Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) : I move, That the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the committee reports back to the House finally on or before 11 June 2012 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 188, 190(a), and 191(1)(b) and (c).

The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005, passed by the previous Labour Government, ensures that awards of financial compensation are made to prisoners only in extraordinary circumstances where no other remedy is deemed appropriate. Prisoners are required to make use of the many existing complaint mechanisms that are available to them, before they seek compensation through the courts. The financial compensation must be awarded. The Act requires that deductions are made first by the Secretary for Justice to pay legal aid debts, reparation, and earlier orders in favour of victims. The Act then allows victims of the prisoner to claim against the money through a simplified victims’ claims process.

The Act contains two sunset clauses that are due to take effect on 1 July 2012. Sunset clauses are effectively expiry dates for the Act. The first sunset clause provides for the expiry of the restrictions on awards of compensation. The second provides a cut-off date for compensation awarded to prisoners to be subject to the deductions and victims’ claims process. This bill extends the application of the Act for 1 year. The sunset clauses are amended so that they will now take effect on 1 July 2013.

The bill will bridge the gap between the expiry of the current Act and progressing the Government’s policy to redirect prisoner compensation to fund services for victims. The Government’s policy to redirect compensation requires any prisoner compensation remaining after the victims’ claim process is used to fund services and programmes for victims of crime. The existing victims’ claim process will also be made permanent. Legislation to make the Act permanent and to implement the Government’s redirection policy is currently before Parliament. However, there is insufficient time for that legislation to pass through its stages before the imminent expiry of the current regime on 30 June. I also believe that it is important for that redirection bill to be fully considered by a select committee before it is passed. It is important that there is adequate time for all members of the public who want to, to have their say, and for as much cross-party support as possible, and I intend to fully consult with other parties in Parliament as to how that might happen.

If the current Act expires before the redirection bill comes into effect a window of opportunity will be created. It would mean that the restrictions on awards of compensation, the deductions, and the simplified victims’ claims process do not apply to any prisoners’ claims that are lodged. There would be a clear incentive for potential claimants to file their claims during this window to try to defeat the purpose of the current regime and the future redirection regime. The new bill will prevent the unfair window of opportunity from occurring that would disadvantage victims of crime.

To ensure the status quo and the laws governing prisoner compensation it is important that this bill be considered promptly by a select committee and reported back to this House by 11 June 2012 so that it can be in effect by 30 June. The new bill maintains the status quo until we implement our redirection policy later this year. It will ensure that the current restrictions on awards and deductions continue. It will also ensure that victims continue to have access to any financial compensation awarded to prisoners. I commend this bill to the House.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : I am going to take a short call on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill to respond to what the Minister of Justice has just told the House. The first thing that it is important to say is that the substantive legislation responded to at least a perceived need at the time. But clearly it was an experimental piece of legislation, and if the House needs any evidence for that, in addition to the speeches that were given at the time concerning what is now the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act, then it simply needs to look at the fact that a sunset clause was applied to that legislation. Clearly the House’s intention was that there would be a review of whether or not the substantive Act had merit, and whether or not it was required to continue past the date of the sunset clause, either in full or with modification, based on experience with the legislation.

Well, it is instructive to look at experience with the legislation. There is a special procedure set out under the Act for victims’ claims in the particular context that this Act deals with. In response to a written question from me, the Minister’s office has indicated that that procedure has been invoked precisely one time—on one occasion since the Act came into force. So it has to be said that the case for the Act has proved to be, despite the apparent need at the time for some sort of measure, somewhat questionable.

I have some sympathy for the position that the Minister is in. Clearly, because there was a sunset clause expressed in the principal Act, it was intended that there should be a review of the Act prior to us getting anywhere near the date that the sunset clause would be triggered, but no review was commissioned by the Government. And I think that I do not need to say anything about what that says about the record of the Minister’s predecessor and his conduct of the portfolio—we are where we are. The review was not commenced and now the sunset clause is about to take effect.

So the question is what ought Parliament to do. There are a couple of alternatives. We could allow the Act to expire and review the situation to which it applies, consider whether or not special legislation is required and apply it, or simply allow the Act to fall into abeyance. Or we could do what the Minister proposes, which is to extend the existing legislation for a period of time and allow the review that should have been commissioned a good year or so ago to now occur.

The Minister has consulted me. She has given me some assurances in writing about the short period of time for which there will be an extension of the legislation. And I have said to her that I agree that the position is such that we ought to allow the legislation to remain in force for a short period of time—that is, another year—and during the course of that year we ought to conduct the review that should have been conducted. That is what I propose. Certainly, members on this side of the House will support that as a course of action.

I am concerned that the Minister feels that it is necessary for this particular piece of procedural legislation to be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for a very, very short period of time, and for leave to be sought from the House for the committee to meet at all times except during question time. The committee is capable, I think, of managing its own business without that sort of leave from the House. I see that the chair of the committee is here and I will be interested in his views later in the debate.

But, given that at least the principal Opposition party has signalled to the Government that we will cooperate in respect of this matter, those sorts of expediting resolutions, which, as we know, can be applied in a heavy-handed way and circumvent the freedom of our committee system to conduct itself in the way that it should, are undesirable. I am disappointed that, although the Minister was prepared to consult about a number of issues, she did not see fit to disclose that it was her intention to have the committee directed by the House in the way that she has.

So that is really all I want to say about this legislation. There needs to be a review. That was always the intention of the original Act. It is an indictment on the Government that, notwithstanding it has been in office for over 3 years, the review was not conducted. But it does need to happen now and we will facilitate participation in that review. We think it is an important exercise and we think that it is important to listen to all sides of the debate as to the question of what ought to, if anything, replace the prisoners’ and victims’ claims legislation. Thank you.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) : The chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee is indeed in the House and is delighted to accept Mr Chauvel’s invitation to follow him in this debate. In fact, that seems to be my standard practice. I cannot think of many times when I do not follow Mr Chauvel.

Could I just crave the indulgence of the House for one moment—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Would the member care to rephrase that?

TIM MACINDOE: —no, I am going to move right along—to acknowledge the outstanding Shakespearean performance of Kennedy Graham in the previous debate. It was wonderful to have “Shylock” speaking in the Budget Policy Statement debate, but I find now that I follow “Hamlet” in this particular debate, as he has agonised over the Labour Party’s position on this particular bill that is before the House. The particular bill, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, is of course an interim measure and we must not forget that.

National is firmly committed to building a safer New Zealand, and I do want to repeat that because it is an absolutely core priority for our Government. This bill is part of a large measure, a large arsenal of initiatives, to improve public safety and respect for law and order and, indeed, for the rule of law in this country. We are committed to improving the rights of victims and the support that is offered to them, and so we should, for no one chooses to be a victim or to become caught up in our criminal justice system because of the offending of others. So I do look forward to the cooperation of members opposite, as has just been indicated by Mr Chauvel. I appreciate that indication of support, and I look forward to working with him to facilitate the passage of this bill through the business agenda of the Justice and Electoral Committee.

The bill’s purpose is to amend the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 to extend the restrictions on the awarding of compensation for 1 more year, from 1 July of this year until 30 June 2013, and to ensure that “the victims’ claims process … applies to compensation awarded, or to be paid pursuant to an out-of-court final settlement, in respect of a prisoner’s claim made on or after 1 July [of this year] but before 1 July 2013.” So, as I have said, it is an interim measure, but it is no less important for that. We are, on this side of the House, directing prisoner compensation to victims to put victims at the heart of our criminal justice system.

Victims have to deal with the financial, emotional, and physical effects of crime long after it has been committed. As I mentioned when I spoke in the financial review debate yesterday, this is something that no one chooses—to be in the position of having to endure yet again everything that they suffered as a result of the offending of someone else, often in the most gruesome of circumstances. So we are ensuring that victims are heard, that they get the support that they need, and that they are not brutalised again when the defendants who subjected them to such cruelty are tried. We are making sure that victims get better information and protection when offenders are released back into the community, and how often have we all heard claims of absolute despair and disgust when that principle has not been followed.

At the same time we are modernising court processes to make the justice system safer and more efficient. We are speeding up court cases, reforming legal aid, and improving civil justice. All of these are important initiatives that the public has been calling out for for a long time. We are absolutely convinced that not only do we enjoy a very strong mandate to move in this direction but also the public is demanding it of us. We have got to ensure that we meet those demands, and we are.

We established a victim compensation scheme that imposed, among other things, a $50 offender levy on all offenders, regardless of the crime they commit. We did that in the face of considerable opposition from members opposite. Yet the levy has already, in its first year, collected more than twice the expected target of $2 million. In its first year we paid out, through this levy, $1.64 million in services and entitlements for victims of crime and their families.

The levy has funded 13 different services for victims of serious crime. These services include funeral grants for families of murder victims; increased grants for travel and accommodation and child care assistance for people who are having to go through the justice system; access for sexual violence victims to a trained adviser who has knowledge of the dynamics of sexual violence cases—and these victims need ongoing support, great sensitivity, and understanding—expanded financial help of up to $1,000 for victims attending case-related hearings; and new financial assistance and counselling for those whose family members have been killed through a criminal act that is not homicide, such as dangerous driving causing death. So there is a whole range of initiatives that are very important.

We inherited a criminal justice system that was falling into some disarray. It was lacking accountability, particularly to those who were victims, and it lacked that focus on the needs of victims. So I am very proud to be part of a Government that has delivered, and continues to deliver. I commend this interim measure to the House, as we continue to strengthen our justice system and give it the priorities that all New Zealanders require it to have.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I too rise to make a contribution to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. My contribution to this debate is probably not on the detail of the legislation, but rather to comment on the regulatory impact statement and how that might impact on our consideration of this at the select committee. The regulatory impact statement was prepared at relatively short notice, according to its cover note. The cover note is dated 28 March 2012, which is actually not very long ago, and I am a little bit concerned about how short a period of time was allowed for this to happen. The comment that is made in the agency disclosure statement states the following: “The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Redirecting Prisoner Compensation) Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament on 13 October 2011 to give effect to the redirection policy, but did not receive a first reading. There is now insufficient time to progress it through its Parliamentary stages before the sunset clauses take effect on 1 July 2012. Due to this, the Ministry of Justice was asked to urgently consider alternative options to maintain the existing provisions of the PVC Act until the redirection policy can be given effect at a later date.”

Of course, the regulatory impact statement does, within its content, refer to defining the problem in terms of how the status quo impacts on the problem definition. I guess the paragraph that I have just read out highlights exactly the problem that the Government is faced with. This is legislation that had sunset provisions built into it, which have now been breached twice. So there have been two amendments to those sunset provisions and one other. I think the debate that I would perhaps like us to have—in another context, and probably across party lines—is about how we best achieve what I think we are trying to achieve on both sides of the House, which is the balance between certainty and the need for review of regulatory regimes.

I think that when the sunset provisions were originally written into the legislation, they may in fact have been too short, and perhaps that is explained by my colleague’s contribution about the almost experimental nature of the regime that was being introduced. But 2 years is a relatively short period of time for something to be implemented, reviewed, and analysed, and for a decision to be made about whether there should be a further extension of the principles that were established at the outset. I think that this is an important discussion that we should have at some stage, because we will continue to face the situation where we are having to extend the expiry date of legislation, or the implementation of sunset provisions, in a position of extremis really, where the deadline is looming and people have no real choice other than to agree to the extension.

That being said, I think that it is important that we deal with this legislation in a timely fashion. I did note within the agency disclosure statement that even though the exact numbers of existing and potential claims by prisoners for compensation were not stated in the regulatory impact statement—and I did notice that they were absent—the reason they are absent from the statement is that the information is defined as legally sensitive. I totally agree with that. I understand that, but would like to receive an assurance from the Government that that information will be made available in secret to members of the committee, because I think it would be useful for us to understand the context in which we are debating this. I note the Minister of Justice is nodding her head; I think it is a matter she would be prepared to take on board and consider. And the reason I raise this is due to the statement in the regulatory impact analysis about the issue around potential behaviour management regime claimants. I guess it had not occurred to me until I read the statement that there were still people who had not lodged their claims as a result of that particular issue, which, of course, was the whole basis for the original legislation.

I think it would help us get a good understanding of some of the technical detail that we do need to understand, but I want to reiterate that I do understand why it is legally sensitive, and I feel that the solution to that would be to provide for secret evidence to the select committee, which would not then become part of the record in this House. I actually agree with the point that is made in the regulatory impact statement—that it is really important that those claims are resolved in the foreseeable future. They were the reason for the original legislation. And to find now that perhaps some of them still have not progressed and that perhaps people are waiting to see whether the regime will be less intrusive or less able to take away some of their outcomes and divert them to the needs of their victims would, I think, be a great shame indeed. And neither side of the House would want to see that as an outcome. So on that basis the Labour Opposition, as clearly articulated by my colleague Charles Chauvel, will be supporting the passage of this bill.

DAVID CLENDON (Green) : Kia ora koutou. The first look at this bill, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, brought on a bit of a case of Groundhog Day. This bill, to my count, is something like the fifth or sixth piece of legislation we have seen in recent years with the heading of “Prisoners’ and Victims’ ”, none of which, unfortunately, have really generated better outcomes than we might otherwise have had. We believe that this House is once again devoting its very expensive time and resource to what is essentially, and has been from day one, an ill-conceived piece of legislation. We are now seeking to extend the life of this legislation, despite the quantitative and qualitative evidence that it has done very little good over the intervening 7 or 8 years, and, in fact, has considerable potential to do harm.

The intention of the original piece of legislation was to compensate victims of crimes, to ensure that if the perpetrators of crime came upon a windfall or some return as a result of claims against the Crown, victims would be compensated. I would hazard a guess that the amount of money that has been returned to victims as a result of this legislation is significantly less than the cost associated with the initial primary legislation and the numerous amendments to it. It has been a hopelessly ineffective piece of legislation, and we think it ought to end now.

In the 2010 debate that brought us to this 2012 deadline—which, I remind the House, was conducted under urgency nearly 2 years ago—I asked the then Minister of Justice what actual sums of money had been returned to victims and how many people had directly benefited as a result of the legislation. To his credit, the Minister in the Committee stage gave us the answer and told us that a total of $25,000 had been awarded to victims as reparations. A total of four victims had received a total sum of $38,000 collectively. So, in fact, the first 5 years of this Act returned $65,000 in total—a drop in anybody’s bucket. It has not been effective. That is an extraordinarily small amount of money, and I suspect there has been very little added to it in the 18 months or 2 years just gone by.

