Volume 608 Week 23 - Tuesday 6 May 2003 
Volume 608 Week 23 - Tuesday 6 May 2003 
[Volume:608;Page:5293] 
Tuesday 6 May 2003 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Points of Order 
Extension of House Sitting Times 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise this point of order at the first available time open to me. I would like a ruling from you that the sitting times of the House are binding and cannot be altered from the Chair. I then want a ruling as to what happens to what I regard as illegal sittings. Do they stand on the record or are they expunged? 
The reason I raise this matter is that last Thursday just before the House was to rise under Standing Order 43 at 6 p.m. the Deputy Speaker attempted to put the question on the Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill. The  
Hansard 
 record clearly shows that the Deputy Speaker had not put the question. In my view what actually happened was that the Government member sat down suddenly as Government members try to do before the sitting time finishes—I will not suggest there was collusion—the Deputy Speaker rose to her feet and started to put the question I rose and so did John Carter. I see from the  
Hansard 
 record that John Carter the National Party member went for the call well before the question was put. 
The ruling is quite simple and I remind everyone that that is so. For example when we have a bill the Minister gets up and makes a speech and then before calling any person the Speaker says: “The question is that the motion be agreed to.” If that stopped debate no one would be able to be called. The debate is not stopped until the Clerk calls the vote. Once the Clerk starts to call the vote of course members cannot get a call. However in this particular case we had not reached that point. I rose to my feet and so did John Carter. I heard him clearly say: “Mr Speaker”. I indicated to the Chair that I wanted the call and the Deputy Speaker continued. 
I would like you to rule that in fact the vote had not been put. At that point that is very important. The House must stop at 6 o’clock. It is not a matter of discretion; it can only continue if a vote is under way. There should not have been a vote under way. That is important because after 6 o’clock the House purported to do a number of things one of which affects me: it purported to suspend me. I say the House cannot suspend me when it is not supposed to be sitting. I was aware of that fact. I tried to get the Deputy Speaker to listen to me on a point of order but she has a style of standing and refusing to take calls which results in disorderly conduct as members try to draw to her attention that what the House is doing is wrong. 
I want to know what happens to the  
Hansard 
. I have a copy of  
Hansard 
 here that purports to suspend me at 6 o’clock. The problem with that is that it is just not true. I can prove that it is not true. If we go back to an earlier  
Hansard 
 we see that it states: “John Carter: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Now we find ourselves in a peculiar situation. I know we are dealing with a procedural matter but it is past 6 o’clock.” It appears to me that  
Hansard 
 has decided that it is like urgency. If we go into urgency today we claim on Thursday that the House is still in urgency. It appears that  
Hansard 
 is trying to state that when I was suspended it was still 6 o’clock. It was not. The House should have risen at 6 o’clock and that should have been the end of the matter. 
That is actually important to me because if one has been suspended by the House and is suspended a second time it is for a week. In fact in that particular matter where I tried to persuade the Deputy Speaker that the House was acting irregularly if I had been thrown out by the Serjeant-at-Arms I would have been out for the rest of Parliament. I was aware that the procedures we were making were out of order and that Parliament cannot meet then. I make this point to you too: we had a vote at 6.10 p.m. I think it was. I will lay any money anyone likes that that vote is invalid because of course the whips get up and vote on behalf of the members who are still in the House. It was 6 p.m. on a Thursday. I have checked and there were MPs leaving in taxis for aeroplanes. They were not waiting to hear what happened to Richard Prebble. Of course they were not. Yet people pretended—well I am not suggesting that the whips in casting those votes realised they were wrong but of course they were. Again that is another reason that that part of the record should be expunged. 
What I want you to rule is firstly that the vote on the Maori television services bill was not put—that is important because the ACT party wants to speak on that matter—and secondly that everything that happened after 6 p.m. is expunged from the record including my suspension. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the member that the Deputy Speaker was in the process of putting the question so Standing Order 51 does apply. But the question had not actually been put so other members could still intervene and seek the call. The best result has been arrived at in the sense that the interrupted debate is still before the House as Order of the Day No. 3. Whenever the House has taken a decision whether it technically should or should not have been sitting is beside the point. The decision stands until rescinded by the House. I will have another look at that matter but that is my initial ruling. 
Questions to Ministers 
Prime Minister—Reported Comments 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What did she mean when she said “What everyone’s looking at is whether there is going to be a Franco/German/Russia linkup with good links through to the Chinese against what we have which looks like a small Anglo/American group—it shifts the whole dynamic”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Speaking on 2 April before going to Europe I was referring to the debate within Europe and the way in which international opinion among key players appeared to be divided at that time. 
Hon Bill English 
: In the light of her apparent view of the smallness of the Anglo-American group her view that the whole dynamic is shifting and a steady stream of comments that have been critical of Australia Britain and America is she setting a new direction for New Zealand foreign policy; or if not what are those comments evidence of? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is perfectly clear that when push came to shove at the Security Council the US-UK view commanded four votes and the other view presumably commanded 11. In that sense the comment was entirely accurate. I do not think I could ever be accused of attacking allies in the way that the Leader of the Opposition did when he said that Australians had a good history of marginal criminal behaviour. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister think her recent comments on the progress of the Iraq war the likely actions of a Gore presidency should he have won and the law of the jungle or the equivalent that could be anticipated from those words as reported in the  
Guardian 
 are helpful to New Zealand; if not will she keep quiet on those matters rather than trying to pose as some sort of antipodean Metternich? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: What I found in the United Kingdom is that they thoroughly understand democracy sovereignty and the right to dissent unlike an Opposition that knows only how to tug its forelock. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That reply was a breach of Standing Order 372. The last part was unnecessary and breached the Standing Order. The Prime Minister who does that regularly should desist or be asked to desist from that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister’s reply was brief and to the point. The comment she made might well be outside the Standing Order but then so are quite a lot of the comments made in this House. If I were to pull up every single comment I would have been pulling up some parts of the question. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: When the Prime Minister said that what everyone is looking at is whether there is going to be a Franco-German-Russian link-up with good links through to the Chinese and what looks to be a small Anglo-American group would she name—[ 
Interruption 
] She said everyone. Well let us start naming them—just one leader who is saying that apart from her. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The comment was made on 2 April when it was quite clear what the division of international opinion between those players was. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is why question time is taking so long. We have a question for which notice has been given and I have quoted correctly to make sure that the Prime Minister has got it. She said “everyone” and I asked her to name someone. Now she says “2 April”. What does that have to do with it? I asked her to name just one leader who is saying that apart from her. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister addressed the question. It might not have been satisfactory to the member but that was the answer that was given. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Would the Prime Minister now that she has had more time like to give it another go? When she says “everyone” I ask her to start naming them. Who are the people whom she says are looking at whether there is going to be a Franco-German-Russian link-up with good links to the Chinese against what we have which looks like a small Anglo-American group? I ask her to please name those people. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is perfectly clear to any student of the English language that “everyone” was used in a generic sense as one might have used the term “people”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question Keith Locke. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could I ask the Prime Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called Keith Locke. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did you call Mr Prebble last time? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because I made a mistake. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: For the third time in 4 days you have done that. With respect I have told you that my party does not intend to put up with that and I want an explanation now. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I said I made a mistake. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister think that because the American forces have not found any weapons of mass destruction the Anglo-American war was constructed on a lie and that New Zealand France Germany and Russia were right in wanting to give the UN inspectors more time? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is wide of the question. The Prime Minister may comment briefly. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The answer to the primary question in that is no. I am one who has always accepted that the Iraqis had some kind of weapons of mass destruction programme. I do think of course that they had plenty of time to destroy evidence of that and I would say we should not jump to conclusions that there was no evidence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary question the Hon Bill English. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I see Mr Speaker. Now it is back to seniority is it? Well I was here before him and I will be here long after he is gone. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The call goes to the member who asked the original question and the member knows it. 
Hon Bill English 
: When she said: “Yes the jungle. Who wants to go back to the jungle?” did she have in mind any action or decision of the Blair Government over the last 6 months that might have prompted her to make those comments? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have said in this very House that the action of going to war without Security Council sanction created new and dangerous precedents. That is the reason that the New Zealand Government stuck out very strongly for a UN Security Council decision-making process. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given the Government’s position as stated that it thought it would be able to piggyback a free-trade agreement with the US on the back of Australia does she think her recent comments have helped in any way that prospect or does she realise now what immense damage she is doing to the long-term economic interests of this country? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: As that member also voted against an ACT motion in this House to commit New Zealand’s support to a war without Security Council resolution I assume that he too would not want to link any actions New Zealand would take in respect of that war to a trade agreement. Can I say that whether the United States eventually signs a free-trade agreement with New Zealand will have a great deal to do with whether it sees it as being in its economic interests. 
Hon Bill English 
: Now that she has had further time to consider whom “everyone” might have been when she said: “What everyone’s looking at is whether there is going to be a Franco/German/Russia linkup with good links through to the Chinese” does “everyone” include her on New Zealand’s behalf? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: “Everyone” obviously does not include the Leader of the Opposition who gives very little thought to what the future line-ups might be. He would do his country a better service if he stopped behaving like a junior congressman from Dipton. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like the Prime Minister now to address the particular supplementary question that was asked by the Hon Bill English. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I think I was asked whom “everyone” included. I said that it obviously did not include someone behaving like a junior congressman from Dipton. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I would like the Prime Minister to expand just a little on that particular question. [ 
Interruption 
] We all know what the question was. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Obviously “everyone” does not include the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. From the way that the Prime Minister repeated the answer it is clear she did not understand the question or had forgotten it. I am happy to repeat the question to help her to give the answer in the way that you have requested. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I think that is a very reasonable point because we have to accept the Prime Minister’s word. When the Prime Minister was responding to you on a point of order she made it clear to the whole House that she had not understood or remembered the question because the question was actually quite clear. The Prime Minister was asked whether those were her views. That is the question she was asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will ask the member to repeat it. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I thank the leader of ACT for his intervention because he has now reminded me of what the question was. I will now respond to it. It is quite clear that the original comment is in itself a question and it is a question based on whether—and I draw the member’s attention to that word—there is going to be this or that and “that” represents the opinions of the key players at that time. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am about to ask somebody to leave the House because when I call a point of order only the person called has the right to speak. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The Prime Minister was asked a question in which the critical word was “include”. It was not a matter of whom the question excluded. Maybe when she has finished telling us whom it included she could say that. Then she said by way of explanation in her last reply that she had been asking herself a question. Well no one else can read that into it nor I would say can the junior lecturer from the political science department of Auckland University. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The Prime Minister is entitled to explain her statement in words that she chooses; members cannot dictate how she or any other Minister answers. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raised with you towards the end of last session an issue about Ministers answering questions and in this particular case it was the Prime Minister. You gave us a ruling last week on the matter of Ministers trifling with the Chair. We have just had an instance when the Prime Minister has twice given answers that were not answers to the questions she was asked and in your ruling you said that there could be further supplementary questions if you felt a Minister was trifling with the Chair. I suggest to you that in this case she was and that you have every reason to give further supplementary questions on this issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may raise the point but I do not consider that was so. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I raise it with some trepidation. I want to explain the confusion that we are having as Opposition MPs in question time. It is this— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Come to the point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: A question has been put down that is very clear. It refers to a quote. It asks the Prime Minister about her statement which she accepts about “everyone” and whom the “everyone” refers to. She does not answer that. She then says— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Please be seated. 
Rodney Hide 
: No no. I want to go through this— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. I refer the member to the Standing Order that states I do not have to listen to the whole point of order. As far as I am concerned that matter is now over; it has been ruled on and dealt with. 
Economy—Fiscal and Monetary Policy Management 
2.  
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any recent reports on New Zealand’s fiscal and monetary policy management? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. The latest International Monetary Fund report on New Zealand described the Government’s macroeconomic policies as sound and our decision to defer any new big-spending initiatives until next year’s Budget as prudent. 
Clayton Cosgrove 
: Has the Minister received any reports on the changes this Government has made to monetary policy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes. The changes were commended by the International Monetary Fund and by the Australian-based investment bank TD Securities whose chief economist said that the introduction of a more pragmatic regime and the appointment of a new Governor had created monumental confidence amongst financial markets that the Reserve Bank was a highly credible well-managed bank. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is it not true that the economy’s recent buoyancy owes a great deal to monetary policy in late 2001 and early 2002 or are the lags in the effectiveness of monetary policy suddenly very much shorter than previously? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No and I do not think we should get into questions about old lags in this context. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The Minister said “No” which was a complete answer to a question. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. How on earth can one answer a question like that with a “No”? How can that be considered to be addressing the question? And is it acceptable for the second Minister in a day to abuse Standing Order 365 with some sort of added epithet at the end that adds nothing to the question or to the dignity of Parliament? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The comment at the end will be withdrawn please. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I withdraw. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As to the first part of the question I say that Ministers can answer questions “Yes” or “No” or in any way that they like. I am not to judge that. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Is it the Minister’s intention given his reported comment that the fiscal surplus this year could reach $4 billion to reduce the overall level of the tax burden on individuals and companies in the upcoming Budget; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I indicated on Saturday it is likely that the figure for the operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting changes will be somewhere about the $4 billion mark. That is not a cash surplus; it does not represent $4 billion in the back of my pocket. I also indicated that due largely to changing discount rates the final operating balance will be only about a third of that figure. 
Energy Minister—Confidence 
3.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Energy; if so why? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Prime Minister continue to express confidence in a Minister who presided over a view of the electricity industry that clung to the free-market model which led to a governance board made up solely of industry players who have ignored national requirements failed to reward financially savers of electricity or to provide an appropriate degree of regulation and failed to embark on any plan for longer-term development of supply capacity; or is it the case that as long as one works hard and is diligent one could be a prize fool in a job and still have the Prime Minister’s confidence? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The present market model is certainly flawed. It will undergo extra change to ensure that stand-by generation can be in place. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given that the Prime Minister has said the electricity market is flawed which of her two policies are we to believe: the one she announced a month ago when she said that the market was seriously flawed and had to have significant change or the one she announced yesterday when she said that it would largely stay in place? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: There will be significant change to the model to ensure that stand-by generation can be kept aside so that if we strike exceptionally dry years like this one people will not be asked again to make the sacrifices they have been asked to make. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Why does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister of Energy and why does she blame the market model when it is a fact that the Government owns 100 percent of transmission capacity and 70 percent of generating capacity when it is the Government that is stopping schemes like the Dobson hydro scheme from going ahead and when this Minister of Energy by a simple instruction to the State-owned generators could have required them under the statement of corporate intent to build this stand-by generation; how can she say that it is a market failure when the Government owns it; and how can she say she has confidence in the Minister of Energy when he has failed to give those instructions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister can answer two of those three questions. 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The present market model does not encourage generating companies to generate for a margin of security of supply and that is what the changes will address. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Prime Minister’s continued confidence in the Minister of Energy a further example of her clear lack of judgment when it comes to weak Ministers or will her Government continue to blame its energy failings on the weather or previous Governments? When on earth will the buck stop with her office? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: The fact is that the weather and previous Governments have a great deal to do with it. We cannot do much about the weather but we can do something about Max Bradford’s mess. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave of the House to table the answer to a parliamentary question in which the Minister of Energy said some 2000 extra megawatts of capacity are planned to come into the system in the next short while. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is. 
Broadcasting—Music Local Content 
4.  
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What reports has he received on local music content on commercial radio stations? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 New figures that we released today from the New Zealand Music Performance Committee show that Kiwi music made up 15.36 percent of the playlist in the first quarter of this year. That is 2 percent ahead of the figure for the same period in 2002 and ahead of last year’s overall average. It is very good news coming in New Zealand Music Month. All this month New Zealand will be promoted through a variety of means and I certainly applaud that. 
Darren Hughes 
: How will the Government make sure that those targets are maintained? 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: New Zealand music is an $11 million industry in New Zealand at this time or about 9 percent of a market of $200 million or so. The Government wants to see that grow through such initiatives provided by New Zealand On Air and the Music Commission. We believe that domestic success will lead to our having a share of the multibillion-dollar international music market. I tell members of the House that today 30 New Zealand bands are successfully touring on the international market. 
Electricity—Domestic Pricing 
5.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: If domestic electricity consumers reduce electricity use by 10 percent will that also reduce the cost of their electricity bills by 10 percent; if not why not? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Electricity bills include the costs of transmission and business overheads as well as units of electricity. Consumers reducing consumption by 10 percent will reduce the unit cost in their bill by 10 percent but not the total cost. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Minister review his refusal to prohibit fixed charges for which households have to pay the same regardless of how much they use and require fixed costs to be recovered through unit charges like every other business which also have fixed costs so that consumers who save 10 percent will save 10 percent? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The member forgets that it was this Government that introduced low fixed-charges. In August 2000 which was about when that charge came in or a little later than that the average charge for a low user in New Zealand was $275 a year. The average charge today for a low user is not $275 but $112 a year. 
Mark Peck 
: How does the Government’s low fixed-charge policy work and why was it introduced? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The policy requires electricity retailers to offer small domestic consumers a fixed charge of 30c a day plus GST with a correspondingly higher unit charge. It was introduced to ensure that people who use only small amounts of electricity pay only small bills. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: As electricity savings have only just hit 4 percent despite the Minister’s call for a 10 percent saving will he now ask State-owned retailers to offer some financial incentive to households that reduce their electricity consumption by the level of the target? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: In 2001 I did ask and consumers responded. In 2003 I do not need to ask; the first of them will be out within the week. 
Brent Catchpole 
: How serious is this Government in encouraging power savings when the motorways through Auckland from Orewa to the Bombay Hills are lit up like Christmas trees; and how does this message encourage or discourage power savings? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The issue of motorway lighting or for that matter street lighting is one in which we balance electricity use against road safety and human safety. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Given that domestic consumers who are being asked to save 10 percent are not actually responsible for the fact that it has not rained or for all the other problems that have been alluded to as causing this power crisis will the Minister assure the House that domestic consumers will not be hit with a double whammy and at some point in the future face increased power charges as a way of limiting their consumption as some people are advocating? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: Some are advocating that domestic consumers be exposed to the spot price. The Government has no plans in that regard. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister satisfied that all retailers are in fact enabling those who wish to change to the new tariff to do so given the various strategies that retailers adopt such as people at call centres having “never heard of any such strategy” denying that it exists and some retailers even attempting to charge consumers a fee to change to the low fixed-charge tariff? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: In the case of the one company that charged the fee we put a stop to that straightaway. As far as the other allegations are concerned there may or may not be some truth in them. I would be very happy to hear from the member if she has any evidence of such practices. 
OECD Ranking—Regulations 
6.  
Dr DON BRASH (NZ National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How do this Government’s regulations in labour health and safety and resource management contribute to its goal of taking New Zealand to the top half of the OECD in terms of per capita income? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 All the countries above us in the OECD rankings regulate those areas and the great majority of them regulate them more tightly than we do. We do not improve our sustainable growth rate by failing to protect our workers and the environment. 
Dr Don Brash 
: Is the Minister concerned that the chairman of Telecom which is New Zealand’s largest public company blames increasingly pervasive Government regulation for cutting the company’s annual capital investment in New Zealand by half a billion dollars or that Carter Holt Harvey which is New Zealand’s second-largest public company also blames Government regulation for threatening its future investment in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In the case of the former company I note that other telecommunications companies have made extremely large investments and I know that some are considering some very large investments within the current environment. Telecom appears to be following a different strategy. 
David Cunliffe 
: How does robust health and safety legislation assist the economy and those who work in it? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Workplace accidents are a cost on the economy and we have one of the worst records in the developed world in that respect. This Government believes that workers are entitled to be safe at work. 
Sue Bradford 
: Is the Minister concerned that despite positive regulatory changes figures released today show that price rises in New Zealand exceed gains in wages and that New Zealand workers now earn 25 percent less than their Australian counterparts and how is that helping New Zealand to move into the top half of the OECD? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: New Zealand household incomes have been rising strongly over the last 2 or 3 years. Wage growth has been modest and non-inflationary and that will probably contribute to New Zealand’s economic growth rather than the reverse. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Will the Government continue to streamline resource access and approval processes in the interests of growing New Zealand’s per capita income whenever and wherever constraints are identified? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Resource Management Act and its operations are kept under continuous review. The Minister for the Environment is continuing to work on further proposed changes to streamline processes but she will do so in the light of achieving sustainable development outcomes. 
Dr Don Brash 
: When the negative impact on economic growth of rising Government intervention is increasingly visible why does the Minister continue to ignore expert OECD and International Monetary Fund advice to remove damaging regulatory barriers to growth and continue to refuse to “continue on the path of market-based reforms to accelerate growth”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: We do not take everything the International Monetary Fund and the OECD tell us. For example they support reducing benefits increasing the age for the pension and introducing capital gains taxes on housing. The member is on record as supporting all those measures; the Government opposes them all. 
Rod Donald 
: Can the Minister confirm that a 2001 OECD report on red tape identified New Zealand as having the lowest aggregate annual compliance costs for small and medium-sized enterprises out of the 11 OECD countries surveyed and that the same report showed those costs being significantly lower than those faced in Australia? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is correct. It is also correct that our total taxation burden on the corporate sector is low by the standard of developed countries and our tax revenue as a proportion of GDP at 30 percent is well below the OECD average. 
Health Services—Rural 
7.  
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Health 
: What recent initiatives has the Government announced to support rural health? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 Today I have announced just under $500000 to be allocated over the next 2 years to a further 11 primary health providers in rural areas. That money will help relieve doctors and nurses working onerous rosters in parts of New Zealand. It is part of a total of nearly $3.5 million to be allocated over the next 2 years to rural health services. 
David Parker 
: What other programmes and initiatives has the Government undertaken to improve health services for people living in rural areas? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Today’s initiative continues this Government’s support for rural health services. The Government has also made funding available for rural locum support schemes a mobile surgical bus recruitment and retention to support the rural workforce and a health-line service which I will have much pleasure in visiting this evening. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: How many rural pharmacies will close when this Government changes monthly drug dispensing to 3-monthly and how will the closure of rural pharmacies possibly help rural health services? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am aware of the proposals that Pharmac has out for consultation. People in rural areas have had the benefit of dispensing for some time. The proposals are to be spread across the whole of New Zealand and the views of both rural and urban pharmacies will be taken on board by Pharmac through that consultation process. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: If emergency helicopter services are to be considered an integral component of rural health services why is it that in places like Northland public fundraising has to be undertaken to pay for those machines which should be fully funded by the Government? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: I am not aware of the details of policy around that. I commit to the member that I will look into that and get back to him with a response. 
Sue Kedgley 
: To supplement the useful but modest initiative announced today why will the Government not encourage medical practitioners into rural New Zealand by writing off a year of their student debt for every year they spend working in rural New Zealand especially after a recent survey revealed that nearly 65 percent of student doctors are considering going off overseas to pay their debt and may never return? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: That is one of a number of proposals that have been put up to assist rural general practitioners and encourage them into rural New Zealand. We have funded recruitment and retention policies to do that and we are prepared to look at the issue the member raises. 
Electricity—Lake Levels 
8.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Since his call for 10 percent power savings was answered last weekend with an average power saving of only 3 percent has he and his ministerial colleagues considered lowering the minimum water levels in hydro lakes; if so what specific measures have been considered? 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Cabinet has made no decision to legislate for lower minimum levels in hydro lakes nor has it considered any formal proposal to do so. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Is the Minister aware that information published on the EMCO Comet Free and Winter Power Task Force websites indicates that given current savings current inflows and current storage levels New Zealand has only 40 days’ hydro power left; if not why now—and why does he find that funny? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I can assure the House that no matter what the member has found on someone’s website there is no chance of our hydro lakes running dry in the next 40 days. If the member is that intent on wetting his pants I suggest he goes to the hills before he does so. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will not make any comment about the comment that you have just allowed to stand in the question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I will. The Minister will stand withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave at this point in question time so we are clear about where we are going to table a document that shows that if New Zealand were entirely dependent upon hydro electricity we would have— 
Rt Hon Helen Clark 
: It’s not. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Well it is 30-percent reliant on thermal; so we have got either 40 or 52 days left. The Prime Minister should make up her mind. I want to table a document that shows we have 40 days’ hydro capacity left. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: Have minimum levels for hydro lakes been lowered in the past in response to the prospect of power shortages? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: No they have not but legislation enabling this was passed in the crisis year of 1992 by the then National Government. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Minister agree with those who believe that the environment should always pay the price of our bad planning and waste and does he think it could ever be acceptable to wipe out an entire species like the black stilt just to keep the lights burning on the motorway? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: I acknowledge the environmental issues around such an option and indeed the wider environmental issues for the townships such as dust storms the following summer. It is an issue that is well down the Government’s list; it is however on the list. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Has the Minister changed his view from the one he held in 1992 on the issue of lowering the level of our hydro lakes when he railed against such action and will he now dismiss out of hand the consideration of that option? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: There are several reasons one would not want to lower the lakes. I mentioned a couple of them in my answer to the previous question. I will mention a third which is that they have to be filled again in time for winter 2004. I will say this: the people of this country are entitled to expect their Government to examine all practicable options and that option will remain on the list albeit well down the list. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: If reducing minimum lake levels is well down on the list what measures are higher on the list which of those measures is the Government considering and what confidence does the Minister have that those measures will avert the need for blackouts and cold showers? 
Hon PETE HODGSON 
: The list has been well examined by Parliament over the past several weeks. It includes of course all the demand-side things that the member himself talked about recently. It also includes switching New Plymouth to oil to ensure better supplies for Huntly and on it goes. There is a range of things that are being done or that can be done. 
Films Videos and Publications Classification Act—Objectionable Material 
9.  
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he consider the present offence provisions under the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act 1993 for the illegal distribution of objectionable publications adequate? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 My main concern about the adequacy of the Act relates to the levels of penalties for trading in and possession of objectionable materials—in particular child pornography. However concerns have also been expressed about whether the definition of “objectionable” is wide enough. The Ministry of Justice is considering the Government Administration Committee’s report in that regard. 
Marc Alexander 
: When Lower Hutt painter Anthony Johansen who was convicted of distributing child pornography received only a $6950 fine why is it that at most he could have received only a slightly bigger fine of $20000 when in other jurisdictions—such as the UK and the US—he could have received a maximum of 10 or 15 years in jail; are we out of step with other nations that do recognise the severity of crimes dealing with child pornography? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: We are out of step and those penalties are inadequate—which is why I have foreshadowed officially in my statement that the maximum penalty for trading in child pornography and objectionable materials will rise from 2 years to 10 years and why the offence provisions for possession will rise from a $20000 fine to 2 years’ imprisonment plus an appropriate fine. That will be introduced in legislation later this year. 
Tim Barnett 
: Does the Minister regard the proposed changes to the levels of penalties as being an effective deterrent to offences such as trading in child pornography? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The first reason for greatly increasing the penalties is to express our abhorrence of the act of child abuse that occurs every time such a video is made but I believe it is also quite possible that they will have a deterrent effect. With others I had the chance to visit the Department of Internal Affairs compliance unit. Immediately after the announcement of the increased penalties and before they came into effect it registered a marked decrease in Internet porn trading and child pornography within New Zealand. Clearly they will have an effect. 
Marc Alexander 
: Does the Minister not consider it laughable that the fines imposed in such cases barely offset the profits made from trading in child pornography; and what steps will he take to remedy that situation? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I do not consider it laughable. I consider it quite unacceptable that I have cases in front of me such as that of Martin Silby who was convicted in 2002 on 12 charges of distributing objectionable material including material showing 4-year-old girls being sexually abused by men. His penalty was 200 hours of community work which was not the fault of the judiciary but of the inadequacy of the penalties imposed by this House. That is why we are making the change. 
Marc Alexander 
: Can the Minister tell us how the Government intends to implement the recommendations of the Government Administration Committee’s inquiry into the operation of the Films Videos and Publications Classification Act and related issues? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The select committee report is currently before the Ministry of Justice and a formal response from the Government to the Government Administration Committee will be tabled in this House within a couple of weeks. I do not want to pre-empt that report but a range of recommendations has been made by the select committee. We will give serious consideration to all of them but I doubt that we will implement all of them by way of changing censorship. Some things could be better done for example under the Human Rights Act. 
Home Detention—Reoffending 
10.  
RON MARK (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: How many persons serving all or part of their sentence on home detention have reoffended and what number of these have been recalled to prison? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The Department of Corrections keeps records of recall and breach actions taken against home detainees. Figures provided to me by the department show that of 1017 new starts between 1 July 2002 when the Sentencing Act came into effect and 28 February of this year the latest period for which we have figures recall or breach action was taken against 10 home detainees as a direct result of reoffending while on home detention—10 out of 1017 represents recall for reoffending of less than 1 percent over that period. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This Minister has had 4 hours to answer two simple questions: how many persons have reoffended and what number of them have been recalled? He gets up gives us a treatise on what the officials have been doing by way of collecting information between dates and then gives us half the answer. Can we now know through the point of order how many persons reoffended? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the member had listened I said that 10 out of 1017 persons had been recalled for reoffending. That is less than 1 percent. How much more specific would the member like me to make that answer? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I tell the Minister that there are two questions here. The first question was: how many people reoffended? The second question was: how many were recalled? The member is saying that the people who were recalled were the total number of reoffenders and that cannot be. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Can I repeat for the member what I said in my first answer which was specific: recall or breach action was taken against 10 home detainees as a direct result of reoffending while on home detention. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question and I ruled that he did. He gave a specific answer. 
Ron Mark 
: My point of order could impact on my supplementary. Clearly I am now confused. Has the Minister told the House that only 10 people on home detention have reoffended? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. That is a supplementary question that the member can now deal with in his question. 
Ron Mark 
: What sort of home detention is the Minister running that allows a man to be placed on home detention with a female he met in a mental institution and after beating her running up massive debts in her name and threatening her family with violence then allows him to abandon that woman to her debts and move on to another house to continue his home detention with another woman? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I cannot verify the accuracy of what the member has said. He might like to give that case to me and I can check it out. I can tell the member that before an individual can be considered for front-end home detention that individual firstly has to be given leave by the judge hearing the case who applies statutory criteria to determine his or her suitability for home detention. Secondly the person is then referred to the Parole Board which also has statutory criteria including undue risk to the community or any single person. Two major safeguards are set out under law to prevent misuse of home detention. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How successful is the “Goff sentencing law” where a burglar with a history of aggravated robbery can be sentenced to jail for 9 months one minute but is allowed to walk free straight out of the courthouse the next minute—because of an amendment that Mr Goff pushed through the House—and allowed to disappear into the streets and have the police of south Auckland scouring that city for 3 weeks trying to find the man whom the Minister’s system has given a 2-month pass free from prison? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: During the entire period that that member was Minister of Justice— 
Opposition Members 
: Answer the question! 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am doing exactly that. During the entire period that that member was Minister of Justice—and indeed the entire period of the previous legislation—people were able to have their sentences deferred pending a decision by the Parole Board or some other agency. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. First of all the Minister was asked how the Goff system operated; he has no responsibility for the previous administration. He has made no attempt whatsoever to address the question asked and he should be asked either to answer it or apologise. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out that the member who asked the question specifically said that this was a new system that I was directly responsible for. I pointed out correctly that the court has always been able to defer and release a person into the community before a sentence of imprisonment is imposed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister did address the question. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Would offenders sentenced to home detention otherwise be serving prison sentences? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Some of those sentenced to home detention would have been serving short periods of imprisonment for less serious offences. Equally the statistics I have show that a number of people previously sentenced to suspended sentences—that is people commit the crime are put out in the community with the sentence suspended and there is no degree of control over them—are now under the much more severe control of home detention. That is why we abolished suspended sentences—against the opposition of the ACT party. 
Stephen Franks 
: Why did the Minister and his officials oppose the amendment that ACT put forward that would have enabled judges to impose conditions so that that situation would not have arisen—in other words judges could have set conditions that did not mean people being released scot-free while waiting for home detention? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member needs to recall that the judge does not have to release somebody into the community at all pending a decision on home detention. The norm as set out in the law is that unless there are special conditions—members should read section 100—the person will be in prison while that decision is made. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: That’s not happening. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes the member is quite right. Judges are interpreting that provision in a more liberal way than I think Parliament intended and I am looking at it for partly that reason. 
Marc Alexander 
: In the light of the fact that one of the key perceived benefits of home detention is the saving in cost to the taxpayer does the Minister agree that the establishment of more private prisons which are demonstrably more cost-effective than State-run institutions would provide a better solution for the sentencing of recidivist offenders? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The short answer to the second part of the question is no. The comment I need to make on the first part of the question is that cost saving is not the predominant reason for home detention but I think every member of this House would applaud the fact that people who are judged not to constitute a risk to the community will keep working paying their taxes and supporting their families rather than their families—and them in prison—being a burden on the long-suffering taxpayer. 
Ron Mark 
: What representations has the Hon Margaret Wilson made to him in response to the letter she received from the parents of the woman involved and what has he done to tidy up a nonsense whereby a man can name a woman as his guardian and her residence as the place where he will be held on home detention and then go about beating and abusing her and apparently—by the statistics the Minister has just quoted—it is not even recorded as an offence? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I am not familiar with the letter the member has in his hand. He might like to give me a copy of it at the end of question time. But I want to tell him that before home detention is ordered by the Parole Board one of the factors that is taken into account is whether it is safe for people to have a detainee detained in the home environment. 
Ron Mark 
: Can the Minister explain to the House how despite serious objections by her family that this person should not be placed in home detention with their daughter and the obvious concerns expressed to the family by the police—who shared the same concerns—as to the true nature of this man he ended up on home detention with her and in one case went out and bought a $23000 four-wheel drive vehicle in her name— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That question was far too long. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: If the facts are as the member describes them that would most clearly be in breach of section 35 of the Parole Act which states that the Parole Board has to take into account under subsection (4)—which I will quote for the member—“the safety and welfare of the occupants of the residence where the offender is to be detained.” The member appears to have taken that issue up with the Acting Minister of Corrections but has not told me about it. I presume the Acting Minister of Corrections will be following it up with her department. 
Dobson Hydro Dam—Ecology 
11.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Does he stand by his statement about the proposed site of the Dobson hydro dam that he was “not prepared to rip the heart out of an important ecological area”; if so what is the ecological importance of that area? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Conservation 
: Mr Speaker— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am surprised to see the Minister rise when we have the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the Minister of Conservation Mr Mita Ririnui in the House. One would have thought that whoever was collecting the salary would answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows full well that the Government can decide who answers the question. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: And the Government did so. I answer on behalf of the Minister of Conservation. Yes in 1983 when it was gazetted the purpose of the reserve was officially stated to be “to preserve an example of forest in the wide valley floor containing an unusually high proportion of kahikatea and matai.” 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Minister concerned consider the species  
ulex europaeus 
 which predominates in the environment of the proposed hydro dam to have high ecological value; if so could he explain what that value is? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It gives very good cover for regenerating forest and native bush. 
Nanaia Mahuta 
: Has the Minister seen any recent reports on the Card Creek ecological area? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I did see that three MPs visited the area. Ironically the media reported that heavy rain meant that the tour party saw the dam site but not the actual flood zone behind it. 
Edwin Perry 
: What representation has the Minister of Conservation had from the member for West Coast – Tasman on this issue and how long will it be before he accepts that member’s representation to build a dam on the West Coast? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It would not be up to the Minister of Conservation to build a dam on the West Coast but I am sure the member is aware that the legal decision is that the Minister cannot take social and economic factors into account in reclassifying an ecological area. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: On 9 September last year the Minister of Conservation stated in the Christchurch  
Press  
that he would visit the site “soon” to assess the Dobson dam proposal; will he now admit that he declined that proposal without visiting the site—otherwise he would have known as Opposition members know that it is full of gorse broom and substantial stands of macrocarpa like the specimen I am holding? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Going by that performance I am not sure that we are not having a re-enactment of Macbeth here but a good deal of the conservation estate includes regenerating forest. The point about this issue is the rather rare form of valley floor regeneration. The area that is supposed to be swapped is actually much more common within the conservation estate at the present time. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Will the Minister consider using some of the conservation awareness fund to run courses for Opposition members who seem unable at the moment to recognise substantial stands of kahikatea and matai although they should be commended for having been able to recognise gorse and macrocarpa? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister of Conservation would be sympathetic but I believe he is advised by the Minister of Finance that that would be a waste of public money as the Opposition cannot tell the wood from the trees. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What is more important to the Minister—a gorse-strewn swampy wasteland or a much larger area of unlogged kahikatea forest as is on offer in the proposed land swap for the Dobson project? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The description of wetlands as “swampy wastelands” is why we now have only about 10 percent of them left in New Zealand. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I seek leave to table a piece of the pristine bush on the site of the Dobson dam—notwithstanding the statements made by the Minister or Rod Donald who would not come to the site with us. 
Item not tabled. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I note that two members have had pieces of vegetation removed from this exclusive ecological area and I wonder whether I might seek leave to ask the Minister whether they will be prosecuted for destroying such— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is being facetious. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was suggested that ACT and other Opposition members could not identify the species. I would like to table the example which is the exact same species on the valley floor of Card Creek: macrocarpa. 
Item not tabled. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A member has suggested that the ACT party has taken its example from a conservation area. That is not so. We have actually taken it as an example but— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled on that matter. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I would not like the House to think that we are breaking the law. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated. I have ruled that that was a facetious comment. 
Gerrard Eckhoff 
: When will the Minister revisit the ecological status of an obscure island in the middle of the Clutha River Birch Island visited only by pigs and deer in order to allow for the further development of sustainable renewable energy? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There have been arguments over that particular piece of territory for a long period of time. Many other options are available for hydro development. 
Laboratory Services—District Health Boards 
12.  
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What assurance can she give that district health boards will not implement the option contained in the report  
Options for Reform of Diagnostic Laboratory Services Markets 
 to transfer the control of collection and distribution arrangements to themselves and will she guarantee that under any scenario district health boards will continue to honour existing contracts with community laboratories? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Health 
: The Minister cannot guarantee that district health boards will not implement the preferred option in the document as district health boards are the agencies responsible for funding laboratory services. However the Minister would expect to be briefed on any major change in service provision. She would expect district health boards to honour existing contracts. 
Heather Roy 
: Is she disregarding then the advice that district health boards have received in the confidential discussion document and what evidence can she possibly produce that shows that laboratories run by the State would meet patients’ needs better than privately owned and operated laboratories currently do? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Responsibility for consultation on this document is that of District Health Boards New Zealand. It is up to it to consult the laboratories and to work through all those issues. I would expect that any contract signed into would uphold the very highest standards of laboratory services for all New Zealanders. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to draw your attention to the way that the Associate Minister of Health is answering questions. It is the same as the way that the Minister of Health does. If you go back and have a look at her answers you will see that she does not take responsibility for anything. I actually wonder why we have a Minister of Health. If she is not responsible for that what on earth is she responsible for? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Is the Government planning to restrict the number of laboratory tests that a doctor can order by having a national 
restricted list of publicly funded tests; if not what proposals are the district health boards considering to change the diagnostic laboratory services market? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: No to the first part; and secondly the options are contained in the discussion document. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Does the Government intend to combine primary and secondary laboratory services and replace fee-for-service primary care with an approved restricted national list of tests that can be ordered by certain types of practitioners under defined circumstances; if not what proposals is the Government considering to restrict the ordering of laboratory tests? 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: Responsibility for these decisions is in the hands of District Health Boards New Zealand. Regarding any major changes the Minister would expect to hear from the boards before they were carried out. There are no such proposals before the Minister. 
Questions to Members 
Scampi Fishery—Inquiry 
1.  
RODNEY HIDE (ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee 
: How many meetings has the committee had to hear evidence in its inquiry into the administration and management of New Zealand’s scampi fishery? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee) 
: 
 To date the committee has held 14 meetings as it considers the work involved in the scampi inquiry. 
Rodney Hide 
: Has the chairperson included in his count the meetings that Mr Ian Ewen-Street says the lawyer for Barine Developments has had with him with Mr Phil Heatley with Mr David Carter— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rodney Hide 
: —and with Mr Damien O’Connor “just in a lobbying sense” or— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rodney Hide 
: —are these meetings where evidence is given and allegations made— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I told the member to sit down. Those are not select committee meetings. The chairman has no responsibility for those meetings. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With due respect that is precisely the point I am trying to make. I am asking the chairperson whether he is counting those as meetings. With the greatest respect I think that is for the chairperson and the Primary Production Committee to answer rather than the Speaker of this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear Mr Carter. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Speaking to the point of order I point out that Mr Hide alleges that I have met the solicitor. I have on no occasion met with Sue Grey outside of the select committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All I can say is that the chairperson can be asked only about actual meetings of the select committee. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have to raise it now otherwise I will be ruled out saying it later. I raised this matter with you as a point of order on Thursday. You told us that you would come back with a ruling. What I asked then was whether there is any obligation on a member of Parliament to give an explanation to the House. I think this is important. I think now there is an obligation because Mr Ewen-Street is reported in all the newspapers as saying and I have read it that Mr Carter the chairman of the committee has been holding meetings with the solicitor for one of the parties to the scampi inquiry. We now hear from the chairman that that statement is not true. I think we are owed an explanation from Mr Ewen-Street. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I told the member and I recall my exact words that I would have a look at the matter. I have had a look at the matter and I have nothing further to report because of course the “anything” in that regard is for the member himself—it is not for this House. If the member wants to make a statement he can. It is his option and his option alone. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We now have the very serious situation of a member giving explanations in the media that are being contradicted by the chairman of the committee. I think that places that member in a very strong position. He should come to the House and give us a proper explanation rather than using the Sunday media to say that everyone else is doing it too. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have nothing further to add to my previous ruling. The member is not required to do that. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a new point of order? 
Rodney Hide 
: Yes. I did not get to finish my question. The chairperson with your guidance was happy to rule on that. I am left in a bit of a quandary as to where my hanging question is at. I did not get to finish it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member had better finish the question. I will give him another question after Mr Peters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the chairman understand that Mr Hide’s question is not an allegation in respect of his comments as chairman but rather that Mr Ewen-Street had made the comment that everybody on the committee seems to have been briefed by the solicitor excepting the New Zealand First member namely myself—a position for which I am very very grateful? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Entertaining though that might be that is not a question for the chairman of the committee to answer. 
Rodney Hide 
: In the light of the chairperson’s answer has he sought an assurance that Mr Heatley and Mr Damien O’Connor also have not been having briefings outside the committee process from Barine Developments’ lawyer? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. That has nothing to do with the committee chairman. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was an implication in that question that I think could lead to disorder. I wonder whether the member might consider withdrawing and apologising. I took exception to that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Mr Carter took exception to that question. I wonder whether the member could assure the House that he meant no improper implication in his question. 
Rodney Hide 
: Absolutely! I am sorry. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has said “absolutely”. I accept his word. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand completely the point Mr Carter is making but it seems to me that he is in the same position as other MPs. We have a position where a member of Parliament has been reported widely in the media as saying that other MPs—and I am not suggesting any sexual impropriety—[ 
Interruption 
] No I am not; I say that as it might suggest that. What I am saying is that that member is saying about a very important inquiry that involves a heck of a lot of money—$100 million—that there are other MPs who have been receiving these briefings from counsel for one of the parties. We can tell from Mr Carter’s reaction that he thinks that is wrong but really it should be for those MPs to get up and tell us like Mr Peters has done that they have not had such a briefing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is not correct and I think the member knows that. 
Rodney Hide 
: To try to help clear up any suggestion I seek leave to table the  
New Zealand Herald 
 of 2 May. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Immigration—English Language Tests 
2.  
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee 
: When will the committee set a time to consider the petition of Kenneth Wang and others requesting a review of the new English language immigration tests? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee): 
 Over recent meetings the committee has been working its way through each of the 46 outstanding petitions it has before it relating back to the previous Parliament. Some of those have been reported back today. We will be considering the matter further at future meetings and will be setting a meeting date in due course to hear the outstanding petitions. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Given the urgency of this issue to the thousands of people who are caught up by the change in the English language tests and given the fact that the committee has not been able to set a date have the chairman and the committee considered going to the Business Committee to have this issue transferred to possibly the labour committee which may be a better committee to consider it in the first place; if not why not? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: We have not made that consideration. It is a matter I will take up with the committee. I am confident that we can deal with all the petitions before us in a timely manner. We are working on the basis of dealing with them in the order in which they have been received. 
Question Time 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I might raise with you an issue that occurred during question time. Three times today you had to ask the Prime Minister the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy to withdraw implications in their questions. You did so as a consequence of points of order that we had to raise. Points of order in themselves can be disorderly. I wonder whether you might consider instead of our having to raise points of order on those issues intervening on our behalf and asking for those implications to be withdrawn on the occasions that they occur. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If that is the case it applies to everybody but that is a very valuable suggestion. 
Question to Member 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 On Thursday on a matter relating to my question to the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee you said that you would look into the question of what happens when the chairperson is not in the House. In this case today was the third time I had put the question down. I was not able to ask it on Wednesday or Thursday because the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee Mr Peter Dunne was not in Parliament and the House did not allow anyone else on the committee to answer it. Is there any obligation on the chairperson of a select committee to make himself or herself available in the House to answer a question or can the chairperson simply boycott it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The short answer to the member’s question is no. The Standing Orders Committee can look at it but I personally rang Mr Dunne and ascertained that he would be here on Tuesday. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I thank you. 
Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Second Reading 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. The return of this bill to the House is a welcome step toward a better process for resource management in New Zealand. It has three important objectives: to reduce compliance costs to provide a better process for national environmental standards and national policy statements and to strengthen protection for historic heritage. Many of the provisions in this bill are long overdue. The process to improve the Resource Management Act was initiated by the former National Government. A range of proposals emerged from that process some of which were dropped by this Government because they would have compromised environmental outcomes reduced opportunities for public participation and threatened a key principle of the Act—that local government is best placed to make the majority of decisions on environmental and resource management matters. The lengthy and sometimes quite theoretical debate that resulted from these proposals hampered progress on other simple but effective measures. 
This bill captures and builds on those simple necessary and constructive changes in a balanced and comprehensive way. I would like to take this opportunity to set out a few facts about the process followed to develop the provisions introduced here. The Government has consulted extensively on the issues in this bill. Over 700 submissions with an average length of seven pages were received on proposals to amend the Act. Nearly 400 further submissions were received on the changes as introduced in the Resource Management Amendment Bill 1999 totalling approximately 3400 pages with 215 submitters requesting to be heard in support of their comments. All the issues introduced in this bill were extensively canvassed in those submissions and subsequent discussions. Considering such a large volume of detailed input is no small task. I would like to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee again for its constructive role in those earlier debates and for its efforts on the provisions that are new to this bill. I consider that the few changes made by the committee to the new bill are constructive. I support in particular the committee’s comments that for the purposes of limited notification groups representing relevant aspects of the public interest must still be considered “affected parties” by consent authorities. 
The committee has confirmed as appropriate the new provisions relating to national environment standards and national policy statements. I would like to take this opportunity to explain why those changes are needed and how they are intended to work. The Resource Management Act established a devolved framework for decision making whereby local authorities make most of the decisions on resource management issues. This approach is one I support as decisions on local development matters should be made by those most affected by them. However for over 10 years now local government has tackled implementation of the Act on its own with little guidance from central government on key environmental issues. One way in which central government can assist is through the development of nationally accepted environmental bottom lines. Unfortunately the existing provisions allowing for the development of such tools are cumbersome and unlikely to result in the desired outcomes. The changes introduced in this bill will provide a streamlined process—one that will result in a speedier more effective development of minimum environmental controls. 
I strongly disagree with comments in the National New Zealand First and ACT minority view in the committee’s report about changes to the process for national standards. The new provisions maintain current high levels of public involvement. They ensure that the minimum national environmental controls will not override more stringent local controls. They are designed to produce effective environmental bottom lines but if a community seeks strict controls then it may do so. The development of nationally accepted minimum environmental controls will lead to increased certainty and through this reduce compliance costs. The controls will deliver greater certainty to developers and communities about the environmental outcomes we seek. In doing so they will contribute meaningfully to the purpose of the Act. We expect to develop a package of national environmental standards and potentially one or two national policy statements. We are currently working with local government and other interested parties to prioritise issues that should be addressed in this way. 
The Resource Management Act has now been in place for over 10 years and during that time a significant amount of case law has developed around key parts of the legislation. One such concept the idea of a permitted baseline affects councils’ decisions about whether the effects of an activity are minor or whether a person is adversely affected by a proposal. As currently interpreted this concept means that councils must disregard any adverse effects that are the same as those of activities already permitted. The bill formerly introduced the permitted baseline but clarifies that councils may rather than must take into account the adverse effects of activities on the environment if a plan permits an activity with that effect. Through the committee’s review of the bill it has identified that its permitted baseline tests should be codified for decisions about both whether to notify an application and in regard to a final decision. The committee’s recommendations are designed to provide consistency between those two important parts of the process. The new provisions will deliver increased flexibility to councils allowing them to take into account the effects of other permitted activities where they are appropriate without unnecessarily restricting their powers of discretion or weakening the intent of their plans. The provisions will provide for a more balanced approach to considering consent applications and avoid the potential for plans to develop in an unmanaged way. 
The changes introduced in this bill although individually minor collectively allow for a significant improvement in the operation of the Act. They clarify provisions where necessary build on experience with the Act and provide a better range of tools. Most important they provide a platform for central government to work in partnership with local government to improve further the resource management process. The changes introduced here will result in a significant improvement in the operation of the Act without upsetting the balance between those for or against developments. I would also like to signal here that they will not be the end of amendments to the Resource Management Act. I am confident that these changes will help to deliver a better environment for all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 That speech could well be a chapter in Gilbert and Sullivan and a comedy were it not so serious. We are in the middle of an electricity crisis. The lights in the corridors are dimmed and we have a bill before the House that will make the provision of new electricity generation more difficult. We have a bill that will make more difficult the building of roads that are necessary in our largest population centre Auckland where traffic congestion is said to be costing a billion dollars a year. We are in the middle of a drought. Communities are wanting to build more water-augmentation schemes so that they might be able to produce the wealth for this nation and this Government wants to make the construction and the development of those more difficult. This bill is environmental and economic lunacy. Only a Minister living on the wrong planet would claim that this bill will in any way reduce compliance costs delays and uncertainty with the Resource Management Act. 
I draw to the attention of the House the fast and shonky process we have been through. Would the Government allow a single submission from any organisation that might confirm the Minister’s claim that this bill would reduce costs or uncertainty in the Act? Not one! In fact that Minister gave a specific instruction to the Local Government and Environment Committee that we were not able to take submissions from absolutely anybody and that is a disgrace. I commend Jim Peters Ken Shirley and National for taking the time to listen to groups that do have some knowledge. I refer now to United Future’s Larry Baldock who campaigned on fixing the Resource Management Act but arrogantly shut down the opportunity for anybody to have a say. One might be able to argue that Jeanette Fitzsimmons and members like myself had the opportunity to receive hundreds of submissions. That member has not heard one submission from anybody yet he expects to come into this Parliament and vote for this shonky bill. 
Let us listen to some of the independent—if we could even describe them as that—organisations and what they have to say about this legislation. Firstly I refer to Meridian Energy. Meridian Energy is the largest energy producer in this country. It is a State-owned enterprise and it supplied five pages of criticisms of this bill which are summarised in its submission. It says that there are 24 clauses in this bill that will add to the hurdles and obstructions to building new electricity generation in New Zealand. I challenge members opposite: is Meridian Energy their own State-owned enterprise wrong? Is it to be disbelieved? Are we simply to throw into the trash can the submissions of the largest electricity generator in New Zealand at a time when we are in the middle of an electricity crisis? The Government and the United Party would so do. 
I refer now to a major submitter—the Petroleum Exploration Association of New Zealand. Its submission—provided to the rebel committee because the Government would not hear any—represents over 34 large companies involved in petroleum and states that this bill would make the development of energy resources more difficult. Again the Government and the United Future party dismissed that as well. Submission after submission stated that this bill will not work. I challenge Government members to provide me with one independent commentator who will confirm the Minister’s speech that this bill will go any way towards reducing the compliance costs the delays and the uncertainty of the Resource Management Act. I say that they will not find one—the bill is uniformly condemned. The National Council of Women of New Zealand which is hardly some raving right-wing organisation absolutely condemned this Government in its submissions on the bill for not providing any opportunity for it or anybody else to be able to have a say. 
I turn now to some of the loopy provisions that provide for the protection of ancestral landscapes. We—New Zealand First ACT and National—ask members opposite to tell us what an ancestral landscape is. They will require that everybody in this country—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Benson-Pope thinks this is a laughing matter. He thinks it is a big joke. He thinks it is funny that people are having cold showers. He thinks it is funny that people are locked in traffic jams for hours and more in Auckland. We say that the Government needs to define what an ancestral landscape is before it gives directions under the Resource Management Act to every decision maker to protect those things. We see the same sort of nonsense with the provisions about cultural landscapes. Can any member opposite define for me what a cultural landscape is? Can Mr Benson-Pope tell me what a cultural landscape is? I say that he does not have the foggiest idea—no idea whatsoever. 
This bill has 149 clauses—over 100 pages—and the select committee was given no more than 2 weeks taking into account the Easter adjournment to consider it. How long did the Minister for the Environment have to consider the select committee report? She had 100 weeks. Why is that and what sort of disdain is Parliament being treated with when it is asked to ram through this bill in that sort of time frame? Where is United Future’s mandate to support legalising the protection of ancestral landscapes cultural landscapes and the spirits? I would love to know. Could any member in this House tell me how we could protect the spirits? 
I ask members look at the fiasco at Ngawha Prison and at the conduct of Ngapuhi. What will this bill do to remove the “brownmail” that is going on in New Zealand whereby Maori organisations object as of right—right through? I am happy to table the documents that confirm that is going on. This bill will make it worse and that is bad for race relations bad for the environment and bad for the economy—and this bill does absolutely nought in that regard. I come now to the dirty tricks part of the bill. 
