document concerning Dr Smith. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If it is an official document he can table it. Would the member like to clarify the situation? 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I do not think the member can— 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The member offered to table it and I am now asking him to table it. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Would the member care to table the document? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister of State) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think another member can request me to table a document that is not an official document. I simply read a list of occasions in the House. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: The member said he would table it. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I will consider that. But that member as a member of the Opposition does not have the right to ask me to table anything. If I choose to seek leave I will. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you very much. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When the member is quoting from a document then he is required to table it. He said he was quoting from a document. He had the document in his hand and he said he was prepared to table it. I ask that he do exactly what he indicated he was going to do. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well that is normally done only if the document is an official one. However the member has assured the House—and all members here are honourable; their word is their bond—that the document is not an official one. Therefore he is not required to table it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The piece of information the Minister has relates to my personal affairs. Under the Privacy Act and under the Standing Orders of the House any official papers can be required to be tabled. Either the Minister is now saying the information is incorrect and he does not have the courage to table it— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No that is out of order. The member is a long-standing member of Parliament and he knows he cannot doubt another member’s courage. The member will apologise for that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw that statement. But this is an important issue. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The member has not apologised yet. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I will apologise if that will fix the problem. I simply say that Mr Harry Duynhoven in his speech made certain statements about my personal affairs that were incorrect. He said he had a piece of paper to back them up and that he would table it. My colleagues heard that. I think he should act on his word; otherwise the House should reflect on why he is not prepared to do so. 
LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Standing Order 117 relates to personal reflections. My colleague Dr Smith has taken exception to the comments made by the Minister during his speech and Standing Order 117 relates to personal reflections against a member. My colleague took exception to what was being said. Mr Duynhoven did indicate he would table a document. I asked that he table the document as he suggested in his speech he would willingly do. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have now reviewed the document. It is in fact research unit notes. It lists the abuse of the court processes by Nick Smith and there is no problem with it being tabled. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to consider whether this might not be worth a considered ruling because when a member says that he or she has a document and is prepared to table it in effect it is a double verification. It is a form of statement that makes it very hard to challenge what that member is saying. It is an attempt to give it absolute veracity. I ask that you consider when a member does that and then fails to follow through whether that member is either deliberately misleading the House or is reflecting on the character of another member in a way that is deliberately designed to leave an impression of absolute veracity that cannot then be tested. In other words it is beyond the scope of the normal situation where a member cannot be forced to table something. When a member has offered to table under these circumstances we may need a ruling stating that it will be unparliamentary not to follow through; otherwise we are left in the position whereby someone is essentially claiming absolute veracity and then cannot be challenged on that. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I wanted to make the point that a number of members have stated that the Hon Harry Duynhoven said he would table that paper. I thought he said that he would “consider” tabling the paper. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I table the document. [ 
Interruption 
] No I do not have to seek leave. I am a Minister. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 Watching the face of the Minister of Education during that last diatribe from the junior Minister Mr Duynhoven was indeed revealing. It was clear on his face and on the faces of other members opposite that they were reflecting on the fact that they had kept this place in urgency to pass the “Save Harry” legislation. The look on the face of the Minister of Education said it all. That expression said: “We got it wrong. We made a mistake.” The embarrassment on the face of the Minister of Education was absolutely visible to all of those who looked. 
As a hard-working local constituency member of Parliament who frequently listens to the views of people in my electorate I know that there are many people out there who look at the happenings in Wellington scratch their heads and wonder what planet this place is on and in particular what planet this Government is on. I know that when I return to my electorate tomorrow night I will again be meeting bewildered people who wonder just how some of this stuff happens. I know already from the telephone calls that I have had as the news bulletins have carried the news that my colleague Shane Ardern is to face a police prosecution that there are people out there who are scratching their heads in amazement and some of them are downright angry. What they say to me is that they cannot understand how the police can find time to carry out an instantaneous investigation into this very serious offence—driving a tractor—when they who are burgled who are assaulted and who have serious crimes committed on their doorsteps not only cannot get an investigation from the police but in many cases cannot even get a response from the police. They look at the stupid action on the part of the police in preferring those charges against Mr Ardern and ask just what planet these people are on. 
Who was the idiot in the police who made up his mind to prefer such charges? Who was the idiot who decided to waste court time? Who was the idiot who decided to waste police time that should have been spent looking after the safety and well-being of ordinary law-abiding New Zealanders? I have a message for the Commissioner of Police. He should get a grip. There are people out there people represented by me and by others in the House who know that there are serious criminal offences being committed on their doorsteps who have their cars interfered with and their homes invaded and where are the police when they want them? Yet the police have time to carry out a very speedy investigation into someone who has committed the serious offence of driving a tractor and to make a decision within a few hours that it is serious enough to warrant prosecution. The people in my electorate will shake their heads in amazement. 
It is part of a wider trend that I have seen in the police force in recent years. The police have simply lost the plot. In my electorate there are people whose businesses are about to be closed down because they are in the dangerous business of selling gift baskets. The gift baskets happen to have liquor in them and the police have appropriated funds solemnly given to them by this Parliament to challenge the decision of the Liquor Licensing Authority to try to ensure that the Liquor Licensing Authority’s decision to license dangerous gift-basket purveyors is overturned. I have people who cannot renew the licences for their businesses but the police—who cannot attend to serious burglaries or assaults—have time to take expensive court cases to overturn law-abiding decisions on liquor-licensing provisions. 
I also say as the Minister of State Services is in the House that they shake their heads in wonderment that we have— 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 On Monday 18 August the Government released its proposals on the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand. That night Helen Clark the Prime Minister was on the  
Holmes 
 show. I happened for once in my life to see that show. During it she announced to the nation over the television that the Government’s proposal was to put the foreshore and seabed into the public domain on the basis that no one would own it. Paul Holmes then asked her the question: “Why on earth are you doing that? Why don’t you just do the straightforward thing and put the ownership of those assets in the Crown?”. I found the Prime Minister’s response to that question extremely interesting. She said that if she were to do that she would be unnecessarily inflaming division in this country because the Maori people would regard ownership being placed in the Crown as a win for the Crown and a loss for Maori—or words to that effect. 
That was an entirely new thought to me as a New Zealander. When the Prime Minister said those words for me—and for a lot of other New Zealanders as well because I heard them the next day on the radio—she introduced a whole new thought into this debate that had not been there previously. I have been reflecting on that and I have come to see that from a Maori perspective there are two parties to the treaty. One of those parties is Maori and the other one is referred to as the Crown. Therefore if the Crown were to assume ownership of the foreshore and seabed then naturally enough as Maori do not see themselves as part of the Crown—in fact they are the other party to the treaty—from their point of view it would be as it were a triumph for the Crown and they would experience a corresponding loss. That was a new perspective for me and it made me start to think and to wonder about why we use the name “the Crown”. Why do we in this country have a system that allocates a whole lot of things to “the Crown”? 
That really raised some questions in my mind. But when I look at the Government’s proposed solution which is to have no one own it but to put it in the public domain I find that it is not very satisfying either. Really deep down in my gut I say “No”. The foreshore and the seabed belong to all of us as citizens of this country. I grew up on the beach in Tasman Bay. I accessed that beach daily. There was nothing between the beach and our property except the Queen’s Chain. It is part of my inheritance too to walk on to that beach and I feel like I own it as much as any other New Zealander does. 
I want to suggest today that we look creatively at a possible way forward in this situation. I have come to this reflection which I would like to share with the House. I wonder whether the foreshore and the seabed could be put under a title that would have in it these words: “We the people of New Zealand as guardians in perpetuity for both ourselves and future generations …”. I have used the word “guardians” because I realise that to Maori the philosophy of kaitiaki is very important and implies guardianship. Indeed those words could be put on the newly issued title in both English and Maori to make it very very clear that this particular title was held by “We the people of New Zealand”. I think that would give this whole debate a very very different perspective. I would be very interested in due course to hear a Maori response to the point I am making because that title would definitely include us—“We the people of New Zealand”—very very clearly in the name on the title to that land. It would be held in perpetuity and we would be guardians of the land for all time and for all future generations of New Zealanders without distinction on the basis of race creed arrival time in New Zealand or any other criteria—the land would be for all of us. It really adopts the system that has been developed in the United States where “We the people” has resonance with every citizen of that country. I think that if we look to the future we could start to take on board a “We the people” concept for New Zealand. 
The difference would be this. “The Crown” as far as I can figure out is just a legal fiction. It certainly does not mean the reigning sovereign of New Zealand. She does not personally own the foreshore and the seabed of this country. So what is this entity that we have christened “the Crown”? Is it not time to think of a new name and a new way of expressing the reality that we are all New Zealanders together? Within that I would strongly say that any customary rights of Maori in terms of use of the foreshore and the seabed that are eventually determined by the— 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I move  
That the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 It is my intention to move that the bill be referred to the Education and Science Committee at the conclusion of this debate. 
This bill amends the Education Act 1989 to carry out the legislative disestablishment of the education Crown entity the Early Childhood Development Board. The Review of the Centre done as part of the State services work of this Government found an important issue with fragmentation and with the loss of focus on the big picture that fragmentation can cause. I considered the Review of the Centre advice appropriate when I received the recommendations coming out of the working-party on the Early Childhood Strategic Plan—something around which there was a lot of discussion and I think a very large degree of unanimity politically and amongst the sector.  Although New Zealand already has a relatively strong early childhood education sector compared with other countries the plan provides opportunities to build on its strengths. One of the changes in focus required by the plan is greater involvement by the Government in early childhood education rather than the free-market approach. I think it is fair to say that the involvement of the Government has been welcomed widely. In particular rural communities feel that they miss out in the early childhood area under the free-market approach because they consider that they need more resources more intervention and more support. 
A lot of work is being done to integrate the work being done by the Early Childhood Development Board into the Ministry of Education in order to combine the capabilities and strengths of both organisations in ways that will contribute to the overall lifting of access quality and collaboration across the early childhood education sector. The outcomes of the integration will be to improve the effectiveness of early childhood education delivery to provide a combined and strong leadership for early childhood education services and to lift the early childhood education capability of the Ministry of Education. I am the first to accept that the ministry has been very light in this area especially in the areas of Maori and Pasifika early childhood education. In fact I think it is fair to say that overall when I became Minister the early childhood education sector in the Ministry of Education was not capable of doing the sort of intervention work and development work that I think this whole Parliament thinks is necessary in order to improve the quality of early childhood education. The outcomes will also include: developing closer links between early childhood education policy development policy implementation and shared strategies; developing strong links between information advice and support functions which have been disparate until now; and maintaining national cohesion. 
I want to make it clear that this decision in no way reflects on the work that the Early Childhood Development Board has done to promote and develop quality early childhood education. It has had a particular focus on Maori and Pasifika communities which I know has been very greatly appreciated by those communities. Even in the past 12 months knowing that change was about to occur it has kept its eye on the ball and has licensed more non-registered services than its objectives in its annual plan required. I think the board is to be commended for that. 
The integration process will transfer most of the board’s business to the Ministry of Education as at 1 October 2003. A new organisational design for the ministry is currently being finalised and is out for consultation. Early Childhood Development Board staff will be appointed to the ministry under the relevant provisions of the State Sector Act and a transfer protocol has been negotiated with the Public Service Association. 
This bill provides for the formal disestablishment of the Early Childhood Development Board as a legal entity and the consequential matters that that entails. Just to make it clear an interim board will be appointed to carry out any requisite legal matters until the time that this legislation passes. The bill transfers the functions assets liabilities and rights to the Ministry of Education makes the necessary amendments to legislation and provides for the Secretary for Education to take responsibility for providing Parliament with a final report after the end of the year. 
The bill also empowers the ministry to take over the payments to licence - exempt early childhood services. These are small grants to services such as playgroups. The grants allow them to pay for such things as hall hire play equipment and safety modifications. The Early Childhood Development Board was able to pay the grants under section 321 of the Education Act 1989 because it was a body corporate as the section requires. Members will probably be surprised to learn that the ministry as part of the Crown and not a body corporate has no authorisation to make such payments. I think it is a gap in the law and obviously we are taking advantage of this legislation to fill this gap. 
I understand that there is a lot of support from around the House for this legislation because people who have been consulting the early childhood sector know that it is very widely supported. Everyone out there in the sector knows that it is something that is wanted and desired and it is really just a matter of Parliament doing the will of the sector in this case. 
PHIL HEATLEY (NZ National—Whangarei) 
: 
 It might come as a surprise to the Minister of Education but not everyone in the early childhood sector—and certainly not everyone in this House—supports this move. He might very well think it is so far down the track that we will just lie down and die those thousands of parents indirectly affected by it will lie down and die and those professionals working in the early childhood care and education sector will lie down and die and accept it. But the reality is that the Minister—even with this bill—is listening to only one stream of advice. Part of the reason he is getting rid of the Early Childhood Development Board is so that he will continue to get only one stream of advice and that is from his own people with the same philosophical drive as him. The Minister should not be surprised that the National Party will be opposing this bill and I am happy to put up our reasons for that. 
The general policy statement in the explanatory note of the bill states: “The Government has determined that the Early Childhood Development Board (ECD) should be integrated into the Ministry of Education after 30 September 2003.” The Early Childhood Development Board was established in 1990 under the Education Act and the board reports directly to the Ministry of Education. That has been its role until now and it has had a high degree of success. Certainly there are opportunities to improve the way that it provides advice—there is no doubt about that—but it being separate from the ministry works very well indeed. 
I do not know why this Minister and his Government continue the trend of centralisation and the creation of super-bureaucracies. It seems to be key with the Labour Party. There has been a trend to move smaller Government departments into bigger ones with the argument that there is a decrease in bureaucracy and with the argument that such centralisation actually lowers cost removes unnecessary personnel and so on yet we continue to see an ever-burgeoning public sector particularly within the Ministry of Education. There is less money going to the schools that need it and more money going to the bureaucracy. There was the merger of the Special Education Service with the Ministry of Education last year and earlier this year and of course there has been the announcement of the merger of the Ministry of Youth Affairs and the Ministry of Social Development. Those mergers create two giant super-bureaucracies—one being the Ministry of Education which we are talking about here and the other one being the Ministry of Social Development. Mr Maharey and Mr Mallard have their kingdoms and they are growing. 
The vision of early childhood education will be further eroded simply because with the demise of the Early Childhood Education Board regions and small centres throughout our nation will lose the opportunity to express their views through the Early Childhood Development Board with its advice to policy makers and with its reports on what is happening on the ground. That valuable advice from the regions will now be divorced from the ministry in practice and it will certainly be divorced from the Minister and we oppose that. We know that Trevor Mallard has an ideological bias against independent providers. This is his opportunity to remove their voice from the ministry which he holds under his thumb. The only motive I can see for that is that he wants to hear only his own advice and the advice of those whose views are akin to his own philosophical bent. He prefers community-owned operators and he prefers those that can be more closely regulated by the Government; those are the only early childhood care and education centres that he wants to hear from. That is of huge concern to us. 
Another concern that I put to Mr Mallard is the National Party’s belief that we should keep delivery separate from policy advice. That is our view and it is one that we have held for some time. The Early Childhood Development Board supplies advice and support towards the establishment of early childhood education providers. In comparison the ministry has always had a regulatory role. It awards licences for early childhood education providers and it cancels them if it believes that the providers are not living up to their licence requirements. With the merger of the Early Childhood Development Board and the ministry the transparency of the two roles 
is compromised. Delivery should be kept separate from policy advice. The ministry and the policy makers have divorced themselves from the practice in the regions. In another sense they have joined themselves so closely together that they will not be able to have objective views when it comes to awarding and cancelling licences and that is of concern to the National Party. It is for the second reason that we will be opposing this bill. 
Thirdly there is a restriction on streams of advice—hearing only what one wants to hear and I touched on that with Mr Mallard earlier. I note this comment made by those in the sector when the surprise announcement was made to the sector with no consultation whatsoever: “The Minister talks of wanting a consistent approach; what he really wants is to reduce the number of opportunities for disagreement with his policies.” That is a key point. Independent providers of early childhood education are already under threat through funding disparities in favour of kindergartens and community-owned operators and through new regulations requiring early childhood teacher registration. The Minister does not want to hear about those funding disparities. He does not want to hear about favouritism towards kindergartens. He does not want to hear about favouritism towards those education and care centres that are unionised. He does not want to hear about new regulations requiring early childhood teacher registration. He does not want to hear about any of those problems within the sector. What he does want to hear are glowing reports about what a wonderful job he is doing and we cannot subscribe to that because it is just not happening. The problem with this is that it restricts the streams of advice and the Minister will hear only what he wants to hear—such is the size of the Minister’s ego. 