The Minister, in her presentation of this bill, stressed the importance of getting this through the House quickly, and gave us, effectively, a deadline at the Justice and Electoral Committee of 11 June. She is concerned that otherwise a window will open that would presumably enable prisoners to enjoy the benefit of any reparations they were paid. I remind the Minister that this bill really kicks in only if prisoners are abused while they are in the care and custody of the State. The easy way to ensure there are no further opportunities for prisoners to benefit, presumably, is to ensure that there is no abuse of prisoners while they are in the custody of the State.

The Greens opposed this legislation—the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill, as it was then—prior to 2005 because we saw then it would lead to a reduction in the respect for human rights. We said at the time that it was likely to be ineffectual, and this is now proven to be the case. It had very few redeeming features at the time. We did support the bill. We were persuaded at the time to support the primary legislation that we are seeking to amend. We did that on a promise that there would be a major reassessment, a significant review, a complete overhaul of all legislation, and that some real attention would be paid to assuring victims’ rights and putting in place some structural procedures and elements that would ensure that people who suffer crime—the victims of crimes—are properly compensated and recognised. Sadly, that has not occurred over time; instead we are continuing to perpetuate this piece of legislation. That is a classic example of a Government—in fact, two Governments—pretending to do something, creating the illusion or artifice of doing something positive for victims, but, in fact, doing very little at all.

This is a very convoluted piece of primary legislation. Effectively, the Act denies prisoners the possibility of redress for wrongs done. The only way that victims of crime can benefit through this is if a prisoner or an inmate under the control of the State either has a windfall or, more likely, gets some recompense for their rights being abused. It is a very peculiar and very perverse model, and we would be better to simply remove it from the book. Let us have a little bit of confidence in the Department of Corrections in 2012 that it will not create situations that will enable prisoners to make claims of having been abused that a court would see merit in, and would enable them to have some reparation paid to them.

I recall the genesis of the primary legislation that this bill amends, and the so-called behaviour management regime that was occurring. Inmates were suffering abuse tantamount to torture under the so-called behaviour management regime at Mt Eden Prison. One concedes they were serious high-end offenders. They were not nice people, but the State nevertheless has an absolute responsibility to respect the basic human rights of people who are in custody—even offenders, even prisoners. They remain humans, they remain citizens of this country, and they are entitled to the protection of their human rights. At the time that the primary legislation was passed, a now departed member of this House, to his discredit, referred to payments made under legal claims against the behaviour management regime as effectively a golden handshake for inmates. That is so far from the truth. That set us on this very long-winded path, with multiple amendments, that has brought us to this situation now. This Act has not worked for victims. It has not worked for prisoners. We should simply let it fall, and, as I said, trust the Department of Corrections not to get it wrong.

There are so many things we could be doing to change the corrections regime: the way we deal with offenders, the way we deal with victims, the way we manage our prisons and our prisoners. There is currently a piece of legislation, the Corrections Amendment Bill, before this House that does have some positive features. It does propose some efficiencies in practice and some administrative tweaks to management, but also it unfortunately contains some major steps towards further abuse of human rights and further denials of basic human rights, and it will remove us even further from our national, our legal, and, indeed, our international obligations.

It is worth recalling that when the primary legislation was put in place, it was many of the non-governmental organisations—the organisations dedicated to protecting human rights—that opposed the legislation, perhaps surprisingly. But they saw through it. They understood very well that what was called for was not some grandstanding piece of legislation that appeared to be producing some benefits and some results for victims, but a serious, ground-up, community-led, I would suggest, assessment of what is needed to do the best by the victims of crimes, and, indeed, to look at how best we can ensure that we reduce the number of victims of crime.

It is clear that over the past decade or more there was a struggle between the two main parties. There was a battle and neither was willing to concede an inch. There was this fear of being seen to be soft on crime, allegedly responding to a sense within New Zealand society that we wanted to punish people who offended. Actually, there is very little evidence that New Zealand is a punitive society. There were some TV polls done in 2006 that indicated a preference for community-based sentences. Colin James, who is not known as one of the more wide-eyed, radical, dumb commentators or journalists in New Zealand, commented recently that a number of organisations have perceived a much more broad-based interest in looking for alternatives to prison, looking for alternatives to incarceration, and looking for alternatives to the so-called tough on crime approach. Last night I was pleased to be at the launch of JustSpeak, a group of young people who are committed to doing better, to seeing improvements in our corrections regimes, particularly in our management of victims and our management of offenders.

We can do a great deal better than this. By perpetuating this bill for another 12 months, we are simply perpetuating a failed model, a flawed model—an approach that we know is incredibly expensive at a time when we are stretched financially. It has not worked, it will not work, and the Greens will continue to oppose it. Thank you.

Dr CAM CALDER (National) : It is a great pleasure to rise and take a brief call on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. The title of this bill really sums up its purpose.

It was a great pleasure to me to be part of a Government elected in 2008 that has as one of its raisons d’être a concentration on allowing our communities to be safe places. We stress the importance of a citizen being able to live in a state of security, being safe in their community. Where I was campaigning, where I had my office based—Manurewa—we certainly have seen the fruits of that enlightened approach by this Government in the form of Policing Excellence programmes, neighbourhood policing teams, and public safety teams. Also, it has to be said that the crime rate has fallen, but there are still victims. The work that we are doing is to redeploy and refocus our system on the rights of victims. We are focusing the justice system on the rights of victims. We want less bureaucracy, less delay, and a greater focus on victims, and that is what this bill helps to bring about.

The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 restricts and guides awards of compensation sought by prisoners under the State’s control or supervision and provides a simplified process for the making and determination of claims that a victim of a prisoner may make against compensation required to be paid to that prisoner. The restrictions on the awarding of compensation expire, and, as we have heard from previous speakers, the victims’ claims process applies only to compensation in respect of claims made before 1 July of this year. This bill will defer that expiry and extend the application for 1 year, so that restrictions on awarding of compensation expire with the close of 30 June 2013. The victims’ claims process also applies to compensation awarded or to be paid pursuant to an out-of-court final settlement, in respect of a prisoner’s claim made on or after 1 July 2012 but before 1 July 2013. In other words, this bill bridges the gap ahead of us here.

It is a bill that focuses, again, relentlessly on supporting our victims. As we heard from our chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee, there are a number of other areas where we have achieved this end. We have established the victim compensation scheme, and the $50 offender levy on all offenders regardless of the crimes they commit. We supported victims through the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. We have more help for families affected by homicide and more help for sexual violence victims.

This bill is necessary to allow us to review the legislation before the House, as we heard from the Minister of Justice. I appreciate the collegial view of the Opposition in supporting this bill. I commend the bill to the House.

DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) : I will be taking only a very brief call on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, on behalf of New Zealand First. I note that the restrictions on the awarding of compensation expire on 1 July 2012, and that this bill simply defers that expiry date to 30 June 2013. To that extent, New Zealand First will have no objection to the passage of this bill, and will support it proceeding. Indeed, as Lianne Dalziel said, we really have very little choice about the matter at this stage, in the circumstances.

So New Zealand First will await with interest the substantive legislation to be brought forward by the Government, which it says will make the existing victims’ claims process permanent. Of course, the devil will be in the detail, and we will look at the substantive legislation in detail when it comes through. I do wonder, as a new member, why there has been such a significant delay by the Government in carrying out this review. Is it because the Government is not really so interested in it, or is it just a low priority for the Government? However, I have listened to the speeches by the Government members, which indicate the opposite, and I hope that is the case.

New Zealand First will be happy to await the review and the new legislation, and to debate it then as though it was a completely new proposal. We will not be affected by the legislation that will expire, or by all the arguments that were made for and against that legislation. Consequently, New Zealand First reserves it position on the substantive bill, when it comes through, and we will be happy to consider the Government’s position.

New Zealand First is not soft on crime, and we will make sure that that is the case in the way that we look at this legislation. At the same time, I personally have some sympathy for the Green position. I too would like to investigate the possible alternatives to imprisonment for some of the people—but not the more serious criminals—we have in prison at the present time. I do think that in the 21st century we ought to have a greater menu of sentences for people who commit crime, and, hopefully, those sentences are much more oriented towards rehabilitation and the avoidance of more crime in the future.

Like the Green Party, New Zealand First will not be supporting any grandstanding on this issue. We hope that we will not hear charges as to who is soft on crime and who is strong on crime. That kind of mindless nonsense needs to be left in the past. As I said, this is the 21st century and being soft or strong on crime is not the issue. The issue is about reducing crime, and doing that requires an approach much more advanced and much more sophisticated than just throwing more and more people in prison and making provisions that are inappropriate.

So New Zealand First will want to make sure that this substantive legislation, when it comes through, is appropriate in restricting claims by prisoners, because there is a case for restricting that. On the other hand, prisoners can also be victims, and their rights must also be protected. So there is a balance to be had there. That is, I think, where the debate should be centred, and that is the way New Zealand First will be looking at it.

What I do not want to hear is what I have just heard from the Opposition benches, which is some mindless, idiotic comment, which will make no positive contribution to the debate whatsoever. So we will listen to good arguments and not those—

Hon Chester Borrows: It’s not the Opposition here.

DENIS O’ROURKE: —from the Government then. We will not listen to arguments from those people who are putting that sort of idea forward. That will not sway us, and I suggest will not sway the members of the public either.

We will be taking an objective approach to this. We will listen to both sides and we will look for that balance, which I spoke of, in the substantive legislation. For the time being we will support this bill, which simply defers the date to 2013.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : I am very pleased to rise to speak to the first reading of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. As has been alluded to before, crime affects everyone. It affects communities, it affects families, it affects society, it affects the economy, but, most of all, it affects the victims. That is why it is so important that this bill, as an interim measure, is passed through the House. The toll on victims and families is immeasurable. Victims did not ask to be a victim. They did not wake up that morning and think: “Right, I’m going to be a victim.” It is something that has happened, obviously without any premeditation on their part. They are blameless.

This bill will ensure that prisoners’ compensation will continue to be redirected to support victims over the next year or so, and will allow time for the 2011 bill—the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Redirecting Prisoner Compensation) Amendment Bill—to pass through the House. Of course, this Government will ensure that that bill is enacted before June 2013. It is important as an interim measure that we have the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, and it is pleasing that all parties are supporting it at this stage.

We are, as a Government, serious about putting victims at the centre of the justice system. I am really, really proud of what the Government has actually done for victims, and will continue to do. We are determined to build a safer New Zealand for families, for individuals, and for communities. We have a comprehensive programme that we are implementing. In particular, the $50 levy that has been established for all offenders has been very successful in the first year alone. Over $2 million—twice what was expected—has been achieved in the first year. That money has been redirected to new services to support victims. That is what it is all about. More than 2,000 victims, or their families, have benefited from that levy in the first year. There are 13 new services, such as funeral grants for families of murder victims, grants to families of murder victims, more services for victims of sexual violence, expanded financial help for victims attending case-related meetings, and there is new financial assistance for counselling for families whose loved one has been killed not by homicide but by other criminal acts such as dangerous driving.

I am really particularly pleased that the Victims of Crime Reform Bill is before the Justice and Electoral Committee. In that bill more weighting will be given to victim impact statements. The current process, I understand, is that the victim has to ask permission of the judge to read out the victim impact statement. Surprisingly, sometimes that is declined. This bill will ensure that due weighting is given to that victim impact statement. And so it should be. The only limit will be time, but the victim can traverse any subject on how that crime has affected them at any particular level. I think that is an important change, and I am delighted that it is in that bill.

Importantly, there will be more help for victims of sexual violence. Almost 1,300 victims received a discretionary grant to cover immediate costs, and almost 540 victims were assisted by the sexual violence court support service. This is an important bill. It is an interim measure, and it is vital that it is passed. It is pleasing that it has the support of all parties. I commend it to the House.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) : The Labour Party certainly supports this bill, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, and can I welcome the measured way in which members have actually contributed to this bill, starting with the Minister of Justice and going through my own colleagues and other colleagues around the House.

I had a lot to do with the initial legislation, and it is important that the House knows why the legislation was initially put into effect. It followed a range of wrongful actions by the Department of Corrections that led, under longstanding New Zealand and international law, to those inmates who had been treated wrongfully getting compensation for the wrongful actions by the State against them. The difficulty with that is that the wrongful action should never have happened. The Department of Corrections was at fault, and the best way of dealing with this problem, of course, is not to have wrongful action against prisoners and, therefore, not to be awarding compensation. But mistakes were made, compensation was awarded, and the nature of many of the people who received compensation was that they actually had done some pretty awful things to other people. I felt, along with a lot of other New Zealanders and members in the House at the time, that if compensation should be given for the wrong done to the inmate in prison, then surely compensation should also be available for the wrong done by that inmate to that inmate’s victims. That was what motivated it. I mean, it was not about baying for blood, David Clendon, with respect; it was trying to address this problem. If you are going to give compensation to the inmate, surely the victims of that inmate are entitled to get their share of that compensation. That sounded right in justice terms to me.

I knew that this would be particularly hard to do, and for that reason, among others, we put a sunset clause into it: let us do this, let us do what we think is right, and let us see how it works. I think the most important comment today was made by my colleague Charles Chauvel, who said that it has been going for 6 years now and only one case has been taken. That suggests to me that our concerns at the beginning of the process that “We think we are doing the right thing, but is this going to be effective? Therefore, we need to review it.”—and there should have been a review. I regret the fact that that review did not take place in a timely way, but I understand now from the Minister that it will take place, and, therefore, it is sensible to continue this legislation until we find out a better way of addressing the problem.

But I said before that I was pleased about the measured way in which this debate was taking place. Let me quote from the debate in 2005: “The National Party in Opposition is opposed to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill. We believe that payments to prisoners should be blocked, stopped, and wiped out. We do not believe that New Zealand should be constrained by the figment of what the United Nations may or may not state in various conventions.” These were conventions that we had respected for 50 years under respective Governments. Who made that comment? Tony Ryall, now our Minister of Health. You know, I have just got to say that the current Minister in Government is taking a different attitude from the then National Opposition spokesperson when National was in Opposition.

I have got to welcome the comments from New Zealand First, from Denis O’Rourke, because this is what your predecessor said, Denis: “The result of the Labour Government’s legislation will be that scumbags, murderers, and vicious criminals on long-term sentences will harass and taunt prison officers purposely to such an extent that if there is even minor retaliation, they will be entitled to compensation.” That was just so much rubbish, and from time to time in this House, people do speak rubbish for the wrong reason. What I welcome today is that we will have a proper debate about this. We will review it. There is a sense of justice that if somebody who has harmed others gets compensation, then that person’s victims should be entitled to compensation. I do not think anybody opposes that principle. The real question that we face in this review is how to find a way in which we can allow that just outcome to occur. It seems to me that if this legislation has been used so seldom, then such a review is necessary. So I welcome the fact that—I welcome the fact that I was told to speak for 2 minutes, and now I have been told to speak for 10!

