TOC1

Madam SPEAKER: I was asked yesterday to rule on the permissibility of interjections during personal explanations. That point does not appear to have arisen before.

As I pointed out when the point of order was raised, members do not have a right to interject at any time. Standing Order 132 allows a member to be interrupted in only two circumstances: by a point of order, or by a matter of privilege relating to the conduct of strangers who are present. Of course, the longstanding convention has been that reasonable interjections are permitted. That is acknowledged in Speaker’s ruling 57/2, given in 1932, where it is said that with the “tacit consent” of the House, members may interrupt other members to ask “reasonable questions”. That latter reference gives the clue to what interjections are supposed to be about: they are contributions to the debate that is under way, by way of contradiction, elucidation, or endorsement of what the member who is speaking has just said. Interjections, provided that they are reasonable, are thus clearly appropriate in a debate.

But when members are making statements, it has been recognised that interjections are not appropriate—see, for example, Speakers’ ruling 123/2 relating to interjections while the Prime Minister is delivering the Prime Minister’s statement. A personal explanation is a form of statement. Indeed, Standing Order 350 specifically states that a personal explanation may not be debated. In these circumstances, I consider that it is out of order for there to be interjections while a member is making a personal explanation.

Business Statement

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Judicial Retirement Age Bill, the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill, the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill. The first readings of the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill and the Statutes Amendment Bill will be held on Thursday. The Committee stage of the Appropriation (2005/06 Financial Review) Bill, which is a 4-hour debate, will be held on Wednesday afternoon.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I thank the Leader of the House for that indication of next week’s programme. But I note that the Order Paper at the moment is extremely thin, and that most of the bills on it are very non-controversial—bills on which the Government will find it relatively easy to have a majority. I wonder whether the Leader of the House might indicate, under these new circumstances where the Government is able to hold office but not particularly to govern, whether we can expect a revision to the year’s sitting programme in order that the Government will not be embarrassed by its very light work programme.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): I note that in the last 6 months the minimum majority on a third reading was eight, that the Government’s majority on confidence and supply is secure, and that the Government is, therefore, extremely capable of governing. I look forward to continued rational treatment of the House’s programme for the remainder of the year, and I can promise the member that there will certainly be some exciting measures that will no doubt work the National Party up into a frenzy of temporary anger, before it later supports them.

Points of Order

Supplementary Questions—Allocation

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise this matter now because it relates to question time specifically, and I point to Standing Order 378 in doing so. We were notified yesterday that due to the decision by Taito Phillip Field to become an Independent member, there would be some reallocation of supplementary questions. Over the last short while it has become somewhat of a formula to decide who gets supplementary questions, how many, and why that is the case. It would appear that the Labour Party, having lost a member, in fact drops one supplementary question, but the National Party is required to drop two supplementary questions. That seems to be fundamentally unfair. [Interruption] Labour Ministers will, of course, laugh, because that means there will be 60 fewer occasions during a parliamentary year when they will have to avoid answering questions, which they are all now so adept at doing. My request, Madam Speaker, is that you have a look at this matter, recognise the authority you have under Standing Order 378, and give consideration to allowing the National Party to retain the number of supplementary questions we were allocated prior to the decision by the Labour Party to send Mr Field down the road.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member, and he does raise a point that I know will be of interest to other members. In anticipation I do have a ruling to clarify matters for the benefit of members. If there is any further debate, I suggest that people look at the ruling and perhaps raise it at the Business Committee.

Following the Business Committee’s confirmation of a revised roster for the allocation of questions for oral answer, I have reconsidered the allocation of supplementary questions. Supplementary questions are, of course, allowed at the Speaker’s discretion. However, over recent times Speakers have given an indication of the way that they may allocate supplementary questions. A revised allocation has been sent to all party whips and comes into force today. The Speaker’s indicative allocation of supplementary questions is based on the same system of proportionality that is used for the allocation of primary questions for oral answer. The allocations to parties are calculated as a proportion of the total number of members—121—excluding the 28 members of the executive. Each week 189 supplementary questions may be allowed; that is 63 each question time. Each party has been allocated its proportion of the 189 supplementary questions, and those have been allocated across the three question times. The new allocation takes into account a member becoming an Independent member and the resignation of the Hon Jim Sutton, who was not replaced as a Minister, thus reducing the numbers in the executive by one.

The impact on the Labour Party’s proportion of the reduction in the number of members of the executive on the one hand, and of a member becoming an Independent on the other hand, in effect cancel each other out. As a result all parties’ allocations are reduced relatively. The Labour Party is entitled to 20 percent of the supplementary questions and loses one question; the National Party is entitled to 50 percent of the supplementary questions and loses two questions. The changes in the proportions for the smaller parties are so small that they have no material impact on their allocations. The Independent member is entitled to two supplementary questions each week. Previously there were 190 supplementary questions each week. Now, to ensure strict proportionality, there will be 189.

I must also say that when I went back and reconsidered this matter, I found we had not taken into account the fact that the Hon Jim Sutton had resigned from the executive, so in effect the National Opposition has had one question more than it was entitled to, and the Labour Party one less. [Interruption] I apologise to members for that, and as the changes take place we will make the proportions change at that time. But that is why, as Gerry Brownlee has raised quite properly, the revised allocation may seem a little incongruous.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. By the interesting logic you put in front of us, can we assume that if the Labour Party were to further decimate its extraordinarily large executive, it might in fact not have to answer very many questions in the House, at all?

Madam SPEAKER: As the member knows, the Speaker does not work on hypotheticals.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a separate point of order that arises out of the last one. It may be useful, in the context of determining the allocation, for you to offer a rationale to the House for the exclusion of members of the executive from the calculation, given that members of the executive frequently ask supplementary questions.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): That was a conscious decision of the Standing Orders Committee at the time. Indeed, I think I was the person who initially suggested that, on the grounds that essentially, of course, it is members of the executive who answer questions within the House. That does not prevent, within the Labour Party, members of the executive asking supplementary questions, but it seemed to be fair and appropriate that the allocation of questions should be based on non-executive membership. In the National Party, of course, that means there is a very powerful incentive to remain in Opposition, because in that way those members get more questions.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I think that Mr Dunne raises an interesting point, but we cannot support him because, clearly, the only way that members of this Government communicate with one another is through the question and answer process.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for raising the issue, and I say the member’s contribution is a matter for the Business Committee. It is a matter that some people have queried from time to time. The explanation from the Leader of the House was accepted at the time.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Carbon Neutrality—Government Agencies

1. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: How do the estimates tabled in the House by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday, showing carbon footprints of the first six Government agencies to go carbon neutral, compare to the projected deficit New Zealand faces during the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and the carbon emissions from current deforestation?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): The estimated cost for carbon neutrality in the first six Government departments to be committed to carbon neutrality is $5 million. Of course the emission reduction and offsets in these Government departments show that carbon neutrality is an achievable goal.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the reason the Minister did not give a straight answer to my original question the fact that official figures show that the six carbon-neutral public services would save just 13,000 tonnes, whereas New Zealand faces a 40 million tonne carbon deficit under the Kyoto Protocol, and we are losing 8 million tonnes a year in deforestation—that is, the numbers are so embarrassing they make the Government’s climate change policies a joke?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The proposals to advance towards carbon neutrality in the public sector are, of course, unrelated to rates of deforestation. I have no doubt that the Government’s preferred policy option in respect of controlling deforestation—through a deforestation “cap and trade” scheme—would be effective to limit and reduce deforestation.

Martin Gallagher: Do forest owners have a property right to carbon credits for carbon stored by previously planted trees, as asserted in deforestation proposals put forward by a Mr Matthew Hooton—whom I think was extensively mentioned in The Hollow Men—on behalf of lobbyist Roger Dickie?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Plainly, no. There is no property right for carbon credits, just as emitters have no property liability for their existing carbon emissions. If foresters had a property right, then farmers and other New Zealanders would already have a property liability for their car emissions or their cows. Plainly, they do not. This is actually one thing that Labour and National agree on.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister agree that industry and society would be thrown into chaos if the Government were to take an extreme view on the time frame for achieving carbon-neutral targets, such as Nick Smith seems to be proposing?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Absolutely. I agree that to charge towards carbon neutrality in a short number of years would be an unattainable goal except—

Gerry Brownlee: Tell the Prime Minister!

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, the Prime Minister agrees with that and has never said anything different. The ambition of carbon neutrality is a realistic goal as shown by what can be achieved in these first six Government departments.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: How does the carbon saving from these six departments, which the Minister has just stated to be $5 million in 2012, compare in 2012 terms with the expected savings that would have occurred with the price on carbon if the Government’s carbon charge—decided in 2002—had not been abandoned in December 2005?

Hon DAVID PARKER: But a fraction of those savings, which from memory were calculated to total 41 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. That is just from memory and it is a while since I looked at those figures. The member could correct me if I am wrong.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does it not illustrate that the Prime Minister’s opening statement to Parliament on sustainability was a load of hog, when she proudly boasts of a new policy of making Treasury carbon neutral, when figures show it will make a difference of 2 tonnes per day, but when she makes no mention of deforestation that is causing carbon loss of 22,000 tonnes per day; and, given these figures, does he not accept that halting the massive deforestation going on in New Zealand right now should be the No. 1 climate change priority?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have long been clear that halting growing rates of deforestation is very important in terms of climate change policy. The “cap and trade” system that the Government has proposed is one of the options, and indeed some of the other options would also achieve that outcome.

Hon Phil Goff: Has the Minister perceived any inconsistency between claims now being made that the Government is doing too little about climate change and the assertion that climate change is a “complete and utter hoax”; a statement made by John Key in this House just 18 months ago?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Thankfully Phil Goff is not responsible for the statements of National’s leader, John Key. Furthermore, the quote is completely incorrect and wrong.

Madam SPEAKER: If the Minister would address the first part of the question.

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I do, and I recall contrasting statements by other members in this House, including Mr Key who did, in fact, say to this House that he was personally unconvinced and thought the whole thing was a hoax. He subsequently went on to say that he believed in climate change. It is, of course, permissible for him to change his mind, but he went on to say he believed in climate change and always had. One of those two statements has to be incorrect.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can he assure the House that having expensive Treasury bureaucrats running around ensuring they are carbon neutral is the best contribution they can make to climate change policy when their carbon footprint is so minuscule; would not their time be better spent on implementing a credible policy like National’s tradable emissions permit system that will actually address the major emissions that are causing New Zealand’s climate change issues?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The first point to be made there is that a number of steps—a large number of steps—need to be taken to advance towards carbon neutrality. Making light of the steps that are starting to be taken in the Government sector is, with respect to the member, heading in the wrong direction. The Government’s leadership in this area, in terms of our own purchasing patterns, has the ability to influence more than just the emissions in the Government sector but lead to more sustainable practices across the economy.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Will our carbon-neutral Prime Minister be opening the new E3P generator in the Waikato this month, given that today she has found time to open the new Awapuni generator in Palmerston North, noting that the E3P generator is 385 times bigger, that the emissions savings in a year from the environmentally friendly Awapuni generator will be gobbled up in a single day of E3P’s operation, and that the Government is the funder and guarantor of E3P, whereas Awapuni is being financed by the Austrian Government and the Palmerston North City Council, or is the Prime Minister so possessed by her spin machine’s cover-up of the Government’s appalling record on climate change that she will go wherever a photo opportunity will give her the excuse?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In fact, E3P is likely to back off Huntly and reduce and lower emissions. In respect of the Awapuni project, of course that project was caused by Government climate change policy and probably would not have happened without it. The generator was brought into being because of the Government’s project to reduce emissions and its allocating carbon credits to that environmentally friendly power project.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is the Minister aware that his Government’s policy proposals regarding forestry are causing a huge increase in deforestation, and that at Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry public meetings in Gisborne, Hamilton, Nelson, and, yesterday, Hawke’s Bay, his forestry policies were overwhelmingly rejected; and why does he not abandon the stupid policies now so that there might be some trees standing when National becomes the Government next year?

Hon DAVID PARKER: It is true that Roger Dickie and other people assert that deforestation is caused by our unwillingness to devolve carbon credits to other forests planted prior to 1990. It is hard to see the linkage; I cannot see the linkage. It is notable that both major parties in this Parliament, including Nick Smith’s own, do not favour the devolution of carbon credits to previously planted forestries. They reject the property rights - based argument. There is no theft of carbon credits, and if carbon credits were property rights for existing forests, then already others would have liabilities for their emissions in agriculture and transport—and, plainly, they do not.