Hon John Tamihere 
: You’d be a specialist in that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I would like that member to explain for me why when the 1999 bill was introduced it had 18 parts and this bill has only two. I will tell members why. The Minister for the Environment gave a specific instruction to parliamentary counsel that this bill would have only two parts. She is so embarrassed and so not prepared to defend the shonky content of this bill that the Government is going to shut down the debate that occurs in this House. That is an outrage and it is a greater outrage that the “common-sense” party the United Future party is going to back that approach to lawmaking. I also draw attention to the sorts of submissions made by major investment groups. Business group after business group whether it be AMP or the Employers and Manufacturers Association is condemning the provisions in this bill and so are groups like the major investors in the forestry industry who want to process forestry product in this country. 
We have here in this bill chapter and verse not just on examples of lost investment but on how this bill will make those key investments in timber processing in this country more difficult and members opposite are ignoring the situation. I want the next Government speaker to answer a simple question. The Government promised it would take seriously the business compliance cost report that was commissioned by Mr Swain the Minister of Commerce at the time. That report had 52 recommendations on changes that should be made to the Resource Management Act but not one of them is included in this bill. The Government cannot pretend that it is interested in growing the New Zealand economy or lifting the standards of living of our people with this sort of bill. Even the limited notification provisions—as weak as they were in the original bill watered down from that proposed by Simon Upton—will take us nowhere. This bill is a recipe for more costs more uncertainties and sadly greater delays. This House should reject it. 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 First of all I will take up the challenge that the Hon Nick Smith laid down which was to show what business compliance recommendations are in this bill. One of the most significant recommendations is that of limited notification of resource consent applications. The Resource Management Act is about balancing interests. It is about balancing the interests of people who want to use natural resources—people who want to take water and use it for irrigation want to discharge pollutants into land want to build houses or commercial buildings where there are currently none or want to build dams for electricity purposes—against the interests of those who say they have a right to be involved in the process say that those decisions as proposed are wrong and want the ability to have an input and say: “If we tweak it this way it will have less environmental impact.” Those who suggest that the Resource Management Act is fundamentally flawed legislation are quite wrong. It is good legislation. The new procedures that are introduced in this bill have previously had 700 submissions in the select committee process that ended in 2001. 
The 70-page bill that is before us now introduces only a small number of changes which are listed in the select committee’s report. Limited notification of resource consent applications has been reintroduced and we can thank United Future for its cooperation in advancing that important step. There is the introduction of a more flexible approach to assessment of baseline effects. Another change is that the Environment Court is not the body to consider disputes as to whether something should be notified and that has been done because there are workload pressures in the court which are causing a backlog. If there are disputes about limited notification they will go to the High Court. There has been the development of improved provisions for the creation of national environmental standards. That has been a gaping hole in the implementation of the existing Resource Management Act and the bill will improve that situation. Also there is a transitional provision relating to the aquaculture moratorium. It is interesting to note that the heritage provisions are the same as recommended by the former Local Government and Environment Committee in 2001. 
I want to deal a little bit with Nick Smith’s comments that the Resource Management Act is responsible for the power shortage that we may have this winter. It is not. It is ludicrous to make the suggestion that that is what is behind our current problems. In my area in Otago we are faced with the challenges of the proposed Project Aqua which is the biggest of the various solutions that are proposed to deal with power shortages. It is notable that the resource management consents have not even been filed yet. There is no way that the Act or its processes are behind delays in that project. The consent applications have not even been filed. 
The suggestion made by the Hon Nick Smith and various ACT party people that we should cut across resource management procedures think big and force through big development projects like Project Aqua is reminiscent of Mr Muldoon and “think big”. The last time that happened was in respect of the Clyde Dam. That is also in my electorate. Let us not forget that the Government’s taking over of the planning process caused many years of delay in the commissioning of the dam and resulted in a costly power project whereby the cost of each unit of energy was 14c. Even today Project Aqua if it proceeds will have a unit cost of 4c to 5c. So the cost of poor planning was an economic cost which trebled the cost of electricity. In addition the scars on the local population down there a population that I represent are still very raw. There is a great deal of bitterness in the community that 20 years ago their rights were cut across. Indeed it has taken decades to get justice for the serious adverse environmental and economic effects that that scheme has caused individuals. It is only in this last year—some 20 years after that project and 30 or 40 years after the Roxburgh Dam was put in further downstream—that those injustices have for the first time been able to be aired through Resource Management Act processes which protect citizens. 
This bill will improve the implementation of the Resource Management Act. We will hear complaints from some people who will say that the limited notification provision does not go far enough. Others will say it already gives councils too many powers to not fully notify issues. In my submission those positions are both a little extreme. With the introduction of limited notification I think that we have plotted the correct middle course. Some of the statistics that are quoted about how few applications are already notified have to be read with care. A lot of those applications that are not notified are for things like a building alternation when it falls within the statistics but if it is a building that falls within the district plan it does not need to be notified. I commend this legislation to the House and I hope that others support it. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 The Resource Management Act has been with us for over a decade and as the Minister has already stated it has been the subject of precedent decisions and many many hours—almost years—of planning by local authorities over the past decade virtually without help from Government apart from the national coastal strategy. Almost at the end of the decade in 1999 the Resource Management Amendment Bill was introduced. One of the queries I have to raise immediately is why this bill sat from May 2001 for almost 2 years somewhere in the bowels of this place waiting to come back to the House with four supposed improvements. 
What happened in that time? Well something happened with regard to legislation. We passed the Climate Change Response Act recently and last year the Local Government Act. Other Acts also have impacted upon the Resource Management Act. Yet not one recognition of the changes in legislation implemented since May 2001 is seen in this bill before us today. That suggests to me either a lazy Government a lazy Minister or more likely a Ministry for the Environment beset by some of the issues that beset anybody who looks at this Act as it is today and at the amendment bill before us. 
One of the issues that is quite correct in the assumption already stated in this House is that of uncertainty weighed against the evident need for certainty. That certainly extends right down to every New Zealander who is involved in development of any sort. Whether one is building one’s first house a boat pontoon a school a factory or whatever it is a central factor of life that one has to undergo the rigours of the Resource Management Act and this amendment bill in the future. So as a newcomer to the House the most surprising thing to me was that a Minister could come to this House in March present a bill and assume that because three out of the 11 members of the original committee had heard the exhaustive and substantial submissions on the bill it should be sufficient for the present Local Government and Environment Committee to look at the bill and after all consideration make a judgment on it. I am not quite sure whether that is a new democratic stance the minority Government has in mind but it was certainly not in the mind of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu who stated this: “If the Government passes the amendment to the Resource Management Act 1993 it will derogate from the public’s right to participate in decision making. The RMA is New Zealand’s most significant environmental legislation and any opportunity for public participation in this area should be strengthened not weakened.” Exclusion means “weak” not “strong”. In this case there was a deliberate act on the part of the Minister and the Government to exclude all submissions. Even written submissions were not to be considered by the committee. 
I turn to those people who are most concerned about these matters—the people who are involved in the administration of the Act every day—namely the councils. One mayor who wrote to the Minister for the Environment said: “I am writing regarding your press statement that the above bill should be passed urgently with only the briefest time for it to be considered by the Local Government and Environment select committee. I must concur with New Zealand First on this issue. The Resource Management Act is a far-reaching and complex piece of legislation impacting on every New Zealander. Much has been said and written regarding the bill and its shortcomings. I would also suggest that there are a large number of very positive features of the current Act. To this end I believe that a review of this Act is one of the fundamental issues facing Government. It should not be rushed. Any rush to enact changes is likely to lead to confusion or ill-considered approaches.” That is the point that one mayor made and it is the point that New Zealand First makes as well. We should have taken the time to discuss the bill properly and we should have got it right. 
The fact that the Minister can come to the House and mention in her second-reading speech that after 2 years four minimal suggestions have been made in the bill and that it is right and proper that the bill should come to the House without the select committee having heard any further submissions is just not sound governance and practice. However having been here last year for the debate on the Local Government Act when we had the same extraordinary experience I say that it is becoming almost par for the course with that Government. 
We have heard about the limited notification of resource consent applications. We have heard the Minister say that that was significant and I have seen her press statements. However when a group of concerned members of this House met people over the last fortnight that was not their experience and it is not mine either. I earnestly believe that this limited notification provision alone is an illusion—whether or not it is deliberate. The illusion concerns the fact that last year in this House in sections 77 and 78 of the Local Government Act we passed these kinds of thoughts. First in section 77(1): “A local authority must in the course of the decision-making process”—which could be a local hearing—“(a) seek to identify all reasonably practical options for the achievement of the objective of a decision; and (b) assess …” so and so. Under section 78(1) of that Act local council officers acting under authority or delegation must in the course of decision-making in relation to a matter “give consideration to the views and preferences of persons likely to be affected by or to have interest in the matter.” 
That states very very clearly indeed that limited notification which has been much trumpeted as a remarkable change is nothing more than a slight and I concur with those people who met us in saying just that. But they had not looked at section 78 of the Local Government Act. I venture to say that this year that section which relates to the notification or non-notification of resource consent could be and will be construed as placing a stronger obligation on local authority officers to approach persons who are likely to be affected by resource consent applications and to give consideration to their views and preferences. 
What does that say about the much-trumpeted limited notification which has somehow been conveyed to the business community—after all that community has to have a few sops; it has not had many from this Government—that it will help to speed up the process. That is wrong. It will not speed up the process because if one looks at the Local Government Act one sees that a higher standard and greater threshold of understanding is required by local authority officers when they go about making any decision at any time. 
However I go to another matter. The Minister said this bill will bring certainty and she pointed out that the historic heritage features were there in the bill presented by the select committee in May 2001. If ever there was a major area of uncertainty it is the elevation of that whole provision relating to historic heritage apart from one term which has now been taken out of the principal Act—another issue to be considered—and has instead been placed in the major part of the bill as a matter of national importance. If it were so would a concerned Minister who wanted to give clarity of interpretation and intention not put that in the actual interpretation clause? No—not one word covers the cultural landscape or the meaning of wahi tapu. And why not? It is an area that has been much covered with regard to local government over a decade now and is understood. This bill has elevated it so why therefore is there not a legal definition? Why is there not an interpretation? Not one of those new features is there at all. Time was the only issue that precluded that from happening. We had understandings and meanings from the Historic Places Trust but not one of those appear in this bill. 
In conclusion I say that the much-trumpeted minor changes are indeed very minor apart from this clause which is major. It really is a matter of thrust and intention that a Government that has fallen out of favour with the business community is no longer concerned about development—whether great or small. This bill is not the suitable amendment to a major Act that it ought to be. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 When I observe members of this House who have been here for some time I begin to wonder just how wise it is to remain in this place for a long period of time. After listening to the speech made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith I am left wondering how he has gone through such an amazing change from representing the National Party when it introduced this bill to becoming the leading opponent of the Resource Management Act in this House. It has become far too popular to be engaged in Resource Management Act - bashing around New Zealand. 
I believe that the Act is in need of reform and that is what this bill is all about. It is involved in a process of reform so that it will work better and better as time goes by. The member David Parker made an excellent comment when he said the Resource Management Act is about striking a balance between those with competing interests—those who wish to make the most of economic opportunities on the land and those who wish to protect the land for future generations. The Act takes that challenge and addresses a very difficult situation. 
In listening to some of the speakers who spoke before about what has been known as the rebel select committee process and the submissions that the Local Government and Environment Committee listened to one wonders really whether those submitters were dealing with their frustrations with Resource Management Act per se or whether they were dealing specifically with this amendment bill. From my discussions with a number of people who submitted to that rebel select committee I would suggest that their frustrations were being vented towards the Resource Management Act rather than this specific bill. This bill does contain some excellent improvements to the Resource Management Act process which we in United Future support. However it is difficult for us to know exactly what some of the submitters had to say during that rebel process. 
I am grateful though to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 which sent along a reporter and was able to give us some insight into just how much concern there was in relation to this bill. In the 25 April edition of the  
New Zealand Herald 
 Irene Chapple wrote: “More than 30 submissions were received and 20 will have been orally presented after the committee continues on Monday.” So it seems that not a great many people turned up to the initial meeting. In fact she said: “All but three of the 20-plus audience seats were left unwarmed as quietly spoken submitters competed with air conditioning to have their views heard by the sprinkling of media.” She went on to say: “At least one oral submission given yesterday however was squeezed from someone who said he was there only because Smith had asked him to be.”—desperate to get the numbers up at the rebel select committee—“Others appeared surprised that the media had turned up one saying he thought it was going to be a consultation meeting rather than a mock select committee. The first-up duo of Beca Carter Planners presented views not always aligned with the cosy threesome running the show. Beca’s Don Lyon suggested that some noise over the inefficiencies of the RMA could be seen as scaremongering.” I suggest that that is a great deal of what has been going on through this process. We need to have rational debate and rational discussion not scaremongering which he concludes “… could create a risk that we ‘turn off investment by picking up a few examples of bad practice in New Zealand … and it is bad practice not necessarily a legislative problem’ ”. 
Two often we hear old stories—it is like hearing old war stories—about things that have gone wrong with the Resource Management Act but they are not necessarily current problems with its implementation. That particular submitter then admitted—and I will read from the article—“a private view that the nod to social and cultural values was ahem quite good really. ‘We should be able to plan ahead’ he said. ‘For our major infrastructures for the future of our towns and cities ... We are meant to be creating a society 50 years out.’ ” 
I truly believe that the people of New Zealand are more interested in progress in the reform of the Resource Management Act than in the process we are going through. I believe they will welcome the passage of this bill through the House in the next few days so that we can get on to some other very important amendments that we know need to be made. Some people have expressed concern and frustration that this bill does not go far enough and I have met various groups that have expressed that frustration. United Future agrees. That is precisely why we have cooperated with the Government to pass this legislation finally so that we can work on the next Resource Management Act amendment which will address more business and community concerns. 
One of the things we in United Future are very interested in comes from one of the recommendations referred to earlier—that is that we may have direct referral to the Environment Court for projects of national significance such as power and road projects. I am sure Meridian Energy will be very interested to see that passed into legislation so that it can get on with the provision of power for business and communities across this nation. 
We have heard a great deal about heritage sites. I understand that as part of the original bill heritage sites would be given a prominence of national significance. Changes to some of the definitions surrounding heritage issues occurred during the select committee process but the idea that heritage sites would take on a position of national significance was there in the original bill and we in United Future agree with that. The preservation of our natural and historic heritage is of very great importance to us as a nation. Recently through coverage of the war in Iraq many of us have seen some very awful images of the looting of Iraq’s national museum and the destruction of priceless possessions that have lasted for thousands of years. Surely the Opposition is not suggesting that we should allow those kinds of historical cultural or spiritual values in our country or sites that represent them to be wiped out. Nick Smith talks not about spiritual sites but about spirits and that was never intended in this bill. The bill talks about sites of spiritual significance which occur in nations all across the world. Surely Jerusalem would be considered a site of spiritual significance. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Mecca. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Yes Mecca also. I certainly would also agree that the birthplace of Jesus Christ or the tomb from which he arose would be sites of spiritual significance. When one listens to Nick Smith and his rantings and ravings one wonders whether he would want to see the sites bulldozed down and a condominium built in their place. It is very short-term thinking not to take into account these issues that are addressed in this bill. Of course a balance needs to be found and of course we do not want more frivolous objections going to the Environment Court but we do need to take notice of the things we have now so they do not disappear and are no longer there for our grandchildren. 
United Future believes that as these sites are of national importance—and I think we will find that that was part of the original bill as I have said already—they should be paid for out of the national purse. We will be promoting in the next amendment to the Resource Management Act the protection of private property rights. However we cannot move on to the next amendment bill until this bill is passed. We supported the introduction of this No. 2 bill into the House as a reformat of the No. 1 bill because the issues it contained had already been the subjects of submissions. It therefore made no sense to use the very important and costly time of the House on an unruly 18-part bill when the legislation could be handled in a much more compact and concise way in two parts. 
The concerns that Opposition members raised regarding the lack of their opportunity to debate the bill have already been addressed by the Speaker’s ruling that extra time will be given to them in the Committee of the whole House. I support their right to be able to say everything they wish to say about this bill but it would be ludicrous to spend 40 hours of the House’s time in passing the bill in its 18-part format. 
The select committee as it was empowered to made some changes to the definitions in the No. 1 bill. The only way a member of the public could have had input into those changes in the previous bill would have been via the MPs themselves making amendments during the Committee stage. That right will still be afforded them as we enter the Committee stage under this new rewritten bill. Other matters that have been addressed and that other speakers have referred to will be dealt with as we go through the Committee stage. They include such a matter as clarifying the national policy standards. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 ACT opposes this bill. It is a failure of process and a failure of content. I think I am the only member in the Chamber who was here during the resource management law reform process in the late 1980s. I was quite closely involved with that. I chaired a committee and I became increasingly concerned at the way in which that process was becoming captured by interest groups. Let me shed a bit of light on what the Resource Management Act was meant to be. It was meant to be part of deregulation. It was meant to be effects-based a one-stop shop. It was mean to be a streamlining. Who today really believes that it has lived up to any of those intents? It clearly has not. By the time it was passed by the National Government in 1991 it had already been captured by interest groups and all sorts of extraneous matter had been appended to it; and we have now had 12 years of utter dysfunction in this country. 
Business groups up and down the country and indeed this Government’s own advisory group on compliance cost have identified the Resource Management Act as a major obstacle to investment growth and job creation in this country. All the evidence that the Opposition parties called together other than that of a couple of planners referred to by United Future—of course it is very much interested in self-perpetuation—highlighted the real major problems that we face. There has been any number of tinkerings with the bill. 
We had the Owen McShane review in the time of Simon Upton in the previous National Government and the Mike Holm review. Indeed in the bill as introduced by Hon Simon Upton in the National Government in 1999 all those proposed measures were important. I believe they were all necessary but they were insufficient because they were really still tinkerings of process. 
No one has grasped the basic failure of the premises of the Resource Management Act. Let me run through those that are in my mind the three key ones. Firstly it was always intended to provide for the sustainable management of natural and physical resources essentially taking the place of the old Water and Soil Conservation Act and the Town and Country Planning Act with the Clean Air Act appended. They were the three core statutes. But oh no the interest groups appended all manner of social engineering to it—economic well-being cultural significance and phrases like “kaitiakitanga” that have never been defined. There they are right up in the key principles that need to have notice taken of them but no one has ever defined them. What they have meant over the 12 years is whatever one wants them to mean—stewardship ownership the right to impose on private property rights. It is the biggest obstacle to investment. 
As the Hon Nick Smith pointed out this country is facing yet another energy crisis. The evidence is overwhelming that the Resource Management Act is one of the biggest obstacles to new generation being built in this country. People say that there will never be another hydro dam. Do we have no more significant water bodies? They are saying that the Resource Management Act process would kill it and they are giving up before they even start. Sure Project Aqua is under way but it still has to run the gauntlet and it is quite an exception. 
The process that this Government embarked on was appalling. First of all on becoming the Government in 1999 it referred Simon Upton’s bill to a new select committee chaired by Jeanette Fitzsimons which overturned every one of those important necessary but insufficient proposals for change and then added on another one for “heritage aspects”. We now have things like “cultural landscapes”. Who knows what a cultural landscape is or ancestral lands? Can anyone put hand on heart and say that he or she can define what an ancestral land or a cultural landscape is? They are meaningless nebulous terms that create nothing but uncertainty and confusion and become vehicles for extortion. Time is money in the business world so any investor looking to invest and process our raw materials looks at the Resource Management Act and says “Why would I go to New Zealand? They’re facing an energy crisis and their planning laws are chaotic.” We know that Australia can in 7 months process through its planning procedures what takes us 7 years to process. It can take 7 years to get through New Zealand’s planning proposals. 
The Government has totally failed to address any of the key principles that needed to be addressed. The first one is that the scope should be narrowed and the focus sharpened so that it is brought back to the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. It should not deal with taonga and all those other spooky things that are now frequently heard at resource management hearings—things that no one can understand like the taniwha holding up the works on State Highway 1 at Meremere. What sort of metaphysical society are we coming to? Taniwha are not natural and physical resources. They are metaphysical. People are entitled to their spiritual beliefs and I will defend their rights to hold those spiritual beliefs but they are not put into planning laws. What other country has put them into their planning laws? I suppose the Taliban of Afghanistan would have come the closest to that. That is the sort of path we are going down in this country. 
The second key thing we need to do is give compensation when the public as is its wont identifies a particular piece of private coastline or landscape and says it wants to socialise it either by putting the land into the Department of Conservation estate or by opening it for public use. The real test and discipline on that is when compensation must be paid in order to do that. Instead we have organisations like the Department of Conservation using the Resource Management Act as a back door method of socialising property rights. Members from Northland will remember the significant natural areas exercise where essentially the Department of Conservation grabbed a black crayon and circled every block of land on a big map that it could think of and then gave it to the local council which put it up as its draft plan so that clumps of gorse became significant natural areas. Then of course the property owners got to fight it. They had to spend their money which they could not then invest in their farms fighting the council which is also spending their money as ratepayers to take their cases right through to appeal. That is the sort of process in which we have become bogged down in this country. 
Those are just a few suggestions as to why this bill is an utter failure. It does not address that basic need for overhaul and reform of the basic premises of the Resource Management Act. Rather it is a mere tinkering of process. We have had 12 years of that and none of it has worked. I put it to the House that all the measures in the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) are backward steps. They are not adding to the streamlining or greater coherence of the Act. They are actually making matters worse. ACT will be opposing this bill right through all its stages. 
In conclusion I reiterate the appalling aspect of the cultural heritage provisions and the way they were brought in. They were not in the original bill and no one has had an opportunity to submit an objection. The chair might get up and say that submitters made submissions in favour of them. Sure there are plenty of those who want to use the Resource Management Act as a vehicle but at no stage was it advertised that those provisions were in the bill so that people who were concerned by them could have gone to the select committee and opposed them. They have never been heard. That is why the Opposition parties held their own hearings. This Government in the most arrogant example I have ever seen brought in that substantial legislation and measures and refused to even put it to a select committee and that is after sitting on it for 100 weeks. The bill was left languishing on the Order Paper for 100 weeks. All of a sudden bang the Government whipped it in. There was no select committee. ACT will be opposing these appalling measures. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to support the second reading of the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). I believe that the issues covered in this bill have been debated and that they have been before Parliament for a very long time. They have been discussed quite considerably. We have had people discuss the changes that they think should be made to the Resource Management Act. As my colleague David Parker says the changes brought forward by this amendment strike a very good balance bringing together environmental concerns and the ability to progress on economic initiatives. I support the bill. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The House has worked itself into a frenzy—Government and Opposition members alike—about industry’s complaints that the Resource Management Act imposes unacceptable compliance costs on developers. It has assumed the status of Holy Writ yet when one asks for examples there are in fact rather few. We know from practical examples that many of the delays are caused by the applicants not providing all the necessary information or postponing hearings at the Environment Court because they do not have their case ready. We know that the delays due to court overload have reduced considerably since a new division of the court was created a couple of years ago. 
I would like to inject a few facts into this debate. In 2001 the OECD published a study of regulatory burdens on small to medium-sized business in 11 OECD countries. It found that overall compliance costs for New Zealand business are substantially less than such costs in the other OECD countries surveyed particularly in Australia. That was particularly so for environmental consents where fewer consents were needed under the Resource Management Act than were required for businesses in most of the other countries. Further in New Zealand environmental compliance costs are less than compliance with other laws. Of the total compliance cost here—already less than in the other countries surveyed—42 percent comes from meeting tax requirements 32 percent from employment legislation and only 25 percent from environmental standards. 
Many people have forgotten that under the previous legislation separate consents and hearings were needed under the Town and Country Planning Act the Water and Soil Act and a host of other legislation that was replaced by the one-stop shop Resource Management Act. What is more a much greater proportion of applications was publicly notified under the Town and Country Planning Act than under the Resource Management Act. That brings me to the question of notification. The key changes between the No. 1 bill and the No. 2 bill—and the most controversial—are to notification. 
As I outlined in the debate on the first reading the heart of the Resource Management Act is about the right of the public to bring evidence to a hearing on the effects that an application will have. Alongside the evidence from the developer this enables the council or the Environment Court to make an evidence-based decision on whether the application meets the requirements of the Act. It is this right that is now restricted in this bill. Currently this right applies in fewer than 5 percent of all cases anyway. Ninety-five percent of applications are considered without any public submissions and without any hearing. That is because permitted or controlled activities are exempted from notification. In the remaining cases they are exempt if the council decides the effects are minor and if all parties the council deems to be affected give their written consent. So the figures show that councils are currently deciding that fewer than 5 percent of all applications for resource consent have effects that are more than minor. That is certainly counter-intuitive when one looks around at the changes that are happening; the steady loss of biodiversity the steady loss of unspoiled coastline the accumulation of pollutants the loss of views and the loss of amenity. But that is what councils are deciding. 
Let me list just a few of the cases where councils have allowed consent without notification: a multi-storey apartment building in Wellington that caused a neighbour’s house to collapse; Tasman District Council’s decision to allow the top of the Kina cliffs to be removed and the spoil dumped on a coastal reserve leading to a public outcry; the largest poultry operation in the Southern Hemisphere built on wetlands between a river and the sea with a significant effluent discharge; a flock mud landfill at Waipu since found to contain toxic waste; and a coastal permit by Wellington Regional Council to farm  
Undaria pinnatifida 
 in Wellington Harbour—an invasive seaweed that the Department of Conservation is trying to eradicate from Stewart Island and Bluff at considerable cost. This is by no means the end of the list of sites for which councils have allowed non-notified applications where the effects were not minor. Sometimes these cases are picked up when a neighbour refuses consent and the current law requires full notification. Groups like the Forest and Bird Protection Society have often heard of major vegetation clearance or wetlands drainage or coastal development when a non-notified consent has been opposed by a neighbouring landowner and notified. That is the safeguard the Government is now removing. Unfortunately Jim Peters’ suggestion that this is overridden by the Local Government Act is not correct. The Local Government Act applies only where this legislation does not have more specific provisions. 
The only study of this involving three local authorities with 60 applications that were notified showed that 25 percent of them were notified only because the applicant did not obtain consent from those affected. If that is typical we can expect that under this bill the proportion of cases in which the public has a say will drop from less than 5 percent now to about 3.5 percent. We know that some councils are not observing the law in the way they determine both minor effects and persons affected. We have High Court decisions reprimanding councils for the way they already restrict notification. Time allows me to quote from only one. Justice Randerson in  
King 
 v  
Auckland City 
 said: “The discretion to dispense with notification should not be lightly exercised and consent authorities should be wary of making assumptions as to the likely nature and extent of potential adverse effects without the benefit of the views of those who may be affected. Cases such as the present demonstrate the desirability of erring in favour of notification where doubt exists as to the proper course.” 
But those cases that got to the High Court where the councils were reprimanded comprise only the tiniest tip of a very large iceberg because the cost of going to the High Court is prohibitive and most people give up. It is not just the $1500 court fee and the few thousands of dollars of fees to file; it is the fact that there can be no redress for a wrong decision if one waits for a court hearing. The only way to stop the bulldozers obliterating a wahi tapu a historic building or an ecologically important wetland or even undermining one’s house is to seek an injunction while the review is heard. That entails a mandatory undertaking that if one wins the injunction but loses the eventual case one will pay tens of thousands in compensation to the applicant for lost time on the project. Then of course there are still the costs of the case itself and this is when most people give up. 
Simon Upton came to see me in 1999 when he introduced the first Resource Management Bill. He outlined to me the careful balancing act he was introducing. He was also concerned that councils were wrongly withholding notification in some cases. He proposed that reviews of notification decisions should be heard by the Environment Court which is more accessible cheaper and most important versed in the concepts of resource management and much better able than the High Court to decide whether effects on the environment are minor. The High Court itself has recommended this change. Simon saw this as balancing limited notification where failure to gain the consent of affected parties would trigger only a limited hearing rather than full notification. In some ways it was not an unreasonable balance. The previous select committee retained that provision. 
The major decision between that No. 1 bill and this No. 2 bill is that limited notification has been reintroduced by the Government and review by the Environment Court has been removed. So this Government has rigged the law even further against the public and public interest groups than National was prepared to do. This Government has given its support to councils that are breaking the law on notification and getting away with it. The Government knows that judicial review is not a remedy that is available to many but it claims lamely that delays in the Environment Court prevent it from taking on this extra workload. I am looking forward to National members supporting my amendment to reintroduce Simon Upton’s provision for review by the Environment Court. 
Once again justice at high cost is justice denied and this is why the Greens cannot support this bill. That gives me considerable distress. After the huge amount of work I did: chairing a select committee for a year hearing 400 submissions travelling to seven cities negotiating some real improvements to the bill building on the cost and time savings and limiting the reductions in democracy having reported back a bill that was a good balance between the needs of developers and the rights of the public and having agreed to a number of compromises that would not have been my first choice I was looking forward to voting for it. Instead I have watched the Government sit on it for 2 years and now change it in ways that are essentially undemocratic. The Greens are left having to decide what to do with a curate’s egg. We do not wish to vote against the many sensible changes. We cannot vote for limited notification without a proper review process for notification decisions. We will be moving some amendments at the Committee stage and will abstain until we see whether those amendments are adopted. 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call in support of this bill. As has been mentioned by others one of the bill’s primary focuses is to reduce costs and delays associated with the consent process. As some members know I come from a background where one of my jobs was with the mining industry and I can say that the Resource Management Act as implemented by the National Government cost people in Otago several millions of dollars because of consent process delays and backlogs in the Environment Court. I am pleased—as I know my colleague David Parker from down that way is—that this bill reduce delays reduce costs and clear backlogs as the Government initiatives have already started to do. We see that over 500 cases in the Environment Court are being cleared and further backlogs will be cleared as we proceed. 
I thank United Future members for their cooperation in respect of the limited notification provisions. Those provisions will go some way in assisting all players to expedite matters through the consent process in the Environment Court without undermining the objectives of protecting the environment or undermining the ultimate objectives of the Resource Management Act. I think this is a good bill. I think we should get on with it and support it. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (NZ National) 
: 
 I will start by saying that the comments made by the Labour member Clayton Cosgrove show just how out of touch he is with this legislation when the mining industry which he said he has some knowledge of was powerfully presenting before the rebel select committee saying that this bill does nothing to assist its industry. Clayton Cosgrove can now go back and talk to his industry. That industry is not happy at all. 
I want to recall the contribution made by Jeanette Fitzsimons today. She said that her party will not vote for this bill. Let New Zealand be aware that if this legislation passes it will pass with the support of United Future. United Future has sold out on what it promised to do about the Resource Management Act. Today that party will assist the Government in passing this bill which does nothing to solve the problems that this country has with that Act. 
I well remember the lead up to the last general election when one of the main issues that was discussed time and time again at election meetings throughout this country was the fact that the Resource Management Act was a hindrance to further development and wealth creation in this country. On every platform that I spoke on at which a United Future member was present the United Future member said that United Future was the common-sense party and it would ensure changes to the Resource Management Act that would fix the problem. Those United Future members are today selling out completely on the commitments they made. This legislation does very little. It is an abuse of process such as I have never seen in this Parliament before and it will pass into legislation because United Future will allow it to do so. 
As we listen to the debate many contributions made by Labour Party people suggest to me that they have forgotten what legislation we are actually discussing. We are discussing the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). David Parker from Otago can stand in the House and talk about the submissions to this legislation and the submissioners. If he does so then he is either seriously mistaken or he is—other words that I will not use Mr Speaker because you might not like them. 
This bill was delivered to Parliament with an instruction that the bill was to be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee for the purpose only of the committee receiving a briefing from officials. The instruction precluded the committee from calling for submissions and hearing evidence and the committee was required to report back by 28 April 2003. Never in the time that I have been in this Parliament has such an instruction been given to legislation that specifically said: “Officials can speak to a select committee but other submissioners cannot.” I congratulate the initiatives of my National Party colleagues New Zealand First members and ACT members when they said that this legislation is of such significance that submissioners have a right to be heard. They did the work that the Labour Government and United Future people were not prepared to do. They sat at select committee hearings up and down the country. On one occasion here in Wellington I sat at a hearing through the day. Whilst I sat on that select committee one clear and concise question was put to every submissioner and I think we saw about eight submissioners that day. The question was: “Will this No. 2 amendment bill improve the process?”. Each and every submissioner answered that question by saying: “No this legislation will actually make the process worse.” [ 
Interruption 
] Larry Baldock says that he does not agree with me. He was not prepared even to come to these select committee meetings. That lazy member here doing the Government’s work was not interested in hearing the truth. After National Party New Zealand First and ACT members had done the work and heard the submissions we then went back to the main select committee. We had to fight like hell to have our minority report included. 
In this regard the Standing Orders are quite specific. The committee has a right either to accept or not to accept a minority report but it does not have a right to write the words. However National Party members supported by New Zealand First and ACT had to fight viciously to make sure the minority report was included but not before the chair herself took the opportunity of insulting each and every one of those submissioners. 
The minority report that I wanted included listed the names of the people who had made the effort to come before the rebel select committee to state their views. The chair Jeanette Fitzsimons said that those names were irrelevant to the process. Today in the House I say that AMP Investments Beca Carter the Construction Industry Council the New Zealand Contractors Federation the Employers and Manufacturers Association Foodstuff (NZ) Ltd the Forest Industries Council and the New Zealand Forest Owners Association are not irrelevant. They are the organisations that provide the jobs for this country. 
But they are only some. Another hugely interesting submission was heard from Sharon and David Waine. They came from just outside Nelson. They tried to establish a business called Maze N Maize. These people wanted to establish 4 to 5 acres of maize. As an attraction so that these Kiwi battlers could make some money they wanted to cut a pattern through the maize and make some money by selling tours and entertaining people—both tourists and New Zealanders. They told us of the hassle they had had with the Resource Management Act and this legislation does nothing to fix that hassle. They have spent $23000 on having their application notified publicly only to have it rejected by commissioners who also happen to be councillors on the Tasman District Council. The interesting thing about their case is that if they had decided not to charge an entry fee they could have done this project without even having to get resource consent. However under the Resource Management Act because they wanted to make some money they had to get resource consent and notify. 
I always understood the Resource Management Act to be about environmental effects. How could the charging of an entry fee be significant to the effects that this enterprise would have on the environment? The answer is that it could not. However these people wanted to prove something. They actually opened this attraction on a Sunday for no charge. Over 4000 people descended on the property to enjoy Maze N Maize. There is a lesson there. The environmental effects were increased because they did not charge an entry fee on that day. 
I want to finish very quickly by mentioning the Federated Farmers report to the select committee. They were horrified at the historic heritage positions that have now been put into this legislation. As every member of the Government knows no select committee process has had the opportunity to receive comment on them. Federated Farmers said to us that if we thought significant natural areas were bad enough these heritage provisions would be far worse for the private landowners of New Zealand. 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to support this bill. I support it for a number of reasons one of which is the greater flexibility that the bill will allow in the Resource Management Act process. One of the positive benefits is that local authorities will be able to delegate to their employees the power to decide resource consent applications. Currently they can delegate this power only to a hearings commissioner. This bill will allow greater flexibility better response times and more surety and certainty for people who need to access the Resource Management Act processes. I support the bill and I look forward to its rapid passage through the House. 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 I rise to speak in opposition to the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) as have other National colleagues for a number of reasons. The first is that this bill absolutely abuses the parliamentary process and there is no doubt in my mind about that. Others have said they have never seen such an abuse of the process in some very long careers. I think the Hon Ken Shirley said that. He has been here for a long time and I agree with him in the sense that this bill first came into being in the name of Simon Upton with 16 proposed amendments to the principal Act. We now have a bill with two amendments both of them at odds with what Simon Upton proposed initially—110 clauses and 18 parts which have now been reduced to two parts. If that is not an abuse of the system I do not know what is. 
The Local Government and Environment Committee in the forty-sixth Parliament received 400 submissions travelled to seven cities spent 80 hours on the process and at the end of that process had a recommendation that was by and large changed by the forty-seventh Parliament. At that point in time the process was hijacked by the suggestion that the new Local Government and Environment Committee made up of members who support the Government—the United Future party—who were not on that select committee during that long process should not hear any further submissions particularly around the substantive changes that were made. 
I would like somebody in the Government to tell us how that is not an abuse of Parliament an abuse of this process and an abuse of the 400 people who chose to submit. The United Future party should sit down with the Greens at some stage I suggest and ask some questions about how to negotiate with a Government that one is supporting. The Greens I would suggest to United Future knew how to do that and got much better deals with regard to trade-offs than United Future has in this instance. During the last election they campaigned up and down the country and like some of my colleagues I spent a lot of time on platforms up and down the electorate with United Future party members talking about how they were going to bring about amendments to the Resource Management Act. If they have not rolled over in this instance then somebody should suggest to me where there is an example of somebody rolling over. They have absolutely gone back on what they campaigned on and have not delivered in any way on what they promised the electorate when they said United Future was the common-sense party and would bring about amendments particularly to the Resource Management Act that would make development in business and job creation in this country so much easier. 
The Government itself allowed these amendments to sit on the Order Paper for 100 weeks. That shows members how much priority the Government has given this legislation. This single issue was raised at every political meeting. I cannot believe that the Cabinet Ministers who went to political meetings during that campaign did not have exactly the same issues raised. One can only conclude that they have totally ignored the overwhelming view of those who were at those meetings who said that the Resource Management Act was the single biggest barrier to growth and development in this country and the single biggest issue. 
The Owen McShane report brought forward 12 recommendations. Simon Upton had a look at them and changed them to 16 recommendations in terms of the legislation that was in place. The Resource Management Act itself when it was first introduced by National was hailed as very significant legislation. In fact I think it was said to have been the best world-class environmental legislation at the time. The way that legislation has been abused is an absolute indictment I have to say on local authorities and New Zealanders at large. It was enabling legislation and the way it has been abused is something that I guess would be a lesson for most members of Parliament in terms of putting in place enabling legislation. 
It was interesting to listen to David Parker the member for Otago a few minutes ago talking about the ”think big” projects and in particular the Clyde Dam where people’s private property rights were trampled over by previous Governments. To some extent he is absolutely right. That is what did happen and that is where the Resource Management Act came from. As a response the Resource Management Act was created. 
But let us have a look at how stupid it is today. The Clyde Dam just recently had to go through a full consent process to have its consent renewed to allow it to continue to generate electricity. I say to the Government that if the Clyde Dam had had its consent revoked how would the energy crisis in this country be solved today? If the Clyde Dam had been put through that absolutely nonsensical expensive process how would it proceed to generate electricity if its consent had been withdrawn? How could that happen? The Minister should take a call and explain to us how that process is sensible and why it should be allowed to continue. This bill is the most nonsensical legislation that has come before Parliament in recent history. 
Let us just have a look at some of the suggestions that were put forward by the various groups that submitted. Federated Farmers submitted that the legislation will slow progress and particularly with regard to the heritage provisions will substantially increase costs to our primary industries up and down the country. There are examples after examples of that. The collective of the mayors of Auckland said I think to a person including Bob Harvey that this legislation will slow down progress with regard to fixing Auckland’s roading problems. Here we have a Government on one hand charging extra taxes and putting in place a whole lot of extra cost to industry right across New Zealand to fix the undoubted problems we have in Auckland and then on the other hand passing legislation that is seen as the single biggest barrier to that situation being overcome. How can that be? How can we comprehend that the two things could happen in one go? 
Subpart 2 outlines the principles and purposes of the bill. I ask the House if the principles and purposes of the bill are put in a subpart what would be put in a whole part? What would be significant enough to go into a part if a subpart is the principles and the purposes of the bill? That is a question that absolutely astounds me. I do not have an answer to that and I wish that one of the Government members would take a call and suggest to us how he or she thinks that will help in this situation. 
With regard to Sky Tower it took 6 years to get the consent for that to go ahead and it took 2 years to build it. That is just one example. Now some could argue that Sky Tower should never have been built and I am sure there were views on both sides of that but it is there; it did go ahead. It took 6 years and a huge cost for that process to be negotiated and for an agreement to be reached and it took 2 years to build it. That demonstrates how out of kilter our environmental legislation has become. The legislation we are debating here today will not fix that problem. In fact it makes it worse to the extent that those who wish to object to that type of development and others like it—whether it be roading individual development at a private level or significant structural development—will now under this legislation be granted legal aid to object. I suggest to the House that that amendment is clearly not one that is going to improve the consent process. It will actually do the opposite and slow things down. Carter Holt Harvey and others in the forestry groups submitted to the select committee in the forty-sixth Parliament that this process is flawed and should not be allowed to continue. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 45 
Abstentions 9 
Question agreed to. 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Green Party 9. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 60 
Noes 45 
Abstentions 9 
Labour 52; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Green Party 9. 
Bill read a second time. 
New Organisms and Other Matters Bill 
First Reading 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Education and Science Committee for consideration with an instruction to the committee to present its final report on or before 5 September 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 on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Order 193 and Standing Order 196(1)(b) and (c). 
I thank United Future and New Zealand First for their support for the first reading of this bill. In fact I live in hope of wider support for this bill and thus for the growing biotechnology industry in New Zealand. I also acknowledge the work done by officials and researchers in a number of ministries to meet the tight deadlines for a number of reports. This bill forms a key part of the Government’s response to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. Until 29 October this year a statutory restricted period a moratorium is in place whereby applications to release genetically modified (GM) organisms cannot be accepted by the Environmental Risk Management Authority. The restricted period has allowed time for important aspects of the Government response to the royal commission to be put in place. These have included amending the legislation which is what members have before them now to include a new form of release namely conditional release; reviewing the current liability regime for dealing with issues surrounding genetically modified organisms—this has also been done and is part of this bill—and establishing Toi te Taiao the Bioethics Council. I am pleased to say that this too has happened. It also includes developing a biotechnology strategy and this strategy has been released. 
Other aspects of the Government response include continuing and establishing programmes addressing areas of social economic ethical environmental and agricultural research as identified by the royal commission. Funding in this area has been increased. This research is specific to New Zealand’s priority needs but it will build on the wide body of knowledge internationally in this area. For example the Institute of Environmental Science and Research has been funded to carry out research into understanding horizontal gene transfer in order to predict any ecological consequences from genetically modified organisms in New Zealand. In addition Lincoln and Otago universities are investigating key socio-economic impacts of biotechnology and the underlying causal factors. 
Regarding the analysis of the economic impacts of releasing genetically modified organisms this completed economic research concludes that the most likely economic impact from the careful and considered release of GM organisms would be a small increase in gross domestic product over 10 years compared with a small decrease from forgoing releases of GM organisms. The research reinforces the Government’s strategic approach of proceeding cautiously with genetic modification while preserving opportunities. We have also considered exploring the potential for the coexistence of various forms of genetically modified conventional and organic agriculture. The Government has recently accepted that coexistence is possible between genetically modified and non-genetically modified agriculture based on a rigorous regulatory regime a case by case approach and consideration of the whole of the production chain. Work continues on the practical aspects of making coexistence work. Work is also under way on a range of issues related to intellectual property. This work which is under way at the moment forms part of the review of the Patents Act and the Plant Variety Rights Act. Lastly a discussion document on the development of a voluntary labelling system for GE-free products is now available for public comment. 
This bill includes significant changes to the way in which the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act operates and its relationship to other Acts. The bill has two main themes: firstly to provide a practical framework for proceeding with caution in the management of new organisms including GM organisms while preserving opportunities; and secondly to improve the overall effectiveness of the operation of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. To enable this to proceed with caution while preserving opportunities a new category for approval of new organisms which is called “conditional release” has been developed. A range of regulatory measures is provided in the bill to allow for this category of approval. This is supported by enforcement arrangements and an enhanced liability regime to ensure compliance. Some new organisms will be suitable for conditional release. 
In making its decision to approve a conditional release the Environmental Risk Management Authority must decide whether assuming conditions are operative a minimum standards test can be met. The minimum standards relate to significant effects of an organism on people and the environment. The authority will need to consider whether the organism could be recovered or eradicated if for example conditions were breached. The authority will be able to consider a range of conditions and select the most appropriate on a case by case basis. For example conditions might include monitoring the impact of an organism on the environment or allowing only sterile male pine trees or stipulating that certain management practices must be followed. To support conditional release and encourage compliance the bill contains provisions for an enhanced liability regime. These are a statutory strict civil liability rule and civil penalties regime for breaches of certain provisions relating to new organisms. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has been designated as the agency responsible for all enforcement activity for new organisms. 
The second theme of this bill is to improve the overall efficiency of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. This is the result of both the royal commission’s recommendations and practical experience with the Act. To streamline processes in the Act and thus reduce compliance costs a fast-track process is proposed for low-risk organisms used in both human and animal medicines and for use in emergencies. In addition low-risk genetically modified organism imports will be approved on a similar basis as low-risk developments. What this means is that low-risk imports will be able to be assessed rapidly and decided on by the institutional biological safety committees under delegation from the Environmental Risk Management Authority. 
Other efficiencies relate to clarifying and updating processes. Provisions are made in the bill to allow the use of the appropriate taxonomic terms such as genus and for large-scale permutation of micro-organisms to be treated in the same way as any other application for developmental approval. There will also be more appropriate and realistic time lines for both reporting decisions by the Environmental Risk Management Authority and seeking compliance with a compliance order. Further because it is about new organisms zoo and circus animals will be brought further under the hazardous substances and new organisms regime. 
To improve knowledge of Treaty of Waitangi and tikanga Maori elements and decision making by the Environmental Risk Management Authority provision is made to formalise the role of the authority’s Maori advisory committee Nga Kaihautu Tikanga Taiao. Other provisions contained in this bill relate to anticipating future regulatory requirements by including them under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. These include certain developments using human cells and culture requiring approval for regeneration of new organisms and tissue and ensuring consistency in dealing with confidential information. Finally my backstop ability to call in applications to the Environmental Risk Management Authority will be extended to cover significant cultural spiritual or ethical effects. 
The provisions I have outlined represent complex and significant changes to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. There has been extensive public consultation both during the development of this bill and during the work of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. At select committee the public will again have an opportunity to help define the final shape of this legislation. In conclusion the changes proposed in this bill will ensure that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is pitched at the right level to allow genetic modification developments to proceed cautiously while preserving opportunities. 
It is almost 2 years since the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification reported to the Government. It advised the Government to proceed with caution. The procedures laid out in this bill will help us do just that. We wish to take advantage of a new technology but we wish to do that cautiously. This bill gives us the range of tools to do just that—to examine each new application for contained conditional or general release on a case by case basis. This bill also supplies the incentives for applicants to keep the conditions that may get set. The risk management approach taken in this bill complements and builds on that of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and is appropriate for the management of new organisms. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 The National Opposition will be supporting this bill but I must say with some deep reservations. Our reservations are based particularly on the perception that this has the look of a deal done by Helen Clark. That means it is very hard to pin down just exactly what the intention is. For those members who are interested in recalling the history of this bill the Greens asked for a royal commission on this matter. A royal commission was set up and carried out at an expense of $6 million and the Greens then decided that they would not accept the outcome. Subsequently a moratorium was put in place. We cannot help thinking as we look through the detail of the bill that while it contains a number of useful provisions the risk is that the measures in the bill are so restrictive that even when the moratorium expires it will be virtually impossible for an organism to be released. We could end up with the classic kind of Clark outcome—taking a position that we agree with that a science-based approach to genetic modification is appropriate for New Zealand and that it is important to the biological base of our economy that these technologies are available but on the other hand putting in place a set of rules so restrictive that genetically modified organisms cannot happen except at great expense and the only people who can really afford that are the State-owned organisations that research in this area. 
As I said there are some useful provisions in this bill. We agree with the different grades of release and the capacity of the technical committees to release minor genetically modified organisms represents a step forward. But there are two particular matters I want to draw the House’s attention to—firstly the way that the bill deals with Maori views on genetic modification because that is an important issue and secondly the way the Greens are going to deal with this legislation and its impact on the Government. I see in the explanatory note that the legislation is intended to give greater weighting to Maori views. I will be interested to hear from the Government just what the problem was that this change is meant to solve. There have already been court cases regarding Maori views on genetic modification. 
The Environmental Risk Management Authority has turned itself inside out as did the royal commission to hear Maori views on genetic modification. I have made the point in respect of other legislation that we need to be careful about giving too much weight to any particular spiritual view—particularly when the policy position is that progress on genetic modification proceeding with caution ought to have a scientific base to it. We know that the Maori views on this are not necessarily scientifically based that some have quite extreme views about genetic modification and a good number have quite practical views about it. The way the bill deals with it is something of a cop-out. It sets up the new statutory committee but that is all it does. I see the Minister smiling because that was a deliberate play. The bill just sets it up. It gives no statutory definition or limit to the role of that committee except to say that it must give advice to the Environmental Risk Management Authority. In that sense it is a parliamentary cop-out. How those views are handled is intrinsic to any progress with genetic modification in New Zealand and the Parliament with this legislation is doing two things at once. It is giving greater weight to Maori views but no prescription as to the role they might play in any approval process. 
I also note that clause 36 extends the Minister’s call-in powers by including a reference to spiritual matters. That is opening a Pandora’s box. This is now giving ministerial discretion to decide about the weightings of spiritual matters alongside environmental and ethical matters. I do not believe that this Minister or any other Minister is any better qualified than anyone else to call in an application on the basis of its spiritual significance. I look forward to the Government explaining to us exactly what kind of spiritual significance it believes may warrant a ministerial call-in. What kind of thing could be so nationally significant on a spiritual basis? I say this as someone who has spiritual beliefs. I do not regard the Minister as competent at all to decide on their significance particularly with regard to that kind of process. The Minister says she will never do it so why is it in the bill other than as some kind of tokenism? 
That brings me to probably the most important implication of this bill and that is the implications for the coalition Government. I remember the photos in the Christchurch  
Press 
 of Rod Donald in his new suit just before the election. He went out and bought his new suit because that was the one he wanted to wear to his first Cabinet meeting. But of course after election night he found that Helen Clark had other plans for the new suit and they were that Rod Donald should wear it while he languished in some kind of ill-defined cohabitation with the Government rather than in a specific relationship. Peter Dunne was the man who got to wear his new suit into coalition arrangements with the Government. 
I hear now that the Greens have some plans for the time after the expiry of the moratorium. They cannot be plans that the Government—and certainly not United Future—is too keen on at the moment. In the first place this bill is going anywhere but to the select committee chaired by Jeanette Fitzsimons. So it is going off to the Education and Science Committee instead of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I wonder why that is. Is it because the Prime Minister cannot stand that woman—as she tells anyone who will listen? I think it is. I think that is why the bill is going to that committee. But the Greens have plans and that is so particularly for the United Future party. I say to that party that it needs to consider this matter particularly as it has already agreed on a shonky process for dealing with this legislation. United Future is in an arrangement with the Government which is the arrangement the Greens want. The Greens are making it plain to anyone who listens that once the moratorium has expired they expect to take their rightful place as the left-wing party in this Parliament alongside the increasingly left-wing Government in a proper coalition arrangement—particularly one that puts Rod Donald at the Cabinet table. Rod Donald is totally motivated by personal ambition; Jeanette Fitzsimons I believe is less motivated by personal ambition. 
So we will see a process of Helen Clark changing partners. She wants to get rid of the United Future party because the Greens want it got rid of and there is no particular point to its being in coalition with Labour because its members never deliver anything from that coalition except the Families Commission and expensive bureaucracy. The Greens will then get alongside the Government. I believe that is the best arrangement that reflects the views of this Parliament—the two left-wing parties together and the United Future party which actually is not left-wing rightfully in the Opposition opposing the Government or at the very least in some arms-length arrangement that reflects the fact it does not agree with Labour on much at all but Peter Dunne would like it to look as if it did. 
So this legislation is critical to the future make-up of the Government in this Parliament. The bill will be passed before the moratorium expires with the Greens in opposition to the bill no doubt. But the Greens are making it plain that once the moratorium expires they will give up their principled position of opposition to genetic modification (GM) and work hard to dislodge United Future and get their own party in as the partner of the Government. We will support that because we believe it reflects much better the direction that Labour is going in. The Greens will be much more comfortable with that direction than will United Future—except on this GM issue of course on which we share Labour’s view—and United Future will find that the increasing discomfort it feels will take it away from Government and much closer to Opposition where we believe it belongs. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I speak today to voice United Future’s support for the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill. This bill is the culmination of a process that began with the setting up—at the insistence of the Green Party—of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. The royal commission considered 10861 written submissions from the general public and another 107 written submissions from organisations with “interested persons” status. The terms of reference were broad the processes were inclusive and the deliberations were thorough. The conclusions reached by the royal commission were in United Future’s assessment sensible moderate and well balanced. It concluded that New Zealand should keep its options open and that it would be unwise for New Zealand to turn its back on the potential advantages offered by this rapidly growing field of scientific knowledge. We were to achieve that by proceeding with caution and by minimising and managing risks. We were not to achieve that simply by going around and banning things on an ideological basis. 
At the heart of the royal commission’s recommendations was a central theme of the desirability of preserving opportunities. Based on a solid scientific foundation the recommendations were aimed at enabling and encouraging the coexistence of all forms of agriculture. Each form of agriculture—conventional organic and genetically modified—was seen rightly in my view as having the potential to make a unique contribution to the overall benefit of New Zealand. The royal commission found that New Zealand’s basic regulatory framework and key institutions were already adequate for dealing with genetic modification (GM) in New Zealand. Most of its recommendations focused on enhancing this existing regulatory framework and institutions. It did not seek to throw everything out and start again or to take drastic steps to bring the existing framework up to some new much higher standard. That is what this bill is all about. It implements the sensible moderate recommendations of the royal commission so that we can be absolutely sure that our regulatory framework and institutions are as good as we can make them before the GM moratorium is lifted in October this year. 
Surely then having had the royal commission having seen the royal commission’s moderate well-balanced recommendations and having seen those recommendations brought into this House as legislation the Greens are now satisfied. Surely they can accept those measures are based on thorough consultation and sound science and can agree to New Zealand moving forward—but with caution. Surely they will be happy to act as a watchdog to make sure the Government remains vigilant about the new technology and ensures that the regulatory framework keeps pace with any new developments. Sadly though for the Greens as much as for anyone else this is not the case. When the royal commission that the Greens instigated did not reach a conclusion that agreed with the ideological Green agenda the Green Party refused to accept its recommendations and is still relentless in its opposition to allowing genetically modified organisms to be released in New Zealand no matter how tightly regulated. Opponents of GM like the Greens will tell us that the reason for such implacable opposition is that the technology is new and untested it does not do things in the same way that the random processes of nature would and it could therefore wreck the environment and our economy for ever and so on. However they are overlooking one tiny flaw in their argument. Nothing in real life is certain; progress by its very nature is decentralised and open-ended. It moves in unpredictable ways. The most we can ever do is manage the risks and that is what this bill is doing. 
