TOC1

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): Next week in the House priority will be given to the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill, the Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill, the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Amendment Bill, the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill, and the Social Security Amendment Bill. It is also the Government’s intention, subject to further discussions with all parties, to seek leave on Tuesday for the first reading of the Evidence Amendment Bill, as related in a letter that I have sent to all parties today.

Ministerial Statements

Fiji—High Commissioner for New Zealand

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I seek to move a ministerial statement as per Standing Order 348 in relation to the current situation in Fiji. I would like to inform the House that the High Commissioner for New Zealand in Fiji, Michael Green, has been declared persona non grata by Fiji’s interim Government. The New Zealand Government deplores this action. Expelling diplomats is not the way for neighbours to conduct their relationship. Mike Green is a highly respected senior diplomat of over 30 years’ standing and a man of great integrity. He enjoys the full confidence of our Government, and we are not aware of any activities that he has undertaken that justify Fiji’s actions. He has in the course of his duties drawn attention to New Zealand’s policy in the wake of the coup. That is the role of a diplomat, and he has not said anything other than what the Prime Minister and I have been saying.

Declaring a high commissioner persona non grata is a very grave act for a country to take. It is just one step below breaking relations. There will be, undoubtedly, consequences for Fiji, as this action will be viewed very seriously, not only by us but also by Fiji’s other international partners, including Pacific Island nations, Australia, the United States, and the European Union.

I have been in contact with the interim Government in Fiji in an effort to work the issue through and to urge it to reflect further. Unfortunately, it seems it is going ahead with this completely unjustifiable action. I note that the interim regime has also made the highly inappropriate suggestion that if New Zealand itself terminated Mr Green’s assignment and lifted the travel ban against those involved in the coup, the interim regime in return would suspend its actions. This is totally unacceptable. This is not a style of diplomacy that New Zealanders understand. It speaks volumes about those currently in charge in Fiji.

We will now consider our options, and the regime can expect a strong reaction. The Government will be undertaking a full review of all aspects of the bilateral relationship and, in such circumstances, it is difficult to see how we can be expected to show flexibility on issues such as the visa ban.

Fiji’s action is particularly troubling given that Suva is host to a number of important regional institutions, including the Pacific Islands Forum secretariat, and the high commissioners and ambassadors accredited to Fiji are the senior country representatives to those institutions. The timing of Fiji’s action is puzzling, given New Zealand had acknowledged the recent lifting of emergency regulations as a positive step, and the Pacific Islands Forum joint working-group appeared to have made progress on an acceptable timetable for elections. New Zealand remains committed to the pathway put forward by the forum for a return to democracy in Fiji, and will continue to participate in joint working-group discussions on this issue, in which Mr Green has hitherto played an active and constructive role.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays): The National Party joins the Government in expressing alarm at the most recent developments in Fiji. The actions of the interim Government in directing the removal of the New Zealand high commissioner are serious and invite a strong and resolute response from this country. It is, as the Minister has said, unfortunate that these developments should occur at a time when there was at least a prospect of progress, following the work of the joint working-group, which indicated that the machinery could be put in place for fresh elections in Fiji as early as late 2008. The international community and the civic forum, and the Commonwealth in particular, have been seeking some sort of signal from Fiji that a way forward could be found. But over recent days we have seen events take a turn very much for the worse.

From the outset of these difficulties in Fiji, the National Party has supported the Government in warning the Fiji military about the consequences of any coup action, and then supported the Government in imposing sanctions. It is not yet clear to us what immediate steps will be taken in relation to today’s developments—suffice to say that we will approach that matter in the same bipartisan manner that has been the case so far.

The actions of the interim Fiji Prime Minister today are ill-judged and very much counter to the interests of his country. The great tragedy of recent developments in Fiji is that a great many people who already live in circumstances of great hardship will needlessly suffer even greater hardship as a consequence of the actions of their current leaders.

It would not be productive for me to canvass in this Parliament, or indeed even to offer commentary on, the various steps currently open to the New Zealand Government—suffice to say that we expect, and will fully support, firm, resolute action. Over recent months we have seen an overt challenge to the rule of law in Fiji. Today we see an overt challenge to the standards and norms of behaviour by which we do business with our Pacific neighbours. We very much regret these developments, and we look to the Government to make a full and appropriate response.

KEITH LOCKE (Green): The Green Party endorses the Government’s strong response to the expulsion of our high commissioner, and I think we should take it as a sign of desperation from the Bainimarama Government, not a sign of strength. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs indicated, the Government is under pressure. It withdrew the emergency regulations, and I think that we have to be careful not just to respond as a nation that has been slighted but to see the expulsion of our high commissioner as an attack on all of those countries that have been supporting the return to democracy in Fiji. We are just the country at the sharp end, and we are taking the brunt in this instance.

I think we have to work cooperatively with other nations in the Pacific, Australia, Europe, etc., to put more pressure on the Bainimarama Government to return quickly to democracy and not to go down this path of greater confrontation. We have to think carefully about what extra measures we take, and consider those in such a way that we do not introduce sanctions that will affect the ordinary people of Fiji. It is the ordinary people of Fiji, the democratic forces in Fiji, that are part of the solution—part of hastening the end of the Bainimarama regime. We need to work very effectively with all the democratic forces in Fiji today. Thank you.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): United Future joins with other parties in expressing shock, horror, and condemnation at the decision of the Government of Fiji to declare our high commissioner, Mr Green, persona non grata—particularly after a period of time where it appeared as though there may have been the prospect of some progress towards the restoration of democratic rule in Fiji.

Today’s developments come as a blunt and considerable surprise. New Zealand has very close ties with Fiji, borne over a number of years of communication on a range of issues. It is important now that in considering our response, we act in a way that is consistent with our long historical links between the two countries. The Fijian community in New Zealand would expect no less; nor, I suspect, would the New Zealand community in Fiji.

I would hope that although New Zealand does take a strong and determined stance in relation to this decision today by Fiji’s interim Government, we do not give credibility to the decision by indulging in a tit-for-tat reaction with regard to the Fiji High Commissioner in New Zealand. I think that the relationships between the two countries and our ongoing interests for a stable Pacific region are, frankly, too great for us to allow that to happen.

So, like others, I support the actions of our Government to date. I urge a firm but cautious response in the time ahead, and I am sure I speak for all members of Parliament in terms of our commitment to a restoration of a flourishing democracy in Fiji.

Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Minister of Foreign Affairs): I want to thank parliamentary colleagues and spokespeople for their support of the Government’s actions. I agree with the sentiments of the speakers today, and the Government is grateful for the action in unison that we believe is predicted by those words. I just want to say to Mr Dunne that we quite understand his point and we will not behave in a tit-for-tat manner in respect of the Fijian High Commission in Wellington. That is not our record or our style, nor does it befit a leading First World democracy like New Zealand’s. We bear in mind that it is, after all, the relations between the people of Fiji and the people of New Zealand that are at stake here. We have to keep that in mind as we seek to restore the situation and as we deal, sadly, with a Government—or a regime—that was born out of the barrel of a gun.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Kiwisaver—Employer Support

1. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Has he received any reports of employer support for KiwiSaver?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes—indeed, many. Just today Coca-Cola has indicated it is moving immediately to match employee contributions at 4 percent for those of its 1,100 workers who joined KiwiSaver. This is 4 years earlier than required. This follows Air New Zealand and the New Zealand stock exchange. I note that the New Zealand stock exchange chief executive officer, Mark Weldon, said that the cost of the employer contribution was “far outweighed by the value it brings to our talent recruitment and retention”.

Charles Chauvel: What reports has the Minister seen of possible changes to KiwiSaver?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen a report that Budget 2007’s enhancements to KiwiSaver may be scrapped by a National Government. When TV3 recently asked National leader John Key whether he supported the enhanced KiwiSaver scheme he said: “I can’t give you a yes or no.” This, of course, would be quite consistent with moves like the cutting of New Zealand superannuation in 1998-99 by the outgoing National Government.

Hon Bill English: Has the Minister seen the estimates by his own department, Treasury, that show that the increment to household savings arising from KiwiSaver will be less than the fiscal cost to the Government of the incentives it will apply to KiwiSaver, and can he explain why the taxpayer would be spending more on incentives than the country gets in savings?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Treasury provided a variety of estimates over a period of time. I think that the reaction to KiwiSaver once the announcements were actually made indicates we will see a significant rate of take-up and far less of the behaviour that Treasury was forecasting.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: So Treasury got it wrong.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes.

Gordon Copeland: When does the Minister expect to have the detail of the mortgage diversion aspect of KiwiSaver in place so that information will be available to both employers and employees?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Regulations in relation to that have already been proceeding through, so I will try to get information to the member about those details.

Budget 2007—“Top-down Adjustment to Spending”

2. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: What is the reason for the $700 million “Top-down Adjustment to Spending” recorded in the 2007 Budget?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): It is because, as with the member, things sometimes happen more slowly than they should.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell the House whether this top-down adjustment to spending, which reduces his appropriations by $700 million, means he has so much money coming through that he cannot spend it in this financial year, or does it mean he is taking the Opposition’s advice and trying to slow down the growth of Government spending?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member cannot have it both ways. It means some anticipated spending is not occurring this year. In relation to capital spending, it will tend largely to mean that that will occur next year. This is a normal Treasury adjustment that has actually happened for many, many years, including those while the member was in Government, but this is the first time that the numbers have been made publicly available.

Tim Barnett: What reports has the Minister seen on any other proposed adjustments to Government spending?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen a report that a National Government would cut half a billion dollars from the recent Budget and every Budget thereafter. Of course, it has yet to be explained how that would be achieved without cutting into the spending on health, education, or superannuation. I remind the House again that when the member opposite was last in Government, he cut New Zealand superannuation.

Hon Bill English: Pretty desperate.

Hon Annette King: The member was desperate.

Hon Bill English: We know he is getting desperate now. [Interruption] What has happened to the therapeutic goods bill?

Madam SPEAKER: Members have had their opportunity to express themselves. Now we will hear the supplementary question from the Hon Bill English.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm to the House that this top-down adjustment to spending means he is cutting $700 million off the appropriations he made in the last Budget because he cannot spend the money this financial year?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, it does not. Actually, it means we are cutting $700 million off the forecast at the half-year update.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that that answer means that as recently as December he forecast to spend $700 million more than he can actually spend; and which doctors, nurses, and teachers is he sacking?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I leave that part to the member opposite. He is the one who wants to sack doctors, nurses, and teachers. What it means is firstly, we do actually have spending under control. Secondly, we have fewer people on benefits than we had anticipated. Thirdly, because there is a very tight economy due to the excellent growth we have seen and the very low levels of unemployment, some capital spending, for example, has been deferred. I remind the member—and I will tell him again—that this adjustment has happened almost every year for many, many years. It is the first time that the top-down reduction has actually been published.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister explain why, when I suggest in public that the Government spend a bit less of the forward allocation he calls that fiscal lunacy and sacking doctors and teachers, but when he actually adjusts the appropriations to take out $700 million of his planned spending he calls that a top-down adjustment?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I do not call it that; Treasury calls it that. Putting that aside, the member has not got it right. This money is coming off this year’s—

Hon Bill English: We’re planning a top-down adjustment—

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member should know about top-down adjustments, he has had the odd one in the past. This money is coming off this year’s appropriations, and the consequences of that are already built into next year’s appropriations. In order to lower those appropriations, one would have to cut out items of spending. The member is being unusually coy about his inability to say where he would cut $500 million from.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why on earth would the Minister not follow the National Party’s style of Government, which was to rubber-stamp anything and everything that Treasury said, no matter how bad it was for the economy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I believe that Treasury, which is an excellent department, is there to give me advice. I believe that I am paid a very large salary to read that advice carefully, then, with my colleagues, to arrive at decisions. One can get a rubber stamp for a matter of a few dollars.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm, for the benefit of the House, that the top-down adjustment to spending, which was in the Budget that he signed off—so presumably he agrees with it—amounts to a situation where he appropriated a certain amount of money in the last Budget, he defended every dollar of that as being absolutely needed, he confirmed that back in December, and now, on the books, he has cut that allocation of spending by $700 million, apparently with no consequence at all in this fiscal year?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I cannot.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: So much sloshing around.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Indeed, far from that money sloshing around, as the member notes, it is actually gone. That is what a top-down adjustment is; it takes the $700 million out. If it were still there it might be available for sloshing around, but it has been drained out of the Budget. The reason for that is simple: forecasts are not always accurate about spending in key areas. I have to note, though, that Treasury does indeed sometimes get its forecasts wrong, and one reason is that it is impossible to forecast accurately the growth rate of the economy, and that has a significant impact on the total level of spending.

Hon Bill English: If the Minister is looking after every dollar carefully, how is it that his forecasts, given just in December last year for the remainder of the financial year, have turned out to be $700 million wrong?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I know the member has forgotten that he once was a Treasury Minister, but the updates on forecasts are done primarily in March, with the March baseline update. Some departments do not fully calculate their appropriations at that point. Some departments have agreements to carry forward expenditure from one year to the next, but that is not taken account of in the Estimates document in terms of the detail. That is why a top-down adjustment occurs, to allow for that fact. I seek leave, as this is highly technical and complex, to table a Treasury report on the adjustments to expenses forecast.

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

Question No. 3 to Minister

METIRIA TUREI (Green): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Although I recognise that the Government does have the right to transfer questions from one Minister to another, I do want to note that my question, accepted by the Clerk as correctly directed to the Minister of Fisheries, has been transferred to an absent Minister. I am concerned that the use of the Government’s power to transfer a correctly directed question to an absent Minister may come uncomfortably close to an abuse of the process and of the Government’s power.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): The member is quite correct, in that the Government does have the right to transfer questions. But, more important in this particular case, although the Clerk’s Office may have accepted the question, the Minister of Fisheries has no ministerial responsibility for the question that has been asked. It falls within the ministerial responsibility of the Minister of Conservation, who is the Minister responsible for the marine coastal area.

Madam SPEAKER: I also note for the member that what the Clerk’s Office accepts in terms of the allocation of a Minister is always provisional, but if there is no ministerial responsibility, then, as has been pointed out, the question is transferred.

Māui’s Dolphin—Prospecting for Ironsand

3. METIRIA TUREI (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Is he concerned that one of the world’s largest mining companies has begun prospecting for ironsand within the habitat of the critically endangered Māui’s dolphin, and will he support Forest and Bird’s proposal for a marine mammal sanctuary from Maunganui Bluff to Cape Egmont?

Hon MAHARA OKEROA (Acting Minister of Conservation): I am advised that the aerial prospecting currently taking place on the west coast of the North Island does not involve any activities that would affect the Māui’s dolphin. Any future mining activities would be allowed only if the effects on the marine environment, including effects on dolphins, were acceptable. A draft threat management plan for the dolphins is shortly to be released and will seek public feedback on creating marine mammal sanctuaries, along with other conservation measures.

Metiria Turei: Will the plan recognise the threat of seabed mining, and require nationally consistent fishing restrictions throughout the full range of the Hector’s and Māui’s dolphins, including a set-net ban to a 100 metres depth, given the Minister’s comment that: “Australia has banned set nets for some time … that’s something that I would certainly think is worth considering in New Zealand as well.”; if not, why not?

