JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) : I move, That the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill be now read a first time. When I first came to Parliament 12 years ago, the first speech I ever gave in this House was on the sale of the Government computing organisation, or department. In those days we had to give 10-minute speeches, and I found that first speech particularly difficult for a number of reasons. Firstly, I did not know that the Government had a computing organisation. Secondly, I was utterly indifferent as to whether it sold it or raffled it, given my lack of knowledge about it. Thirdly, in those days we were not allowed to have any notes before us in Parliament when we spoke to legislation. So my first 10-minute speech was a very difficult and nerve-racking time.

It is almost singularly appropriate that my final speech in this House as I leave Parliament should be on the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill, because, once again, my speech is on a bill that is not a simple one on which to speak for 10 minutes. However, it is also appropriate that the bill is a local bill from the one part of my electorate that has been in my electorate for the entire 12 years I have been in Parliament. So it is with great pleasure that I recommend this extremely non-controversial legislation to the entire Parliament.

The bill is designed to validate the uses of a park in Gisborne called the Alfred Cox Park. The uses of the park currently are contrary not only to the Reserves Act but also to the terms of the deed of trust under which the park was gifted to the Borough of Gisborne in 1944. This particular reserve cannot be used for buildings that are used for commercial or private use. Unfortunately, the Gisborne District Council has its information centre on the land. As we know, the information centre is now run by Tourism Eastland, which is a private organisation and is outside the local authority—and I know that that concerns Mr Williamson hugely! But we now need to ensure that we do not have to move the building or remove the function of the organisation from the building as a result of the private nature of the business carried on there.

In 1992 the visitor information centre was erected on the land. Prior to 1990 part of the land was also used as the site of a flea market. That flea market is now a biweekly event. It is well attended. People in Gisborne look forward to it and farmers bring their produce to the market, but it is run privately. Although most members in this House, including myself, have a natural aversion to the endorsement of retrospective legislation, the Gisborne community, in this instance, is faced with no other option. The information centre is too substantial and too solid a building to be considered for relocation, besides which Alfred Cox Park is a central location and the stop-off point for many of the tourism operators who come in and out of Gisborne and for the tour company buses. There is no alternative site on which Gisborne can carry out these activities. Therefore, it is my recommendation to the House that parties support this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) : First of all, I thank my whips for having allocated me this wonderful slot and also this incredibly important local bill. The reason I like the slot so much is that as we head towards 5 o’clock I get the chance to communicate with my adoring drive-time audience in Auckland, and when I come back to the House later in the evening to speak on a couple of other bills at around 9.30 p.m. to 10 p.m., that same drive-time audience will still be in their cars and able to pick up on the second half of my speech.

However, I do not think that members should let a bill that is as trivial as Janet Mackey tries to portray this one to be to go through the House without some scrutiny. I think questions need to be asked. The first one, of course, is the retrospectivity of it. I do not feel comfortable about that. Janet Mackey made it quite clear that we will be validating some illegal practices that have been going on for some time. How comfortable are members of this House with that? How comfortable would they feel about coming in here one day with a bill about people who have been doing P, and saying: “This will make what they have been doing all right.”? We would feel absolute abhorrence at that. Yet, in Gisborne—and I feel well qualified to talk on this subject, because I have been to Gisborne recently, just for a day—this Alfred Cox Park is being used for doing illegal things, and there are two of them. That is the other thing that got me about this bill. It is trying to fix up not one illegality but two.

I thought that this was something where the Internet can play its part. That was the first thing that came to my mind; most people would not have thought of that. I went on to the Internet, got the search engines cranked up, and found some stuff that I think the House will find important as background material for this legislation.

The site states: “Alfred Cox Park was included in a parcel of land donated to the Gisborne Borough Council in 1944 by its namesake”—I presume that means by Alfred Cox rather than by the Gisborne Borough Council—“and member of the 30,000 Club Alfred Cox.” Janet Mackey is the local member. She must be able to tell us what that is. What is the 30,000 Club Alfred Cox? We are being railroaded with legislation where the member who is taking the bill through does not know some of the substance.

“It is worth a ramble of its own.”, the Internet site states, “If it’s autumn when you go, look out for the bountiful olive trees. The fleamarket held at the park every each Saturday morning should not be missed.” What does that mean? Janet Mackey said it was held biweekly. Does that mean twice a week, or does it mean every 2 weeks? It says here that it is held every each Saturday morning. Maybe that is just the way people in Gisborne speak. It says it should not be missed. I hope that the select committee, when considering this bill, will trundle off to Gisborne on one of the every each Saturdays when it is on to look at it.

“Not only are all types of produce available but the colourful atmosphere truly reflects the district’s cosmopolitan population.” This is getting really rich. This is where one sees a public relations officer in a small town like Gisborne trying to persuade the district’s cosmopolitan population. I would say that people from south Auckland, Otāhuhu, or Papatoetoe, where you come from, Mr Assistant Speaker, could quite fairly claim that their part of New Zealand is very cosmopolitan. But I do not think it is a fair label to be putting on the Alfred Cox Park.

The site states that Alfred Cox Park is off Grey Street, so it is not sounding a very colourful place to start with. Behind the visitor information centre office there is a mini-golf course, a BMX track, and a Canadian totem pole—maybe I was wrong about some of the cosmopolitan stuff—and early every Saturday morning there is the local flea market. So here is contradictory evidence already about how often the flea market occurs, and I do not think the House can afford to be misled by that.

There was something written by a lady called Lisa Mills. I thought it was a great article. I know Janet Mackey will know Lisa Mills from the Gisborne Herald. Janet Mackey said this bill was non-controversial. Here is the opening sentence in the : “Controversy over whether the operation of the fleamarket at Alfred Cox Park is legal may soon be at an end.” So, clearly, controversy was involved.

When Janet Mackey hears the end of this article—when House hears the end of this article—we will know that there is more than one view about how this problem should have been solved. It is quite the opposite of what was portrayed as being a lay down misère easy solution.

“The issue was raised by Kathy Sheldrake”—again, I see the member for East Coast nodding her head; she knows who Kathy is—“at yesterday’s Gisborne District Council’s community development committee when she asked for an update on the situation. In May, the committee was told a legal challenge had stymied a bid”—we were not told about this—“to legalise the fleamarket’s operation at the park.” So it sounded like it was all sweetness and light and everyone was behind it but, clearly, people in Gisborne whom we have not heard about were taking a legal challenge to stymie what one would only call bulldozer-type legislation that was driving over the top of people’s rights. The legislation was taking things that had been going on illegally in that park for years—and I am sure that a lot of illegal things go on in the park—and suddenly making them legal.

Why do we not add to the list? Can we just not amend it and put a few other illegalities in there? I am sure that a couple of members from the Greens will want to put a few things that go on in the park on to the list of activities that will now be validated by this legislation.

Phil Heatley: Cycle tracks.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: That was not what I was thinking of. The member has such a clean mind that it is disgusting.

The article continued: “The council had promoted a ‘local bill’ to be presented to Parliament in April 2003”—what has Ms Mackey been doing? We are now in July 2005, which is over 2 years later, before we have seen the bill get here—“after it was discovered that the Gisborne Visitor Information Centre and the fleamarket were operating in contravention of the Reserves Act. Their operation was also seen to be contrary to the deed of trust, set up when the land was gifted.” Well, that is the first question that we should all be asking. What do we think Alfred Cox would think of that?

Shane Ardern: Not much.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: He may not. He may have said that he did not want people riding roughshod over his wishes and that he would gift the land, but if people were to run private enterprise and making-money types of things, they could do them elsewhere.

Mr Cox may have been a sort of hard-line lefty from the Alliance end of the political spectrum who did not like private sector enterprise, capitalists, or anything, or he may have been a good free-market right-winger who would have said he did not care and that there could be 12 flea markets in his park—I do not know. We have not been told that by the member for East Coast. There has not been a mutter, not a murmur, and not a word about what Alfred Cox said in the gift deed back in 1944. [Interruption] The war was still going.

Again, the Gisborne Herald—and I am sorry to be losing a number of my devout audience because of the importance of this speech—has stated quite clearly: “The local bill was seen as a way of rectifying the situation, ‘righting the wrong’ by way of legislation. However, Tourism Eastland did not agree.” Janet Mackey was talking about how Tourism Eastland was happy with this. Tourism Eastland did not agree with that.

“At yesterday’s meeting, Ron Atkinson said Grey Power”—I do not know how Grey Power comes into it; I love local newspaper stories that run along about some piece of land and about whether the legislation works, when suddenly there is a mention of Grey Power—“had been looking at the matter for some time and had been given a copy of the private member’s bill. But nothing had ever happened in Wellington, he said.” Now, that is typical of Janet Mackey. If one wants to know about the Labour Party members in this House, they had been given a copy of the bill back in April 2003, and “nothing had ever happened to it in Wellington”, Ron Atkinson said.

The article continues: “Chief executive Bob Elliott said there was some dispute over whether or not it was needed.” Again, Ms Mackey should give an answer to the House. She should stop chatting to Ken Shirley about his stuff and answer that one. Mr Atkinson—whoever he is—asked the council whether it was even necessary to pass this bill.

Hon Member: They come around to get a better view.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: They have come to get a better view—that is great; my crowd is still here.

I would hope, for the sake of Janet Mackey and others, that we are not wasting valuable time in this House reading out things that are not of that much value, when it turns out that a chief executive does not think there is a need for this legislation.

I am happy to say that, with regard to the National Party, I do not know quite why we came to the conclusion that we came to. But I understand from Mr Ardern that we are going to support the bill. However, I still think that Janet Mackey needs to come up with some of those answers in her right of reply. What would Alfred Cox actually think about this park and the fact that we now are validating the illegal activities that go on there?

The article then states: “Surely legal advice would have said if we needed it. Corporate affairs manager Douglas Brit”—

Janet Mackey: Douglas Burt.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Yes, the member is dead right. I have the wrong person. I apologise.

All I can say is that I think Tourism Eastland had some concerns. The member has not told us why those concerns are not valid. I am happy to vote for this bill, but I am telling members that I will lose sleep for some time over it.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) : I am very pleased to take a call on the Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill. The contribution from the previous member lacks all regard for the Gisborne District Council, and, obviously, its mayor and councillors, who have brought this matter to their local member, Janet Mackey, to bring to the House in the form of this bill. I might add that as the local member, Janet Mackey has taken the responsibility, as the local member should, of bringing this before the House.

The bill outlines the fact that there is great support from the public for leaving in place the information centre that is in question, rather than relocating it because of matters that have confined under the Reserves Act the use of this piece of land, which was donated by Alfred Cox to the good people of the Gisborne area. This is the kind of thing whereby politicians should listen to what local people desire, aspire, and wish to have in their communities, and it seems to be desirous that this particular information centre, in this particular matter, is left where it is. It seems sensible and it seems something that is wanted by the people of this area, and who are we in this House to deny that?

It is likely that the Local Government and Environment Committee, upon the success of this first reading, may be sent the bill for its consideration. I would like to highlight one of the stark contrasts between a Labour-led Government and a National-led Government. In fact, the member who resumed his seat before I was kindly given the call was a former Minister of Local Government. I have to say that his tenure was brief. There were about four or five Ministers of Local Government in his time in that particular term, and that showed just how much—or how little—regard that that particular National Government ever had for local government. In fact, great contempt comes to mind at the thought of how that party regards local government. As a former mayor and civic leader of a district—a little further away from Gisborne, I must admit, but, nevertheless, on the East Coast—I valued the input and the desires of our local communities, and me and my council listened and, for the most part, delivered, just like this Labour-led Government delivers. I would have to say that the local member, Janet Mackey, a Labour MP, is delivering on behalf of the Gisborne District Council in this particular matter.

So in supporting this bill I would say, “Good on Gisborne.” Good on the people of Gisborne for deciding to make a decision for themselves, but they do need the assistance of Parliament in this particular matter because of the Reserves Act and the discrepancies between the contradictions that have been raised in here about what can and cannot or should or should not be cited on this particular piece of land, which was probably part of the deed that Mr Cox probably arranged at the time of the gifting of that land to the area.

In conclusion, the whole House should be supportive of this local bill, and should congratulate its local member and, of course, the Gisborne District Council on making its best efforts to provide this House with the relevant information and with something that is very simple and clear. I think it was a cheap shot from the previous member to make light of and to diminish the concern that that community has over this bill.

EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) : As my fellow MP Maurice Williamson said, we do not want to waste too much time on this matter. But having listened to his rhetoric, I think he said a lot more words than he should have, and actually supported the bill. Also, I take up a point that Maurice said—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will use another member’s full name or his or her title.

EDWIN PERRY: Sorry, the Hon Maurice Williamson. His party gave him the job of conducting the debate on this bill. Jim Peters has bestowed that difficult task on me.

I am quite happy to say that New Zealand First will be supporting the bill. It is a common-sense bill, no different from the Montfort Trimble bill that was put through by my colleague Georgina Beyer for the Masterton District Council and that New Zealand First supported, for the right reasons. This bill points in the same direction: the council needs a change in the law to make available the land for alternative uses. I ask Janet Mackey—that is, if she is listening—whether the National Party holds a stall at the mini-market day.

Janet Mackey: No members.

EDWIN PERRY: That is OK. I just wanted to clarify that point, because the Hon Maurice Williamson raised the point that these people should not be there. The world has changed. It is no different in Masterton. There are areas where land has been put aside for reserves but are now being used for different things.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Does that make it right?

EDWIN PERRY: The Hon Maurice Williamson is calling out. He has agreed about this and National is supporting the bill, so I really do not want to refer back to that point. Some members have some difficulty with it, and that is no different from the Montfort Trimble bill. Some people opposed that bill, but for their own reasons and not from the point of view of the community as a whole.