All technology is new at some time and there is always a degree of uncertainty. I doubt whether any worthy scientists would ever say that something was 100 percent certain. They might say that it was 99.999 percent certain but never 100 percent certain. It is this uncertainty which always exists in reality that the Greens movement has seized on. Its members are opposed to GM technology for ideological reasons so they are urging us to meet an impossible standard before the technology can go any further. The same is true of other anti-GM advocates. Their entire argument is characterised by unverifiable psuedo-scientific claims and selective facts taken out of context. Most of the inventions that enhance our lives in so many ways now could never have met the safety standards of those people. The car electricity the aeroplane modern medicine—we would have none of those things available to us today if previous Governments around the world had required their inventors to meet the Green Party’s standards for proof of safety. It is just plain ludicrous. 
Luckily for us now as in the past and despite this Luddite wing of the Green movement’s best efforts their stalling tactics will not work. Because of the unreliability of the Green Party as a supporting partner of the Government during the last parliamentary term and its willingness to bring a duly elected New Zealand Government down over this single issue the current moratorium is designed to lift automatically. Even if we do nothing else in this House this year the moratorium will still automatically lift in October. Some may accuse United Future members of not extending the moratorium but that is clearly not within our power. Any initiative to extend the moratorium rests with the Government. We are thankful that the voters of New Zealand gave sufficient support to United Future to enable us to play a moderating role in this process and to break the stranglehold the Greens had over the Government after the collapse of the Alliance. United Future is satisfied that this bill does everything that can sensibly be done to minimise and manage any risks posed by GM technology to the New Zealand environment and we are supporting its introduction to this House today and its referral to the select committee in order to ensure that all those regulatory measures are in place before October. 
While we do not deny the right of the Greens members of other groups such as the Sustainability Council organic farmers and others to have their voices heard those voices must represent only part of the discussion. One reason for our attitude towards this discussion and our confidence that our approach is the responsible one is that the people who will be most affected by GM technology are for the most part strongly supportive of it. Those people are New Zealand’s farmers. The biggest farming lobby group Federated Farmers of New Zealand supports the bill’s commitment to case by case assessment. This approach was part of their submission to the royal commission. According to one of their spokespeople at least it appears to be much more concerned that this new bill does not end up unnecessarily stifling scientific innovation than with any concerns for their own environmental safety. To quote Neil Barton: “It is vital that scientific innovation is not stifled by extreme obstacles.” Supporting Federated Farmers’ optimistic assessment are the papers the Government released recently relating to coexistence between different forms of agriculture and the effects of genetic modification technology on the New Zealand economy. Those papers were perfectly sensible and based on quite rigorous scientific analysis. 
The paper on the economic impacts of GM at the very least demonstrates that the lifting of the moratorium is unlikely to have negative consequences for the New Zealand economy and is quite likely to have at least a small positive effect. As I said in my press release last week the key point made in that paper in that respect is that overseas consumers are unlikely to base their purchase decisions on whether the product’s country of origin is GE free. In fact they are unlikely even to know New Zealand’s GE status in the first place. The survey showing some overseas consumers would make a decision on that basis is misleading because it specifically brings New Zealand’s GE status to the forefront of the survey participant’s mind and asks them to make an abstract judgment. In reality they are unlikely to be thinking about that issue or to know where New Zealand stands when making a purchase and are more likely to make a purchasing decision based on price. 
The paper on the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops is even more rigorous and is based on sound science and common sense. It advocates treating each GM crop on a very rigorous case by case basis instead of having a generic framework for all genetically modified organisms as originally recommended by the royal commission. United Future’s policy at the election last year was to continue with a cautious approach to GE provided all the relevant regulatory and other matters stemming from the royal commission had been properly addressed by that time. With the passage of the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill United Future will consider that process to be complete. 
The bill represents a victory of common sense over ideology and pseudoscience. It presents an opportunity for New Zealand to move forward scientifically and economically. Even symbolically the failure to move forward and embrace the possibilities of a rapidly advancing technology such as genetic engineering would have seen our country well on the way to becoming poor irrelevant and backward and it would have been a situation entirely of our own making. United Future supports the passage of this bill. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 Bill English the leader of National dwelt a bit in his speech on the select committee that the bill is to be sent to. I could say that that is probably because of the quality of the chairpersonship within that select committee but I will not. The reality is that when the last bill which put on the moratorium came before the House and was slightly modified for the Government it was sent to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. One would have assumed that bill would go to the Local Government and Environment Committee and it was pretty transparent as to why the Government did not send it to that committee. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Why was that? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: The reason for that was pretty transparent even though it had to be explained to Ken Shirley at the time. In this particular case however it should be pointed out that whilst this bill is to go to the Education and Science Committee—and we do not have any objection to that and realise there are members on that select committee who were on the Finance and Expenditure Committee review—the thing to note is that the Greens do not even have a vote on the Education and Science Committee. 
The House really has to ask itself what is behind that strategy which leaves the Greens in a very awkward situation. That party said that it would bring down the Government if it was to lift the moratorium. The Green Party has been slapped in the face by this particular manoeuvre so will it continue to support on a case by case basis any legislation this Government puts through that United Future may object to? I leave it to members of the House and to people listening to this debate to consider whether that does not put the Greens in a real quandary. 
New Zealand First is a centrist party and as a result of that when it comes to any of these particular issues we need to balance up the competing interests and to consider them from there. We certainly did so when it came to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. We assessed that it had come to some very very sound and sensible conclusions and therefore we were prepared to support the Government’s position on the royal commission’s findings. Although the royal commission did not specifically state that a moratorium should be put on it did imply that by stating that before any releases were made certain work needed to be done. Obviously that work had to be done over a period of time so therefore there was the implication that there would be some sort of delay in any approval of applications. 
Once again New Zealand First did not see that as being an unsound process although it seems to have taken an inordinate amount of time. The key issue in that legislation—and it was not there and did not exist before—was that under the existing legislative framework there was no category of conditional release. An application would go in and it was either a question of complete release or non-release because there was no halfway shop. That seemed a rather silly arrangement. 
For example PPL Therapeutics has a contained experiment in sheep; it has a flock of 2500 genetically modified sheep in the mid-Waikato. The world has not caved in as a result of that and rather than having concerns about the sheep getting out PPL Therapeutics is more concerned about some randy rams from outside getting inside its valuable stud. The issue is that if PPL Therapeutics wanted to proceed on a commercial basis and wanted to put in an application in the legislative environment prior to this it would have had to put an application in that applied across the whole country. PPL Therapeutics does not necessarily want to do that; it wants to keep the experiment limited for the time being. The potential gains that may come from that particular project would provide relief for people with cystic fibrosis and emphysema. Anyone who knows anything about cystic fibrosis knows it is a very very cruel malady and we should be doing anything we can to assist in providing relief from it. 
The unfortunate situation with regard to those who would put a blanket ban upon all genetic engineering (GE) work within New Zealand is that those very opportunities would be missed. That is why it is essential that this legislation goes through. It puts in place the conditions under which the moratorium can be lifted. I attended a “biopharming” seminar last Monday and what came out of it was very interesting. Neil Barton said that it was highly unlikely—impossible—that there would be large-scale cropping of GE crops in the foreseeable future. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Absolutely impossible? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: He did not say absolutely impossible and that is be fair enough. It is highly unlikely because large-scale cropping does not make any economic sense. In fact what will occur is the small-scale stuff with conditions around it in the field of “biopharming” biotechnology and bioreactors etc. That work is already at the experimental stage and could be moved on. 
But there is another issue in this particular field as to why it is so important that this legislation goes through even though there are one or two areas that I have to point out we have some concerns about. That issue is that the economic benefits of this new technology will not go to the people out on the farms; they will go to the people with the intellectual property rights. If we lose our opportunities to keep up the intellectual property rights—and we are very good at creating intellectual property—we will lose opportunities for the future. Marian Hobbs has talked about best-case and worst-case scenarios economically. I think we do have to keep a very close eye on the economic modelling because it depends upon the assumptions and the models we use as to what the consumers’ reaction is expected to be in different countries overseas. 
If there is a concern felt by New Zealand First it is the fact that when the Environmental Risk Management Authority makes a case by case decision there is no requirement for the authority to make any consideration of any potential economic impact whether good or bad. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: There is. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: OK. One of the things I say to the Minister is that when we go through this bill we will scrutinise it rigorously. We will do that over another particular issue and that is whether the processes that are put in place will allow for frivolous litigation by groups like Mothers Against Genetic Engineering purely and simply on an ideological basis to hold up worthwhile projects just by putting in submissions through the public process. That cannot be allowed to happen. 
There are two things that the royal commission suggested needed to be done prior to any release. The first was to do further work on horizontal gene transfer and I would have to say we would be much more comfortable if some of the work had proceeded a little bit further down the track because that is still an unresolved issue. The second suggestion—and it was reported at the symposium on Monday—relates to a piece of research around pollen spread and trying to find out what the movement of plant materials is that is being carried out by Lincoln University. Obviously that is very reputable research. However it has only just been commissioned. That is the sort of information the Environment Risk Management Authority needs right now when it is making its decisions. We have to ask why the Government has delayed commissioning some of the research that is quite important for the authority in terms of being able to make its conditional judgements. Baz Walker told the symposium that it is highly unlikely that anyone will get an unconditional release application approved at this point in time. It was good to hear that given the parameters in which he is operating he could not see the likelihood of that occurring in the immediate future. 
Finally I say we have genuine concerns about the call-back processes around the issues called “spiritual” because that term is actually ambiguous. It has two particular meanings and depending upon which one of those meanings someone is utilising mischief could be made. We have for example a secular education system but we still talk about promoting “spiritual values” and it is not religious spiritual values but values of a different nature that are being promoted in this bill. I believe it is really important that we look at that word and at what it actually means to different people in order to ensure we do not have mischief made as a result of the wording of this legislation. 
Nevertheless I say New Zealand First will be supporting the bill and we guarantee it will be given the scrutiny that is justified throughout the select committee process. 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the bill. Firstly I thank Mr Donnelly for his contribution. It was a very considered and I thought a wise assessment of the underlying issues. I come from a background of having been involved in a number of biotechnology ventures before I arrived in Parliament. Because of the commercial imperatives and also because of the moratorium none of them involved genetic modification (GM) but quite a few of them came close to that. So my interest in the subject of this debate predates my arrival here and indeed I was a submitter to the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification. 
At the heart of some of the things I submitted on were the process issues which are now covered by this new legislation. The submission that I and quite a few other submitters made was that it is appropriate to have levels of care imposed by the legislation that reflect the level of seriousness of what is being contemplated. So I am pleased to see here that amongst the other things in this bill one of them is the streamlining of the process of approving low-risk genetic modification work within contained laboratories. Under this legislation if it is passed in its present form after going to the select committee the approval that a university for example may have for experiments in a contained laboratory will enable approval of the project rather than approval being required for each organism or each change to an organism as that project takes place. 
One of the reasons it is important not to clutter up the regulatory environment with low-risk things is that it is important that the higher-risk things are accorded the priority they deserve for proper and careful consideration. Under this bill if passed the most detailed and most cautious assessment is reserved for the cases of conditional or unconditional release where the environmental effects are potentially more serious. 
I will give a practical example of why I am pleased to see there is yet another level of consideration that can be given. There is a power introduced to deal with emergency situations and the example I like to use as to why that is appropriate is the case of Great Britain recently with its terrible foot-and-mouth outbreak. One of the choices that Great Britain faced was whether to vaccinate its cattle against foot-and-mouth. The reason that countries are very reluctant to use foot-and-mouth vaccines is that they are live vaccines—a live organism is injected into the animal. When an immunised animal is tested it is difficult to ascertain whether the animal has the foot-and-mouth symptoms as a consequence of immunisation or as a consequence of the wild virus. For that reason Great Britain felt constrained to kill hundreds of thousands of livestock at the cost of great suffering to the animals and also at great environmental cost as it incinerated them. 
There is a good argument to be made that if a genetically modified vaccine was available which would be a live organism that included markers in it to identify it as being a genetically modified organism then if an animal was injected as part of the immunisation process with that genetically modified organism (GMO)—because it would be a GMO—in that live vaccine then upon the animal exhibiting symptoms of food-and-mouth following vaccination it would be possible to ascertain whether it had the live wild form of the virus or had just been vaccinated. I think that simple example of a situation that would or may come to pass if the most terrible of all things happened to our primary production industry—if foot-and-mouth ever became established in New Zealand—serves to illustrate why it is important that we do not have a blanket ban but procedures as proposed by the bill to allow the appropriate level of regulatory control reflecting the level of risk. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 ACT will support this bill to the select committee. On balance we think it contains some very valuable progress on this issue. We do have some reservations about it and I will cover those in my speech. We recognise that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act passed in 1996 in many respects puts New Zealand in a very advantageous position in terms of the Environment Risk Management Authority that we have. I do not think anyone anticipated—well I guess we always expected it—the level of concern at the marketing aspects of genetic modification (GM) and the impact that it will have on our economy. I think it was with quite some foresight even in the early 1990s that we took that step and I know many other countries around the world wish they had also had legislation of this nature on their statute book. 
That is not to say that we got it all right. I think we overdid the process just as we did with the Resource Management Act. We made some pretty tough situations for ourselves that were unnecessary and in many respects this bill picks up on those. I commend the Minister and the officials for bringing these amendments to Parliament so that we can hopefully on what is a critical issue for New Zealand keep a very streamlined process. 
I note as others have that the royal commission did not recommend a moratorium. I believe it was a mistake of this Labour Government to call for a moratorium. The ACT party opposed the moratorium. The royal commission did some very good work and some very important matters came to the public’s attention by way of the royal commission report. I think that its greatest role was perhaps to educate lay people on the issues associated with and the importance of the new biotechnology. That was a plus. However it was clear that the Labour Government which was dependent upon the Greens in the previous Parliament was captured by them in its political agenda so it used an old political trick of calling for a moratorium in order to park the problem. That is all that the moratorium was. 
The moratorium has cost the New Zealand economy dearly. Many of our top researchers in the biological sciences have left for opportunities off shore because their particular science was truncated by that moratorium process. That is regrettable; many of them will not return to this country. It is a big world out there with all manner of opportunities particularly for those who are highly skilled in the new biotechnology sciences. 
Equally I know a number of companies that have quietly left this country or have left processes that they had intended to carry out in this country using New Zealand researchers and facilities on subjects that would have been of huge benefit to this country. Those companies have just quietly gone away. They do not want publicity over it because that would just draw attention to them. I know that in the forestry sector major forestry companies that were doing GM work have relocated to the United States with billion-dollar projects and that work is now being carried out there. That has been a loss to the New Zealand economy. To think that as a country we could just stand still for 2 years and mark time and that the rest of the world would not move forward was a very naive position and I do think it was regrettable. 
The Greens were instrumental in calling for the moratorium and for the royal commission report and then when it did not say what they wanted it to—and they were ticked off by the royal commission for giving false evidence in essence for which they apologised to it; that was on their website—they said GM was a political line in the sand and that they would bring the Government down if it proceeded with such measures. This bill and something that will happen next week will be the test of the Greens because if they were sincere they would not support this Government’s Budget next week. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: We don’t. We will move a motion of no confidence. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: I see; the Greens sit on the fence. If the Greens want to walk the talk—and they said they wanted to bring the Government down—they would vote against the Budget next week for supply and confidence but they are not prepared to do that. The Greens make all the noise promise their constituents that they are doing all that they can and make a threat but it is quite clear that next Thursday when we debate the Budget the Greens will sit on the fence. They will not vote against the Budget. That is the real test but the Greens are not prepared to walk the talk on this issue. Much of their talk has been well off the mark and I deeply regret that the damage done to the New Zealand economy by not making progress over the past 2 years in biotechnology is to a large extent a result of the hype of the Greens and of the emotive debates and campaigns that they have run—not just in this Parliament but up and down the country. 
There are some very useful amendments in this bill. To extend the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act to regulate and restrict human cells and the regeneration of animals not presently in New Zealand from tissue is important. Stem cell technology is a new area and I think we have to proceed very carefully with some of the provisions there. I note with regard to that provision that one could use tissue from moa to bring them back. Moa have been extinct for perhaps only 500 or 700 years so technically we could probably bring them back though I do not know what the Minister for the Environment would think about that. Technically one could bring the dinosaurs back but there is a difference between 500 years and 65 million years. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: They’re already here. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The Minister is admitting that she is already here as a dinosaur. That is an interesting provision. 
The second key provision is to streamline the process of approving low-risk GM work within contained laboratories by providing for approval of such modifications on a project rather than an organism basis. That has been a huge source of frustration particularly to those doing work with strains of bacteria and the like where one has to get a separate approval for each strain of bacteria and one might be dealing with dozens or scores of different strains as part of one’s research. So the central thing is to approve the project and to let researchers in controlled laboratory situations bring in the strains required—and for that matter develop new strains—without having to go back for a protracted lengthy bureaucratic process on each one. That is certainly sensible. 
I think streamlining the procedures for the assessment and approval of animal or human medicines is also important. Comments have already been made about diseases such as cystic fibrosis and the options that GM science offers us for progress there. The Malaghan Institute of Medical Research and others are right at the cutting edge of research there. We know with regard to multiple sclerosis that the myelin work that was being done at Ruakura using modified calves was unfortunately held up by the moratorium and that is regrettable. Sufferers of multiple sclerosis and their families up and down the country are desperately looking to the cutting-edge research that seems to hold so much promise at this stage. 
I share the concerns expressed by the Leader of the Opposition the leader of the National Party with regard to new Part 4A inserted by clause 10. That part sets up a committee and imports the whole Maori consultation thing derived from the treaty provision into what is essentially a scientific bill that in this case relates to new organisms. There is a universal scientific method that transcends all cultures. People talk about Maori science and say that it is somehow different from the universal scientific method. Maori culture and tradition certainly can make a very valuable contribution to science but to suggest that Maori science is somehow different and should not be subject to the rigour of the universal scientific method which is based on the rational analysis of proven facts is highly spurious. It invites us to go down the path of what we have seen in relation to the Resource Management Act where a provision like that can be used on a leverage basis to delay and frustrate what should be a very straightforward process on a very complex issue. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Minister says that this bill is to implement the  
Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification 
 which advised that we should proceed with caution. This bill does indeed carry on the Government’s intention to proceed but many of us are looking for whatever happened to “with caution”. It would have been entirely possible to proceed with all the opportunities the economic benefits the scientific knowledge and the health benefits of what we are currently doing in contained laboratories. We could have had new medical uses new diagnostic tools and new advantages to agriculture that would have sped up and assisted ordinary selective breeding without the need to release anything into the environment. That would have been proceeding with caution. 
The royal commission suggested we preserve opportunities. The Government is indeed preserving all the opportunities for genetic engineers but not the opportunities for those who wish to do other things. It is implementing the royal commission’s report very selectively and I will list six ways in which that is the case. The royal commission said very clearly that we should not use animals that are used for food as bioreactors; in other words we should not genetically engineer them to create pharmaceuticals. Yet one of the projects the Government is most strongly in support of is the cows at Ruakura which are being engineered with human genes to make medicines. The Government has shown a number of times that it thinks that biopharming using food crops and animals to make industrial chemicals and pharmaceuticals is where this country should go. So that is one recommendation that has been completely rejected. 
Secondly the royal commission said that before there was any release a lot of work should be done on the risks of horizontal gene transfer which we currently understand rather poorly particularly in relation to soils. There are some research programmes; we do not know quite what they are looking at but none of them will report until long after the lifting of the moratorium when release will already be out there. It would be a pity if we were to find at that stage that horizontal gene transfer poses risks we never thought of. Thirdly the royal commission said we should ensure that coexistence can proceed between GE and non-GE crops. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry did a big report on coexistence and it delivered its findings just before Easter. Basically its recommendation is exactly what the royal commission said: that coexistence can occur provided we do not mind non-GE crops being contaminated with GE organisms. In other words we will have to accept a level of 1 percent GE contamination of GE-free and organic crops. But as time goes on that percentage will get higher and higher. It is just going to be imposed on all those who do not want GE whether or not they like it. That is not coexistence; that is contamination. 
Fourthly the royal commission said we should develop a strategy to manage resistance of insects to  
Bacillus thuringiensis 
 crops.  
Bacillus thuringiensis 
 is an important insecticide that many farmers use and that will lose its effectiveness if too many  
Bacillus thuringiensis 
 crops are grown. I was looking forward to seeing what was to be done about that. The strategy turns out to be the same as has been used for years in the United States where it has failed. It turns out that the refuges for breeding non-resistant insects make the matter worse because the resistance is actually dominant not the other way around. 
Fifthly the royal commission said we should develop a strategy for bees which of course fly 5 or 6 kilometres in some circumstances and it is very difficult to get a bee to understand that it should fly north rather than west. What is this strategy on bees after months of work on this Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry report? It is simply that beekeepers will have the responsibility of looking on the Internet to find out where the registered sites of GE crops are grown and take their hives away from them. So all the responsibility is to be put on the innocent parties who do not want GE contamination; none is to be put on the GE farmers themselves. 
Finally the royal commission said that we should do some real research on the economic impacts on New Zealand of releasing GE organisms. Treasury commissioned a report which if one reads it—rather than the purported summary by Treasury which is just spin—one finds that it establishes no business case for the release of GE organisms in New Zealand. Neither does it establish any clear economic benefit. In fact the Minister misrepresented what that report shows. It does not show that the most likely case is a small economic benefit. We can get to that point only if we adopt our own assumptions about what we think will happen which means that the markets will not react against GE food never mind that they are doing it now to everybody else as they are not going to accept our food any less because it is genetically engineered. Also there will be huge productivity gains which has not been the case with soybeans in the United States. If one takes those two implausible assumptions then one can make the numbers come out looking positive—that is the only way one can do it. 
So it is no surprise that the Minister is so embarrassed that she is not prepared to send this bill to any select committee on which there is a Green member. The committee that oversees the Environmental Risk Management Authority which does its financial reviews which oversees the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and which dealt with and passed the first amendment bill to that Act in the previous term is the Local Government and Environment Committee. But the bill is not going there. The committee that dealt with the last amendment to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act in May last year was the Finance and Expenditure Committee which had representation on it from all parties and parties tended to substitute. No the bill is going to the Education and Science Committee which is one of only two subject committees in this Parliament on which the Greens have no representative at all. So there will be nobody on the committee to challenge the Government with a science-based argument to address the real problem—the central problem of gene technology—which is that the organisms created are inherently unpredictable; that the transgene can behave unpredictably and could cause other genes to behave unpredictably. This is widely recognised by laboratory scientists as a major irritation when doing GE experiments in the laboratory but when it gets out into the environment it is a lot more than an irritation and it can be a disaster. 
I got an email just after the debate in this House in May last year on the previous bill dealing with GE. It was from a leading United States geneticist whom I have never met. I was very surprised he had even heard of me. This guy emailed that he was appalled at the lack of knowledge exhibited by the debate in this House about genetics and about genetic engineering. He sent me some material he had written which he asked me to circulate to members so they could be better informed for the next debate. I will circulate it now that there is a bill before the House that it relates to. 
This bill introduces conditional release. The Government’s explanatory note to the bill states that the purpose of conditional release is to allow out into the environment genetically engineered organisms that cannot meet the minimum standards of the Act for release. It will do that in the full knowledge that the conditions it is to impose will sometimes fail. That comes directly from the explanatory note to the bill. Let me quote what it states on page 19: “Costs could be incurred if the new organism has unforeseen impacts or impacts that cannot adequately be controlled even with the conditions imposed at the time of release. These costs may be on individuals in the form of non-GM users or across the community as a whole.” Where are the benefits that are supposed to be outweighing these costs to the community and to individuals? We are not told. However if these conditions fail and these costs occur there will be no liability because the liability provisions in the bill apply only if someone breaks the law. We are not particularly concerned about the harm that may result if people break the law. We think that probably they will generally observe it. We are concerned about the harm that will result when the law itself does not understand what the likely effects will be and therefore does not put any rules in place in terms of protection. 
The Government says in the explanatory note that liability is really no different from any other risk. Well if that is the case why is there no insurance company in the world that will insure against the risks from GE? That in itself says the situation is different. There ought to be strict liability for harm whether or not one has broken the law. It is the only thing that will make people take responsibility for their actions. This is the capture of New Zealand by a few who wish to get very rich at the expense of the many. When history shows that this has been a disaster the Government will be held responsible for what will be seen as treason and the Green Party will be there to remind them. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 In speaking to the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill I firstly must take issue with the Minister for the Environment who is developing a reputation as one of the most devious Ministers with regard to parliamentary process. I want to outline exactly why I hold those views. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not believe that that is acceptable parliamentary language and I ask that it be withdrawn. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not out of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let me tell members why the Minister for the Environment is being devious. One would not have to be an Albert Einstein to recognise that the Green Party has some interest in genetic modification (GM). I would suspect that even if one were the most remote disinterested observer of New Zealand politics one would know that the Green Party has an interest. I have a very different view from the Green Party on the issue of GM but to deliberately send a bill that goes to the core of environmental policy to the one committee on which the Green Party is not represented can only be described as devious. The Labour Government which for 3 years depended on the votes of the Green Party to keep it in Government now wants to pull off that sort of a dirty trick. That is wrong. 
I say to Larry Baldock who supports that dirty trick that it is like saying that a bill on family issues—one that might be of importance to the United Future party—is to be sent to the one select committee on which his party is not represented. Would the member think that was fair? Would the member think that was good parliamentary process? Of course he would not. But that party—United Future—is being a party to parliamentary processes that are a complete abuse of Parliament. Let me ask Mr Baldock why this is going to the one select committee on which the Green Party is not represented. [ 
Interruption 
] Is that not interesting! I ask why that Minister is in bed with the United Future party on this issue when he argued strongly that the original hazardous substances and new organisms legislation had to go to an environment committee? I have it in  
Hansard 
. Why is this bill not going to the Local Government and Environment Committee? Can any Government member opposite tell me why legislation that amends the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is not going to the Local Government and Environment Committee? I say that one reason is that the Government is determined to thwart the process. 
The second challenge I have for the Minister is this: 18 months ago the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification released its report. The Minister has had over a year to sort out the Government’s policy yet now she wants to rush the parliamentary process. Having had so long to consider it as Minister and saying: “I can stuff around for months and months and months.” she now includes a rushed process in her motion on this bill. I ask the Minister how many times that will happen. I know of no other Minister in my 13 years in Parliament who has developed such an appalling reputation for abuse of Parliament. The Minister stands up as the schoolteacher in support of open democracy and then introduces a bill into the House that locks out any submissions whatsoever. That Minister keeps on abusing the parliamentary process and at the same time is introducing the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2) and the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill which are all about consultation. I say to the Minister that she should start practising what she preaches. She cannot introduce bills into the House that demand proper process when she keeps breaking the rules and cheating. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I really object to that language. I have never cheated. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: You haven’t! 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I sustain the objection. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let me tell members exactly what the Minister is doing. This is a bill about the environment and this Minister is not sending it to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: I raise a point of order Speaker. This bill is about science. There is nothing wrong with sending legislation to the Education and Science Committee. I still object to that member calling me a cheat. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member. It is a debatable issue. However I ask the member because the Minister has taken offence and I consider that to be a personal reflection under Standing Order 117 to stand and apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I apologise but that Minister cannot get away with the way in which she abuses parliamentary process. She brings the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2)—which we debated earlier today—into the House and shuts down submissions on it. She gives an instruction to the committee that we cannot hear from anybody but her officials and then has the cheek to introduce bills that are all about openness of process—everybody being involved. 
I say to the Minister that she should start practising what she preaches. I ask her why this bill is being sent to the one committee that does not have Green Party representation. Is that not a bit sneaky? Is that not a bit dirty? It would not take a guess to know that the Green Party has some issues about genetic modification. It is one of the biggest political issues of the last 5 years and this sneaky Minister moves that this bill be developed by the Education and Science Committee. When we were in Government the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Bill went to an environment committee but that Minister is intent not only on shortening the process but also on denying a party that has a legitimate interest in the process. That is an outrage and that Minister needs to have a damned hard look in the mirror about the way she is treating Parliament because she is disrupting all its processes and traditions for dealing with sensitive legislation. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Boo-Boo Minister. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is as my colleague Tony Ryall says. She is a “Boo-Boo” Minister by name and “Boo-Boo” Minister by nature. I then challenge the timing of these issues. I want to know from the Minister and from the Government—[ 
Interruption 
] Give them a little bit of stick and hold them accountable for the legislation they advance and Mr Benson-Pope starts to get all stroppy and sensitive! I want an answer to this question. How is it that the Government has 18 months to consider the royal commission report and now wants a truncated select committee process? The Minister should start treating Parliament with some respect. If she is to take 18 months to consider that report how does she now justify saying to the House and to the select committee that they cannot have the normal length of time to consider the bill? The reason I say to the Minister is that she not been on top of her job. She has not been keeping up. We should have seen amendments— 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: The weakest link. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The weakest link my colleague Tony Ryall says and I suspect he is correct. 
I also want to point out to the House just how bureaucratic and costly the Government is making biotechnology. Effectively the Government is saying that it favours and is on the side of science; but in the next breath it says it is creating a regulatory regime that is so expensive and bureaucratic that it makes science well-nigh impossible. I say to the Minister that she may as well sign up to the Green Party’s policy of a GE-free New Zealand because she is putting such large expenses and processes in place that the only organisations that are likely to meet the costs will be the public sector science entities funded by the good old taxpayer. 
The fourth point I wish to make is this that again the Minister is having us chase spirits. There are clauses in this bill that ask us to take into account the spiritual effects of genetic technology. I thought we were to take a science-based approach. I thought we were to have legislation that allowed decisions to be made on the basis of the best science possible. I say to the House that it is an awful error of judgment for this Minister time and time again to roll legislation into this House that has us dealing with spiritual elements. How are we to have scientists courts and lawyers arguing about how you protect spirits with the Resource Management Act and now the new spiritual effects that must be taken into account under this hazardous substances bill? I want the Minister to explain. How does one protect the spirits? How can one when making a decision about whether to approve or not approve a genetic modification—or some other element contained in this legislation—possibly make judgments in that regard? 
We on this side of the House say that one should have respect for people’s spiritual beliefs but it should not be put in law. The Government is treading all over that and upsetting the balance by on the one hand saying it wants a science-based approach and on the other putting all of this sort of spiritual nonsense into law. It will add to the compliance costs and the uncertainty it will be a field day for lawyers and it will not serve New Zealand’s interests well. I say to the Minister that it is another boo boo another botch-up and another truncated select committee process. There are a few elements in this bill that have some merit but my goodness there is a lot more harm in it than good. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this legislation. I must say that I am disappointed at the irrelevant and personal comments made by the previous speaker. I think they do not do him the House or the process any credit. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
:  
Undoubtedly the outcome of this bill is hugely important to New Zealand and hugely important to science. National will be supporting the bill going to the Education and Science Committee but with grave reservations. Those reservations are very much about the onerous process provisions in this bill because unless this bill is substantially and wisely amended at the select committee it stands the chance of becoming the Resource Management Act of biotechnology. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: On steroids! 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Maybe; that is absolutely right. Undoubtedly the most contentious aspects of this bill are the provisions that relate to conditional release and to the lifting of the moratorium on 31 October which will allow commercial release. But what are the realities of this actually happening? Only last week at a “biopharming” conference held at the Royal Society Dr Basil Walker of the Environmental Risk Management Authority said that there was little chance of any commercial release occurring in the medium term. Presumably the medium term means 1 to 4 years. I also understand that the reality of unconditional release is that there is likely to be only two or three applications. They are likely to be highly monitored almost akin to the monitoring of a field trial. So perhaps this is taking a bit too far the royal commission’s advice to proceed with caution. 
It is important to remember what the royal commission did say about the new category of conditional release. It said it was a further assurance of safety to enhance the management of risk. But this bill on its application by the regulatory body the Environmental Risk Management Authority undoubtedly has to allay public concern through its scientific rigour. But I have absolutely no doubt that the process that it contains needs substantial and serious amending in order to allow both affordable research and timely research to be carried out in New Zealand. 
It is relevant that the royal commission did state that continuation of research is critical to New Zealand’s future. In its growth and innovation strategy this Labour Government chose biotechnology as one of the ways that New Zealand would add value to its primary commodities and thus help lift us into the top half of the OECD. It is highly relevant that around the world competing countries are pouring huge amounts of money into biotechnology. Singapore for instance—the size of Lake Taupo and with no dependence on primary products—has a multibillion-dollar programme for biotechnology alone. Singapore describes its commitment to biotechnology as the fourth pillar of economic growth in that country. Australia also has committed vastly greater resources than New Zealand both publicly and privately to this field of biotechnology. 
But what is in huge contrast to New Zealand’s legislation is that while Australia has a system that is scientifically robust and rigorous its system ensures that the applicant will have his or her project processed including publication within 6 months and at minimal cost. It is a huge worry that in New Zealand where on the one hand the royal commission says the continuation of research is critical to New Zealand’s future the reality of the hurdles and costs created by this bill in relation to the carrying out of research are so highly onerous that even before the bill is passed we have two examples of AgResearch having to pay over half a million dollars to have its applications processed. That sort of money is simply not within the reach of the smaller biotechnology companies. 
One of the good aspects of this bill is that it makes it easier to process low-risk applications. But Labour should not feel smug about that. Streamlining low-risk applications has been requested up and down the country by the Crown research institutes the universities and research institutions over the last 3 or 4 years and it should have happened at least 2 years ago. So the Labour Government should certainly not feel smug about finally getting round to it—finally taking away one of the small hurdles and thus indeed progressing science in New Zealand. 
Another issue of real concern is that only last week the chief executive of PPL Therapeutics at the “biopharming” conference of the Royal Society said that so long as each and every Environmental Risk Management Authority application for transgenic herd production was subject to public debate investment by biotechnology companies would dry up and wither away. He also noted: “The treaty and Maori considerations create yet another level of uncertainty of the outcome of any application which investors find extremely difficult to comprehend.” Inherent in this bill is the possibility of absolutely endless public consultation and endless delays due to the amendments that “allow or extend the grounds on which the Minister may call in specific applications to include significant cultural ethical and spiritual effects.” The regulatory onerousness of this legislation is diametrically opposed to the Government’s rhetoric of wanting to lift our economic growth by focusing on and progressing biotechnology. 
It is also of huge concern to the New Zealand scientific fraternity when the Environmental Risk Management Authority tells it that it can process the science in 6 weeks but the bioethics may take from 6 months to infinity. I hope the Minister is listening to this because it is hugely important that the science indeed is rigorous but it is just as important if we are thinking about economic growth in New Zealand that we do not have the drawn-out process that her bill at present unfortunately is totally enwrapped in. The regulatory processes of the bill that apply to medium-risk and high-risk research are just too complex and too uncertain. 
It is interesting that the Sustainability Council has expressed its support for genetic engineering in relation to medicine but believes there will be substantial negative impact by changing our so-called clean green image or GE-free status. The council advocates that the moratorium on release should remain for a further 5 years. But it is highly significant to look around the world and see what the reality of experience is. For instance Argentina with over 11 million hectares of genetically engineered crops increased exports of organic honey to Europe between 2000 and 2001. 
This month we have had two New Zealand Government reports dealing with coexistence and with the economy. Of course the Greens have interpreted those reports extremely differently from the Government. They have zero tolerance of the release of genetically modified organisms yet this very night in the science debate in this complex we heard from the chief scientist at Lincoln University that zero tolerance is an absolute impossibility. It is high time that the Greens accepted the reality of risk management. 
I end by saying that the processes involved in this bill must be considerably amended before it goes through the select committee. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 It is almost 2 years since the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification reported to the Government. At that time it advised the Government to proceed with caution. The procedures laid out in this bill will help us to do just that. I support the passage of the bill through the House. 
Hon DOVER SAMUELS (Minister of State) 
: 
 I rise to support the bill. It forms part of the Government’s response to the report of the royal commission. I say to the Minister in charge of this bill that it is a job well done. I recommend that it be passed by the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 105 
Noes 9 
Bill read a first time. 
Labour 52; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Green Party 9. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I move  
That the New Organisms and Other Matters Bill be referred to the Education and Science Committee and that it be an instruction to the committee to present its final report on or before 5 September 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 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). 
 referred to the Education and Science Committee 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a clear understanding that select committees do not sit when the House has taken urgency. I have learnt from past experience that I need to move an amendment to that motion for that not to occur. I therefore propose an amendment to add the proviso that the committee not meet at times when the House has taken urgency. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for drawing that to my attention. However it is not a point of order. And no written copy of the amendment was handed in before the debate concluded. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 82 
Noes 32 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8. 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill 
Third Reading 
Debate resumed from 1 May. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 As I rise to speak in the third reading of this bill I think it is worthwhile going over some of its past history and some of the developments in the area of Maori television since this Government has been in office. The House may recall that in February 2000 the then Minister of Broadcasting Marian Hobbs told this House that she would sort out Maori television and make some decisions on it pretty soon. From that point on we saw delay after delay after delay and here we are in 2003 seeing the passage of this legislation through this House tonight. 
The intention behind this piece of legislation is a very good one. The intention of this bill is to assist in the preservation of te reo. That is a very worthy intention but I have to say that the vehicle of a Maori television service is a misguided one. It is unlikely that this channel will do anything to preserve the language. If one thinks it is going to preserve the language one is making an assumption that large numbers of New Zealanders large numbers of Maori will watch the channel enjoy it understand it and use it as a method of improving their knowledge of te reo. But if we look at other ethnic television channels around the world—for example the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network in Canada—we see that even though legislation insists that television companies must carry that channel on their platforms less than 1 percent of the population watches the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network at any one time. 
That is the result when the law requires that a channel be included in the remote control. New Zealanders have a choice. Broadcasters here have a choice. Sky has a choice whether the channel will go up on the Sky platform. We do not know what the answer is as yet. If it does not go up then the chances are that very few New Zealanders will actually be able to get this channel. If they do get the channel very few people will actually choose to watch it. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: They’ll turn it off. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: Many will turn it off. It is interesting to look at the sorts of programmes that have been commissioned to date. One of the things that we have come to expect from the charter is that we will see a higher standard of television on Television New Zealand. Yet if we look at the sorts of programmes that have been commissioned to go on the Maori channel we see they are the sorts of stuff that many New Zealanders do not like on TVNZ. Things like  
DIY Marae 
 will just be a Maori model of some of those home renovation shows that we see on TVNZ every night. According to Mr Ryall another show will be a karaoke show. Once again it is a reality-style television show which is probably not the best sort of television that we imagined could be shown on a new channel. 
If we look at the progress of this channel though we see that there has been delay after delay after delay and that a lot of controversy has swirled around those delays. We saw some pretty dodgy tendering processes. We saw a closed tendering process where only certain people were invited to tender for certain contracts. There has been the whole debacle surrounding the search for a chief executive officer. I do not need to remind members of this House that the two words “John Davy” still make that Minister walking across the House shudder every time they are mentioned. John Davy reminded us how important it is to check the CVs of people who apply for Government positions. The only truthful piece on his CV was that he was a Canadian. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: And his name. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: That is quite correct. In excess of $120000 was spent on searching for a new chief executive. In that process we saw one company go by the wayside—Millennium People a fine company that was totally trashed by members on that side. It was totally decimated as a result of some comments that were made about its business and its interaction with the Maori Television Service. 
In excess of $120000 was spent on trying to find a new chief executive officer and after all that time guess whom the board decided to appoint? It appointed none of the candidates none of the applicants but within 24 hours of the board deciding that none of the last set of applicants was able to be appointed none other than Derek Fox was appointed to take on that chief executive role. After that global search for a chief executive and after all that money had been spent within 24 hours of deciding that none of the candidates was suitable Derek Fox was appointed. 
We also looked at some of the rather questionable decision-making processes when the board was searching around for new premises. It did not look at low-cost areas in Ponsonby or at other areas where there are already television studios paying good rates. It went to none other than the middle of the Viaduct Basin with views of the America’s Cup area to lease potentially one of the swankiest television studios possible. Luckily the board did not go ahead with that. When Wayne Walden came in luckily some common sense was brought into the management of the business and from then on we started to see a few things come into line. 
But is it not odd that millions and millions and millions of dollars are budgeted for this channel and we still do not have an on-air date? There is no way that we would ever find any private sector company or project spending such a large amount of money with no start date in sight. I do not think that is good enough. When the public is spending some $55 million per annum people at least want to know when we can turn on our televisions and see something more than the test pattern. We should be able to see something more than that. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: So let’s get on with it. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: The member over there says we should get on with it. We all know that the lack of this legislation has not actually held anything up. We have an organisation that has no legal status that has been under the umbrella of Te Puni Kokiri and it has been continuing to spend money like it is going out of fashion. After 3 long years legislation is only just now coming through the House. 
There are big expectations I think within the country—certainly within Maoridom—of what this channel is going to deliver and I am concerned that it is probably not going to deliver on many of the expectations that have built up. I do not think this channel will have any role in preserving the language if people decide to switch it off and not watch it. The challenge for those who are involved is to put programmes on air that people want to watch that encourage people to turn on the television and that hopefully develop among people some interest in learning the language. Without people showing an interest in the language without more people picking up and speaking the language it will die. 
I say that the $55 million could have been spent more effectively in other areas. Can members imagine how many teachers $55 million could have paid for? Can they imagine the difference that $55 million might have made to local kohanga reo—the difference that it might have made to what local language nests do in the community? 
The challenge for those who are involved is to ensure that from here on there are no more scandals. We have seen enough scandals to last the project’s entire lifetime. I am sceptical that the service would be able to have any more scandals without further concerns being raised by this side of the House. But at this late stage we do wish those who are involved in the project well because it would be a travesty if we spent $55 million and the result amounted to zip. As we come to the final part of this third reading we say that we still have severe reservations about the ability of this project to deliver for Maori. 
NANAIA MAHUTA (NZ Labour—Tainui) 
: 
Tenei ka tu au ki te korero mo tenei pire e kia nei ko te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori. Ahakoa te poto o tenei korero maku te wa e whakamaramatia te take ka tautoko ana matou i tenei pire. I rise to speak to the third reading of the Maori Television Service Bill. Although my contribution will be short it is really to outline some of the reasons that members on this side of the House who are part of the Government support the bill.  
No reira ka huri au ki te take i tukuna mai tenei pire kei waenga nui i a tatou. Mena ka huri ki nga korero whakataki i te timatanga o te pire nei me titiro tatou ki nga e rua o nga wahanga. Ko te wahanga tuatahi e kia nei kia kaha ake te utanga o te Karauna ki te tiaki i te reo Maori. Ka whakaae te Karauna ki enei whakatau. If we look to two paragraphs in the preamble to this bill we will have an appreciation of the context within which the bill sets out to establish the Maori Television Service. In the clause that I cited I referred to the findings of the tribunal which found that the Crown is obliged by the treaty to take active steps to protect the Maori language. The Crown accepted those findings. 
No reira me huri atu ki te wahanga tuarua. Ka whakaae te Karauna he here mutunga kore ta nga matapono o te Tiriti o Waitangi ki te pikau kia pumau tonu te manaaki i te reo Maori ma te whakamahia o nga mahi papaho reo irirangi whakaata irirangi ano hoki. In paragraph (2) of the preamble to the bill we read that “the Crown accepted that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi impose a continuing obligation to take such steps as are reasonable to assist in the preservation of te reo Maori by the use of both radio and television broadcasting:”. 
No reira i te wa i haria mai tenei pire ki waenganui i a tatau ka tutu mai etehi ki te ki ehara tenei pire he pire pai mo tatau te iwi Maori. Ko taku nei he timatanga tenei he timatanga. Ko te mea nui kia rongo ai nga whanau katoa i to tatau nei reo me nga ngako korero. When this debate came into the House there was a lot of toing and froing with discussions about the virtues of the bill and what it will or will not achieve for Maori. I can say that it is really important that our people hear our language and the essence of the language as conveyed whether it be by radio or television. 
Ki ahau nei ahakoa te poto o toku nei korero mo te pire nei ko taku nei ko te wawata mo nga whakatipuranga hei whakarongo ki to tatau nei reo ahakoa torutoru noa iho i te timatanga a te wa ka whakawhanui atu ki tetehi atu ki te motu whanui kia mohiotia e ratau te ataahua o to tatau nei reo engari kia mohio ratau kei te ora tonu kei te ora tonu mo ake tonu atu. Tena koutou. Although mine is just a short contribution and a bilingual one it is important that this bill go ahead. At the outset only a small number of people will be exposed to programmes in te reo Maori via this bill but it is our aspiration that that exposure extend out in time. It can only be good to hear that ours is a living flourishing language that will live on in all our communities for ever. No reira tena koutou tena koutou kia ora mai tatau katoa. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 ACT regards this piece of legislation as racist. We see it as having no justification other than racism. It has no reasoning other than of drawing distinctions between New Zealanders on the grounds of race or ethnic origin. We are going to make sure that the taxes raised from all who earn or buy goods: in other words taxes raised without race distinction—other than the recent amendments that the Minister of Finance has pushed through to give privileges to Maori companies—are now to be allocated to broadcasting on a race basis. 
Members have referred to the alleged duty to promote te reo. First there is no such duty. The interpretation of taonga and including language as a taonga is on the face of it a patent nonsense. Article 2 promises exclusive enjoyment and protection of taonga. [ 
Interruption 
] I ask Dr Cullen—that fantastic historian who has just given the Labour Party an elucidation of the treaty—whoever heard of exclusive enjoyment of a language? It has somehow slipped his mind that to have exclusive use and possession of language is an absolute nonsense. How could anyone who had anything to do with the drafting of the treaty ever in their wildest moments have thought that someone would say that a language could be exclusively used and possessed—unless it was some kind of secret cabbalistic language; a kind of Latin that only the initiated were allowed to use. Dr Cullen of course—that wonderful historian descended from the academic clouds to lift the Labour Party out of its bog—did not even try to find a way out. Instead he just dug its members in deeper. He pointed to the Maori text as though that made a difference. That does not get the Labour Party out of its problem. It is still applying a completely spurious view of a document that is actually very straightforward—that said that 19th century English property rights were to be extended to all the citizens of New Zealand equally. 
Having looked at the background let us ask what this bill actually does. This bill sets up a service that will in fact ghettoise Maori in this country. At the moment we have a lot of mainstream programming. We have  
Marae 
  
Waka Huia 
  
Te Karere  
and  
Pukana. 
 There is a whole range of programmes that quite correctly are being broadcast at times when other New Zealanders can enjoy seeing them. We have programmes that make Maori language and culture seem attractive and that is the only way that a minority language has any long-term prospect of surviving. It survives if it seen as an elite and high-status thing to do—as a way of asserting membership of a privileged group and that is just what has been happening. When we see people wearing greenstone tiki or bones around their necks we can laugh but that is a way of giving the culture a status that means that it will actually survive. By giving Maori money and telling them to go and play in their own sandpit Pakeha have discharged any sort of requirement to pay attention to that part of their culture. Then of course it is highly unlikely that we will see it survive. 
That is assuming that the openly acknowledged ambitions for this bill are the actual ambitions. Sadly of course they are not. The treaty as a living document is a political excuse. If the Government really wanted to advance te reo it would have been looking at simple things like market research to see how much of the target audience has UHF and at how many of the target audience will actually watch this station. How many of them will switch off Sky to go that channel which hardly any of them are equipped to look at? If the Government really wanted to advance te reo it would also have looked at the relative benefit of spending $55 million on this ghetto station as opposed to spending $55 million to buy prime-time programming on Television One. 
If that were the real objective that is what the Government would do but that is not the objective. In descending order of decency there are three other objectives. First there might be an argument that Maori and their culture have been insufficiently reflected on State broadcasting and that this initiative is redressing an imbalance. That is pretty patronising but still does not answer the problem that this initiative might be the least beneficial way of doing that—though it is perhaps an underlying argument that would be worth debating if someone wanted to raise it. A more sinister reason was exhibited even during the period when the channel was being set up: this is a financially corrupt measure to ensure the employment of small elite. It establishes a slush fund to hand out goodies to people who can swank around producing programmes at a cost far in excess of normal commercial rates and be protected from competition by their connections. This is a device to ensure that there is a supply of money that can buy off the potential challenge to the political elite that has hogged power in the Maori seats for so long. 
This is a gross source of patronage and worse a source of political corruption. This bill sets up a service that enables the Labour Party to try to protect—I imagine vainly as I think New Zealand First will take them despite this effort—the stranglehold that Labour has on Maori seats. There is nothing in this bill that even starts to protect the political neutrality of the Maori Television Service. Even Italian State radio has a requirement that the board be appointed with the consent of parties from both sides of the House to at least try to ensure that there is some pretence of political neutrality. Instead this bill allows Ministers to set up without any kind of system to protect political neutrality. This bill can turn the Maori Television Service into propaganda for any cause it likes. 
There is no requirement for the service to be politically neutral balanced or secular. It is directed to create programmes that reflect vague things like “cultural and spiritual values”. There is no requirement to combat superstition. It is only a short time in New Zealand’s history since Maori and Pakeha politicians were supporting legislation like the Tohunga Suppression Act. The Labour Party is now establishing a television channel—the most influential medium we have—that is not only free to but encouraged to go out and promote superstition. 
There is no requirement in the charter to uplift or educate or be objective. There is no requirement—no power in fact—to insist upon quality programming. It is all left to a set of political compromises between Government Ministers and the electoral college. At a trivial level there are no effective protections against conflict of interest. The board of this body is exempt from even the liabilities that ordinary company directors face. For example unlike the board of almost every other body in New Zealand this board does not face liabilities under the Building Act the Resource Management Act or the Health and Safety in Employment Act because it has been given a privileged status. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 That was the most extraordinary speech which really summed up the wellspring of bitterness and hatred that that member has for anything to do with matters Maori. That was an extraordinary speech. He described the setting up of a Maori television service to promote Maori language and Maori culture in both Maori and English as racist. Does this mean that the British Broadcasting Corporation is racist because it is there as part of the United Kingdom and United Kingdom culture? Is it true that the United States Public Broadcasting Service is racist because it is about the United States? Racism is something that is not Pakeha as far as that member is concerned. If it is not Pakeha it is racist. That is the most extraordinary drivel I have heard in a very long time in my life and in this House. 
We were then treated to the spectacle of the member trying to deal with what the treaty says in article 2 by combining parts of the words in English with parts of the words in Maori. We can do almost anything with a document if we care to get a bad translation from a rather peculiar form of the indigenous language into another language then combine one bit with another bit and say that this cannot be true. What a particular piece of drivel from the member that was! 
Then we were told that the Maori language can survive only if it acquires the status of being some kind of unique elite thing that people treasure because it is an elite means of advancement in society. I thought ACT’s complaint was that Maori was an elite means of advancement in society these days under a Labour Government but never mind about that particular inconsequentiality on the part of the ACT party! How on earth does the member think the English language survived in the 11th 12th 13th and 14th centuries if it was supposed to be an elite language? It was the language of the conquered—conquered by Normans. Which side does he claim descent from with a name like Franks? I assume from neither in that particular respect but if he descends from either of them it has to be the Normans rather than the English. English survived because it was a language treasured by those who were downtrodden. Anglo-Saxon was kept alive and became the dominant part of the English language. We do not go back and study French to study the roots of the English language; we go back and study Old English and Anglo-Saxon—or at least we used to in the time that I was at university. 
All the member’s arguments added up to one thing: he hates Maori he hates anything to do with Maori he sees them as some kind of excrescence on the New Zealand body politic and he says that one of the worst things about this channel is that it will promote superstition which apparently means anything other than neoclassical economics which is what I call superstition. Anybody who believes in that in the 21st century is truly superstitious. 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 Let me first give an expression of support for the last contribution for its elucidation of the important issues and say how grateful the Greens are to hear other Pakeha standing in this House in defence of issues surrounding Maori. 
The Greens support this bill. We are very pleased to have a dedicated television channel established where te reo will be a high-priority language where the Maori perspective on local national and international issues will be aired and where images of Maori from every area of life will be shown and valued. We believe that this channel is a clear example of how a treaty right—that is the protection of te reo through broadcasting—can contribute to the development of the whole nation. This television station is sourced primarily in the community of this country and opens huge opportunities for much broader analysis and dissemination of New Zealand – focused news and current affairs. That can only contribute to a much better national understanding of ourselves as a community and a nation. 
The broadcast of information about tikanga Maori will also increase the nation’s understanding of Maori values and concepts. Maori continue to be used as a political football and often as a weapon to alarm. I think we can point very directly to the contribution from the ACT party this evening as an example of the way that Maori and Maori issues are used as a weapon to increase concerns and fears amongst the New Zealand public that have absolutely no basis. This television station will help to alleviate in some way some of those fears which are driven by a lack of knowledge and a lack of understanding of both traditional and contemporary Maori existence. I need only point to the ACT party’s previous contribution from Deborah Coddington. Her aggressive and derogatory comment during the Committee stage about tikanga Maori was a further clear illustration of the levels of ignorance and fear expressed by some people on Maori issues. 
We are also delighted that the Greens’ amendments to the bill have been incorporated so that there now is much greater protection against political interference in the programming and greater protection of delivery of the service should it be provided by a third party in the future. 
Finally we are very pleased to vote in favour of this bill and look forward to its eventual establishment. Kia ora koutou. 
DIANNE YATES (NZ Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I wish to rise in support of the bill and say that I believe that it is about being a New Zealander. I am very proud of this bill. I am absolutely appalled that we should have members of Parliament making speeches like those the ACT party has made here tonight. I find it difficult to believe as a New Zealander born and bred in this country that other people who have the same heritage could make such speeches. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 For those who were not listening carefully to that speech from the member for Hamilton East I say it was one of the very few contributions she has ever made in this Chamber and I hope that those who were listening savoured the moment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Come to the bill. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I am entitled to make a brief contribution on that matter. Unlike members opposite who appear to have nothing to say about this bill I do have some things to say because I think it is important legislation. The third reading is the opportunity to refer to the stages that have gone before and to make sure that these matters are put on the parliamentary record. 