The background to this, I think, is really important. We want a justice system that treats victims fairly. We want a corrections system where people who have committed even horrible crimes nevertheless are treated under law and according to law, and where their position is not abused, either. I was not prepared as Minister of Justice in 2005, and I am not prepared now, to say that basic human rights conventions passed by the international community should be ignored by this country, which is what the National Party in Opposition was saying then. I mean, it was unthinkable. Not the United States, not Australia, not the United Kingdom, and not any civilised country in the world actually ever said or put into its legislation that people whose rights are abused, even prisoners, should not be entitled to be treated under law and not be entitled to redress when their rights were abused. So I think, and I hope, in the House today, 6 years later, there is a level of maturity and principle that means that that will be accepted as a bottom line.

But let us have a review of how the system works. Let us find out whether it was an aberration that the Department of Corrections was abusing those prisoners’ rights in terms of the requirements on it under law in the way it should treat inmates. You know, I am not soft on inmates, but I do believe that everybody is entitled to humane treatment in this country, even those who have broken the law and have committed horrendous acts. I believe they should be locked up and kept locked up for a long, long time if they are a danger to the community, too, but I do not believe in any system that says that people who are subject to the control of the State can be abused and have no rights of redress against that abuse.

Let us try to do this on a bipartisan basis. Let us not make political capital out of it, as my quotes from the past have suggested. Let us be mature about it. Let us find a system that works for the victims, because the rights of the victim—the rights to reparation—I think, are fundamental. You know, I believe in a system of restorative justice. If your rights are abused by somebody who offends against you, you should be able to get proper compensation from that person. If somebody steals my property, yes, they might need to be locked up if they keep doing it, but actually what I would really like to see is them having to pay compensation for the wrong that they have done, and I apply that right across society. More reparations, a restorative system of justice, would be a very positive development for this country to take.

So, Minister, I hope that the review will be set up early so that there is full time for it to happen thoroughly, that that review will consider the rights of victims, and, indeed, that it will consider the obligations that New Zealand operates under in terms of international conventions. If we can do this without making this House a farce because people are playing silly, populist games, we have got a better chance of getting a good outcome—an outcome fair to victims and an outcome that upholds the rule of law, even when it applies to those in custody.

ALFRED NGARO (National) : I stand and rise to speak on the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill. This bill bridges the gap between the expiry of the current regime, on 30 June 2012, and progressing the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Redirecting Prisoner Compensation) Amendment Bill through the House.

The issue here is bridging the gap, but the gap that we want to continue to bridge, and I will not labour the point—sorry for the pun, I say to those opposite me—is the gap of confidence in the judicial system to acknowledge and expand the rights and the support for victims. This was no more evident than when we heard the submissions on the Victims of Crime Reform Bill, where stories of the good, the bad, and the ugly of the judicial system’s response to the needs of victims were heard.

This Government is very clear. We are directing prisoner compensation to victims, to put victims at the heart of our justice system. National is reforming our criminal justice system to put a stronger emphasis on the victims, and, as our colleague has said, we want to ensure that there is a fair and just debate and ensure that, again, victims are compensated in the appropriate way. We are ensuring that victims are heard, that they get the support they need, and that they are not brutalised again when defendants are tried. We are making sure that victims get better information and protection when offenders are released back into the community. At the same time, we are modernising our court process to make the justice system safer and more efficient. We are speeding up those court processes, reforming legal aid, and improving civil justice. Our changes are making justice more responsive to the needs of victims, and helping to build a safer and brighter New Zealand for children, families, and older people.

I just want to finally finish my speech by talking about the support for victims, and especially the Victims of Crime Reform Bill. I am proud to be a part of the Justice and Electoral Committee. Among the things this bill will do—again, this bill is part of a whole raft of support for victims—are setting up a victims’ support centre to improve the information and services that victims receive, and improving the victim notification system. We are changing the way that evidence is heard, to better protect vulnerable children, and providing more help for families affected by homicide. It truly was a sobering moment when we again heard the stories of the families, the victims. With that, it is beholden upon us and our leadership to ensure that we have a fair and just system of debate but to ensure that this process goes through.

Finally, again, this bill will provide help for sexual violence victims and also for victims of serious crime. I stand and rise to support this bill.

KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) : Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker, for allowing me the chance to speak to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ (Claims 2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill.

I would like to first of all address the mechanics of the primary legislation, which was passed in 2005 under the Hon Phil Goff. As has been said by a number of our speakers from the Labour Party, we will be supporting this bill, because it is a mere extension of some measures that are in the Act that have a sunset clause, and we are extending that sunset clause from 1 July 2012 to 1 July 2013 to ensure that victims of crime will still have the avenue of claiming compensation from inmates who have been mistreated while serving a custodial sentence.

I do agree with Phil Goff—and who would not—who said at the time that the principal legislation was passed that most people believe it is wrong that offenders should be compensated for wrongful treatment but in turn are not required to pay restitution to the victims they harmed. I think, from the tenor of the debate right around the House, most of the MPs in Parliament agree with that. I also agree with, and acknowledge the contributions from, Denis O’Rourke from New Zealand First and the Hon Phil Goff, in that I do think it is time for a relatively mature debate around this issue. From the instances that we heard from Phil Goff, the debate was not so mature, and probably a little political, back in 2005.

So allow me to get a little political. We heard from Tim Macindoe earlier on that this bill was an interim measure, because there is some legislation that hopes to make the measures in the 2005 legislation much more permanent. I need to ask the question why we have not had a review, when it was stated back in 2005 that we were going to have a review, and given the fact that we have to be in the House, using the time of this House and the resources of this House, to bring in an interim measure when something is going to be passed this time next year. One has to wonder why that might be, and one might come to the conclusion that it is because this Government has become slightly sidetracked as of late by various scandals, and has been a little bit mired in controversy.

Darien Fenton: Which one?

KRIS FAAFOI: Which one? If you want me to get specific, I might just talk about why we have not had a review, or why we have not had a permanent solution to what we are doing at the moment. We could mention the Banks scandal, we could mention the mess that ACC is in, or we could mention Dr Nick Smith. But, as I said earlier on, we have to have a mature debate around this. We do hope that over the time that this bill is being debated we could mention those things. But when we go through the stages of this bill we will be able to make sure that there are some solid interim measures, to make sure that if there are people out there who believe they have a claim to some compensation from an inmate—and, as we heard earlier, there was only one case that was discovered by the Green Party in the last maybe 3 or 4 years—we have some measures to ensure that they can get some compensation.

The Act was, obviously, passed under Labour, so that is why we support the bulk of the bill. But, as I said at the beginning of my contribution, we do have some problems as to how we have arrived at this stage of looking for an interim fix, and also why we have not had a review, and also why we do not have a permanent solution.

JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. As my colleague David Clendon said earlier, the Green Party will not be supporting this bill, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, because it extends a sunset clause that was one of the reasons we finally agreed to support the primary legislation in 2005. When the original 2005 legislation, the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act, was introduced, the Green Party strongly opposed it, on the grounds that it violated prisoners’ human rights and removed a mechanism for stopping abuse in prisons, and we think it is important that there is not abuse in prisons. We changed our vote to support it at the third reading to prevent even more harmful amendments that were suggested by United Future, and we were hopeful about the promised establishment of an independent prisons inspectorate, and an inquiry into victims’ rights.

The Greens think it is really important to protect victims’ rights, but this is not the way to do so. We have opposed subsequent amendments, and we will continue to oppose the trajectory of this legislation, because the more worrying fact is that this bill is only a bridging effort until the even more troubling Prisoners and Victims’ Claims (Redirecting Prisoner Compensation) Amendment Bill is implemented. The Government’s own Attorney-General has highlighted that this bill will be a denial of an effective remedy, and is therefore in contradiction to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. Given the Government’s record on passing legislation that is inconsistent with human rights, that is not so surprising, but it is disappointing and inconsistent with the principles of justice.

The 2005 Act, the primary legislation, limits the ability of prisoners to claim compensation for human rights breaches, and provides a process for victims to claim payment from prisoners’ compensation awards. I have some sympathy for what the Hon Phil Goff said earlier; it seems logical. But even in 2005 Victim Support was opposed to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Bill, and I would like to read from its submission. It said: “That a prisoner should receive compensation for a breach of rights when the victim of that individual’s original offending has had no such acknowledgment or received no redress for the harm they have suffered is repugnant to Victim Support”. However, it did not accept that the bill at the time—now the Act—was a remedy for the situation. It said: “The solution to the situation lies not in lessening the rights of victims of abuse of power to seek redress for harm done,”—in this case it is the prisoners—“but in strengthening the rights and abilities of victims of crime to access restitution or compensation for the harm done to them. Putting it simply, two wrongs don’t make a right.”

Prisoners are subject to the day-to-day exercise of the coercive power of the State. They are therefore incredibly vulnerable to the misuse of that power, and ought to be able to claim compensation when their human rights are breached. By further limiting access to damages for breaches of human rights, it encourages those abuses of power, and it disincentivises prisoners from reporting those abuses, simply hiding the problem away rather than addressing it in a humane and principled fashion. The Government’s plans to deny them a right to an effective remedy in the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Redirecting Prisoner Compensation) Amendment Bill should be anathema to a country dedicated to the rule of law, where individuals should expect protection from the abuse of State power. The bridging bill may therefore be the lesser of two evils, but that does not make it more intrinsically worthwhile.

The Government should be rethinking its approach and finding principled and practical ways to help victims of crime that do not rely on treading on the human rights of prisoners and victimising them in the process. That is not the way to get people to come into the fold and become constructive citizens. It is not the way to do it, by abusing their human rights. We need to have a serious discussion about how we address these issues in line with respect for human rights, our international commitments, and lasting solutions to our issues with crime and justice.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) : I am very proud to take the final call in this first reading debate of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, which was brought before the House by Minister Judith Collins. Members of this House and of my electorate will realise that I am a proud supporter of victims’ rights, and I am very pleased to see that the Labour members are also supporting this bill in the first reading. It is an important bill for us to get this extension of the time frame from 1 July 2012 to July 2013. It has been well canvassed, so I do not intend to speak any further, other than to say that I am proud to support this bill.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: I move, That the Justice and Electoral Committee report to the House on or before 11 June 2012, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, and outside the Wellington area during a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 188, 190(a), and 191(1)(b) and (c). The reason why this bill needs to be reported back by the committee by 11 June 2012, which is a period of less than 4 months, is to enable sufficient time for it to be enacted by 30 June 2012 and prevent the current regime lapsing. This is a short, uncomplicated bill, which seeks to maintain the current regime and bridge the gap between the expiry of the current victims’ claims process and progressing the Government’s policy to redirect prisoner compensation to victims of crime. I consider, therefore, that a shortened period for committee consideration is reasonable, and that maintaining the status quo is in the public interest.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : The Labour Party will be opposing this motion. I think this is a very silly motion and an unnecessary motion. I think it is fair to say that the Labour Party has been working very closely with the Minister of Justice to help the Government get out of a hole that it has got into because of its own disorganisation. Clearly, this matter has been coming up for a long period of time. The Minister has not that unsubtly criticised her predecessor, Simon Power, for not getting the matter sorted earlier. She has been working with Charles Chauvel on this interim regime while there is a review, and I think it is fair to say that over a period of time there is likely to be quite large differentiation in the results of that review. Clearly, the House, even on this part, has a variety of views, but there has been an attempt to work together.

Without wanting to sound like the two big parties ganging up on everyone else, generally when the vast majority of the House is in agreement with something, both within the House and within the select committee process it can be dealt with at a fair speed to get the report back. This motion will make no difference to that. I mean, I am not unaware of a select committee that recently has decided to report a bill back within about 3 weeks of submissions closing, dispensing with a report from departmental officials. The committee thought that was unnecessary, because it knew what it wanted to do, the matter was relatively simple, and it was a matter of just getting on with it within the select committee.

We have had, I think, some quite big changes to our Standing Orders. One of them has allowed us to consider business on Wednesday and Thursday nights and through into the following Thursday and Friday mornings where it is near-unanimous within the Business Committee that that occur. But part of the same group of changes to the Standing Orders was a requirement when bills are going to be at a committee for less than 4 months to have a motion of this sort, which is a debatable motion. I just want to say to the Government that I think it would be wiser in future to do a little bit of consultation around this to seek, as well as an undertaking to support the legislation, a process understanding with as many Opposition parties as it can, and therefore to get things back in a reasonable way, without making it look like legislation is being rammed through.

The problem that we have with this approach is that it looks like the legislation is being rammed through. I think—in fact, I probably am sure—that the Greens have a different point of view, but on this relatively minor extension, albeit of an important law, then I do not think it could be a fair accusation that it is being rammed through, because there is going to be thorough consideration of the issues as part of the report and part of the review, which we will then all look at. We will look the legislation over for the need for it and any changes, whether it should be extended, and whether it should be totally dropped. That is a process that has to be a thorough one and with proper outside consultation, which is just not available, because, as I said when I started this speech, the Government basically took its eye off the ball and we have got to the point where legislation was going to lapse and it was not really sure of the effect of that and whether it wanted to replace it.

Much as I would like to blame the current Minister of Justice—I would like to blame her for lots of things—this is not one of the things that I am prepared to blame Judith Collins for. We are trying to help her get out of the problem. I just say to the Government, to the Acting Leader of the House, and to the Government whips that in future it might be better to consult and to get an agreement, rather than to put a straitjacket around things, force things through, and possibly get unnecessary debate as a result of it.

DAVID CLENDON (Green) : I am pleased to take the opportunity to respond to this motion. I understand that it is only our new Standing Orders that actually enable this process to go ahead. I think there is a general consensus around the House that none of us want to spend time unnecessarily in the Chamber debating issues. The use of extended hours and the cognate bills that we have had through the House are all good processes because they do not deny anybody the right to be heard. They are simply efficiency measures, and those are good things. In this instance, however, we oppose this motion for the very clear reason that there is a substantive issue at stake here.

