Volume 625 Week 86 - Tuesday 12 April 2005(continued on Thursday 14 April 2005) 
Volume 625 Week 86 - Tuesday 12 April 2005(continued on Thursday 14 April 2005) 
[Volume:625;Page:19987] 
Tuesday 12 April 2005 
( 
continued on Thursday 14 April 2005 
) 
Public Records Bill 
Second Reading 
Debate resumed. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand) 
: 
 Continuing from last evening on the second reading of the Public Records Bill I will address the question of access to records under the bill. 
With the passage of the Official Information Act back in 1982 Parliament established a clear intention that Government information is to be open unless there are good reasons to withhold access. This bill clarifies the relationship between the Official Information Act and archival access mechanisms and confirms that the principle of availability is maintained unless there are good reasons to withhold access—and some of those reasons can be about privacy. It also ensures that the Ombudsman will continue to be the final arbiter of access to Government information for members of the public. I expect that open access to the vast majority of records held by Archives New Zealand will continue. 
I am very happy to commend this bill to the House. 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I rise to contribute to the report back. At the first reading National was pleased to support the bill going to the Government Administration Committee but we raised the point that there were some issues of concern to us. As the House will see National has a minority report in the report back. 
We certainly support the underlying principle of the bill in terms of creating a record-keeping framework for Government records. We also support the idea that it has become much more important to us as New Zealanders to make sure that we keep a proper record of our history and archives and that we properly recognise the things that are distinct and unique to us and to our identity as New Zealanders. 
But my colleagues who sat on the select committee during the submissions process found that the provisions of the bill that is now before us impose unnecessary and substantial extra costs and compliance costs on all affected parties. In particular they heard some fairly robust objections from State-owned enterprises and universities. One would have thought that universities would be the first to see the need for the provisions. They did but there is also underlying concern about the cost that will be added in terms of the record-keeping provisions. National does not support the report back for those reasons. 
In the part of the report back relating to the application of the bill to State-owned enterprises we see that the view of the State-owned enterprises was that the bill does not address the position they hold in terms of their legal and commercial obligations. They were concerned that by including them within the ambit of the bill they would have to fulfil a number of obligations that private sector companies do not face and that their ability to compete successfully would be reduced. National thinks that that is a major flaw in the bill and we ask the Government to give serious consideration to the objections that were raised. 
There is also the issue of commercial sensitivity. A number of State-owned enterprises were concerned that their inclusion in the bill would damage their ability to protect commercially sensitive material. They commented that State-owned enterprises might not be able to assure customers that sensitive commercial information would remain confidential because it could be released into the public domain after 25 years. In the scheme of things 25 years is a very short space of time. 
The other issue relates to compliance costs. Some State-owned enterprises saw that they would incur excessive compliance costs under this bill. Although they commented that good management was not a major requirement under the bill they said that it did have implications for good business practice when decisions were to be made about record-keeping. 
I was not present when the Minister gave her address which began last night and I am not altogether certain whether she addressed the concerns of the State-owned enterprises. The next speaker Dianne Yates might take it upon herself to address those issues if they have not already been addressed. I was not able to be present when the Minister spoke last evening. 
In any event National has some major concerns that bring us to the position whereby we cannot support this bill. We think that the submissions put forward by State-owned enterprises have merit and need to be considered very carefully by the Government which prides itself—wrongly I might say—on being business-friendly and on understanding the needs of business. In terms of the costs that have been added on to business since the Government’s tenure both in the previous term and in this current term this is just another impost on those organisations that we have certain commercial expectations of. That is National’s position. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
:  
As the chair of the Government Administration Committee I am pleased to speak on the Public Records Bill. I will read from the report back because although the previous speaker may have read the minority report from National I want to read what we said as a committee: “We also note that State enterprises can withhold access to records on the basis of commercial sensitivity under the Official Information Act 1982 (subject to a public interest test) and they will continue to exercise this discretion under the bill. We also note that the Chief Archivist can provide advice or issue standards to assist public offices in determining whether there are good reasons to restrict access to their records.” I think that covers the point. The National Party has said that it is unable to support the bill and that matters are unresolved but that is only in its opinion. We are talking of course about records that will be released after 25 years. The committee was generally satisfied that there was no commercial sensitivity. We have found that records have not been kept in some cases when it has been necessary for the history of New Zealand that they should have been kept. 
I thank the select committee for the work it did on this bill. It was a very very interesting bill that we enjoyed working on. With regard to universities they already keep more records than are required by this bill. The bill does not apply to academic research or to individual student academic records and that has been made very clear. We asked for definitions around local authorities to be tightened up and we also tightened the legislation regarding the records of public and private schools so that it is very very clear. 
I thank Archives New Zealand for arranging for the select committee to visit. We had a very interesting tour. We were shown the records there how they were kept some of the new processes—Archives New Zealand is coming online—and the new computer system that will increase access to those records. I am very impressed with the work it is doing and with the work it has done on this legislation. I was also very impressed with the way that Archives New Zealand staff worked with the select committee. When we had queries and matters that needed to be tidied up they did that very well. 
 As a committee we made one alteration—we recommended that the fine be increased. We thought that the fine recommended which was $2000 for those who might like to “disappear” a record was not enough of a deterrent so we recommended that the sum be increased because we felt that New Zealand archives are very very important to this country. We discovered that the fine had just been carried over from previous legislation and had not been revised for some years. So that was one alteration the committee initiated. 
Once again I thank everybody on the committee Archives New Zealand in particular and officials and ministry staff for helping us with this bill. I also thank the Minister. The legislation is long overdue; these things do need updating. Mistakes have been made in the past in New Zealand and let us hope that this bill will rectify those mistakes. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First was not represented on the Government Administration Committee for consideration of this bill. It is one of the bills for which we just do not have enough members. Of course that situation will be rectified after the next election and we look forward to a greater representation on all committees and elsewhere. The keeping of records is a sign of a civilised society. Our knowledge of what happened in ancient Greece in ancient Rome and throughout the history of Britain is all based on keeping records. The Domesday Book was known to many of us at school. It was kept by William the Conqueror mainly as a means of gathering tax—which is why people used to keep records in the old days—but it was part of the tradition of maintaining records. I am disappointed that the National Party will oppose this bill because New Zealand First intends to support it. It is clearly a means of bringing the public records of New Zealand up to date and of bringing them into the 21st century. 
We do not expect the National Party to come into the 21st century; we have seen that from its education policy. I tell Mr Mallard that I was waiting to get that in first as I saw the member sitting there! I ask him please to let me do my own lines; I do not need any support. But on reading that education policy I thought gosh we are going back once again into the past and that seems to be the role of the National Party—even on something as simple as maintaining public records. That party cannot get into the 21st century. 
We need this legislation so that new technology new legislation and new record-keeping practices can be reflected in the way in which archives are maintained. But here we go National opposes that. When will National get into the 21st century? When will it realise that things have changed? 
I am really disappointed that Georgina te Heuheu was the spokesperson for the National Party to oppose this legislation because it has really been a feature of this Parliament that the records of the Maori people of New Zealand have been brought up to date and maintained so that future generations can know what happened in the past. But here we have a Maori member of Parliament who should be supporting that sort of record-keeping opposing something that would ensure that future records will indicate how the Maori people of New Zealand developed. It is very very disappointing to see Georgina te Heuheu wanting to keep us back in the past in this legislation. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: The births and deaths column. 
DAIL JONES 
: Well that might be of interest to that member. I was interested in clause 3 which talks about the purposes of the Act. Paragraph (f) states that its purpose is: “to encourage the spirit of partnership and goodwill envisaged by the Treaty of Waitangi … as provided for by section 7;” and Georgina re Heuheu opposes that. It is hard to believe but then one knows that one just cannot understand what the National Party is all about today. 
I was really interested that the words “the spirit of partnership and goodwill” were used and not the “principles of” the Treaty of Waitangi. I think that even the Government is now starting to learn a lesson or two from New Zealand First. We do not accept that words like “principles of” should be inserted. We can talk about “the spirit of partnership and goodwill envisaged by the Treaty of Waitangi” and understand what the legislator is getting at because those ideas are set out in greater clarity. But just to use the phrase “the principles of” well that makes it anybody’s guess. In this particular case the courts and anyone interested in this legislation will have to look— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is this a bid to be a coalition partner? 
DAIL JONES 
: Well if the Labour Party wants to be a coalition partner in a New Zealand First Government we will consider that depending on the will of the people of New Zealand after the next election. But it is good to see that the Labour Party is getting up to date as well. We cannot expect the National Party to get up to date but Labour is at least getting up to date with the views expressed by New Zealand First because if the words “principles of” had been inserted in this bill in clause 3(f) we could not have supported it. Obviously Labour is getting up to date as well so New Zealand First is giving consideration to it. 
Again I look at clause 7 relating to the Treaty of Waitangi and to the various instructions given: “In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the Treaty of Waitangi …” and I see a greater explanation of what is required. Once again I am disappointed that the National Party put up Georgina te Heuheu to oppose legislation that is taking further steps to ensure that all New Zealanders’ records are maintained including those of the Maori people of New Zealand in such a specific way. 
Hon Dover Samuels 
: Outrageous! 
DAIL JONES 
: As Dover Samuels says it is absolutely shocking. This bill is a straightforward piece of legislation. I read the select committee’s report and I saw the provisions relating to private schools and private training establishments—how they were not involved and the suggestions made there. In relation to the references to the application of the bill to universities and to the commercial sensitivity figures I have to say that I would expect that any State-owned enterprise should be happy to release its records after 25 years. I would have thought that they would all move on from there and a lot would happen in 25 years’ time. There would be nothing that one could expect to be commercially sensitive 25 years from now say in a prosperous successful business. But knowing the way Governments and Parliament operate I doubt whether any State-owned enterprise that exists today will exist in exactly the same form in 25 years’ time. We have such a habit of interfering in the way things are run in this country and every new Government seems to feel that it somehow has to improve what the previous Government did. 
It is a straightforward bill and New Zealand First will support it. I really cannot see any need for speaking on it again during the course of this morning’s matters. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) 
: 
 It is quite clear that the member who just resumed his seat was not on the Government Administration Committee as he conceded and it is regrettable that he did not study the bill a bit more because I actually support Georgina te Heuheu. Everyone obviously recognises the importance of maintaining public records. That is important. It is important that we apply new technology to those elements of the bill that as Georgina te Heuheu of the National Party said are accepted. But this is classic Labour Government legislation. There is a massive increase in compliance costs for everyone and that is what the submitters said. A number of key questions were raised at the select committee by universities and other groups. They were aghast at the increased compliance costs associated with this legislation. 
The Labour Government is determined always to bump up compliance costs in central bureaucracies that do not work. In the modern world we apply new technologies to get cost savings. Most applications of new technology bring substantial savings but somehow this Labour Government—supported by New Zealand First in Mr Dail Jones—can introduce new technology and actually increase compliance costs. The digital revolution makes it much easier to keep records and much easier to record and recall but somehow this Government supported by New Zealand First is managing to apply new technology and increase compliance costs. That just beggars belief. 
The other point I would like to take up in response to Dail Jones’ comments is that he drew to our attention the fact that there is no reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in clause 3. I support that—that is good because no one ever knew what that meant. It was confusion. But I say to him that in this legislation we have something that is even more dangerous: “the spirit of partnership”. That is new in legislation is it not? No Government has ever accepted that the treaty is a partnership. David Lange would not accept that. 
Dail Jones 
: It’s the spirit. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: Oh indeed—“the spirit” is just like “the principles”. They are weasel words. Someone has captured the agenda here because the Treaty of Waitangi is not a partnership. It is a deal that the Crown made with the iwi of New Zealand. We are all covered by the Crown—one cannot be in partnership with oneself. I ask Dail Jones whether New Zealand First having campaigned so strongly against the principles now promotes the thought that the treaty is a partnership because we know there is a very big agenda for calling it a partnership. It has got right out of control but no Government has accepted that concept. The elected Government of New Zealand is the elected Government of New Zealand. The Crown is all of us; we are the Crown. The concept of partnership is fundamentally flawed. But it would seem that New Zealand First is actually heralding and praising that concept and this is the first time I have seen it in legislation. 
Is that not interesting? It is in the Public Records Bill and that is how it starts. It slides in under the radar screen under urgency in the Public Records Bill. There is reference there to the spirit of partnership. I suspect that the Government has not realised the ramifications of that. The chair of the Government Administration Committee suggests that it is deliberate. I seek confirmation of whether that is the case. 
Dianne Yates 
: I didn’t say that. 
Hon KEN SHIRLEY 
: No she is now denying it. Well that is helpful. So if it is not a deliberate attempt made by this Government to introduce the concept of partnership—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh there is the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Trevor Mallard I think now. Does he not have some new responsibility and did the Government not take a lot of portfolios from him? Well I think that someone from the Government should stand up and tell the House whether this is the new thrust of the Government and whether it is now saying that it will promote the partnership concept because unfortunately that concept like the principles of the treaty is right out of control. Local authorities up and down the country believe that there is this partnership concept and we are seeing some of the problems associated with that. We need to wind that belief back. I would like someone from the Government to tell us whether that concept is what it is now promoting whether this will be the first time that we see it in legislation and whether it will be a progressive trend between now and the election. I certainly hope not. 
So the ACT party is opposing this bill. We recognise the good intent of it and the need for good records and the application of new technology but we just cannot understand how the Labour Government has managed with this legislation to massively increase compliance costs when applying new technology. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is supporting this bill as a step forward towards making the deposit of public records in the National Archives more systematic and comprehensive. The bill imposes on public bodies including local bodies the obligation to create and preserve records and pass them on to the archives. The bill also rightly gives the Chief Archivist wide powers to make sure that public bodies are compliant including significant powers to check files and advise deposit. It is also clear from the bill that the Chief Archivist is statutorily independent which is good. 
The bill gives the Chief Archivist wide powers to help overcome problems with agencies either through the agencies’ lack of competence or because the agencies are too reluctant to give over materials. However there are still too many let-outs for Government departments which under this bill still have fairly unrestrained powers to stop the public seeing material by either deferring deposit for a long period or even indefinitely or restricting access over a similarly long period. There was a lot of controversy over this issue in submissions made to the Government Administration Committee but the committee’s report does not even mention that fact. That is not acceptable. The committee is not required to agree with submitters but it does have a responsibility to at least refer to their significant arguments. This is particularly the case when submitters are informed people such as Dr Kathryn Patterson the head of the National Archives from 1991 to 1998 and—separately—Dr Brad Patterson a university academic who has been president of the Archives and Records Association of New Zealand. The issues they raised are critical to the successful use of the archives. They are issues that are important to all archivists historians academics journalists family researchers and even politicians—anyone who is doing serious research with a historical dimension. 
The bill gives too much power to heads of departments as if they were benign and would not restrict access unnecessarily. As Dr Kathryn Patterson said of her time heading Archives: “My experience has been that administrative heads have a tendency to regard restrictions as the rule rather than the exception. The Chief Archivist requires a stronger role in these clauses as the referee or arbiter.” Clause 22(1)(b) does give heads of department the power to defer transfer to the archives “on any conditions that the administrative head and the Chief Archivist consider appropriate;” but Dr Kathryn Patterson writes that in her experience: “There can be difficulties reaching agreement with administrative heads of controlling public offices and it is possible that a stalemate may be reached.” She states: “The Chief Archivist’s view should carry weight.” 
Then there are the general powers under clause 44 for heads of public bodies to restrict access to records in consultation with the Chief Archivist—and again what will happen if there is disagreement between the two? It is true that clause 50 provides for a review by the Chief Archivist 10 years after a deferral of a deposit but despite that there is nothing to stop the head of department extending the restriction for another period. As Dr Brad Patterson stated: “There would seem to be no curb on the indefinite renewal of restrictions. Surely there should be some bottom line.” It is also true that under clause 29 the Chief Archivist does have inspection powers but he or she cannot look at any materials “that carry security classifications or are restricted by other legislation …” without the administrative head’s permission. There are so many outs in this legislation that are unwise and unnecessary. As Dr Brad Patterson submitted the Chief Archivist is a “very senior statutory officer” and should be able to be trusted. 
The Official Information Act will apply to individual requests for information already in the archives as the Minister has just stated but individuals generally want to search through a whole lot of stuff in the archives and it can be costly and very difficult to ask for a huge archive to be made available under the Official Information Act. It needs to be written into the bill that the Chief Archivist has the power to apply an Official Information Act test when inspecting archives and that he or she can be like the Ombudsman and override heads of departments and force the deposit of a whole archive or a section of an archive. 
The Official Information Act is not mentioned in this bill in this particular respect and the Greens will be moving an amendment during the Committee stage to have it put in. There should be a clear onus on heads of departments to deposit. Dr Brad Patterson submitted: “There should be some sort of strong statement in these provisions that public records of more than 25 years old will be open access save in those few instances where good reason for withholding can be demonstrated to the Chief Archivist’s satisfaction.” Clause 22 also has what is in practice a very loose security excuse for deferring the deposit of materials in the archives. Under clause 22(1)(d)(ii) any Cabinet Minister has powers to defer transfer “for a specified period.” and the period is not limited if the transfer would as is stated in clause22(6)(a) “prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand or the international relations of the Government of New Zealand;”. 
In practice this means embarrassing material is withheld not because it is of any security nature whatsoever but because it is politically embarrassing for the agency concerned. We have seen a graphic example of this in the Hugh Price case covered recently in the  
Dominion Post 
. Mr Price a retired Wellington publisher has spent 2 years squeezing material out of the SIS bit by bit by going back time and time again to the Ombudsman. The material which was at first withheld and later released under pressure from the Ombudsman clearly had nothing to do with the security of New Zealand although security was the reason that SIS director Richard Woods gave for withholding it. The matter relates to security police harassment of Mr Price and his colleagues 52 years ago when Mr Price was a young student. The SIS director’s actions in this case have not been governed by public interest in the slightest. Clearly Mr Woods’ only concern has been to protect the service from embarrassment at the disclosure of the wrongdoing of one of his predecessors even though this wrongdoing which destroyed the careers of several innocent New Zealanders was committed by agents over 50 years ago and is the sort of thing that is of historical interest to researchers today—something that New Zealanders can learn from and should be in Archives. 
One of the security grounds for withholding material under clause 22(6) is that it would: “ (b) prejudice the entrusting of information to the Government of New Zealand on the basis of confidence by—(i) the government of another country or an agency of such a government;”. This means that not only does the New Zealand agency concerned have a veto over the release of the supposedly security-sensitive material but that all kinds of foreign agencies do too. Take for example official material regarding the Viet Nam War or East Timor where the New Zealand Government and its overseas allies did disgraceful and deceitful things that would be in the records. Such material would be embarrassing to release both for the New Zealand foreign affairs ministry and for those of the United States and Australia—not to mention the embarrassment of the SIS and its overseas counterparts like the FBI the CIA and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. I have seen historical material on East Timor withheld by our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade purely because it would embarrass the ministry and the Government of Indonesia. 
Under clause 22(7) any deferral of deposit on security grounds can be renewed by a “responsible Minister”. The bill contains no specified period for which the deferral can be renewed and no limit on the number of deferrals—and of course the SIS actually does keep rolling over the deferral of deposit of virtually all its archives in 25-year blocks. The Chief Archivist is shut right out of this process regarding material defined as security sensitive even though we know—and I have given examples—that security agencies will misuse the security let-out in this bill. There has to be an independent look at whether security-sensitive material should be withheld from Archives. It could be done by the Chief Archivist or as is proposed by the Australian Law Reform Commission by a separate independent body that looks at classified materials to stop their being withheld illegitimately. The Australian Law Reform Commission also proposes that security-sensitive material be re-reviewed every 5 years. 
On another matter the committee had an interesting submission from historian Charlotte Macdonald who was worried about the present destruction of census materials making it much more difficult for future historians to analyse the material in their own way. The fact that individuals’ personal details should not be disclosed—and this is right—does not mean that the census forms and all the information itself should be destroyed. The other challenge before us Archives New Zealand and the National Library that was mentioned by submitters is how to preserve digital records. We may have to discuss that matter further. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to support this bill. People have kept records since the days of the woolly mammoth when pictures were etched into cave walls with a dab of paint administered by the finger of a successful hunter. If Dail Jones could cast his mind back to his early childhood he would no doubt attest to that fact. The Public Records Bill will repeal the Archives Act of 1957 and the document and archival provisions of the Local Government Act 1974. The changes flowing from the bill are a reflection of the changes in technology legislation and record-keeping that have occurred in the last 47 years. The bill aims to improve the accountability of Government organisations enhance democratic participation in government and contribute to New Zealand’s national identity. Improved record-keeping practices will underpin those outcomes and are seen to be an essential part of efficient government as they support the legal and administrative requirements of day-to-day operations. The policy implications arising from the bill are threefold: firstly to create a framework to ensure that public records are appropriately managed secondly to achieve broad coverage of the activities of the Government within that framework and thirdly to provide for the preservation of the accessibility of public archives. 
The key recommendations by the Government Administration Committee were also threefold. The first was to strengthen the bill and require all public officers to create and maintain full and accurate records by linking the requirement to create and maintain full and accurate records to prudent and normal business practice. In order to remove any possibility of misinterpretation the second recommendation was to minimise the confusion amongst academics and students about the scope of the definition of “public record”. Submissions from some tertiary education institutions questioned whether universities could properly be regarded as part of the public sector and their records as public records. The third recommendation was to provide for a fine of not exceeding $5000 in the case of an individual or $10000 in every other case. That will strengthen the current $2000 ceiling and satisfy the concern expressed by submitters that the penalties currently provided for in the bill are not adequate as a deterrent and do not reflect the seriousness of any wilful or negligent act. 
The increasing costs some members have talked about will certainly arise but in the interests of our archival heritage they ought to be borne nevertheless. However I will say this: there is a very good argument for asserting that if the Government imposes costs on individuals or institutions perhaps it should also pay those costs. Unfortunately that is something this bill does not properly address. I am also comfortable with the fact that material of commercial sensitivity will be withheld for at least 25 years. In most circumstances that is more than adequate and it is a reasonable provision. 
The bill is a very great step forward in implementing a much-needed update to the maintenance of our public records and United Future wholeheartedly supports it. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 Firstly I want to acknowledge our very informative visit to Archives New Zealand and to thank the staff there for showing us around and for the lunch they put on. National appreciated that opportunity to see their operation. 
National is not opposed to the keeping of records. What we are opposed to and the reason why we are not supporting this bill—and that is in our minority report—is the inclusion of State-owned enterprises in the bill. We think that there is a clear demarcation between the role of a State-owned enterprise and what one would expect of a Government department. I think the question that needs to be answered quite clearly is whether the bill will enhance the operation of State-owned enterprises under the State-Owned Enterprises Act. 
It is our view that this bill will erode the principal objectives of the State-Owned Enterprises Act. Section 4(1) of the Act states: “The principal objective of every State enterprise shall be to operate as a successful business and to this end to be—(a) As profitable and efficient as comparable businesses that are not owned by the Crown;”. That is the key objective of a State-owned enterprise. Yet this bill undermines that role because of the prescriptive nature of what will be required in terms of record-keeping. In fact State-owned enterprises will be both operationally and financially disadvantaged as a result of this bill’s obligations compared with private sector organisations that are not subject to such rigorous record-keeping and requirements. 
A classic example that was given to us at the Government Administration Committee relates to the energy sector. We have two privately owned operators: Contact Energy which operates geothermal power in the Taupo region; and TrustPower which operates in the Bay of Plenty. Then on the other side we have three State-owned generators two of which are in my electorate. In the North Island Genesis Power operates the Huntly power station and Mighty River Power operates the dams on the Waikato River. Meridian Energy operates in the South Island. So there we have three State-owned enterprises in the energy sector that will have to compete with two private commercial entities. [ 
Interruption 
] Well members on the Government side have no understanding about commercial sensitivities and about how those businesses operate. 
The point we make is that State-owned enterprises which operate under the State-Owned Enterprises Act will be compromised. It is quite clear they will be compromised. We heard from Meridian Energy from Mighty River Power and even from Solid Energy New Zealand Ltd—which also operates in the Piako electorate with regard to coalmines—and they were very clear in their view that State-owned enterprises would be compromised. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: How? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: The bill adversely reflects on the flexibility they will have in being able to contract and undertake business in the future. 
It is our clear view that the role of State-owned enterprises is already clearly defined. The reporting procedures they have to carry out are quite intense now and I point out to members that under existing law there are enhanced reporting requirements for them compared with private sector companies. They have to provide information to their shareholders as outlined in their statements of corporate intent. That is a requirement. They are required to provide half-yearly reports to their shareholders within 2 months after the end of the first half of their financial year. Their shareholders of course are the Minister of Finance and the Minister for State Owned Enterprises and they have to report quarterly to the shareholding Ministers. 
Dianne Yates 
: They do in any case. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: That is the point I am making. They are already doing that sort of thing so to have to keep records on top of that will add huge compliance costs and it is unnecessary. In fact there is no compliance cost impact statement in this bill and the extra costs and the extra burdens will be quite excessive unnecessarily. 
I will finish on a couple of points about what State-owned enterprises are required to do. Members on the Government side do not actually know how the corporate sector works. 
Phil Heatley 
: They don’t care. 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Correct—they do not care. They want to interrupt all the time but they have never been involved in that sort of process. 
State-owned enterprises must have a draft business plan for shareholders provide half-yearly reports annual reports and auditors’ reports and table their statement of corporate intent in the House of Representatives. Their financial performances and operations are scrutinised by select committees and they have company and tax legislation reporting requirements and requirements under the Official Information Act and the Ombudsmen Act all of which fall into that regime. Further State-owned enterprises are monitored by the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit so that there are actually no surprises in the approach of that unit to State-owned enterprises. 
National’s view is very clear. We are not opposed to record keeping but we are opposed to the excessive burden that will be placed on State-owned enterprises when they are in the marketplace. They are there as the State-Owned Enterprise Act states to be competitive in their markets—especially the energy sector—but now all those extra requirements will be burdens on them in the way they do business. At the end of the day costs will go up and consumers will pay and that is the point we have already expressed. 
So the question that needs to be asked is why all records and documents produced by commercial companies should be kept for 25 years and we also question whether such records and documents produced by commercial companies are of such a nature to warrant placing them in the public archive. It is our view that State-owned enterprises with all the other requirements currently placed on them should be exempt from that requirement. 
Another area which has not been mentioned this morning is in relation to the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act. I will quote from a document that was tabled at the select committee because I think it shows just how stupid this whole thing will be. It states: “The Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act of 2004 has major implications for access to the following types of records.” It mentions a number of them about 10 but I will not say what they are. It goes on: “The above records could potentially contain the names of peoples whose convictions have been clean-slated. We will not be able to allow access to them. The new Act means that people who currently have access letters can no longer view these records. Only records 100 years old or more remain open except for all records of trials and punishments which have a blanket restriction irrespective of age under the Archives Act of 1957. People can obtain a transcript of an individual register entry less than 100 years old if it is their own record and they can provide photo ID and if they can provide a copy of the death certificate of the person they are researching.” 
So there we have an example under the Criminal Records (Clean Slate) Act. No one has mentioned before that some provisions of that Act will not be applicable and that some records will not be accessible under this legislation. National is opposing this bill. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Government Administration Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 84 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 34 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Public Records Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Public Records Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Purpose other preliminary provisions and key administrative provisions 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Recordkeeping requirements 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 I want to speak to clause 17 “Requirement to create and maintain records”. I want to articulate further the reasons that I mentioned in the second reading debate as to why it is my view and National’s view that State-owned enterprises should be exempt from that requirement. Clause 17(2) states: “Every public office must maintain in an accessible form so as to be able to be used for subsequent reference all public records that are in its control until their disposal …”. The definition of a public record includes records created or received by a public office in the conduct of its affairs. Clause 4 states a public record could be: “ … (without limitation) a document a signature a seal text images sound speech or data compiled recorded or stored as the case may be—(a) in written form on any material; or (b) on film negative tape or other medium so as to be capable of being reproduced; or (c) by means of any recording device or process computer or other electronic device or process” or other electronic means. I suggest that when we look at the requirement under clause 17 that all public offices need to create and maintain full public records we can see that it will be very difficult in fact for a State-owned enterprise to be able to comply with that. 
Most State-owned enterprises work on the basis that when material comes in if it is not necessary it is destroyed. In fact the staff in State-owned enterprises are actually encouraged to get rid of material that is no longer relevant is no longer of use and cannot be used in the future. So in relation to the requirement here to be able to maintain that material I ask who is to say what will actually be required. Who is to make that determination? The point I have made about the commercial sensitivity of State-owned enterprises needs to be reiterated. State-owned enterprises have a commercial focus; that is what they were set up to have. The State-Owned Enterprises Act which I referred to in the second reading is very clear. State-owned enterprises are commercial businesses that are not focused on public policy-setting. Their activities have limited short medium or long-term public interest. That is how they were designed to be set up. The bill already recognises that there is a need for flexibility for local authorities. The bill actually allows that as they have a degree of autonomy from central government and a community rather than a national focus. State-owned enterprises have greater autonomy than local authorities and are further removed from the public arena yet this bill actually constrains them. So on the one hand there is greater flexibility for local authorities but on the other hand however State-owned enterprises are brought in and will be constrained. 
It is National’s view that when we are talking about commercial operations there will be some commercial risk associated with the storing and release of material even though it will be released after a period of time. The point is that the Chief Archivist is not able to waive the requirement to create and maintain records. There is actually no discretion in that provision whereas we are saying that it should never have been included in the first place. We are very concerned about clause 17 because of the requirement to create and maintain records which we believe is not necessary for State-owned enterprises. 
Clause 27 is another clause that we had great difficulty with—and there were certainly submissions on it. That clause looks at what the Chief Archivist can do and on looking through it I see that there are no checks and balances on the archivist. Nothing in that clause controls what the Chief Archivist does. Subclause (3) states: “The Chief Archivist must ensure that every standard issued under this section is published in a manner that the Chief Archivist considers appropriate.” Well when we look at that requirement who do we see actually controlling and overseeing the archivist? Where are the checks and balances that will be required under that particular subclause? There is absolutely no accountability there at all. 
Dianne Yates 
: At this stage? 
LINDSAY TISCH 
: Well we argued that issue at the time and we are not convinced that there have been any changes that allow us to have confidence that the position will be safeguarded particularly for State-owned enterprises. 
If we look at clause 29 “Inspection powers” we see there is a requirement for some modifications to be made for local records and local authority archives. I do not know what those modifications will be. Clause 33 is where the compliance costs have come in and I mentioned earlier that there is no compliance cost impact statement in this bill. There will be huge compliance costs associated with this legislation yet there is no compliance cost impact statement. Clause 33(2) states: “The Chief Archivist must commission and meet the costs …” of an independent audit of record-keeping practices in every public office. But there will be other costs. My question is: who is to pay for those? Well I tell members that it will be the organisation that is required to keep the record. There are huge compliance costs there. When we look at the financial reviews I will ask the departments that come before the Government Administration Committee how much it will cost them to comply with the provisions of this legislation where there is to be an independent audit of the record-keeping practices of every public office. It will be an interesting exercise over the next 12 months just to see the extra compliance costs that will be associated with that. 
Those are the points that National has concerns about and we mentioned them in our minority report. The reason National is not voting for the bill is that we are not satisfied that the answers that were given in particular regarding the issues pertaining to State-owned enterprises have been adequately covered. For that reason National is opposing this bill. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand) 
: 
 I just want to take up a few issues that have been raised by the National Party in the last wee while. National’s concern is that State-owned enterprises are being treated differently from private enterprises. That is absolutely correct—they are State-owned. This is a matter of the public record of the State. I think it is a tremendous shame to New Zealand’s history that when the Bank of New Zealand became privatised those records were lost. When the railways were sold those records were lost. That was our history of New Zealand. That was a history of many people’s lives and it was lost. There is no intention that the history of the State-owned enterprises—of hydroelectricity and its development in New Zealand—is to be lost if we are to have any pride in the fact of how we manage power in this country and I could go on. 
Mr Lindsay Tisch raised a point and he used a lovely phrase. He said: “Businesses like to get rid of material that is no longer relevant.” Now the difference between a private business and a State business is that the State determines that the State’s story is relevant and it is relevant for generations to come because the State business is not just about making profit. Yes it is about being profitable and efficient but it is also a State business and it is important that its story remains to be told. Who will determine what gets kept? Obviously that is the job of the Chief Archivist. 
We have been doing an extraordinary amount of work in actually bringing up this whole philosophy again and putting it into the minds of State services through the practice of having a continuing education programme called Continuum. That programme has been really positively accepted by State servants and all power to the archivists who have been treated as a little branch tucked off at the side but whose job is so important that they are now accepted and understood. Their work has been taken on by public servants and as we will see it will be taken on by State-owned enterprises. 
 Mr Tisch also raised the point that there are no checks or balances on the Chief Archivist. I remind Mr Tisch that in a Westminster democracy—be it the United Kingdom Australia New Zealand or even I think Canada—a chief archivist is a statutory officer. The archivist must stay within the objectives of the legislation. As such in the archivist’s report to the Parliament if the parliamentary committee thinks the archivist is not staying within the objectives of the Acts then that is where the power of Parliament lies. It does not lie with the State Services Commissioner and certainly not with the Minister. If the Minister starts to interfere with which records should be kept and which records should be destroyed we will not have a safe public record. 
I really wanted to make those points clear. I do not see how there will be any additional costs where a business is keeping good records. I would also remind the National Party that I cannot see the huge problems of competition being troubled by a decision made 25 years ago that has now become public in the august debates of today. What happened in 1980 truly does not affect the market in electricity in 2005. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Part 3Public access 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Part 3 agreed to. 
Part 4Appeal process and miscellaneous provisions 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Part 4 agreed to. 
Schedule 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the schedule be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Schedule agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand) 
: 
 I move  
That the Public Records Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill will repeal the Archives Act and the document and archives provisions of the Local Government Act 1974. At this point I note that the Hon Michael Cullen tried to amend this Act the last time he was in Cabinet. This has had a long gestation. The amendment to that Act is almost an archival gestation. However we are here. 
This bill will improve the standard of Government record-keeping across the wider public sector. An improvement in record-keeping improves the accountability of Government organisations enhances democratic participation in government and contributes to New Zealand’s national identity. If anyone thinks that State-owned enterprises are somehow away from being accountable talk about that with the Waikato people who are so concerned about the possible actions of one State-owned enterprise. They will want to know how accountable that enterprise is to their livelihoods. 
Record-keeping is an essential part of efficient government as it supports day-to-day operational legal and administrative requirements. Information is a valuable resource and good management of it through record-keeping is simply good business practice. Taken together and over time those records ensure that accountability participation and national identity are advanced to the benefit of all New Zealanders. I stress again that record-keeping is simply good business practice. Often we are accused by the other side of somehow not understanding those business practices. If one talks to people in business the difference is that they will destroy a record not keep it. If they keep the records in the first place it is the archiving of those records. There is no extra cost in that particular job. 
The role of the Chief Archivist which is to assist public offices and local authorities to achieve good record-keeping has been strengthened in the legislation. She will be able to set standards across the public sector including mandatory standards that will ensure that the key outcomes are achieved. Reporting and auditing provisions in the bill provide more information on record-keeping which will enable a more effective assessment of how public offices are meeting their accountability requirements. The independence of the Chief Archivist when making disposal decisions has been continued from the Archives Act which is an important check on the powers of Government officials. I really understand and respond to the comments that have been made by a previous archivist that there may well be a stalemate—a matter raised by the Green Party. This is a question of working with people to achieve in the end a mediated solution. 
An advisory body the Archives Council will be established to work with the Chief Archivist and will include two members with in-depth knowledge of tikanga Maori. This council will provide me with independent advice concerning record-keeping matters. 
The bill also clarifies the relationship between archives legislation and the Official Information Act. Again the Official Information Act is that additional safety for individuals who can apply to the Ombudsman—as was stated in the Hugh Price case—to have those records released. 
This bill confirms and extends the coverage of the Archives Act to State enterprises local authorities and all Crown entities including tertiary education institutions. This will mean that full and accurate records are required to be created in all areas where public resources are used. This will enhance the accountability for such spending both for agencies to the Government and for the Government to the people. The flexibility of using a framework allied to the standards issued by the Chief Archivist enables the single piece of legislation to stretch across all the activities within the public sector. This will ensure that the needs of people and Governments for records are met by using an appropriate and effective process. 
A full and accurate record of government—one that is preserved over the long term—is very important for future generations of New Zealanders. They will be able to see how and why Governments made particular decisions and how Government agencies implemented those decisions. They will be able to see the recording of and the protection for individual rights and entitlements and where necessary those records will be able to right old wrongs. They will also be able to see how their families and whanau interacted with the Government. The records give us crucial evidence about who we are and how we came to be as a nation. 
At this point I want to say that I find it rather sad the Maori party is not supporting this legislation. It is extremely important in terms of righting old wrongs. An important outcome of this bill is that we continue to preserve this story of government of individuals of communities and of New Zealand for our future generations. 
Again I would like to thank the select committee and Dianne Yates the chair for their amendments which have aided the clarity of the bill. I know that the archives and record-keeping communities of New Zealand have been waiting some time for new legislation and will warmly welcome this bill’s enactment. This is a very special day for a very special New Zealand community that is dedicated both to keeping our story alive and to accountability. 
I also want to pay special thanks to a colleague. Even as a history student archives were not something that I was much aware of but in the Deputy Prime Minister we have a friend of the archival community. When he entrusted this job to me he helped me along the way as we sorted through the issues around archives. There are many in the archives community today who will join with me in thanking Dr Michael Cullen who has finally—through me—been able to give birth to this legislation. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House. 
LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) 
: 
 There is only one issue in this bill that National has contention with and I have articulated it very very clearly. That is the issue of State-owned enterprises being included in the scope of the bill. We have no problem with Archives New Zealand. I am very impressed with what I saw during our visit there. I echo the views and the comments by the Minister about the role that Archives New Zealand plays. However when it comes to looking at including State-owned enterprises in the scope of the bill that is the difficulty we have. There is a direct conflict between the State-Owned Enterprises Act and the archives bill. 
 Let me state clearly again that section 4 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act states: “(1) The principal objective of every State enterprise shall be to operate as a successful business and to this end to be—(a) As profitable and efficient as comparable businesses that are not owned by the Crown;”. That is the key. We are now going to require extra burdens and accountabilities that are already covered in the list of requirements that State-owned enterprises have to go through before the scrutiny of this House anyway. This is an extra component and an extra compliance cost that is not necessary. Holding State-owned enterprises to the same degree of obligation as central government agencies confuses the identity of State-owned enterprises and their role in the public and private spheres. 
The commentary states that the policy underlining the bill is concerned with Government accountability the enhancement of democratic participation in government and the preservation of important public archives that contribute to New Zealand’s national identity. That is great. I have no difficulty with that at all. We support that. This being the case it is areas of Government influence only for which recording and archiving obligations should be necessary. That is the difference between our position and the Government’s position on this legislation. Given those few points National unfortunately cannot support the inclusion of State-owned enterprises in this bill. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I thank the Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand once again for her comments on the Public Records Bill. The Government Administration Committee was pleased to work on the bill which is about the history of New Zealand and about the necessity of keeping good and accurate records of what happens in this country. As the Minister mentioned archives have been a wonderful source for researchers and those who have been writing and researching the history of this country. It is up to us to secure and maintain records and to keep them in a modern and accessible way. It was a pleasure to work on this legislation. 
I think the member opposite Lindsay Tisch is tilting at windmills. I certainly hope the records kept of State-owned enterprises will show a good deal about windmills power and the role of State-owned enterprises in generating the energy of this country. Let us hope the windmills do show up in the history of New Zealand. 
He also mentioned the issue of the accountability of the Chief Archivist. I refer him to other parts of the legislation that provide for appeals to be made if people do not agree with decisions of the Chief Archivist. There are certainly checks and balances and audit checks on the Chief Archivist and the select committee did rewrite and tighten up some of those clauses. 
I thank my fellow members on the select committee. I particularly also want to thank the staff of Archives New Zealand who arranged for us to visit their facilities to show us how records are kept—particularly the very old records including copies of the Treaty of Waitangi and the New Zealand coat of arms. It was very interesting to view Archives New Zealand and to realise how important those records are for this country how important it is that they are well kept safe and in modern conditions and also how important it is to develop computerised records which will enable better access for New Zealanders to those records. Once again I issue a big thankyou to everybody who has been involved with this legislation. I commend it to the House and to the public. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on the third reading of the Public Records Bill. New Zealand First supports the bill. 
To be in Opposition is also to be responsible. It is quite specious to oppose the bill for one trifling issue which has not even been accurately stated by the National Party. State-owned enterprises have to keep records because they are in business. After 25 years those records can be made available. I was in Parliament 25 years ago in 1980 and I cannot even remember what we debated then. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes one or two members might not have been born at that stage. To say that something that was done commercially 25 years ago by a State-owned enterprise by an organisation that has Government input should not be released is really trifling with the House. It shows the irresponsible nature of the National Party in Opposition. New Zealand First is in Opposition. We want to be in Opposition responsibly and any responsible Opposition should support a bill of which 99.9 percent is required by New Zealand if we are to maintain ourselves as a civilised society. 
I touched on the Maori aspects of this legislation at the second reading. I was staggered that the Maori Party should vote against this bill. There was slight confusion when the vote was taken on the second reading but it has become clear that the Maori Party opposes it. How can anyone in New Zealand—European Maori Chinese or whatever—oppose legislation that relates to the history of New Zealand? I would have expected the Maori Party especially to let us know why it opposes a bill that states in clause 3: “The purposes of this Act are—…(f) to encourage the spirit of partnership and goodwill envisaged by the Treaty of Waitangi …”. We are not talking about partnership; we are talking about the spirit of partnership and the Maori Party opposes this bill. Clause 7 has a lengthy exposition on the Treaty of Waitangi: “In order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of the Treaty of Waitangi …” followed by four different paragraphs and the Maori Party opposes it. I would have expected the Maori Party to take a call to explain why it opposes this legislation. I am very disappointed; that after all is what we are paid to do—to be here and explain our views. I would have expected the Maori Party to do just that in the same way that New Zealand First is doing. 
We in New Zealand First are here for the future. This bill is taking us into the future. We have heard today about an education policy that will take us into the past. I have seen Rod Oram’s article in the  
Sunday Star-Times  
that discussed a certain political party’s economic policy which will take it into the past. We in New Zealand First are here for the future. Together with the people of New Zealand we can achieve things and we are doing that in supporting this bill today. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Public Records Bill be now read a third time. 
Ayes 83 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 35 
New Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 7; Maori Party 1. 
Bill read a third time. 
Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Second Reading 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. The bill with amendments moved by the Law and Order Committee updates the sexual offence provisions of the Crimes Act. In particular it introduces the principle of gender neutrality; makes sexual connection rather than sexual intercourse the basis of most sexual offences; and improves the law’s protection of vulnerable groups from sexual exploitation. 
Ensuring that sex offences are expressed and applied in a gender-neutral manner meets the fundamental principle that everyone should be equal before the law. The one exception to gender neutrality in the redrafting of the law is the retention of the offence of rape as a category of sexual violation. Submissions to the bill were divided over that issue. In the absence of any consensus the majority on the committee has recommended continuation of the status quo whereby rape remains as a male on female offence and as a separate category of sexual violation. Both I and the committee however accept that all unlawful sexual connections have as serious a consequence for victims as rape as traditionally defined regardless of their gender or the gender of the offender. All such offences are subject to the same penalty under law and they should be treated by our courts as equally serious in terms of the sentences imposed. 
New section 98AA inserted by clause 6 is headed: “Dealing in people under 18 for sexual exploitation removal of body parts or engagement in forced labour”. That offence has been created to facilitate New Zealand’s compliance with the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children Child Prostitution and Child Pornography. Amendments recommended by the committee further clarify what sexual exploitation means for the purposes of that provision so that the offence does not impact for example on artistic or cultural performances or on medical or health education and information matters. The amendments also provide a defence when the defendant can demonstrate a belief on reasonable grounds that the other party was over 18 years old. An amendment that the under-age person cannot be charged as a party to the offence ensures that the ability to prosecute older offenders is not compromised by persons under the age of 16 being exposed to criminal prosecution. That avoids those people being pressured by the risk of prosecution into not pursuing a complaint. 
Section 131 inserted by clause 7 deals with sexual conduct with a dependent family member. It is designed to provide protection for young persons from sexual abuse within the family and to promote the family as a sanctuary in which young people can grow up without being subjected to such abuse. That clause has been strengthened by not requiring the Crown to prove that the young person consented or that the defendant knew that the family member consented to the sexual conduct because of the defendant’s use of power or authority. The committee’s recommendation also clarifies the boundaries of the offence by qualifying the phrase “if they are living together in the same household;” to mean persons living in the same household as members of the family. Recommendations further require the person to have a responsibility for or a significant role in his or her care and upbringing. That will ensure that the offence cannot be applied for example to flatmates. 
In respect of sexual conduct with a young person aged under 16 the bill significantly toughens the law. The loophole protecting women against being charged with sexual offending against children is removed and women can now be liable to prosecution for predatory conduct. The penalty for sex with a young person aged 12 to 16 is significantly toughened with the maximum term of imprisonment increasing from 7 to 10 years. The current 12-month time limit within which a person having sex with an under-16-year-old can be prosecuted is repealed. 
The targets of those changes are those who behave in a predatory way towards those under the age of consent rather than teenagers of a similar age in a consenting relationship. No one believes that prison sentences are an appropriate response in the latter situation; in fact police as well as schools and parents have rarely sought to bring prosecutions when a sexual relationship is between two young people of a similar age. Many Western countries including Canada and states in Australia and the United States actually include a defence of similarity of age. However because of the intense politicisation surrounding this issue which wrongly portrayed that defence as lowering the age of consent that provision has now been removed from the bill. That avoids any misconstruing of that defence as condoning under-age sexual relationships. As prosecutions are not sought in those situations that should make little or no difference in practice. 
Better provision is made in the bill to protect persons whose mental health condition and/or physical or intellectual impairments may mean they are vulnerable to unwanted sexual advances. The current provisions are inadequate. They rely on an outdated definition of mental subnormality. They apply to certain types of sexual contact only and there is no allowance for consensual sexual relations with or between those persons. The difficulty was in finding a workable balance between the rights of persons with impairments to express themselves emotionally and physically and to make decisions about their lives and protecting persons who are likely to be vulnerable. The proposed offence is framed around the notion of exploiting a person’s vulnerability in order to engage in sexual activity. The aim is to focus on exploitative conduct so that the law does not catch situations where a person with these disabilities wishes to have a genuinely consensual sexual relationship with another person. The committee clarified that the Crown will be required to prove only that the accused had sexual connection with an impaired person by taking advantage of the impairment. The committee also agreed to expand “significant impairment” to include impairment to the victim’s capacity to understand the nature of sexual conduct. 
Finally in the Committee of the whole House I will be proposing by way of a Supplementary Order Paper a new offence dealing with what is termed as “sexual grooming” of any under-16-year-old. In particular I thank Marc Alexander of United Future who raised this issue with me and helped the Government in advancing the legislation. This offence will extend the protection of young people from sexual predators by covering situations where a person contacts and arranges to meet a child—for example over the Internet—with the intention of sexually abusing him or her. 
I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 I seek leave that Government order of the day No. 12 be discharged and that the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) be referred back to the Law and Order Committee for further consideration. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The National Party opposes this bill. There has been insufficient public involvement in and discussion of many of the bill’s proposals. Major changes are being made to the rules around “sexual conduct” with minimum public consultation. The bill provides significant changes affecting consent and sexual activity involving minors family members and people with particular disabilities. The National Party fears that because of this insufficient consideration the bill may lead to serious unintended consequences and risk disturbing settled case law and legal concepts and believes this could have been avoided if the select committee had spent more time on the bill. 
We are also concerned about the politically correct agenda that promotes part of this legislation. Official documents show that the Government’s advisers wanted to legalise brother-sister sexual relationships for those over 20. 
Opposition Members 
: Oh no! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Official documents show that the Government’s advisers wanted to legalise brother-sister sexual relationships for those over 20 and they also suggested that this might mean that a pregnancy arising out of a brother-sister sexual relationship would no longer be grounds for a lawful abortion. 