This bill needs to be supported for the reasons I have already mentioned, because a large number of people are using these reserve areas for different things. I know the information centre at Tourism Eastland. I know it very well from when it was first set up. It plays a vital role in the East Coast. The East Coast is the part of the country that sees the sun first. [Interruption] There we go! National members are talking about themselves. There is an old saying around Anzac Day: “Lest we forget.” Those members have forgotten what they have done in the past.

All I want to say is that New Zealand First will support this bill, and we wish the council all the best in its endeavours to make sure the land is used for the community for the right reasons.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) : Likewise, the ACT party will be supporting this bill. I do not intend to speak for long. There are some very key bills to get to tonight, and I would hate to think the two main parties were filibustering in an attempt to avoid getting to them.

But I ask why this Gisborne District Council (Alfred Cox Park) Validation Bill should even come to the Parliament. That is the real question. Time is being wasted here. It is a very small matter, a very local matter. In fact, the deed of trust states that only buildings for the entertainment, convenience, or amusement of the public can be erected. Well, if an information centre is not for the convenience of the public, what is? I agree with the executive of the council who actually said that the bill does not need to come to Parliament, anyway. Other than that, he referred it here nevertheless.

Let us not waste any more time. Everyone who has spoken supports the bill. No more long-winded speeches are necessary. Let us get on to the real business that we have on the Order Paper later on this evening. Let us pass this bill and get it out of the way.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party will be supporting this bill, too. After all the excitement generated around this bill and Alfred Cox Park, I hope that members will try to visit the park when they visit Gisborne, because I am informed by the Green members in Gisborne—and I convey this information particularly to the National members—that the flea market, whether it is weekly, biweekly, twice weekly, or whenever it is held, sells the best organic produce in Gisborne. So it is a very good source of that product. Alfred Cox Park is the centre of a lot of the cultural life of Gisborne. It may even have one or two cosmopolitan events, but a lot of social events and a lot of organisations use its facilities. Alfred Cox Park is a central part of the culture of Gisborne. It is very good that everything will be square, in legal terms, after we pass this bill.

I do pay tribute to Janet Mackey, as she did indicate this will be her second-to-last speech in Parliament. We do wait for her valedictory, but it is good that she has been able to bring this bill from the Gisborne people to Parliament as one of her last acts. She has done sterling work, from the local level at Gisborne through to her work on the Inter-Parliamentary Union too. I pay tribute to her for taking the time and effort to perform on the international stage.

I would like to indicate that Gisborne will probably be increasing its representation in the next Parliament, because we have at No. 9 on the Green Party list Catherine Delahunty. She may get in on the list, as we have nine MPs already, so we need only to hold our present position in order for her to get in. Catherine Delahunty will either come in that way or as the new MP for Gisborne. But who knows how that will go? I see that Moana Mackey is looking at me a bit strangely on that question. As long as Catherine comes into Parliament—and I am sure she will do so on the list, with the support of people throughout New Zealand—that will be of great assistance to the people of Gisborne. I am sure that Maurice Williamson will be very pleased about that and very pleased when he visits Alfred Cox Park.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): All the speaking slots have been used on this first reading of a local bill. However, members are free to seek the leave of the House, if they want to speak.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I seek leave first of all, as a candidate in that electorate and someone with an interest in Gisborne, to have a chance to represent United Future on this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is perfectly entitled to do that, and United Future has not had a call on this bill.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) : I seek leave for Moana Mackey, a list MP from the region, to be given the opportunity to make a 5-minute contribution.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member herself has to ask. Is the member seeking leaving?

Moana Mackey: Yes.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is two members. I point out that we have not actually used the total time for this debate, because members have not taken their full time.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) : I also seek leave to make a speech, as one of the National members of Parliament who have been out door-knocking in the Gisborne area with Anne Tolley, who has told me all about this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Three members wish to speak. I will put the seeking of leave for all three at once. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. I call on the honourable member Janet Mackey in reply.

JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) : In replying to this debate, I will be moving that this Gisborne District Council bill be considered by the Local Government and Environment Committee. I thank all members for their contributions, intelligent and otherwise, to this debate. This is, as Mr Shirley says, a small but irritating matter in Gisborne. It does need to be resolved by legislation, and to that end the council has put forward this bill. I would just respond to Mr Williamson’s concern about what I have been doing with this bill, since the matter was first raised. I can advise him that the process for dealing with local bills was changed. The bill was returned to the Gisborne District Council by the Clerk’s Office. The council had to reformat and rejig a number of aspects of the bill before it brought it back. The council has duly done that and the bill has probably gone through in record time, because I certainly did not expect to see it introduced to Parliament while I was still a member. I thank all parties for their support for this legislation. I do not think it will be a matter of huge consequence for the select committee to deal with, and I look forward to its passing.

• Bill read a first time.
• Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.referred to Local Government and Environment Committee

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) : I move, That the Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that this bill be referred to the Commerce Committee.

I would like to say at the beginning of this debate that I do not smoke. It is now some 18 months since the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill passed into law. It appears to me that enough time has passed for Parliament now to revisit that legislation, and that we can have a look at what unintended consequences have been created by the passing of that law. The primary effect of the smoke-free law has been that many people are no longer calling into their local pubs or clubs; they are just staying at home. Much of the camaraderie that used to exist in those establishments has now gone, and the reason is that it is all too hard. If people want to have a smoke, they are forced out into the cold. They cannot take their drinks outside; there is a huge issue about what happens to drinks that have not been drunk. Around the country, various measures are being tried to make sure that people are not able to spike drinks.

When people do go outside, they often get hassled by kids who ask them for cigarettes, by pedestrians who are trying to walk by, or by neighbours who are not used to having noise outside the pub or club. In fact, sending people outside has created a whole new set of problems. There have been complaints about noise, obstruction, and litter, as well. Pub and club owners have a sense of responsibility for what is going on outside, yet they are usually unable to do too much about it.

The effect of the law on non-smokers has also been unexpected. Non-smokers have suddenly found that they too have to go outside into the cold, because if they do not go outside with the smokers, there is nobody left in the bar to talk to. That was something nobody predicted when that bill was being passed into law.

In some parts of the country, illegal drinking houses have now been set up in garages and sheds. They do not have liquor licences, and there are no safeguards. There is none of the good host responsibility that needs to take place. I ask Labour members whether that is what they intended; I suspect it is not.

A major effect of the law change has been that small businesses up and down the country have really had a problem. For many, patronage has gone down by about half; others have been forced to close. I received a very desperate letter when the smoke-free law first went through from an owner of one of the cigar bars around New Zealand. He said that nobody goes into his cigar bar unless he or she wants to smoke a cigar. He said that no staff member works at his cigar bar unless he or she likes to smoke cigars, as well. He asked why Labour was trying to destroy his business. I can only presume that that was not the intention of the Government. If that is the case—if it was not the intention of the Government—then the Government should support this bill going to a select committee, so the select committee can have a look at the law that was passed and at what the unintended consequences have been, and can allow for a better balance in the law. That is all I am asking for with this member’s bill.

For some bars, clubs, and pubs, the law change has been an absolute disaster. Patronage has plummeted. The worst thing is that so many promises were given when the bill was going through the House and the Health Committee that heaps and heaps of non-smokers would come in to replace the smokers who might decide to stay at home. That simply did not eventuate in most establishments up and down the country, so many have closed. One of the big consequences is that many staff have been laid off. People who used to work in those places now no longer have jobs. It is not just bar staff, either. All the other suppliers of services and goods to bars and pubs have suffered, as well.

I will read some excerpts from a letter from Jane. She has a small pub in a city area, and her clientele are a lot of older people who enjoy coming in for a beer after they finish work. A lot of people who have retired want to come to enjoy music, play pool, be in good company, and really have a good time. In Jane’s case, she used to employ six bar staff, herself, and a security person. Now she is working on two staff—two bar people, that is all—herself, and a part-time security guard. She has gone from employing eight staff in that establishment, if we count her, to essentially having three and a half. She then states that people who stand in the street and try to have a smoke get hassled by young kids who want to smoke. When the kids are told they cannot have one, they get very abusive, vulgar, and sometimes extremely violent.

Then I have a letter from Annie, who lives in a provincial town. She writes: “I have owned my hotel for 19 years and have suffered through the many changes in the liquor industry, and I have survived until now. I feel so strongly about this breach of human rights that I have started smoking, after being a non-smoker for 30 years. This law has not only adversely affected the hotel industry but also the service providers, such as food, beverage, cleaning, juke box and pool table businesses, and maintenance contractors, electricians, plumbers, and so on. Many people have shed staff to cope with the downturn in income. On the upside, doctors and chemists are busier than ever before, because of patrons getting ill through having to endure the cold weather or becoming depressed about not being able to live a normal life.”

She goes on to apologise for writing such a politically incorrect letter, but says that she now feels particularly desperate about the future.

I have a letter here from Joe, who lives in a country area. He says, which I think is a bit of a worry, that establishments that ignore the law are getting all the customers. He says that some people are even travelling 10 to 15 kilometres in country areas to such places, and that, of course, they all drive back home. He says it is getting to the stage whereby one must ignore the law in order to carry on, or go broke. He makes two really interesting points. He says that he was told there would be an influx of non-smoking customers, buts asks where they are. That is the message that is coming from establishment owners up and down the country. He also writes: “We did not even have a choice or a chance to improve our bars to compensate for smoking, to allow a healthier environment to cater for both smokers and non-smokers. I know there is a sensible solution.”

That is what I am trying to do with this bill—provide a better, sensible solution to the problems that have emerged. If the Labour Government does not support this bill going to a select committee, then that will tell me it is anti-business. It is those little mum and dad businesses up and down the country that are feeling the brunt of that legislation. Since this bill was first drawn from the ballot, I have consulted widely up and down the country. As a result, I have put in an amendment, which members can find on the Table. It appears to me that the best solution is to allow the establishment of smoking rooms within bars, clubs, or pubs, and in those smoking rooms to have ventilation and proper air quality equipment, with proper air quality standards. Most of the establishments that have been able to have put together some sort of outdoor smoking area. Many of the publicans say—and they are quite happy to do it—that if they had the opportunity to provide that inside or under cover, where people can be kept warm, then that is what they would like to do.

So I ask that in this debate people consider that this is an amendment to fix up the problems that have emerged in the law. It is not draconian; it is common sense, and I ask members to support its referral to a select committee.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) : I listened to the sponsor of the Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill with great interest, but some of the facts were quite incorrect. I would just like to correct those mistakes for the record and for Dr Newman. The Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Bill was passed in December 2003. It was not implemented until December 2004, so there has not been 18 months of implementation.

Dr Muriel Newman: Since it was passed in the House.

STEVE CHADWICK: That is right. It has been a reality out in the world for only 9 months. It is a strange thing that this exemption bill is being proposed so soon, when there is a growing tide of public support for the legislation as it was passed in 2003. As one would expect, non-smokers support the legislation as it stands. Support for it is now at 70 percent. That is really high—much higher than we ever expected when we passed the legislation. The other interesting statistic from the survey done by the Asthma Society is that even smokers’ support for the legislation has gone up from 22 percent to 42 percent. That is quite an astronomical increase—those people are actually saying that the legislation works.

I also found it interesting that the sponsor, Dr Newman, said that whether we vote for or against this bill will flush out whether we support business. The Act is not anti-business; it is about having clean air for people to breathe. It is not just for non-smokers; it is also for the workers, the volunteers, the institutions, and the public. The primary reason for passing the initial legislation was to ensure we had clean air.

I am sad that one pub in my electorate is struggling—but the Lake House is an institution that has always struggled, actually. It had its old drinkers, and they are not going back any more. That establishment is struggling, and I feel sad about that, but it is ridiculous to say that a bill that began its journey in 1990—15 years ago—went through incremental increases, and was reintroduced in 1999 by Tukoroirangi Morgan was something new and sudden that business did not adjust to. Business adjusts remarkably well to law. In 1999, when the next amendment about the environment was brought in, business knew. If publicans bought an establishment knowing that the legislation was going to be in the pipeline over the next 5 years, then it was at their own behest. Let the buyer beware.

I am not surprised that ACT is sponsoring an amendment to the very robust Act. That is consistent with its vote against the original bill, and then against the amendment bill in 2003. The exemptions proposed in this bill are simply stupid. They are stupid because we discussed the issue of exemptions at the Health Committee, when we went up and down the country. It was actually the Hospitality Association of New Zealand that told us we could not have exemptions. We had been considering exemptions very seriously. At one stage we thought that pubs could have a room for smokers, but that was unfair, and I will tell members why. If we allowed exemptions—and in this bill I notice that exemptions would apply just to licensed premises and clubs—what would happen to the RSAs that also came to us? What about others that wanted an exemption? Suddenly we had exemptions all over the place, and it was a really messy concept.

We also learnt one other very profound thing during the submission phase of the bill—which was not that long ago—which was that ventilation systems do not work. I notice that the proposer of this bill talked about having a smoking space with a good ventilation system and a clean air standard. There is no ventilation system that reduces or eliminates the carcinogenic products of second-hand smoke or the sidestream smoke from cigarette smoking. One simply cannot remove them from the air. The particulates get into the wall and then breathe back out of the wall space. So that is an idea that would not work, at all. Those contaminants stay in the environment; all a ventilation system does is blow them around.

Just as the sponsor for this bill has been going up and down the country—I have heard that Dr Newman has been in Rotorua, and good on her for finding out about it—I also went out. I had quite a haranguing from the Hospitality Association of New Zealand about the legislation and its impact, but the overwhelming support from the public about saving 350 lives a year is what drove me to sponsor the legislation. It was a public health bill, it was not against business, and there was support from the World Health Assembly, to which New Zealand is a proud signatory.