First I want to record the fact that the debate on this bill in the House tonight is a complete farce. We are dealing tonight with a bill that asks members of the House to solemnly approve legislation to establish the Maori Television Service to spend millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to appoint a board for the Maori Television Service to appoint a chief executive for the Maori Television Service and to appoint an electoral college for the Maori Television Service. Anybody who has read a newspaper in recent weeks knows that each of those things has already been done. We are debating a bill that asks us to solemnly approve the appointment of a chief executive officer who has already been appointed to debate and approve the appointment of a board that is already in place and to approve the appointment of an electoral college that has been there for months and months. I ask what sort of farce it is when Parliament is solemnly debating legislation of this sort when all those events have already occurred and many millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money have already been committed. The bill asks us to approve a process for the commencement of business for the transmission process and so on. All those matters too have been the subject of considerable action and expenditure and still this Parliament is asked to keep a straight face when debating this matter tonight. 
That is a more straightforward consideration in relation to this bill. There is another element of its genesis that I wish to put on the record tonight. The Minister of Maori Affairs should hang his head in shame. He told us many times in this House and outside it that Mr Derek Fox was going to be appointed to the position of chairman of the Maori Television Service a very part-time role for a total remuneration package of $36000 a year. I remind members opposite that when this Maori Television Service was first being discussed Mr Derek Fox had already announced his intention of establishing a new Maori political party. He had announced his intention of standing against the Minister of Maori Affairs in the Minister’s own seat. So Mr Fox got an invitation to afternoon tea from the Prime Minister. We do not know what happened when the Prime Minister and Mr Fox were sitting in the Prime Minister’s suite but we do know that when he came out he had decided to accept the chairmanship of the Maori Television Service. 
The Minister of Maori Affairs and the Prime Minister said that he could still set up his Maori political party and he was still going to do that. He was still going to run against the Minister of Maori Affairs in his electorate. But I know members know and anybody who has read a newspaper knows that Mr Fox’s Maori political party has not happened and that Mr Fox did not stand as a candidate against the Minister of Maori Affairs. We know that as a matter of public record. 
I say to the Minister of Maori Affairs that that is a disgrace. Mr Fox was bought and he knows it. I want to know how it was that Mr Fox moved from becoming the $36000-a-year very part-time chairman of the Maori Television Service to become the very much more full-time chairman of the Maori Television Service getting $100000 in the first year plus $50000 in expenses. I want to know how that happened and how he then made the transformation to become the $160000-a-year chief executive officer of the Maori Television Service—having been the chairman of the panel that interviewed the other candidates. Suddenly Mr Fox went back to the board and said: “We’re sorry chaps but none of these guys measured up.” Then he withdrew from the room so that the remaining directors could appoint him chief executive officer on a vote of three votes to two with one of those votes being a proxy. I ask members how we are supposed to have any respect for a process like that. Mr Fox who is the sworn political opponent of the Minister of Maori Affairs was able to be bought by the Government and then was appointed chief executive officer on a salary of $160000 a year. 
The State Services Commission’s officials were saying: “No no no. This doesn’t look too flash. We’ve got a little problem here. Mr Fox is being appointed chief executive officer on the same job description as Mr John Davy had.” The Minister of Maori Affairs may not have noticed the distinction but Mr Davy was a Canadian with no skills in Maori language and no understanding of tikanga. Yet the same job description had seen Mr Fox the former chairman appointed to the same job. The State Services Commission pointed that out. Its officials said to the Minister of Maori Affairs that it did not look too flash but the job description could not be changed because Mr Fox had already been appointed. So they asked what the Minister wanted them to do. 
The Minister of Maori Affairs needs to tell us that because every time that question has been raised in the House as this bill has gone through its various stages and as the clauses have gone through the Committee of the whole House the Minister of Maori Affairs has stayed anchored in his seat refusing to answer or give a response to the House on those matters. 
I say that this third reading is an opportunity for us to record that this has been a disgraceful process to validate actions of the Government that have already been determined to validate expenditure of Government money that has already been spent and to validate actions of that Minister who has no answers to offer members in response to the very reasonable and sensible questions they have asked as this bill has gone through its various stages. 
I say to the Minister of Maori Affairs that my colleagues and I will be vigilant. We know that this Maori Television Service will be a millstone around his neck around the neck of the Minister of Finance—who made one of the more shameful contributions to this debate—and around the neck of every member of this Government. I say that we will vote against this bill tonight and those members supporting the bill should remember that today they are making a commitment that will see them in due course held up to public ridicule. I make a commitment that I and my colleagues will be here to hold them to account. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Maori Television Service (Te Aratuku Whakaata Irirangi Maori) Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 64 
Noes 52 
Bill read a third time. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Other: Donna Awatere Huata. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8. 
Urgency 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That extraordinary urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill 
. This bill changes the excise duty rate on alcohol between 14 and 23 percent by alcohol content to deal with a youth drinking problem and comes into force tonight so requires to be passed this evening.  
A party vote was called for on the question  
That extraordinary urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill. 
Ayes 71 
Noes 44 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 12; ACT New Zealand 5. 
Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Customs) 
: I move  
That the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 This is important legislation. It will increase the excise duty on alcoholic beverages that contain more than 14 percent but not more than 23 percent alcohol by volume. The products that mainly fall into that category are the very cheap light spirits often drunk by young people. It is well known that most young people make their alcohol purchasing decision based on the amount of alcohol they can get for their money—or put another way the amount of bang they can get for their buck. 
The drinking habits of young New Zealanders are of great concern to me and I know to at least some other members of the House. Recent surveys have shown an increase in the level of heavy drinking amongst young people. Survey data show that the proportion of young women aged 14 to 17 years who drank four drinks or more in one sitting at least once a week increased from 15 percent in 1998 to 28 percent in 2001. That means almost a third of underage young women aged 14 to 17 are now drinking excessively. In my view it is not acceptable for us even remotely to be seen to encourage young New Zealanders in general or young New Zealand women in particular to drink in that manner. In addition to an increase in heavy drinking in young women survey data also show that there was an increase in the proportion of young men who are drinking excessively. The survey also showed that 58 percent of young men aged 14 to 17 years and 51 percent of young women aged 14 to 17 years reported drinking enough to feel drunk at least once a month. 
Something needs to be done to address the issue of heavy drinking by young New Zealanders and this Government is determined to do that. The excessive consumption of alcohol by young New Zealanders can of course be disastrous. It is well know that drunkenness contributes to teenage pregnancy car accidents drownings house fires and birth defects. I personally believe that lowering the drinking age and increasing the access to alcohol was a grave mistake. That is not Government policy but it is my personal view. 
While alcohol consumption is embedded in New Zealand culture and most people manage to drink without harming themselves or others the fact remains that the misuse of alcohol results in considerable health social and economic costs which are borne by individuals’ families and the wider community. A recent study of patients attending an emergency hospital department during December 2000 showed that 35 percent of injured patients reported having consumed alcohol prior to sustaining their injury. The risk of sustaining an injury was 2.8 times greater when alcohol was consumed. The number of publicly funded hospitalisations for 15 to 17-year-olds where the primary diagnosis was alcohol-related increased to 205 in the year 2000. For 18 to 19-year-olds the number of publicly funded hospitalisations where the primary diagnosis was alcohol-related showed an increasing trend from 55 in 1996 to 85 in 1999 and continued to increase to 114 in the year 2000. 
Affecting the price of alcoholic beverages has been identified internationally as one of the key ways to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed by young people and heavy drinkers. I repeat that internationally one of the key ways identified to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed by young people and heavy drinkers was to increase the price. Research shows that price is a powerful determinant of the amount of alcohol consumed by a population. Young people and heavy drinkers are particularly susceptible to the price of alcohol. Increasing the price of alcohol through an increase in excise duty should result in decreased consumption by young people and heavy drinkers. That is what this Labour-Progressive Government is interested in—a decrease in alcohol consumption by young people and heavy drinkers. 
This bill will change the excise duty regime so that alcoholic beverages in the 14 to 23 percent alcohol by volume range will be taxed according to their actual alcohol content rather than all being levied as though they contain 18 percent alcohol by volume. The changes also mean that the products will be taxed at a higher rate. That is the same rate that full-strength spirits are taxed at. That will mean— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: So you may as well buy whisky. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: If a person has the money he or she may and Mr Prebble may well do that. However young people of 14 17 and above will not. The changes also mean that the products will be taxed at the higher rate—the same rate as I say that full-strength spirits are taxed at. That will mean that young people will be less able to afford to buy as much alcohol as they currently do. Their $10 of pocket money will not be able to buy them as it currently does a bottle of gin. They will drink less alcohol get less drunk and cause less harm to themselves and to other New Zealanders. That is the view of the Government. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There are far too many interjections and a lot of them are in the second person. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Maybe the price of alcohol is too cheap already. The Government believes strongly that this measure will assist in reducing the level of drunkenness and the harm that alcohol causes to young New Zealanders. I recommend this bill to the House. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 It is telling is it not that the Government has sent clapped-out has-been Jim Anderton to introduce the bill? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can we have a little even-handedness? We made a few interjections when the Minister claimed that one could buy bottles of gin for $10 and we were told to be quiet. The Leader of the Opposition has hardly started to speak and he has been greeted with a barrage of statements that may be explained by the need for the bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will know full well that the first sentence from the member contained a very provocative statement which was answered by interjections. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Well it’s factual. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not warn the member again. Please be seated. I will not warn the member again that he should not make those sorts of interjections. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The question is where is the Minister whose name is on the bill? That is not Jim Anderton; it is Rick Barker. 
John Key 
: Who’s that? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am not sure who he is. However I do know that he knows that he does not want to be associated with what this bill will do to the spending habits of the young people of Tukituki from tomorrow morning onwards. He is a wise man to keep his name away from this bill although he is not wise about much else. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. First I do not think that it is appropriate for members to refer to members who are absent or to the reasons for that. The fact is that Mr Barker is overseas and I am the Acting Minister of Customs. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No please be seated. That is out of order. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have “Old Mr Crocodile Tears” telling us that—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will not make unparliamentary comments. He will keep within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This will come out of the member’s time. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Are points of order coming out of members’ time now? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: That is a new ruling is it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: All right let us make sure that they come out of Government members’ time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Right they will too. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have Mr Jim Anderton— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the Speaker wants to cut down the Opposition’s time there is nothing we can do about that. However I make this point. “Old Mr Crocodile Tears”—that is interesting. We have not been told whom the member was referring to. For all that we know he could have been— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. He knows full well that it referred to a member of the Government . 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Jim Anderton tells us that we are here at 10 to 9 at night because of car accidents house fires and birth defects. Of course he is wrong; we are not here because of those things. We are not here because of the effects of alcohol on young people. The Government has the choice of raising that issue at any time at any place. 
We are here purely because of the ego and vanity of Dr Michael Cullen who does not want his Budget tainted with this measure. That is why we are here. If the Government really wanted young people to get the message it would have announced this measure on the 6 o’clock news tonight. The Government would have been on all the radio stations throughout today and tomorrow telling young people to stop drinking these evil substances. But it did not and it will not. The Government brought this legislation in after the newspaper deadlines tonight because it wants to make sure no one notices it. That is deeply cynical. I resent Jim Anderton’s standing up in this House pretending that this bill is all about caring for young people because it is not. 
Dr Cullen’s Budget will be tainted anyway. 
John Key 
: And boring. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It will be boring because Dr Cullen has already dropped the Government’s growth goal of getting New Zealand into the top half of the OECD by 2011. He has already been dropped in it by the Prime Minister who has told him to find a solution to the electricity crisis—a solution that will manufacture the appearance of new generation in the next 2 weeks. He has big problems with the transport legislation as well as the electricity market. So his Budget is already tainted. This measure I have to say will not make any difference to that view. I invite the next Government speaker to tell us why this matter is so urgent that the House has been put under extraordinary urgency tonight and why it is so secret that I first saw it when the Minister came into the House and tabled it just before he stood to speak. Why is that? Why should we regard this bill as anything more than a cynical manipulation of the parliamentary process exploiting the vulnerability of young people? It is no more than that. 
The Government is getting into that habit more and more. Today this Parliament debated the Resource Management Amendment Bill (No 2). The Minister in charge of that bill has made public and parliamentary statements that were absolutely wrong about the content of that bill the extent of change and the opportunity for public debate. Why are we not having public debate about this bill? Will the brave Minister of Youth Affairs be standing up to speak for the right of young New Zealanders to make submissions on this bill? He will not because he is doing what he is told as he always does when it really matters. He is muzzled and is doing what Helen Clark tells him to do. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: The warrior! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The warrior the outspoken Minister of Youth Affairs! Or has he been going around the country for the last 6 months telling young people that the Government planned to raise the taxes on this sort of alcoholic drink? Is that what he was doing when he was being cool with the last group of young people he talked to? No he was not. 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: Once was a warrior! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes he once was a warrior. What about the rest of them? 
Rod Donald 
: Is the member for or against this bill? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We will vote against it because this is a total abuse of the process—absolutely! This is a cynical manipulation of the process. It is an abuse of the young people of New Zealand. The Government has made no case for putting this Parliament under extraordinary urgency for the first time in a number of years to discuss this bill tonight. The only reasons that this is happening are to beat the news deadlines and to keep this issue away from the Budget. Those are the only reasons. I invite some of those brave Government members to stand up and own up to that. 
If there is a problem with young people’s drinking why not go out and tell them to stop doing it? Why not raise the legal age of drinking from 18 and put it back to 20? That is the position I took at the time. Why are we not debating that matter tonight? We heard the Hon Jim Anderton earlier; he was dripping with sincerity. As Mike Moore said when one can fake sincerity one really gets to people. That is what we heard tonight. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: Oozing sincerity. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Oozing sincerity—is that not the name of one of those drinks? We will be opposing this bill because it is an abuse of the process. 
The Government does not deserve the $14 million this measure will raise. What will it use that money for? 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Maori television. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It will use it for more closing of the gaps more social policy seminars more social scientists’ conferences more hui more meetings more regional development and more Sovereign Yachts projects. This bill is just the start of that. Let us wait until we get the 5 percent levy on gaming machines which will be more income for this politically correct Government which cannot leave anything alone. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call Judy Turner. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to raise this matter so long after the incident occurred but given your ruling that you would take any time off the person who was speaking I now wish to raise the matter of the offensive comments that the senior Government whip was yelling out. I do not intend to repeat them— 
Opposition Members 
: He’s on his cellphone. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: He is allowed to do so; there are totally different rules for the Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Points of order will be heard in silence. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Well we will raise the cellphone issue later. The senior Government whip was most offensive. He can laugh about it but I took offence. I think your ruling has meant that now we have to stack these things up until the end of a speech. I regret that but I believe that the senior Government whip should be required to apologise for those comments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the senior Government whip if he made comments that were offensive to withdraw and apologise. 
David Benson-Pope 
: I do not believe they were offensive but I am prepared to withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will either withdraw and apologise— 
David Benson-Pope 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to draw it to your attention that at the time when the Hon. Roger Sowry was taking his point of order the senior Government whip was in conversation on his cellphone in the House. That is a total breach of the Standing Orders and once again it shows his contempt for this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I were to rule out everybody who was on a phone at any time in this House it would involve a lot of people but I just say that I deplore that practice and whenever it is raised I will rule against the person so concerned. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Rule it out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have ruled it out—right now. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek clarification of just where your ruling leaves us. The impression members now have is that although you deplore the use of cellphones in the Chamber you have not actually ruled out that practice. You referred to phones in general; well there are phones in the Chamber. For the whole time that I have been a member it has been permissible for those phones to be used but it has never been permissible for cellphones to be used. I ask you to make it clear to the House whether the use of cellphones is or is not permitted. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I make it absolutely clear that it is not permitted. The use of the phones attached to members’ desks is permitted. I call Judy Turner. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (NZ National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Since you first awarded the call to Judy Turner from United Future there have been several points of order and I want to clarify that in terms of your earlier ruling that time will come off her speaking time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it will not because she has not started her speech. 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I could reflect on the ruling you made in Mr English’s speech that you would take time off his speech for points of order and in particular I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 16/2 which states: “A point of order must be brought up at the time it occurs …”. I wonder whether it would be possible to bring up a point of order at the time it occurs if that time is to come off the member’s speaking time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If I think the member has provoked a point of order then I will do that. On reflection I think the Leader of the Opposition was correct and I was in error when I did what I did. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 Price is a hugely important factor in the decision to buy alcohol particularly for young people on limited pocket money - style income. When a young person can purchase a 750 ml bottle of spirits that is 23 percent alcohol—that is 1 percent below the taxable band—for the same price as a meal in McDonald’s then we have a recipe for disaster. Risk behaviour among adolescents regarding alcohol is well documented. At a time of life when experimentation is at a premium—whether for social status amongst peers escapism or rebellion—it is an unwise nation that does not take every step to protect young people from themselves. Almost one-third of 14 to 17-year-olds are drinking weekly according to the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) report of 2001. Sixty-seven percent of underage teenagers reported being drunk on at least one occasion in the previous 3 months. 
Price influences not only which brand people buy and where they buy it but also the total amount purchased. Taxation which is the Government’s tool for manipulating price should form an integral part of any policy to reduce alcohol-related harm. Internationally pricing policy is recognised as one of the most effective tools in reducing alcohol-related harm. ALAC maintains that by raising the cost of alcohol we do reduce consumption. 
The ongoing lesson that this legislation should teach us is that whenever we further liberalise—as we have done by lowering the drinking age—we need to legislate to compensate to prevent unacceptable advantage being taken. Whether or not individual members agree that 18 is an appropriate age for the consumption of alcohol we now have to acknowledge that that age group whose members still have social contact with high schools has helped supply those same underage drinkers with cheap and dangerously high concentrations of alcohol. 
Although harm minimisation has some merit United Future has ongoing concerns about those young people for whom harm minimisation will not be sufficient to prevent them from deteriorating into addiction. Moderation is not the answer for everyone. We must remember that pricing is only one strategy and initiatives to research the effects of alcohol advertising in all its forms to ascertain its impact on teenage drinking trends need to be worked through. United Future believes that in recent times young people have been directly targeted by the alcohol industry in ways not previously seen. 
Parent education is a vital strategy for combating teenage binge drinking. ALAC confirms that parents are the key facilitators of the supply of alcohol to teenagers. Twenty percent of the 14 to 17-year-old teenagers surveyed admitted that their parents bought them alcohol to take to parties or gave them money with which to purchase it for themselves. 
This bill is the Government’s response to a developing situation that will reduce the availability of high - alcohol content products and United Future will be supporting it. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 What a time to be introducing Budget legislation! What is so important about this legislation that it could not have been introduced next Thursday night? I believe that this particular Government is trying somehow to spin this bill through the system tonight rather than face up to its responsibilities. The Minister of Finance by not putting this legislation through next Thursday is not facing up to his responsibilities. Next Thursday he will say: “There was no rushed legislation as a result of my Budget.” The fact that he had already done all of it will perhaps escape some members of the public. 
The real problem with this legislation is that the last Labour Government allowed the reduction of the drinking age; that is really what this legislation is all about. Those Labour members of Parliament who were in the House last time are responsible for the fact that 14 to 17-year-olds are now drinking high-spirit alcohol. The last Labour Government had the opportunity to increase the drinking age and never did so. 
I say that if Labour were really concerned about the situation in the last 4 years it would have done something to increase the drinking age. All that it is doing under the guise of pretending to help young people is increase the taxes that young people will pay. It is very clear that this legislation will increase taxes by $18 million. I am not sure whether the Hon Jim Anderton made that point; is he aware that that is the case? I think he said so but I am not absolutely sure because of the way in which he rattled through the speech which appeared to have been written for Mr Rick Barker. Another $18 million will go into the coffers of the Government as a result of this legislation. It may be that $4 million will go back as a result of consumer price index adjustments but at the very least the Government will gain $14 million. 
Given that this measure is aimed at young people this Government will gain $14 million only if young people go out and spend their money. So under this Government we will still see young people drink alcohol with a high spirit content and this Government will make money out of it. This Government will make money out of young people who will be drinking the same amount of alcohol as they were drinking before but will be paying $18 million more in taxes. Is the Government denying that customs and excise taxes will go up by $18 million? There will be $18 million more from young people’s misery as a result of this Government’s legislation. There is no way that the Government can run away from that. If it wants to do anything about the problem of 14 to 17-year-olds drinking more it should support Ron Mark’s legislation to increase the drinking age and should take immediate action to put it on the Order Paper. 
The Government is really being very very cynical in this legislation. The member for United Future believes that the pricing of alcohol will affect how much young people drink but that is not the case. They will go out on Saturday Friday and Thursday nights and they will drink the same amount as usual. They have got money to spend and no responsibilities. Young people will go out and spend money on this alcohol. It will not be just 14 15 16 and 17-year-olds who do that; those who are over 20 will also spend their money on this alcohol. They will pay the same amount and they will pay it to the Minister of Finance. He will make money out of the misery of young people and United Future in supporting this legislation supports that misery. Judy Turner can smile as much as she likes but that is the fact of the matter. The Government will not make $18 million out of this legislation if young people are drinking less; it will make $18 million because young people will drink around the same amount if not more depending upon how they feel on the day. The Government will make 18 million dollars’ worth of misery. 
The other people who will suffer under this bill are the older people. We all know that on a cold winter’s night—and we will have a few cold winter nights—there is nothing better than tucking up with one’s half-g one’s flagon of sherry or port. People will need it under this Labour Government especially those in the South Island in seats like Waimakariri Invercargill and Otago. Those old people will be thumped by this Labour Government because the price of port and sherry will go up as a result of some effort by the Hon Mr Anderton to reduce the amount of alcohol being drunk by young people. Older people will suffer under this legislation. They will have to pay more for their port and sherry and does Labour care? What joys in life do people have when they get to 70 75 or 80? 
Simon Power 
: You can’t smoke under this Government. 
DAIL JONES 
: People cannot smoke. If someone is 75 or 80 what is better than a nice port or sherry of a night afternoon or morning? As we know this Labour Government changed the rules on drinking and it is now illegal to go to a shop and buy a half-g of sherry to take away. Has Labour changed the regulations that it introduced at the end of last year? As a result of those regulations it is a criminal offence for a person to take away a half-g of port or sherry from the off-licence. Those regulations made criminals of our older people and now the Government is making it very very difficult for them to enjoy their port and their sherry which as a result of Labour’s failed energy policies they need to keep them warm 
What sort of Government do we have? Where is Labour going? This is Nordmeyer’s “black” Budget come early for those people. Nowadays under this Labour Government those people suffer throughout the year. Not only on Budget night but prior to Budget night these Labour Party members of Parliament supported by United Future and I think the Greens want to hit the elderly people who can only occasionally enjoy a port and sherry to keep them going during the day the afternoon and the night as they are entitled to do. They have worked for New Zealand and they have probably supported this Labour Party for many many years. Now this is their reward. They are being kicked in the teeth by the Labour Party just as they come to the time of their life when they want to keep warm. They cannot turn on their heaters any more because of the energy crisis. They want to have a quiet drink but now they cannot. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: It’s embarrassing listening to this speech. 
DAIL JONES 
: It may be embarrassing but that member will be listening to such speeches for a long time tonight because the Opposition in this House will make sure that Labour realises and the young people of New Zealand realise that they are being hit by Labour with yet another $18 million tax. How many taxes have we seen in the short space of time since the last Government? I am pretty sure that at the last election. Labour had credit cards and all sorts of things that said there would be no more taxes but here we go. This is a tax before the Budget. I think that must be some sort of record for most political parties. We are getting the type of tax that one would expect on Budget night more than a week before Budget night. 
The young people of New Zealand will be told that the reason the price of these drinks went up was that Labour increased the price. I support anything that will make young people drink responsibly but the main thing that would make them do that would be to increase the age at which they are entitled to get alcohol. The fact that they can get it at ages 14 to 17 now is because the legal age is 18. If we put the legal age back up to 20 as New Zealand First wants to see happen—and we get no support from Labour on that—young people would start drinking when they were closer to that age. 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 In response to Mr Jones who has just resumed his seat I want to say right at the start that I did not vote to lower the drinking age. 
This bill is important because so many times we hear speeches in this House based on moral outrage and fundamentalism. I ask members here tonight to consider the really important aspect of this bill: our young people. Let us not worry about party politics. Let us not focus on one side of the House attacking the other. If we sincerely care about our young people let us take stock and act in a sincere way. So many of us get up with mock moral outrage and say that we worry about the youth of New Zealand. Tonight we have the opportunity to do something about that. 
Let us think about what this bill really is about. Members might say that it is just about money but I suggest that it is not. The facts speak for themselves. Price is the principal determinant of how much people drink and what kind of alcohol they drink. If that is not the case how come people buy “Chateau Cardboard” when they would much prefer a finer wine usually found in a bottle? I use that example because people prefer to drink more expensive alcohol but cannot always afford to. 
I also say to members opposite that in this country the number of publicly funded hospitalisations of 18 to 19-year-olds where the primary diagnosis was alcohol-related has shown an increasing trend from 55 in 1996 to 85 in 1999 to 114 in 2000. I suggest to members that they should stop and consider what this bill is about instead of resorting to cheap tactics such as attacking each other and consider what they can do to assist young people in New Zealand. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 The member has told us that because 59 young people have been admitted to hospital the Government is raising an $18 million tax. That is pretty extraordinary. That is an amazing statement and leap of logic. 
Let us understand what this bill that we are debating under extraordinary urgency is about. Interestingly enough the last time we had extraordinary urgency was when the Government broke its promise to its voters and put up tobacco tax. It did it in exactly the same way. It did not want to muck up its Budget night so it took extraordinary urgency to put up tax on cigarettes. Now it has decided to hit the working man’s liquor as well. The House should understand because Government members opposite have not— 
Simon Power 
: Ice cream. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Ice cream as well! But let us look at what the bill actually does. At the moment Parliament has a different rate of excise duty on alcohol. The cut-off point is 23 percent proof. If a product has less than 23 percent proof alcohol the tax is only $21.99. If it is above 23 percent proof it is $39. People ask why that is. Parliament used to think it was a pretty good idea to discourage young people from drinking hard liquor so there was a differential: a lesser volume of alcohol attracted a lower tax. In an extraordinary leap of logic the Government has now told us that by increasing the tax on the lower-alcohol product we are somehow stopping young people from drinking hard liquor. I would like the next speaker to explain that to me again. How is it that increasing tax on the low-alcohol product stops people from deciding to drink? I think that the example the Minister used was gin. 
Hon Member 
: That’s $37. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: That is $37 to $38 thank you very much. Apparently the Minister who is in charge does not know that. 
That is the first point. The next is that the Government says it has some evidence. That is interesting because I was waiting to hear it. The Government paid $1 million of taxpayers’ money for a review of taxation called the McLeod tax report. I know that when the Minister got it he threw it across the room and said: “I paid $1 million just to be told that ACT’s policies are best!” If he had read on he would have seen what was said about excise duty. Members opposite should understand this: the McLeod report raised the issues asked for submissions from the public the Ministry of Health and from everyone else and then had a look. Did the McLeod tax report say that excise duty on alcohol should be increased? Did any members opposite read it? Perhaps they did not. Let me tell them what that report did state: “we concluded that excise taxes were difficult to justify on either tax efficiency or tax equity grounds.” Then it stated: “We believe that the levels of alcohol excise that could be justified on externality grounds”—the grounds that the previous member was using—“are likely to be well below those currently applied in New Zealand.” The Government’s own review said that we cannot justify the present levels of tax on the sorts of grounds that members opposite are referring to. 
They actually held a proper review and they also brought it home to everyone what this is really all about. These taxes as a whole—and this was back in 2001—raised $2.8 billion. Now it is over $3 billion. That is a lot of money. The report also pointed out that excise duties were the only major revenue taxes not reformed in the last 20 years. In respect of the Government’s taxing policies it said the area lacked firm policy foundations and excise duties were difficult to defend. It went on to talk about policy rationales being consistent with generally accepted tax policy frameworks and stated that if health costs were to be selectively recovered from drinkers what about all the other areas? The Government bleeds—and I say it is crocodile tears—about 59 young people being admitted to hospital for alcohol abuse. I ask the Minister how many young people have been admitted for drug offences. How many young people have been admitted for P? How many people have been admitted— 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: The Government has just reclassified P. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member says the Government has just reclassified P. It only took 4 years and insistence from the Opposition! Actually the Government has not reclassified it because the legislation has not gone through the House yet and the Greens voted against it. I would be interested to see that. I imagine the Greens will vote for this tax but they are prepared to defend marijuana. 
The Government’s own review states that there are inconsistencies but then—which I thought was very interesting—it quoted the Ministry of Health’s report. Did the Ministry of Health say that the tax should be raised on medium-range low-alcohol products? Did it tell that to the people who wrote the McLeod report? No it did not. What it said was that there might be a case for high-alcohol products. High-alcohol products—gin whiskey and other things that members of Parliament have been known to be fond of—have not had their tax rates altered. The tax rates that are being altered are those of the alcopops. No member of Parliament drinks alcopops! The Government is taxing that group but is the Bellamy’s whiskey that members of Parliament are quite fond of going up in price? No it is not. Did the Ministry of Health say that we should increase the tax on moderate-alcohol products? No it did not. It said we should increase the tax on high-alcohol products. 
When the McLeod report used the term externalities it was stating that it could not justify the cost of alcohol to the community. It stated that the present levels of excise cannot be justified. Members opposite have not yet addressed any of the McLeod report decisions in this debate. They appointed that committee set the terms of reference got members of the public and experts to turn up in front of it and paid $1 million for it. Now we are told that the present level of tax cannot be justified. Indeed the report went on to say that on externality grounds the proper tax is likely to well below those currently applied in New Zealand. 
What we really have is a Government that is a master of introducing stealth taxes. Under this Government the total tax take in New Zealand has gone up $9 billion—from $34 billion per year to $43 billion per year. No Government in history has increased tax that much; this Government is completely shameless. I guess it thought we had lost all its “credit cards”. No increase in tax! That is what Government members campaigned on but it has increased tax by $9 billion. Why are we doing this tonight? Where is the credibility in the idea that young people will roar out and buy crates of alcopops? What a load of rubbish! The Government is doing it because it does not want this legislation to muck up its Budget night. It wants the bad news out early. 
I ask members opposite where it says on the bottle that this tax will apply only to young people. The cost of the sherry that the elderly drink is going up. Port is going up. This is a shameless attempt by the Government to collect even more tax and to then try to justify it on some pseudo-moralistic grounds. The McLeod tax report stated that present levels of tax were not justified and I would like the next Government member who speaks to address that report. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I will respond directly to the Hon Richard Prebble who spent most of his time talking about the McLeod tax review as though the sole purpose of the Government in introducing this legislation was simply to raise taxes. That is not the case at all. The Government is not doing that as a revenue-grabbing— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would be happy to listen to the member’s reply but there is some sort of dreadful ringing in his microphone. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I accept that. 
DARREN HUGHES 
: The Government’s approach is actually about minimising the harm that that kind of alcohol causes. More and more people are starting to drink the sort of drink that has a lower alcohol content and it is causing a real problem. Young people used to buy a six-pack of beer. Now with the same amount of money they are able to buy spirits so migrating straight on to harder liquor that is not good for them at all. As those higher prices kick in the Government believes that fewer younger people will be accessing the product and therefore revenue from those products will fall. It is actually a harm minimisation approach. 
It is true that young people are now getting access to this kind of alcohol. It is not good for them and that is why the Government is taking a very clear approach to it. More than that we know that young people are very price-sensitive to alcohol so we are sending that message. That is absolutely the truth. Older members laugh but it is true that in the bigger alcohol stores one can buy much harder alcohol than previously at very low prices. I challenge members to go and look at the kind of alcohol young people can get for the same amount of money they might have paid for a six-pack when they were younger. It is a very real concern. I do not agree with the Hon Richard Prebble that it is a tax grab. I believe that it is Parliament sending a very clear and responsible message to young people about alcohol and that is why I am supporting the first reading of the bill. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I think Richard Prebble has been reading the wrong report. This issue is about consumption of alcohol. Yes there is a revenue component to it but the report he should have been reading is the one that Brian Easton prepared for the Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council  
Taxing Harm: Modernising Alcohol Excise Duties 
 because that is clearly the report— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: What date was that? 
ROD DONALD 
: It was November 2002. That report is clearly the basis for the Government’s decision to change the excise duties on so-called “light spirits”. 
Bill English must be suffering from amnesia because once upon a time he was in Government and he knows that governments always increase excise tax under extraordinary urgency. The memory must be fading for him but the question I ask National ACT and New Zealand First is why are they voting against this bill? Do they not care about young people? Are those parties not concerned about unscrupulous operators who are peddling cheap booze to teenagers? Parents up and down New Zealand will not thank National ACT and New Zealand First for trying to block the Government’s efforts to close that loophole in New Zealand’s excise tax laws. 
The Greens support this bill for a number of reasons. Despite what some interjectors are suggesting our alcohol and drug polices focus on minimising the harm caused by those substances. We want to reduce the influence of alcohol in our society and reduce individuals’ alcohol abuse. We believe that this bill is an important step in that direction. That is because so-called “light spirits”—watered down ethyl alcohol or some other flavoured alcohol containing small amounts of sweetener—have been deliberately designed to benefit from anomalies in the tax system. They have been deliberately marketed to young people—not just those under 18 but those over 18 as well—and to heavy drinkers. According to one source— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: ALAC. 
ROD DONALD 
: No not ALAC; it was probably one of your friends—the Distilled Spirits Association of New Zealand. According to that source over 1.2—[ 
Interruption 
] I am glad Mr Prebble confirmed that—over 1.2 million bottles of this stuff are being drunk each year. That is because for the price of a 750ml bottle of wine with an alcohol content of under 14 percent one can buy 1.125 litres of 23 percent proof pseudo-vodka or gin. This bill will almost triple the price of that product from around $9 to around $27. 
The Government expects to receive an extra $14 million from this tax increase. Quite frankly we hope it does not because we hope consumption will drop. From the Green Party’s point of view the whole point of supporting this legislation is that the increase will provide a price deterrent to young people in particular and to heavy drinkers and that consumption of light spirits and other alcoholic drinks within that 14 to 23 percent range will drop. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Cannabis consumption will go up. 
ROD DONALD 
: No I do not think that cannabis consumption will go up. I do not think it will have any bearing on cannabis consumption and until we have some sensible cannabis laws we will not get cannabis consumption down either. But that is another debate for another day. 
If the Government receives more money from this excise tax we urge it to provide more funding and support for community-based treatment services for alcohol addiction and more funding and support for youth groups to provide clear education on the responsible use of alcohol. I hope members like Mr Mark would agree with that. 
Ron Mark 
: They closed Queen Mary didn’t they? 
ROD DONALD 
: That is something that needs to be addressed as well. But that should not be the end of the story. We would like to see the Government go even further and tackle what the booze barons are getting away with—the insidious pre-mix alcoholic drinks known as ready-to-drinks and the fruit-flavoured alcopops. It is not enough to justify this legislation just in terms of trying to reduce consumption of so-called light spirits. I acknowledge that that is outside the scope of this bill but the Government needs to tackle those other beverages because they are also contributing to alcohol dependence and addiction problems amongst our young people. We hope the Government tackles those issues. We also hope that the Government tackles the anomalies in the cannabis legislation and catches up with what is happening in Europe in particular where common-sense law changes are under way to reduce harm. That is the focus of our policies on drug and alcohol—to reduce harm and in the case of cannabis to reinforce that it is a health issue not a police issue. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (NZ National—Rodney) 
: 
 I would like the House to reflect on these words: “Smokers and drinkers need not fear sharp increases in tobacco and alcohol prices during the next 3 years.” 
Simon Power 
: Who said that? 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Those were the words of the Minister of Finance Michael Cullen. Do members know when he said those words? He said them just prior to the election last year. He told New Zealanders that smokers and drinkers need not fear sharp increases in tobacco and alcohol prices during the next 3 years. Some colleagues are calling out “Pinocchio!”. 
It is interesting to reflect that Dr Michael Cullen is nowhere to be seen. We know he is around because he briefed members on this legislation earlier on. But Dr Cullen knows that just before the election last year he promised New Zealanders that there would be no sharp increases in alcohol prices. Taking the tax on sherry from $21 a litre of alcohol to $39 a litre of alcohol is damn near a 100 percent increase. Now I do not want to be picky but I would suggest that a damn-near 100 percent increase is a sharp increase in the price of alcohol. That is why Dr Cullen got the expendable Minister to introduce this bill into the Parliament. We know that the Hon Jim Anderton is sort of in his swansong period now. Everyone knows that he is on the way out and that he is expendable. 
The vanity of Dr Cullen! He does not want his Budget contaminated by the deceit. He promised prior to the election that there would be no sharp increase in alcohol prices and this tawdry little bill doubles the tax on a whole range of alcoholic beverages in this country. 
A lot of older folk go to bed reasonably early— 
Dr Lynda Scott 
: They have to—to keep warm. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Yes one of my colleagues reminds me that older folk have to go to bed early to keep warm. When they wake up tomorrow morning they will face a bleak winter. We know that older folk will get cold this winter because of the hopeless ineptness of this Labour Government in managing electricity supplies in this country. Its policies in stopping electricity generation are just a disgrace. We know that when older folk go to the Returned Services Association they will not be allowed to have a cigarette because of this miserable nasty Government. 
When they go to buy their sherry or port the old folk of this country—one would think Labour might care a bit about their comforts in their senior years—will now pay a 100 percent increase in the tax on their sherry. I am told that that is around about $4 a bottle. Now to people like Dr Cullen Clayton Cosgrove or John Tamihere an increase of $4 a bottle for sherry might not be a lot of money. But for people dependent on their superannuation—the older retired folk—$4 is real money. Our older retired folk will wake up tomorrow morning to a bleak winter a cold winter and a future where they cannot have a cigarette at the Returned Services Association. When they buy their bottle of sherry or port they will have to pay twice as much tax. 
When Jim Anderton spoke on this legislation and I think also the young guy from north of Wellington Mr Hughes—the “cocopop kid”—one of the arguments we heard was that this legislation was aimed at harm minimisation. Can they not see the paradox in what they are arguing? The Government doubles the tax rate on these alcopops sherry and port—not to mention some of our fine wines—and claims that will stop people buying the drinks yet it budgets for $18 million more tax. How will a Government gain of $18 million more tax revenue reduce consumption of those drinks? It is an unashamed tax grab. It is tax grab at the expense of our older folk and our younger folk. Government members are so naive if they think that this tax will stop young people drinking. 
Jim Anderton said that young folk buy these drinks out of their pocket money. Jim Anderton should get real and get back in touch with where young people are at. Research shows us that alcohol for young people is often bought by their parents families and friends. It is not bought out of their pocket money. All that will happen is that it will cost mum and dad a bit more when they buy the alcohol for their young people. Anyone who thinks that young people buy these drinks out of their pocket money and that this tax will stop them buying alcohol is simply so old and out of touch that they should get out of Parliament before they make bigger fools of themselves. 
No wonder Dr Cullen is nowhere to be seen. How close was it to the election that Dr Cullen made the promise? When was the election? 
Opposition Member 
: In July. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: Which day in July? 
Opposition Member 
: It was 27 July. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: He made the promise on 9 July. On 9 July last year Dr Cullen promised that drinkers need not fear sharp increases in alcohol prices and he has doubled the tax. 
One has to ask oneself what the Government will spend this $18 million on. I worry that it will spend more of it on that flagship policy closing the gaps. The Government will spend more money on Maori television but it will also spend some it on the new Boeing 757 for Prime Minister Helen Clark to fly to more world capitals to embarrass New Zealand as she lobbies for her new position at the United Nations. The Government will spend the money on all sorts of worthless things. Older folk in New Zealand—our retired folk and our respected senior citizens—will pay for it. Every time they buy a bottle of port or sherry they will pay another $4 towards Helen Clark’s overseas extravaganzas. To think that this tax will stop young people drinking alcopops shows how deluded and out of touch this Government is. 
Labour has been in office only 3 years— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Alcopops are not covered. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH 
: My colleague says that alcopops are not covered. One wonders what the Government will achieve. The Government will hit some high-quality New Zealand table wines that are over 14 percent alcohol. This Labour Government will double the tax on some of our finest table wines tonight and it thinks that is good for New Zealand. It is crass stupidity. Members opposite should be upfront and honest. It is a tax grab it breaks a faithful pre-election promise by Dr Michael Cullen and it will not do anything to stop young people drinking alcohol. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I rise to support the bill. To reflect on Bill English’s speech at the start of this debate I had hoped that the National Party’s speechwriters would bring him down a speech. What are the real issues that the National Party seems to neglect? All the evidence shows that young people and heavy drinkers are particularly susceptible to the price of alcohol. So an increase in the price of that alcohol through an increase in excise duty should result in decreased consumption by young people and heavy drinkers. What are the facts which the Opposition spokesperson on health should know? Those are the facts. 
One does not need to be a rocket scientist to know that the drinking habits of young people are causing great concern. It was a rather stupid move by the previous Parliament to lower the drinking age to 18. Recent surveys have shown an increase in the level of heavy drinking amongst young people. Survey data show that the proportion of young women aged 14 to 17 years who drink four drinks or more in one sitting at least once a week has increased from 15 percent in 1998 to 28 percent in 2001. In addition to an increase in heavy drinking in young women survey data show that there has also been an increase in the proportion of young men who are drinking excessively. 
This bill is part of saving lives. It is all very well for the Opposition to have a bit of an outing. Opposition members love extraordinary urgency. It gives them a bit of an outing exercises the lungs and gives them a bit of a laugh. But this issue is no laughing matter. We are doing everything that we can to try to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed by young people. If price is a lever to reduce that consumption then so be it. It is all very well for members on the Opposition side of the Chamber to make opportunistic speeches. The survey also showed that 58 percent of young men aged 14 to 17 years and 51 percent of young women aged 14 to 17 years reported drinking enough to feel drunk at least once a month. Members of the Opposition should look at what is happening on our roads. What is the No. 1 drug-abuse problem in this country? It is alcohol. 
I commend the Government for taking this action tonight. This is well researched and well-thought-out. It is but one of the many measures being taken to help our young people who are not helped by the Opposition and were not helped by the previous Parliament when it reduced the drinking age. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (NZ National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 What a sanctimonious speech that was if ever I heard one. If this Government was actually planning to do something about alcohol consumption that would be good but it seems to have missed one very important point. Everyone over there on the Government benches has missed one very important point—that is the ready-to-drink alcopops have 5 to 7 percent alcohol by volume in them and are not captured by this bill that is being rushed through the House under extraordinary urgency. We have heard those sanctimonious speeches about doing something about youth drinking but those drinks are not covered. I hope that somebody on the Government side of the House will realise that and get up and give another speech about the fact that young people will not be captured under this measure. It will do nothing about the alcopops that are so easy for young people to drink. All that this bill is is a tax grab. 
This legislation will affect sherries and ports. Exactly how many young people drink sherry and port? I do not think there are very many. The ones that I know do not drink sherry and port. Who does drink sherry and port? Older people do that. They are the ones who will be caught by this tax grab which sees a 100 percent increase in duty on any drink that has from 14 to 23 percent of alcohol by volume in it. Something else will be captured that some of us rather like with desert at night: late-harvest wines. Do young people drink them? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Mine do! 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: I do not think a lot of them drink such wines either. Young people do not drink sherry port or very expensive late-harvest wines. Only Mr Mallard says that his children drink late-harvest wines. They will be caught by this bill that is being rushed through tonight under extraordinary urgency. We have heard about the kids. Yet the kids who are drinking too much alcohol will not be caught by this legislation. It is just a sham—an absolute sham. This Government has closed Queen Mary Hospital’s youth programme for the kids who have the very worst alcohol and drug addiction problems. It has cut that programme in my electorate; it does not care about youth drinking. 
Brian Connell 
: Who did that? 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: The Labour Government that says it cares so much about youth drinking did that. The mental health report shows that we have a major lack of youth programmes in this country. What has the Government done about that? Nothing. But tonight under extraordinary urgency the Government tries to sell this bill which is simply and utterly an $18 million tax grab wrapped up in political spin that says it wants to do something about youth drinking. 
We all want to do something about youth drinking but this bill will not do that. It totally and utterly misses the mark and is just a sham. Kids are not dumb; they are not stupid. If they are so price sensitive they will just buy the alcohol—the gin and the vodka—and the Fanta and the Coke and mix the drinks themselves. Young people would do that if ready-to-drink drinks were captured by this bill but they are not so they will not have to bother. We can forget about all that. Young people will just not have to bother mixing their drinks themselves. If the Government did want to do something about youth drinking the ready-mixed drinks are what it should have targeted. 
Yes we certainly do need to try to change New Zealand’s culture of binge drinking—absolutely! I would be the first person to agree with that. I have been in accident and emergency departments stitching up the kids who come in from car accidents. I have been on the front line so I know what it is like and I would like to do something about that. But this bill does absolutely nothing. It is all the older people who like a little bit of sherry or port who will be unable to have a drink. It will be an extra cost for them. As they tuck up cold in bed because of the power crisis—a power crisis that will cause blackouts and the Government has done nothing about that—they will wrap up in their blankets and they might like to have a little bit of sherry or port just to warm them up on the inside. But what will happen? They will all have to pay a whole lot more for that. It will be a cold winter for the older people of this country and they will not even be able to have an enjoyable port or sherry because this Government has increased the excise duty not on the things that the kids drink but on the things that older people drink—the sherries the ports and the late-harvest Rieslings. 
Our wine industry will not be very happy about that. I represent the Kaikoura electorate—that is Marlborough and Waipara. Those areas have absolutely fabulous stunning wine and they will not be happy that this Government has doubled the excise duty tonight on wines that happen to just creep over that 14 percent alcohol by volume mark raising the duty from $21 to $39 per litre. Some of those wines are late-harvest Rieslings too. Those areas will not be happy with this Government. We will have to have a serious look at that. 
We heard back then—when was it? Here we are; that is right. It was actually in May 2001 that Dr Cullen introduced the tobacco excise. That is funny—it happens to be May again just before Budget time. Well fancy that! When Dr Cullen said before the election last year—after the tobacco excise duty was increased in May 2001—that it was most unlikely there would be any increase in tobacco or alcohol excise we did not think we would see this measure tonight. But here we are with another broken promise because another tax is being introduced in May. And why are we doing it at the beginning of May I wonder? Maybe it has something to do with the Budget. I think it may just be that Dr Cullen does not want his Budget to be sullied with something that is as unpleasant as this bill that we are debating here under extraordinary urgency tonight. But here we are with this bill being rushed in. 
Now if we were to do something about young people and their drinking why are we debating this bill now? Why did we not have this debate earlier in the day when we could have actually got some really good publicity about what we should do in this country about youth drinking? We could have got that publicity in the papers. It is very very important to try to get free publicity out there in order to try to convince kids that binge drinking is extremely bad for them that we do need to have a much more responsible approach to alcohol and alcohol consumption and that there is nothing great about getting oneself absolutely drunk on a Saturday night—that it is not a great thing to do because it leads to all sorts of negative consequences. We could have publicised that if we had had this debate at a time when we had cameras and some media interest and that would have been really good. But no that did not happen. We were told about the urgency at 9 p.m. tonight and we did not get the bill until 8.30 tonight. 
We are rushing this bill through under extraordinary urgency simply and utterly so that Dr Cullen’s Budget will not be sullied by something as unpleasant as this $18 million tax grab. I would really like to do something about the alcohol consumption of New Zealanders but this bill does not do it. That group on the Government side of the House has not even got it right. The ready-to-drink alcopops have 5 to 7 percent alcohol by volume and they are not covered by this bill. 
STEVE CHADWICK (NZ Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand up and speak to this bill and I am appalled at the member on the opposite side of the House. That member is the Opposition spokesperson on health and did she really show any care about the health effects of alcohol drinking across the board in this country? That member repeated the rhetoric of National’s leader who came into the House and treated this issue with mirth and hilarity. He is a former health Minister and I am simply appalled at that attitude. 
I support this bill and I think we need to be very careful. We did not miss the point about the percentage of alcohol by volume that is covered by the bill. As the mother of three young people I have lived through the very difficult challenges posed by young people who are certainly price sensitive in their drinking behaviour. Let me inform the members of the Opposition that I am very aware of the way that children club together in order to buy drinks such as heavy spirits—the heavy spirits covered by this bill such as vodka gin and whisky. They all drink whatever comes before them and they are very price sensitive about it. As a mother I speak from experience on that one. 
I support the Hon Jim Anderton in his approach here in this bill and I am simply appalled at the attitude of the Opposition which has treated this measure with mirth. This excise tax is only one string in the bow of a public health approach to harm minimisation and that is what the Opposition seems to have failed to understand. In that bow of harm minimisation is the string of education and certainly the money taken under this measure will go towards education in the school health curriculum. I thank the Greens for their support for putting more money into drug and alcohol education and I also thank the alcohol industry which has worked with us responsibly to come up with a health and education strategy. The industry has put a lot of work into that for us and I am pleased about that. We are also concerned about advertising on television because we need to watch very carefully to make sure that the advertising does not make alcohol seem so alluring to young people that they decide it is a sexy thing to get drunk. 
I want to discuss the drinking age a little bit. I must point out to the Opposition member Mr Jones that the lowering of the drinking age was not done by this Government. It was done when National was in power. The folly of that decision was that we should not have brought in a change in the drinking age overnight without having a staged implementation—without signposting that that was to be done in 2 years’ time and having upfront drug and alcohol education. That was not done. That is what ought to be done in a public health harm minimisation strategy. 
I also want to refer to the Opposition members who opposed the labelling of alcohol. They showed no care for foetal alcohol syndrome at all. They said labelling was just another cost to the industry and they did not support it. I think that labelling is another intrinsic and important arm of public health education. 
I also want to thank the territorial authorities that get behind us with their liquor bans on the streets because the minimisation of the harm caused by excessive drinking in this country is a community approach that needs to be supported by local government public health education school-based education and what we can do as legislators. The excise tax in this customs bill will give us an extra opportunity in that regard. The Opposition is not surprised that we are here tonight—not at all. We are not rushing this bill through. We will talk this issue through all night long if that is how long it takes. If that is what the Opposition needs in order to understand about public health and harm minimisation approaches then I am prepared to talk the issue through all night long and not to rush this bill through. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 68 
Noes 46 
Bill read a first time. 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 7; Progressive 2 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Second Reading 
Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister of Customs 
: I move  
That the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The purpose of this bill is to align the excise duty on alcoholic beverages with between 14 percent and 23 percent alcohol by volume with the duty that is levied on products with greater than 23 percent alcohol by volume and to increase the rates of excise in line with the movement in the consumer price index. The provisions that relate to beverages containing more than 14 percent and less than 23 percent alcohol by volume will come into force on the date that the bill receives the royal assent. The rest of the clauses those relating to the consumer price index adjustment and consequential amendments will come into force on 1 June 2003. 
Although most people use alcohol without harming themselves or others the fact remains that the misuse of alcohol results in considerable health social and economic costs which are borne by individuals families and the wider community. Minimising the harm caused by alcohol and illicit and other drug use to both individuals and the community is a key priority for this Labour-Progressive Government. We are using strategies of supply control demand reduction and problem limitation to achieve our aim of harm minimisation. 
The Alcohol Advisory Council of New Zealand commissioned economist Brian Easton to produce a report on the current excise regime for alcohol. Amongst other things the Easton report recommended that the excise duty on light spirits be increased. The effect of an increase in the excise duty is to increase the price of alcohol on which it is levied. The effect of an increase in the price of alcohol particularly where young people are involved is some reduction in alcohol consumption. This is clearly evidenced in all the best research data that we have available. The extent varies by type of drinker by the drinking situation and possibly by the quantity drunk in each situation. 
The current excise duty regime creates a tax advantage for alcoholic beverages in the 14 percent to 23 percent alcohol by volume range. This current tax advantage means that our young people and heavier drinkers can go down to their local bottle store and purchase a 1125 ml bottle of 23 percent alcohol for about $8. This bill puts into effect the recommendation in the Easton report relating to the excise duty on light spirits. The changes mean that alcoholic beverages in the 14 percent to 23 percent alcohol by volume range will be taxed according to their actual alcohol content rather than their all being levied as though they contain 18 percent alcohol by volume. 
The changes also mean that the products will be taxed at the higher rate—the same rate that full-strength spirits are taxed at. This will remove the tax advantage that light spirits currently receive. That will mean that an extra $4.45 will be levied on 750 ml bottles of light spirits and an additional $6.65 will be levied on 1125 ml bottles of light spirits. This will mean that young people will not be able to afford to buy as much alcohol as they currently do. Their $10 pocket money will not enable them to buy a bottle of gin. They will drink less alcohol get less drunk and cause less harm. 
Although light spirits have been identified as a particular problem area it is necessary to apply the higher rate of excise duty to all products containing between 14 percent and 23 percent alcohol including wine-based products such as sherry and port. This is necessary to ensure that these products do not become an alternative source of low-priced high - alcohol content beverages as has happened in other countries particularly Australia where this potential problem has not been dealt with adequately. 
The bill also includes the annual adjustment to the excise and excise-equivalent duties on alcoholic beverages. This adjustment an increase of 2.61 percent is based on the movement in the consumer price index for all groups excluding credit savings over the preceding 12 months. This will come into force on 1 June 2003 as this is the date on which the industry expects adjustments to alcohol excise rates. This adjustment has been included in the bill to ensure that the increased excise and excise-equivalent duties payable on beverages containing between 14 percent and 23 percent alcohol are consistent with those that will be payable on full-strength spirits. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I am seeking the leave of the House to table a document. Because we are proceeding under extraordinary urgency the bill cannot be checked by a select committee. But the Minister of Youth Affairs told the House that this bill was introduced to carry out the recommendations of the Brian Easton report. I have a copy from the library. I thought the House should know—and I am quite happy to table it—that in fact Mr Easton recommended that the tax on full-strength spirits be reduced. I seek leave to have this report tabled so that perhaps the Government might change its mind. 