This is part of a politically correct agenda that has colonised the public service under the Labour Party. Fortunately those proposals did not make it into the bill. I do not know why Mr Goff and the Government would allow such a proposal even to be considered. With Labour anything goes. Ask Mr Tamihere! I ask the House whether it is prepared to have this legislation which was not sufficiently considered by the select committee go through the House knowing that the people who advise the Government wanted to legalise brother-sister sexual relationships for those over 20. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Not in the bill. It was rejected. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Is the Parliament sufficiently confident to know that? It may not be in the bill but why did Mr Goff approve the release of the discussion paper? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Because it was an issue. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Oh because it was an issue! The fact is that this Minister approved the release of a discussion paper showing that the Government’s advisers wanted to legalise brother-sister sexual relationships for those over 20 and he did not rule it out. 
The National Party and the public forced this Minister to drop his controversial similar-age defence for under-age sexual activity and this would have given a defence where there was consensual sexual activity between 12 to 15-year-olds. Officials advised the select committee on 19 March that this defence would have “effectively decriminalised some under-age sexual conduct but is seen as the best option”. This proposal was opposed by mainstream families the Law Society Crown Law the Chief Justice and the Commissioner for Children. It was supported by Phil Goff the Labour Cabinet the AIDS Foundation the Ministry of Social Development and Te Puni Kokiri. 
The bill proposes penalties for sexual conduct with a dependent family member under the age of 18. The equivalent existing provision is however for the age of 20. The Government’s proposals mean that it will no longer be an offence for foster parents to have consensual sexual conduct with their 18-year-old foster child for whom they have cared for many years. It would be more appropriate in our view to maintain the prohibition until age 20 to allow sufficient time to lapse and the dependant’s relationship to wane. The Government is passing “sexual grooming” amendments which we support but this provision grants an immunity to such groomers if they live with the victim. Most submitters wanted 20 years but the Government dropped the age to 18 to be consistent with the—wait for it—Care of Children Bill. This clause could lead judges to a much wider—unintended—view of dependent family members when one considers the differing cultural perspectives on the role of the wider family in child rearing. 
The commentary on the bill states that a person is a dependent family member of another person “if they are members of the same family whanau or other culturally recognised family group … that has a responsibility for … his or her care or upbringing.” I think this could lead to some unintended consequences. In fact officials themselves were confused. One described a whanau as: “people who live on a marae”. The bill proposes a far-reaching “reasonable belief” defence for sexual conduct for all people over 12. If a person believed that the other person was 16 or over and that person had taken reasonable steps to obtain the age of the person and the conduct was consensual then a defence would apply. Currently a similar provision exists only for an accused under 21. At present a 45-year-old man has no defence in law for sexual conduct with a 15-year-old girl. Under the bill’s proposals he will have a defence in law provided he reasonably believed she was 16 or older and for example checked her—false—ID. 
No committee consideration was given to alternatives for addressing the “genuine mistake” situation that the Government wanted to fix. Nor has there been sufficient discussion in the public about the merits or otherwise of the effect of this far-reaching proposal on protecting young people from predatory behaviour. In fact official papers show that Ministers themselves did not even want to do this until they were told it would be against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act if they did not. 
At present it is a crime to have sexual intercourse with a woman or girl who is “severely subnormal”. In seeking to modernise this provision the bill risks creating confusion and uncertainty through new and unproven wording. The Law Society in particular warned of a “forensic lottery” as judges are confronted with arcane evidence from opposed camps of experts attempting to argue concepts like “understanding the nature and consequence of sexual conduct”. We do not believe that the proposed amendments will do anything to remedy this. Indeed officials advising the committee suggested leaving it to the courts to address the issue. 
Whereas “consent” has a settled meaning in common law the bill deems certain conduct as not amounting to consent. Concern was raised by submitters as to the lack of precision of some of these subclauses. For example submissions noted that certain types of drugs associated with drug rape can lead to persons appearing completely in control and rational and that they may consent to sex in situations where they would normally withhold consent. The definition of what is not consent risks causing more confusion than clarity. 
The National Party opposes this bill. There are parts of it that we support but we believe that the matters we have raised in our report are sufficient to say to Parliament that this bill should be referred back to the select committee. We heard earlier from Mr Tamihere that this Government is very good at changing one word to change the entire intent of a piece of legislation. We think that this bill should be referred back to the select committee. We do not think that Parliament should be rushing the passing of this legislation when we consider the politically correct agenda that is behind much of what has gone on in this paper. The Minister approved the release of a discussion paper that would decriminalise sexual activity between 12 and 16-year-olds and put it the bill. The Minister approved the release of a Government discussion paper that would have legalised some brother-sister sexual activity when those parties are over the age of 20. Fortunately sound minds in Government departments and agencies across the country said that this was ridiculous and even the Ministry of Justice wrote that it is not likely that this would be consistent with public opinion. 
I have to tell the House that in no way is it what the public wants and fortunately it was removed from the bill. But the fact is that the PC agenda that has colonised the public service under Labour is alive and well in this bill and should be sufficient reason for this Parliament to send this bill back to the select committee to be sorted out. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I think that the previous speaker loves to latch on to anything that is lascivious in each little piece of legislation. He said that the matters he referred to were withdrawn from the bill—they were never in the bill. They were never in the draft bill and they were never in the final bill that went to the Law and Order Committee. 
I have from time to time sat on the select committee which gave long and careful consideration to some very delicate issues about which there are some long and complex case studies. I particularly want to speak on the area of consent because the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) has incorporated a member’s bill I had had before the House on the issue of drug rape. 
I commend the select committee and the officials. My member’s bill was a short bill on consent of basically one sentence. That has now been transferred into at least 2 pages in the bill and defines the areas of consent. It states that people cannot consent to sexual activity if they are asleep unconscious or so affected by alcohol or drugs that they are unable to refuse or to give consent. It refers to those who are affected by an intellectual mental or physical condition and it refers to mistaken identity. I will concede that it gives a much better definition of consent and one that is more likely to guide the courts in the area of rape than the present law. Many and varied opinions were received on that. 
One of the difficulties in many of these crimes is that they are witnessless crimes. Nobody is there to see what happens and to give evidence and we rely on individual cases coming to court. We rely on the evidence of the victims and those who are before the courts. Those cases are very difficult and often about very delicate areas and much case law has informed the select committee. Having sat on that committee at various times I know that it agonised and worked backwards and forwards over and over in rewording and reworking to try to get the best decisions and the best wording that would stand up in court. 
I commend the legislation to the House but I am very very wary of those people who want to make political points about other people’s misfortunes. What we have to ensure is the safety of New Zealanders of all ages and that is the intention of this bill. It concentrates on the safety of young people and of people who might fall foul of others. So I commend the second reading of the bill to the House and look forward to its progress. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak on behalf of New Zealand First on this bill. As my colleague Dail Jones has already said earlier today New Zealand First has on a number of occasions reaffirmed the view that whilst in Opposition we seek to be responsible and support legislation that we think is good and overall to the betterment of the country’s well-being and oppose legislation that we believe does not advantage New Zealanders at all. 
This bill is a mix of both. Its overall intent is meritorious. It is probably appropriate to congratulate Dianne Yates whom I have described before in this House as probably the luckiest MP in the place given the number of members’ bills she has had drawn out of the ballot. I congratulate her on the work she did with her member’s bill and on the part she played in seeing her legislation incorporated in the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) as her Crimes (Drug Rape) Amendment Bill was passed over. The issue she sought to deal with is one that New Zealanders are increasingly becoming worried about concerned about and angry about particularly in this day and age when certain politicians in this House chose to lower the drinking age and put more young women at risk in nightclubs and bars where the doping of drinks with party drugs regularly occurs. Such acts are carried out by despicable men who quite clearly do not have a social life and find that the only way they can actually get a relationship with a woman is to drug her into a state of unconsciousness then take advantage of her. New Zealand First abhors that sort of behaviour and would like to see these people reduced to what they actually are—and that is nothing more than pet food—and disposed of. But of course the only way we can do that is with this legislation by ensuring that the penalties are there for the justice system to be able to deal with them. This bill reflects Dianne Yates’ concerns and appropriately incorporates the necessary changes to the Crimes Act. 
But this bill also stands as a testament to what John Tamihere said. Do members remember John Tamihere? He said that men’s problems are dealt with by the criminal justice system and that women—and I will try to quote him as accurately as I can—“get a bloody Cartwright inquiry and millions of dollars thrown at their breasts and cervixes.” That was what he said and the one thing that stands out in this bill is that the politically correct feminist sisterhood brigade that is alive and well—and which John Tamihere spoke of so vehemently and passionately—decided in the Labour caucus to keep rape as purely a crime that can be committed only against women. That is amazing given the Labour members of the select committee who disagreed with that. 
The Greens said that rape is a crime whether it be committed against a woman or a man. For every woman who can tell us how violated a woman feels by rape it is just as possible to find a man—we need only visit some of our prisons—who feels precisely the same way about being violated. The Greens argued that rape should be defined as a crime against a man or a woman New Zealand First argued the same point United Future argued the same point the Labour caucus members who were on the select committee agreed on the same point and National agreed on it yet they were overrun by the very women in the Labour caucus whom John Tamihere so aptly described. 
That is an indictment and is clear evidential proof of what John Tamihere was saying about his own colleagues. It is clear evidential proof of what John Tamihere said so publicly so vehemently and so forcefully to the nation about the women in his own caucus. They despise men. They hate men. They do not like men. They spend every day they are breathing thinking of ways in which they can denigrate men and put them in their place. This is one little victory they have scored. Rape by legal definition in this day and age should be recognised as a crime that can be committed against a man or a woman. 
Judith Collins 
: Men can be victims. 
RON MARK 
: Men can be victims and it would be nice if some of the women in the Labour caucus—I am meant to say “wimmin” to be politically correct in this day and age—would accept that or come out of the closet and tell the country why they do not. It is sad. 
At the select committee we worked closely together struggling to come to terms with some of the very complex and detailed issues. The Hon Tony Ryall was quite correct when he said that this bill should have had more consultation. New Zealand First stated in its minority report: “Whilst the aim and intent of the bill is meritorious New Zealand First believes that the vast majority of the concerns expressed in the minority views of National the Greens and United Future are valid and as such New Zealand First is disappointed that the Government did not accept the need for wider community and legal consultation.” We cannot be fairer than that. We are saying here that the Government is trying to do the right thing. We are saying that it has recognised and identified some issues that must be dealt with. But what we are also saying here is that it is damn arrogant. 
The Labour Government is arrogant because it believes it has all the answers to everything. Despite what it says out there on the hustings about being a broad church and being inclusive and committed to consultation the one thing that this Government just did not 10 or 15 minutes ago was deny the opportunity to have this bill referred back to the select committee for further discussion. How can Helen Clark tell the nation that she is a believer in a broad church and wide community consultation while her Minister Phil Goff turns down and rejects such a proposal? How can Labour members say that they do respect men they respect the views of men they recognise crimes against men and that John Tamihere is wrong when they sit there and jealously hold on to one definition so that rape is a crime against women only? They ignore the fact that they have just passed legislation legalising same-sex marriages and that within those same-sex marriages a situation may well be happening now or have happened yesterday or might happen tomorrow where one homosexual man rapes his partner. But of course it is not rape because Jill Pettis says that men cannot rape men. 
Jill Pettis 
: When did I say that? I have not opened my mouth. 
RON MARK 
: The member is saying that by voting for it. She is saying that by what she said in her caucus. She is saying that by endorsing every one of the other Labour women who rejected the pleas of Mahara Okeroa and Georgina Beyer who said that the definition should be broadened. The Labour women— 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh you’re jealous of us. 
RON MARK 
: Jealous of them! Well that is one for the books is it not? John Tamihere just about summed it all up. 
There is one other area I will touch on. The Minister said that the bill takes into account a United Nations convention that seeks to provide protection against child exploitation and child prostitution. How rich is that given that we have child prostitutes walking the streets in Christchurch? Ever since this Government decriminalised prostitution it has not done one thing to get those child prostitutes off Manchester Street. There has not been one prosecution. Not one man has been convicted. A task force team has not been put together. This is a Government that talks about protecting children and stopping the exploitation of young women; that talks about preventing children from going into prostitution; that signs up to a United Nations protocol enshrines it into this legislation and expects to be applauded and patted on the back for it; yet turns a blind eye to the child prostitution that is going on in its own streets in Auckland Christchurch and Wellington. It has done nothing about that whatsoever. There is a word for that. We cannot use it in this House. It applies to so many of the things the Government has allowed to happen in this Chamber. 
It is with regret that New Zealand First has to criticise the Government on these points. We will support the legislation by voting for it. We will seek amendments in the Committee stage and we hope that the Government will be true to its word that it will listen and work with other parties and recognise that it does not have a franchise on what is right and on intelligence. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is pleased to see the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) back in the House today and we will be supporting it through all its stages. It is the sort of legislation that deserves and I hope will get cross-party support right across the House dealing as it does with some really sensitive but unavoidable issues around rape incest and other forms of sexual offending. 
The genesis of the bill lay partly with Dianne Yates’ member’s bill on drug rape. I would like to acknowledge her as others have done for her role in helping to push her own Government further not only to improve on her original bill and to extend it as needed but also to take the extra steps necessary to update the original 1961 Crimes Act for our 21st century mores and realities. 
The Green Party also notes Minister Phil Goff’s very recently introduced Supplementary Order Paper which creates the offence of sexual grooming as part of this bill. We will support that as well given that it has become such an inescapable and recognisable part of the pattern of behaviour of paedophile offenders. 
Sadly sexual violence and offending of all sorts continue to be a problem of significant proportions in our society. In its submission to the select committee the Auckland Sexual Abuse Help Foundation suggested that research shows that up to one in four girls may have had an unwanted sexual experience before the age of 12 that one in seven boys may have had such an experience before the age of 16 and that around one in 16 women may be sexually assaulted each year. Just from my own experience of life I am also aware that far more women and for that matter men have been raped in some way than ever becomes known in either the public or private arena. Even though support services and police awareness are much better now than when I was young—thank goodness—I believe that the vast majority of victims still go unrecognised and unsupported thus sustaining lifelong trauma. 
The Auckland Sexual Abuse Help Foundation and other submitters noted the way in which reporting rates remain low. One international research project found that maybe one in 10 survivors makes a formal report while a local project found only one in seven victims had ever reported sexual violence against him or her to an official body of any sort. It is clear that even now the cases that make it to the courts are still the very small tip of a very large iceberg. 
At least in improving this legislation as we are doing here today I sincerely hope that we will be widening and strengthening the ability of the police to prosecute and the courts to convict on a broader range of sexual offending than currently applies. We still live in a society where all too many people particularly men think that date rape or taking advantage of people when they are drunk or under the influence of drugs or because they have asked for it so to speak is still OK. 
Unfortunately we have even a number of adults who still think it is acceptable to have sexual relations with children—related to them or not. That is despite the societal and religious norms shared by all of us that abhor such behaviour. I am glad that this bill strengthens the laws against incest the last great taboo. It remains a taboo partly because of the code of silence around it but unfortunately it remains a living reality for all too many children and young people. 
The existing Act is too narrowly focused. We support the widening of the crime of incest to become gender-neutral and to recognise that all children and young people need protection from exploitation from older family members who have power over them. The Greens certainly do not share National’s concerns over definitions of family in that respect. It is an extremely complex area and I think the new bill does a good job of trying to modernise and to define more clearly the range of possible relationships involved. 
Another area of the bill in which I have taken a particular interest is that which deals with sexual offending in relation to disabled people. I have totally supported Government moves to recognise the right and ability of people with impairments to make their own informed sexual choices while at the same time recognising that they can be particularly vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. 
 I am glad that the majority of the select committee saw fit to agree with the CCS submission that the use of the word “severe” in that part of the bill as originally drafted was inappropriate. That kind of negative value judgment comes from an era in which service providers and the families of people with intellectual disabilities in particular felt that they had a right to control and determine every aspect of people’s sex lives. It is good that we are finally moving beyond that and I congratulate organisations like People First IHC and CCS on the courageous steps they have taken in this area including their influencing and informing the amendments we are making today. 
However despite the Green Party’s overall support for this legislation there is one area where I like other members in this House think it has not gone far enough—that is in relation to the definition of rape. In putting the bill forward the Government stated that its purpose in making reforms in that area was to ensure that the law relating to sexual offences reflected changes in social attitudes that the law should be streamlined as much as possible and that offences provided for all victims of sexual abuse regardless of their sex and the sex of the offender. Despite that and despite a number of submissions on the matter the old definition of rape has been retained in the bill. It is not gender-neutral in that it states only women can be raped not men and that women cannot rape. It does not accept that rape can happen through penetration with an object and it does not accept that oral rape is rape. Those offences continue to be called unlawful sexual connection. 
The Green Party believes that the old definition retained in this bill is outdated in terms of society’s perceptions of what constitutes rape. It does not respect how victims feel about the reality of what has happened to them and it is also out of step with the latest definition used by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. That definition itself was the result of a broad review of rape laws across many jurisdictions. 
I will therefore move an amendment which is available on the table now in the Committee stage of the bill today. It is aimed at defining rape as acts on men as well as women acts by women as well as men and acts that include anal and oral penetration and penetration with objects. Currently rape is vaginal only. 
I know that this is a viscerally difficult topic for us to talk about. Most of us do not find it easy to discuss these matters around the dinner table at home much less in our caucus rooms or in a public arena like this House. However given that the Government has given us the opportunity to update the rape laws we should have the courage to deal with this issue and not to run away from it because it is too hard to talk about. 
Some submitters found the strength inside themselves to talk to us at the select committee about these things. We should honour that and have the strength to deal with them properly ourselves too. Male on male rape does happen as does female on female and female on male. Many people who have been raped with an object will say that in fact the experience of that is even worse than rape with a penis. The idea that oral rape is not rape is equally incomprehensible to me. People to whom that has not happened may not understand how it can happen but I can assure them that it is a reality and that the impact is physically and psychologically profound. 
From my own experience and from talking with others who have had such experiences I do not understand how rape can be graded and coded so that it applies only in the limited way defined in this legislation. I do not think it honours women or our experience of rape to keep rape as a man-on-woman offence only. It flies in the face of reality to say that only women can be raped that only men rape or that anal and oral penetration are not rape. It is time that people in society even those who are lucky enough not to have gone through any of those experiences matured to the point where it can be more broadly understood and accepted that rape is rape. That offence should not be divided or lessened by a legal definition that makes some forms of rape seem less serious than others. 
I know there is some sympathy for our view from other MPs and parties in this House including Mr Ron Mark in New Zealand First and I hope they will support the amendment the Green Party is putting up today. I would love to see the Government supporting our amendment. I believe that many members of the Labour Party support it. Let us name rape for what it is—an act of power by one person over another committed through an act of violence in all the various ways by which that act occurs—and turn our legal definition into one that accepts that reality rather than takes the easy route out by leaving things as they are. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party in the second reading debate on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill recasts quite a few of the definitions and provisions related to under-age sex offences. ACT was not represented on the Law and Order Committee so we have to rely on the committee’s report for the description of things that the committee considered. We listened carefully to the introduction given by the Minister and to the Minister’s media statements. I am not sure whether this is one of those situations where the Minister has announced his policy three or four times before Parliament even saw it. It could well be. Certainly “grooming” has been mentioned twice and still no words have been seen. I see that Marc Alexander has filled that gap or does the Minister have a Supplementary Order Paper?—[ 
Interruption 
] There is. I am glad to see that. 
We will have a lot to say on specific words during the Committee stage but in the second reading members should be taking an overview. My concern is that Parliament in giving this the attention that it is is wallowing in a form of insincerity. The effectiveness of the law really depends on what we do when the law is broken not on how carefully and elegantly or clumsily it is defined or on how much difficulty the odd offences at the margin—the ones out of the ordinary—give the courts. What will happen in the community and what the offenders take as the message that the community wants to send to them relates to how likely they are to be caught how likely they are to be convicted when they are caught how likely they are to get a serious sentence when convicted how likely they are to have to serve that sentence and whether anyone is enforcing the parole conditions at the end of the sentence. In other words there is a whole lot of parliamentary activity yet the police are not even investigating some rapes. Hundreds of files are not being forwarded because instead we are spending in this Parliament the time and money that the police need to look at the bad people. 
We make a whole lot of pious statements in Parliament about our anxiety. We hear the Greens urging everyone to pass all these laws knowing that the law is unlikely to be enforced. In a lot of family situations these laws will make absolutely no difference because the police quite rightly are prioritising. They are saying as any of us would that as they cannot investigate everything they will go for the obvious outrageous stranger crimes. Some murky situation inside a family where the evidence will be awfully contested and where even at the end of it the police will not be sure whether they are doing good or bad has to go on the back burner. Members of Parliament are standing up one after the other and taking seriously a bill for which the Government by its actions is showing a real lack of concern. What matters is enforcement penalties and whether the law means what is says; what we do matters hardly at all. 
During the Committee stage I want to hear Mr Goff explain why he has suddenly acquired such a concern about under-age sex when he pushed through against the proposed amendments of the ACT party prostitution legislation that increased the age of prohibition from 16 to 18 and then expressly prevented the police from enforcing it. He took out the power we had proposed for the police to be able to ask people’s ages. How can the police enforce a law concerning under-age sex when they are not allowed to ask the age of people involved in the offence? 
Ron Mark 
: They want it as a career option. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Mr Marks says that Labour wants it as a career option. Labour wants to be able to pass laws make foaming speeches about how tough it is and make sure that Labour and its mates are not affected when the offences occur. 
Express amendments were proposed to that bill. The police brought forward their concerns about that legislation and their lack of ability to enforce it. We have since seen that their fears have been justified in spades. This bill was an opportunity to remedy it. In fact this bill expressly refers to the Prostitution Reform Act and says—cutely—that it is being monitored and will be left for a bit more experience. We know what is likely to happen when a bill says something is an offence but then expressly makes sure that the police cannot ask the obvious question about whether an offence is occurring. 
This bill also shares something else with the Prostitution Reform Act. It shares provisions saying that someone involved in under-age sex cannot be charged in a number of those circumstances. In other words it pretends that people are not responsible and do not know the law until they are 18. That is nonsense. I was glad to see that part of the National Party’s crime policy is to reduce the age of criminal responsibility to 12. I think that is New Zealand First’s policy too—and ACT’s. If we get the sort of Government that this country deserves after the next election there will be a very quick reduction. But there must be consistency. If we are treating children as being able to be responsible for their actions they should also be responsible when they are deliberately involved in breaches of this kind of law. Yet here is the Government solemnly pretending to be tough on under-age sex then it sticks in a provision that says that a party right up to the age of 18 cannot be charged in connection with one of those offences. 
What about cases in relation to the new formulation of defences that have been put in this legislation—where someone is misled deliberately misled and misled with complete calculation as with false documentation? There is no charge available. That shows whether the Government is really serious. That shows that this law is essentially slogans. The provisions may be better than what we have now which is why ACT is likely to vote for the bill but they are only marginally better and there is so much additional twaddle around them and so many threats to longstanding principles that it is a very close call. Indeed I will be listening to the debate in the Committee stage to decide whether my personal vote can support some of these measures. 
I was glad to see that Mr Tony Ryall’s participation on the Law and Order Committee meant that some notice was taken of the Law Society’s warning of a forensic lottery “as juries are confronted with arcane evidence from opposed camps of experts.” 
The Justice and Electoral Committee as Mr Goff will know is wrestling at the moment with some very dodgy convictions based on “arcane evidence from opposed camps of experts.” A law change rushed through in 1989 again by a Labour Government and again in response to a hysteria and in trying to look as if it were concerned about fending off well-merited suspicion about its real social agenda put through section 23G of the Evidence Act to give those experts a weight that traditional law would never have given them. 
This bill according to the Law Society will confront juries with “arcane evidence from opposed camps of experts.” Well the theories about sexual conduct are as various probably as the types of sexual conduct. The theories in my lifetime about the nature of rape—whether it is a power relationship an inherent sex drive people’s bad behaviour because there is not enough punishment or something everyone would do if he or she had a chance—are all just theories. Liberating the experts to determine the outcomes of trials is not the way our law should be going. Our law should be based on the observable evidence of acts. For example by eliminating—and I am not sure whether it does eliminate; the Law Society may have said—the ability to take into account whether there was a protest or objection we may well see a whole new category of unfair convictions and when we do that the law loses credibility. If people really want to undermine the horror that people feel about sexual offending and rape the quickest way to do that is to create more convictions that people believe may be unfair or unreliable. That is a sure way to undermine the social consensus that is essential to the enforcement of the law. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of United Future to address the debate on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) with some preliminary remarks before I get to the substance of the bill. The bill deals with a lot of sexual offending rape and so on and I will talk about that a little later in relation to grooming legislation. It addresses paedophilia in a number of respects as well. It is clear that the rate of offending particularly for child molestation and paedophilia is grossly under-reported. We hear bandied about regularly that rehabilitation is so wonderfully successful for those individuals that the reoffending rates are comparatively low in relation to other crimes. But that is actually not true. A study has shown that reoffending rates for sex crimes particularly for paedophilia can rise as much as over 70 percent over a 22-year period. What that seems to suggest is that a lot of the people who commit those crimes are smart. They learn from their mistakes and they do not get caught again in a hurry. So anything we can do proactively is I think a positive move because it is such an insidious crime and leaves its mark for decades on the victims. 
There are positives in this bill. First of all we welcome the Government’s decision to drop the “similar age” defence even though there was a lot of hubbub about what it might have meant could have meant and so on. A bit of mischievousness played along with that and we are glad to see that that part of it has gone and we can concentrate on the main strengths of the bill. We also welcome the strengthening of the current section 134 of the Crimes Act so that not only sexual intercourse but also sexual connection and indecency engender mutual penalties. That provision will be captured in clause 7 which amends section 134. Penalties will significantly increase to 10 years. We hope however that the parole process will not undermine that intent—which is something that tends to happen all too frequently. 
An amendment to clause 7 in relation to new section 134A is to be welcomed also because false and fraudulent representation will be added to the grounds for negating defence. The lifting of the under-21 age limit for the “reasonable belief in age” defence is to be applauded. It makes no sense arbitrarily to restrict such an offence to a particular age subset when it can easily be argued that the practical ability to differentiate age may actually diminish with age rather than increase. The “reasonable belief in age” defence may sound waffly but when we consider that the test is whether a reasonable person took reasonable steps to determine the age of the young person where there are no exclusions based on alcohol consumption use of drugs or any other self-induced impediments then no more can reasonably be expected I think from anyone. 
We also welcome clause 6 which inserts new section 98AA. It inserts a number of new offences relating to the exploitation of persons under 18 for sexual purposes the removal of body parts and what I consider to be slavery provisions. However we recognise a number of difficulties with this bill. I will talk about some that have already been addressed. Although supporting the bill’s purpose and intent United Future considers a number of its provisions to be somewhat problematic. Most important the aim to modernise the law in support of a gender-neutral approach has not been totally achieved in respect of the sexual offence of rape. I note that the previous speaker from the Greens also mentioned that. 
Rape remains a discrete form of sexual violation which only a male is seemingly capable of committing against a female by penile penetration of the female genitalia. That option is not compatible with the overarching gender neutrality underpinning the bill and United Future’s own policy. Given that the bill does at least address gender equivalence in terms of penalties applied for comparable offences—and for that reason we will support it—it is regrettable that widening the definition of rape was not supported. I have a member’s bill to that effect and I hope that that will be supported around the House. 
United Future also takes exception to the definitions of “family member” in section 131A(1)(a)(iv) which provides for an offence of sexual conduct with those under 18 where consent is given because of use of power or authority. The terms considered in the section include “members of the same family whanau or other culturally recognised family group” with specific reference to the responsibility for or significant role in the care and upbringing of the victim. 
 There is neither in my opinion a clear definition of what is meant by “whanau” nor any ring fencing of what constitutes a “culturally recognised family group”. For example it is unclear whether flatmates boarders or others not living as dependent family members are specifically excluded from the parameters of the offence. Similarly an exchange student brought into a family as a family member where the host family is expected to provide and care for that young person as parents would almost certainly be covered. However a foreign student paying board may not be covered depending on the arrangement and understanding entered into. The bill remains unclear as to how to determine one but not the other and I would ask that the Minister actually address this matter when he has the opportunity later on. 
We consider that if our criminal justice system must apportion a sanction to reflect under this provision the degree of responsibility commensurate with recognition for the significant role in the care and upbringing of the victim then the barometer of that measure should at least be better defined. 
During the course of this bill’s progress through the Law and Order Committee I lamented what I considered to be an important omission in it which was provision to include sexual grooming as a specific offence. It was with that in mind that I drafted my Supplementary Order Paper 299 to amend the bill to include exactly such an offence. I am extremely pleased that the Minister of Justice has seen fit to pick up that initiative. I was invited to a series of consultations to help draft the initiative and I also went up to Auckland to meet some of the Minister’s advisers along with other interested parties. This has been brought about in a very constructive and collaborative manner. Of course my Supplementary Order Paper at least for that part has now been overtaken by the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 351 but I do not mind one bit. In fact I am pleased that the Minister has seen fit to raise the penalty from the 5 years’ imprisonment that I suggested to the 7 years’ imprisonment that he has put forward. I happily support that move. 
So I guess that my Supplementary Order Paper has served its purpose in the sense that it has been the architect of the grooming laws that we will debate later on. I applaud the Minister for picking up what I consider to have been a serious omission from the original bill. 
The fact of the matter is that paedophiles are incredibly underhanded. They weave a web of deceit building a trust with their intended victims and we should not have to wait until the body drops until we can go after those parasites. I am pleased to see that the grooming laws based on a United Future initiative that are being brought in by the Government will be one such measure to help the most vulnerable members of our society—our kids. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 As the chairperson of the Law and Order Committee I will take a reasonably short call. I take this opportunity to express my thanks to all the members of the select committee. I accept that such is the nature of our democracy here in the Chamber that some robust views will be expressed in terms of the processes around the committee. In terms of the interaction with officials the constructive comments and the constructive observations I thank all members of the committee. I particularly thank the officials some of whom are present in the Chamber for their excellent work and assistance to the committee and for their very tireless efforts in terms of doing their job in assisting the committee to draft what we obviously hope is good law. 
I take this opportunity to single out three people in particular who have played a very constructive role. One is my good colleague the member of Parliament for Hamilton East Dianne Yates. I thank her in terms of the initiatives she took on the issue of law reform in relation to drug rape which this bill implements. I think that the expertise Dianne Yates has in that area has been considerable and profound. Thanks to her efforts we will hopefully have better law in that area. I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the deputy chairperson of the Law and Order Committee Marc Alexander—who is not always charitable when it comes to certain aspects of Government policy and that is the nature of it—he is a very hard-working member of that committee and a hard-working MP. 
I want to acknowledge Mr Alexander’s Supplementary Order Paper which proposes a new offence—that of meeting a young person under the age of 16 in order to undertake an exercise of sexual grooming. As the Minister has said—and I certainly reiterate it—we thank him for pursuing that particular issue. As a result of in part the work that he has done there is a new offence and the provision in the bill will extend the protection of young people from sexual predators by covering situations where for example a person contacts and arranges to meet a child over the Internet with the intention of sexually abusing that young person. So I compliment Marc Alexander on his work on that issue. 
Finally—[ 
Interruption 
]. I say in response to that interjection that as chair of the select committee I will take at least 2 more minutes maybe 3 or 4 minutes. I also praise Sue Bradford. I personally express appreciation to her for her very insightful and very deep understanding of the issues raised in this bill. I think that she made a tremendous contribution in the select committee. It was a privilege and a pleasure to work with her. I also want to praise the speech that she has just made in this House which I assure her I listened to very very closely and I thank her for her insights. 
People have raised the issue of whether this bill needs to be referred back to the select committee. I want to highlight very succinctly one of the many examples that show why we need to get this bill through—and maybe the bill is not 100 percent perfect but it is 100 percent better than what we have. Under the current law a woman is not committing an offence if she has a consensual sexual relationship with a boy under the age of 16 but obviously a man who has a sexual relationship with someone under the age of 16 does commit an offence. Clearly that law is not gender-neutral. Even Ron Mark in the light of his robust contribution would be really keen to sort that anomaly out. That is just one example of the anomalies that this bill corrects. 
I also take this opportunity to honour and praise those people who gave private submissions to the committee recounting their very painful personal circumstances. To sit in front of a group of people whom one does not know takes amazing courage and perseverance and those submitters’ courage assisted members of the committee to look into the eyes of victims and to gain an insight. For those of us who do not have experience in that area—which by the grace of God is our good fortune—in terms of dealing with and talking to victims that certainly gave us some very very valuable insights and I thank those people for that. I look forward to participating during the Committee stage and the third reading debate. I look forward to the reasonably speedy passage of this bill. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 I have been listening to all the speeches given on this bill this morning and I have to say that they have been very considered and very sensible. But they have actually left me very confused as to why all those speakers who have talked about the inadequacies of the bill are in fact putting their principles to one side and voting for it. That is despite the fact that although the bill contains some very good things it has some very very poorly addressed matters as well. 
 When I listened to previous speeches I thought there must have been a huge rush to get this legislation through. Then I found out that the bill came out of the select committee in October 2004. It is now April 2005 so the bill has been sitting around in the office of the Minister of Justice for the last 6 months and he has done nothing. He has had 6 months to talk to each of the parties represented in this House about the very sensible changes that they have asked for—changes that he no doubt agrees with. So what has he been doing in that time? 
What he has not been doing is listening to the very very sensible suggestions made in the House today. This is why my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall asked the House this morning for leave to refer this bill back to the select committee in order to get that work done. Instead we had Mr Gallagher say that the bill was better than the current law. Well he has to say that because he is only a man in the Labour Party and he knows his place. He is putting his hands up in horror; I say to Mr Gallagher that I am sorry but I do not believe that all men are evil. I actually believe that there are a lot of really good decent men so Mr Gallagher is OK with me and I say good on him for standing up. 
Of course the ladies in the Labour Party are very staunch on protecting women all right—until it is not in their best interests. Then what do they do? They roll over every time a good-looking bloke bats his eyelashes at them. They say: “Tickle my tummy John.” and he does. 
There are a couple of reasons why the National Party will not just give in to that sort of behaviour. We will not support the bill in its current form for various reasons but we do say good on Dianne Yates for bringing the issue of drug rape into this arena. And I also say good on my colleague Simon Power who I need to tell Mr Alexander back in 2001 was calling for that offence of the grooming of little children to be dealt with by the Minister of Justice. But in 2001 and 2002 that Minister of Justice completely dismissed that view. It was too politically correct—we could not have that! 
There are a couple of reasons why National opposes the bill. One is that under this bill it will be all right for some bloke to sexually groom a foster child—a child who has been living in the foster parent’s home or who has had the foster parent living in his or her home—until that child is 18 when miraculously that child will be able to consent to a sexual relationship. So he may not be able to groom the child on the Internet but by goodness he can groom the child in his own home or in the child’s home. He can do that and that is OK for Mr Goff—as long as the kid is 18. If that child has been brought up to think of that person as either a father or almost a father—his or her closest friend—that child will be in a very vulnerable position. 
Some people are children in many ways at 18 and are very very vulnerable. Many of us thinking of all the 18-year-olds we have known and thinking back to the time when we were 18 ourselves know just what a vulnerable time it is. An 18-year-old is often just as vulnerable as a 17-year-old and sometimes just as vulnerable as a 16-year-old. We have pointed out to Mr Goff that those are problems but he has just sat back for the last 6 months done nothing about them and said that he must know better. 
But this is of course the same Minister who thought it would be OK to allow 12 to 16-year-olds to have what he called “consenting sex” while ignoring the fact that under-16-year-olds cannot consent because they do not have the legal capacity to do so. He thought that that provision would be OK. It was only the work of my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall and other members of this House that stopped that nonsense in its tracks. 
One of the other reasons why we are opposing this bill concerns the “reasonable belief” provision. I am shocked to hear that Mr Alexander is going to agree to that sort of nonsense. I am shocked to hear that New Zealand First will support a bill that says a 45-year-old man can have sex with a 15-year-old prostitute who happens to be wandering around Hunters Corner Papatoetoe in George Hawkins’ electorate and that he can in fact get away with it if he has a “reasonable belief” that she is 18 or even 16. Of course there will be “reasonable belief” because supposedly under the Prostitution Reform Act she must be 18 or else she could not be a prostitute! So there will obviously be a reasonable cause of belief. Any lawyer could tell the House that—and I do. I understand that Mr Alexander thinks the prostitute will have an ID with her. Oh come off it! The police cannot even ask for an ID of a girl who is prostituting herself on Hunters Corner in Mr George Hawkins’ electorate. What makes the member think that that 45-year-old will ask to see her ID? 
I normally agree with Mr Ron Mark. Most of what he said today I agree with but I do not understand his statement that he is going to support the bill; Mr Mark must be far more generous than I am. He has pointed out that child prostitution is happening in Christchurch. Taking that on board I went down the other week to Christchurch to talk to members of the Prostitutes Collective about child prostitution. What did they tell me? I say to Mr Alexander that they told me they had talked to Tim Barnett about my coming to visit; they had to get their orders from Mr Tim Barnett. They said to me they did not like the fact that we had made it public there was child prostitution and the reason they gave was that it had brought more people into the area. The other thing they did not like about it was that it had really brought down the value of prostitution. Apparently prostitution is not very good as a living in Christchurch now that there are so many young prostitutes on the streets—because of this hopeless Government’s attitude toward child prostitution and child abuse. 
Ron Mark 
: It’s a career option. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Of course it is a career option as Mr Ron Mark says. It is a disgusting situation when we have 14 15 and 13-year-olds wandering round the streets in places like Papatoetoe in George Hawkins’ electorate and prostituting themselves with 45 and 55-year-old men yet we are being told that this bill means that those men will stop and ask for ID first. What a load of nonsense! 
Sometimes in this House we have to say that a bill is mostly OK. But the Government has had a 6 months’ opportunity to fix this bill and it has sat on its hands. The parties that are supporting the bill when they know they should not are weak. They have given in—they have forgotten all their principles and all they are doing is rolling over because Mr Goff has asked them to. I just think they are hopeless and they should not even bother to waste this House’s time by telling us anything. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Law and Order Committee by majority be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 91 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand National 27. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. 
Ayes 91 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand National 27. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) that it take the bill part by part. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the motion be agreed to. 
Ayes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 47 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1Amendments to principal Act 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 Part 1 is the substantive part of this bill. It covers the significant changes that are being proposed to the rules around sexual conduct. The National Party view is that these changes are being made with insufficient public consultation and we do not think that sufficient consideration was given in the select committee process either. We are worried that there may be serious unintended consequences and the risk of disturbing quite settled case law and legal concepts. We think that some of the provisions in the bill are meritorious and we are disappointed that the part by part motion means we cannot support the Minister’s amendments in the areas we think are particularly important. 
Much of this legislation is based on a discussion paper that was approved by the Minister in 2002 and released to a number of Government departments and groups. I wonder whether the Minister would take a call and tell us which organisations and departments received copies of the 2002 discussion paper on the proposals in the bill and what sorts of submissions were received particularly on the proposal to effectively decriminalise some under-age sexual conduct. Who was in favour of that and who was against it and did the Government really have to carry on with it? Could the Minister take a call and explain why he approved the release of the discussion paper which included a proposal to legalise brother-sister sex for those over 20? I know that the Minister does not support that but I do not know why he allowed it to remain in the discussion paper. Surely Mr Goff should have said to the Ministry of Justice: “That is not Government policy. Don’t put it in there. It’s not going to happen.” Maybe the Minister could take a call to explain that. 
We are also looking for an explanation from the Minister about the issue of dependent family members and protecting young people from the predatory behaviour of those who may have some sort of power or influence over them. Essentially his proposals mean that it will now no longer be an offence for foster parents to have a consensual sexual relationship with an 18-year-old foster child for whom they have cared for many years. I wonder whether the Minister could explain why the current prohibition relating to age which is age 20 at present should be dropped to age 18. 
Could he also explain in relation to his proposed sexual grooming amendments—which we would have liked the opportunity to support through the bill—why he would allow that sort of grooming to happen if it ever were to happen. 
I would also like the Minister to answer some questions about the potential unintended consequences of what a dependent family member is. I think there is some confusion about that because section 131A(1) in clause 7 states that family members are “… of the same family whanau or other culturally recognised family group …”. One of the Minister’s own officials told the Law and Order Committee that a whanau was people who lived on a marae and I am wondering how on earth that sort of advice could form the basis of this legislation. 
So there are I think quite considerable matters that the Minister needs to address and over the next hour or two of this debate members from this side of the Chamber will be seeking an explanation from the Minister on a whole lot of issues including the “dependent child” matter and the “reasonable belief” defence for sexual conduct. Right now a small provision exists for accused persons under the age of 21 whereby if they believed that the other person was 16 and they had taken reasonable steps to ascertain that person’s age and the conduct was consensual then there is a defence. The Government is proposing that that defence apply to everybody. It now means that whereas at present a 45-year-old man has no defence in law for sexual conduct with a 15-year-old girl under the bill’s proposals that chap will have a defence in law provided he reasonably believed she was 16 or older and he had for example checked her false ID. 
The reason we wanted this legislation to go back to the select committee is that no consideration was given to alternatives for addressing the situation of a genuine mistake which I know that the Minister has considered such as having it included as a mitigating factor at sentencing. The select committee did not look at any of that and there has been insufficient discussion with the public about the merits or otherwise of that provision. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I appreciate that members of the public may be wondering why National is voting against this legislation. I have to say that we cannot possibly support legislation that would allow—and this is the reality of it—a 45 or 50-year-old man to approach a child prostitute then claim he had a defence. That is not possible under the existing law. That is the important point: it is not possible under the existing law. 
That prohibition—that the defence does not apply to those aged over 21—has never caused a problem but now the Government seems to think it should be extended right across the board. Government members then wonder why New Zealanders are deeply worried about the values of this Government and about the direction they are taking this country. 
 We saw that in the John Tamihere article. He merely articulated the concern of mainstream New Zealanders that this Government simply has no idea what people think. It runs its narrow agenda based on I guess the common rooms of the universities—the discussions that occur there and that essentially should stay there. But no this Government wants to make those minority agendas the widespread views. 
One of the features of that frankly is sexual liberation. That has always been one of the fundamental agendas of the politically correct. It undermines family life. That is the reality. The Government will look at each and every part of the law. How does it undermine family life? How does the politically correct agenda undermine family life? Well these are some of the ways: by allowing broader defences by allowing more licentiousness by allowing prostitution by making it easier for predators to escape punishment and by allowing defences. That is what the Government has done in this legislation. 
The Government may say that we are simply exaggerating. But we have seen since the Prostitution Reform Act a huge increase in child prostitution. The Government has only to ask the simple question of who preys upon those child prostitutes. My colleague who lives in south Auckland sees the problem on the streets. She knows the answer. Ironically the Minister of Police living in the same place was not even aware that that police district had 1000 uninvestigated cases including 11 cases involving rape. That indicates the complete disconnection of this Government from the real problems facing our country. When we see these kinds of amendments being put into the law we know that this Government is totally driven by a narrowly focused politically correct agenda that it intends to foist on the entire country. 
I would like to think that the other parties in this Parliament that are supporting this legislation will at least in respect of this particular provision say no. 
Ron Mark 
: What about the amendments? 
Dr WAYNE MAPP 
: I tell Mr Mark that my colleagues have been doing amendments. This is the sort of thing that should be stopped. The law as it exists at present is satisfactory. It takes into account the difficulties that young people may have. That is why the application of the law is limited to those aged under 21 and that is where it should stay. That is why we are voting against the bill. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this legislation which ACT is supporting. It is not perfect; there are flaws in it. I would like the Minister to take a call to explain some particular points to me and the reason why those issues are in the bill because ACT did not have a representative on the Law and Order Committee. 
I am always supportive of anything that goes anywhere towards protecting children against sexual abuse by adults. There are two main areas that concern me. Firstly I am pleased that the definition of “family” has been extended. I recently went to a tangi in south Auckland. One of the Maori women there sat down beside me because she knew about the books I had written. She said that at a meeting at the marae a few weeks earlier the women had been discussing how not one child on that marae would not have been sexually abused by other people on the marae and how they could not do anything about it. 
The thing that concerns me about extending the definition of “family” is that it could extend the ability for perpetrators to get name suppression. One of the reasons why name suppression is sought is to protect the victim. It is usually given automatically if the victim is “a family member”. That is often the fault of the media because when a person has interim name suppression the media will report for example that the victim was a 12-year-old niece. If the media did not report that and stated that it was a 12-year-old girl then it could report the name when name suppression was lifted. But when name suppression is subsequently lifted the media cannot report it because that would identify the victim. I argue that we should have something in this legislation or it could come in at a later date—and I urge members to consider this—stating that name suppression can be given only when victims specifically request it or when victims are under the age of 16 and could be identified. By extending the definition of “family” there is a danger that more accused people will get name suppression. 
I would like the Minister to explain why the age of consent has gone from 20 to 18 when family members are concerned. I have some difficulty over that. In the case of doctors for instance if a doctor has a sexual relationship with a patient no matter what age the patient is that doctor can be struck off or will go before the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Committee. For a doctor to have a sexual relationship with a patient is a real no-no no matter what age the patient is. Could the Minister take a call to explain why the age of consent has come down from 20 to 18? For me it is not a reason to oppose the bill but I am curious as to why that provision is included. 
I do not agree with the National Party about the defence for a 45-year-old man having sex with a 14-year-old girl. I do not believe that the way the legislation is drafted is as loose as that. I would like the Minister to explain it. As far as I can see leaving aside this issue of whether the girl is a prostitute section 134A(2) in clause 7 states that it is not a defence if “the consent of the young person concerned was obtained by a false and fraudulent representation as to—(a) the nature and quality of the act concerned;”. To me that does cover areas. That is used a lot in sexual abuse cases where stepfathers foster parents or someone who is known to the victim has said: “All fathers do this. This is what love means. All families do this. Don’t tell.” That is obtaining consent on a false representation. 
Finally I was recently in the United States. I just remind the Committee of the effects of child molestation. From some research done in the United States it has been estimated that the annual direct costs—admittedly it is not a definitive figure because of the under-reporting and under-prosecution of child abuse—in the United States including medical police court and welfare costs of all child abuse is $24 billion. If we look not just at the financial costs we find that 26 percent of abused and neglected children become juvenile delinquents and that 13 percent of violent crime can be linked to earlier child maltreatment. If we are serious in this country about getting tough on crime we have to be serious at looking at why— 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I would like to take an early call just to answer some of the questions that have been raised by in particular Mr Ryall but also to note the comments that Deborah Coddington has just made and to thank her for her support on a number of those issues. 
The first issue raised by Mr Ryall and something he proposed during the second reading debate was that the bill should be referred back to the select committee because it had had insufficient consideration. I draw to the attention of the Committee that this bill was introduced to Parliament more than a year ago and was referred to the Law and Order Committee more than a year ago. A total of 21 hours and 36 minutes were given to consideration of the bill. It was in the hands of the select committee whether it wanted to ask more questions and to take more time over those who made submissions. I received no complaints from people that they did not have the opportunity to be heard or to have their points raised with the committee. The select committee had every opportunity to cross-examine and ask questions of anybody appearing before it. That was in the committee’s hands not my hands. The concept that this bill has been rushed through is just bizarre on the facts of the case that I have just explained. 
Secondly Mr Ryall raised his concern that there was a discussion paper that raised the question of the status of incest and he rightly—to be fair to Mr Ryall—acknowledged that I was against narrowing the definition of incest. I think we need to maintain incest as an offence not because of the classical reason of preventing inbreeding but because children in a family who are dependent have to be protected regardless of whether there is a blood relationship or any other relationship. In fact what we have done is much strengthen the definition of incest. At the moment incest covers not simply sexual intercourse but any form of sexual connection. The member will be aware that under the old law all sorts of sexual abuse could have occurred if the child was over the age of 16 and it was totally lawful. Now we are providing greater protection. 