We are determined that this legislation must remain in place and not be tampered with. The exemptions would not work. During the submission phase, people from the RSA, the Pool Association, pétanque clubs, and the Matai Club all said that the smoke-free law must go across the board without exception, or else it would create an unfair playing field for commerce. We took that on board, and therefore took the all-or-nothing approach.

I think we are at a stage where it is too soon to look at the Act. After the Act was passed in 2003 we said that this issue would not be revisited. We need to get it well embedded. Any public health legislation does not start to bring about social change for over 5 years. We got social change overnight, and it is simply astonishing to me that people complied with the law.

It is also interesting that the Ministry of Health, as the enforcement agency, has had only 195 complaints across the country in the 9 months since the legislation’s operation. Ninety-four of those complaints came from licensed premises, and some of those were from publicans who said that they needed help with recidivist offenders who, when they were asked to go outside, would not go. So they were from responsible publicans. Fifty complaints came from workplaces where the smoke-free legislation was not being adhered to, 29 came from retail outlets, and 22 came from others.

In 2003, when the Act was passed, people said that there would be police out there. I can remember the hysteria in the House about the smoking police and the smoking Nazis. That has not happened. For there to have been 195 complaints from people asking for help with the enforcement of this legislation is simply astonishing, and far fewer than we ever expected. I certainly cannot support this bill. It is a little bit frivolous at this stage, and I am hopeful that my colleagues are with me on this.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I remind members that speeches from here on in are 5 minutes.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) : I appreciate that, Mr Assistant Speaker. Does that mean that I get two lots of 5? Is that what you mean?

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No, I do not mean that—

JOHN CARTER: I get two calls on this? I know you will want me to make such a long contribution—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): You can try!

JOHN CARTER: That is very kind, Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this bill, and I do so for a number of reasons. It has been interesting, as I have been going around campaigning across the country in recent times, and going into various clubs—

Hon David Cunliffe: He’s gone.

JOHN CARTER: Well, that is not what that member told the editor of the local paper, actually. It has been interesting going around campaigning, and going into different clubs. Of course, as National’s spokesperson on veterans’ affairs, I have been going to RSA clubs and specifically asking their members questions around the legislation. I have found some things that I am sure the House will be interested to know. One of the first things is that I was in a hotel where there was an outside restaurant.

Hon David Cunliffe: That’s unusual.

JOHN CARTER: For me to be in a hotel? That is true! There was a restaurant that was out in the open—an outside, open-air restaurant place—where a number of the patrons went to have their lunch. They had been doing so, apparently, for some long time. The problem now is that that practice still continues, but that, of course, the smokers who used to be inside while the restaurant patrons were outside having their lunch are now going outside to have their cigarettes. They are now sitting outside with the people eating their lunch, and the people eating their lunch outside in the nice clean air are suddenly now finding, of course, that they are getting smoked on. It is causing some problems. What may have to happen is that the restaurant may have to move inside so that the smokers can stay outside.

The other thing that caused me some amusement was that I was talking to a mate of mine in a club in a town that will remain nameless. He said that the fascinating thing was that now when he goes down to the club there are normally three or four people inside and about 60 outside on the veranda—predominantly because they are smokers. He said the strange thing was that those on the outside were having a great time having their beers, their cigarettes, their fags—whatever—and that the three guys left inside ended up having a fight. It was probably because they were so bored they had to do something, I imagine.

So all sorts of strange things are happening. But the thing that struck me most of all in terms of the impact of this legislation is that when one goes into an RSA club and sees the old returned servicemen sitting there having their beers, talking and reminiscing as they do, one realises that in lots of ways that club is their home. It is where they are comfortable; it is what they have made it. It is their club—their place. Certainly they have visitors, lunch rooms, and different things, but I ask myself what right we in this Parliament have to interfere in how those men and women want to run their clubs. Those people set up those RSA clubs for themselves; they did not set them up for people to come in and out of. They did not set them up to provide for the general public; they set them up for themselves. They are guys—men and women—who have given of their time, and who have seen their colleagues and friends die, and here we are now, imposing rules on them against their wishes. If ever there was a case that we should be saying: “Hands off, folks! It is time to allow those people to make up their minds.”, it is this case.

I could give other instances, but I want us particularly to remind ourselves about the veterans. I want us to remind ourselves about the members of the RSA. Many of them go to an RSA club because it is the one place where they feel happy and where they feel at home. But we have interfered with that enjoyment. Those people gave of themselves for us; surely we should allow them some of their own time to spend in their clubs in their own ways, and should not interfere in the things they think are important for them.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : New Zealand First supports this bill and is quite keen to see it go to a select committee. That is not because we want to promote smoking—far from it. I would say that the vast majority of New Zealand First MPs are non-smokers, and certainly the vast majority of our members are non-smokers. But we recognise the points that the honourable John Carter made, particularly concerning old ex-army folk sitting having a beer and a smoke at the RSA. We know that they are feeling the pinch with the smoke-free legislation, and that many of them are quite upset by it. They fought for this country and, rightfully or wrongfully, when they were in the military they were encouraged to smoke. Now, many of them are in their twilight years but when they go down to the RSA to watch a rugby match on the big screen they are prohibited from having a cigarette with their beer.

The honourable John Carter also touched on the fact that the premium place in restaurants, certainly in the summer months, is outside. I always go outside with my wife. My wife enjoys going out to lunch and sitting on the balcony of a restaurant. But, now, who are we surrounded by? Smokers! It is absolutely ridiculous. The smokers now come outside and take the premium seats in a restaurant. That is daft. It is also true to say, and I take Steve Crawford’s comment—

Darren Hughes: Steve Chadwick.

PETER BROWN: Steve Chadwick, I beg your pardon.

Darren Hughes: The member has got Joan Crawford on the mind.

PETER BROWN: Clearly, I have. Steve Chadwick stated that there are no inspectors or what have you, but the Act allows for inspectors to go into an RSA, a club, or a pub and, if the manager is not readily available, to take photographs of people who might be sitting there breaking that law. I ask the members on the Government side of the House whether that is the New Zealand we want. Is that the New Zealand the Labour Party wants? Do its members want inspectors to go into a pub or club and take a photograph of somebody who is smoking, if they cannot readily find the manager. I think that that is an absolute disgrace, and at the very least this bill will address that issue.

We heard the Hon Damien O’Connor a few months ago, in reply to a question in the House, say that 50 percent of bars and pubs are the same or better off, but if that is taken the other way around it means that 50 percent are the same or worse off. Some bars and some pubs, we know, are losing a lot of money. Some have already closed down. Some would willingly adhere to a non-smoking policy if it were not compulsory for all premises to be non-smoking areas.

This is a bill that gives authority to nanny State to rule on average New Zealanders’ lives. Most New Zealanders are intelligent when it comes to smoking or not smoking, and to where they want to smoke when it comes to eating and drinking in establishments. New Zealand First does not believe that we should impose those sorts of restrictions on people. The average person goes to a club or a pub to enjoy a meal and a drink. Some go to enjoy a meal, a drink, and a smoke, and we should be providing for all New Zealanders, not just non-smokers. We now see many bars and establishments in a number of areas around New Zealand where smokers congregate outside, and as we walk past we see dog-ends littering the pavements. I ask members whether that is the New Zealand we want.

We believe that by going to a select committee this bill will allow the New Zealand public to have a voice to say whether the current law is working. New Zealand First is not promoting smoking; we are promoting a fair go for all New Zealanders. We welcome this bill going to a select committee.

DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) : I rise to support my colleague Muriel Newman’s bill. I support it because she is trying to get back a little part of the property rights that have been taken away from businesses. I used to smoke. I hate smoking now. My father died of lung cancer, and I watched him die of lung cancer. It is not a pretty sight. It is not a nice thing to die of. But I support people’s right to smoke. Tobacco is still a legal substance. More than that, I support the rights of those who have bars, restaurants, and clubs to have smokers on their premises. These are not public premises. Who pays the rent? Who pays for the leases? Who pays the costs of staff and all the other overheads? Who pays for the insurance? The owners do. The owners have the right to ban people if they smoke, or to ban them if they do not smoke. At least they should have the right to do that. They do not have it any more.

If this bill is really about health and clean air, as Steve Chadwick said, why has the Government exempted places like marae and prison cells? Māori on marae are deemed to be intelligent enough to choose whether they want to be smoke-free. Indeed, a lot of marae are smoke-free now. But other ordinary New Zealanders who run bars, clubs, and restaurants are not deemed to be intelligent enough to choose. Why should a prisoner in his or her cell be able to smoke, if this is really about clean air and protecting lives, when the person whom he or she may well have mugged and stolen from cannot stagger into a bar, sit down with a beer or a gin and tonic and have a cigarette to calm his or her nerves? That is why this bill is so iniquitous.

Steve Chadwick talked about 350 lives being saved because of the second-hand smoke that workers who breathe in the second-hand smoke in bars are alleged to suffer from. Firstly, that is dodgy science. Secondly, if the Government is really concerned about people dying from inhaling second-hand smoke, why does it not save another 350 lives by banning smoking in the home? We all know that if that science is true—if it is true that people are dying from inhaling second-hand smoke—then the real enemy in this is in the home, and especially in the homes of Māori, because Māori have the highest statistics for smoking, especially young Māori women smoking near their babies.

That is where this Government, if it were serious about people’s health and about stopping them from dying, would ban smoking altogether. But, of course, it would never do that—firstly, because it would be totally politically incorrect to do that to Māori, and, secondly, because of the huge amount of taxes any Government gets from selling cigarettes. Might I add that those taxes more than pay for the public health spend that is taken up by people with smoking-related diseases. Anyone who has gone through duty free and seen the difference in cost between what a carton of cigarettes costs in duty free and what it costs in the shops here will know how much of what we spend on cigarettes goes to the Government.

So this is clearly about property rights. It is clearly even more about breaching the property rights of businesses, because it is businesses that have been singled out for this ban. It is not homes, it is not marae, and it is not everywhere else. That is why anyone in this House who is concerned about supporting property rights—like United Future, which has brought in its own member’s bill on property rights—should be supporting this bill.

LESLEY SOPER (Labour) : I rise as a non-smoker who has many friends of a diverse age range who smoke, to oppose this bill. This bill is plainly frivolous and silly in its proposal to make exemptions to section 12 of the Smoke-free Environments Act—which, I remind the House, came into force only in December last year and has been extremely successful legislation. The exemptions proposed would not work. They would simply be messy, unnecessary, and petty. The fact is that smoke-free laws are saving lives around the world, without putting bars out of business, and that is also the case in New Zealand.

The Smoke-free Environments Act provides for the protection of workers, volunteers, and the public from the effects of second-hand smoke. Second-hand smoke is the leading cause of preventable death in New Zealand. No one who reflects on that fact can see the Smoke-free Environments Act as a negative step. The Act does not take away the smoker’s right to smoke, but it protects the right of non-smokers not to have second-hand smoke forced upon them. I remind the House that I am one of the 75 percent of the population who are non-smokers.

We are already seeing the success of this law, with a survey commissioned from UMR Insight Ltd in April this year showing that 70 percent of people support the smoking ban in pubs and bars. Even smokers are appreciating the benefits of smoke-free bars and pubs. The survey also revealed that 42 per cent of smokers now support the ban, compared with 22 percent in the previous survey, conducted in November. Support from non-smokers increased to 75 percent, up from 66 percent. Second-hand smoke is 90 times more dangerous than asbestos. New Zealand’s over 10,000 hospitality workers face dramatically increased health risks from second-hand smoke exposure. New Zealand’s restaurant and bar workers face nearly five times more exposure to second-hand smoke than someone who lives with a smoker, and they run an estimated 50 percent higher risk of developing lung cancer. The Act is a good one. It does not deserve frivolous amendment, and I will continue vocally to oppose such amendment.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party will be voting against this bill, both for health reasons and to uphold people’s rights, particularly the right to be in a healthy environment if they so choose. I have noticed in the hotels that I have frequented that the employees—the people who deliver the beer—are very thankful for the recent change in the law. They are very thankful, because it is a much nicer and healthier environment for them. We have to think of them. Someone who is serving a long shift in a very smoky bar, as these workers used to do, is in a very difficult situation in terms of both discomfort and health. It is calculated that these employees had several times more risk of cancers and other diseases than people who actually live with smokers, because bar workers were constantly in a smoky environment under the old system, in the smokiest of pubs.

This bill contains a provision that if all employees agree, then smoking may be allowed in a bar. But I cannot see that it is very likely that employees would purposely put themselves in a smoky environment. That is not what we have heard when talking to such employees. It may be that employees who are desperate to have the job and the money coming in would sign some consent form, but they would not really be doing so of their own free will; it would just be to keep the job.

Another point that has been raised is the question of patronage. We are in a transition phase, as Steve Chadwick pointed out. It may be that in the interim, patronage goes down in some hotels. The hotel I went to the other day, Galbraith’s Alehouse at the top of Symonds Street in Auckland, was packed to the gunnels, as it was—and it was fairly full—in the smoking days. A good pub where a good atmosphere is created will be well patronised.

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

KEITH LOCKE: Before the dinner break I was saying that we are in a period of transition to the new situation, and there may be a bit of a drop in patronage during that transition, but when we look at the statistics and see that cigarette smoking has declined to 25 percent of the population, it makes sense that there will be more people like me—non-smokers who did not go to a club or a hotel very much, because of the smokiness of it. I mentioned early in my speech, when Muriel Newman asked me, that I go to Galbraith’s Alehouse on Mt Eden Road, at the top of Symonds Street. I do not think I am allowed to advertise in Parliament, but I point out that I used to go there but could not stay very long when it was very smoky. They did not really get much out of me because it got too smoky. Now I go there for a longer period. I am sure there are more like me coming back.