Hon MAHARA OKEROA: I would encourage the member to read the draft threat management plan when it is released, and I expect there will be much in it that she will be happy with.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister inform the House what action the Government is actually taking to protect Māui’s and Hector’s dolphins?

Hon MAHARA OKEROA: The Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Fisheries will shortly issue a draft threat management plan to protect Māui’s and Hector’s dolphins throughout Aotearoa New Zealand. In developing this plan, we have been exploring options to manage the full range of fishing and non – fishing-related threats, which include the use of marine mammal sanctuaries. Our intention is to see that this plan is in place by this coming summer, to coincide with the breeding seasons of the dolphin.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister why he would entertain the idea that some groups of people—political or otherwise—could advocate a sanctuary going from Maunganui Bluff in the Kaihu Forest all the way down to Cape Egmont, with no dialogue, communication, or consent with the local Māori or Europeans, the people of northern Wairoa, or anybody else—why would a Government listen to a group of people who are so arrogant as to think that they have the right to close up those places for all sorts of sanctuaries, without even talking to the local people?

Hon Member: Come on, Flipper.

Hon MAHARA OKEROA: Thank you, whale! I understand that any proposal of that nature will fulfil all the consultation requirements that are necessary.

Metiria Turei: Can the Minister confirm that set-nets are responsible for 60 percent of Hector’s dolphin deaths where the cause of death is known, and that alternative and cost-effective fishing methods exist for all species of fish caught using these nets?

Hon MAHARA OKEROA: As I said before, I encourage the member to read the draft threat management plan. The Ministry of Fisheries and the Department of Conservation are very aware of the issues that have been brought forth by that member.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is exactly the concern I raised earlier in my previous point of order. Ministers are supposed to be able to answer the question, where it is correctly directed. It is important for the Minister who is responsible for, and knowledgable about, those areas to be able to answer the question. This is clearly not the case here, with the redirection of my question. That is evidenced by the failure of the Minister to answer it effectively.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The problem the member has is actually quite a simple one. In the primary question she asked, it is absolutely clear that the primary responsibility lies with the Minister of Conservation. She has then gone on to ask questions about set-net fishing, etc., which are the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries. She has mixed those two up, and she needs to think about that in terms of which way she frames the original question, in order to get the right Minister to answer it. The original question was clearly to the Minister of Conservation in his area of responsibility.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, there is a difficulty when a question is followed up by supplementary questions that go into another area. But the member has another supplementary question.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps you might give some consideration to the fact that members ask questions by way of a primary question, then follow up with requests for other information through supplementary questions. That is the role that members of the Opposition play. It is quite reasonable that those supplementary questions will expand on the issues raised, and that when a member puts a question to a Minister that is accepted as being correctly directed, it might be expected that other issues might be raised. That is not a good excuse for failing to be able to address questions properly.

Madam SPEAKER: No. I think the difficulty is that when the supplementary question involves another ministerial responsibility, it is difficult for the Minister who addressed the primary question, because he or she cannot answer for some other Minister. I do not know whether the Minister wants to add to his answer, or whether that would assist the member? The Minister does not wish to add to his answer.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just want to assist the House a little by pointing out that the Minister of Conservation, while dealing with conservation issues around the Hector’s dolphin, would be intensely involved with questions around what causes their deaths—which is set-net fishing—and he would have known the answers to those questions. It is the transfer of the question to a Minister who is not here that has caused the main problem.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I think that still does not actually address the primary point, which is the fact that some Ministers might know something about other Ministers’ portfolios, but that is not the issue. Ministers in question time are responsible for answering those questions within their ministerial responsibility.

Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is another point of order. I know that you have been addressing the issue of transfer of questions. My point of order is that it seems to me to be quite clear that the Minister did not even address the question that my colleague asked, which was quite specific and had nothing to do, at all, with the plan he referred to.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes. I did ask the Minister whether he wished to add to his answer, and he did not.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been following this dialogue on points of order raised by the Greens. What those members are doing, of course, is challenging your ruling, which is something that every MP should hesitate to engage in. But I wonder why you are indulging them, given that mining companies have never engaged—and, to the best of my knowledge, do not engage—in exploration using fishing nets. That is where the member has got herself.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I must note that the members who have been raising these points of order do not do so very often, but I ask them now for the next supplementary question.

Metiria Turei: If, as the Minister of Fisheries has said, Māui’s dolphins are “our kākāpō of the sea”, does the Minister not agree that continuing to allow a set-netting within the Hector’s and Māui’s dolphins habitat is akin to permitting duck shooting on a kākāpō island sanctuary; if not, why not?

Hon MAHARA OKEROA: I am not qualified to talk about ducks at this stage. I must reiterate that the Department of Conservation and others are concerned about the continued survival of the Hector’s and Māui’s dolphins, and they are taking very positive steps towards the preservation of those species.

Corrections, Department—Confidence

4. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he have confidence in his department; if so, why?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): Yes, but I have made it crystal clear to the chief executive that he is responsible for making further improvements, with clear lines of accountability.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that under section 172 of the Corrections Act a security monitor should have been appointed to oversee Chubb’s contract and make regular reports to the chief executive; and if a monitor was appointed, what concerns did he or she express to the chief executive about the safety of prisoner transport?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am aware that that is a requirement. That issue is covered in the Ombudsman’s report. I do not have the details of the advice provided, but I know that the advice provided by the Ombudsman’s report will be taken on board, changes will be made, and we will have an improved system in place.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Minister have any report advising him on the accuracy of the allegation made by Simon Power of corruption involving inmates being required to work on a correction officer’s yacht; if so, what does that report say?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: In similar fashion to many claims made in the House by the member Simon Power, investigations, although not complete, have not identified any 40-foot yacht. In fact, the only boat that has been identified is a 13-foot plywood dinghy that was being repaired in the prison workshop for use by the Sea Scouts.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that not only did Chubb write to the department in September 2005 raising concerns about prisoners’ inability to communicate with staff in vans in a medical emergency or assault, but also the security monitor backed up these concerns twice in reports to the chief executive in October and November 2005, meaning the chief executive would have been told about the problem at least three times in the year before Liam Ashley’s death, yet nothing changed?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: In the House yesterday that member claimed that the Department of Corrections had misled the Office of the Ombudsmen in providing information. That concerned me, so I went to the State Services Commissioner and asked him to investigate. The commissioner has come back to me with advice on that. He has spoken to Mr John Belgrave and to Mr Mel Smith, who have told me that they do not consider that they have been misled by the department. In fact, they both assure me that this section in the report was not intended to imply that the department had been misleading the Ombudsmen about those matters.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is all very interesting, except that my question related to the chief executive’s knowledge of the monitoring regarding prisoner transport safety. The Minister did not address that question in any way, shape, or form.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister care to add anything to his answer?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am very aware that those issues have been referred to in the report. That member can read the report. I am not prepared to accept accusations made by that member in this House that have been proven today to be completely inaccurate.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm the allegations—unlike the inaccurate allegations made by Simon Power—that prison labour has been misused, that in fact eight staff were dismissed from Rangipō Prison for requiring inmates to panel beat their cars inside the prison, but that that happened in 1999, under a National Government; and did the then Minister, Nick Smith, ever offer to resign over it?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table my ministerial warrant as Minister of Corrections, which shows that I was not Minister at that time.

Document not tabled.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am aware of that and many other incidents through the 1990s under that Government. The difference is that those Ministers did nothing. I am insisting that change occurs, and that is up to the chief executive to carry out.

Simon Power: How does he reconcile his statement made in the House on Tuesday that—in addition to the Chubb letter that was not acted on—“The report also identifies other areas where there was a breakdown in communications.”, with the emphatic denial by Barry Matthews that a lack of communication was “a major ground of criticism for central management”, as the Ombudsman found?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have stated in this House before that I accept there was a breakdown in communication. There has been a head office restructure. The chief executive has to carry out the changes, the improvements, to ensure that no further breakdown in communication occurs within the corrections system.

Simon Power: Does he stand by his statements made in the House yesterday that he will “investigate and clarify the points that have been raised in the report”, because although the information provided to the Ombudsman was accurate, in his view, “it may not have included all the information they wanted.”; if so, is he now saying he will be appealing or relitigating, or does he simply refuse to accept the findings of the Ombudsman?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Yes. The information provided to me and passed to the Ombudsman was accurate, but, in my opinion, incomplete. Therefore, I considered it plausible that the Ombudsman may have drawn incomplete conclusions. I too was concerned about the accusations made. That is why I asked the State Services Commissioner to investigate. He did so last night, and today he has reported back to me, having spoken to both Ombudsmen—John Belgrave and Mel Smith—that they both told me they do not consider they had been misled by the Department of Corrections, at all.

Simon Power: Can he confirm that the Ombudsman’s report into his department uses the words: “unacceptable”, 11 times; “unsatisfactory”, 38 times; and “saddened”, once; and when Parliament’s watchdog uses such language, what does he think that says about his department?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I have read the recommendations. I have read the report. Unlike that member, I have not had the time to count every word in the report. I accept the recommendations. We have already moved on the majority of them. We are working through some of them with the Ombudsman to make change, to give effect to change, to improve the transportation system across the corrections system.

Nandor Tanczos: What advice did his department provide him, or did he receive through any other channel, from traffic safety experts, on his proposal to lock all prisoners’ hands to their waists when they are transported in vehicles—and which the House notes are not fitted with seatbelts—especially in light of the fact that the proposal directly contradicts the considered recommendations in the Ombudsman’s report?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Some of the advice I have received on restraints states that in utilising restraints it may be possible to safely utilise seatbelts. That is one of the issues that we are looking at in the implementation process. However, I will not guarantee that seatbelts will be used, because in the past they had been abused and used by prisoners to harm other prisoners or harm themselves. That is why they have not been used.

Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have warned members before about multiple supplementary questions. I restricted mine to ask specifically about advice from traffic safety experts. The Minister talked about whether seatbelts would or would not be fitted. I did not ask about that; I asked about advice from traffic safety experts

Madam SPEAKER: I think the Minister actually addressed the question. I listened really carefully to what was said. As members know, they cannot have a specific answer to their question. They cannot predetermine the answer.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If there are not handcuffs or manacling to the prisoner’s body or torso in the vans—which, as has been suggested by the Ombudsman, have escape hatches—how long exactly does he think prisoners will remain in the van when it comes to a red light or a crossing?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Not very long.

I seek leave to table a letter from the State Services Commission to me, pointing out that the Ombudsmen considered that they were in no way misled by the Department of Corrections.

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

Unemployment Benefit—Youth

5. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has he received on the number of young people receiving an unemployment benefit?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I can report that in December 1999 there were 17,514 young people in the 18 and 19-year-old age group receiving an unemployment benefit. In March this year that figure was 1,566 young people. It is with considerable pleasure that I am now able to tell the House that at the end of May that number was 1,227. That is a massive 93 percent reduction since this Government took office. That success is mirrored by equally impressive results for Māori and Pacific young people. Māori 18 and 19-year-old unemployment numbers at the end of May were only 477—a 92 percent reduction since December 1999. Pacific 18 and 19-year-old unemployment numbers for the same period are now 125—a 91 percent reduction. Let me stress that of the 1,227 young people receiving that support, only 407 have been on an unemployment benefit for more than 13 weeks.

Moana Mackey: What further information has he received about the distribution of this success across New Zealand?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: As at the end of May 2007, there are 73 Work and Income service centres—that is, more than half the Work and Income service centres in the country—where fewer than 10 unemployed 18 or 19-year-olds receive an unemployment benefit. There are also 26 Work and Income service centres in the country with no 18 and 19-year-olds receiving an unemployment benefit. I know that the member—and other members—will be particularly pleased to hear that the Gisborne Work and Income service centre has only seven 18 and 19-year-olds in receipt of that support. Ruatōria has a very creditable four, and in Kaiti the total is zero.

Judith Collins: Why is there such a discrepancy between the figures he has just quoted and the official numbers of the household labour force survey data, which show that the number of 15 to 19-year-olds unemployed has actually increased by nearly 4,000, from 24,000 in 2002 to 27,800 in 2007; and is it not misleading to quote only the unemployment benefit numbers, when his own answers to written questions reveal that the number of 15 to 19-year-olds on benefits overall is 13,000?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: There is not. One of the shortcomings of the household labour force survey is that it does not fully capture the range of activities of young people. The question and the answer were quite clearly about receipt of the unemployment benefit, which is the most important—and, indeed, the most costly—measure for this economy.

Early Childhood Education—Free Hours, Additional Fees

6. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Minister of Education: Does he agree with the statement of an early childhood education provider on 20 free hours that “free doesn’t mean free in every instance.”; if not, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): No; because no parent is required to pay fees for the 20 hours of free early childhood education that his or her child receives. A service may ask a parent to agree to pay an optional charge. It is up to the parent to decide whether he or she chooses to do that, and a child cannot be denied a place at an early childhood centre because a parent will not pay an optional charge.

Katherine Rich: Why does he pretend that 20 hours’ free is free, when centres are planning new fees to cover day-to-day costs—not optional extras—such as a $10-a-day morning tea fee or a $10-a-day music appreciation fee; and how many 3-year-olds does he know who can chew their way through $10 worth of morning tea or music appreciation in a given day?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Because 20 hours’ free is free. If the member has any particular concerns, she may like to give them to me, and we will look at them.

Dianne Yates: What proposals has he seen to extend the free early childhood education policy even further?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have seen an ambitious proposal to extend free early childhood education to playcentres and to services in rural areas that are not teacher-led, so that children at those services do “not miss out on this excellent policy”. I discovered that proposal in the National Party discussion paper on rural education, where National is looking forward to the introduction of 20 hours’ free. It is not clear how that statement fits with the campaign by Katherine Rich and Paula Bennett against the policy nor how National would afford it, with tax cuts being proposed as well.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Did the Minister ever play rugby in his youth; if so, did he ever receive such an awful hospital pass as that delivered by his predecessor, Trevor Mallard, in the form of the 20 hours’ free early childhood education policy?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Yes, I have played in a rugby team, along with people like Trevor Mallard, of course, who has played rugby himself. I think that this is the kind of pass one gets from Dan Carter: it is perfectly placed, and we are running to the scoreline with it.

Katherine Rich: Why does the Minister pretend that 20 hours’ free is free, when some centres are planning new fees to cover day-to-day costs—not optional extras—such as an $80 payment for DVDs that one has to buy if one wants to get one’s child into a centre, a $20 per day “quality surcharge”, or $100 a week per child for access to reading materials; and does he accept that no parent in this country believes that a payment should be made for access to reading materials that we all expect from our childcare centres?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Because 20 hours’ free is 20 hours’ free. Given the member’s propensity to make things up, I would like her on this occasion to give us the list of centres that are doing that, and we will look at it for her.

Katherine Rich: Does the Minister accept that after the implementation of the 20 free hours policy, where centres put in place planned fees, such as a $7 per hour extra fee for “quality updates”—that is, newsletters—a $10 per day morning tea fee, a $10 per day music appreciation fee, a $20 per day quality surcharge, $100 per week for access to books, or a compulsory purchase of DVDs in order to get one’s child in at the centre, most parents will not see 20 hours’ free as free, at all?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member needs to know that 20 hours’ free is free. If there are optional charges at a centre, they have to be agreed to. If parents do not want to pay them, then they do not have to. She can list as many fictitious charges as she likes, but they do not have to be paid if they are optional charges.