This bill—the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (2012 Expiry and Application Dates) Amendment Bill, which has had its first reading tonight—is a very short bill, but it does some quite significant things. The bill was tabled, as I understand, on 2 April, about a month ago. For 3 of those 4 weeks, of course, this House has been in adjournment. I happened to be at a meeting at lunchtime. It was a gathering of NGOs, civil societies, people representing Government agencies, and members of the public, all of them with a significant interest in corrections and human rights, among other things, but specifically corrections. I mentioned this bill in passing to that group. None of them was aware that it was being debated in the House tonight, which is an indicator to me. Clearly, we want to engage with the public. I am not suggesting for a moment that any party in the House does not believe in the importance of public engagement or civil engagement, in the business, in the bills going through. In this instance, it will come as a complete surprise to people with a vital interest in issues around prisoners’ rights, around victims’ rights, and about the way we manage our corrections sector; it will be a surprise to those people that this bill is to be debated, and that they have until 11 June—that is about 6 weeks, if that, from tonight—to try to get some sort of sensible position, to understand what is at stake, and to make a point to this bill.

I might be less concerned about this foreshortened process if I felt that there was to be a comprehensive review, but I am not convinced there will be. Already, in the regulatory impact statement that accompanies this bill, we see reference to the Government’s redirection policy. It is absolutely clear that the Government is set on embedding permanently the legislation that tonight it is seeking to—

Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I can anticipate the point of order. I was just about to rise to my feet. This is a very narrow debate. It is about the curtailment of the times of sitting or the change around that. We are not debating what is actually in the bill. So the member can continue, but he cannot debate the content of the bill. It is about the procedural motion.

DAVID CLENDON: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for that guidance. Indeed, it is very much about process. It is about the participatory process, and it is about basic democratic procedure. We must allow the public, NGOs, and people with an interest in these matters to participate. After all, all of us want the public to participate in parliamentary processes, and clearly the select committee process is a primary avenue for people to do that. People need time to prepare their submissions, to think about what they want to say to the select committee, to gather their information, and, conceivably, to talk to members of Parliament about this process. Truncating this process may be acceptable—and certainly I do not suggest tonight for a moment that the Greens would always oppose a truncated select committee process—but in this instance we do believe that there are issues at stake that the select committee ought to and, indeed, needs to hear from members of the public. We are very reluctant to see members of the public, NGOs, and so on denied a reasonable amount of time.

It may well be, in fact, that the Justice and Electoral Committee collectively decides that it can progress this bill through the select committee process quite promptly, and have it back into the House for a second reading reasonably swiftly. That decision should be made by the committee, given an appropriate process within that committee. It should not be made tonight by the will of the Minister or the Government, and so we will oppose this motion.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour) : It is a pleasure to take a call at the third reading of the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill. It is particularly so following the member for Waitaki, Miss Jacqui Dean, although she decided not to continue. Listening to the contributions from the Minister for Primary Industries and some of the National backbenchers, it is fair for me to suggest that Miss Dean’s speech was one of the best, because apart from the usual anger and accusations she gave at least some reasons why she believes that it is important for her to pass this bill into law. I like the way she said she had been approached by her constituents, because Labour supports the high country farmers, and Labour supports farmers at large.

But I come back to this bill. As the Hon Damien O’Connor said, the National Government solution is to offer those farmers lollipops, but when they run out of sugar everything will be back to square one. So that is not the real solution.

The Government has the numbers to pass this bill into law, so there is no need, and it is totally unnecessary, for those members to resort to personal attacks. They attacked Helen Clark, David Parker, Damien O’Connor, and me, although I am not that important—not important at all. They will do the National Government a great favour if they focus just a little bit on the rationale behind the bill rather than resorting to personal attacks. While the bill has been progressed, the attacks from some of the National backbenchers have escalated from accusing Labour or anyone who is opposed to this bill of being anti-farmers or using the politics of envy to now labelling Labour as farmer haters. Following that logic, the Greens, New Zealand First, and even Mr Peter Dunne’s United Future party are all anti-farmers or farmer haters.

One National backbencher confirmed that the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand is anti-farmers too, because of its review on lower rentals as provided under this bill. The society has supported a number of initiatives under this bill, but it does have a problem with lower rentals due to tenure review negotiations and the missed opportunity to put in place economic pricing instruments that could benefit conservation values.

Following that logic, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment would also be anti-farmers, because her 2009 report entitled Change in the high country: Environmental stewardship and tenure review questioned the methodology of the current tenure review process and made a number of recommendations. The report also proposed the setting up of a high country commission to provide more oversight of the high country. Of course, neither of those recommendations have been taken up by the Government.

The bill seeks to change the rules for setting rents for Crown pastoral leases from the land valuation basis to stock-carrying capacity or income-related basis. So it basically means that properties in Remuera and properties in Papatoetoe should be treated equally. I use that analogy because the National Government’s policy in that regard is consistent. For instance, its policy to sell our assets to pay the debt is pretty much like selling its house in order to pay the mortgage, and then renting it for a higher price. It does not make any economic sense.

But it does make some sense if National MPs focus on the reasons behind this bill, because I, together with many others, have remained unconvinced, and will unless they give me some reasons. Firstly, the Clayton report. The Clayton report, produced in the 1980s, found that if one gives a discount to lessees of below the market rent, they capitalise an increase in value to the lessee’s side of the ledger, so that the relative division of value between lessor and lessee becomes even more weighted towards the lessee. That means that this small number of farmers will be in a better position to freehold the properties. They are in a better position to onsell a part or all of the farmland and make windfall profits.

Secondly, I come to the Maori Reserved Land Amendment Act 1997. The previous National Government amended the legislation, and good on it, in order to address the injustices for Māori. As owners of the land, Māori were, until that amendment was made, forced to accept lower than market rents for the land through leases based on unimproved land value, with similar perpetual rights of tenure for lessees as exist for pastoral leases. So this bill is actually challenging that legal precedent and compromising the basic property rights of the Crown and New Zealand taxpayers. Therefore, Labour cannot support inconsistencies in law.

Further, there is tenure review. Much has been said about tenure review and I do not intend to repeat it here, but I do want to repeat one comment made by experts, scholars, and concerned parties, and that is that increasingly these Crown-owned properties are being purchased not for their pastoral values but for their non-pastoral values, which relate to exclusive occupation of land. As pointed out by the Hon David Parker, not all lessees are enthusiastic about tenure review. They want to enforce their contractual rights under the leases, and they want to commit to the dairy business. In the Labour Party all we did was to enforce the legal terms of the lease. The rent of 2 percent of land value excluding improvements is affordable by some but not all tenants. We accept that some lessees—and Mr Shane Ardern made this point very clearly in his contribution in the bill’s second reading—are long-term holders. They do not want to sell. They only want to extract pastoral values from the land. They have not purchased it for tens of millions of dollars and they cannot afford the rent that is based on what they might sell it for. They need a rent that is lower than that. The law already allows for that. We do not need this change in the law to achieve that outcome.

These decreases in rent are unprincipled. Bear in mind that this is a Government that is running a $12 billion deficit. According to the information released by Statistics New Zealand on 21 March 2012, net international liabilities were $147 billion or 71.9 percent of GDP as at 31 December 2011.

Parliament has the role of passing legislation that is fair. We do not want to see people speculate and make windfall profits at the cost of New Zealand taxpayers. The genuine farming families have not been easy with that process at all, because they want to remain on the land, farm it properly, and protect the environmental values. We absolutely respect their management practices and what they have done over many years. We should provide the right incentives for farmers who are managing the land properly and ensure that they have affordable rents. But the establishment of the base value of the land and the base rental has to be consistent with most other commercial entities across the country.

Labour supports our farmers and it supports our farming sector at large. Thank you.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) : It gives me a bit of pleasure to get up and speak to the third reading of the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill. I certainly support the bill. I am not one to, as the previous speaker said, attack the Opposition, but I find it difficult to believe that they will be milking cows on these pastoral leases, which I am pretty sure I heard the member say. So I think that will be very difficult. But I want to talk briefly about the bill and the potential for this bill to, I guess, rectify what I would see as some wrongs that have occurred over the last few years.

Certainly the tenure review system was not working in New Zealand. It had passed its use-by date. I think it had been abused to some extent, and it certainly was causing some grief for the high country of the South Island in that there were some, I think, 112 contested rental situations or reviews currently. It was quite a problem for both the Government and the farmers, and there is significant expense involved in that type of a review. So the challenge for the Parliament is to get a system in place that works for the high country of the South Island, that avoids the need for us to buy expensive tracts of land off these farmers or rentals off these farmers and take it over, as we have done in the past.

I heard one of our speakers last night speaking on this bill talking about the millionaires in that area. The only millionaires that I know of in the high country of the South Island are the ones whom the previous Government bought out. In fact, I have got a very good friend who has got a brand new D6 tractor as a result of that purchase, and he is pretty happy. He sits on it every day. I think that is the problem that we face with this bill, and I am sure that that will be resolved as a result of the decision to proceed with this bill tonight.

I want to talk briefly about the high country farmers of the South Island, and also last night we heard the Greens talk about the ecological assessments that would be preferable to be carried out to understand the stocking rates required in this country. I would like to point out to the Greens that just about all farmers who farm with any kind of responsibility in New Zealand probably do ecological assessments on a daily basis. I guess that involves measuring grass and things like that, which clearly enables them to understand what is happening with their land and what is happening with their livestock. I think these high country farmers of the South Island do a wonderful job of the ecological management of that country. I think almost without exception historically they have done a great job of that, and I am sure that will continue in the future.

I want to briefly comment on a couple of other things that I have found a little extraordinary about the discussion we have had recently. In fact, on page 3 of the commentary on the initial draft of this bill, where we talk about the Labour Party’s minority view, it talks about the bill allowing the Government to charge rent on the productive capacity, but excluding rental for the right to exclusive occupation, which the lessees also enjoy. It seems to me it is very difficult to see any difference in that system from what we see in our current Government housing regime throughout the country, where there are clearly State houses that attract the same rental wherever they are located.

Hon Trevor Mallard: But these farmers are State tenants! These farmers are State tenants!

IAN McKELVIE: Absolutely they are. As you well know, they have been for a hundred and something years, and so are those people who live wherever they might live in a Government-owned house. We do not charge them for the view. I think that argument really buys itself.

I have got no problem supporting the movement of this bill through the House, and with a bit of luck it will get out of here fairly soon. I just want to congratulate those who were on the Primary Production Committee at the time this was heard—and I certainly was not—on the work they did; also, the Ministers who have put this through; and Jacqui Dean, whom I have heard speak, I think, three times on this bill since I have been a member of this House, certainly with a significant amount of enthusiasm for the bill. I have much pleasure in supporting this bill and hope that it proceeds with speed.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand this is a split call. There will be a warning bell with 1 minute to go.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : Yes, I understand that the Greens are going to take 5 minutes, and I will take a 4-minute bell, thank you, if I get that far.

This is an issue that I think has been fraught. There has been a disproportionate amount of time spent on this legislation and on Crown pastoral rents over the period of the last 10 years or so, at least. Certainly, in the time that I was in Cabinet there was far more time spent on it, and trying to get this one sorted was one of those Solomon-type issues. But my view is that the Government has now come down with the wrong decision. Currently, the rent for the properties is set at a relatively low 2 percent, excluding improvements. The Government is proposing to cut this further and thereby transfer the value to the lessees, making it easier for them to freehold the properties and to onsell, if they so wish, part or all of the farm, and make some windfall profits. I think the Primary Production Committee has seen the evidence of that. Of the 77 runs that completed tenure review, at least 28 of the new landholders have onsold 176 parcels of the newly freeholded land. These 28 new owners paid the Crown $6.9 million to freehold, and they have realised $134 million through selling only 44 percent of the freeholded land.

What is clear is that there is a reduction in income, at a time when the Government is telling us it is short of cash—and I agree that it is short of cash. Giving rent reductions to farmers below a 2 percent level, I think, is a waste, or revenue forgone that could be better used. But also there is a wealth transfer without a proper capital gains tax arrangement, unless these gains can be absolutely proven to be trading gains, and I think you would probably have trouble proving that some farmers have been involved—their families—in farming for 100 years. I think any trading tax we would have trouble applying under current law, although, hopefully, at some stage in the future we will be able to get this sorted.

What we are doing here is sacrificing the right of the Crown to extract fair value from the property. What that does is short-change the New Zealand taxpayer. It is something that we should not be doing. I will go back to where I started and say that the issue is not a simple one. Getting it right, getting it fair, and making sure that we do the best we can to maintain the values, as we do, of many of these properties is something that is hard. What we do know is that when they are freeholded, or even the properties that are close by are, because of their exceptional views, because they are very special places—I note that Nick Smith is in the House. I know he knows the St James Station well. He has cycled through there, I think, on at least a couple of occasions. He had a press conference, I think, halfway through one. [Interruption] Oh, he did not have it. He finished the ride an hour behind me without having a press conference, on that particular occasion. I think it was when I weighed about 20 kilograms—I did not quite weigh what you weigh, Mr Deputy Speaker—more than I do and more than Nick Smith. But I think Nick Smith would agree that these places are very special and we have got to handle them carefully. It is my view that this approach to their privatisation is one that is wrong, and therefore Labour is going to oppose it.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) : I heard from the Government side a concern that the Greens might have been overstating the need for ecological assessments, and a suggestion that all farmers are probably doing an ecological assessment each day. That level of ecological assessment, unfortunately, is too often too shallow.

I think there is some fantastic stuff that has happened in the high country in terms of high country farmers—family farmers—but there is a need to ensure that the best practices happen, or that biodiversity protection is happening all the time. That 2 percent of unimproved land value for something like 50 years—decades—was super cheap, cheap, cheap, and there is no real justification for that. There is no justification for keeping it unreasonably low. However, we believe that these farms should be kept for New Zealand farming families or for biodiversity and environmental protection.

Income-related rents have merit when strong environmental protections are assured and biodiversity gains are measurable, when stocking and pest intensity does not degrade further than natural erosion that has been exacerbated by early clearance and overgrazing. There were some shocking practices in the high country in years gone by. Income-related rentals can be appropriate if they are not turned into cheapo privatisation that later becomes a goldmine for property developers—a windfall, not protection nor production by the family farmers we want to respect. Protection for biodiversity, ecological features, landscape, and family farming can be achieved by this bill, but there are weaknesses that should have been amended. My regular experiences in the Marlborough high country reinforced my desire that the high country is given more respect than this bill may allow in the hands of the National Government.

I recall another pleasant experience in the high country near where I was born in Central Otago—Jacqui Dean is not the only one who has roots or a connection down there. It was when Prince Charles visited New Zealand last. I met him at the luncheon provided near Alexandra where he was touring over a property to see sustainability improvements. I was a little ashamed of what he was being shown at the time, to be honest, but that is what he was being shown and toured over. I believe that property had a way to go. I was there, privileged in my previous role with the Soil and Health Association, to gift to Prince Charles an organic Bio-Gro certified merino shawl, directly ahead of his forthcoming nuptials with Camilla Parker Bowles.