There are practical reasons for retaining the Early Childhood Development Board and for improving it in terms of both its performance and its objectives. It has a completely different role from the role that the Ministry of Education has traditionally had. The Early Childhood Development Board used to provide parenting initiatives such as Parents as First Teachers and Family Start. The Minister will be seriously undermining them. I know that Parents as First Teachers programmes have been restricted throughout the country. There are fewer of them rolling out. Not a single Family Start programme has been put in place when he has been Minister. He argues that such programmes are still operative but there is a cut-back in Parents as First Teachers programmes and there have been no new Family Start programmes so I do not know how he can argue that they still exist. 
The Early Childhood Development Board has supported the sector and it has had an especially important role because it knows of the diversity within the sector. It has heard representations from people right across the board—whether they are from kindergartens private providers or playcentres. The Minister should hear advice from all people within the sector and not just those who will do his bidding. Given the exponential increase of early childhood education and early childhood education providers in the 1990s it seems absurd that the Early Childhood Development Board which was such a useful arm of the Government at that time and which was useful to that growth should be disbanded and merged with the Ministry of Education. It is stupid. Surely more emphasis should be given to early childhood education. We argue that that is best done by maintaining the Early Childhood Development Board. 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this bill this afternoon because early childhood education is one of the most critical areas of education. As I have said for many years it is the foundation upon which the rest of a child’s education is built. From my personal experience the day our son started kindergarten I was co-opted on to a kindergarten committee and I was still on a school committee when he was at university so I served a good apprenticeship and I gained a great deal from it. As a consequence I have always had an interest in early childhood education. 
Phil Heatley 
: Did you do any painting? 
JILL PETTIS 
: Yes I did occasionally do painting and I love play dough. I have to say after listening to Mr Heatley that he had to struggle to find something to say against in this bill. It was arduous and it was torturous for us to listen to him. I suspect that his heart really was not in his speech. 
This bill is a good bill. It is forward-looking and as the Minister of Education said in his introductory comments it will ensure that the Government and the early childhood development unit work closely together and that is basically about improving young people’s educational chances. The integration of the agency staff into the ministry will enable everyone who works in the area to work closely alongside each other and that is incredibly important. We are talking about collaboration we are talking about cooperation and we are talking about having a strong early childhood education unit. 
As I said at the beginning of my speech early childhood education is the foundation upon which young people’s education is based. This Government has contributed an extra $55 million over the next 4 years to early childhood education because we recognise the importance of that part of the sector. This bill will ensure that there is a cohesive integrated and streamlined approach to the early childhood education strategy with all the relevant education experts in the public service under one roof. And there are many experts in the early childhood sector. I just wish that more people in greater education circles were fully aware of the expertise that does exist within the early childhood area. I extend my appreciation to those experts. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 A couple of weeks ago I had an interesting phone call from my colleague the member for Whangarei. Up in Northland we look after each other. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes party lines go out when it comes to Northland interests. I just want to report how the conversation went. He said: “Hey Brian what’s this bill about early childhood education about?”. I explained how the Early Childhood Development Board was to be absorbed into the Ministry of Education. The conversation continued: “What are you guys going to do?”. I said that there is duplication at the moment there is wastage of money and it makes sense to roll these bodies into one. The next comment was: “Yeah but that’s your position for New Zealand First; what’s our position?”. I explained to him: “You guys have always believed that there should be a split between the policy side and the operational side of things so you will probably be opposed to it.” Guess what? National is opposed to it and I am going to send Bill English a bill for the policy consultancy work done by Brian Donnelly on behalf of New Zealand First. 
Jill Pettis said that the National Party spokesperson on early childhood education was struggling and was mentioning how parents are outraged. I can see all these parents pushing their prams to the steps of Parliament to protest against this draconian move by this awful Labour Government. I can see Shane Ardern pushing a pram up the steps and the police coming to get him for disorderly conduct. The reality is nothing of the sort. 
I have to say that during my brief sojourn in the executive I was delegated responsibility for early childhood education including obviously the Early Childhood Development Unit as it was called at the time. During that 1 week in which I sat on that side of the House and was a member of the executive—which Geoffrey Palmer reckoned was a constitutional outrage—I think I signed off making it the Early Childhood Development Board. So there is a bit of a sense of loss here. 
But the Early Childhood Development Unit as it was or the Early Childhood Development Board as it is now was set up at a time when the theory of Government administration favoured a complete separation of policy and operation. In the early 1990s we did that across the field not only in the area of early childhood education but in a whole range of education areas. In a sense it was a sub-theme of the funder/provider split doctrine that existed at that particular time. In general that pure theory just did not work. It certainly did not work in education. We have seen the same sort of thing occurring with the Special Education Service and some other areas. There was fragmentation and even by 1996 it was recognised that there was a problem with that pure point of view in terms of Government administration. The policy makers were losing touch with the grass roots with the reality of what was actually happening in our schools and preschools throughout the country. The ministry particularly in the field of early childhood education was progressively taking a much much more hands-on approach even by that particular stage in time—even though it was somewhat surreptitious. 
I have to make the claim that I think it was the New Zealand First - National administration that started in education at least deliberately to reconnect the policy with the provision. I think the Minister of Education would agree with that. In reality some of this was already happening. During that coalition Wyatt Creech and I recognised that we had to start reconnecting the disparate policy/operation shift or policy/provider shift that was happening. The Labour administration has come in with a deliberate policy of breaking down that split. We have to recognise that that is the policy that this particular administration has pursued and the bringing together of the two parts has in fact accelerated. The result is we have duplication of roles between what the Early Childhood Development Board is doing and what the Ministry of Education is doing in this particular field. It does not seem sensible or fair on the taxpayer to continue to have this particular duplication. 
One of the ironies of the situation is that the Ministry of Education is able to pay salaries at such a level that it has been attracting all the staff from the Early Childhood Development Board which has been having difficulty keeping its best-quality staff. So it has been becoming more and more difficult for the Early Childhood Development Board to carry out its task. 
The Minister mentioned that the board has been strong in connecting with Maori and Pacific Island populations. In fact in 1996 or at about that time a criticism of the board was that it did not have a strength or a capability in that area. So it is significant that it has developed that strength and hopefully it will be transferred across into the Ministry of Education. 
The one thing about the Early Childhood Development Board and that whole area of education is its diversity. Its diversity is its strength because it is able to meet the multiple aspirations of different parents’ groups but it is also its weakness. Therefore we have to set up bodies—and there are lots of bodies—to try to speak with one voice for early childhood education. Unfortunately it is somewhat of a minefield because the different groups come with different philosophies about what good quality early childhood education is. We need to retain an entity that can bring all those particular threads together into one so that within the regions we can provide good quality early childhood education. But it should not be through single providers or single-sector groups; in other words we should not be saying: “Kindergartens are good so we will have only kindergartens.” or: “Kohanga reo is the only way we can deliver immersion Maori education.” because that is not so. There is a whole variety of ways that we can meet the aspirations of parents the aspirations of families and the educational aspirations of different groups. I think kohanga reo is probably the classic example of that. 
We need to be able to retain that diversity yet overcome some of the duplication. I think that by overcoming duplication by bringing the Early Childhood Development Board into the Ministry of Education we will get better cohesion within the programme of development of early childhood education across the country. New Zealand First members believe that we should not be duplicating resources and wasting taxpayers’ money. We can have all the philosophical arguments about which is better—the provider/funder split or whatever else there might be—but in reality New Zealand First takes a very pragmatic view. In other words we want what actually works and delivers to parents and families in the diverse rural areas and cities of New Zealand. We believe that this move is a positive and constructive one in terms of making sure that we do have high-quality early childhood education across the nation. Therefore we will be supporting this bill. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT NZ) 
: 
 It is interesting that we are having the first reading of this bill today because if we look at the recruitment page in today’s  
Dominion Post  
we see that all the positions are already being advertised for this new entity and have already moved into the Ministry of Education. So on the first reading of a piece of legislation we are trying to catch up with what has already happened. The Minister is being specious if he thinks that he has to pass this whole new bill just to cover a gap in the legislation—that is clause 6 which has the new funding mechanism that will enable the Minister to channel funding to the childhood centres that are not bodies corporate. That could have been done without taking the Early Childhood Development Board into the Ministry of Education. 
The Minister Trevor Mallard said on 12 March that public servants should not be frightened for their jobs due to this amalgamation. He said: “This is not a Ruth Richardson let’s-fire-everyone type review.” However a month later the Early Childhood Development Board’s own chairman Michael Morris told the Education and Science Committee during the financial reviews that he did expect some staff redundancies. He also told the New Zealand Press Association that the merger would take place by 30 September 2003. As we know it is now 10 September and we are debating the first reading of this bill and anyway it has already happened. 
The Minister was also incorrect when he said that there had been consultation with stakeholders in the early childhood sector. There has been very little consultation with stakeholders. The New Zealand Educational Institute and the Early Childhood Council have not been consulted. It just shows the complete contempt that this Minister has for the sector. I agree with the member over there who said that there are some experts out there in early childhood education. They are mothers and they are fathers. Why are they experts? They are experts because the Government keeps its clammy hands out of their lives and lets them get on with them. The best thing that this Government or any Government can do for early childhood education is to just leave it alone apart from being there to protect contract and the rule of law. 
We had a situation where parents could choose and we still have a situation to a large extent where parents can choose. This Minister is doing his damnedest to get rid of that. He will create one big bureaucracy in the Ministry of Education rather than allow the sector to develop within local communities and local communities are what can be truly responsive to the needs of communities who use early childhood education. Sure they do not always get it right and do make mistakes but local communities can respond a helluva lot quicker than a great big behemoth of a bureaucracy in Wellington can respond. To take one example members should look at the disastrous result we have of the great experiment of look-say reading. We have a whole generation of children who cannot read or write and we are starting to go back to phonics. If that had been run by parents communities and teachers without a directive from the ministry it would have been corrected very easily. 
The Minister referred to the fact and it is also in the commentary that the decision to do this merger draws on the Government’s decision to increase its involvement in the management of the early childhood education network of services and the 10-year strategic plan for early childhood education  
Pathways to the Future: Nga Huarahi Arataki 
. Let us look at some of the results of this plan. I asked the Minister a number of parliamentary questions a month ago. I wanted to know about the target for increasing Maori participation in early childhood education that the Minister has claimed as a great success. If we look at the results of that we see that the target for increasing it was 4500. It deliberately was not made in percentages so it would be easier to turn round and say that it has been a success. 
Four thousand one hundred and five Maori children were placed with early childhood providers during this time. It sounds good does it not? In fact those children would have been placed with early childhood providers just because of population growth. It would have happened regardless. What has been spent on these contracts? It is $8.2 million; $15555 per child. That would have bought quite a lot of good private early childhood education. 
There is almost no monitoring of this scheme. Some contractors have been paid even though there is no record of their even placing children with early childhood providers. I have some of the lists here. Let us look at some of these amounts of money: Te Whare Akonga Open Learning Centre 
 
 $600000; Te Pua Waitangi Ltd 270000; Manaaki Management Services $202000. How many children have stayed in early childhood education as a result of this $8 million? We do not know. There is no accountability. As the early childhood advisory committee noted at its committee meeting there is no follow-up on duration of participation or monitoring of retention. Fourteen out of the 50 contractors that the education ministry had paid this money to had failed to meet specific performance measures. 
It is just not good enough. What should that come under? That is $8 million that was targeted to get children into early childhood education. We do not know where it has gone. We do not know how long those children have stayed in. They are not monitored after 3 months. We do not know whether it is the same children enrolling and re-enrolling. It is for those reasons that the ACT party is opposing this bill. 
If the Minister were doing his job he would be using taxpayers’ money to ensure that those children were getting an early childhood education and that that taxpayers’ money was being used for the reason for which it was designated and that taxpayers’ money was not being wasted in going ahead with this merger when it is absolutely not necessary. I argue that the Minister is just using this merger as an excuse to cut funding to the sector. We will end up with a single bloated bureaucracy. The bureaucracy will be the inspection and the enforcement agency as Phil Heatley has already pointed out. It will be the funding administrator it will be the provider of advice and support to centres and it will be the researcher and the policy adviser to the Government. 
So it is to advise the Government it will do the research and it will be handing out the funding but it will also do the inspection and the enforcement. It is exactly what Trevor Mallard said he would do to the Education Review Office before he became Minister. He went out and he publicly said he would close down the Education Review Office and take it into the ministry. With pressure on him to his credit he actually did listen that time. He consulted. It was his early days as the Minister of Education— 
Simon Power 
: Those were the days! 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Those were the days! He listened to people out there who said: “If you get rid of the ERO there will be absolutely nothing for parents to monitor schools.” At least with the Education Review Office they can go on to the web and see reports from the Education Review Office. The Minister is capable of consulting and listening if he really really tries hard—and that does not mean going round to places like Wairoa and Kawakawa and listening and then closing the schools anyway. It means listening to good advice not from his ministry officials but from parents out there and it is the parents and the teachers in the communities who know what is best for their children not the politicians and the bureaucrats. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support this bill’s progression to the select committee. The move to disestablish the Early Childhood Development Board which we all understand is a Government body emanates from two main sources. The first of course is the more general review of the State sector now known as the Review of the Centre. One of the stated goals of the Review of the Centre is to try to reduce fragmentation of public sector agencies when they are essentially performing synonymous functions. We all know that the State sector reforms of the 1980s and 1990s have led to a multiplication of agencies while the State sector has actually shrunk. 
 One of the rationales for this explosion was a desire to decouple as others have said funders from providers in what was essentially the staging post for an era of contractualising. However in some cases this process went too far and it was clear that coordination was becoming a problem for ministry policy shops and certainly their satellite provider entities. As a consequence the most significant outcome of the Review of the Centre to date has been the announcement that the Ministry of Youth Affairs will be merged with the Ministry of Social Development although I notice that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs seems to have survived. 
Simon Power 
: Why is that? 
BERNIE OGILVY 
: I have no idea. Of course there was the announcement that the Early Childhood Development Board would be integrated with the Ministry of Education. 
The second source for the decision of course to integrate the Early Childhood Development Board was apparently the release this year of the Government’s 10-year plan for early childhood education called  
Pathways to the Future: Nga Huarahi Arataki 
. According to the Minister in a speech he made to a symposium in July this year the goals of the plan required a cohesive streamlined approach with all the relevant early childhood education experts in the public sector under the same roof. In general the approach of United Future has been one of trying to get some common-sense solutions. 
In the context of the State sector reform we do not see much sense in continuing to run two or more agencies that operate in the same field where there is the possibility that public work and a provision is being duplicated and costs multiply. But we would like the select committee to approach this bill with several other thoughts in mind. The first we feel is whether the merger will be in the interests of early childhood education—something that United Future thinks is critically important if we are to continue growing into a nation whereby every child has the opportunity to achieve his or her potential. The committee therefore will have to turn its mind to whether the fact that the Minister in charge of this bill is also the Minister of State Services is a happy coincidence or whether the Early Childhood Development Board is really a guinea pig for what is essentially a wider public management reform. In other words this change must be driven by educational imperatives and what is the best for our children rather than just administrative niceties. 
Another aspect that I think the committee should address is the broader question of the role of the Ministry of Education. By the way the Tertiary Education Advisory Commission wanted to see the commission established as an autonomous entity at arm’s length from the ministry. Unofficially its reason was that it had insufficient faith I think in the capacity or the capability of the Minister to achieve what it thought was necessary to steer and shape the tertiary sector. Yet under the Tertiary Education Reform Bill passed last year the Ministry of Education’s role as the principal policy adviser to the Minister on tertiary education matters was retained. 
I note that in terms of early childhood education the  
Pathways to the Future: Nga Huarahi Arataki 
 document recommends that the ministry be given “responsibility for the coordination of advice and support for governance management and professional leadership.” Although this helps to give the Minister something of a mandate to make these changes I would ask the committee to ask some serious questions and I will be doing that of the ministry about its capacity or capability for its expanded role. I hesitate to suggest that the flip side of State sector reforms that intend to reduce fragmentation is as we all know and could see to encourage empire building. 
Finally I would like to suggest to the committee that it take a long look at how this bill will impact upon the activity of the Early Childhood Development Board as it stands at present because it still exists. The committee will need to know what will happen to the 85 staff for instance and how the transition itself will be managed correctly. What will be the fiscal impact of this change? 