Heather Roy: Will he be responding as Minister to the petition of Amy Malcolm and others, calling on the Government to honour Labour’s election promise that “20 hours’ free education will be provided for 3 and 4-year-olds at any licensed teacher-led service in New Zealand from July 2007”; if he will not be responding as Minister to the petition, why not?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Ministry of Education officials have been in touch with the people involved with that petition, and they have discussed the issues with them in depth.

Paula Bennett: Can the Minister tell us the number of centres that will opt in to 20 free hours on 1 July, as the RS7 funding claim forms had to be in by 7 June in order for a centre to be eligible for funding?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As I have said numerous times, the policy kicks in on 1 July, and at around that time we will be able to give people a very clear indication of the number of centres, the number of children, and all the details that go with that. As the member herself will know, because I know that she has been travelling a lot and driving up the number of people who are increasingly getting into free early childhood education—and I thank her very much for the Whakatāne visit; if she wants to go anywhere else we will help her to go there, because she is certainly helping with the policy—centres are still able to enrol. Even though the date was 6 June, centres can continue to enrol if they wish to, and they are doing that.

Paula Bennett: Can the Minister not simply have his ministry count the forms it had to have back by 7 June in order for the centres to be eligible for funding come 1 July, and let parents know how many centres have opted in for early childhood education under the 20 free hours policy—it is not hard?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: That may be important for the Opposition’s campaign against the policy, but from the point of view of parents, their relationship is with their local centre and the staff there, whom they talk to. Of course, around 1 July I will be more than happy to make available all the details of which centres are in the scheme, how many children and how many parents are involved, where they are, and so on. The member can work with the data from then.

Algerian Refugee—Costs

7. PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: What are the total costs to date to the Government relating to the Ahmed Zaoui case and what does the Government estimate the final cost of this case will be if the security risk certificate review report is in the Minister’s hands by the end of the year as planned?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): As at the end of May 2007 the costs to the Department of Labour relating to the Ahmed Zaoui case were $916,603.09—presumably the 9c predates the recent currency change. I do not have responsibility for other departments or votes. The Department of Labour has not undertaken an estimate of future costs.

Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware that in the years Mr Zaoui has been here, the cost to the Government, which the Government has been willing to reveal, is in excess of $3 million, is he aware that the unrevealed cost will take that total closer to $4 million, and is it his intention to drag this matter out as long as possible, so as to make Mr Zaoui the first New Zealand “Six Million Dollar Man”?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have not sought to receive the total costs for the departments for which I am not responsible. I am aware that the cost is considerable. I can reassure the member that this Government is concerned to see that case resolved as quickly as possible, and I will make my decision expeditiously when matters are reported to me.

Peter Brown: Is the Minister satisfied with the effectiveness of our current deportation system, which dictates that even if the security risk certificate is upheld, and he as Minister decides to deport Mr Zaoui, Mr Zaoui could end up joining the growing list of people who simply refuse to sign travel documents and remain here by default—is he happy about that?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Let me answer that question in two parts. Firstly, no, and that is why I am changing it. But, secondly, let me point out that there is only one country that requires a signature on the travel document of an outgoing deportee, and that country is not Algeria.

Peter Brown: Noting that answer, is the Minister willing to pursue agreements with other countries to allow the return of undocumented persons, so that we can be the ultimate decision makers here in New Zealand regarding who gets deported, rather than the deportee as it currently stands; if he will not agree to that, will he tell the House why?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: To the best of my knowledge the Government already has that understanding with all countries except for Iran, and we have that matter under discussion with the Government of Iran at the moment.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Can the Minister give the House an unequivocal assurance that under no circumstances will he approve access to New Zealand for any of Mr Zaoui’s family, which would add ultimately to any deportation costs in this sorry saga?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: That request has been made to me formally twice, and I have declined it formally twice. It would be inappropriate of me to prejudge future requests on which I have not yet seen supporting information, but I cannot currently think of the evidence that would be likely to make me change my mind.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a reply to a written question from Peter Brown, answered by the Attorney-General, that gives the costs to the Crown Law Office—

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

Aquaculture—Government Policy

8. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Fisheries: How is he supporting the recently announced goal for aquaculture of becoming a “1 billion dollar business by 2025” now that the Government’s reforms have been in place for 2½ years?

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Fisheries): The aquaculture industry’s goal is, as the member says, to be a $1 billion business by 2025. I believe that this goal is more than realistic and achievable; probably it is even conservative. The Government is committed to helping the aquaculture industry to achieve that goal. The Government’s Our Blue Horizon strategic document, which the member had in his hand, is a five-point plan to support the future growth of aquaculture in New Zealand, and copies of that document are, of course, publicly available.

Phil Heatley: What happened to this Vision 2020 glossy put out before the reforms, when the aquaculture industry was to make $1 billion by 2020, and why has it been replaced by this new glossy, Our Blue Horizon, put out last week, which shifts the target date to 2025?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: All I can say to the member is that the aquaculture industry has in fact grown by 48 percent in the last 6 years. If the member can name any industry that he has been associated with that has had that sort of growth, I would be interested to hear about it.

Phil Heatley: Can he give this House an explanation as to why, before the reforms, the industry was set to make $1 billion by 2020, and after his reforms it will not achieve that until 2025; why has the goal been shifted back 5 years after the Government’s reforms?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: All I know is that under the previous National administration, this industry had a turnover of $50 million. It now has exports of $300 million and employs six times more people than it ever did when National was in power. I would have thought the member would celebrate that rather than commiserate with himself.

Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: I think I can anticipate the point of order—it is about addressing the question as to the time.

Phil Heatley: Yes.

Madam SPEAKER: Maybe the Minister would like to add to his answer in that respect.

Phil Heatley: Why have you lost 5 years?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: The Government has not lost 5 years. The member, of course, refuses to contemplate the fact that nearly 200 aquacultural applications have been approved during the last 4 to 5 years and that the industry has grown by 48 percent. If there is anything about those facts that the member does not understand, I would like him to put it to me in writing.

Tariana Turia: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. What response will the Minister make to Mayor Alistair Sowman of Marlborough District Council, who said the aquaculture law reforms requiring local authorities to allocate aquaculture management areas were unworkable for the region, as was the required allocation of space to Māori, because most of the space has already been allocated—or do Māori have to wait until 2013 and miss out on another potential opportunity?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: As far as I am aware, the present system was one that was supported by regional government, which wanted to remove from central government’s authority, and the Minister of Fisheries’ authority specifically, the power to make those decisions. It is one of those lessons in life to “never ask for what you want; you might get it.”

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. What has been the estimated economic loss, if any, resulting from the lack of expansion within the aquaculture industry during the moratorium introduced by the Government while it worked on the industry reforms?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: As I have indicated to the House, the aquaculture industry is actually growing at a much faster rate—2 to 3 times, actually—than the rest of the economy. We still have to see how the new aquaculture management area method of administration of aquacultural space will work its way through. It is new. The Government has allocated nearly $3 million for the ministries of fisheries, conservation, environment, and economic development to work proactively with regional councils to develop aquacultural space opportunities in our regions. We are monitoring that very closely.

Phil Heatley: Why has not a single new aquaculture management area been created in an area where marine farming was not already happening since the Government’s reforms of 2½ years ago?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: There are two tranches to this answer. Firstly, I have already indicated to the House that the Ministry of Fisheries has processed over 200 applications that were held as previous applications before the new legislation was passed. Those 200 applications have been processed. They have increased the space from 9,000-odd hectares to 13,500 hectares, and that is an increase of 48 percent. So I think the member should at least tell the whole story. The second part of the answer of course is that this is new legislation. It will take a while to work its way through. The Government is working proactively with the industry and regional councils, and it is being congratulated by all those stakeholders on the proactive role it is taking.

Phil Heatley: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I let the Minister go on, in the hope that he would address the question. My question asked specifically why not a single new aquaculture management area has been created under this Government’s reforms.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry—

Phil Heatley: He talked about space—

Madam SPEAKER: I am on my feet.

Phil Heatley: —created under the old legislation—

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, Mr Heatley. Be seated. When I am on my feet the member sits, if the member wishes to stay in the Chamber. I listened very carefully to that answer, and although it went on at length, I think it did in fact address the question.

Phil Heatley: How can the Minister expect aquaculture to triple its growth to $1 billion by 2025 if there is no more space being provided for aquaculture under the new legislation—not under the old legislation but under the Minister’s new legislation?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: We are yet to see whether the new legislation will work effectively, and the Government is putting resources into doing that. If the member wants to know whether the industry itself supports what the Government is doing and the activities it is engaged with, he has only to read the recent press releases from Aquaculture New Zealand about the Government’s response to the aquaculture sector’s strategy. They show that the industry is enthusiastic and supportive of the way that this Government is working with it—something it never said under the previous administration.

Phil Heatley: Why did the latest glossy document, which puts things back 5 years, itself show a decline since 2000 in export earnings if the Government’s reforms are actually working; why does the Minister’s own graph show a decline in export earnings since 2000 if his reforms are working?

Hon JIM ANDERTON: There will be ups and downs, of course, year by year. That is true. But if we look at the period when the member’s party was in Government in this country, we see there was $50 million worth of exports and now there is $300 million worth of exports. If there is anything about that the member does not understand, I ask him to please let me know.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the pre-reform vision of $1 billion at 2020.

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

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the post-reform vision of $1 billion by 2025.

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

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the Marlborough District Council’s push for a cash payout because it is not getting the space.

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

Public Health Directorate—Disestablishment Proposal

9. TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Health: How will the proposed disestablishment of the public health directorate, and the consequent split across at least five separate groups, affect the capacity of the ministry to carry out its public health advisory functions, which are a statutory requirement set out in section 3E of the Health Act 1956?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): It is intended that the ministry’s change and development programme will strengthen public health’s influence across the whole system, by ensuring public health leadership is more widely spread rather than remaining concentrated in one directorate, where it is now. Of course the changes are compliant with New Zealand statutes.

Tariana Turia: What reassurance can the Minister provide that the ministry has the capacity to respond effectively to possible public health emergencies, such as the recent outbreak of severe respiratory syndrome (Sars) in Toronto, or environmental disasters such as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in Gulfport, Mississippi?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member raises a really good question and raises, I think, two really interesting examples. The effective response to Sars, and the effective response to civil defence emergencies of various forms, depends on mobilising a great many more officials and a great deal more assistance than can possibly be found in any public health directorate. It is important, however, to recall that, for example, with Sars, we are going to be reliant on public health technical expertise, which will always be at the centre of our response—and that, I am sure, will continue.

Jill Pettis: Further to the answer that he has just given, can the Minister advise the House how he can be sure that something as important as, for example, pandemic planning preparedness will be reliably undertaken in the new ministry structure?

Hon PETE HODGSON: That is another good example. An influenza pandemic is a very good example of a significant public health risk. Public health officials have been heavily involved in New Zealand’s planning, but they have not been the only ones. In fact, the planning has been led by the risk and assurance group within the ministry. That group has been involving staff across all directorates in the ministry and, actually, across most of Government. If we think further, we know that planning also involves business, local government, and civil society. So it is a good example of the importance of better coordination, and that idea of better coordination sits at the heart of the ministry’s change and development programme.

Tariana Turia: Does the Minister agree with his colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel, who in the debate on the Health and Disability Amendment Bill in August 1995, said: “I will tell the House why we need statutory protection. As easily as the positions of deputy director-general of public health and the public health group were created, just as easily can they be removed. Just as easily as they were created, so can they be destroyed.”; if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I strongly agree with my colleague’s remarks back then, and I strongly agree with the sentiments behind the member’s question. I have the new organisation chart here—the new one. The public health group is in the top left-hand corner under the strategy directorate. That is a proper place for something as important as that group. I would be happy to make this chart available to the member, should she have any interest.

Benefits—Single Core Benefit

10. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does he stand by his statement that he expects the Government to make decisions on the single core benefit in 2008; if so, why?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): As the member is well aware, the Government split this policy process into two phases last year. [Interruption] I refer the member and those other interjectors to my policy announcement of 26 October 2006. Phase one, I am pleased to say, is almost complete and the supporting legislation is currently before the House in the form of the Social Security Amendment Bill. Phase two is about further simplifying the benefit social support system and reducing the number of benefit categories to better align with our support services. Phase two is currently being worked on by officials and as I have previously said on a number of occasions, including 3 weeks ago at question time, final decisions about the detail of phase two will be made in 2008.

Judith Collins: If the Government is not planning to make any decisions until 2008, why did Steve Maharey say on 22 February 2005 that a Cabinet paper to be released that day would show that the Government expected to save between $40 million and $70 million a year from merging seven welfare benefits into the single core benefit?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: My colleague Mr Maharey says a great deal of accurate and completely sensible things. I say to the member that she should not be surprised, nor indeed should any New Zealander be surprised, to see that the Government has been completely focused on the area of policy development that delivers the most quality of life changes and improvements for New Zealanders—specifically, a reduction in unemployment from 161,000 when that party was in power, to fewer than 24,000 now, and the extraordinary reduction in youth benefit uptake that I detailed in an earlier question today.

Lynne Pillay: Can the Minister advise the progress made to date with this project?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: This Labour-led Government is clearly keeping its commitment to help families young and old by reducing, amongst other things, welfare dependency. Unemployment benefit numbers have fallen by the extraordinary numbers that I have just detailed. The total working-age benefit numbers—which I tell Mrs Collins includes everything—have reduced by 35 percent, and that is the lowest figure since 1988. Working New Zealand, which is the first phase of this policy development, recognises that there are still areas for improvement, by expanding and developing new employment services that support people into work where appropriate. The new service approach helps to determine the most appropriate services for a client, based on his or her individual circumstances and need for assistance, and the new job search service is for those who are ready for work. Access to employment and training assistance has been significantly widened for all clients. There is more funding for wage subsidies, and greater in-work support assistance to help new employees with travel, childcare, and financial bridging costs. We will work with people not yet ready to enter the workforce, for whatever reason—be it health, ill health, or caring responsibilities—to plan for an eventual return to work, if that is appropriate.

Judith Collins: What extra information does Cabinet need, when in 2005 the Minister’s predecessor, Steve Maharey, refused to name the single core benefit reports that had already been taken to Cabinet, for the reason that they were too numerous to list?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am not very interested in the member’s semantic confusion or her obsession with what something might be called. I, like the members of this Government, am absolutely focused on delivering real gains for the people of this country, and nothing could better demonstrate that than the extraordinary change in the unemployment numbers.

Judith Collins: Will there be a single core benefit under this Labour Government?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I cannot understand why the member has such difficulty with an unequivocally clear answer. I said at the select committee investigation yesterday, during the last session of the House, and earlier today, that those decisions will be made by Cabinet in 2008.

Judith Collins: Why does the Minister think that his predecessor Steve Maharey announced on 22 February 2005 that legislation for the single core benefit would be introduced that year if, as the Minister now says, Cabinet has not decided on it yet?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Because like our Cabinet colleagues, we are interested in good policy development and in the sort of things that deliver real gains for New Zealanders. Although Mrs Collins and some of her colleagues may find this difficult to understand, I think that most New Zealanders understand the difference between 161,000 people on the scrap heap under a National Government, and fewer than 24,000 now.