Mr Ryall asks why we allowed a different point of view to come out in a discussion paper. I have to say that if a discussion paper was to reflect only everything I believed and I did not tolerate it including anything I did not believe it would not be much use as a discussion paper. That is why one has a discussion paper. One has within it different and sometimes controversial views. That is exactly what the Australians did and other jurisdictions. Of course after seeing the discussion paper and hearing some views our Cabinet made a very clear cut and unanimous decision that yes of course not only would we retain the law on incest but we would strengthen the law on incest. 
I thank Deborah Coddington for her comments that she is pleased that the definition of family has been extended. Mr Ryall was having some trouble with the definition of family. New section 131A in clause 7 sets out the classical family membership in terms of parents step-parents foster parents siblings etc. then refers to members of the same family whanau or other culturally recognised family group. As Deborah Coddington rightly pointed out that broadens out the definition to provide protection where it is needed. The section goes even further to include a situation where the child is living with the other person as a member of the other person’s family and that other person has power or authority over him or her. Yes of course we have broadened the definition because our kids deserve the protection that that wider definition gives. Every child should be able to grow up in this society in a family that protects him or her—where the family however it is defined is a sanctuary—and not be subject to the sorts of appalling things we know have happened in the past and regrettably still do happen. 
In relation to the “reasonable belief” provision once again we have toughened the law. I refer to the defence of “I reasonably believed that she was over 16.” It is too easy to say: “I reasonably believed that to be the case.” Now a person has to go through the steps that that person took to ascertain whether the person was 16 or over. So this law is again tougher in protecting those who are under age. 
Mr Ryall raised the question of a particular change that will be made. Under the previous law if a person was 1 day over the age of 21 there was no defence at all even if one could demonstrate that one had reasonably and genuinely believed that a person was not under age—say one had asked for her driver’s licence had checked it and it had stated that that was so. Unfortunately there is the situation—and I think Mr Mark agrees with me on this—where some young women some girls out there can look a lot older than 16 and do use false identification. If a person acts in good faith but is conned by an under-age person why should there be no defence to protect that person? Of course there should be a defence and it should not be arbitrarily restricted to those who are under the age of 21. 
I have no better authority on that than David Farrar who is the co-chairman of the liberal group within the National Party—with Katherine Rich I think—a former staffer of Don Brash a long-time member and supporter of National and a worker in the office of Leader of the Opposition who made the point that I have just made. It is nonsense to say that a person who is 21 years and 1 day old has no defence at all if the young woman concerned looked like she was 18 and presented the person concerned with a driver’s licence that stated that. That is why the old law did not make sense—not just the fact that the arbitrary threshold was contrary to our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to go through a couple of points and I also start by thanking the Minister for taking a call. Members come into this Chamber so often for the Committee stage and the Labour Ministers tend to sit there and do nothing. I actually saw one here one evening doing her knitting at that table as opposed to doing the work she is paid $140000 a year to do. I congratulate the Minister on taking a call. It is a welcome change. 
I have gone through some of the aspects of Part 1 that New Zealand First cannot vote against. As difficult as some of those clauses may be to read for some of us we have had to deal with that in the 21 hours the committee sat. I take issue with the Minister when he said we had enough time. Twenty-one hours to consider the bill particularly as the debate unfolded and we had more and more questions was not sufficient time. Twenty-one hours is less than 2 days. Yes the bill has been in the House for a year and it has had 21 hours—less than 2 days—for discussion analysis and taking of submissions. As we got deeper into the bill and further towards its close most parties here said they needed more time. Unfortunately the Government chose to use its strength and numbers and run over the top of people and that was sad. 
What is good about this bill? If members look at the new definitions of what is legally recognised as genitalia in clause 3 in Part 1 they will find that the Government has simply done what it has had to do. We have recognised transsexual and transgender situations that have occurred. Ironically the law has never protected those people. Georgina Beyer’s view at the select committee was valuable and important to us. I do not think looking to my right here that my colleagues in the National Party can seriously say that they object to rape being made unlawful against people who have had sexual reorientation surgery. Certainly they cannot vote against that. To be raped has to be abhorrent for a person who has had sexual reorientation surgery as for anyone else in New Zealand. So clearly one has to agree with that part of the law change. 
What we do take issue with is the definition of sexual connection that rape with an object is not rape. I have to ask the Government again whether those young boys in Hamilton who took to the young boy with the broom handle raped him. This Government and the Labour ladies except for a couple I know who obviously argued against the commonly held view in caucus say that raping men with a broom handle is not rape. They say that it is a lesser crime. They say that the young boy in Hamilton who was violated with a broom handle who was raped was not raped. Why? Because the Labour ladies want rape to be an exclusive crime that can only ever be perpetuated against a woman—not against a male—with a bodily part and not with an object. 
Ask the young woman who laid complaints against the police that she was raped with a police baton. Is that not rape? No according to the Labour ladies whom John Tamihere so accurately described in the media they do not think that being raped with an object is rape. 
 We have tried to argue that. We have tried to get them to change the legislation. I guess it just means that in a future coalition Government that New Zealand First is leading we will have to come back to that issue and amend the bill. I know there are members in the Labour caucus—Georgina Beyer Dover Samuels and Mahara Okeroa I believe—who do not agree with the Minister’s view and definition of rape. Yet they are being forced to accept their party’s decision and sit there quietly. At least they know how to display unity; Mr Tamihere does not seem to be able to. But they know that their party is wrong they know that it is taking a politically correct approach to this and they know that rape with a broom handle a beer bottle or rape with a police baton is rape—end of story. But this legislation states that it is not. 
Let us look further down in the legislation at all the information and the detail that pertains to dealing with people under 18 for sexual exploitation. We will support those law changes. I make no bones about it we will support the Government in passing this bill. But now I have a question from New Zealand First. This Government has a habit of passing laws and imposing more workload on the police but never doing a risk analysis or an assessment of what extra resources will be required for the police force and giving the police those resources. 
It is one thing to pass this legislation here today and say it is a crime to exploit young people under the age of 18 to put them into prostitution or to hire them—to use them. But this Government does nothing about resourcing police so that they can get young women who are being exploited as prostitutes or as child prostitutes in the Manchester Street area in Christchurch off the street. It does nothing. Ask the police how many extra policeman they will get to reinforce this law they will say that they will get nothing. They will have to do this plus 2.7 million hours of traffic duty. 
If one asks the police whether they ever got extra resources to police the lowering of the drinking age they will say no. If one asks whether the police got any extra resources to police the decriminalisation of prostitution they will say no. Then how will the police do this? The Minister in the chair Ruth Dyson should look at the great list of new sections in the bill. Clause 6 “New section 98AA inserted” is a page and a half of what the Government will make illegal when it comes to exploitation of under-age women and under-age men. Where are the resources? This means absolutely nothing if the resources are not given to the police to enable them to get out and police the law to prevent the crimes to catch the perpetrators to prosecute them and to put them in jail. 
What this becomes is lip service to preventing child prostitution. The Government can say that it is complying with the United Nations charter against exploitation of children and it can preach that all over the country but it means nothing if the police do not get the resources to put this law into effect. What it tends to do is to reinforce our view that it quietly condones it that it thinks it is OK and that it actually does not care. It gets away with telling the public that it does care and that it is going to stomp it out because it passed a law. But it means nothing because it does not allocate resources to bring the law into effect and that smacks of the “h” word which we are not allowed to use in parliament. 
I move to clause 7 “New sections 127 to 138 substituted” which inserts new section 128A “Allowing sexual activity does not amount to consent in some circumstances”. Subsection (3) is Dianne Yates’ contribution—and a good contribution it was: “A person does not consent to sexual activity if the activity occurs while he or she is asleep or unconscious.” That gets to the heart of the issue that Dianne Yates brought to the House and those are the aspects of the bill that New Zealand First wants to support and see passed into law. But again we want to see the police and the resources put into the justice system to enable prosecutions against people who break this part of the law to be brought to court and to enable these people—whom I describe as pet food because that is the only purpose they serve in this life—to be put in jail. 
 It means nothing. Dianne Yates’ good work for all those years means nothing if the Government does not resource the police accordingly and if the Government continues to insist that what the police should be doing is issuing traffic tickets. They have spent 2.7 million hours doing that—386 hours per policeman and policewoman regardless of whether they are sitting in police headquarters shining their seats or are out on the road dedicated to doing traffic duty and not this kind of stuff. This is real hard-core crime. 
We will be looking with interest at the Budget to see just how many dollars and how many policemen and policewomen will be devoted by this Government to ensuring that clause 6 is enforced—not just passed and enacted. There have been no prosecutions for exploitation of child prostitutes in Christchurch. I am looking forward to hearing next year that there have been 15 20 or 30 prosecutions particularly in the Minister of Police’s electorate because the bottom line is that if there are child prostitutes in his electorate how many more are there throughout the rest of the country? 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I will start by saying that reform of the criminal law is always serious and significant work. The Hon Tony Ryall in his comments in the Committee stage said there were a number of questions that the Minister of Justice Phil Goff should properly explain and he elaborated on some of those questions. But I doubt that the Minister has the ability to provide the answers to even a few of those questions. In the one outburst he did deliver he described incest as a defence. Even a first-year law student would know that incest is in fact a crime. It is also a pity that the Government wants to bolt through this bill in urgency and has not accepted the view of the Opposition that it would be appropriate for the debate to be taken on a clause by clause basis. If that had been possible National could have indicated where it supported particular provisions. Instead we are having a part by part debate on a bill that has only two parts. 
The reality is that this bill is like the curate’s egg—good in part and bad in part. The current minority Labour Government expresses a nominal commitment to law and order but that commitment is long on rhetoric and short on action. If members of the Committee are wondering whether that is fair comment I would say that it is because political correctness seeps through the agenda of the Government in this area as it does in many others. I will give four quick examples in the short time I have. 
We have already heard that the Minister approved a discussion document legalising brother-sister sexual relationships. Now it is quite correct that that discussion document and the specific proposal did not find its way into the bill. But a wise-thinking Minister in this particular area of the criminal law should never have allowed that proposition to emerge in a Government discussion document. [ 
Interruption 
] Because I am being interrupted I say again what it was that the Minister approved. He approved a discussion document proposing to legalise brother-sister sexual relationships for those over 20. In the end the Government backed off. That proposal should never have been advanced. 
Another example a timely one in the context of one member sitting in this House is the Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill—a member’s bill albeit sanctioned by a majority of the Labour caucus—that would permit on a basis that would not permit discrimination cross-dressing in the police the military and classrooms. 
 The third example relates to the similarity of age defence for under-age sexual activity. National and the public forced the Government to drop that highly controversial clause. It would have given a defence when there was consensual sexual activity between 12 to 15-year-olds. It was opposed by mainstream groups but supported by the Minister in charge of this bill Mr Goff the Labour Cabinet and the AIDS Foundation. If I take a final fourth example it is the proposal to scrap rape as a gender-based offence. In the result the Government has backtracked on that because a majority of the committee endorsed: “… the offence of rape being retained as a gender-based (male-on-female) form of sexual violation effected by penile penetration of a woman’s genitalia.” But there was a proposal to cast away that offence of rape and instead merge it into a wider grouping of sexual offences. 
I would like to speak for one more minute about what troubles me about this legislation in a broad way. It is well identified in the general policy statement that lies behind the bill. The general policy statement reinforces the view: “… that people are entitled to enjoy a fulfilling sexual life with other persons of their choice irrespective of their sex:”—I am reading from the general policy statement in the explanatory note. Most of us would think that what we are really about is significant reform of criminal law in the area of sexual criminal activity. To paint the legislation as being an entitlement for people to enjoy a fulfilling sexual life with other persons of their choice irrespective of their sex is incredibly irresponsible. 
This is supposed to be criminal legislation. It is intended to deal with offences that violate community standards and are abhorred by right-thinking members of the community. It should not have policy objectives of that particular type. National has said repeatedly in the short period the Committee stage has occupied that the bill should have been subject to more consultation. There should have been far wider community and legal consultation. The Government had an opportunity to do that. It chose not to do so. I believe that there will be as a result of that decision significant unintended consequences. 
We see in so much of the legislation that has been before Parliament in this session instances whereby significant errors have occurred through inadequate consideration. This bill will prove to be one of those examples. Another illustration is the Foreshore and Seabed Act. As that legislation was originally enacted there was a provision that vested all the reclaimed land of the Wellington City Council in the Department of Conservation. That all had to be undone at the rate of knots in legislation passed a few days later. Again we see obvious multiple flaws in the Building Act. 
The problem in simple terms is this: when one goes about reforming criminal law it should not be done on a patchwork basis. Why do I say that? Because chunks of work should not be taken out for separate consideration. Criminal law in general terms should be seamless. If it is broken up in the way that this bill has done with different parliamentary counsel engaged in different sections of the work the result obviously will be that errors are likely to creep in. And so they will. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a brief call on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) in the Committee stage. I first of all acknowledge what Ron Mark said in his speech and refer to some of the matters he raised. I have to say that I agree with him regarding rape. I am certainly glad that we had the possibility to include the transgender and sexual reassignment provisions in the bill regarding that issue. I did take a universal view that rape was rape whether by bodily penetration or with an object but there is a difference between rape and sexual violation in the law. I was informed at the Law and Order Committee that sexual violation still held the same punitive penalties; it is just the title that differs. So I did obviously end up supporting that view although I was uncertain about it at the time. 
I will just refer to Mr Richard Worth who—kindly or not—raised the issue of my member’s bill the Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill. He seems to be going on with this mantra about cross-dressing. I would remind the member that decades ago now it used to be against the law for men to wear women’s underwear. That was absolutely ridiculous; the law is long gone from the statute book of this country. I have known people who were arrested for that. I know of transgender people who used to have to go to Mojo’s drag nightclub in Auckland dressed as a man they could dress as a woman and do their entertainment show there and they had to change back into men’s clothes again when they left. That is absolutely ridiculous. The Government of the day obviously thought so 30 or 40 years ago and it repealed the law. The way that Mr Worth made reference to cross-dressers with that real “Ew yuck!” flavour to it really shows just how minimal his knowledge of cross-dressing is. 
Of course one thing I remind the Committee of is the famous photograph of a former member of the National Party John Banks—who now hopes to be the leader of the ACT party—in his tutu when he was a Minister in this Parliament I understand. He was a great example but would we have wanted him discriminated against for doing that? Some may say “Yes”. There was also a very celebrated police commissioner by the name of Rob Moodie who wore kaftans. He was celebrated and famous for it. That could be termed cross-dressing. Should he have been discriminated against? No I do not think so. 
Anyway I will not continue on that line because it is a little off the bill. But I look forward to the debate when my Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill has its first reading hopefully after the next election. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 It has been a very interesting morning listening to all the contributions. I will take just a moment to correct the member who just spoke Georgina Beyer. Rob Moodie was the president of the Police Association as I recall not the police commissioner which is quite a different role altogether. I cannot quite imagine the current police commissioner in a kaftan but one never knows. As long as it does not hurt other people it is fine with me. 
I come back to the more serious issues. I have been wondering why the Government has not changed this bill given all the very good contributions from members about the deficiencies in it. Even members who will support the bill have pretty much the same complaints about the deficiencies. I wondered why the bill had been on the Minister’s desk for the last 6 months and then the answer came to me as clear as a bell. Mr Tamihere told us what it is. It is because the Labour caucus is so split down its politically correct lines that it cannot get the bill back to caucus for agreement. Obviously that is the answer. 
The Hon Tony Ryall mentioned some of the offending parts in the official documents on this bill. I will read them out for the benefit of the Committee: “The ministry proposes however that any brother-sister sexual connection involving abuse of trust authority or dependence where one of the parties is under 20 be covered under the proposed offence of sexual connection.” In other words for anyone over the age of 20 brother-sister incest would be just fine. 
 This is the sort of nonsense that a politically correct Government driven by various special interest groups would go along with. How many people who voted Labour in the last election—nice decent people who look after their kids and pay their taxes—would have signed up to that sort of nonsense? But we should say: “Good on you!” to the Minister because he did say eventually that he would not go for that—we know he did not agree with it. But by goodness we know how this Government works. It puts up these ideas then we come out and say: “That’s shocking.” then the Government sees what the people want to do then it looks at the polls and then it decides whether it will go ahead with the idea. This Government has a real problem making any negative value judgment—that is what it calls it; a “negative value judgment”—on any sort of lifestyle issue. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: Anything goes. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Anything goes and the only time it makes a negative value judgment is when somebody stands up and says: “No actually it’s not OK to do that to our communities.” 
I say again to the parties in this House who are voting for the bill that I cannot understand what in the bill they could possibly vote for. Indeed there are some good things in it but they are so small compared with some of the bad things in it. My colleagues Dr Wayne Mapp and the Hon Tony Ryall have both put forward substantial amendments to try to make the provisions in this bill a little more sensible. But the Minister will not vote for them. We know that. He will not vote for anything like that because it is a bit too sensible. He does not want this bill to go back to the select committee. He talked about how the committee had spent 1 day—24 hours—on this particular provision. 
Ron Mark 
: It was 21 hours—less than a day. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Oh it spent 21 hours on it. It spent less than a day’s hearings on it spread over 2 days. That is nothing compared with how important these provisions are. It is a remarkable thing that the Minister can say the select committee had plenty of time. I certainly sensed from the plaintive little cry from Martin Gallagher the chair of the committee—the plaintive little male cry from the back benches of the Labour Party—that there was not sufficient time. He certainly came across that way when he made comments like: “We really did have a lot of good discussions.” and “I’d really like to sort of thank everybody.” and “There were lots of issues that we couldn’t quite resolve.” He came across as saying: “There are lots of issues that aren’t particularly right but I got bullied into it because I can’t take it back to caucus.” Poor old Mr Gallagher! What else can we say. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 The previous speaker said she did not know why some parties were voting for the bill and no it is not a perfect piece of legislation but it has been around for a year. In my view a consideration of 12 months is not indecent haste. 
If the bill goes back to select committee and if it goes on with more public consultation more children will be abused while that happens. While we delay and kick the child sexual abuse issue around like a political football more and more children are abused and the effect on those children for the rest of their lives is absolutely appalling. This is not a crime like any other crime. The effects are far-reaching and they affect all of society. 
Victims of child abuse do not care about whether crime legislation is being overhauled on an ad hoc basis or on a perfect basis; they do not take those sorts of things into account. All they think about is what they are going to do next—even how they are going to get out of bed in the morning. Children do not have the vote. It is our responsibility to protect them; they do not march down the street and demand better laws. 
I support what Ron Mark said that men who use child prostitutes should be prosecuted. They should have the full force of the law brought down on them. But who can say that being a child prostitute is a lifestyle choice? The reason those girls are child prostitutes is that they have been sexually abused in the past usually by family members or someone known to them. That is how the majority of child sex crimes occur; they are committed by people who are known to the victim. The people who snatch the Teresa Cormacks off the street are rare. Those offences are usually committed by clergyman teachers doctors JPs—respected honoured members of society. If we go on delaying legislation like this just because it is not perfect those children will continue to be abused. 
ACT will be supporting the amendments on sexual grooming. That is an insidious crime and we need only to look at the actions of one Peter Liddell to see the destruction that that man has brought about. For example with regard to Jenny Anderson’s talkback show on Radio Pacific when Peter Liddell had name suppression lifted in the Court of Appeal that came on the news at 1 o’clock. At quarter past one a woman rang. I will not say her name but she did say it on air. She was crying and she said she had just heard the news that the name suppression on Peter Liddell had been lifted. She talked about her son who had been counselled by Peter Liddell. He was a young Maori boy and Peter Liddell favoured vulnerable young Maori boys. Her son kept coming home saying that Peter Liddell was sexually abusing him but the woman said: “We didn’t believe him. Peter Liddell was the man in the white coat the trusted counsellor.” This woman had just found out that her son had been right. Jenny Anderson asked: “Where is your son now?” and the woman said: “He killed himself because no one would believe him.” That was the most damning indictment I have heard on sexual grooming. 
I also support the amendment that makes rape gender-neutral. I do not see why men should not be convicted of raping other men. 
The matter that concerns me in this legislation is that we seem to be over-addressing issues that are already taken into account by the courts. For instance there are already convictions for mistaken identity. 
If we look at some of the cases in my books we see that there are cases of men who have been prosecuted because they have climbed into bed with a woman when she has been asleep. She has often gone to sleep because she has drunk too much but that is no excuse for someone to get into bed and start having sex with her pretending he is her husband. When she has woken up and discovered the person is not her husband the person has been prosecuted and sent to jail. The same outcome has applied to cases concerning drugs. Judges have taken the view that those people could not consent because they had drunk too much or been drugged. 
We have moved on so far in this country when it comes to the prosecution of sex crimes because once we would have had the attitude that those women deserved it. Thank goodness we do not have that attitude any more and that we do take the attitude that no matter what a woman does—whether she goes out wearing a short skirt and a low cleavage whether she drinks too much or whatever—she does not deserve it just as a man who walks down the street in an Armani suit with a wallet-full of money does not deserve to be robbed. We do not take that attitude. 
The other irony while I am on that subject is to ask why it is interesting that when men wear skirts they are cross-dressers but when women wear trousers they are not. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 The National Party in Opposition has been highlighting what we think are a number of deficiencies in the bill. We have a very real fear that the Government’s intentions in this bill could very well backfire. We think there could be unintended consequences based on changing definitions and settled understandings in case laws. We think there are likely to be problems because of some of the new legal concepts being brought in particularly regarding dependent family members and people with disabilities. We are very concerned about those matters. 
I was on the Law and Order Committee. I know that we were working to a time line. I know that we had Government members forcing our considerations at every opportunity. Throughout that time the New Zealand First National Party and United Future members were saying that we should have more time on the bill that we should be calling for more submissions and that we should be making sure that we get it right. Many people including members of the Law Society lawyers involved in other matters and sexual abuse workers came before the committee and made the point that there could be new uncertainties created because of this legislation so the committee must get it right. 
We are genuinely worried that this bill will not achieve what the Government wants. We have no confidence that the officials’ advice is necessarily right nor that the Government has got it right. We asked one of the officials what the word “whanau” meant in the bill. Do members know what the answer was? It was: “People who live on a marae.” 
Ron Mark 
: That’s right. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is what they said. Mr Mark confirms it. 
That is why we are so worried about the consequences of this legislation. Richard Worth was right when he said that many changes to the criminal legislation in New Zealand are done like a patchwork quilt. That is why we are saying that this bill should go back to the select committee and be worked on again. 
We are worried about provisions about dependent family members such as the age limit that prohibits sexual contact between those who have been in a care and protection type of relationship being dropped from 20 to 18. The reason why it was 20 was to allow for sufficient time to elapse and for the dependence relationship to wane. By the age of 20 most people will have moved away from home or had a couple of years of being away. Alternatively there are some issues about kids who come home from university study and about what sort of relationship that will be. So we cannot understand why the Government would drop that to age 18 and allow a situation where for example a foster parent will be able to have consensual sexual contact with an 18-year-old foster child for whom he or she may have cared for many years. The Government is also passing sexual grooming amendments but it seems to me that the potential of this provision needs to be looked at. Most submitters wanted the age kept at 20 but the Government chose 18 and we have not had a proper explanation of that from the Government. We do not know what impact this new definition of “dependent family member” will have. A dependent family member is someone who will be prevented from sexual conduct with members of the same family whanau or culturally recognised family group that has responsibility for his or her care or upbringing. 
The Maori members of our committee were also very concerned about this because Maori have a different view from that of the nuclear family that people are more aware of—depending on their background—on the role of relatives in the upbringing of children. I thought that was a valid point. We tested the officials and the Minister’s advisers as to what that would actually mean and I have to say that we were not comfortable with the answers we were given. We think there is quite a risk that judges may end up taking quite unintended views on what those matters are and that is why we raised those points. We are quite worried about them. 
We have not had an explanation from the Minister in the chair the Hon Phil Goff about the changes that have been made concerning people with disabilities. Currently it is a crime to have sexual intercourse with a woman or girl who is severely subnormal. It is understandable that the Government would want to modernise the language and concept in light of the much better attitudes people today have towards those with disabilities. But there is a real risk that this bill will create considerable confusion and uncertainty through its new and unproven wording. Frankly I do not think the select committee has done a very good job in getting to the bottom of what that wording is. We did not spent a lot of time on that and we should have spent more. 
The Law Society warned the select committee that there would be a forensic lottery—that is the term it used; a “forensic lottery”—as juries are “confronted with arcane evidence from opposed camps of experts” attempting to argue concepts like “an understanding of the nature and consequences of sexual conduct”. That is new. We are not sure how that will be applied in the courts—and one cannot be until it happens—but no member of that committee can stand here and say that he or she is confident that the intention of Parliament is enshrined in those words. Indeed the officials advised the committee that leaving it to the courts to address the problem would probably be the best course of action. Parliament should not be operating on that basis. 
The Minister also needs to have a discussion with the Committee on the issues relating to the changes made in the area of consent. Consent has a very settled meaning in the common law but this bill takes the step of deeming what does not amount to consent—and if one was going to take an approach I presume that would be it. Concern was raised by a number of submitters as to the lack of precision in these provisions. Although the Minister may not be aware submissions noted that certain types of drugs associated with drug rape can lead to a person appearing completely in control and rational and consenting to sex in situations where consent would normally be withheld. Lawyers came before us and said that the definition of what is not consent may cause more confusion than clarity. Again we think that referring the bill back to the select committee and calling for expert evidence would get that right. There are some arguments for pressing ahead with even flawed legislation but we fear that the risks associated with this legislation do prevail upon us to raise these questions and express these doubts about this bill. 
We think there are many meritorious provisions in this bill. We would have liked the opportunity to have a clause by clause debate and a vote on each clause. By doing so we feel we might have been able to make some progress in improving the bill and in getting to the core of the Minister’s motivations in the various parts. But we have been denied that opportunity. 
We are very worried about those unintended consequences and the changes that are being proposed in this legislation. We know that a discussion paper was released in 2002. We know that that discussion paper included proposals to decriminalise some sexual activity between 12 to 16-year-olds. That paper was approved by Cabinet. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: By Mr Goff. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It was put in the bill by Mr Goff and frankly— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: It was never put in the bill. It was a discussion paper. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Decriminalisation of sexual activity for 12 to 16-year-olds? The officials’ advice is here. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: No no you were talking about the other issue. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No I was not talking about that. I am very well informed about what is in that discussion paper. 
Mainstream New Zealanders do not support the decriminalisation of some sexual activity by those between 12 and 16 years. Ordinary people were outraged by the suggestion that that activity could be decriminalised. But what worries us more is the issue of what other little word changes in the bill there are that may cause trouble. I think that sending the bill back to the select committee for a few extra weeks would have given this Parliament a much better piece of legislation. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I listened carefully to the member who has just resumed his seat and by and large he was of course repeating comments he made in earlier calls. I have answered a great many of those so I will not repeat myself in that regard but I raise just the question of the age of consent. I think every member in this House believes that the age of consent should be at least 16. Children who engage in sex under that age risk doing real damage to themselves emotionally rather than simply physically because they are not ready for the emotional side of that sort of relationship. So naturally I would take offence if the member was intending to say that any other member of this House believed that under-age sex was a good thing—we do not. 
What I have done in this legislation is considerably toughen the penalties for having a sexual relationship with somebody under the age of 16. We have increased the penalties. The maximum jail sentence has been increased from 7 to 10 years. We have removed the protection that people had before whereby if one did not bring a case within 12 months then the offender would escape scot-free even if there had been a predatory relationship between a much older male and a young girl. So we have taken the law further than it has ever been taken before. But we also made the point that of course it was not our intention to see two 15-year-old teenagers experimenting in a sexual relationship locked away for 10 years. Nobody in the House thinks that that is a sensible idea. Nobody in the country thinks that that is a good idea and that can be taken from the fact that the police simply do not bring prosecutions. Parents do not take kids to court because they are indulging in under-age sex. Schools do not try to take this matter up through a pathway of prosecution. 
Originally the bill contained the same defence that California has that Victoria has that Canada has and that a great many Western jurisdictions have which is to say that if there is a close similarity of age then that would be a defence that might prevent imprisonment. I would have stuck with that defence if I had thought it was necessary because I do not want to see 15-year-old kids who are experimenting in sex locked up in jail—nobody does. Nobody in this House wants to see that. I know that basically the police will follow the same practice as they did before and they will not take that action but the “similarity of age” defence was a protection against that happening. That was deliberately misconstrued. 
I have a quote here from Russell Brown a well-known media commentator who says: “I’m afraid Ryall knows very well that what he is saying is untrue and scurrilously so.” I think we all know that that was politics but the politics played out its role. We have removed that provision and kids will not be prosecuted when they should not be. The member should not pretend to the Committee that this was anything other than simply a bit of grubby politics because that is obvious to all of us. 
The member raised a question about unintended consequences. I thought Mr Ryall wanted answers to his questions but clearly he does not. He has walked out so I will not bother with him. I would like to come back to the point made by Deborah Coddington. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. A member— particularly a Minister who has been out of the debating chamber during most of the debate on his own bill—cannot refer to the absence of a member. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairperson I was answering the member’s questions in good faith. I have a list of the questions he has raised and I was going to go through them point by point. Surely under the Standing Orders it is grossly discourteous for a member who has asked questions and taken up the time of the Committee then to walk out as soon as the Minister gets to his feet to answer them. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It may be discourteous but it is wrong and against Speakers’ rulings to refer to a member leaving the Chamber. We will just proceed as we were. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I was about to address my comments to Deborah Coddington who I thought made some very sincere and good points about the legislation what it intends to do and about the appalling situation that occurs in our community including the case of Peter Douglas Liddell whom I tracked earlier in my career in Parliament. I was appalled at the incredible damage done by a man like that. In my opinion no law can be tough enough to deal with a man who blights people’s lives and in the incident she referred to led to the suicide of a young man who was offended against and then disbelieved. People who act in this way as predators act in a way that gives them credibility. They are often respected figures. He was a counsellor at King’s College and a child would not be believed against a man in that position. I deplore that sort of behaviour and this legislation in so far as it toughens up the penalties against those people is well merited and I will be pleased to have the support of members for it. 
Deborah Coddington raised a question about suppression orders. Suppression orders generally should not be relied on. In fact only in about 0.4 percent of cases suppression orders are issued and they are largely in cases where it is the intention of the court to protect the victim. However I think that Ms Coddington made the fair point that sometimes the victim does not want that form of protection and the court is imposing it against the will of the victim. That is why I amended the Criminal Justice Act back in 2002 to require the court when seeking name suppression for the accused to take into account the views of the victim. 
Clearly that was a message to judges. If the victim says: “Look I might be the daughter of this person who is supposedly a respected pillar of society but I want the world to know what he has done and if the price of that is to expose me as the victim I am prepared to pay that price.” then the court should heed the views of the victim. I think that that is very important. 
Finally I will just touch on the question of the definition of rape. I know that a number of members—Sue Bradford Marc Alexander and I think Ron Mark has indicated support—have in good faith said that they wanted a change to the definition and that a variety of other things should be regarded as rape. The select committee considered that very carefully and I have no fundamental opposition to what each of the members is asking for but each of the solutions has inherent in those solutions its own problems. 
The fundamental point is that whether it is rape or sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection the penalties are exactly the same and I think everybody understands that. I want to put on record for the courts which do refer to the  
Hansard 
 of the debates that this is the intention of Parliament and whether it is a male sexually violating another male or whether it is oral anal or vaginal the penalty should be the same regardless of the gender of the offender or the nature of the penetration that is committed. The law provides that the offence is the same in every case. So we get down to what terminology we should use. We thought about extending the definition of rape so that it could include male on male and I looked very carefully at Sue Bradford’s amendment but then I am left with all the questions at the end of it. Yes I could live with all of that but then what about penetration with an object? Should that be rape? That is not covered by the member’s amendment which I have looked quite closely at. Maybe it was intended to be covered. 
Sue Bradford 
: Yes subsection (1)(a). 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I will take the member’s word for that. But in the end there was not a consensus on this matter at the select committee and in an area where I believe we should try to find a consensus if we cannot do so we stick with the status quo. I am comfortable with the status quo in the sense that it does not affect the penalty that applies to any of the forms of offending that have been discussed by members and in their amendments. I respect their points of view. I am not strongly opposed to what they are advocating. I have searched for a consensus. The wider consensus at this stage that I have found is around maintaining the status quo. I accept that and for that reason I will with some regret not be advocating support for the amendments moved by various members on that issue. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I wish to take just a minute to reply to the Minister whose sincerity I accept. I actually know him personally and I think I have a very good understanding of his views but I have to say that it is not good enough to say there was a majority in the select committee that supported the status quo. If one looks at the party situation the Labour Party members were the only members on the entire committee who held that view. The select committee is made up of members of the United Future Party the Green Party the New Zealand First Party the National Party and the Labour Party and it is on record that four of the five parties said that this definition should change. 
Labour can get away with a little bit of fudging here but the fact remains that it has stacked the committee with its numbers. It has stacked the committee so that it gets the outcomes it wants and it is bullying its way through this. The Minister should take a wider view. If four of the five parties in this Parliament can agree that generally what the Government is doing is right but that on this particular definition it is wrong then why can the Minister not be magnanimous accept defeat and go with the majority party view? 
We know that the Government has the numbers and can force its way. It does not have to because when we get outside this Chamber it will be dealing with it anyway because United Future the Green Party the ACT party the National Party the New Zealand First Party and the Maori Party will all be out there during the election saying that Labour was wrong. There will be only one party that says that the definition is right and that is the Minister’s party. The tragedy is that within his own caucus we know there is a difference of opinion and he should listen to it. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
Visitors 
Republic of Vanuatu—Deputy Prime Minister Minister of Foreign Affairs 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing members that His Excellency Mr Sato Kilman Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs from the Republic of Vanuatu is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish he be welcomed and accorded a seat to the left. I am sure that members would also like to welcome members of his delegation who are present in the gallery. 
His Excellency Mr Sato Kilman accompanied by the Associate Minister of Pacific Island Affairs entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair. 
Tabling of Documents 
Jim Peron 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the following documents. One is an article from the  
Sunday Star-Times  
dated 3 April 2005 in which Jim Peron states that he is being crucified over the interpretation of opinions that he expressed 20 years ago and no longer holds. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table two articles written by Jim Peron entitled “The Claptrap Over Child Porn” parts 1 and 2 written in May 2003. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a series of pictures of naked boys retrieved from Jim Peron’s Auckland bookstore Aristotle’s Books just 3 weeks ago. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Questions to Ministers 
Foreign Investment—Approvals 
1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why did she say in the House on 30 March 2005 in response to my questions about New Zealand’s growing net debtor position rising current account deficit and the continuing sales of New Zealand assets to foreign buyers “It is the same economy with the same current account deficit as was recorded when that member was the Treasurer in September 1997.” and “I do note that the highest-ever number of net land sales by hectare occurred when Mr Peters was in charge of the overseas investment legislation.”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Because that is what the figures show. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the figures possibly show that when the deficit when I was Treasurer was just over $6 billion and there has been a 57 percent increase under the Prime Minister’s administration to $9.4 billion and when will she and her Minister of Finance stop coming up with random figures that they have decided to pluck from the air? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am sure that the member who was Treasurer would know that he should relate the current account deficit to the GDP. While he was—[ 
Interruption 
] It is a bit cute to do anything different! The current account deficit peaked at 6.9 percent while that member was the Treasurer. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Does the sale of New Zealand assets to foreign buyers have a positive or a negative effect on New Zealand’s net position and its current account deficit? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In general terms it should have a positive effect given that it meets a net national interest test in terms of land and a business test in terms of physicals. Of course in some instances one could argue that that has not necessarily always been true in specific cases but that is often being wise after the event rather than before. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What was the current account deficit in 1998 during the Asian economy crisis and is it not a fact that the sale of 199131 hectares—which allegedly took place according to the Prime Minister’s words under my stewardship—was purely a result of a US company by the name of International Paper exercising its pre-approved rights to increase its shareholding in Carter Holt Harvey a sale that was made possible only by and occurred during the ruthless and relentless policies of the 1984-1990 Labour Government? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I note that the member is now shifting his ground. Yesterday he claimed that the bulk was accounted for by the Forestry Corporation sales which are not the same thing. In fact the Forestry Corporation assets that were dealt with in September 1996 and that were referred to yesterday—in terms of land as opposed to area of forest—comprised only some 2674 hectares. The Carter Holt Harvey acquisition he refers to was a deal agreed to in 1991. In terms of extending the shares it required approval for the extension of the time limit which had long since run out. That member gave approval for the extension of that in December 1997. He did not have to do so. 
Rod Donald 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the recent comments of the Governor of the Reserve Bank that “We have had higher current account deficits than that before.”—this is referring to the most recent one—“Nevertheless I think it’s an undesirable feature and it’s probably the one area of our economy that you would say is not in a broad balance at the minute.” and what steps will the Government take to get the deficit into a better balance particularly in the light of the Reserve Bank’s view that the risk premium on the high current account deficit is costing borrowers—whether it is homeowners or businesses—a risk premium of 1 to 2 percent? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I think we have to distinguish between two elements. The first is the long run current account deficit which in New Zealand has been higher than in many other countries. I think that we have never run a surplus on the current account and certainly not for anything more than a very short period of time. That is clearly a reflection over the long term of the fact that we have been a capital-acquiring country as an expanding country but also of a relatively low savings rate—even some years ago when our savings rate was higher than it is now. The second element is the cyclical element. Whenever we have the economy moving strongly we tend to accumulate a current account deficit because increased incomes lead to higher imports the dollar tends to rise which tends to reduce export income in New Zealand terms. That tends to be self-correcting. The concern at the moment is that because of the weakness of the US dollar that phase may last longer than is normal. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why will the Prime Minister not answer the question as to what the current account deficit was in 1998 despite the Asian crisis and does she not understand what a pre-approved right is which was exercised by International Paper a long time before I ever became Treasurer as she and her Minister of Finance well know. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: In answer to the last point the pre-approved right in 1991 had long since expired by 1997. It had to be renewed on a number of occasions. The member did not have to approve that extension. [ 
Interruption 
] There was a time limit on the exercise of the pre-approved right. It had long since expired by 1997. On the other matter yes the current account deficit was beginning to improve. It usually does when the economy slows down as it did under that member as Treasurer. 
Electricity Commission—Alternative Fuels 
2.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy 
: Does he expect that the Electricity Commission’s “thorough investigation of alternatives” to Transpower’s proposed 400kV transmission line between Whakamaru and Otahuhu will include the investigation of alternative fuels to reduce the need for electricity at peak hour in Auckland; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Yes. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can he confirm that 70 percent of the peak electricity demand in Auckland is from households and consists largely of power for cooking space heating and lighting on cold winter evenings; if so does he agree that any other fuel that could supply these needs in sufficient quantity would be a valid alternative to the 400kV line? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Off the top of my head I cannot confirm the figures but I would tend to say that the experience of Christchurch is such that we would not want to shift to wood burners. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: What is the role of the Electricity Commission with regard to the proposed transmission upgrade? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The commission is expected to assess Transpower’s proposal thoroughly in comparison with other alternatives. It is important to have security of supply but the commission will look at non-transmission options such as additional generation and improved energy efficiency as well as alternative transmission options. 
Hon Roger Sowry 
: Will the Government ensure that Transpower is able to purchase properties along the preferred route that Transpower intends announcing next month or will the Government expect property owners along the route to continue to live in uncertainty until the commission reports back—conveniently after the election? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We certainly will not stop Transpower from buying properties on a willing seller - willing buyer basis. 
Peter Brown 
: Does the Minister accept that fundamentally we have a simple choice to make and that is basically that we can transport power to where it is needed or transport fuel to localised power stations; if he does accept that will he tell us which his preference is; if it is the latter—transporting fuel—which is his preferred fuel? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. 
Peter Brown 
: By answering “No” to that question is the Minister saying he thinks he can solve Auckland’s problems by introducing things like diesel generators to be on standby to run at peak times by having households switch to gas and by having energy-efficiency measures like low-energy lighting in every home? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm then that there will be a proper investigation of the extent to which peak electricity demand could be reduced by using gas as a direct fuel for household cooking heating and hot water rather than burning it inefficiently in power stations and then having to transmit the power north? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Without necessarily having the negative bits at the end of the question yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How will any of the proposals presently before the Government be affected by the decision to float New Zealand’s largest energy network company Vector on the sharemarket within the next 6 months; and is this just another Labour sell-out? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: From memory that set-up was done when that member was in Government. But I want to make it clear that I do not think ownership is actually a factor in this. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Can the Minister confirm that the Green Party has been calling for just such an investigation of alternatives including energy efficiency direct use of gas cogeneration of heat and power and smarter peak-load management ever since the lines were first proposed? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It has not been quite to the forefront of my mind but if the member gives me that assurance I of course accept it. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What is the Minister doing right now to educate people in Auckland about the opportunities to use energy much more efficiently to keep their power bills down and avoid the construction of transmission lines? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think at this particular time I am involved in a negative experience so far as climate change and the production of hot air go. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Is it true that none of the parties now expressing in the House support for the transmission lines did so before the Government announced that the Electricity Commission was looking at the issue? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I can confirm that—I think it was quite the opposite. But then flip-flop is the way the “Jandal Party” goes. 
John Tamihere—Public Retraction 
3.  
GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does her Government believe that John Tamihere should issue a public retraction in the interests of all New Zealanders? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Mr Tamihere expressed personal opinions that the Government has condemned and dissociated itself from. He has publicly acknowledged that his comments are unacceptable and he has offered a full apology. That is in the interests of all New Zealanders. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Why cannot the Prime Minister understand that whatever took place during the 15 minutes that John Tamihere was in the Labour caucus room does not constitute an apology and retraction to the thousands of New Zealanders who were offended by his comments about women and the Holocaust? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Mr Tamihere has actually stated his apology publicly. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister’s judgment then that no public retraction is needed mean that in her opinion a man who has been struck off for forgery who publicly lied about a golden handshake and who has offended women Jews gays the union movement and his own caucus colleagues is a good role model for Labour members of Parliament? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister made clear that the views expressed by Mr Tamihere do not have any support within the Labour Party or the Labour caucus. But views similar to those on a number of those issues—certainly in relation to gays and members of the union movement—are expressed frequently by members opposite. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Are the statements in relation to accepting pain over pleasure when duty calls—statements included in a Latin media release sent out by Gerry Brownlee—a reference to Mr Tamihere or to a deputy leader under Dr Brash? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Although I have seen that material the Latin is so good I refuse to believe that it came from Mr Brownlee. 
Rodney Hide 
: Is it not a fact that Clayton Cosgrove was the managing director of the Mike Moore supporters’ club that the Prime Minister publicly named Clayton Cosgrove as orchestrating phone calls and demonstrations outside the houses of members of Parliament and complained of “a campaign of fear and intimidation” including “hate calls” to members of Parliament; and is that not the reason that the Prime Minister is not demanding a retraction because what John Tamihere said was the truth? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister made it clear that she does not accept the accusations made about Mr Cosgrove’s action and she and Mr Cosgrove are of one mind on this matter. 
Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith 
: How does the Prime Minister intend explaining to her hosts at Auschwitz when she visits later this month that she did not require John Tamihere to retract his statement on the Holocaust? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister has made it clear that the party and the Government dissociate themselves completely from those remarks. This party has a long proud history of opposing anti-Semitism. 
Rodney Hide 
: Was the Prime Minister then talking fantasy when she named Clayton Cosgrove as orchestrating phone calls pamphlet drops and demonstrations outside MPs’ houses in the  
National Business Review  
on 3 December 1993 and of claiming in the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 29 November 1993 that there was a “campaign of fear and intimidation” against her including “hate calls to MPs”? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I am happy to answer the question but what prime ministerial responsibility is there for statements made as Leader of the Opposition in 1993 about internal party matters? 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Madam Speaker if you were to rule that there is no prime ministerial responsibility for statements that the Prime Minister retracts as Prime Minister having made them as Leader of the Opposition then certainly the question asked by Mr Mallard earlier should not have been allowed to proceed either. I think that what Mr Hide has done is to point out that the Prime Minister said one thing when she was Leader of the Opposition and now conveniently faced by a political difficulty around John Tamihere she is trying to say another thing. 
Rodney Hide 
: The issue is this and it goes to the heart of the Prime Minister’s credibility. We have heard that the claim by Mr John Tamihere that Clayton Cosgrove organised hate calls was fantasy and that it did not happen and we have the Prime Minister saying admittedly before she was Prime Minister that that is exactly what happened. What I am doing is drawing it up and the point of it is that what she said as Prime Minister is what we are discussing. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I shall rule on the point of order. No party leader in the House is answerable for statements made in that capacity. I think that Mr Hide did not tie those statements back together at the time. However given the content of the debate I would ask the Hon Dr Michael Cullen to address that question. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I could rephrase it and help the Prime Minister. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No that is fine. I think that the Minister can remember what the member said. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Prime Minister stated that the allegation that Mr Cosgrove had called her home on a number of occasions in the middle of the night was completely incorrect. Mr Cosgrove denied that. Those are the facts. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Does the Prime Minister think that the silence of Joris de Bres the Race Relations Commissioner on John Tamihere’s derogatory comments about Jews and the silence of Ros Noonan the Chief Human Rights Commissioner on John Tamihere’s derogatory comments about women confirm John Tamihere’s allegation that the ninth floor has apparatus activities and influence in everything related to the Government and that those two commissioners are silent because the Prime Minister wants them to be? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that her comments in the  
National Business Review  
are totally at variance with her recent comments on mystery phone calls from Mr Clayton Cosgrove which of these statements is true: the recent one or the one she gave back in 1993? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: As I said Mr Tamihere claimed that Mr Cosgrove had phoned the then Leader of the Opposition—in fact she was not the then Leader of the Opposition; it was before she was even leader of the Labour Party when she was the deputy leader of the Opposition—and her husband at night. The Prime Minister stated that in fact that was not the case and Mr Cosgrove said that that was not the case. 
Education—Funding Review 
4.  
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What reports if any has he received on possible changes to education funding? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have seen a report advocating the reintroduction of bulk funding for schools. Under the proposal targeted funding for things like teacher professional development literacy and numeracy programmes and teaching resources would be eliminated. School boards would have to negotiate their own employment agreements with teachers and the only extra funding would be available through wage cuts. Schools that got into financial difficulty would be cut adrift and their students abandoned by the Government. Those approaches which are so last millennium come from Don Brash. 
Lynne Pillay 
: What feedback has he received on the proposed reintroduction of bulk funding? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would like to quote someone who is an eminent former secondary principal. He stated: “If bulk funding of teacher salaries is imposed on boards of trustees and the teaching profession I believe it could be the most divisive and possibly the most destructive change in our education system.” That eminent former principal of Hamilton Boys High School is Tony Steel the ex-National member for Hamilton East. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm the statements behind the paper from the Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) titled  
Bulk Funding: a Retrospective 
 which stated: “The Minister of Education Trevor Mallard insisted that the ‘flexibility’ that bulk-funded schools had come to expect had to be retained … The solution was to allow schools to continue the practice of employing teachers from the operations grant.” and can he confirm that New Zealand schools currently employ thousands of individual teachers from their operations grant; what is the difference and why is he against that? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: What I can confirm is that the PPTA agreement is in fact a minimum rate document. Teachers can be paid more than that if schools choose to do it and many many schools do. But I can also confirm that there is considerable doubt about this recent proposal. I note from the speech of Don Brash that the copy has been issued with all his doubts in it. For instance: “Bill what value will these have?” and “Check with Bill. Is this really greatly different from what happens now?” asked Don Brash. I will just say that until those members can do information and communications technology they cannot do education. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Does the Minister agree that one potential problem with giving outwardly successful schools complete control of funding as trust schools is that they may become personal fiefdoms under a charismatic principal and that in the case of a school like Cambridge High School the inability of educational authorities to intervene would be disastrous? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member has a point although I would have thought that Te Wananga o Aotearoa run by Don Brash’s mate would be a better example of that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Would the member please withdraw that last comment about mates. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Although you have asked Mr Mallard to withdraw for making that scurrilous and totally untrue allegation in the House I think that it is a light punishment for him to simply stand up and say: “I withdraw.” The reality is that he has just lied to the House. He should be dealt with in a much harsher way than the simple request that he withdraw a comment. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The member did in fact withdraw and the other member Mr Brownlee has accused the Minister of lying. That member cannot accuse a Minister of lying in this House. I would suggest to you that he now has to withdraw and apologise. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I had ruled on the point of order. The member had withdrawn. I now have a separate situation whereby one member has called the other a liar. That is not acceptable. I would ask him to withdraw that comment. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It was inappropriate to call the Minister a liar because of the Standing Orders that we operate under. I think it is appropriate though to say that he was being extremely reckless with the truth. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Noting Mr Trevor Mallard’s comments about bulk funding I seek the leave of the House to table the  
Hansard 
 of the third reading debate on the Education Act 1989 which made bulk funding compulsory for every school and for which Michael Cullen and Helen Clark voted. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to the tabling of that document? Yes there is. The document will not be tabled. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I note that Mr Mallard seemed to quote from a document albeit a draft document. As is traditional he should therefore table that document because we all need a good laugh. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I do not think that is a serious point of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is very hard to describe the document as an official one and therefore I have to seek the leave of the House to table it. I so do. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection so it will not be tabled. 