I note that the explanatory note to the bill makes no mention of compliance costs. I am somewhat suspicious as probably many others here are that there will be at least a one-off expenditure associated with this integration. It strikes me that unless this merger achieves some economies in the long term then there seems to be little point to it on that count. 
But the last and most important point that needs scrutiny is how this change will impact upon the services that the board provides today and how this will affect the early learning and development of our children. I do hope that the committee is responsive to these concerns that I have raised. 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I commend this bill to the House and make a number of comments as follows. We went to the last election with regard to the Review of the Centre policy. Make no mistake about it unlike the National Party we did have a policy in this area. We did campaign on it and we are starting to implement it now. What is the Review of the Centre? Put quite simply the ideological bent and drive for provider-funder splits that occurred in the 1990s is just that. We should always be looking at what is the most practical and pragmatic way to achieve an outcome—not whether it is an ideological process and be wedded to it as the National Party and the ACT party speakers are. This is a clear litmus test that differentiates us from them in terms of being business savvy—the best bang for the taxpayers’ buck with regard to getting the best possible outcome for the early childhood centres up and down this country regardless of whether they are kindergarten playcentre kohanga reo or others. 
I also wanted to note that whilst 44 percent of Maori babies still do not get into early childhood centres early childhood centres per se cannot be the panacea for that. That is an issue with regard to communities parenting etc. It is not an issue that the early childhood centres movement or the Early Childhood Development Board could have sorted. It is a very clear way of accounting and measuring participation performance; there is absolutely no doubt about that. So I am always gobsmacked when members of the National Party and ACT party get up and speak in this House and have no business case foundation in terms of cost-benefit analysis with regard to what we are doing in the Review of the Centre. We do need far more seamless delivery systems into our communities. The duplication of costs in terms of separate leaseholds separate information technology and separate human resources: all of these for what rationale and what outcome? 
I commend the bill to the House and to the select committee in this regard. I am sure that when the bill is reported back on a number of these issues a cost compliance statement and a regulatory impact statement will be there and members of United Future will be able to confirm the bill in the second reading and third reading thereafter so I commend the bill to the House. 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 One thing is pretty clear from that contribution of the Hon John Tamihere—which is that he just does not believe a word of that stuff. John Tamihere I am sure believes that early childhood education like every other form of education is best dealt with out of the reach of grey suit - wearing bureaucrats in Wellington and in communities where people understand exactly what their communities require in the way of education. 
I tell Brian Donnelly that I listened with interest to his contribution. I generally listen pretty carefully to what he has to say on education matters but I was very disappointed about his coming to the House and telling us about a private telephone conversation. That is not really the done thing for a member who is hugely credible in the education area and generally brings a lot of sane argument to some pretty robust debate in that area. 
I want to reiterate what my colleague Phil Heatley said. National will be opposing this bill. The closest I have come to a close relationship with the early childhood sector were my own kindergarten days back at Milverton Kindergarten in Palmerston North which was not— 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Only 6 months ago. 
SIMON POWER 
: That is right. I have read through the bill. I spent a bit of time on it last night. I am not an expert so I wanted to make sure that I would be able at least to hold my own against Brian Donnelly. I was not too worried about John Tamihere because I knew that he would agree with whatever I said. What we are seeing here is in direct contrast to what we saw in the tertiary sector. We are seeing the Minister signalling that he wants to disestablish a Crown entity integrate it into the ministry and recentralise control over this part of the education sector so that matters I guess are more firmly in his grip. 
In the tertiary sector quite the opposite happened. A separate Crown entity was formed to be the Tertiary Education Commission which was charged with independently overviewing the tertiary sector outside the realm of the Ministry of Education specifically so that the sector would see that the Crown entity allegedly had that independent credibility so crucial in the Minister’s mind to the steering of that sector in either a light-handed or heavy-handed way. 
I tell the Minister of Education and the Associate Minister of Education Steve Maharey that it cannot be done both ways. The Government might have the view that all sectors should be centralised into the ministry—into that monster bureaucracy that will drive the future of this country because that is what education does. In fact education is the engine room of the growth not only of the economy but of the nation. On the one hand the Government cannot say that the Ministry of Education is best equipped to centralise sectors in the early childhood area—by which it will wipe out a separate stand-alone entity and bring it back into the fold of the big behemoth bureaucracy the ministry—then on the other hand sell the view to the tertiary sector that what is required to gear that sector appropriately is a stand-alone Crown entity. 
There is just no consistency in the way in which this Government applies its basic philosophy to education. I just cannot understand what has created two roads running side by side—that is early childhood education in one direction and tertiary education in another. The Minister came to the House and said that the bill was about tidying up a few funding mechanisms getting a few things in order and getting the house tidied up. Quite the opposite was done by the Hon Steve Maharey in the tertiary sector and I do not believe for one second that both can be right. It just simply makes no sense. 
We are looking here to create what is essentially a new funding mechanism that enables the Ministry of Education to channel funding and that is the key point of the whole bill. It enables the ministry to channel the funding whereas of course the Tertiary Education Commission does that separately by way of charters and profiles and the Performance-based Research Fund does it separately again. With early childhood however it is a case of—“No no the ministry knows best.” It will control and channel funding to licence-exempt early childhood providers. At present funding is channelled to those providers from the ministry via the Early Childhood Development Board which provides a buffer organisation. In my view—to recall Brian Donnelly’s comments about policy and operation—that is probably an appropriate way to operate in the sector. 
I want to know from the Minister what will happen to those people currently employed in or around the Early Childhood Development Board. Bernie Ogilvy touched on that ever so gently but pulled back at the last minute from making an issue of it. He said the Minister of Education also holds portfolio responsibilities concerning the State sector and 3 or 4 weeks ago we saw the passing of a State Sector Amendment Bill that dealt with the issue of Christine Rankin’s liability. Some would say that it was a question of merging two ministries. Clearly it was designed to create a redundancy void. I have a very strange feeling that this legislation is designed to do exactly the same thing that we saw in the social development area. 
I spent some time looking at the bill last night—and if Brian Donnelly wants to take another call I would be very happy to hear from him on this—and I saw that it is very light on the detail of the contingent liabilities of the people who work in the current Crown entity. What will happen to those people? Have they been guaranteed that they will be swallowed into the Ministry of Education—there is a future to look forward to!—or will they be put in some box somewhere issued with grey suits and told never to come out to see the light of day again? 
I want to know where those issues are dealt with in this bill—because they are not. The bill is strangely quiet over employment and technical redundancy matters. My reading of it is that the State Sector Amendment Act passed through this House 3 or 4 weeks ago deals expressly with the issue now raised in this bill and that there will be no provision for technical redundancies under this bill. The State Sector Amendment Act will apply to the merging and the disestablishment of that Crown entity. 
The Minister should answer these questions. Those members opposite who were elected to this House to represent the workers of New Zealand should be concerned that this bill they are about to vote for will do exactly this: it will wipe out any opportunity for those employees to create or find any redundancy—technical or otherwise. I am extremely concerned that the State Sector Amendment Act will effectively introduce into this legislation a pay-nothing clause for those people leaving the Early Childhood Development Board. 
We heard very briefly from other speakers in this House that this legislation is part of a trend. We have seen the Special Education Service merged with the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Youth Affairs with the Ministry of Social Development although as the honourable member Deborah Coddington quite rightly pointed out the same thing did not happen to the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. It is very tricky to work out why a Government would do that to the Ministry of Youth Affairs but not to the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. 
I have to say to the Minister John Tamihere that he lost that one to the sisterhood. The Ministry of Youth Affairs was merged but the Ministry of Women’s Affairs was not. I would be very interested in hearing that Minister’s view because now he is left with the portfolios of land information and statistics. I hope he does not get too bogged down. I see that he has some light reading from the library on the pedestal in front of him which he obviously checked out to fill in the afternoon. Once the Ministry of Youth Affairs has gone let us be clear there will be a huge growth in the bureaucracy around education. 
I finish with this message to the House: beware the bureaucrats. They do not know what is best for the children of this country. We should be making sure that they are held accountable. During the select committee process and through the rest of the process of this bill National will be making sure that two groups are looked after—those who currently work at the Crown entity about to be disestablished but who are about to lose their jobs through technical redundancies being wiped out and the children of New Zealand so that the education afforded them in the early childhood area does not lose the quality standard it now has because it is going to be absorbed into a giant bureaucracy promoted by that Minister. 
MITA RIRINUI (NZ Labour—Waiariki) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand in this House in support of this bill along with most members who believe that childhood education—indeed education right across the board—is the most important issue facing a lot of New Zealanders. I was very pleased to hear the previous speaker alert the House to the fact that his education started at preschool level. Certainly he has leadership qualities so I think that it is very important for us to be confident that he does have that experience. 
The bill will ensure the integration of the Early Childhood Development Board into the Ministry of Education. For many years many of my constituents have been very concerned about the lack of cohesion across the education sector. Although there has been a high level of participation in early childhood education in my electorate for almost a decade there has been a high level of non-participation and that is the crucial issue we do not appear to want to discuss in this House. I am sure that this bill will ensure greater participation right across the board and I look forward to the Minister going round the traps and promoting this legislation amongst all those features in education. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 What a pathetic contribution from the previous speaker on an issue as important as early childhood education. I want to reinforce the points that have been made by National’s forward-looking early childhood spokesperson Phil Heatley and the comments by Simon Power because members on this side of the Chamber take early childhood education seriously and want to see young New Zealanders getting the very best for their futures. 
The first point I want to make is that members opposite seem to believe that we should put all of the power and responsibility with the State agency the Ministry of Education. This bill is about killing off the Early Childhood Development Board and handing over authority to the Ministry of Education. I ask the House whether we are confident that the Ministry of Education a bunch of bureaucrats in Wellington will be able to deliver the quality of early childhood education that we need. When I look at the chequered track record of the Ministry of Education it would be the last agency that I would want expanded and given even more responsibility. 
Let me share these figures with the House. Over the course of this Labour Government we have seen a 38 percent increase in Budget funding for the Ministry of Education. At the same time we have seen only a 9 percent increase in funding for schools. Where does the money go the furthest? Do we want to spend that money on bureaucrats or on kids? We on this side of the Chamber want to see the resources going to children because the level of funding increase that has been provided for schools and early childhood centres has not even kept up with the rate of inflation. We have had 11 percent inflation since this Government has been in office but only a 9 percent increase in funding for schools and early childhood centres. We know that that amounts to a real cut but members opposite care more about bureaucrats than they do about kids. This bill will only further expand the bloated bureaucracy of the Ministry of Education. 
I have a second question for members opposite who are going to get rid of the independent Early Childhood Development Board. Why do they want to get rid of the board? 
Phil Heatley 
: They don’t want to hear what it has to say. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I know. My colleague Phil Heatley the MP for Whangarei has it exactly right. He says they do not want to hear from anybody else. If they are ministry bureaucrats they can just be puppets for the Government. If one does not agree with the Government one ends up like poor old Shane Ardern who has been dragged before the courts or like myself who raised some legitimate questions about the Family Court. 
Members opposite will do everything they can to silence any independent point of view. It is part of socialist dogma which is that the only way is the Government way. Once Government members get their hands on power they will use every instrument at their fingertips to silence those who disagree. Getting rid of the independent Early Childhood Development Board is just part of that agenda. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: Get on to the debate! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to Mr Tamihere that it is all just part of that agenda but we welcome a diversity of views. I did not say that I agree with everything the Early Childhood Development Board has said but I want to listen and I want its point of view. I want that kind of non-bureaucratic point of view and expression in the development of early childhood policy because it is through diversity and open debate that we get the best policy possible for our children. 
Then we come to the provisions in this bill that further centralise decision-making. We all know that Trevor Mallard does not want anybody beyond the control of his fingertips. He knows that if the policy advisers within that early childhood development unit are not under the control of an independent board but are right in the lap of the ministry then he has them under control. 
It is just like the Special Education Service which was an independent body. When parents came to me as a member of Parliament with legitimate concerns about their special-needs children not getting services I used to be able to go directly to the Special Education Service and sort it out. Do members know what I am told now? I am told that I cannot talk with that service; I now have to go through the Minister’s office. It is then 3 or 4 months before I get answers from the Minister’s office whereas previously as a local constituency member of Parliament I was able to get a response from the Special Education Service within a week. 
Simon Power 
: It’s exactly the same with the Land Transport Safety Authority. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: As my colleague says it is exactly the same with the Land Transport Safety Authority. 
I want to ask another question: is the Early Childhood Development Board broke? Let us look at the record over the last 10 years. Over that time there has been a doubling of the participation rates in early childhood education. That is a stunning result. There has been greater growth in investment in the early childhood sector than in any other part of education—bigger than in schools and bigger than in the tertiary sector. Why would we want to break something that is not broke? Surely that sort of performance—a doubling of participation rates over the last 10 years—is something that members across the House should be celebrating. Why do members opposite want to break up that role which has proved so successful in improving participation rates in the early childhood sector? We have heard nought from members and Ministers opposite about why we would want to get rid of a structure that has delivered such a stunning performance over the last 10 years. 
Let me expand on what I think is the real agenda. In early childhood we have the benefit of a diversified sector with a large number of—dare I say it—non-State providers. Government members—whether in relation to school funding tertiary education funding or the early childhood sector—hate the private sector. If anybody tries to provide a good early childhood service that is not part of the State this Government goes after that service. That is why we have this nonsense whereby a kindergarten gets a different level of funding from another sort of provider even though the teachers may be absolutely identical. I have yet to hear from any Government member what the rationale for that is. 
I am absolutely in favour of funding quality and our spokesperson Phil Heatley has expanded on that. Funding quality makes good sense but whether the provider is a State provider a community provider a Maori provider or an independent private business should make absolutely no difference at all because it makes no difference to the child. We on this side of the House are not interested in the interests of the State or in trying to provide some job for some teacher. The most important thing to us is the children and that is lost sight of in this bill. I ask Government members again why they want to get their sticky little fingers on everybody. Why do they want to control every single element of the education sector? Why do we have to get rid of an independent early childhood education board? Why do they not value the input of people from other parts of New Zealand rather than having the whole thing controlled by bureaucrats? 
The last challenge I give to Government members is this: how far will they go in expanding the Ministry of Education? I ask how come during this Labour Government schools have gone backwards in real terms yet the Ministry of Education has had a 38 percent increase in funding. The message this Government is sending to the people of New Zealand is that bureaucrats matter more than children or teachers. The people of New Zealand are waking up to the Government’s statist approach. [ 
Interruption 
] I tell Mr David Benson-Pope that the people of New Zealand have had enough of this sort of legislation which just gives more and more power to the State. They know that children and teachers matter more than bureaucrats. They are looking forward to a change of Government when the priority will rest with children and teachers not with bureaucrats and politicians. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Education (Disestablishment of Early Childhood Development Board) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 82 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8. 
Bill read a first time and referred to the Education and Science Committee. 
Maritime Security Bill 
First Reading 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I move  
That the Maritime Security Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee that the committee finally report on the bill by 11 December 2003 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during questions for oral answer and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and to meet on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c). 
Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and subsequent acts of terrorism the international maritime community through the International Maritime Organization decided to develop new comprehensive measures to enhance ship and port security in order to prevent acts of international terrorism. In December 2002 that work led to a multilateral agreement on two major documents. First the International Maritime Organization adopted the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code which is known as the “ISPS Code” as part of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea the “SOLAS” convention. That code specifically aims to prevent unauthorised weapons and other dangerous items from being introduced to ships and ports. Secondly the International Maritime Organization agreed to major security-related amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. 
The Maritime Security Bill gives effect to those two International Maritime Organization outcomes. It establishes a maritime security framework in New Zealand to reduce the risk of security incidents such as a terrorist attack affecting port facilities and ships particularly those involved in international trade. The bill sets out the responsibilities of the Government and of port and shipping companies for maritime security. There are 146 contracting parties to the Safety of Life at Sea convention. New Zealand as one of those is required to enact legislation to put the International Maritime Organization’s new maritime security framework in place. That framework is to be implemented by 1 July 2004 the date by which New Zealand is required to meet those international treaty obligations. 
New Zealand’s economy is very highly dependent on sea-borne trade carried by foreign shipping. In fact 99 percent of New Zealand’s cargo exports and imports by weight were transported by sea in the year ended June 2002. That amounted to 85 percent of our cargo exports valued at $28 billion and 77 percent of our cargo imports worth $24 billion. In addition tourism from cruise ships and their passengers visiting New Zealand during the 2001-02 season generated $181 million in direct expenditure. Apart from the need for New Zealand to fulfil its international treaty obligations if New Zealand does not improve its maritime security the risks to tourism and trade transported by sea will increase significantly. New Zealand ports and the ships using them would become more vulnerable to the risk of a terrorist attack as other ports around the world increase their security. Our international trading partners may also refuse to allow ships travelling from New Zealand ports to enter their ports. The likely result of all that would be the withdrawal of many international shipping services from New Zealand. 