Judith Collins: How would the Minister explain these two divergent statements—Helen Clark announcing at her post-Cabinet press conference on 14 February 2005 that Cabinet had approved plans for a new single core benefit, or this Minister repeatedly telling Parliament, and again today, that Cabinet has not made those decisions yet—because both of them cannot be right?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Yes, they can. Phase one and phase two are different. Phase one is the first step, and I tell Mrs Collins that phase two is the second step.

Judith Collins: I seek leave to table some documents. The first, which is headed “Universal benefit listed as current priority policy work”, is dated 19 September 2001.

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

Judith Collins: The second is headed “PM set to unveil universal benefit” and is dated 31 January 2005.

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

Judith Collins: The third is headed “PM fleshes out single benefit plan” and is dated 21 February 2005.

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

Judith Collins: The fourth, from the Manawatu Standard, is headed “Single benefit announced” and is dated 22 February 2005.

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

Aviation Safety Certification—New Zealand / Australia

11. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What benefits are being seen as a result of the new joint New Zealand and Australian arrangements for a mutual recognition of aviation safety certification?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport): On 30 March 2007 joint arrangements between the New Zealand and Australian Governments took effect that allow mutual recognition of airline safety certification between the two countries. The Civil Aviation Authority has since issued authorisation to a New Zealand airline, Airwork Holdings Ltd, to operate Boeing 737 freighter services within Australia. It is the first company on either side of the Tasman to receive authority under the mutual recognition regime. As a result, Airwork did not need to obtain equivalent Australian certification, thereby saving the company significant time and expense, and obviously giving this New Zealand company a head start advantage in the market.

Sue Moroney: What is the basis of the mutual recognition regime?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Although there are differences in individual standards, the safety regime operates on the basis that the whole airline safety system of each country achieves equivalent safety outcomes. Thus, the home airline safety certification can be recognised for operations within and between both countries.

Telecommunications—Trans-Tasman Markets

12. Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) to the Minister of Communications: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement that “My dream would be to see two trans-Tasman telecommunications markets offering one domestic rate of calling.”; if so, what is he doing to bring this dream to reality?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Communications): I frequently agree with the Prime Minister.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Did the Prime Minister share that dream with him before announcing it in Australia; if so, was he in it?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: One lives in hope, and one is also careful what one hopes for.

Dave Hereora: What steps has the Government taken to improve the delivery of communication services to the public?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Only a year after the telecommunications stocktake was released, we have completely revised the Telecommunications Act. We have the Telecommunications Commissioner working hard to deliver on local loop unbundling, unbundled bitstream, and naked DSL on time and in full. The Telecommunications Carriers Forum has pulled together industry working-groups to implement local loop unbundling. We have a draft form of operational separation for Telecom New Zealand on the table. We have anti-spam legislation in place; and we have delivered on number portability with the Telecommunications Commissioner’s help.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Can the Minster inform the House as to whether a dream is higher in status than an aspiration, lower than a vision, equivalent to a wish, but lacks the strength of commitment of a whim?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I understand that, in the member’s case, a dream is what he does when he is asleep, of which there has been ample evidence over the last decade.

Hon Maurice Williamson: On a scale of one to 10, can the Minster tell us what chance he believes he has of implementing the Prime Minster’s Martin Luther King - type “I have a dream” aspirations, when the member for Waimakariri has been trying for some time, through a petition, to even get local calling across a paddock between Kaiapoi and Rangiora?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Some people see things the way they are and say why, and occasionally Prime Ministers dream of things that are not yet, and ask why not.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Which of the Prime Minister’s wishes does the Minister believe will come true first: the dream to see local calling between Dunedin and Dubbo, and Wellington and Wagga Wagga; the vision to see us in the top half of the OECD; the aspiration to see us carbon neutral; or the simple old wish to have 20 hours of free early childhood education?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: That one is an easy one. First place goes to the determination for us to be a four-consecutive-term Government.

Question No. 5 to Minister

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I seek leave of the House to table a schedule of the 26 Work and Income service centres where there are no unemployed 18 and 19-year-olds.

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

Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill

First Reading

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I move, That the Appropriation (2006/07 Supplementary Estimates) Bill be now read a first time.

Bill read a first time.

Appointments

Abortion Supervisory Committee

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): I move, That, pursuant to sections 10 and 11 of the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977, this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General appoint Professor Linda Jane Holloway DCNZM of Dunedin, Dr Rosemary Jane Fenwicke of Wellington, and Patricia Ann Allan of Christchurch, as members of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, and appoint Professor Linda Jane Holloway as Chairman of the Supervisory Committee. The Abortion Supervisory Committee is constituted under section 10 of the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act, and consists of three members, one of whom is appointed as chairperson. Two of the members must be medical practitioners. They are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of this House of Representatives for a term of 3 years, and they are all able to be reappointed. The Abortion Supervisory Committee is responsible for keeping under review all the provisions of the abortion law in New Zealand, and for the operation and effect of those provisions in practice. That includes licensing institutions for the performance of abortions, and the appointment of certifying consultants to authorise abortions.

The previous members of the committee were Dr Lesley Rothwell of Wellington, as chair, Papaarangi Reid of Wellington, and Marlene Lamb JP of Morrinsville. I take this opportunity, on behalf of the Government and of the whole House, to thank Dr Rothwell, Dr Reid, and Mrs Lamb for the contributions they have made during their terms on the committee.

The qualities sought in all members of the committee are that they be sufficiently impartial and open-minded to be able to represent the needs and interests of women in a non-controversial manner, be sensitive to the needs of different cultural groups, have good communication skills, and accept a level of public scrutiny. Also, the chair should have previous experience in a leadership role. The new appointments that are proposed in the motion before the House are for Linda Holloway to be a member and chair the committee, and for Dr Rosemary Fenwicke and Patricia Allan to be members of the committee. I suggest to members that all are very capable people, and together they would bring a balance of knowledge and experience to the committee. They also bring a high degree of integrity to their respective roles as members of the committee, thus ensuring that it will be able to perform with the required diligence and competence in interpreting the intentions of the legislation.

Professor Linda Holloway, who was previously pro vice-chancellor of health sciences at Otago University, was appointed chair of the National Health Committee in 2006, having been a member of it since 2002. She is a specialist anatomical pathologist, and at an earlier stage in her career she also worked in rural general practice. Her major area of research interest has been respiratory pathology. She has served on the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee, and was one of the advisers to Dame Silvia Cartwright during the inquiry into the treatment of cervical cancer at National Women’s Hospital. She has also been in many areas of community work, including the Lottery Grants Board research distribution committee and the Medical Women’s Association. She is a Distinguished Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit, in recognition of her career of dedicated service to health science.

Dr Rosemary Fenwicke is a member of the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal and the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. She was the medical director of the central region for the New Zealand Family Planning Association from 1987 to 1990. As an on-call doctor for the New Zealand Police and the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, she assessed victims of sexual abuse. She was also a medical officer at Victoria University’s Student Health Service. Dr Fenwicke also developed a general practice clinic at Waiwhetū Marae in Lower Hutt. She currently works in general practice in Wellington at the level J terminations clinic at Wellington Women’s Hospital, and she also does independent allowance assessments and rehabilitation assessments for the Accident Compensation Corporation. In 2005-06 she was the national medical officer for the New Zealand Fire Service.

Patricia Allan established her own consultancy business as a facilitator and mentor at the beginning of 2004. For the previous 20 years she had been involved in either church or council-funded social service and in ministry roles in Christchurch and on the West Coast. Before establishing her current business, she worked for the Methodist Church’s Christchurch inner-city ministry, and had previously served as the vicar of Hokitika and as diocesan mission coordinator for the Anglican Diocese of Christchurch. She has held a number of governance roles in the Methodist and Anglican churches, including as an elected member of the standing committee of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of New Zealand, and also as a member of the board of the McLean Institute, a charitable trust. She was awarded the Queen’s Service Medal for her community work on the West Coast. Ms Allan completed her registered nursing qualification in 1960 and also holds a licentiate of theology.

I can confirm that an appropriate process has been followed in selecting the proposed new appointees, in terms of the State Services Commission’s appointment guidelines and in accordance with Cabinet directives. I can confirm that appropriate inquiries concerning conflicts of interest have been carried out in accordance with State Services Commission appointment guidelines, and that any conflict of interest that could reasonably be identified would have been identified. No conflict of interest has been identified. While serving on the committee, the chair or a member must declare to the Speaker any personal or professional interests or associations that might create a conflict with his or her duties as a member of a committee. The Speaker then decides on the appropriate course of action.

I recommend that the House adopt Government motion No. 1.

GORDON COPELAND (Independent): I move, That the motion be amended by omitting the words “Dr Rosemary Jane Fenwicke of Wellington”, and substituting the words “Dr Ate Moala of Wellington”. I regard the Abortion Supervisory Committee as the single most important supervisory body in New Zealand. I say that because abortion ends somewhere between 17,000 and 18,000 human lives in New Zealand each year. That is the magnitude of the task that the three people appointed to the supervisory committee are undertaking.

Thousands of human lives are directly affected. It is with that in mind that I recommend without hesitation the appointment of Dr Ate Moala to the Abortion Supervisory Committee. Dr Moala has an impressive curriculum vitae. She is an outstanding doctor and an outstanding clinician. She is Tongan. She is a mother. I have circulated information about her, and her complete curriculum vitae, to every member of Parliament on three different occasions. I only wish that I could take that process further and have every member of the House given the opportunity to meet Dr Ate Moala in person. If that were possible, I have no doubt at all that one would quickly conclude that she has a great deal to offer our nation as a member of the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

As I mentioned earlier, when I contemplate the reality of abortion I cannot personally comprehend that there are some 18,000 abortions each and every year in New Zealand. I see those lost lives as children, and I have no doubt that they would be great Kiwi kids. Our society suffers great loss through their absence. I cannot think of abortion, however, without also thinking of the women with child who are faced with the agonising choice of whether to terminate. All of us know that both a male and a female are involved in the creation of a new human life. Many times, however, the weight of the decision concerning abortion is made by the woman, and by her all alone. Not infrequently the father of the child does not want to know, and, indeed, he sometimes joins the crowd of accusers who point the finger at the woman, say she “got herself pregnant”, and demand that she “get rid of it”.

I greatly admire the many tremendous New Zealanders who selflessly offer support, emotionally and practically, to women in that situation. These women need to be right at the very centre of the abortion process and to be treated with the greatest tenderness and compassion. I also admire those churches that have programmes. For, example, the Catholic and Elim churches reach out to and minister to women both before and after abortion.

I am, of course, a man, so I cannot completely put myself, as it were, in the shoes of a woman who is faced with this serious and pain-filled decision. However, I do have a wife, and have accompanied her through five pregnancies, so at least in that second-hand sense I can begin to appreciate that an unexpected, unplanned pregnancy, particularly for an unmarried woman, must bring with it a lot of new and deeply disturbing questions, such as: “Why me? Why now? Where will I live? How will I complete my examinations? Who will support me? How will the father of the child and my mum and dad react to the news of my pregnancy?”, etc., etc.

I am, however, also prepared to acknowledge here those good men who, finding their partner or wife pregnant, immediately pledge their wholehearted commitment and support to her welfare and the welfare of their child. That is a responsible, manly thing to do, and there probably needs to be a lot more taught explicitly to all New Zealand young men concerning their responsibilities when they become fathers, even in unexpected circumstances, if we are to see an improvement in our abortion statistics.

Many people are amazed when I tell them that under present law it is not mandatory for certifying consultants even to meet the woman who has requested an abortion. Likewise, there is no legal requirement for the woman to be fully informed of her options in terms of continuing with the pregnancy or moving to abortion. That seems amazing to me, given that for many years now in New Zealand we have had a commitment to informed consent. Even those who describe themselves as pro-choice would surely agree that informed choice is always better than uninformed choice. I think all of us could also agree that a so-called choice made by a frightened and insecure mother-to-be in favour of abortion, because of demands from the father of the baby, friends, or other family members, is in truth no choice at all.

I have long since reached the view that although I would like to see some much-needed changes to the present Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act, abortion will continue in New Zealand until each and every woman with child is loved, and every child is wanted and welcome. That should be our national goal. It will take effort and education to effect that change. That is why it is so important that we have the right people on the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

As far as I can tell, New Zealand’s abortion rate is now the highest in the Western World. We have in excess of 300 abortions for every 1,000 live births, compared with, for example, the USA, where the latest figure I have is 240 abortions per 1,000 live births, and declining. Surely on that statistic alone all of us in this House could conclude and concur with the simple proposition that the abortion rate in New Zealand is now far, far too high. It is not beyond our wit, if we as a Parliament have the will, to actually dramatically improve that situation. Everyone in our society would benefit from an improvement. Certainly, the unborn child would experience life. The mother of that child would experience a much greater quality of life as there is now ample evidence that abortion dramatically affects the mental and psychological well-being of a woman. In simple terms, abortion hurts women.

I know that Dr Ate Moala would bring an experienced and compassionate view to the Abortion Supervisory Committee. The welfare of the woman with child would be at the centre of her concern. Therefore, I ask every member to support her nomination to the Abortion Supervisory Committee as a replacement for Dr Rosemary Jane Fenwicke. The composition of the Abortion Supervisory Committee would then remain roughly the same, with one doctor substituting the other one—Ate Moala for Rosemary Jane Fenwicke—Professor Linda Jane Holloway, and Patricia Ann Allan, who, as described by the Minister, we could describe as a very informed, concerned layperson. That is the proposition I put to the House, and I look forward to the support of members.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the next member, I ask Mr Copeland whether he intends to table the amendment. It is necessary. If he tables it, then I am happy to put the question that the motion be agreed to, but I need the member to table the amendment.

GORDON COPELAND (Independent): I will bring my motion to the Clerk immediately, and I also have copies available for other members.

TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour): I understand that under the rules of this debate, any amendment then becomes the sole focus of the debate unless we can move a resolution to deal with that, so I seek leave for the debate from this point on to include both the main question and Gordon Copeland’s amendment, and, indeed, any further amendments that members may see fit to move.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is indeed right. The question is that leave be agreed to. Is there any objection to leave being agreed to? There is none. It is agreed. The question is that the amendment be agreed to, and the debate carries on.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. The Māori Party always recognises the value of ancestral traditions in informing the present generation. We do recognise, however, that we have been subjected to influences that include values and beliefs from other world views. We strive to ensure that we are able to distinguish between them, and in the process maintain the integrity of our respective iwi tikanga.

There are important elements of our tūpuna traditions that also shed light on contemporary issues and guide us in knowing how to view the decision that some 18,000 New Zealanders make every year in using abortion services. The traditions and concepts that I am referring to are described in concepts such ira tangata, tapu, mana, whakapapa, and wairua. These principles, which are common within Māori world views, remind me that ira tangata is more than just a collection of genetic material—a biological interest. Professor Hirini Moko Mead refers to “te ira tangata ki te Ao mārama”—literally, from the conception of life in the woman’s womb through to the world of light. There is a godlike and spiritual quality to be considered, because, as human beings, ira tangata descend from ira atua—the gods.