Hon Phil Goff: Given the challenge to the accuracy of my quoting of John Key, I seek the leave of the House to table a quote from Hansard dated 10 May 2005, where John Key states: “This is a complete and utter hoax, if I may say so.”

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to table a document that is an extract from National’s 2005 climate change policy and states that National would use New Zealand’s forest credits to offset emissions in the first commitment period—in other words, it would not devolve them to foresters.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Given the excitement that Phil Goff showed, he asserted that John Key said that climate change was a hoax. He did not. If Mr Goff were to table the previous sentence, he would see that the reference was in respect of Kyoto. I seek leave to table the full Hansard and not just the sentence that suits the misleading Mr Goff.

Madam SPEAKER: I understand the point of order. I ask members though, when they make points of order, not to make speeches and to actually stick to the point.

Document not tabled.

KiwiSaver Scheme—Reports

2. SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on support for KiwiSaver?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Apart from the enthusiastic support of the member, I have received reports of support from a range of sectors, including from AXA, whose retirement survey found that 59 percent of New Zealanders who know about KiwiSaver believe that it will lead to an increase in their retirement savings. I have also seen reports from the country’s largest union, the New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, saying that it is prepared to include employer contributions to KiwiSaver as part of, rather than in addition to, its wage claims.

Shane Jones: What alternative approaches has he seen to encourage savings in New Zealand? [Interruption]

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As we have just been listening to one hand clapping—I have seen a very wide range, from compulsion to extraordinary claims from the likes of the Business Roundtable that we do not have a savings problem, at all. The one silent voice is that of the National Party, which opposes KiwiSaver, but has absolutely no alternative.

Gordon Copeland: Has the Minister seen recent media reports suggesting that KiwiSaver could be extended to all current employees; if so, has the Government given any thought to that suggestion and to the timing and practicalities involved?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: KiwiSaver will, of course, be available to all employees; the question is whether they will be compelled to join. It is worth remembering that in Australia compulsion was introduced by way of an employer levy of 9 percent of wages in an era of high inflation and as part of a centralised wage bargain - imposed wage tax and superannuation trade-off. Such a trade-off could not be achieved in New Zealand under conditions of relatively low inflation and decentralised wage bargaining.

Gordon Copeland: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I thank the Minister for his response, but the reports I was referring to actually suggested simply automatic enrolment, not compulsion, with the same right to opt out as will be given to all people starting a job for the first time.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I will just say that I have not seen that report; if what the member means is a report that we immediately enrol everybody as an opt-out, I think that the administration would be something we could not possibly gear up for by 1 July, given the number of people involved. The advantage of phasing it in the way that we have is that anybody can opt in, but all new employees are automatically enrolled—that is, some 700,000 people a year who are new employees.

Health Services—Value for Money

3. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Does he believe he is getting value for money in health; if so, where?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): We are getting better value for money, but further improvement is always sought.

Hon Tony Ryall: Has he seen reports that a Te Kūiti primary health organisation practice is offering a cash bounty for people to enrol in the primary health organisation—inducements of $20 cash per person or $50 cash per family, and a prize draw of Warehouse vouchers—and is he satisfied that offering cash for clients is an ethical way of accessing public health subsidies?

Hon PETE HODGSON: My answer may be a little longer, if I may, Madam Speaker. The member will be aware that this health clinic has had longstanding financial and managerial problems; that it is under new management; and that, with the Waikato District Health Board, a marketing plan is in place to increase enrolments. The marketing plan involves many things—newsletters, public activities, open days, media publicity, and on it goes. Clearly, the health clinic went a step too far with its cash prizes. The district health board has already told it so—along with the Waikato primary health organisation, I would expect—and it will not do it again. There are two reasons to increase enrolments. The first is the viability of the health clinic. The second is as important. This part of the King Country has about 3,000 people who are not enrolled with anyone. That is out of a population of only 19,000. That is a very high proportion, and lots of people are intent on fixing it.

Hon Tony Ryall: That’s not right.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, it is right.

Tariana Turia: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, tēnā tātou te Whare. Does the Minister believe he is getting value for money when it is alleged that patients normally required to stay overnight following surgery at Wanganui Hospital are discharged to motels, where family or health service providers are expected to care for them and return them to the hospital in the morning for post-operative examinations; and how safe is that practice?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am not sure what the value for money of it is, nor am I sure of the safety of it, but I would be very happy to have the member raise the issue with me privately if she wishes. I am going to Wanganui in the next few weeks, I think.

Ann Hartley: Does the Minister know how this health clinic raised the prize money?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes I do. The prize money was raised at the local pig hunt where volunteers ran a canteen and sold raffles. Last night Mr Ryall rushed on to national television to breathlessly advise that the taxpayer would be upset. The taxpayer did not pay. Yet again he makes it up. Yet again he is wrong.

Barbara Stewart: Can the Minister confirm that a significant amount of the increased health sector spending has gone towards paying nurses adequately in order to retain their skills here in New Zealand?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes I can, and as a result recruitment and retention of nurses in the New Zealand health sector has improved significantly. I am very proud of the pay increase to the New Zealand nurses who work for district health boards, and I thank them for their ongoing efforts.

Hon Tony Ryall: How is it that the Government’s policy rules allow primary health organisations or their practices to offer patients a cash bounty that gives the primary health organisation hundreds of dollars in taxpayers’ money for every person it has paid $20 or $50 to, which another primary health organisation has labelled discount marketing of health care?

Hon PETE HODGSON: This is a fast-moving portfolio. The member is not aware, apparently, that a stopper was put on that, weeks ago.

Hon Member: No.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes. Let me tell the member something else. Yesterday I had the opportunity or the pleasure of spending part of the day in my own electorate of Dunedin. There I found the Otago University health centre offering an iPod for registration. I doubt that the member would consider that unethical, and I wonder whether I might say carefully whether that is because it involves a very different demographic.

Ann Hartley: What value are New Zealanders getting from additional primary-care funding?

Hon PETE HODGSON: For mainstream New Zealanders—all of us—we are getting value for money from our primary health care strategy now. By and large what has happened is that a young family’s annual cost of going to a general practitioner has fallen from about $750 per year on average to about $200. An older couple who, on average, used to pay about $780 year, now pay about $340 a year—something to be proud of, I would say.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why, as this case demonstrates, does not he, as Minister, apply proper systems to the administration of this funding in the first place instead of spending days with his mop and bucket tidying up yet another mess he has created in the public health system?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member continues to feign outrage. He should reflect on the fact that 94 percent of the enrolees in this practice are Māori, Pacific Island, and/or lowest deprivation profile. Some politicians use the word “underclass” to describe such a population and rush towards them with muesli bars. I would say that the member cannot have it both ways. Either his party has discovered what it calls an underclass and wants to brand itself as caring, or his party is prepared to take a swipe at those who are committed to the delivery of better health services to the so-called underclass whenever the opportunity arises. He cannot have it both ways.

Hon Tony Ryall: So is the Minister saying it is OK for a Māori primary health organisation to offer these sorts of inducements?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member did not listen to my answer to his first supplementary question. It is not OK. It has been stopped. It ain’t gonna happen again.

Cluster Bombs—Lebanon

4. Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control: What actions have been taken by the Government to respond to the loss of lives and livelihood caused by the use of cluster munitions in Lebanon?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control): Today New Zealand will be co-chairing a conference in Norway, which we hope will build momentum towards the international adoption of a legally binding instrument to constrain the use of cluster munitions. New Zealand is playing a leading role at that conference, which will have 45 countries and seven international agencies attending. I was also privileged a fortnight ago to farewell a New Zealand Defence Force contingent that is now working in the Lebanon to locate, map, and destroy cluster munitions and unexploded ordinance.

Hon Marian Hobbs: Why is this conference being held outside of the formal UN process, and what does it hope to achieve?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The formal United Nations review conference on conventional weapons last year regrettably failed to agree on a mandate to launch negotiations to restrict cluster munitions use. That was, in our view, an unacceptable outcome. We have therefore embarked on the alternative route of mobilising support to limit the use of cluster munitions. We hope this conference will provide a roadmap towards strengthening the current international humanitarian law to restrict the use and design of those munitions, and, in fact, New Zealand itself is considering holding a further conference after this one to ensure that that momentum keeps on towards that goal.

Hon Marian Hobbs: What level of contribution is New Zealand making on the ground in Lebanon to deal with cluster munitions, which harm so many hundreds of thousands of young people?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Regrettably, it is young people who are disproportionately the victims of the cluster munitions, which number something like 1.4 million on the ground in south Lebanon. As part of our contribution towards that, we are sending two 10-person explosive ordinance teams that will be based at Tyre in southern Lebanon. They will be working with the United Nations mine coordination centre. The first team is now deployed. It is working in the area where there is the greatest concentration of those munitions. It consists of five people from the Navy and five surveyors from the Army, who will locate and destroy cluster munitions and help people get their lives back together.

Gerry Brownlee: If the Minister is as concerned about this issue as he should be, has he had any discussions with the Minister responsible for the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to ensure that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund does not invest in companies, or is not an investor in a company, that makes the very cluster bombs he is so outraged about?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I have indeed had discussions with the Minister. As the member may well be aware, the Guardians of the New Zealand Superannuation have now divested from, I think, four companies that were manufacturing landmines, and one that was dealing in whale meat. As the member also knows, that board, quite properly, operates at arm’s length from political control—and the member voted for the clause in the bill that required that. The guardians have become members of the United Nations Global Compact, which sets out the requirements for proper investment and proper activity for a good corporate citizen. It is also a founding member of the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment. It is now looking at areas beyond the international requirements, such as nuclear weapons, to look at whether it is appropriate that New Zealand has any investment in firms dealing with those areas. There will also be a member’s bill before the House. I look forward to seeing how the member votes on it.

Taito Phillip Field—Immigration, Associate Minister

5. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Immigration: When Taito Phillip Field met with the Associate Minister, Damien O’Connor, on 17 May 2005, to discuss the immigration case of Sunan Siriwan, was the Associate Minister’s private secretary present at that meeting when the Siriwan case was discussed?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): That has long been a matter of the public record.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Ministers are supposed to give an answer—if it can be given—to enhance the public interest, in such cases. For him to simply say it is a matter of public record then sit down is unacceptable. Surely, he could give a simple “Yes” or “No”, or has this whole case become so messy that the Government just does not know how to answer any question about it?

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I think the member is right; the Minister could have been more helpful in his reply, though he did address the question. So I would ask the Minister to expand on his reply, please.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The answer to the member’s question is set out in the Ingram inquiry report.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Taito Phillip Field the following day, 18 May 2005, having written to the then Associate Minister Damien O’Connor: “As a result of my representations on behalf of Mr Siriwan, you have decided”—I repeat “decided”—“that you would consider favourably a two year work permit to allow him to re-enter New Zealand from Apia, Samoa”, and “You further decided that a Special Direction will”—I repeat “will”—“be granted to cancel the 5 year penalty for his spouse”, did the Associate Minister’s private secretary see that letter; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Although I am not responsible for the internal workings of the offices of former Ministers, including the office of that former Associate Minister, I am advised that the department did not accept Taito Phillip Field’s letter’s version of what happened at that meeting. Quite correctly, the department awaited formal notification from the Associate Minister of the later decision that he subsequently made.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Were such decisions to “consider favourably a two year work permit to allow [Mr Siriwan] to re-renter New Zealand from Apia, Samoa” and to make a special direction “to cancel the 5 year penalty for his spouse” made at the meeting on 17 May 2005 between Taito Phillip Field, the then Associate Minister Damien O’Connor, and the Associate Minister’s private secretary, Ms Nicola Scotland?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Although the Ingram inquiry report appears to confirm that the case was discussed, the decision was not made by the then Associate Minister until some weeks later.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct that when Mrs Field presented Taito Phillip Field’s letter detailing the Minister’s alleged decisions to the Apia branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service, the branch manager in Apia faxed the group manager of service international in Wellington the same day asking “whether our [Associate] Minister was aware of the information we have received … regarding these Thai nationals when he apparently made these decisions following discussions with Hon Taito Philip Field.”, and is it correct that the group manager of service international phoned the then Associate Minister’s office the same day to warn him, and spoke to the Associate Minister’s private secretary?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: No and no.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would hate to see the Minister risk misleading the House. I would invite him to reconsider his answer.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The Minister has given his answer; he will take responsibility for it.