Document not tabled. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 This is the second reading debate of the bill and ordinarily the House would be considering it after it had been to a select committee for perhaps 6 months. [ 
Interruption 
] Clayton Cosgrove laughs. He is the member for Waimakariri the member who normally sends an apology before he even gets an invitation to functions in his electorate. He is laughing and saying that public consultation on bills like this does not matter. Well it does matter. 
The Minister who just spoke and is now slinking out of the Chamber with an embarrassed look on his face should do so because he knows what an utter nonsense this bill is. The question I have is who has been got to. Which Minister in the Government has succumbed to the lobbying of foreign-alcohol importers? Which Minister has so influenced the legislative committee that it has decided to have the House sit under extraordinary urgency to pass this bill to please foreign-alcohol importers? Ninety percent of all the low-alcohol spirits sold in this country are produced in this country. What the Minister for Economic Development has done in succumbing to the pressure from the lobby group that supports those foreign-alcohol importers is to shut down a New Zealand business. There are 200 jobs at risk; they are on their way out. The Minister for Economic Development thinking he is clever coming here with some lame-duck story about the price of alcohol actually contributing to a reduction in its consumption is going to put New Zealanders out of work because of his own prejudices. That is very very sad. 
We are also hearing from Government speakers tonight that this measure is going to stop young people from going to bottle stores and buying their alcohol of choice—most usually the ready-to-drinks bought straight out of the cabinet. The various mixes of cola and all sorts of other spirits are not touched by this bill; nor is the consumption of beer in any way impinged on or the price of beer increased by this bill; nor are most wines touched by it. But spirits with a low alcohol content that are produced in this country are now to be taxed at the same rate as imported spirits. It is an utter disgrace that the Minister for Economic Development has caved in to pressure brought to bear on him and other Ministers by the alcohol lobby outside this House. And I say that fully understanding the extent of the allegation I make. 
There is a company in this country that produces 90 percent of all the low-alcohol spirits sold over the counter in this country. It employs 200 people. It will simply shut its doors. Why would that company want to battle a Government that knocks it at every turn? What sort of message is sent to other New Zealand entrepreneurs who try to build export businesses based in this country? They know they will be buffeted about by that sort of excess lobbying. 
I am fascinated to read in this bill that it simply lifts a tax. That is all it does. It does not differentiate between various quantities at all. It just says that there will be one tax applied to alcohol by litre volume regardless of the strength of the alcohol found in the bottle. How can the member for Rotorua Steve Chadwick stand up and say that this bill is about mitigating the worst effects of alcohol when in fact it makes very little difference to the products most often consumed by young people—the ready-to-drinks wine and beer? It is a total nonsense. 
I think that if those people really had the strength of their convictions they would have looked at changing the drinking age as being the first place to make some sort of difference. It is without doubt that the number of offences committed by young people as a result of excess alcohol consumption have increased since the drinking age was lowered. There is no question about that at all. The member over there might say: “Well we’ll make them buy a little bit less by putting the price up.” but would members not think that a better solution might be to make it an illegal act for someone under the age of 20 to go into a bottle store and purchase alcohol? People can always go into a bar at the age of 18 and drink there. They could do that under the old law. But no now they will be able to go into bottle stores at age 18—and we heard Minister Tamihere say even as young as 14 I believe—purchase these supposedly low-alcohol products buy huge volumes of them and go out and get themselves in a state where they cause all sorts of other problems for society. 
Anyone who thinks that putting $6.75 on the price of a 1.1 litre bottle of low-alcohol spirits is going to deter someone from buying it is sadly mistaken. All that will happen is some transfer of product of choice. I predict that the ready-to-drink market is about to take a huge boom a huge rise as young people decide that as there is no substantial difference in price they will get their kicks from drinks that on average are much greater in strength because they are premixed and young people have absolutely no control over how much alcohol they are mixing with their particular split. 
I come back to this question: why does the Government see this measure as being so important that it has to put it through under extraordinary urgency just a few days before the Budget is to be brought down? It comes back to the question I raised before. Who has been got to? Who are the Ministers who have succumbed to the extraordinary lobbying that must have gone on to get them to lift the legislative programme for some hours and in the height of an electricity crisis have every light in the building turned on right into the late hours of the morning simply so that they can raise a tax that will have absolutely no social effect whatsoever? 
But there is a question about the $14 million that this measure is supposed to raise. There was the suggestion from once again the member over there that the $14 million will go into additional programmes to help people get off alcohol and all the rest of it. Let me say that when this tax goes on this product will go off the shelf. We will have the extraordinary situation— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Dessert wine? No I don’t think so. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Minister says: “Wine? No I don’t think so.” Wine by and large is not touched by this bill. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Dessert wine is what was meant. The member should clean his ears out. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Perhaps 1 or 2 percent of all wine products will be covered by this bill. I do not even know what dessert wine is but I am not surprised the Minister of Education does. Some of the work he has been doing in education lately suggests he has been drinking a heck of a lot of it. 
It is extraordinary that we are getting low-alcohol products taxed off the shelf. Our young people as young as 14 by the admission of John Tamihere—a Minister who hails from south Auckland where one might have thought there would be a greater predominance of this problem—will be making a choice to buy much much stronger alcohol because the price is not substantially different. We remain quite perplexed as to what this bill is about. It is not about mitigating the worst effects of alcohol. It does not appear to be about raising revenue. [ 
Interruption 
] As craven as those members are I cannot believe they would have the House sit until 5 or 6 o’clock tomorrow morning just to raise an extra $14 million. It might all add up but it seems to me that a group of Ministers have been “caballed” in a back room somewhere plied with some of the best imported spirits in the country then quietly prevailed upon to use the parliamentary process to destroy a New Zealand - based business and put in jeopardy some 200 jobs in this country. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister sits there and says that is outrageous. Perhaps he did not get invited. Perhaps he was not one of the lucky few. 
This bill is a disgrace and it should not proceed. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I do not want to take long on this call but I want to remind the House of some of the issues we are facing tonight. 
I recently had a very interesting briefing from representatives of the Alcohol Advisory Council on some of the problems that have been raised and discussed tonight about premixed drinks and the ability for young people to pool their money and buy spirits—all the issues that go with teenage-drinking problems. But a new problem had come into the equation which the council representatives had come to brief us about. It was separate from the issue of premixed drinks or the ability of young people to pool their money and buy spirits. Out of his briefcase one representative pulled a 750 ml bottle of spirits that the industry has very cleverly given 23 percent alcohol by volume. That is below the existing banding and therefore that bottle does not come under the existing tax regime. Young people can buy that bottle of spirits of 23 percent proof alcohol for from $8 to $10—the money that their mum and dad give them in good faith for a meal at McDonald’s. 
The Alcohol Advisory Council was extremely concerned about that new phenomenon. It was concerned about the irresponsibility of the alcohol industry in producing that product wilfully knowing that it falls just under the higher rate of duty. The industry’s toe is up to the line if not slightly over it. It is trying to bring into the problem of alcohol addiction young people who at that stage do not necessarily have the understanding required to set their own personal safe standards of drinking. Those young people are still learning. They are still at the point of being educated and are still experimenting. The council’s concern was that this particular move by the industry was bringing a whole new ingredient into play that young people had not previously had to deal with. That move was made possible by the banding of drinks of between 14 percent alcohol by volume and 23 percent; that provided the opportunity the loophole which the industry was taking full advantage of. What is happening tonight is an attempt to push those drinks to a pricing level above the price of a burger—the price range of young people. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 Madam Speaker I welcome the opportunity to participate in the second reading of this bill. Listening to the comments that have been made thus far I have heard it mentioned that the bill is all about minimisation of harm. Yet I have to wait till I get to page 2 of the explanatory note of bill before I see any mention made of minimisation of harm. Really this bill is all about increasing the tax take from New Zealanders. It is not about reduction of the consumption of alcohol by young people or anyone for that matter; rather it is to increase spending on social services to which the Government wants to apply the increased revenue. 
Brent Catchpole 
: Why would you want to? You have $4 billion in surplus. 
PITA PARAONE 
: That is right. We should be looking at addressing the issue of responsible drinking if that is what minimisation of harm is all about. I must say that the last Parliament had the opportunity to do that and it did not do it. 
I do not think for one minute that this bill will address anything near like what has been talked about. Price has only a limited effect as a deterrent. I use the example of tobacco. Why has the consumption of tobacco given its many price increases not diminished? I say to this House that this bill will not go anywhere near producing a reduction in the consumption of alcohol—least of all by our young people. 
It has been suggested by a member of the Government that income will not rise but fall. My response to that is that it will not fall. Why? Because the intended reduction in consumption will be offset by the increased price. What the Government is saying is it is in a no-win situation. 
I also say that the aged in our community are being given the boot by this Government. The bill is certainly putting the boot into that sector of our community. With the country facing an energy crisis many of our elderly folk who rely on the wine and sherry toddies they are accustomed to drink to keep themselves warm will now have to find extra money to be able to avail themselves of the one comfort they are at present able to enjoy. 
We heard reference to ready-to-drinks not being covered. We tend to underestimate the ingenuity of our young people. If it will cost them more to buy the drinks subject to this bill they will go out and make their own. So rather than this measure bringing about the minimisation of harm that members are talking about I believe that the concoctions that young people are likely to make as a result of what this bill is imposing on them might cause even greater harm to their health. It does not take too much imagination for one to realise that for instance if young people got a bottle of methylated spirits and a bottle of Fanta and combined them that action in itself would help to stem the difference that we are proposing to impose on our young people through this bill. 
It is claimed that this bill is about an issue of health. I cannot for one minute believe that it is about health; rather it is about increasing the coffers of this Government in order that it might be able to extend its so-called social policy programme—whatever that might be. Again I remind this House that it was not this side of the House that promised the electorate it would not increase the tax on tobacco and alcohol. We did not promise that; this Government did. I should not be surprised that that is another promise that is being broken because it is not the first one. 
Madam Chair I beg your indulgence of my addressing the old people of our Maori community to let them know the effects of this bill. Na reira koutou nga kaumatua nga kuikuia e noho tonu ki te wa kainga anei te kaupapa o tenei Kawanatanga i whakatakoto mai i mua i a tatau i roto i tenei Whare. Kite koe i nga inu i inuhia i a koutou ki te whakamahana ta koutou tinana? E hiahia ana tenei Kawanatanga kia whakanui te utunga mo era o nga inu. Na reira koutou ma aroha mai ki tenei ta koutou tamaiti mokopuna e korerohia i tenei wa na te mea kei hea nga mema Maori nga mema na koutou i whakatohungia he kaikorero ma koutou? Ka nui taku aroha i a koutou. Moumou ta koutou taima ki te tautoko i a ratou. Na reira tena pea ma te wa ka kite mai i a koutou ko wai nga Ropu e tika ana hei kaikorero ma koutou. Whakaarongia koutou ki a koutou rangatahi ki te ahuatanga o tenei pire e hiahia ana te Kawana kia whakamana kia whakatau hoki. Mehemea e horekau i watea nga inu ki nga rangatahi i aianei na kei te haere tonu i a ratou ki te mau ki te kai hoki i nga tarutaru o tenei ao. Na reira e tatou ma koina noa nga korero mo tenei wa engari ka hoki mai i a au i roto i wa tatou reo e rua. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
So to you the elderly men and womenfolk who are still living at home here is this Government's policy that it placed before us in this House. This Government wants to put up the cost of those drinks that you drink to warm your bodies. Therefore to those of you out there take pity on this young one this grandchild of yours who is addressing you right now because where are the Maori members the ones you elected to speak on your behalf? I really pity you. You wasted your time supporting them. Perhaps you will see in time which parties are the right ones to speak for you. Think about your young people and the impact that this bill that the Government wants to pass into law will have on them. If the drinks are no longer available to young people now perhaps they will continue to take and consume the drugs of this world. So that is all the talk for now but I will be back in our second language. 
] 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: This is one of Winston’s best members! 
PITA PARAONE 
: Ahakoa taihoa pai atu tena tangata ki te korero mai i tena tu ahua. Engari na ratau i tata ake nei i whakatau tetahi pire ki te whakanui ki te whakamohio tatou te iwi whanui te reo Maori. Engari i tenei wa whakarongo mai i a ia he kohete mai ki a au i runga ake i taku tunga ki te whakakoretake i wa tatau reo rangatira. Tika atu te ahua i a ratau i tetahi wa na ratau i whakamana ta tatau na reo engari i tenei wa i roto i te korero o tenei kaupapa na ratau i whakakoretake tenei korero. 
[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] 
[ 
It is all very well for that member to address me in that manner but they have just recently passed a bill to celebrate the Maori language and to let us the people at large know about it. But now listen to him going on about the stance that I have taken and making disparaging remarks about our chiefly language. It was all right when it was their turn; they gave the language status. But at this very time during the debate on this policy they are really rubbishing my address 
.] 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that 
I was not disparaging the language the member was using but the quality of his speech. 
Dail Jones 
: The assumption one makes from that comment from the Minister of Education Mr Trevor Mallard is that he can speak Maori and that he could understand every word that was being said. He referred to the quality of the speech. If he could not understand the speech then he has misled the House. If he could not understand the speech he cannot comment on its quality. I ask the member to say whether he understood everything the member was saying because if he did not he has just misled the House and he knows what he ought to do in that situation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am happy to give the member an assurance that for relatively simple Maori like that we have just been hearing I have a reasonable understanding of it. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. The Minister’s point of order was completely out of order. He was making a debating point and breaking up a speech and I believe that you should rule against him. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: It is a debating matter and if the Minister wanted to raise it he should have made a personal explanation. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I raise the matter now only because the member’s speech has been broken up. I realise that he is a new member but a large part of his speech has been out of order. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 39(3): “It is out of order to pass remarks addressed to anyone other than the Chair …”. The member has made an interesting speech but he has told us that it is addressed to people outside the House. He may not realise that that is out of order. If he wanted to make his speech in order he should have addressed his remarks to you then said that the remarks he was making to you would be of interest to Maori. The fact that he is making his speech in Maori does not make that practice legitimate; he must follow the same rules. All speeches must be addressed to the Chair. Members cannot address a speech as that member said he was doing to Maori or New Zealanders or any group of people outside the Chamber. He must address it to the Chair. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his assistance. I would counsel the member on relevance and he should address the Chair. 
PITA PARAONE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was quite clear in my mind that I was addressing you. I prefaced my opening comments by addressing you and I feel that the rest of my speech was directed through you. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: All right; please continue. 
Hon Murray McCully 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I was not going to raise the matter but as the member’s speech has been broken up I want to say there were several interjections from the other side that specifically referred to the leader of the member who is speaking—the Rt Hon Mr Peters—in a manner that was offensive. I am surprised that you allowed those comments to be made. They were able to be heard quite clearly by me and therefore should have been heard by you. I think that you should have asked that member to withdraw and apologise. I now suggest that you do so. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Yes I think several comments were made. Which member? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I am happy to withdraw and apologise. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like your consideration and maybe a decision at another time—even tomorrow. My first point I raise is that you quite clearly through your own admission just then admitted that you had heard the disparaging comments and your body language indicated to me that you knew that those comments came from two members on the Government benches. You chose not to act on them despite having heard them. Now that you have taken an apology from the Minister I assume that you will also look to the senior Government whip whom you were also looking at who also made similar comments but has chosen as an honourable member to sit there and not offer an apology. I bring that to your attention. 
I also bring to your attention for consideration that the conduct in this House is determined and set by whips. That is their function; that is their duty. It concerns me greatly that some of the poorest conduct that we have seen displayed in this House and demonstrated to his junior members is indeed coming from the most senior whip here that being the chief Government whip. I ask you what you as the Speaker of this House intend to do. That member has been spoken to once already in the Chamber today and has chosen blatantly to carry on his misconduct and ignore the Chair and the Chair’s ruling. I am asking what you as Speaker wish to do or intend to do about the repeated poor and dishonourable conduct of the chief Government whip in the performance of his duties in this House and the disparaging comments that he continues to make. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member for his comments. We are dealing with the situation now. 
PITA PARAONE 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I just want to make it known to the House to those members of the House who are present tonight and to those who have been present in this Chamber every time I have spoken that I have tended to use te reo Maori when there has been a barrage of interjection while I have been speaking. As long as Government members continue to interject while I am speaking then I will continue to use te reo Maori. It seems to me that it is the only vehicle I have to be able to express what I want to say without any interjection. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: That was not really a point of order. Does the member want to continue his speech? He has about 40 seconds left. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: We have dealt with the points of order. 
Ron Mark 
: You did tell me and you ruled in response to my point of order that you were dealing with the issue now. Could you explain to the House precisely what you are doing right now to deal with the issue that I raised? I have not seen you give any instruction. That member has not stood up withdrawn and apologised. You have not said anything other than “We are dealing with the issue now.” I would like to know how you are dealing with the issue now. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member but I want the member on his feet to continue his speech without interruption. 
PITA PARAONE 
: I just reiterate the point I was making earlier: that this bill will not minimise the harm as expected; it will only increase the tax take. It will also impose more hardship on our elderly folk as they face the forthcoming energy crisis. Kia ora. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (NZ Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I rise to support the second reading of this bill. Let me strongly commend the speech made by Judy Turner. It was an excellent contribution. I am happy to support the bill. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 ACT New Zealand will be opposing this Government bill. It is interesting that already we have had an absolute moving feast in terms of what this bill is all about. For some reason the Government decided to spring this bill on the House today and to take extraordinary urgency tonight on an excise matter. Why could it not wait until the Budget next Thursday—only a week away? This is clearly a matter that the Government wants to have passed tonight. Is it a trophy for Jim Anderton and perhaps for United Future? The speeches that we have heard would suggest that it is. Obviously the Government did not want this bad news—increased taxation—in its Budget next week so it has sprung extraordinary urgency on the House. That is a very rarely used process and it has already been observed that the last time it happened was when this Government used the same measure of extraordinary urgency to increase the excise tax on tobacco. Now we have the other one—the excise duty on alcohol. 
The second reading was kicked off by the Government Minister the Hon John Tamihere and he commenced by saying this bill essentially implements the recommendations of the Easton report. That has already been blown out of the water. My colleague Richard Prebble has already had permission to table that report and it will be tabled tonight. The Easton report commissioned by the Alcohol Advisory Council is entitled  
Taxing Harm: Modernising Alcohol Excise Duties 
 and was published in November 2002. One of the key recommendations of that report is on page 13 where it recommends that the excise tax on high-alcohol spirits be reduced. If the object were to use the pricing mechanism to stop young people from imbibing or indulging in alcohol why would one decrease the excise duty on high-alcohol spirits? But that is what the Easton report recommends. So where was the logic in the Minister’s speech when he moved the second reading of this bill? 
We have had some other extraordinary revelations tonight. Reference was made to the McLeod report—again a report commissioned by this Government. That report strongly urged the curtailment of excise duties pointing out the distortions they create and that they are ineffective. Paragraph 3.9 the McLeod report specifically addressed the health issue with regard to alcohol and stated: “A number of submissions were received from health sector organisations. Though these submissions make reference to externalities we believe that the health policy approach to taxation and the framework adopted by the review are irreconcilable.” So the Government is moving a measure here that is in direct breach of the recommendations of its own taxation report from McLeod. 
We have also had some rather strange comments tonight. The Government member for Rotorua Steve Chadwick actually said the Government was not rushing this bill through. 
Opposition Members 
: Ha ha! 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: She said it was not rushing this bill through. Now let us pause and think about that. The Government has decided to take extraordinary urgency. We should have stopped at 10 p.m. We will still be debating this bill I predict when the sun rises. No the sun is rising a bit later these days so I predict we will be going until 4 o’clock or 5 o’clock this morning. Yet we are not rushing it through! How confused are those Government members? 
In the briefing on this bill the Minister of Finance who is also the Deputy Prime Minister said that of course we have to rush it through tonight because all the young people whom we have to address for social reasons could rush out before midnight tonight—the bill is meant to become effective from midnight—and buy up all the alcopops in the 14 to 23 percent alcohol by volume band. Yet anyone listening to Parliament on the wireless would know about this bill—they are probably text messaging each other on their cellphones—and if there is a windfall they could rush to the nearest liquor store. But I suspect young people will not do that because they are smart. They know as I think most of us are learning fast that the Government’s claim that its key target which it stated it was targeting for social reasons is the young drinkers who overindulge in relatively cheap alcopops—the ready-to-drink mixes—and its suggestion that those drinks would be picked up by the 14 to 23 percent alcohol by volume bracket is utter nonsense. The alcopops are all in the 5 to 7 percent alcohol by volume bracket and will not be affected at all. So Jim Anderton’s speech is down the drain. I say to Mr Anderton that I am sorry about that. He believed that he was picking up the alcopops in the bill and was caring for young people. If that was his intention he has failed miserably because this bill does not pick the alcopops up. They are in the 5 to 7 percent alcohol by volume band and certainly not in the 14 to 23 percent alcohol by volume band that we have in the bill. 
We then had Mr Brownlee’s contribution which I thought made some very interesting points. He pointed out that 80 percent of the group of products that will be included—the medium-alcohol band of 14 to 23 percent alcohol by volume—is produced in New Zealand by one company and he suggested 200 jobs were at stake. He suggested that those producers will all close their doors and the jobs will be lost. I do not think that is so. I think the companies will just repackage and rebottle their products at 13.9 percent alcohol by volume. Let us bear in mind that a strong beer is about 5 to 7 percent alcohol by volume while light beer is down to 2 to 3 percent. So we are talking about something that is two or three times the strength of beer even at 13.9 percent alcohol by volume and that is quite enough to have an impact on a young adolescent if he or she overindulges. All that we will see is greater volumes by dilution of alcohol down to 13.9 percent by volume and the only requirement will be that young people will need bigger bladders than previously in order to be in an equally intoxicated state. This legislation is a total failure in terms of the objective that the Government outlined. 
Let us follow the rationale through a bit further. We know that obesity is a problem in this country particularly obesity amongst young folk through lack of exercise and overeating. If we were to follow the same logic through with regard to that we would increase the tax on food. If we were really concerned about the health impact of obesity we would increase the tax on food. Is that the Government’s intention also? 
The whole logic behind this bill which the Government has brought to the House tonight is deeply flawed. ACT will be opposing it because we oppose silly legislation. To dress this bill up in social concern about binge drinking by young people which we concede is a problem is not right. This measure will not in any way address that problem. This bill is nothing more than a $14 million net tax grab by a Government that promised it would not increase taxes. Here is the pamphlet that Labour put in every letterbox with the airbrushed photo of Helen Clark on it—the whole kit and caboodle. Quite clearly it states that there would be no new taxes and no increase in taxation. The Government has already increased the excise duty on tobacco and we now have it with alcohol. 
Who will bear the impact of that? It will be the old folk who drink sherry and port. They will be spending this winter huddled round the kerosene heater in the freezing cold because there will be no electricity. They cannot afford their tobacco any more and under this Government their port and sherry—the small comfort that they had—will also be out of their reach. That is what this Government is bringing to New Zealand: there will be no heat and no tobacco port or sherry unless people are prepared to pay about three times more than the price they paid prior to midnight tonight. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the second reading of this bill. It is interesting to follow the ACT party which does not seem to be letting the facts get in the way of a good story with regard to the passage of this bill. Mr Shirley came into the House and waved around a 1999 Labour Party manifesto card and said that we made a promise about our taxes. Well I have here our 2002 pre-election commitment card which clearly states there will be no rise in the rates of income tax GST or company tax. It may have missed the member’s attention but excise duty on alcohol is not actually income tax or GST. So it was quite wrong for the ACT party to assert that. 
Mr Shirley then went on to say that we were focused on alcopops and ready-to-drink products and that the Government had failed because this bill does not cover them. The Hon Jim Anderton as Acting Minister of Customs did not mention alcopops in his first reading speech. We are talking here about alcohol that is 14 percent proof plus and about bringing that into the same tax category as alcohol that is 23 percent proof plus. This measure is about harm minimisation and I will vote for the second reading of this bill. 
BRIAN CONNELL (NZ National—Rakaia) 
:  
What a cynical abuse of the parliamentary process this is! Here we are approaching 10 minutes to 11 in the evening and because we have already spent more time here than usual we will not achieve any power savings this week. That is because Dr Cullen and Mr Anderton want to sneak through very sneaky legislation. When I first took a briefing on this bill Dr Cullen said he was motivated to pass it because he was concerned about young kids getting absolutely legless on cheap spirits. I considered that for a little while and I thought that if that was his motivation it was reasonable. Then I thought more carefully about it. I thought no I have a better and wider respect for the young people of New Zealand than that because most of them are very responsible people. I tell Dr Cullen and Mr Anderton that this bill is really about just another tax increase. How much do they want? They already have a $4 billion surplus. Will $14 million net really make a big difference? How much will this Government take from hard-working Kiwis before it says that enough is enough? Two years ago this Government taxed tobacco and now it is alcohol’s turn. 
All that we get from this Government is empty promises. Can we believe what it tells us? No we cannot. Let me demonstrate why we cannot trust it. I have an article here from the  
Dominion Post  
headed “Booze tobacco tax rise most unlikely—Cullen” and it quotes Dr Cullen. Two of my colleagues have already referred to that article so I will not go through it in detail other than to quote this. “Dr Cullen who increased tobacco excise in May 2001 said yesterday it was ‘most unlikely’ there would be any increase in tobacco and alcohol excise other than the 6-monthly adjustments for inflation. ‘We have done that once. We don’t do those things very lightly’ he said.” 
Pansy Wong 
: Jekyll and Hide. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Yes. The article goes on to state: “Dr Cullen also scoffed at Opposition claims of a petrol tax increase during the coming parliamentary term.” People who believe that and who believe Dr Cullen on this issue probably believe in garden fairies also. This Government is a tax-and-spend Government and it is very mean-spirited—and members will of course see the pun in that. It looks around and sees people enjoying themselves so it thinks it has to attack them. It is an envious Government which introduces envy taxes and now it is doing so again. New Zealand is at present led by an autocratic bunch and this measure is the first step towards “teetotalitarianism”—I think members get my drift. 
I have said this once and I will say it again: this measure is not just about kids getting smashed on cheap alcohol. By introducing this tax the Government is attacking Kiwis of all ages. These drinks are the most popular drinks in the country. I have said the Government is mean-spirited and what greater example can one have of that than attacking sherry? My old mum makes a fine trifle. It is an institution in my household and on Mother’s Day I will be denied that privilege—as will thousands of other Kiwis—because of that bunch over there on the Government benches. I say it is not good enough. 
The elderly folk in this country will have a very cold winter because of that Government’s incompetence with regard to how it has managed the power crisis. They will have cold showers this winter and the Government does not care—it has already told us that. Elderly folk will be told to turn their heating off and when they reach for the sherry bottle to fortify themselves a little bit what will happen? They will not be able to afford it because that mean-spirited lot over there on the Government benches have put the price of a bottle of sherry up by four or five bucks. That is not reasonable or fair. Unlike that bunch of Government members I feel for the elderly folk of this country. 
This bill is all because this Government has an insatiable appetite for taxation. It is an envy tax and that is why the Government has turned this Parliament into a circus tonight. It should have the courage of its convictions and do something about the drinking age. If it really wanted to address youth drinking it would increase the drinking age. I do not care who put the age down; if the Government really thought it was right it would do something about the drinking age. It would not sneak this legislation through the House in the dead of night. Rather it would come out and say in a very clear and honest way that we should mount a media campaign to educate our young people about binge drinking and put that on the 6 o’clock news. I hear Dr Cullen groaning because he knows I am right and he is wrong. He knows he is mean-spirited. He knows that the people of New Zealand know that I am right and he is wrong and that all he is doing is sneaking in a tax—because he is a sneaky sneaky individual. 
Government members are saying they are doing this because young people are price sensitive in their buying patterns. If they are price sensitive why has increasing the excise duty not worked in terms of reducing smoking? The Government keeps putting the price of smokes up but that does not stop young people from smoking. [ 
Interruption 
] I think Mr Mallard has woken up at long last—good! Maybe I should translate my speech in a language that he understands. I understand that by his own admission Mr Mallard is an expert in the Maori language. We should go back and test him on that because he is an absolute expert. 
I look over here and see the Greens who support the Government—and by implication the Government supports them. I do not think the irony is lost on people on the Opposition side of the House that we have in the Green Party a party that is interested in smoking but that at the same time stands up and says we need to put the price of cheap drinks up because they are bad for our kids. I will not use the word that starts with “h” but I am sure members will get my drift when I say that there is some irony and inconsistency in the argument that has been driven by the Government. Instead of taxing Kiwis further why do you not spend some of that money on fixing some of the things that are wrong with this country? Why do you not fix up the roading problems in Auckland? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please do not bring me into the debate. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I apologise for that Mr Speaker. Why does the Government not spend some of the taxation money on fixing up the roading problem in Auckland? Why does it not spend some money on the forestry infrastructure so that we can actually get our wall of wood to the markets? Why does it not do something that is constructive and spend the billion dollars that is necessary to upgrade our forestry infrastructure rather than sneaking through a tax under extraordinary urgency? Why does the Government not do something about streamlining the compliance and red tape issues instead of bashing up the people in this country who contribute the most—the businesspeople? Why does it not do something constructive and leave our young kids alone? 
DAVE HEREORA (NZ Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted to stand in support of the second reading of the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill. It promotes and fosters a principle that we as a nation should embrace—that is a health initiative. That health initiative is to decrease the consumption of alcohol by young people. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to make clear once again that New Zealand First will be voting against this bill. Having listened to the range of speeches in the first and second readings I say that I do not think anyone listening to them could accept any of the arguments that the various Government members in their very short speeches have made to justify this bill because they have all contradicted each other. 
I have heard people say that this bill is all about harm minimisation. I have heard a Government member say that she voted against the lowering of the drinking age and that this measure is the way to minimise the harm done to our young people. That member knows full well that the greatest harm was done when the drinking age was lowered. If that member were true to herself she would be enforcing the introduction into this House of my member’s bill which seeks to put the drinking age back to 20. As I look around this Chamber I see members on the Government benches who voted against that legislation and who in their very hearts and being do not support this bill as being the panacea that will minimise the harm caused by the teenage drinking problems we face. 
Let us just remind ourselves who said that the lowering of the drinking age had contributed towards the types of problems we are seeing. The people who said it were the people who staff our accident and emergency services all over the country—nurses doctors and medical attendants. They are at the frontline picking up young people who are blotto and out of their minds. Putting them into ambulances are the St John Ambulance people. They would much rather see the drinking age raised than see this bill passed. Who else is there? Doctors have said on countless occasions—and I have read it in community papers from Whangarei in Northland all the way down to the south—that they believe that the way to minimise harm is to put the drinking age back up. Fire Service people say the same thing; they are tired of cutting these people out of cars that have been in accidents. 
In respect of the Maori MPs their body language says it all. It does not matter what the Hon John Tamihere read off the piece of paper given to him as the introductory second reading speech. I saw his body language as he went out of here. He does not believe in the slightest that this bill will have the effect of minimising the harm done to the young Maori people whom the Waipareira Trust has been trying to help. Speaking of the Waipareira Trust is it not that trust that helps low-income people manage their budgets? What will it have to do now? It will have to manage budgets that are minus the money that has been taken out to pay for the alcohol that those adults—not children not teenagers but adults—had previously been able to buy at a reduced cost. Those budgets will have to be rewritten because the cost of that alcohol is going up. It is the same for the elderly; the Waipareira Trust helps a large number of elderly people. 
Is it not a joke? I have heard a lot from Government members about how this measure will help people. Well get real! We are now seeing this Government for what it is: a Chardonnay-sipping bunch of spa-bath socialists who continue to hammer working-class people. Who got whacked when petrol prices went up? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Say that again. 
RON MARK 
: Chardonnay-sipping spa-bath socialists—that is what they are. Who got whacked when they put up the price of petrol? Working-class people who were trying to drive to work. Who got whacked when cigarette prices went up? Working-class people who just want to enjoy a fag—not that type of fag; a cigarette type of fag—at smoko. Who will now get whacked when the price of cheap booze goes up? Working-class people. 
I tell members that those working-class people have long since started talking about this Labour Government. It does not have one freezing worker in its ranks. It does not have one truck-driver— 
Taito Phillip Field 
: I was. 
RON MARK 
: Welcome Taito Phillip Field! We know why he is not a Minister. It is because he is an ex - freezing worker. That Government does not have any working-class people in its ranks. I was at a Labour fundraising do the other night. I will tell members the sorts of things I am hearing in Belfast— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Come back to this bill please. 
RON MARK 
: Tax hikes like this from this Government hit working-class people. The reason those members do it and believe they are doing the right thing is that there are no working-class people in their ranks. There are academics tutors—[ 
Interruption 
] Harry Duynhoven may be a working-class person but that is why he is not a Cabinet Minister. And at the end of the day he was a teacher. This House sits here and deliberates on a bill like this from the perspective of academics theoreticians and philosophers. They are Chardonnay-sipping spa-bath socialists who have never lifted a crescent or a meat cleaver or driven a truck in their entire lives. 
Out there tomorrow the rest of the working-class people will know what this Government wants. It wants their money. One of their last refuges a cheap bit of booze is being taken off them. Is this measure going to hit the ready-to-drinks the alcopops that that lot over there so vigorously tell me it will hit? No it will not. Therefore will it reduce teenage drinking? I will tell members what this measure will do. Teenagers who would have bought that cheap booze and diluted it with Coke will now not put Coke in it. That is what will happen. They will make their more expensive drink go further. This measure will drive teenagers to drink those spirits which they will now pay more for with less Coke or L & P added because they will not be able to buy as much to get their binge buzz. Members should think about it 
David Benson-Pope 
: What? 
RON MARK 
: I am going to help that member over there and if I have to ask for an extension of time to do it I will. The chief Government whip who has been so rude throughout the whole of the proceedings setting a wonderful standard for his MPs to follow is puzzled. Let me explain it again. A young person who has only so much money to spend will not now be able to afford to buy Coke. Young people will have to go without the Coke. In fact because the booze will cost them more they will be less inclined to dilute it as they share it around their mates. What will the result be? Drunker kids for the same amount of booze for the same dollars. The only difference will be in the coffers of the Minister of Finance. He will have more money and that is really what it is all about. 
What else is it about? It is about keeping Helen Clark off the front page tomorrow because she had such a lousy day in the House. This bill is being debated in order to get the media to rerun page 1 so that the lousy day that the Government had—that Minister Goff and Prime Minister Clark had—at question time is now shunted off to one side and the focus goes on this bill. 
I predict that young people around the country will scoff at this bill and they will scoff at this Government which is nothing more than a revenue-gathering exercise. 
MIKE WARD (Green) 
: 
 I rise to support the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill on behalf of the Green Party. It will not solve the whole drinking problem of our young people but it is a good move in the right direction. I support all the other measures that the Opposition is talking about. Yes education is needed. I would support that and any measure that those members might come up with that would tell our youngsters to treat the stuff wisely. But this bill closes a loophole that needs to be closed and we will support the closing of that loophole. Our youngsters do not need cheap booze. The rhetoric on the Opposition side of the House defies belief. The quality of the debate when the House sits as late as this is appalling so I will not continue. We will support the bill. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Speaker for the opportunity to contribute however briefly. I would like to make a couple of comments about the comments of the speaker before the previous speaker. I am sorry that Mr Mark has allowed the deep trauma of his career replacement to affect him so much. As there are so many teachers and counsellors on this side of the House I am pleased to offer their services to help him reconcile his differences with his whip. I support the bill. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I fail to see that what that member said had anything to do with the bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. The member knows that. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During Mr Mark’s speech you intervened at one stage and reminded him that he should come to the bill. I note that when the senior Government whip spoke there seemed to be a different standard. You did not interrupt him and when challenged you said that it was appropriate to give a speech that did not make reference to the bill. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The senior Government whip spoke for 30 seconds. Mr Mark spoke for almost his full 10 minutes. Mr Mark was not raising a valid point of order. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 68 
Noes 46 
Bill read a second time. 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Instruction to CommitteeCWH 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part and consider any schedules as one question. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
Noes 46 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
In Committee 
Clause 1 Title 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 The title of the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill should be the “Another Broken Promise From Labour Bill”. Dr Cullen who sits opposite told the public of New Zealand on 9 July last year that the Government had no plans for and the public should have no fear of sharp increases in alcohol prices. This bill is a direct contradiction of what he assured the public. What is interesting about 9 July 2002 is that it was about 2 weeks prior to a general election so those members opposite were elected on false pretences. 
Darren Hughes 
: What happened at that election? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to that new member for Kapiti that his voters read in the  
Dominion Post 
 that there would be no sharp increases in alcohol prices. That is what voters in his electorate thought they were voting for when they voted for him and for Labour and what did they get? I ask that young member opposite whether this bill provides for a sharp increase in alcohol prices. Does it? I ask the member who was so chirpy a moment ago whether this bill provides for a sharp increase in alcohol prices. 
Helen Duncan 
: No! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Helen Duncan says that no it does not. I say to Madam Duncan that I would expect an 84 percent increase to be somewhat sharp. I do not have a PhD in mathematics—I admit that—and I know that Helen Duncan is hopeless on anything to do with standards in education but I would have thought that an 84 percent increase was somewhat sharp. Does the bright new member for Kapiti believe that an 84 percent increase is sharp? 
In fact Dr Cullen went further. He said that there were no plans intentions desires or need for any increases greater than inflation. Does the Government believe that the inflation rate is 84 percent? 
Helen Duncan 
: No! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Helen Duncan says it is not. Can she explain how this bill is true to Dr Cullen’s word that there would be no increases in alcohol excise other than the 6-monthly adjustments for inflation? 
Helen Duncan 
: The parents of New Zealand love this bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Suddenly those members want to change the topic. She says the parents of New Zealand love this bill. I did a bit of research this evening. I went to a local bar and asked the people there what sorts of drinks young people drink. Let me bring their answers to members because I listened to what Jim Anderton said earlier. The most popular drink at the sports bar in Courtenay Place is a Vodka Teaser. They said that that drink was the most popular drink of young people. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: What’s the alcohol content? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: My colleague asks what the alcohol content is. It is 5 percent. Will this bill put up the tax on it? I see Mr Anderton is in the Chamber. Will the tax on it go up? No it will not. I asked the people at the bar what the next most popular drink was and they said it was a Ruski; that is what they told me. I thought that that drink must be affected by the bill because that is what Mr Anderton had told us but the alcohol content is only 4.5 percent so it is not included. So I thought I would try some more. What about Archers Aqua? That is apparently the most popular youth drink at the second bar I went to. I thought that it must be covered. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: How many bars did the member go to? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Many I assure the member! I wondered if it would be covered. Jim Anderton had said this bill was to prevent abuse of alcohol drinking by young people. I thought that that drink must be covered by the bill. It has an alcohol content of 5.5 percent so it is not covered. I asked for some more names of drinks and I was told that the Vodka Cruiser was popular with young people. Is it covered? No it is 5 percent alcohol so it is not covered. So I asked a lady at the bar what drinks would be in the alcohol range covered by this bill. Let me tell members what she told me. The only such product available at the sports bar is Baileys. How many young people I know between the ages of 18 and 25 drink Baileys? 
John Carter 
: I do. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have some news for Mr Carter: he is outside the age range. When Mr Anderton was talking about preventing abuse of alcohol by young people I do not think he was talking about Mr Carter. We know he looks young and handsome but I do not think he is included. The people at the bar said that dessert wine would be their biggest seller that would be picked up by this bill. I say to the youthful member for Kapiti that I know lots about young people and dessert wine is not big on the list of drinks that they drink. This bill does nothing of the sort of which Mr Anderton speaks. He is telling one big porky. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The last statement from that member was clearly totally out of order. One cannot accuse people in this House of telling porkies. The member should be required to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Members cannot make that accusation. Could the member please withdraw. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 Is the word “porky” misleading? Mr Anderton said in his first reading speech that this bill was designed to attack youth drinks. I think I very eloquently expressed to the House that indeed the Minister told a big porky. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am asking the member to withdraw the remark about telling porkies. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I do not think I have said anything wrong in expressing my views about Mr Anderton’s speech which I listened to very carefully. If it was not a porky I do not know what else it might be. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member knows that that is a phrase that has been commonly associated with not telling the truth and I ask the member to withdraw. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I compliment the previous speaker the Hon Nick Smith on his contribution because not only has he spent some of his own money he has done something that the United Future party has not done. United Future members told us that they supported this bill because it would attack young people drinking the sorts of mixes he has put in front of us. Members have said to us that those mixes are typically less than 7 percent alcohol but he has actually produced the bottles. I am sure the member would allow Judy Turner to come across and examine those bottles so that she could have a look for herself and see that this bill does not attack the youth drinks. Now that we learn that it is Baileys—the favourite of the middle-aged— 
Brent Catchpole 
: My mother. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: And one’s mum—the matriarchs. This bill is another attack on motherhood by this Government! The member said he was going to move an amendment to the title. I think he should. I have put down a couple. One may be out of order and it is that after the word “Beverages” we should add the words “Stealth Taxes” because that is what I think the bill is all about. But an alternative to that is that we should add after the words “Alcoholic Beverages” the words “and Ice Cream”. If members look at the schedules they will see that this bill taxes ice cream with an alcohol content of more than 14 percent. I invite anyone— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: That would be a good ice cream. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Great ice cream! Not only is the Government attacking Baileys it is attacking Baileys ice cream. What will be next? 
Barbara Stewart 
: And chocolate. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: And chocolate. I am glad that Mr Anderton is the Minister in the chair because I am sure he was not trying to mislead the House but I took his speech to be that he was making an attack on alcopops—those ready-mixed drinks. However if he was he clearly did not do his homework. I do not believe that the United Future party did its homework although the United Future party is easier to roll over than the Labour Party caucus. All that it does is get a briefing and it immediately decides to support it. But then it might be that Mr Dunne is looking for a new job back with the Alcohol Advisory Committee (ALAC)— 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: His old job with ALAC. He used to be executive director. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: He may want his old job back because the idea that it is Baileys that is leading our young people to grief is just not credible. I do not think that any member opposite did any homework. I do not think that any of them went out and had a look at those bottles. Did Helen Duncan find out what the alcohol mix level was? She tells us that every parent is going to be— 
Helen Duncan 
: Those bottles are less than most beers and the member knows it. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I am sorry? What do I know? 
Helen Duncan 
: They’re all empty. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The member says that they are all empty. Does that make a difference? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Does it change the labelling? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Does it change the labels? I ask Helen Duncan whether the label changes once one has drunk the bottle. I suppose that after she does everything changes! Maybe that is her personal experience with alcohol. I say to members opposite that this is a stealth tax. We were told that it was based on the recommendations of the Easton report. I went and got the report from the library and found that Easton actually recommended that full spirits above 37 percent be lowered. He actually recommended that lower levels of alcohol be completely exempted. The idea that this bill is based on the Easton report is rubbish. Of course if we look at the McLeod report that this Government paid for it stated that the tax on alcohol is almost certainly too high and cannot be justified. So this Government decided to take another little nibble. I guess it might have thought that the moralistic United Future party would be delighted to see a whack on alcohol tax. The fact that it is not aimed at the right group and the fact that the Government is not taxing— 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First is very grateful to the Hon Nick Smith for the research that he has done. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Ron Mark— 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member but there have been a number of interjections but that is not the point so much as the fact that members are not to shift their seats to advantage. I am afraid that the member who was making a loud noise—it was Helen Duncan in particular but other members have as well—had shifted her seat. Either Helen Duncan sits there quietly or she should shift back to her own seat from where she can interject if she needs to and it should be rare and reasonable at that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I certainly call order. 
DAIL JONES 
: I was about to say thank you very much to the Hon Nick Smith for his research. I was also about to say to Ron Mark if he is listening could he come back please. Ron Mark is out there on patrol. He is touring one or two hotels at the moment to get some samples. I suspect they might be full rather than empty and we might have to consume them shortly just to test the taste as much as anything else. 
Helen Duncan 
: The member is talking rubbish and he knows it. 
DAIL JONES 
: I am referring to the first speech made and I am saying sincerely to Ron Mark if he is listening that we have got some samples and he can come back. 
Helen Duncan 
: All of those samples are not affected by the bill. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I call the member to order. 
DAIL JONES 
: I have been trying to ignore the member for obvious reasons but she has made me go off the boil for a moment. A recent interjection from the Labour Party indicated that the Labour Party has now realised that the speech made by the Hon Jim Anderton when he introduced this bill is not consistent with the facts. He gave us the clear impression that ready-to-drinks alcopops and suchlike were to be caught by this bill. Dr Lynda Scott made it clear in her speech that those drinks are less than 14 percent so clearly they will not be caught by this bill. It seems that Ms Helen Duncan has now worked that out for herself. She said that they are not caught by the bill so I assume that she will now be voting against this legislation. The light has fallen for her and I think that after her chat with George Hawkins perhaps the light will fall for him as well and a greater number of Labour Party members will now be opposing this bill. I suspect that what happened in the Labour Party caucus today was that it had a quick and sudden caucus because secrecy was required on this measure. I suspect that at some stage they had a caucus where they were told: “We’re going to introduce some rushed legislation into the House. This is what the bill is all about. It catches alcohol over 14 percent. I am sure you will support it because it affects young people.” All the Labour Party members trooped out of their caucus saying: “Gosh what a great idea this is. We must support this legislation.” Those Labour Party members are now discovering that the information they were given in their caucus is inconsistent with the facts. Now of course they should be angry with the people in their caucus who told them that this bill would catch drinks of that kind. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Which other parties are supporting this bill? 
DAIL JONES 
: Well it seems that the same sort of style works with United Future. Judy Turner said she actually saw a 1.125-litre bottle that was 23 percent. Well perhaps she will produce that bottle and we can all have a look to see just what the label says—whether it was 4 percent 5 percent or whatever. I suspect that what she was given may also have influenced her decision. 
Of course the Greens are supporting this bill. They say how important it is to get young people off alcohol but of course they are very happy to get young people on to marijuana. There seems to be some inconsistency there but that does not stop the Greens supporting this legislation. 
I would have thought a name for this bill should be the “Customs and Excise Alcoholic Beverages (Another Attack on War Veterans) Bill” because clearly war veterans who like their port and sherry will be attacked by this legislation. The price of their sherry is going up from $21 to $39 I think on a ½ gallon or something like that. They will get a dreadful shock the next time they go into the liquor store to buy themselves something for the winter. They have been attacked when it comes to smoking. There they were in the Second World War being given cigarettes to keep their nerves under control and now they have been banned from smoking in the Returned Services Association. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 This bill is certainly a misnamed bill as we talk about the title of the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill. It is grossly misrepresented in the Chamber tonight. Because speaker after speaker from the Labour Party the United Future party and the Green Party have said the reason that Labour United Future and the Greens are supporting this bill is that it will stop young people from drinking. That is what Labour member after Labour member has said. Helen Duncan who knows nothing about young people has sat opposite us in the Chamber and interjected time after time saying that mothers will be happy about this bill. That is what she said—mothers will be happy. 
I say to Labour members that I have just been on the phone to one of the largest liquor shops in this country. The owner of that shop when presented with this bill via the fax told me that young people buying 23 percent vodka and 23 percent gin will now go and buy ready-to-drinks and alcopops because the tax on those is adjusted only by the rate of inflation. So we have made it an advantage to buy ready-to-drinks and alcopops over buying the bottle of spirits. His view was that this would make it easier for young people to consume alcohol because that is what they will do because they are not affected at all with the ready-to-drinks and alcopops. 
So I asked him what was the major group affected. He said it was dessert wine port sherry and a drink that I have not heard of in my forties called Madeira. But I am sure that young people around the country are queuing up and drinking Madeira and Muscat! So those are the drinks that are affected. Meanwhile good old ready-to-drinks and alcopops the things on which Jim Anderton said when he introduced the bill that a message would be sent to young people will be cheaper. Well the message it sends to young people is to not buy a 750ml bottle of vodka but to go and buy a six or 12-pack of alcopops or ready-to-drinks. Buy it already mixed because it is a lot cheaper. 
I ask Labour members where the amendment to increase the tax on ready-to-drinks or alcopops is. Because the same liquor shop owner told me tonight that he could not believe this. There have been rumours through the industry for weeks that in the Budget the Government would target young people’s drinking and it has not done it. The Government has left the ready-to-drinks off. So when Helen Duncan says that mothers will be happy I tell her that mothers drinking port sherry and something called Madeira will not be happy. Those people will be paying a lot more for their drink from tonight because Mr Anderton and the Labour Party need the money. 
This has nothing to do with young people drinking—not a thing; because if it had the Government would target the alcopops. This is all to do with putting some bad news through before the Budget and that is why this bill should be renamed to reflect the deception that has been forced. I ask the United Future Party in particular whether it will be out there. I heard Judy Turner’s speech. She said that this bill is what we have been waiting for because it targets young people. Well Judy Turner from United Future should come back down to the Chamber now and admit that it does not do that. 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Madam Chair— 
Jill Pettis 
: You had better do something about raising your profile! 
SIMON POWER 
: Or in fact the octaves of my voice then I too could sound like a strangled seagull in a clothes line. The general policy statement of the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill refers to the fact that light spirits in particular are the drink of choice for many teenagers and young persons and are contributing to excessive levels of alcohol consumption within these groups. We have just heard the Hon Roger Sowry and the Hon Dr Nick Smith on this side of the Chamber say that it is not often that one gets a bill where the general policy statement has no direct relationship to the operative clauses of the bill at all. What we have heard so far is that this bill does nothing to address those drinks that young people consume. In fact by the very nature of the level of alcohol contained in those drinks they are excluded from this legislation. They are no more expensive to buy. So the general policy statement of the bill does not reflect what the bill will do. 
In fact the title of this bill should simply be the dressing up of a tax grab because that is all it is. To try to paint this as some social policy helping teenage people with drinking difficulties is just stupid. What worries me most about this is that clearly Government members on the other side of the Chamber have not read this bill. Clearly they have not worked out what the bill does. It does nothing to address those concerns. It should in fact be called the “Anti - McLeod Report Bill”. 
It is worth referring to the McLeod report because what is interesting about that report is that it outlines in a section called “Excises and Duties” the following: “We believe that the levels of alcohol excise that could be justified on externality grounds are likely to be well below those currently applied in New Zealand.” At the time it was produced in October 2001 the McLeod report stated that excise duty and customs duty on alcohol was too high. We now have a bill before Parliament under extraordinary urgency that purports to do exactly the opposite to the recommendations contained in the McLeod report despite the fact that this Government spent millions of dollars having the McLeod report produced. 
The report states: “In our issues paper we concluded that excise taxes were difficult to justify on either tax efficiency or tax equity grounds.” In other words the McLeod report has stated very clearly that this is the wrong way to go about collecting revenue. If this Government considers this to be just a revenue-gathering exercise the McLeod report takes care of that issue in the sense that it states that it is the wrong way to go about it. On the other hand if the Government believes the general policy statement on the front page of the bill that states it is aimed at young people and their over-indulgence in consuming these types of alcoholic drinks it does nothing to meet that need either. 
The drinks that young people consume which have been so well outlined by the Hon Dr Nick Smith are not even covered by this bill. As my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall said earlier in the piece when young people turn 18 the least likely thing they will do is to march into a public bar and say: “Give me a port.” or “Give me a sherry and one for my mate too. No guys I’ll get this round of sherries.” It just will not happen. This bill has completely missed the point of either being revenue gathering or protecting young people. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 We are led to believe that this bill is not another tax. When we see a tax that is 84 percent that is a colossal tax. Jim Anderton claims that this will reduce the amount of alcohol consumed by young people; his Government is very naive if it believes that. The alcohol that the Government is to tax will not affect young people at all. I have in my hand here a bottle of Vodka Cruiser. It happens to be the passionfruit version. The total volume percentage of alcohol in this bottle is 5 percent. It falls outside of the limits of this bill. This is one of the most popular drinks for young people. Ron Mark has a pile of bottles in front of him. There is KGB Vodka and Vodka Teaser both of which have 5 percent alcohol. How will this bill stop young people from drinking? By increasing the price of the higher-valued alcoholic drinks? That will miss the mark. This bill will miss the mark because young people are not interested in the higher-alcohol sherries or ports. They would be laughed out of the pub by their mates if they walked in and asked for a port. They would be laughed out of the clubs if they walked in and asked for a sherry. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: No there will be a new fashion statement. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE 
: Yes there will be a new fashion statement: “My mates are going to buy me a sherry down at the club.” The research that we have done on these ready-to-drink drinks will show that this bill is really just a tax-gathering exercise. Helen Duncan screamed across the House a few moments ago that parents around the country would be pleased with this bill. I tell Helen Duncan that the only ones who will pay for the high-alcohol content are the parents. They will not be pleased by her statements that they will be pleased because it will reduce their children’s drinking. It will not. They will continue to drink these alcopops and ready-to-drink drinks because those are their favoured drinks. They can drink them without any problems and it will be a lot cheaper for them. They will go down to the pub or the off-licence and buy a 6-pack of Vodka Cruisers Vodka KGBs or Vodka Teasers. 
The prices on Baileys sherries and port will skyrocket. These are drinks not of the young people but of the middle-aged and the seniors in our society. Those are the people the Government has targeted. This Government is targeting the seniors the workers and the people who cannot afford to drink the high-alcohol drinks any more. The people on a budget scheme will dread this bill. They will go to their budget advisors and say: “We can no longer afford to pay for the children’s food. We’ve spent it on the higher taxes on alcohol.” That will not slow these people down from buying their higher-alcohol drinks. They will trim it back from the children buying the children’s clothes buying the children food or even allowing their children to go on school trips. They will continue to buy their high-alcohol drinks. It will not slow the drinking of younger people. The younger people will drink and they will get their drinks either from their parents’ drinks cabinet or they will buy the cheaper alcohol with the lower-alcohol volume content. They will not worry about the price. They will continue to drink. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 This Parliament has made quite a big mistake tonight. The mistake is that it believed what Jim Anderton said about this bill. I was pulled up for referring to Jim Anderton by the term “crocodile tears” as I saw him dripping with sincerity and concern about the drinking habits of our— 
Jill Pettis 
: What’s the Leader of the Opposition doing debating a bill like this? He should show some leadership. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That member is worse than a screaming seagull—I saw him dripping with sincerity and concern about young people only to find that that was wrong. It is as simple as that. I say to Ms Pettis that that is why I am speaking on this bill—because Parliament Ms Pettis the Labour caucus and United Future have been misled duped. Jim Anderton drips with concern for young people who drink these products—not the ones that he is taxing; maybe it is only the children of dessert wine socialists who drink Baileys for recreation—not the young people whom I know that is for sure. 