So when we think of abortion we cannot think of biomedical or clinical matters; we think of the mauri—the life force—that permeates the very origin of life. When we think of abortion we think of concepts of wairuatanga—the spiritual dimensions—which are to be found at conception, during the foetal stage, and at birth. When we think of abortion we think of whakapapa—the genealogical descent, the order of all living things. It is, in essence, what the Chinese call yin and yang. It is the complementary principles of balance between Māori and the wider universe in the natural environment. We think of mana—the collective authority and influence—which is considered within whānau, hapū, and iwi. Importantly, we think of whanaungatanga. Whānau have the obligation and responsibility of the duty of care among their own. Whānau therefore must be reminded of their rights and reciprocal obligations, which are consistent with being part of the collective.

This one word “abortion” evokes so much emotion, and for the Māori mind it triggers the opportunity for multilevel discourse and discussion. It gives us all an opportunity to examine the issues, without casting aspersions or making judgments of others. It is this point, more than any other, that really drives me in the vote of conscience that I must make today. I have no intention of directing moral blame or criticism of any form on those individuals and whānau who have made the choice that has resulted in abortion; nor do I say that others should vote as I would vote. We know that over the last 20 years the median age of all women having an abortion has remained stable, at around 25 years. Presumably, that is a period of life when one would expect decisions to be made, taking into account the likely consequences and impacts.

This is a conscience debate, so I willingly share my truth about this issue, while acknowledging there will be others who have a different point of view. When I listen to the voice of conscience, the voice within that guides me, I find that there are two strong elements to my thinking. The first is the simple truth that I believe every child is a loved child. The second is my view that whānau ora drives everything. I believe that it is a solemn duty of whānau to ensure that the secret life force that supports mauri—the spark of life—must extend to every child, every mother, every father—every family member. I believe also that although one may have contrary beliefs, one must ensure that judgment is not made of others whose beliefs may be different and whose decision making may be different.

When we talk of manaakitanga we must consider the heartbeat of the emerging child, alongside the heartbeat of the mother, alongside the heartbeat of the community—whānau, hapū, and iwi. In other words, whānau ora—literally, the life force of our whānau—must, as a priority, remind us that every decision to do with an individual member of a whānau will always impact on the health and well-being of the wider group. We have no interest in stigmatising and problematising fertility, and although I have incurred the wrath of some members of this House, I will continue to speak out about the joy of life that should be associated with fertility, rather than confining the discussion to the context of the problem of sexual and reproductive health.

It is because of this joy of life that I am hugely challenged by the existence of the Abortion Supervisory Committee. I would never want the issue of abortion to be reduced to reporting for the sake of health statistics, the application of licences, the standards of facilities, and the performance of operations.

The concepts that I have touched on today are as relevant to the decision-making process around abortion as is the administration of abortion law. I firmly believe that access to other world views must be part of the context around considering the regulation of abortion services. I know that the Māori Party supported the appointment of the three people who have been mentioned today as members of the Abortion Supervisory Committee. However, with further information provided, I am also happy to say that we support the nomination of a Tongan woman, Dr Ate Moala, who would come to the position equipped with both her own indigenous Tongan knowledge, the professional expertise of qualifications in public health, and her very recent doctorate material regarding health promotion. Dr Moala has wide experience across the health sector, as well as being vice-president of the Pasifika Medical Association of New Zealand . I am sure those skills will be of value in ensuring access to culturally appropriate sexual and reproductive health information.

The statistics and data available from the annual report of the Abortion Supervisory Committee make a strong stand for acquiring cultural competency as a vital attribute for membership. Although the majority of abortions are for European women, there are extremely high rates of Asian, Pasifika, and Māori abortions, which I believe must be considered when looking at the capacity of the committee to meet the needs of these populations. Particular consideration should be given to those most affected in this issue. Given the high rates of abortion in Asian, Pasifika, and Māori communities, one would expect their perspectives and world views to be respected, and for decisions to be informed accordingly. The committee should be expanded, and it should absolutely include Dr Ate Moala and, if possible, a doctor of Asian descent. As Māori we need to be confident that the respect we have for whakapapa, for whanaungatanga, and for tikanga, is fully understood. As New Zealanders we all need to know that sexual and reproductive health is lifelong, and that different cultural frameworks may be helpful in seeing health in a holistic way.

When we think of health and well-being we must remain focused on our concepts of hauora—“hau” literally means the life breath, the essence of humans. I will be forever proud that my position is unflinching, my stand uncompromising. There is no more important task in life and death than to safeguard that life breath, that life essence, for now and for our future in front of us. Tēnā koutou.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National): I rise to ask the House to support the nomination of Dr Ate Moala. She is an outstanding medical professional and has the kind of public health background and expertise that would be well suited to activity on the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

I have spoken in the House in the past about the operation of this law, because I believe that it was a law framed by Parliament with the intention of protecting the unborn. However, it is a law that has been observed as much in the breach, and today I want to raise a number of issues to do with the current status of the Abortion Supervisory Committee that I think are a disgrace to this Parliament, and to the Ministries of Health and Justice that interact with the Abortion Supervisory Committee. I say to the civil service organisations interacting with that committee that they are obliged to know the law and ensure it is acted upon in the same way as they ensure every other kind of law is acted upon. But the attitudes among some of the bureaucracy have to be questioned.

I can recall that as Minister of Health I authorised an information booklet to be available in general practitioner surgeries around the country, because I believed women needed information in order to be able to give informed consent. It was a long battle with the Ministry of Health, which claimed in the late 1990s that there were no suitable pictures of a foetus that could be published—as if it were some kind of pornography. In the end, I went to the library and found a picture myself. The ministry made sure that in the publication it was as small as possible. When I stopped being Minister of Health, the ministry stopped printing what was a very popular booklet and trashed the remaining copies, and the booklet has never seen the light of day again. Women, even now, can go into a general practitioner’s surgery to make a decision that is potentially lifesaving—and that should not be made casually even if it is not—yet they cannot get simple information about what is happening to the development of the foetus and about the legal process that this Parliament obliges them to go through. And that is a disgrace. I would hope that our community attitudes—or our bureaucratic attitudes—on this have developed sufficiently that the picture of a developing foetus, which is now available in beautiful representations, is no longer regarded as civil service pornography.

I now want to turn to the activities of the Crown and the Abortion Supervisory Committee themselves. The committee is involved in a legal process that I think demonstrates ill-intent towards the legislation as passed by this Parliament. A group of people are taking legal proceedings to initiate a judicial review of whether the committee has performed its statutory duties. That is not unusual; there is often legal action with the Crown. There are often Officers of Parliament and others who investigate public bodies to find out whether they have performed their statutory duties—the Ombudsman’s inquiry into the Department of Corrections is a current investigation, just this week. The Crown and the committee have thrown all the resources they can at stopping a judicial review of the committee’s activities, and I believe that that is unwise.

Parliament set up an Abortion Supervisory Committee with the full intention that its activities could be reviewed in exactly the same way as those of any other public body. Are there legitimate questions about whether the Abortion Supervisory Committee has carried out its statutory duties? Absolutely, yes! In fact, it has made a point in its annual reports of virtually saying that it does not really care whether it carries them out, because that is too complicated. However, Parliament did give the committee statutory duties. Any group of citizens have a right to see that those duties are examined, and the Crown in my view should not stand in the way. But, point by point, it has tried to get evidence thrown out, has tried to get the actions struck out, and is probably going to have another crack at preventing evidence that has come out of longitudinal studies in Christchurch from being presented to the court, as well.

My advice to the Crown today is to pull back. This Parliament does not want the executive using taxpayers’ resources or the power of the Crown to prevent the examination of a public body. It is not an unfair approach, it is not vexatious, and it will be the first time in 25 years—the first time since the committee was set up, actually—that there has been any detailed review of whether the committee is carrying out its obligations.

Some of those failures are absolutely obvious. It is quite clear from the psychiatric literature, and from the public health literature, that if women have mental health problems, which is the main ground for abortion, then the right treatment for that is medication and counselling. Even in the pre-abortion stage, the legislation obliges the committee to ensure that counselling is available—but it does not do that. It is well-known that the counselling is either biased, last minute, or far too directive. We are one of the few countries in the world that do not have some kind of independent counselling available to women who are making a choice about abortion. We should have that, and the committee should be subject to review over whether it has carried out its duties.

So that is one set of legal issues—the committee and the Crown are fighting judicial review, and they should not do that. Parliament wants to know whether this body is carrying out the tasks that Parliament has given it. If we are not serious about that, then we should change the law. If we are serious, then we should make sure that this body is subject to review in exactly the same way as every other single public body is, by exactly the same procedure. It should not be exempt from it.

The second set of legal issues is to do with the current legality of what is going on in the abortion industry. There is no Abortion Supervisory Committee. The appointments have all expired. As at 28 May, according to my information, 28 of the abortion consultants have had their appointments expire. And if their appointments have expired, then all activities they are carrying out in approving or carrying out abortions are unlawful, because the consultants are not legally constituted as abortion consultants. Well, that is a disgrace. It will be a very serious issue if Parliament—if the Minister of Justice—has allowed the legal framework protecting our unborn children to lapse because of laziness and contempt for the law, but I cannot presume anything else.

I want the Minister to stand up in this House and tell us why he has allowed this potentially unlawful situation to arise. The committee appointments have expired; they had a fixed date. Some of the consultants gave 3 months’ notice—and the Government took no notice. If the committee’s appointments have expired, then the certification of people certified by them—who are called certified consultants—has expired, and if their certification has expired, then the actions they are carrying out are unlawful. Does the Minister want to be party to the unlawful abortion of unborn children? He needs to answer the questions, firstly, as to why it has happened, but, more important, whether it is the case that, today, unlawful abortions are occurring. He must answer that question. I believe that he should answer it here, but he must also answer it to the public.

There are also issues raised about licensed facilities, because their licences have expired, as well. Apparently, the Ministry of Justice can point to a section in the Act that states that those facilities can continue carrying out abortions even if their licences have expired. That may a legal answer, but I would have to say that it is another sign of the laxity of the Minister and of this Parliament in allowing the potentially unlawful process of abortion to go on. The fact that that provision is there to protect clinics highlights the fact that there is no such provision to protect certified consultants. It reinforces in my mind that, as of now, there may well be several dozen certifying consultants out there who are acting unlawfully. Whether it is illegal, I guess, is another matter, but certainly they are acting unlawfully.

The Crown and this Parliament have not taken the role of the Abortion Supervisory Committee seriously. The committee was set up by the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act as a serious attempt to protect the unborn child. We have fallen short in our duty to enforce the statutes of this House but, much more important, we have fallen short in our duty to protect the unborn child. The Minister and the Government must get on and reinstate that protection, and stop fighting the people who are trying to review the law to ensure that it is enforced.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Let there be no doubt in the minds of anybody in this House or anybody who is listening to this debate that we are talking about a very serious issue. As I understand it, somewhere between 18,000 and 19,000 abortions—I do not think that it has topped 19,000 as yet—are permitted per year, and that number increases just about every year. That represents 50 abortions a day, or thereabouts. That is the equivalent of nearly two classrooms of children a day. It is very difficult to believe that that is not abortion on demand—very difficult to believe.

I listened to the Minister intently. He said—and I do not think I am misquoting him—something along the lines of it being essential that we have some sort of system to take note of the interests of women, and of ethnic and cultural concerns. I did not hear him talk about potential fathers at all. Do they not count at all? Do they not count in anybody’s language? I have not heard the words “father” or “man” mentioned in this context as yet. Obviously, it is principally a women’s issue. Principally, it is a women’s matter, but not totally, and perhaps we are allowing too many abortions because there is no man on the Abortion Supervisory Committee. So New Zealand First will be moving a motion to put a male doctor on that committee.

I move, That the motion be amended by omitting Patricia Ann Allan of Christchurch and substituting Dr Peter Hall of Whangaparaoa. This is a last-minute motion, and it will have caught many members in the House by surprise, but I will just mention a little bit of Dr Hall’s background. He is a graduate of the Auckland School of Medicine. He has a diploma in obstetrics. He has been in general practice from 1987 to the current time. He is a good man, by all accounts. He was the chairman of the board of directors of Coast Care Accident and Medical Clinic, a visiting medical adviser to the special needs panel of Gulf Harbour School, and a medical adviser to Pregnancy Counselling Services. I will not read out the whole of his CV, because it is slightly out of date. It was submitted to the Government some time ago, at the beginning of this term of Parliament, with a request for Dr Hall to be considered for appointment on to this committee.

New Zealand First will be splitting its vote on this motion, but none of the candidates will get total backing from New Zealand First—not one of them. Some of us will vote for the candidate nominated by Gordon Copeland, and some will vote against that candidate. But all of us will vote for Dr Peter Hall. We think the Abortion Supervisory Committee will be served all the better if there is a male on that committee, and this is the man.

Let me go back to the issue we are talking about—abortion. Abortion must be safe. We do not want to move this country back to backstreet abortions ever again. It must be safe—safe for all concerned. Therefore, it must be legal. So there must be some law that allows abortion to some degree. But, thirdly, and most important, abortion must be rare. Eighteen thousand abortions a year, or thereabouts, is not rare in my view or in the view of my colleagues. It is too many. This committee must take a more active role, must take a more educative role, and must play a part in bringing down that number.

Mr Copeland said that for every thousand births, there are 300 abortions. That is a dreadful statistic, and the way I put it, that is the equivalent of having about 50 children, or potential children—some will say children; some will say potential children—aborted every day; not just weekdays but every day of the year. This House should take this issue very seriously. We nominate Dr Peter Hall, and I hope that members have taken that on board.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I wish to advise the member that he needs to table his amendment in order for it to be voted on at the completion of the debate. This is in accordance with the leave granted prior to his speech for the honourable member Gordon Copeland. If the member could please table his amendment, I would appreciate it.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): I do not intend to take a very long call on this matter, as I understand my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison would also like to take a call and I want to make sure we have enough time for everybody.

To be absolutely frank, we have abortion on demand in New Zealand, in everything except name. When we look at the fact that there are 18,000 abortions a year—and have been for the last few years, give or take some increases and some slight drops in that time—and that 98 to 99 percent of all abortions are performed supposedly because of serious danger to the mental health of women, I think we do need to accept that we have abortion on demand.

I am very grateful that I was not a 14-year-old girl who was faced with an unwanted pregnancy. I am very, very grateful that I have never had an unwanted pregnancy. I am, however, deeply moved by the plight of women in that situation. However, I think we do need to understand, and accept, that abortion is not just a process. It is not just a medical procedure. For many women in particular, an abortion is something they will live with all their lives. I believe absolutely that many of those women—particularly those supposedly facing serious danger to their mental health at the time of an unwanted pregnancy—will, in fact, face even more serious danger to their mental health at a later stage, unless they get every bit of help that we can give them.

The House will remember that during the passage of the Care of Children Bill I proposed an amendment to allow either a parent or a parental figure, or a Family Court judge, to be advised if a child under 16 was seeking an abortion. The House at the time did not support that. Only one member of the then Labour Party supported my amendment. I can say to this House, with a very sorry heart, that in 1999, 56 children aged between 11 and 14 had abortions. In this last year we find that that number has almost doubled, to 105. I do not want to see a return to backstreet abortions. I do not want to see women dying because of abortions performed in unsanitary situations. I do not want to see that happen. However, I do not want to see us turn ourselves into a culture where human life is not valued.