Certified organic production is one way to ensure a higher level of environmental stewardship than sometimes occurs with less progressive operators. This Government has dropped the ball on organics in New Zealand, treating it like some sector that has no real vision about genuine sustainability in the sectors that do not have that vision genuinely. National expects that organics, which is contributing plenty through good practice in most cases, should also fund the next tranche of conversions to sustainable development. National does not actually understand that the pioneers in organics are the ones who have done a whole lot of work and should have no real personal reason why they should be funding the next tranche.

One thing that Prince Charles also said to me at that luncheon was that New Zealand would be absolutely nuts to be going down the genetic engineering path. Yet National again is going down that path and putting money into pasture grass that is genetically engineered and may end up in the high country. That must stop and, as we say with this bill, there is some real possibility that, if the science behind the ecological assessment is valid, the bill may go some way to ensuring the high country has a good future. Thank you.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) : I am pleased to take the final call in the third reading of the Crown Pastoral Land (Rent for Pastoral Leases) Amendment Bill, and I support it wholeheartedly.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : It is a pleasure to—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! [Interruption] Order!

JOHN HAYES: It is a very great pleasure to stand this evening in the Chamber to speak on the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill, put forward under the careful leadership of our Associate Minister of Commerce, John Banks.

I would like to make just a couple of introductory remarks before my comments. The only way New Zealand is going to move forward satisfactorily is to earn more money than it spends. We have got to be very careful to keep our debt below 30 percent of gross national income, we have to lift savings productivity, and I think that enhancing and growing our international trade links and opportunities is a key part of our plan to build a competitive and productive economy. This is one of the four objectives that we have in the Government in this term of office.

When you open the door to free competition and you drop your borders, as we have done in New Zealand and as we are asking every other country to do, there is a risk that small companies throughout the country—but particularly in my electorate; I think of somewhere like Metalform in Dannevirke, which is in the manufacturing area—can be flooded by items imported and, perhaps, dumped in this market. So I think that the commerce Minister has been particularly wise to design this draft legislation with tariff and trade remedies policies, so that our companies can operate in a more predictable environment and play an important role in providing New Zealand industries with confidence to invest, to grow, and to compete, especially as tariffs are being reduced and eliminated under our free-trade agreements. These agreements are going to grow, and the Government, I know, has plans for at least 28 trade missions in this term of office.

One of the issues that I would like to address to the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Commerce, is the question around that part of the legislation that gives the Minister of Commerce authority to impose a provisional and then a final safeguard duty without taking it through a lengthier Cabinet process. I would be quite interested to ask the Minister whether he could please outline and specify the individual considerations that he would be taking into account when determining whether a safeguard duty is in the public interest. I would be interested to know what sorts of considerations the Minister will take account of in that process.

I really support this legislation. I think it is excellent, and I think our Minister has done a good job leading us through this process. Thank you.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) : It is a pleasure to get up to speak to the Committee stage of the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill. Labour actually supports this bill, and we support it because it was introduced by Lianne Dalziel, and I think we can rely on a former Minister who introduced this bill who does not forget things, who can be relied on to act with integrity, and who can be relied on to be straight with the media and not to obfuscate. For all of those reasons I think that this bill probably deserves our support, but I do have a number of questions to the Associate Minister of Commerce.

My first question to the Minister is, given the trouble that he is in, will he still be here when we complete—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Look, we are not getting into this speculative area. There is plenty of scope to debate the purpose, and Part 1 is a big part, so I ask the member just to desist from the line that he is on. Thank you.

Hon PHIL GOFF: On a different line, this is a question that was asked on the front page of the Dominion Post to Mr Banks: has he actually read the bill? He has not read the Local Electoral Act; has he read this bill? If he is the Minister in charge of this Committee stage, our side of the Chamber wants to have assurance—

Louise Upston: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You spoke only a matter of seconds ago about the content of the bill and the fact that it was quite wide in its scope. I would ask that you manage that member’s relevance, please.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I do not need any assistance. The member on his feet asked the Minister whether he had read this bill. I think his references to the paper were unhelpful, but he did not—[Interruption] Order! I think he is just inside the line at this stage. I caution the member, and I caution other members as we proceed. I am happy to proceed with the debate.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I read that this bill’s purpose is to replace an old regime with a new regime, and I want to know whether the new regime will be as reliable as John Key’s new regime to lift the bar on ministerial standards. I want to know that because, you know, we have been promised new regimes before and they have not been delivered. So I want to know whether the new regime that this bill introduces is going to deliver the goods, because John Key did not deliver the goods on lifting the bar on ministerial standards. When Ministers can mislead the public, obfuscate, forget things, and not tell the truth, that is not introducing a new regime.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I have been very tolerant here, but the member talks about Ministers not telling the truth. There are standards here about members being honourable members. I just think the member ought to be a little more careful about how he is phrasing that stuff.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I apologise to my honourable colleague. The point I would like to make is that Mr Goff at no stage suggested that the Minister did not tell the truth in the House, and that is the requirement. We are allowed to say that Ministers did not tell the truth outside the House, and clearly that is the case with this Minister.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): That is not my understanding of Speakers’ rulings. I invite the member to demonstrate to me, through Speakers’ rulings, where my interpretation is not correct. But we will continue with the honourable member.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Part 1 of this bill talks about safeguard investigations. I want to know the meaning of the term “safeguard measures”, because there are a lot of things that the public need to be safeguarded against. They need to be safeguarded against Ministers who do not tell the truth to the media. They need to be safeguarded against Ministers who obfuscate and are not upfront and honest with the public and the media. And they need to be safeguarded against forgetfulness. Can we rely on this Minister in the chair to remember what the provisions of this bill are, so that he can properly implement them, when he could not remember a helicopter ride to the biggest mansion in the country—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! I have cautioned the member. This is about the bill, and I caution the member again. That is it—right.

Hon PHIL GOFF: It is a bill—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Are you seeking a second call now?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes. I hardly got started. The bill also “promotes efficient, transparent, and objective investigative and decision-making processes.” Let me repeat that, because that is really important. The bill promotes efficient, transparent, and objective investigation and decision-making processes. I would like to hear from the Minister in the chair what he thinks about transparent decision-making—whether things should be upfront, open, and honest, and whether the law should be followed in that regard.

This bill, interestingly, is also about anti-dumping and countervailing duties. Does this mean, I ask the Minister in the chair, that if he dumps on Kim Dotcom, there will be countervailing action by Kim Dotcom to tell the truth about what he said? I think that is a really good question, and I would like to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is that a countervailing duty?

Hon PHIL GOFF: It is a countervailing duty, I think, that if your loyalty and your goodwill towards somebody is not reciprocated—by someone who pretends that they cannot even remember who you are, even though he spent 2 hours with you, dined with the family, and toasted you at your birthday party—then you will expect that person to feel that there has been no countervailing loyalty towards you, and that you have been used. So it is little wonder that Kim Dotcom responded in that way.

Clause 5 of this bill is about the Act binding the Crown. I want to ask about that. Is that the Act binding the Crown in the same way that the Cabinet Manual binds the Prime Minister, for example, to uphold and be seen to uphold the highest ethical standards on his Ministers? Is that what binding is? It does not say much in the bill. It simply says that the Act binds the Crown. I would have thought—

Kris Faafoi: It’s the ACT Party.

Hon PHIL GOFF: The ACT Party. Well, does the Cabinet Manual bind the Prime Minister or his Ministers to uphold and be seen to uphold—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: It should be “props up the Crown”.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes, well, binding and propping up—there might be something in that.

Clause 6 is about notification of a decision or a report. I wonder whether that notification is a bit like notifying the Electoral Commission that a huge donation was made and that he then asked the donor to split it into two parts, contrary to the spirit of the law. Is that the—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. There is a requirement for a Minister to be in the chair during the Committee stage of the debate. They are not allowed to run around the Chamber like this, no matter how scared they are.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will uphold that. Yes, the Minister in the chair should not move more than from the chair to the aisle.

Hon PHIL GOFF: This is a bill—

Hon John Banks: This is very boring.

Hon PHIL GOFF: The Minister might say it is very boring, but I tell him that the country is not bored about his escapades, his misleading comments, and his obfuscation of what he is doing. Maybe the Minister could explain what he meant when he was asked whether he had declared all his donations and he said: “look, look, look, look, look, look, look … I have never been with Dotcom to Skycity.” If that is not obfuscation—

Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The chairman of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, John Hayes, and his colleagues on this side of the Chamber are very, very interested in this debate. This going-on by the member for Mt Roskill serves his interests no good. It is contrary to the Standing Orders because it is irrelevant, and I would like to think that the Committee would stay in order, the shouting and carping from the parliamentary Opposition should cease, interjections should be rare and reasonable, and we can get on with the important business of this Government.

Hon PHIL GOFF: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Chairman.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I will accept the member’s contribution.

Hon PHIL GOFF: My response in fact was to an interjection made by the Minister himself. It is a bit rich for him to be saying that we should not be interjecting.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member cannot attack another member through a point of order and talk about richness or anything else, and the member should know that by now. I am listening very, very carefully to the debate, and it is fair to say that the member, in his speech, is moving outside the realm of what is acceptable, but then he ducks in again. He is a very senior member. My tolerance about this—we have had a go on this now and I ask members to debate more specifically the purpose and Part 1 of the bill.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just want to alert your attention to the fact that this is the second time that the member speaking has been interrupted in order for relevancy to be questioned, which is in fact out of order. The Speakers’ rulings are quite clear that the sole judge of relevancy is you as the Chairperson, and therefore you should not be questioned by a member abusing the point of order process to interrupt another member speaking.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I think that two times, one on each call, is probably not excessive. The member does make a point, and I have assured the Committee that I am listening. If members wish to test my patience, I will terminate a few speeches if I think that members have got too far away from the bill. Bearing in mind that members have four calls, I am quite prepared to terminate calls.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think I am going to welcome the ruling that you have just made, but I just ask you to confirm that it is now OK, according to you, for members to question the relevance of other members’ speeches, rather than leaving it to you. It is a new ruling but quite a good one.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, it is in fact not a new ruling, and members will know that from time to time relevancy has been a call that members on both sides of the House have made, depending on whether they are on the Treasury benches or not. If it is excessive, then warnings are given about members using that to interrupt. I do not believe that on this occasion that it was to interrupt but was merely to set the standard of what is acceptable in this debate, upon which I have given my ruling.

Hon PHIL GOFF: I will come back to the bill, but the Opposition members would feel much more comfortable if they had a Minister in the chair whom they felt they could rely on. This bill is quite an important measure. This country does believe in opening up a free market for trade so that our exports can go into other countries and their imports can come and fairly compete with ours. But there is a need on occasion for safeguard measures, particularly when there is dumping and particularly when that competition is not of a fair nature. My concern about the Government is that this bill was introduced over 3 years ago. This is a straightforward but very important piece of legislation, and it could easily have been carried into effect at any time over the last 3 years. So my question is why it has taken 3 years to bring this legislation back to the House.

We are a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO). We are a small country. We rely on a rules-based system in international trading to protect our rights, and we need to be compliant with the WTO and the rules that it sets out. This legislation is compliant with those rules. It is not a trade protectionist measure. It is about fair-trading rules, and we support it on that basis.

I welcome the fact that this introduces a system that is streamlined, and New Zealand producers and manufacturers will likewise welcome that. It will rely on expertise within the Ministry of Economic Development, rather than setting up temporary safeguard authorities, and I think that that is a positive move. It will extend the time frame for the completion of safeguard investigations to 75 days. I think that also is a sensible move.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) : It is a pleasure to have an opportunity to speak on the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill. I must say that it is absolutely vital to New Zealand that our exports are ever-expanding and trade is fundamental to New Zealand. It is something that the Hon Phil Goff, certainly for most of his speech, seemed to forget. He does wonder why it has taken a year or two for this bill to come through. But the previous Labour Government had adequate time—in fact, it had 9 years—in order to put this bill through if it really wanted to, if it was really serious about trade, if it was really serious about ensuring that we were protected at the borders. But it did not. At the last moment of that dying, inept Government it was actually flicked in by a Minister who is not absolutely lily-white, as was suggested by the Hon Phil Goff.

Hon Trevor Mallard: She stood down.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: I just mentioned that she was not exactly lily-white. That is all.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Are you being mean about me?

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: I would never be mean to you, not at all.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I stood down.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Well, maybe that was the case, but whatever. It was appropriate at the time that you did.

But on to the bill, there is no question that it is vital. Speaking to Part 1 of the bill, the purpose is to enable New Zealand to apply safeguard measures and provisional safeguard duties. The idea is that these be in accordance with the World Trade Organization regulations, which, of course, we need to ensure. We have an ever-changing pattern of more dependence on a wider spectrum of countries that we have free-trade agreements with, and dumping is a very real possibility. But it is interesting to point out that of all the years of the previous legislation, there have been only four cases that have been investigated, and only one of them was actually imposed. It is not something that is used frequently. In fact, the submitters to this bill, of which there were only five, did wonder whether we really needed to have this bill at all. But, on balance, we felt that yes, we did, that dumping could occur, and that it was vital and relevant that this did happen.

I do note that the chamber of commerce was concerned about a variety of issues, and one, of course, was the issue of time allowed for extending an investigation, from 30 days to 70 or even 85 days. It supported that, whereas in contrast one of the other submitters felt that it should be only up to 60 days, because otherwise the long investigation might upset its business operations. The fact is that extending it to 60 or even 85 days allows the opportunity for a very thorough investigation, but it need not take that long, and I am sure that the Associate Minister of Commerce—the very competent Minister, Mr Banks—would ensure that any investigation was done highly expeditiously. He may wish to talk on that particular matter, because it is vital. I would be interested to hear from the Minister as well his views—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I cannot hear the member. There is too much—order! I am on my feet—discussion going on.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Thank you. I would be very interested to hear his views on the fact that some of the submitters had felt that it was a question of balance as to whether we would have a bill at all, but indeed it was appropriate that we do.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) : It is a pleasure to speak to the Committee stage on Part 1 of the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill. I am particularly interested because this is the Committee stage, Mr Chairman, and your rulings recently have required us to stay very much on task, even though we are debating fairly widely across the whole of Part 1. The importance of the Committee stage, as I understand it, is that the Minister in the chair defends the legislation. The Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Commerce, is required to defend and explain—clause by clause, if necessary—this legislation. It has come into the House in the Minister’s name. He is responsible for it, and he must answer questions about every clause.