Why bother constructing such a sophisticated version of spin to run in the media and to corrupt officials by making them put it in the commentary on the bill? The bill states: “Light spirits in particular are the drink of choice for many teenagers and young persons ...”. What did he think they meant? Why bother with the dishonesty? If the Government wants to pass this bill under extraordinary urgency to keep it out of the Budget why bother making up a story? The worst aspect of it is not so much that it took in United Future or that it fooled the Labour caucus but that it is a cheap shot on New Zealand’s young people. 
Are they as stupid as this? Are they so stupid that they will not know by tomorrow night that this tax and Labour’s big story about it are a monster lie? Of course they will know. And John Tamihere “Mr brave courageous outspoken Minister” has stood by rattled through a patronising and insulting speech as if he did not care and the young people of New Zealand are apparently going to buy this story. [ 
Interruption 
] Mr Prebble would know about the level of intellectual debate in the Labour Party caucus! 
Why did Jim Anderton use up his reputation as someone who has been seen to be concerned for young people in making up a story about this bill? Until tonight I thought he was genuine in that respect. I thought he was. He was put in charge of a task force on young people after the election with 15 different Government departments and a budget to do something about young people who were feeling depressed and who suffered from mental illness. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: He issued all the press releases on youth suicide. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: He issued all the press releases on youth suicide and he comes in here with a dishonest bill that does not do what he said it would do. It is as simple as that. There is no other conclusion from this debate because he has not bothered to stand up and explain as I hope he will how this bill taxes those drinks. So there we go. The honourable former deputy Prime Minister the man who stood up dripping with sincerity should get up and tell us how this bill taxes the drinks that young people drink. It does not. He made it up. The Government made it up. It is a simple tax grab. It is simply Dr Cullen’s ego at work. He has been quoted and I will quote it again: “Smokers and drinkers need not fear sharp increases in tobacco.” 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
HEATHER ROY (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I agree with my colleague the Hon Richard Prebble when he says that this bill is definitely misnamed. He is quite right when he says that the words “stealth tax” should be added to it because it is nothing more than that. This bill is nothing more than a stealth tax and we are here at midnight debating it because Michael Cullen does not want to impart his bad news on Budget night. 
If we look at the title even further the addition of “ice cream” is entirely appropriate. If we look at the schedules we will see that ice cream is clearly stated several times to be part of the increase in excise duty so the title should read “Customs and Excise Stealth Tax (Alcoholic Beverages and Ice Cream) Amendment Bill”. A little wordy it might be but it is a much truer reflection of what the bill is actually about. 
I would like to move on to Helen Duncan’s comments about mothers. Mothers will be happy with this bill she says. I am a mother and I am extremely unhappy with this bill. I am particularly unhappy that I am standing here talking about this ridiculous bill at midnight. When I mention the fact that I am a mother Jill Pettis normally shrieks across the Chamber to ask why I am not at home with my children and that is a very good question. The reason I am standing here at midnight is that United Future has agreed to this urgency. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: The family party! 
HEATHER ROY 
: The family party is keeping me from my family tonight because Michael Cullen cannot bring himself to bring his bad news out on Budget night. [ 
Interruption 
] Mothers in this House are certainly not happy with this bill. I can tell members that for nothing. 
Helen Duncan 
: I’m a mother and I’m happy. 
HEATHER ROY 
: I am a mother too and I am very unhappy because I would rather be at home doing my after-hours job with my children. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Rather than taxing the voters! 
HEATHER ROY 
: That is exactly right. [ 
Interruption 
] No it will not help at all because there are plenty of other people who want to speak about this bill and quite rightly so. 
I want to carry this line of thought on for a bit longer. As a mother—and fathers in this House will agree with me too—I am responsible for my children. Parents need to take responsibility for their children particularly when it comes to buying and imparting alcohol to them. Of course this bill completely misses the point. It was meant to encompass all of those alcopops and ready-to-drinks. 
Helen Duncan 
: No it wasn’t. 
HEATHER ROY 
: Oh it was not meant to? I would like to invite that member to take a call after me and explain the comments she is just making. I am reading directly from the commentary in which the general policy statement states: “Light spirits in particular are the drink of choice for many teenagers and young persons and are contributing to excessive levels of alcohol consumption within these groups.” If that is true why does this bill not encompass alcopops? Increasing the duty payable on these products so that they are more correctly priced aims to reduce consumption so I would like Helen Duncan to take a call after I have finished speaking and tell us why these bottles are not included in the bill. If the statement in this commentary is true they certainly should be. I think it is time for a little honesty in this Chamber and I would call for that. Michael Cullen is not being honest in his Budget lead-up and now the commentary is not even being honest about the whole purpose of this bill. 
Why will this Labour Government do anything that stops people taking responsibility for themselves? That is my next question. If this Government were serious about reducing alcohol consumption it would be trying to incorporate these things although it is very difficult to tell now whether it is or is not doing that. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Veterans' Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon TONY RYALL (NZ National—Bay of Plenty) 
: 
 I am much obliged to be participating in this debate as the clock strikes another 3 minutes to the midnight of this Labour Government. More and more New Zealanders are aware as they are going to sleep tonight that the combined forces of the Opposition in this country are holding our left-wing minority Government to account. We are holding it to account because not only has it sought to mislead the people of New Zealand it has misled its own caucus and it has misled United Future and it deserves to be punished for that. 
What an extraordinary circumstance it is when the Minister for Economic Development Jim Anderton who made himself a sort of patron saint of youth and those who are finding it difficult in this world the Minister who issues press release after press release taking credit for the reduction in youth suicide in New Zealand the Minister who tries to talk about young people is actually prepared to sell his capital for a cheap and scrawny little deception that this bill is about stopping young people from buying alcohol. That is nonsense because this bill taxes a whole lot of alcohols that young people do not buy. When was the last time an 18-year-old bought Madeira? When was the last time a group of 18-year-olds went down to Port Ohope near Judy Turner’s place and got boozed on a bottle of sherry? When was the last time kids went into a café in Christchurch and decided to go down to the River Avon and get sloshed on a bottle of port? It just does not happen. They drink ready-to-drinks. Are those ready-to-drinks going to be caught by Dr Bernie Ogilvy’s vote in favour of this bill? Are they going to be caught by Marc Alexander’s vote in favour of it? Absolutely not! 
That is what stunned me when Jim Anderton took a call and spoke in favour of this bill. He is a man who has earnestly tried to reposition himself in the last 12 months as someone with an interest in young people’s issues. He has issued a lot of press releases given speeches and he attended a young people and drugs seminar in Wellington last month. His was the keynote address for the sixth annual Young Person and Drugs seminar. He has tried to develop a reputation as being the person who talks for young people in New Zealand and I cannot believe that he sold his capital so cheaply to be associated with this bill. I suppose that that is what happens when one is a poodle to Helen Clark. One will sell one’s soul to get one’s name—[ 
Interruption 
] Here comes Clayton Cosgrove. I will get on to him next. The Minister Mr Anderton is prepared to sell his soul for a bill that will do nothing to stop young people drinking. 
I can hear the member for Waimakariri. He is named after a low-alcohol drink and he would not be the only person. There is a leader named after a brick block and now there is a member named after a low-alcohol drink. If that member ever remembers being 18—I suspect he was born 40—he will know that those kids do not go in and ask for Madeira. They do not go in and ask for a sherry and they do not go in and ask for port. As the Hon Roger Sowry said the owner one of the biggest liquor outlets in this country has said that this bill will not work because the drinks that are the predominant choice of young New Zealanders are left untaxed. 
The other point on which the National Party and the combined Opposition will oppose this legislation is that this Government does not deserve the extra $18 million it will get from this tax grab. 
TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (NZ Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT NZ) 
: 
 This bill could have had many titles that were much more direct and told New Zealanders exactly what it is about. One of them—the most simple and direct—might have been chosen by the Prime Minister. She prides herself on being blunt straightforward and telling it like it is. If she had had anything to do with this bill and maybe she did it would have been called the “Distract the Punters Bill.” This would be the bill that one brings in under extraordinary urgency to attract attention at a time when the House has been paying very unwanted attention to a few other things where one’s directness has not been paying any dividends. 
This bill might or might not distract the punters from matters of real importance but it certainly has nothing to do with its stated intentions. This bill will not distract from the failure to use the strategic assets the Government retained when it said that it would not sell electricity generation. This bill will not distract from the fact that sucking up to China Russia France and Germany has no morality when the Prime Minister refuses to comment on Chinese aggression against Tibet or Chinese treatment of Sars or brutal Chinese treatment of Taiwan. This Prime Minister would never talk frankly about those matters. Instead she directs her attentions to our friends and allies. She will talk frankly about the United States and attack it for freeing the Iraqis. This is a distraction bill. 
But worse this bill does nothing about the problem stated in its introduction—namely young people drinking and ruining their brains. If this bill did intend to deal with that problem it would have been brought forward at a time when we could debate whether the right way to deal with youth drinking is to return to what several members on the Government side have mentioned and that is an older minimum drinking age. If the bill had really been intended to deal with youth drinking it would have allowed evidence to be brought forward as to whether it targeted what young people actually drink. How many young people drink Pimms? How many young people get stuck into Campari? How many young people get drunk on port these days when there are so many more drinks that have much less flavour but are much easier to get hold of? They drink the alcopops and the ready-to-drinks and most of them can simply drink themselves silly on almost any alcohol that is readily available whatever its strength. 
So the idea that this bill is in some way justified by an attempt to attack alcohol abuse would perhaps have been slightly credible if it contained provisions that directed enforcement against the problem. Why for example has United Future—the family party—not raised the simple prospect of treating drinking young people as though they were responsible for their own behaviour? Why are we continuously targeting the vendors without looking back at what our grandparents or even our parents did? When I say “our parents” I look to the 1950s and 1960s when we as young people knew that if we were breaking the drinking law we and not just the anonymous vendor might pay a penalty. I say to the family party that it might be possible for this bill to contain something that would direct enforcement against the people committing the wrong. The wrong in this case it seems is young people drinking too much. 
This bill does not seem to be a “retrieve the initiative” bill. It will not succeed in allowing the Prime Minister to distract attention from other failures in the areas of electricity and foreign policy. It certainly will not in the end persuade anyone for very long that it addresses youth drinking. A much more direct title for it would have been the “Youth Drinking Bill.” 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (NZ Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (NZ National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Undoubtedly the title of a bill should reflect the reality of the situation. I think it is summed up in the article in  
The 
Dominion Post 
 on 9 July last year that stated: “Smokers and drinkers need not fear sharp increases in tobacco and alcohol prices during the next 3 years” Finance Minister Michael Cullen says.” That is the reality. The article went on to state: “Dr Cullen who increased tobacco excise in May 2001 said yesterday it was ‘most unlikely’ there would be any increase in tobacco and alcohol excise other than the 6-monthly adjustments for inflation.” To be appropriate and realistic there is no doubt that one of the alternative and much more realistic titles for this bill would be: “Dr Michael Cullen (I Don’t Mean What I Say About Alcohol Taxes) Bill.” 
But let us go a bit further and into one of the serious reports that was provided to this Government some years ago. Of course I am speaking of the McLeod report which quite rightly suggested that excise taxes should be phased out. Perhaps the appropriate title for this bill would be the “Dr Michael Cullen (Let’s Ignore the Advice of Tax Experts) Bill”. I can see the Hon Ruth Dyson smirking but that was a very serious comment to this Government which propounds economic growth as being important but does the exact opposite. But let us go on. It is now 11 minutes past midnight and we are discussing this bill which is undoubtedly a tax grab so let us call it the “Dr Michael Cullen (Let’s Grab the Tax Under Extraordinary Urgency) Bill”. 
One of the things that I was quite deeply impressed by was the Hon Jim Anderton coming into this Chamber and saying in a somewhat mysterious and moralistic voice that international research showed undoubtedly that alcohol consumption by young people was price-sensitive. What could be more obvious? But there he is sitting in the chair; perhaps he could stand for the first time this evening since that mysterious and moralistic edification and tell us about that research-based evidence. I think it is quite relevant to what we read in the explanatory note: “The 14-23% range of products predominantly consists of light spirits fortified wines and sherries. Light spirits in particular are the drink of choice for many teenagers and young persons and are contributing to excessive levels of alcohol consumption …”. 
I say to Mr Anderton that he should not talk mysteriously and moralistically about that ethereal international research but take a cue from the Hon Dr Nick Smith who used his common sense went down to one of the local establishments in Wellington and found out for the Committee what young people really are drinking. We find that they are drinking Vodka Teaser Ruski Archers Peach Schnapps Vodka Cruiser and Smirnoff Ice. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 It is a bit of a sad day when we look at the title of a bill like this particularly having listened to some of the speeches in the first and second readings. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague and I know you will allow him to continue with his address but I just want to point out that under the Standing Orders a member who has not had a call gets priority over one who has. Mr Mark has made a contribution in this part of the debate. 
RON MARK 
: No I have not. 
John Carter 
: The member has not been called on this part? 
RON MARK 
: No. 
John Carter 
: I do apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Can I also remind the member that Standing Order 178 is now suspended. A member can speak twice. It is not necessarily a preference. 
RON MARK 
: We have heard enough already about what this bill is designed to do. What I clearly take exception to is hearing members of this Committee and particularly the Minister himself playing on the heart strings of parents whose children have suffered as a result of alcohol abuse. They have been telling the nation that this bill has been brought to Parliament out of some heartfelt desire to address the alcoholic problems facing our youth and the temptations of alcopops and light spirits. Men like the Hon Jim Anderton and women like the Labour member whose name I have forgotten—that is not unusual a lot of people do—told us that this bill was aimed at redressing the drinking habits of the young and that young people’s drinking habits were price-sensitive only to find that there is no price adjustment for the very drinks they are indulging in. 
I am appalled at the Greens and at United Future in particular. United Future members came to the House and gave many fine maiden speeches about Christian values and principles and about how they would stand on those principles. Those members have since had it clearly demonstrated by the drink bottles I am holding in my hand—and I will spell it out like  
Janet and John 
; like 
kindergarten because I know they are not listening but need to understand and it needs to be in  
Hansard— 
that they are supporting a bill under the apprehension that the Minister is addressing the drinking habits of young people who are being lured into buying alcopops. I am holding an empty Vodka Cruiser drink bottle in my hand. The young lady who served me at the Wellington Sports Café said it was a popular drink for young people. Its price at that place at this time of night is $6 a bottle. How can their drinking habits be price-sensitive when the price of this drink will not alter after this bill is passed? 
Speaker after speaker from United Future and the Government have told the Committee that these are the drinks they are targeting. The explanatory note of the bill says that light spirits in particular are the drink of choice for many teenagers and young persons and are contributing to excess levels of alcohol consumption within those groups. This is the drink they are talking about—the one I am holding in my hand. Why are people worried about that? They should smell one. This Vodka Cruiser which has a raspberry flavour smells very syrupy and is very sweet and is the very type of drink that Mr Anderton says he is concerned about. Is it covered by this bill? No it is not. Will its price go up? No it will not. So what is this bill here for? 
What is this drink that the young lady told me is very popular amongst young people? It is manufactured by Independent Liquor New Zealand and it is called a Vodka Teaser. It is a very cute-looking bottle white with lovely orange flames all over it. The alcohol content stated on the bottom of the bottle is 5 percent. Is it covered by this bill? No it is not. So what is all the hoo-ha about? What is all the raru raru about over on that side of the Chamber? How is it that Helen Duncan can say: “Oh we’re doing this to benefit the young people to adjust their drinking habits because parents have suffered from their children being traumatised by alcohol abuse and binge drinking.” But hello it is all a lie. Maybe this bill should be called the “We Can Fool Some of the People Some of the Time But We Can’t Fool Them All of the Time Amendment Bill”. Maybe this bill should have been called the “We in the Labour Party Believe Our Own Propaganda But Nobody Else Does Bill”. 
The Committee has been sold a crock and here we are at 20 past 12 debating a bill that will not achieve what the Minister has led everybody to believe it will achieve. That is why John Tamihere stormed out of the Chamber. He did the honourable thing as a Minister but sitting here are people who cannot be excused because on their votes this bill will pass and this dishonesty will be perpetuated. They are the members of United Future which once again is the poodle party. I probably should give those members a couple of these bottles to drink because they certainly need them. They do not understand how they have been hoodwinked or they choose not to believe. 
This bill targets ice cream. How can Mark Peck supposedly a southern man—a shorter version I know—allow Speights ice cream to be taxed? 
CLAYTON COSGROVE (NZ Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The question is that the question be now put. All those in favour please say “Aye” to the contrary— 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I have been watching the time quite carefully and I have seen that this debate on the title has gone on for a fraction over an hour. There has been a habit in the Committee in normal time once a bill has been to a select committee and is being debated on a part by part basis for closures to be accepted after about an hour. So in your accepting the closure you have followed the procedure that has become the habit of the Committee. But there has long—as long as I have been here in Parliament—been a tradition that when a bill comes in under urgency and has not been to a select committee two things happen: the debate is usually allowed to be wider—and you have done that—and it is usually allowed to go on for a longer period of time. I suggest that you have not allowed the latter of those two things to occur. If we get into a position where as presiding officer you stay with the conventions that have been established when a bill has gone to a select committee then there is no counter on a Government that chooses not to send a bill to a select committee. Let me give you an example if I may because this is a very very important issue. The Government found the resource management legislation before the House and realised it would take a long time to get that through so it decided to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper that sort of crunched 14 parts down into 3 parts. It could have done that and then pushed that legislation on as a new bill through the House without its going to a select committee. Speakers’ conventions—and I suspect Speakers’ rulings but certainly Speakers’ conventions—would have been for an extended debate on each of those parts because the bill had not been to a select committee. The Government sent the bill to a select committee albeit only for a week and so therefore avoided that. 
This bill has not been to a select committee. We are sitting under extraordinary urgency for only the third time since 1990 and I suggest that if you start accepting closures after what is only an hour of debate then you really are severely limiting the Opposition and its role in this Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am the sole judge of when to take the closure and this debate has gone on for 1 hour and 10 minutes. I have accepted the closure. Standing Order 139 is clear. All those— 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: I raise a point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It is out of order to debate the closure motion. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is this a new point of order? 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Absolutely! I want a ruling from you that as we move through this bill you and the other presiding officers will take into account on the parts we are moving through— 
Jill Pettis 
: You can’t ask the Chair to do that. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Is Mrs Pettis to be allowed to interrupt? I want a ruling from you that as we move through the parts of this bill you will take into account the fact that this bill has not been to a select committee and will abide by the convention that has been held for a long time in this House that bills that have not been the subject of consideration by a select committee are given a longer time of debate in the Committee. I would ask that you give that ruling now before we go on to the following parts. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: As the member knows the presiding officer at the time is the sole judge of relevancy. We will now put the vote. All those in favour— 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Is it a new point of order— 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: —because we cannot debate the closure. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: I am not debating the closure. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I think you are coming very close to it— 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Well will you hear my point of order? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: If it is a new point of order. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: I asked specifically whether you were prepared to say to the Committee that as we go through this debate on the following parts as the presiding officer you will follow the convention and allow extra time for debate because this bill has not been to a select committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Certainly the presiding officers are aware that this bill has not gone to a select committee. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No I have dealt with the matter. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: No you have not. I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No no. It is my determination that I have dealt with the matter. Presiding officers clearly know that this bill has not gone to a select committee. OK? That will be taken into account. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Thank you. That is what I asked for. 
JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am becoming more and more concerned that as we go through issues in the Committee and particularly when there are matters of procedure such as that point of order that Mr Sowry was just dealing with we are hearing interjections from the Government whips’ bench and in this case from Jill Pettis. The fact is that the whips in this House have a responsibility to set standards. I am afraid that as a long-serving whip in this Parliament I feel I am being let down by interjections from somebody who should know the Standing Orders and should know not to interject. I ask that you admonish Jill Pettis for that interjection. It was inappropriate it happens too often from the whips on the Government side of the Chamber and it is starting to worry me because it does not set the standards that this Parliament should expect from whips. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes. The member has made a fair point. There should be no discussion during points of order; there should be silence during them. Thank you. All those in favour please say “Aye”— 
A party vote was called for on the question T 
hat the question be now put. 
Ayes 68 
Noes 46 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I remind members that during votes there will be silence. 
The first amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 1(1) to add the words “Stealth Taxes” is ruled out of order as it is not a serious description of the bill. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Richard Prebble to clause 1(1) be agreed to: 
to insert after the word “Beverages” the words “and Ice Cream”. 
A party vote was called for on the question That t 
he amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Noes 68 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
Noes 46 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 7; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 This part talks firstly about the commencement date which is why we are here at 12.35 a.m. debating this bill. A part of the bill will come into force immediately upon its carriage: the extra tax on sherries ports and other drinks that elderly ladies primarily drink. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: And Madeira. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: That is right. The other clause in this part is the purpose clause. The Minister in the chair Jim Anderton explained to the House that the purpose of the bill was to stop young people from drinking. We have already heard today that this bill will do nothing of the sort. In fact it will transfer young people from buying alcohol and mixing drinks to buying ready-made drinks. 
I have just come off the phone from talking to one person who has been listening to the debate. As a mother she tells her daughter that if she is going to drink she should buy the ready-made drinks because at least they have not been tampered with and are safer to buy. That mother encourages her children if they are going to drink to buy the ready-made drinks. That seems like the sensible thing for that parent to do in order to keep her daughters safe and to make sure that nobody is tampering with their drinks. She is distraught to know that those drinks will not be taxed any extra at all despite Government members thinking that they will be. That mother rang in to find out who was right and who was wrong and I assured her that Helen Duncan Mr Anderton and the rest of the Government members were wrong. 
Firstly I ask whether Mr Anderton will take a call to stand by the speech he gave in the opening part of the debate. Will he take a call? 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I am perfectly happy to stand by my speech. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: That is good. He said he was perfectly happy to take a call. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: No to stand by the speech. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: We will wait to see whether he takes a call. I understand that he is now saying that he will not take a call so he will not stand by his speech. That is understandable. Secondly Labour members— 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Don’t mislead the Committee. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: I am not misleading the Committee. That member is the one who has misled and lied to the House not me. 
I want to ask Mr Anderton whether what Labour members are saying around the building at the moment is true. Labour members are saying that this bill has to come in so as to get $17 million of extra revenue that will go to the Ministry of Economic Development because that was the only way the Labour caucus would agree to new money going to that ministry. Labour members know that that is a waste of money. Apparently after the debacle with the shipbuilders in west Auckland Labour members have said that no new money would follow Sovereign Yachts. Mr Anderton said that if the price of alcohol for young people was put up and he did it even though the bill is in Rick Barker’s name he would take the flack. It is his last term here so he said he would take the flack for this measure if he could get some extra money for the Ministry of Economic Development. That is what Labour members are starting to say around the corridors of Parliament; that is what they are saying.. 
I want to know whether Mr Anderton will take a call to deny that. He will not take a call to deny that. That member is wearing the can; he gave the speech in the House. He is prepared to wear the can for a bill that is in Rick Barker’s name. Mr Anderton is prepared to sit there in the chair because that was the only way he was able to get any extra money from the Budget. He had to wear the unpopular move of increasing the tax on alcohol so he dressed that up to United Future and they fell for it. The only questions United Future asked were how many votes they would have to vote with Labour on—that was it. There was no question about whether the bill covered alcopops or about anything like. United Future did not ask any questions. It has given one speech tonight saying how pleased it was that the bill covered ready-to-drink products only to find out that it does not. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 We are now debating the commencement clause. I want to ask a simple question that I hope the Minister might answer. What are the companies that produce the spirits in New Zealand supposed to charge tomorrow morning for orders that they receive on that day? What are they supposed to charge for those orders? 
Further I would like to get some assurance particularly from officials that with all the schedules that are to disappear later in the bill they have not done something in there that defeats the purpose of the bill. That purpose is pretty clear. It is to catch all alcoholic beverages of between 14 percent and 23 percent alcohol by volume for which the duty is currently about $21 a litre and to move them into the $39-a-litre bracket. We have been told some of the products that are supposed to be caught by this tax hike. Can the officials give the Committee via their Minister an absolute assurance that they have not left anything out that they have not made a mistake and that this legislation is not something that will be embarrassing for them some time down the track? 
Simon Power 
: Go on tell us. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No I will not say. It is not for me to do the work of the officials. They have enough time between now and the third reading to go back through the bill and to comb through all those code numbers and tariff numbers to make sure they have not left one out. I am thinking that perhaps I should tell them what it is but I will not. 
Hon Members 
: Go on! 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I will not. I am not an official; I am not as clever as that. However I think I have spotted something and it will be a lot of fun tomorrow. 
Do members remember the last time that the Government tried to ram through something like this and it made the whole of New Zealand a dry area? Leading up to the holidays a couple of years ago it made the whole of New Zealand a dry area. I think it has done something similar again. This time it has wetted the country up big time. Again the question for the officials is whether they can give an assurance via the Minister that there is no mistake in the bill that nothing is left out and that there is no contradiction between the purpose clause and the requirements in the first part of the bill. Can they give us an assurance that all aspects of the explanatory note are covered by the bill? 
In the short time we have had to look at this bill I have dived into it a bit. I could be wrong but— 
Opposition Members 
: Never. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No no I am happy to say I could be wrong. But Mr Anderton will not say he was wrong. He gave an appalling speech at the commencement of the first reading and got things completely wrong but he will not admit it. I am happy to say I may be wrong. However I would like to say I am right—after the bill is passed. Then we will have a great deal of fun. 
I would like to know what is meant by clauses 5 and 6 becoming effective some days after the bill receives the royal assent. I simply ask the Minister why that is. 
John Carter 
: Is that what’s wrong with it? 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No. But I guess one might say there is a bit of breathing space there for the Government. I have asked those simple questions and I will repeat them so that the  
Hansard 
 record is full of them. First have the officials closed everything off—have they got everything lined up with nothing missing—and second why do clauses 5 and 6 come into effect much later than the rest of the bill? 
Finally when clause 3(b) states that the purpose of this legislation is “to increase the rates of excise duty and excise-equivalent duty payable on alcoholic beverages in line with the preceding 12 months’ movement in the Consumers Price Index All Groups excluding credit services.” what does that mean? 
John Key 
: A good question. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is a great question. I have learnt that question from Winston Peters—the only difference between us is that he asks it a lot more than I do and he asks it with a great deal more speed to his question. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Speaking to Part 1 which includes the— 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would have thought that New Zealand First would be next in the order of speaking. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is right but no one from New Zealand First took the call. 
Dail Jones 
: Our member has sought it twice. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry. I did not see him. My apologies. I have already called the Hon Ken Shirley. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Part 1 contains clause 2 and clause 3. Clause 2 relates specifically to the commencement. ACT has a number of problems with this bill and I wonder whether the Minister in the chair and his colleagues on the Government benches might at this late stage consider withdrawing the bill. 
One of the immediate problems with the commencement is that even though it is past midnight liquor outlets will be open. If they are not open nightclubs will be and they will be selling these light spirits in the 14 to 23 percent alcohol content band. Those people will get caught. Under extraordinary urgency this legislation according to the commencement clause came into effect at midnight tonight. Clearly it will not get the royal assent until tomorrow but midnight was the time it came into effect. So liquor outlets and certainly nightclubs operating from an hour ago to however long it takes to get the royal assent will be caught out. The excise will be charged on the liquor they have sold as from midnight tonight but they will not be recovering that money from their patrons for the next 8 to 10 hours or so. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Will they get both the excise and the fines? 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Quite so! We are in a terrible situation. But the point that has been made by many speakers is that the whole purpose of what the Government is doing has been exposed for what it is—that is one big fraud. This is one of the dangers when Governments get a rush of blood to the head think they are doing one thing— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Don’t send it to a select committee. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: —and do not send bills to a select committee. The Government is introducing the bill and ramming it through under extraordinary urgency and it has been totally exposed by the scrutiny of the Opposition. We see in the explanatory note that the bill is clearly—and the Minister who moved the first reading made it quite clear—all about social engineering about redressing the binge drinking of our young people. He was sincere; I believe he was genuine in saying that. But it has been adequately exposed that the preferred drink of young people that the Government thought it was targeting is not included. This bill covers dessert wine sherry vermouth port—the drinks of the matriarchs shall we say. Labour Party matriarchs are the ones who will be affected by this. The next Labour Party conference could be a quite testy affair when the matriarchs make their displeasure known to those members. The bill is not targeting the people whom it purports to cover as stated in the explanatory note. 
I invite the Minister in the chair to take a call. He sat there with his head down obviously out of shame and I can understand that but we are a forgiving bunch on this side of the Chamber. We think he should get up and concede the point that the bill fails miserably. If it is intended to address the binge drinking of young people it fails because their preferred drink is not included. If the Minister is not prepared to do that then he is party to what can only be called an absolute tax grab. If the member was honest and sincere in what he told us the bill is all about then he will get up concede that the bill fails and withdraw the bill even at this late stage. That has been done before. Then we can all go home and I do not think anybody would worry too much about that. We have wasted a few hours on what is clearly a very bad bill. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Mothers back to their children. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Mothers can go back to their children; we have had speeches on that tonight. Withdrawing the bill would be a very very sensible course of action at this late stage. Will the Minister take a call? He has not indicated whether he will. He has not taken any calls from the chair to date. A major revelation of an inaccuracy in the bill has been exposed. I ask the Minister to take a call. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to start by referring to the explanatory note. It states under the heading “Part 1”: “Clause 2 relates to the commencement of the Bill. The provisions that relate to beverages containing between 14% and 23% alcohol by volume come into force on the date on which the Bill receives the Royal assent. The other provisions come into force on 1 June 2003.” I want to focus on the provisions that relate to beverages containing between 14 and 23 percent alcohol by volume. 
I used to—and still do every now and then—hang out at our local rugby league club. The Hibiscus Coast Raiders do very well in the Bartercard Cup trophy. I used to play in the open age restricted team and we would go out on the field and get hammered a bit and after the game we would go into the club and have a few drinks. A lot of the boys in our league team would go up to the bar but I never heard one of them say: “I want a man’s drink. I’ll have a sherry.” The girlfriends drank lollipop drinks or what we have been calling alcopops. I did not see one of them drinking dessert wines port or similar drinks. 
Interestingly the explanatory note states: “The 14-23% range of products predominantly consists of light spirits fortified wines and sherries. Light spirits in particular are the drink of choice for many teenagers and young persons and are contributing to excessive levels of alcohol consumption within these groups.” We know there is excessive alcohol consumption within those age groups but I have to make the point that from what I have seen around the place—and this is not just my point of view but the view of many members tonight in the Committee including my colleagues Ron Mark and Dail Jones—the high alcohol consumption of young people hardly involves light spirits or sherry; it involves drinks like that sitting on Ron Mark’s table over there KGB Vodka which was one of the first lollipop drinks. I ask the member to turn the drink round so that everybody can see it. It was one of the first alcopop drinks that came out and all the other ones followed—Tattoo Vodka Cruiser and Smirnoff Ice followed soon after. Just recently there has been Archers Aqua which is over on Nick Smith’s table. That came out in the last year or so. 
Deborah Coddington 
: How much alcohol? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: That is a very good question. It is 5 percent. But when I looked at the bill I saw that it did not mention 5 percent. 
Brent Catchpole 
: That’s below 14 to 23 percent. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Another member in another part of the Committee says that it is below the 14 to 23 percent alcohol range of products which predominate as far as excessive drinking by young people is concerned. Members on this side of the Committee who have talked about this bill particularly my colleagues Ron Mark and Dail Jones make a very good point. I really think this Government is making an excuse. It is saying that it wants to reduce the harm to young people— 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 The issues relating to the commencement dates in Part 1 have already been covered by my colleague the Hon Roger Sowry and I do not intend to canvass them again. But I do want to spend a bit of time on the purpose of the bill which is contained in clause 3(a) and (b). Just for the sake of clarity I want to say that the purpose clause states that the purpose is “to align the duty payable on beverages containing more than 14% but not more than 23% alcohol by volume”. Clause 3(b) states that a further purpose is “to increase the rates of excise duty and excise-equivalent duty payable” on drinks in that bracket—more than 14 percent alcohol but not more than 23 percent. 
I would be obliged if the Minister in the chair Jim Anderton who to the best of my recollection has not taken a call at all on this bill would explain this to me. If he takes the time to look up from his correspondence and turns to schedule 2 in particular to page 14 he will see that under “Other fermented beverages (for example cider perry mead)”—and that is not Colin Meads—percentages of alcohol per litre are set out. It states: “Containing more than 6% vol. but not more than 9% vol.” and “Containing more than 9% vol. but not more than 14% vol.” and then we go to “Containing more than 23% vol.” What happened to the bit between 14 and 23 percent? That is the operative part of this bill. I could have missed something here but I think it would be worth the Minister taking a call and explaining to the Committee how that came about and on what basis that particular omission for “other fermented beverages” came about. 
The omission is not just there. If members have taken the time to look through the schedules they will have seen that it is difficult for the purpose of this bill to be fulfilled because this matter arises again on page 15. Members will see again: “Containing more than 9% vol. but not more than 14% vol.” and then it goes straight to “Containing more than 23% vol.” Where is the operative bit? Where is the bit that says “more than 14% but no more than 23%”? That is the operative part of this legislation; it is on the front page but unfortunately the explanatory note does not create law. If we move through the bill we can see that omission again on page 16. 
If the Minister in the chair would be good enough to take at least a short call he could perhaps put me out of my misery and explain to me why the schedules—which are the parts of the document that contain the detail about the products that the operational clauses in the bill are to apply to—omit those specific percentages. It might be something I have missed—I am sure it probably is—but it would be worth the Minister at least taking a call and explaining that to me. I do not think the Minister has taken a call at all during the Committee stage of this bill. When rushing a bill through under extraordinary urgency at 4 minutes to 1 in the morning the Minister should at least have the decency to respond to what I consider to be a reasonably legitimate question. 
I think that matter also aligns with the fact that what the purpose clause does not contain is the actual purpose of the bill which is a tax grab. Clause 3(a) states it is “to align the duty payable” clause 3(b) states it is “to increase the rates of excise duty and excise-equivalent duty payable” and a clause 3(c) should state it is to grab some tax dosh. It is my guess that the $18 million the Government will grab will not be used at all to help young people who are accessing alcohol and creating social problems as a result of that access. The purpose clause should reflect that. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I will address clause 3 of the bill which lifts the tax on alcoholic beverages of over 14 percent alcohol by volume but less than 23 percent which Mr Anderton tells us are the drinks that are corrupting the young. Mr Roger Sowry tells us that those beverages are actually sherry port Baileys and Madeira. 
I think we have found the reason Mr Anderton thinks that. I ask Mr Anderton whether this is the source of his concern. I asked the library for some research on Madeira and I was given this poem: 
She was young she was pure 
She was new she was nice 
She was fair she was sweet seventeen. 
He was old he was vile 
And no stranger to vice  
He was base he was bad he was mean. 
He had slyly inveigled her up to his flat 
To view his collection of stamps; 
And he said as he hastened to put out the cat 
The wine his cigar and the lamps: 
“Have some madeira m’dear 
You really have nothing to fear; 
I’m not trying to tempt you that wouldn’t be right 
You shouldn’t drink spirits at this time of night. 
Have some madeira m’dear 
It’s so very much nicer than beer. 
I don’t care for sherry one cannot drink stout 
And port is a wine I can well do without. 
It’s simply a case of  
chacun á son  
gout. 
Have some madeira m’dear!” 
Unaware of the wiles of the snake in the grass 
Of the fate of the maiden who topes 
She lowered her standards by raising her glass 
Her courage her eyes and his hopes. 
She sipped it she drank it 
She drained it she did 
And he quietly refilled it again 
And he said as he secretly carved one more notch 
On the butt of his gold-handled cane: 
“Have some madeira m’dear 
I’ve got a small cask of it here 
And once it’s been opened you know it won’t keep 
Do finish it up it will help you to sleep. 
Have some madeira m’dear 
It’s really an excellent year. 
Now if it were gin you’d be wrong to say yes: 
The evil gin does would be hard to assess 
(Besides it’s inclined to affect my prowess) 
Have some madeira m’dear.” 
Then there flashed through her mind what her mother had said 
With her ante-penultimate breath: 
“Oh my child should you look at the wine that is red 
Be prepared for a fate worse than death!” 
She let go her glass with a shrill little cry 
Crash! Tinkle!  
It fell to the floor. 
When he asked “What in heaven?” she made no reply 
But put in a dash for the door. 
“Have some madeira m’dear!” 
Rang out down the hall loud and clear 
A tremulous cry that was filled with despair 
As she paused to take breath in the cool midnight air. 
“Have some madeira m’dear!” 
The words seemed to ring in her ear … 
Until the next morning she woke up in bed 
With a smile on her lips and an ache in her head 
And a beard in her earhole that tickled and said: 
“Have some madeira m’dear!” 
I think we have found the key to why Mr Anderton thinks Madeira is corrupting of the young. It has brought back to him the Flanders and Swann song. I have to tell him that it is actually a song not proper research. The idea that Madeira is corrupting our young is a view that only Mr Anderton and Dr Cullen could possibly have. If there is any research other than what I found that says that Madeira is corrupting the young I invite the member to table it. 
Hon Member 
: The family party might have some. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It might. That member told us she had seen a bottle that was 22.5 percent proof. If the National Party can produce the lollipop drink bottles which are only 5 percent alcohol then I invite the United Party to produce this new drink that no one has heard of—to produce any evidence apart from what I have given that Madeira is causing any corruption of our young people. I believe that when this bill was put up none of the Labour Party caucus members asked any questions. They are so out of touch that they had no idea that what Jim Anderton was saying to them was a load of rubbish based on a Flanders and Swann song. Introducing a tax on Madeira is his swansong. What a triumph for his parliamentary career! When he is asked what he managed to do in Parliament he will say: “I managed m’dear to increase the tax on Madeira.” What an extraordinary achievement! I say to Government members that when they lose the next election it will be the tax on Madeira that did it. 
GEORGINA BEYER (NZ Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want Mr Jim Anderton the Minister in the chair to answer a very simple question: where is the research to back up his contention that this bill will increase taxation and reduce the problems associated with alcohol abuse by the young? We have maybe an hour or two— 
Ron Mark 
: He’s not going to answer that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Is the Minister in the chair prepared to answer that question? It is a very fair question because he cannot trot into this Chamber hand on heart and say he will save our young people from the evils of alcohol without delivering a skerrick of evidence that this bill will in any way affect the popular drinks. 
Ron Mark and I have spoken to people who work in the bars. I spoke to three of them and they pointed out to me the alcoholic drinks that are popular with young people. I also want to recite for the benefit of the Minister in the chair that in Nelson we did have a serious alcohol riot at Tahunanui beach. The place was strewn with bottles of alcopops. So when I heard the Minister say that this bill would deal with those sorts of drinks I took him at his word. I thought the Minister would be giving us a fair steer. However I am mighty angry that I now find out with a small amount of research that that is absolutely untrue. I say to the Minister in the chair that he can do better than that for goodness’ sake! 
Does the Minister in the chair intend to do better than that? Does he intend to provide the United Future party the Labour Party and any other party in this Chamber with any evidence that the alcohol products that are a risk for young people are addressed at all by this bill? We have heard speech after speech that shows that in terms of what this bill provides for that is absolutely untrue. The explanatory note of the bill states that young persons and teenagers are contributing to excessive levels of alcohol consumption and that this bill will attack that. Does the Minister stand by that comment in the explanatory note? Does he stand by the speech he gave when introducing this bill? Such is the arrogance of the Minister in the chair that he is not prepared to answer even perfectly reasonable questions about this bill. 
The second question relates to what members have against the products that are affected. When I asked at the Wellington Sports Cafe in Courtenay Place about the products that would be affected I was told they were dessert wines. What do the Government and the United Future party have against dessert wines? In my electorate there happen to be a large number of wine producers who have won wonderful prizes for New Zealand and who export large amounts of dessert wine. Why do this Minister and this Government want to attack them? Why do they want to increase the tax on them? I thought that Government members were the Chardonnay socialists who always come to Nelson to gloat about its wonderful wine industry. But then secretly in the dead of night they want to ping that industry with an extra tax. And what will the Minister for Economic Development—who is also the Minister for Industry and Regional Development and who wants to help regions like Nelson—do about the impact of this legislation on the dessert wine industry? 
I also challenge the member Judy Turner to say what on earth she is proposing to do by supporting this bill. I refer to all the alcohol products that are commonly used by young people such as Vodka Cruiser Vodka Teaser Archers schnapps Ruski Tattoo or KGB Vodka. Did she know that all those products were unaffected by this bill? 
Judy Turner 
: Yes. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: She knew that? Then how could Judy Turner support this bill saying it would deal to the problem of young people abusing alcohol when none of those products are affected? Can Mr Paul Adams explain why that is? 
Paul Adams 
: Yes. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: OK why are none of those products affected? 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
:  
This legislation is interesting because there has been much talk about our young people. I for one am a great supporter of the young people of our nation; I think they are fantastic. But we cannot legislate human behaviour. Therefore all that one can do is to indicate to people what one is trying to achieve and I think that is what we are doing here. We often look at money without looking at the wider issues. 
We members of Parliament need to recognise that in our nation we have a severe drinking problem with our young people. We should ask ourselves why that is. I think a lot of it has to do with their training. We train our children on how to handle themselves when crossing roads and so on but many of us fail in our responsibility to teach our young people to handle alcohol. We should train them to use the drinks with a lower alcohol content sensibly. Let us be honest and admit that if people want to get drunk then there are many ways that they can do so and no legislation will prevent it. 
Another issue we will need to address in time and to have a serious look at is the distribution of alcohol to those who are not old enough to have it legally. I believe that is a major issue. Let me tell members a story. 
Ron Mark 
: Give me a story about the bill. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I am telling you a story about alcohol and the bill is about alcohol. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member should not bring me into the debate. He cannot use the word “you”. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I apologise. 
Ron Mark 
: Is this a sermon or a speech on the bill? 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I will leave that for the member to decide. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I remind members that running commentaries are out of order. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: There is the problem which I think we all recognise that those who are under the legal drinking age can easily obtain alcohol. We have very little come-back on the people who supply it whether that is a parent or an older person. There is a story of a father whose daughter was killed in a car accident. He said that if he ever found out who was responsible for supplying that liquor he would deal severely with him or her. Unfortunately that liquor came from his own liquor cabinet. I would like to see some time in the future us dealing with the people who allow younger people to get alcohol. 
There are many issues that we need to address. I would like to see us educate our young ones. We should encourage them to use low-alcohol drinks in a sensible manner so that they learn to handle alcohol correctly. Of course many children see their parents come home drunk so therefore they think that is acceptable. It is the same with the behaviour in this Chamber. If we do not want that kind of behaviour in society maybe we need to stir ourselves up. United Future supports this bill because we maintain it gives an indication of our concerns about liquor. 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It is with some concern that I rise to speak in opposition to this bill. My concern is for this reason. On Saturday I went to visit my 18-year-old son who is a student at Victoria University and on the wall in his room in Stafford House on the Terrace was a huge orange poster with the slogan: “The first thing I’ll do when I graduate from university is pay back my student loan. Yeah right.” Members should not need to guess who is promoting that poster. It is orange with red writing. I wonder whether any of the Government members can guess or know who is promoting that. And right there beside the poster in the corner of the room was a stack of empties—I am a bit ashamed to admit that 18 though my son is—and members can guess what kind they were. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Sherry! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: They were not sherry Madeira Baileys or ice cream. They were none of those things. I will give members a hint: they came from Mangatainoka. 
Brian Connell 
: Tui? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Absolutely. They were Tui. 
I am astounded at the result of Nick Smith’s research robust though it was when he went down town to find out what young people were drinking. I wonder what sort of a bunch of namby-pambies there are in this town. Nick Smith came back with a whole lot of empty containers and none of them were cans of Tui. There was not one single can of Tui—or any other beer can I hasten to add. What is the alcohol content of Tui? 
John Carter 
: 4 percent. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: It is 4.8 percent I believe. Will that be covered by this legislation? When the honourable Minister talked in his speech about saving young people—like my son at Victoria University—from the evils of alcohol by taxing them $18 million will this legislation save them from drinking Tui? No it will not. It will not affect them one single iota. 
I say to the member over there on the Government benches that something occurred to me while I was listening to this debate. If one was going to introduce legislation to protect young people from alcohol there is one group that I would speak to. Who would that be? Members can guess who that group may be. I would go and talk to the young people. 
John Carter 
: Especially if you were drinking Tui. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That is right. 
Ron Mark 
: No the United Future party. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: I would not speak to the United Future party. I would go to Victoria University which is not far away. In fact members could almost get to Stafford House in a couple of leaps; it is just near the end of the Terrace. I would talk to the groups of young people there in the common room—especially if one had had a few drinks of Tui although I am not sure about that other stuff over here. I am not sure whether one should go to Stafford House with that stuff but one could certainly go there with Tui. 
Ron Mark 
: And Speights. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: And Speights. I would go there and I would ask those young people what they drink and what its alcohol level is. I would say to them that we think there is too much binge drinking among young people and that we think that we will address that problem by doing something through the taxation system to try to discourage them from drinking alcohol. 
What do we have here in this bill? We have legislation that will once again penalise and bite the very hands of the people who voted for Labour and this socialist Government—the hard-working mums and dads out there who come home after a trade union meeting and who sit down in the corner to have a quiet Scotch whisky. They are the ones who will pay this mean-spirited grab-and-snatch tax. They are the ones who will pay. 
What will the money be spent on? That question has been asked many times in this debate tonight. What will it be spent on? One thing is for sure: it will not be spent on extra police to enforce the current drinking age. Will it be spent on that? Perhaps the Minister will take a call. His overwhelming concern for youth has been demonstrated tonight in the House. Will he spend the extra money on more police to enforce the current drinking-age laws? The answer is no. What will the Government spend that money on? What will that money go into? One thing is for sure. I know the Chardonnay socialists and I know that Chardonnay will not have an extra tax— 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I am moved to take a call after Paul Adams’ speech. I cannot see Paul Adams now but he gave a very spirited speech that attemped to justify in some way the United Future party’s position in supporting this bill. The only thing he has done is to demonstrate to the Committee that he clearly does not know anything about the bill. He has given us a great speech about fathers’ liquor cabinets. If he sincerely believes that not allowing young people to get alcohol is the way to deal with the problems of teenage drinking that the United Future member Judy Turner spoke so strongly about and used as the reason that this bill had to be passed then maybe he is telling the Committee that he wants to see a tax on fathers’ liquor cabinets or something. I do not know whether he is saying that. Maybe fathers should just lock their liquor cabinets. 
Paul Adams gave us a great lecture about how the real way to solve the problem of teenage drinking is to educate young people. I have only one question for him. If that is what he believes—that the way to address the teenage drinking problem is to educate teenagers—why is he voting for this bill? In his own words this bill will not do that. This bill is not about education. The title is not “The Teenage Education to Correct Their Drinking Habits Bill”. That is not the title. The title should be the “Tax Grab on Behalf of Labour (Sponsored by Jim Anderton) Bill”. That should be the title. 
Paul Adams loves to play the heartstrings. I am sick of hearing those socialist MPs playing the heartstrings on the subject of drinking. That will bite some of them right on the backside because it comes across as terribly insincere. Why is it insincere? It is because the very drinks that they refer to in their speeches—and boy I will copy those  
Hansards 
 off and mail them out—as being a problem for teenage drinking and the very drinks mentioned at the beginning of the explanatory note of the bill are the ready-to-drink mixes that are not covered by the bill at all. It is a lie it is deceptive it is misleading it is incorrect it is wrong and it is inappropriate to tell the public—and to come into this Chamber I say to Mr Adams—that one is voting for this bill because it will stop teenagers from drinking the ready-to-drink mixes. This legislation will not do that. Therefore if it will not do that why are the Government members—and the United Future members in particular—voting for this bill? 
In his speech Mr Adams has given us every reason to expect that he will vote against the bill.But no the real truth is that the poodle has rolled over sat up and begged and is now playing dead to the tune of Mr Anderton who clearly does not understand that the drinks he is worried about are not covered by the bill and to the tune of other people in the Labour Party who do not have the foggiest clue about what they are doing. 
If we accept all that—and we do—then we must ask ourselves what the aim of this bill is. We can come to only one conclusion: it is about revenue gathering. It is not about hitting the Chardonnay-sipping spa-bath socialists’ pockets because the Chardonnay they sip is not covered by this bill. It is not about hitting students at university who really want to lay into a slab of beer over a game of rugby and then to go out and buy another slab afterwards. A slab of beer with its 4 percent alcohol is not covered by this bill. This bill targets people at the top end of the income scale who drink port and Madeira. Here is one of the great ironies: this bill targets officers of the New Zealand Defence Force. Just the other day this Government was patting itself on the back for giving defence personnel a pay rise. The Government now says that $12 million is going out to them but by the way all the port that they drink in the officers’ mess will go up a whack. The Government will scrape back $18 million out of the pockets of defence personnel because really at the end of the day it thinks they are just a bunch of horrible capitalists who only drink flash drinks that the Chardonnay-sipping spa-bath socialists do not like. In fact the Government wants their money in order to carry on its beneficiary binge. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 The Committee will be interested to know that earlier today I was walking down the corridor from the Chamber to go back up to my office and I happened to bump into Mark Peck— 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: What was he doing in our corridor? 
JOHN CARTER 
: No he was just walking out of the Chamber. We got talking about the business of the day and I said: “We’ll be here late tonight.” He said: “Really? Why what’s going on?”. I said: “Well there’s going to be a bit of extraordinary urgency.” He said: “What urgency?”. I said: “No no extraordinary urgency.” He said: “Really? What’s that about then?”. I said: “I don’t know Mark but to the best of my knowledge it is to do with some customs or alcohol tax.” He said: “Really? Well you know more than I do.” I said: “Well that’s no surprise.” 
But the point is—[ 
Interruption 
] The senior Government whip is chipping away again. The point is that what worried me about that conversation was that it made me wonder how many of the Labour caucus actually knew what was going on. When we look across at the faces on that side of the Chamber as we go through this debate we see they are looking slam-dunked. They are looking as though someone has pulled the wool right over their eyes. In fact I would wager a bet that most members on the Government side of the Chamber had not been informed. 
Indeed any of them who were informed would have been told the same cock and bull story that we were told at the briefing we had earlier today. We heard this nice namby-pamby story that this legislation will help the youth of this nation that it will save them from the evils of drink that it will create an environment where they will be pure that we will not have to worry any more that they might overindulge at some sort of alcohol-participation party somewhere because the cost of the alcohol will be so great that they will not be able to afford it any more and that Jim Anderton will feel better because he is the one who introduced the measure and misled this country and this Parliament. 
If we look at this bill we see that its purpose clause should state: “This is an example of Labour Government policy.” because it is typical of Labour members to try to pull the wool over everybody’s eyes to mislead. It is sneaky cunning sly dirty— 
John Key 
: It’s dumb! 
JOHN CARTER 
: Absolutely; it is just another dopey piece of legislation but it is also sneaky sneaky sneaky. Government members come in here telling us one thing but as with all the things they do there is another purpose. Finally they get found out. This time they happened to get found out quicker than they thought they would. This time they were found out within about half an hour or an hour. The public will know that they have endeavoured to come to this Chamber and mislead Parliament and the nation. 
I say to the Minister in the chair Mr Anderton that it is a disgrace. He should be ashamed to be sitting in the chair without taking a call after he tried to mislead the House with his address. It is an absolute disgrace that he can sit there without taking a call with a smug smile on his face and say that it is OK but he will not respond to decent questions or explain himself. I say to him that in my time in Parliament this is one of the worst examples of a Minister who has absolutely gone out of his way to perpetrate something on this nation that should not be happening. The Minister is responsible for that along with the other members who are supporting him. It is a disgrace and all of you should be ashamed of yourselves quite honestly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Do not bring the Chair into the debate please. 
JOHN CARTER 
: The members on the Labour side should be ashamed Mr Chairperson and so too should the other parties that are supporting this bill. I say to the United Future party and to the Green Party—to Rod Donald and Paul Adams who have spoken or are about to speak on this bill—that maybe they too were misled. Maybe they were. Maybe they were fooled by the disgraceful conduct of this Minister and this Labour Government; if so they have a chance to change it and stop this from happening. I have to say that this is the worst case that I can think of for some time. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I want to take just a very brief call— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Take your whole time. 
ROD DONALD 
: Thank you Mr Prebble. I am concerned that the burgeoning number of listeners will be concerned by what Mr Mark was saying before—that this bill is all about ready-to-drinks. The bill clearly states in the explanatory note— 
Ron Mark 
: I didn’t say it was all about it; I said that’s what they have sold it on. 
ROD DONALD 
: No the Government has not sold it on that because the explanatory note clearly states: “The 14-23% range of products predominantly consists of light spirits fortified wines and sherries.” It goes on to talk about light spirits. 
I suggest that people like Mr Mark have a look at what the Distilled Spirits Association stated in its submission to the Alcohol Advisory Council (ALAC) on this issue. It very clearly defined light spirits and it did not refer to light spirits as having anything to do with ready-to-drinks. So those members with all the bottles on their benches—and I do not know who did the drinking but— 
John Carter 
: That’s what the Minister said in his introduction.  
Hansard 
 recorded it. 
ROD DONALD 
: Did the Minister say that? I missed the Minister’s speech. Well I refer all members both from the Opposition and the Government to what the Distilled Spirits Association says in its submission to ALAC about light spirits. I referred to some of it in my first reading speech. It very clearly defines light spirits by saying that it is a market-coined term it is a loose term and it is not legally defined. It goes on to state that a proper and alternative name would be “general alcoholic beverage or diluted alcoholic preparation” and that those drinks “should in no way be confused with a traditional distilled spirit”. As I said in my speech they are in effect watered-down ethyl alcohol or flavoured alcohol containing small amounts of sweetener.[ 
Interruption 
] But they are formulated to just below 23 percent. The industry’s definition of light spirits is formulated to just below 23 percent and “so designed to benefit from the anomalies in the excise system”. 