This Government is acutely aware of the need to strengthen New Zealand’s national security in the post - September 11 environment. Safeguarding New Zealand from terrorism and transnational crime and keeping our trade and tourism markets secure are absolutely fundamental. Two pieces of proposed legislation have been introduced in support of those objectives. The Border Security Bill focuses on improving the security of the global travel and trading environments while enhancing closer security relationships within the import and export supply chains. The Counter-Terrorism Bill extends existing measures and allows the Customs Service to detain property cash or cash equivalents crossing our border if there is good reason to suspect that the owner is involved in terrorism. The Maritime Security Bill complements those two pieces of legislation and is another vital component to ensure our border is well protected. 
That brings me to the detail of this bill. The provisions of the bill will apply to all New Zealand’s ports that have international trading connections and to those New Zealand ships that trade internationally. They will also apply to foreign-registered ships coming to New Zealand—specifically to international passenger ships international cargo ships over 500 gross tonnes and international mobile offshore drilling units. The bill does not apply to naval vessels pleasure craft or non-commercial vessels. It does however include a provision to give the Government the flexibility to extend all or part of the international regime to domestic passenger ships cargo and fishing ships and other port facilities should a risk be identified that warrants such precautionary measures being taken. 
The bill provides for the appointment of a designated authority to oversee the implementation of the maritime security requirements and to ensure that effective security is being maintained. The Government intends to appoint the Maritime Safety Authority as that designated authority. The main focus of the bill seeks to improve port and ship security. Putting in place preventive measures to ensure the security of ships and port facilities is essentially a risk management activity. In order to determine what security measures are appropriate the bill requires all the affected New Zealand ships and port facilities to undertake security risk assessments. Shipping companies must ensure that a security assessment is carried out by a person with the appropriate skills to evaluate the security of a ship. The bill allows for that and other functions to be carried out by a recognised security organisation. Such organisations will be independent organisations with appropriate expertise in security matters and with appropriate knowledge of ship and port operations. In the case of ports the designated authority and/or the recognised security organisation must carry out a security assessment of each port facility. The purpose of the assessment is to identify what the security risks and vulnerabilities are for that particular port or ship and to form the basis upon which to develop appropriate security plans to reduce those risks. 
The bill proposes that New Zealand ships and port facilities prepare have approved by the designated authority and then implement security plans that are based on their own security assessment. That will enable them to operate at a specified security level set by the designated authority. The level will be set at one two or three—normal a heightened threat or an extreme threat—depending on the nature of the security risk assessed at the time when a particular international ship interfaces with a New Zealand port facility. Foreign ships coming to New Zealand will have to attest to the designated authority’s satisfaction that they have valid certification on board and an appropriate ship security plan. Prior to arrival in port a foreign ship is required to provide the designated authority with evidence of the security level at which the ship is currently operating. 
The bill contains the power to undertake as and when required the screening and searching of any person or thing in a port security area the objective being to prevent the introduction of unauthorised weapons or explosive devices to ships or port facilities. The power to search and screen will be by consent of the person to be searched unless there is a need to screen or search anything left unattended in a port security area. The screening and searching powers in this bill are similar to those in the Civil Aviation Act. The bill includes regulation-making powers to enable the very detailed but mandatory provisions in both the Ship and Port Facility Security Code and the amendments to the Safety of Life at Sea convention to be implemented. 
To ensure compliance with this legislation a number of offences and penalties are proposed in the bill. They relate to breaches of the duties and responsibilities that stem from the nature of the maritime security regime agreed upon by the International Maritime Organization. 
This Government is committed to fulfilling its international security obligations including those in the fraught area of international maritime security. The bill responds to the development of an international framework to enhance maritime security. I urge members to support the bill for reasons closer to home. It will enhance the personal security of New Zealanders and will better protect New Zealand’s ports and ships from being potential terrorist targets. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (NZ National—North Shore) 
: 
 National will support this bill going to the select committee because it is obvious that in a time of heightened risk and danger we have to be vigilant. But just this week there was another maritime issue that the Government absented itself from. It actually betrayed 11 nations that are diligently trying to search for weapons of mass destruction on the high seas and that have entered into an agreement to do so. 
Members will be interested to know that those countries include the United States Australia Britain Italy Japan Poland and Spain. The Government may say that that is just the same group that is also supporting Iraq but if we look at who else is in that list we see France Germany and the Netherlands there. Are those not the countries that the Prime Minister was referring to— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: And Japan. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: and Japan—as a new nexus and as an interesting relationship with links to Russia and China? Yet New Zealand is not there. 
It is extraordinary that when we have the serious issue of intercepting weapons of mass destruction New Zealand is not there. It is missing in action. New Zealand cannot be bothered; it is not onside. It is all very well for the Minister to present this bill to the House with all of its detailed provisions but when countries are working together to detect weapons of mass destruction— 
John Key 
: Hand in hand. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: —hand in hand we are simply not there but are missing in action. 
Just recently last week I went to Japan and South Korea. I talked to members of the Japanese Government and said to them that New Zealand had an interest in dealing with nuclear weapons. I said we wanted to see the end of nuclear weapons and I asked them about linking together the three Southern Hemisphere nuclear weapons conventions: the Treaty of Rarotonga the South American treaty and the one for Africa. Do members know what their response was? Their response was that the trouble with that was that New Zealand does not get along with Japan’s friends and allies. So Japan has drawn its own conclusions about New Zealand because of our relationship with the United States. 
Just this July Prime Minister Howard visited Japan and during that trip the Japanese Government and the Australian Government entered into an agreement about trade liberalisation across all sectors. That agreement between Australia and Japan could lead to a free-trade agreement. But New Zealand has only a sector agreement with Japan—narrow and tight and about tourism education timber and things like that—which could not possibly lead to a free-trade agreement. So we are viewed by Japan through the prism of the Government’s bad relationship with the United States. The Government may get up and say it is helping in the war against terrorism is entering into the conventions and has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let me tell the House that the reality is— 
John Key 
: Too late. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: It is too late as my colleague Mr Key says and other countries know that. So our first trading partner Australia our second trading partner the United States and our third trading partner Japan are all saying: “Um gosh. We can’t trust those funny little people in New Zealand. We can’t work with them. They are off side.” Once again the Government proved that fact by not entering into an agreement in our own region—the Pacific—about North Korea where we cannot get alongside Australia the United States Britain and Japan and also the Government’s own friends France Germany and the Netherlands. 
So when I read a bill like this with all its laudable aims I have to look at the bigger picture here which tells me that we are out of the loop missing in action and that the later decisions—the afterthought decisions—about Iraq and Afghanistan do not actually count. A few months ago Mr Mark for instance said that the Government was trying to buy favour with the United States by using the bodies of our troops. But even that is not working; it does not cut the mustard. Even that craven attempt by the Government does not work. At once that tells us that the issue is fundamentally about beliefs. It is about fundamental values and action. That is what countries are measuring—not the later actions when we look as though we are trying to curry favour but where we stand in terms of our beliefs. 
When it comes to the crunch the Government is simply not willing to make the key decisions that would put us alongside not just a narrow group of countries but a much broader group. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Which one? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: Let me go through the countries again. Our first trading partner is Australia our second is the United States and our third is Japan. Each and every one of those countries is saying to us that we are not onside with it and that we are not doing the actions that would matter. So we are not in free-trade agreements and discussions with the United States or Japan. We do not have a hope of being in those. 
What is more we are leaving it to Australia to make all the running in the South Pacific because even there we have abandoned any pretence of leadership. Mr Goff had a phone call just a few weeks ago from Mr Downer who said he thought Mr Goff had said we would send 200 troops not the 100 that we sent to the Solomons. When Mr Downer asked where the other hundred troops were Mr Goff said he was sorry and that he would have to actually send them. That is not the way to make a decent relationship. Why are we always on the back foot? I ask the senior Government whip why we are always on the back foot. Why cannot the Government take some initiatives that deal with our relationships and get them driving forward so that we can make some realistic moves. 
I also want to refer to the issue of the costs of this bill. I note that the costs are quite substantial and that the annual operating costs for port facility operators will be $75000 for each and every port. 
That cost will be loaded on to cargo owners but the Minister did not say how clause 50 will operate. That clause deals with the inspection regime. The Minister said that the regime at our ports will be the same as that at our airports and he is right. As every member knows there is a very vigorous surveillance and monitoring situation for cargo at airports—and for people. This bill enables a similar situation to occur at our ports. The United States is already X-raying at huge cost virtually every container. This bill allows that also. I predict that there will be substantial extra costs not borne by the general taxpayer but imposed by the Government for our overall benefit. We would think those costs would therefore be borne by the overall community but they are in fact to be borne by the port operators the shipping companies and obviously indirectly by the importers. 
I have to ask where the reasonable balance is. When what is essentially a cost for the benefit of the community as a whole is imposed then at the very least we would expect some sort of reasonable sharing of that cost between the operators of the facility and the community. That has occurred with regard to airports but it does not seem to have occurred in this bill. So I signal that during the select committee process National will be vigilant in looking at the total extent of the potential cost of this legislation. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of United Future on the Maritime Security Bill. The purpose of the bill is to establish in New Zealand a maritime security framework that will reduce the risk of terrorist attacks affecting ships or port facilities particularly those involved in international trade. That will impose costs on all of us as a society and is the consequence of the September 11 terrorist activity and the increasing terrorist activity around the world. As we approach the second anniversary of the attack upon the US that involved the World Trade Center in New York the Pentagon and the flight that crashed into a Pennsylvania field we count not only the awful loss of lives at that time but also those lost in subsequent tragedies in Bali Afghanistan Iraq and Moscow. We recognise the way the world had to change and will continue to have to change in order to address the threat posed by the terrorist organisations still operating around the world. The recent threats aired on radio that are attributed to Osama bin Laden are fresh reminders of the need for civilised nations to have to spend billions—perhaps trillions—of dollars in order to take all the measures necessary to protect the democratic and free way of life that we value highly. 
I take this opportunity to pay my respects to all the brave men and women who have given their lives in recent times to fight this new threat. I pay tribute to our own armed forces now deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq. I for one am grateful to our allies the US the United Kingdom and Australia which have so far taken a lead in addressing the menace of terrorism not only through the engagement of their armed forces and the costs that they are prepared to shoulder in that regard but also through the huge costs involved in maintaining security surveillance 24/7 around the world’s trouble spots. No one who values his or her freedom can afford to avoid contributing to the cost now demanded of us by terrorist fanaticism. 
The bill we debate today is part of our responsibilities in accordance with New Zealand’s obligations under the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974 which was amended in December 2002 in response to the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. The legislative timetable is now relatively urgent as the new maritime security requirements must be implemented by 1 July 2004. The main benefit to New Zealand from implementing the new security measures will be continued confidence among New Zealand’s trading partners particularly the United States that New Zealand’s ports and international trading vessels have strong security procedures. The absence of such procedures could seriously hamper New Zealand’s maritime trade with security-sensitive trading partners like the US. As was pointed out by Harry Duynhoven earlier in his introductory speech on the bill we simply cannot afford not to take these measures to ensure that our security is kept on a par with the rest of the world not just because of how that would affect us as a trading nation but also because if New Zealand’s security becomes second-rate we would begin to invite the attention of terrorist groups which would see us as an easier target than others elsewhere. We simply cannot afford to let that happen. The well-known saying “All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.” would certainly be applicable in that case. 
The main feature of this bill is that it provides enabling legislation to implement the convention amendments through the development of regulations and maritime rules. The legislation will apply to all international passenger ships large cargo ships and mobile offshore drilling units. It will also cover domestic passenger cargo and fishing ships as well as most New Zealand port facilities. It does not apply to naval or non-commercial vessels. The bill designates the Maritime Safety Authority as the regulatory authority for maritime security responsible for implementing and monitoring the new requirements. The legislation will place obligations on New Zealand’s shipping companies and port facility operators that trade internationally or that service international trading ships to have an approved security plan based on a security risk analysis and to implement that plan. 
There are some associated compliance costs both one-off costs and annual ongoing costs. While there is some concern about the accuracy of the estimates surrounding cost it is suggested that for a shipping company with one ship the one-off cost is estimated to be $13000 with an ongoing annual cost of $18700. For a port facility operator operating few facilities the one-off cost is estimated to be $17000 with an ongoing annual cost of $26000. It is indeed regrettable that at a time when the Government is being implored to reduce compliance costs for business in order to assist our competitiveness as a nation those costs must be introduced. However there is perhaps some consolation in the knowledge that all trading nations are facing the same issues and therefore the playing field will remain relatively even. 
In supporting the first reading of the bill and the sending of it to a select committee where it can be examined in conjunction with the Border Security Bill—which we consider to be a sensible suggestion by the Minister—United Future hopes the committee will listen to any submitters who may come forth with suggestions as to how compliance with the obligations of the bill can be met with the minimum of cost and without sacrificing the assurance of adequate security. That will indeed be a tough challenge to the committee but we commend the bill to the House. United Future will be supporting it. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do compliment that member. At least he tried to stick to a significant degree to the bill. I do not think that the National Party member even touched on it until the end. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Yes he did. 
PETER BROWN 
: Oh he did. He said that he did not know the costs—which are included in the explanatory note. Maritime port security is essential. We live in a volatile world and we have to address that potential problem. It is potentially a huge problem and it is a huge task we are asking of our people—our security people our port companies and our administrators. This is no easy task. I talk as a man who has some background in port operations where we had to have minor levels of security. This is a biggie and it will cost some money. I am not prepared to stand here and give a blank cheque but I ask the House: what price security? What price the ability to trade with other nations? We know the Americans will come down pretty damn hard on this and we have to be up with the play. 
National when it was the Government put in place systems and structures to dispense with our merchant fleet. Labour finished that off. Effectively we have no merchant fleet running internationally. Labour finished it off. Despite the shipping industry review that the previous Minister commissioned nothing has been done about looking at New Zealand’s shipping. So this bill will deal very largely with foreign shipping. It will deal with foreign owners foreign masters and foreign crews. Some will have a stronger commitment to New Zealand than others. Some will not give a damn. Why should they? They come here bring their cargoes and take our exports away. Why should they worry about security in this country? Our administrators will have to overcome that for a start. They will have to deal with shipping agents in this country who will be under pressure to get the ships out to make ships comply and to make the structure comply. Those guys will not be too happy about having extra obligations put on them. However I know many of them very well and no doubt they will apply themselves diligently and address the issues that they have to. 
The designated organisation in charge of security procedures will I think be the Maritime Safety Authority—although I cannot see it in the bill. The authority will have to deal with stevedoring companies to ensure that they comply toe the line and do everything properly. It will have to deal with the watersiders. All those people will probably have to carry some sort of identity disc so that they can go through the ports clearly recognised and accepted as people who are meant to be there and have business on the wharves of any particular port. 
 But who else will they have to deal with? They will have to deal with the sex workers. They will have to deal with the pimps and the prostitutes who earn their living—Tim Barnett is nodding in agreement. Those people will go down to the ships on legitimate business now and sell their wares. Some of those people are employed by gangs and by people of an unscrupulous background—I was going to use a stronger word. Port companies and the security staff will have to monitor that and I have no doubt that in time they will have to issue them with identity cards. Sex workers will go down to certain ports with ID cards. [ 
Interruption 
] They cannot be checked by the police but I say to Mr Shirley they will be checked by the Maritime Safety Authority. How is that! The Maritime Safety Authority will no doubt keep a register of port sex workers and if anybody thinks this is a light-hearted joke let me tell them that it is not. If somebody wanted to do some real damage in this country it would be very very easy. It could be easily done by using the services of what we might call “non-essential shipping people who provide services to ships.” It would be very easily done. I do not envy the task of whoever will administer this. 
There are concerns about costs in this bill. They are not identified at all. I listened to Larry Baldock as he read from the bill but all the figures are ballpark figures and could be quite inaccurate and the explanatory note of the bill says as much on how the costing was reached. The costs could in certain places and at certain times be quite horrendous. The restrictions could be quite difficult and quite frustrating for people who want to go about their legitimate business. But we live in a volatile world. We live in a world where I think the time is coming when terrorists will target the easiest target. We do not want to be the easiest target down here. We are fairly slack now about who we let into this country how they get here what they are allowed to do when they get here and the freedom they have. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh the member disagrees with me? 