I would like to begin, but before I start on that tack, I will just say one thing in response to the member Dr Paul Hutchison, who has just resumed his seat. This bill was introduced by the Hon Lianne Dalziel on 9 September 2008, and then there was an election a couple of months later. It was referred to the select committee on 11 March 2009. It was reported back from the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, on which I sat and deliberated on this bill, on 7 July 2009. So it took from only March to July to dispose of the bill at the select committee. Since then, it has languished on the Order Paper for nearly 3 years—3 whole years. So I do not want to hear another squeak out of that member about whether or not this bill should have arrived in the House earlier. Of course it should have arrived earlier, and it was entirely the Government’s fault and responsibility that it has not.

But can I say, on that note, that I am quite glad that this bill has arrived in the Committee stage today, because it gives me an opportunity to ask this Minister in the chair what he understands by some of the clauses. I was present when he gave the first reading. It was an automaton kind of speech, and it was clear that he was not very au fait with the bill itself. So I would like him to take a call any time he likes this evening.

Let us start with the explanatory note. I would like this Minister to demonstrate his competence in regard to this bill by explaining what the explanatory note of the bill means where it says that it promotes “efficient, transparent, and objective investigative and decision-making processes.” I would like to know what this Minister understands by the word “transparent”. Does he understand that “Yes” means yes and “No” means no? Does he understand that when he is asked a yes/no question—a closed question—his two options are to say “Yes” or “No”, and that it is reasonably simple to answer a closed question?

Does he understand that transparency is required in all a Minister’s dealings? Even if it is behaviour prior to his entry back into Parliament and his taking up of a ministerial warrant, the nature of the man and the behaviour beforehand go to what we can expect a Minister to uphold.

I would also like to know what the Minister understands by the words “objective investigative and decision-making processes”. Are objective investigative processes characterised by obfuscation, or are they characterised by clarity and a distance—an objectivity? Even if done under legal advice, is obfuscation the same as objective investigative and decision-making processes, or is something more required of the Minister in charge of this bill?

This is the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill. Does this Minister understand the meaning of the word “safeguard”? Does he understand that there is more to the law than the words on the page? Does he understand that, in fact, the intention, the import, and the ethical nature of conduct also go to the way that laws are made in the House? This Minister, whose ethical behaviour seems not to be a problem—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order! Now, just take your seat. This is not an opportunity to do a character assassination about allegations against the Minister. I think the member had done quite well up to that point. We are debating the content of Part 1. I am not going to tolerate the allegation side of it coming into this, in the way the member just did it. The Hon Marian Hobbs.

Hon MARYAN STREET: No, sorry, Mr Chair—Maryan Street. Maryan Street.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Oh, I am sorry; what did I do?

Hon Member: Called her Hobbs.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Well, can I apologise to the member. I think perhaps I could just make the comparator that when the Hon Marian Hobbs was in the Chair, she was very prescriptive about being on message. I was probably thinking of her when I inadvertently called the member by that name, and for that I apologise.

Hon MARYAN STREET: Thank you, Mr Chairman. It is fine; I take it as a compliment. To have Marian Hobbs channelled in this way may, in fact, be quite useful in this debate. However—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, I’m moving away.

Hon MARYAN STREET: Ha, ha! Let me turn to clause 10 in Part 1, which talks about “Access to information relevant to safeguard investigation and treatment of confidential information”. Could we please have the Minister’s explanation of what is meant by “safeguard investigation and treatment of confidential information”? In the terms of this bill, what is understood by “confidential information”? Is it like any other kind of meaning of confidential information—that is, information that may not be disclosed—and on what grounds would that information not be disclosed? I would invite the Minister to get on his feet, at some point in this Committee stage—

Grant Robertson: Any time.

Hon MARYAN STREET: —any time would be fine—and explain “safeguard”, explain “confidential”, and explain how this legislation can be deemed to be doing all the things it says it wants to do, with this Minister in charge.

This is an important piece of legislation. It was disposed of quickly by the select committee. It has been sat on by this Government for no good purpose other than the fact that it cannot organise its way out of a paper bag, so the bill has not got to the top of the Order Paper until such time as the Government could not think of what else to do. So it has been put in as a bit of a gap filler, but it does resonate. It does resonate. Of course we want a system that is compliant with World Trade Organization requirements. There are preventions in the bill that protect and safeguard New Zealand trade and New Zealand industry. They are important, and they are part of the safeguard measures, but over and above all that, we have to be able to have confidence that this Government understands the meaning of the words on the page. It is not clear to members on this side of the Chamber that we have a Government that understands the meaning of the words on the page.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I do know the difference between a “Hobbs” and a “Street”, and I do have to say that after listening to the Hon Maryan Street’s speech—

Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: Ah! You’ve been listening.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, absolutely, and intently, because I am new to the game of trade and new to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. So I suppose I am doing my—

Chris Hipkins: You traded parties.

Hon TAU HENARE: Sorry?

Hon Members: You traded parties.

Hon TAU HENARE: That was funny! You know, we are here discussing a pretty important piece of legislation, which is something that goes to the heart of any nation when it is faced with an economy that is—

Hon Phil Goff: What’s the bill called?

Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Objections and interruptions should be rare and reasonable. Barking and howling from the Opposition side of the Parliament is not helping the debate. I cannot hear the learned member and his questions. I will not be able to answer them if we have this barking from the Labour Party on that side of the Chamber.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Chairman—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I do not need any assistance. I have cautioned the Committee a number of times. We do want to hear the debate. I know that there is a degree of interest and passion at the moment, but that does not mean that we should not be able to hear members speaking.

Hon TAU HENARE: Thank you, Mr Chair. When the nation is faced with a crisis around the world, in terms of economics—

Chris Hipkins: I can hear him, but I’ll swap with someone who can’t!

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Order!

Hon TAU HENARE: You see, that is the sort of importance that the Labour Party puts on an international piece of legislation. They moan. They get up on their high heels—hind legs even—and moan “Oh, we sat on this bill for ages and ages.”

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Who introduced it?

Hon TAU HENARE: And the shrill from over that corner—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Who introduced it?

Hon TAU HENARE: The shrill from that corner is all about obfuscation, is all about a sort of pantomime, and is all about theatre. It is not about the real issue. The real issue is making sure that we safeguard our businesses in the world of trade. What it is about is actually falling into line with the World Trade Organization’s regime, so we protect and we safeguard—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Who introduced the bill?

Hon TAU HENARE: Sorry?

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Who introduced the bill?

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, it was the liar who got sacked from Cabinet. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I think I heard the member use a four-letter word that is totally unacceptable in the Chamber. The member knows that, because it is a reflection on all of the Committee. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

Hon TAU HENARE: I withdraw and apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

Hon TAU HENARE: It was from the member who got sacked for not telling the truth. That is what it was. That was from the member. They do not want to know.

Hon Members: That’s what’s going to happen to Banks.

Hon TAU HENARE: No, no, no.

Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The carping and howling from the Labour Party must cease, Mr Chairperson, under the Standing Orders. I need to hear the parliamentary Government member’s sound and sensible questions on this important piece of legislation, which I need to answer. Barking and howling, yelling and shouting do not do this Parliament any good, and it disgraces the parliamentary Opposition. I ask you to call them to order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I think it is fair to say that there was a reasonable amount of noise then, and the noise was because the member on his feet, a former Minister, suggested that Ministers who mislead the public should get the sack. We were agreeing with him.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just remind members that this is not a public house. The practice of members engaging in a constant barrage of interjections actually amounts to heckling and is entirely intolerable in a debating chamber. I ask the member to continue.

Hon TAU HENARE: What this is about is enhancing and growing New Zealand’s international trade links. As I said before, if a bill like this was so important, we would not have the sort of pantomime, the theatre, going on from the Opposition members. They are fixated about something else. Well, at least our side is fixated on one thing, and that is making sure that our economy does not tank because—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: You don’t know what it does.

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, I do not know anything. I know I do not. I do not know as much as the person over there who got into trouble and had to leave Cabinet. That is OK.

Hon Simon Bridges: What did she do?

Hon TAU HENARE: Oh, I do not know. She told one story, and then there was another story. She told one story, and then the story came out that it was not really the story that she really did tell. But that is all right. That was years ago and we should not go down that track into the past.

Hon Simon Bridges: But they would.

Hon TAU HENARE: Well, that is right. That is right. But we are trying to concentrate on getting a bill through—a bill that safeguards our reputation around the world not only with other people in the world but also with the traders and the businesses here in New Zealand. So what is wrong with that? Well, apparently, according to them, we have sat on the bill, we have done this, we have done that, but at the end of the day, have they helped today? Have they helped the process move along? No, they have not. No, they have not. I would like to hear the Associate Minister of Commerce, but he can get up only when and if the Opposition has got something clear to say and asks some questions about the bill—asks some questions about the bill—and there has not been one question on Part 1, not one. As Winston Peters is wont to say, “not a whisper, not a murmur”, about Part 1 of the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill.

Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to hear the Hon Tau Henare. I want to hear questions asked about the bill. I cannot hear when there is barracking, barking, and howling from the Opposition.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. Can I just ask members to try to restrain themselves. I would urge all honourable members to play the ball, not the member. Remember that, and we will preserve an excellent field for the full play of ideas.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. In order to keep the order of the Committee, one of the issues that the Minister in the chair has been raising is the importance of being able to hear questions, and I just would wonder whether we could get an indication. I counted 16 questions that were asked of the Minister by the Hon Maryan Street, and I am just wondering whether we could get an indication of whether the Minister intends to answer those questions.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is for the Minister to decide himself. Where were we? I call the Hon Tau Henare.

Hon TAU HENARE: Not a whisper, not a murmur—

Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. These cowardly attacks on the leader of New Zealand First should stop. The honourable member knows that it is—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Brendan Horan: —“not a syllable, not a sound”—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am on my feet. Can I just remind members to have a look at Standing Order 117, which is to do with personal reflections. It is totally out of order and is unnecessary.

Hon TAU HENARE: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think I am big enough and ugly enough to handle being called names, but I do not like to be called a coward.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Well, I do not believe the member was calling the member—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I think he was.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): He was?

Hon Trevor Mallard: Yeah, I think he was.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Oh well, in that case, then, the—

Brendan Horan: Point of order, Mr—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, no. The member called the other member a coward. That is a personal reflection against the member. It is totally out of order. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Brendan Horan: I apologise.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): And withdraw.

Brendan Horan: And withdraw.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think it is important, for both the members, to note that the quote is a Churchillian one. It was, I think, first used in this Parliament by Sir Robert Muldoon. I think giving it to Winston Peters is probably going a bit far.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Right, thank you.

Hon TAU HENARE: Not a word, not a murmur, not a whisper, not a murmur—who cares what he said—

Hon JOHN BANKS (Associate Minister of Commerce) : The Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill is a very important bill for this country. It is about our trade. It is about our economic sovereignty. It is about this nation’s future. It is critical as part of the World Trade Organization (WTO). It is critical for the export sector of the New Zealand economy, and it is very important that these matters are dealt with seriously by this Parliament on this night.

I first want to thank the—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. If we continue to hear the unnecessary, unwarranted carping and howling from the Opposition while I am trying to go through these questions, how will we deal with the business of this Committee tonight?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just say to the Hon John Banks that this is a robust Parliament, and I have heard nothing just recently that is out of order.

Hon JOHN BANKS: I want to thank the member for Wairarapa—a first-class member of Parliament and a man who knows more about trade than anyone else in this Parliament. I want to thank the member for Wairarapa, Mr Hayes, for his first-class leadership of this bill through the select committee process. I also want to thank the member Dr Paul Hutchison for his support on the parliamentary Government side of the—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am having trouble hearing, and I am right next door.

Hon JOHN BANKS: I want to thank Paul Hutchison for his work on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, and Tau Henare for his work on that select committee.

I want to move to the questions. There has not been much focus, apart from by the parliamentary National Party, on what this bill is all about, because the parliamentary Labour Party does not seem to be much interested. That is why the National Government had to deal with this bill in its last term in office and put in place some sensible provisions within this bill so that we could trade successfully on the global stage without intimidation from trading predators.

The chairman of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, Mr Hayes, asked a very relevant question: what matters should be taken into account when considering the public interest regarding the tradable sector and the provisions of this bill? They are listed in clause 12(1)(e)(i): “the likely effectiveness of a safeguard measure in assisting the domestic industry:”—protecting the domestic industry base—“the alternatives to a safeguard measure:”, and “the likely effect of a safeguard measure on the market (including on consumers):”. It is important that consumers are looked after, as well. Public interest also entails “New Zealand’s international relations and trade goals:”, pursuant to our responsibilities to the WTO and other ethical trading nations that we are working with.

The member for Wairarapa, the chairman of the select committee, also asked the question of what the importance of this bill is to the domestic industry. As we progress through the stages of this bill we will deal quite specifically with that. The member for south Waikato or Raglan—I forget—

Dr Paul Hutchison: Try Hunua.

Hon JOHN BANKS: Hunua—it is now called Hunua. I thank him also for his questions. He is a very fine member of Parliament. He comes from the trading town of Pukekohe. There is no other trading village in New Zealand that will benefit more from this bill and the provisions of this bill than the people of the wider group of trading sector growers and exporters based in the member’s seat of Pukekohe. He asked the question—[Interruption]

Dr Paul Hutchison: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am having a great—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have not called the member yet. [Interruption] Order! A point of order is on the floor. It is to be heard in silence.

Dr Paul Hutchison: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am having a great deal of difficulty listening to the Hon John Banks—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I have told the members on my left that during a point of order there is to be absolute silence. The point of order must be terse and to the point. We will have order in this Chamber.

Dr Paul Hutchison: I just want to finish it. As I was saying, I was having a great deal of difficulty listening to the Hon John Banks. He was saying some nice things about me, and I wanted to hear them.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is hardly a point of order, Dr Hutchison.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I thought you were going to remind the member that during a point of order he should not be provocative, as he certainly was early in that point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is a good point that the member makes.

Hon JOHN BANKS: I want to hear good points, and I have got to say that people watching on the telly tonight this debate on the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill will wonder what this Parliament has come to. This is the Parliament of New Zealand, where we make laws in the best interests of industry and commerce, which the member Paul Hutchison represents in Pukekohe. He asked a significant question. He asks why there is a bill at all—why is there a bill at all? The Labour Opposition must have thought that this bill was worthwhile, because once upon a time—a long time ago, and hopefully never into the future—it was in Government and introduced this bill. It was the member for Wairarapa, Mr Hayes, who had to tidy up the bill, as the chairperson of the select committee, when National came into office.