The submission stated: “A crucial difference denoting between spirits and light spirits is New Zealand’s food law requires a spirit to contain a minimum of 37 percent of alcohol. The association underscores the fact that there is no official definition of light spirit and as a category it should for policy reasons not be confused in any way with traditional spirits and liquers.” The association went on to say—and this is the industry—“Anecdotal evidence has been presented that light spirits are primarily consumed and targeted to young people. It appears the market is growing primarily because of some very low retail pricing. An excise shift could help address and achieve the harm minimisation objective.” I think it is quite extraordinary that the industry is actually calling for a change in the excise yet National ACT and New Zealand First are opposing it. 
DAVID CUNLIFFE (NZ Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I believe that Rod Donald has just shot himself in the foot. 
Shane Ardern 
: In both feet! 
DAIL JONES 
: Absolutely both feet because he has said that he does not know what a light spirit is. If I were Rod Donald and I was reading something from the Distilled Spirits Association I would have said to it: “Give me an example. Give me one example. What are you talking about? Name one example—one 1.13 ml bottle or whatever it is”— 
Rod Donald 
: Castleton gin. 
DAIL JONES 
: Castleton gin? Come on gin is 37 percent alcohol as a rule. 
Rod Donald 
: Not this one; it is 23 percent. 
DAIL JONES 
: Gin is usually about 37 percent as a rule. 
Rod Donald 
: And so is Saratoga vodka. 
DAIL JONES 
: Is that what the Distilled Spirits Association said? 
Rod Donald 
: Twenty-three percent. 
DAIL JONES 
: And that is what it believes needs to be more highly taxed? 
Rod Donald 
: Yes dead right. 
DAIL JONES 
: So that is what it calls a light spirit—23 percent? 
Rod Donald 
: That’s right. 
DAIL JONES 
: Twenty-three percent is right? 
Rod Donald 
: Smell the roses! 
DAIL JONES 
: All I can say is that I find a light 23 percent alcohol spirit very very hard to believe. Are you telling me that young people drink Saratoga gin? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member must not bring the chairman into the debate. 
DAIL JONES 
: Do they drink that 23 percent alcohol gin? Do they drink that 23 percent alcohol vodka? What a load of rubbish! Young people drink this type of thing. They do not drink 23 percent gin and they do not drink 23 percent vodka. 
Rod Donald 
: Come and visit me this weekend. I will show the member my— 
DAIL JONES 
: Come to my house. I have a 22-year-old a 26-year-old and a 28-year-old. They do not drink that type of gin and that type of vodka. 
Rod Donald 
: Yes they do. 
DAIL JONES 
: Look in my fridge! 
Rod Donald 
: The empties are there! 
DAIL JONES 
: Sometimes I just cannot believe what I see on the fridge door when I open up the fridge. It is not the type of thing that Mr Donald has been speaking about just now. He has been caught out badly. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: It’s a big world. 
DAIL JONES 
: I live in Auckland in the real world on the North Shore and boy there are some real parties on the North Shore and in Auckland. Mr Donald has been well and truly caught out. 
He asked why the Distilled Spirits Association was interested in this legislation. The reason is that its members cannot tax these drinks. They do not make any money on them because as I understand it they make the more expensive stuff. They are not involved with these drinks. As Mr Brownlee pointed out a New Zealand company makes about 90 percent or a considerable amount of these drinks. The Distilled Spirits Association does not make a dollar out of them. That is why it complains. I have been to see it. I have been given the story. The Distilled Spirits Association does not make any money out of these drinks but it does make money out of the higher— 
Rod Donald 
: But it is not complaining about those. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is. I have been to see the association members and I have spoken to them about it. They do complain about these drinks. They do complain about the ice cream drinks as well. I suggest Mr Donald goes and sees them and gets the blurb. I have been to see them. I have had a discussion with them. Mr Thomas Chin is doing his job. I have met him a couple of times. The Distilled Spirits Association does not get any money out of these drinks but it does get money out of the big heavy gins and the heavy spirits. That is why it is called the Distilled Spirits Association. These drinks are not distilled spirits. 
Rod Donald 
: They are not the issue. 
DAIL JONES 
: They are the issue. 
Rod Donald 
: They are not covered by the bill. 
DAIL JONES 
: Mr Donald of course said that he was not here when the Minister made his opening speech. He should have been here because if he had been here he would have heard what the Minister quite clearly was getting at and what Judy Turner was getting at. They have been duped. 
The Labour caucus was lined up. It was told one story. We have proved in this Committee in a short space of time that this minority Labour Government duped its caucus duped United Future and duped the Greens and neither the Labour caucus the Greens nor United Future is willing to admit its mistake. If they were honourable people they would admit their mistake and say that they got it wrong and made an absolute mistake. This bill will not take away this type of drink from young New Zealanders. This bill is purporting to do that but it will not. The speeches that have been made by United Future by some Labour members and by the Greens have been proved by members of this Committee to be absolutely wrong. 
This bill is a tax grab as usual—just as the Minister made $18 million out of his customs excise legislation to do with the importing the new computer and such like. Funny but it is $18 million again. Is it a lucky number? This is the second time in less than 6 months that he has made $18 million out of a new tax. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of State) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (NZ National) 
: 
 That exchange we heard between Dail Jones and Rod Donald demonstrates how ridiculous this whole situation is. The Minister in charge—he is pretending to be in charge—Mr Anderton sat there and let that ridiculous exchange go on. And I do not mean to be disrespectful of my colleague Dail Jones. 
This bill states that it aims to protect or make an impact on young people drinking. The Minister in his opening speech when he introduced the bill tried to pull the wool over the eyes of all of us here and pretend that that was the case. Now we find thanks to the good research of colleagues of ours in the Committee who have all those bottles lined up over there that the drinks that a lot of young people love are not even covered by this legislation. I think it is a confusing situation. The Minister should get to his feet and explain what he means when he says that the bill is aimed at harm minimisation and at having an impact on the binge drinking that goes on. We find that a lot of the drinks that young people love are not covered. 
I ask the Minister given that we were not all in the House to hear his opening speech to stand up and reconcile what is an obvious anomaly given that the bill says one thing yet does something else. The Minister should not look like that; he should stand up and tell us why the bottles of drinks lined up over there are not covered by this legislation. Have the members on the Government side ever gone out on a Friday night? Have they ever gone out on New Year’s Eve and seen what the young people drink? Actually when they are getting really sloshed they drink anything but to start with a lot of them are drinking the drinks that are lined up on this side of the Committee. Mr Mark and Mr Nick Smith I think went out and got those bottles. 
I ask the Minister to stand up and tell us why those drinks are not included in this legislation. If he does not do that then that shows the utter disdain that this Government and this Minister have for the public of New Zealand. The way that they have brought in this legislation tonight and kept us here all night also shows disdain. They are entirely cynical about what they do and say. 
I would like Paul Adams to tell us whether he has actually seen what young people drink and whether he understands the issues around young people and drink. He said that we cannot legislate behaviour; so why does he support this bill? According to the Minister this bill is aimed at doing just that or so he says. Paul Adams said that we cannot influence behaviour. Who knows why that party supports the bill other than the fact that it is a poodle party? That is what it amounts to. All that that party’s members do is stand up and support bills and they cannot even understand why they are doing it. 
The Minister continues to sit there and show disdain for this Committee and for the public of New Zealand and will not reconcile the things he says with some of the information that has come out during the debate. Is it any wonder that members of the public are getting terribly cynical about this Government and its supporters the Greens and United Future? There will come a time and it is coming quite soon when people are not able to believe anything the Government says. 
Just briefly I want to turn to the issue of young Maori drinkers. I was pretty proud of most of the Maori members of the House on the night that the legislation lowering the drinking age was passed into law. I think that nearly 90 percent of all Maori members in this House voted against the lowering of the drinking age. Why did we do that? Because we are very much aware of the harm that drinking does in young Maori communities. I want the Minister to take a call and tell this Committee how this legislation will impact on and minimise drinking in Maori communities. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
Noes 46 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 5; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ken Shirley to clause 2(1) be agreed to: 
to omit the expression “2003” and substitute the expression “2006”. 
A party vote was called for on the question That 
the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Noes 66 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Labour 52; Green Party 5; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ken Shirley to clause 2(2) be agreed to: 
to omit the words “the day on which it receives the Royal assent” and substitute the words “on 1 April 2006”. 
A party vote was called for on the question T 
hat the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Noes 66 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Labour 52; Green Party 5; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Ken Shirley to clause 3(a) be agreed to: 
to omit the word “align” and substitute the word “increase” and omit the word “with” and substitute the word “to”. 
A party vote was called for on the question T 
hat the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Noes 66 
Amendment not agreed to. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Labour 52; Green Party 5; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
A party vote was called for on the question T 
hat Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
Noes 46 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 5; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Part 2 Amendments to principal Act 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It concerns an issue that was raised with Madam Chairperson during the debate on Part 1. This bill has not been to a select committee and therefore we sought guidance that the debate would be wide ranging—which is a custom in the Committee stage and I appreciate that you have followed that custom—and also long enough to allow for the fact that the bill has not been to a select committee. It has become a practice that bills that have been to a select committee are debated for about an hour in the Committee stage. That is the rough rule of thumb; give or take 5 or 10 minutes. Part 1 was debated for 1 hour and 5 minutes. I know because I wrote it down. I asked your predecessor on two or three occasions before we got to Part 1 whether the range and length of debate would reflect the fact that the bill had not been to a select committee. 
My concern is that the practice of about 1 hour and 5 minutes or 1 hour and 10 minutes which applies to a bill that has been to a select committee will become acceptable for the remainder of this debate. It has always been the precedent that when a Government puts a bill through the House without sending it to a select committee the Chair allows a wide-ranging and slightly longer debate. Given that so many people are seeking the call I want your guidance as to whether you will stand by that ruling rather than the traditional 1-hour debate for a bill that has gone to a select committee. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I think the Chair should note that now under the Standing Orders all bills go to a select committee and therefore when a Government takes urgency I think we should have longer to debate a bill. I also think you should note the way in which the bill is being proceeded with. We have an interesting situation here. No Minister contributed to the debate on Part 1. Questions were asked of the Minister in the chair and quite an interesting dialogue occurred across the floor as to what liquors were or were not covered but the Minister just sat there. There was no response from Government members. It seems to me that is something you should note because it is the job of the Chair to protect the rights of the minority. I am not criticising you but I do not think the Chair should accept a closure motion when there are questions from the Opposition but the Government chooses not to answer. 
If you were to give an indication of that sort about the closure then we would actually have a parliamentary debate. The Ministers would realise they are accountable to this Committee and that they had better start to answer questions and that if they treat the Committee with contempt the Chair will protect the rights of members by allowing the debate to continue. There is parliamentary precedent for this. In question time if a Minister trifles with the House the Speaker allows extra questions. 
In my view the Minister in the chair has been trifling with the Committee. He made some statements in the first reading and second reading debates but in the Committee stage it has become apparent they were incorrect. He has now chosen to remain silent in the Committee stage—and do his correspondence. I suggest to you that it would be quite a good way of protecting the rights of back-benchers which you are sworn to do if you indicated to the Government that you will not take the closure on Part 2 unless Ministers are prepared to participate and answer questions. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 This is just a very brief observation if I may on the matters raised by Mr Sowry by way of correction. In the case of the title debate which lasted exactly 1 hour there were 12 calls. The debate on Part 1 which has just been completed ran for 19 calls and took 1 hour and 11 minutes so the matter that Mr Sowry raised was not in fact accurate. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 I thank Mr Benson-Pope for those times because I did not have the exact time. He is saying that one debate ran for an hour—that is the standard time that this House in Committee has come to expect. It is a standard set by the presiding officers for a bill that has gone to a select committee. In the past where a bill has not gone to a select committee presiding officers have allowed two things: a wider debate and a longer debate. I want to say to you and to your predecessor in the Chair that you have done the first thing extraordinarily well. We have not been wound up with lots of little points of order because you have allowed it to be a wide debate and I presume that is because there has been no select committee. 
The same has not happened in terms of the length. One hour is exactly what we would expect and 1 hour and 11 minutes hardly takes into account that the bill did not go to a select committee. I sought the assurance before we started debating Part 1. I did not take a point of order before you did the vote on the part. I thought that this time before we started Part 2 I would seek another assurance that that would be taken into account. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I thank both members the Hon Richard Prebble and the Hon Roger Sowry who are long-serving members in the House. I understand what they are saying. I just have to remind members that the Chairperson is the sole judge of when the closure should be accepted. I have been listening and am listening very carefully to the debate and I will certainly take members’ views on the debate into consideration as Part 2 progresses. I might also add that as Chairperson I am not responsible for whether members or Ministers take a call. That is up to them to do so. Again I thank those members for their contribution to the point of order. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 Part 2 is the meat of this bill. This is really the major part of the legislation and if this bill was before a select committee this is the part that we would be spending all our time on. I hope we do get sufficient time to cover what is a very very significant part of the bill. 
Part 2 lists all the different categories and item numbers that will have excise duty and tariff changes. This is the part of the bill that one reads to find out exactly what tariff change is taking place on what particular items. This is the part that spells out exactly what is happening to all the alcopops and ready-to-drinks. It spells out very clearly what is happening to items 2208.90.56 2208.90.60 and 2208.90.67 which in English—because all we have in this bill is a list of numbers—are the ready-to-drink mixes that were described to me earlier on by the owner of a liquor store as “kids’ drinks”. It shows that those drinks are being adjusted in terms of their excise duty by the rate of inflation doing nothing to put up excise on those drinks at all. In this part the bill puts up excise on a whole range of other drinks such as sherries and ports. 
So we are in a situation where the Government is now saying to young people who want to go out and drink that if they want to drink spirits they should not buy them and mix them but they should buy them pre-mixed. The Government is telling young people that if they buy spirits and mix them it will tax them a lot more so they should buy them pre-mixed. How logical is that? That does not send the message to young people. That does not send the message that the Minister Mr Anderton told us about in the opening stages of debate—that this is about stopping young people from drinking. Judy Turner from United Future gave a very impassioned speech explaining that she is supporting this bill because it sends a message to young people about drinking. It does not do that. Those drinks are not adjusted. 
Judy Turner 
: That’s right. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Mrs Turner is happy with that. So why does she want the tax put up on a bottle of vodka when it is not mixed with orange juice but left low when it is mixed with orange juice? I ask Mrs Turner what the difference is. She does not know the difference. She will go home from here and her children will ask why she was up all night and she will say that she was debating a bill to make sure that port and sherry went up in price because we do not want young people to drink them. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: And their Madeira. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: And their Madeira. Young people do not want to drink port and sherry. They want to drink vodka and rum and now they know that if they buy a 750 ml or 1125 ml bottle of vodka and rum Mrs Turner has voted to put the tax up on that hugely. But if they buy the rum mixed with the Coke or the vodka mixed with the orange juice that is OK—there will be no increase in tax under this part other than a rise in price in keeping with inflation. That is all. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to speak as simply as I can so that we can get this issue clearly spelt out. The best way I can think of doing that is anecdotal. Let us invent a person called Jimmy who is 13 years old and in the third form. Tonight he is going around to his friend’s place with $10 in his pocket. The $10 may be his pocket money his paper run money what mum and dad gave him for fish and chips tonight or he might have nicked it out of a wallet somewhere—but he has $10. The problem facing him is that when he gets to his mate’s there is a seventh-form older brother there who is 18 and can buy them the booze they want using Jimmy’s $10. The issue is what will that $10 buy him? He wants value for money. Apparently he can get one if not two of the drinks that are sitting on Mr Ron Mark’s table. The combined alcoholic content of those will be what Mr Mark? Five apiece? OK. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Which combined is what? 
JUDY TURNER 
: Ten percent? [ 
Interruption 
] I will tell Mr Sowry what the boy can actually buy instead of those drinks and he will have change out of his $10. Instead of buying those two drinks he can get the older brother to purchase a 23 percent proof spirit that has been targeted at and marketed to teenagers. In fact he can get 750 mls of it which is about 22 shots or 11 standard drinks. 
John Carter 
: That’s 100 percent! 
JUDY TURNER 
: No 23 percent. 
John Carter 
: So if he had two bottles it would be 46 percent! 
JUDY TURNER 
: He can afford one bottle of that and he will have some change left over. The issue for a 13-year-old boy is that he wants value for his money. He wants to get the “coolest” drink that will give him the status he is looking for and that drink will do it for him. It is targeted at him and it is 23 percent proof. He can get it and in some places have change from his $10. He will struggle to afford two of Mr Mark’s drinks but he will be able to get— 
Ron Mark 
: So there is now no problem with these drinks for teenagers? 
JUDY TURNER 
: We have a problem with under-age drinkers full stop but what we are trying to achieve here is harm minimisation. If they are going to illegally have access to alcohol then our concern is that their pocket money goes a lot further with the 23 percent proof spirits that are at present bottled and marketed to teenagers. It has nothing to do with the bottles sitting there on the member’s desk. He has the wrong product. 
Ron Mark 
: Do you support alcohol? 
JUDY TURNER 
: United Future does not support under-age drinking. What we are concerned about is that where under-age drinking is happening the pocket money of teenagers can supply them with drinks that have an extremely high level of alcohol and are dangerous for them to be experimenting with. That is why this legislation covers those special products that fall between 14 percent and 23 percent. We are not talking about sherry or port; we are talking about the products that fall within that range and can be picked up for $8 to $10 right now. 
Ron Mark 
: Where? 
JUDY TURNER 
: At liquor outlets. 
Ron Mark 
: And they can buy a 750 ml bottle for $10? 
JUDY TURNER 
: Yes because it is below the 24 percent banding mark and therefore does not at this stage incur the taxation that would put it out of the reach of the teenager with pocket money who is looking to illegally buy alcohol. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 The first point I would make to the member is that it would have been helpful if she had produced that bottle its receipt and the like and we could have seen how many bottles are actually being sold. I suspect it is one of those— 
Rod Donald 
: It is 1.2 million according to your friends the distillers. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Is it 1.2 million 750 ml bottles? If that figure turns out to be wrong will the member resign? He is not prepared to put his word on it. I would like to hear that from the Minister but I want to make this point: all she is demonstrating is that the industry just like the young people will move to whatever level. So we can absolutely guarantee that a new bottle of gin will come out and it will be 13.9 percent proof. It will be on the market and all people have to do is drink two of them to get the same effect. It will probably look exactly like— 
Rod Donald 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member challenged me and therefore I seek leave to table an article from the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 about below-strength spirits being targeted in a crackdown. Mr Thomas Chin from the Distilled Spirits Association estimated that more than 1.2 million bottles of light spirits are sold a year. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The member has sought leave to table that article. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: The member cannot do that in the middle of a speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No—at the end of a speech. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: That was completely out of order. The member can take a call and I would actually be very interested if he did. He could then take it slower and I would be quite happy to take long enough to hear him. But the point I wanted to make to the member who spoke before me is that if she thinks she is making any difference to the youth market she is not. 
I hope the Minister is taking some interest in the bill because there are some aspects of it that quite frankly I do not understand and so I want to ask him a couple of technical questions. If the Minister reads the explanatory note he will see that it states that the reason for the bill is “the potential for teenagers to move to other low priced higher alcohol products and is consistent with the aim of minimisation of harm caused through the consumption of alcohol.” If we then look at what the explanatory note has to say about Part 2 we see that it states: “Clause 4 amends the Third Schedule of the principal Act to align the duty payable on beverages between 14% and 23% alcohol…”. When we look at the schedule we find that the first “beverage” mentioned is ice cream. I want to know from the Minister—or perhaps from Judy Turner or the Greens—where the evidence is that teenagers are being damaged by ice cream. 
But I go further than that. I went back to the Act we are amending and I cannot see that ice cream was actually in the schedule of the 1996 legislation. I might have missed it and that is why I am asking the Minister a question. What I would like to know from Government members is whether they have added ice cream into the bill. If they have then clearly it must be causing some serious problem. I have seen Bailey’s ice cream at the supermarket and I have had it but is there really any evidence that it is harming young people? How much Bailey’s ice cream would people have to eat before they were affected? [ 
Interruption 
] The member seems to know the answer. I would like to see him take a call because I see that ice cream is the first item in the schedule: “Ice cream and other edible ice…”. 
We are going to change the tax on ice cream and indeed I see that it appears a number of times in the schedules. The Government must think it is a serious problem. It is 2 o’clock in the morning so how serious a problem is Bailey’s ice cream or is it like the rest of the stuff we have heard about—really just an excuse to raise another $18 million? This is a serious question to the Minister: is ice cream a new item or was it in the 1996 Act? Has there been a problem with alcoholic ice creams; if so where is the evidence? The Minister mentioned in his second reading speech that more young people have been admitted to hospital. Were they there with ice cream dribbling from their lips? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: Intoxicated on ice cream! 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Yes intoxicated on ice cream. It reminds me of that Salvation Army song: “Crumbs on Their Chins”. Is this a serious problem? Are we making a change or was this item in the earlier Act? Since Judy Turner says she is an expert on young people is she concerned about young people eating ice cream with alcoholic content? She tells us she has had a lot of experience and has seen examples so do young teenagers have ice cream alcohol parties? Is this the sort of thing we are dealing with? If they do not surely the Minister should take some responsibility for the explanatory note. When the Government is putting a bill through under extraordinary urgency I think it has a greater obligation to give us an explanatory note that we can rely on. This explanatory note as members have pointed out is confusing misleading and a disgrace. 
SIMON POWER (NZ National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I think the member was referring in his ice cream analogy to the possibility of a young person at a 21st having to do a yard glass of ice cream as opposed to a yard glass of beer or the like. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I remember doing a yard glass of beer. It was disgusting. 
SIMON POWER 
: That is right. Imagine it with ice cream! Although Part 2 just looks like a series of random numbers contained in clauses 4 and 5 they are important random numbers. 
While I am on my feet I have to refer to my colleague Judy Turner’s description of how this bill would apply to the ordinary situation of a young person wanting access to alcohol. The kindest way I can put it is that in the context of the way this bill is drawn up it was just simply wrong. The bill itself has a general policy statement on the front cover that is wrong. It states: “Light spirits in particular are the drink of choice for many teenagers and young persons and are contributing to excessive levels of alcohol consumption within these groups.” That is a pretty fair statement in its own right but the bill that follows it does nothing to address that concern. The honourable Dr Nick Smith Ron Mark and others in this Chamber have made the point over and over again that young people drink the types of drinks that are sitting on Mr Mark’s lectern. Those drinks generally have alcohol levels between about 5 and 7 percent and are not the subject of excise and customs duty increases under this bill. This bill does not address the products that young people go anywhere near. Members are voting for this bill as a quasi-extension of social policy to deal with young people drinking to excess when all it represents is simply a mechanism to collect revenue. That is all it is. 
Rod Donald 
: You wouldn’t know. 
SIMON POWER 
: I say to Mr Donald that this is not a document designed to shape social policy. It is not going to happen. These drinks are the drinks that teenage girls are drinking. They are not drinking the drinks that are covered in this bill. They are not drinking port and sherry. They are drinking premixed ready-to-drink cheap-to-get easy-to-access alcohol—like the bottles on Mr Mark’s desk. 
What worries me is that members have come to this Chamber to vote on this bill but have they have not thought through the implications of what the bill does. The more disturbing fact—and we have heard from members of the Government and from Mrs Turner of United Future—is that they clearly have not read the bill and worked out exactly what it does to the prices of different types of alcohol. What is clear is that this is not a document that will in any way change the social fabric of New Zealand and the drinking habits of its young people. It is not designed to do that—this bill is designed to collect revenue and that is all it is designed for. It is that simple. Let us not dress it up and make out that it is some great social instrument to solve the problem of teenage binge drinking. All this document does is put $18 million in the hands of the Government. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Stealth tax! 
SIMON POWER 
: It is even worse than a stealth tax in the sense that it is being dressed up as something sincere and decent when it does not even reach the market that those members opposite claim it reaches. That is probably the greatest scandal of all. If the Government wants to grab tax off the taxpayers of New Zealand Government members should say so. They should just say that this is good old-fashioned socialism at its best and they want taxes to go up. They want to take money out of the pockets of ordinary working people and redistribute it. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I thought I would rise to reply to Mr Prebble’s point. I say to members that I have checked carefully any substantial point that they thought they were making for factual support using the evidence of the officials and my own understanding of the bill. I have to say that none of the suggestions made have had any validity. 
To answer Mr Prebble’s comment first: ice cream was added to the Customs and Excise Act in September 2001 because of concerns about food and beverages coming into New Zealand with an alcohol content and not bearing proper excise duties. That is why ice cream is in the bill. Because of the level of alcohol content in this case it is not caught by the provision for 14 to 23 percent alcohol but it is subject to the increase in cost of living index prices which will be added on—as they are annually. That covers the point someone raised of why the two dates are different—one is for the imposition of this extra tax. If the House passes that tax it is immediate on the bill receiving the royal assent. Of course the industry expects consumer price indexes to go in June and that is the date on which they will take place. 
I want to raise one or two other things just as examples to assure the House that I have been keeping a close watch on its concerns. I refer to the question of alcohol excise duty being payable the timing what happens if orders are received and so on. Excise duty is payable when the goods are removed from a customs-controlled area or are imported. Stock that is already in the stores has already been taken out of the bond stores and would not be subject to that tax until the new product is taken out. 
Just by way of illustration the point was made a while back that there was something missing in terms of 9 percent but not more than 14 percent volume alcohol suddenly going to 20 percent. I know that but I am just giving examples. Members want a few examples and I have kept track of it. Those are all in schedule 1; these are schedule 2. That is fair enough but if I were trying to answer all of these questions it would take all my time. If there had been something that had any substance to it I would have raised it with the Committee but every time I checked or knew the answers to it myself nothing that has been raised so far has had any substance. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 It is interesting because we might now be seeing a slight clearing of the waters. Let us go back over some of the things that have been said. I now know for sure that despite all the hue and cry about the effects of alcopops on the teenage drinking problem United Future no longer believes that alcopops are a problem with regard to teenage drinking. At least we now have that clear. I understand from the comments made by Rod Donald and Judy Turner that their main concerns lie with the sale of hard liquor that has only 23 percent alcohol as opposed to the mainstream stuff that a lot of people buy. 
We have all seen the children on the streets who have bought a 1-litre or a 2-litre bottle of Coke. They tip half of it into the gutter get a bottle of spirits whack it straight into the Coke shake it up and then walk around the streets handing it out amongst themselves. Yes we know that happens but if I remember correctly what we have been told here by countless Government speakers is that this bill has been brought in only to tidy up the teenage drinking problem. If that were the case then as much as the member from the Green Party wants the Government to target light alcohol as he has described it surely given everything its members have also said this bill—if that were its true aim—would be targeting alcopops. Not to be targeting alcopops tells me that the bill is not about correcting teenage drinking habits. 
We have had the Minister say that young people are price-sensitive and will adjust their drinking habits accordingly. I know that on countless occasions outside this Chamber the member has talked about the plague that exists with alcopops so if I were to accept this statement that teenagers’ drinking habits can be adjusted by this bill because they are price-sensitive to the excise duty then my simple question is: why has he not included alcopops? The answer can only be because this bill is not about redressing teenage drinking habits; this bill is about revenue collecting in an area of the market where he knows there is a loophole and he wants to snare it up. The argument that this bill is about correcting the drinking habits of young people does not stack up because despite all the concern about the 750-millilitre bottles of vodka they can buy cheaply the Government has totally missed that huge hunk of the market that everybody talks about. The Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council talks about it doctors talk about it and if we walk down the street and look at the young kids staggering around it is that bottle they are holding in their hands so often. It is that bottle that gets thrown down the street at the drunken riots that involve boy racers throwing bottles at police cars. It is this bottle as well and a lot of these bottles that I have here so to tell me that this bill is all about correcting the drinking habits of young people but to leave that part of the market out is to tell me that actually it is not. This bill is about revenue collecting to get $18 million. 
Ice cream is another thing. If this bill is about correcting the drinking habits of young people why are we including ice cream? If this bill is about correcting the drinking habits of young people because they are price-sensitive and will adjust their drinking habits why does the bill list mead? How many children drink mead? Where does one buy mead? Well there is a great place in Rangiora is there not Mr Cosgrove? Mead is brewed in the Waimakariri and a fine drop it is but I do not see queues of boy racers hoons and young people outside that country residence and backed up down the road queuing to buy mead. 
This bill is not about what it has been touted as being about—an indirect method of adjusting teenagers’ drinking habits because teenagers are sensitive to price increases—it is about revenue collecting. For once I would just love to hear the Government say what it means. It should be up-front and say: “We need another $18 million and we have found a loophole by which we can target it and by the way the people who are buying the stuff can afford to pay it.” 
PANSY WONG (NZ National) 
: 
 It was pleasing to see the Minister eventually take a call but I was disappointed that he did not address the substantial question that has been consistently raised during this Committee time. Ron Mark in particular once again asked the Minister to explain why the drinks most popular with teenagers are not covered by this bill. 
While we are debating Part 2 I also want to point out right now that it consists of a lot of numbers—I hope they are not random numbers—which are the numbers of scheduled items that have been withdrawn and replaced by new ones. I want the Minister to take another call to explain to the Committee why this bill is not going through a select committee and what procedure has been taken to ensure that all of those itemised numbers have been absolutely audited so that if we have gone through a session of extraordinary urgency we will not return to the House tomorrow morning to find that some of them are not correct. 
The other interesting thing—[ 
Interruption 
] Why does Ms Jill Pettis not take a call? She is always blathering on. I wonder why Labour and coalition members will not take a call but continue to interject while members in the Chamber try to pose questions. Why does the Minister who lives a blemish-free life—Steve Maharey—not take a call and explain to us whether the Minister in charge of social welfare will get a share of the $18 million to target the youth issue? Does he get a share or will he hand out all of that $18 million to the Ministry of Economic Development? What sort of Minister of social welfare is he? 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise for interrupting the member who is on her feet but I was trying to follow the debate. I think some very interesting points are being made and we have a barrage of inane interjections from the Government benches. Its members are not prepared to get up and take a speech themselves but there is a meaningless barrage against the member who has the call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for that. I was just about to ask members on that side of the Chamber to cease their interjections. The interjections they are making should be rare and reasonable. 
PANSY WONG 
: Those interjections were not even interesting but we are slightly reassured. At least we know that some members on the Labour benches are fully awake which is not a bad thing. 
I want to go back to Part 1 because I want the Minister to take a call to explain why the purpose clause of the bill—clause 3(a) and (b)—does not mention solving the problem of teenage drinking in the content of the general policy statements. I find it very interesting that while targeting teenage drinking is said to be the sole concern of this bill that particular purpose is not contained in the bill itself. It seems to me that that is very clear evidence that this bill is just a grab for revenue—$18 million—when this Minister of Finance promised that there would be no additional tax. We can entirely prove that by the fact that the purpose clause of this bill has nothing to do with the concern about teenage drinking. 
I always wonder why the Labour United Future and Green parties—so proud of their socialist principles—do not simply state in the bill that this is a redistribution of wealth. It is a socialist principle to simply tax for $18 million and levying beverages with 14 to 23 percent alcohol content is a mechanism to achieve that. Instead they have to put up a pretence of concern for young people and how to direct young people not to drink etc. What a Mother’s Day gift this Labour Government is delivering! If young people want to purchase a bottle of sherry or Bailey’s to say “thank you” to their mothers they now in effect have to save a bit more money. We shall remember this bill as Labour’s gift to Mother’s Day to penalise teenagers. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 In speaking to these numbered schedules in Part 2 I think it would be good to comment on a few things that have come from some of the previous speeches. I am a bit disappointed that Ron Mark having made his speech has now disappeared from the Chamber because he asked some provocative questions— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Those comments are completely out of order. Mr Copeland is a new new member but it is out of order to refer to the absence of someone and in that particular case it is extremely unfair because Mr Ron Mark has been participating all the way through the debate. I can now see he is in the lobby so by raising the point of order I have done the member a favour but I think he should apologise to Mr Mark for that remark. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you very much for raising that. I was responsible for that point of order because I should have raised the matter myself. The member is not to make that reference again please. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. This is getting ridiculous. You have properly called my colleague to order for referring to the absence of a member. We have had an interjection from two members over there referring to the fact that he has not been in the Chamber all evening. Equally they should be called to order for that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Thank you. That applies right around the Chamber. I do not want to hear any more references to members not being in the Chamber or any inference along those lines. 
GORDON COPELAND 
: I was just referring to the question raised by Ron Mark as to whether the alcohol represented by the drinks—his bottles and labels are in the Chamber and some are on the desk of members of the National Party and the New Zealand First Party—is referred to in the bill and whether the bill refers to the alcohol in those drinks. The answer is yes it does. The bill does cover the alcohol in those drinks. It adjusts for the consumer price index the content of those drinks and just to answer the question yes it is referred to. 
I also refer to some comments made by Simon Power when he asked the question several times whether teenagers drink—again the drinks are represented by those bottles by what he calls those pop alcohol labels. The answer to that is yes teenagers do drink those kinds of drinks. Teenagers in this country also drink beer. The excise duty on most types of beer is also being adjusted tonight by the consumer price index. However the important thing is that this bill is primarily aimed at the alcohol content—and I stress the alcohol content—in the band of 14 to 23 percent. 
The rest is pretty straightforward. At the moment one can buy a bottle of that size with 23 percent alcohol for less than 10 bucks. From the date this bill is passed the price of that alcohol will go up quite significantly. Because it is price sensitive people will therefore buy less of it. There is a very simple adage here: if something is discouraged there will be less of it and that is exactly what will happen. The consumption of that kind of alcohol will diminish. 
Will it be replaced by the pop alcohol? Probably so but the difference of course is that if there is 5 percent alcohol in that one would have to drink four and three-fifths bottles to gain the equivalent of one bottle at 23 percent. If there is 3 percent alcohol the fraction will be seven bottles and two-sevenths. Therefore the amount of alcohol consumed will decrease. 
Members should not forget that this bill is about alcohol content. It is about intoxication and about how much alcohol it takes a person to drink to become intoxicated. Believe me at the 23 percent level a person will get drunk a lot faster than with a bottle with only 5 percent of alcohol in it as I have just pointed out. I think that covers the main points. 
I make one further observation and that is that there may be some people—insomniacs probably—listening to the radio tonight who may be a bit disappointed that the price of their Baileys or sherry will go up. That is true it will because of the adjustment of that 14 to 23 percent band. But if those people are a bit brassed off about that they should know they can lay the blame squarely and solely at the feet of the liquor industry. The liquor industry has quite cynically set out to market alcohol in the range of 14 to 23 percent to the teenagers of this country and that is not good enough. That is a wrong cynical and greedy action to take. That is where the blame lies. 
I commend this Government and I wholeheartedly support the action that is being taken here tonight to try to turn off the tap a bit to reduce the level of drunkenness—not the quantity of the drinks but the drunkenness that results from alcohol for teenagers in this country. I continue to be amazed at that drunkenness and I know for certain that the great majority of parents in this country are good parents and that they will overwhelmingly be with us—United Future the Labour Party and the Greens—on this bill and that the minority of bad parents who do not seem to mind that they give their kids drinks containing alcohol will be disappointed. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF (ACT NZ) 
: 
 I listened with some incredulity to the comments from not just Mr Copeland but other members who have spoken in this debate—and I must say from the United Party—who just do not seem to understand what this bill is all about. We have debated this issue for quite some time and we are still in this Chamber arguing the toss about whether it is a “KGB” or whether it is a bottle with something else that has 23 percent 10 percent or 5 percent. The real issue is about kids getting fractured and getting drunk during parties. That is the issue. I tell Mr Copeland that some outlets are selling about 30 pallets a week of that product. He should not shake his head. I have been talking to a member of that industry who has been in the business for 30-odd years and he tells me that that is exactly what is happening. It is those that are the problem—not the inference that that member is trying to make about a product that he cannot even produce. 
This bill is about tax gathering because one would not include fortified wines and sherries otherwise. The people who drink fortified wines and sherries are elder constituents of members. They are older people. They are the superannuitants who will go along to buy their litre of sherry only to find that tomorrow morning the next day or the day after it has gone from $15 to $30. I ask Steve Chadwick why the Government wants to whack the superannuitants. Why does the Minister in the chair—what was his name that old chap who has been in the chair for so many years: Jim Anderton—want to hit superannuitants? 
I make this point also: is it not Jim Anderton who is the Minister for Industry and Regional Development? He has effectively killed the sherry industry in this country. Nobody will pay the sort of tax level that he has imposed. People will just switch away from that on to something else. The industry and regional development ministry has just killed the sherry industry in this country over the last few hours. 
Ron Mark 
: It’s the teenagers’ fault. 
GERRARD ECKHOFF 
: Gracious me! It is quite extraordinary that we are here at almost a quarter to three in the morning discussing a bill of this nature and we are totally missing the target. That has been said so many times before during the course of this debate but the Minister seems unable to grasp the point. He would not hit a barn door with a shotgun for goodness’ sake! The bill states that light spirits in particular are the drink of choice for many teenagers—not superannuitants—and young people. They are the target audience that the Minister is trying to have a crack at. OK target the very things that are the problem such as the alcopops—not sherries or the fortified wines. 
Some wines in this country are regarded as “overcooked”. That is the expression. They are too hot. There is too much alcohol content but actually they are very very nice wines. Can the Minister tell me why a wine that is bottled at 13.9 percent alcohol or thereabouts can escape the increased duty whereas wine at 14 percent and above gets clobbered? What is the reason when the difference is only a fraction of a percentage point or two? What is it in real terms? 
The Minister sits there but cannot answer. I have been to two members of the Labour Party tonight and told them the Government has totally missed its target. They agreed that it had but said: “We’re going to get some anyway.” This is an appalling state of affairs. It brings Parliament into disrepute. It is seen as a laughing stock by the public. We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars; burning electricity— 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 It is with great delight and enthusiasm that I stand to speak to the debate on the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill. I would like to answer a question that was put to the Minister by Mr Gerrard Eckhoff when he was asking about the differences in alcohol but I say: “Alcohol is alcohol is alcohol.” That is one of the things overlooked by Mr Copeland. So it does not matter what percentage it is; alcohol is alcohol. I lasted for about 6 weeks in sixth-form chemistry and I remember the chemical structure of alcohol which we studied with great interest. It does not matter what the level of alcohol is; in a drink it makes no difference. It has been a real education listening to the debate tonight; and in looking at the vast array of alcohol bottles behind me I realise how far the entire industry has moved on since that great decade—the 1980s. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why won’t he answer the questions? 
KATHERINE RICH 
: I do not know why he has not answered. He may be asleep. I would like to go back to the— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: If the member is referring to the Minister please refer to him as the Minister or Jim Anderton. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: The Minister is awake. I see how far the industry has moved on because in the 1980s it was a huge innovation when Miami Wine Cooler was introduced. I recall the same sort of debate. It was argued that the alcohol industry was targeting my age group which was supposedly mindless and unable to make our own decisions. Of course it was not the point of the—[ 
Interruption 
] Would Mr Peters like to take the call? Miami Wine Cooler was one of the great innovations of the 1980s—the time when there was “big hair”. Jeepers! Mr Prebble was even in Cabinet during that magnificent decade! In terms of how the industry had moved on yes it was a decade of great innovation. 
I want to get back to some of the contributions made by United Future. I want to discuss Jimmy. Does everybody remember the boy with his $10 pocket money which was not much and he was going out for a night on the town? I must say though that Jimmy had obviously learnt something because he was going out to look for value for money which I thought was quite an innovative attribute for someone so young. 
But I have to say that things have not changed much if one looks down through the generations. The complaints of adults—in particular middle-class adults—have not changed much. This bill is one of those prime examples of middle-class do-gooding. It will not make one iota of difference to the kids out there. They will still go out and try various things. Hopefully they will make good decisions but in terms of what this bill will do it has been dressed up presented as something that will make a huge difference to the youth. I concur with some of my colleagues: I have not yet met a teenager who consumes sherry. I admit I often sit down with my nana at the end of the day and have a sherry and she will be very upset next time she goes to replenish her alcohol cabinet because sherry has skyrocketed in price according to some members of the House. 
In terms of education I have learnt about a number of other alcoholic beverages. The Hon Roger Sowry made an inspired speech about Madeira. Who knew about Madeira before Roger Sowry so enthusiastically publicised it up and down the country? I suspect that tomorrow there will be a rush on Madeira as people flock to the shops to try this new alcoholic drink promoted by Mr Sowry. 
It has also been a bit of an eye-opener looking at some of the other alcoholic beverages—some of these bottles behind me are all empty unfortunately having obviously been tipped out by good members of Parliament who would not bring that sort of thing into the Chamber. I can see now why there has been such an excited debate when people look at the vast array of opportunity out there. In terms of what this bill is designed to do it is nothing more than a tax grab. 
DAVID PARKER (NZ Labour—Otago) 
: 
 This legislation does not “trifle” with sherry. It is legislation that is “fortified” with common sense and no amount of “whining” from the Opposition will provide any “proof” to the contrary. I submit that in terms of this legislation those late-night listeners be they “Ethyl” or “Methyl” will not be able to bear much more of this debate. So I suggest that we “nip” this debate in the bud and in the “spirit” of cooperation pass this legislation unanimously. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I did not take this point of order during the member’s speech because I did not want to interrupt him. I am sure your hearing is as good as mine and words were uttered by one of the members opposite and I request that he be asked to withdraw and apologise. 
DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 It is well recognised that the point of order must be taken immediately and clearly it was not taken immediately on that occasion although I appreciate why it was not. But no doubt the point has been made and although the point of order cannot stand I think the point itself is probably noted. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 What is the situation now—because I chose not to raise the point of order during the member’s speech? Does that mean that raising a point of order now has no validity? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No it was in close proximity to the words that the member is objecting to but offence has not been taken by the person it was directed at although those words are not really acceptable in the Chamber. But it is 2.48 a.m. so I just take note of it. 
JOHN CARTER (NZ National—Northland) 
: 
 I listened closely to the speech made by Gordon Copeland and although he was genuine and believed in what he was saying I say to him and to Peter Dunne if they really believe there is a bottle of something between 14 and 23 percent alcohol that one can buy for $10 or less please produce it. What is that bottle of which they speak? Because it is a mystery to me and I suspect that it is a mystery to most other people on this side of the Chamber. I ask Mr Copeland what this bottle is of which he spoke. I would love to have seen it produced. He is not the only one who has spoken about it. His other colleagues have also mentioned this bottle but I am not aware of it and those who have done the research and produced bottles are not aware of it. 
I think it is very important and if they have got that evidence we need to know because that would put a different slant on it. Until that evidence can be produced I say that the argument is flawed which brings me to the next point. If United Future the Greens and the Labour Party and the Minister in the chair Jim Anderton are genuinely concerned about youth drinking then why are we fiddling? All this is a fiddle. Why are they not addressing the matter of the drinking age? If they are genuine about it why are they not saying they will shift the age back from 18 to 20—or if they are worried about that then why not shift it back even further? If those members are absolutely genuine in what they tell us in this Chamber then would they not be moving to change the drinking age? I would have thought that instead of their coming down here and talking about some mystical bottle of drink that Jimmy can get at less than $10 or the fact that it is for the good of the young people they would have been talking about changing the drinking age—but not on your nelly! I say to Peter Dunne Gordon Copeland the Labour Party and the Greens please produce that bottle or talk about raising the drinking age. 
That leads me to the third point I will make which is this—and I say this particularly to Mr Anderton. If the Minister had said “Look we are going to increase the tax. This bill is about increasing tax but we also hope it will have some other benefits. It might discourage young people from drinking and it might have some other beneficial sides to it. It might encourage other investment in drinking but the purpose of it is taxation.” when he first read out his speech that would have been an honest statement. 
But unfortunately that is not what he said at all. He did not tell the Parliament that. The member in the chair came down and made a speech and said: “We are worried about young people. We are concerned about the drinking levels of young people. We are worried that they are abusing alcohol so what we will do to stop it is increase the price.” That is not what the Government will achieve anyway on the drinks that the young people drink and that was not an honest statement for that Minister to make in his introductory speech. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairman. I have listened for some hours and I have let this go a number of times but I do not believe that it is appropriate for a member to accuse another member of not being honest. It has been said a number of times tonight and I object to it and ask the member to withdraw. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I accept that point of order. 
JOHN CARTER 
: Let me put it this way then. It would have been more honest if Mr Anderton had said that this was a tax bill—that would have been an honest statement because that is what this bill is. If he had said in his introductory speech “This bill is about taxing alcohol and we will get revenue of some $18 million.” that would have been an honest statement. Instead he chose to make other statements which in my view did not tell us what this bill does. He spoke about the fact that he wanted to stop young people drinking. That will not be achieved. This is a tax bill. 
LYNNE PILLAY (NZ Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I think we have finally got to the crux of this bill. John Carter who has just resumed his seat made the point that it is a tax bill. The difficulty we have is that the Government has brought it to the House under extraordinary urgency under the false pretence that it is somehow a form of social engineering that it is do-gooder social improvement legislation but clearly it is not. It is nothing other than a tax bill and we know that it is a tax grab to the tune of $14 million net. 
I have heard speech after speech saying that it is all about saving irresponsible young people. I would like to put it on record that I think the vast majority of young people are actually very responsible. There is a binge-drinking problem in this country. It has unfortunately been part of our culture for many generations and it goes under the category of substance abuse. But if one is really serious about it why is there nothing in all the schedules and numbers that does anything to address the serious problem of substance abuse? Little Johnny with his $10 who is into substance abuse can go and buy 10 litres of petrol to sniff or he can go to the hardware store and buy a great big 4-litre tin of glue to sniff and that is not an issue. We are not setting an excise tax on glue or adding any more tax on petrol because of substance abuse. 
The point is we should address the problem. That was what the Government’s own advice was from McLeod and also the Brian Easton report. McLeod and Easton said that excise tax does not work; it is a thing of the past. The Government has ignored their advice; in fact it has gone against it. It has come here tonight to increase the excise tax against the recommendation of its own tax report and also against the recommendation of the Brian Easton report which was commissioned by the Alcohol Advisory Council and published. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: That’s not correct. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: The Minister in the chair Jim Anderton is shaking his head but if he looks at page 13 of the Easton report he will see it quite clearly states with regard to full spirits that the excise tax should be lowered. This Government is talking about increasing the excise tax to save young people from overindulging in alcohol. One cannot reconcile those two positions: the recommendation is quite contrary to what the Minister is talking about. 
But if the Government is really serious about addressing alcohol abuse and the social problems associated with it can it answer this one? Why did this Government close down the youth programme for alcoholic recovery at Queen Mary Hospital in Hanmer in the South Island? This Government closed down that hospital. That was a real programme that was addressing the problem. Only a minority of young people overindulge to that extent. This Government closed down that programme for youth alcoholics at Queen Mary Hospital in Hanmer. I invite the Minister to get up and reconcile that to the Committee. Again we have tables and tables of convoluted schedules references and numbers but at the end of the day that has nothing to do with what this Government is all about which is increasing taxation. 
The other aspect is the home brew kits. Most people know that now one can produce vodka or any spirit one likes. One can buy a little packet of essence and if one has a little home still—it is now quite legal to have a home still as long as the product is not sold—one can produce with friends as a hobby any amount of volume of alcoholic material and not pay any excise whatsoever. 
The member for Otago raised an interesting point relating to methyl alcohol and ethyl alcohol. We quite regularly read in the newspapers of Indian weddings where scores—and sometimes hundreds—of people die because of methyl alcohol consumption. Is that what we will drive our young people to drink now? We know we have homebake with the drug scene; now we will have home stills producing alcohol. Through ignorance some people may produce methyl alcohol and die. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
SHANE ARDERN (NZ National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 It is with some pleasure that at 3 o’clock this morning I rise to speak to the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill and to say if people have not noticed that National members are opposing it. 
Part 2 consists of lists and lines of figures that look like some kind of computer printout that Steve Maharey got from some university or other; I am sure they are connected to some piece of legislation and it may be to do with alcohol but we cannot be sure of that. In looking at those it absolutely occurred to me that we are here at this time of the day under extraordinary urgency to discuss a tax bill—nothing more nothing less. 
It also occurred to me when I thought about my son’s Tui poster which reads: “The first thing I’ll do is pay off my student loan. Yeah right.” that the next Tui poster will read: “The Labour Government”—headed by Jim Anderton in this case—“cares about young people’s drinking habits. Yeah right.” That’s what the next Tui poster will read. I hope the Tui people are listening tonight in their headquarters up there at Mangatainoka in Georgina Beyer’s electorate. That will be what they have on their next poster. 
This legislation which we are debating at 3 a.m. has absolutely nothing to do with the drinking habits of young people or with the desire which the Government purports to have to reduce the amount of alcohol young people drink. Rather it has to do with the fact that we have a “Chardonnay socialist” Government that is envious of people who do well in society and enjoy a nip or a dram on the way home from somewhere or on reaching home. Most of them are the Government’s own people who after having been to a trade union meeting somewhere or other get home and want to have a wee nip of whisky. This Government is going to tax them. 
That is on top of two commitments made in two credit cards produced in two elections. Labour campaigned up and down the country that a Labour Government would not raise taxes for people on incomes of less than $60000. Well that promise has gone down big time. That is one promise that Labour is breaking in the Chamber tonight overwhelmingly. It is trying to dress it up under extraordinary urgency at 3 minutes past 3 in the morning as some sort of social agenda aimed at helping our young who are not of an age ability or mental capability to understand what they are doing to themselves. So we are to slap $18 million more tax on them and that will bring them to their senses and suddenly they will all be saved from the evils of drinking Tui! 
I hasten to add that I know nothing about these sorts of drinks that young people are drinking. I have not seen them once in the shearing sheds in Te Kuiti or in the haymaking paddocks in Taranaki – King Country drinking KGB Vodka Tattoo or any of other things that are displayed here in the Chamber. I have seen them drink DB Speights Tui and Lion. Those names are familiar to me. I suggest to the Minister in the chair Mr Anderton that the tax in this bill does not affect any of those drinks. If the objective of this bill is to decrease the number of young people who binge drink then this measure completely misses the mark. That has been stated tonight. I would like the Minister to take a call and tell us how I am wrong because I would love to find out. 
It was interesting to listen to the United Future speakers; they stated that there are some drinks out there—drinks that I do not know of; it might be that there are such drinks somewhere out there—in small bottles of 700 ml or less that contain at least 23 percent proof alcohol and that will be affected by this tax thus saving those young people out there who buy those drinks up large and consume them in great quantities from the demons of their ways. Well I would like someone to point that out to me. 
It is just not credible for the Government to come into this Chamber under extraordinary urgency to do this. Extraordinary urgency is the only time I hasten to add that special tax laws can be passed. To say that this law is to help young people is just not true. 
JILL PETTIS (Junior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I would be inclined to do that but I must let the debate go on longer than that on Part 1. 
JOHN KEY (NZ National—Helensville) 
: 
 I feel quite proud of myself because yesterday I bought a bottle of port in the 14 to 23 percent alcohol range from one of the wineries in my electorate. 
John Carter 
: You should have bought the case. 
JOHN KEY 
: I do now wish I had bought the case but I feel I somehow had a premonition that this Labour Government was going to add to the tax. I am quite proud of myself. 
This bill is not about stopping young people from drinking alcohol in the 14 to 23 percent proof range. That is not what this is about. If it were Government members would have a whole wad of things they might like to do to stop young people from drinking harder liquor. If they have not thought about those things then maybe I can make a few suggestions. At 5 past 3 in the morning they are no doubt all ears. 
The first thing they could do as Mr Carter predicted is simply increase the age at which young people are eligible to drink alcohol. But that is not happening because no revenue is raised by doing that. The second thing they could do is increase the amount of money they spend on education for young people in this country to help them understand what will happen if they consume excess amounts of alcohol. But that costs money; it does not raise it. So that is not on the Government’s agenda here tonight. The third thing Government members could do is spend more money on policing so that the rules of the land that apply to excessive drinking by young people are adhered to and administered. They could spend more money on policing. With all the policing they have promised and with all the talking tough they did when they were in Opposition they could now front up and spend some money. But they will not do that; it costs money. This bill is all about raising money; it is not about costing the Government money. ID cards could be more heavily administered when young people go to buy alcohol. That could be another way for the Government to stop young people from drinking more alcohol. But that is not what is happening with this bill. 
Nor is this bill some sort of brilliant mathematical theory to stop young people from excessive drinking. If it is it is a pretty messed up theory of elasticity of demand. I want to take the Committee at this late hour through my reason for thinking that. It is very simple. Under the old model there was a price break for alcohol of less than 14 percent proof and there was a price break for alcohol of between 14 and 23 percent proof. There was also a price break for alcohol of above 23 percent proof. What the Government is doing by passing this legislation is very simple. It is eliminating the price break for alcohol of between 14 and 23 percent proof. The message to young people is that if they want to progress to harder liquor then it does not matter whether they drink something that is 15 percent proof or 35 percent proof. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No they’ll go higher. 
JOHN KEY 
: Absolutely. They will go all the way and take the really hard stuff. If the message from the Government is that we want to stop young people from drinking harder liquor then this is a pretty weird way of doing it. If Government members were really serious about encouraging young people then one of the things they could do is reduce the excise tax on ready-to-drinks on Tuis or on something else so that the price differential between those products and the high-alcohol products was greater. If that was their mathematical theory then that is what they could do. But they are not doing that. This Committee knows that this legislation is tax legislation. It is not a piece of social policy legislation; it is tax legislation. We know it is tax legislation because tax legislation gets whipped through the House under extraordinary urgency. It always has and it always will because that way the consumers—the mums and dads and the young people of New Zealand—do not have the chance to go out and stock up on Madeira port sherry and fortified wines. The Government sneaks in and makes the changes while it has the chance. This is not about social policy to help the young people of New Zealand; it is about a tax break. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (Senior Whip—NZ Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
Noes 38 
Motion agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 5; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 19; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
Noes 38 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 5; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 19; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Schedules 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 With most bills the schedules are passed over relatively easily but it is not so with tax bills. It is not so with a bill that has not been to a select committee and contains some substantial tax increases for people who wish to drink things such as dessert wine port and sherry. 