Taito Phillip Field: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With due respect, I take exception to the slight on my integrity implied by that member’s questions—as he has done for the past 17 months. I make reference to Standing Order 116 and the Speakers’ rulings on pages 38 and 39.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, unless, in fact, the member is seeking leave to make a personal explanation. Is the member seeking leave to make a personal explanation?

Taito Phillip Field: Yes. I take exception that in the past 17 months that member has continually made allegations about me in this House in question time. I want to make it clear to him that, in fact, a lot of the allegations he has made in this House are quite untrue and have reflected badly on my integrity. If that member has any scrap of evidence to back up the allegations he has been making for that lengthy period of time, I invite him to come out of his closet and make those allegations outside this House.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Does the Minister consider it plausible that the then Associate Minister’s private secretary—who was aware that 2 months earlier the Hon Damien O’Connor had declined visas for both Sunan Siriwan and his partner, Ms Phanngarm; who was present at the crucial meeting on 17 May; and who knew that Taito Phillip Field had misrepresented the outcome of that meeting in his letter of 18 May—would ignore a logged phone call from the head of service international, only a few days later, telling her of Mr Field’s conflict of interest over the same Sunan Siriwan in Samoa, and not say anything to her Minister?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: That has, for a long time, been recorded as the conclusion of the Ingram inquiry. Crucial to that judgment is the fact that—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. One presumes from the fact that the member opposite has asked some 400 questions on this matter that he would still like to hear the answer.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister continue, please. [Interruption] The Minister has a point. Let the Minister address the question, so that we all can hear it.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I was going on to say that I imagine that among factors that Dr Ingram QC would have taken into account are the facts that the meeting with Taito Phillip Field in question happened on 17 May, and that the first alleged passage of specific information about Sunan Siriwan to the private secretary did not occur until some 3 weeks later, on 9 June.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours Policy

6. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement that “86,000 children will definitely get 20 free hours under Labour”; if so, in what time frame will this be achieved?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes. Based on current enrolments of 3 and 4-year-olds in teacher-led early childhood centres, Labour’s policy of 20 free hours will definitely be available for up to 92,000 children—more than 86,000—from 1 July. Further, the Minister stands by his statement made prior to the last election that 86,000 children will be worse off under National’s plan to axe the 20 hours’ free policy.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister understand why parents are confused about how many kids will actually receive 20 hours’ free early childhood education, when he told them, pre-election, that 92,000 children would “definitely get 20 hours under Labour”, then said “up to 92,000 will get 20 free hours”, and only yesterday said “potentially 92,000 children will get 20 free hours”; which is it, because there is a world of difference in those statements?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I can understand anyone’s confusion, if he or she listened to that member. There is no confusion in knowing that every single child would be worse off under a National-led Government.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Does the Minister sometimes think, as he works his way through the complexities of the 20 hours’ free education policy—particularly with regard to the for-profit sector—that he cannot help but conclude he was thrown a huge hospital pass by his predecessor, Trevor Mallard?

Hon RUTH DYSON: No, because any opportunity to improve access to early childhood education, which is what our Government is committed to, is worthwhile for the engagement with that part of the sector.

Dianne Yates: Has the Minister received any information about how many 3 and 4-year-olds would receive 20 hours’ free early childhood education under a National Government?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes, I have. The answer is, not one single child. The National Party’s policy, as set out clearly on its website, is to scrap 20 hours’ free early childhood education.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to point out that the Minister had no ministerial responsibility in the context of the question asked, but I realise that to do so would be a waste of time. The reality is that one cannot scrap a policy that cannot be implemented. There is nothing for National to scrap, because Labour is not doing anything.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister answer the question that every parent wants to know the answer to, which is whether it will be that 92,000 children will “definitely get 20 hours under Labour”, that “up to 92,000 will get 20 free hours”, or, as the Minister said yesterday, “potentially 92,000 children will get 20 free hours”—which is it?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Actually, “up to” and “potentially” mean exactly the same thing. I clarify for the member, who seems to be the only confused person in the country, that Labour’s 20 hours’ free policy will be available to 3 and 4-year-olds in all teacher-led early childhood education centres from 1 July this year.

Katherine Rich: When some centres are planning to charge top-up donations, which will basically be compulsory fees if parents want their kids to be in that centre, how can 20 hours’ free education be free if they are not free, or is that just loony Labour Government logic?

Hon RUTH DYSON: This has been explained to the member previously, but I will try to do so once more because she clearly remains confused. The key rule is that parents cannot be charged for 20 hours’ free early childhood education. That is the key part of the meaning of “free”.

Paula Bennett: What does the Minister say to centres that need to insist on a voluntary parental payment just to cover costs, and are very concerned that these payments do not provide enough security of income to run a centre?

Hon RUTH DYSON: I would say to those centres that they would be very, very unlikely to get any increased funding from a National Government, as would parents, who would not gain one scrap, because not one single child would have any free early childhood education under that member’s policy. The subsidy will cover all operating costs, including teachers’ salaries, administrations costs, professional services, utilities, capital and property costs such as rent or mortgage, and the repayment and replacement of assets.

Paula Bennett: When will the Minister admit to parents that 20 hours’ free early childhood education was simply a slogan, and that parents will need to top up this subsidy with a so-called voluntary payment?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Not at all, because it is just not true—wrong again.

Algerian Refugee—Security Risk Certificate

7. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Immigration: To what extent, if any, did the police threat assessment of Ahmed Zaoui, an assessment criticised as “not well considered nor well constructed” in a 9 January 2007 report by Judge Ian Borrin of the Police Complaints Authority, contribute to the Minister’s decision to rely on a security risk certificate applying to Algerian refugee Ahmed Zaoui?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): I was, of course, not privy to the briefing to the former Minister of Immigration by the Director of Security before the Minister’s decision to rely upon the security risk certificate. However, I am advised that the police play no role in the statutory briefing process. In accordance with section 114E(3) of the Immigration Act 1987, the contents of that briefing must remain confidential.

Keith Locke: Was it because the Minister in some way relied on the flawed police threat assessment against Mr Zaoui, which falsely claimed that he was a senior member of the terrorist GIA group, that the Minister’s department actually supported Mr Zaoui spending 10 months in solitary confinement in Pāremoremo prison?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: My first answer applies equally to the second question.

Keith Locke: In what way would the presence in New Zealand of Leila Zaoui and her four children prejudice the current review of the security risk certificate, and why is the Minister so heartless in not allowing the family to be reunited, at least while the very long-drawn-out review of Mr Zaoui’s status is completed and the Minister makes a decision?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is important that because there is a chance that the substantive decision in respect of Mr Zaoui will later come to my desk, I do not now pre-empt the substance of that decision. Therefore, I must live with the possibility of the perception of heartlessness in order to ensure that that decision is not prejudiced.

Madam SPEAKER: Would members please lower the level of chatter. It is very difficult to hear members sometimes.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question specifically asked in what way the presence of Leila Zaoui and her children would prejudice the Minister’s decision. He did not answer how it would prejudice the decision he talked about when giving his answer.

Madam SPEAKER: I think the Minister did, in the context, address the question.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister confirm that when a security risk certificate is issued against a suspected terrorist, he has no choice but to rely on that advice, and that he has no influence over Ahmed Zaoui’s fate until the decision regarding the security risk certificate is reached by the SIS—unlike Mr Zaoui, who does have a choice: he can seek assistance with documentation, get on a plane, and go tomorrow?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I would not characterise the obligations on this Minister in the way that the member has just done.

Peter Brown: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is a most unsatisfactory answer. I asked the Minister a specific question about the procedure and the limitations controlling the procedure. I think the Minister should give this House an answer. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I cannot hear what members are saying. Would the Minister please expand on his answer.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: To be more direct, the member was wrong.

Keith Locke: How much incompetence and bungling from various State agencies, particularly the police and the SIS, will it take in this long-drawn-out affair of 4 years, going on 5 years, before the Minister lifts the security risk certificate against Mr Zaoui; has the Minister given any consideration to the fact that the inspector-general’s term expires in June—that is, before the hearing is even due to begin—and has he any contingency planning about what to do in that circumstance?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Although I have no ministerial responsibility for the term of the inspector-general, I have stated publicly, previously, that I share the concern of many New Zealanders that this process should be expedited as quickly as possible.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a copy of the Police Complaints Authority report dated 9 January 2007, which is very critical of the police’s role—

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table an Amnesty International statement of 24 April 2006 explaining the secret detention and torture that goes on in Algeria today, which makes it impossible for Mr Zaoui to return there.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We seek to be more specific about these things. Mr Locke has just asked whether he can table a document outlining secret torture. Well, if it is such a secret, how come he has a document on it?

Madam SPEAKER: The member knows that is not a point of order; however, it has provoked another one.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The document here, which I think Mr Brownlee could read as it is easily available, talks about detainees in secret detention and about being tortured—secret detention and torture, I tell Mr Brownlee.

Madam SPEAKER: Can we now move on?

Keith Locke: I tried to table that document because there was a reference made by a member to Mr Zaoui being able to go home. I now seek leave to table, from the New Zealand Herald of 9 February, a statement where Mr Zaoui hotly disputes Mr Peter Brown’s assertion, and says that he has no passport to enable him to return home.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Accident Compensation—Covered Publicity Campaign

8. PANSY WONG (National) to the Minister for ACC: How much does the Covered publicity campaign currently being run by the Accident Compensation Corporation cost and is she supportive of its message?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC): The Covered campaign, designed to inform New Zealanders of their entitlements under the accident compensation scheme, will cost $5.1 million over 4 years. The cost of this campaign represents 0.0012 percent of the $1.9 billion that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) spends assisting injured people per year. Broken down further, it represents a cost of 7.75c per person per year. The cost of the campaign will be met out of ACC’s current communications budget, and, yes, I am very supportive of the message.

Pansy Wong: Does that mean the Minister agrees with this statement on the ACC website for the Covered campaign: “New Zealand is the only country where everyone is protected with this kind of injury cover—even if it was something you did that caused the injury.”; if so, is that why she has not ruled out compensation for the previously convicted killer Graeme Burton?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Yes and no. Yes, I support the message, because it is factually correct. It is important that all people know that even if it is their own fault that they are injured, they are entitled to receive accident compensation cover. I do not support, despite that statement, cover for people who have committed crimes such as that indicated by the member. In fact, that was indicated in comments made at the time of the Graeme Burton murder, by the chief operating officer, Gerard McGreevy. I will quote from them, to perfectly clarify the matter for the member, who clearly did not read them: “While someone is imprisoned, they are not entitled to any form of compensation from ACC, apart from treatment for their injury. Any periodic ACC payments cease for the period of imprisonment, and there is no eligibility for back payment.” I am sure that clarifies the issue for the member.

Hon Mark Gosche: Why is ACC running the Covered campaign?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The reason ACC is running the Covered campaign is that research has shown that many people, particularly Māori, Pacific, and Asian people, do not have any understanding at all of the accident compensation scheme. As a publicly funded organisation, ACC has a duty to inform all New Zealanders of their entitlements. Unlike the National Party, which has been deceptive towards the public about its privatisation plans, as demonstrated at the last election when details of its accident compensation policy were “deliberately kept out”, our Government is proud of our world-class scheme, and wants the public to be knowledgable about it and enjoy their full entitlement.

Pansy Wong: Does that mean the Minister agrees with the ACC spokesman that while Graeme Burton is in prison he will not be entitled to compensation, but afterwards he will be able to file for compensation; if that is the case, how does she think the family of the late Mr Karl Kuchenbecker, who was gunned down by Graeme Burton while he was on parole, will feel, when she will not rule out compensation, full stop?

Hon RUTH DYSON: As I explained to the member in answer to a previous supplementary question, there is no eligibility for back payment. When Graeme Burton is released, he is entitled to apply for lump-sum compensation, and ACC rather than the Minister—as the member would find out, if she would care to read the legislation for which she now has responsibility as Opposition spokesperson—must then apply to the District Court. I will read the particular reference: “for a declaration that such a payment would be repugnant to justice, and therefore should not be made.” ACC has previously exercised its—not the Minister’s—statutory power in this regard.

Pansy Wong: Will the Minister assure the family of the innocent victims of the saga of the parole fiasco that ACC will apply to the court to make sure, or the Minister will do something to make sure, that compensation categorically will not happen?

Hon RUTH DYSON: Tempting though it may be on many occasions, I will not rise to the temptation of instructing the District Court on its response to any application.