David Benson-Pope 
: Perfect illustration of the problem. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am a perfect illustration of the problem am I? I have to say to that member that when I came here I was subject to some very stringent medical checks. 
David Benson-Pope 
: The way some of the back-benchers stand up and slag off immigrants is just appalling. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am not necessarily slagging off immigrants. For that member’s information I am talking about people who get into this country in a number of ways and certainly people come into this country on ships—those people are unofficially here. It is very very easily done. That member clearly knows nothing about this bill and nothing about the size of the problem. This is a serious problem. But there is one thing that the Government has got going for it. It has a good Minister in charge of this bill—Harry Duynhoven. He is very thorough and unlike that member he is very diligent and I know he will lift every stone to see what worms come out from underneath. 
David Benson-Pope 
: They will mostly be members of New Zealand First. 
PETER BROWN 
: We do not come out from the stones my friend. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am surprised you let go that comment from the senior Labour whip David Benson-Pope. That is totally unacceptable in this House. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to stand and withdraw the comment. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
PETER BROWN 
: For the record I take no offence at that sort of garbage. I have been trained properly by watersiders and seafarers. I know the real problems in this world. I certainly know the problems when it comes to working on the wharves and I know the difficulties that there will be in implementing this bill. There will be absolute support from us for this bill going through to the select committee but as the National member said we will not allow blank cheques—that was one little piece of information that Wayne Mapp divulged about the National Party’s philosophy. We will look at this very thoroughly but at the end of the day we want an Act that is very sound and does its job. There is no use in having a Maritime Security Act that is so fraught with holes and flaws that we can drive a bus through it. So the bill has to be scrutinised very carefully. 
This bill will add a lot of pressure to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee because that select committee already has a huge number of bills to deal with but thankfully it has some good members on it. John Key is nodding and I am there so between the two of us we will sort this out. I would like to see Harry Duynhoven back on that committee. He made a very very worthwhile contribution as far as the Government members are concerned and I know he has a very strong interest in this bill. I do not know whether it is allowed but maybe I will recommend that the Government seek to put Harry Duynhoven on the select committee for the purposes of this bill. 
I want to make it quite clear that New Zealand First supports this bill. We do not necessarily agree with everything in it. We have concerns about the cost. We know the difficulties that will be faced by the administrators when it comes to pass but we know it is absolutely essential to have legislation like this. We support its referral to the select committee 100 percent and we will give it our best shot there. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 ACT New Zealand will certainly be supporting this bill going to the Government Administration Committee. I have to say at the outset that that is with some considerable regret but this bill is inevitable. The regret is that this bill represents a regime of big government State intrusion compliance costs and regulation. The sad thing is given the global situation that we are in particularly— 
David Benson-Pope 
: Moaning about it again. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Here is Mr Benson-Pope from Dunedin crowing along. He just cannot help himself; he really cannot. 
David Benson-Pope 
: The ACT party the rort party—we have to do it. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I do take offence as the previous speaker did at the inane comments that emanate from the Government senior whip David Benson-Pope. I ask that he be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has taken offence. I ask the member to stand withdraw and apologise. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The ACT party does support this legislation. We will be supporting it going to a select committee. [ 
Interruption 
] He is at it again. He cannot help himself. I do not know what sort of liquid dinner he had but he is not in good shape. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That is a totally unacceptable implication and I ask you to ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member has taken offence at that. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I assumed he had either tomato or mushroom soup. I did not specify what liquid. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I think the member has made a very clear implication and the member has taken offence. The member will withdraw and apologise. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: If he has taken offence I withdraw and apologise. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It may be helpful if there were fewer interjections and then we might be able to get on to the business. I am sure that the senior Government whip wants to get the business through the House. It might be timely to remind him that a little less interjection from him might well help the progress of the House. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I also remind members that when points of order are being raised there will be silence. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I hope we will make some progress without the Government whip doing his little chirping act. The ACT party will be supporting this legislation going to the select committee. That is with regret because it does represent big government compliance costs and regulatory State intrusion but it is inevitable given the global situation that we face. Indeed as a trading nation we are more dependent on trade than most other nations. To meet international expectations we have no choice but to implement the measures that are now part of international conventions with regard to trade and transport. We certainly have done that with airlines and we know that the post - 11 September costs now associated with airport security are severe. This measure is in essence the maritime equivalent of what we see at our airports. Therefore I believe we have no choice other than to pass this type of legislation. I think there are a number of points that need to be fine-tuned and addressed at the select committee which is where those measures should be addressed. 
The issue of security cannot be separated from where we sit in respect of others in the world. Mr Mapp in his speech made a very good point—and I would like to reiterate some of the points he made because they are very pertinent to this bill—[ 
Interruption 
] I am not sure whether it is a member coughing or a stranger in the gallery but it is quite distracting. Mr Mapp pointed out that in the weeks ahead a major exercise involving Australia the United States the Netherlands Japan Germany and France will be held off the Queensland coast on matters of maritime security that directly relate to the measures in this bill and New Zealand is not participating. The Deputy Prime Minister is here in the House and I ask him why New Zealand is not participating in that exercise involving maritime security systems which are so critical in the post - 11 September world. France Germany Japan the Netherlands the USA and Australia are participating but New Zealand was not invited to the party. 
And why might that be? The reason is that we persist with our archaic chest-thumping bumper-sticker ban on nuclear ship visits. It is a nonsense. There is no strategic or environmental reason for it. It is purely one of the mantras of this Labour Party that should have been left in the 1980s. Unfortunately this Government just does not see fit to address that issue so that we can re-establish our traditional links with like-minded allies who believe in an interdependent global economy between trading nations based on market economies. 
Unfortunately we are not a member of that club. As hard as we might try to be a member of that club we are not. It is interesting to note that Japan Germany France the Netherlands the USA and Australia are members but New Zealand is not. Those countries will be exercising in our backyard in the weeks ahead on matters of maritime safety—which is the very subject of this bill—and we are precluded from participating in that exercise. That is incredibly regrettable and I put it to this House that we are the poorer for it. We can pass all the legislation and rules that we like but unless we are in the security loop and have the information we are at risk. Because of this Government’s “no nuclear ship visits” mantra we have been precluded from participating in that exercise. We no longer have a place among our traditional security allies. We are not part of the coalition of the willing and that is very regrettable indeed. 
Many members would have noticed the articles written by Michael Bassett a former Labour Minister who has been very eloquent on the subject. He recognises the nonsense of this Labour Government’s policy but still it persists. As we know there was a major review in 1993 with the Somers report which made it very clear that there is no security or environmental reason for our not accepting nuclear ship visits. We know that there are no nuclear weapons on those ships. The “neither confirm nor deny” policy was dropped in 1991 but still we persist with the old-fashioned Labour Party mantra and we are out of the loop. We are not invited to the party. We are persona non grata. We have gone AWOL. That is the reality and that is very very regrettable. 
Clause 50 of this bill sets out the inspection regimes. They are very draconian and impose massive costs. The one good feature of the legislation is that it is going to be based on management systems. One can have an audited and approved management system to minimise risk and that is a preferable alternative to having prescriptive inspections by bureaucrats. In other words provided that one has an adequate management system for these types of securities such as inspections of containers prior to sealing them etc. one can get the tick and one can participate. It would have been frightful if it were just a massive bureaucratic case by case inspection system. 
That aside it will mean massive costs. We all know the costs associated with our airports now; there are massive numbers of security staff and there is screening of all passengers with people losing their penknives manicure scissors and all those sorts of things. This will be the equivalent and it will be applied not just to merchant ships bringing cargo to our country and taking our export products away but also to all cruise ships which are a very significant part of our tourism industry. But it is tied into international agreements conventions and understandings. We have no option but to impose those costs which is regrettable but hopefully at some time in the future we will have solved the security risks that are so very real at this time. Hopefully we will be able to move forward and unwind at some future date some of these very intrusive measures that are being imposed. 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Minister of State) 
: 
 I am very pleased to contribute to this debate and to say in response to some of the comments made by the previous speaker that New Zealand does punch above its weight internationally and most countries know that. We are very proud of our antinuclear position and most New Zealanders continue to support it. 
I would like to speak about the relevance of the bill and I will keep it short. The reason for this bill is really to acknowledge what happened on 11 September 2001. Tomorrow is significant because it is the 2-year anniversary of that terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in New York. It will be a day for mourning those who lost their lives in that disaster in the United States. 
The world has changed since then and the world has to be conscious of the need for security. I believe that this bill indicates the need to comply with the convention that has been amended which is the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 1974. I commend this Government for its management of legislation because we as a party are 10 months ahead of the date by which New Zealand has to comply with that convention which is 1 July 2004. That is an indication of an efficient Government which is well ahead of its obligation. I commend this bill to the House and commend its referral to the select committee. 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 This day 10 September 2003 will indeed be remembered in this Parliament but not I suspect for the young ladies who were representatives of Mothers Against Genetic Engineering coming to this House and taking their tops off to protest against genetic engineering and not because today we have the first reading of this bill. Those will not be the things that mark this day. No this day will be marked for one other reason. It is a very sad day in New Zealand’s history because Shane Ardern MP has been charged by police officers—the very people who will be looking after this bill. What a sad day it is for the New Zealand Parliament! That event will overshadow the first reading of this bill. I only hope that justice is done and the police come to their senses and drop that charge against my respected colleague the honourable Shane Ardern the MP for Taranaki - King Country. 
It is befitting I think that this bill is having its first reading in the House on this day—nearly 2 years to the day since September 11 2001 a day the world changed a day when more than 3000 people worldwide were killed in terrorist activities in New York City and in Washington a day when two New Zealanders lost their lives. This piece of legislation is part of a trifecta of legislation that has been introduced by the Government. The first measure was the Counter-Terrorism Bill which was introduced some months ago and it was followed rather quickly by the Border Security Bill and now tonight we are having the first reading debate of the Maritime Security Bill. Those three pieces of legislation are looking to add significant security framework and structure to New Zealand. 
What a mockery that makes of that fabulous statement by our Prime Minister that New Zealand is a benign strategic environment—what a complete mockery! Every thinking New Zealander knows that ours is not a benign strategic environment; if it were we would not have the Maritime Security Bill. No we would not have this bill if ours was a benign strategic environment. That is what she parroted out on television. That is what she told the country: “Don’t worry about the ports don’t worry about the airports and don’t worry about New Zealand; we can hide away in the corner and no one will remember us.” She said that we will not be with our traditional allies the Americans the Australians and the British those whom we have fought shoulder to shoulder with in every war from here to Timbuctoo. She said that we will not worry about that because we are in a benign strategic environment. Well lo and behold we are not and tonight we are debating the Maritime Security Bill. 
One of the reasons it is very important that this bill is passed and one of the reasons that National will be supporting the referral of this important legislation to a select committee is that other countries in the world are taking up their responsibilities and are spending more. We are talking very significant amounts of money. Tom Ridge America’s Secretary for Homeland Security went to the Senate and asked for $29 billion for homeland security. He asked for US$29.8 billion. That is what it is costing to protect America. It is not in a benign strategic environment. Even our Prime Minister has had to admit that we are not in a benign strategic environment either and she has had to introduce this legislation at some cost I might add. The first-year cost of the Maritime Security Bill will be $950000 plus GST—that will be the cost to the Government—and $750000 is the yearly run rate for this legislation. 
But the bill will cost not just the Government money; there are many—13 in fact—port owners in New Zealand that will have to go through a risk assessment. Many shipping companies and offshore rig owners will have to comply with the Maritime Security Bill. There will be costs and they will be spread across New Zealand. We may ask ourselves why they are being forced to comply with the Maritime Security Bill. The reason relates back to the International Maritime Organization and our commitment through that organisation to fulfil our international treaty obligations under the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea or “SOLAS” which is the acronym by which it is known in the shipping world. For those who come off the “love boat” and the other cruise ships that come to New Zealand I point out that “SOLAS” is the international convention that is being complied with. 
What does this Maritime Security Bill require? What will be forced upon the shipping companies and the port owners? The 13 ports in New Zealand will have to undergo an individual risk assessment. So it is not a universal blanket—every port having to follow the same thing. In Westport where a bit of coal is exported occasionally on the odd ship— 
Simon Power 
: They used to export timber. 
JOHN KEY 
: Yes that area used to export timber but then along came Labour and now it does not do that. Now it has Jim Anderton’s “jobs machine” dishing out money—but we will not go there; we do not have time to talk about that on this very sad day when Shane Ardern has been charged by the police. 
Every port will have a different individual risk assessment. Auckland’s port where a great many container ships come and go—a port that I see regularly as I drive around dealing with my constituency activities—is far more likely to have a rigorous risk assessment. It will attempt as Mr Brown mentioned in his remarks to prevent unauthorised access to ships port facilities and registered restricted-access areas. This is nothing new in the sense that it has been a requirement of our airports for very good reason for many many years; it is now moving to the maritime area. 
If I may digress for a moment I would like to point out that it is great that the Government is taking up its responsibilities under the Maritime Security Bill. I just wish it would take up its responsibilities a little bit more vigorously when it comes to stopping things from getting off the boats. I am thinking in particular of biosecurity. It would be nice if the Government focused a bit more of its activities on biosecurity and a little less on some of its pet projects. That would be helpful to our country. 
Certainly shipping plays a major role in New Zealand. Members may be interested to know if they have not done their research on this topic—and if I may take a moment to educate them about some of the interesting issues in this area—that 99 percent of all New Zealand’s cargo goes by ship. There are a great many ships coming into our ports. By value 85 percent of New Zealand’s exports leave by ship and 77 percent of all imports come here by ship. By value $28 billion worth of New Zealand’s exports float away on those ships and $24 billion of imports come into the country on them. From those numbers members can get some idea of the magnitude of the problem we are dealing with and the need to address this issue. 
There is also the matter of cruise ships. I talked earlier about the “love boat” and the sorts of ships coming into New Zealand. 
Darren Hughes 
: That’s enough about your honeymoon. 
Simon Power 
: How come this member gets 40 minutes? 
JOHN KEY 
: Well I am going to ask for an extension of time because I am noticing how much members even those on the Government benches are enjoying my address on this particular topic. I am certainly enjoying being part of this debate and having the opportunity to liven up what have been rather dull contributions from many members in this House. But I do not want to waste my time; time is short. 
Darren Hughes 
: It’s precious. 
JOHN KEY 
: Time is precious; that is exactly the word I was looking for. Time is precious on this particular occasion. Because I am running out of time I now want to address those areas where the bill falls short and I note the comments made by Dr Wayne Mapp. The Maritime Security Bill would have been a wonderful opportunity for New Zealand to be part of an international agreement wherein 11 countries have said they will introduce provisions to allow ships to be accessed when people are looking for weapons of mass destruction whether they be chemical nuclear or biological. What sorts of countries are in that agreement? I look down the list and I see Australia; yes the roos are there. So is Britain. So is the United States. Our traditional allies are in this agreement. Where is our name? Missing! It is “MIA” just like it was during the war in Iraq—missing. 
This country will pay for that—members need not worry about that. There will be no US free-trade arrangement with New Zealand. One thing we do not have to worry about is container ships going to America because none will be leaving this country for America; there will be no free-trade arrangement because of the absolute shambles that the Government has made of that position. It does not matter that the Government is offering up bodies and all the rest of it now; that is not helping. The Government has missed the boat with this bill. 
I thank Madam Speaker for the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this wonderful bill which we will be supporting. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 At the end of those 10 minutes it is hard to know whether the associate Opposition spokesperson on transport is for or against the bill. Certainly we in the Labour Party are supporting the bill. The bill will be sent to the select committee after its first reading because it builds on the annex to the International Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea 1974. The convention covers 55 countries worldwide and 15000 ports. It is an appropriate response from the international community to the issues raised by this bill. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I am glad that my party lets me speak for a lot longer than that party allowed that member to speak. On behalf of my New Zealand First colleagues I want to support this bill to the select committee. 
Jill Pettis 
: That’s all we want to know. The member can sit down. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Labour members make speeches like that but I am allowed to speak a little bit longer so I say to the junior Government whip that that is what I will do. 
It is sad that we are addressing a bill called the Maritime Security Bill. It reflects the kind of environment and world we live in these days. Even 10 or 20 years ago we would not have had to address the security breaches the terror attacks and everything that has gone on in the last few years. Things like that have happened in the past and there have been hijackings and so on. In 1982 when I was just a kid at school I remember very clearly the hijacking of the TWA Boeing 727 in the Middle East. I was in standard 2—under the old grading system—and remember looking at the television and seeing dead bodies being dropped out of the plane. It horrified me and it horrified the rest of the Western World but that is absolutely nothing compared with what we saw on 9/11 in 2001. The Hon Taito Phillip Field mentioned that we are approaching the very sad anniversary of the terrorist attacks on those beautiful World Trade Center buildings in New York. I am sure that will be a moment in history that will strike every age group from 5-year-olds upwards. 