I note that the Minister, when he was looking at the people who should be on this committee, said that one of the attributes committee members should have was to be impartial. Frankly, I do not believe that some of the members he has put forward are impartial. He also said that they should be open-minded. Well, I do not think some of them are. He said further that they should be sensitive to cultural groups and understandings. I hope I have quoted the Minister correctly. I believe we do need to take that into account. The number of Pacific women who have abortions is an utter disgrace. When I hear my colleague the Hon Bill English speak about his attempts as Minister of Health to get some basic information to women, through their doctors’ surgeries, about abortion, about their alternatives, and about the health ramifications, and see the way he was thwarted by his own politically correct ministry, I think that is a disgrace. That these people have chosen to stop women—women who are in need, women who are desperate, women who want help—from getting correct information is an utter disgrace.

When I look at the numbers of abortions performed, I wonder when the increase will stop. Are we going to be like some countries, such as China, where in some families children are aborted because of their gender, because they are women? Are we going to have children with disabilities aborted because they are different? Are we ever going to value human life?

I do not support the retention of Dr Fenwicke to this committee. I believe that we should have Dr Ate Moala on the committee, and I will also support the other amendment by New Zealand First to include Dr Hall. I believe it is absolutely important that we get some balance on this committee and that this committee finally does its job.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green): I want, first of all, to thank members for their contributions. There have been some very thoughtful contributions, and it is right that that should be the case, because this is a serious issue. It is right that we take these matters seriously and discuss them with care, as well. Some important issues have been highlighted, and I am thinking of some of the points Mr English raised around the difficult legal limbo that we seem to be in. Significant issues have been raised, it is right that we should be discussing them, and Bill English made a number of proposals around them.

I tend to agree that there should be some kind of review. In fact, when the Justice and Electoral Committee looked at the Abortion Supervisory Committee, Murray Smith and I joined in saying there should be a review, although, I suspect, for different reasons. It seems to me that the law does not actually reflect the modern world. I know that it is a difficult and contentious issue, and that it is a difficult thing for Parliament to deal with, but I think we need to look at the law to make sure that it is in tune with reality, because we would be in a difficult position if that were not the case.

Of course, this is a conscience vote, and I am speaking on my own behalf here. I put it clearly on the record that I am anti-abortion. I have some personal awareness of how traumatic those kinds of procedures can be. But I am also very strongly pro-choice. I guess my main concern is that I would not want to support anything that made the situation more dangerous for women in our country. Similarly, I would be very, very cautious about anything that appeared to restrict women’s access to abortion. Women find themselves in all kinds of situations, and anything that would lead to the kind of backstreet abortion situation that members have previously referred to is something we must absolutely reject. We need to be very cautious about any changes we seek to make. It has to be an absolute bottom line that safety for women with regard to abortion must be paramount.

Both Mr Copeland and Peter Brown mentioned the issue of men’s involvement, and they raised some important points. Although it is not just a women’s issue, in reality for many women it is. They face these choices alone, and ultimately, at the end of the day, it is the women who are likely to have to take the bulk of the responsibility for any decisions made. I think we all probably know women who have had children with men who subsequently took off and left them to take responsibility. I agree with Mr Brown that that is something we need to be talking to young men about in our country. We need to be instilling a sense of responsibility in this area.

Peter Brown: I’m glad you looked at me when you said “young men”.

NANDOR TANCZOS: Oh, indeed! I think it is a serious issue for us, and, as I say, the reality is that for many women it is an issue they face alone.

But when Mr Brown put up a proposal for another appointment because he thinks we need a man on the Abortion Supervisory Committee, I was reminded of the New Zealand First billboards during the election campaign. Maybe this is just a way of implementing New Zealand First’s election promises—“A man for a change”. I do not think it is a serious proposal, because if it were I would have expected the member to talk to caucuses and members and to make information available about his proposal, and I am not aware that that has happened. So we do not take that proposal particularly seriously.

Mr Copeland talked about the increasing number of abortions. I do not have the figures to hand about what the situation is at the moment.

Hon Member: It’s falling.

NANDOR TANCZOS: I am told that the abortion rate is falling.

Gordon Copeland: 17,900 last year.

NANDOR TANCZOS: There is some dispute among members as to whether the trend is falling or rising. That is interesting in itself.

One of the interesting things we heard about when we spoke to members of the Abortion Supervisory Committee at the Justice and Electoral Committee was the impact of different cultures. They talked about increasing amounts of immigration from countries where abortion is used more or less as a contraceptive tool, and the way that has changed the statistics, not just in terms of the number of abortions but in terms of the number of abortions that an individual might have. That rate had been increasing over time. It is certainly not generally the practice in this country, but it is something we have to be aware of. When we talk about things like increasing numbers of abortions and the increasing number of abortions that any individual might have, we have to be aware of these factors as well, because otherwise we are liable to look for simplistic answers to things that are a lot more complex than they appear to be on the face of it.

I will finish by stating that the Green Party, as I indicated, is not supporting Peter Brown’s amendment. Nor are we supporting Gordon Copeland’s amendment. We do support the nominations put forward by the Government. We think that those people will acquit themselves well in this role. But, as I said, speaking for myself I do think that sooner or later this Parliament will have to grasp the thistle and have a real look at this issue. It is a difficult and contentious area. Even in the Green Party we have a huge range of views on it in our caucus and our membership. So it is a difficult thing to deal with, but sooner or later will we have to grasp the issue, and that is what we are paid to do; that is our role as MPs. So I look forward to that day.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): To assist the House, I seek leave to table the abortion statistics for 2006, which were released just today by Statistics New Zealand. The statistics show that there has been an increase in the rate of abortions.

Hon Member: What was the number?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Would the member care to explain.

JUDITH COLLINS: It is the increase in the general abortion rate—it has gone from 19.7 per thousand to 20 per thousand of women aged 15 to 44 years.

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

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): I rise to support the Government’s motion to support Professor Jane Holloway, Dr Rosemary Fenwicke, and Patricia Allan of Christchurch as members of the Abortion Supervisory Committee and Professor Holloway as the chairman. To my knowledge, they are all extraordinarily dedicated to the best possible care of women, and all are hugely conscientious in what they do.

I also acknowledge, however, the preparedness not only of them to sit on the committee after several years where there have been only two on the committee, but also the preparedness of Dr Ate Moala and Peter Hall to do the same. I think Tariana Turia mentioned the possibility of having a further member on the committee, and maybe this could be one of the things considered if revision of the law does take place.

One of the hugely contentious areas in this somewhat polarised debate is the tightening up of the law. Having served on the committee for something like 5 years, I was very well aware of the literature. What is known is that wherever there are highly restrictive laws regarding abortion right around the world, there are very high levels of maternal mortality and morbidity. One of the distinctive features in New Zealand, after over something like 25 years of the law being enacted in this country, is that there have been no maternal deaths whatsoever. I agree with Nandor Tanczos entirely that it is very important that safety is paramount. That is one of the tasks that the Abortion Supervisory Committee has to deal with.

I note that in the 2005 report, as I said before, there were only two members on the committee. They somewhat gallantly did the various visits round the clinics. That was expected of them, but they had to work super hard for that. I note also that in that year there was a small decrease in the number of abortions, from the order of about 18,500 to 18,200—far too many for a small country like New Zealand. One of the things they stated in their report was: “The Supervisory Committee reiterates its annual request for a revision of the law.” I think that this is what we have heard in this Parliament today—that there is indeed a case for the law being revised.

If one looks at the 2006 supervisory committee report, one will see that those two members were there again but that this time they said that they were unable to go around and check the facilities around New Zealand. I believe that is very serious. In fact, they stated: “The Supervisory Committee continues to operate with only two members, placing an untenable load on those members.”, and they advised the Speaker of the House that the committee had suspended its schedule of regular visits to institutions. I believe that that was very, very concerning, and I must say that the Minister of Justice probably did not do enough at the time to ensure that there were more people willing to stand on the committee. The report recommended the improvement of quality, and Professor Peter Stone, Professor of Maternal Fetal Medicine at Auckland University was appointed to head a quality improvement unit, along with Miss Simmons. I believe this was a very good and worthwhile thing to do. Again, for a second year running, there was a small diminishment in the number of abortions, but we have just heard that the number has come up again more recently.

It is highly relevant to quote from the 2001 report of the committee because at that time the committee said: “In February 2000 the Committee met with the Hon Phil Goff, Minister of Justice, and in March with the Hon Annette King and were encouraged by their enthusiasm for a review of the abortion law. It was disappointing therefore to learn in November 2000 that the law was not to be reviewed. It is a great pity that the Government and members of Parliament do not wish to recognise that the law that was enacted in 1977 is no longer relevant to women in the 21^st century. To not review the law does the women of New Zealand a disservice.” The committee then went on to say: “The Committee noted in last year’s report that the law is being liberally interpreted and is not working as was originally intended. The Committee does not have the power to alter the situation. Organisations opposed to the way the law is presently being interpreted refuse to accept this fact. Only Parliament can review and change the law. It has been said for many years and, sadly, the Labour Government has not acted on it.”

Even if Parliament is not prepared to change the law, is there one common theme that should drive both sides of this polarised debate, and that is to carry out measures that will minimise New Zealand’s far too high abortion rate. One of the keys to doing that is to have adequate and sensitive women’s and men’s health services in New Zealand where there is a well resourced reproductive health strategy. That means doing things like ensuring lifelong education in biological science, and making sure that people have knowledge of contraceptive methods so that they can carry out wise choices. It means making sure that there are excellent maternity services, that there are safe and accessible abortion services, and, of course, that there is accessibility to sterilisation services, which is not the case in New Zealand today.

One of the things that was particularly characteristic in the Netherlands when its people realised in the 1970s that the liberalisation of abortion laws was inevitable, was that their country, which was Catholic and Calvinistic and had a similar divide of views, spent a huge amount of time and effort in The Hague devising a reproductive health strategy that would serve them in the future. What we know is that whereas New Zealand did not put resources into ensuring an effective and well resourced reproductive health strategy, in the Netherlands they did, and subsequently—their abortion rate has consistently been about a third of our rate. So if there is one thing I would make a plea for, it is to ensure that that reproductive health strategy is well resourced in New Zealand.

It is highly relevant that since the law was enacted almost 30 years ago, we do have safe services in this country. There has not been one maternal death, and that is why it is so important to have professionals who understand what is required to make not only accessibility possible in New Zealand but also to make the services safe.

I must say that the Abortion Supervisory Committee has literally begged the Government, year after year, to be more active in the area of prevention. I very much hope that the committee will succeed in persuading the Government to achieve those aims. The members of the committee have a very difficult task. I trust that they will carry out their task with an overriding concern for the women, children, and families of New Zealand.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): It is a pleasure to stand in support of the recommendation to the Governor-General to appoint Professor Linda Jane Holloway, Dr Rosemary Fenwicke, and Patricia Allan. I believe that they will bring real attributes to the Abortion Supervisory Committee. These are challenging positions that require people of integrity and resilience and with a broad range of skills, and I believe that is what these women present.

Very briefly, I point out that Professor Linda Holloway, amongst her many other attributes, was one of the advisers to Dame Silvia Cartwright during the inquiry into the treatment of cervical cancer at National Women’s Hospital. Dr Rosie Fenwicke worked for the Family Planning Association and has a broad range of skills. I think that with her background in family planning she will bring much skill to the council. Patricia Allan has over 20 years’ experience in either church or council-funded social services or ministry roles. I believe that that diverse range of skills will be an asset to the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

I also recognise and acknowledge the previous speakers, in terms of the journey around choice for women and their acknowledgment of the need for that. I particularly recognise and pay tribute to those women in our history who campaigned long and hard for our women’s right to choose. Those women were true pioneers, and I think it is really important to acknowledge in this House their contribution to the safety of women. I also acknowledge our society, which by a vast majority is a progressive society that has seen the need for change in the past and has supported it.

The issue of abortion is about choice. It is not about being pro-abortion; it is about being pro-choice. I want to acknowledge any woman, any relationship, and any family who has had to make that difficult and heart-rending decision. It is not a decision that is easy, it is not a decision that is made lightly, and it is probably not a decision that is ever forgotten. But by restricting access to safe abortion, we would see in our society, in our communities, exactly the opposite of that. We would see unsafe abortion, and if we look at our not too distant past, that is exactly what we see: backstreet abortions, and women’s lives put at risk and lost through unsafe practices.

In fact, other choices are important too. Women today need to be economically secure and to be secure in their careers when they make their decisions about having children—when families make those decisions. They need to know that their children will get the best opportunities in life, and that is important to them when making those decisions. This Government has been committed to supporting families to do just that. Through paid parental leave, women can now know that they will have the security of 14 weeks at home with their baby, with an income, to ensure that they bond with their baby and, in most instances, establish breastfeeding. That is really important. The introduction of paid parental leave in New Zealand under the Labour-led Government went a long way towards ensuring not only that children get the best start in life, but also that women have real choices about bringing children into the world and raising them in the best way possible.

I also want to acknowledge Working for Families. Again, Working for Families has given choices and security to families with children. So often, families were in a position where they wanted to have children but they really could not afford to. Maybe hard decisions were made because of the inability to support another child in a family and to have one of the people in the relationship not working. Working for Families has brought much more security and opportunity, in terms of supporting families in that situation by providing income through tax credits to them. I am really proud of this Government and very, very proud of the Working for Families policy. It is a family-friendly policy, as is 4 weeks’ leave and encouraging flexible working hours. All of those things go towards ensuring that our children have the best possible opportunities and the best possible security in the home, and that families are able to feel more secure in providing for them.

I also see as important the Government’s commitment to ensuring that education is out there in the community, in the schools, or in the churches—wherever it is necessary—in order to ensure that pregnancies are not unwanted, if I can use that term, or not seen as a mistake or an error, but, rather, are planned. Certainly, through the education of our young people—and of our not-so-young people—about the choices, whether they be the contraception, or the safe sex, or the no sex messages, all of those messages are going out to our young people through the programmes, such as our peer sexuality programme, that have been introduced into schools by the Labour-led Government. Those are all really good, progressive programmes that one would hope would help people to avoid having to make really difficult decisions because they have not had the knowledge to avoid being in a position where a pregnancy would be, perhaps, detrimental, or where continuing with a pregnancy could be very detrimental, to their mental health and their security.

So, I am very proud to take a call on this issue. I acknowledge other speakers, and, once again, I endorse the support for Professor Linda Holloway, for Dr Rosemary Fenwicke, and for Patricia Allan as members of the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): I am delighted to speak to the Government motion No. 1. I will be voting against both amendments and voting for the original nominees: Professor Linda Holloway, Dr Rosemary Fenwicke, and Patricia Allan. All nominees, including those nominated by Gordon Copeland and by New Zealand First, sound as if they have excellent credentials and I am sure they would do an excellent job, but I will be supporting the original three nominations. The appointees to this position should be made on ability, professionalism, and the ability to have impartial and objective views, and I believe all three candidates have those abilities. I know Dr Rosemary Fenwicke personally and professionally. She is a fine woman and she will bring professionalism to that job. I support her nomination absolutely.