Pansy Wong: How does ACC justify the cost-effectiveness of this $5 million Covered campaign, when it has rejected on the grounds of cost-effectiveness its own pilot study that shows that increasing the subsidy for a family doctor visit by $10 would increase by 3 percent the number of people in the target group who visit those doctors; how can the corporation justify, and how does the Minister support, the cost-effectiveness of this $5 million programme?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The member is confusing two very different incentives for ensuring that people have access to treatment and to cover. In addition to a comprehensive research programme aimed at finding out exactly what New Zealanders did know, 5,000 people—predominantly, Māori, Pacific, and Asian people—took part in face-to-face interviews. During those, people said they did not know they were entitled to accident compensation cover. Having education about the right to apply is quite different from having entitlement to go to the doctor. I have to add that it is a bit rich for that member to be promoting a higher level of subsidy for doctors, when through her party’s entire 9 years of Government the only alteration it made to doctors’ subsidies was in 1992, when they were cut by 15 percent.

Wellington City Council—Social Housing

9. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: What assistance is the Government providing to Wellington City Council to upgrade its social housing stock?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Housing): Today, with the Mayor of Wellington, Kerry Prendergast, and my colleagues Annette King, Mahara Okeroa, Marian Hobbs, and Charles Chauvel, I announced a $220 million partnership with Wellington City Council to substantially upgrade its 2,354 social housing units. In return, the council has agreed to stay in social housing for 30 years, to reinvest rental income back into the maintenance of its homes, and to improve tenancy management.

Charles Chauvel: What outcomes is the Government expecting from this investment?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Wellington City Council is the second-largest landlord in the region, housing approximately 4,000 elderly, low-income, or disadvantaged tenants—more than 11 percent of all rental housing in this city. Ensuring the supply of affordable, quality housing is a priority issue the Government is progressing through its “families—young and old” theme. This contrasts sharply with the “hollow men” opposite who started selling State houses again—a policy Mr Key is so embarrassed about he runs for cover every time it comes up.

Madam SPEAKER: Would members please keep the noise down. It is impossible for members to hear.

Phil Heatley: Why have State and council housing waiting lists mushroomed year on year across the country since 2001, even though more houses have been provided; is it because Kiwis are poorer, there is a growing underclass in New Zealand, and fewer people can afford their own home?

Madam SPEAKER: Would members on the Government benches please keep their interventions down, otherwise people will be leaving the Chamber.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: There are two simple and logical explanations. Firstly, people can now afford State house rents because they pay income-related rents. Previously under the National Government they paid market rents. Secondly, and just as important, National sold off 13,000 houses—not to tenants mostly, but to speculators. If we still had those 13,000 houses, we would not have a waiting list.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Does the support given by Government to the Wellington City Council allow for that council to implement a rent-to-buy scheme of its housing stock; if not, why not?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Housing remains a need in all parts of New Zealand. This Government is committed to keeping social housing as part of that opportunity to provide affordable housing for people who still need to rent houses. Wellington City Council is following the same programme, and I applaud it for that.

Darren Hughes: Has the Government given assistance to any other councils around New Zealand to upgrade, improve, or build new social housing stock?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: In 2003 the Government established the Housing Innovation Fund to support social housing projects through partnerships with local authorities and not-for-profit organisations. As of 31 January 2007 loans and grants worth more than $38 million had been made, with a further $14.5 million expected for this year. A very good example of that is the $5.2 million loaned to the Horowhenua District Council, championed by that member, that enabled the council to build 40 new pensioner flats and modernise 70 existing units in Levin, Shannon, and Foxton. I seek leave to table a document taken from The Hollow Men that states National would renew its 1990s programme of selling State houses to provide homeownership, by the former leader Mr Brash.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Prime Minister's Statement

10. CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Does he agree with the Prime Minister when she said in her prime ministerial statement of 13 February 2007 that: “The historical Treaty settlement process has considerable momentum.”; if so, why?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Yes, because the Prime Minister is correct.

Christopher Finlayson: How can the process have momentum when the Government, at a time when it expects a huge increase in Treaty claims, has reduced inflation-adjusted funding to the Office of Treaty Settlements by almost half a million dollars?

Hon MARK BURTON: The fact is that over the last four Budgets the Office of Treaty Settlements has been able to facilitate claims in greater numbers through the installation of a claims development team, a new negotiations team that was established in 2003, and a policy, strategy, and legal team that was established in 2004. New initiative funding of $5.174 million was in last year’s Budget to further enhance its capability. The Office of Treaty Settlements has more negotiators than it had. I suggest to the member that the maths is self-evident.

Christopher Finlayson: I will treat that as an address to the question.

Madam SPEAKER: It was an address to the question.

Christopher Finlayson: That is why I did not raise a point of order. How can the process have momentum when over the 7 years the Government has been in office, inflation-adjusted funding for the Waitangi Tribunal has increased by just $305,000—or by an average of just over $43,000 a year?

Hon MARK BURTON: I suggest that if the member wants to put down a question to the Minister responsible for the Waitangi Tribunal, he should do so.

Christopher Finlayson: Is it not true that there is momentum in the Treaty settlement process when both Treaty partners trust one another and have a positive attitude towards settling grievances; and by reference to Hauraki iwi, will not the sale of Landcorp’s Whenuakite Station at Whitianga cause serious insult to Hauraki iwi and indeed slow the momentum of the settlement process?

Hon MARK BURTON: I suggest that the record of negotiations in the last 2 years—three deeds of mandate have been recognised, two terms of negotiations have been signed, two agreements in principle have been signed, two deeds of settlement have been initialled, two deeds of settlement have been signed, two settlement bills have been introduced, and two settlement bills have been passed—suggests that there is indeed a momentum. As to the specific case of Hauraki, which is not yet in negotiation, the time and place for the Crown and mandated negotiators to discuss that matter is in face-to-face negotiation.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker, kia ora tātou. In order that the considerable momentum of the historical Treaty settlement process can be maintained, could the Minister indicate what the appropriate circumstances might be that would enable Landcorp properties to be used as redress for Ngāti Kahu lands in the north and Ngāti Hei lands in Hauraki that were stolen by the Crown; and, similarly, for the Raurimu and Taurewa blocks in the National Park area, which are at present being considered by the Waitangi Tribunal?

Hon MARK BURTON: Although I am not prepared to enter into discussion about specific negotiations—because the time and place for that is between mandated negotiators and Crown negotiators—the general principle would be that it is when no suitable holdings exist in order to make suitable redress offers to claimant groups.

Christopher Finlayson: Is it not true that there could be considerable momentum and goodwill created in Hauraki if Whenuakite Station were to be held by the Crown or a holding entity in order to preserve the status quo pending negotiation of the total Hauraki settlement, and will the Minister consider this option?

Hon MARK BURTON: I am not clear whether the member is asking that question as an MP, or as a barrister on behalf of a claimant, as he has in the past, but I suggest to the member—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That was clearly a breach of the Standing Orders. The Minister should be pulled into line. That implied that the member asking the question was somehow under the influence or direction of persons outside of this House, and, as you well know, that is quite inappropriate.

Hon MARK BURTON: If that was the impression gained, I do apologise. That certainly was not my intent. I was simply drawing attention to the fact that I am aware of the member’s considerable career in representing various claimant groups.

Madam SPEAKER: As long as there was no such implication. Would the Minister please just address the substance of the question.

Hon MARK BURTON: The critical thing is that the time and place to engage in a negotiation is when it is between mandated negotiators from that area and Crown negotiators. I have met recently with representatives of the area, and when there is an opportunity for us to engage with mandated negotiators, we will happily do so.

Hone Harawira: Kia ora, Madam Speaker, kia ora tātou te Whare. What is the basis for this Labour Government now saying that the Crown’s policy is that Landcorp properties are generally not available for use in settlements, given that Landcorp properties were generally available—in fact, were specifically and deliberately available—for use in settlements during the reign of the National Government and given that there have been no publicly notifiable changes to the relevant legislation or regulation since that time?

Hon MARK BURTON: Essentially, as I indicated in answers yesterday, in particular, and to some extent today, when there are, as a first preference, other easily available properties for redress, the first option is to use those. It is not ruled out, as I know that the member understands, that under other circumstances, such as when the tribunal orders it, those properties may well come into play under resumption.

Christopher Finlayson: Is it not the truth of the matter that there has only ever been momentum in the Treaty settlement process when National has been in office, as evidenced by the ongoing decline in funding for the Office of Treaty Settlements by this Government, and the incompetent manner in which the Minister is dealing with Hauraki iwi over Whenuakite Station?

Hon MARK BURTON: Whilst I have considerable regard for my predecessor the Hon Doug Graham—[Interruption] one of my predecessors; of course the other, I would not want to draw into the debate—and the work he did in this very difficult portfolio, I have to say that the member is wrong. It seems the member does understand the cost of some things but the value of little. I repeat to the member that I cannot enter into a negotiation until there is a mandated negotiator to negotiate with.

Zimbabwe Residence Policy—HIV/AIDS Waiver

11. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: How many Zimbabweans, as of 21 February 2007, have applied for residency under the Special Zimbabwe Residence Policy following the HIV/AIDS waiver announced on 30 August 2006, and how many of the remaining 800 who were eligible under the policy as at 30 August 2006 have yet to apply?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): I am advised that the original estimate of 800 has been subsequently refined to 460. Of those, as at the first week of February 2007—the most recent point for which data is available—approximately 134 eligible persons had yet to apply.

Peter Brown: Can the Minister explain the discrepancy between his answer to a written question, which stated that 85 of the 800 eligible Zimbabweans had applied as of 13 February 2007, and his media statement, made on 15 February 2007, which stated that only 130 of the 800 had yet to apply—because now, by downsizing the number, he has added to the confusion?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I will be happy to check the exact basis of the two figures that the member quoted earlier. But I think the member—and all members of the House—would agree with me that it is indeed a good thing for New Zealand that the number outstanding is reduced, and that officers of the Department of Labour are checking on an individual basis with the 134 people who have yet to apply.

Peter Brown: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will seek the removal of all Zimbabweans who do not conform and apply for residency before 28 February?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Government’s policy on this matter is clear: that any member of the community who fails to apply by the deadline date can have no guarantee of residence, as those who applied before that date do under the policy.

Agent Orange—Memorandum of Understanding

12. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs: What progress has been made in implementing the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Government and the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association and the Ex-Vietnam Services Association and announced on 7 December 2006?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs): A joint implementation group has been established to ensure the effective implementation of the memorandum of understanding. The group is comprised of membership from the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association, the Ex-Vietnam Services Association, and key Government agencies. Work is already under way to deliver on this Government’s commitment to the provisions of the memorandum of understanding. This is the first time in 30 years that any New Zealand Government has acknowledged the concerns of Viet Nam veterans and their families.

Judith Collins: What reports has the Minister received that no money will be available until the next financial year to pay those Viet Nam veterans suffering from a prescribed condition the promised ex gratia payment of $40,000?

Hon RICK BARKER: I have received no such reports.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister tell the House what initiatives, if any, are currently being worked on?

Hon RICK BARKER: In late 2006 both the Prime Minister and I announced at the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association’s annual conference that work would begin on rewriting the War Pensions Act—an Act that has not been touched since 1954, and which is based on the archaic legislation of 1915. We will be working closely with all interested veterans’ organisations to ensure that the final results improve the delivery of services to veterans and their families. As well as this, I have initiated a review of Veterans Affairs New Zealand alongside the working party review to ensure that Veterans Affairs New Zealand is set up to be able to deliver its services as effectively as possible in the future.

Judith Collins: Does the Minister accept as reliable the estimate made by Viet Nam veteran Vic Johnson that a further 20 Viet Nam veterans will die before the implementation of understanding; if he does not, why does he not?

Hon RICK BARKER: I am not familiar with the calculation of Mr Johnson and I do not know what basis he has made the calculation on. I can say to the member that if a person was currently in receipt of a war disablement pension for one of the prescribed conditions and was suddenly deceased, then I would expect the payout to be made very quickly.

Judith Collins: Is the Minister able to confirm that his own handling of this issue has been cited as a cause for complaint by the director of Veterans Affairs, and can he confirm to the House that the director has lodged a substantial personal grievance claim against the Crown?

Hon RICK BARKER: I can confirm neither of those allegations.

Judith Collins: Can we take it from the Minister’s statement that no personal grievance claim has been lodged by the director of Veterans Affairs?