Sure, non-smokers have been desocialised a little bit. That is because we could not stand the smoke in the pubs for a long period and we got out of the habit of going to pubs. We are getting back into the habit now, although not over-imbibing when we go. John Carter and others have told us stories about the old diggers at the RSA, and it is true that a higher percentage of the older generation they represent smoke, so that does create certain problems for them.

But we need to look at the health questions. It is a question of health rights—not just of individual rights, but of the rights of everyone whom smokers are putting health risks on. For example, those old diggers with emphysema, on their last legs almost, are forced to be in a smoky environment at the RSA, and we have to think of them, as well. We know that all the options put up in this bill—ventilation, etc.—do not work. That is how I see it—it is a rights issue. It is about the right of people to have a smoke-free environment. There are options for smokers in terms of smoking, taking breaks to smoke in other environments, but not in the pubs where we all socialise.

MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) : This bill, brought forward by the ACT member Muriel Newman, is a step in the right direction. It adds back to the debate a bit of balance about freedom of choice, and particularly about reaffirming property rights. Of the members of this Parliament, I am probably the only one who has run hospitality venues. I have had my own business in that regard, and we were smoke-free. We chose to be smoke-free prior to the enactment of the principal Act, because that was obviously the demand of our customers—not for any other reason. The point was that we did not need the nanny State to tell us what to do. We chose to do that of our own accord, because we were responding to the market.

Unfortunately, one of the reasons why the original legislation—now the principal Act—was supported and pushed through at the end of last year was supposedly the pretext of protecting employees. It was not supposed to be the pretext of protecting the health of customers, who could choose whether to come in. The problem is that at many hospitality venues there are no employees but literally a husband and wife team, both of whom may smoke. There are no employees to take into consideration, yet those people are still penalised by not being able to do what they want to do in the privacy of their own investment. And that brings me to a very important point. Individuals or groups of individuals borrow money, or put money together, to open up a hospitality venue, and then they are told by the nanny State that in the privacy of their own investment, their own property, they may not do certain things, such as smoke. However, if a person goes out and rapes somebody or murders somebody, and then goes to prison, that person can smoke, and the employees of the prison—and there are a number of them—do not get the same special regard paid to their health and safety. In other words, those people, who are Government employees living off the taxpayer, are expected to endure billows of smoke, yet people who choose to go into a private property which is a place of business are discriminated against. I do not think that that is fair, at all. There is no balance.

If this is a health issue, though, why stop at smoking? Why do we not pursue a quality of air standard? The effect on air quality is one of the reasons why we got rid of asbestos, as somebody mentioned earlier. But there are other pollutants in the air, as well. So what are we saying? We are saying that certain types of pollutants are not OK and that other types we simply do not legislate against. Would not the best thing be to legislate for a quality of air standard, and be done with it? That would protect customers, employees, and the employer, as well. I do not understand why prisons are given a separate status from that of private property. Why should the Government be an exception to its own do-gooder legislation? In other words, why does the Government shove its ideology down the throats of individual citizens, but we as a Government—not me personally, of course, because I want to have very little to do with that Government—

Nandor Tanczos: Except for your supply and confidence.

MARC ALEXANDER: Well, we are living up to our agreement, but I tell members right now that my supply of confidence has run bloody short. It seems to me that the Government is giving itself an exception to a rule that it is trying to apply to individual rights. The Government is saying that it is somehow beyond a respect for property rights, and that it cares for its own employees less than for others, as second-class employees. But it is trying to shove its ideology down the throats of people who want to carry on their business unhindered by Government interference in the privacy of their own investment. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

One of the things we need to do is to open up the wider issue that the bill addresses, which is the right of people to congregate and do what they want to do. In a lot of rural areas pubs are suffering dramatically. Employees are losing their jobs, and communities in the rural environment have to seek alternative social hubs. One of the alternatives that is happening is that people’s garages are being turned into de facto pubs. People go there and put some money into the kitty, and those places are becoming de facto pubs. So all that this Government has really done is to take away legitimate business and drive legitimate users of hospitality underground. That is fundamentally wrong.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister of Health) : I stand to take a brief call on this bill, the Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill, and, like my Government colleagues, I stand to oppose it. The Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Act, which came into force in December of last year, provides for the protection of workers, volunteers, and the public from the effects of second-hand smoke. That being the case, we have to ask ourselves why this bill was introduced to the House. I heard the Green speaker Keith Locke earlier on describe this bill as frivolous, and I think he is quite right.

The speaker from United Future talked about property rights. Well, what about the rights of the workers, volunteers, and the general public to go about their workplace responsibilities and daily lives without being inhibited by somebody who smokes blowing smoke in their space? Those are the most important rights that any Parliament can protect.

The member who sponsored this bill, which I call her swansong, is unaware of the support that the public in general has for the current Smoke-free Environments Act. It is quite widely accepted in those places that she promotes an exemption for that smoking is just not allowed. Workers can go about their work without being inhibited. Some workers may be harassed by employers who seek their support for smoking in clubs, and pressure them into agreeing to allow people who enjoy a cigarette to smoke in their space. Those smokers can go outside to a car-park or to a paddock down the road and enjoy themselves there, uninhibited.

So this bill really has no place in this House, and certainly this habit has no place in today’s society. Statistics are telling us that each year one-third of Māori deaths are attributed to smoking, either directly or indirectly. Amongst Māori communities there is huge support for the Smoke-free Environments (Enhanced Protection) Amendment Act in that even on marae, where smoking was quite common and accepted, it now is just not accepted and is not done. In fact, the younger generation are continually reminding those who come on to marae to leave their cigarettes in the car, and are telling them that if they feel like a smoke they should go outside to have one.

DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) : I rise to oppose the first reading of Muriel Newman’s bill—the Smoke-free Environments (Exemptions) Amendment Bill—and oppose it with some pride. When I consider all the arguments we had to listen to in Parliament at the time when Steve Chadwick sponsored the first bill through—arguments about the end of the entertainment industry, and the end of bars and clubs—

Hon Dover Samuels: Doom and gloom!

DARREN HUGHES: As the Hon Dover Samuels says, it was all the usual doom and gloom stuff that we have come to expect from the ACT party. I can understand the ACT party members having a slightly fatalistic and final view of the world at the present time. I do not criticise their sort of world view; one would think it would be doom and gloom. One would understand their thinking that things were going up in a puff of smoke, and the smoke we will see them disappearing into, I think, will not be carcinogenic, in terms of other members of the House.

But I want to tell them that this legislation is working really, really well. What has happened is that the three-quarters of the people who do not—

Dr Muriel Newman: Go and talk to people.

DARREN HUGHES: That is exactly what I have been doing. The three-quarters of people who do not smoke have now experienced life in the new environment in bars and clubs, and they actually say: “Gee, I can notice a difference. I was prepared to stick up for my friends who smoked, and I thought maybe that legislation was a bit over the top. But now that I can see what a clean-air environment actually means and what it is like to go out and eat, socialise, dance, drink, and party in, I actually quite like it.”

But, more than that, Dr Newman needs to know that people who smoke can actually see the difference, as well. We get far more people telling us, as we move about the place, that the legislation is not as bad as they thought it would be than people telling us that we absolutely have to change it.

Of course, New Zealand was not the world leader in this regard. We always used to be at the cutting edge of smoke-free initiatives, but after 9 long years of a National Government we fell behind on all those important public health measures—as is always the case—because it was too keen on trying to cut taxes, education, health, and pensions, and making New Zealand a mean and miserable place. So we have had to try to bring these issues back to the fore.

In that regard the Americans have actually had a bit of a run on us. California, which is a pretty busy place with a lot of entertainment and people out and about enjoying life, and New York City—again, a big entertainment place with people out enjoying themselves—have seen significant gains already through having smoke-free environments.

We have never said that people should not smoke. Obviously, that is an adult’s right to choose. If people are 18 years of age or over, they can choose to smoke. But because we know categorically that smoking has an effect on other people, we have said: “Wouldn’t it be quite a good public health idea to try to make sure that other people did not suffer from the actions of a few?”, because only a quarter of the population, of course, smoke. The ACT party, which one would think would say that people should be responsible for their own actions and not cause externalities to other people, seems to be totally blind to the fact that other people breathe oxygen that has been polluted with tobacco smoke in confined environments—that is, inside. People can go outside and smoke—that is fine; it is a big planet. But what we are saying is that our bars, cafes, and restaurants should remain smoke-free because it is working very, very well.

The Californian Medical Association reported that lung cancer rates in California have fallen six times faster than those in any other state in America that did not have public measures like this. That statistic alone—those kind of gains—would indicate to me that this is a good idea that we should continue to pursue.

I acknowledge that some clubs have found the legislation difficult. What I do say is that bar owners have said to me that it is nowhere near as bad as they thought it would be and nowhere near as bad as the Opposition made out at the time. The scaremongering that was going on was, of course—as everything is—from National. National told us that the Employment Relations Act would cause the end of the economy and joblessness all round. Of course, what the legislation has created is much fairer workplaces and the lowest unemployment in the OECD. So things are not quite so bad as Opposition parties often say.

The Smoke-free Environments Amendment Act is making a difference. People who work in this environment are finding it is worthwhile, and also patrons are enjoying the smoke-free environments.

Marc Alexander: Rubbish!

DARREN HUGHES: Marc Alexander calls out “Rubbish!”. When one goes into those places and asks people whether they prefer the clean air—and I am thinking of the Levin “cossie club” or across at our RSA—do people say: “The worst thing about my Friday night now is that I can’t breathe in other people’s smoke.”? How many people have said that to the member?

Marc Alexander: Dozens.

DARREN HUGHES: The member is now, in the final days before Parliament rises, running the real risk of a privileges case because he is claiming that dozens of people have said to him: “My Friday nights are ruined because I can’t breathe in the second-hand smoke of others.” I find that proposition very difficult to follow, indeed. What we see is that those places are improving. All the statistics that come from other areas show that more people are spending money, more people are enjoying the atmosphere. I think this is a good measure that we have taken. It is just like when smoking on aeroplanes was banned and people said it was PC nonsense.

Dail Jones: When was that?

DARREN HUGHES: One used to be able to smoke on a plane on long-haul flights. If one had the first row of “non-smoking” behind the last row of “smoking”, presumably the ACT party would say that was all right because there was a decent exemption.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (ACT) : It is hugely disappointing, I have to say, to listen to the members of the Labour Party who clearly have not read the bill. The bill allows for people who smoke to go into a smoking room that has good ventilation and proper air quality standards so that their cigarette smoke does not go around the rest of the establishment. But clearly those members have not read the bill. It is very disappointing that Labour members, along with the Greens, are so ideologically driven that they are not even prepared to say that there are huge problems with their legislation and that it would be a good thing to send it back to a select committee and let the committee have a look at it and take out the problem areas. They seem to be absolutely determined to take away every single right of citizens who want to enjoy having a cigarette.

As I said earlier in this debate, I do not smoke myself, but the point is that it is not legal in New Zealand to smoke in public places. Those parties are also taking away the rights of the small businesses who serve the public. I think that this Labour Government has just gone way too far with its legislation. It is political correctness gone mad. Fancy forcing veterans from the RSA out into the cold to have a smoke! Those people put their lives up for this country—and for them—and they are being forced out into the gutter and being treated like dogs. I think it is appalling in this society that we have a Government that is prepared to do that. I believe that every single New Zealander should be treated with respect. This Government is saying to those New Zealanders who chose to smoke: “You are second-class citizens.” I say that that is not good enough. I stand up for their rights to be treated decently in New Zealand, and I stand up for the rights of the small businesses who serve them to be treated decently, as well.

All I am asking is that smokers be allowed to smoke in a smoking room in an establishment as long as it complies with the air quality standards. I personally do not see anything wrong with that. I would like to thank United Future, New Zealand First, and, I understand, most of the National Party for supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee. It is common sense. I say to the Labour Government members that when they get thrown out at the election, because they are a pack of dictators, they will find that this bill will be reviewed by a select committee because New Zealanders know that what is going on is not right. Non-smokers are having to sit outside in the cold as well, because there is nobody left inside the pub for them to talk to. It is a shame that this anti-business Labour Government does not care about establishments up and down the country that have lost half their patronage. All the little suppliers who provide the pubs with goods and services are going broke, as well. People are setting up illegal drinking establishments around the country. Labour does not seem to care about that either.

It is absolutely outrageous that Labour is so arrogant that it will not allow this member’s bill, which says it is time to have another look at the law and correct its unintended consequences, to be referred to a select committee. Labour does not even have the gumption or the goodwill to send the bill to a select committee so that the next Parliament can have a look at the law and make sure it is doing what it was supposed to do. When I started out in this debate I was charitable enough to think that the problems that are occurring up and down New Zealand are actually unintended consequences. But having listened to the Labour Party speakers I have to say that I now believe they do not care at all. One of the members stood up and said: “Isn’t it great that on marae people are choosing not to smoke.” I say that is fantastic, but at least they had the choice. This Government took away the choice from every other sort of establishment in this country. It is like a dictatorship. It has got worse as the 6 years have gone by. Heaven help New Zealand if it has another 3 years of this Government.

There are still a couple of moments left for those members who plan to oppose this bill to change their minds—an act of charity to a party. I have had about seven member’s bills before this Parliament and not one of them has ever been sent to a select committee, even though many of them had merit, and in fact many of the ideas have been passed into law by the Government. I say that this bill should be sent a select committee so that the next Parliament can have a look at it.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) : I seek leave for the National Party to cast a split vote in this debate.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose.

DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that Mr Tisch will undertake to place on the Table the way in which National Party members have voted—naming those who have voted for the bill and those who have voted against it. I ask him to confirm that that will be the case.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) : That is correct.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) : I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you just clarify that the motion that this bill be referred to the Commerce Committee occurs after the vote, if the vote is successful. Is that right?