The Abortion Supervisory Committee has a very serious role, which is to license institutions and to appoint certifying consultants to consider cases. I was very concerned, like my colleague Bill English, to note that the appointment of the Abortion Supervisory Committee is very overdue. Indeed, we had the resignation of Marlene Lamb in 2005, and more recently the remaining members, Dr Papaarangi Reid and Dr Lesley Rothwell, both resigned in March 2007. Dr Lesley Rothwell was reported as saying that, in giving 3 months’ notice, she felt there was plenty of time to find suitable candidates. I think it is a disgrace that we have had to wait so long to get these appointments in discussion today. The Government has had plenty of notice.

This debate is about the appointment of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, but, obviously, it has widened into other areas. The abortion rate, I have heard, has risen, then fallen, and has slightly risen in the numbers announced today. In contrast, teenage pregnancy rates are increasing. The highest rates of abortion, interestingly, are women in their early 20s. They have higher rates of abortion than teenage women. I refer members to the Youth Sexual Health: “Our Health, Our Issue” publication, produced by the New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development, which states that there are still obvious problems with, and barriers to, accessing abortions, such as doctors refusing to refer women, some district health boards not providing abortions, and time delay between referral and termination. Medical abortion is available in only two locations, and of real concern is the large number of abortions carried out past 8 weeks.

Abortion is a reality, unfortunately; it is here to stay. I was a general practitioner for some time, and it is the worst decision a woman would have to face in her life. Women never enter into it lightly. We need to put much greater efforts into educating our young people so they can have the confidence to make the decisions and the right choices. It is about providing sexual education to our young people, and providing access to contraception.

I would like to see much more comprehensive reports from this committee. When I tried to find the latest reports, all I found was a paragraph in the two previous annual reports. I support the right of any New Zealand woman to have an abortion in absolutely safe conditions, and I support the ongoing role of this committee and the three nominees. Thank you.

ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast): I stand here today to speak to the motion before the House to appoint the new Abortion Supervisory Committee. It is a very difficult thing, actually, to speak to this motion. It is a difficult issue and a very complex one. I have to say I am quite surprised; I thought there would be much more contentious debate. Perhaps it is a sign of the times—that we have all moved through two decades of changes in attitudes in our society.

I have always been in favour of women having the ability to make a choice about what happens to them when they fall pregnant, and whether that pregnancy continues. But that has always been tempered with the fact that it is not just their decision, and it does not affect just the individual who is pregnant; it can affect whole families, and I think—as we are beginning to understand—it can have long-reaching effects on a young woman’s life.

I note that Professor Fergusson in Christchurch has, with his longitudinal study, been looking at the effects of abortion on young women—especially on women younger than 21 years. He came to a number of interesting conclusions, not the least being that we need more research on the long-term effects of abortion on teenaged girls in particular. In the results that he published he talks about how an abortion, for that particular group of women, can certainly have an effect on their educational attainments. Of course, that can then have a profound effect on the course of their lives thereafter. He states in his report that the analysis “suggests that abortion may mitigate some of the educational disadvantages that have been linked to early pregnancy, but that similar benefits are not evident for economic or partnership outcomes.” His report goes on to state: “The discrepancies between these findings and the rhetoric of both pro-life and pro-choice arguments strongly underlines the need for further research into the risks …”.

I have had in my offices in Gisborne and Whakatāne groups of people—mainly women, and mainly older women—concerned about the long-term effects of abortion on young New Zealand women, and, more important, concerned about the growing number of repeat abortions for young women. They are having to make that dreadful decision more than once, then live with the consequences.

It is disappointing to see that the statistics for abortion released today again show an increase. In the past 2 years we have seen the numbers increase; they have not been huge increases—400 in a year is not an enormous increase—but they are a reversal of the trend that we were seeing in the years 2003 and 2004. For 2005 and 2006 we have seen the numbers start to increase again.

When I stood in this House in 2001, the last time that we voted on the Abortion Supervisory Committee, I made the point that the great pity for me was that we were not standing in the House debating the reasons why so many—almost 18,000—women were having abortions. We were talking about the supervisory committee, about the overseeing of that, rather than about the causes. It is time we thought about what has reversed that decline in numbers, what brings 18,000 people to have to terminate a pregnancy, and what it is in our communities that drives women to that pretty drastic conclusion. I find it ironic that 6 years later I am still asking the same questions, and I do not think this House, in the intervening years, has actually had a debate on those issues.

I will be supporting the amendment put forward by Gordon Copeland to this House today, but I will not be supporting the amendment from Peter Brown. Should both of those fail, I will be supporting the Government’s motion. It is important that we have a supervisory committee in place, and it is important that we have a supervisory committee that carries out the requirements of the law. I look forward to this House receiving and discussing reports from this committee about how we can ensure that the law is properly applied. I personally think it is well overdue for that debate to happen. If we have laws in place, we must, as a Parliament, demand that they are adhered to and that the people we put in place to oversee that carry out our instructions. I will not say any more than that, other than to reiterate my concern that nearly 18,000 women have had to seek terminations in this country in the last 12 months.

I think it is time we started to grapple with the underlying issues for women in our community that drive them to such a dramatic decision, as it is something that has the ability to affect them throughout the next 50-odd years of their lives. On that note, I reiterate that I will be supporting Gordon Copeland’s amendment, or, should that fail, the Government’s motion.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the motion be amended by omitting the words “Dr Rosemary Jane Fenwicke of Wellington”, and substituting the words “Dr Ate Moala of Wellington”.

Ayes 36

Ardern (P)	Copeland	Mapp (P)	Turia (P)
Bennett P	English	Mark (P)	Turner (P)
Blumsky (P)	Finlayson (P)	Peachey (P)
Borrows (P)	Flavell (P)	Peters (P)
Brown	Goodhew (P)	Power (P)
Brownlee (P)	Groser (P)	Roy E (P)
Carter D (P)	Guy	Ryall (P)
Carter J	Harawira	Simich
Clarkson (P)	Hayes	Smith N (P)
Collins (P)	Heatley (P)	Stewart (P)	Teller:
Connell (P)	Henare	te Heuheu (P)	Tolley

Noes 81

Auchinvole (P)	Fenton (P)	Locke (P)	Swain (P)
Barker (P)	Fitzsimons (P)	Mackey (P)	Tanczos (P)
Bennett D (P)	Foss (P)	Maharey (P)	Tisch (P)
Benson-Pope (P)	Gallagher	Mahuta (P)	Tizard (P)
Blue	Goff (P)	Mallard (P)	Tremain (P)
Bradford (P)	Gosche (P)	McCully (P)	Turei (P)
Burton	Goudie (P)	Moroney (P)	Wagner
Carter C (P)	Hartley (P)	O’Connor (P)	Wilkinson
Chadwick (P)	Hawkins (P)	Okeroa	Williamson
Chauvel	Hereora (P)	Paraone (P)	Wilson (P)
Choudhary (P)	Hide (P)	Parker (P)	Wong (P)
Clark (P)	Hobbs (P)	Pettis (P)	Woolerton (P)
Coleman (P)	Hodgson (P)	Pillay	Worth (P)
Cosgrove	Horomia	Rich (P)	Yates (P)
Cullen	Hughes	Ririnui (P)
Cunliffe (P)	Hutchison (P)	Robertson (P)
Dalziel (P)	Jones (P)	Roy H
Donnelly (P)	Kedgley	Samuels (P)
Dunne (P)	Key (P)	Shanks
Duynhoven	King A	Smith L (P)
Dyson (P)	King C (P)	Soper	Teller:
Fairbrother (P)	Laban (P)	Street (P)	Barnett

Amendment not agreed to.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the motion be amended by omitting the words “Patricia Ann Allan of Christchurch”, and substituting the words “Dr Peter Hall of Whangaparāoa”.

Ayes 29

Bennett P (P)	Foss (P)	Peters (P)	Wagner (P)
Borrows (P)	Goodhew (P)	Roy E (P)	Wong (P)
Carter J	Guy	Ryall (P)	Woolerton (P)
Collins (P)	Heatley (P)	Smith L	Worth (P)
Copeland	Key (P)	Smith N (P)
Donnelly (P)	Mapp (P)	Stewart (P)
English	Mark (P)	te Heuheu (P)	Teller
Finlayson (P)	Paraone (P)	Tremain (P)	Brown

Noes 76

Auchinvole (P)	Fairbrother (P)	King A	Simich
Barker (P)	Fenton (P)	Laban (P)	Soper
Benson-Pope (P)	Fitzsimons (P)	Locke (P)	Street (P)
Blue	Flavell (P)	Mackey (P)	Swain (P)
Blumsky (P)	Gallagher	Maharey (P)	Tanczos (P)
Bradford (P)	Goff (P)	Mahuta (P)	Tisch (P)
Burton	Gosche (P)	Mallard (P)	Tizard (P)
Carter C (P)	Harawira	Moroney (P)	Tolley (P)
Chadwick (P)	Hartley (P)	O’Connor (P)	Turei (P)
Chauvel	Hawkins (P)	Okeroa	Turia (P)
Choudhary (P)	Hayes	Parker (P)	Turner (P)
Clark (P)	Henare	Peachey (P)	Wilkinson
Clarkson (P)	Hereora (P)	Pettis (P)	Williamson
Cosgrove	Hide (P)	Pillay	Wilson (P)
Cullen	Hobbs (P)	Power (P)	Yates (P)
Cunliffe (P)	Hodgson (P)	Ririnui (P)
Dalziel (P)	Horomia	Robertson (P)
Dunne (P)	Hughes	Roy H
Duynhoven	Jones	Samuels	Teller:
Dyson (P)	Kedgley	Shanks	Barnett

Amendment not agreed to.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That pursuant to sections 10 and 11 of the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977, this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General appoint Professor Linda Jane Holloway DCNZM of Dunedin, Dr Rosemary Jane Fenwicke of Wellington, and Patricia Ann Allan of Christchurch, as members of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, and appoint Professor Linda Jane Holloway as Chairman of the Supervisory Committee.

Ayes 102

Ardern (P)	Fairbrother (P)	King A	Smith N (P)
Auchinvole (P)	Fenton (P)	King C	Soper
Barker (P)	Fitzsimons (P)	Laban (P)	Street (P)
Bennett D (P)	Flavell (P)	Locke (P)	Swain (P)
Bennett P (P)	Foss (P)	Mackey (P)	Tanczos (P)
Benson-Pope (P)	Gallagher	Maharey (P)	te Heuheu (P)
Blue (P)	Goff (P)	Mahuta (P)	Tisch (P)
Blumsky (P)	Goodhew (P)	Mallard (P)	Tizard (P)
Borrows (P)	Gosche (P)	Mapp (P)	Tolley (P)
Bradford (P)	Goudie (P)	McCully (P)	Tremain (P)
Burton	Groser (P)	Moroney (P)	Turei (P)
Carter C (P)	Guy	O’Connor (P)	Turia (P)
Carter D (P)	Harawira	Okeroa	Turner (P)
Chadwick	Hartley (P)	Parker (P)	Wagner (P)
Chauvel	Hawkins (P)	Peachey (P)	Wilkinson
Choudhary (P)	Hayes (P)	Pettis (P)	Williamson
Clark (P)	Henare	Pillay	Wilson (P)
Clarkson (P)	Hereora (P)	Power (P)	Wong (P)
Coleman (P)	Hide (P)	Rich (P)	Worth (P)
Connell (P)	Hobbs (P)	Ririnui (P)	Yates (P)
Cosgrove	Hodgson (P)	Robertson (P)
Cullen	Horomia	Roy H
Cunliffe (P)	Hughes	Ryall (P)
Dalziel (P)	Hutchison (P)	Samuels
Dunne (P)	Jones	Shanks
Duynhoven	Kedgley	Simich	Teller:
Dyson (P)	Key (P)	Smith L (P)	Barnett

Noes 11

Brown	English	Peters (P)
Brownlee (P)	Finlayson	Roy E (P)
Carter J	Heatley (P)		Teller:
Copeland	Mark (P)		Collins

Abstentions 5

Dean (P)	Donnelly (P)	Paraone (P)	Stewart (P)
Woolerton (P)

Motion agreed to.

Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill

First Reading

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. It is my intention to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Seditious offences in New Zealand are contained in sections 81 to 85 of the Crimes Act 1961. The offences cover making or publishing a statement that expresses a seditious intention, conspiring with a seditious intention, and using apparatus for making seditious documents or statements. The offences hinge on there being a seditious intention. That is defined extremely broadly in the Crimes Act. It is an intention to: “(a) bring into hatred or contempt, or to excite disaffection against, Her Majesty, or the Government of New Zealand, or the administration of justice; or (b) to incite the public or any persons or class of persons to attempt to procure otherwise than by lawful means the alteration of any matter affecting the Constitution, laws, or Government of New Zealand; or (c) to incite, procure, or encourage violence, lawlessness, or disorder; or (d) to incite, procure, or encourage the commission of any offence that is prejudicial to the public safety or to the maintenance of public order; or (e) to excite such hostility or ill will between different classes of persons as may endanger the public safety.”

In July 2006, I say with some relief, the Law Commission was asked to review the seditious offences in the Act and to make any recommendations for reform that were deemed necessary or desirable. The Law Commission, in its very thorough report reforming the law of sedition, concludes that seditious offences are overly broad and uncertain. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Law Commission for its comprehensive report and to note that the compelling arguments put forward in the report have already attracted, deservedly, wide support. The Government has considered the Law Commission’s report, and has tabled its response when this bill was introduced. This bill is part of that response, and it will repeal and not replace sections 81 to 85 of the Act, which set out, as I mentioned earlier, the seditious offences.

The Government agrees with the Law Commission’s finding that the present law of sedition attacks the democratic value of free speech, for no adequate public reason. In addition to the sedition laws being broad and uncertain, the meaning of sedition has changed over time. The provisions infringe on the principle of freedom of expression and have the potential for abuse. Specifically, the present law falls foul of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Behaviour covered by the sedition laws that still needs to be criminalised can be more appropriately dealt with by other provisions of the criminal law. Offences relevant to sedition are dealt with in other statutes, including the Summary Offences Act, other provisions of the Crimes Act, and the Terrorism Suppression Act.

Accordingly, I commend this bill to the House.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National): National supports this bill’s referral to a select committee. I am delighted to hear that it will come to the Justice and Electoral Committee, chaired by the very diligent and hard-working member for Waitakere. This bill is a very interesting one, and I certainly look forward to working on the legislation. I too commend the Law Commission for its report. It is both very interesting and very readable. I want to say a number of things about sedition and some of the more interesting cases about sedition in this country over the last few years.

The word “sedition” comes from the Latin “seditio”, and in Roman times that meant an insurrectionary separation, either political or military, civil discord, insurrection, and mutiny, and it has been in English law for many hundreds of years. For example, the English Statute of Treasons in 1351 defined many types of offences against the king as treasonable, and in 1447 the courts held that to prognosticate or predict the king’s death using magic was treason. As one would expect, in the reign of Henry VIII the definition of treason was greatly expanded, and an Act in 1534 declared that it was treason to act or write anything to the prejudice, slander, or disturbance of the king’s marriage to Anne Boleyn. Thankfully, by the 19^th century there was a more liberal and democratic political environment in England and a changed view of the rights of citizens to express free criticism of the Government. However, even in England today sedition is still a common law offence, and, indeed, in recent times the High Court of that country has confirmed that the law still applies to views expressed with a seditious intention.