Hon RICK BARKER: I repeat for the member, for the sake of clarity—belt and braces—I have no knowledge of the matter that the member has spoken about, at all.

Question No. 1 to Minister

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): I seek leave to table a report explaining how the Hon Dr Nick Smith got it wrong in question No. 1 today. It shows that the Prime Minister opened a recycling centre at Awapuni, not a power station, as it was described by the member.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I seek leave of the House to table the New Zealand Press Association report on the station that was opened and reports it as a power station, turning methane into power.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues): I seek leave to table a photograph of me opening that Awapuni power plant on 15 September last year.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Points of Order

Taito Phillip Field—Reference to Family

TAITO PHILLIP FIELD (Independent—Mangere): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. With due respect, I noted that Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith made reference to my wife, not only today but on many other occasions. I want to point out—

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, I am sorry.

TAITO PHILLIP FIELD: Well, I thought there was a convention that states that reference to members’ spouses and families should not be raised on the floor of this House.

Madam SPEAKER: The member knows that if members want to raise such matters they must do it at the time the matter is first raised.

Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 20 February.

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote): Just to recap on National’s opposition to the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill, the key point is that by merging the employers’ account and the self-employed work account the Government is defying the basic insurance principle of matching premiums or levies with risk. What will happen with the merger of the employers’ account, which is associated with lower accident rates and lower claims, with the self-employed work account, which is associated with higher accident rates and, of course, higher claims, is that the employers’ account will then be subsidising the self-employed work account. In fact, the self-employed have twice the rate of entitlement claims as employees.

This bill means that the concept of experience-rating will be completely ignored, and those with higher injury rates who take greater risks will pay the same premiums as those with lower injury rates who are risk-averse. I think it is just a matter of common sense that that is an unjust situation. In fact, this will be an actuarial nightmare that goes against all the established principles of premiums being determined by risk. The upshot of this arrangement is that it will establish a perverse incentive. It will not be worthwhile investing in safety for one’s business or one’s workers because it will not be reflected in the accident compensation premium. This bill effectively rewards those individuals who take high risks and incur a higher rate of accidents, because they will be cross-subsidised by the employers’ account.

The Government’s argument that the self-employed tend to cluster in high-risk jobs just shows how out of touch it is with the realities of work and business today. A huge proportion of New Zealand workers are now in the service industry, working behind desks, working in jobs such as information technology, and working as consultants. The Government cannot carp on about economic transformation and then pretend that the New Zealand workforce is now made up of chainsaw wielding, self-employed people. The reality is that most of the self-employed in this country work in relatively safe environments.

This bill will be yet another nail in the coffin of this Government’s relationship with New Zealand business. It is a significant mark of bad faith that after employers have paid into this account over many years, on the understanding that it would be fully funded, the surplus that has built up will now be used to subsidise the self-employed. If the Government really did care about business, and if it were really serious about encouraging people to provide employment, it would pay that surplus back to the employers. With this bill, there really is not going to be a heck of a lot of incentive to stay in this country and continue to run a business. It is just one more nail in the coffin of New Zealand business. But one also has to ask: why is this merger of the accounts being rushed through with such indecent haste, and why is the levy consultation period for 2007-08 being bypassed? It is the mark of the arrogance of this Government that it has cynically weighed up the situation. It has decided that there will not be enough electoral damage for it to justify adhering to the normal consultation process. After forcing through the election spending validation legislation last year the Government has grown blasé about the need to follow the established rules and precedents.

This bill will also undermine what has been to date an efficient and successful part of the accident compensation workplace injury industry—the Accredited Employers Programme. The bill will make this account very unattractive. Employers will, therefore, opt out of this scheme, which will add yet more cost to the new merged account and add even greater liabilities to the residual account. Perhaps this is what Minister Dyson wants—to undermine a successful private sector venture so that it fails, which she can then try to blame on the private sector itself instead of taking responsibility as a Government Minister.

One has to ask: why, exactly, after 7 long years in Government, is Labour so eager to rush this legislation through in the space of just a few short months without giving the New Zealand public the right to be heard on the matter? Is not the unpalatable answer that this legislation is all about preparing the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) for life under a National Government and setting up an environment whereby it will be a lot more difficult for private insurers to enter the market in 2008 and make it work? Is it not all about the Government positioning accident compensation for the potential competitive environment, once the electorate has finally rejected this tired, deceitful Government, rather than helping employers?

How exactly will this be achieved? Basically ACC will move as many claims as possible to the residual account, which the corporation can control now and into the future because it does not believe it will ever be put up for competition. It is going to reduce the number of claims under the employers’ account management framework, thereby taking claims away from the management of employers who are presently within the ACC partnership programme. Finally, it will reduce the rating structure by a number of means: moving claims to the residual account; discounting the rate now, and then progressively increasing it over the following years; and removing the rate stability levy. The corporation will be transferring the liability to the residual account, but not the collective premium. All this will result in fewer claims and a lower rate in the employers’ account, and therefore a reduced premium pool. The upshot of it all is that it will be a lot more difficult for private insurers to enter the new market and to make it work—and that is the Government’s aim.

Obviously, the issues around this bill show a very clear and distinct philosophical difference between the Government and centre-right parties. Our policy is centred on early rehabilitation, incentives, and a system that provides a choice of insurer. Our current monopolistic system is perfect for this Government, which runs screaming at any mention of choice and competition in accident compensation. However, such a system does not benefit New Zealanders; it benefits only the Government.

National’s changes to accident compensation in 1999—although in effect for only 9 months, before the change of Government—saw a decrease in the number of injuries, as well as a decrease in the levies that employers, the self-employed, and others paid. Interestingly, since Labour took office accident compensation claims have risen each year. This is despite its claims that a monopoly system is so great, so fair, and so efficient. Severe and moderate injuries have also risen, despite the Government continually pouring money into accident prevention.

I will finish by restating that what needs to happen for the workplace injury accident compensation industry to become efficient, fair, and successful is an opening up of accident compensation to competition. Competition will provide incentives for workplace safety, it will provide greater efficiency in the industry, and it will provide fairness for both the self-employed and the non - self-employed. A choice in accident compensation delivers better results for New Zealanders.

This bill is not about fairness, and it is not about choice. It is not about open consultation, and it is certainly not about the best interests of workers and business in New Zealand. It is about a Government that is so bogged down in ideology that it is now incapable of doing the right thing by working people. For a Labour Government, that is very sad indeed.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill be now read a second time.

Ayes 71

New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1; Independent: Field.

Noes 48

New Zealand National 48.

Bill read a second time.

Business of the House

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the House is in agreement, I ask Mr Barnett to assume the Chair. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Judicial Retirement Age Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): Congratulations, Mr Chairman, on your promotion. I think it befits you very well. I am just sorry that the Minister in the chair, Rick Barker, had to turn up, because Winnie Laban was far more attractive and far more pleasant. But there we go.

I will briefly address Part 1—and I place emphasis on the adverb “briefly”, because Part 1 simply deals with the machinery aspects of the bill. We do not yet know when the Act will come into force, but the purpose clause succinctly states exactly what this bill is all about. As I said in my speech the other night, in 1980 the retiring age for judges was reduced from 72 to 68. That reduction in the retirement age was consequent upon the Beattie commission on the courts, which reported in 1979. As I observed in my speech, there was no discussion of the rationale for reducing the age. That is why I think that the other night all speakers, from both sides of the House, tried to explain the rationale for at least increasing it. The bill brings the age of retirement for High Court judges and the other judges mentioned into line with other jurisdictions.

Perhaps I should observe that every judge of the High Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court is sworn in as a High Court judge, even though certain of them—nine in the Court of Appeal, and five in the Supreme Court—sit as appellate court judges. So when we see the term “judges” in relation to High Court judges, we know that it also includes Court of Appeal judges and Supreme Court judges.

I think that other speakers apart from myself also mentioned the fact that in many states of the United States the retirement age is around 70. In the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada the retirement age is about 70. Some jurisdictions have no retirement age. Indeed, that issue was touched on by my friend Dr Worth in his speech when he sought to explain the rationale for why there is a retirement age. If there is no retirement age, there is the risk that judges can stay on for far too long and can, in fact, become an impediment to justice. I can think of a number of foreign judges who come into that category. They simply sat on the United States Supreme Court or the English Court of Appeal for too long. I recall very clearly the case of Lord Denning, a former Master of the Rolls. He was an outstanding judge—probably one of the greatest judges in Anglo - New Zealand - Australian history—but he left his high office in a very tragic way. He had stayed on too long and made some silly remark about a jury, which hastened his pretty well immediate retirement. I think that when he retired he was about 88.

So there are very good reasons for having a retirement age, but there are extremely good reasons for the age of retirement to be increased from 68 to 70 years. This reflects increasing longevity on the part of all of us and the fact that judging is an art that requires much reflection. It is a job that is naturally suited to people in their 60s and into their early 70s—I say into their early 70s because, on occasion, judges will be asked to come back as temporary judges. In the case of judges of the Supreme Court, after their retirement they can come back and sit until the age of 75. From time to time in the High Court there are judges who come back and sit after their retirement in order to assist with workloads and so on. That principle applies not only to judges of the superior courts and the appellate court but also to associate judges of the High Court and, quite sensibly, to coroners and community magistrates.

As I said a few days ago, National supports this legislation. It is a sensible provision that we are dealing with here. I do not think I need to detain the Committee any longer.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): As the previous speaker, Chris Finlayson, said, this important legislation—the Judicial Retirement Age Bill, which National supports—raises the statutory retirement age for all judges, associate judges of the High Court, coroners, and community magistrates in New Zealand, from the age of 68 to the more magic age of 70.

But it is not in this part of the debate that I want to focus on clause 3—that all-important purpose clause. Instead, I want to take a moment to deal with the commencement provision, which is contained in clause 2. It is simply stated: “This Act comes into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal Assent.” As those who follow the parliamentary process know only too well, a bill must set out precisely when it is proposed to come into force. This rule reflects the legal rule that an Act comes into force on the date stated or provided for in the Act. That rule is contained in the Interpretation Act 1999.

In principle, the commencement provision should fix a precise date, but the commencement of legislation can be deferred for it to be brought into force by Order in Council, where there are considered to be good reasons for doing so. In this case, of course, the Act will come into force on the day after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. But if that were not so, in the circumstances that I have spoken about that relate to Acts coming into force by Order in Council, the reasons for deferring the commencement of the legislation to an unspecified date are set out in the bill’s explanatory note. As the Regulations Review Committee commented in an earlier Parliament, any use of the power to defer the commencement of a bill’s provision, other than for reasons given in the explanatory note, is very likely to attract criticism.

I note that until 1999 the commencement of a bill was invariably dealt with in the first clause, along with the title. But that is not so in the case of this bill. Here we find the title in clause 1, and the commencement date in clause 2, which reflects the requirement that the commencement provision must now be in a distinct clause devoted solely to that matter. I see that the Minister in charge of the bill, Rick Barker, is watching me in a rapt way and doubtless learning much that he has never known of before.

So that is the second clause of the bill. That clause forms, along with the title clause, a bill’s preliminary clause, which precedes the first distinct part of the bill—if the bill is drafted in parts. There may, of course, be different provisions in the bill that come into force at different times. As the Minister will know, this must be indicated in the commencement clause, with cross-references to those other clauses where the precise commencement details are set out. I need to refer in that regard only to Standing Order 257(2). That said, I think National is pleased that in this particular case the Act comes into force on the nominated date in clause 2. Certainly, we do not have any misgivings about that planned course of action. So I commend those who, with care, have drafted clause 2 in the neat and precise way they have.

KATE WILKINSON (National): I stand to take a call on Part 1 of the Judicial Retirement Age Bill. My colleagues have already commented that only two clauses are provided in Part 1: one is the commencement clause and the other is the purpose clause. Just to reiterate the purpose, I say that the bill is a fairly straightforward bill to increase the statutory retiring age of judges, associate judges of the High Court, coroners, and community magistrates, from 68 years of age to 70 years of age.

I would like to mention in this part of the call perhaps not what Part 1 provides for, but what it does not provide for—that is, justices of the peace. There is no mention in the Judicial Retirement Age Bill of the Justices of the Peace Act. There is absolute silence as to that Act, and there is no mention of the retirement age of justices of the peace. Justices of the Peace are appointed as justices. They hold judicial office and, at the moment, the retirement age for JPs is 72 years of age. So that situation is incongruous with the proposed retirement age of 70 years in the Judicial Retirement Age Bill. We are aware, of course, that the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill is currently before a select committee. I just remind the Committee that we need to ensure that the retirement age of JPs is consistent with the proposed retirement age of 70 years in the Judicial Retirement Age Bill. If we do not, we could have the incongruous situation of one class of judicial officer having a completely different compulsory retirement age from another class. JPs would retire at 72 and judges would retire at 70.