It is a sad state of affairs that we as a country and as a Parliament have to introduce a bill like this but it is reality and it is facing up to what our obligations are as mentioned earlier under the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea and the International Code for the Security of Ships and of Port Facilities. 
I want to read the purpose of the bill and then go on and build from there. As stated in the explanatory notes the purpose of this bill is to establish in New Zealand a maritime security framework that will reduce the risk of security incidents affecting merchant ships or port facilities particularly those used in international trade. In doing so the bill enables New Zealand to fulfil its obligations under a new international agreement for maritime security. It is a shame that we as a country do not live in a benign strategic environment. It is a shame that this country needs to get itself in line with this international agreement. 
Obviously this bill is one of three pieces of legislation being brought to the House to address security problems and the problems we have had over the last few years as a global community. The reason that New Zealand First supports this bill to the select committee is that we pride ourselves as a strong law and order party. We also pride ourselves as a strong security party and that is one reason that my leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters and many other members of my caucus often speak out about the immigration problems we have in this country and some of the problems they lead to as far as crime and security breaches are concerned. 
New Zealand First will always support good legislation and oppose bad legislation. In saying that we do not agree with everything in this legislation. We are open to sending it to the select committee but we want to look at the different costs involved. I note that the United States—and I looked at it before John Key talked about it—is spending $29.8 billion on homeland security. That is a massive amount of money to spend but once again it shows how important homeland security is. Beyond a shadow of doubt the United States is in an environment that causes it to be on edge and to make sure that it does everything possible in terms of its security—especially after the 11 September terror attacks by the al-Qaeda network initiated by people like Osama bin Laden. The United States has every right to be on edge and to put as many resources as absolutely possible into making sure that not only are its airports secure and safe but also its ports. 
A few years ago I worked for the airlines in the United States— 
Darren Hughes 
: Which one? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I worked for Continental Airlines. I remember walking through airports with the pilots on some days and saying: “What an absolute joke the security screening is.” People were being paid something like $5.20 an hour— 
Simon Power 
: US dollars though! 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Yes but they had to pay for health benefits and everything else in case they had a crash or something like that. At that time security screening was an absolute joke. I remember saying to pilots and other crew members how ridiculous it was to see how little money resources and time were being spent on security. As we all know that obviously led to the shameful and disgraceful attacks on the twin towers. Security was so lenient and that is what we have to address in this bill. In the same way that members of the al-Qaeda network got on to American Airlines and United Airlines 767 and 757 planes we have to ask how this bill will address the problems of people like that planting bombs on ships and other security breaches in respect of ships and the maritime industry. A lot of issues need to be raised here. 
Bill read a first time. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
 
 on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister of Transport 
: I move  
That the Maritime Security Bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee 
 referred to the Government Administration Committee 
 that the committee finally report the bill by 11 December 2003 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting—except during questions for oral answer—and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and to meet on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 193 and 196(1)(b) and (c). 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
New Organisms and Other Matters Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill be now read a second time 
. The bill consists of five parts and a new second schedule to be substituted in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Parts 1 and 2 amend the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act; Parts 3 to 5 amend respectively the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act the Medicines Act and the Biosecurity Act. All of the changes relate to one of two themes: to implement Government decisions in response to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification by providing a practical framework for proceeding with caution in the management of new and genetically modified organisms while preserving opportunities; and secondly to improve the overall effectiveness of the operation of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act as it relates to the management of new organisms. 
It is essential that these changes are put in place before the restricted period ends at the close of 29 October 2003 so that the Environmental Risk Management Authority has all the tools when it considers applications. The bill was referred to the Education and Science Committee on 6 May 2003. The committee received submissions and undertook a thorough consideration of the bill. The committee reported back to the House on 1 September and recommended that the bill be passed with the amendments shown. I want to thank the committee for its timely work on these complex matters. I also want to thank the chair Brian Donnelly for focusing on the legislation in front of the committee and not pretending to be a second royal commission on genetic modification. 
Before moving on to the detail of the recommendations I want to make the general observation that all the recommendations of the committee are technical amendments clarifications or drafting corrections. None of the provisions in the bill required substantive amendment. I think that that is a reflection of the extensive consultation and thought that went into developing the policy and the original drafting of the bill and I commend all those involved. I want to comment on key elements of the changes recommended by the select committee in relation to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act Biosecurity Act and Medicines Act. No changes were recommended to the proposed Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act amendments. 
There are four areas of recommended changes that I want to refer to. The first area concerns definitions to be inserted into the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The Government agrees with the committee’s recommendations relating to definitions in clauses 5 and 6 to clarify the meaning of “taxonomic classification” and the generation of a new organism from imported biological material. The Government also supports the amendment to the meaning of “new organism” in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to make it clear that organisms that are approved for conditional release or qualifying organisms—that is certain animal or human medicines that are approved for release with controls—remain new organisms and therefore remain subject to hazardous substances and new organism regulation. There were other important drafting amendments to ensure that qualifying organisms are referred to correctly in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Medicines Act. 
It is through clause 5 that activities that are currently unregulated are brought within the oversight of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Those activities are the importation or development of genetically modified human cells and the generation of new organisms from tissue imported into the country. The bill closes a regulatory gap. Although there is no known work going on in the area of regenerating new organisms from tissue particularly animal tissue if such activity commences it will be subject to rigorous scrutiny under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. However genetic modification research in relation to human cells is being undertaken in New Zealand primarily in universities. Broadly speaking the purpose of much of this biomedical research is to understand the role and function of genes and their effects on cellular processes particularly those involved in diseases. This research can involve patients with diseases such as cancer. Cells from diseased tissues are grown and some are genetically modified as part of the studies. The Government therefore supports the committee’s recommendations for transitional provisions for genetically modified human cells and human cell genetic modifications in New Zealand in Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry - approved containment facilities so that this research is not suddenly illegal once the bill is passed into law and is in force. 
The second area of recommended changes to the bill that I want to refer to concerns the streamlining processes for low-risk GM research. These changes will reduce compliance costs for researchers doing low-risk genetic modifications by introducing through clause 20 a rapid assessment process of project applications and through clause 19 clarifying that approvals of this kind can be delegated to institutional biological safety committees. The Government supports the committee’s change to the title of proposed section 42A to make it clear that the bill is introducing a new rapid assessment process for projects that meet the criteria for low-risk genetic modification. Some submitters expressed uncertainty about whether clause 20 would affect approval processes relating to genetic modification developments that were not low risk. There is no intention for clause 20 to do so. Proposed new section 42A does not limit existing activities carried out under section 40 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act including so-called generic applications. 
The third area of recommended changes to the bill that I want to refer to concerns the amendment to the Biosecurity Act relating to biosecurity clearance. Under the bill conditionally released organisms remain new organisms. The same goes for qualifying organisms that are released with controls. It is important for organisms subject to these two types of approval to remain new organisms so that they continue to be regulated under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. This is important as the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has a key role in enforcing the management of conditionally released new organisms. However the Biosecurity Act prohibits the granting of a biosecurity clearance for any imported new organism. Therefore the Government supports the amendment to the Biosecurity Act to allow biosecurity clearance for new organisms that are approved for conditional release and qualifying organisms that are approved for release with controls. 
The final area of recommended changes to the bill that I want to refer to concerns the role of local authorities in managing genetically modified organisms. The Government supports the committee’s recommendation to broaden the requirement of the Environmental Risk Management Authority to notify any local authority rather than just regional councils if it considers that the local authority is likely to have an interest in the application. The Government is firmly of the view however that the Environmental Risk Management Authority is the regulator of genetically modified organisms. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is special-purpose legislation designed to regulate genetic modification activities and genetically modified organisms. It does not give local councils powers to regulate genetically modified organisms and although some councils would like to do so I ask them to think very carefully before they attempt to duplicate the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s role and put their communities and ratepayers through the expense that this might involve. 
The Government does intend to move some minor technical amendments during the Committee stage but otherwise considers that the bill as reported is consistent with the underlying objectives of the original bill. There are a number of matters that those objectives include but in the interests of time I would like to comment finally on a new conspiracy that is circulating: that somehow I persuaded the Leader of the House to move the second reading of this bill to tonight—I have to say that this is not so—and that I did so to avoid demonstrations. The bill was reported back thanks to good chairmanship earlier than expected and with the Leader of the House absent last week overseas it was not in the House business notice last week. I am anxious to progress the bill but it was still news to me at 8.55 this morning that it was going to have its second reading. I suspect that a book about this conspiracy will follow—and there may be a select committee of inquiry and I know I will have to appear before it! The second conspiracy lies with the problem that at the moment there are emails circulating confusing the shifting of my ministerial office from the 17th to the 6th floor of Bowen House with the non-shifting of my electoral office. So those demonstrators who are heading in that direction can keep on heading. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was always my understanding that the protocol on speaking slots at the second reading meant that the chairperson of the select committee followed the Minister. Am I incorrect on that? 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: I have often thought that that would be an excellent thing to do. As a chair of a select committee I have always had to wait until slot 6 before I got to speak on the work my committee had done over the previous year so I think it would be a very good idea to move in that direction. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Speaker I would be delighted if the chair of the select committee spoke first. I think that he did an excellent job during a very difficult time and I concede to him. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. I am pleased too. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very magnanimous of Dr Hutchison to make that call but you had called him. He had risen and commenced his speech and a member cannot yield to another member other than to clarify a question. He cannot yield his whole speech. We need to comply with the Standing Orders so I raise this matter and ask you to reflect on it. 
John Carter 
: I may well be able to help the House merely by seeking leave given the comments that have been made. You have called Dr Paul Hutchison nevertheless I seek leave for Dr Hutchison’s speech not to be recognised at the moment in order to allow you to call Mr Donnelly and then for Dr Hutchison to take a call at a later stage. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Speaker and I thank Dr Paul Hutchison very much. It is very much appreciated and I thank members of the House. I understand from Jeanette Fitzsimons that there is no protocol so I am very appreciative. 
From the time the bill was sent to the Education and Science Committee I certainly knew that there was a great probability we were in for some fun and games—and there were some fun and games. There were issues of members of the public having to be ejected. [ 
Interruption 
] In fact the Mothers Against Genetic Engineering organisation did not turn up to the select committee to speak to their written submission. They were invited to but did not turn up. They turned up today. 
I make the point that I was determined right from the word go that we would not turn this process into a circus and we would not relitigate the royal commission. I thank the members of the select committee very much for supporting me in that determination by ensuring that we focused upon the legislation and the task in hand. We saw an example here today of exactly the kind of circus the select committee could have been turned into—but it was not. Concerning those people who scream about democratic rights—that they should have the right to come along and talk—I tell the House that Mothers Against Genetic Engineering were invited to make an oral submission but they did not appear. Yet their members appeared here today. For a moment I thought that they had confused the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill with the “New Orgasms and Other Matters Bill”. 
One of the reasons there was so much strong feeling about this legislation was that people had got the story wrong. They thought that this bill was lifting the moratorium—and that was totally incorrect. The 2002 amendment legislation put a moratorium on for a certain time and after that period of time was up—poof!—it disappeared. This legislation will put in place or attempt to put in place mechanisms for a more robust regulatory environment for when the moratorium goes poof and disappears. 
It seemed totally irresponsible ignorant or stupid of people to try to gum up the works so that the select committee could not get through its particular task. When 29 October comes if this legislation is not in place or has not been passed in some form or other we are back to the status quo. The select committee asked—and I asked—officials time and time again how we could put something into this bill if it wished to extend the moratorium or wanted to have something in there as a partial extension. They could not give us that information and the general advice we got from them was that it was beyond the scope of the bill. That does not mean to say that we cannot attempt to do some of those things at the Committee of the whole House stage. However what was important was that we could not play silly games with the legislation at the select committee stage report it back after 29 October to embarrass the Government—purely and simply to do that—and leave ourselves in a very awful mess. 
There was also some misapprehension about the parliamentary process. People seemed to believe that they should have the right to talk to the select committee on anything they liked rather than address the bill itself and that that was their democratic right. I put it to the House that if somebody had made a submission on the Kyoto Protocol and had believed they had a right to address the select committee I do not believe that that would have been proper. Therefore the select committee set the rules and stuck by them fairly rigidly to ensure that the circus was not allowed to take place. 
I certainly have to give due regard to members of the select committee because although they had differing views they took a very professional approach to this legislation. It was a time that even though members recognised and respected the different views people had it was necessarily acknowledged there was an imperative to advance this legislation appropriately. 
It was New Zealand First votes that put on the moratorium; it was not Green votes that put it on. If members recall at the third reading of the bill that created the moratorium the Greens abstained and walked out. New Zealand First agreed to the moratorium because we believed that there needed to be a period of time for the Government to put in place what the royal commission was asking to be put in place. But we always said that we would reassess whether the Government had taken all necessary steps at the time the moratorium was to expire. New Zealand First has done that. Our party has looked at it and asked how far the Government has progressed the regulatory framework. 
We believe that the conditional release category is absolutely critical. It is an absolutely important step in order to go forward so that we can move into some of the areas that have the greatest potential and promise—for example the “biopharming” area pest control etc. We believe that it is necessary for that category to be there. But we asked ourselves a question about the issue of foodstuffs. We looked at what was there and I must point to the Cabinet minute that noted: “The modelling results suggest that the release of GM organisms closer to the human food chain poses greater economic risks than releases for medical or pest control purposes.” So once we start to get into anything that will go into the human food chain we are starting to get into the area of risk and we have to ask ourselves whether the mechanism is robust enough to manage that risk—particularly in view of the fact that New Zealand is so dependent upon exported foodstuffs for its economic well-being. Is the mechanism strong enough? We have to ask ourselves that question. 
We have come to the conclusion that the Environmental Risk Management Authority has not convinced us that the economic modelling from the authority is powerful enough at the moment. That same view seems to have been taken by Cabinet because in the policy paper I am talking about it is agreed that further work is to be undertaken by the Environmental Risk Management Authority in consultation with relevant departments on how it would approach its assessment of economic impacts within the context of the proposed coexistent mechanisms. Even the Government is not absolutely convinced that we are safe enough to make those sorts of decisions. 
I point also to the answer given by the Minister Marian Hobbs in the House the other day. She said that if an application comes in concerning foodstuffs at the time the moratorium is to expire it is almost certain that the Minister will use the ministerial call-in. One has to ask why the Minister is automatically going to use the ministerial call-in if there is not an element of anxiety and insecurity about any application that might come in for foodstuffs. New Zealand First will try to move an amendment in the Committee stage for the moratorium to be extended just in that area. Let me tell the House that if we are not able to achieve that we will bring in legislation to introduce a new moratorium for that category of applications. 
I might add that an article by Dr Tony Conner states that we will not have any applications for at least 2 years anyhow so why should we risk a negative perception of our food exports purely and simply on applications that will not come? They are mythical at this stage and we may as well be upfront. 
The other area we are concerned about is that of local government. We were disappointed that Local Government New Zealand reported to the select committee that it had not been consulted. Albeit that the Government may have made a decision that the Environmental Risk Management Authority and its decisions were to be completely free of the Resource Management Act and local government it would have been much more pertinent to have gone through the consultative mode. Now we are left in a situation whereby local government bodies are able to impose GMO-free areas but if they actually insist upon doing that they will probably be sued and almost certainly lose. It is not exactly an ideal situation. Let us be quite clear about that. Let us make the matter quite clear one way or the other and have it clarified. 
Finally I will comment on the ministerial call-in powers over spiritual matters. What are we into now? We are into Druidism. That is potentially what we are into here—animism Druidism whatever one names it. The ministerial call-in powers are questionable anyhow. 
Simon Power 
: What’s Druidism? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Has the member never read the Asterix stories about the golden sickle and all that sort of stuff? 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I will speak only very briefly on the bill because I think it is important we progress its passage through the House as soon as we can in the interests of everybody. 
This first thing I will say is that the conspiracy theories about the bill being shunted up the Order Paper are not true. As one of the Government whips I regret to advise the conspiracy theorists that while Minister Hobbs may be in charge of the bill she is not in charge of the Order Paper. She has no control unfortunately over where bills appear on the Order Paper. 