Hon Bill English 
: I seek leave to table a paper from the Post Primary Teachers Association entitled  
Bulk Funding: a Retrospective 
 which cites Trevor Mallard as advising schools to pay teachers out of their operational funds in order to keep the flexibility. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I do apologise to the House; I meant to do this after the last question but I got carried away in the excitement. I seek the leave of the House to table a  
National Business Review 
 article dated 3 December 1993 by Dr Vernon Small in which Ms Clark is quoted as criticising Clayton Cosgrove for organising demonstrations— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that? Yes there is objection. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document dated 29 November 1993 in which Helen Clark “hits back” against a campaign of fear intimidation and hate calls to MPs. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the House to table a document dated 30 November 1993 describing how Mike Moore supporters stood outside Ruth Dyson’s house and demonstrated with some foul placards. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. It will not be tabled. 
Women’s Affairs—Annual Expenditure 
5.  
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: How much is spent annually on women’s affairs and what is achieved by this? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 I presume that the question refers to direct expenditure by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs in which case the answer is $4.665 million for the year ending June 2005. The outputs that are required as a result of that expenditure are outlined in the annual report and I will seek to table that annual report at the end of this question. 
Deborah Coddington 
: How can the Minister claim that that spending has any effect and that the ministry has achieved anything when a senior Labour MP can dismiss leading women in his own party as butch lesbians simply because they do not have children—casting a slur on all childless women—and not have to retract his statement? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I very much regret that the Minister and the Ministry of Women’s Affairs do not have responsibility for the comments of that member. Further though I note that my colleague has apologised to the Labour caucus which severely censured him for the comments he made. The caucus said that those comments were grossly offensive. It is time in my view to move on from that matter. 
Dianne Yates 
: Has the Government improved choices and opportunities for the women of New Zealand? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As a matter of fact yes there is a long list of Labour-Progressive Government - introduced initiatives that create more choices and opportunities for New Zealand women at home and in paid work. They include paid parental leave which increases to 14 weeks this year; increased childcare subsidies; a significant boost to income support through the Working for Families package; and a programme to introduce pay and employment equity in the public sector. 
Judith Collins 
: How does the Minister explain the stunning silence from the Ministry of Women’s Affairs following the abusive statements made by John Tamihere when describing his female colleagues and New Zealand women in light of the ministry’s stated goal to “draw attention to and provide advice to advance the status of women in Aotearoa New Zealand …”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As the member should know the people from the Ministry of Women’s Affairs are not inclined to become involved in matters that are party political because they are public servants. That would be entirely inappropriate. Further there was no need to receive any sort of advice given the very clear comments of the Prime Minister that those statements were grossly offensive and unacceptable to the New Zealand Labour Party. 
Judy Turner 
: Can the Minister actually point to a decrease in the number of women who have been battered or even killed as a result of domestic violence every year; and when we have her ministry the Ministry of Social Development the Department of Justice the New Zealand Police and the Department of Child Youth and Family Services all working on New Zealand’s violence prevention strategy what assurances can she give that actual progress is being made on its implementation rather than it being just a massive talkfest? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I agree with the feeling behind the member’s question that domestic violence including situations where women are killed is totally unacceptable. I support the role of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs in ensuring that when violent situations are analysed a gender analysis is part of that—because tragically it is still true that in the majority of cases of domestic violence it is women who are the victims of that violence. 
Judith Collins 
: What steps has the Minister or her ministry taken to obtain from her Government colleague Mr John Tamihere a full retraction for the women of New Zealand whom he so firmly and forcefully put in their place? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member may not be aware of the fact that on Tuesday this week John Tamihere came to the Labour Party caucus and offered an unqualified apology for his comments. The Prime Minister on behalf of the caucus and the Labour Party issued a severe censure which has been made public. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Does the Minister recall that last week in the House the National Party asked a number of questions and made a number of speeches attacking the Prime Minister for being a childless woman and does the Minister see this as another example of that party’s ability to flip-flop from one week to the next? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Absolutely. Not only on this occasion but over many years the National Party has demonstrated its total lack of support for New Zealand women. 
Deborah Coddington 
: Does the Minister think there are two standards in terms of policies on attitudes to New Zealand women when John Tamihere gets away with his sexist language without issuing a retraction but she herself had to retract and apologise for calling a National woman MP an “irresponsible tart”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The comment I made was totally inappropriate and I am pleased that I apologised for it. John Tamihere came to the caucus and gave an unqualified apology for his grossly offensive comments. 
Deborah Coddington 
: How can the Minister claim that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs has done anything to reduce the stereotyping of women as weak and inferior when John Tamihere does not have to retract his sexist dismissal of the Prime Minister as “emotional” and someone who “goes to pieces” whenever she has to confront a problem? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I assume that underlying the member’s question is support for the continuation of the role of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. Clearly we have not been 100 percent successful yet. 
Rodney Hide 
: What really has been achieved when the Labour Party itself has in its midst Mr Clayton Cosgrove who organised placards outside that MP’s office questioning her sexual orientation simply because she had not had children; and has she ever had an apology from Mr Clayton Cosgrove for his doing that? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The protest that the member refers to which consisted of three or four people was actually outside my home. It was before I was a member of Parliament and I did not see Clayton Cosgrove there. 
Rodney Hide 
: Does she find it acceptable that the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee would organise a protest outside her home accusing her of being a dyke—and I can say that that has been confirmed by Mr Ron Mark who says that is exactly what happened and that Clayton Cosgrove organised it— 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The question is getting well away from ministerial responsibility unless the member can pull it into context really quickly. 
Rodney Hide 
: —and if the Ministry of Women’s Affairs was really doing its job would not Clayton Cosgrove have had to apologise to her or are there two standards? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: If Mr Hide is relying on Ron Mark for his sources of information then I am not surprised he is so often way off the mark. 
Rodney Hide 
: I seek the leave of the House to table a series of documents about these placards being outside Ruth Dyson’s home. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes. They will not be tabled. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I seek leave as indicated in my answer to the primary question to table the Ministry of Women’s Affairs annual report for the year ended 30 June 2004. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is. It will not be tabled. 
Judith Collins 
: I seek leave to table the front page of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs website which shows that not one statement has been issued by the ministry about Mr Tamihere’s comments. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? It will not be tabled. 
Rodney Hide 
: In response to Ruth Dyson’s claims I seek the leave of the House to table a report showing that there were actually 40 Mike Moore supporters protesting outside her house. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? It will not be tabled. 
Ron Mark 
: I wish to make a personal explanation about comments made by Mr Hide and denied by the Minister. I want to confirm to the House that I did confirm with Mr Hide that Clayton Cosgrove was intimately involved in running Mike Moore’s offensive and defensive campaign during the leadership coup that he did organise the campaign outside the honourable member’s home and that there were placards as shown on TV that day that had on them slogans such as “dyke” questioning that member’s sexuality. This is a matter of record in the media; it is not something I have made up. I do take offence at the rather humorous slight of me that the member made by suggesting that the things I bring to this House are untrue. It is fact that when I said that a person on home detention was on P and died of it it was proven eventually to be true which the Minister admitted. A number of things that this Government has denied have proven to be true. This incident that Mr Hide is referring to is a matter of public record and TV3 and Television One records will show that. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Is the member seeking a withdrawal and apology from the Minister for her comment? 
Ron Mark 
: No not at all. 
Justice System—Relevant Facts Before Courts 
6.  
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Is he satisfied that the justice system allows for all relevant facts to be considered when a case is brought before the courts? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade) 
: 
 Generally yes. But as the member is well aware there is nevertheless a range of limitations on what evidence may be placed before the court. That includes for example information that is subject to lawyer-client privilege and spousal privilege and the restrictions on the use of hearsay evidence to name a few. Some changes to the rules governing admissibility of evidence will be proposed by the Evidence Bill when it is brought before the House. 
Gordon Copeland 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I would like to point out that during my colleague’s question there was a great deal of background noise and I would like to enter a plea for his supplementary questions to be heard in silence. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Yes I agree. The level of chatter rises from time to time during some questions. I ask members to respect all questioners and give them silence when they are asking their questions. 
Murray Smith 
: Does he think it is acceptable for the New Zealand Army to hide vital evidence from a coroner’s court then present submissions that it knows to be lies as it did when it hid a report showing that defendants Keith and Margaret Berryman were not responsible for a bridge collapse on their property; if not will he give an assurance that he will act to ensure that all the facts of the case are brought to light; if so how does he plan to do that? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member is a lawyer and he knows that the decision in regard to the admissibility of that evidence was made by the High Court. The way to change that is not by raising a question in the House or indeed by acting in contempt of the court; it is by appealing the court’s decision if he or any other member thinks that decision is wrong. 
Tim Barnett 
: Will the proposed Evidence Bill codify common as well as statute law and when does he expect to introduce it to the House? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: Yes the Evidence Bill will do that. It has been 10 years in the making from the time that the Law Commission began work on it to the time of its report. The bill arising out of the Law Commission’s report has now been substantially drafted and I would hope to see it introduced before the middle of the year. 
Murray Smith 
: Does the Minister agree that it is only proper that a couple who have endured 10 years of legal battle and have lost everything including their health as a result of a decision based on an abuse of process by the New Zealand Army are properly compensated and vindicated; if so will he commit to the establishment of a commission of inquiry into the circumstances of the Berryman case in order to help that to occur? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: That matter has been before an inquest and the High Court and it may well be back before the High Court. That is the appropriate way of dealing with the sorts of issues the member has raised. I would like to point out that although the member claimed that the Army has concealed the report the report in fact was made available to the Berrymans’ lawyers who at the time were Buddle Findlay. That is hardly concealing the report. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: When will the Prime Minister show some leadership on this issue and direct the Minister of Defence to have that report published as is fully within her power to do so instead of ducking and diving around behind legal process which has cost this family a fortune already; when will she back up what she said back in 1998 in the Taranaki - King Country by-election?  
Madam SPEAKER 
: I would note that that is within the responsibility of the Minister of Defence but if the Minister of Justice has a comment he may make it. 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: It is just the obvious comment: the Prime Minister always shows leadership on every issue. That is why she is so far ahead in the polls above anybody else including that member. 
Murray Smith 
: Does he support a review of the Defence Force rules of disciplinary procedure to ensure that reports or other evidence such as the Butcher report on the Berryman case are disclosed in other relevant proceedings; if not what assurances can he give that the Berryman situation will not happen again? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I draw to that member’s attention that the High Court’s decision was based on the principle that the armed forces courts of inquiry are not intended to apportion blame but rather to establish the facts and what can be learnt from them for the future. The High Court made its decision on the basis that utilising evidence gathered in this way for proceedings that seek to establish blame would jeopardise the ability of future courts of inquiry to operate effectively. So the answer to the member’s question is no. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is he aware that in 1998 during electioneering in the Taranaki - King Country by-election Helen Clark along with MPs Mark Burton and Harry Duynhoven visited the Berrymans then went on the record as saying: “It is an issue of National having lost touch with its traditional constituency. These people were persecuted by the Labour Department. They have constantly sought some relief from the Government and they have never had it.”; and when does she intend to show some leadership and direct that the Minister of Defence have that document published? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: I do note that the Government made the Berrymans a settlement offer of $150000 in June 2001 and that offer is still open for acceptance. 
Education Vote—Increased Spending 
7.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Can he confirm that between the 1999-2000 Budget and the 2004-05 Budget spending in Vote Education on administration of education regulations has nearly quadrupled spending on policy advice has increased by 63 percent and spending on administration of education sector resourcing has doubled? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
: 
 There have been across-the-board increases in education expenditure since Labour became the Government and we are now third in the OECD in school expenditure as a percentage of GDP. Specific departmental as opposed to school increases have included some things that are technical issues. For example there have been major property revaluations which have resulted in increased capital charges and depreciation. Some of the matters have not been technical such as the $153 million relating to services to students with special needs and $10 million relating to early childhood departmental payments. I tell Mr English that that is in the departmental area. 
Hon Bill English 
: What benefit have students and parents received from the following increases in Ministry of Education spending: $18 more per year on policy advice $10 million more per year on the administration of education regulations $37 million more per year on the administration of education sector resourcing and in particular $2 million more per year on ministerial servicing? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: One of the things that this Government has done is to be transparent in the area of spending. The fact that we are straightforward and honest about what is spent is why we are doing so well in the polls and the Opposition is in free fall as will be shown tonight. 
Helen Duncan 
: Has he seen any proposals to do away with any particular elements of education funding? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. I have seen a suggestion that the entire allocation for teacher professional development and curriculum support should be scrapped. That would affect thousands of teachers who are benefiting from professional development aimed at improving how they teach maths reading and writing with the ultimate benefits going to the kids they teach. There would be no laptops for teachers no programmes aimed at reducing truancy no high-speed Internet access no software licences and no help for gifted children. That is the policy of the National Party. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. You have drawn to Ministers’ attention before that they do not have ministerial responsibility for National Party policy. In that case this Minister cannot have such responsibility because that is absolutely not National’s policy no matter how often he repeats it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister was asked to comment on any reports. Although he is not responsible for National’s policy he did name the report so the answer came within the scope of the question. The Minister did not assert a responsibility for that policy. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Does the Minister agree that one way of cutting down on education bureaucracy would be to merge the three agencies concerned with educational quality—that is the New Zealand Qualifications Authority the Education Review Office and the New Zealand Teachers Council—into a new educational standards authority which would also help to reduce the compliance costs facing schools; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member has consulted with the Minister of State Services who has some experience in this area. Unfortunately sometimes one and one and one actually cost four rather than two and a half. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that the funding for the core activities of the Ministry of Education now costs $132 million more per year than when he became the Minister which means that for every $1 that he has put into school operations grants he has put $1 into more bureaucracy? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: That is absolutely incorrect. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister answer the question this time that I asked earlier—that is what value do parents and students get from the following increases in Ministry of Education expenditure: $18 million more per year on policy advice $10 million more per year on the administration of education regulations and $37 million more per year on the administration of education sector resourcing; what did any of that do for any of our students? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I know it was the policy of the previous National Government to have under-resourced and unregulated schools and we saw the results slipping away as a result of its policy. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Could the Minister address the question that was raised more specifically. It made reference to increases. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: This Government believes for example that we should have property resourced properly. We have put a lot of money into that and spent— 
Hon Bill English 
: I didn’t mention property. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well the member did mention resourcing. What the hell does he think property is if it is not a resource? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. It is one of the conventions of this House that members do not issue threats to other members in an attempt to influence them. Mr Mallard just pointed at me across the House and said loudly: “You’re gone.” That is out of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I was referring to a number of National members at the next election. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: If the member would just withdraw his comment please we can then move forward. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Yesterday you were extremely stern—and in fact over the last couple of days—and required a Minister in the case of Annette King and a party leader in the case of the Rt Hon Winston Peters to leave the House for exactly the sort of exchange that Mr Mallard attempted to engage in. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That exchange was before and not during that point of order. But I do want the Minister please to rise and withdraw that comment and to apologise if the member took offence. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I think you have missed my point. Mr Mallard did exactly what Mrs King did. On the other hand Mr English showed considerable restraint given the provocation from Mr Mallard. If there is to be the convention that there is not that byplay across the House before after or during questions Mr Mallard should be asked to remove himself from the House. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I heard and saw exactly what happened. After the answer was finished in the time in between when no questions were being asked Mr English first said “You’re pathetic.” which was itself out of order because it was in the second person. Then for some peculiar reason after Mr Mallard said “You’re gone.” Mr English felt that that was being a bully. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: That was my recollection as well. It was not during the actual giving of the point of order. Could we please move on. 
Education Act—Free Enrolment and Education 
8.  
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: Is he confident that the Government is fulfilling its obligation under the Education Act 1989 that every child is entitled to free enrolment and free education at any State school; if so why? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister of Education 
: Although there has been some confusion on the part of a principal I can now answer yes because we will continue to have a Labour-led Government and therefore members opposite will not be in a position to privatise schools. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. That answer cannot be acceptable. That Minister talked about a Labour-led Government. Labour will be climbing over cut glass to get to other parties after the election. He should not be giving a hypothetical answer like that. He was asked to respond in terms of this term and this term alone. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Standing Orders do allow for hypothetical questions and hypothetical answers. I listened carefully. The Minister did address the first part of the question so the question has been addressed. Hypothetical answers are permitted under the Standing Orders as are hypothetical questions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Madam Speaker it might be what you think is a hypothetical answer but unless you are clairvoyant you cannot come to that decision although it may be that you know something that we do not know—for example that there will be an election shortly. The Minister’s answer appeared to go beyond that and clearly that is not what this term of Parliament is about—the term for which he is responsible. He will have to have his ministerial warrant renewed after the next election if he should be so lucky. Surely he should be asked to constrain his comments to this term and this term alone. If you think any old hypothetical answer is satisfactory well I do not and I do not believe that the Standing Orders cover that at all. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: The ban on hypothetical questions was removed from the Standing Orders in I think 1996—certainly it was a considerable number of years ago. If hypothetical questions are allowed there must be hypothetical answers although personally the re-election of a Labour-led Government I do not regard as hypothetical. But dealing more substantially with the point raised by the member I suggest that if a Minister cannot answer for anything that might happen after the election date this year which may be no later than 24 September that will be a very huge constraint on the kinds of questions that can be asked for the remainder of this session of Parliament. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I think the member has made his point. Could we please now move on. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Minister guarantee that today’s special-needs funding announcements will provide teacher-aide support to enable every special-needs child to attend school for a full school day or will parents still have to pay up to $10000 each year to enable their child to access his or her legal entitlement to a free education in a State school? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is not appropriate for a parent to have to pay $10000 to access a State school. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Has the Minister heard of any reports or proposals to privatise any State schools? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Yes. I have seen a proposal effectively to privatise some schools by transferring those schools to trusts so that they will be able to enrol whomever they want to exclude the child next door to charge whatever they want to be subsidised by the Government and to be sold. 
Hon Bill English 
: Is the Minister aware of increasing anger among parents that they are now paying $200 million per year in fees and donations for his so-called free education and that one reason parents have to pay $200 million in fees for free State education under Labour is that for every new $1 he has given schools for operations funding he has given another $1 to bureaucrats with the result that there are 1200 more of them in the education field? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am quite willing to offer a briefing to the member so that he can better understand education accounts and stop making such mistaken comments. 
Tariana Turia 
: What response would the Minister give a teacher who rang my office concerned about the pressure placed on that teacher’s school when an Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme student was mainstreamed for 30 hours a week but funded for only 15 hours? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: A lot of Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme students in schools are funded for much fewer than 15 hours. They are funded for the amount that is appropriate. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister aware that the Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme grant disproportionately affects low-decile schools because of its very narrow criteria—both the school and the parents of the child must provide extensive written applications and any educational assessments of the child must be paid for by the parent—and when will this Government change the system to enable the 2 percent of all children who have very high needs to be properly and fully supported in their legal right to education? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The member is not correct when she says that all assessments of children applying for the Ongoing and Reviewable Resource Scheme grant have to be paid for by the parents. That is just not true. 
Tariana Turia 
: What response would the Minister give to a parent who rang my office who had been told by a teacher at the local school that the child would be considered a drain on that school’s funding and that it would be better if that child was enrolled elsewhere? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would invite the member to give that case to me. The person who made that comment especially if he or she were a principal of a school or a teacher at a school acted particularly unprofessionally. 
Metiria Turei 
: What is the Minister’s response to the 97 percent of schools reported in the Quality Public Education Coalition report on special education that stated last year that the bulk-funded special-education grant is inadequate to meet the needs of their children in light of today’s failed announcement there would be no increase in the said grant? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I would treat the Quality Public Education Coalition report with the respect it deserves and put it in the rubbish bin. 
Metiria Turei 
: How many special-needs children are currently being sent home at lunchtime because their schools simply cannot provide teacher-aide support for their special needs and how many will continue to be sent home at lunchtime because today’s announcement funding increase will not provide them with the funding and support they need to get the education they deserve and are legally entitled to? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Since I have become Minister of Education funding for special-needs children has increased by over $90 million the year. The latest increase of $30 million announced by my colleague David Benson-Pope will make an enormous difference in making sure that some of the most vulnerable children in our system get the support they deserve and need. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the 1997 Budget which demonstrates that New Zealand First added another $200 million in respect of the funding that Mr Mallard talks about in half the time he boasts about. 
Document not tabled. 
Bridge Collapse—Butcher Report 
9.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has she received a copy of the report by former army engineer George Butcher; if so does she have any concerns with its findings? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: The Prime Minister advises that her office has been sent a copy by a member of the public. She has not personally seen that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why has the Prime Minister allowed a member of her caucus to stop the tabling of this report in Parliament despite the understood constraints that it go to members only as happened yesterday; does she remember herself saying these words: “It is an issue of National having lost touch with its traditional constituency. These people were persecuted by the Labour Department. They have constantly sought some relief from the Government and they never had it.” and when does she intend to show some leadership and direct the Minister of Defence to make this report public? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: There are three questions there. I will deal with the second and third. On the third matter the Prime Minister has no intention of ordering the Minister of Defence to act in breach of a court order. Secondly the Berrymans were offered some $150000 in January 2001 and that offer is still on the table. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Prime Minister understand that the court order was made in favour of the Army which sought suppression; why does she not direct the Minister of Defence to start telling the Army to behave in a responsible way and give these people some justice which is what she promised on the campaign trail in 1998 but apparently does not wish to go forward with now? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: On the second part of that question as I said an offer is still on the table for compensation of $150000. I have also been advised that in terms of the legal costs of the occupational safety and health case and the High Court appeal the Berrymans’ legal costs were settled by agreement the difference being only some $2500 approximately. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What farm can one buy of the size the Berrymans once had for $150000 in this country; when will she start showing some leadership and tell the Minister of Defence to get the Army to stop behaving in this most despotic way when she promised this couple justice; and when will she show some leadership in this country? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The coroner’s inquest decision stands. The appropriate act by the Berrymans is to seek to overturn that. Speaking as Attorney-General I am advised that there is no new information in the report that would enable the Solicitor-General to exercise his discretion. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the Butcher report with the constraints on its publication as agreed with the Clerk yesterday so that it will go only to 120 members of Parliament. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be tabled. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table an article dated 28 April 1998 from the  
Daily News 
 outlining Helen Clark’s visit to the Berrymans’ farm whilst on the campaign trail and all the promises she made. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection. There is objection. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave to table the  
Dominion Post  
editorial of 29 March 2005 in which Harry Duynhoven describes the Berrymans as having had “a [expletive deleted] raw deal”. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be tabled. 
Bail Act—Offenders on Remand 
10.  
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What increase if any has there been in the number of alleged offenders remanded in custody since the passage of the Bail Act 2000? 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 The most recent forecast of the prison population confirmed that prior to the passage of the Bail Act there had been a decreasing trend in the proportion of defendants remanded in custody. In the period since the passage of the Act that trend has reversed. The forecast shows that in the last 2 years there has been a 31 percent increase in the male remand population. Bail is now being denied to more than 1000 more offenders every year who are likely to reoffend while on bail and community safety has been increased as a result. 
Martin Gallagher 
: What changes were made by the Bail Act to help ensure that bail was not granted to those who were likely to reoffend? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: This Government substantially rewrote the Bail Bill that was introduced to the House by Tony Ryall in 1999 because that bill frankly was weak and ineffectual. The Government toughened the law to ensure that defendants with a history of repeat offending including burglars and property offenders—whom the previous National Government was apparently not concerned about—now face a reverse onus meaning that they have to persuade the courts that bail is justified rather than the onus falling on the police to prove that it should not be. 
Health and Safety in Employment Act—Stress Provisions 
11.  
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Labour 
: What will the Government do to prevent an influx of court cases as a result of the new stress provisions in the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 as feared by Phil O’Reilly Chief Executive of Business New Zealand? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister of Labour) 
: 
 It is important for the House to note that there has been only one prosecution of this type to date. It is clear that the overwhelming majority of New Zealand employers want safe and healthy workplaces. In this case there had been numerous complaints and the matter had on many occasions been brought to the employer’s attention. The problem was that the employer had failed to act on those complaints. There is nothing to suggest that there will be a large number of such cases in the future. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: How does the Government justify the union representation in the occupational safety and health legislation and the ability of unions to bring private prosecutions or is this just another example of amendments to industrial law that in the words of John Tamihere the Government “f’ed up”? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It is internationally regarded as best practice to have worker participation in health and safety issues. I would prefer to rely on that sort of evidence rather than on the information the member seems to be relying on. No wonder he is so hopeless about health and safety issues! 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: What does the Department of Labour do to assist employers in providing safe and healthy workplaces? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In specific relation to the stress issue raised in the primary question immediately after the clarification was made in the amendment to the Act comprehensive guidelines were published by the Department of Labour including helpful information for employers to ensure that they would avoid the very situation that Nalder and Biddle recently became party to. In the meantime the Occupational Safety and Health Service has received a number of queries from both employers and employees and the fact that there has been only one prosecution to date indicates that that information has been sought and used. 
Stephen Franks 
: What moral authority has the Government to sick on the lawyers for dud employees claiming stress when that Government has desperately pressed an honest whistle-blower to resign without due process and has pressed him to agree that he is affected by stress and to take 2 weeks’ unsought stress break on full leave when he is tormented by shared responsibility for running the “biggest sweatshops” in the nation and when he has blown the whistle on a working climate that is “If you’re a free and independent spirit very dangerous.”; what has the Minister done to protect him from having to toady to union bosses who are “always about threats and intimidation and ‘we’ve got big balls what have you got?’ ” 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I think it is important and should be well supported by colleagues within the workplace that every employer ensure that when any person in any job is showing signs of stress that person be supported to relieve him or her of that stress. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: How does an employee who is ordered by his or her boss to take stress leave nevertheless seem to have enough time to appear on television programmes and to negotiate talkback shows whilst on that leave; or is being told to stay away from work simply a way of keeping the employee out of the Government’s hair? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I guess that various people respond to stress in different ways and respond to relieving stress in different ways. Time will tell which is the more successful. 
Primary Students—Compulsory National Testing 
12.  
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Education 
: What reports if any has he received on attitudes to national testing of primary school children? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education) 
 on behalf of the 
 Associate Minister of Education 
: I have seen reports that England will dump compulsory exams for young children because it is too stressful for the children. A survey of parents in England showed that one in ten 7-year-olds was reduced to tears and that many lost sleep over the tests. I agree with Bill English who said that National would not introduce a pen and paper test. It is a pity that he could not convince Don Brash. 
Lesley Soper 
: What are the alternatives to compulsory national exams for primary school students? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: An alternative would be the asTTle approach to testing young people—a very good system well supported by Bill English. But as he recently explained to a visiting person Terry Price he got rolled. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister confirm that he is making all that up that National is not proposing national testing and that in fact our policy represents another logical step on top of his policy? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I know that imitation is the best form of flattery and that the member is pretending to do that but compulsory tests for 7-year-olds with pencils and paper are exams and we are not doing it. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. We are having trouble today with the Minister making up National Party policy and pretending it exists when it does not so that he can then attack it. What kind of opportunity within the Standing Orders do I have to correct that? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I think there is a very easy way of doing it—that the document I have been using as my source document be tabled in the House. I seek leave to do it. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Bernie Ogilvy 
: Does the Minister agree that it would be beneficial for schools that already use diagnostic tools such as asTTle to test against national standards to report the results to parents as it is currently not a requirement to do so; if not why not? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I expect that because the relevant clauses on planning and reporting in the Education Standards Act are coming into effect at some stage we will reach the point whereby the profession will take responsibility for reporting to all parents their children’s asTTle tests. 
Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 1 Amendments to principal Act  
(continued) 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I will take just a quick call in the Committee stage to make a last-minute plea to the Government and other parties to support the Green Party amendment that I have put forward concerning the definition of rape. I have already spoken at length about this earlier today but just to summarise briefly my amendment seeks to make rape an offence that is gender-neutral both in terms of offender and victim and that includes oral and anal penetration and penetration with an object. The United Future amendment tries partially to achieve that but it is limited because it omits any mention of an object and also confuses sexual connection with rape which I do not think is useful. For those reasons the Greens will not be voting for Mr Alexander’s Supplementary Order Paper but I invite him to consider supporting ours which is just that much more comprehensive and clear. 
I am grateful to the Minister for taking a call just before the lunch break to explain why the Government will not support the Green Party position on the definition of rape. Mr Goff said that he had no fundamental opposition to what I am putting forward and I really wonder whether any other members of his caucus do in fact oppose my amendment. I know that when we discussed this earlier in the Law and Order Committee at least some Labour members were present who seemed to have every sympathy for the position I am putting forward including Georgina Beyer who alluded to that fact in her own speech earlier this afternoon. I have never understood why Labour subsequently took a different position but it is still not too late to change. My amendment simply seeks to express Labour’s own avowed intention with the bill—to modernise and render gender-neutral the laws around rape and other sexual offences. I think Mr Goff said that the reason Labour could not and did not support my version of the definition of rape was that there was no consensus on that issue in the select committee. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: No consensus in here. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: Or even in the House? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Yes. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: Although I am sure the Green Party would be delighted if Parliament including select committees and the Committee of the whole House suddenly ran on a totally consensual basis that certainly has not been my experience of either select committees or this Parliament. It is actually quite strange for this Government to say as the Minister appears to be doing that all members from all parties have to agree on something before the Government can amend a bill. The Minister has been here a lot longer than I have but I have certainly never been on a select committee or in the House when the Government has waited for full agreement on anything. We would certainly have a lot less legislation and it would be a radical change in the way we do politics. 
Mr Goff also said that the reason Labour could not vote for my amendment was that it was incomplete because it did not refer to the use of objects. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I’ve read it—you do. I acknowledge the member does. 
SUE BRADFORD 
: I thank Mr Goff. I think that perhaps the Minister looked at the United Future Supplementary Order Paper rather than mine because it is not mentioned in that Supplementary Order Paper. I am therefore still not able to identify from anything the Minister said any clear reason why Labour can not support my amendment. As I stated earlier I think that this would be an opportunity for parties across the Chamber this afternoon to show maturity and a willingness to grapple with this difficult issue which I know we all find hard to talk about and to take the next step forward. The time has come when we should stop pussyfooting around and using euphemisms like “sexual violation” to cover over what is rape. After all—and this is at the heart of where I am coming from on this matter—I am coming from a victim’s perspective in which there is no reason at all to differentiate between anal vaginal or oral rape rape by penis or an object or violation by a male or a female of a male or a female. The experience is one that only those of us who have been through it can understand but there are many of us and it is time for our voices to be heard. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I am looking at this part of the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) with very jaundiced eyes because I believe that most of what the Government is doing in this area is cynical vote-catching. I do not believe that this bill was driven by a very significant concern for the well-being of young people. I have already said the Government should be known by its actions by what it actually does not by the slogans it sticks into the law. 
In this case I want to focus on a relatively small section of this part—clause 6 which inserts new section 98AA. I think it says an awful lot about what is really being done. New section 98AA is headed “Dealing in people under 18 for sexual exploitation removal of body parts or engagement in forced labour”. I do not think that the people listening to this debate will believe what I am about to tell them about this provision which states: “Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who—(b) engages a person under the age of 18 years in forced labour;”. So forced labour is fine over the age of 18 years. Is that not slavery? What else is it? I quote further: “(d) detains confines imprisons or carries away a person under the age of 18 years for the purpose of—(ii) the removal of body parts from the person;”. Each one of those actions as far as I know is an offence. Detaining someone against his or her will presumably confining them imprisoning them or carrying them away— 
Ron Mark 
: Kidnapping. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Kidnapping exactly! In fact this bill has a new definition of kidnapping further on. But Mr Goff for the sake of singing slogans to his masters in New York is setting out another set of provisions to cover stuff ostensibly only for people under 18 years that our law already says is illegal for anyone. How can the Law and Order Committee have gone along with this nonsense? How can anyone justify a law that says specifically that we can detain confine imprison or carry away a person if that person can prove he or she is over 18 years? I ask members to read new subsection (1A) inserted by clause 6 that was put in by the select committee which states: “It is a defence to a charge under this section if the person charged proves that he or she believed on reasonable grounds that the person under the age of 18 years concerned was of or over the age of 18 years.” In other words if we think a person is over 18 years he or she can be detained confined imprisoned or carried away for the purpose of removing body parts. 
It is hard to believe but that is what it comes to when we are so politically correct that we just take United Nations agreements which are intended effectively for Third World countries where the rule of law has meant next to nothing and stick them into our law. That is what this part is doing. 
Section 98AA(1)(c) inserted by clause 6 goes on to state that it is an offence to permit a person under the age of 18 years to be engaged in forced labour. If the select committee was really doing its job it would have asked what it should do about chores. Is it not normal for parents to require their kids to do chores? The Government is busy putting in a defence that if it can be shown that the person is over the age of 18 years he or she can be put into forced labour. That is wrong. No adult should be obliged to undertake forced labour. But here it is; the Government has just ruled out chores. It has simply stuffed into our law some covenant from a bunch of people on some United Nations committee who have absolutely no respect for the freedom of the individual or the rule of law. I say to Mr Goff: “Have no fear; kids will learn about this.” Their teachers will tell them that they cannot be made to shine the family’s shoes or cannot be made to help dad at the garage—as I was. I spent many many miserable hours selling petrol. 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I wish to turn to two issues. The first is the amendment in my name which would essentially keep the law as it is now. I want to deal with Mr Goff’s arguments as to why he believes the law should be changed. He said the problem is that under the existing law a person who is over 21—maybe by a day or by a week or by 5 years—has no defences whatsoever and that therefore it is essential that defences be put into the bill for everyone. 
Mr Goff neglected to mention the range of powers that the judiciary has. For instance in the circumstances he described—for example if one person is aged 21 years plus 1 day and the other person is aged 15 years 11 months and 364 days—then I would not be at all surprised if in such a situation the court discharged without conviction. Judges have options. Alternatively they could enter a conviction and discharge so there is another option. It depends on the gravity of the crime. There is a whole range of options including a whole range of sentencing options. Mr Goff would have the nation pretend that there is only one possible outcome—jail for 10 years. That is simply ludicrous. One would expect the Minister of Justice who has been in the role now for some considerable time to know a little more about how the judiciary functions. 
The problem with the Government’s approach is that it has opened the doors to quite serious abuse. We specifically mentioned child prostitutes. They do exist in south Auckland and in Christchurch as I have heard from Mr Mark. The number has increased—and that is proven—as a result of the prostitution legislation. Those typically young women are hugely vulnerable to being preyed upon. That is the reality. They are preyed upon by older people. Mr Goff is putting in law a potential defence. Why would he do that? What was wrong with the old law? What was wrong with the level of judicial discretion that existed in reality? So I do urge that the amendment I have put forward in my name be adopted by those parties who are prepared to stand up for values. I will not be surprised if that does not include the Labour Party. 
I also want to talk about another issue and it is the inclusion of the word “whanau” in section 131A inserted by clause 7. It has no doubt been put in because the Government wants to look like it sounds inclusive and so forth. The trouble is that the criminal law is about certainty. I have heard from colleagues who sat on the Law and Order Committee that officials cannot define whanau—and in fact define it in the most broadest of possible terms; people who live on a marae—and that totally devalues our criminal law. Criminal law has to be certain because people suffer serious sanctions for breach thereof. 
So I assume in short that the Government has put in the word “whanau” out of some misguided sense of political correctness and in the process has damaged the criminal law of this country. The proof of that is the officials’ extraordinary definition—which could well be picked up by the judges—that simply makes a nonsense of the whole purpose and intent of our criminal law. There is no place for political correctness in criminal law. There is no place for some kind of misguided attempt to be inclusive in relation to the criminal law. Citizens have a right to know about certainty. This Government is taking it away. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I thank the Chair for allowing me to speak. I know there was an intention to close the debate at this point but there are a couple of issues that I would like to address and particularly as I have a Supplementary Order Paper that addresses a couple of them I am very grateful for the opportunity of talking. 
My first point is that my Supplementary Order Paper deals with sexual grooming. I realise that it has now been overtaken by the Supplementary Order Paper from the Minister of Justice and I am grateful that he has actually expanded on my initiative. 
But the second aspect which is really at the heart of what I want to talk a little bit about—and it has been touched on by a few other members—is the widening of the context of what can constitute rape to I guess bring it up to date with what the public expectation actually is. It is regrettable that the definition of rape has not been expanded to include other forms of sexual assault—man on man for example or even woman on man which has on occasion happened. I understand the Minister’s appreciation of the comments made by some of the members to this line and I am just sorry he has not been able to find commonality or agreement with a number of members of the House who want to see this change happen. 
It strikes me that anybody who has spent any time with victims of crimes such as—well we would normally call them rape but now we have to call certain crimes in that category “sexual connection”. It is not really the same thing. I admit that the penalties will be the same and that is important but at the same time to tell a man who has been sexually assaulted by another man that that is not actually rape is an affront. It somehow puts it at a lower level of offending than rape. One gets the sense that there will be conversations in prison where people say: “Well at least it wasn’t rape.” Well in the public domain it is rape and that is the point and the law needs to catch up to the fact that that is how the public sees it. 
In one terrible case which was alluded to during the select committee process a woman had bottles put into her vagina and then men jumped on top of her cracking the glass. The kind of resultant damage to that woman not only the physical damage but the mental scarring is nothing short of rape. Even if the penalties are the same it is absolutely despicable to call it anything less than rape. So from that point of view rape does have a stigma in our society and we ought to be able to apply it to a wider range of offences than this law will currently allow. [ 
Interruption 
] It will not lose that stigma. 
Stephen Franks 
: It does. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: No; we need to widen it to capture other offences that are equally as abhorrent as the man on woman scenario. [ 
Interruption 
] No I do not believe that that is true at all and if the member had spent any time with victims he would realise that. 
I do appreciate the fact that the penalties will now be on a par with those for rape because that will get rid of the gender inequity whereby a woman can literally rape a young child and get away with it whereas a man raping the same child will not. That provision is to be commended. 
I hope there will be some support for my Supplementary Order Paper at least in terms of its widening the connotation of rape to include other than just male on female. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit from the heading to section 128 the words “Sexual violation defined” and substitute the words “Rape defined”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 29 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 88 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit subsection (1) of section 128 and substitute the following new subsection: 
(1)Rape means the sexual penetration— 
(a)of the vagina or anus of the victim by the penis of the perpetrator or any other object used by the perpetrator; or 
(b)the mouth of the victim by the penis of the perpetrator—where such penetration occurs without the consent of the victim. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 299 in the name of Marc Alexander to clause 7 to omit and substitute section 128(2) be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 27 
New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8. 
Noes 90 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; Green Party 9; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit subsection (2) of section 128. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit from subsection (4) of section 128 the words “sexual violation” and substitute the word “rape”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit from section 131 wherever it occurs the expression “7 years” and substitute the expression “10 years”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to the amendment to clause 7 set out on Supplementary Order paper 351 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff be agreed to: 
to omit from subsection (1) of proposed new section 131B the expression “7 years” and substitute the expression “10 years”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment to the amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 351 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 7 to insert new section 131B be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit from subsection (1) of section 132 the expression “14 years” and substitute the expression “17 years”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to.Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit from subsection (3) of section 132 the expression “10 years” and substitute the expression “12 years”. 
A party vote was called for on the question That the amendment be agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit from subsection (1) of section 134 the expression “10 years” and substitute the expression “12 years”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit from subsection (2) of section 134 the expression “10 years” and substitute the expression “12 years”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit from subsection (2) of section 134 the expression “7 years” and substitute the expression “10 years”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Wayne Mapp to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to add to section 134A the following new subclause: 
(5)the defences referred to in subsection (1) shall only be available to persons who are of the age of 21 years or under. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The next amendment is to clause 7 and it is in the name of Marc Alexander. The amendment which is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 299 is to insert new section 134B. This amendment is out of order as it is the same in substance as a previous amendment. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Tony Ryall to clause 7 be agreed to: 
to omit from section 138 wherever it occurs the expression “10 years” and substitute the expression “15 years”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6. 
Noes 71 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 351 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 90 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand National 27. 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2Amendments repeals and transitional matters 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 90 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand National 27. 
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedule 1 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 351 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and schedule 1 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 2 agreed to.  
Clauses 1 and 2 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 Before we pass this bill which appears likely I would like the Minister in the chair the Hon Phil Goff to explain whether I have been misinterpreting the peculiar clause 6 which inserts new section 98AA. I ask that because although it is obviously well meaning to set a penalty of 14 years imprisonment for people who exploit others under the age of 18 remove their body parts or force them to engage in forced labour something is a serious offence when it carries a 14-year sentence. Schedule 1 puts it into the range of offences for which offenders can be extradited. Extradition is a serious matter because it submits a New Zealander to another country’s legal regime where the range of protections may not be nearly as careful in terms of evidence. 
When I read new section 98AA—and I do not find the committee’s commentary helpful on it—I need to know what is in place to ensure that a parent who obliges a child to help on the family farm help in the family business or even just to do chores cannot be at least threatened by that child with liability for the forced labour of someone aged under 18 years. 
It is easy to say to not be ridiculous. It is easy to say that that is not what was meant. It is easy to say that no one would do that. But it is not true. People misuse law and use rules all the time for purposes that no one ever anticipated. We saw it in this Chamber last week when Dr Cullen misused Standing Order 38 and collapsed the House by disappearing. That was something that had never been thought of in 100 years in this Parliament. 
Children will be taught their rights. Some nut will one day evolve a theory that it is wrong for kids to have to do chores around the house. There will be people such as those who want to criminalise smacking who will decide to use or misuse the Crimes Act and try to force the police or someone else to use the new section 98AA. 
So I want to know before we pass the bill—and what we are considering now includes the commencement provision—just what the Minister will be able to do to ensure that those nutters do not get a chance to misuse the slogans that Mr Goff is sticking into our criminal law so that he can peacock at the United Nations. Because that is why this kind of thing goes into our law—so that the Government can parade about and say how virtuous it is. The committees in New York do not ask what kind of enforcement resource gets put in. No one in New York will be asking about the 1000 cases that have not been allocated by the police. No one in New York will ask how soon people get out of jail when they have a 14-year sentence. Even if someone is convicted under this legislation he or she will probably get out of prison in less than 5 years. But Mr Goff will be able to say that he did the UN’s bidding and stuck this stuff into New Zealand law. He can say: “Aren’t I a good boy pulling out this plum?”. 
I want to know what will protect New Zealanders against someone also using Part 2 to argue the defence in new section 98AA(1)(a) which states that if a person kidnaps someone imprisons them takes their body parts or forces them into labour then as long as the victim is over 18 it is OK. I know that no one intends that but who knows what use sloppy drafting will be put to. A Government that shoves through law in slogan form will one day cause damage. 
I would like the Minister to read into the record of  
Hansard 
 so that judges can see it at least what he thought this bill means in terms of the defence in new section 98AA(1)(a) and in terms of the sentence that could come from requiring children to do their chores. Judges look at what a Minister has said. If a Minister said that he or she never ever intended something it helps a judge to apply common sense despite what the UN may be asking us to do. 
I am glad that we have had this general debate on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). The bill has a whole lot of political correctness in it and it changes time-honoured time-explored and time-developed definitions. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Frankly I do not know whether the member’s questions merit a reply because they are so far wide of the mark. They are such a fantasy and so out of touch with reality as any other member of this Chamber would see it that perhaps I should not take them seriously but I will. 
These provisions are the provisions set out under the United Nations’ Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children child prostitution and child pornography. Those provisions have been passed by the United States Congress the Canadian Parliament the Australian Parliament and the Westminster Parliament of the United Kingdom. For the member to suggest what he is suggesting is sadly an absolute fantasy and a nonsense. 
Stephen Franks 
: Where is the “forced labour” definition? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The definition of “forced labour” that is applied by courts across the world is obviously labour used as a sanction or as a penalty. There is not a court in this country that would interpret it in the manner that the member is suggesting. He knows that. Frankly he is wasting my time and the time of this Committee. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 89 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand National 27. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 351 in the name of the Hon Phil Goff to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 90 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand National 27. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Third Reading 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. 
This bill is an important update of the sexual offence provisions of the Crimes Act of 1961. I thank the United Future party for its consistent support the Green Party for its consistent support and indeed the New Zealand First Party and the ACT party for their votes in favour of this very sensible legislation. The fact that the votes in this House on this bill have been consistently 90 to 27—the 27 being the dissenting votes of the National Party—shows just how far out of touch that once-great party is with the way this country thinks and every other party in this Parliament thinks. National tried to wring political advantage out of a very sensible piece of legislation right to the end and the country will stand in judgment of that party as the TV3/CM poll will show tonight. 
This bill brings sexual offences more into line with reality—for example by recognising that women are capable of committing sexual offences against young males and that not all offending is by males against females. The bill also significantly improves protection for society’s most vulnerable groups against exploitation by predatory sexual offenders. One of the primary purposes of the bill was to ensure that all sex offences be expressed and applied in a gender-neutral manner. Although the majority of sex offenders are in fact male the loophole that has allowed women to escape prosecution for sexual conduct with under-age males has shown beyond doubt that the previous assumption in the law—that all such offenders are male—is simply wrong. This bill frames sexual offences in a gender-neutral manner to ensure that the law now provides equal protection to both male and female victims and equal sanctions against predatory conduct by both male and female offenders. In particular the enactment of this bill will mean that females may be prosecuted if they have sexual relationships with young men or boys under the age of consent. 
The one exception to terminology in terms of gender neutrality is of course the retention of the term “rape”. The term “rape” has been maintained for the traditional offence that it has described but the other offending is described as sexual violation through unlawful sexual connection. That covers all the other horrendous offences against either men or women involving sexual violation. The same penalty applies equally to all those offences and this House would expect that the court system in New Zealand would apply those penalties equally regardless of the gender of the victim or the offender and regardless of the type of serious sexual violation that is so described. 
Protections against predatory conduct for our society’s most vulnerable groups have been significantly enhanced. The penalty for sexual connection with a young person aged 12 to 16 is raised from 7 years’ imprisonment to a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment. The existing 12-month time limit on bringing a prosecution for such offending is removed and those people who commit those offences now no longer have impunity after that time limitation under the existing law has expired. In addition a new offence of sexual grooming is created to protect young children from habitual sexual offenders who identify then cultivate relationships with potential victims. The new offence will ensure that those who are grooming children for sexual abuse are able to be prosecuted before the actual abuse takes place. I once again thank United Future’s Marc Alexander for initially raising that issue with me and for his party’s strong support in bringing that clause and this legislation into effect. 
The bill also strengthens protections for those who are vulnerable because they cannot give or refuse consent by clarifying the circumstances that do not amount to consent. That includes strengthening the position of the law with regard to drug rape and I would like to thank Dianne Yates for bringing that issue which is a serious issue in our society to the attention of the House so that the law can be applied to deal with that situation. The bill also strengthens the provisions for those who are vulnerable to the exploitation of a relationship of power and extends the offence of incest to provide greater protections for the young and the vulnerable. Incest will now apply to a range of sexual offending and not simply to sexual intercourse. This bill greatly strengthens the protections that children deserve to have within the sanctity of the family. 