Perhaps in this vein I will refer to the comments of my colleague Dr Worth in relation to the commencement date of this bill. It may be conceivable that the commencement date of this Act could occur prior to any amendment to the Justices of the Peace Act. So there may be an interval of time—assuming that the justices of the peace legislation will make those age limits consistent—when we have inconsistencies and differences in retirement age. It seems that it is certainly preferable to have the retirement age of both justices of the peace and judges—indeed, of judicial officers—consistent and at 70 years.

In earlier speeches I referred to the arbitrary nature of age—whether it was the arbitrary nature of a young age-limit, as in the age-limits for holding a firearm or purchasing a beer, or whether it was the age-limit at the other end of the scale, that of a compulsory age-limit. It is quite interesting to look at the age of our current judges, and if we look at the ones aged between 65 and 68, we see that 11 of them are currently sitting in New Zealand. Nine of them are District Court judges and two are High Court judges. To extend that retirement age would certainly help to retain that intellectual capital. In my speech on the second reading, I think I said that 68 years did not appear to be a particularly old age—neither does 70, for that matter—but the nearer one approaches that age, the younger the age seems.

I would like to take a call on Part 2 later on. National supports the bill. It is straightforward and merely increases the retirement age of judges and other justices to 70 years of age, which is consistent with many other jurisdictions such as those of the United Kingdom, Australia, and Ireland. It is an arbitrary age-limit. It is not an indication of a judge’s competence, or otherwise. It is merely a mandatory retirement age. It is important to have a mandatory retirement age for judicial officers for the security of tenure and also, as has previously been mentioned by the Minister, for judicial independence.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland): I feel compelled to take the opportunity to speak on this Judicial Retirement Age Bill. As previous speakers have said, the National Party is supporting the bill. We are supporting it for a number of very good legal reasons and for reasons that are important to this Parliament and the country. But one of the things that is most important for this country, which we need to recognise today in the House, is that we need to keep institutional knowledge in areas such as the judiciary or within any other capacity.

One of the sad things that has happened too often in this country is that people have been retired early and we have lost a whole lot of experience. The judiciary is no different from any other group in that regard. Those people are well skilled, they are well versed, and they have huge knowledge, but then often as they are reaching the stage when they can make a very good contribution to our society—

Ron Mark: Like MPs!

JOHN CARTER: —I will come to that in a minute—we suddenly say to them that it is time they sat down and retired.

I am pleased to say that the National Party values institutional knowledge. We respect it and we expect it of our members—although the same could not be said to apply to the Labour Party. It does not develop institutional knowledge. In fact, one of the things Helen Clark has said is that she is expecting early retirement. I think she is now looking to have people come into Parliament at the Young Labour stage and retire before they get out of Young Labour.

Christopher Finlayson: Like Darren Hughes.

JOHN CARTER: Darren is a classic example. It is important that we—

Ron Mark: Like Brian Neeson.

JOHN CARTER: There is another example of a guy who made a great contribution, and who stood aside for somebody who is now leading the National Party. We are pleased because that man will be the next Prime Minister. What is wrong with that? That is making way for people, and it is a good decision.

Today this bill is a very good decision. The institution of our judiciary is important. It is important that we retain the experience and the knowledge that these people have. I am pleased to make a contribution to support the bill, and to pay my respects to the judiciary and to the many people who serve our country in that capacity.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 87 in the name of the Hon Rick Barker to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

Part 2 Retirement age increased

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): I have just a couple of points to make about Part 2. The first is to address a question that the Law Society raised in a letter it sent to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The letter said there was quite a good argument for the retirement age to go back to 72—indeed, some people would say it should go up to 75. That is, perhaps, a question for the future, but in the meantime I think that the move to 70 is about right, and for the reasons I have already said—it is basically in line with what happens in other jurisdictions.

Admittedly, however, many fine people have retired from our bench, then gone on to serve in other courts for quite a number of years. I refer, for example, to the former President of the Court of Appeal, Sir Robin Cooke, as he then was. He retired as President of the Court of Appeal in 1996 and, uniquely for a New Zealander, he was appointed to the House of Lords, where he sat dealing with English appeals. He also sat on the Privy Council dealing with New Zealand appeals. He did that for another 5 or 6 years. So he continued to make a huge contribution there. He also continued to sit, even after he retired from the House of Lords, on the Court of Appeal of Samoa and a number of the other courts around the Pacific.

A more recent example is that of Sir Kenneth Keith, who, having served with distinction on the Court of Appeal and on the new Supreme Court, retired from the Supreme Court last year after his appointment as a judge of the International Court of Justice. He retired from the Supreme Court at the age of 68, and he will be able to sit on the International Court of Justice until the age of 78. The points made by the Law Society are not without merit, and I think the question will be revisited sometime in the future.

I have only one question of the Minister, which may entice him to get to his feet, and that concerns Subpart 5, which deals with amendments to the Coroners Act 1988. I am not quite sure—and I would be grateful if the Minister could elucidate—why exactly it is necessary to refer to the 1988 legislation when, of course, Subpart 6 refers to the Coroners Act 2006. As the Minister well knows, that legislation went through this House last year. If my memory serves me correctly, the Government has already appointed a new chief coroner, who is a former District Court judge from Christchurch, and is in the process of appointing the 14 or 15 coroners who will serve full-time, as is anticipated by the new regime. So perhaps the Minister could tell me why it is necessary to amend legislation that I know has not been repealed. I know there are some transitional provisions, but it would seem to be a bit of a waste of time, because the new regime will be in place very soon indeed.

The final point I make, and it is in the nature of a suggestion to the Minister for Courts, is that when one looks at the various legislation we are amending, like the District Courts Act 1947 and the Judicature Act 1908, one can see that those Acts are long overdue for comprehensive reform. I suggest to the Government that there would be much to commend it if we had a comprehensive Courts Act. For example, when one reads through the Judicature Act 1908, one sees that in the space of 99 years it has been amended on a huge number of occasions, and at least half of the sections that were originally in that Act have been repealed. When one looks at the various court statutes in this way, one sees that a very strong case can be made for a consolidated Courts Act. I suggest to the Minister that 2008, the 100^th anniversary of the passage of the Judicature Act 1908, would be a very good time to do that. It should not be too much work; it would be a question of consolidating the various statutes. [Interruption] It is a complicated matter, but I believe that the Minister should take it on board, because it would be a very good piece of work, and I could assure him that the Justice and Electoral Committee, with its usual sedulous approach to the dispatch of business, would deal with it very carefully. But I would be very interested to know why we are amending legislation that is very soon to be totally repealed.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts): I will reply just briefly. The reason we are amending the legislation is that the Coroners Act 1988 expires on 30 June 2007, and this legislation could well come into force before that legislation expires. It will be replaced by the Coroners Act 2006, which will come into effect on 1 July. It is necessary to mention both pieces of legislation.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): National supports the speedy passage of the Judicial Retirement Age Bill. I would like to add to the comments made by the previous speaker, Chris Finlayson, by saying that in looking at the division of this bill into parts, there certainly is a case for the District Courts Act and the Judicature Act to be brought into closer alignment. It would be a very fitting end, I believe, to the career of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rick Barker, if he were to commence upon such a task as that.

There is not a lot of substance in Part 2. The only point of substance is to increase the retirement age of judges in the way that is being described. But I would also like to pick up on a comment made earlier that it is appropriate to reflect on the contribution that the judges, at all levels of the system, make to the legal system. It is a man-made system; it suffers, of course, from imperfections. But one of its great strengths is the calibre and the intellectual capability of the judges.

It is often said that being a judge is a difficult task—not so difficult, perhaps, in terms of its intellectual dimension but in terms of the daily grind. The Minister will be very much aware of pressures emanating from the Auckland High Court district in connection with massive delays in the criminal jurisdiction, which have been substantially brought about by the refusal of the Government to transfer a substantial body of work to the lower court. I am speaking about the delays in bringing drug dealers to trial in respect of methamphetamine activity.

This is an issue that has been raised with the Minister in the chair on a number of occasions. It is very much a hot issue amongst the judges in Auckland, and it has a significant consequence, in the context of this Judicial Retirement Age Bill. The delays are of such a magnitude that there may be some cases that will see judicial lives flourish until the end of the extended term of 70 years of age without a number of these cases being resolved. I commend the Minister that he look at that particular issue without further delay.

In the course of the debate on this bill I have made three essential points. Those three points have been these. First, there is a clear case for extension of the retirement age. That could be done in a number of ways. It could be done by fixing an age, or it could be done by creating a term of years for judges to serve. In the particular instance here the Government has followed a traditional path in extending the retirement age to 70. It could have been 72. As I commented earlier, we have made provision in our Supreme Court for acting judges to serve up to the age of 75. So there is no necessary magic in what the age might be.

The second point, which I think is worth noting, is that judges are being given tenure akin to the tenure that is given to people like professors at universities. Associated with that there must always be the question that arises when a judge starts to flag, when perhaps his or her faculties begin to fail. In 2004 Parliament passed legislation that I think is particularly relevant and significant in that regard, and that was the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004. It was the case that a judge could behave in an errant fashion for many years and not be held accountable. It was seen as a hugely Draconian step for a judge to be removed for misconduct. In the history of New Zealand we came close to doing that only once, and it concerned the conduct of Mr Justice Edwards in about 1920. But now we have in place this legislation that deals with judicial conduct and sets up a Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act. So those who are aggrieved, who appear as litigants in the courts or as accused persons, have a mechanism, working parallel with this legislation—the Judicial Retirement Age Bill—to make complaints through the system if that is appropriate.

The third and final thing I would like to say is that I have expressed concern in the past that this legislation may be a pathway that excites some judges to look again at the prospect of being part-time judges. I hope that the Minister and the Attorney-General will set their hearts firmly against that course, because judging is a full-time occupation. It is not to be carried out in association with other trades and hobbies.

KATE WILKINSON (National): In taking a call on Part 2, which has been more than adequately described by my colleagues, I point out that it increases the retirement age of the various District Court judges, Employment Court judges, High Court judges, Supreme Court judges, Māori Land Court judges, and coroners. The explanatory note is pretty helpful in explaining the rationale and the positive benefits of increasing the age of retirement of judges from 68 to 70. I shall quote from it for the record, because I think it is important: “The current retirement age of 68 years causes a loss of valuable knowledge and experience to the judiciary. The current age also presents a barrier to attracting senior practitioners or lawyers who have distinguished themselves in other fields … to judicial office. Experienced practitioners and academics can bring significant depth to the bench. … Raising the judicial retirement age will enable the retention of our most experienced and capable Judges and encourage recruitment of senior practitioners.” I think that intellectual capital—that experience—has already been well mentioned by my colleague Mr Carter.

Dr Worth mentioned briefly that there is a concern and an issue at the moment in relation to the delay in court hearings. It is hoped that this legislation might go some way to perhaps making those court delays a little less. Some of the figures—and, yes, I will be selective about the figures to illustrate the point—certainly paint a somewhat horrific picture. I appreciate that not all the delays are due to the lack of availability of a judge, but it is certainly hoped that if we increase the ages of judges, more may be available and the waiting times might be reduced. It is well known that justice delayed is certainly justice denied. As lawmakers it is important for us to legislate law that provides, as far as possible, that our citizens have adequate, speedy, efficient access to justice.

There is a case in the District Court in Auckland that has been waiting 1,179 days for a hearing date. That is unacceptable. As I said, it is not necessarily because of the unavailability of judges—it might be for a lot of reasons—but waiting 1,179 days for any case to come to a hearing is not an acceptable state of affairs. I will give two other indications. There is a case in the Christchurch District Court that has been waiting for a jury trial hearing for 742 days. Another case, in the Manukau District Court, has been waiting for 705 days. I think that in anyone’s language, 2 years to obtain a hearing date for a District Court trial is not speedy, efficient access to justice.

In relation even to civil cases there are also delays in many of the courts. For example, in the Auckland High Court the median waiting time for a High Court civil case to be heard is 264 days. That is nearly a year, and a lot can happen in that year. Whilst people are waiting for their legal problems to be resolved, they are caused a lot of uncertainty, angst, and worry. To have to wait 264 days for a civil High Court hearing in the Auckland High Court is certainly a worry, and not good enough. By comparison, in the capital the median waiting time for a High Court civil hearing is 231 days, which is slightly better than in Auckland but certainly nothing to write home about.