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is right.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN: Therefore I ask the House to support it.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I need to confirm that there is no objection to Lindsay Tisch’s seeking of leave. Is there any objection? There is not. It is agreed to.

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

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : I move, That the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that this bill be considered by the Justice and Electoral Committee.

The bill that I am presenting to the House tonight is a chance for Aotearoa New Zealand to take a step into the future and rid ourselves of an archaic law that legitimises the use of quite serious force against our children. At the moment, judges and juries have it within their power to find parents not guilty of assault when, for example, they beat their children with things like belts, canes, hosepipes, jug cords, pieces of wood, and horse crops. My bill simply seeks to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act—nothing more and nothing less.

In law, section 59 allows a defence of reasonable force when a parent is charged with assaulting his or her child, even when that assault is carried out with objects like these. In practice, section 59 conveys the message to all New Zealanders that the State thinks it is legitimate and OK to use so-called reasonable force against those who, at least until they grow up, are smaller, weaker, and less mature than we are. What I am not doing is proposing a new law that might, for example, make it a crime to lightly smack a child or to physically restrain a child when such restraint is manifestly necessary, such as when a toddler is closing in on a power point with a fork in hand. I am not seeking in any way to criminalise ordinary parents. I just want to remove a legal defence that is used when some people seriously hit or beat their children with objects like those mentioned.

It is a nonsense to say that, as so many of my political opponents are doing at the moment, should repeal of section 59 happen, parents will suddenly be subject to arrest, prosecution, and conviction if they lightly smack their child. There is no way the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services will abruptly abandon its huge current caseload to remove children from parents who smack them, as United Future ridiculously alleges; nor will police, all at once, start arresting parents who put their child in a room for a bit of time out. It is patently ridiculous to think that all of a sudden the removal of the defence of reasonable force will lead to police all over the country arresting people for such actions. Goodness knows, they have enough other work to do. The aim of this repeal is not to subject parents to prosecution for trivial assault. In other countries where laws like this have been changed, there has not been a marked increase in such arrests. I certainly would not expect it to happen here, where the climate of public opinion is so manifestly not ready for a ban on smacking.

One of the best ways of dealing with the fear so many people have about this may be to get the police, in association with bodies like the Children’s Commissioner and the Families Commission, to develop and make public guidelines on prosecutions to cover situations where children are assaulted. Full consideration of this option could be a part of the select committee process.

This bill is not about imposing penalties on parents who currently use light physical discipline. It is about giving children and young people the same legal protection from physical assault that adults have. I do not understand at all why it is illegal in New Zealand to beat my spouse, another adult, a policeman, or even an animal harshly with a horse crop or a piece of wood, but it can be legal to do the same thing to my child. It seems to me that section 59 of the Crimes Act is a relic of English 19th century law and thinking, which said that children were simply the property of their parents and were subject to their total control and to harsh physical discipline. At that time the same applied to wives, servants, and horses. Strangely, it is only children to whom this quaint but dangerous law still applies.

I believe that babies and children deserve our careful love and respect from the time they are born. I am a mother of five children myself and brought up my first children—twins—on the domestic purposes benefit for their first few years. I know full well how hard being a parent can be. My kids were no angels and one of them had particular problems, as, alas, so many of our children do. However, to the best of my knowledge I have never used hitting or smacking on my children. I am not putting myself forward as some kind of saint; I am certainly not that. It is simply that I never wanted to strike them in any way, and I never found it necessary. I just feel that as both an MP and a mother I have a responsibility to do everything I can to stop State legitimisation of the use of serious force against our children. While this is a member’s bill, about which I am particularly passionate, I would just like to note for the record that it has the full backing of the Green Party. Repealing section 59 is a key plank of our children’s policy and is also part of our commitment to the kaupapa of non-violence, which is one of the Green Party’s four core principles.

I stand in the House tonight to call on members from all other parties to consider supporting the repeal of section 59, or at least to vote to allow my bill to go to select committee so that all the myriad issues involved can be fully debated through public submission processes and through Parliament’s political consideration. I am delighted that both the Labour and Progressive parties have publicly committed to supporting this bill through its first reading and for it to go to a select committee. I am also aware that other members here would like to support the bill and I hope that some of them will feel able to do so, even though their vote may differ from their party’s vote. I call on those members to do the right thing and take this opportunity to cast their conscience vote with all of us who believe that repeal is one step that must be taken if we are serious about lowering the levels of violence against children.

I have been speaking on and debating this issue in many communities over the last 2 months, and I know full well the depth of feeling there is on all sides of it. The issue is highly controversial. It is one that cuts deep into our national psyche, and it is a debate that needs to happen. The fact that my bill has been drawn on the eve of a general election makes it even clearer that this is a key issue for many.

Numerous individuals and organisations support full repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act, and I would like to acknowledge their presence here in the House tonight. For some of them this bill is a further step in a life-long commitment to reducing levels of violence against children, and I would particularly like to pay my respects to Beth Wood from EPOCH New Zealand, who has worked so tirelessly on this issue for so many years. There are many others, too. Some of the people and organisations that support repeal of section 59 include, to name some of them: Plunket, Barnardos, Save the Children, Parentline, Parents Centre New Zealand, Unicef New Zealand, the Families Commissioner, the Children’s Commissioner, the Auckland University of Technology Institute of Public Policy, the Law Society, the New Zealand Paediatric Society, the Association of Psychotherapists, Wesley Community Action, the Sisters of St Joseph of Nazareth, the New Zealand Association of Counsellors, Pax Christi, the Quakers, and all the groups that make up the Every Child Counts campaign.

Our country has an all-pervasive culture of violence against children that leads to us having one of the highest abuse and child mortality rates in the developed world. People coming to this country for the first time, even from places like Israel, are shocked by the culture of violence we have here in the household and in the family. It is high time we lived up to our commitments as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We are currently in breach of the convention, despite paying lip service to it, because we allow State-sanctioned force here. I believe that Government has a responsibility to lead the way on this.

I welcome the national debate that my bill has opened up about how, as a society, we regard and treat our children, and I hope that during the process of submissions on the bill we open the way for the voices of children and young people to be heard as well. Children do not usually make submissions to select committees. On section 59, I think it is critical that we adults do allow our ears to open—and our minds, as well—to hear what young people have to say about this issue that affects them so deeply. If ever there was a time that Parliament should begin to seriously include the views of children in our processes, it is now, with this bill. All the research I have ever seen shows that children who are beaten and assaulted have much poorer outcomes as adults and are much more likely to perpetuate cycles of mental illness, criminality, violence, and deprivation.

For the sake of all our futures, I call on all MPs here tonight to think seriously about allowing this bill to go to a select committee, and to consider the possibility that full repeal of section 59 would actually benefit all parents and children in this country rather than create some of the totally absurd scenarios currently being put forward in some quarters.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Are we going to have clapping, calling, or anything else, coming from the public gallery?

Hon Chris Carter: How outrageous!

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister will stand, withdraw, and apologise. The member was taking a point of order, and I was going to rule on it. The member knows that there should be silence during points of order. This is a final warning.

Hon Chris Carter: I do apologise, although I do think the member was being very ungracious.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will now stand, withdraw, and apologise with no other comment. He knows better than that.

Hon Chris Carter: I apologise.

JUDITH COLLINS: I think the people in the public gallery probably are not aware of the rules of the House—so it is just to be fair to them.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes. There will certainly be no contribution from the gallery to the procedures of the House.

DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) : I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Just as a further clarification, often during a treaty settlement bill the gallery will contribute by way of either a waiata or applause, as we have just heard. The National Party never objects to that. Can I just take it that this new one standard of citizenship will apply to the largely Pākehā crowd in the audience tonight, as well?

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : It may be that many of us have assumed that consent had been obtained. I know that when I first heard those kinds of displays and knew that they were against the Standing Orders, we were told that approval had been given by the Speaker. If approval has not been given, then perhaps it could be sought, because it is very difficult for the Speaker to enforce order of that kind. I seek the leave of the House to overlook that gallery rule, although I do it reluctantly and with a great sense of objection that Mr Benson-Pope should try to cover his tracks by pretending to have a great interest in this bill.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : The position of the House in granting leave for a waiata and an acclamation at the end of a passage of a piece of legislation has been accepted practice, and I believe that it would certainly get the agreement of New Zealand First at the end of the debate here tonight. But to allow it to take place progressively throughout the debate would, I think, be totally wrong and in defiance of the Standing Orders. It would not get the support of New Zealand First as an ongoing thing, but certainly as a wind-up end to the debate we would support it.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank members for their contributions. Stephen Franks is absolutely right—that permission is sought—as is the Hon Brian Donnelly on the point he made. Is there any objection—

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : Can I just clarify that the leave asked for by Stephen Franks was an open, blanket one, whereas I am asking whether Mr Franks accepts that it is just at the end.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : That would be more decorous, and I therefore amend my request for leave along the lines suggested by Mr Donnelly.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. It is actually at the discretion of the Speaker, too. But, certainly, if members agree to that, that is a quite proper way to do it. Is there any objection? There is not.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) : To all the viewers of television news, can I state very clearly that this bill is not about smacking. This bill is not about family values. This bill is focused on section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961, which provides that every parent of a child is justified in using force by way of correction towards a child if the force used is reasonable in the circumstances. The issue is our understanding of “reasonable force”.

New Zealanders are in agreement that children should not be assaulted or brutalised. New Zealanders are also in agreement that parents who smack children must not be criminalised. The problem lies with the interpretation of section 59. Section 59 allows parents to use physical punishment with the intention of disciplining their children without being guilty of an offence, as long as the force used is reasonable in the circumstances. Section 59 operates as a defence that can be raised in relation to any charge involving the application of force to a child by a parent. However, the term “reasonable” is not defined.

The test of reasonableness is one of fact. Therefore, if that defence is raised in court, then “reasonableness” must be determined on a case by case basis. In making that decision the judge or jury can only be guided by their own experience, by knowledge of community standards, or past cases. Is their own experience determined by their experience as children, and when was that? There is a difference between Mr Hughes’ childhood and mine. Is it “their own experience” as parents, or is it their experience as grandparents? It is a very different time and responsibility.

In relation to knowledge of community standards, every member of this House will know that that issue is extremely difficult to assess, particularly because it is so much a matter of practice within a community or group. Lastly, they are guided by past cases.

Life and community activities change. My mother beat me, with little actual success I have to say, with a cane, as was shown over there. She beat all four of us with that cane. She raised three children by herself during World War II while my father was overseas. It was a fairly stressful time. She did that. It did not work with me and I can remember my brother, at 6 foot, breaking the cane in front of her. I did not beat my children like that, but I did hit them, and I acknowledge that. I am not proud of it, but life has changed. I would no more think of caning my children now than my mother would not think of it, because she believed it was so important.

It is very difficult to make general legal rules as to what is reasonable, and what is unreasonable, force. I suppose it is because of that difficulty that Sue Bradford, in her bill, argues that the solution is to repeal section 59; to repeal the defence that is available. Others, like some members of United Future, argue that we can solve the issue by clarifying the meaning of “reasonable force”.

The Labour caucus has agreed that there is benefit in the issues surrounding section 59 being referred to a select committee for further discussion and debate. It has therefore agreed to support the referral of the bill so that a full range of options can be identified and carefully considered. Some of those options do include repeal, as Sue Bradford is suggesting. They can include amendment to give judicial guidance on what amounts to “reasonable force”, or repeal with a specific prohibition of what the majority of New Zealanders would find unacceptable by way of physical force, and I suppose that means by trying to define it.

Labour welcomes wide public debate on which solution is the most workable. Parliament is a place of debate. That may surprise listeners. Parliament should be a place where issues are clarified. We should not be afraid of taking a difficult issue and putting it to a select committee to hear submissions and to clarify the issue with the community—not for the community, but with the community. That is why Labour is voting to send Sue Bradford’s bill to a select committee. That will provide a forum for argument, a forum for listening to submissions from the community, a forum for examination. It is hoped that some clarification will result.

We are not the only people who agree that this issue should be discussed and examined. The issue of whether smacking is good or bad is not the issue that is on the table, but whether section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 is clear as to what makes a defence. What is meant by reasonable force? If we cannot clarify that, maybe we should repeal the provision, or rewrite it. As I said, Labour is not the only group to support such a discussion. In a release today Plunket said: “Plunket supports the bill going to a select committee, because it will provide an opportunity for public debate about the serious issue of violence against children, and whether it is appropriate or necessary to retain the legal defence for parents who assault their children.”

After the select committee hearings of submissions, a report will be prepared making recommendations about the future of section 59 and any amendments to the bill. Then members of Parliament will vote again as to where this bill proceeds. Then we have Every Child Counts, which is a wonderful coalition of Barnardos, Plunket, Save the Children, Unicef New Zealand, and Auckland University of Technology’s Institute of Public Policy. It is also supported by 290 more organisations and thousands of individual supporters who say that a select committee hearing provides the opportunity for legislators to receive submissions from all the interested parties such as parents, children’s organisations, academics, faith-based organisations, and children themselves. Once those views have been considered, then Parliament—the debating chamber, the listening chamber—as a whole, can have an informed debate.

I do get tired of simplistic reporting. This bill has been reported so lazily to the public as being simply anti-smacking. Parenting is a tough job. The story told by Sue Bradford, as an early parent, reminds me of things. Parents need support and encouragement. Too often, they feel alone. Parents need not to feel guilty. As I said, my mother caned me. My parenting skills were not quite like that, but I did hit my children, particularly in stressful times. But the action that I feel most guilty about is the several times I put my child in the garage, because he would not eat his peas— he turned 33 yesterday! I put him in the garage, because he would not eat his peas, and I left him there for an hour and a half. I think that is fairly shocking. How successful was I? He has turned out to be a vegan.