In New Zealand the law has been with us for many years—indeed since the Criminal Code Act of 1893, although, of course, when we became a colony we inherited British common law. The law on sedition was again set out in the Crimes Act of 1908, and I will not go through that now. In 1951 sedition also became an offence under the Police Offences Amendment Act. It was punishable on summary conviction by a term of imprisonment of up to 3 months—and, of course, that coincided with the 1951 waterfront strike.

It is important, in a speech such as this, to recount some of the interesting prosecutions. Probably the most obnoxious case was that brought by the Crown against Te Whiti. As we all know because we debated the Ngāti Mutunga claims settlement legislation last year, Te Whiti had established a movement for Māori peace and development at Parihaka, and led a campaign of passive and peaceful resistance to Māori land confiscations. The following words got him into trouble: “This is the chief quarrel of this generation. … Mine is the land from the beginning. I say to all Kings, Governors, Prophets and wise men stand up with your weapons to-day, but the land will not be released.” For that, he was punished in a most horrendous manner.

Interestingly, the history of sedition in the 20^th century is really the history of the Labour Party. In 1913 Harry Holland, who is buried not far from here in the Bolton Street cemetery, made a speech at a strike of waterfront workers in Wellington. He said: “The railway men should not carry free labourers. Let the trains rot and rust.”—in fact, that sounds rather like Fay Richwhite when it ran the railways—“The strike was not made by the working classes, but by the master classes, who are pouring their armed hundreds into Wellington”. For that, he was convicted and he served 3½ months of the 12 months’ sentence originally imposed on him.

During World War I sedition charges were laid against Bob Semple, a former member for Wellington East; James Thorn, who was Peter Fraser’s biographer; and Peter Fraser himself, for speeches made in relation to their opposition to conscription under the Military Service Act. Later on, in 1917, a gentleman by the name of Hubert Armstrong, who was a miner and later a Minister in the first Labour Government, was prosecuted for an anti-conscription speech. In 1921 former Prime Minister Walter Nash was charged with bringing into New Zealand a document entitled The Communist Programme of World Revolution and a communist pamphlet, both of which were said to encourage lawlessness. He was fined ₤5. Incredibly, the same pamphlet was later discovered in the Parliamentary Library.

One of the more interesting cases was in 1922, when the Roman Catholic Bishop of Auckland, Bishop Liston, was charged with sedition for inciting disaffection against His Majesty and for promoting hostility between different classes of subjects when he spoke at a St Patrick’s Day gathering in Auckland and commemorated those who died for a free Ireland in 1916 when shot or murdered by foreign troops. He was tried but was acquitted, because he had recounted what was essentially historical fact. I always thought that Prime Minister Massey and Attorney-General Francis Dillon Bell were behind the prosecution of Bishop Liston, but if one reads the excellent text by Nicholas Reid published last year, one finds it suggests that that is not so, and in fact, that the prosecution was incited by the New Zealand Herald, which, of course, would be one of the parties that today would be very much in favour of the law against sedition going, and also by the former Mayor of Auckland. Interestingly, as an aside—given the events of the last week—at his trial, his Lordship was represented by Mr P J O’Regan of that great firm now known as O’Regan Arndt Peters and Young, one of whose partners today is Garry Evans, who has been such a distinguished coroner in Wellington and who has been treated so shabbily in recent days by the Attorney-General, which is what one expects from that miserable soul.

So in the past, sedition charges were brought against Māori, Labour Party MPs and supporters, and Catholics. But then, in 2006, there was a very sinister development, because in that year Tim Selwyn of Auckland was prosecuted for sedition—among other charges—following emails that called for militant action against the Government’s foreshore and seabed legislation, an attack with an axe that broke the glass of the Prime Minister’s electorate office window, and the publication of two sets of pamphlets. The jury found the accused guilty, and he was sentenced to prison. In essence, he was charged with sedition because he had offended the person of the Prime Minister, and that really is a very sinister development.

That is why I maintain the House needs to review this legislation—because who will be next? I am surprised, for example, that in 2003 the MP for Taranaki - King Country was not prosecuted for sedition for driving Myrtle up the steps of Parliament, an action described by Speaker Hunt as “a serious assault on the institution of Parliament”. One would have thought poor old Shane Ardern was Guy Fawkes. Will the Minister of Defence be prosecuted for sedition when he challenges the Prime Minister for the leadership of the Labour Party? In the dying days of this horrible Government, anyone who dissents is at risk. These are dangerous and oppressive times to be a New Zealander, so let us get this legislation to the select committee before the Government changes its mind and realises what a wonderful instrument the law against sedition is for torturing anyone who dissents.

National will support the first reading of this bill and its referral to the select committee, which I am delighted to see will be the Justice and Electoral Committee. I can see a look of delight on the face of the member for Waitakere, because she, of course, chairs it. We are all very keen to have this issue carefully addressed. As I say, the sooner the bill gets to the select committee the better it will be, because I am scared of what this Government is capable of doing in the dying days of that wretched, horrible lot. The sooner we get this legislation enacted, the better it will be.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere): It is a pleasure to speak in support of this Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill. Like Mr Finlayson, I will be delighted when it comes to the hard-working Justice and Electoral Committee for scrutiny.

The essence of the seditious offences outlined in the Crimes Act 1961 is the making or publishing of a statement with a seditious intent. But a seditious intention can range from inciting disaffection against the Queen or the New Zealand Government, to inciting lawlessness generally, or to inciting “ill will between different classes of people as may endanger the public safety.” I commend the Law Commission for the good work it did in October 2006 on its consultation document on reforming the law of sedition. It then published its report, which advocated repeal of sedition law; it came through in March 2007. This Labour-led Government agrees—as do, I believe, all parties—with the recommendation and sentiments of the Law Commission’s report.

The heart of the case against having the offence of sedition lies in the protection of freedom of expression, particularly of political expression and its place in our democracy. People may hold and express strong and dissenting views, and, in fact, they do. Those views may be both unpopular and unreasonable. But such expressions should not be branded as criminal simply because they involve political opposition to the Government and authority. Where the protection of public order or the preservation of the constitution of the Government are at stake, other, much more appropriate criminal offences can be used to prosecute such offending behaviour. The offence of sedition, as it stands now, infringes on the principle of freedom of expression, and it has the potential for abuse—a potential that has been realised in some periods of our history, which other speakers will outline, when it has been used to stifle or punish political speech. In our democracy, which we hold dear, where the people govern themselves, it is hard—in fact, impossible—to see how or why speech uttered against the Government should be a crime. That should not be the case in a country that values, as we do, free speech, and that values the ability of people to have their political views and speak them very freely.

I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill, and I commend it to the House.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National): We have just heard a splendid speech from Mr Finlayson, and I would like to add to some of his comments.

I shall start by indicating that National of course supports the passage of this Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee. As Mr Finlayson said, the offence of sedition has an ancient and unsatisfactory history. That was certainly the view that the Law Commission took, because it stated in its report, which calls for the abolition of the offence, that it was appropriate that it be removed from the statute book. There is nothing very complicated about this legislation. It covers only a few short pages and simply repeals a small chunk of the Crimes Act.

One of the things the commission did say was that the law of sedition had “virtually fallen into disuse in almost all countries with which New Zealand compares itself.” It had fallen into disuse here until 2006, when, as Mr Finlayson has reminded us, Timothy Selwyn was prosecuted, and I might come back to that in a moment if there is time. That case certainly demonstrated that there was a clear case to review the existence of that particular crime on our statute book.

In the foreword to the report of the Law Commission, Sir Geoffrey Palmer said that most people probably associated the word “sedition” with revolutionary statements encouraging revolt, insurrection, and public riot against lawful authority. The reality is, though, that in New Zealand the sedition offences in the Crimes Act 1961 are a great deal wider than that. A seditious intention can range from exciting disaffection against the Queen or the New Zealand Government, to inciting lawlessness generally, or to exciting “ill will between different classes of people as may endanger the public safety.” I think that is why Sir Geoffrey said that the commission had concluded that the width of the offences meant they were an unjustifiable breach of the right of freedom of expression, and, to use his phrase, “linguistic over-inclusiveness” of sedition meant that the offences lacked clarity.

So we have a situation where there is quite clearly, as Mr Finlayson said, the potential for misuse. We can, as a matter of history, look back at what has occurred in New Zealand to see circumstances where the offence-creating provisions have been inappropriately used in times of political unrest, and where perceived threats to established authority have been considered to prompt the intervention of these particular criminal offences. They have been used to fetter vehement and unpopular speech. I support those who would argue that the time has come to remove the sedition offences from the New Zealand statute book.

In a free and democratic society, defaming the Government is the right of every citizen. In times beset with threats of terrorism, we should not close the open society. To do that would only encourage its enemies. In New Zealand, free speech and public debate must be uninhibited, robust, and wide open, and may include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on the Government and public officials, as Justice Brennan of the United States Supreme Court once put it.

Others have said, and it is right to say this, that the provisions of sections 81 to 85 of the Crimes Act, concerning sedition, fall foul of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Mr Finlayson has helpfully indicated to us how the term “sedition” was derived from the Latin word. No finer person could give us that explanation, given the work he has done under the Pope’s Latinist, in the very heart of the Catholic Church, in Rome.

He also spoke about the English Statute of Treasons 1351, which defined many types of offences against the King as treasonable, and was increasingly invoked in ever-widening circumstances to prosecute people who spoke or wrote in opposition to the King, the Government, people in positions of authority, or public institutions.

Of course, we inherited the British common law on sedition. It was codified in the criminal code of 1893, and set out again, with varied wording, in the Crimes Act 1908—when that massive consolidation of statutes occurred—the Police Offences Amendment Act 1951, and now in the Crimes Act 1961.

During World War I, regulations forbade anyone having or distributing documents that expressed any seditious intention. Prison terms for sedition, some with hard labour, were imposed on six men, including, as Mr Finlayson has said, Peter Fraser and Bob Semple—who were Prime Minister and Minister of Works respectively in the first Labour Government—for their opposition to conscription during the war.

Christopher Finlayson: Real Labour Party people!

Dr RICHARD WORTH: Real Labour Party people, as Mr Finlayson said. He gave a number of examples. I will not repeat them, but he did speak about the Reverend James Chapple. He spoke about another Prime Minister to be, Walter Nash. He might have spoken about Edward Hunter, who, speaking on behalf of striking miners in 1913, said: “If they”—meaning the establishment—“want a revolution, they can have it. If they force it on us, they can have a revolution.” He was convicted of uttering seditious words and sentenced to 12 months’ probation. Then, of course, in 1922 the Catholic Bishop of Auckland, James Liston, was charged with sedition, He was discharged by a jury after a hearing in the then Supreme Court.

There have been others. The Māori leaders Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kākahi were charged with sedition as a consequence of their opposition to 19^th century land confiscations by the colonial Government. After four days of hearing, the trial was postponed and it was never resumed. The Crown prosecutors concluded that their case was weak, and reports of the 1881 meeting at which seditious statements were allegedly made were garbled. However, both men were detained for a lengthy period under the West Coast Peace Preservation Act 1882, an Act that provided that neither man should be tried for the offence with which he had been charged, but that allowed both men to be detained indefinitely, as the Government thought fit.

Then there was the clash in 1916 between the Tūhoe followers of the prophet Rua Kēnana and the police. Rua was arrested and prosecuted for sedition. There was conflicting evidence over what Rua had said, and he was acquitted on the sedition charge but found guilty of resisting arrest.

After that substantial lapse of time we come to 2006, when Tim Selwyn faced a number of charges, including sedition, after sending emails calling for militant action against the Government’s foreshore and seabed legislation, smashing the Prime Minister’s electoral office window, and publishing two sets of pamphlets. He was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment for an unrelated, fraud-related offence, with a cumulative sentence of 2 months for criminal damage, conspiracy, and publishing a seditious statement.

We have seen, in some of the examples that Mr Finlayson and myself have given in the short comments we have made, examples of attempts to control debate, of attempts to challenge expression of political ideas and their consequences, by law. The breadth of the definition of seditious intention means that seditious offences can be used to punish political speech that is, essentially, against Government policy, and not simply used to prevent violence. It raises the real possibility of use of the sedition provisions in breach of freedom of expression.

I have made some brief comments about the content of the bill. It is only 6 clauses long. It has a title clause and a commencement provision, then has two parts.

RON MARK (NZ First): There are 5 minutes to go, and let us see whether we cannot make this brief. Members have just heard two of the members of the House who are most highly regarded for their legal backgrounds read their speeches directly out of the Auckland District Law Society issue No. 20. There was nothing original. It was all written by someone else, and it was read out, virtually word for word, by Chris Finlayson and the doctor—Dr Richard Worth.

Christopher Finlayson: Wrong, as usual!

RON MARK: Well, we will take the Hansard of the two members and compare them line by line, paragraph by paragraph. At least Christopher Finlayson varied from the paragraph by paragraph summation from the Auckland District Law Society—some originality was injected. But Dr Worth? My golly, what are we paying him for? Is it to come to this House and read out someone else’s work? Where is the originality, where is the passion, and where is the knowledge? What we simply have is a lazy man who is well known for going to Cairo and riding camels when he should be attending veterans’ day parades at El Alamein. That is what we have in Dr Worth.

Who the heck are any of them to talk? Talk about punishing people for freedom of speech! Those members should talk to me about Brian Connell. National members should talk to me when they get on their high horses and espouse these principles about protecting democracy and freedom of speech. They should talk to me about Brian Connell. Brian Connell did nothing more than ask an honest question of a dishonest man, and he got an honest answer. Every National Party man who sits in these seats today enjoying National’s rise in the polls gets that on the back of Brian Connell—let there be no mistake. But where is he? He is out in the wilderness. He has been banished for ever. He is in isolation—dismissed from his party and dismissed from his caucus because he dared to question the leader. Chris Finlayson and Dr Worth should not come into this House—

Nathan Guy: Were you there?

RON MARK: I expect more from the whip Nathan Guy. He is from the Manawatū. He is a renowned rugby player. He is a man who is talked highly of for his integrity. I tell Nathan not to sit there and spoil his reputation by defending that. That is an abomination on democracy. That is the worst example of how to treat someone who is “seditious” that I have ever seen in my 11—coming up to 12—years in this House. It is surpassed only by the way National dealt with one other man who was deemed to be seditious—Winston Peters. We know the reality of the National Party. That team can talk it up big over there, but their track record stinks—stinks! New Zealand First will say this. We are suspicious of the Crimes (Repeal of Seditious Offences) Amendment Bill. We have yet to be convinced that there is a need for it. We know what has happened in the UK with mullahs and clerics and Muslims inciting sedition through seditious preaching. We need to be convinced that the laws as they exist are capable of dealing with those issues, so we will wait and see.

We will vote for this legislation to go to a select committee, but we give no guarantees. Indeed, here is the great irony. Every example given by the Auckland District Law Society and parroted by the previous two National speakers actually says that those people were charged for inciting violence, rioting, and threatening death. The only exception is the Māori people who are mentioned in here, and they did not get sentenced; the court case did not resume. The Government of the day used other legislation—not this legislation—to improperly imprison Te Whiti Orongomai and Tohu Kakahi. It was not this legislation that did it; it was other legislation. To misrepresent the facts in such a way only reinforces, I guess, National members’ interesting comments. One must consider this when one looks at how they have treated Brian Connell—the seditious MP from Rakaia.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.