The question Mr Paul Hutchison asked tonight was why there is a bill at all. I gave him the first answer, which was that it is to ensure that New Zealand complies with WTO rules. That is absolutely critical on the world stage of competitive trading. The second answer to that question of why there is a bill at all is that it is to update and simplify the regime, including the processes for undertaking safeguard investigations and applications of—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Hon JOHN BANKS: I could conclude by the behaviour of members of the parliamentary Opposition that they have had a liquid dinner. I want to finish by saying this: I thought that this bill, Mr Hayes, had general cross-party support. I did not believe that there would be so much interest. I am pleased with the interest. I am pleased that the National Party has got a serious interest in the tradable sector of the New Zealand economy in order to preserve our economic sovereignty on the world stage. The National Party members of Parliament tonight, including the first-class young backbench members of Parliament, clearly understand that this Government’s responsibility is to ensure that international trading represents WTO rules and regulation, so that competition by traders in Pukekohe can reach out to the market and do business in the best interests of foreign exchange earnings for New Zealand.

I want to, finally, before I allow some other member to take a call, turn to the officials who have done the backroom work—first-class public servants doing first-class work. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know this place is a pretty robust place, and we sometimes get carried away, but the continual—continual—barracking is out of this world. I would really ask you to just have a look at the volume and the continual barracking from the Opposition when our Minister gets up and does what they have asked him to do, which is answer some questions.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you, Mr Henare. I have asked members several times. This is a robust Parliament, and as long as it is contained and reasonable and within the Standing Orders, then it is permitted. But if it gets out of hand, then I will intervene.

Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Mr Henare’s point of order was the sixth occasion in the last hour that members have asked, within this robust debate, to be able to hear the speaker. I would draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 61/4(3), which says: “it is highly disorderly for a member to persist in interjecting when the member has been called to order.” I would suggest that that applies to the collective. To use a sporting parlance, when is the referee going to go to his pocket, and what colour will the card be?

Hon Trevor Mallard: You have just ruled on that area of point of order. It is highly disorderly for any member to suggest that you are acting inappropriately or not acting appropriately. I ask that you make it clear to that member that you are the Chair, not he.

Michael Woodhouse: I was very careful to distinguish between the infringement and the pattern of repeated infringement, which is what a good referee would look at. I suggest to you that that is a new point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I would like to refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 79/1.

Hon JOHN BANKS: I just want to answer a further significant question asked by the chairman of the select committee, the first-class member for Wairarapa, Mr Hayes. Mr Hayes asked this very significant question, which the public of New Zealand who are listening tonight on their crystal sets or on their televisions want to hear answered. Mr Hayes, in respect of this Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill, asked the significant question of what the significance of this bill is to the domestic industry. The significance is twofold. The bill provides a mechanism for providing temporary protection to a domestic industry from surges of imported goods. We will never have a successful tradable sector of the New Zealand economy if we do not have mechanisms in place so that we can move very, very quickly on illegal importation of things that are going to destabilise the trading market of the New Zealand economy.

Secondly, on the question of what is the significance of this bill for the domestic sector, asked by the member for Wairarapa, Mr Hayes, the chairman of the committee, I say that, in turn, the bill gives the domestic industry time to adjust to import competition. We are out on our own on the global stage. We sink or swim on our own on the global stage. The international trading sector is highly competitive, and there are countries out there that will take our economy off the map, out of the South-west Pacific, and off the world trade scene, unless we put in place rules and regulations that mirror the WTO.

I have to say, finally, on the carping and howling by the parliamentary Opposition, that if that was the way it behaved at the time of the hearings of the select committee, the people making submissions would not have been that impressed.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I just remind members that running commentaries are out of order and if people want to make a speech, they are entitled to do so. I refer them to Speaker’s ruling 60/5. I recognise the Hon Trevor Mallard.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : Thank you, Mr Chair. So do I when I shave. I think we might be at a historical moment in the Parliament at the moment. Before I get into the detail of the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill, I say that people do not get two maiden speeches, but they do sometimes get two valedictories. It may be that tonight we have seen the second valedictory for the Hon John Banks. I want to refer to the comment he made about the young backbenchers from the National Party and their contribution. I want to say that Tau Henare, Paul Hutchison—who, although he does not look it, is older than I am—and John Hayes are the young backbenchers to whom John Banks was referring, who have made contributions today.

I say to John Hayes that I hope he gets John Banks’ job. I think there would be some justice in that. He is seen as a fair person. He is seen as a person who understands the issues, and he made a contribution on this legislation that understood it much better than the Minister did. I do want to ask the Minister what the effect of this bill is on the trade in cabbages. What is the effect on trade in cabbages and their transit on rivers? What is the effect of this bill on the import of cabbages, and is there unfair competition with cabbages that are transported down the river on boats—cabbage boats?

I want to ask the Minister specifically about the amendment that he is proposing to clause 18(1), set out on Supplementary Order Paper 17, where he wants to omit “1 or more” and substitute “1 or both”. I want to ask him what he is referring to when he is substituting both for one, or one for both, or two for one. Is he talking about cheques? Is he talking about products? Is it two lots of $25 million, or what?

Hon Lianne Dalziel: No, this bill is about checks and balances.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is about checks and balances. There is no doubt that this is about checks and balances. How do you spell “checks” in this particular case? Does it have a “q” or a “c” in the middle of it? Is there a “k” in it or a “q” in this check, and which bank balance is affected?

Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member whose name fails me, who has just taken his seat, needs to understand the Standing Orders, because the Standing Orders are quite tight around the Committee stage of bills. He should be talking to Part 1 in a perfect world. Going on to the Supplementary Order Papers or anything is probably OK, but it has got to be relevant to the provisions of the bill in the Committee stage as it has come out of the select committee. I put it to you under the Standing Orders.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just ask members to reflect and deal with the detail of Part 1. That is where we are coming from. I know members can be very clever in the way in which they do that, but I also need to remind members that we need to be within the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just want to clarify for you, lest the point of order raised by the Minister cause any confusion, that a member is entitled to debate a Supplementary Order Paper that amends Part 1 during the debate on Part 1.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Speaking to the point of order, that has changed, I think, since the last time this member was in charge of a bill, when the Supplementary Order Papers used to be dealt with at the end rather than as part of the process. I think that changed about 20 years ago.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I understand that that in fact is correct.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Mr Chairman—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Your own member is speaking. Give him a fair go.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Thank you for the help. I want to refer you to clause 5 of the bill. This is the clause that says that the Act binds the Crown. I think that there could not be a truer thing said at the current time than that ACT is binding the Crown. In fact, the head of the Government, I think, is totally tied up by ACT at the moment. He is bound up almost in a way that he is being dominated. He is being dominated by ACT.

Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member is behaving like a buffoon.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated now. Can I just say to members that points of order are to be terse and to the point. It is not an opportunity to have a go at another member. That in itself is out of order, and I would just caution members about that.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I would like to refer you to clause 6 of the bill, and in particular clause 6(1)(c), which makes it clear that the report—and we are waiting for a report in this particular matter—is to be made “available on an Internet site, free of charge, and the Internet site address”.

Chris Hipkins: It is dotcom?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, that is the question. What happens if they are on Megaupload and the address is a dotcom address? Does that count as being available or not available in the current circumstances?

Chris Hipkins: They could make it available by sending a helicopter.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, you could get a helicopter view, but I am not sure—

Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I have to ask myself why am I wasting my time in this Parliament when the parliamentary Opposition— [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Can I remind members on my left that when there is a point of order on the floor, there is no sound at all from any other member.

Hon John Banks: People at home who are interested in what is happening in this Parliament want to hear from people like the Green Party. The Green Party member at the back of the Chamber has been seeking the call for a while, and they want to be able to hear his questions and get succinct answers—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am on my feet.

Hon John Banks: We don’t want—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Hon John Banks: —this howling and carping all the time.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member will be seated. I am on my feet. I am the Chair, and I will recognise the member when I do.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I want to raise two points of order with you. The first is that points of order are to do with order, and large explanations of what are preambles to a point of order will generally lead to disorder. The second is that the prerogative around who is recognised to speak is solely yours, and for the Minister to be challenging your rulings or your selection of speakers is totally out of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. I have already ruled on that for the Minister and he is aware.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I want to refer you again to clause 6(1)(c), about internet addresses.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: What does it say?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: What it says is that a copy of the report is—“or will be” is struck out—“available on an Internet site, free of charge, and the Internet site address.” What I want to know is whether Megaupload, a dotcom site, will be eligible for these purposes. I would like the Minister’s opinion on whether a dotcom site will be eligible for these purposes, and I want an assurance from the Minister that no previous consideration will be taken into account when that decision is made as to where this will be available and where the report will go.

I would now like to refer you to clause 10 of the bill, which goes to the questions of “access to information relevant to safeguard investigation”—I just want to emphasise those words “safeguard investigation” because those are important, and we will be coming back to that issue—and “treatment of confidential information”. I want to ask whether, when information is confidential, the chief executive—because that is the person who is mainly going to be dealing with it—says “This is confidential.” Or does he say “I don’t know.”, and “I’ve forgotten.”?

What does the chief executive say when he has information that he does not want to get out because he thinks it would be disadvantageous to the country? Does he make clear the reason? Is he fair? Is he democratic? Is he transparent? Or does he just say “I forgot.”, and “I can’t remember.”? What is the standard we expect of our chief executive when dealing with this legislation? Do we expect someone to be transparent and honest, or do we want them to say “I forgot. I can’t remember.”, and then blame a lawyer for encouraging them to tell lies?

Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know this bill inside out and back to front. I invite the member to refer very specifically to clauses or parts of the bill so that I can then take a call and answer any intelligent question that he may pitch to me.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No. That is not a point of order. But I ask the member to be careful in the way in which he is delivering his address to the Committee.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Notwithstanding the fact that you, Mr Chair, ruled out the Minister’s point of order, I will refer him to clause 10(1), and in particular clause 10(1)(a), which goes to the treatment of confidential information and which says: “All interested persons are entitled to access all information relevant to a safeguard investigation, except for—(a) confidential information (unless the submitter of the confidential information consents to the confidential information being made available);”. Well, what is clear is that in a number of cases people might give information that a chief executive, the recipient of the information, might prefer to keep confidential, and the people who are giving that information might prefer it to be out there. Skycity, if it had any information in this area, I am certain, would want to be transparent. I think Mr Dotcom, with the information, if he had any in this trade area—

Hon John Banks: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Government members responsible for this bill want to make progress tonight by having relevancy around the debate. There is no relevancy—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order, and the Minister is misusing the point of order privilege.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I want to ask the Minister about differential pricing and dumping. I want to ask the Minister this. If there is a product that is valued at, say, $3,600 for one, and someone gets five of them and a whole pile of food and pays $2,882, would that be regarded as dumping? Would that level of discount, when a product is valued at $3,600, there are five of them—maybe that is $18,000; five times $3,600—and a pile of food, and the charge is only $2,882, be regarded as excessive discounting? Would that practice be regarded as dumping, and what would happen if someone who was involved in that approach spoke to a Minister in order to get a special deal?

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) : I do not think it is in all our interests to extend this debate too far. We have had sufficient fun. I appreciate the comments from the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Commerce, in his effort to address some of the questions, but I do think that some of the questions that our colleague from Labour, Maryan Street, put forward have not yet been answered, and the challenge from Tau Henare that they be made substantive and specific I think should be met.

With respect, I ask the Minister whether he would be good enough to address some of those questions. I say this in the context of general support of the Green Party for the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill, notwithstanding the broad concerns we have pertaining to the bill itself and certainly to the broader aspect of the free-trade agreements as they come down the track. Would the Minister be good enough to rise to the challenge and address some of those questions that Maryan Street asked. As I see them, they were about the meaning of the phrase “safeguard investigation” in clause 7, the meaning of the phrase “confidential information” or the concept of confidential information for a safeguard investigation in clause 10(1), the meaning of “strategic importance” in clause 12(1)(e)(v), the meaning of “public interest” in clause 18(1)(e), and the meaning of ministerial discretion in clause 22. Thank you.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : The Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Commerce, has informed the House that he is all over the detail of the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill. Those were his words, and I want to challenge him on that, because there is nothing that he has said in his contribution that would suggest that. I was the Minister who introduced this bill. I was not the Minister who oversaw its reference to a select committee. It was referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, as opposed to the Commerce Committee, and that is because of its trade implications. I want to acknowledge in this Committee the work of John Hayes as the chair of that committee, because he did an excellent job and—

Hon Trevor Mallard: He should be the Minister.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Well, there are a lot of people on this side of the House who think he should be the Minister in charge of this bill now, and perhaps he will have the opportunity to do that some time soon. But that is by the by; that is not the point.

The reality is that the Minister has challenged this side of the Committee to take the politics out of the debate, and I am happy to do that. He was very happy to sit there and listen to every single one of the National members get up and insult me personally for taking, I believe, a position of integrity on a particular matter that I felt I had to take responsibility for. And that, perhaps, is the difference between me and the Minister in the chair: I was prepared to take responsibility for the mistake that I made. I did make a mistake. I should have been a bit more open about the role that I played—in particular, in information being referred to the media. It was for a whole lot of reasons. But I just want to say this: I believe that it is most important that our borders are protected in a whole lot of ways, and that is very relevant to this bill, because it is about our borders being protected from having goods dumped on its shores to undermine local manufacturers. That is what this bill is about, and nobody on the Government side is actually really talking about what the bill is about. That is what it is about.

I stood down from my position as Minister because I was trying to protect our borders from having people arrive here making claims about refugee status that were not true and trying to get around our rules in order to claim their right to remain in New Zealand. I made a mistake, I took responsibility, and I stood down. I think other people in this Chamber should be prepared to do that, as well. I actually do not think that it does anyone any good to attack me personally on this matter and then to stand up in this Committee and take umbrage—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Can I just say to members on my right that interjections are out of order unless they are rare and reasonable, and also that a running commentary is out of order, as well. People can take an opportunity to stand and have their say.