The Labour Government’s programme of SKIP: Strategies with Kids—Information for Parents is about supporting parents to find their way of working with their children. By voting to send this bill to a select committee, Labour is not arguing that one method of parenting is better than another. We know that parenting is the most important and the hardest of jobs. But we do need to focus on section 59, to scrutinise whether it is achieving what the community intends. I am confident that New Zealanders do not support the brutalisation and fear of children.

I ask my colleagues to consider sending this bill to a select committee for just such scrutiny—whether repeal or amendment. United Future, let us have this issue discussed.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : As Sue Bradford will know, I considered long and hard whether to support this bill. When I saw the bill I discussed the matter with many parents, and I came down firmly on the side of saying for parents: “Hey, we know that parents cannot do a perfect job. I’m not a parenting expert; I’m just a parent. We don’t expect parents to be parenting experts. We expect them just to try to do the best for their kids, because if they don’t do it, no one else will.” Being a parent is one of the toughest jobs in the world. Our only preparation comes from our own life experience. No amount of education programmes or well-meaning advice from members of Parliament will necessarily make one scrap of difference to how a parent parents. The fact is we learn from our own parents, and we actually learn from our own parents’ mistakes—mistakes that we try not to make ourselves. No doubt, we all make our own mistakes, and mistakes that our own parents did not make we tend to make.

Children are not just little adults. Children cannot vote, they do not drink alcohol—I hope—they do not work for income, they do not get benefits, and they cannot stand for Parliament, but occasionally we wonder about that! A 10-year-old can hit his mother and get away with it. There are different rules for children and for adults, and there are reasons for that. I do not think anybody in this Parliament, and I acknowledge that previous speakers have also mentioned this, would ever condone beating children. But I think about being a parent and I think about being a child, and I know of people whose children have been burnt by boiling water. I have seen what happens when a little child has reached up and pulled the kettle cord, and boiling water has gone all over him. I think the only thing to do, when a 3-year-old is about to do that, is to smack the child’s hand, take him or her aside, and talk about it as best one can. [Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has been made clear that we are not to have interruptions from the gallery.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There will be no comment from the gallery.

Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I expect there will be an addition to the member’s time.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes.

JUDITH COLLINS: Thank you, Mr Jones. It is not all right to say to a parent who takes that sort of action that he or she could be criminally liable. I note the points made by Sue Bradford and Marian Hobbs. I note the point that we would, hopefully, not have Child, Youth and Family Services workers running around interfering in situations like that, and, hopefully, not have the police doing that. But I also note that that was one of the arguments that, in particular, Mrs Bradford gave in terms of the Prostitution Reform Bill. It was said that the police might run around prosecuting people for prostitution, but I think there has been one conviction in about 3 years.

The fact is we cannot have it both ways. Parliament does not make laws so that they can be broken. If I were to smack the hand of an adult, that would be an assault. If I were to take an adult by the shoulder or arm and force that person to sit in a room by himself or herself for an hour, that would be an assault. If a parent picks up a child who is physically struggling, puts the child in a room, shuts the door, and leaves the child there, that is an assault, unless there is the defence of “reasonable force”. No amount of nonsense spoken in this House is going to change that. I understand that the previous speakers do not have backgrounds as lawyers, but I can tell them that that is an assault. The fact is most assaults are never prosecuted—but that is still an assault. We cannot afford to criminalise our children and our parents in this way.

I have listened to speakers talk about some of the simplistic answers. Well, this bill is a simplistic answer. When we come down to the House and see instruments such as whips and canes brought in here, that is done for effect and for a headline. The fact is we in this House do not know all the facts of those particular court cases. We were not one of those 12 jurors who looked at all the facts—we were not. It is not in our role to judge those jurors. If we need to redefine “reasonable force”, we need to do so, but simply to leave good parents wondering whether their child at a day-care centre might say: “Mummy smacks me if I do that.”, and the next thing the parent finds she is in trouble, is something we should not do to our parents or our children.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) : I congratulate Sue Bradford on having the bravery to bring this issue forward, and I think it is wonderful timing that it has come to the House before an election. I am proud to support this bill. I have been a long-time advocate for children and families professionally, having established the first women’s refuge in Rotorua and the first child advocacy service at Rotorua Hospital, where we had to do the forensic assessment of very abused children. That is where I learnt my trade. I now have the pleasure of co-hosting the Littlies Lobby, sponsored by Plunket and the Office of the Commissioner for Children. We have wonderful support for the campaign of Every Child Counts. This is an issue that is hugely controversial, but it is a discussion that is going on in our communities now. That is because of Sue Bradford’s bill, and she is to be congratulated.

There does need to be clarity around the issue of what is just known as “reinforcing behaviour” in relation to risk. The previous speaker mentioned the example of a jug of boiling water. We all understand that fine line when it comes to disciplining a child, but here we are talking about “reasonable force”. This bill does not condemn parents the rights to discipline their own children, and that includes smacking—something I never had to use for any of my children. We were probably of that middle class that rationalised with children rather than having to use the strategy of smacking.

The bill does not criminalise parents who smack their children, as extremists all around the country are suggesting. It is about giving consistent messages and protecting our kids. We do need to look at the definition of “reasonable force”—and heaven forbid, lawyers spend enough time in the courts trying to define what reasonable force is. Sue Bradford’s bill simply removes Section 59 as a defence before the law. I am married to a lawyer who deals with family law cases, where, heaven forbid, we see enough lawyers trying to hide behind the defence of reasonable force, which is simply inexcusable for many of the cases that go before our courts. This reminds me of a very young child whom I admitted to our children’s ward. I held the child up to get him into the cot, and his body collapsed under my arms. His father told me that he had not struck the child; that the child damaged himself trying to get out of the cot. But 22 bones in that child’s body had been smashed. That child had been struck. It is indefensible to hide behind the defence of reasonable force in the courts.

The bill protects our kids from unreasonable violence. We all know that line of what is “unreasonable violence”. It also supports the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. I remind members that New Zealand is a signatory to that treaty, which is committed to protecting and ensuring that children’s rights are met—that is, the right to protection from harmful influences, abuse, and protection. We are signatories to this treaty internationally. New Zealand reported on that convention in 2003. It is next due to report in 2008. One of the recommendations in 2003 stated that section 59 of our Crimes Act was inconsistent with the convention. It recommended that appropriate mechanisms be put in place for programmes and services for parents. We do know how difficult parenting is.

As a Government we have done so much about protecting the rights of children—from Te Rito, Opportunity for All New Zealanders, Agenda for Children, and SKIP: Strategies with Kids—Information for Parents, and we held a hearing on “Creating a Culture of Non-violence”. One of our recommendations from that was that we needed to look at the whole aspect of violence with a whole-of-Government approach, and in my view that also suggests repealing section 59. I am proud to support this bill.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : On behalf of New Zealand First I want to emphasise New Zealand First’s concern for the family and all the members of the family. As members will recall, New Zealand First put forward a bill, the Commission for the Family Bill, in the name of Craig McNair ultimately, and it had, I think, the best definition of “family” of any of the families bills that came before Parliament this year. We got it right this term, and we got it right the first time. Unfortunately that bill was not supported by the House. For myself, when I came into the House in July 1976 and made my maiden speech, I said I was very pleased that the then National Government, newly re-elected, had re-established the Cabinet committee for children and the family. I mentioned that especially in my maiden speech.

I am the father of three children, and I have admonished my children, both my giving them a slap on the back of the hand and, on the extremely rare occasion, by using a little black strap. It was something that was in a woollen car seat cover, and it sort of fell out one day. It was only this big, not big at all, and it seemed to be a very appropriate thing to use on the very, very rare occasion when someone did something terribly wrong. I agree with Marian Hobbs that the main concern as a parent in those early days, especially with our first child—and most experiments I think are conducted on the first child, one way or the other—was to get the child to eat. That usually seemed to be an issue at dinner time, when my wife had gone to a lot of trouble in preparing a good meal and our son would not eat anything. So we gave him a slap on the back of the hand to encourage him to eat. My daughter never had any admonishment by me. My younger son was a little naughtier, and he got the black strap on the hand at least once. I do not think that that was necessarily violent; I believe that what I did in the circumstances was appropriate parenting. Of course, if this bill were passed into law, I would be committing a criminal offence by doing that. It is a criminal offence to assault someone, but a defence is currently available to a parent if any admonition is of a reasonable kind. This bill would render someone who does what I did liable to a criminal charge.

I think that one of the worst things a parent can do—and it is not covered in this bill—is to shout at his or her children. I think that to shout constantly at a child, and to have parents shouting at each other, can do more harm in the average family than the occasional slap on the back of the hand does. I think that one of the worst things we can do to a child is to not speak to him or her for about 2 weeks. That is another thing that some parents do, and it can be even worse than a one-off slap on the back of the hand to warn children to pull themselves together. One hates to say it, but as parents we may feel even more hurt than a child does, because we have had to admonish a child in that way.

Judith Collins mentioned the boiling water situation. When my children were growing up we had a house that had open fireplaces with a surround around them. One cannot stop a 2-year-old from toddling up and heading towards a fireplace. Even with a surround around a fireplace, a child can touch it and get burnt. Somehow or other we have to teach children that that is dangerous, before they find that out for themselves.

I find that I am unable to support this bill, because if I supported it I would be a hypocrite. It would be absolutely wrong in my own mind that I would be setting up a situation that I did not carry out, and I would not want other parents to become criminals for doing something that I did during the course of bringing up my children. Of course, people say that the laying of charges will be at the police’s discretion. Well, that is not very satisfactory. Police forces can change, circumstances can change, and Governments can change.

One thing I say to the people who make submissions on this issue—and I would like to say this to Plunket—is that they should have another look at the answer to question No. 1 in Plunket’s paper, Questions and Answers on the Repeal of Section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961. It states: “It will simply remove a legal defense that is used when parents seriously assault their children—”. I think that in that case Plunket has it slightly around the wrong way. When I look at the Littlies Lobby survey, I see that it really should have asked the question: “Have you smacked your children?”. That would have been very helpful. Instead, it has come up with question No. 4. I appreciate the trouble the Littlies Lobby went to, but of the answers given, 1,332 people admitted that they did smack their children. So there is a lot of ambiguity and uncertainty.

Of course, Sweden has come into the act once more—the Plunket paper mentions Sweden. We cannot do anything these days without Sweden being mentioned. My investigations show that things have become worse for children in Sweden since the passing of Sweden’s declaratory law.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : I look at these matters first as a lawyer, then as a citizen and as a parent. I became involved in this issue 5 years ago, when I was asked to speak at a Barnardos forum. I realised later that it was assumed that I would be the man in the black hat, because I found that all the other parties—National and New Zealand First included—were keen on repealing section 59. I assumed that they had a sincere, good motive. I understand the helpless rage that a teenager perhaps feels at being beaten. I can see the awful hurt for children who are waiting for the world to hit them—the brutalising effect of helplessness in the face of adult strength.

I believe too that for many parents it is probably quite clear that non-violent methods of discipline are better. But I am very conscious of how humble we must be and how hard it is to find cause and effect in human circumstances. I suspect that the consistency and predictability of discipline is much more important than the actual kind, and I am quite confident that cold deprivation of affection will be more damaging than some temporary exasperation expressed physically. A vicious selfishness will be just that, however it is expressed, but discipline from loving concern will probably work, almost regardless of how it is expressed.

I have found that the people I have dealt with—and I know that this may sound hurtful to many of them—are not sincere. I think, after the many, many debates I have now had, that they actually enjoy the fact that many ordinary parents are outraged by the suggested interference in their child rearing. I think that this bill’s promoters relish the anguish, because there is a kind of self-righteous pleasure in telling lesser mortals what to do. In fact, the more the protest, the more justified they feel—the more they feel that they are the leaders and are out ahead of all the people who do not know how to do it. They really get their jollies in this debate from the people who are resisting.

New Zealand is a violent place. I heard mention of 11,000 suspected cases of child abuse. Hundreds of kids out there are basically living wild, and sniffing glue. There are 12-year-old girl prostitutes. Thousands of kids who are sponsored by the State, and who are, in fact, bred by the State, are victims of each other.

I really ask the people promoting this bill whether they ever have a moment’s self-doubt. Do they ever stop to ask why New Zealand today seems to have so many more kids who have been abandoned? Do they ever stop to ask why we did not get the heaven on earth that was supposed to occur in our schools 15 years ago when corporal punishment was abolished? Does it ever occur to them that the 20,000 kids suspended from school, or two-thirds of the 18,000 kids in the Correspondence School, might still be at school if it had not been for the loss of a discipline method that was familiar to many of their families? I know that when that bill went through, conservative Labour Ministers said that it would hurt their people most of all, because their culture assumed rigorous discipline.

Humility is in order for this Parliament in any situation whereby 70 or 80 percent of parents are telling us to leave them alone. Juries hear the circumstances. The law says “reasonable force”; it does not say “serious force”. This law will criminalise. In fact, it is very hard for me not to use unparliamentary language when I hear some of the arguments here. I have debated with Sue Bradford five times now, and she keeps saying that she does not intend to criminalise people. She knows very well that assault is any uninvited, unintended, and unwelcome touching, and that smacking will be a criminal act if her bill goes through.

I am also very conscious that the last time I heard this kind of cant was when the prostitution legislation was going through. Labour and the Greens insisted that we remove the provision the police had wanted that would allow police to ask the age of prostitutes. Those members went through a crocodile-tear, eye-glistening performance in this House, while they took out the only practical means of enforcement. They are responsible for this misery.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I stand on behalf of United Future to speak to the first reading of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill 2005, which is a member’s bill in the name of Sue Bradford.