Despite the fact that the bill greatly improves the law and legal protections for children against sexual exploitation by predatory offenders we have heard the usual tirade of disingenuous politicking from the National Party on this bill. Tony Ryall for example complained that the select committee did not have time to properly consider the bill. Mr Ryall was of course a member of the Law and Order Committee that had nearly 8 months to consider this bill—8 months! What on earth was he doing during that time if he claimed he did not have time to properly consider the bill? But Mr Ryall of course was the Minister of Justice who prior to the 1999 election decided not to reform sexual offence laws because he would rather just bury his head in the sand than deal with an issue that clearly makes him uncomfortable. Existing penalties for having sex with 12 to 16-year-olds were apparently sufficient for him. He would not increase those penalties. Those penalties have now been increased. He did not seem to mind that there was a lopsided similarity of age defence that could make teenage boys criminals but not teenage girls. That was OK with him apparently. He did not see the need to change that. He thought that the loophole allowing women to escape prosecution for sexual exploitation of under-16-year-old boys could stay there as far as he was concerned. He made no use of his opportunity as Minister of Justice to change that law but his party is the first to criticise the efforts of this Government finally to do something about that situation that was long overdue. This Government has been determined to move on the unacceptable loopholes in the previous legislation whereas Tony Ryall and the National Government were not prepared to do that. 
In terms of public consultation as well as the select committee process there was a broadly circulated consultation document. That was part of a PC agenda the National Party predictably said and—equally predictably—with no foundation whatsoever. In its desperation to beat up public controversy and moral outrage the National Party has railed against measures that it admits were never even in the bill. Tony Ryall has put out a press statement attacking something that was never in this bill. He attacked this Government on the issue of incest when this Government in this legislation has strengthened the provisions to protect our children against incest including by more broadly defining the family unit that they may be in. 
This bill sends an unequivocal overall message to any paedophile that exploitation of our children and young people will never be tolerated. That is a key part of the Government’s overall agenda against exploitation of children. We have already introduced post-sentence extended supervision of up to 10 years for child sex offenders. We have made it easier for judges to impose preventive detention. We have passed new censorship laws to increase tenfold the penalties for dealing in child pornography. 
This bill adds further to the protections for our children and the penalties facing those sexual predators who would abuse them. I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 The National Party opposes this bill. Within 12 months our position will be vindicated. Within 12 months this legislation will be amended. Within 12 months the next National Minister of Justice will be bringing in legislation to tidy up the errors in this bill because—as Mr Tamihere says—with a word here and a word there we end up with something that we never expected. 
There has been insufficient public involvement in and discussion on many of the bill’s proposals. Major changes are being made to the rules around sexual conduct with minimal public consultation. Mr Goff personally discussed with officials a discussion paper that was circulated to about 25 Government departments and agencies. In that discussion paper Mr Goff personally ticked off a proposal from the Ministry of Justice that brother-sister sex over the age of 20 should be legalised. He personally ticked off that proposal. He never said to the officials: “That’s against Government policy—don’t even go there.” Did he say that? No he did not. 
Then Mr Goff also included in a discussion paper one of the things that I think he will always be remembered for—that is saying that it is OK for 12 to 15-year-olds to have sex. He wanted to put into the law and he would be prepared to support a defence that would decriminalise 12 to 15-year-olds having sex. When he was telephoned by the media about that matter last year he defended the bill. He defended the proposal that the Labour Cabinet and caucus agreed on—that they would decriminalise sexual behaviour between 12 to 15-year-olds. But once ordinary New Zealanders had a chance to see Mr Goff and the Helen Clark agenda they railed against it and within hours Mr Goff was forced to back down. There is a feeling amongst middle New Zealand families that this Government is interested more in the rights of minorities than it is in ordinary New Zealanders. This Government is more prepared to listen to the noisy carping of the liberal few than to ordinary New Zealanders. 
This bill has had completely insufficient consideration in the Law and Order Committee where the Government majority pushed through the deliberation. We say that this bill will lead to serious unintended consequences and risk disturbing settled case law and legal concepts. This could have been avoided if the committee had had more time. The bill may have been in the committee for 8 months but it was not considered for 8 months. In fact if this bill is so urgent why has it sat around in the House for 7 months since the select committee reported it back? And if the Government is so tough why did Labour vote against every one of our amendments to increase the penalties in this bill?  
National has identified a number of areas where we say there are concerns. We forced the Government to back down on the similar age defence which would have effectively decriminalised some under-age sexual conduct. We are very concerned about the proposals for sexual conduct with a dependent family member under the age of 18. That means that it will no longer be an offence for say a foster parent to have consensual sexual conduct with his or her 18-year-old foster child for whom the parent may have cared for many years. In our view it is more appropriate to maintain the prohibition until the age of 20 to allow sufficient time to lapse and the dependant’s relationship to wane. 
The Government is passing sexual grooming amendments. That provision was first proposed by Simon Power in 2000 but the bill grants an immunity to such groomers if they live with their victim. Most submitters to the select committee wanted the age to be 20 but the Government dropped it to 18. This provision for example could lead to judges making wider interpretations—unintended views—on who dependent family members are because the law invites them to consider what different cultural perspectives are involved in child rearing. In fact this is part of the confusion. The senior adviser to the Government described a whanau as being people who live on a marae! 
The bill proposes a far-reaching reasonable belief defence for sexual conduct for people over the age of 12. It says that a bloke of 45 can have a defence in law provided he reasonably believed that the 14-year-old girl he was having sex with was 16 or older if for example he had checked her—false—ID. There was no consideration in the select committee on how to fix the genuine mistake situation which the Government was worried about through using mitigating factors at sentencing nor has there been a public discussion about the merits or otherwise of the effect of those changes. What we do know is that a discussion paper went around a small clique of Wellington agencies and that this bill is what we have ended up with. 
National is very worried about the changes to the protections for people with disabilities. While we can understand trying to change the phrase “severely subnormal” in doing so the Government is using new and unproven wording which the Law Society says is a forensic lottery. Indeed the officials’ advice to the committee was to leave it to the courts to address that problem. 
No person coming before the select committee asked Parliament to define “consent”—not one person. The bill deems certain conduct as not amounting to consent. Concern was raised by submitters as to the lack of precision in these new provisions and the definitions of what is not consent risk causing more confusion than clarity. 
 The National Party would have liked the opportunity to support the sensible changes proposed in this bill but we are saying that there will be unintended consequences as a result of this legislation. The select committee was told that. The Opposition parties in force told the Government that there would be problems yet this bill continues to come before the House. We are shocked by the discussion paper that preceded this bill. We are shocked that this Minister agreed to those matters being included in a discussion paper and we are shocked that this Minister was prepared to defend the inclusion of those matters in the bill. 
The National Party in Opposition wants to make it very clear today that we in this Parliament will be back within 12 months making changes to this bill. People involved in the sector advise us that the bill still involves significant risks not in terms of the protections it may offer but in terms of interpretation and in terms of the results of the protections it may offer. We say to the House that when those problems are identified we will all have to move much more swiftly than this Government has done to deal with those issues. 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 As the chair of the Law and Order Committee I commend the speech of the Minister of Justice on the third reading. I think it was a very good summary of the issues. 
I will take only a very brief call. I believe that this bill is well overdue. I am delighted to see it go through to its third reading. I want to thank all members of the committee including its Opposition members the Hon Tony Ryall Brian Connell and Ron Mark. I particularly want to thank my deputy chair Marc Alexander; the Government members Georgina Beyer Ann Hartley Mahara Okeroa and especially Dianne Yates; and Sue Bradford. I can assure members of this House that we gave this bill exceptionally comprehensive consideration and did our very best. 
I think the Minister of Justice has summed up the issues around this bill very succinctly and very well. I commend the bill to the House. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise again to offer the New Zealand First contribution on the third reading of this bill and I want to reiterate for the record the points we have made. New Zealand First has given its support to the overall intent and purpose of the bill. 
We acknowledge the work of Dianne Yates in ensuring that the drug rape issue was brought to this House. She is an MP who put a lot of work into researching the issue and bringing the facts to the Law and Order Committee and an MP who was prepared to allow her member’s bill to be put to one side—accepting of course that its provisions would essentially be incorporated into this Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2). It was one of those times we get to see frequently in select committees when MPs across parties are able to work together for a common good to ensure that we get good legislation. It is probably a little sad that we rarely hear talkback hosts promoting MPs on such occasions—when they work cooperatively across party lines in order to produce better law for the country. I guess it is more fashionable and popular to talk about how we squabble in the House and behave like schoolchildren than it is to acknowledge and give credit to people who do what Dianne Yates has done with the assistance of the select committee. 
But New Zealand First has to say that this bill as it currently stands is inconsistent with three of the Government’s stated aims for the bill: to ensure that the law relating to sexual offences reflects changes in societal attitudes to ensure that the law is streamlined as much as possible and to ensure that offences provide for all victims of sexual abuse regardless of their sex and the sex of the offender. This bill was touted as being gender-neutral. It was touted as being put before the House to ensure that differences on the basis of gender were eliminated and that there was uniformity in the interpretation of the law. 
Yet this bill is presented at the behest of what is clearly a very powerful group within the Labour caucus a group that did not have the unanimous support of that caucus but that has been able to force its will against every other party in the House. How bizarre is that? I listened to Mr Goff’s statement on the third reading in which he said that the National Party was out of step because it was the only party that was not voting for this bill. I have to remind Mr Goff on the record that the Labour Party is out of step on this bill in that it is the only party that does not believe that the crime of rape should apply to men who commit crimes against other men. 
Marc Alexander 
: Neither does National. 
RON MARK 
: That is not what its members said at the select committee. The Government has chosen to keep the crime of rape the preserve of a crime committed by men against women. It has chosen not to accept as rape things the public would consider to be rape: the violation of a woman with an object or the violation of a man or a boy with an object—as happened in Napier in the infamous “broom handle case”. Most men would consider the insertion of a broom handle into the anus of a boy as being an act of rape. The ACT party agrees that it is so the Greens agree and New Zealand First agrees but Labour does not seem to—for whatever peculiar reasons it has. We do not accept Labour’s rationale. 
We will support the bill because in general its thrust is in the right direction but we predict that there will be amendments to it. We predict that this is not over. We said quite clearly in our minority report that in the light of further evidence continually being brought to the committee and in the light of continued discussion and a general feeling of discomfort throughout the entire committee there was a need for further wider public consultation. Clearly the other parties did not have the weight of numbers needed to force that to happen so we are where we are today. That is to be regretted. We have said so before. I truly believe that we will be back addressing aspects of this Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) further down the line possibly in the next term of Government. Whether Labour members will be sitting in the Government’s ministerial cars at that point in time is a question yet to be answered but whoever is in Government will be looking for the support of New Zealand First and will need to understand what we are saying today. 
I cannot let the third reading pass without again referring to comments I have made previously. This Government has a habit of passing laws and then telling the nation that it is making communities safer because it has passed laws when it has no intention whatsoever of resourcing the police so that they are able to enforce those laws. To pass laws that one has no intention of enforcing is meaningless. It is deceiving the public; to say that the Government is truly concerned about public safety and well-being is in fact to lie to the public. 
The Government wants to pass laws that sign us up to some spurious UN protocol. We had the bizarre situation where the Deputy Prime Minister himself criticised a poky little United Nations committee put together by a bunch of Third World punters when it dared to suggest that New Zealand was not acting in accordance with UN principles by passing the foreshore and seabed legislation. This Government was quite keen in that case to come out and say to that committee: “Pull your head in; we’re not actually beholden to you people in the United Nations; we don’t have to listen to everything you say.” yet here is the Government once again toadying and kowtowing to a United Nations convention that we do not even need to acknowledge. 
What is that convention about? It is about protecting the rights of children stamping out child abuse and stamping out the exploitation of young girls as prostitutes. How does that sit with reality? The reality is that any member of this House can go tonight to Manchester Street in Christchurch and find a child prostitute. They are on the streets in Christchurch and in the Minister of Police’s own electorate as was revealed in the papers. Does anyone in this House truly believe that the passing of this legislation will stop that tomorrow? Obviously they do not. 
What will stop it tomorrow? Quite clearly resourcing the police is the first step. If we recognise and accept that child prostitution is unacceptable in this day and age and if we are truly to abide by those funny little United Nations conventions then we must mean what we say. We must have a Government that will resource the police—such that they can put detectives on the street such that they can identify the people who are putting those young girls out there such that they can identify the men and the boys who are using those services because they are cheap and affordable and such that they can identify the people exploiting those young girls prosecute them and bring them to the courts convict them and jail them. Anything less than that makes clause 6 of this legislation spurious meaningless lip service. 
I am waiting to hear someone—maybe Mr Tim Barnett or someone else from the Labour caucus—stand up and say: “Yes we have taken this seriously and we do mean to make sure that this law is enforced that there will be more police on the beat that the police will be targeting prostitution and that we intend to put all those people—the pimps who put young girls out there and the men who exploit them—out of business.” But I do not hear that just as we do not hear the Government announcing that it will give more resources to the police to enforce the lowering of the drinking age. There has never ever been a time in this House when the Government has allocated to the police force the resources necessary for it to enforce the laws being passed—and here we go again. 
I conclude by saying that New Zealand First has lent its support to this bill. We acknowledge the work done by Dianne Yates and the Minister’s attempts to modernise these laws but we say there is still work to be done. Part of that work involves enforcement for without enforcement all the work that has been done to date is meaningless drivel. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I am pleased to support legislation that is tough on sex offenders or anything that increases the penalties. I still do not think that many of these penalties are tough enough. The Minister himself spoke during the Committee stage about offenders like Peter Liddell—and I am sure he would include amongst them Lloyd McIntosh. They are offenders whom I believe we should lock up and throw away the key. Fortunately there are not many of them in New Zealand. We could probably count them on the fingers of two hands but the damage they cause is horrendous and there is no way they can be rehabilitated or supervised for 24 hours a day if they are released. Their history and behaviour proves that no sentence is tough enough for them. 
I agree that this legislation is not perfect. There are things in it that I do have issues with. But it is not so imperfect that it should be voted down and I do not agree that it should be delayed any further by sending it back to the Law and Order Committee. I do not think that would achieve anything. There is too much in the bill that is already covered by the courts. We have come a long way in this country in terms of the way courts deal with sexual abuse cases. Some of the excuses that are given in court are dismissed out of hand by the judges. 
Ron Mark referred to the so-called broomstick boys in Taradale. I do not have the case in front of me but I believe they were actually charged with something that was relatively minor. Their lawyers went just for grievous bodily harm—they tried not to have it as a sex offence at all. I cannot remember what the boys got convicted for but they had very very good legal representation and because they were convicted of a sexual offence I put them in last year’s edition of the  
Paedophile and Sex Offender Index 
. I got slammed for that by a prominent QC who accused me of double jeopardy. My argument was that if those boys had been Mongrel Mob members and had done exactly the same thing no one would argue that they should not be in the index. Just because someone gets good representation does not mean they should be treated any more lightly. My point is that the judges who handled that case and the appeals agreed with the prosecution that it was the victim who was paramount in this case. 
I am pleased that the definition of family has been extended. I am puzzled as to why Mr Tony Ryall keeps saying that it will include everybody who lives on a marae. Actually there are not many people who live on marae. People visit marae and they have functions there. I am not very knowledgable about this but Ratana is probably one of the few marae that people live on. There would not be many. So what is the problem with classifying those people as family? Should children on marae not be offered the same protection as children living on if you like a Pakeha marae such as the Centrepoint community? Anyone who remembers that case will remember the appalling excuses offered by the men involved when they tried to get off the child-sex crimes committed there. 
What I see as going hand in hand with extending the definition of family—and it is true that the majority of sexual abuse is committed by someone who knows the victim very well and who has groomed that victim—and as one of the keys to enforcing this legislation is to have a national database of convicted sex offenders. That list would not be freely available to the public but it would regardless of whether the offenders are named or have name suppression be available to parents or people who are in position of responsibility for children. Those parents and carers could through a bona fide source have access to the names of people who need to be trusted with children. If anyone wants to take out a loan borrow money or get something on hire purchase they have to agree to a credit check being done on them to make sure they are safe with other people’s money. There is no reason why we cannot do the same thing here. 
If people want to be trusted with other people’s children they should agree to a check being done on them to make sure they can be trusted with children. I do not see why it is such a big issue. We charge parents with the job of protecting their children and they should be given as much knowledge and information as they need to be able to do that in a responsible fashion. 
An article in the Ponsonby area newspaper just this week reported that the principal of Ponsonby Intermediate is having dreadful concerns because of parents not picking up their children on time at 3 p.m. or 3.30 p.m. Sometimes it is very difficult for parents especially with Auckland traffic to be there on time. The principal has been told by the police that about eight convicted paedophiles live in the immediate area but she cannot inform the parents of those children that they need to be there to pick up their children. She cannot be responsible for them and we need to be able to give parents this information. We need to end this State this Government “we know best” attitude that the Department of Corrections has. Its attitude is: “Leave it to us. We can protect the communities.” 
Having said that I know there is no single remedy. There is no silver bullet that will end the sexual abuse of children. But we need to do more to educate children so that they know that if people touch them in a way that is not appropriate they can tell someone and they will be believed. Sadly attitudes in society still show that there is more sympathy for someone who has been falsely accused of a sex crime than for someone who is a victim of a sex crime. Yes false accusations and false convictions are a terrible terrible thing if someone gets convicted and they are innocent. It happens in all areas of crime not just in sexual abuse. But for some reason and I have no idea why the public’s sympathy is aroused when someone is let off a case. I think there was such a case in Palmerston North recently involving a teacher. If he was innocent then it is great that he got off but there are hundreds and hundreds more victims who never get their day in court and who never get to see a prosecution. That is especially true if the victims are under 2 years old because it is very very difficult to bring the case to court and get a conviction. 
I do not agree with reducing the age from 20 to 18 when someone is part of a family. I did vote for the National Party’s amendment to tighten up that provision especially in light of the grooming clause because it makes it very easy for people who have a home-stay student or someone similar in their home to groom them and then when that person is 18 years and 1 day old they would have much more chance of getting away with their crime. I am not saying they would get off but they would have a better chance of getting away with it. 
If we are to have zero tolerance to crime in this country then we really need to deal with the issue of sexual abuse. It is not an excuse but research has shown that those people who are sexually abused more than four times do go on to lead a life of crime. It is not an excuse but it is a reason. Sooner or later at some stage that child whom we feel sorry for that child who has been abused turns into the criminal we fear and want to lock up forever. 
I agree with Ron Mark’s very good point about bringing in this legislation without the necessary police resources. We need to have more police in the child protection squads. There is an excellent child protection squad in Auckland that works in conjunction with Starship Children’s Hospital but its members admitted to me 2 weeks ago when I visited them that if all the child sex abuse that was going on in the community was brought to their attention they would simply go under because they could not cope with it. 
I congratulate Marc Alexander on his Supplementary Order Paper on grooming and I hope that the passage of this bill augurs well for the future when my Sex Offenders Registry Bill comes back before the House. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 For the record I want to express the Green Party’s support for this bill. We think that it was long overdue for the rape laws to be updated. The bill does as many members have said strengthen children’s protections in that area. As many have said it is a complex area and the bill is certainly not perfect. We are disappointed that Sue Bradford’s amendment was not supported by the Government. Nevertheless we will be supporting the bill and we are very pleased that it does have quite wide support in the House. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 The Law and Order Committee heard 26 submissions on the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) including eight from private individuals five from the legal profession and seven from organisations that are involved in one way or another with protecting people from sexual harm. We have heard some harrowing personal stories we have heard legal opinion and we have had comment from Victim Support carers in relation to this bill. This legislation is definitely a step forward. It stuns me that there is only one party in this Parliament that has decided not to support a very important piece of legislation albeit with its imperfections. The penalties for sexual connection indecency and sexual intercourse with a child under 16 will increase to 10 years in jail. Who could disagree with that? False and fraudulent representation will be added to the grounds for negating a defence—again a sensible measure. This bill lifts the arbitrary under-21 age limit for a “reasonable belief in age” defence. New offences include the exploitation of persons under 18 for sexual purposes and of people for the removal of body parts or for slavery. Clause 131 is designed to provide protection for young persons from sexual abuse within the family. 
The family is the one place that should be a guarantee of safety to its members especially its most vulnerable members and this legislation goes part-way towards trying to define that and to defend that right. Yes there are aspects we could quibble with. What the hell is a whanau in the context of this legislation? That does open the legislation up to misinterpretation. We all asked about that and no matter how many answers we got we were none the wiser on that one. Rape is still a legislative prejudice reinforcing the outdated notion that only a man can rape. That is something that I think we have to come back to at a later date. At the end of the day the penalties will be the same so at least that aspect of it has been addressed. But this bill advances justice and there is no question of that. The truth is that if we have to wait for the perfect bill before we support it no law would ever be advanced. We would still be tugging our forelocks scratching our bums and wistfully looking out for our savage enemies as we pluck wild berries and go off on hunts. Advances in civil society are incremental. Most people would be happy with one step forward but this bill is a good 2½ steps forward. 
The “child grooming” legislation that the Government picked up was based on a suggestion from me because this was a good opportunity to do so. I applaud Phil Goff for doing so. Sexual grooming is an insidious predatory behaviour aimed at creating a climate of trust—an environment or relationship with a vulnerable child that will ease the possibility of committing a sexual offence later. The advance of technology has exacerbated the problem of identifying such grooming with the use of the Internet and chat rooms and of text messaging and so on. All those arenas are easily accessible to sexual predators. The United Kingdom Sexual Offences Act 2003 was in some ways the forerunner of the legislation that we have advanced here today and it contains a specific grooming offence that focuses on situations whereby an adult who has met communicated or been in contact with a child under 16 travels with the intent of committing an offence against that child later on. So again I am delighted that the Government has moved on my initiative to make the grooming of children by paedophiles punishable by up to 7 years in jail. My original suggestion was for a term of 5 years so I could not be happier that it has gone up. I think that is a tremendous step ahead in terms of protecting our children—our most vulnerable. 
The law change will create a whole new crime that gets in before a criminal actually lays a finger on any child. This is the way it has to be if we wish to get those perverts before they start to ruin young lives. I say this: this legislation actually starts to redress some of the imbalance that we have always had in the past. We have had to wait for the ultimate crime to be committed before we could do something about it. This measure is proactive. It gets people and criminalises the activity that leads to crime. It is a huge step forward on behalf of potential victims and a huge step forward on behalf of the law-abiding people in this country who demand to be protected from crimes before they happen. The change enabling the police to arrest a person before any sexual activity has taken place would cover situations whereby an adult establishes contact with a child under 16—for example through meetings phone conversations text messages and chat rooms—gains a child’s trust and arranges a meeting with the intention of committing a sexual offence. Anybody who has spent any time with young victims who have been susceptible to the crimes of paedophiles knows just how long and how damaging the effects of that crime are when it is visited upon them. The amount of healing that needs to take place in order to get the victims back into a safer place again is horrendous. This measure is a big step forward in looking after kids in society and I congratulate the Government on picking up that initiative. 
I also want to thank the members of the committee who spent an inordinate amount of time on looking at the various aspects of the bill including Dianne Yates’ contribution and that has to be acknowledged. I am a little disappointed that the Labour members refused to allow a motion by Tony Ryall in the select committee to reappraise the considerable amendments to this bill but that is a small quibble. We all had the opportunity to really get our teeth into this legislation. I also want to make a special commendation to Liz Butterfield from NetSafe in Auckland with whom it was my privilege to go and discuss the amendments that were finally advanced by Phil Goff together with members of his justice ministry. We went up there and had a very good discussion. We spent a lot of time dealing and grappling with the issues. I hope that Liz Butterfield and NetSafe will feel that their contribution has been reflected in the Supplementary Order Paper that we now pass. Their work in advising myself and the Minister’s department and in raising the relevant issues cannot go unmentioned or unacknowledged. 
I am sad to see that National is the only party that sees fit to block this bill. That is a tragedy because this bill does go a long way towards helping to redress some of the outdated and outmoded legislation that we have inherited from I think it was the 1960s. United Future commends this bill to the House and wholeheartedly supports it along with every party other than National. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 This bill corrects inequities in the present laws on sexual violation. It clearly defines consent and incorporates the intent of my member’s bill. I thank the New Zealand Drug Rape Trust the police and the individuals who have taken cases to court that have not been upheld. I thank members of the Law and Order Committee for incorporating that provision in the bill. 
The bill clearly defines “sexual connection”. That definition includes male on female sexual violence and object violations as well as retaining the word “rape”. I point out to the Green Party and Ron Mark—who has been a soldier and who should understand this—the fact that there is a genocidal intent in some rapes where the intention to impregnate is an added crime does mean that the word should be retained. 
I thank everybody who was involved with the committee. I thank the officials the Minister for listening so carefully and all those who have been involved. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 89 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2; Maori Party 1. 
Noes 27 
New Zealand National 27. 
Bill read a third time. 
New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the 
 Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: I move  
That the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. The Social Services Committee has examined the bill and I am pleased that it has recommended that it be passed with a small number of amendments. This bill repeals the Retirement Income Act which was passed in 1993 to give effect to certain provisions in the accord on retirement income policies. The accord also proposed and the Retirement Income Act established the role of a Retirement Commissioner and a requirement for 6-yearly periodic reports on retirement and income policy. 
In recent years several developments have called into question the appropriateness of the Retirement Income Act. The first of these relates to the non-observance of the accord. The accord has fallen into disuse since 1998. Many of the processes established by the accord are no longer followed. In the past accord parties would meet on an irregular basis when there were issues to discuss. There have been no such meetings since early 1998. The accord’s falling into disuse has created some practical issues in terms of the responsible Minister meeting his or her obligations under the Retirement Income Act. For example when appointing the Retirement Commissioner the Minister must have regard to the accord and consult other parties to the accord. 
The second change relates to the enactment of the New Zealand Superannuation Act which provides for the current entitlements to New Zealand superannuation and creates the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Schedule 4 of the Act allows political parties to indicate support for either or both parts of the Act. That provides a new opportunity for political parties to indicate their support for retirement income policies and supersedes the need for the accord. I note that the select committee considers that those provisions are satisfactory. 
The third change relates to the questioning of the continued need for 6-yearly periodic reviews. The most recent periodic report was completed by the Periodic Report Group 2003. It recommended the establishment of an ongoing work programme to replace the 6-yearly periodic reviews. The group considered that 6-yearly periodic reviews were too infrequent to inform retirement income policy adequately. The group also recommended that the Retirement Commissioner undertake a review in 2007. Submitters expressed some concerns about the removal of 6-yearly reviews of retirement income although there was agreement that 6-yearly reviews are too infrequent. 
In response to the Periodic Report Group 2003 the Government acknowledged the value of retaining independent reviews in addition to an ongoing work programme and agreed that the Retirement Commissioner be required to undertake a review of retirement income policies by the end of 2007 and thereafter at 3-yearly intervals. 
I am pleased the Social Services Committee supports those 3-yearly reviews by the Retirement Commissioner and recommends the necessary changes to the bill. Those changes address the concerns raised by some submitters about the earlier omissions in the bill concerning the requirement for regular independent reviews. As a consequence of the changes that I have outlined the bill repeals the Retirement Income Act. The provisions relating to the Retirement Commissioner are transferred to the New Zealand Superannuation Act. Any reference to the accord will not be transferred. 
The committee also recommended that the name of the bill be changed to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill. The committee considered that that name better reflects the overall purpose of the bill with the inclusion of the Retirement Commissioner’s functions. The Retirement Commissioner supports that change. The Government also supports the Act being renamed the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act as a reflection of the broadened overall purpose of the Act and has circulated a Supplementary Order Paper—to rename the Act—for consideration in the Committee of the whole House. 
The bill as introduced and reported back contains a number of provisions relating to the Government’s Crown entities framework that were similar to those included in the Public Finance (State Sector Management) Bill subsequently passed as the Crown Entities Bill. That was because it was unclear which bill would be passed first. Now that the Crown Entities Act has come into force it is necessary to amend the bill by omitting those provisions relating to the functions powers and appointment of the Retirement Commissioner that are unnecessary because they are covered by the standard provisions in the Crown Entities Act. Provisions currently in the bill—such as those covering appointments the Minister’s role the powers immunities and privileges enjoyed by the Retirement Commissioner—are now all provided for in the Crown Entities Act and would be duplicated if they remained in the bill. The amendments needed as a consequence of the passing of the Crown Entities Act are also included in the Supplementary Order Paper. 
The amendments in the bill will ensure that the retirement income policy framework more closely reflects the current environment. It will allow for a more flexible and responsible environment for retirement income policies. The bill will also consolidate key retirement income policies under the one Act—namely the newly named New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Act. I commend this bill to the House. 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 As I rise on behalf of the National Party to speak to this bill I can report that the National Party will be supporting it. This bill repeals the Retirement Income Act and transfers the provisions covering the functions and the powers of the Retirement Commissioner to the New Zealand Superannuation Act. The bill is generally a non-controversial bill. In my view it was handled well by the Social Services Committee. We did not have very many submissions on the bill but the ones we did have were very detailed and provided very important advice for our committee as we considered the bill. 
Superannuation is a very important issue to discuss. Every member of this House knows that the ageing population is a growing issue for New Zealand. We need to prepare our country and to make sure that we provide for those elderly New Zealanders who are living for longer and longer periods. 
This bill is in fact part of the framework for preparing for the retirement of each and every member of this House. That is why superannuation is a very important issue for all of us. 
This bill in terms of what it is trying to achieve has some pretty straightforward goals such as moving the functions and the powers of the Retirement Commissioner to another Act. If there is a controversial part to the bill it would be that it gets rid of the accord on retirement income policies which was part of the Retirement Income Act. Getting rid of that accord represents a sad day for Parliament because it was an attempt to bring cross-party support to the superannuation issue and it was a starting point for all parties to have some agreement on superannuation. 
If we have seen a change in the way in which the superannuation debate has run over the last few years I would say the reason is that the present Minister of Finance has decided that cross-party support is not important to superannuation. He is just going to bowl on and put in place his particular agenda and take no account of what the rest of New Zealand thinks. One of the most important things in this bill is that the reviews of retirement income policy shift from being a 6-year time frame to being a 3-year time frame and I think that is quite important as long as the inquiry and evaluation of superannuation policies remain independent. 
One of the National Party’s further reservations about this bill is that the Minister has greater control to set the terms of reference of that inquiry. If a Minister does not want to have a fully independent inquiry into retirement policy then there is an opportunity to start to meddle with those terms of reference. So I hope Government members can confirm that that is not their intention that that will not be the case and that the Minister in charge will make sure that the independence for that particular inquiry remains unquestionable. It is a shame that we could not keep part of the accord—or at least the intention to work together in a cross-party way—within this bill but it is probably for political reasons that the Government has decided to move the accord or any discussion of an accord off the statute altogether. 
One issue that we did discuss at the Social Services Committee was the status of the Retirement Commissioner and whether he or she should be an Officer of Parliament. There was robust debate about this but the advice we received and the information we collected during our consideration indicated that being an Officer of Parliament was not the correct status for a Retirement Commissioner. In fact we asked the Retirement Commissioner some questions on this point and there was some agreement there as well. We totally understand that not only does a Retirement Commissioner have to be independent the public has to perceive the role as being independent as well. However being an Officer of Parliament is not the only way of doing that or creating that perception. So I think we can work towards greater independence—and the perception of that independence—without having to change the status. We should reserve the role or the status of being an Officer of Parliament for very specific situations only and this is not one of those. 
As I mentioned we are also looking at the number of reviews that will be done. It is good that we are increasing the regularity of reviews of retirement income policy. It is important to have an outsider—or someone who has a mountain top view of the superannuation issue—to be able to have a look at a Government’s retirement policy and to be able to make statements about it. But I hope that the Retirement Commissioner will always give full and frank advice and give full and frank commentary about a particular Government’s superannuation and retirement policy because if he or she does not the role will be pretty pointless. 
If there is no independent view of the way a Government is preparing for the ageing population then all we have is a political puppet who is there just to say what the Government would like him or her to say. 
There was also a bit of debate about changing the name of the bill. I did not think that that was a particular issue. I think the bill is well named. It does concern superannuation and most New Zealanders would understand that any discussion of superannuation is about retirement and about preparing our country to make sure that we provide for New Zealanders as we get older. The bill is quite straightforward. It is not a bill about which there is huge controversy although I have raised some reservations on behalf of the National Party. It will have our support through all stages. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 To be in Opposition also means to act responsibly. New Zealand First is here for the future and all facets of governing and if New Zealand First’s contribution by policy making can enhance a more positive lifestyle for all citizens we stand to be heard. New Zealand First supports the bill. 
One could say that one of the reasons New Zealand First was born was the deception dealt to elderly New Zealanders in the late 1980s and in the 1990s. We are referring of course to the superannuation surtax and the actual level of superannuation payments. In 1984 Labour’s election manifesto promised no change to superannuation but 1 year later in April 1985 Labour imposed its superannuation surtax which affected three-quarters of all superannuitants. In 1989 Labour announced that the retirement age would be put up to 65 and in 1991 National sped up that process. That was the same party whose leader at the time Mr Bolger had campaigned on a promise to scrap the surcharge—“no ifs no buts no maybes”—then National’s “mother of all Budgets” in 1991 increased the surtax. 
In April 1998 New Zealand First abolished the surtax. During that brief time in Government New Zealand First also fought off Mrs Shipley’s determined bid to slash superannuation introduced the compulsory superannuation debate provided an extra $252 million for elective surgery funded 32000 more operations provided free influenza vaccines for the elderly and budgeted for the removal of income and asset testing for elderly care. 
The whole issue comes down to whether we value our senior citizens or whether we see them as a group set apart from the rest of the community. New Zealand First’s stance towards the elderly is straightforward. The elderly are us—an integral part of us. They are the soul of the country. One crucial point needs to be borne in mind. The real impact of an ageing population has yet to set in. 
When we look at where Government policy is in relation to the elderly the omens are not good. The Government is already penny-pinching in areas that affect some of the most vulnerable elderly. In the elderly care sector right now the talk is of crisis. Over the past 6 months the closure of some 17 residential care facilities for the elderly has been announced. A few years ago the consulting firm Price Waterhouse did a major study of Government funding for elderly care and found a fundamental shortfall of funding levels of around 20 percent. That chronic underfunding is still to be addressed. However at some point in many lives independent living ceases to be a feasible option. People then need quality residential or hospital care. That is the real test of how we value the elderly. And what do we see? The infrastructure to provide care for the elderly is collapsing. 
New Zealand First however is committed to providing a better future for senior citizens. Governments cannot protect citizens from all the circumstances and vicissitudes of life. Illness accidents and misfortunes happen. But there are some things that the State can provide such as a basic income to allow people to live in dignity and comfort. With these words New Zealand First supports this bill. Hopefully we will look to take care of our elderly with more care and love. 
When we look at the people who have attended the political rallies that have been held recently we see that they are concerned and a big number of people in that area will be voting because of their maturity and their understanding of politics and because of what they have done for the nation. Many of them have not forgotten the hard times they were brought up in regarding the farms they had to break in their concerns about how they would take care of their children and their education and also their defence of our country. So we really need to take care of our people. If there is a time when we really need to do that it is now. 
I understand that the election will be held shortly. As far as New Zealand First is concerned we will be doing our very very best to cater for and take care of the needs of our elderly. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of the ACT party for the second reading debate of the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill. I agree with the other speakers who said we have to have informed debate and take care of the retired people in our community. It is interesting that the last speaker Bill Gudgeon said that his party intends to act in a responsible manner as far as this issue is concerned because in the last week or so the leader of New Zealand First has made outrageous and extravagant promises to increase retirement income that have been shown by Treasury not to be sustainable. 
One of the biggest problems we have with superannuation in this country is that for 20 years or probably more now big-spending Governments have at election time come out with vote-buying promises—Sir Robert Muldoon did it—for retired people. It is very easy to stand up in front of a Grey Power audience—they pack halls they are very demanding; they are a big voting public—and make promises that are impossible to keep or if they are kept drive the country further down the road to bankruptcy. I hope that the member for New Zealand First was correct when he said that his party will act in a responsible manner. 
I am pleased that the Social Services Committee has agreed to keep the reviews every 3 years—it was 6-yearly; it is now down to 3-yearly. Those reviews are very important because they give people the chance to have their say. If we are going to continue to have informed debate on superannuation in this country—the sustainability of it how much people are saving the need for more saving and whether people are saving—then we have to have those reviews so that we can have input from all sectors of the community. When we talk about retirement income it is very easy if one is trying to buy votes from the public to think about it just in relation to those people who are already retired. We have to remember that the people who are currently working are paying for those people and trying to save for their own retirement as well. This is where we have a huge problem in New Zealand. It is all very well to say that retirement income is 65 percent of the average wage but what use is that if the average wage drops and drops? Sixty-five percent of the average US wage is pretty good whereas 65 percent of the average Fijian wage is probably not very good and does not give retired people a good standard of living. 
The only way we can ensure that retired people continue to have a good income if we stick to 65 percent of the average wage is to make sure that we have a strong economy. One way we can do that is to stop taxing people especially middle-income earners so much. Research that just came out this week from Sinclair Davidson of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology shows that New Zealand is indeed a highly taxed country. It is a myth that we are not highly taxed compared with other OECD countries. All the comparisons done to date that have given rise to that myth average it all out and do not take into account things like age population GDP etc. If we take all those issues into account we find that we are highly taxed. 
There are some damning features of that research. One is that in New Zealand 40 to 60 percent of households currently get more in Government benefits than they pay in tax. That is a very high number. That means that there is a huge amount of middle-income churning. People are paying in tax for things that they get back from the Government. Those people both in terms of financial sanity and also in terms of treating them like adults not children should be allowed to keep their money so that they can do with it what they choose. 
At the moment it is easy for very high income earners to save for their retirement. In respect of very low income earners no one would disagree that we need to provide for people at the bottom end of the heap who cannot provide for themselves. But in the middle we have that huge churning of people who are so highly taxed that they cannot save for their retirement. They are sending their children to tertiary education trying to pay off their mortgage or paying for petrol for their cars—all things that the Government is making harder and harder for them. Despite what the Government says the more it spends—and this is a big-spending Government—the more interest rates go up and the harder it is for people to get by. 
During this election year we will see superannuation get booted around again like a political football. New Zealand First has promised a $500 rebate on rates for retired people. United Future has said that GST on rates should be removed because it is a tax on a tax. It is not a tax on a tax. If we remove GST on rates that will allow local authorities to do away with more and more services—the very reason why authorities are there and why people pay their rates. People pay their rates so they can have a library footpaths lighting parks sewerage and all those sorts of things. They do not pay rates so that local authorities can build palaces and monuments to themselves or so that monuments can be named after a mayor when he or she is replaced. We should not remove GST. It is a goods and services tax. It is a tax we pay on goods and services and local authorities should be providing goods and services not just taxing. Taking GST off rates would give licence to all those local authorities to slip further and further away from their responsibility to provide services. 
 The other interesting thing I would like to point out is that I agree with the Greens’ minority report. In their report the Greens stated that the Retirement Commissioner should be entirely independent and should not be appointed by the Minister. The commissioner should not be an extension of the executive. I presume the Greens will be introducing an amendment to cover that; they have not said. The Greens stated in their minority report that the Retirement Commissioner should be an independent Crown entity in order to give the public the confidence it needs in the level of independence—for the very reason that superannuation should not be a political football. 
When the Retirement Commissioner is appointed by the Minister and is an extension of the executive we will have the Retirement Commissioner reporting back saying what the Government likes to hear. A good example is the recent report from the New Zealand Institute which was set up by David Skilling. We saw in the John Tamihere interview in  
Investigate 
 that the Government set up as a counter to the Business Roundtable the Business Council for Sustainable Development. We do not know for sure but it has been said that the New Zealand Institute was a similar exercise by the Government. What was the first report that came out from the New Zealand Institute? It came out with a Roger Douglas policy—a complicated compulsory savings scheme where every child would get something like $1500 and interest would be added. It is interesting that the Government has gone very silent on this. The report has been—[ 
Interruption 
] No it is the New Zealand Institute and David Skilling who is ex-Treasury. The Government has gone very silent on that and the report has sunk without a trace. 
Gordon Copeland 
: Good guy. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: Gordon Copeland says that he is a good guy. This is the same party that is bringing in property rights but then they do not believe in property rights when it comes to other people’s money. Go figure! 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I would like to confirm the Green Party’s support for the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill. I thank my colleague Deborah Coddington for highlighting the Greens’ minority report that has been included in the commentary on the bill. Although we support this bill in a general sense we still have some specific concerns about its contents and we still have major concerns about the legislation that it will be incorporated into. 
I will address the minority report first. It is our contention that the Retirement Commissioner should be an independent Crown entity rather than an autonomous Crown entity. Our reason is simply that retirement income as Deborah Coddington said and I acknowledge the point she made should not be a political football and that therefore the commissioner needs to have as much independence as possible in carrying out his or her functions. Making the commissioner an autonomous Crown entity may sound nice but it still means that the commissioner must have regard to Government policy. That constrains the commissioner in his or her broader functions. I wish that the Government had accepted our proposal on that matter and indeed had listened to the commissioner herself. She was very clear during the hearings that it would be her preference to be an independent Crown entity rather than an autonomous Crown entity. 
Unfortunately it is outside the scope of the bill to make that change because section 82(3) in new Part 4 inserted by clause 6 states that the commissioner is a Crown entity for the purposes of the Public Finance Act. That means that it is not within the scope of this bill to determine what type of Crown entity the commissioner should be. But we make the point and we hope that it will be noted in the future. 
We also make the point that the name of the principal Act is now inappropriate and should be changed. We are pleased to see that although the Government has not gone as far as the unanimous select committee recommendation the principal Act will be renamed the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act. It is pleasing to see that the Minister has introduced a Supplementary Order Paper to acknowledge that retirement income should now become part of the principal Act. 
The other major concession of course is that having taken out the periodic reviews from the bill for reasons that are unfathomable given that the periodic review group recommended that the reviews should be more frequent than 6-yearly not abolished altogether it is pleasing to see that the bill as reported back now provides for a 3-yearly reporting process. That is important. The reason for that importance was highlighted by the Retirement Commissioner herself in her submission. She highlighted the fact that a lot of things can change over a 6-year period. A 3-year period would be a much more appropriate time frame in which to carry out the sorts of reviews that are needed and there needs to be a college of experts representatives of employers’ unions and the finance industry and officials who contribute to retirement income policies by monitoring the effect of the existing policies and recommending changes to them. It is good to see that there is now an explicit requirement for the commissioner to do that and that it is at a level of frequency that I think is appropriate to the changing times. 
Speaking of changing times it is clearly election season because New Zealand First is again exploiting the vulnerability of elderly voters with Winston Peters making promises to the elderly that he would not be able to keep if he did become a member of the next Government. The Green Party position on retirement income is clear. We signed up to Part 1 of the principal Act which is the commitment to superannuation being set at 65 percent of the average ordinary-time net wage for a couple and 60 percent for a single person. We recognise that that level of income is not a feast but neither is it a famine. It is adequate certainly if someone has a freehold home at the point of retirement or is living in State housing or public sector housing. I acknowledge that there are real problems for people who are still renting at that age and that is a challenge we face but it is not one that I think can be solved by increasing the level of superannuation. 
I have to say without wishing to offend any retired people or those who are approaching retirement that a responsible Government has to weigh up many demands on the fiscal purse. One that I want to give high priority to and that the Green Party is strongly committed to is the addressing of child poverty in this country. Without wanting pensioners to go without I certainly do not want to see any young person growing up in poverty. Too many do right now notwithstanding the recently announced Working for Families package which will at best cut child poverty in half. That still leaves us with a very sad indictment hanging over our heads. 
The Green Party is also committed to an overall tax cut on the first $5000 of income. That income would be tax-free as part of a package of introducing a suite of eco-taxes. That would certainly help to increase the amount of money in the pockets of all elderly people—by approximately $15 per week. We are also committed to reducing the cost of living for elderly people through policies such as more public transport that is fast affordable and efficient support for people to install solar water heaters in their homes and to insulate their homes better so that they are more healthy and other environmental initiatives that have good social equity outcomes. 
That is why the Green Party does not support and continues to oppose the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. We believe that the capital the Government is currently investing on the overseas share market through that fund is desperately needed in New Zealand. The fund may now be making a profit and it has recovered some of its early losses but that is still not an excuse for putting our taxes on the foreign sharemarket. That money should be going to the New Zealand economy and society in order to future-proof our economy and invest in productivity in the sorts of projects I was talking about: public transport solar water heating insulation and wind power. 
We also need to be investing more in public health because if we do not tackle that issue now it will be a time bomb we will have to face. Costs will balloon if we do not address issues such as lack of exercise and poor diet. We can already see that with the levels of obesity type 2 diabetes and so forth. 
We also need to invest a lot more in our young people. If we want to be looked after in our old age then our generation of parliamentarians needs to make sure that the young people who will be earning the wealth when we retire are as productive as they can be. That means investing in them while they are studying providing them with a taxpayer-funded tertiary education and not burdening them with massive student loans when they leave university so that they are in a position to raise the money for a deposit on their first home and are not themselves faced with still renting a property when they retire whilst also saying that the level of superannuation is inadequate. 
So the policies of the Greens are very much focused on preventing problems rather than seeking cures for them which is why we did not support Part 2 of the New Zealand Superannuation Act and continue to oppose it. We believe that there is a better way to future-proof our economy and to give the stable future that all New Zealanders deserve in their retirement. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 It is perhaps providential that we are discussing the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill in a week when the subject of superannuation is very much on people’s minds and very much within the scope of the media because of the national Grey Power conference in Rotorua. It is a very important subject because currently more than 480000 New Zealanders are recipients of New Zealand superannuation. We also know of course that the demographics of our nation are such that over the next 30 years or so the number of people on superannuation in New Zealand will approximately double to more than 1 million. So by any standards superannuation is a matter of very very serious concern for this Parliament and one that all parties in the House need to continue to bend their minds and their wits to in order to ensure that we have the best possible superannuation arrangements for our elderly people as we move forward—always reminding ourselves that some of us are also approaching the age when we will become recipients of New Zealand superannuation. 
United Future will support the second reading of this bill and its passage through all remaining stages. But I do regret that it marks the formal end of the superannuation accord that was hammered out during the 1990s. Yet it need not be the end because under the New Zealand Superannuation Act there is an ability for each party in this House to sign up formally to a new accord on superannuation. The Minister of Finance Dr Cullen formally reported to the House in 2003 what the positions of the various parties were in relation to signing up formally to Part 1 and Part 2 of that Act. 
I need to explain what “signing up formally” means. The process is that the party actually writes a formal letter to the Minister of Finance in which it states that it supports Part 1 and/or Part 2. When the Minister reported to the House he said that the Labour Party its coalition partner the Progressive Party and the United Future party had signed up to both Part 1 and Part 2. So at that stage we were far from having a new accord supported by all parties in this House which I believe is the goal we should all strive towards. 
In my first reading speech on this bill I challenged the National Party in particular to sign up formally to the new superannuation accord. I really challenged National to put something positive forward to the New Zealand community because at that stage the only slight hint of its policy was from National leader Dr Don Brash. He basically said that National disagreed with the New Zealand Superannuation Fund as defined in Part 2 of the Act and that as far as Part 1 was concerned he was not sure about the fund and had doubts about whether it would be sustainable for people at 65 years of age. So the message from him was that people might have to wait until they were older than 65 before they got New Zealand superannuation. 
I am actually quite pleased that in the months since then the National Party seems to have moved its position—I think very sensibly. John Key has certainly come out now and said quite openly that National does now support the New Zealand Superannuation Fund commonly nicknamed the “Cullen fund”. But I have yet to establish whether National has formally said that to Dr Cullen. I doubt whether it has. I am not and nor are the people of New Zealand aware of whether National has formally signed up to Part 1 in relation to 65 percent of the average weekly wage for married couples at 65 years of age. I note from press reports that Don Brash seems to be signalling that National will go with that so I say that he should take the next step and get National formally signed up. 
As far as New Zealand First is concerned—and its members can speak for themselves—my memory is that it has signed up to Part 1 but not to Part 2. I say to those members during this debate: “How about signing up to the new accord so that we take superannuation off the political football field and give New Zealanders the kind of certainty they need in terms of planning for their retirement?” 