The select committee listened to the submitters with care and consideration but I say to some submitters who may be disappointed in the progress of this bill that not all select committee members were able to agree with all the points raised by the submitters. But we did listen with interest. This Government is proceeding with caution in the management of new organisms while preserving opportunities. We are building on the information that was provided by the royal commission’s report and I have to say that no Government could be expected to exercise more caution than this Government is. 
I thank the chair and all the members of the select committee and thank those who gave advice to the select committee as we valued the advice and information they provided us with. I say thank you to select committee members and I commend the bill to the House. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 I was pleased to concede to Mr Brian Donnelly and I acknowledge that he did a very good job as chairman under somewhat challenging conditions. But I want to mention that I wonder whether the Government and Minister Hobbs are protesting a little too much when the Minister talks about a conspiracy theory because I understand that at the Business Committee meeting yesterday the Government gave absolutely no indication that the bill would be introduced tonight. This is an unprecedented break of protocol that the Labour Government has once again— 
Jill Pettis 
: We didn’t know yesterday. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Well it is either extremely untidy or indeed— 
[Interruption] 
—so it is extremely untidy. The Minister admits that it is extremely untidy and we would certainly go along with that. 
 This bill is a very important bill. It amends not only the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act but also the Biosecurity Act the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act and the Medicines Act. It is a controversial bill and it requires a measured and considered response. The National Party supports the bill but with reservations. We intend to add amendments to it. 
I must say that while I commend the Hon Brian Donnelly for his chairmanship I am somewhat appalled that New Zealand First has caved in when it comes to wanting to impose a moratorium. I suggest that it is almost a New Zealand First form of Druidism. I think that is a great pity because the National Party has consistently supported the major recommendations of the royal commission and I want to mention once again what the major conclusion was. The royal commission said that New Zealand should keep its options open. It went on to say “but we should proceed carefully minimising and managing risks. At the same time continuation of the development of conventional farming organic and integrated pest management should be facilitated.” Indeed National has consistently taken the view that we would follow an evidence-based scientific approach to the bill as being absolutely fundamental. We have agreed entirely with the royal commission that continuation of research is critical to New Zealand’s future. 
We applaud the fact that low-risk research will be streamlined in the bill but the Labour Government should have made that happen 2 years ago. Research institutions and universities around the country were calling for that to happen. I put up an amendment on the 2001 amendment bill but it was rejected by the Government. That has continued to cause extra costs for research organisations around New Zealand. It could have happened but the Labour Government stopped it and that is very unfortunate. 
One of the very very negative things about the bill is the fact that the Labour Government has continued to increase considerably the red tape around medium and high-risk research. That literally goes against the Government’s own Biotechnology Taskforce Report and Strategy Report. Undoubtedly it is the Government that has identified biotechnology as one of the key areas that is important for sustaining innovation and growth in New Zealand. After all back in the 1960s we had an economy and a per capita income that was third-best in the world. We are now wallowing towards the lower half of the OECD and on the policy settings of this Labour Government we are likely to continue to do so. The Government is cementing that in under this bill in terms of the compliance costs and difficult regulations it has made. The Biotechnology Taskforce stated: “Regulations must be efficient cost-effective and equal to international best practice and where appropriate must be acceptable to our major trading partners. Industry must have a regulatory environment that is transparent and predictable.” It goes on to state: “New Zealand has one of the most comprehensive regulatory regimes in the developed world. However compliance costs and delays related to public consultation are climbing. The public consultation process requires streamlining to improve cost and time overheads without compromising quality control. … The present system is overly prescriptive and easily drawn out.” 
 This is what this Labour Government has not addressed in this bill. I refer members to section 38A(2)(e) inserted into the principal Act by clause 18 under which the case by case requirement means that an application for a conditional release approval must include all the possible adverse effects of the organism on the environment. It may be that the judge in the Mothers Against Genetic Engineering case against AgResearch came out and said: “Well look we think this is inappropriate. It is impractical.” and made a ruling against Mothers Against Genetic Engineering. However I would have thought that the Government should explicitly make sure that quite ridiculous impositions on research applications like this should not be imposed. 
Second of course is the full public consultation requirement for all research categories in containment—again hugely onerous and supported by the Government’s own biotechnology task force which it has ignored. Thirdly there are the ministerial call-in powers. In this area it is quite remarkable how the Government has managed to absolutely entangle the possibilities that could occur from the requirements of the Minister’s call-in powers. Because they are so wide the Minister may direct that he or she will decide on an application under this Act if the Minister considers that the decision on the application will have significant cultural economic environmental ethical health international or spiritual effects. 
It is no wonder that the Environment Risk Management Authority tells us that it can process the science in 6 weeks but it can take 6 months to infinity to process the cultural spiritual and ethical areas. We have seen this with the Resource Management Act. Once again we are seeing this Labour Government imposing such criteria in an area in which its own advisers say it is quite inappropriate. For instance when we asked the chair of the Bioethics Council whether he knew what the principles of the treaty were he quite clearly said he did not know. This is an area of great concern. 
I want to speak for a moment about the reality of what is likely to happen when the moratorium comes off because at a “biopharming” conference held at the Royal Society some weeks ago Dr Bas Walker head of the Environmental Risk Management Authority said he knows of no pending applications for commercial release of GE in the near future and he knew of only a few applications for conditional release. Given the almost absurd hurdles required for consent and particularly for full commercial release the bill is in many respects a Clayton’s moratorium. 
There is no doubt that a moratorium is an extremely blunt instrument and one should not underestimate the lost opportunities that would have benefited mankind if in the past moratoria had been imposed on medicine science and industry. The reality of this new GE law is such that commercial release of GE crops in New Zealand in the near future is remote. However the Government has not heeded its own task force when it comes to red tape. The bill does not provide for transparency predictability or world-best regulatory practice. In fact with regard to research the bill is in danger of becoming the biotechnology equivalent of the Resource Management Act. 
National intends to amend the somewhat serious and concerning deficiencies that the Labour Government has perpetrated on the quality of this bill. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 The ACT party gives a qualified approval to this bill. We acknowledge that the Education and Science Committee did a very good job on this bill but the House might recall that it was the ACT party that at the outset said there was no need for a moratorium in the first place. I appreciate and others have made the point that this bill is not actually about uplifting the moratorium. The moratorium was for a fixed period of time. It expires on 29 October and the Government saw fit to put in place a regulatory regime. But we already had a very very thorough regulatory regime through the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. In many respects New Zealand led the world through the 1990s under the National Government when that legislation was enacted. It needed some fine-tuning but it certainly did not require we believe the 2-year moratorium that was imposed. As we know the moratorium is not about science; it is about political lobbying. That is all it has been about—political lobbying—and that is very regrettable. 
Moratoriums are bad. They are bad in principle. They are political “kick it to touch” instruments. Similarly the aquacultural moratorium is bad. Moratoriums dry up investment. Innovation goes somewhere else. The world does not stop because a particular jurisdiction decides to stop the clock. That just does not happen. The work carries on. How many top scientists in our biological sciences have left this country? After all the New Zealand economy is based on our biological systems. Our comparative advantage is good science and good climate. Unfortunately we have lost some top scientists. They have quietly gone elsewhere. The work carries on but New Zealand pretends that somehow the clock stops. Be that as it may the moratorium is about to come off in October with the passage of this legislation. This bill will set the new regime for these matters as we move forward. 
We should bear in mind too that the royal commission which sat for a considerable period of time did a very thorough block of work. The top experts on it heard the evidence of all the people and the clear recommendation of the commission was that we should embrace GM technology but move ahead with caution. That is a very responsible position. ACT certainly would not argue against that. All science needs to be treated with respect and caution but we need to embrace science. The Green Party has hung its hat on the whole GM debate and I am sure that shortly this evening we will hear a very impassioned speech from the Greens on why we should have a moratorium for ever. That is the Green Party’s position. It wants a moratorium for ever and that would be nonsense. I believe there are other lobby groups who also want a moratorium for ever. That is not the ACT party’s position. 
This bill proposes a conditional release situation. I am of the view that in terms of pest control in this country and of some of the ”biopharming” opportunities—in other words reducing the dependency on pesticides by the application of GM technology—the risks of pesticides to human health and well-being and the imposition of trade barriers from other importing nations are greater than the responsible application of GM technology. Equally with regard to pests in this country as we know New Zealand naturally did not have any mammals— 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Other than the two bats. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The member is quite right—other than the two bats and marine mammals. The scientists tell us that animals such as stoats weasels possums— 
Ron Mark 
: You’re speaking about the Labour Party. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Indeed we would need another speech about that but not at the moment. The best means of control will be biological control and the application of GM technology which we desperately need in this country to control animals such as ferrets stoats and possums. So we must move forward. 
Comments have also been made in this debate that organisms closer to the food chain pose a greater risk than medicines. I think the chairman of the select committee made that comment. I disagree with that because a medicine is injected directly into the body. The food in the alimentary canal is technically outside the body. If we think of the body as a cylinder with a hollow tube through the middle of it which is the alimentary canal going from the mouth to that other orifice it is outside the body relative to injecting something directly into the bloodstream or directly into the body. So this arbitrary difference between medicines and food is a nonsense in my view. But it is very convenient for many groups to pretend somehow that: “Oh yes we must have GM for medicines” because how can we say that we would deny the application of technology to combat some of those dreadful diseases that can plague us? But it is convenient to say that we will accept GM for medicines but not for food. That is a totally scientifically illogical position but nevertheless many people seem to grasp that stance. Perhaps that is the Green position. I do not know. We will hear— 
Sue Kedgley 
: Where is the market for food? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The Greens are interrupting to ask where the market is for food. That is a different issue. A lot of people say that GM is fine but the real reason we should not open things up is that it is the marketing perception that we need rules and regulators in Government to control the public perception. 
I actually have more faith in the market than that. I believe that if it is that bad then it probably will not happen. Certainly some very restrictive regulatory regimes will be put in place by this bill. There is no question about that. My argument and the position of the ACT party—and I heard Dr Hutchison make some similar comments—is that there is far too much red tape with this bill as we would expect from this Government. It has used this issue as an excuse to put in far more red tape and regulatory prescriptive controls than are required. 
That red tape comes in all manner of forms. The big one of course is consultation. The Labour Party loves consultation. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes there is a place for consultation but there is a point at which consultation debases a democracy. People go round and round in endless consultation. We have seen it with the Local Government Act that this Government ran through Parliament under urgency. That Act is putting massive costs on every local body in this country. There is endless consultation and we call it participatory democracy. It is nothing of the sort. It is just endless mindless meetings and the giving of leverage to uninformed people who keep complaining and going round and round in circles. But it seems to be becoming the trademark of this Government as Mr Darren Hughes knows. Government members love consultation as an excuse to tie things up put on all the costs imaginable and all the prescriptive regulations and end up going nowhere. Unfortunately we have seen all too much of that. 
The other comment that has been made is about ministerial call-in. There are wide powers there for a ministerial call-in and now the Minister can call in an application on cultural grounds. The chairman of the select committee made the point that this is Druidism but we have seen again from this Government that it is abandoning science and the evidential scientific method and adopting spiritualism. For some reason the Minister will call in something. How will we deal with something scientific that is being analysed and we are trying to evaluate it on spiritual and cultural grounds? That is a nonsense. As the Environmental Risk Management Authority has said it can process an application in 6 weeks based on science. But if we are talking about something based on cultural ethical or spiritual grounds then it can be processed into infinity. It could go on for ever. Again that is the sort of regime that this Labour Government wants to impose on the country. That is absurd and certainly the ACT party will be opposing those measures as we move through the passage of this legislation. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 This is the bill that is supposed to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification but so transparently it does not. This is the bill that in practice lifts the moratorium on release of GE despite what Brian Donnelly says because even though in law that was done by last year’s legislation in practice it is being done by this bill. The reason for that is that under the law as it stands now no applications for release would get approval from the Environmental Risk Management Authority because it cannot legally put any conditions on them. So under the law as it stands there can be no buffer zones no codes of practice and no monitoring; so there would in practice be no release. Instead any application for release would have to meet the minimum standard set out in section 36 of the Act which means essentially that such releases offer no greater risks than other organisms already out there. That was the approach taken by the author of the original Act Simon Upton and I think that he was right. 
The National Party has moved away from that position of caution and the Labour Party possibly never shared it. So let it be very clear to all members in this House that if they vote for this bill they will be voting to release genetically engineered crops animals and micro-organisms into our environment our food production and our exports for the first time. That is something that is opposed not just by the vast majority of submitters on this bill but by 68 percent of the public according to polls. I want every MP in the Labour Party to take note that he or she is personally voting to destroy New Zealand’s GE-free “clean green” image for ever against the wishes of the vast majority of Labour voters. I want all Maori and Pacific Island MPs to take responsibility for voting against the wishes of their constituencies. I want all United Future MPs to take personal responsibility for what they are doing and to stop hiding behind statements that this bill has nothing to do with lifting the moratorium. 
This bill does not implement the recommendations of the royal commission because the Government has rejected many of them. There is no strategy for preserving opportunities—other than opportunities for GE. There is no strategy to protect the right to grow 100 percent GE-free crops. There is no strategy to protect bees from GE contamination. There is no economic analysis that shows that this bill will benefit New Zealand. The genetic engineering of food plants and animals to produce pharmaceuticals—thus making them unfit for consumption as food—is to be freely permitted. The research set up at the suggestion of the royal commission to study impacts will not report for years. In all of those ways the Government has rejected the report of the commission or rather it has accepted the “proceed” bit and rejected the “with caution” bit. 
The select committee process was in my view a charade and I felt embarrassed by being part of it—even as a non-voting member. Rigid rules were set whereby submissions that arrived slightly after the due date were rejected without any attempt even to find out if they had arrived at Parliament but not at the Select Committee Office. Submissions that did not have 20 copies were likewise rejected. The Hon Michael Meacher the UK Minister for the Environment during a period when that country was intensely involved in discussions about the future of GE was not given time by the committee so he was called by Greenpeace as a witness and was basically told off before he had even spoken and accused of a political stunt. We spent several whole days listening to all the rest of the evidence and there was a lot but we had only one meeting set down for the committee to consider all the issues raised in the submissions. I managed to get that extended to two meetings but they were still totally inadequate to consider the serious and well-researched submissions. 
The committee never engaged with the scientific issues raised by people like Professor Williams a geneticist from the University of California Professor Schubert from the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in California Associate Professor Wills from the University of Auckland Dr Sean Weaver from Victoria University Dr Trussell from the Friends of the Earth in Auckland and Dr Mann a biochemist retired from teaching at the Medical School. All of those scientists were trying to tell us there were serious flaws in our understanding of genetic science which means that in a generic sense it is not safe to allow these new organisms outside a contained laboratory. 
 I actually doubt that anyone on the committee or any of the advisers had the necessary background to engage with the issues these submitters were raising or the quantities of serious scientific papers they presented us with. Certainly the issues in those papers were never discussed by the committee. I hope the Government will never again try to claim that its policies on genetic engineering are science-based when Government members have so blatantly ignored the views of so many qualified scientists. 
Nor did the committee take any notice of the big food producers like Zespri ENZA Heinz-Wattie and Sanitarium Health Food which told us that their markets do not want GE and that their market access and prices would be damaged by release. No heed was paid to the small fast-growing niche-market producers that have built their business and profits on New Zealand’s GE-free reputation. 
Another group that got no satisfaction and whose concerns were not dealt with is local government. We had strong submissions from district councils like Kaipara Nelson and Marlborough from regional councils like Environment BOP and Environment Waikato and from Local Government New Zealand on behalf of all the councils. They were concerned about three things: they wanted clarity around their legal rights and responsibilities; they wanted to know that if a release went badly wrong they would not be liable for clean up as they are with contaminated sites; and they wanted a voice as to whether GE was used in their communities. On all three counts they have been denied by the committee and by the Government. 
The interface between the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Acts under which they normally operate and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act which is amended by this bill is very unclear. The Local Government Act 2002 charges councils with promoting the well-being of their communities and creates a high expectation of consultation and responsiveness to the wishes of those communities. “Promoting” is an active word and where communities have gone to their councils and asked for protection from the risks of GE councils feel a duty to act but the law leaves them in total confusion as to how they can act. The Resource Management Act requires them to develop in consultation with their communities plans for land use and rules for discharge of contaminants. Does that entitle them if their communities demand it to set GE-free zones to protect other growers? The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act provides for a nationwide generic approval process of application for release by an expert body which is the Environmental Risk Management Authority. The Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act provide for local solutions in keeping with local aspirations and explicitly recognise that communities can have different needs and different wishes. Councils were asking for clarity in the law and the select committee and the Government have said that that is just too hard and have done nothing. 