At the beginning, United Future considered supporting the first reading, for some of the reasons that have been outlined by members in the House, so that it could go to a select committee and be discussed. One of our members also has a member’s bill to do with section 59, which has not been balloted. We wondered whether we had an opportunity to address his, and our, concerns around section 59 alongside Ms Bradford’s bill. We wrote to her and asked for some feedback as to whether there was a willingness on her part to consider our concerns. I have certainly shared a platform with her on this matter on several occasions in the last few weeks, and it is absolutely clear that anything less than full repeal is unacceptable to her. That has then forced us to say that there is no point in supporting a first reading, because there is no willingness and no openness to discussion. All Ms Bradford is open to is full repeal. That is why United Future will not be supporting this bill.

My colleague’s member’s bill, unlike what is often being touted around the galleries, is not about calibrating reasonable force. He looked at what was needed, because he knew that there were concerns. There have been rumours for years. Back in the 1980s, when I was parenting small children, there was talk about the repeal of section 59. What became obvious was that it is very easy to define “unreasonable force”. Hitting a child around the head, the chest, the stomach, the back, or anywhere that protects vital organs, and bruising, breaking the skin, or breaking a bone of a child are easily defined and would send a clear message to parents about what unreasonable force is. Unfortunately, there is no willingness for those kinds of discussions to be had.

When I first got into Parliament, a very sincere lady came to see me about section 59 and we had a bit of a discussion about it. In the end I said that I had to be honest with her; I had smacked my children on occasions when they were growing up. Her response was really interesting. She hung her head for a moment and said: “Yes, I lost it occasionally, too.” I said: “Hold on a minute. I didn’t lose it.” There is always the assumption that when a child is smacked, somebody has lost control. My message to her was that no parent should do anything if he or she is out of control, or if he or she is frustrated, tired, and distressed. Parents should not even open their mouths when they are in that condition. I have spent time with adults who are still suffering from things that were said to them by an out-of-control parent when they were small children that have been far more damaging than a smack that they may have received in those same years.

The parent-child relationship is unique. It is not like any other kind of relationship. Section 59 does not actually say anything about striking a child. It just provides a legal defence for parents who discipline their children using reasonable force. It respects the right of a parent to impose their will on their child. Every form of discipline does this. Even placing a child in time out requires the best use of reasonable force. The defence exists for parents to allow them to act in the best interests of their child, even against their child’s own wishes. As I said before, that is because the parent-child relationship is completely unique.

I finish by saying that the claim that this helps us to comply with our obligations to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is misleading, because the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child requests that all appropriate measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury, or abuse are dealt with. “Violence, injury, or abuse” is a world apart from reasonable force.

JOHN TAMIHERE (Labour—Tamaki Makaurau) : Firstly, I want to state that we all abhor abuse and violence towards children—I do not think there is one member in this House who does not. Secondly, the bill before us as at present drafted, in the event that it is passed in its present state, would make all parents criminally liable for assault. In terms of the way the present bill is drafted, that is a fact. I do not accept or agree to that. I do accept, on behalf of the Labour Party, that because it is such a contentious issue, such a widely debated issue, it should be referred to a select committee so that Kiwis can have a good say about it. The extent to which the report back occurs will be interesting, to say the least.

Thirdly, I want to say that in my respectful opinion, in terms of the information and evidence received as Minister of Youth Affairs, 95 percent—or more—of Kiwi parents are great parents. I am sick and tired of hearing report after report from do-gooder organisations that feast on the failure of dysfunctional families, and that come into the House lobbying groups and telling Kiwi parents that they are bad parents. I disregard that and I have the greatest of disrespect for that. One day in this country and in this Parliament we will start to stand up, rejoice, and celebrate our great parents and the great successes they are achieving with the great kids they are producing. It is about time that we shift the debate to that extent.

Stephen Franks: Why don’t you vote against the bill?

JOHN TAMIHERE: I say to that tug muscle that I have just said that the bill is going to a select committee so that people can have a say.

I also want to challenge the view expressed by Stephen Franks, who thinks that New Zealand society is violent. Why does he not go to Iraq? Why does he not go to London, or wherever else? That is an overstatement. Is there violence in New Zealand society? Any violence, regardless of the degree or level, is unacceptable. That is the issue. The issue is that we should not beat ourselves up over it. The reality is that more people will then start to see our research projects. If people care to have a look at our research projects, in terms of what we fund, they will see that we always fund what is going wrong with Kiwis, rather than celebrating and rejoicing in what is right about them. So in terms of this debate, I say that the bill, as at present drafted, criminalises all Kiwi parents.

I am a parent. I have five children, and I smack them. It is not a problem to me, and I say right now that if someone wants to come on to my land, into my house, with my family, and dictate the terms as to how I can bring up my family, then that person has another thing coming.

When we have this wonderful debate before the select committee, and when everybody else gets involved in it, under no circumstances can we allow the nosy parker State to start to poke its nose into our lounges to the extent that it starts to dictate how we will rear our children.

The second thing is that that is the thin edge of the wedge. In the next minute I will not be allowed to give them a drink of coke, because it is full of sugar. Where will it stop? So I say to my colleagues that I support the debate, I support the bill’s going to a select committee, but under no circumstances can the present bill be referred back to this House to be voted on in its present state.

ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) : In the next 5 minutes while I am speaking, a child will be hit unnecessarily. That punishment may scar the child for life. It may set the child on a path of violence, because he or she will have learnt at an early age that hitting someone is the way to get what one wants. I do not expect some members in this House—particularly Mr Adams—to believe me, but members may take heed of Dr Emma Davies, of the institute of public policy at the Auckland University of Technology, who is a spokesperson for Every Child Counts. In an article in the Christchurch Press on 2 June, she wrote that some of the children who grew up in violent homes are literally “incubated in terror”. She went on to state that those children are more likely to become seriously ill, or to commit violent crime without remorse. They are more likely to be victims or abusers when they grow up. And so the cycle goes on.

Sue Bradford’s bill is a crucial step towards addressing a wider culture of violence. It is not a silver bullet; it does not spell the end of child abuse and neglect. But it does remove the excuse of so-called reasonable force from our law. State-sanctioned violence against our most vulnerable citizens is intolerable in the 21st century. What may have been mainstream in 1961 is irrational in 2005. It is just as irrational as it would be if our Parliament were to legislate to give adults the power to use reasonable force against our elders when they enter their second childhood. Sue Bradford’s bill is an anti-beating bill, not an anti-smacking bill. When judges and juries continue to accept section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 as legitimate justification for beating children with canes, riding crops, four-by-twos, and other weapons, it must be repealed. It does not need to be replaced by any “degrees of violence” legislation.

But I tell members not to take my word for it; they should listen instead to the advice of the organisation that had more to do with our growth in our formative years than anyone—with the exception, of course, of our immediate families. I am talking about Plunket. In a very comprehensive series of questions and answers on repealing section 59 of the Crimes Act, Plunket asks, amongst other questions, the following: “If Section 59 is repealed, will I become a criminal if I smack my child?”. The answer was: “Repeal of Section 59 is about removing a law—not creating a new one. It removes the legal defense for a parent to physically assault their child and acknowledges that just like adults and pets, children should be protected against assault. Repeal of Section 59 is not about criminalising parents or introducing a new law against smacking. Just as jostling and shoving at a rugby match is technically assault, the police only take action when it goes too far.” Another question asked: “What’s wrong with smacking and physical punishment?” The answer was: “The vast majority of parents want the best for their children and they want to raise their children in a positive way. Physical punishment is not the most effective way to discipline children. Positive parenting strategies have been shown to be much more effective.”

Plunket is a member of Every Child Counts, and the Green Party is pleased to support the four key policy goals of that mainstream lobby group, which are to put children and families at the centre of policy development, to ensure that every child gets a good start, to end child poverty, and to reduce child abuse and neglect. Sue Bradford’s bill is a positive step in the right direction. That is why so many organisations support this bill, including the Families Commission, the body set up for United Future—a body it had a big hand in creating. Its very own Families Commissioner has come out wholeheartedly in support of this bill, along with the Children’s Commissioner and a whole host of other opinion leaders and individuals. So I have to ask United Future, as a party that claims to be family-friendly, how it can oppose this bill.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) : As the member of Parliament for Hamilton West, I wish to commit to Hansard an open letter to all members of Parliament from the Parentline Charitable Trust, written by the directors, chief executive Maxine Hodgson and Gayle McLean. That is a truly mainstream organisation, and the two people I alluded to as the directors of the organisation are exceptionally mainstream.

This is what they say: “To the public of New Zealand the repeal of this law is not an anti-smacking issue; it is an anti-bashing issue. Parentline was asked to comment by the New ZealandDigiPoll on the complex question put to the New Zealand public regarding the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act. When quoted the question by the reporter, I commented that the question was confusing and complex. From Parentline’s clients’ comments, Parentline staff and peers, plus participants in the recent Parentline child summit in Hamilton last week, it is noted that the repeal of section 59 is welcomed. The children, the experts, tell Parentline staff of the pain, fear, humiliation, and anger that they feel when ‘given the bash’. Never has a child commented on a smack. New Zealand needs to repeal section 59 as soon as possible, plus resource a comprehensive programme which addresses parenting issues, finances, health, relationship problems, etc., as well as parenting skills, tantrums, and sleep deprivation, etc. In the 28 years’ experience of Parentline, we find that parenting programmes that concentrate on the needs of children, parenting skills, without first addressing parenting needs, parenting issues, do not result in the best outcomes for the parent-child relationship.”

I have heard a bit tonight about Sweden. Maybe in my city, if we were a bit more like Sweden, Kelly Gush would not have been taken alone to the Starship Children’s Hospital to die alone. If that tragic death, along with many others in this country, is to have any meaning, I urge members to let this bill go to the select committee and let this Parliament address this serious issue. No doubt there will be members who will speak with forked tongue, and who will deliberately try to misconstrue that—

Paul Adams: What’s the connection?

MARTIN GALLAGHER: The connection is simply this, and I would like to quote from a very good mainstream member of this Parliament, Brian Donnelly, when he wrote in an article in the New Zealand Herald in 2001: “Section 59 of the Crimes Act not only gives protection to parents who smack their children; it also gives protection to parents who thrash their children with a piece of wood, leaving serious bruising several days later, as a recent case demonstrated.” If that is supposed to be family values, then I do not think it is family values, at all. What is the issue? The issue is that this Parliament will give a bill a first reading—no more, no less. This Parliament will give a select committee an opportunity to address the issues in order to see where a reasonable balance lies. This Parliament, in a democracy, will give community groups and individual submitters from across the spectrum the opportunity to address this very important issue.

In the mainstream, Dr Cindy Kiro, the Children’s Commissioner from the Office of the Commissioner for Children, and Paul Baigent, the chief executive of the Royal New Zealand Plunket Society, have said: “Given New Zealand’s appalling child abuse rates, it is important that as a nation we start talking about the violence against children, and ensure that our laws and policies consistently seek to reduce the incidence of all forms of violence against children. We support the repeal of section 59 as an important step in this direction, as it will remove the legal defence used by parents charged with assaulting their children. We do not believe repeal would criminalise parents who occasionally use physical punishment.”

The Minister in an answer to a supplementary question I put to her today, clearly said that it is not the Government’s intention to outlaw smacking, but that we want a robust, reasoned discussion at a select committee to find where the real balance is, and to protect the rights both of parents—the good, decent parents whom John Tamihere talked about—and of New Zealand’s children.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : First of all I would like to thank the Labour members who have spoken for their wonderful support for this bill: Marian Hobbs for her wonderful anecdote about the peas, Steve Chadwick for speaking from the heart about her own experiences working with some of the very damaged children, and Martin Gallagher for just now pointing out again that it is not the intention of either the Labour Party or the Green Party somehow to use the repeal of section 59 to outlaw smacking. That is not what we are here to do tonight.

I turn to Judith Collins from the National Party, who talked about this bill being simplistic. Yes, it is. It is very simple. I make no bones about it. It is not a complex issue. All we are trying to do is to stop parents from getting away in court with using things like this riding crop on their children. That is all we are trying to achieve; it is a very simple goal.

Stephen Franks said many things that I disagree with—as usual. He talked about the people who are working to repeal section 59 as not being sincere, relishing the anguish of the families that are joining in this debate, and enjoying telling people what to do. What a load of nonsense! I know many of those people, and find his comments absolutely distasteful. I reject them, absolutely. Those people are giving their lives to promote the legal and human rights of children, and usually provide many, many on-the-ground services to families and children, as well.

Judy Turner talked about the United Future bill that Murray Smith has in the ballot. This is an issue that I am sure will be canvassed at length in the select committee, and, indeed, I welcome that debate. I tell Ms Turner that I am not shying away from it. I think it is very important that we have that debate. But, very quickly, I say that the reason the Green Party does not support amending the bill, and somehow calibrating or defining the type of force that we could not or should not use against our children, is that that does not afford our children their full human rights, it does not protect them, and it still sends unhelpful messages to parents. Such an amendment is unlikely to conform with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and, above all, defining what might be unreasonable is totally problematic. We would start to get into things like at what age can a baby or child be hit or not hit, and by what form or what method can a child be hit or not hit—with what, how often, in what circumstances? It becomes simply impossible. I will actually find it very interesting to hear what is put before us at the select committee, but I defy any member of this Parliament to come here and say with certainty that this type of force will not harm a child, but that type of force will. It is simply impossible to say. I have looked at some of the bills that have been put up on this issue, and I just cannot see it from either a legal or a simple, human point of view.

Mr Tamihere, again rather forcefully, totally disrespected the groups that are working on the issue in saying that no one should dictate to his family. Fair enough. I am not trying to dictate to Mr Tamihere’s family. But I certainly reject the way in which he, like Mr Franks, has shown such disrespect to the people who are working in this area.