The point we need to emphasise is that until we create some certainty around this issue for people entering retirement in the next 25 years then it is difficult for them to make sensible decisions about their own savings. I for one want to encourage New Zealanders to make private provision for superannuation because let us face it one cannot live very well on New Zealand superannuation. 
The Green Party has just made its position clear. It supports Part 1 of the New Zealand Superannuation Act but not Part 2 namely the “Cullen fund”. The Greens do not support that fund. It is therefore incumbent on them in particular to explain to New Zealanders exactly how they intend to fund future superannuation liabilities. The fact is that superannuation liabilities will increase from about $5 billion a year to in today’s dollar terms more than $10 billion over the next 25 years and any credible political party really has to say how it intends to fund those if it does not support the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. 
I was staggered to hear the remarks from the ACT party member Deborah Coddington in her speech. She said that she also thought that superannuation should stop being a political football. Yet alone amongst all the parties in the House it is the ACT party that has refused to sign up to either Part 1 or Part 2. I want to say to ACT members tonight that it is time to start walking the talk. There is no point in them coming along here participating in a debate and saying they believe that superannuation should no longer be a political football if in their back pocket they not only have the ball but are also intent on running in a different direction from all the other parties in this Parliament. 
United Future has a very positive outlook in terms of New Zealand superannuation. It is our policy that we would change Part 1 of the superannuation accord so that we improved its terms. At the moment when the superannuation rates are struck on 1 April every year they are based on movements in the cost of living and in wages up until the preceding 31 December. So they are always retrospective. Our policy is to make those rates prospective by forecasting them for the applicable year moving forward which would put an extra $10 per week into the pockets of a person on the married couple superannuation rate—that is $10 for each married person which is $20 a week for a married couple—and it would give a single person living alone an extra $13 a week. I am able to say in this debate that that is United Future’s policy and we aim to amend Part 1 to bring about that improvement. It is a technical amendment if you like but it has a significant pay-off for New Zealand superannuitants. 
We also strongly support the idea of savings from the cradle to the grave. It is our policy for people to open a bank account for a baby when it is born and to keep contributions going into that account right through that individual’s life so that he or she can save for tertiary education maybe for a home then finally for superannuation. Deborah Coddington said that David Skilling of the New Zealand Institute picked up that idea from Roger Douglas. I am very surprised to hear that because as far as I am concerned the author of the idea was Bernie Ogilvy my colleague who is sitting right next to me in the House today. It was Bernie Ogilvy who did some creative thinking in our party about that and who came up with that idea. 
We will adopt that as policy so that we add in every way we can to the prospect of as many New Zealanders as possible having the security of a reasonable income in their old age thus allowing them to meet the health costs involved in that stage of life and generally to see out their remaining days in this world with a reasonable degree of comfort. That is my vision for all elderly New Zealanders. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I thought I would take just a short call to correct one or two inaccuracies that have come from some members in regard to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and New Zealand First’s attitude towards it. Deborah Coddington quite correctly made the point that we have to be very careful as to how much we spend in this area and that we do not get to the stage whereby as when I was in the House last time national superannuation was 80 percent of the gross average wage which is a lot more than it is currently. It can be between 65 percent and 72.5 percent of the net average wage. 
What we are talking about today in relation to retirement income is quite different from the situation that existed in the race we had in the 1975 election when both parties Labour and National tried to outdo the other in that area. New Zealand First has said that we would increase it to 68 percent of the net average wage in the adjustment period in April next year. I think Deborah Coddington has been talking about the 72.5 percent figure which is the figure Dr Cullen mentioned when he gave his inaccurate assessment of New Zealand First’s policy. 
Of course when we say 68 percent we are taking the figure that Dr Cullen confirmed in the House in answer to questions from the Rt Hon Winston Peters as being the figure that Labour had in either 2000 or 2001 when retirement income was 68 percent. It has been 68 percent in the last few years. Labour has let it run down to 65 percent. We are suggesting that it be put back up to 68 percent again. We are talking about the 2000-01 figure when Dr Cullen made the point in the House that that is what Labour had it at when it readjusted everything. Of course under Labour the figure has dropped below 65 percent because that is what can happen when we look at things retrospectively rather than prospectively and we understand that that is how that has happened. 
All that New Zealand First is saying is that we want to put it back to the stage it was at in about 2001 when it worked. Of course the rate is anywhere between 65 and 72.5 percent. We do not have to change the law to do it. It is a question of the will of the Government. Clearly the will is there from New Zealand First to do it but nobody else in the House has the will to achieve that end. The amount involved would increase the married couple’s rate by $20 a week and the single rate by $10 a week. 
I touched briefly also on the point raised by someone in this debate on the question of what New Zealand First intends to do for rates. A figure of $500 was mentioned by one of the speakers. Our policy—and I refer to the gold card that New Zealand First will introduce—as far as rates is concerned is that for those whose sole source of income is superannuation they would pay only 65 percent of their rates bill. That is our policy. So $500 might be an extravagant figure it just depends on what the rates are in any particular area. 
Of course people can ask how that will be paid for. First we say that it has been done already and paid for out of funds when the surplus was less in the years 2000 and 2001. We now have a massive surplus but we do not intend to touch the surplus to do this because we recognise as has been indicated in the House that our bureaucracy has exploded since Labour came to office. We have had so much political claptrap forced upon us and so many politically correct claptrap agencies forced upon us as we hear from time to time in the House. Eliminating that claptrap and looking more closely at the bureaucracy will enable us to trim Labour’s fat and redirect some of that spending to our elderly people who deserve a better life in their retirement. Of course as far as we are concerned with regard to the surplus that Labour has we want to see it spent on the police force and on separating traffic officers from the police force but that is another issue. 
I thought I would take a moment to clarify those points in so far as New Zealand First’s superannuation and retirement policy is concerned. We have other things to do with our gold card which will be a smart card. It will cover health areas transport concessions and fire gas and telephone concessions which are all built into our budgeting of $700 million which I have indicated how we will fund. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Preliminary provisions 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 350 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to principal Act 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 350 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
Schedule 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 350 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to the schedule be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to and schedule as amended agreed to. 
New schedule 2 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 350 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to add new schedule 2 be agreed to. 
New schedule 2 agreed to. 
New schedule 3 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 350 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to add new schedule 3 be agreed to. 
New schedule 3 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 350 in the name of the Hon Steve Maharey to clause 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to clause 1 as amended agreed to and clause 2 agreed to. 
New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
New Zealand Superannuation and retirement income Amendment Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Associate Minister of Social Development and Employment) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Social Development and Employment 
: I move  
That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. This bill repeals the Retirement Income Act of 1993 and transfers the provisions relating to the Retirement Commissioner to what is to be known as the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act. Any reference to the accord on retirement income policies will not be transferred. The accord has fallen into disuse since 1998 and many of the processes established by the accord are no longer followed. The enactment of the New Zealand Superannuation Act in 2001 provides a new opportunity for political parties to indicate their support for retirement income policies and supersedes the need for the accord provisions currently set out in the Retirement Income Act. 
The continued need for 6-yearly periodic reviews has also been questioned. The most recent periodic report was completed by the Periodic Report Group 2003. However the Government has acknowledged the value of retaining independent reviews and the bill will require the Retirement Commissioner to undertake 3-yearly reviews of retirement income policies. 
The bill renames the principal Act the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act as this name better reflects the overall purpose of the Act with the inclusion of the Retirement Commissioner’s functions. The bill ensures that the retirement income policy framework more closely reflects the current environment and consolidates key retirement income policies under the one Act. 
I thank members of the Social Services Committee and the officials for their work on this bill. I commend the bill to the House. 
SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 Tempted as I am to fill the 10-minute slot provided at this point I will just re-emphasise the points made by my colleagues during the second reading and Committee stages. The National Party will support the third reading of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and I reiterate the main point that was made by our party during the passage of this legislation—that is although the bill removes the requirement for 6-yearly periodic reports it inserts a requirement for 3-yearly reports and that is something we as a party found to be satisfactory. Initially we were concerned that mandatory reporting had been removed altogether but the Social Services Committee saw fit to include a 3-yearly mandatory reporting phase. On that basis together with the other elements of the bill that the Associate Minister has so eloquently described this evening the National Party will support this bill through its third reading. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 In addressing the third reading on behalf of the ACT party I say that we too support this non-controversial legislation. I reiterate my comments in the debate on the second reading stage in relation to members from other parties who stood up and said that superannuation should be a non-controversial issue. Vis-à-vis New Zealand First and United Future I would like to record in the House my hope that because it is election year they will stick to what they said in terms of superannuation being non-controversial and abandon any plans they have or have already voiced that would exploit retired people and make promises to them that clearly cannot be kept. [ 
Interruption 
] Well that is what United Future does all the time. Its members cannot wait for their turn so they make cross bench interjections. It is absolutely impossible to continue with this speech— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I refer the member on the cross bench to Speaker’s ruling 57/5. There are to be no interjections across the cross benches because of the effect they have on the microphone. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: It just illustrates my point graphically. Other parties say that the issue of retirement income will not be controversial but they cannot resist turning it into a political football because it is election year and because they are trying to outbid other parties in terms of what they can contribute. 
United Future claims that it was Dr Bernie Ogilvy who wrote this superannuation policy with its cradle-to-grave individual accounts and compulsory savings features. Well the cradle-to-grave idea goes back further than Sir Roger Douglas but if the United Future members look at individual accounts— 
Larry Baldock 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept the ruling you have just given—that we should not interject across the benches—but when the speaker continually makes references to us in her speech instead of sticking to the bill it is necessary for me to correct her errors. I think— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: That is not a point of order. The reality is that Speaker’s ruling 57/5 is quite clear and I suggest that the member look at it. If he is not happy with that he can perhaps take another seat in the Chamber somewhere where he is not directly affecting the microphone. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON 
: I recommend that that member read  
Unfinished Business 
 by Sir Roger Douglas which I think was published in about 1994 and in which he first wrote about individual savings accounts to be opened when children were born. It is a very complicated system has a lot of merit but needs a lot of careful thought. 
I reiterate that the ACT party supports this legislation. We are pleased a provision has been kept for reviews to be undertaken every 3 years which will allow us to keep up to date with what is going on with regard to retirement savings. There is a lot of debate about whether New Zealanders do actually save for their retirement and whether they should put their savings into their homes. There are a lot of myths about and if we did away with those reviews we would severely jeopardise the chance to have informed debate on the issues. ACT supports this legislation. 
Bill read a third time. 
Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill be now read a second time 
. I would like to thank the Government Administration Committee for its consideration of the bill and to thank everyone who took the time to make a submission. The bill has been improved by the committee’s amendments. Part 1 of the bill amends the Citizenship Act which provides for the acquisition and loss of New Zealand citizenship. Under the Act migrants can acquire a grant of citizenship after settling permanently in New Zealand and meeting a number of specified requirements. In the last financial year approximately 21000 people received a grant of citizenship. One of the main purposes in the bill is to increase the standard period of residence in New Zealand for a grant of citizenship from 3 years to 5 years. That time frame will provide a sufficient basis for the assessment of applicants’ suitability for citizenship and commitment to New Zealand. 
The change to the residence requirement received a lot of public comment. Most people were of the view that the 5-year period should not apply to migrants who are currently living in New Zealand. As a result the Government amended the bill to ensure that the change to the residence requirement for citizenship would not apply to people who are already entitled to reside in New Zealand. Applications from those people will be assessed against the existing 3-year residence requirement provided the application is lodged within 5 years of the commencement date. The Government Administration Committee has made a further amendment to those provisions. Citizenship applications from people who applied for a residence permit before the commencement date but whose permits are issued after that date will be assessed against the 3-year requirement. 
The bill currently provides that changes to the requirement for the grant of citizenship will come into force on 1 January 2005 and obviously that will have to be changed. Supplementary Order Paper 359 in my name amends the bill so that those changes will come into force on the commencement date. 
Proposals to amend the citizenship by birth provisions have been incorporated into the bill at the select committee. From 2006 a person born in New Zealand will be a citizen only if at least one of the person’s parents is a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident. Restricting citizenship by birth will ensure that citizenship and its benefits are limited to people who have a genuine and an ongoing link to New Zealand. That proposal does not breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act or the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. No child will be stateless as a result of that proposal. The New Zealand Citizenship Act provides that every child born in New Zealand will be a citizen if he or she would otherwise be stateless. The select committee has made a change to the proposal to make it clear that a child found abandoned in New Zealand will be a citizen by birth if investigations have failed to establish the identity of at least one of the child’s parents. 
Part 2 of the bill amends the Passports Act which provides for the issue renewal and cancellation of New Zealand travel documents. In the last financial year the Passports Office of the Department of Internal Affairs issued approximately 390000 New Zealand travel documents. The bill reduces the maximum validity of passports from 10 years to 5 years. The purpose of that proposal is to reduce the likelihood of the successful forgery of New Zealand passports. The longer a passport series has been in circulation the greater the chance is that the security features will become outdated and easily altered or duplicated. International experience shows that a 10-year period is now too long because counterfeiting techniques have become more and more sophisticated. 
The bill also provides for the Minister of Internal Affairs to cancel or refuse to issue a New Zealand travel document in cases where national security is threatened. That provision could be used only in very specific situations where the danger to national security cannot be averted by other means. It also contains a number of procedural safeguards. The decline period is restricted to 12 months and the person denied the travel document may appeal the Minister’s decision to the High Court. The select committee has amended those provisions so that when notifying a person of the decision to decline a travel document the Minister must provide the person with reasons for that decision. That is in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 
An important amendment in the bill is the provision for the disclosure of New Zealand travel document information for border security and the processing of passengers. That will provide for the disclosure of information for Advance Passenger Processing. That procedure identifies unauthorised passengers before they can depart for New Zealand by enabling airlines to check the person’s travel document details against an up to date electronic record of passport visa and alert information. Currently Advance Passenger Processing’s effectiveness as a passenger risk management system is undermined because it cannot verify the details of New Zealand travel documents. 
This bill will rectify problems with New Zealand citizenship improve border security and reduce the likelihood of the forgery and misuse of New Zealand travel documents. I commend this bill to the House. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill exposes the Labour Government’s lack of integrity more than any other legislation has done. Labour has proven to be a fair-weather friend to the new migrant community and especially to the ethnic communities. The Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers now make a habit of showering compliments on those communities at their functions— 
Opposition Member 
: And apologising. 
PANSY WONG 
: —and apologising yet last year they brought in this legislation to change the citizenship qualifying period from 3 years to 5 years in a hurry without even planning to front up to those communities and explain why. Eight thousand members of those communities eventually had to resort to signing petitions and letters and they forced the Labour Government to back down on applying the change to permanent residents who are already here. 
The Minister told the House last year that the reason why this Government had decided to increase the qualifying period from 3 years to 5 years was that the period is a bit short compared with international standards. Actually Australia’s requirement is 2 years and if an Australian permanent resident’s overseas work and business commitments can be proven to be of benefit to Australia the Australian Government will reduce that qualifying period from 2 years to 1 year. In Canada the requirement is that one has to be living there for 3 years during the 4 years prior to application. In the United Kingdom one has to be in the UK at the beginning of a period of 5 years. In the USA one has to have been physically present in the USA for at least 13 months in the previous 5 years. So when this change—as proposed—takes place it will make New Zealand the toughest of those five countries. 
Obviously the Labour Government is trying to stop people from leaving New Zealand. At a time when our country faces acute shortages of skilled staff Labour is also making an international appeal for Kiwis living overseas to return home. Well they are not coming home and the reasons for that are obvious: they are concerned about safety race relations high taxes and the education system. But people should not worry; help is on the way. When National’s leader Dr Don Brash becomes the next Prime Minister overseas Kiwis will be coming home—under our policies. Last year 20000 New Zealanders left for greener pastures overseas. In the last 4 years under the Labour Government over 110000 people have left the country. The extension of the qualifying period for a grant of citizenship will hardly address the fundamental problem of how to make our people want to stay here because the fundamental problem is the Labour Government and its policies. 
To add insult to injury when the people who are affected by this legislation decide to apply to become New Zealand citizens they will face a very long wait because of the uncertainty created by the Labour Government. In the Minister’s answer to a written question he told us that the processing period for applications to become a citizen was 15 weeks in 2003 and 2004. Can members guess how long people have to wait nowadays? They have to wait 8 months—8 months of waiting in order to become a New Zealand citizen. As of February this year 21150 applicants were waiting to become New Zealand citizens. One has to question that. Applying to become a New Zealand citizen is a user-pays service. Adults have to pay $460 and children under 16 have to pay $230. Why could the Minister and the Department of Internal Affairs not foresee this issue and plan for increased resources to be allocated? I do not expect any sensible answer from the Minister tonight because this Minister the Hon George Hawkins happens to be the Minister of Police as well and we all know that he has adopted the attitude of my three monkeys collection: see no problem hear no problem and say that there is no problem. It is not good enough. That is George—see no problem hear no problem and say that there is no problem. 
During the Committee stage I will put forward an amendment—and I expect the Labour Government to support it—to introduce a mechanism that would emphasise the importance of becoming a New Zealand citizen. We want applicants to learn about New Zealand values and New Zealand systems. For far too long New Zealanders have been complaining that new migrants will not adopt New Zealand values and understand New Zealand systems—because nobody is telling them how to do so. My amendment would introduce a requirement for new migrants to learn about New Zealand values and systems. In Australia Canada the USA and the UK all the rights and obligations of becoming a citizen are explicitly spelled out. I wonder why the Minister will not take advantage of the review of the citizenship requirements to take that into account. 
National is also against the reduction in the validity period of our passports from 10 to 5 years because the Government Administration Committee was told that Australia the United Kingdom etc. have not decided to implement such a policy. We believe that any passport that comes up for renewal should be upgraded to the more sophisticated electronic format but that the shorter validity period would cause more compliance costs for the individuals concerned. 
National does support the measure to tighten up the process so that babies born in New Zealand to overseas citizens do not automatically become entitled to be New Zealand citizens. It is an important message for New Zealand to send to the international community that we value our citizenship. We are satisfied that a process is being put in place to ensure that babies would not be left with a stateless status. 
We also support the provision to give powers to the Minister of Internal Affairs whereby he or she can withhold travel documents if there is a risk to the security of New Zealand. We were satisfied through the select committee process that a procedure will be put in place for the judicial review of that. The change is important in order for the status of New Zealand and its passports to continue to receive the international endorsement that enables us to travel visa-free to over 40 countries. 
This bill has been historic in the sense that it is the first time we have seen the largely passive Asian migrant community in particular decide to speak out. 
Dr Wayne Mapp 
: They were very angry. 
PANSY WONG 
: People were very angry. My very hard-working intelligent colleague Dr Wayne Mapp and I have been holding public meetings throughout the country. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes the incoming Minister of Labour and I have been holding public meetings throughout New Zealand. We have seen thousands of people turn up feeling angry and betrayed because the Labour Ministers and Labour MPs were nowhere to be seen. It is very pleasing to see our various ethnic communities stand up and demand to have their say in influencing policy. 
There are two other major changes on which I want to acknowledge the support of my fellow members of the select committee under the chairpersonship of Dianne Yates. I am grateful to the select committee members for agreeing to amend the transitional period to ensure that people who apply now to become permanent residents are exempt from the new policy. During the Committee process to follow I will also put forward amendments urging members to consider extending the exemptions so that they will apply to long-term business visa holders. I will explain the reasons for that later. 
National supports half the changes proposed by the Labour Government but we will be proposing amendments to the other parts of the legislation. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I thank Pansy Wong for her contribution on the Government Administration Committee. I just want to make three points. The first is that it is not valid to make comparisons with Australia because in Australia it is harder to become a resident but easier to become a citizen. In New Zealand it is the other way around: it is easier to become a resident but harder to become a citizen. That evens itself out. [ 
Interruption 
] If Dr Mapp wishes to take a call I suggest that he do so and not yell across the House. 
The second point relates to the comment that was made about babies. No baby abandoned in New Zealand would be stateless and we conform with international law and convention on that. 
The third point is that this bill makes it much easier for New Zealanders who wish to travel. Our passports which will be renewed within 5 years will have greater validity. We will uphold the reputation that New Zealand has throughout the world for our travel documents and the high reputation of our New Zealand population when we travel. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 This bill addresses some measures that needed to be taken. It is being discussed here tonight simply because of the pressure New Zealand First has applied on immigration issues. New Zealand First has constantly year after year and month after month for the last 5½ years while this Labour Government has been in power been pressuring the Government and making mileage on these issues. I believe that the Government is reluctant to deal with these issues. 
The reason I know it is reluctant to deal with these issues is that I was on the select committee for the purposes of this bill and certain Labour members on that committee were saying that they were very uncomfortable with the bill. They were clearly uncomfortable with the bill. What we have here are two factions—two sides. The reason why this bill has not been advanced more quickly—the reason why it has been languishing on the Order Paper—is that Labour is split on it. Government members know that they are split on this bill. On one side are John Tamihere and 10 members who will back him to the hilt. [ 
Interruption 
] He is probably on the side that is more comfortable with this bill. Ten will back him to the hilt maybe 15 on a good day. 
Then we have the National Party over here which is absolutely too soft and wonders why it is going down in the polls. [ 
Interruption 
] I am speaking specifically to this bill. I am talking about what the people of New Zealand want and the poll tonight shows what they want with New Zealand First’s ratings going up. As Georgina Beyer said a few minutes ago we are only three points behind Don Brash. That is all good news. 
What I am trying to say to the House tonight is that the issues the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill addresses are serious. I will go directly to the guts of the bill and refer to the speech made by the Hon George Hawkins on 29 July 2004 in which he said: “One of the standard requirements for a grant is that the applicant must have been ordinarily resident in New Zealand for the 3 years before application. That is short by international standards and can include time spent here on temporary permits such as work or student permits.” This is insufficient for assessments of applicant suitability for citizenship. He goes on to say: “To rectify it the bill increases the period of residence in New Zealand that applicants must meet from 3 to 5 years. From 1 January 2005 applicants will need to have been in the country for approximately three-quarters of the 5 years before application including 8 months in each year.” 
What the Minister said was right. He was absolutely correct. But what I am saying is that it has taken 6 years for this Labour Government to heed what the New Zealand First Party has been saying. The Government knows that it is trying to shut down this issue before the election because it has reluctantly had this bill languishing on the Order Paper for the last year or so and now it is trying to ram it through under urgency. 
One of the submitters to the Government Administration Committee was very supportive of the longer residential requirement for citizenship—it is extended from 3 years to 5 years—because he felt there was a major issue with the integrity of our citizenship. He felt the process undermined the integrity with people coming in doing their lag then as soon as 3 years was up shooting off to Australia. He said that this new law will make people look more seriously at coming to New Zealand and staying in New Zealand because of the process being longer. 
I received some extraordinary answers to my questions from certain submitters who were against this bill. I asked one whether he was aware that a lot of European countries have requirements of 10 years and I cited Greece and Italy as examples. I said that the US Australia and the UK are also looking at increasing their requirements to 10 years. I recall the answer the submitter gave me was that it takes 10 years to get divorced in Italy. We all know that is not true and I thought that was an extraordinary answer. Basically the submitters did not have an answer to the questions I asked in that regard. 
Another interesting comment which I heard from Keith Locke the Green Party member in the select committee was that if residential requirements for citizenship were prolonged it would make people more antagonistic. My concern is that if people get more antagonistic because their wait for citizenship is 2 to 3 years longer then I do not think those are the kinds of people we want in our country. If people have to wait another 2 or 3 years to get citizenship and they start smashing the windows of the Immigration Service and running around and being disorderly in our streets because we will not give them citizenship in the 3 years that they believe is their right then those are the kinds of people we do not want in our country. Those are the kinds of people that we do not want. It is outrageous to have somebody in Parliament who says that if we extend the time to 5 years from 3 years people will become more antagonistic. Those are the kinds of people we simply do not want in our country. That is what New Zealand First says and is what New Zealand First has been saying for many many years. 
The Government has been soft on these issues; when it has been reluctant on them—and there are members on the Government side who are shaking their heads. The fact is New Zealand First since 1999 when this Government came into power has been addressing this issue along with a lot of other issues. The Government has not listened and in the 2002 election when New Zealand First brought up immigration as one of the three major issues that we campaigned on it called us racists. The member over there is nodding her head. She called us racists. Now the Government is implementing those issues with this bill. She is voting for this bill tonight—voting for the very issue that she called us racist for. Now those members are starting to realise that the people of New Zealand are serious about these issues and do not want their infrastructures in health roading etc. being pressurised by an increased amount of immigration and so on in respect of the issues I am talking about tonight. 
I want to commend the Government for implementing another couple of issues in the bill. One is to ensure that time spent in the country on temporary permits such as visitor permits will no longer count as a period of residence for citizenship purposes. 
Peter Brown 
: Good good. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: My colleague Peter Brown is saying that this is a good thing and it is. 
As my time is running out I guess I better fly through the issues. Another is to ensure that applicants with serious criminal convictions are prevented from receiving a grant and that applicants with less serious convictions cannot receive a grant for a specified period following conviction. Another interesting issue—one that Keith Locke mentioned in the select committee—was the requirement that applicants take the oath or affirmation of allegiance to New Zealand in a public citizenship ceremony. The Greens were cautious about that issue. 
I look forward to speaking more on this bill in the Committee stage. New Zealand First will support it. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I rise for the ACT party in the second reading debate of the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill. This bill shortens the period of passports from 10 years to 5 years and it appears to regularise or make similar a whole lot of ministerial powers around issuing travel documents including temporary documents refugee certifications and so forth. 
So when I read it together with the report of the Government Administration Committee I am trying to get some kind of understanding of the theory that underlies it. What is the concept this Government has of what it means to be a New Zealand citizen? Obviously the much more crucial tests are set out in the law governing immigration in the Immigration Act but this bill reflects the views about what New Zealand citizenship means or should mean. I have a serious concern that this Government regards citizenship as a right or an entitlement of people who happen to come here instead of regarding it as a privilege—a right for those who were born here and a privilege for anyone else. 
 Well I am afraid the bill does not set that out. I was stunned to hear that New Zealand First is planning to vote for it. Because when I look at the most troublesome areas I see that the refugee position is identical to the position— 
Peter Brown 
: We cannot get it 100 percent right! 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: Peter Brown of New Zealand First is asking for a bit of tolerance. He says that he cannot get it 100 percent right. Well— 
Peter Brown 
: No the Government— 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The Government? But I am afraid that Mr Brown got it wrong yesterday as well. Twice in 2 days is getting a bit rough! 
But in this case the refugee travel document powers read in exactly the same terms as the Minister’s powers in relation to other forms of travel documents including passports certificates of identity and emergency travel documents. I am sure that the people who drafted the bill thought that that was tidy. They like to see those sorts of provisions look similar. It means that the legislation is easier to administer if the provisions are not very different but I think that it is simply wrong that the Minister will face Ahmed Zaoui - type objections because when refusing to issue a New Zealand refugee travel document he must establish on reasonable grounds—in other words the courts are openly invited to second-guess the Minister’s reasoning—that the person is a danger and intends to be a terrorist to proliferate weapons of mass destruction or to deal in unlawful activity designed or likely to cause devastating or serious economic damage. 
I believe that those tests may be perfectly appropriate for restricting the travel plans of New Zealanders. People in this country should expect a very high threshold before any politician—any Minister—can interfere with their rights of free travel. But to impose that exact same extremely high threshold on someone who has absolutely no claim on New Zealand other than our humanity is quite wrong. ACT believes that to provide that the Minister’s reasoning has to pass that very high threshold of “unlawful activity designed or likely to cause devastating or serious economic damage to New Zealand carried out for purposes of commercial or economic gain” is selling New Zealand citizenship very short. For example that would not cover the Islamic militant who just decided to introduce foot-and-mouth disease because that would not be designed or carried out for purposes of commercial or economic gain. 
Why have such a ridiculously high standard? Why not just say: “Look mate we’re a humane country but if you give us the slightest grounds for reservation go somewhere else.” There is no right to live in New Zealand for anyone who was not born here—no right whatsoever. This bill sets up an absurd threshold of refugee entitlement unless we can prove they are absolutely rotten. That is quite wrong. 
It goes further. To withhold that travel document the Minister must also establish that there is no other way of effectively averting the danger to the security of New Zealand. Well of course the first thing the refugee is going to say is: “You can avert this. Just put a bracelet around my ankle and tell me that I can’t move outside this suburb.” There would be many ways by which the court would be satisfied that there is some other means of averting the serious danger. This legislation does not state anything about cost. It does not state that the method of averting the danger should be for reasonable cost. It states “cannot be effectively averted by other means.” It should have stated of course “any reasonable means” even if one accepted this test for the first stage. 
Then the bill states that the Minister cannot refuse the travel document unless that refusal will prevent or effectively impede the ability of the person to be a terrorist or carry out other damage. That is an incredibly high threshold. It is a perfectly appropriate threshold for a New Zealander but unless I have misunderstood it will apply to people who are not New Zealanders and about whom we may know very little or we may have only suspicion. Suspicion should be enough. Being here should be a privilege and I cannot believe that this Government would come up with a bill like this after the $2 million of expense on Ahmed Zaoui and all of that aggro and put its head back into the same noose. In fact it has put not its head but New Zealand’s back into that noose. 
Then the Minister has to justify the refusal to the refugee. He or she “must notify the person in writing of the refusal and the reasons for it;”. It is unbelievable. I cannot understand this. The experience we have had seems to mean nothing to this Government. I can only assume it is yet another instance of the Government jumping to the order of its foreign masters and those who draft international conventions— 
Shane Ardern 
: Whereabouts? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: They come from places like Sudan—havens of human rights! They get on these committees—they probably never go home because it is too ghastly at home—and they swan around making up rules to make the lives of those who abide by the rules a misery while their own countries regard them as simply another form and means of warfare. I cannot understand why the Government Administration Committee did not reject this bill. It is quite possible—and I understand the difficulty when one comes to something without having seen the background—that Dianne Yates Shane Ardern Steve Chadwick the Hon David Cunliffe and Lindsay Tisch were persuaded that all this was fine— 
Shane Ardern 
: No. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: I am sorry I say to the member I am looking at the minority view now. The National minority view does oppose several changes but as I see it it opposes only the shift from a 10-year to a 5-year passport. There is far more to oppose in this bill. There is far more that we should be raising as problems. 
I have to say again that it just suggests that the opposition of New Zealand First to a lot of the denial of this unpatriotic stuff is just slogans. When I heard that they were going to vote for this bill after the speeches and the fiery questioning from the Rt Hon Winston Peters in this House I cannot understand why all those Grey Power people are still in love with Winston Peters. If they could only listen and if they only knew how he voted and could compare it with what he says when he is talking to them at election time they would realise that they are being two-timed. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Members have probably read the minority report put forward by Matt Robson and myself. I think the National members who have spoken and those who are about to speak will admit that those comments reflect the submissions more than the majority select committee report. The Minister George Hawkins said in his speech that there was a lot of public comment. But he seemed to imply that that public comment was only in connection with the retrospectivity of the bill—a concern that it would apply to people who are currently in New Zealand. Whereas if one listened to the submissions sure there was significant and large concern about retrospectivity but there was concern about a lot of other things in the bill as well. Very few submissions supported the bill. 
I want to ask the Government and anyone else who supports the bill tonight to explain to us why we have to go ahead and extend the qualifying period from residence to citizenship from 3 years to 5 years. I sat on the Government Administration Committee and I did not hear a good reason for that. We heard about security concerns but I do not think we really thought that it takes 5 years to spot a terrorist in New Zealand; that was not the reason. The committee threw in another reason about being comparable with overseas jurisdictions but as Pansy Wong has pointed out it does not hold water. 
 We have to realise and this is what we found in the select committee that extending the residency requirement from 3 years to 5 years is causing a huge amount of human heartache. We heard many submissions from people from Somalia and Iraq and from Sikh groups who explained the difficulties they face now in the time it takes them to get citizenship and the even greater difficulties they will face if the qualifying period is extended from 3 to 5 years. 
There has been reference including from the previous speaker to refugee travel documents. David Ryken an immigration lawyer told the committee that those documents are “useless”. Refugees cannot use them to go overseas. A lot of refugee people who have been here for a while and have refugee status want to make contact with very close relatives who are dispersed around the world. As a result of the chaos in their own country their families have dispersed and the refugees in New Zealand find that they cannot travel overseas on those travel documents even though they have been nicely set out by our Government and given to them. 
One example of this was given by an Iraqi who told the Government Administration Committee that his travel document provided by the New Zealand Government would not even allow him to get to his niece’s wedding in Australia because Australia like America does not accept those travel documents. The lack of a passport for those people and the time to get a passport which has been put out even further under the bill adds hugely to the trauma of refugees and their feelings of isolation. One submission by Adam Awad and several other refugees in Wellington made the point that article 15(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to a nationality. In all practical senses refugees have no nationality left to them. In the case of countries like Somalia there is no national Government. Many have spent upwards of a decade in refugee camps around the world. To deny them official citizenship for a further 5 years is from a human rights perspective both inhumane and unjust. 
David Ryken the immigration lawyer also told the committee that the extension of the qualifying period from 3 years to 5 years was doing New Zealand in the eye as regards attracting skilled migrants. As he explained and he has had a lot of connection with migrants we are in a competitive international marketplace as regards attracting skilled people. Under this bill the best migrants will be more likely to go elsewhere—to Australia—rather than come to New Zealand and hang around for years to get citizenship here. 
The Chinese community was particularly upset in that regard and made submissions to the select committee. As Pansy Wong has pointed out a petition on that issue was signed by 8000 people. One issue they raised was the question of long-term business visas. The expectation and the structure is that business visas would automatically run into residency and into citizenship and not to allow business visas to be part of the qualifying period for citizenship is putting off so many people coming in under that particular visa. 
There is another bad provision in the bill which the Minister referred to. A Supplementary Order Paper was introduced that would deny automatic citizenship to babies born here and the select committee never heard a good reason for that. It would lead to significant problems for people and attracted criticism in the select committee as being somewhat contrary to the constitutional conventions of this country as well. The Auckland Council for Civil Liberties and the Human Rights Foundation submissions stated: “It is contrary to parliamentary convention for a Supplementary Order Paper to introduce major new substantive provisions to a bill.” 
The Supplementary Order Paper came in as the select committee was sitting and because it came in so late in the piece most submitters were not able to see it before they put in their submissions to the select committee. The Supplementary Order Paper was unnecessary. Do we have an emergency on our hands with all kinds of babies being born here and doing nasty things to us? It did not require a Supplementary Order Paper to be brought in in that way. The Auckland Council for Civil Liberties and the Human Rights Foundation said that that violates the essence of the Standing Orders and “amounts to an abuse of the democratic and parliamentary processes.” 
There was also the problem of whether we would get a Bill of Rights audit on the Supplementary Order Paper and late in the piece we did get an audit but it was quite contentious. For instance the Auckland District Law Society said: “Removing the right to citizenship by birth punishes immigrant children not their parents and may contravene articles 38 24 and 28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Of particular concern is the right of a child to the highest obtainable standard of health and the right to education.” Giving a baby citizenship will guarantee it free health treatment regardless of the circumstances of its parents. 
The Ministry of Justice’s response in the Bill of Rights audit to that sort of argument was pitiful. The audit stated: “Children born in New Zealand who are not granted citizenship will still be able to receive treatment for life-threatening conditions as hospitals are required to provide acute services regardless of the ability to pay.” So the Ministry of Justice is saying that it is in accord with the Convention on the Rights of the Child for babies to get very sick as long as they get free hospital treatment when they are on the point of death. Even then will the Ministry of Justice guarantee that the parents do not get a bill for the hospital treatment of the life-threatening condition? Of course the ministry will not. 
There is also a new power in the bill for the Minister of Internal Affairs to take away a New Zealander’s passport on national security grounds. This was strongly challenged particularly by the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties and the Human Rights Foundation. One of their lawyers Rodney Harrison QC said: “The rights to a passport and freedom of movement in and out of one’s own country are fundamental human rights recognised in our Bill of Rights and international law. Until very recently citizens of this country have never been at risk of having these rights removed or curtailed. Such steps have rightly been seen as a mark of totalitarian regimes not New Zealand’s.” He also complained that when someone does take judicial challenge to the passport being taken away from him or her there is a problem in even getting all the information used against that person because it can be “classified” under this bill and not made freely available to those affected. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 There is almost nothing in that last speech that I would agree with other than the silence after the member concluded and resumed his seat. I would like to say one thing and that is this: he talked an awful lot about the rights of this person and the rights of that person but never once did he talk about the responsibilities that go along with being a New Zealand citizen. Quite frankly that is exactly the point. What we have to do is go back to what matters most which is to appreciate what being a New Zealander is all about—to enjoy the privileges of being a New Zealander but to also be aware of the responsibilities attendant on that privilege. People who talk only about the rights are people who see rights as being something to be handed out like lollies to one and all without any sense of responsibility for what that actually means. I think that is an absolute farce and a joke. 
United Future will be supporting this legislation for a number of reasons. First up the amount of time applicants must spend in New Zealand before they can apply for citizenship has been increased from 3 years to 5 years. An applicant needs to be here for 1350 days of that 5 years which is approximately 75 percent of it. That requirement indicates the intent of anybody coming to live here that he or she wants to be here and wants to participate and be a productive member of our community. That is fair and right. 
The bill provides that time spent on temporary work permits or visitor permits will not be included in the 5-year period and that makes sense. A lot of people come here for holidays and short stints. We all do this overseas—the OE—and to think that that counts for a desire to be a part of that community is grossly mistaken. That time should not be taken into consideration and that is fair enough. 
In terms of assessing whether the applicant is of good character applicants with serious criminal convictions attracting 5-plus years’ imprisonment generally will not receive a grant of citizenship. Those with less serious convictions of less than 5 years’ imprisonment may be considered if the offence was committed more than 7 years ago and those who have not had a sentence of imprisonment may be considered if the offence was committed more than 3 years ago. Personally I would like to see the bill toughened up much further than that but I am happy to live with this provision because at least it opens up the possibility of being able to screen individuals who are coming to live here. I am of the opinion that any stint in a prison overseas is good enough for those people to have their arses slung out of New Zealand—we should not be allowing them in here at all. 
To aid the administration process the Citizenship Office will now have restricted access to immigration information in making its decision. The Minister may rescind the approval of an application if the applicant no longer meets requirements and generally applicants must take an oath at a public ceremony. Well why not? That is the least we ought to expect from people wanting to take up our citizenship. [ 
Interruption 
] It is patriotic. That is quite right. It is one thing to expect people to front up and say that they are now part of the community that they owe their allegiance to this country and that they forego their previous allegiance. That does not mean that they would have to give up their culture or give up all of the things they learnt from wherever they came but it does mean that they put New Zealand first because it is the home of their choice and we have decided to accept them. The fact that there is a political party by that name is a bit unfortunate but seeing that everybody knows it as “Winston First” it does not really matter. 
The Citizenship Act is amended to provide that a person will be presumed to be the father of a person if he was in a de facto relationship with the person’s mother at the time of conception. To be born here will no longer be sufficient in itself to gain citizenship. Some people have criticised that provision but it makes sense. Why the hell should anybody coming over here for a holiday with the specific intent of giving birth here be automatically granted citizenship? That makes no sense whatsoever. What vetting process do we have at present? In effect we say that people can come into our country drop a kid and all of a sudden have the automatic privilege of being a New Zealander. Quite frankly that is not good enough. People have taken advantage of that in the past and they will continue to do so in the future. We need to close that loophole. 
The key amendments to the Passports Act—I talked previously about the key amendments to the Citizenship Act—are fourfold. New Zealand travel document information can be disclosed to identify unauthorised passengers before they depart for New Zealand. That gives us a proactive capacity to do something about the characters who want to come to our country. I think that is right and proper. We should be vetting the people whom we invite to our homes. 
Passports will be valid for only 5 years reduced from 10 to prevent forgery. At first I was uncomfortable with that provision for a whole range of reasons. I thought that the cost would be too high and that it would be a real imposition particularly on our senior citizens who have the time to do the travelling and I thought about what other costs would be imposed on them. But having been privileged to see where passports are made I understand exactly what goes into making a passport forgery-free or at least what helps the passport makers to be ahead of the game because forgers across the world are very quick in their ability to emulate what we provide as our passport. We have to keep the integrity of the New Zealand passport otherwise it becomes worthless. I saw first-hand the technologies that were employed and I understand the need for this provision to be included in the bill. 
 So unfortunately and regrettably the cost will go up. But it is a cost worth bearing because our passports will end up becoming worthless if we do not. They will be a joke and will not be accepted in a lot of other countries in the world. 
The Minister can refuse to issue or can cancel New Zealand travel documents on the grounds of national security and the court can forbid the issue of a passport. I do not think that anybody in his or her rational mind could possibly disagree with that provision. It makes perfect sense that we have the capacity to say no if we have other information that basically states that we should not allow someone to have the privilege of becoming a New Zealander. 
Finally to formalise current practice provisions have been introduced to allow the issue renewal and cancellation of refugee travel documents. Those documents are different from passports certificates of identity or emergency travel documents and they facilitate a refugee’s international travel. Again that comes back to a fundamental point: New Zealand is our home and we have the right to restrict or invite whoever comes here— 
Keith Locke 
: For whatever reason. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: —for whatever reason. That point is absolutely fundamental. We do not expect people from the rest of the world to be able to come here willy-nilly without our having the ability to make some assessment of whether we want them here. I think that this legislation goes a long way towards doing exactly that. 
United Future will be supporting this legislation. [ 
Interruption 
] Well as I understand it only the Greens are upset about this legislation because they would like to open the doors to everybody who might aspire to their beliefs. 
Craig McNair 
: Open up the floodgates. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: We do not want to do that. 
We are a country of foreigners. We have all migrated here—whether we are Moriori Maori Pacific Islander or trace our lineage from Europe America or wherever. We have all come here from somewhere else. We need to protect the integrity of the New Zealand border. This bill will do that. United Future will happily support this legislation. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I have been a proud member of the Labour-Progressive Government led by Helen Clark and Jim Anderton for 5 years. We have a coalition agreement that in its essence moves towards free education again at a tertiary level and free highest-quality health care for New Zealanders premised on a goal of full employment. All those goals I stand by and all those are in our agreement. 
But as a Progressive Party member I cannot support the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill before us tonight. It is unnecessary in terms of its treatment of our migrant communities that make up a small but very significant part of our population which is always being added to and is always changing. I cannot support the erosion of the rule of law in order to allow an administrative procedure whereby a Minister of the Government can withdraw the passport of a New Zealander and overturn the basic principle that the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that it has a reason to act against a citizen. I do not agree that that administrative measure should be turned upon citizens or other persons with travel documents so that they have to go to the High Court to prove why they should have their passports or refugee documents. 
In economic terms the bill does not make sense. In Australia our closest competitor in terms of trade the period for getting citizenship as has been acknowledged tonight is 2 years. In every other form of our relationship with Australia we are trying to move to a situation in which we as a country can compete more closely with that country. We are putting up a barrier or a hurdle for the many skilled migrants around New Zealand whom New Zealand needs constantly and whom all members of Parliament I am sure at different times have praised for their contributions to our country. Of course migrants will choose Australia. Australia says that if they meet its tough entry requirements and become residents within 2 years they will be assessed as to whether they can take the next step citizenship. Here in New Zealand we are going the other way in moving that period to 5 years. But it will be more than 5 years because as any member who has had to put in an application for citizenship will know it takes a year to 18 months and the time to wait will therefore be much more than the 5-year period. 
I do not speak with anger about the Labour Party but I do make this plea to the many people I have worked with for many years in that party. The Labour Party has earned the reputation of being the defender of migrant communities. The Labour Party because of its connection to the labour movement has earned a reputation for its defence of the broadest democratic rights. But this bill moves away from that. 
It moves in the direction of parties like New Zealand First and United Future. What do they base their type of philosophy on? Their philosophy is based on dividing people in New Zealand and on casting slurs on people because they are migrants and have a name that can be used to vilify them. I heard the representative from New Zealand First ask tonight: if migrants do not like this bill and smash windows what do we think of people like that? For the member to suggest that it is the reputation of migrant communities in New Zealand to incite violence—as New Zealand First’s leader often suggests against migrant people in New Zealand—is a bad path to go down and we will rue that day if we do so. 
The founders of the Labour Party Harry Holland and Michael Joseph Savage would never have capitulated to that form of narrow chauvinism. They would never have capitulated to the sabre-rattling of the United Future representative who talked about the loyalty of New Zealanders. People do not prove their loyalty to a country by one particular form of allegiance or speech. People show their allegiance to the place they are by being members of the community and by making a contribution. 
Members of Parliament should look back at the speeches they have made at the many ethnic functions we have attended where they extolled those communities whatever their background for their wonderful clothes food and costumes. I suspect that when many of those members said those things they did not mean a damn thing at all. Now they go to the other side of town and say that those migrants need to prove their loyalty to New Zealand and say exactly where their allegiance lies. 
The legislation is a backward step. First of all whereas people who have made the journey to New Zealand in order to contribute to this country have had to wait 3 years before they could apply for citizenship we are now saying that we do not trust them and that they will have to wait 5 years. What form of nation building is that? Secondly we have the gall to say to people who marry a New Zealand citizen that whereas their fitness to be a New Zealand citizen could once be assessed after a period of 2 years they will now have to wait a further 3 years before they can make an application. We are saying to people who have journeyed to New Zealand in order to have a work permit—perhaps a student who is studying to the level of a PhD or something of that nature that takes many years and who has made a contribution to the country—that that contribution will not be taken into account and that they will have to wait 5 years for citizenship. It does not make economic sense. It does not make for social cohesion in our country. 
I now turn to the other provisions of the bill relating to our passports and travel documents. Administrative power is being given that will take away from the courts the normal practice that the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person has committed some kind of offence and therefore does not deserve a passport. Of course people will call it the Ahmed Zaoui provision for that reason. Whether or not Ahmed Zaoui has New Zealand residence Algerian residence or some other form of nationality there has always been a principle that any person in New Zealand will be given the same rights under law. You-know-what? Do members not want that principle for New Zealand citizens who are migrants in other countries? Did we not want it for the man who died in a prison on the Ivory Coast? We are asking whether he got natural justice. Do we not want it for the many New Zealanders who live in my home country of Australia and who make up 2 percent of its prison population? People would hope that those New Zealanders had had a fair trial in Australia and I do as well. Then why in New Zealand are we setting two forms of justice? We are making a very big mistake. 
The Israelis who were caught here falsifying passports and trying to dupe the New Zealand public and the New Zealand system were caught and prosecuted under the law we have now. We did not need a new law; we did not need new provisions. We had strong enough provisions to catch them. All we needed was an investigative procedure. 
Many New Zealanders came before the select committee but I struggle to remember anybody who said that this was a good bill. There must have been one or two. But those submitters who were talking to us were New Zealand citizens. Did it matter whether they had been born in India? Did it matter that someone had been born in China? Did it matter that like me someone had been born in Australia? They were I hope considered New Zealand citizens. 
Of course people came before us who were born New Zealanders. The people who had been born here were the most vociferous in asking why we are taking New Zealand citizenship away from children born in New Zealand when we have given that right for many many years without any problem for one basic principle—to protect the child. Members of Parliament will probably know of cases whereby people have struggled for 5 6 7 8 9 or 10 years in legal battles to prove their right to stay in New Zealand. 
Certainly members of the Labour Party know such cases because in my days in the Labour Party all members represented communities where migrants gave big support to and raised funds for people elected to Parliament. When I was in the Labour Party we always protected the rights of children born here to go to school to have health care and to be considered New Zealand citizens. 
On the economic level this bill does not make sense. To use a market argument through this bill we will lose a competitive edge. On a social cohesiveness level the bill does not make sense because we are dividing people and making different categories of New Zealand citizens. With respect for the rule of law in terms of our passports I say that not even in the Cold War when people feared nuclear annihilation and invasion by the Russians did the Government ever demand the right to take a New Zealand passport. The Government relied on using the law and on having to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that passport should be taken in order to meet the needs of those times. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 We have just heard the traditional left rump of the Labour Party. It was interesting to listen to that speech tonight because that member—former Labour then NewLabour then Alliance and now Progressive— 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Regressive. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Progressive—I know that that is an oxymoron in this particular case but it is the Progressive Party. It was a very interesting speech made by Mr Robson who knows a little bit about this issue. 