Hon Tau Henare: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. That speech has been going on for some 3 or 4 minutes, and it has talked about the indiscretions that that member made when she was a Minister. That has nothing to do with the bill. If you want us to listen and be courteous, that is fine. Talk about the bill, and we will.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Chairperson, you may be at some disadvantage, and so may the Clerk on your left be at some disadvantage, unless you were in fact listening to the debate previously. The matters to which my colleague is responding are the very matters that were brought up and spoken about at length, probably for a minute and a half or two, by the Hon Tau Henare when he was making his speech. He referred to these matters. It is an absolute right of a member in this House to defend their integrity and to contrast it with others when they are so challenged.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. Can I just refer members to Speakers’ ruling 46/2, which does allow some leeway for a member to respond, but then they have to come back to the detail of Part 1.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: This legislation is designed to protect New Zealand’s borders, and it is designed to protect our borders to ensure that our local manufacturers are not put at risk of having cheap goods dumped on our economy, to the detriment of local manufacturing. That is what the legislation does. The Minister told us that he was all over this bill. The reason that I believe that he is not all over the bill is that he actually has not described the fact of what it does. He seems to think that this is a brand new piece of legislation that has somehow emerged from nowhere, and that it has created a new set of obligations under the World Trade Organization rules that did not previously exist.

Well, we currently do have rules that provide for temporary safeguards to be put in place. The problem is that there is not an adequate definition of the public interest for those rules to be applied in an adequate way, and the other problem is an administrative one, which I thought that the Minister would be all over, if he was all over this piece of legislation—which he is not; he has obviously forgotten something. What this legislation does is replace the temporary safeguard authorities that already exist. We already have temporary safeguard authorities, but to set up temporary safeguard authorities is administratively inconvenient. It costs time, it costs money, it wastes time, it wastes money, and I would have thought that the Associate Minister of Commerce would have been all over this. He might have actually mentioned that in his contribution to the debate. But I do not think that he is all over this. Either that, or he has been briefed and he has forgotten what he has been briefed about. I think it probably reflects the reality of the situation that he is in at the moment.

The bottom line is that this is a particular piece of legislation that I was very pleased to introduce as Minister of Commerce. I recall when the previous Minister of Commerce made his contribution to the first reading, which was back on 11 March 2009. Actually, we are not far off that now, so it is now 3 years since the first reading, and the bill was introduced prior to the 2008 election.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Who was the Minister then?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Simon Power was the Minister of Commerce who moved the first reading of this bill.

Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s the speech that was prepared for him, though.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: It was prepared for me, and I actually read along with the speech. I will just quote a little bit from Hansard, because I thought it was quite funny. He said “The current regime is subject to the Temporary Safeguard Authorities Act 1987, which has not been subject to a comprehensive review since its inception. As a consequence”—and I interrupted him, and I am recorded in Hansard as saying “It’s now outdated”. He then said “—the Act is now outdated—that is quite right, I say to Ms Dalziel—and does not provide an adequate means for New Zealand to comply with its WTO obligations, should it be necessary to take safeguard action.”

So the point was that—I mean, Simon Power was actually reading a speech that had been prepared for me as Minister of Commerce to read, back in 2008. He was reading it on 11 March 2009. Do you know why he was not reading it until 11 March 2009? It was because it did not fit within the concept of that then Government’s 100 days of action, when it had to do all those amazing things within the first 100 days, and it had to introduce all these different things. That was the plan, to have 100 days of action, and actually I think it stopped after the 100 days. But the reality is that this bill has sat on the Order Paper for a very long time, and I think that the Minister in the chair, the Associate Minister of Commerce, does a great disservice to the reality of the need in this particular area. He stands there and tries to take umbrage at some of the issues that this side of the Committee has raised, when he is more than happy to see the attacks made on me personally. I do not really care about what people say about me. I am probably not going to be here for very much longer. The bottom line is that I—

Hon Trevor Mallard: You’re approaching the mid-point of your career.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yeah, the mid-point in my parliamentary career. I have not got that long to go.

What I want to say is that if the Minister really did understand the reality of what he was doing in this, and if he really was all over it, then he would know a little bit more about why this legislation was so important, and he would actually answer some of the questions that were put on this side of the Committee. The reality is that I do not think that he really cares about it, and the reason that he does not care about it is that he is not long for this place. In fact, I shall be here longer than he will be here, and he will be leaving this place relatively soon. I think that it is important for this member—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Will he be here for the vote on Part 2?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I do not think he will be. But the reality is that I think that the member does this important measure a great disservice, and I am actually quite annoyed that he has allowed the debate to be used in this particular way and not defended the important elements by understanding the reality about what it is designed to protect. It is more about ensuring that our local, domestic manufacturers have a fair go in their own country. It is about some of those ownership issues that matter a lot to New Zealanders and actually matter a lot to the workforce who work for the manufacturers in New Zealand, and who cannot compete with some of the overseas interests who are more than happy to dump on our country. They are more than happy to buy up every element of our country that they can get their hands on.

At the end of the day this actually stands as quite a sad and sorry commentary on a Government that thinks that this is so unimportant that it has been able to sit on the Order Paper for so long, and then end up here in the Committee as part of a debate that does not really matter to this Minister at all. I think that is a very, very sad commentary on the state of affairs that we are confronted with. I think that the Minister should get back on his feet and, rather than complaining about some of the obvious comments that are going to be made about his inability to respond, take responsibility for some of his own actions, like others have done in this House. It is a sad and sorry indictment on him.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Senior Whip—National) : I move, That the question be now put.

STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) : Thank you, Mr Chairman. [Interruption] Yes, I think you said my name right. When the bill was in the previous stage I mentioned that I was hoping the Minister would be able to help me a little bit with some stuff that I brought up at that point about this bill. The Greens support this bill because of the elements of anti-dumping in here, although we are very concerned about the free-trade agreements that make this so apparently necessary.

I had a particular concern about the terminology “serious injury”, meaning that businesses that might get some level of protection under here have been under threat of what was considered serious injury. In here that “means a significant overall impairment in the position of a domestic industry”. I read that, and I read it now, as no protection for anything less. So I would like to hear from the Minister what that level would be, or what the examples would be of where businesses would get protection and where they would not get protection.

The Minister suggested, within many points of order, that he would be able to answer some of these questions, and I just reiterate the earlier ones that we expressed interest in were in relation to the “safeguard investigation” in clause 7, confidentiality in clause 10(1), the strategic importance in clause 12(1)(e), public interest, and then we have also got the ministerial discretion. We have just heard a little bit about the ministerial discretion and we have some concern about where that might go.

We have some real concern about where this might go as well, albeit we are supporting it because we do need to have some sorts of safeguard measures. But this is a temporal bill. This does not protect New Zealand businesses for too long. I think the longest period is about 8 years or something like that. It is really just time to set up businesses to move into something else. It needs to be a little more substantive.

I put it to the Minister that, if he could, he should answer the questions that have been put a couple of times already, but, particularly, let me know some examples of where serious injury would be the definition, and what would not be. I am really interested in protecting, and seeing protection for, New Zealand producers and New Zealand processes—New Zealand manufacturers—from the excesses of the free-trade agreements that seem to have been allowed through successive Governments here. I will leave it to the Minister. Thank you.

Hon JOHN BANKS (Associate Minister of Commerce) : I will be leaving the Chamber soon and my friend Minister Joyce will be looking after matters. I want to answer the sensible questions raised by the parliamentary Opposition tonight—a number of sensible questions. I will start with Dr Graham, the Green Party member of Parliament, who has been listening intently to this tonight.

Dr Graham asked, some time ago, what the meaning of safeguards was in clause 17. He also asked questions about public interest and he asked questions about strategic importance. I can tell Dr Graham, the parliamentary member for the Green Party, that the strategic importance relates to the domestic industry and protection of the domestic industry, and the significance of the industry to our ability to trade from that. Can I also say to Dr Graham, who asked a question about confidential information, as did his colleague sitting beside him—he asked the same question, as well—that I can say to the two Green members at the back of the Chamber that clause 10(4) answers many of those questions.

Making information available would give a significant competitive advantage to a competitor and that would be a problem. We do not want to give significant competitive advantages to domestic competitors, and we certainly do not want to give significant competitive or uncompetitive advantages to international traders from export industry led by and represented by the member Dr Paul Hutchison—for instance, those great people in his electorate around Pukekohe who export to the world in a critical fashion. The bill states: “making the information available would have a significantly adverse effect upon the submitter of confidential information:”. I want to make that clear to Dr Graham again; that is the important part of the bill: “making the information available would have a significantly adverse effect on the submitter of the confidential information:” and that, I refer to him, is clause 10(4)(b). And paragraph (c) states that the information should be treated as confidential for reasons as submitted by the submitter.

It is important that we have some confidentiality around these things. I do not intend to answer any of the questions from the parliamentary Labour Party, because I have answered all of their questions—many of them quite convoluted, misguided, poorly informed, and poorly articulated. But I will say I hope I have answered all the questions from the member for Wairarapa, Mr Hayes, who has done such a sterling job in leading the parliamentary select committee. Tau Henare has got a really good grip of these commercial things, and it is good for a westie to have a very good grip of commercial matters affecting the tradable sector. It is great to see Tau Henare make a significant contribution on that important parliamentary committee. Dr Hutchison, “Mr Reliable and Common Sense”, on the select committee is all the way from Pukekohe and is looking after those exporters.

All of the provisions that I have outlined in Part 1 of the bill are the significant parts. I will just say, before I ask my friend Minister Joyce to take the chair, at quarter to ten this night in Parliament, that the second part of the bill is Part 2, and it provides for what you might call tidying-up—

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We have had a number of points of order tonight about the importance of talking about Part 1—the part that we are on. I believe that the Minister was straying into a different part, and I am sure you will pull him into line.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. I had noticed that. I ask the Minister to refer to the part.

Hon JOHN BANKS: Of course. Well, let us refer to Part 1. I want to thank the members of the parliamentary National Party. I want to thank the members of the Green Party for their very pithy questions—the significantly pithy questions they asked about this bill. I want to finish as I began, before I leave the chair. This bill is about providing the ability of our tradable sector within the New Zealand economy to compete fairly with all-comers on the global trading exchange—to compete fairly without interlopers coming in and trading unfairly in the domestic market place.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) : As the Associate Minister of Commerce resumes his seat, I say that I have heard a rumour that that Minister did not come down the river on a cabbage boat. I have heard that rumour. And all I have heard tonight confirms to me that that Minister very much did come down the river on a cabbage boat. It may well have been the last cabbage boat, but he certainly came down the river on it, because the very last thing he told us demonstrated that he simply did not understand what this bill, the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill, is about.

Throughout this evening we have seen from Mr Banks a level of competence that should not surprise me, but that is worrying in the context of this bill. Throughout Part 1 there are numerous references to what the Minister needs to do—what the Minister must do. The Minister may initiate a safeguard investigation. That is what we are told. Do we think Minister Banks is competent to initiate a safeguard investigation? I note the Minister did not actually respond to the questions from Maryan Street and our Green colleagues on the meaning of the word “safeguard”, but I can help with a definition of “safeguard”, which is not contained in this bill, because there is no definition. One of the definitions of “safeguard” is “a document authorising safe conduct”—“a document authorising safe conduct”.

A similar kind of safe conduct might be a declaration of somebody’s donations for an election. That is a safeguard document. It is a document that safeguards our democracy. It safeguards the transparency of what is going on in an election, be it at a local body level, or be it at a national level. That is a safeguard document. That is what the Minister in this bill is charged with actually creating and initiating—a safeguard document. Has Mr Banks demonstrated anything tonight that would indicate he is competent to initiate such a thing? Has he demonstrated, by anything in his recent behaviour, that he would be able to do that? He has not, in my submission, and that is one of the important roles of a Minister under this bill.

Another one of the important roles of the Minister is initiating a review around safeguards. I refer the new Minister in the chair, the Minister for Economic Development, to clause 20(3), which says: “The Minister must notify the decision to initiate a review of a safeguard measure, and that notification must state the date on which the review was initiated.” It must state the date. I have significant concerns, from what we have seen both from the Minister tonight and from his previous record, about his ability to recall the date on which the review was initiated under clause 20(3). Mr Banks, who would be the Minister referred to under this bill, would not have the memory, I think, to be able to know what date it was. Clearly, he has been very confused about dates in the past, and there is significant confusion about the dates of fireworks displays versus when he got donations. It is very, very difficult to remember those dates, and extremely difficult to remember trips in helicopters, although he does appear to remember training other people to fly helicopters. Perhaps that is something that he should have stuck to.

The Minister, under Part 1, has a number of significant responsibilities. But I think the biggest failing we have seen tonight by the Minister was actually in being able to articulate what this bill is about. I find—and I may run out of time for this—in these situations that it is often good to follow the journey of an issue, of something that is covered by this bill. What this bill is actually about is what happens to a domestic industry if there is dumping—if there are imports that come in. We can follow a particular import on a journey. Shall we choose a particular import? Are there any suggestions?

Dr David Clark: A cabbage.

GRANT ROBERTSON: “Cabbages”, I hear. So if we follow the journey of cabbages being imported—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Chinese cabbages.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, they could be Chinese cabbages; Chinese cabbages are one of the things. If we follow the journey of a cabbage under Part 1 of this bill, we would discover that a cabbage may come into our country by a number of means. A cabbage may come in by air, or it may come in by sea. It could come in by helicopter, but it is unlikely. You could not fit that many cabbages in a helicopter, especially if Mr Banks was flying it. But a cabbage may come in, and one of the ways a cabbage could come into this country would be by boat. The concept of a cabbage boat being part of an import into New Zealand is perhaps something that people might find strange. But what we can say categorically—the one thing out of the saga of recent weeks that we can say categorically—is that Mr Banks did not come in on a cabbage boat, and certainly not on the last cabbage boat, he tells us. He denies that he came in on a cabbage boat, but cabbages do come in. So in the context of being able to protect a domestic industry, in this case the growing of cabbages, we have the possibility of people dumping cabbages with us off a cabbage boat.

I just say as an aside that if one were to look up “cabbage boat” on the internet, one would discover that it is largely a 1970s-style snack, which I think is confusing in the context of Mr Banks’ earlier comments.

JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) : I move, That the question be now put.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) : I am very happy to talk on the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill, which is designed to protect New Zealand industries or New Zealand enterprises from the damage that can be done by shonky imports. We know in the Labour Party what damage shonky imports can do to a New Zealand enterprise, if it makes the wrong decision about importing something to replace something that is already here, and it gets that wrong. It is a bit like the leadership of the ACT Party. If an enterprise makes the wrong import, it can do enormous damage to the local industry that was already in place. And that is what the ACT Party has seen. This bill, unfortunately, will not provide any extra support for the ACT Party in the case of its shonky imports. The poor old ACT Party—it has happened to it twice. It made two bad import decisions: first, with Don Brash, and then with John Banks.

• Progress to be reported presently.

• House resumed.

• The Chairperson reported progress on the Trade (Safeguard Measures) Bill and no progress on the Regulatory Reform Bill and the Airports (Cost Recovery for Processing of International Travellers) Bill.

• Report adopted.