So the law will be decided again by case law not because the matter never came up when the legislation was passed but because Parliament has refused to deal with it. It should not be the role of the courts to make law like this because it will inevitably be the party with the deepest pockets that will be able to mount the best case. The Government is relying on the New Zealand Life Sciences Network and its wealthy overseas industry backers to take a case to the Environment Court to stop any council that tries to implement what its citizens want. Knowing that most councils will not try which is exactly the way the Government wants it. But it is too scared of the backlash to legislate over the top of local authorities and take any such role away from them. The cost of establishing case law will be high and it will be borne by the very people who have been so comprehensively ignored by this whole process. 
The committee made a decision early on not to listen to arguments that the release of GE was a good or a bad thing yet that is exactly what this bill is about—putting in place the conditions that allow that release. It was embarrassing to watch the paranoia of members who feared there would be violent protests at our meetings and who asked for special protection at those meetings. Of course there was never any threat because although people out there were and are very angry at being ignored by the Government and by the committee people who are giving up their own time and money to protect New Zealand’s reputation environment health and economy from the risks of GE do not resort to violence. 
So the bill is back in the House having been changed hardly at all in spite of the many days of hearings and the quality of the evidence presented. All those who participated in this charade will be accountable for that. 
BERNIE OGILVY (United Future) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I speak today to voice United Future’s support for the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill. I thank the chairperson Brian Donnelly my other colleagues on the Education and Science Committee and the submitters who came forth at their own cost and in sincerity presented whatever their issues were and listened to the wide range of submissions. This bill represents a victory of common sense and science over dogma and ideology. It presents an opportunity for New Zealand to move forward both scientifically and economically and to embrace the opportunities presented by rapid advances in the biological sciences. 
The  
Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification 
 stated: “GM has been used freely in New Zealand for more than a decade as a research tool for medical purposes and for food ingredients. It holds exciting promise not only for conquering diseases eliminating pests and contributing to the knowledge economy but for enhancing the international competitiveness of the primary industries so important to our country’s economic well-being.” That was stated before anything began. That would mean fewer pesticides fewer insecticides less use of antibiotics in farm animals such as pigs and poultry and more production per unit of land under cultivation. It all sounds like good environmental and economic sense to me. 
However as I am sure almost everyone would agree new technology such as this must be applied cautiously and safely. The bill puts a legislative and regulatory framework in place that enables United Future to feel comfortable with the expiration of the moratorium on application for commercial release of genetically modified organisms. I reiterate at this point that although United Future is comfortable with the lifting of the moratorium the moratorium itself is set to lift automatically on 29 October this year. That was set down by the amendments to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act in 2002. That was the purpose by the way of giving the Government time to implement the recommendations of the royal commission. I believe that was a sensible step particularly in view of the fears among some sectors of the public about the possible consequences of using this new technology. 
But a further extension of the moratorium cannot in any convincing way be justified. If the Government decided to extend the moratorium it would need to introduce a whole new piece of legislation and to get that through Parliament before the end of October. That would be the Government’s prerogative and the Government’s prerogative only. It is our view that in the absence of proven danger to public health or the environment such a course of action would be a disaster for New Zealand’s scientific community for the agricultural sector and by implication for the whole economy. Of course no such evidence of danger exists. Therefore I believe 
there is only one party in Parliament that would support such a detrimental backwards step. 
Even in the absence of this bill the royal commission itself found that New Zealand’s basic regulatory framework and the key institutions were up to the job of safely addressing the application of GM technology in New Zealand. Members should remember that the royal commission study is probably one of the most extensive inquiries ever to be undertaken into the application of GM technology anywhere in the world. Even then it most certainly did not recommend the imposition of any sort of moratorium. However in the interests of caution public safety environmental protection and the importance of New Zealand’s “clean green” image for the marketing of our exports the royal commission did make a series of recommendations that focused on enhancing the existing regulatory framework and the institutions even further. It did not seek to throw everything out and start again or to take drastic steps to bring existing frameworks up to some new impossible standard. It simply made suggestions for improvements based on sound science to make an already robust regime even safer. That is what the bill is all about. The New Organisms and Other Matters Bill implements the sensible moderate recommendations of the royal commission so we can be absolutely sure that our regulatory framework and institutions are as good as we can make them before the genetic modification moratorium is lifted next month. 
Another advantage of this bill besides its focus on safety is that it takes other aspects of GM technology into account such as the workability of the regulations that businesses will have to comply with so that GM technology can be used in practice as well as in theory. This is important because the economic benefits for our country are potentially huge. Despite claims to the contrary there is no concrete evidence that lifting the moratorium in October will harm New Zealand’s exports. Certainly our exports showed no signs of suffering from the absence of a GM moratorium in the days before the start of the moratorium and the royal commission inquiry. 
United Future continues to hold with the idea that the economic effect of lifting the GM moratorium will be a positive one despite the huge amount of misinformation and the substandard analysis distributed by the anti-GE lobby in an effort to convince people that the opposite is true. One commonly cited example of this effort is a survey that reportedly demonstrates that a large proportion of consumers in New Zealand’s main export markets said they would cease buying New Zealand food products if GM products were released in this country. As my colleague Larry Baldock said in the first reading speech to this bill a recently released Treasury paper on economic impacts of GM makes the point that overseas consumers are unlikely to base their purchase decisions on whether a country’s products of origin are GE-free. It has nothing to do with it. In fact when it is applied to New Zealand the reality is that most people will make their decision on the basis of price not origin of any sort—whether it is GE or non-GE. 
It is also interesting to note some of the groups calling for an extension of the moratorium claim that such an extension would limit New Zealand’s economic opportunities because it may be 3 to 5 years before any genetically modified crop developed in New Zealand is commercialised anyway. If this does turn out to be the case then the lifting of the moratorium now will not have any practical effect for several years anyway. But if something does end up being ready for development before then—and these things can happen—it would be a shame to see such an opportunity go begging. Scientists are not lost overseas when the regulatory regime necessary for such developments to proceed safely is already in place. 
It is important symbolically for potential future investors that any legal roadblocks are removed as soon as is safely possible. This new bill satisfies United Future’s policy of having the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification in place before the lifting of the moratorium. Now it is time for New Zealand to continue moving forward safely and cautiously but forward nevertheless. 
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill. I had the opportunity to sit in the Education and Science Committee which considered this bill and first of all I would like to pay my tribute to Brian Donnelly the chairman who very ably chaired it. We had very good and very wide discussions all over the country and I am delighted at the way he chaired those meetings. Although I do not necessarily agree with a lot of New Zealand First policies I certainly do have a lot of respect for Mr Donnelly. 
I do disagree with those who find fault with the process we have gone through. I have had the opportunity to travel quite widely around the world and I have heard the discussions in the US and Europe about GE. I believe that through the royal commission and now this bill we in this country have probably had more wide-ranging discussions on this issue than anywhere that I am aware of. 
This bill is about streamlining the approval process for the introduction of conditional release of genetically modified organisms in this country. Plant breeding—breeding new crops and seeds—is nothing new. We have been involved in developing plants and commercial breeding for many years. Also we have been using tissue culture and embryo culture technologies for many years. Now we have come to genetic and molecular engineering and I believe that this technology will be very useful for our country. I fully support this bill. 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I want to make some comments about the passage of this bill. I did not find this an easy process at all. I found the process and the content of the bill difficult and there are two reasons for that. One reason is that I do not profess to be a scientist and it took some time for me as a member of the select committee to get my head around some of the case by case work and some of the more technical terms in the bill. Also if we were absolutely honest about it this is a pretty delicate issue in the sense that in many ways it ranges across what would traditionally be seen as the political spectrum. I know for example that friends of mine who are shall we say pretty right wing who would consider the ACT party to have socialist leanings on some of its economic policy nevertheless still have very strong views about the GE issue. It is one of those issues that if we deal with the second reading and the Committee stage in a flippant way then we do not do credit to the seriousness with which this issue should be taken. 
I do believe that it is an issue that to be fair particularly young people think pretty seriously about and they have not found it a particularly easy topic to deal with. Whilst they understand the importance of the economic growth arguments and the abilities of an economy and a country to—as Brian Donnelly would say—move forward there is still a great deal of scepticism and I have to say that that is represented not just by the Green Party. It is an issue that we will not see solved satisfactorily in my political lifetime. 
I pay tribute to Brian Donnelly who did a very good job chairing the select committee. It was not always easy actually. We had our moments but I do think Brian Donnelly did a very good job. 
I also want to pay a small tribute to my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison who took the lead for the National Party on the select committee and spent many hours sitting on the select committee when I was unable to. I thank him for the time he put in on behalf of our caucus. 
As I say it is a very very delicate issue. Once the select committee had begun the process of consideration there were still two or three issues that I believe were not dealt with well. Although National will continue to support the passage of the bill Dr Hutchison and I will propose a number of amendments during the Committee stage. I draw the attention of the House to two or three of those issues just to signal to the House and to the Minister some of the issues that we have concerns with. I know that this issue was raised briefly by the Hon Brian Donnelly and I refer to the way in which local government will implement the GE-free zones. The way in which Government members on the select committee reported on that issue in the commentary on the bill on page 5 does not leave local government in my view any the wiser about what it has to do. There is a problem when even today I see a newspaper report stating that one councillor made a bid today to have Horizons MW—formerly the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council—endorse extending a moratorium on GM and declaring part of that catchment a GE-free area. This is not going to be an easy hurdle for local government to come to terms with. 
One thing that I hope I have said consistently in this House when legislation like this is introduced is that it is the job of Parliament to inject certainty into the law. The last thing I want to see—and I am sure that this is the last thing members on both sides of the House bar a few in the Government want to see—is a whole lot of judicial activism ignited on these points. That is not going to help anybody. I believe that there is still much work to do on the issue of local government and its role in respect of creating GE-free zones or allegedly trying to do that—depending on whether the courts decide in the end that it has the power to do that. Government members seem completely convinced that that is not going to be a difficulty but I still have some way to go on that. 
I do want to raise two or three further points. The first is in respect of the liabilities and penalties under the bill. Members of the Education and Science Committee will know that that is something I took a particular interest in. We believe that the level of fines proposed in the legislation is extremely prohibitive and high. We also note that officials formed the view very early—and this is quite an important point—that from a liability perspective there was nothing sufficiently different about GE to justify a liability regime that was different in principle from those applied in other scenarios. That is an extraordinarily powerful piece of advice from officials. 
As members of the select committee will know that is why I was particularly concerned about section 124B(3) in clause 48. The bill that originally came before the select committee stated that the court must not make the pecuniary penalty order if it is satisfied that the person did not know and could not reasonably have known of the breach. What the select committee decided to do was to substantially alter the level of the burden on the applicant which I think is wrong. The clause now says that the court must not make the order if the person satisfies the court that he or she did not know and could not reasonably have known of the breach. That shifts the burden substantially from having the court itself making a determination about the circumstances in which that alleged breach occurred to requiring the individual or company in breach to prove it. That is quite a substantial hurdle to jump and quite a different burden from what would ordinarily be imposed which we think is odd given the officials’ advice that there was very little to justify a different liability regime. 
I just want to add to the concerns raised by Ken Shirley and the Hon Brian Donnelly about the Minister’s call-in powers. That stuff is just nuts—that is the best way I can describe it. It is just lunatic-fringe stuff. The Minister will decide an application if he or she considers that the decision will have significant cultural economic environmental ethical health international or spiritual effects. With the greatest of respect to the current Minister I say that she may be capable of making that determination but future Ministers may not be. As a lawyer when I look at a clause like that I see one thing: big cash. Lawyers are going to make a fortune out of that sort of clause. 
I will just go back to what I said two or three moments ago which is this. It is the responsibility of Parliament to pass certain and unambiguous law. What that clause is doing is simply opening the floodgates for a massive range of applications and discretions and a huge new lawyers’ area of expertise. Frankly when I look at this clause I can hear the lawyers out there heading down to the Mercedes dealers to close the deal on Monday morning. It is a seriously ambiguous and uncertain clause and it will cause all sorts of difficulties for whoever sits in that ministerial seat. 
I conclude by saying that National will be introducing amendments during the Committee stage. I give my thanks again to fellow members of the select committee. We look forward to a thorough investigation of the bill clause by clause during the Committee stage. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 107 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 9; Other: Awatere Huata. 
Bill read a second time. 
Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill Medicines Amendment Bill 
Third Readings 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 I move  
That the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Bill the Health and Disability Commissioner Amendment Bill and the Medicines Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This legislation is about public safety. Its purpose is to protect the health and safety of members of the public by providing mechanisms to ensure the lifelong competence of health practitioners. The legislation builds on the existing framework. All the major concepts in the Medical Practitioners Act have been carried forward into this legislation adjusted where necessary to generic terms to provide a framework that can apply to all health practitioners not just doctors. 
The basic principles of ongoing competence separation of the registration process from the disciplinary process and the declaration of quality assurance activities have all been carried through to this new legislation. Major deficiencies in the mix of existing occupational legislation and the difficulties they cause for the existing authorities will end with this new legislation. Scopes of practice which are a key part of this legislation have caused much debate which rested on the argument that the concept of scopes of practice is new and untested. That is simply not correct. The concept of scopes of practice has been there for some time—and for physiotherapy right back to 1949. This legislation simply adapts the concept of scopes of practice behind provisional general vocational and temporary registration that is found in the Medical Practitioners Act to express broad scopes of practice in generic terms that can apply to all health practitioners. 
 Some concerns have been expressed by professional groups that this legislation will lead to a shift in the way that practitioners practice so that practitioners will no longer achieve a general qualificational standard and then specialise in a narrower field later in their career. It is the intention of the Government and clearly that of the Health Committee that broad scopes of practice apply where practitioners are expected to have a familiarity with a full general span of the area of their profession’s expertise and remain the starting point for each health practitioner. 
There are new powers for the Minister. They are few but they are important. They reflect the primary purpose of the legislation to protect the public and obligations to the public from the Minister. In return for those increased powers for the professionals in respect of the clinical decisions there are checks and balances to ensure that registration authorities are held accountable for complying with the provisions of the legislation through the Minister to Parliament. These include the Minister’s powers to appoint authority members determining disputes over scopes of practice and gazette-restricted activities. 
The Minister’s power in respect of overlapping scopes of practice is not a power that I see intruding on the roles of authorities. It is entirely in the hands of the registration authorities and the professions as to whether this provision is ever called into effect. The incentive is to resolve disputes without having to involve the Minister. 
There are some issues around cultural competence and professionalism. Some have suggested that the bill will prevent professional groups from setting codes of ethics as they have traditionally done. That is simply not true. Professional groups will continue to do so. However there is a distinction between setting such professional codes of ethics and the standards for ethical conduct on which professional conduct committees will be required to make judgments under the provisions of this legislation. 
Under the legislation registration authorities will have the function of setting standards of ethical conduct in the same way as they set standards in other areas but this will not change or affect the role and status of codes of ethics currently developed by the health professions. I expect and welcome the continued role of health professions through their professional associations in setting their own codes of ethics. The most important expression of ethics will continue to be those that professions set for themselves and that guide professionals from day to day in their ordinary working lives. 
Under the legislation new mechanisms for maintaining and improving the competence of health practitioners are being created. These include competence reviews competence programmes recertification programmes medical examinations and others. It is important that provisions for protected quality assurance activities are being continued and extended to all health practitioners. 
There are new reporting provisions to help safeguard the public. The legislation will include provisions for practitioner and interagency reporting when there is a risk that a practitioner may pose a risk of harm to the public. 
The role of the Health and Disability Commissioner will also change through the legislation. The commissioner has gained more flexibility in dealing with complaints which should improve the timeliness of the complaints processes. 
 In the area of pharmacy the legislation introduces a new mechanism for ensuring that medicines are distributed in a safe environment by requiring operators of pharmacies to be licensed. One of the conditions of the licence will be that a pharmacist must have a 50 percent ownership position in the pharmacy. It is essential to ensure that dispensing services are available in a safe environment and the licensing regime provides a regulatory framework to achieve that. 
In conclusion I would like to thank the Health Committee particularly the chair Steve Chadwick. The members did a very very good job with this legislation and I notice Dr Paul Hutchison over there. Although there may be some debate I am sure their efforts have assisted to ensure that the legislation the House passes today or maybe tomorrow will set in place a regulatory regime that safeguards public safety while at the same time securing the rights and protections for the practitioners themselves. I commend this legislation to the House. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 9.55 p.m.