I say to the member and to the Labour Party that this process is one of balance. I acknowledge the officials here tonight who assisted the Government Administration Committee through that process. This is an issue of balance. On one hand we have to make sure that people who come to New Zealand meet a certain standard. I acknowledge the comments made by Stephen Franks earlier on. It is a privilege to be in New Zealand not a right—unless one is born here. It is a privilege. This is our country and our home and it is a privilege for people to be here. But on the other hand New Zealand is a country made up of migrants. The point that Mr Robson made was a good one. Michael Joseph Savage would turn in his grave if he could see where the Labour Party is trying to take New Zealand today. 
I say to Mr Robson that there is a good reason for that too. Most of the migrants in those days were Anglo-Saxon English from mother England. They joined the trade unions and the Labour Party—and we all know what John Tamihere has to say about them today. We all know how much control unions have over the Labour Party today and John Tamihere is not too keen on that. 
We also know that as time has moved on New Zealand as a European country has almost been an accident of navigation. Captain Cook’s boat found it first. It is as simple as that. The first people to settle here were from an Anglo-Saxon background. The reality is that our near neighbours are Asian. It is an inevitable circumstance in a modern world that we will have more immigrants from that part of the world. At the moment 21000 people have an application lodged for citizenship of New Zealand. That is appalling given the Labour Party’s traditional liberal view of that process. It is equally appalling that 8000 people had to petition Parliament to bring about the kinds of changes that are being proposed. Eight thousand people had to petition Parliament under a Labour Government. 
Pansy Wong 
: Asian people. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: They were mainly Asian? Mainly Asian people had to petition the Parliament to bring about the changes and we have a Labour Government! It is incomprehensible as Mr Robson quite clearly stated. 
There are other aspects of this bill of course that the National Party was not convinced of. Members of the Government Administration Committee were not convinced that those changes were in the best interests of moving forward. One of them was the argument that as modern technology is moving so quickly passports now are easily forged and therefore we needed to move forward to a system of renewing passports every 5 years so we can keep ahead of the process. Even though technically that argument was robust there was no evidence to say that that was happening. So the National Party was not in support of that particular part of the proposal. 
It was equally disturbing to note that last year 20000 New Zealanders holding New Zealand citizenship left this country. We have to ask why that was. There is one simple answer. We have a Labour Government that will tax them and tax them until they find a country that wants them and values their contribution and their ability to get on in society and do well. One of those countries of course that has been the beneficiary of that gain has been our near neighbour Australia. Australia has only a 2-year time frame for people to gain citizenship. This is despite the Labour Government starting with Jim Anderton who belongs to the Progressive Party—the oxymoron in the New Zealand Parliament—that supports the Labour Party. 
His clarion call on becoming the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand in a previous Labour-led Government was: “Come home Kiwis. We will fix it up. This is your home country. Come back to New Zealand. You have a new Government now and I’m the Deputy Prime Minister.” At the same time I hasten to add he said: “I’m going to lower petrol prices.” What has happened? Every year 20000 New Zealanders go overseas and they do not intend to come back. They are telling us overwhelmingly that this Labour Government is the reason. 
I say to the House tonight that this legislation is overdue in some aspects and too heavy-handed in others. It will be interesting when the Minister takes a call during the Committee stage to see whether the bill will end up in the same form as at present. The National Party looks forward to that process before committing ourselves to what we will end up doing. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have a few words for my colleagues who have spoken before me. First I would like to talk to the United Future member. He made New Zealand First a bit of a target by saying that it is “Winston First”. I say to the honourable members over there that we would prefer that to being known as “Dunne First” as they will be after the next election. 
I have to say that Matt Robson is prepared to sell New Zealand’s citizenship very cheaply. He would give it away. I have a few words that I would like Matt Robson to take note of: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Who said that? It was President Kennedy. After listening to Matt Robson’s speech I think it is pretty pertinent that he take note of that and digest it. 
This country is a magnificent country. It has three major assets. 
Darren Hughes 
: Helen Clark Michael Cullen and Jim Anderton. 
PETER BROWN 
: No I am talking about assets not exports. The first major asset is its physical beauty. Members do not need me to explain that. Does anybody disagree with that? Does anybody over there want to change that? Does anybody in the National Party want to change the physical beauty of this country? The second major asset this country has is that New Zealanders are basically and fundamentally hard-working enterprising and very friendly people. Does anybody disagree? Does anybody want to change that? The third asset this country has and let me remind members to think about it very very carefully is that it does not have too many of those hard-working friendly people. It has a very small population and that is an asset. 
Does anybody recall hearing of a place called Wood Green in the UK? It has made the news this very evening. A terrorist was locked up there. He was producing evil chemicals to put on cars and if people touched them they would die. The commentator on Television One said tonight that if he had got away with it the situation would have been greater than 9/11. Why do I mention this? That scumbag—and that is the only word I can use—escaped. He got to Manchester. He stabbed a detective who was trying to arrest him. 
Brian Connell 
: Killed him. 
PETER BROWN 
: He killed him and stabbed many other policemen and seriously injured them. I do not know whether he was born in the UK but I guess that if he was his parents came from somewhere. 
But most important there was a description of Wood Green. [ 
Interruption 
] The Minister should not make a joke of these sorts of issues. This bill is the Government’s bill to tighten up on people coming to this country. I went to school in Wood Green. I can tell you that those few years ago it was quite a different place from what it is now. I can say to you that New Zealand First— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please do not bring the Speaker into the debate. 
PETER BROWN 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not mind you drawing me back to the bill but if you are going to allow idiots like that Minister to perform like that— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will be seated. I was not bringing the member back to the bill. I was referring the member to the fact that twice he brought the Speaker into the debate. 
PETER BROWN 
: I have to defend myself. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Speaking in defence of my colleague from New Zealand First the Minister who has just entered the Chamber will be unaware that this bill has progressed since 7 p.m. in a manner in which all speakers at the second reading have been allowed a fair go without a barrage of mindless abuse coming from Ministers who have only just turned up in the House. I ask that you apply to Mr Brown the standard that other speakers have enjoyed at this second reading. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member will please be seated. The reason Mr Brown was pulled up by myself was that he twice brought me into the debate. That was the only reason. I have made a ruling. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At no time did I refer to the comments you made about the reason Mr Brown brought you into the debate. I made no reference to that at all and I would not dispute your ruling in any sense. I raised a fresh point of order relating to the interjections coming from the back bench of the Labour Party and the fact that a Minister who has recently arrived in the Chamber has decided to interject on a member when the rest of this bill has been heard in comparative silence and other members of Parliament have been given a fair go. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mr Brown was dealing quite adequately with the interjection. It was just when he brought me into the debate that I responded. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have dealt with the point of order. 
Hon Annette King 
: It is a fresh point of order. When you were on your feet hearing that point of order the member who raised it interjected the entire time you were trying to rule. If he is going to raise a point of order then he also ought to obey the Standing Orders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member. I appreciate that. Can I just say to members that there is a ruling in the House that when a point of order is being taken and being heard it is to be done in silence. 
PETER BROWN 
: I need to explain—and I accept your ruling—that when I was responding to the Hon Rick Barker I did say “you” but I meant him. I said it twice and I apologise. 
New Zealand First is well on record as wanting strict criteria to be applied to people who come to this country. We want them to come here in good health. That is for obvious reasons. We are not talking about coughs and colds; we are talking about basic health. Why should a person come here heavily diseased with whatever and be an expense to the taxpayer? That we think is reasonable sound social and economic policy. We want people to come here who are able to speak English. That is sound common sense. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: My in-laws cannot speak English. 
PETER BROWN 
: I understand that the member’s in-laws cannot speak English because as an Australian he struggles at times himself. So there are exceptions to everything. 
New Zealand First wants people who come here to be crime-free—people who were law-abiding citizens where they came from and who are intending to be that here. We like the 5-year requirement before a person can get citizenship because we think it is a good period of time to be crime-free before— 
Hon Matt Robson 
: You don’t think you just parrot. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member should put his brain in gear from time to time and listen. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: Thinking requires analysis not parroting. 
PETER BROWN 
: My patience is wearing a bit thin. I am prepared to deal with the member but I just note that I am— 
Hon Annette King 
: You’re getting tired. 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes and I am getting less tolerant. New Zealand First believes that a 5-year period for people to live here before they get citizenship is a reasonable time frame and that within that time frame they must be crime-free. If they want to get involved in crime within that time frame then they get a one-way ticket out. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to the member who keeps yapping over there that I am prepared to give him a one-way ticket out. 
New Zealand First believes that there is an obligation on anybody and everybody who comes to this country and who wants to live here permanently to assimilate into the country. By that I do not mean that they have to give up their national dress and such things but I do believe that they need to make the effort to become part of New Zealand society in the wider sense. I see the Minister of Immigration sitting there. I think he nodded in agreement. I have to say that he has learnt the lesson the hard way. If he had listened to us he would have nodded in agreement much more quickly. 
We are taking people into this country now who come from war-torn countries—countries savaged by war. 
Dianne Yates 
: Might even be from Britain. 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes and Britain might be one of them but there is a good deal worse than Britain. People who are under the stress of living in war-torn countries might not make good New Zealand citizens and we should possibly examine that criteria—where they come from. 
Hon Annette King 
: For whom does that bell toll? It tolls for thee. 
PETER BROWN 
: It tolls for thee? I have frequently been accused by that Labour Government of being an immigrant and wanting to close the door after me. [ 
Interruption 
] And those members are pretty close. When I came here I had to be in good health and I have maintained that. I had to have a job and I have had a job ever since I have been here. I had to make a commitment to this country and although I am a soccer man I have taken up rugby. I can see that the Labour members over there are very tired and in a very humorous mood so I think I might conclude my speech and have a little bit more fun during the Committee stage. 
Amendments recommended by the Government Administration Committee by majority agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 104 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Noes 10 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Bill read a second time. 
Instruction to Committee 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill that it take the bill part by part. 
Motion agreed to. 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendments to Citizenship Act 1977 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I would like the Committee to consider the amendments I am putting forward. They fall into three major categories. I agree with previous speakers who have said that to become a New Zealand citizen is a very important and privileged decision. I want the Government and others to consider supporting my amendment which proposes that before an applicant is accepted to become a New Zealand citizen he or she should attend a compulsory citizenship induction course administered by the Department of Internal Affairs where the rights and obligations of becoming a New Zealand citizen would be learnt properly. 
I also want the Minister in the chair the Hon George Hawkins to take a call because even though he told us last year that this bill had to be passed in 2004 we are obviously now in April 2005 and there seems to be little need for that urgency. The Minister said that the starting date for Part 4 and Part 8 will now be the commencement date but I think that will still cause a lot of uncertainty in the communities affected. I have proposed a whole raft of amendments to suggest that we state a specific day—say 1 May 2005—to introduce some certainty. 
I would also like the Committee to support my amendment with regard to the time that a temporary visa holder spends in New Zealand. Let us think about it. The export education sector we are told contributes $2 billion a year into the economy. Students usually come to study at high school and then go on to tertiary education which means that on average a student would spend 5 years here before maybe converting their visa to a work visa and then becoming a permanent resident. That means that by the time they are allowed to apply to become New Zealand citizens they would already have spent some 5 to 6 years in New Zealand. 
 I understand that the Hon Matt Robson is moving an amendment to revert to the current situation whereby the temporary visa holder’s time-span in New Zealand would count towards the qualifying period. I am a reasonable person and my amendment states that at least half the time such people spend in New Zealand should be counted towards that. I hope to hear feedback from the Minister. 
I also raise the issue relating to a different group of permit holder—the long-term business visa holder. Those people come to New Zealand for the express purpose of experiencing whether within 2 years they can successfully establish a business. They come with the sole intention that they will be entitled to become permanent resident visa holders upon proving that their business venture is being implemented. I hope that the Minister can look favourably at that group of people and say that the retrospective nature of the change will not apply to that group of visa holders as well. I understand that there are probably 2000 to 3000 of them and given the fact that they have uprooted themselves and made a serious investment in New Zealand by commencing business paying GST and contributing to New Zealand I hope that the Minister can look favourably at the amendment I have proposed and say that they will be allowed to be exempt from being subject to the new extended provision and can be considered under the current requirement. 
I really think that the Minister should take a call at least to give us some feedback on his reaction towards the raft of amendments proposed by myself. They are very considered and deserve some attention from the Minister. I look forward to his contribution. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 In speaking on Part 1 I want to raise the issue of the increase from 3 to 5 years in the standard period of residence. The reason I want to raise it is that the National Party the Progressive Party the Green Party and I believe the ACT party are opposed to it. Is the ACT party opposed to the increase from 3 to 5 years? It does not matter whether it is anyway. The National Party the Progressives and the Greens at least are opposed to the increase. 
Last year I had the pleasure of being on the Finance and Expenditure Committee trip to Australia. When we were in a meeting in Canberra with some Ministers and Government MPs one of the thorniest issues—one of the issues that has created tension in our relationship with Australia—was the 3-year requirement and also wider issues of immigration and the different path that New Zealand has chosen to take in the last 20 years compared with Australia. Yet we wonder why about 3 years ago the Australian Government restricted the reciprocal benefits agreement that we had had for so many years! We had an amazing relationship with our trans-Tasman brother—or sister if members want to call it that—for many years. It was probably one of the closest intercountry relationships the world has ever seen. I would not say we have destroyed that because New Zealand First was against doing that but New Zealand Governments of the last 20 years have taken us down a path of destroying the great relationship we had with Australia. That has formed a lot of tension in these areas and I wanted to bring that up with the Committee. 
Keeping with the issue of the increase from 3 to 5 years I was berated by the Progressive member Matt Robson for saying what Keith Locke had said. Keith Locke had said that if the citizenship process were prolonged it could make people more antagonistic. Matt Robson berated me and said I was marginalising people and stereotyping them but I was just quoting what another member had said. I then had my counter-argument to that which was my concern that people who get more antagonistic because of having to wait another couple of years are not the kinds of people we want. I think that is a fair reasonable common-sense sensible argument. I do not see how anybody could disagree with that argument. 
Another issue that I want to raise in the Committee is the comment made by Stephen Franks from the ACT party that this bill is unpatriotic. Well I want to allude to a couple of points in Part 1 that I believe make the bill quite the opposite—a patriotic bill. First there is the requirement for applicants to take the oath or affirmation of allegiance to New Zealand at a public citizenship ceremony. I believe that is very patriotic. I was watching television the other night and saw a citizenship ceremony that the Prime Minister had attended. I think it is a great thing when people say: “I am becoming a New Zealander. I am becoming a New Zealander first. I am going to put my country first and be proud of the country I represent.” I believe that the patriotic thing to do is to go to a public ceremony and say: “I am a New Zealander.” I think that is patriotic. I think that is great. When somebody says this bill is an unpatriotic bill I just allude to that fact and say it is very patriotic. 
Another argument I have against this bill being an unpatriotic bill is the fact that it provides for the Citizenship Office to have restricted access to immigration information for the purpose of conducting citizenship investigations assessing whether— 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 It is clear that the parties are taking positions to pass this bill in its entirety. The amendments that I have proposed as a Progressive member state that I believe the status quo should stay in relation to the time period for people gaining citizenship. I point members to the fact that we have had this position for many years in New Zealand. It could have been 2 years 1 year or it might have been 4 years but presumably when a time period was set between residence and citizenship there was a policy behind it in terms of assessing whether someone was a suitable citizen for New Zealand. 
Now that the period is going to 5 years I have not heard in the select committee or in the Committee of the whole House tonight any valid policy reason for going from 3 to 5 years. The member from New Zealand First who has just spoken hinted that it was pressure from Australia. We have been assured by Australian officials and the Australian Government that there was never any demand. I think the Minister himself may have spoken and said that there was never any demand or blackmail from Australia that we should set a period of 5 years. As far as I can see it is internally generated. 
I draw the Committee’s attention to one aspect of this matter. I for my sins was a member of the Labour Party before 1990. Then we had a parting of the ways when the church was not quite broad enough at that particular time. We were obviously praying to different Gods and ours was not Roger Douglas at that time. The Labour Party that I remembered fought these types of proposal. They came up many times—from whence I do not know but largely from parties of the right to put more and more restrictions on people who were migrants. Much of it was electorally driven at times from the type of speech we heard from Peter Brown suggesting words like “floodgates”. When such words are applied to migrants and refugees people do not have in mind the white European they have in mind a certain type of person usually Asian usually from the Middle East. It is a reprehensible term. 
 That is what drives that type of demand. Economics do not drive it. The only part of economics that drives it is the consideration that if people come here and then leave for Australia after 3 years we are losing them. Well that is true of course but maybe we need to do more to keep them here. Let us take the example of doctors for a start the many doctors who came to New Zealand—and New Zealand First even campaigned for New Zealand doctors. Those doctors have gone to Australia in large numbers not because they were disloyal not because they did not want to make New Zealand their home but because we did not open places for them until under a progressive action of the Minister of Health Annette King—I played a role myself in that Government—we set up a bridging course and more doctors stayed. But others left because we did not open up enough places for their skills through actions taken by ourselves. Now what we are saying to migrants is on the one hand how we love them for coming to New Zealand and on the other hand that they are not good enough; they have to wait 5 years before they qualify for citizenship. 
My amendments are directed to the status quo. There are four of them. I put it to Peter Brown to tell us at some stage how long it was before he was able to apply for citizenship. Was it 3 years or was it 5 years? He may have waited a long time because he had a privileged passport a British passport which allows people to travel without having to face the restrictions that people from Third World countries face. Such migrants go to Australia and the first thing they face is not being allowed out of the airport without having special rights special permits etc. There are two types of passports and two types of backgrounds in New Zealand I am afraid and what we should do is try to iron that out. 
My first amendment which is directed at leaving the qualifying period at 3 years is to omit from clause 4 the term “ordinarily resident”. If members vote for my first amendment that is what they will be doing; they will be keeping it at 3 years. I believe that economically that is justified and in terms of social cohesion it is fair. 
The second amendment concerns citizenship—the birthright of every child. After this legislation is passed how many members want people in their offices who have children who were born in New Zealand and have been struggling for maybe 4 or 5 years—and we should not forget that many of them win their cases and that the law was wrong—because those children cannot go to school and cannot get health care? That is why the right to citizenship for those born in New Zealand was there for years and years and was never taken away. 
And that is why the United States and Canada leave it there. It is because that right protects the child. There are not hundreds of mums getting on Boeing 747s descending on Auckland airport and then clogging up the hospitals. That is a myth. If there are one or two people who do that well—do we have a sledgehammer to crack a nut? How many members know New Zealanders who have deliberately had babies in other countries? I do. I know many who have had babies in the UK. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Craig McNair is right in a funny sort of way because I think that Australia would support this bill—but not for the reasons he explained. If we were the Australian Government and we were competing with New Zealand for skilled migrants we would welcome a bill that told those migrants they would wait 5 years for citizenship in New Zealand but only 2 years in Australia. Those migrants would go to Australia. Craig McNair said that migrants who waited a long time would become antagonistic. The essence of what that is about is that if no reason—and Matt Robson has talked about this—is given for extending the time period from 3 to 5 years people do get upset or antagonistic and they feel it is unjust to them. The result of that is not as others have indicated before people smashing windows or anything like that; they just say that perhaps New Zealand does not want them so they will go on to Australia which has a 2-year qualifying period. 
This bill as has been pointed out has been delayed for about 6 months in getting to its second reading. Can the Minister or anyone else in the Chamber point to one single baby born here during that 6-month delay—because some people are scared that people are coming here having babies getting citizenship for their babies and then taking off back home—that this bill would have applied to or that this bill would have prevented from being born a New Zealand citizen and claiming that citizenship? I do not think anyone can. As Matt Robson said the issue is about the provision under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of health care for every baby. We heard at the Government Administration Committee from Caritas Aotearoa - New Zealand a Catholic organisation a case study of what that means in practice. 
I will quote from the Caritas submission: “The complaint we have taken to the Human Rights Commission involves such a couple—a young family where the father is on a working visa under the business category and the mother on a student visa. The conditions of the working visa state that any application for social security assistance will affect a later application for residence. The couple’s intentions in working towards residence have always been clear. The arrival of a baby threw study and work plans into some confusion as they do for many resident and citizen New Zealanders. This created a period of financial hardship for the family which is not unknown to other New Zealand families with a new baby. However without family support or social security back-up the family experienced a level of poverty which was new even to the frontline social service agencies that met them. The mother and child were described by their Plunket nurse as literally starving because the mother was not producing enough milk to feed the baby and they could not afford formula. It is clear to everyone who has come into contact with this family that they are extremely hard working and will in the long term be an asset to New Zealand. We believe our society has always been made up of hard-working immigrants who accept a period of financial hardship for themselves but whose children are born into a new life.” 
What we are saying is that the family had problems with the social welfare system but under this legislation the parents will also have problems in getting critical medical help for their child. That is a very strong reason for having the current provision—so that any baby born here does have access to our medical services. I have an amendment here to enable the existing situation the status quo to prevail. 
I also have an amendment that is similar to other amendments put forward tonight to keep the status quo in terms of the 3-year qualifying period from residency to citizenship. As Matt Robson has said nobody has yet provided a good reason why that period should go up from 3 to 5 years. It is bureaucracy gone mad and the Government is just saying it will increase it because that seems to be the advice coming from the department. But there are just no reasons there. I think that the Minister should get up and explain why we have to go from a 3-year to a 5-year qualifying period. Why do we have to put ourselves at a disadvantage in the world? Why do we have to put new migrants to such a disadvantage? It is a matter of them waiting up to 10 years for citizenship. They arrive on a business work or student visa and spend a year or two on that. Then they spend a year applying for residence and it can be another 5 years of that residence before they get citizenship. It is a very very long wait. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I am puzzled about this part of this bill. The citizenship provisions appear to specify quite strict conditions for the Minister to grant citizenship in a way that makes it look as if it is not easy for him to do it. Then new section 9A(3) inserted by clause 8 states: “Nothing in this section limits the Minister’s discretion to refuse a grant of citizenship if the Minister is not satisfied that the applicant is of good character.” But I am not sure where the Minister’s discretion is. Is there someone familiar with this law overall who knows just how broadly the Minister’s discretion is framed and how useful it is? It does seem if the Minister has broad discretion that quite a lot of the stuff in this bill is not very useful. Or is it that the Minister did have broad discretion but the courts decided they did not like it and have cut it down? I hope someone in this Chamber who went through the select committee process can actually say what the discretion is—what is its width what is its reliability and how robust will it be against well-meaning but rather self-confident judges if the Minister does have broad discretion to turn down applicants? 
I say that because when we read new section 9(1)(c) inserted by clause 8 we see there is an express permission to grant: “if the Minister is satisfied that granting a certificate … would be in the public interest because of exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian or other nature …”. Maybe that kind of grant is a sort of relief of misery grant but I cannot see an express authority to grant where it would be in the public interest because the person seeking citizenship is an incredibly good catch for New Zealand—a very well-qualified person or an enormously entrepreneurial person or someone whose drive and ambition have shone through in what that person has done or someone whose inventive talents have been well displayed. I ask whether there is something else that would make such a person a special case because certainly the provisions we see in this part that allow the Minister to grant citizenship in special cases—all the powers that the Minister has to grant citizenship in special cases—are very narrow. 
Someone may point me in the direction of new section 8(8) on the preceding page that says the Minister can waive the requirement for English language and for presence in New Zealand if the Minister is satisfied “in a particular case that because of the applicant’s age or standard of education or for any other reason personal to the applicant the applicant would suffer undue hardship …”. Once more the law seems to be framed around an assumption that the applicant has a right to be here if the applicant is miserable enough or abandoned enough—if no one else would have the applicant—whereas the law should be built around the Minister granting citizenship where the applicant’s age or standard of education or other reasons personal to the applicant make that applicant a fantastic catch for New Zealand. That is the bit I hope the Minister can explain. 
I feel sure there must be some way for a Minister to allow in a whole school—as we did in the late 1930s and 1940s when we received a whole raft of very qualified people from Central Europe and did well out it. I hope we can do as well as the United States has done out of letting in the crème de la crème of the universities of the world. The other day I read that 40 percent of United States doctorates are granted to people born outside the US. 
It may be that that discretion is elsewhere and the Minister can grant citizenship simply because he is persuaded it is a good idea but the way that this bill is framed is all negative. It is assuming that one has a right to citizenship provided that one can show enough misery. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I was explaining to members—and I know that they are listening to me and perhaps rethinking their positions—that I had four amendments. First the amendment to clause 4 is to keep the status quo on the basis that there is no policy reason to change it. Second our principle has been that it is the birthright of every child born in New Zealand to be a New Zealand citizen. There is no proof before us that there is a major crisis. In fact we have a declining population in terms of age and we want more young people in New Zealand. The third amendment is to recognise the special status of marriage—which I will return to—and also recognise civil union partners as part of that special status. From both sides of the debate on the Civil Union Bill I heard many members talk about the special nature of marriage and their regard for it. I think that marriage should be brought into this legislation so as to recognise that the people who marry New Zealand citizens have made a good choice. Let us have some confidence in them. They would still have to pass the character medical and other professional qualifications tests but let us remember that the special status of marriage was an important part of that debate. 
The reason that the New Zealand First members advanced for the Australians supporting this legislation was to stop the flow—I think that was what they were saying. That is not true. I have said that the Australian officials have assured us that there is no pressure from Australia to put the qualifying period for citizenship up to 5 years. The pressure against New Zealanders going to Australia is actually part of Australian racism. I can tell members that from my own experience and from the experience of my own family. Do members know whom Australians do not like? Australians ask me: “Why do all those Maoris come over here? Why do all those Pacific Islanders come over here?”. I explain that those Maoris are New Zealand citizens and that those Pacific Islanders who are Niueans and Cook Islanders are New Zealand citizens. Much of the pressure is directed against New Zealand - born citizens. 
Qualified people from Bangladesh Iraq and Sri Lanka are welcome in Australia. I have a Bangladeshi friend who is a doctor—a specialist—who could not get qualifications in New Zealand. He now does the flying doctor service all throughout Queensland based in Mount Isa. Another specialist was not allowed to practise here; he failed his exams in psychiatry. He did not want to practise psychiatry. He is an orthopaedic specialist and a stomach specialist. He went to the Royal Darwin Hospital where he now specialises in crocodile bites. The Australians want him there. Another friend is a Russian doctor who could not practise here—a TB specialist and we do have a problem with TB here—but the authorities said no. He is now practising in Melbourne. Australia welcomes the people whom we have not kept here. The desire to stop New Zealanders going there and things like the 2-year qualification period before one can get any benefits are actually directed against New Zealand citizens. I am afraid to say in terms of my own home country that the racism that still exists in that society is directed against New Zealand - born citizens particularly Maori and Pacific Island New Zealand citizens. 
The special status of marriage meant we recognised that it was good to have a strong bond within the family. That is why when New Zealanders brought a spouse back to the country they loved they wanted that spouse to be on the same level and status as them as quickly as possible. If one is a New Zealand citizen whose wife comes from Bangladesh one should try going to Australia to attend the same function. The Bangladeshi wife has to go into the Australian consul and I am afraid she has to grovel. I have had to help people in that regard. They have to produce bank statements and affidavits and they are still turned down on the basis that the authorities think they will stay in Australia or do something terrible there. As soon as the spouse is a New Zealand citizen she or he can travel on an equal basis to that of his or her partner. 
The other point is that in New Zealand too there are many areas where if one is not a New Zealand citizen one is not on the same level as someone who is. Mostly I think that is quite good. A person has a range of rights as a resident. I had them for 20 years before I became a citizen in the year 2000. It took me longer than Peter Brown to become a New Zealand citizen. Obviously Australians need more than 5 years—unlike the British I say to Peter Brown because he got his citizenship in 3 years I am sure. For an Australian it takes a bit longer. However the range of rights is really extensive. I was elected as a member of Parliament although I was a resident of Australia and not a citizen of New Zealand. I thought what a great country New Zealand was for being so broad-minded and for being so good. I see the Minister of Internal Affairs is looking at me as if to say he is thinking he had better go back and look at that citizenship grant now that he has the new power coming to him of being able to take someone’s passport away. But I have confidence in George Hawkins—just as the New Zealand public does—and I am sure that he would not do that. 
In terms of the recognition of civil union partners I think that the Committee should remember that we have passed it into law that a civil union is of an equal status to marriage. We have talked at length about families so what about retaining that status in the law? 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I have to put the facts right because there might still be one person listening to the radio after that member’s contribution. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Not now they won’t be. 
PETER BROWN 
: I think that listeners may have done their dash but just in case they are about to switch the radio off I have to tell people that there are Maori people by the thousand in Australia and they are loving it over there. They are feeling very very welcome. I can tell people first-hand that my colleagues—particularly my Maori colleagues in New Zealand First—have a direct relationship with many of them and they tell us that they will not be coming back because they love Australia so much. So I say to Mr Robson that to give the reverse impression is to do a huge disservice both to the country he was born in which I find a bit unusual and to the Maori folk who are over there. I can say to that member quite categorically that there are a lot of Maori people living in Australia and they are loving it more every day. 
Pansy Wong said in an earlier contribution that this law will make us the toughest of five countries that she listed. 
Pansy Wong 
: I’m always right. 
PETER BROWN 
: She is always right and I acknowledge that to the member. But I want to say that she spoke as if it is something we should be ashamed of. New Zealand First is quite proud that we are tough on the people whom we let into this country. We are quite pleased that the honourable member—who will not shut up behind me—sees us as the toughest of the five countries. New Zealand First has always said that immigration should be controlled. 
I do not know the exact answer to Mr Robson’s question about how long I was here before I got citizenship but it was a darn sight longer than 5 years. It was not a pressing problem for me. I came here. I was welcomed here. I lived here. I worked here. I contributed—I hope—to society. I certainly put my back into my employment. I paid my taxes. And I made many many friends—natural-born New Zealanders and people who had come from other countries. It did not matter at all to me whether it took 5 years 10 years or whatever. I echo the sentiments I think of the ACT member—he puts his hand up when he does not even know what I am going to say—who said that it should be a privilege to come and live here on a permanent basis. This is an absolutely fantastic country and members talk as if we should open the doors for anybody to come here. New Zealand First is quite proud to say that anyone who wants to come and live here has to conform has to come up to scratch and has to assimilate into this society. We will not walk away from that. 
I also want to talk about babies being born here. My colleague said he had heard that it could be as many as 600 women who come here on an annual basis to give birth to babies so that the youngsters will be New Zealand citizens. Then they can take those babies offshore as permanent New Zealand citizens. That is absolutely daft. We are very pleased to compliment the Minister on taking up our member’s bill and embracing it in this piece of legislation. We are particularly pleased that he showed enough initiative to see that New Zealand First had a point and that its proposals should be put into a Government bill. 
I say to Matt Robson who is shaking his head over there that I do not think he has the support of his leader for his stance. I ask the member whether he has the support of his leader for what he is saying. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: There are 10 members in my caucus who would vote for me and probably 25! 
PETER BROWN 
: I think we can say that he does not have the support of his leader. He stands up there making a noise like an empty barrel and he does not even have the support of his leader. I say to that honourable member—and that is the best thing I can call him tonight—“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” He should stop moaning about people who want to tighten up the situation here. He should stop complaining. 
We in New Zealand First are proud of this country and we are going to put some rules and regulations in place to keep the standard up. We compliment the Minister on this piece of legislation. We do not think it goes far enough but it is certainly a couple of steps in the right direction. After the next election whoever we are in coalition with or whoever our junior partner is when we are leading the next Government we will probably toughen the legislation up a bit more. I can see that Matt Robson has indigestion at the very thought of that. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I would just like to reply to Peter Brown’s comment that some 600 women give birth in New Zealand annually to get citizenship for their babies. In fact the Government Administration Committee had a paper from the Department of Internal Affairs listing babies born to foreign-born parents but those parents were essentially—obviously—people on work visas business visas and student visas. A lot of them were young people. Some of those who come here on student visas or work visas are young people with partners who then have babies. 
Peter Brown 
: How many? 
KEITH LOCKE 
: The figure given was 600 but there are all sorts. These were foreign-born people but they did not come here specifically to have babies. In fact point 21 of the Department of Internal Affairs document states: “The Ministry of Health has advised that it is not possible to provide a breakdown of how many women fall within the categories listed above or to estimate how many of the women have come to New Zealand with the primary purpose of giving birth.” There are simply no statistics on that. So anyone who says that people are coming here for that specific reason does not have the data to back it up. 
This whole bill is based on no information whatsoever. We asked and asked in the select committee and got no answer. That is why this bill is such a nonsense. One case was reported in a newspaper—the Christchurch 
 Press 
 or something—about an American woman who apparently came here on a visitor visa had a baby and went home. That is about as much information as we have. If that baby grows up in Kentucky Las Vegas or wherever and when she is 21 years old decides to use her New Zealand citizenship to come and live in New Zealand to me it would seem quite a tribute to this country if after being brought up in America she wanted to come here. 
Mr Brown says he did not have any trouble when for several years he did not have citizenship or a New Zealand passport. I think that only reinforces Matt Robson’s point. Mr Brown probably had a British passport which gave him entry into countries around the world pretty easily. But if one is on a Bangladeshi passport a Thai passport or an Indonesian passport as many of the spouses of New Zealand citizens in New Zealand are one just cannot get into virtually any OECD country. That is the reality. I think we have to be clear that if we take any sort of anti-migrant stance—and tonight people have been implying that we have to be scared of migrants and stressing all the time that it is a privilege to come here that we do not want them at our doors and that they absolutely have to prove themselves—there is a bit of inconsistency in what we are saying. 
As Mr Brown indicated just about every New Zealand extended family has members who have migrated overseas and they are very lucky that most of the countries they have migrated to have accepted them with open arms—and Australia has been mentioned tonight. So it is inconsistent to say that we are going to protect our shores from migrants and to be hostile and disparaging to migrants in the way New Zealand First is and at the same time ask countries overseas not to put any barriers in the way of New Zealanders going overseas. We have to realise that we are a small nation in the Pacific. We do rely on our children having access to overseas countries. We should protect that and not be anti-immigrant in any sense ourselves. 
I support not only the two amendments to this part that I have put forward but also the amendments of Matt Robson and Pansy Wong which all move in the direction of protecting what we have at the moment and not going down the silly path of extending the residency requirement from 3 years to 5 years denying automatic citizenship to babies born here etc. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I just want to address a point made by the Green member Keith Locke picking up a theme that was run by the Hon Matt Robson about whether Part 1 establishes a high threshold or whether it establishes a very hostile—I think that was the word he used—tone. I raise that because I have already spoken about the apparent absence of a power for the Minister to welcome with open arms people who are very attractive to this country but I do not think it is possible to call the criminal conviction standard anything other than unimaginably wussy. 
New section 9A “Disqualifying convictions” inserted by clause 8 prohibits the Minister from granting citizenship if: “(a) the person was sentenced on conviction to—(i) a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more; or (ii) an indefinite term of imprisonment capable of running for 5 years or more;”—in other words preventive detention—“or (b) within the preceding 7 years the person was subject to a sentence of imprisonment of less than 5 years or was subject to release under subpart 2 of Part 1 of the Parole Act 2002; or (c) within the preceding 3 years the person was convicted of an offence but did not receive a sentence of imprisonment.” 
 The reason I say that is that this focus on imprisonment is actually a focus on people who are pretty serious criminals. The average New Zealand prisoner has had nine previous convictions before his or her first prison sentence so that to get a conviction and sentence of 5 years a pretty serious offence has to be committed. I do not understand why the provision simply does not state that except in the most extraordinary circumstances any imprisonable offence should disqualify. 
Indeed I think there would be many good immigrants who would say that any offence whatsoever should disqualify. I deliberately went out and asked two groups of Chinese about what they thought of our immigration law. They were really amazed and embarrassed by the tolerance the New Zealand system shows to people they describe as ratbags. They did not want ratbags staying in New Zealand letting them all down and damaging the reputation of their people. It was unbelievable to them that after their arrest their feet touched the ground before they were ejected. 
Yet here we have a situation whereby new section 9A as I read it tells the Minister to keep people out only when they are really serious ratbags. Is this another one of those United Nations rules? We do not expect Australians to take New Zealanders if they have been convicted of offences. We do not like it when they eject our ratbags and send them back here; we hate it. But we realise that that is just the way it works. 
Hon Paul Swain 
: We evict a lot actually. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: We do evict a lot but what I am surprised at I tell Mr Swain—because I know that he will understand this very well—is that the Minister who has the discretion in this legislation to authorise a grant of citizenship to people who have been convicted which is a pretty big concession has to wait until those people have been given a 5-year sentence preventive detention or a sentence of less than 5 years but have had parole in the previous 7 years. Why is it simply not any conviction unless the Minister is satisfied that the person has actually turned his or her life around and is living a blameless existence? 
We do not need offenders. We are perfectly capable of growing our own. In fact we are very good at it. We have the second-highest rate of imprisonment in the Western World so we do not need to import more. I am baffled about why the Minister is being told in this legislation to apply such a high standard and even more baffled about why Mr Robson and Mr Locke are busy telling us that this legislation is giving evidence of hostility to people who want to become New Zealand citizens. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 My plea in relation to the four amendments I have proposed to the Committee was: why should we change the 3-year provision now why should we penalise the spouses of New Zealand citizens who could apply after 2 years why should we have the strict conditions of character and fitness etc. and why should we penalise those who may have been on a student permit or work permit and who in the past have shown a good character had a good record and contributed while in New Zealand? That has been my plea. 
I think the exchange between Mr Peter Brown of the New Zealand First Party and myself has been illustrative of this: Mr Brown and I have passports from privileged countries and we did not rush it seems to get New Zealand citizenship. Mr Brown has said that people who come to New Zealand should show an allegiance. Then why does he want to penalise the people who show such allegiance that after 3 years they want to be New Zealand citizens whereas people like him and me did not rush into it? Were we any worse people for not doing that? He seems to be suggesting that other immigrants should show their allegiance. I think that after 3 years they want to do that. 
Let us move to a debate that is going on between Australia and New Zealand now with regard to the rugby league teams. Next Friday we will see the greatest rugby league team in the world. Australia will be here and hopefully New Zealand may knock that team off its perch. What I will do is to wait until half-time to see who is winning and then I will put up my passport depending on which country is winning. My citizenship gives me that privilege. But there is great pressure on New Zealanders who are born in New Zealand but who have been in Australia for a long time since they were little kids to play for New Zealand. There is no suggestion that they have no allegiance to New Zealand. New Zealanders are asking them to come and play for New Zealand. I say to the Committee that we should drop the false and artificial standards of who does have allegiance and who does not and apply the criteria we have applied for so long. 
When people come to New Zealand there is a strict and tough test in order to obtain residence and that is fair enough. It is hard as many members of Parliament will know because they will have tried to help people who have problems in that area. But we should not put up an even harder hurdle for people who have spent 3 years here or 2 years where a spouse is involved or 5 or 6 years on a work permit or who have had a long-term business visa or who have studied for a PhD and married a New Zealander—or whatever their situation may be. With this legislation we are going to spin the process out and make it harder for them. We should think also of the Pacific Islanders—Tongan New Zealanders; Samoan New Zealanders—who have become New Zealanders and who are thinking about joining their family members in Australia. I have seen the heartbreak experienced by people in New Zealand who have families in Australia but who are not allowed by the Australian authorities to join their families because they do not have New Zealand citizenship. How many tragic events like funerals do people want to go to from New Zealand to Australia? Members should think honestly of the people they have given help to; they are many. 
Members should also think of the refugees who have been in New Zealand for 6 or 7 years and are given New Zealand citizenship because we accept as Peter Brown says that they come from war-torn ravaged countries. They have not seen their family they may want to work in a third country and they cannot have a New Zealand passport for another 3 years possibly because the residence period is to increase from 3 to 5 years. They wait 6 years. Why do we want to add to their mental suffering? Why do we want to do that? There has never been a problem in the past. When does the person show his or her wrongdoing? Is it suddenly in the fourth year? Does a person hide in all the years before that that he or she was actually a secret member of al-Qaeda even before it was set up? That is just nonsense. There is no policy reason and no evidence here. If we just return to the question of the children we should ask ourselves why we suddenly want to create a problem when there was never one before and we protected all the children born in New Zealand. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 4 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
PETER BROWN (Senior Whip—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. New Zealand First has kicked up merry bobsy-die in the past by wanting to know when there has been a split vote who voted for and who voted against. We have reached an agreement in the Business Committee that that will be divulged. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Technically the member in the first vote should have said his name. 
Hon Matt Robson 
: I voted in favour. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 4 is out of order because it is the same as the previous amendment. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1) and substitute the following new subclause: 
(1)Subject to subsection (2) of this section every person born in New Zealand on or after the 1st day of January 1949 shall be a New Zealand citizen by birth. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 6 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2) and substitute the following new subclause: 
Section 6 of the principal Act is amended by repealing subsection (3) and substituting the following subsection: 
(3)Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section every person born in New Zealand on or after the 1st day of January 1978 shall be a New Zealand citizen by birth if he would otherwise be stateless. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit the term “8A”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The next amendment to clause 8 is in the name of Keith Locke. It is the same as the previous amendment and is out of order. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit from subparagraph (ii) of section 8(2)(b) the words “was entitled in terms of the Immigration Act 1987 to be in New Zealand indefinitely” and substitute the words “was ordinarily resident in New Zealand”. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to omit paragraph (b) from section 8(2) and substitute the following new paragraph: 
(b)That the applicant was throughout the period of 3 years immediately preceding the date of his application ordinarily resident in New Zealand. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Noes 105 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 25; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to add to paragraph (d) of section 8(2) after the words “attaching to New Zealand citizenship the words “by completing a compulsory citizenship induction course administered by the Department of Internal Affairs”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 35 
New Zealand National 25; Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 8 be agreed to: 
to insert after section 8(3) the following new subsection: 
(3A)For the purpose of subsection 2(b)(ii) for every day during which the application was lawfully in New Zealand on a tertiary equivalent student visa work visa or long term business visa the applicant shall be deemed to have been in New Zealand for one-half of a day. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 41 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Noes 73 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The next amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 8 is out of order because of the previous amendment. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (1) the words “1 January 2005” and substitute the words “1 May 2005”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 25; Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the words “1 January 2005” and substitute the words “1 May 2005”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 25; Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (a) of subclause (3) the words “1 January 2005” and substitute the words “1 May 2005”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 25; Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to omit from paragraph (b) of subclause (3) the words “1 January 2005” and substitute the words “1 May 2005”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 25; Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 17 be agreed to: 
to add to subclause (3) the following new paragraph: 
(c)became so entitled on or after 1 July 2005 and is a long term business visa holder who was present in New Zealand as at 30 June 2005. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 34 
New Zealand National 25; Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 359 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to Part 1 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Part 1 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 73 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 1; 
Noes 42 
New Zealand National 25; ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson 
Part 1 as amended agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Passports Act 1992 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I have an amendment in relation to the powers of the Minister of Internal Affairs to take away a New Zealander’s passport. As I indicated in my second reading speech the Green Party is opposed to that. The discussion so far has been interesting. So typically was the contribution made by Stephen Franks who brought in the Zaoui case. Sometimes I describe the clause giving the Minister of Internal Affairs the power to take away a New Zealand passport as the “Zaoui clause”. That power was likewise applied in relation to the security risk certificate in the Zaoui case. We are giving the Minister—a political figure not a judicial figure—the power to affect the future of a person detrimentally in terms of whether he or she has the right to stay in a country and in this bill the right to have a passport. 
The issue is whether we should be governed by the rule of law and the judiciary or whether we should give those powers to penalise people to a Minister. Sure there are rights of appeal in both the security risk certificate procedure and this bill but it is reversing the onus of proof where a person’s future is detrimentally affected. In Mr Zaoui’s case he has had to wait well over 2 years now and has had to go through all sorts of hoops after the ministerial determination. The same would apply under this bill. If the Minister of Internal Affairs is given the right to take away a New Zealander’s passport then the person whose passport is taken away will suffer all sorts of disadvantages and have to go through a complicated court process to get it back. It illustrates a point following on from what Stephen Franks said that if we start to treat foreigners—people who do not have New Zealand residency or citizenship—differently from New Zealanders and think that the full rule of law can be applied to New Zealanders but does not need to be applied to foreigners then we will actually undermine our own due process our own rule of law and it will come back to bite us in the end. That is why in this bill I call the clause the “Zaoui clause”. 
The fact is that the New Zealand political system and the Government went weak on the security risk certificate procedure even though there was Labour opposition to that procedure in 1999 when it came in. It was applied against Mr Zaoui thereby undermining the due process of law and laying the groundwork for the “Zaoui clause” to come into the bill giving unprecedented powers as Matt Robson has explained to take—and I quoted earlier from the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties and the Human Rights Foundation—away what is a fundamental and long-cherished right of a New Zealander to have a passport and not to have it taken away for political reasons. There is a history of other countries such as Australia and America during the cold war putting into their legislation the right of political discretion as to whether someone has a passport. It was applied in America against the well-known singer Paul Robeson because of his political views. His passport was taken away. In the case of Australia a chap called Wilfred Burchett wrote on the Vietnam situation and was critical of the Australian Government’s position—the Menzies Government position. His passport was taken away. 
New Zealand had enough of a democratic tradition not to go along with the Australians and the Americans in the depth of the cold war but now under the George Bush inspired “war on terrorism” that is undermining human rights across the world the Labour Government has unfortunately caved in. It is bringing in a provision that gives a political figure the power to undermine a fundamental right and to take away a New Zealander’s passport. Although there are appeal processes they are not adequate and that was drawn out in the submissions to the select committee by the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties and the Human Rights Foundation. The problem is that some of the material is classified. Even the New Zealander whose passport is taken away might not be able to see all that material. 
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It is noteworthy is it not that we have had one call by the Green member who I guess would even be proud to be called a fellow-traveller of Mr Zaoui and we saw another person in this Chamber Mr Robson seeking the call—also a fellow-traveller of Mr Zaoui. 
I want to raise this issue; after all Mr Locke put the issue into debate. This bill is about whether this nation is serious about dealing with terrorism. I know that Mr Franks for instance would say that his concern about the bill is that it is actually too weak on terrorism. He raises something that somewhat troubles me about the ACT approach which is their constant criticism of the UN. In the area of terrorism UN conventions are a part of the process of countries working together to deal with the issues. 
This bill does give powers to the Minister to revoke or withdraw the passports of those people who are a threat to national security. Essentially that can be done in two ways; firstly to stop a person from travelling overseas simply by the withdrawing of a passport; and secondly perhaps somewhat more broadly to revoke the granting of a passport gained through fraud. 
It is very important that we have those powers. We are in dangerous times. One has only to see that trial in Britain where a murderer was convicted of numerous terrorist offences of putting not just the one person whom a murderer would normally assail—a family member or someone—but the whole community at risk. That person wanted to kill hundreds of people—poisoning them by smearing door handles and the like—on a completely terroristic basis. He was indifferent as to who would be caught by that; he wanted people to die. That is the definition of terrorism. Surely it is right that this country takes serious action to stop that sort of thing. That is why National is supporting this part of the bill. We are determined to show we are serious about standing up for our freedoms and our values alongside other countries that will do likewise. 
The members who are voting against this seem to be completely unaware of the democratic and judicial protections built within the legislation. A lot of work was put into this. This is not a situation where the Minister has absolute control. There is the ability to appeal to the High Court. That is legitimate and proper. In the traditions of democracy—of a country that does respect the law—we do provide those protections. But as a nation we are also determined—and National always stands very proudly for this—to protect our freedoms our heritage and our nation against those who would wreak havoc against them. Mr Locke and Mr Robson by their votes would seem to be heedless and careless of this. They would give succour and comfort to the terrorist. They will get up and deny that but the reality is that that is exactly what they do by opposing these provisions. 
I just want to say this about Mr Zaoui: he is a man who was found guilty by the court of appeal in Belgium a democratic country of aiding and abetting terrorists—people who had bombs guns money and passports which are the very things one expects to find terrorists with. That is the kind of person whom Mr Zaoui associates with. The judge said that Mr Zaoui was a person who led an unacceptably clandestine life. What do terrorists do? That is the kind of life they lead. The judge also said that he provided moral succour to those terrorists. We do not want people like that—[ 
Interruption 
] I want to complete this point. It is important because basic values of our country are at stake. 