We can compare District Court jury waiting times—and, again, it is important that criminal matters are dealt with as soon as possible. There are people like the accused, defendants who have been accused of a crime, who are pleading their innocence and wanting the matter resolved as quickly as possible. I will just mention some of the waiting times for District Court jury trials, and I will mention only those that have run over 300 days. That is the median waiting time, but of course 300 days is nearly 1 year. The Auckland District Court has a median waiting time for District Court trials of 321 days, whereas in the Blenheim District Court—the worst in the country—it is actually 372 days. I will mention one other figure, which is the High Court jury waiting time. In Napier, for example, the median waiting time is 346 days. Again, that is approximately 1 year and far too long for anybody to have access to justice, or for the system to be called access to justice—efficient and speedy access to justice. We certainly hope that by increasing the retirement age of judges to 70 there may be more intellectual capital available, and we may be able to utilise the skill and experience of our judicial bench.

Part 2 agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

The Committee divided the bill into the District Courts Amendment Bill (No 3), the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2), the Judicature Amendment Bill (No 2), Te Ture Whenua Maori Amendment Bill (No 2) / Māori Land Amendment Bill (No 2), the Coroners Act 1988 Amendment Bill, and the Coroners Act 2006 Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 88.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.

Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2)

Second Reading

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs): I move, That the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to strengthen New Zealand’s border security measures and to provide for more effective and integrated border management, in recognition of the fact that New Zealand’s trade and travel landscape is continuing to change, and that we must move to keep pace with that. Increasing threats to our communities through terrorism, international organised crime, drugs, identity fraud, and other issues mean that we need strong, effective legislation to integrate our border management in order to deal with these risks at the front line. This bill helps us to achieve that. This important legislation is also carefully drafted in order to recognise both the Government’s and the community’s interest in effective border management, and the rights of people to travel and conduct legitimate trade across our border.

A key principle of the bill is to reinforce the Government’s commitment to protecting our communities and our country from threats, such as drugs and transnational crime. The Customs Service is the first point of contact at the border for people, goods, and craft, so the service needs to have the clear legislative ability to refer people and goods that are of interest to other agencies such as the police and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Other key principles are to address current limitations and border powers, to provide more effective integration and stronger links between agencies working at the border, and to ensure that people or goods that pose a threat do not slip through the gaps.

This bill also consolidates border security - related amendments made in 2004 to the 1996 Customs and Excise Act through the Border Security Bill, which was designed to counter continuing and increasing border-related threats.

I would like to acknowledge the work of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and the committee clerks and officials, in their consideration of the bill, and thank them for their efforts to get this bill back to the House. It should be noted that the committee has unanimously agreed to a series of amendments to the bill. They include two substantive changes relating to clauses 8 and 9A, plus a handful of minor amendments. The widespread support of select committee members is a positive recognition of the service conducted by the New Zealand Customs Service.

In relation to the changes to clause 8, it is recommended that an amendment be made so that once the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade has made a determination that goods are kept—all goods—notice of that determination should be given to relevant parties in writing. Corresponding changes are also recommended to the current section 285 of the Customs and Excise Act, to set out the rules as to when a notice is deemed to have been received. In this regard the select committee also recommends an amendment to clause 19 to insert new section 209(4A), which provides a defence if the exporter can prove that through no fault of his or her own, the notice was not received. These amendments were proposed by the New Zealand Law Society and reflect its submission that the exporter should have notice of the ban before an offence is considered to have been committed. The determination is still the legally active mechanism to ban the export of the goods, but the offence provision is contingent on notification, not on the determination.

In relation to changes to clause 9A, the select committee recommended that section 79 of the Act be amended to change the date of inflation indexation for alcohol to 1 July in any year, and for tobacco to 1 January in any year. The current date for the indexation of inflation on alcohol is 1 June, and the date for the indexation of inflation on tobacco is 1 December. This presents issues for both sectors. Firstly, the fact that the Alcohol Advisory Council will increase its levy annually on 1 July means that alcohol retailers must make two adjustments in consecutive months. The proposed amendments will mean that the two adjustments will occur on the same date and that will certainly lead to an administrative improvement for the industry.

The second reason supporting the change is that because of time constraints, officials have to seek a waiver of the 28-day rule, which is the required public notice period for any adjustments to be made. These changes will enable officials to meet the 28-day rule, while also reducing compliance costs for alcohol retailers by avoiding duplication of process and enabling better forward planning by the industry.

The select committee also unanimously recommended some minor drafting improvements to clauses 4, 6, and 19 of the bill. The change to clause 4 corrects a drafting error made in 2002 relating to the definition of New Zealand’s nautical mile limit. The change to clause 6 involves relocating a subclause of the bill relating to the definition of electronic communication devices, to provide consistency with other provisions. The change to clause 19 results from recommended changes to clause 8, in that it provides for a penalty to be imposed on exporters if they fail to notify the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade that goods are, or may be, catch-all goods. The Government supports these amendments and thanks the select committee for its efforts in bringing these matters back to the House.

A large number of individuals, agencies, and Government departments have been consulted during the development of this bill. I acknowledge all of those who have made submissions and provided their input. I thank them for their contributions. I also note that the bill complies with the rights and freedoms contained in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993, as well as with relevant international standards and obligations.

In conclusion, the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2) is important legislation that supports a whole-of-Government approach to better enable border management, and it should proceed. The bill affirms this Government’s commitment to a vibrant economy, to strong and safe communities, and to the protection of our national identity and way of life. Thank you.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country): That was a very good call from Nanaia Mahuta. I rise on behalf of the National Party in support of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2). Can I say at the outset that a bill like this makes the role of an Opposition spokesman quite difficult, in the sense that we are supporting it and of course the Opposition’s role is to oppose, expose, and then propose. The Queen’s honourable Opposition will endeavour to do that in the course of this debate.

The legislation was referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on 1 August last year. It was a very good select committee, with very good National members on it: my good friend Tim Groser sitting next to me, Dr Wayne Mapp, John Hayes, and, of course, the Hon Murray McCully. So I know the work of that select committee would have been robust—I can say that with a high degree of certainty. Can I say also that this is good legislation because it harmonises and modernises customs control at our borders with that of our international friends and neighbours around the world. It brings it into line with issues exposed after the 9/11 terrorism attack and the growing problem of terrorism around the world.

It is very hard to read through a bill like this and find the wrongdoings, as it were, of a socialist Government. I thank the officials for their obvious guidance and the work they did in helping the Minister to prepare her speech so that we had an accurate ministerial statement, and in helping the select committee with their advice. But there are some socialist misdoings in it—let me tell members—and I have to expose them. First of all, the poor old hard-working railway worker who is living in Taumarunui, the seat of the Minister of Justice—the old engine driver who has retired there and is trying to enjoy in his twilight years a quiet durry on the side, while sitting in front of the old railway station—is to have his taxes increased incrementally on that durry every June, I understand, without any reference back to Parliament. They will be consumer price indexed—up they will go, and never mind whether there is justification. It will be the same if he decides to go down to the RSA for a wee dram. The taxes will automatically rise on that at a set time every year.

I agree with the fact that the Government has harmonised them; there was an issue about that, which needed to be addressed, in that the excise tax went up at a different time from the consumer price index in terms of inflation. So that is sensible. I understand that that is probably due to some of the good work of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and I congratulate it on that. But the question still remains of why a Government with a $12 billion surplus—or some such figure—needs to have another crack at that poor old former railway engine driver who is living in Taumarunui, by banging another automatic tax increase on to him for his wee dram down at the RSA and for his little smoke while he sits on his seat in front of the railway station.

It is typical of socialist Governments that they always attack those who support them. What this Government does not and cannot understand is that if we look at the voting records from polling booths in Taumarunui, which used to be in the Taranaki - King Country electorate, we see that over the years those voters overwhelmingly have voted Labour. Let us remember that this seat is described as a true-blue, hard-core National seat, but if we look at the voting records from Taumarunui polling booths we will find that overwhelmingly the voters have voted Labour. There have been only two exceptions—when the town was in the Taranaki - King Country electorate, and yours truly was the local member. On those occasions voters voted for the other side; they voted for the member for Taranaki - King Country, in three booths out of five. I welcome the fact that the poor folk of Taumarunui were inflicted with Mr Mark Burton, the Minister of Justice, as their member, because here he is sticking it to them again with more taxes that are totally unnecessary.

On a more serious note, the fact that the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill does harmonise with the international community, as I said, is a good thing. But here is the other issue—members should listen up. This is the proposed part. Here is the other area where socialist Governments always fail and always miss opportunities when they are given to them. Here was a golden opportunity to increase the synergy between the Customs Service and those doing border control biosecurity, Biosecurity New Zealand. Here was a massive opportunity, which is obvious to anyone who has looked at the issue, for an increase in cross-pollination and cooperation between those two organisations that work at our border. It would give a whole of border protection, if you like. Here was an opportunity, and the socialists overlooked it.

The Government has been offered opportunities on many occasions, I have been informed, to import sophisticated X-ray machinery that would not only detect the increasing amount of drugs that are flowing across our borders—and overwhelming that is the case; I have press releases as recent as today that would back that up, and the technology exists—but also help to detect biosecurity incursions, of which we have had 229 in the last 5 years. Overwhelmingly, that could have happened. But what does this Government do? It says: “No, no, we don’t want to look at that. Those are two separate Government departments and they have to stay separate.” There are people involved in those departments who obviously support this Government. Government Ministers and their officials have not taken this opportunity to realise that synergy, and that is a tragedy, because there was a huge opportunity there.

So I say to the officials that they should look at this legislation next time it comes up for amendment—which it will, because the 1996 Act has already been amended, and this is another amending bill, so I imagine that it is fast-moving legislation, as it were, because of technology. Next time the officials have an opportunity to look at this legislation—it certainly will not be under this Government; it will be under a National Government—they should look very closely at, in particular, some of the sophisticated American equipment that has been designed post-9/11 to detect biosecurity and customs risk items, and bring the two together at our borders. We have here a lost opportunity. Section 175C, “Seizure and detention of goods suspected to be certain risk goods or evidence of commission of certain offences”, substituted by clause 15, is where that provision could have been inserted. I notice that there is a reference to risks with biosecurity goods. The Government has gone part-way; it could have gone a lot further. The question is why it did not take that opportunity. It is the failing of every socialist Government around the world, and we have no exception here.

So I say in closing that, overwhelmingly, the National Party supports the direction this bill takes. Overwhelmingly, we congratulate those on the select committee on bringing back the bill in a form we can support through the House. The officials have done a very good job. Why does the Government have to, whenever it can, bang in an extra tax even when it is not needed? Why does it not always maximise the opportunities presented to it when it has the chance to do so? That is the problem with socialist Governments. That is the reason why this Government has expired. That is the reason why there will be a change of Government at the next election.

DIANNE YATES (Labour): It is sad that the previous speaker, Shane Ardern, was not on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, because he has some misunderstandings about the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2). But I thank him for his support for the bill, and I thank the Opposition members of the committee, who played a very good part in progressing it. I point out to Shane Ardern that there is no new tax—what was changed was the date around a tax. I point that out as a matter of clarification. It would help if the member opposite had read a little more carefully and engaged his eyes before he spoke about something that was not in the bill.

I thank in general those who are involved in the New Zealand Customs Service. I thank the Minister of Customs, Nanaia Mahuta, and the chief executive officer and staff of the Customs Service for the tremendous work they have been doing, apart from this bill, in apprehending all sorts of irregularities in relation to customs. We have seen some tremendous work around drugs and around people trying to get illegal material into this country—everything from false exam qualifications to drugs and to weapons. Recently, we heard that stamps are coming into New Zealand. So I thank the Customs Service for the tremendous work it does—it often goes unnoticed and unheralded. The Minister, who is a very good Minister, understands that she has a very good ministry working for her. As the member has pointed out, this bill is not about party politics; this is about “New Zealand Ltd”, and this is about keeping our borders secure.