I want to raise some issues that occur in schedule 2 concerning a range of categories which I will read out so that the Minister and his officials can follow: 2208.90.56 2208.90.60 and 2208.90.67. These three categories relate to categories of alcohol. The first is drinks containing more than 1.15 percent alcohol by volume but not more than 2.5 percent. That is a very low alcohol volume and I am told that those are commonly called alcopops. The next one is drinks containing more than 2.5 percent alcohol by volume but no more than 6 percent and that is mixed ready-to-drink alcohol which is vodka and orange juice or whatever. The next section is drinks containing more than 6 percent alcohol by volume but no more than 9 percent and those are also ready-to-drinks but are stronger than the previous category. Those are the three commonly used drinks of choice of young people. 
The schedule shows that those three items—young people’s drinks; young people over 18—are to go up by the rate of inflation. Item 2208.20.29 which is drinks that contain more than 23 percent alcohol by volume—rum whisky bourbon vodka etc.—is being held at the same rate but adjusted for inflation. The explanatory note of the bill states that it will deal with those drinks with an alcohol content of between 14 and 23 percent yet those drinks do not appear in schedule 2. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I have already answered that. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: I would be keen for him to answer it again even if he takes just a short call because I must have popped out of the House. 
Darren Hughes 
: His  
Hansard 
 will be available tomorrow. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Members can laugh about it but let me tell them that when the bill was faxed to one of the largest liquor stores in New Zealand and the owner went through the schedules he could not determine where the drinks that are supposedly being targeted were in this schedule. He went through schedule 2 and said that they were not there. I want an assurance that they are there because the explanatory note of the bill states that that is where they are being targeted. They certainly do not appear in schedule 2. I understand that some appear in schedule 1. The issue there I am led to believe is that schedule 1 covers drinks with 14 to 23 percent alcohol by volume that are New Zealand – made. What was put to me tonight by that person in the industry— 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I hope that the Chair is taking advice on the points raised by Mr Sowry because I was following them and if they are correct it would appear that the Government has made a mistake. That is one reason that putting legislation through under extraordinary urgency is not a great idea. Members might be interested to know that the United States for example which has regular tax bills does not put them through under emergency urgency. It has never found that there is a great problem with people rushing out and buying every bottle of alcohol. This extraordinary urgency is a nonsense. I suspect the real reason we are doing this is that the Government knows the bill is bad news and wants to get it over with as soon as it can and do it now so that it does not overshadow the Budget. 
We have been told that the whole purpose of this bill is to prevent teenagers from drinking. If we look at the schedules to see what the measures for increased tax are we see that the first item is ice cream. I have asked whether there is any evidence of any teenager being admitted to hospital for having eaten too much ice cream containing alcohol. The next one is “Food preparations not elsewhere specified … containing alcohol which if imported would be classified with Tariff item 2106.90.98:”. That must be Christmas cakes with rum in them. 
Hon Ken Shirley 
: And chocolate. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: And chocolates. Is there any evidence of teenagers being seen staggering down the road after eating alcoholic chocolate? The next one is “Wine of fresh grapes and grape must with fermentation prevented or arrested by the addition of alcohol including sparkling fortified and table wine which if imported would be classified within Tariff item 2204.21.13”. Again I ask how many teenagers drink that sort of beverage. The fourth one is vermouth. There might be some teenagers who drink vermouth but I do not myself think so. I do not believe that that is a drink of choice. The next item is “fermented beverages (for example cider perry mead)”. Again I do not believe that those are drinks bought by teenagers. The next one is “Liqueurs cordials and bitters”. There might be some young ladies who occasionally drink those. That is the first schedule but nowhere can be seen the items that United Future tells us are the reason it is supporting this bill. 
This bill is a tax bill. The Committee would feel better if the Minister would tell us the true facts. The true facts are that he wants to raise another $18 million and the Government has come up with a great idea. It has found a bottle of gin that is it says 23 percent alcohol. It cannot actually produce one but it says this is a terrible loophole that must be closed. I ask the Minister where in the first schedule is that bottle of gin? I say to the Minister that it is not there at all is it. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: It is. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Where is it? Is it under “Ice cream” or “Food preparations”? 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Keep going. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: The wine of grapes? 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: “Containing more than 14% vol. but not more than 23% vol.” 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: Which one? Perhaps the Minister would like to take a call because I am suggesting that this is a tax that will hit principally superannuitants. The Government knows that. I do not know whether Government members knew it when they introduced the bill but they know it now. 
I say to members opposite that that is just the first schedule but one could make very similar observations about every other schedule. They will find that the first item is ice cream. Where is the great problem being caused by ice cream? This Government is actually increasing the tax on ice cream. There is no doubt that that is what it is going to do. I would like to know how much money it expects to raise from it. How big a problem is it when one sees Baileys ice cream in the supermarket? Is that what the member is referring to? I very much doubt it. I believe that the Government is using this mythical bottle of $9.99 gin that apparently has 22.9 percent alcohol in it which it cannot actually produce— 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 There was a time when I was formerly a member of Parliament when the first reaction of people on this side of the Chamber to any legislation of this kind would be: “What about the workers?”. I have heard nothing from this Labour Government that shows it is standing up for the workers. Government members have forgotten about the workers. I heard that sort of speech so many times from this side of the Chamber especially from the Hon Richard Prebble time and time again monotonously— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: What did we say again? What about the workers? 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes what about the workers? This minority Labour Party Government supported by United Future and the Greens is showing in this bill that it has no regard for the workers. Those people who are now retired who have been workers but are now superannuitants and those people who are now workers might want to share in this mythical 22.9 percent bottle of gin if they could find it. What this Government is doing is depriving them of enjoying a cheap gin. It is preventing them from enjoying that drink. What about the workers if there is a whisky below 22.9 percent? It will be going up in price by 80 percent. What about the workers who enjoy a whisky at 22.9 percent or a gin or whatever? 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: No one is going to drink 32 percent alcohol gin any more; they’re going to drink 33 percent alcohol aren’t they? 
DAIL JONES 
: There is no distinction now. It seems that if it is over 14 percent one might as well try to drink the really top-shelf stuff if one can afford it bearing in mind that it starts at a higher price range. I say to this minority Labour Government and to the workers of New Zealand that if they do like the mythical cheap bottle of gin if they do like any mythical cheap bottle of whisky this minority Labour Party Government has just about doubled their tipple tonight. We will be reminding the workers of New Zealand about that time and time again. 
There was a time when the Hon Jim Anderton worked very hard for the workers of New Zealand. I remember how hard he used to work canvassing in Helensville and I recognise his concern for the Labour Party and how hard he stood up for the workers. Tonight he is in his swansong term in Parliament selling out on the workers of New Zealand. He does not care about them any more. He has come into the House time and time again on the back of the workers of New Zealand. What is he doing in his last term in the House? He is selling out those workers. The minority Labour Party Government does not care about them any more. Of course United Future does not care anyway. It has found the mythical bottle of gin. It is almost like a Holy Grail tonight. 
I wish we could find that mythical bottle of gin. Members opposite do not care about workers or retired workers who want their port and their sherry. I can imagine all the old ladies and men going to the bottle store on Friday or Saturday handing over the bottle and their $5 and instead of getting a full bottle getting only half a bottle. They will say: “But I gave you $5. Where’s my full bottle?”. I suspect that the answer at every bottle store will be—the Waitakere Licensing Trust the Portage Licensing Trust or anywhere—“Thanks to the Labour Party you’re now getting half your flagon half your half-g or whatever. That’s their present to you leading into a cold winter. They’re cutting your rations by half.” They are people who fought for this country who worked hard for this country and are now retired. That is the present to them from this minority Labour Party Government. Many of them are staunch workers. 
I can imagine the people on the West Coast who have supported the Labour Party day in day out all of their lives. They look forward to a little tipple but what is happening? Thanks to Jim Anderton thanks to Helen Clark and thanks to all those members opposite that tipple will be cut in half. They do not care about the workers. They do not care about elderly people on low incomes. The Hon Jim Anderton can shake his head until it falls off but that is the fact of the matter. He does not care about those people. There was a time as I say when people like Mick Connelly—do members remember Mick Connelly? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: A great man. 
DAIL JONES 
: Time and time again Mick Connelly would go on and on on behalf of the people of Wigram. Who represents them now or has represented them? I can remember Mick going on and on. No one ever took any notice of him but he went on and on and on. He could go on for half an hour. I am doing this for only 5 minutes. Mick could talk for half an hour and seem as fresh as— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The workingmen’s pleasures. 
DAIL JONES 
: The workingmen’s pleasures are all gone. The likes of good old Gordon Christie—Curly more hair than brains— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Real men. 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I want to know what Mr Anderton meant as he sat in the Minister’s chair and scoffed at the suggestion that he was not there for the workers. This bill will potentially put at least 200 workers out of a job. These schedules will shut down the only alcohol company in New Zealand that produces and bottles in this country low-alcohol spirits. This bill will shut that company down and 200 workers will be gone. That is the care. 
For those who do have a job and who continue to work I want to pick up on the point that Mr Prebble made in regard to ice cream. I can tell those workers that when they get home from a hard day’s work they can have a little bit of alcoholic ice cream that does not have a big tax on it provided that it is very heavily laced. I read these schedules and perhaps the Minister might like to tell us what the story is here but there is a rate for ice cream containing more than 1.15 percent but not more than 2.5 percent. There is a rate for ice cream containing 2.5 percent by volume but not more than 6 percent. There is a rate for ice cream containing more than 6 percent by volume but not more than 9 percent. 
Darren Hughes 
: What a surprise the member is focusing on ice cream. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The member across the way there the great white hope for the Labour Party Mr “Dazza” Hughes sits there laughing and guffawing at the prospect that he may soon get out of this Chamber and go back to his little nest somewhere and get a big ice cream out of the fridge because young people his age just love to suck on ice cream and there would be no one who does it better than Mr Hughes. It is a shame that Mr Hughes takes so many lessons from Clayton Cosgrove on how to be a member of Parliament. As I said earlier Clayton Cosgrove has a huge reputation for sending along an apology to people in his electorate before he gets an invitation to visit and Darren Hughes is starting to emulate him. But I want to tell Mr Hughes that there is a rate in schedule 2 for ice cream containing alcohol at a volume of between 9 percent and 14 percent. It then jumps right up to ice cream containing more than 23 percent. So I am assuming that there is no rate in here for 18 percent alcohol by volume of ice cream or 19 20 21 or 22 percent; or 15 or 16 percent for that matter. So there is quite a broad range of alcoholic ice cream that one can import and make in this country that seems to have escaped the pernicious tax being imposed by the Government this evening. 
My colleague Roger Sowry has been in contact with the industry throughout the evening listening to its concerns and he confirms that in fact there is a loophole. It would appear that in the very near future dairies maybe have to become R18 because we will get hordes of alcohol-craving youngsters going into the ice cream shops asking for two and three scoop 18 percent ice creams so they can get their fix because they no longer have access to a low-alcohol product anywhere else. That might seem extreme but then anything this Government in fact does seems extreme according to the main. 
On going through the schedules I find there is another point that I want to ask the Minister to clarify. It relates to the coding in the schedules. Schedule 3 talks about a preferential tariff “CA Free”. What does CA Free mean? We are talking about once again would members believe it edible preparations ice creams and other edible ice whether or not containing cocoa which is a worry. Is this a precursor of a cocoa tax coming shortly? I am not sure. It states in relation to alcohol: “Containing more than 14% vol. but not more than 23% vol. per l al 7 CA Free.” Every other tariff rate in this legislation has a dollar amount alongside it. But what we have here is CA Free. I would like to hear from the Minister what it means. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I will deal with just two issues. Mr Prebble was worried about spirits and spirituous beverages in schedule 1—that is 99.45 and 99.45.86F containing more than 14 percent volume but not more than 23 percent volume. Mr Brownlee was very worried about ice cream with alcohol content of 14 to 23 percent. That is in schedule 1. It is actually the first item: “Containing more than 14 % volume but not more than 23 % vol.” The member has to read it. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 If the Opposition wants to blame anybody for this bill it should blame the liquor industry. If Mr Brownlee is worried that this will shut down part of the industry then I for one am not unhappy about that. I hope that every time we look at one line of the schedules we see that as a sanction on the liquor industry because the industry has tried to exploit our young people the ones for whom this bill is necessary. The production of 23 percent proof alcoholic beverages in order to target our young people is absolutely irresponsible. The fact that the industry has targeted them at 23 percent—1 percent below the threshold at which the products would be taxed—just shows the extent to which it is prepared to go to put profits ahead of any degree of social responsibility. If our liquor industry had some sort of social conscience and looked at the effect of its products on our young people we would not have to take this sort of action to curb what it is doing. 
I am delighted that our society is moving away from the single bottom-line approach towards the triple bottom-line approach—a bottom-line approach to profits that looks not only at economic benefits but also at environmental and social benefits and gauges its businesses on the basis of how they are performing on each of those indicators. I am delighted that my legal practice was a foundation member of Business for Social Responsibility set up by Dick Hubbard. I believe that is the way for the future. In fact I know that internationally there is a tendency for businesses that are socially responsible actually to perform better in terms of profit than other businesses. I believe that is to be commended. 
What we have in the liquor industry is a “Business for Social Irresponsibility” approach because it is not taking into account the effect that this is having particularly on the social environment in which we live and particularly on our young citizens who are being sucked in by these methods simply so the industry can make extra profits. That is irresponsible of the industry. It needs to be taken to task. It should take a good look at itself in the mirror when it looks at the bill and worries about the effects this legislation might have on its bottom line. Maybe it should take a different attitude towards business. 
We have been talking about ice cream products containing alcohol. The fact that ice cream is listed in this legislation shows the extent to which the liquor industry is prepared to go to bring our young people into a liquor situation. The fact that chocolates and other products are targeted shows the extent to which the industry is prepared to take something that we all consider to be good and healthy for our families and put liquor into it to try to trap people into the liquor industry. I understand from my colleagues that John Carter has challenged United Future to name at least two ready-to-drinks that would be caught by this bill. I can do that for him. We have Bully Hayes rum-flavoured general alcoholic beverage and Kristov’s vodka-flavoured general alcoholic beverage. It is noted they are rum flavoured because they are 23 percent whereas if they were a little higher in content they could actually be called rum. But they have to get sophisticated labels for these things in order to comply with other legislation. So we do know what we are talking about. 
Ever since Parliament lowered the drinking age and provided a financial windfall for the liquor industry the community has experienced these problems. I did not vote for that change to the legislation. I wish I had been in the House at the time the lowering of the drinking age became law. It will not surprise any member to know that I and many of my party colleagues would not have supported the lowering of the drinking age. The change has opened a Pandora’s box. We are seeing drunkenness among our school children and more social problems. That is exactly what happens when we start making changes in this Parliament that are wide ranging but without having adequate consultation about the effects of those changes. That is exactly what will happen if we pass the prostitution legislation. We will open another Pandora’s box. We will find that just as with the liquor industry people will exploit for all its worth the open attitude of this House. 
KATHERINE RICH (NZ National) 
: 
 I know that the last speaker was probably very well meaning but I have to say that some of the points he made are misguided at best. The liquor industry is not out there to do Satan’s work. The liquor industry is not out there to entice young people to drink themselves into a frenzy. The liquor industry does not provide liquor to ice-cream companies with the express aim of trying to lure people into alcohol consumption. The liquor industry provides alcohol to ice-cream companies so they can produce ice creams that we as adults like to eat. Mr Benson-Pope sitting over there will be well aware of a company in the Dunedin area called the Gourmet Ice Cream Company which makes a wonderful range of alcoholic ice creams that eaten in moderation certainly do not affect the brain at all. 
The whole idea that somehow children will eat enough ice cream to have that effect indicates that the member from United Future has lived a very sheltered life. I ask him whether he seriously believes that a total ban on alcohol will make one iota of difference to the community. He should look at what banning alcohol did for Chicago in the 1920s. It did not change anything. It just drove it underground. 
It is very interesting to look down the long list of products in the schedule and note the changes. It is clear that none of the products that United Future members thought would be included are there. I feel sorry for those members because I think their arms have been twisted. They were convinced that supporting this bill would be a good thing for the community in terms of what it will do for young people. One of the aspects of the bill that has been made quite clear by members on this side is that the bill is nothing more than a tax bill. It will not make any difference to the amount that teenagers drink. If we look at the alcohol that will largely be captured by this legislation it is all the stuff that many senior citizens would be quite happy to consume. As mentioned before when I drink sherry and vermouth I am usually at my grandparents’ house and I quite enjoy drinking that with them. However it is quite laughable to think that those drinks would ever have been an option when I was in my teens and 20s. 
In terms of the real change that it is claimed the bill will make it simply will not deliver. It is interesting that cordials and bitters are included in the schedule. I cannot think of any alcoholic cordial unless the recipe for Jungle Juice or Refresh has changed over the years. As I said a number of these alcoholic drinks are consumed by senior citizens. It is a sad day for the Labour Party because not only is it adding a tax to a number of alcoholic beverages that are consumed by a lot of seniors but also it is spoiling their fun altogether by wanting to ban smoking in their Returned Services Associations and ban a whole lot of things that these older people are used to doing. 
I have a few questions about the schedule. There are some things that I am not quite sure about. I wonder whether the Minister could take a call and tell me what “undenatured ethyl alcohol” is. I am not sure what the undenatured bit means. I also do not know what “perry” is. It sounds a very unusual drink. Of course I am aware of “mead” but once again I have to say that I cannot think of any teenager going out on a Saturday night with a flagon of mead let alone a flagon of cider sherry bitters—or cordial for that matter. They are hardly the beverages of choice for enthusiastic teenagers. 
DARREN HUGHES (NZ Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Mr Anderton just voted for two votes in favour. I want to know where his second vote is. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Customs) 
: 
 If the member had been here during the day he would know that Matt Robson has been here all the time. He is not here at the moment but I am sure he is in the precincts of the House. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Matt Robson must be here to cast a vote. Where is he now? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member please be seated. I want to rule on his point of order. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I had not finished my point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member please be seated. I will rule on his point of order. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: What point is that? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member’s point of order on whether it was correct under the Standing Orders for the Hon Jim Anderton to vote on behalf of Progressive. I am ruling on that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I have not finished my point of order. Will you sit down and I will finish it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask Mr Peters to please be seated. The member has raised his point of order. I am ruling on it. That is the end of the matter. If the member has something more to add— 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I do not need your warning. You have been here 5 minutes and you warn me about making a mistake in my point of order. Perhaps you should now rise and tell me how I made a mistake here. If you are to give me a warning I must know what the parameters are. It is now your turn. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Would the member please complete his point of order. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No you gave me a warning. Finish off your warning. Why do you say that to me? Tell me now. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am ruling on your point of order. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Are you clairvoyant? I have not finished my point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Anderton quite properly under the Standing Orders cast the Progressive vote. I ask the Clerk to please continue with the vote. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I have asked Mr Anderton to tell me where Mr Robson is right now. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Sit down! I am finishing my point of order. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: The member didn’t call for a point of order. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: She has asked me to finish my point of order. I was trying to finish my point of order and he had the audacity to rise and you did not stop him. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I ask Mr Peters to please complete his point of order. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I was speaking to the point of order. That member might be the Minister of Defence but he should keep quiet while I am talking. It is clear as daylight that if Mr Robson is to have his vote cast by his leader then he must be within the parameters of Parliament. My point of order is would Mr Anderton please tell me where Mr Robson is right now. Standing Order 157(3) states: “In the case of a party vote or a personal vote following a party vote a proxy may be exercised for a party consisting of one member and for any Independent member only if the member concerned is—(a) present within the precincts of Parliament”. Is he here or not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Customs) 
: 
 Mr Robson was here very recently and I am speaking on his behalf. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is he here or not? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes I am of the view that he is here. That is why I voted for him. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
:  
I asked Mr Anderton to tell me not whether he was here but whether he is here in terms of Standing Order 157(3)(a) “present within the precincts of Parliament”. That is not a past tense. It is now. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I want to advise the House that the reason this has been raised is—I did not personally hear it but the Hon Ken Shirley tells me this—that when Mr Matt Robson left he said: “I’m off.” and left a clear impression in the minds of our members that he meant he had gone home. I think we could take it that he has because Parliament is still being broadcast. You can bet your sweet life that if he was here given the amount of time we have taken he would have arrived. It is clear from Mr Anderton’s statement that he just voted for him cavalierly and I suggest that the easiest way would be for Mr Anderton to decide to change his vote. 
ROD DONALD (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I would suggest that Standing Order 157(2) is the relevant Standing Order. It clearly states: “In the case of a party vote proxies may be exercised for a number equal to no more than 25 percent of a party’s membership in the House but at least one proxy may be exercised for a party.” Mr Anderton cast the proxy for the absent member. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Under Standing Order 145 Mr Anderton as leader of the party is the authorised person to cast that vote. Mr Anderton has cast the vote. That is his word and his word is accepted. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Mr Peters accused me of lying. I ask that he withdraw and apologise. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 There are two factors here that have been fundamentally upheld by this House over and over by presiding officers. Firstly if a whip or a leader casts a vote their word must be accepted. Full stop. Secondly whips do not require written proxies to vote in regular votes in this House and they never have. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 Perhaps Mr Robson might like to assure us that he was within the precincts of the House when the vote was called. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Anderton’s word is properly accepted. That is the end of the matter. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The fact is that Mr Robson was in his room which is exactly where I thought he was. I could not prove it but I would have dealt with that if we had to deal with it. But I come back to the point. Mr Peters accused me of lying. I heard him say it and I suggest that many other members did too. I ask you to ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I am going to deal with Mr Peters. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 When a leader of a party rises and deals with a fact so cavalierly as to say “I think he was here; I am not certain where he was.” he certainly opens himself up to accusations of being so careless with the truth that it is a mere bagatelle to him. That is my point. He must have known where Mr Robson was—the one colleague he has left. He must have pointed it out and been certain about it but he was not and it was mere serendipity that he walked in here late at night and saved Mr Anderton’s bacon. I do not intend to apologise for saying that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The matter is over. The vote was cast correctly. Offence has been taken. Mr Anderton’s word was doubted and I ask Mr Peters to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No I will not. I doubted his word properly. He can prove that I am wrong but I doubted him properly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Peters I would ask you again to withdraw and apologise for saying the word “liar” to Mr Anderton. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I asked him to find where his colleague was. He had no idea where he was. I was quite proper in raising the question. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I will say again to Mr Peters that offence was taken. The member did doubt Mr Anderton’s word and I would ask him to withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No Madam Chairperson read the Standing Orders. On a vote we are entitled to doubt a member’s word. I am sorry but you have been misadvised. I am entitled to doubt a party’s word. The whole of the Standing Orders say that. That is why they have a personalised vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member called him a liar. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I am sorry for that part. I apologise. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Thank you. That is what I wanted. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 66 
Noes 37 
Motion agreed to 
. 
Labour 52; Green Party 5; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 18; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedules be agreed to 
Ayes 66 
Noes 37 
Schedules agreed to. 
Labour 52; Green Party 5; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 18; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Third Reading 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Acting Minister of Customs) 
: I move  
That the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The bill before the House was promoted by the ministerial committee on drugs and alcohol as a health not a revenue measure. The Minister of Finance I have to tell the House was not on that committee is not on that committee and had nothing whatever to do with the idea of promoting this bill. 
The objectives of the drug and alcohol national programme of action are simple and clear: a reduction in the supply of alcohol and effective control of it demand reduction and problem limitation. This measure is an attempt to reduce demand and every piece of evidence that the committee of Ministers who promoted this bill had before it indicated that alcohol consumption is price sensitive particularly where young people are concerned. If members want to know whether there is any international support for that I say there are a number of international papers. I have a list of them and I will provide that list to people who are seriously interested in the issue so they can do the research themselves. 
Suffice it to say at this hour of the night that the Government believes this measure will reduce the incidence of binge drinking and heavy drinking. It is not a panacea nor is it every single step. There are 36 actions in the action plan that Ministers are developing for drug and alcohol harm minimisation. This is simply one of them. The bill is a step in the right direction I applaud it and I recommend its passage to the House. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY (Deputy Leader—NZ National) 
: 
 What an extraordinary speech that was! It was extraordinary because it was only about 2 minutes long and because on such an important measure the Minister on his feet said a couple of things. Firstly he said that this bill was promoted not because of the taxation revenue but because this was a health issue. He said that this legislation will stop binge drinking and that that is why we are putting an extra tax on Madeira port and sherry. Where is the evidence that we have a whole heap of elderly New Zealanders out there binge drinking on port Madeira and sherry? The Minister is simply not credible. 
Secondly even more extraordinary was the Minister’s admission to the House that the Minister of Finance had nothing to do with this bill. So now we have a tax being levied that the Minister of Finance has had nothing to do with. That also was an extraordinary admission by the Minister. It really does feed into the sort of stuff that has been running around the building tonight which is that this bill actually came about because Dr Cullen would not give Mr Anderton the money that he wants to waste through his Ministry of Economic Development—the money for the next lot of Sovereign Yachts and the next sort of experiment that he goes on. So it was agreed that if the Minister for Economic Development were to take through the House a bill that was nothing to do with him and his portfolio areas a bill that put an extra tax primarily on elderly New Zealanders then he would get his money. 
Why did we have to deal with this bill a week earlier than the Budget? The Minister of Finance not only wanted Mr Anderton to say as he has said tonight that the Minister of Finance Dr Cullen had nothing to do with this bill but he wanted to make sure that it was debated a week away from the Budget. This is the 2000 Budget repeated. We are in 2000 for the 2000 Budget when the Labour Party came into the House with the support of the Greens and voted through a huge excise increase. Labour broke its pledge-card promise voted through an increase in the excise duty on tobacco and did so a week out from the Budget so that it would not have nasty headlines around the Budget. This Government spends every second of its day thinking about the political spin. So it has decided once again to try to put the bad news upfront a week out from the Budget— 
Jill Pettis 
: And it’s working. 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
:—Jill Pettis says that it is working—to go out there and kick a few elderly people who like to have a glass of sherry or port to do that a week out from the Budget and then to say that the Budget is a non-event and we should not worry about it. 
What is more the Government is dressing up the kicking of people who want to drink a sherry or a port on the basis that this legislation will stop binge drinking and will do something about young people drinking. We know that is not the case. We know that United Future fell for the line that this measure was about stopping youth drinking. We know that from a great speech that was made by the United Future spokesperson on alcohol Judy Turner who said that she would rather people bought one of the ready-to-drink mixtures with 5 percent alcohol content than the drinks affected by this legislation. In fact she said she would not mind if they had two of those drinks because they would have 10 percent alcohol content then. That shows how much understanding we had from that member. She has no understanding of the process at all. She had no understanding what she was voting for; she did not have a clue about what she was doing. United Future members were sucked into supporting this bill and now we find that many of the Labour back-benchers did not realise that the prime target of this bill was elderly New Zealanders. 
The vast majority of the people who are affected by this bill are elderly New Zealanders and the Labour back-benchers were not told that before they came into the House today. This bill is not about young drinkers; it does not actually affect young drinkers. Young drinkers’ drinks of choice are excluded from the hefty taxation increases in this bill. Parents of young girls in particular who do not mind them having a drink but want them to be safe rightly advise their young daughters never to drink a drink that they have not seen mixed in front of them or that they should take a ready-mixed drink to a party and not put it down. Parents tell them not to let anyone get near a drink in case that person drops something in it and to drink from a ready-to-drink bottle. Those are the drinks that young people are out there binge drinking on. 
What has the Labour Government done about any of those ready-mixed drinks? Not a thing. The Labour Government has said to young people that if they go and buy drink it will make it more difficult for them to buy straight vodka but easier to buy vodka that is mixed. That is what the Government has done. Then Government members stand up here in the House and say that it is a bit of a shame that people who drink Madeira sherry and port are caught up in this legislation because it was really targeting young New Zealanders. The Government cannot have it both ways. 
We know that this legislation is all about two things. It is about raising extra money so that the Progressives can get some money to spend in the Budget. That was its first priority. That is why the Minister for Economic Development took the bill through the House. It was extraordinary that we did not even hear the Minister of Finance speak on the bill. He was here when it was introduced but he scuttled off and that was it. We did not hear from him during the course of this debate and we did not hear from the Minister of Customs. What we heard in fact was a silly little poem from the member for Otago. He was up in his office with a few of his mates around him. They sat around and wrote a little poem and came to the House. Then he pleaded with the whips to be allowed to make a speech. They said that back-benchers were not allowed to speak on the bill but he said that he and his mates had written a little poem that was really funny so the whips agreed that he could read his 2-minute funny poem. That was Labour’s whole contribution to the bill. 
If the members on the Opposition side of the House were in Government and were to do what this Government has done we would have had Labour members worrying about their dear old mums who have a glass of sherry who live just on the pension and who now face an extra tax. Do Labour members care one iota about that now? Do they care one iota about the elderly person living alone who just likes to have a glass of sherry every night? Labour members’ answer is that that is binge drinking and that is why they have to go out and get that. 
Interestingly one of the groups that will be most affected by this legislation is the hospice movement. 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh for God’s sake! 
Hon ROGER SOWRY 
: Jill Pettis cannot give a toss about the hospice movement. I have recently been visiting a person in a hospice. One of the great joys for that lady was a—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes it was one glass. Jill Pettis might think that that is just a bit pathetic but for that lady it was something that she really looked forward to. The hospice movement will have to raise more money and pay more tax. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 That member is completely out of touch with what is going on with young people in this country. He does not understand what goes on with binge drinking. Young people who are binge drinking are not using the ready-to-drink mixes to achieve their goals. They are using heavy alcoholic drinks such as Bully Hayes a rum-flavoured alcohol and the Kristov vodka-flavoured general alcohol beverage which have a 23 percent proof alcohol content. That is what binge drinkers are drinking. This bill is necessary because of the irresponsibility of the liquor industry in targeting young people with those drinks at a cheap price. This bill is not a silver bullet; it will not eradicate all binge drinking. But I do hope that it will reduce some of the alcohol sales that have resulted from the lowering of the drinking age 3 years ago. 
The first headline that I saw in the year 2000 one year after the bill lowering the drinking age was passed through this House was that Lion Breweries had announced a 13 percent increase in sales. This legislation will help to reduce that I hope because of the effect that it will have on our young people. Some people who are as young as 14 years of age have access to those kinds of drinks. If there was something that could be done about ready-to-drink mixes I would be very interested to look at that issue also. I do feel sorry for those people who are innocent in terms of heavy drinking but who may be affected by the ramifications of this bill. It is not us that they should blame for that but the liquor industry which has not been acting responsibly with regard to young people. 
I am grateful that this bill is finally about to pass in this House. We trust that it will make some difference to the young people of this nation. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The Minister in charge of this bill the Hon Jim Anderton has said that this legislation will stop binge drinking. He was asked many many questions during the Committee stage. Yet he was silent throughout virtually all the Committee stage which I think lasted over 3 hours or so. 
John Carter 
: 4 hours. 
DAIL JONES 
: It was close to 4 hours. It was virtually impossible to get an answer from the Minister to our questions. But one of the key things that we hammered throughout the Committee stage was this: when he gave his first reading speech on this bill was he referring to the bottles that are in the cupboard now and with which he is very familiar—the small bottles of drink containing 5 percent alcohol? I know that when I spoke in the first reading debate I had the clear impression that Mr Anderton was talking about the little bottles of drink that young people enjoy drinking. We had the clear impression that he thought that type of alcohol would be hit by this legislation. 
Of course it transpired through the research done by various Opposition members through the course of the evening that that type of alcohol is not affected by this legislation other than by the usual consumer price index increase which will be undertaken on 1 June. The Minister I believe owed an apology to this House when he made his third reading speech. He could have put it on the record that at least an inference might have been drawn from his first reading speech that could have misled members of this House and that certainly did mislead them. No Labour Party member tried at all to clarify that misleading view. I think it is because the Labour Party members themselves were misled. When they were walked into their caucus and told what was to happen I am sure they were under the clear impression that this legislation would hit the small bottles of drink. I think they were as horrified as they could possibly be when they discovered that those small bottles of drink are not the ones that are involved. 
After all the explanatory note of the bill states: “Light spirits in particular are the drink of choice for many teenagers and young persons and are contributing to excessive levels of alcohol consumption within these groups. Increasing the duty payable on these products to more correctly price them is aimed at reducing this consumption.” I would have thought that 5 percent alcohol content was a light spirit. I would have thought that 23 percent alcohol content was getting to the medium to high side in terms of spirits. Of course that does reflect that this Government has rushed this legislation through without doing adequate research itself and without an adequate explanation to the Opposition parties. It has created utter confusion as to what is meant by “light spirits”. 
It should also be noted on the record that at no stage did the Minister do anything to clarify what the term “light spirit” meant. He could have stood up and made the speech that Larry Baldock has just given saying that it means a mysterious bottle of gin containing 23 percent of alcohol by volume. But the Minister did not say that; I cannot recall him saying that. It is the Minister’s duty to inform the House about the type of liquor that is involved not Larry Baldock’s or Rod Donald’s. What goes down on the record of this House if it is ever looked at by a court subsequently will be the Minister’s speech not the speech of a member of a minor joint Government party like United Future or the Greens. It will be the Minister’s speech that a court will look at when it tries to interpret what is meant by this legislation. If that ever becomes necessary the court will have no idea what was meant by a light spirit insofar as the Minister’s early speech and the explanatory note of the bill are concerned. I think that insofar as members on the Opposition side of the House are concerned it is very clear to us that it was only after Dr Lynda Scott Nick Smith and Ron Mark produced these small bottles that there was somehow a change of direction in the way in which the Government approached this matter. 
If the Government was really serious about reducing the effects of alcohol on young people it should have introduced a tax on the small bottles with 5 percent alcohol content. We have heard quite clearly tonight that it is those small bottles that are consumed by young people. If the Government was serious about reducing the effect of alcohol on them—at various parties and suchlike events—it should have had the bottles with 5 percent alcohol content included in this legislation. Why did it not do so? After all here we are being forced to sit here in the House under extraordinary urgency. New Zealand First has maintained 13 votes on this bill throughout almost all the night. We have sat here to fight and oppose this legislation; we have been prepared to do that. Surely the Government could have made sure that this legislation which it is imposing on this country with the support of United Future and the Greens hit those bottles with 5 percent alcohol content if it had wished to do so. Why did it not do that? After all the Government has given the clear impression that those drinks are the mischief that has been affecting young people in this country. 
I say to younger people of 14 15 16 and 17 years of age—and this is known to all of those members for example who were in the House when the Alcoholic Liquor Advisory Council was established way back in about 1977—that it is the younger leaner female person who is more inclined to feel the effects of alcohol at an early stage than an older person who is carrying a bit more weight and suchlike. The trap for a young person would be to follow the advice of the mother mentioned by Roger Sowry who tells her daughter to drink the bottles containing 5 percent alcohol because I believe a young person of 14 15 or 16 years of age who is female and of a slight build would probably suffer serious effects after drinking only one of those bottles let alone after having a second one. If the Labour Government was concerned about the effects of alcohol on young people it had every duty to include that type of alcohol in this rushed legislation that we are passing under extraordinary urgency. It has failed to do so and United Future has failed to insist that it do so. 
After all the only reason that this bill is going through the House is United Future. If United Future had any impact on this Labour Government it should have insisted that the bottles with 5 percent alcohol content be included in the legislation as well. It is no use for United Future to put up the sad story about the effects of the demon drink and to say the liquor industry is to blame for them not the people who drink the liquor. It always seems to be the liquor industry that is the demon in this area insofar as people like the United Future members are concerned. The people who consume alcohol have some part to play in becoming drunk. After all if they did not consume it they would not become drunk. No one forces them to drink the stuff. United Future if it had any real concern about young people who drink should have insisted that that type of alcohol be included in this legislation. 
Of course the real solution for this House would be as I indicated earlier to accept Ron Mark’s bill to raise the drinking age back to 20. That is the real solution. That is New Zealand First’s preferred position. Obviously we oppose this legislation. It mainly hits the elderly who have a little drink of port or sherry. Perhaps they have a half-gallon a week which is staggered through the week. They are the people who will mainly pay this tax not the young people. After all the young people who drink drinks with a 5 percent alcohol content will not pay anything other than the norm. It will be the older people who will pay the additional amount of money. People will be hit for example in the Returned Services Association. Soon perhaps they will not be allowed to smoke in their association’s premises; it will be interesting to see whether that legislation goes through. People will not be allowed to smoke in those premises if the Labour Party has anything to do with it—people whose port and sherry will have doubled in price as a result of this legislation. The Labour Party does not care about the working person. That is for sure! 
JILL PETTIS (NZ Labour—Whanganui) 
: 
 I support the bill. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Deputy Leader—ACT NZ) 
: 
 I think the member who just resumed her seat gave us the full content of her great knowledge in that very very short speech. This is a taxation bill. It was brought to the House under the pretence that it was a health bill—a matter addressing a social concern. That has been exposed for the fraud that it was and we have been through that at length. 
Members are talking about young people. I think they are generally talking about 15 16 and 17-year-olds who are out binge drinking. But let us remind ourselves that our liquor laws make it illegal for people under 18 to purchase alcohol now or for people to supply minors. The problem is actually the lack of policing of the existing laws. I would put it to members that 18 19 and 20-year-olds are more responsible than 15 16 and 17-year-olds. Some of them still engage in binge drinking but the real social concern is about those early teenagers and mid-teenagers who are getting into the alcopops and all the rest of what we have heard about. So point No. 1 is the basic issue that our existing laws make it illegal to supply minors with alcohol and for minors to purchase alcohol. But as we all know those laws are not being policed. To think that we can somehow cover for that by increasing the excise tax—because youth are price sensitive—means that we are missing the basic point are we not? The fact is that those young people are under age anyway and it is illegal for them to buy or to be supplied with alcohol. Surely we should be policing our existing laws rather than engaging in another $14 million tax grab. 
On that point the Government’s own advice in the McLeod report recommended that we do away with excise tax. It stated that such taxes are not good policy. The McLeod report also addressed the health issue and stated there was no evidence to suggest that we could somehow use excise tax to improve health situations be they concerning alcohol or other substances. Then we come to the report of the economist Brian Easton who was commissioned by the Alcohol Advisory Council and who reported last November. He recommended that the excise tax on spirits above the 23 percent alcohol by volume threshold be reduced. That was his recommendation and somehow with some kind of convoluted logic the Government is saying that if we increase the taxation on the medium or light liquors that will overcome the problem. 
Clearly that position is quite illogical. And as has already been pointed out the Government has the wrong target. By targeting products with 14 to 23 percent alcohol content the Government does not pick up the alcopops. The point has been made that we are picking up ports sherries and Madeiras but those are not the drinks of preference for young people. Then of course the Government has thrown in ice cream. We have had a lot of debate about ice cream. How on earth does the Government explain that away? 
I was pleased to see one thing cleared up. I was concerned about the timing of this debate under extraordinary urgency. Of course we are still debating in yesterday’s date and the bill is to become effective from the day it receives the royal assent. That would have been effectively midnight of what would have been last night. There are various outlets still open for business that could be caught by that. But the Minister made the point that alcohol is in bond. I presume that the bond stores will not open until 9 a.m. and possibly the royal assent will be on this legislation by then so that should overcome that problem. 
Just as an aside I remember an excise tax back in 1986 or 1987. The then Minister of Finance—who was either my former colleague Roger Douglas or maybe Trevor de Cleene—foreshadowed that there would be an increase in the excise duty on petrol. One very keen member of the House Rob Talbot who actually sat right here at the time rushed out—I have never seen anyone leave the Chamber so fast—and 20 minutes later he came roaring back. He said that he had gone out and filled up his car with petrol and came in beaming and saying that he had beaten the system. He had topped his car up with petrol—only to find that the excise tax had gone down. Poor old Rob! Never mind! 
If the Government is serious about addressing the concerns in terms of youth alcoholism why on earth did it close down Queen Mary Hospital’s youth alcohol programme at Hanmer Springs? Can anyone explain that? That was a very good programme for those unfortunate youths who become alcoholics at an early age. This Government is happy to grab tax and to take another $14 million net in taxation but to close down—[ 
Interruption 
]—Perhaps Damien O’Connor the Associate Minister of Health can address that question. This Government closed down the Hanmer Springs youth alcohol programme. That was an outrage. 
The other thing we are likely to see come out of this legislation is an increase in home brewing. We know that there are now very sophisticated kits which are legal as long as one does not sell the brew. A lot of people have those kits now in their garages. I do not know whether this is so but members of the House may even have them. One can produce vodka gin bourbon—anything one likes—by adding a flavouring essence and the alcohol content is way up there in the 45 percent range. I think we will see young people now engaging in those sorts of activities because of this greedy Government’s legislation which tries to gouge more taxation dollars. That is what this legislation is all about. 
Why on earth are we debating this legislation tonight under extraordinary urgency? Is it because this bill is a trophy for United Future? Is it something that United Future has been asking for—or possibly Jim Anderton—and all the bad publicity was not wanted with the Budget next week? That is when one would normally expect a matter like this to be addressed but for a very strange reason that has not been explained the Government today decided at short notice to rush this bill through all stages without any consideration by a select committee. If the bill had gone to a select committee obviously some of the deficiencies that have been identified in the Chamber tonight and pointed out to the Government could have been addressed but that opportunity has been denied. 
This is bad legislation; ACT will certainly be opposing it. It does not achieve the objective it purports to and it is nothing to do with health as has been claimed by the Minister who introduced it. It is all about more taxation and more excise duty and that is against the advice of the Government’s own advisers. This legislation is bad public policy; ACT will be opposing it. 
DAVID BENSON-POPE (NZ Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I am pleased to rise in support of this bill. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (NZ National—Ilam) 
: 
 I think Ken Shirley hit the nail on the head when he spoke in his contribution earlier of the deep embarrassment that Government members started to feel when it was revealed that alcopops and other ready-to-drink alcohol mixes freely available to young people these days are not covered by the bill. Ever since that time we have heard all sorts of fake sanctimony about the whole binge-drinking culture that frankly I do not think exists to the extent that those members want to claim. Alcohol is a problem for a very small percentage of the population alcohol has always been a problem and alcohol will continue to be a problem regardless of a bill like this. 
It is an utter nonsense for this Parliament to put forward a view that because the tax on a bottle of 23 percent alcohol rises by between $4.75 and $6.75 that will suddenly see an end to binge drinking. The argument is that if people pay higher prices for their alcohol they will not binge drink. Everyone in this House has to know that that is a total nonsense. Any suggestion that this bill has been moved primarily for health reasons is rubbish. It is without doubt a straight revenue grab—albeit a small amount—that will satisfy some of the demands of minor parties that support the coalition in this House. 
Those members should hang their heads in shame at the effect that this tax grab will have on elderly New Zealanders who as many of our colleagues have said do occasionally enjoy some sherry some Madeira or perhaps some port. In many cases they will now have to pay $7 or $8 a bottle more. This Government has repeatedly said that it does much better by our elderly. This is a Government that crows about how much superannuation has gone up under its watch. I want to tell New Zealanders that for every dollar this Government has given elderly New Zealanders in their pensions it has taken $2 back with some of the pernicious tax moves in its absolutely appalling management of this country’s economy. One does not have to go very far to see examples of that—outrageous power prices high increases in food costs extra petrol tax extra tobacco tax for those who still enjoy that habit on occasions and now a very large tax increase on what might have been a quiet Sunday evening tipple. 
The argument run by Mr Anderton was quite nonsensical. He suggested that the habit of binge drinkers or those who have any problem with alcohol is in some way price-sensitive. I suggest that for many young people who start to experience those problems this issue is about access to the drug that causes their problem. I am absolutely sickened by the number of Labour members who have made great speeches in this House about how the problem of binge drinking and bad practice with alcohol can be solved by raising its price. They are the same members who just a short time ago voted to lower the drinking age. How much better it would have been if this House had had a proper process and proper public consultation around the issue of limiting access to alcohol for younger New Zealanders. That would be a fair thing to do and would have created an environment where a whole community could have been party to a wider educative process. However the idea of simply slamming the House into extraordinary urgency to put on a little bit of extra tax and dress it up as somehow being a health move is just totally outrageous. 
I tell Larry Baldock and other members of United Future that I accept that the sentiments stated in their contributions were very genuine. However when we hear things like: “Last time the Government did something like this Lion Breweries made massive profits.” one sees that there is a misunderstanding of what this bill is all about. Lion Breweries do not make the stuff that is being covered by this bill. Ninety percent of that stuff is made by a New Zealand - owned company that employs 200 New Zealanders and is now likely to close. If those young people make choices about the alcohol they consume on the basis of price they will now be driven to beer wine and also to those different ready-to-drink mixes that are currently available. It is said that the industry will make a degree of profit where misery is involved but the vast majority of New Zealanders who consume alcohol do so responsibly and do not have problems in their lives. Increasingly it is just a hallmark of this Government that the failings of the minority are suddenly made to be the tyranny of the majority by all sorts of laws that are designed to restrict and impinge upon everyday freedoms. 
One of the ridiculous aspects of this bill is the effect it will have in increasing the costs of food items like ice cream liqueur chocolates Christmas cakes and preserved fruit. All of those items are very viable export earners for New Zealand. They are tested in the domestic market and they get their start by making progress in the domestic market. Anyone who suggests that binge drinking is contributed to by ice cream with a small alcohol content liqueur chocolates Christmas cake or preserved fruit has to be almost preserved fruit themselves. [ 
Interruption 
] The junior whip for the Labour Party says that is nonsense. That person should read what is in the bill. 
Finally some advice for all those Labour members: next time one of their senior Ministers comes to caucus and says that they will be up all night saving the young people of this country by pushing through an excise bill they should just read the bill before they say yes. 
MARK PECK (NZ Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I support this bill. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 This bill is straightforward. It addresses an anomaly in the excise tax regime. Until tonight so-called “light spirits” have been taxed on the basis of the liquor having 18 percent absolute alcohol by volume although the actual absolute alcohol by volume is 23 percent. That loophole has been exploited by opportunist operators who produce watered-down spirits and market them as the real thing. Some of those products are as cheap as $7.95 for a 1.125-litre bottle. If the same excise tax were applied to other alcoholic beverages one dozen 330 ml cans of beer would cost $6.33 only a 750 ml bottle of wine would cost $2.76 only and a 1.125-litre bottle of spirits would cost $12.85 only. But they all cost more than that which is why light spirits are so attractive to young people and heavy drinkers in particular and why it makes sense to increase the excise on them. 
It is a happy coincidence that for a range of reasons the Distilled Spirits Association of New Zealand the Alcohol Advisory Council the Government and the Green Party all support this tax change. By opposing this bill National ACT and New Zealand First have lost all credibility when they express concern about alcohol abuse by young people. The bill does not tackle ready-to-drink preparations or alcopops but that is not a reason for opposing it. This legislation is an important step in the right direction and the Opposition parties are doing young people and heavy drinkers a disservice by voting against it. 
The evidence is clear that teenagers and adults in their early 20s are sensitive to higher prices. Higher excise duties should help to reduce alcohol consumption by those groups. We sincerely hope that the current sales of light spirits will be reduced considerably from the 1.2 million bottles of the stuff currently sold each year. If the Government raises any additional revenue from that tax alignment the Green Party wants it spent on more community-based treatment services for alcohol addiction and on youth groups to provide peer education on responsible use of alcohol. 
If we are serious about irresponsible drinking in our society and the gentleman who keeps rabbiting on obviously is not then we have to tackle other issues. The harm minimisation approach will work only if Parliament reverses its 1991 decision to allow television advertising of liquor. Lifestyle liquor advertisements should be banned and we have a member’s bill to do just that. It is in the Government’s interest to support the Greens on this measure because it is estimated that the existing excise duty on alcohol does not even cover the costs incurred by the public health sector in dealing with alcohol harm and may cover only a quarter of the gross fiscal costs. 
We hope the Government also tackles the issue of ready-to-drinks or flavoured alcohol beverages but as Brian Easton says in his report  
Taxing Harm: Modernising Alcohol Excise Duties  
it is not as easy as tonight’s measure but it still needs to be addressed. In the meantime the Green Party is pleased to support this bill. 
MAHARA OKEROA (NZ Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 I stand to support this bill. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 There can seldom be a time in Parliament when one could experience such an awful horrible series of events where for example the Green Party which had promised never to vote for urgency is now supporting extraordinary urgency and where the Maori members of this Parliament who know the true malaise of alcohol and the degradation it has caused amongst their people— 
Government Members 
: Ha ha! [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: The fishwife can laugh but I am on my feet speaking and what is she doing? She is looking old and haggard and acting like a fishwife on market day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No that is out of order. Carry on. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is not Mr Speaker. She can laugh— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. I said that comment was out of order and it was. The member will withdraw it. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am on my feet and totally aware of what is going on. Are you going to stop them or what? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please be seated while I am on my feet. Interjections are allowed and they are allowed within reason. They were not out of order. Carry on. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Excellent! If they cannot stand the riposte or response that is their problem. But the reality is that the Green Party which was tonight represented by Mr Rod Donald made a commitment a long time ago never to vote for urgency but tonight it supports extraordinary urgency. All around New Zealand beginning about— 
Rod Donald 
: That is not true. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It is totally true of course. He will deny it now—like he has denied every promise the Greens have made. 
The reality is that at about 4.30 this afternoon we learnt that there was to be a debate under extraordinary urgency later on today. Everybody around New Zealand asked why would we possibly have such an urgent debate. Most New Zealanders remember the great debates of the last 20 years and the one in 1980 where the PSIS headed by a former Labour acolyte and activist called Stan Rodger was going to collapse and late one night a National Government moved urgency through all motions of the debate to save the PSIS. At that time we had a crisis that accorded with the Standing Orders and I want to talk about Speakers’ ruling 11/2 on this matter because that is what this debate should be about. I quote: “… exceptionally it may be necessary for the House to continue sitting beyond midnight to pass a particularly urgent piece of legislation. Primarily this will involve Budget legislation but it could also apply in other cases of real emergency for example where there was a need to pass legislation to deal with the collapse of a commercial or financial organisation or in a matter involving state security. To deal with these latter cases provision is made [in the Standing Orders] for another motion to be termed a motion for ‘extraordinary’ urgency.” 
Mr Speaker you are the one who decides this issue. When a leader of a party and a Government comes to you you are the one who decides whether it is a matter of extraordinary urgency. My question is how on earth could you have possibly decided that putting up the tax on liquor was such an issue—to stop the whole of the proceedings of Parliament and go all night on a question of raising the excise on liquor? Show me a precedent where any former Speaker would have done that. This debate is not about whether it is right or wrong to put the liquor tax or excise up. This whole debate is about the abuse of Parliament. 
The Clerk does not need to rise; I have not challenged him yet—but he is doing it already. He knows that I am talking about a serious issue. One does not abuse Parliament by having extraordinary urgency on a matter that in a week’s time will be in the Budget and will be decided that night. No no. But having had a few patchy weeks in politics having been “done” in the House every day the Labour Government has decided that it will get rid of all the bad news—like putting up alcohol tax—tonight. Forget the great and grand issue of a democracy and the crisis that may one day beset a nation where every party sets aside its own personal and parochial view and deals with the national interest. That is what extraordinary urgency is about. 
I was a young politician when I first saw this Parliament stop to save the PSIS. Today it is a great credit union. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Destroyed it! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No no. Excuse me we saved it. We got a receiver in and we saved it and today it is a great credit union that belongs to the people. That is an issue to do with Speaker’s ruling 11/2 which I just read out. Well I am asking all those members why they would they allow themselves to be so abused—the Greens the United Future members and those back-benchers over there—by the spin of their party executive and the Speaker himself— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will be seated. I am on my feet. I ask him to be seated or he will be leaving. The Speaker cannot be brought into the debate. The member is perfectly entitled to criticise the executive or the Government for doing what they are doing but he cannot criticise the Speaker or bring him or her into the debate. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Mr Speaker you will not prejudge what I am going to say. I am saying that the Speaker himself was there back at the time I am talking about. He was a young MP back in 1980 when there was the question of the PSIS. You have no right to jump into a debate about which you are obviously embarrassed because you allowed that debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is wrong and if he makes that comment again and brings me into the debate his speech will end. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: OK I have made my point. Everybody knows it. Every parliamentarian who has ever stood in a Western democracy knows what I am talking about. But extraordinary debates— 
David Benson-Pope 
: Oh! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh yes but that walrus would never understand. He has no love for this Parliament. He has no dream of a democracy that sometimes rises above shallow petty party politics and actually does great things. The PSIS was one of those events and I have seen others. But I have never in my life in politics—and I have been here longer than most people—ever seen this Parliament used to raise the excise on liquor. 
Jill Pettis 
: No because you’re pickled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will stand withdraw and apologise for that comment. 
Jill Pettis 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I should make the obvious point. The member should not draw the obvious inference if she is going to make an interjection. She looks like she is. I am not. If members cannot take it they should not say it. 
In my closing 2 minutes I want to say this— 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Don’t smile and try to be churlish. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Ah yes the member should tell us why he left boarding school. He should not try to be smart. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I wasn’t at boarding school. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh yes the member was. He should not enter the debate if he cannot handle it. 
Hon Mark Burton 
: Don’t misquote Michael Laws’ nasty little stories about attending boarding school—he got the wrong man. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I did my research. Why is the member so embarrassed? If Laws is wrong why is the member so embarrassed? 
Hon Mark Burton 
: I’m not embarrassed. I was never at boarding school. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Methinks he protests too much. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please continue the speech. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: All I want to say is this: I have had a long career in politics. I was out tonight speaking to a group of businessmen— 
Jill Pettis 
: Ha ha! [ 
Interruption 
] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: It would be foreign to the member. Usually it is market day for her. 
I was out tonight speaking to a group of businessmen—[ 
Interruption 
] it would be foreign to that member because it is market day—and they asked me at 7 o’clock why there would be urgency today. Was it the crash of Tranz Rail? Could Tranz Rail not pay its debts off? Was it AMP’s share price or what? It must have been some huge gigantic financial event. When I came back to Parliament I could not believe that it would be about the petty tawdry business of taxing the workingmen’s pleasure in this country. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Customs and Excise (Alcoholic Beverages) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 65 
Noes 26 
Bill read a third time. 
Labour 52; Green Party 4; United Future 7; Progressive 2. 
New Zealand National 10; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 3. 
The House adjourned at 4.51 a.m. (Wednesday)