From time to time in our nation we are called on to be judged. Are we prepared to stand up against tyranny? Are we prepared to stand up against threats to our livelihood and threats to our way of life? People are judged. The public judge members of this Parliament by the way they act on those fundamental issues. I believe that the vast majority of members will vote for Part 2. They will do so irrespective of what their party identification might be because there are some foundation principles in our country; they are a respect for freedom and democracy and a stand against those who would attack those values. 
We do have to give our Government the powers to deal with those people. I am appalled to hear people say they would not do that and who cannot even recognise the protections that are built into the legislation such as the independent review from the High Court. There will be an election in a few months’ time. Members will be judged by their actions. They will be judged as to whether they stood up for our country when there was a clear and present danger to it. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 Patrick Henry did say that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. I would never say that Dr Mapp is a scoundrel but I think he should read Patrick Henry. 
I have always found it strange that those who say they are against what terrorists may stand for—the undermining of democracy and liberties—themselves will advocate measures that are anti-democratic. The question here about whether the High Court has the right to review is not the fundamental question because in our law one cannot take the right of review away from the court although it must be said that under legislation mentioned in relation to Mr Ahmed Zaoui which was passed by the National Government an attempt was made to take the right of review away from the High Court. But the High Court the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in New Zealand have rejected that attempt and say that they have not lost that right of review of executive actions. 
What is actually at stake here are some fundamental questions. Where there has been terrorist action in New Zealand for example the terrorism of the French Government we used the existing law to charge those people and convict them. No new law was rushed through. The law we had at that time was adequate to combat the terrorism. When Israeli Government spies forged papers to get New Zealand passports we used the existing law at the time. Where in this legislation is there a recognition of the fundamental principle that with regard to those who have opposed terrorism and the imposition terrorism has fought for it is the State’s responsibility to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it believes someone is committing a crime or is about to commit a crime? Where is that in this bill? It is not in the bill and it does not exist. 
More the pity that there has not been an analysis of this issue in any caucus. There are lawyers in the National Party caucus who have presumably done some constitutional law. There are lawyers in all parties in this House but I am sure that in none of those caucuses—apart from the Progressive caucus where I put up this issue for discussion and the Green caucus—has there been an analysis of those fundamental questions. 
I know that this bill will go through because the pity is there has been little thought given to it. People are saying to themselves that it will not apply to them. Fortunately there is precedent in our country that when we have passed anti-democratic legislation eventually wisdom comes through and we return to democracy. The Public Safety Conservation Act which removed fundamental rights from New Zealand and was used in the waterfront lockout against the very people who voted for and supported Labour was finally withdrawn. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: What’s this got to do with passports? 
Hon MATT ROBSON 
: I do not expect from Mr Brownlee any deep thought on a matter like this whatsoever. 
However I do suggest it is important that where the aspect of a person’s passport and freedom to travel is concerned we look at what is happening around the world. Legislatures and judicial bodies are saying—as our own Justice Glazebrook has said—that we should not throw security issues as a blanket over fundamental issues. 
My amendments recognise that this legislation will be passed; what they do is to put stricter reporting requirements on the Minister who brings a passport back to this House. Keith Locke used a very good example of when the US Government took Paul Robeson’s passport from him during the cold war in America. The American judicial system has since come to realise that that was a mistake. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 Thank you—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I say to the member that good order is the foundation of all things. I ask for good order. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I ask for a point of clarification: which things? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am quoting Edmund Burke. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Who is this Edmund Burke and why should members in this Chamber be extolled to take on board that nondescript person’s theories of life? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask the member to be seated. That is not a point of order. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: The member who just preceded me said that this is an undemocratic bill. He said that this is undemocratic legislation. 
Hon Member 
: Who said that? Edmund Burke? 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: No Matt Robson said that. I remind Matt Robson— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: He’s just a berk! 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Point of order Mr Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes I know what the member is going to say. I would like members to look at Speakers’ rulings 56/1. Interjections are to be rare reasonable and relevant. I was going to say that they are to be witty but I have given up on that. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Those interjections were not even relevant to what I was speaking about. 
Matt Robson said that this is an undemocratic bill. I remind the Committee and Mr Robson specifically that the European Convention on Human Rights recognises national security as a ground for restricting the right to freedom of movement. A lot of countries that are encompassed by the European Convention on Human Rights are left-leaning countries that Mr Robson would fit into quite easily. 
I want to stay on this subject of national security. New section 4A(1) inserted by clause 23 specifically provides for the Minister of Internal Affairs to cancel or refuse to issue a New Zealand travel document on grounds of national security. When I saw that I wanted to look at other jurisdictions to see what they thought and what their rules were on the issue. I looked at Australia. Australia has a provision for the refusal and cancellation of passports when the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs is satisfied that a person may prejudice the security of Australia. The UK is covered under the European Convention on Human Rights. In the US the discretionary power of the Secretary of State to issue passports has been construed generally to authorise— 
Dr Richard Worth 
: Tell us about Angola. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: I do not know what the member is trying to allude to in interjecting about Angola but maybe if he takes a call in this Committee stage he can tell us. 
The US has similar rules and as I said the UK is covered by the European Convention on Human Rights. Other provisions in the bill provide for a court to make an order forbidding the issue of a passport when sentencing a person for a terrorism-related offence and for the disclosure of New Zealand travel document information for the purpose of aiding border security facilitating the processing of passengers or verifying the identity of a travel document holder. 
When we look at the important issues relating to national security at what has happened in the last 4 or 5 years as far as terrorism-related issues are concerned at the  
9/11 Commission Report 
 and at all the issues raised from that and a lot of other reports regarding national security in different countries—not that I have read many others apart from the one I have just mentioned—we start to realise the need for legislation such as this. I believe that it is unpatriotic when particular parties in this Parliament vote against legislation like this. It is not patriotic. For members to support and vote for legislation like this which will protect our national security all New Zealanders and cities like Wellington our capital city like Auckland our major city like the beautiful city of Christchurch and other cities is patriotic. 
I believe that this legislation supports and protects all New Zealanders. That is what it is all about. That is why New Zealand First has put pressure on this Government for the last 6 years even though the Government has been reluctant to pass legislation and even though it has had a couple of factions fighting each other. John Tamihere’s faction may be saying no and the other softie faction may be saying yes. Actually John Tamihere’s faction is probably saying yes and the other faction is saying no. Ten members would back John Tamihere to the hilt and 15 others would back him on a good day. They are probably saying that this legislation is good. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 I will finish the point I was making in my last speech: the Greens are opposed to giving the Minister of Internal Affairs the power to take away a passport—even though we know that George Hawkins would apply it very fairly—because we believe we should not give a politician such a power; we should be governed by judicial processes. Even if that power were passed tonight the Green Party would like it restrained as much as possible and we support Matt Robson’s amendment in that respect. 
The question of how to apply any subsequent appeal processes after the Minister’s decision was brought up in the Government Administration Committee by the Human Rights Commission the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties and the Human Rights Foundation. The joint submission by the Auckland Council for Civil Liberties and the Human Rights Foundation stated particularly in relation to New Zealand citizens: “If the state proposes to take action against a person present within our borders—and all the more so a New Zealand citizen—the information in which that action is to be based must surely be fully disclosed and the case proved by admissible evidence to the necessary standard?”. The Human Rights Commission took a different tack in that judicial debate which is a debate going on around the world as to how to deal with classified security information. The commission suggested a process of allowing security-cleared legal representatives to hear all classified security information. 
The problem that that submission addressed is that if some information is hidden away from the person accused we get into a problem—the sort of problem that Ahmed Zaoui is in at the present time. He still does not know what the Security Intelligence Service has against him—in fact if it does have anything further against him other than the generalities offered so far. 
One reason why we have to be scared of giving politicians the right to affect our future such as by taking away the passport of a New Zealander comes out of what Stephen Franks said earlier. He said that when we are dealing with non - New Zealand citizens in relation to people coming here suspicion is enough. I think that that is the problem. If we give a case to a politician—and politicians have all sorts of political agendas and there are good politicians and very bad politicians; we see them around the world—we believe that suspicion is not enough. 
We have to stick in all cases to due process—to the people accused being properly provided with the information against them and having the full right to defend themselves—and independent judicial decisions. If we depart from those in any sense and I think this bill does to some extent then we are in trouble. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I have been looking in vain for provisions that deal with the question Mr Locke has just raised. The procedures set out in new sections 29AA and 29AB inserted by clause 40 to my alarm treat all three categories of restricted or withdrawn travel document the same. I believed and I fully expected that there would be a distinction. I consider the withdrawing of a New Zealander’s freedom of travel the passport—thereby turning New Zealand into a little personal Berlin for a New Zealander—as a very different matter from withdrawing the right of a privileged foreigner to live here or to demand a New Zealand travel document. 
So I am very concerned when I look at the amendments proposed by Mr Locke and Mr Robson. As far as I can see they have not dealt with the extraordinary powers that are given in new sections 29AA and 29AB. I am not sure that I have time to try to draft an amendment but it seems to me a very bad principle indeed that a New Zealander could effectively be locked behind our borders on the basis of information that not even the person’s own lawyers let alone the person could see and that the summary prepared by the court is of that untested information. If I am reading the amendments correctly we will not even know how many times that has happened. 
There is one safeguard I guess. The threshold standard that the Minister must satisfy is very high indeed. The test of risk to national security is I think of an extraordinarily high standard. I am really puzzled as to why this legislation is not crafted in a way that makes the standard for a New Zealander—the right to leave and re-enter one’s own country—very very strictly protected. But why should someone who has a privilege in coming here who does not have the rights of a New Zealander have the same kind of protection in the first place? When it gets to procedure and the processes a court follows—the requirement on the court that it not disclose the classified security information supplied by the Attorney-General—why should the New Zealander suffer the same kind of offensive process? I am really astounded that this provision got through the Government Administration Committee without the committee saying: “Hang on a minute. It is OK if some foreigner has come here and perhaps abused our hospitality but it is certainly not OK for a New Zealander to face secret evidence that not even his or her own lawyers can see to never get access to it and to be trapped in New Zealand on the whim of a politician.” 
I have to agree with Mr Locke in so far as the legislation extends to a New Zealand citizen. I think it is poor that we are treating all three categories the same. It is poor that they are all being treated the same in terms of the test for the national security breach and it is even poorer that they are all being treated the same in terms of a very offensive procedure. Although I had thought that this was something we ought to be voting for having been through the legislation and heard this part of the debate in this Committee stage I now believe that we should be considering voting against this one. 
The reasons for that are very different from those of Mr Robson and Mr Locke in most respects but are similar in one respect. The freedoms of New Zealand citizens should not be infringed upon simply because we have a Government that is too wimpish and too scared of international opinion to draw a proper distinction between the rights and privileges of a New Zealand citizen and the privileges of people who come here as guests and should recognise that they are here on sufferance until they become New Zealand citizens themselves after which time they must be treated in every respect the same as every other New Zealand citizen. I think it is a disappointment that there is not a set of amendments. I do not know whether I will get a chance but I will try to draft some. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The ACT member has made a point but from New Zealand First’s reading of the bill I think he has tended to overstate it quite considerably. But one concern that New Zealand First has and I do not think anybody thus far has raised it relates to clause 24 “Life of passport”. That concerns us quite considerably. This bill will halve the life of a passport. I think everybody in this House knows and I think every New Zealander knows that a passport lasts for 10 years. But this bill halves its life to 5 years. 
I understand that the new passport when it comes in will embrace new technology such as photographs of eyes and so on so that people will be identified very positively and there cannot be any mistake about it. But I think it is a burden on people to cut the life of a passport from 10 years to 5 years. New Zealand First is quite disappointed by that unless of course the Government intends to halve the fee. Maybe the Minister can explain to us what the fee will be when the life of a passport becomes 5 years instead of 10 years. He surely is not contemplating increasing the fee; I know that he is a man of honour and he would not dare increase the fee. We think that if he is going to halve the life of a passport he should halve the fee. 
A second concern I have and my colleague Craig McNair illustrated it considerably is that I cannot understand the Progressive Party voting against this. I will read only the headings of some of the new sections because the sections are too long to read out. New section 8A inserted by clause 27 is headed: “Cancellation of passport on grounds of national security”. That gives the Minister the ability to cancel a passport on the grounds of national security. The Progressive Party will vote against that as will the Greens but I think that the country expects the Greens to vote against it. New section 20A inserted by clause 31 is headed: “Cancellation of certificate of identity on grounds of national security”. That gives the Minister the right to: “… recall any certificate of identity issued to any person by or on behalf of the New Zealand Government”. The Government’s coalition partner the Progressive Party is going to vote against that. [ 
Interruption 
] I heard the Labour Minister say that it is terrible. They are selling this country short big time. 
But that is not all. New section 25A inserted by clause 35 is headed: “Cancellation of emergency travel document on grounds of national security”. That gives the Minister the right—and he has to put it in writing—to recall any emergency travel document. But the Progressives are going to vote against that. They do not believe in that. We know that the Greens would want to make this an open-door country to all and sundry. At least they are consistent. But I thought that the Progressives particularly Jim Anderton were much more aware of the problems this country is facing. I am amazed that the Progressive Party is going to vote against that. 
Here is another one. New section 27B inserted by clause 37 is headed: “Refusal to issue refugee travel document on grounds of national security”. That gives the Minister the ability to: “… refuse to issue a New Zealand refugee travel document to a person if the Minister believes on reasonable grounds …” and the provision goes on to outline the grounds that concern national security. The Progressives are going to vote against that. 
I ask Mr Robson where his loyalty to this country is. Where is his loyalty to New Zealand? He is going to vote against those very very important sections. Those sections are so important that New Zealand First is going to vote for this part even though we disagree with the clause dealing with the life of a passport. That overrides our concern on that clause by 1000 percent. I am actually appalled that members of Parliament in this country would vote against this sort of legislation. Frankly in this volatile world we need to tighten up. As Pansy Wong said right at the beginning of this debate this bill will make us the toughest of five nations. She is not still here is she? 
Pansy Wong 
: I am. 
PETER BROWN 
: I am delighted along with others in New Zealand First to be one of the toughest nations. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 I realise that people are restless and that they want to move away from this debate but I do now know how many people realise the seriousness of the issue. We are facing a fundamental issue of whether we reverse the State’s ability to take a passport away from somebody and return to the established rules of natural justice—that is that the State has to prove its assertion beyond reasonable doubt. If members had had any debate in their caucuses on this issue and if anyone had had the courage to stand up and say that this is a fundamental issue that was won by a battle for democratic rights—particularly in the Labour Party—they would know they are giving away those rights. Those members who were in the union movement should realise that the right to picket the right to free speech the right not to be red-baited the right not to have regulations passed as in the waterfront legislation are rights that were won through legislation—and they are giving that away. 
According to this legislation the Minister can take a passport away if a “person intends to engage in or facilitate—(i) a terrorist act …; or (ii) the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; or (iii) any unlawful activity designed or likely to cause devastating or serious economic damage …”. Would one not think there was room there to charge somebody under our criminal legislation? Does anyone think there is not? Then those are very serious actions. What is wrong with using the established procedure which is that the State must prove beyond reasonable doubt? That is what is at stake here. 
In this Parliament when such legislation was brought in and I was sitting there on the Opposition benches it was Labour Party members who got up and said: “This reverses the onus of proof. This is a dangerous precedent.” That is what we had with the Immigration Act. I stood alongside Lianne Dalziel when she warned the then National Government of the dangers that changes to the immigration procedure brought to the Immigration Act. Those changes meant that the State could detain somebody on national security grounds without giving the reasons. She stood there and the Labour Party voted against it. 
When this type of measure was brought in by a conservative Government Labour people recognised the danger. This too is dangerous legislation. This is a move away from democratic rights that were won. 
Members want to go home. They want to get the bill through under urgency and more the pity because just like the Public Safety Conservation Act of 1932 which was used in the 1951 waterfront lockout against the working people of New Zealand and against democratic rights this bill will sit waiting to be used just as all the legislation brought in in many countries during the cold war was used in the same way. 
Peter Brown talks about loyalty. Have we not heard that before—when there is an anti-democratic measure those who speak out against anti-democratic measures are then slandered? I ask members to give due consideration to the amendments because I recognise that members have not thought about or analysed this and they are going to vote for this repressive legislation. But I ask them for goodness’ sake to put some controls on a Minister of Internal Affairs who will be able to use this legislation to withdraw one’s democratic right to be able to defend oneself and have the State justify what it does rather than the individual having to go to the High Court in an atmosphere of repression and under a set of procedures where one cannot get to the reasons because they are hidden under the blanket of security concerns. 
I ask members to think about Justice Glazebrook in the Court of Appeal. She stated in the Zaoui case when the court was being asked by the Crown to deny human rights that security concerns are not a blanket to deny human rights. I ask members to consider putting at least one halter on this particular set of procedures and at least require the Minister to have more strict reporting procedures for this House. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 23 be agreed to: 
to add to section 4A the following new subsections: 
(5)The Minister must prepare in respect of each calendar year a report (including if appropriate a nil report) setting out— 
(a)The number of cases in which the Minister refuses to issue a passport; and 
(b)The number of cases where the Minister revokes a decision; and 
(c)The number of cases in which the Minister applies to a Judge of the High Court for an order to extend the period during which the person is not entitled to obtain a New Zealand passport; and 
(d)The outcomes of the applications if any made by the Minister to a Judge of the High Court. 
(6)The Minister must present a copy of the report to the House of Representatives not later than 20 sitting days after the end of the calendar year to which the report relates. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Matt Robson to clause 27 be agreed to: 
to add to section 8A the following new subsections: 
(5)The Minister must prepare in respect of each calendar year a report (including if appropriate a nil report) setting out— 
(a)The number of cases in which the Minister recalls cancels or retains any New Zealand passport; and 
(b)The number of cases where the Minister revokes a decision; and 
(c)The number of cases in which the Minister applies to a Judge of the High Court for an order to extend the period during which the person is not entitled to obtain a New Zealand passport; and 
(d)The outcomes of the applications if any made by the Minister to a Judge of the High Court. 
(6)The Minister must present a copy of the report to the House of Representatives not later than 20 sitting days after the end of the calendar year to which the report relates. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Keith Locke to clause 27 be agreed to: 
to omit this clause. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 10 
Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Noes 104 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 359 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to insert new clause 46A be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to and Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 359 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to the schedule be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to and schedule as amended agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 I will take just a short call to ask members to support my amendment. Last year the Minister of Internal Affairs impressed upon the House how important it was for this legislation to be passed in a hurry in order to protect New Zealand from international terrorist attack. But we see now that the original commencement date for clauses 4 and 8 which was intended to be 1 January 2005 is long passed. 
My amendment which would introduce some certainty for people affected by the changes to the qualifying period for citizenship would substitute a definitive commencement date of 1 July 2005. The Minister’s amendment simply states that the Act will come into force on the commencement date without actually specifying what that date will be. 
I invite the Minister to take a call. He has sat there behaving exactly like one of the monkeys in my three-monkey collection—saying nothing. He has not answered any of the very serious questions raised by members on this side of the Chamber including half of the caucus of the Progressive Party. So I invite the Minister to take a call. If he does not then I just urge the Committee to support my amendment. 
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Pansy Wong to clause 2 be agreed to: 
to omit from subclause (2) the words “1 January 2005” and substitute the words “1 July 2005”. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 33 
New Zealand National 24; Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Noes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 359 in the name of the Hon George Hawkins to clause 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 as amended be agreed to. 
Ayes 104 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 24; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 8; Other: Robson. 
Clause 2 as amended agreed to. 
The Committee divided the bill into the Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 352. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is just a point of clarification. Now that the bill has been divided into two separate bills I take it that the third reading debate will cover amendments to both bills or do we have separate debates? 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The debates will be taken together and the questions of course will be put separately. 
Voting 
Correction 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before I call the Minister on the third readings I want to say that on the second reading of the bill there was an error in the addition of the vote. The Ayes are 104 and the Noes are 10. Originally the Ayes were given as 94. So the corrected vote is Ayes 104 Noes 10. 
Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Third Readings 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Internal Affairs) 
: 
 I move  
That the Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) and the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time 
. This legislation rectifies problems with New Zealand citizenship will improve border security and will reduce the likelihood of successful forgery of travel documents. 
The amendments to the requirements for the grant of citizenship including increasing the residence period from 3 to 5 years will provide a sufficient basis for assessment of applicants’ suitability for citizenship and their commitment to New Zealand. Transitional provisions mean that people who came to New Zealand as permanent residents expecting a 3-year residence period for citizenship will not be disadvantaged by the changes. They will be assessed against the current 3-year requirement instead of the new 5-year requirement. 
The amendments to the Passports Act will improve border security by providing for disclosure of information about New Zealand travel documents for use in a passenger risk management system known as Advance Passenger Processing. In addition by reducing the maximum validity of passports from 10 years to 5 years the legislation ensures that we can stay one step ahead of the counterfeiters. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 National has taken a very responsible stance on this legislation. We have supported provisions that will safeguard New Zealand’s visa-free travel status and agreed to provisions that grant the Minister of Internal Affairs the power to withhold travel documents on the grounds of risk to national security. I believe that the case was put very forcefully and intellectually by my learned colleague Dr Wayne Mapp. 
Contrary to the statements made by the Green member and by half the Progressive caucus unfortunately there are individuals who come to New Zealand to give birth so that the adults can eventually be entitled to obtain New Zealand residence because of the citizenship status that at present we accord automatically to babies born here. National supports the tightening of that provision because individuals should apply to become New Zealand residents through our immigration policy and should not take advantage of their babies as a means to achieve that end. 
As far as the changes to the qualifying period for citizenship which is extended from 3 years to 5 years are concerned I am sad that some debaters simply do not understand the difference between the citizenship policy and the immigration policy. It is too late and ineffectual for the Labour Government to try to increase the barrier to citizenship for people who have already been admitted to become New Zealand residents after they got through under the immigration policy. The fact is that in New Zealand the difference of entitlement between permanent residence and New Zealand citizenship is very little. Therefore members need to be honest; tonight we are looking at a citizenship policy for people who have already been assessed under our immigration policy. It is not a matter of mixing up the debate between migrants and New Zealand citizens. 
I am extremely disappointed that the Labour Government does not see fit to support my amendments and I predict that that will come back to haunt it in the future. My No. 1 amendment is to introduce classes for new migrants to learn New Zealand values and systems to better equip them to integrate into New Zealand society. I am very surprised that New Zealand First members after all their statements about people not integrating into the community are not supporting this move. 
My other amendment raises the issue of whether we really value our export education sector. If international students come here spend about 5 years to get their qualifications then want to stay in New Zealand we are now asking them to spend up to a total of 11 years here before we welcome them to be our citizens. My amendment asks for at least half of the time they spend here on temporary permits to be counted towards their qualifying period for citizenship. 
We also have a group of temporary permit holders who are known as long-term business visa holders. They are people who have already come here and invested in business with the sole purpose of converting to permanent residents after 2 years. I think the Government is very mean to deny them that by not agreeing that the exemption should apply to them. 
I finish off by telling members and the public of a conversation I had last year when I went over to Australia and discussed this issue with the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. I told the Minister that New Zealand was tightening up on the qualifying period for residents to become citizens and asked him whether Australia would retain its 2-year requirement. He looked at me in surprise and said: “Well when people come to Australia having been accepted as residents we can’t wait for them to become Australian citizens. If they want to become Australian citizens we welcome them with open arms.” We do not always see eye to eye with Australia and I always like to beat the Aussies in whatever field but in this instance I cannot help but ask the Labour Government to take a leaf from their book; to learn from the generosity and welcoming attitude of an Australian Minister whose country is also proud of the fact that its foundation was built by migrants from all over the world. I think that New Zealand in this instance has not been well served by the Labour Government. 
Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 It is no surprise now that the Progressive Party has two positions on this legislation. At our national executive we discussed this legislation and after a very lengthy discussion on all the issues we considered important it was agreed that the two members of Parliament could vote in different ways. But although we differ in our vote on this debate and although there has been debate within the growing membership of the Progressives on what position to take we agree that we want migrants to continue to be welcomed by all New Zealanders as they are in the process of becoming New Zealanders themselves. We agree that we want immigration to continue with the emphasis on skilled and trained future citizens. We agree on our Progressive policy of supporting active measures to welcome migrants in order to minimise social and political division and of assisting with settlement and integration. And we agree that New Zealand must protect all its people from bigotry and racism. 
My fear has been that this legislation sends two distinct messages to those who have migrated to New Zealand. The citizenship provisions state to all migrants that we do not trust them so 2 more years will be added to their probationary period for citizenship even despite the fact that they have passed a rigorous test to enter New Zealand in the first place. The provisions also set up two types of immigrants: those with the favoured First World passports and those who are from countries that have restricted travel rights throughout the world. That causes division within New Zealand—an unnecessary division. 
In the passport provisions this legislation states to every New Zealander that he or she can be deprived of the right to travel even though he or she has not been charged or convicted of any crime in open court. The use of a person’s passport will no longer be an automatic democratic right if the provision that was in clause 27 of the original Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill is passed. That democratic right was previously transgressed only if a person was convicted of a crime or was before the court on a criminal charge. If the Security Intelligence Service or the police believe a person is a threat to New Zealand’s international or economic well-being then by administrative action through the Minister of Internal Affairs that person’s passport or travel documents will be withdrawn. I ask the union movement of New Zealand to take note of that because it has usually been in the forefront of the defence of democratic rights as union members are often the target of reactionary measures. 
I would call that clause the “Ahmed Zaoui clause” because surely we should have learnt from the debacle in that case that if we take away democratic rights in the case of one person then we are likely to use that power in the case of another person irrespective of our understanding of the particular issue or of the person so held in a detention centre. I am sure that many New Zealanders who are appalled at the lack of natural justice through the misuse of classified information—on the grounds of national security—to deny Ahmed Zaoui fair treatment will call this provision in this legislation the “Ahmed Zaoui clause”. It introduces a dangerous anti-democratic practice into New Zealand. Citizens will be punished not for what is proven against them by the State in open court with the protection of being innocent until proven guilty and with all rights of natural justice preserved but through an administrative procedure where they must prove their innocence. If members take the time to refer to the legislation they will see that the allegations for which a passport can be withdrawn are very serious: terrorist activity proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and activities that are destructive to the whole New Zealand economy. Yet despite that only the person’s passport is to be taken and the person who is so dangerous is not even charged under this particular law. 
The category of classified security information under this legislation will now extend to information held by the police—not just by the Security Intelligence Service but by the police. It is no wonder that the responsible Ministers did not consult any community groups or any groups that would normally be consulted on legislation like this. When the New Zealand Federation of Ethnic Councils representing hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders came before the Government Administration Committee its representatives said that they had not been consulted on the drafting of this legislation. What was the Minister for Ethnic Affairs doing with regard to this legislation which actually affects people whom he is charged with representing? What was the Minister of Immigration doing by not looking at the many migrant associations in New Zealand and asking how this legislation would affect their members? What was the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs doing by not consulting the Pacific community on the many measures that will affect it in this legislation? Those Ministers did not do their job as Ministers on this legislation and they did not do their job as representatives of a Labour movement that has fought for the maintenance and extension of democratic rights. That is a tragedy for the New Zealand labour movement. 
If in one move we attack the rule of law and throw aside the provision in article 13 of the United Nations declaration on human rights and in section 18 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which guarantee the right to leave and return to one’s own country what other measures can we then say we will take because we have set that dangerous precedent? And in relation to the people who come to New Zealand and who are often welcomed in great ceremonies—many members of Parliament go to the events they hold and want their votes—I ask why we are putting further hurdles in their way after they have already surmounted the costly barriers in place to come to New Zealand? It is time to draw a line against measures that deliver collective punishments against all migrants here and against measures that misuse the concern about terrorism to introduce a power to the Security Intelligence Service and the police that strikes at the very heart of the rule of law and the right to natural justice. 
It is with sadness that I have to vote against this legislation put forward by Labour Party colleagues. I make it clear of course that I am 100 percent in support of any measures taken by a democratic society like our own in defensive action against any potential physical threat to any of its citizens. But I think we have perhaps an unconscious irony here. Many of the migrants who have come to New Zealand have come here because it is a democratic country. They wanted to leave countries where this type of practice is normal and where every police officer has more power in his or her—usually his—little finger than the Prime Minister of New Zealand. And now those migrants have measures in place that must remind them of the measures that are commonplace in the repressive societies they have left. 
There was an issue recently of foreign nationals who tried to get hold of New Zealand passports—the Israeli spies. They were caught. The current law caught them. The current law provides for prison sentences for people who give false testimony such as signing testimonials claiming that person X is who that person says he or she is when applying to renew a passport. I note that a New Zealand national—a doctor—did sign a form stating that the New Zealand national knew person X when the New Zealand national did not know that person. But we have laws to stop that type of passport fraud. Our laws are strong—and so they should be—but they also contain the guarantees that justice will be done and that a person so charged by the State will have all rights afforded to him or her. We have strong national homeland security laws now but we are undermining those with an anti-democratic set of procedures. 
New Zealand is the furthest away nation in the world from the major markets so it is already competing at a disadvantage caused by its distance from those markets in the global competition to attract skilled new settlers to our shores. This legislation which does not practically add to or subtract from our security does have one effect: it will put New Zealand at a further unnecessary disadvantage in the competition to attract skilled people to our shores. In my opinion the bill simply states to potential skilled immigrants that 2 more years will be added to their probationary period for citizenship. It will place unnecessary hurdles in the path of those who would consider New Zealand as their potential home. In order to be granted the right of residence in New Zealand at the moment all applicants undergo rigorous thorough and lengthy checks. It is expensive. They have to prove they are of good character and prove their medical fitness and they have to fit the particular category under which they have applied. It is not easy; New Zealand is not a soft touch. The process is not quick yet we are putting in place further unnecessary hurdles. 
This law states to me that New Zealand is saying to potential immigrants that yes they have spent many years in overcoming the hurdles but under the provision in clause 8 of the original Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill we will add another 2 years before they can call themselves Kiwis. What on earth will be found out about a resident in 5 years—which becomes 6 years while the resident is waiting for a decision on the application—that was not available in 3 years or in many cases more than 3 years in the case of a person who was in New Zealand before that person was even granted residence? Does membership of al-Qaeda surface only in the fourth year of a person’s residence? 
I ask the House even at this last hour to consider voting against this legislation. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I do not intend to take my full 10 minutes on this call but I want to say a few words in closing as we members of the House speak in the third reading. I believe that this legislation is a victory for New Zealand First tonight. 
Pansy Wong 
: Ha ha! 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: The National member laughs but I remember her leaning over to me at the Government Administration Committee and saying: “They are putting this in because of you guys.” So this legislation is a victory for New Zealand First. 
Our party has put pressure on the Labour Government since it came into power in 1999 and the Government has been very reluctant on this issue. It has been split by it but New Zealand First has won out. In our 2002 campaign we said that we would fix immigration and we have come a long way towards fixing it by putting pressure on the Government in respect of this legislation and of the issues that arise from it. 
For example the legislation increases the period of residence in New Zealand that applicants for New Zealand citizenship must meet from 3 years to 5 years and applicants will need to have been in the country for approximately three-quarters of the 5-year period before application including 8 months of each year in that period. As I said that is a big victory for New Zealand First. 
We are proud to be supporting policies that support all New Zealanders and that are in the best interests of all New Zealanders. As New Zealand First has always said our motto is “We support good legislation and we oppose bad legislation.” Overall this legislation is what we believe to be good legislation. It is one step in the right direction. There are a few things that could be improved on but overall this is legislation that New Zealand First takes credit for. 
There is another issue I want to bring up which I did not really get to focus on too much at the Committee stage. I was going to say it concerned the Supplementary Order Paper but those amendments have now been included in the legislation under the citizenship by birth provisions so that a child born in New Zealand on or after 1 January 2006 will be a New Zealand citizen only if at least one of his or her parents is a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident. 
I believe that members opposing this legislation especially on that issue were trivialising the fact that the issue is a problem. When there are articles overseas such as in  
The Times 
 news network entitled “Baby you can be born abroad” and stating: “Pregnant? Pack your bags and head abroad to the US Canada Australia or New Zealand. Such is the value of foreign citizenship that a whole lot of young parents to be are putting much thought and planning into making sure their child is born abroad and therefore becomes a citizen of whichever country he or she is born in.” When advertisements like that are being placed around the world I believe that it is not only a requirement but also an obligation of Governments to be able to address such issues. 
It is a fact that on average about 600 non-residents have their children in New Zealand per year at the moment. New Zealand First is not saying to those people who have their children in New Zealand that they are not to do that. It is fine if they still want to do that but the fact is that this legislation will eliminate the problem of people seeing advertisements or articles in overseas newspapers and coming to New Zealand for that specific reason. Obviously we are not stopping overseas people from having children in New Zealand; we are just making the rules tighter and fairer for all New Zealanders. So I wanted to address that issue. 
I want to address one other issue before I close and I go right back to the second reading when ACT member Stephen Franks said that this was unpatriotic legislation. Well I believe that it is patriotic legislation for many reasons and one reason is a clause that provides for officers dealing with citizenship to have restricted access to immigration information for the purpose of conducting citizenship investigations and assessing whether applicants meet grant requirements. I believe that that provision strengthens the power of the New Zealand Government to stop people like Jim Peron coming into this country. We have to make sure that we keep out people like that and protect all New Zealanders—especially young New Zealanders. 
Overall I believe that this is very patriotic legislation if we look at issues like the one I spoke about earlier where applicants are required to take the oath or affirmation of allegiance to New Zealand at a public citizenship ceremony. I believe that that provision is something we should be proud to be passing as a Parliament. I believe that New Zealand citizenship is something that is valuable and that people who take on New Zealand citizenship should be required to do something like that and be proud of it. New Zealand First is proud to support this legislation and we take a lot of credit for it. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party will be voting against this legislation because it discriminates against new migrants it takes away the long-held right of babies born here to have automatic New Zealand citizenship and it undermines the right of New Zealanders to have a passport. None of those changes were necessary and there was no call in the community for them. Submissions to the Government Administration Committee were overwhelmingly against the changes yet the committee and the Government have simply charged ahead with them. 
Let us look first at the provision that takes away the automatic right of citizenship for babies born here. There has long been that right and it continues to exist in countries like Canada and the United States so why bother to take it away? What harm does it do? Are there hoards of people coming here to have babies so that those babies have New Zealand citizenship? No evidence was put before the select committee that there were. 
 There may be possibly one or two such cases a year but the tourist-visa parents of such babies have to go back to their home countries after their babies are born. If the occasional such baby growing up in Kentucky or wherever later wants to take up the right to be a citizen and live here then so what? It would actually be a tribute to New Zealand. 
Of course several hundred babies are born to non-residents here each year. The parents are generally young people on work permits or student and business visas. Again these babies will not stay in New Zealand unless their parents get residency. The key reason for giving these babies automatic citizenship is that they are then given State-provided health care—which is important because their parents are often in poor circumstances and cannot afford to pay for adequate private care. Such a humanitarian approach accords with our commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which requires that we not have discriminatory practices that affect the well-being of children. It is just mean-spirited to deny citizenship to babies born here. As Progressive member Matt Robson and I say in our minority report from the select committee: “We believe that under this bill we will now have a new category of overstayer—the newborn baby.” Is that the sort of society we want in New Zealand in the 21st century? 
The legislation also extends the time it takes for residents to get New Zealand citizenship without good reason. The original reason given in the explanatory note of the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill was that “the recent increase in international terrorism and people smuggling” necessitated changes “to ensure that there are no preventable risks to national security”. But as was pointed out in the hearings on the bill we can generally spot a terrorist during the present 3-year residency period for qualification for citizenship. Why do we need to extend the period to 5 years? 
The only other argument put forward was that the change would make us comparable with other jurisdictions. However the Government tripped up on that. Australia the closest jurisdiction gives citizenship to residents if they have spent 2 continuous years in that country. The clear point brought out by submitters particularly those from business migrant groups in the Chinese community was that if this legislation passes we will lose out on some of the most skilled migrants because they can go to Australia and get citizenship years earlier than they could here. 
Paradoxically by extending the time required for citizenship the Government is demeaning its importance. There seemed to be an attitude that it did not really matter if citizenship took a bit longer because the migrants were already here and functioning as part of society. But what we heard from the migrants was that they did not want to stay in “nowhere land” between their old and new nationalities for an extended period. They had made a commitment to New Zealand and were frustrated that they could not become full Kiwis for years and years. 
They also pointed out the inconvenience of not having a New Zealand passport for such a long period while they are residing here. They pointed out that we are not just talking about the 5 years’ residency requirement particularly now that the time spent on a temporary visa will not be counted as part of the time spent in New Zealand to qualify a person for citizenship. People can be here for a couple of years or more on a student work or business visa then take a year applying for and getting residency and then have a 5-year wait for citizenship. That means they could be waiting to get citizenship for anything up to 10 years after arriving in the country. 
It is silly and inequitable because surely someone beavering away here on a work permit is just as committed to New Zealand as someone who has been granted residency before arriving and may not even be working at all. 
Other migrant representatives explained to the committee how if one comes from a poorer country one’s passport does not get one into many countries in the world even for a visit. This is one of the reasons why extending the shorter period of time it takes for spouses of New Zealand citizens to go from residency to citizenship—at present 2 years—to 5 years will create difficulties for many couples. If one spouse is from Thailand or Bangladesh effectively the couple will not be able to travel to much of the world together for 5 years. That spouse’s passport will not be of much use. 
For refugees that is particularly difficult because they do not usually have valid passports from their home countries. As some submitters explained the travel documents that they are given by the New Zealand Government are not even valid for transit through Australia or the United States. That can create great heartache because they are unable to visit their refugee family members who are often dispersed throughout the world and often suffer from culture shock and trauma for many years. 
Refugees also expressed concern about the national security clause in the legislation that will allow the Minister of Internal Affairs to refuse travel documents or passports without fully explaining why. Applicants can be knocked back on the basis of rumours they are not told about. The national security provision extends well beyond refugees. In fact the Government will be able to use it against New Zealand citizens possibly even on the basis of their politics as happened back in the Cold War when the American Government confiscated the passport of pro-Communist singer Paul Robeson and the Australian Government did the same to left-wing journalist Wilfred Burchett. 
The Greens have opposed such measures in the legislation because they reverse the normal judicial process. Instead of being tried convicted and punished people are punished when their passports are taken away and then they have to go to the High Court to try to get them back. Even then a person in that position might not be able to get fully at the accusations against him or her because the Government’s information may be classified. 
This security provision in the legislation is unnecessary because a person who is actually conspiring to commit a crime against the New Zealand State can already be brought before the courts under existing criminal law and judges can then confiscate the convicted person’s passport. Such provisions are part of a trend we have seen in much legislation since the Terrorism Suppression Act to put more power into the hands of politicians—who can obviously misuse that power for their own political ends—rather than leave to the courts the application of penalties flowing from criminal activities as has traditionally been the case. This sort of thing is happening around the world in the name of George Bush’s so-called war on terrorism. 
The context of these bills and bills like them was nicely summed up by Rodney Harrison QC in an address to University of Waikato law graduates in April last year. He said: “The powers being sought and so readily conferred by Parliament in the name of the ‘war on terrorism’ are quite frequently much broader than and sometimes even unconnected with any conceivable goal of fighting terrorism. They appear to stem from an unholy mix of Executive empire-building and appeasement of the United States.” 
I think that that is happening here. While this legislation makes some positive administrative improvements in relation to citizenship and passports the Greens will be voting against it because of the civil liberties concerns we have outlined which cause us to worry about its application to New Zealanders in the future. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 For the ACT party the debate on this legislation has been illuminating as we were not members of the Government Administration Committee and were left with only the committee’s report and newspaper reports to try to piece together what was happening. 
There are good bits in this legislation. We think it is not appropriate to leave open loopholes things that bring a regime into disrepute and things that encourage people to feel that a country is a soft touch. We support the arrangements for making sure that people do not assume that if they have babies here they can automatically eventually shift their families here thereby leapfrogging those who go through the normal criteria. It is correct to bring that to an end. 
There are puzzles in the amendments to the Citizenship Act though—puzzles that the Minister of Internal Affairs did not take an opportunity to clarify—that seem to imply that the Minister has much more limited discretion to refuse to admit people than we would have hoped. We have heard no real answer to our query as to why the two or three provisions that allow the Minister to grant citizenship to a person who does not qualify in terms of length of residence or even to someone who has disqualifying convictions do not appear to contemplate such a grant on the grounds that it looks as though the person will be an outstanding asset to this country. Instead they focus on humanitarian grounds on encouraging it seems people who will be burdens to come into this country purely because wherever they are they will be burdens and they might as well be burdens here. 
 There is not any encouragement here of the idea that citizenship is something we should be actively holding out to the very best students we bring here in the same way as the United States has made such good use of the human capital it draws from all over the world through its educational facilities. I see nothing inspiring in that part of the Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2). 
I find the amendments to the Passports Act even more troubling. I have to apologise to Keith Locke who had an amendment at the foot of his pages of amendments that I wish I had cast the ACT votes for. He would have removed the provision that entitles the Minister simply to withdraw the passport of a New Zealand citizen and hold it. Although the tests may be suitably stiff may be appropriate when the provision is read together with the procedure that enables the Attorney-General to ensure that evidence presented to a court on appeal is kept secret and may not be properly challenged I think it is an improper intrusion into the rights and liberties of New Zealand citizens. 
On the other hand it is wrong for the same reasons in reverse that people who have no moral or other claim to New Zealand bounty are given the same kinds of protections against the refusal or withdrawal of travel documents as New Zealand citizens have. We have for example the very high threshold test that one has to be a seriously bad kind of terrorist supporter before the Minister is able to deny or withdraw one’s refugee travel permit or temporary travel document. That test should be as stringent as it is for citizens—stringent in the sense of being a high threshold to pass—but for people who come to this country who have essentially cast themselves on our humanitarian instincts the Minister should be free to send them away whenever he or she considers that they present a suspicion of being undesirable. We think this part of the passports legislation is unfortunate. 
We understand the reasons for trimming the term of a passport from 10 years to 5. We assume the select committee had enough evidence to satisfy itself that that was a cost-effective increase in passport security. The proposal will be irksome and expensive. We imagine that the Minister has been persuaded that there is enough net benefit in it to justify it. We have not seen the evidence and we were inclined to vote against that part because of that but in the end we decided that there are occasions when the most obvious questions have been asked by other parties that have been closely involved and in this case they have been. 
So we will vote for this legislation with regret. I respect the position of the Hon Matt Robson in his impassioned speeches on this legislation tonight. I think he has stood for a principle that he patently believes in. They were some of the most lucid and what is more interesting some of the most fluid speeches I have heard him give. I think he is right to remind us how easy it is to give up freedoms and to allow people to set off down slippery slopes which is what I think the provisions about New Zealanders’ passports do. I have ended up with the view that on balance the risk is not such as to cause us to join him but I certainly think it was the right sort of thing to raise in Parliament and I do not think he needed to apologise for detaining us tonight while he ensured that he placed on record his objections and his support of Keith Locke’s objections on much the same reasons of principle. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I was not going to contribute at this point because I thought I had made United Future’s position fairly clear earlier on in the debate. However the speech made by Keith Locke for the Green Party somewhat disturbed me because I cannot see how being born in New Zealand should necessarily entitle a person to be a New Zealand citizen. There is quite a distinction between the two. 
Being born in a particular place does not automatically entitle a person to anything other than being a member of the family he or she is born into. I was born in Japan in Kobe and lived there for a long period of time. I was not entitled to a Japanese passport and why should I have been? I do not look Japanese I do not act Japanese and I have nothing to do with Japanese culture despite the fact that I was born in Japan and lived there for 9 years before I left. I do not understand why any foreigners can come to New Zealand and arrogantly assume that just because they drop a child in our country that child automatically has certain rights and entitlements born totally and utterly out of the historicity of what New Zealand is all about. So there are differences. 
Being a New Zealand citizen is a privilege we bestow on people who come here if they are not already from New Zealand. It is a precious commodity we hold. We have the right to invite whom we wish for whatever reason into this family that we call New Zealand. To allow that right to be abused or potentially abused by people who just front up to sprog a kid is absolutely and utterly wrong. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not think my comment is offensive at all. 
Peter Brown 
: That’s the Japanese coming out in you. 
MARC ALEXANDER 
: Obviously it must be. We have the PC brigade who are obviously upset about everything. 
The fact is that we give residents in this country a huge array of rights. They have for example the right to vote. They have a whole range of rights but they do not have the right necessarily to be a citizen unless we decide they ought to have that right. We should have the right to decide who comes here and who comes here to live. It is our home and it is our right to decide whom we invite to be part of the New Zealand community. This is not arrogance. It is not an abuse of hospitality that we extend citizenship only to those people whom we wish. We are ultimately all here from somewhere else. We have chosen to make this country our home and we are allowed to invite whom we choose. 
As I said this is not arrogance; there must be a sensible balance between the interests that we have in our own country and the interests of those people whom we want to bring in to advance the causes of our country. United Future will be wholeheartedly supporting this bill. 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 As chair of the Government Administration Committee the committee that looked at this legislation I want to thank the 225 persons who made written submissions. I also want to thank the 5700 people who sent in form submissions and the 40 people who submitted before the committee. 
This legislation is about the integrity of New Zealand passports and New Zealand citizenship and I want to place it on record that the committee did look long and hard at the issues involved especially those people who came on to the committee for that purpose and because of their interests: the Hon Matt Robson Peter Brown Craig McNair at times and Keith Locke. 
I also want to read out a short part of the report on the refusal to issue passports on the grounds of national security. The committee did look at that and the report states: “Most of us however are satisfied that new section 4A as inserted by clause 23”—and other amendments—“will ensure that the Minister cannot deprive New Zealanders of their travel documentation on spurious grounds.” We considered that issue very carefully. We looked at the danger to the security of New Zealand and the decision was not taken lightly. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I do not intend to take the full 10 minutes but I just want to make a summary of New Zealand First’s views. In particular I want to respond to some of the assertions made by the Hon Matt Robson. I know he was sincere; I felt it coming through in his body language. But he did attempt to send those who support the legislation on a bit of a guilt trip and he did suggest that various caucuses had not analysed the bill—meaning to his satisfaction probably. I say to the honourable member that New Zealand First has analysed this legislation. We are totally supportive of it. However we do not think that the Government has got it totally correct. Our assessment is that it is about 85 percent correct. 
We have concerns about the life of a passport as we have indicated and we suspect that the costs will remain the same or even increase when that does occur. We are still not totally happy that the 10-year passport should go to a 5-year passport. But we would have been more convinced with Matt Robson’s approach or assertions if he had been able at all—at any point—to convince his own leader. In a caucus of two when one cannot convince the other person on anything it hardly gives one the justification to come here and criticise caucuses and parties that have 100 percent agreement. 
We will tell immigrants or anybody who wants to come to this country that we value this country. We value its standards we value its culture and we value what it stands for in the world economy and in a social sense. But we say that if people do come here we will give them an extended time to prove themselves. They need to prove that they want to be part of New Zealand and be part of the New Zealand team if I might be so bold and then they will have no problem at all I would suggest with anybody else in this country. New Zealand First is not here to say that we should differentiate between one person and another if people come here with honest endeavour the appropriate background and the appropriate approach to be part of New Zealand society. 
There was a time when freedom and security went hand in hand. But now to some extent regrettably if one wants freedom one needs more security and if one wants less security then it will impinge on one’s freedom. That is a fact of life in this volatile modern world. This bill will help add to security but we pay the price in limits on our freedom. 
New Zealand First will support this bill and we are very very pleased that the Minister has taken our advice. Being the modest party that we are we simply say: “Can we fix it? Yes we nearly did.” 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Citizenship Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 80 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 7; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Noes 32 
New Zealand National 22; Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Bill read a third time. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a third time. 
Ayes 95 
New Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 22; New Zealand First 13; United Future 8; Progressive 1. 
Noes 17 
ACT New Zealand 7; Green Party 8; Maori Party 1; Other: Robson. 
Bill read a third time. 
The House adjourned at 11.27 p.m. (Thursday)