I will read the introduction to our select committee report to remind people what the bill is about: “The purpose of the bill is to strengthen New Zealand’s border security by clarifying Customs’ border management role and improving the Customs Service’s ability to work cooperatively with other agencies at the border.” I point out to Mr Ardern the last part of that sentence, which relates to working with other agencies at the border. “The bill amends the Customs and Excise Act 1996 … to ensure that individuals and items arriving or departing New Zealand are unable to slip through border processes without proper scrutiny. A particular area we examined in our consideration of the bill was that of controls over prohibited exports on the New Zealand Strategic Goods List.”

The Minister has pointed out the changes to clause 8 that the committee recommended. The changes, as has been pointed out, are largely technical, and I thank the Law Society for its recommendations. The amendments are designed to make the bill more workable and the law more enforceable. There are amendments around dates relating to inconsistencies with other legislation, and those amendments will ensure that the law is able to be enforced. One of the interesting things was the definition of “New Zealand”—as has been pointed out by the Minister—and the definition of nautical miles and how the Customs Service can enforce the patrol of New Zealand borders. So there was some discussion about definitions.

As has also been mentioned, we checked the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act as there were some issues about detaining. The members of the committee were asking whether, in some cases, the Customs Service had asked for sufficient time for its officials to respond to someone who had been detained, and they asked whether the officials were able to detain that person long enough to travel to the place where the person was detained. Officials assured us that the amount of time provided for in the bill was sufficient, and I think that the committee was quite vigilant in looking through those particular areas. Generally, the committee was in agreement, and I thank the members of the committee for their cooperation on this bill.

The bill is not about socialism and it is not about party politics; it is about our country and it is about New Zealand—and I think that Mr Ardern very well knows that. Once again, I thank all the committee members, the staff who assisted us, and those who made submissions. We look forward to the further progress of the bill.

TIM GROSER (National): As members already know, National supports the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2), which basically does two or three different things. One is highly technical and, I suppose, not very large in the scheme of things, but the other is quite fundamental. When I was having lunch with somebody today and he asked me what I was doing in the House, I said that I was to speak on the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2), and he asked what on earth I would talk about in that context. I said that I would talk about two of the biggest issues facing this country: global terrorism and the issue of weapons of mass destruction, because those issues are actually the bigger purpose of this bill.

On the technical issue of the adjustment, I feel even more passionately than Mr Ardern does about the retired railway worker in Taumarunui having his non-inflationary dram. But having participated in the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, let me assure Mr Ardern that if we are to make an inflation adjustment, that is an issue for retailers. It is a compliance cost issue, and I think that the committee members have worked quite productively to find a fair and reasonable way of doing the adjustment in a way that minimises the compliance cost for the retailer. I would wish only that the Labour Government would show the same degree of common sense when it comes to rather more important compliance issues.

Before getting on to the bigger purpose of this bill, I will just say in public what I have said privately many times—that is, a huge thankyou to the women and the men who work in, and over the years have worked for, our Customs Service. I have had a lot to do with them professionally, usually on the policy side of the interface with trade issues. I have found officials’ advice on deeply technical administrative issues, such as rules of origin and customs classification issues, hugely helpful, and just vital to a “New Zealand Inc.” approach on that. I acknowledge the sterling work, in my opinion, that those people do across a broad set of issues and not just at the border, or at the coalface, as it were.

When we consider what this bill tries to do, which is to give customs officials the tools to do that job properly at the coalface, we have to reflect on the fact that they have quite a difficult job. They measure their success largely by how little we hear of them. Sometimes people notice things only in their absence, and it is the number of things that go wrong at the border that brings the Customs Service’s work to people’s attention. It is a difficult environment to work in, what with the number of narcotic drugs that escape the officials’ best efforts. So I think that it is very important for the legislator to give those people the tools that they need. By and large, I think that this bill does that. The one area that National is concerned about in terms of border management issues is, of course, biosecurity, where we do not think that the Government has given the officials the tools to do a job of absolutely crucial significance. But at least this bill, in dealing with other areas of border security enforcement, moves absolutely in the right direction. I want to commend the Customs Service for its work.

The issue of terrorism is right at the top of the Customs Service’s responsibilities—and it is an awesome responsibility—which it discharges on our behalf and on behalf of every New Zealander. We have learnt, with the spread of global terrorism, that a group of deeply dangerous people who rail against globalisation because they have a warped vision—we are more familiar with that vision from other contexts, too—of trying to return us to some myth of a golden past actually utilise the tools of globalisation in an extremely efficient way. It is a rich and troubling contradiction. We are involved in the struggle against the global menace of terrorism, which knows no frontiers. Personally, I prefer to use the words “struggle against terrorism”; I do not like the term “war”, partly because I think that it misses the central point.

I would put the central point as being this. Terrorism has been committed by every major religion that I can think of. We have had Sikh terrorists; I could give examples of them off the top of my head. We have had Hindu terrorists. We have had Jewish terrorists. And, of course, we have had many forms of different Christian terrorists, including some in recent times. I do not think that any of the people who belong to those major religions would want their entire religion to be categorised by the deranged behaviour of fanatics who, as they maim, torture, kill, and destroy, consider that they are doing so in the name of their interpretation of their belief system. I say that because I think, with respect to the modern problem of terrorism, it is a statement of fact that it is overwhelmingly an Islamic terrorist problem. It is committed by a certain warped version of a tiny proportion of some 2 billion Muslims around the world.

Now, when terrorism is practised against, as it sometime is, societies such as ours predominantly—not solely but predominantly Western societies—I defend our right to respond with lethal force. This bill, in part, is about giving the State—a small State, but we are in control of events here—the power to respond with lethal force and with the full coercive powers of the State, and I think that is appropriate. But I have always held the view that finally, although we have to do what we have to do in order to try to minimise the threat of Islamic terrorism, fundamentally the only long-term solution will come from Muslims and predominantly Muslim countries themselves. I do think that people need to reflect carefully on that reality.

Having lived in a Muslim country for a number of years I have talked about this issue with probably hundreds, I would think, of Muslims. All the people I have talked to—and this would be the experience, I am sure, of anyone else who has lived in a Muslim country— realise, of course, that the ultimate threat is directed against them. They hate those people and they are deeply frightened, as any rational person should be, by where the next bomb is going to go off in Jakarta. They are deeply frightened by that prospect, of course. But they are Muslims, and when people insult anyone’s core set of beliefs and values, which is what the debate in Western countries on terrorism sometimes veers into, that person naturally has difficulty in cooperating with them. That is just human nature. So I think we have to understand, basically, that we are going to depend finally, more than anything else, on predominantly Muslim people themselves, and their Governments and security forces, to get on top of the problem. Although I, like many other people, have become enormously frustrated at the indecisiveness of the Indonesian authorities—they are not the only people involved, of course—in their approaches to dealing with terrorism on occasions, I think we have to recognise that we are in a joint struggle with them against a common foe.

So this bill is partly about the interdiction of terrorism. It is also partly about the interdiction of prohibited exports that could be used for weapons of mass destruction. It does not take a great deal of imagination to see that finally, in some ghastly sense, those two issues could be linked. I think we have a very flexible system in place that gives the Government better tools to deal with those issues. Thank you.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker, kia ora tātou te Whare. I will start by referring to the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee on this bill, and in particular to the bit where it recommends that the word “reasonable” be inserted before the words “cause to suspect.” “Reasonable” is a word I have come across a lot in my many court cases over the years—reasonable use of force, reasonable expectation, what a reasonable person would do, reasonable grounds to believe; the list goes on and on. So I have had a decent look at the word “reasonable” over the years. I was keen to see how the word was used in terms of border security.

I note also that the bill gets right into defining what a “dangerous item” is, such as ammunition, a firearm, an offensive weapon, an explosive device, and an injurious substance or device. The last item also adds the phrase, “of any kind whatsoever”. That includes, of course, cigarettes and tobacco, and a whole host of other things not listed in the bill.

I note that when it comes to defining something as subjective as the word “reasonable”, the gates are equally wide open. Indeed, on at least 16 different occasions, the test of reasonableness is proposed as the basis of judgment in this bill—such as: reasonable force may be used to detain someone, officers may seize anything they have reasonable cause to suspect may be evidence, or officers may detain a person if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person poses a threat. Given that the bill does not define “reasonable”, I looked up the word and found a whole host of different definitions. I am hugely concerned that if the purpose of this bill is to provide more effective border management, then the definitions and instructions need to be clear and definite, and not left to the interpretation of individual staff and different agencies.

When this bill came before the House last year, I spoke about how Māori understood the issue of managing our borders to preserve and protect our world, and about the notion of kaitiakitanga—the preservation of our natural environment. I said it was our responsibility, as Māori and as a nation, to maintain a clean, safe, and healthy environment for ourselves and for future generations by promoting the protection, restoration, and enhancement of mauri within our natural world. So I cannot stress enough the importance of protecting our lands and our people from infectious diseases and biological or chemical threats. But that question of interpretation still remains. Who defines what is dangerous? Who determines what search criteria should be? What constitutes suspicious grounds? Those decisions can be very subjective, very prejudiced, and often racist.

I would like the House to consider the role that racism plays in how we deal with immigrants. I will mention four New Zealand citizens who have complained of racial discrimination by Auckland airport customs staff. The first, African-born New Zealand citizen Boubacar Coulibaly, treasurer of the African Community of Auckland Region, has been questioned and searched three times by customs staff, despite having no criminal history. The second, Auckland area manager for Housing New Zealand, Margritt de Man, who has dark skin despite her European origins, has also been questioned four times and has had her luggage searched, despite having had no goods to declare. Jamaican-born Auckland lawyer Colin Henry complained to the Race Relations Office that he was deeply offended by being singled out for attention, while a crowd of mainly European passengers went past unquestioned. When he expressed his annoyance a police officer threatened to arrest him. Finally, to add insult to injury, South African - born former New Zealand Race Relations Conciliator, Gregory Fortuin, has himself been detained by customs officials.

Auckland airport customs staff confirm that ethnicity is a basis for profiling. Ethnic profiling, if it is not managed effectively and intelligently, is a major concern, because it becomes the basis of stereotyping and racial discrimination.

Last month in the UK a Home Office report exploring the decision making of immigration officers confirmed what most darkies have long known to be true—that the practice of profiling on the basis of race, ethnicity, and religion is a fact. According to the report, British immigration officers say they base decisions on “intuition” about people who “look the part”. But who looks the part and who does not, as a result of society’s prejudices? So it comes as no surprise whatsoever that way more blacks and Asians get stopped for questioning than white folks. Coloured South Africans get stopped 10 times more often than their white counterparts. Coloured Canadians get stopped nine times more often than their white countrymen.

The report’s authors say that this has nothing to do with racism, though. They say that their decisions are based on socio-economic factors. Excuse me for sounding flippant, but yeah, right! Where have we heard that one before? That is the line this Government used for cancelling the closing the gaps policy. It is the line the Yanks used for overzealous policing of black districts, and—to no one’s surprise—the New Zealand Government also used that line in justifying using Tasers in Polynesian communities here. Socio-economic factors be damned; it is out and out bloody racism. We need to see it and condemn it for what it is, whether it is in London, New York, Paris, or Auckland.

In his article in the Guardian in January 2007, entitled “The west persists in using race to decide who can cross its borders”, Gary Younge wrote: “So long as there are nation states there will be borders and immigration laws to regulate them. The least we can do is drop the pretence that these laws are fair. They are not designed to discriminate between people, but against them.”

The Māori Party supports this bill at its second reading, because we support the need for tightening security and protecting our environment. But we take issue with assumptions of what qualifies as “reasonable”—the adoption of racial profiling and border management practices here in Aotearoa; the behind-closed-doors decision-making processes regarding the bringing in of genetically modified organisms; the demand that we accept World Trade Organization decisions, even when they work against our best interests; and free-trade agreements made without proper reference to Māori Treaty interests. We too want to keep Aotearoa free from threats, but we also want a proper say in exactly what constitutes a threat. Kia ora tātou.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): I have been asked to take just a very short call on the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 2). We do not have a member on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee; however, our caucus has looked very carefully at the provisions of the bill and the report by the select committee back to the House. I can say we are very happy with the bill as reported back and we will be supporting it through this stage.

Bill read a second time.

Unsolicited Electronic Messages Bill

In Committee

Part 1 agreed to.

Part 2 agreed to.

Part 3 agreed to.

Part 4 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report adopted.

Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill

Second Reading

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister for Building and Construction) on behalf of the Minister for Disability Issues: I move, That the Disabled Persons Employment Promotion (Repeal and Related Matters) Bill be now read a second time.

Bill read a second time.

The House adjourned at 5.02 p.m.