In the debate on this, I have heard many things. One is that the reason parents use violence against their children is that one simply cannot reason with children—that one has to hit them to make them see reason. In response—and there was an article about this in one of our newspapers recently—I ask why, if this is OK, we do not legalise the use of violence against old people, people with Alzheimer’s perhaps, people with severe psychotic mental illnesses, criminals, and other politicians. All these types of people often cannot be reasoned with. Does that mean the State should legitimise force against them? I do not think so. So why do we treat our smaller citizens differently?

Another argument I have often heard is: “I have to use force against my child, because my child is rebelling against me as a parent.” What nonsense! I celebrate all the rebels in the gallery tonight and out in our communities who are working so hard to change the culture of violence against our children, and who are working in so many practical ways to support families.

The repeal of section 59 of the Crimes Act is only one part of our journey, but it is an absolutely critical one. I look forward to the debate ahead of us, and to the day when full repeal of section 59 becomes law.

• A party vote was called for on the question that the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : I seek leave on behalf of the New Zealand First members to split our vote.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. That is the way we will proceed.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : I seek the leave of the House for New Zealand First to table the names of the two members who have voted in favour of the bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I guess you wish to have them recorded as well?

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: Yes.

• Document not tabled.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : I move, That the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committeereferred to Justice and Electoral Committee

• Motion agreed to.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) : I move, That the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control (Nuclear Propulsion Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. In 1987 this Parliament passed the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act. That essentially banned the deployment of nuclear weapons in New Zealand, or their passage through our territorial waters—that is, the 12 nautical miles; of course, it did not extend out to include the 200-kilometre exclusive economic zone. We must recall, though, that earlier, in 1986, New Zealand had signed the Treaty of Rarotonga, along with Australia and, for that matter, the United States. The Treaty of Rarotonga, signed in 1986, actually banned the deployment of nuclear weapons in the South Pacific zone.

My bill has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. I am not proposing any change to the existing law that stands on our statute book. Indeed, that issue is covered by the Treaty of Rarotonga, on a much broader scale—all of the South Pacific. That treaty is supported by Australia and the United States, our allies, and others—understandably so. No one wants to see an extension, vertically or horizontally, of the use of nuclear weapons.

However, when that legislation was passed back in 1987, a clip-on clause had been attached: clause 11. I can tell the House that there was a lot of controversy within the Labour caucus at the time. I was there; I know. I am the only one in the House tonight who was there. There was a lot of contention, and a lot of people were arguing that it was a bridge too far. Let me assure the House that it carried a deliberate, intentional anti-American sentiment. There is no doubt about that. Labour wanted to send a signal to America, and it surely did—and we have been paying the price ever since. I say it was a clip-on clause because it had nothing to do with nuclear weapons; it just banned visits of nuclear-propelled ships—very foolishly, I believe.

The reason why we do not need that legislation is obvious. No foreign warship can come to New Zealand without the express invitation of the New Zealand Government of the day. So if the Government does not want either a nuclear-propelled or a conventionally propelled vessel to come here, it does not come here. We all know that British, French, and other navies’ ships have come to New Zealand waters quite regularly in the 10 to 20 years since this legislation was passed. A lot of people say that American ships could come too. Well, I have it on very good advice that the American navy has never been invited. No New Zealand Government has invited a US naval warship to visit here. We have extended invitations to the French, in spite of what happened up at Mururoa. We have invited the British navy. But no US navy vessel has been invited since the passage of this legislation.

My bill is very simple. It merely proposes the removal of section 11. I would like to draw to the House’s attention Supplementary Order Paper 386, which lies on the Table. It states that my bill would not become operative until we had had a referendum of the New Zealand voting public. How can members vote against that? This is an important issue. Various political parties have somewhat entrenched views on it. This Supplementary Order Paper is saying that this bill would not become operative until a majority of New Zealand citizens said that, yes, we should lift this ban. How can members oppose that? Will Labour say, because of its blind, cold war mantra, that it will deny the New Zealand public the right to have that referendum?

That was the National Party’s position; National said that it should not occur without a referendum of the New Zealand voting public. Well, here is those members’ opportunity to walk the talk, if they really believe that—and I think a number in National do. I know that Lockwood Smith feels very strongly about the legislation. I was actually in the Pentagon with him in 1987, soon after the legislation was passed, and we got a clear message, did we not, I ask Dr Smith. He spoke out very vociferously about what nonsense this legislation was, and how he would do everything in his power to get it off the statute book. Well, here is his chance tonight. He had 9 years in Government and did not do it. Here is his chance tonight to walk the talk rather than just thump the chest.

New Zealand’s nuclear-free status is a myth, and that is the point. The legislation that was passed was about our being free of nuclear weapons, but we have turned it into our being nuclear-free. Labour trots out: “We’re clean and green and we’re non-nuclear.” What utter rubbish! New Zealand deploys nuclear technology every day of the week. [Interruption] The Green member beside me has just said yes. He acknowledges that. The Somers report, commissioned by Cabinet in 1992, is a report by three eminent professors and a retired High Court judge, who studied the issue for a year, travelled internationally, and heard public submissions. That report concluded there was no environmental risk or public safety justification for the continuation of the ban on nuclear-propelled ships. That was the consideration of that committee. The Somers report stated—I recall that it was on page 63—that Auckland Hospital alone emits twice as much radiation into the environment every day as does the entire US naval fleet and all its support services in an entire year. So to stand up and say that New Zealand is nuclear-free, and that we do not want nuclear technology because being nuclear-free is part of our clean and green label, is utter cant. What utter cant! What utter rubbish!

I have an interesting news clipping here. It is a report of an accident that occurred on State Highway 1 by Tirau in April of this year. A cargo of nuclear material—30 kilograms of radioactive material—was on a truck and trailer that crashed just out of Tirau. If we are really a nuclear-free country, why is radioactive material going up and down State Highway 1? It is utter nonsense—the myth that is perpetuated around this nonsense of our being nuclear-free.

The other point I would make is that there is nothing in our nuclear-free legislation that prevents the use of nuclear energy. The bill passed in 1987 is totally silent on nuclear energy, and properly so. If we believe in elevated carbon dioxide levels and in climate change, as a lot of people around this Parliament do, the obvious solution is to move to nuclear energy. In France, 78 percent of electricity comes from nuclear power-stations. The French actually export it to the UK through the Chunnel. Germany, Belgium, and all the neighbouring countries around Europe use that power. It is the cleanest and safest fuel for energy purposes. So in New Zealand’s future—I am not saying we should rush out and build a nuclear power-station—we should be considering that option. I introduce that into this debate just to help put it in context. It shows how foolish our ban on nuclear propulsion is.

Minister Goff stood up in this House and said that there have been accidents. I went and studied the examples he gave me. There has never been a serious nuclear power plant accident. The accidents he referred to were things such as burst steam pipes, but because they happened on a nuclear-propelled ship they were registered as nuclear accidents. That is a nonsense. We know about the Kursk, a nuclear-propelled submarine. Yes, a torpedo went off, it exploded, and it sank. I think, from memory, that some 152 Russian sailors perished in the Barents Sea. That submarine is lying on the bed of the ocean. There has been no leakage of radiation to this day. None has been recorded, and the experts say it is most unlikely that it will ever occur.

So the risk is totally overstated out of all proportion, and New Zealand is not nuclear-free. I am appealing to this House to take this step so that we can actually be on the same footing as Australia in negotiating a free-trade agreement with the United States, which, the economists tell us, would be worth a billion dollars a year to the New Zealand economy. It is a no-brainer: this bill should be supported.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) : I do not think it will come as any surprise to the House or to New Zealand that Labour opposes this bill and will be voting against it. Mr Shirley wishes to revisit the prohibition on visits to New Zealand ports by nuclear-propelled ships.

It sounds quite simple. It sounds as though nuclear propulsion is the normal method of propulsion. Well, if it is the normal method of propulsion and nothing to be feared, why are cruise ships not nuclear propelled? Why are large container ships not nuclear propelled? Why are only military ships nuclear propelled? It is not the normal method of propulsion, because there is a much higher risk to this method of propulsion, and, I have to say, a much higher risk than when the Somers report was written in 1992. I read from page 171 of that report, 13/20: “A Valid Question. I know that nuclear-propelled vessels do not visit New York or Sydney. Why should they be allowed to visit Auckland or Wellington? An answer involves an explanation of the assessment process which is carried out by the United States Navy before permission is granted to visit any ports. While it is not US Navy policy to reveal what matters are taken into account, we know from Captain Bush’s submission that though the criteria used to answer each request to visit a particular port were different, in general such factors as tide and current characteristics, harbour traffic, population density near the proposed berth, were taken into consideration and weighed against a possible nuclear accident for the reactor plant—a worst-case analysis.”

I think that speaks for itself. If at that stage, and still today, the Australians are not having nuclear-propelled vessels in Sydney’s port, why should we open our harbours? We do not go to such lengths when determining whether a ship containing hazardous cargo enters our ports, yet it is standard practice to do this sort of work for the entry of a nuclear-propelled ship, which is a military ship.

But worse than that, this report was written in 1992. Post-9/11 the risk has become even higher. US military ships have become targets for terrorists. Do we want to invite a mobile target into the hearts of our cities—in Auckland or Wellington? New Zealand is proud to be nuclear-free—free of nuclear weapons, free of all weapons of mass destruction, and free from nuclear energy. I do admit we are not free of nuclear medicine. I recognise that.

New Zealand has two main reasons for its stand. Firstly, it is anti weapons of mass destruction. Just the other day we stood in this House in silence for the victims of the recent suicide bombs. We abhor random violence. So why would we join forces with nuclear weapons? Why would we welcome them into our country? Why would we sign away our sovereignty to ban such weapons and their possible presence in our harbours?

The second reason is more environmental than an argument about weapon choice. No one has yet solved the issue of nuclear waste and its safe disposal. I ask members to look at the situation in Australia. It is a regular election issue in Australia as to which state or territory they will bury the nuclear waste in—and I freely admit that some of that is New Zealand’s nuclear waste, generated up there. Why use a source of energy whose cradle-to-grave responsibility has not been agreed to by the community?

Labour members are proud of New Zealand’s nuclear-free status, and our clear and consistent policy is to maintain that status. It has become part of our national identity. It is something that is unique about New Zealand. We are nuclear-free and we are proud of it. It will not be gone by lunchtime with a Labour-led Government. It is a solid, determined stand.

The stand of our opponents is not so solid. We have had at least six positions from Dr Brash—I find it really frightening actually; I hope he does not get to Kama Sutra numbers—well the proportions are there. We have had six positions from him. In January he told an American congressional delegation: “If the National Party was in Government today, we’d get rid of the nuclear propulsion section today—by lunchtime, even.” On 16 June: “The likelihood is that if we put a proposal to the Americans which they find acceptable,”—to the Americans? What about New Zealanders? “…if we put a proposal to the Americans which they find acceptable, and that, of course, would be after we became Government, we’d then seek a referendum.” So National would go to the Americans first before going to the New Zealanders! Not us. It is quite clear: New Zealand wants to remain nuclear-free. Give us a break, Dr Brash, and establish some credibility! What is National’s 54-day position on this particular issue? We have had at least six of them.

What scares me, though, is whether such flip-flopping, such poor credibility, will result in selling New Zealanders’ ideals and beliefs for trade. It is not just about our nuclear-free ideals; it is also about the lives of our young people, and bodies being returned home from Iraq in body bags for a trade deal. That is why we are not getting any clear answers from Dr Brash. He cannot resolve this question that is being asked by the television stations and by the Opposition. He says things such as: “I’ll get my officials. I’ll wait until I get some official advice about this.” Dr Brash and the National Party should understand that I know my values. I do not need officials to tell me my values. My values cannot be bought or sold. New Zealand is nuclear-free, and as long as Labour forms the Government it will remain so. Labour, therefore, will be opposing this bill.

Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) : This issue is important for New Zealand. I say to the honourable member who is introducing this bill that National believes this is not the way to resolve this hugely important issue. I think a measure of the importance of the issue was raised in Ambassador Swindell’s farewell speech to New Zealand on 4 July, when he spoke of the drift in the relationship between the United States and New Zealand—a drift that could see New Zealand float off into irrelevance to America in the future. I know that there are some extremists in New Zealand, including some Labour members on the benches opposite me, who probably want things to be that way. They probably have an innate dislike of things American. But most New Zealanders who have travelled through America have experienced the generous spirit and goodwill of American people. Those mainstream New Zealanders want us to have a good working relationship with America. That is where National wants to see New Zealand; clearly Labour does not want that.

In fact, to be blunt about this issue, our security in the Pacific is ultimately dependent on the security presence of the United States of America, because if there was any conflict one thing is for sure: neither New Zealand nor Australia has the military capacity to ensure the security of the Pacific. Perhaps even more important for New Zealand, trade is our lifeblood. The security of our trade is totally dependent on the US global naval presence. I want the Labour members to be fully aware of that. What is more, as we look to the future, whether we like it or not—and I know that a lot of Labour members probably do not like it—we can see the United States will be the major economic player in this world for many years to come. As such, that is important to New Zealand. The US is our second-biggest trading partner now; that country, whether we like it or not, is very important to New Zealand. It is therefore in New Zealand’s interests that our relationship with the US be as good as possible.

Having said that, New Zealand’s antinuclear policy is very, very important to many New Zealanders as well. It is more than just an issue about the safety of nuclear-propelled ships. I mean, for goodness’ sake, my wristwatch that I wear here in the House tonight emits more radioactivity than a nuclear-propelled ship—far more. But that is not the issue. The issue is that many New Zealanders feel very deeply about the importance of New Zealand’s antinuclear legislation. I think it is fair to say that many New Zealanders would feel that there should be no change to that legislation in this overtly political way, whereby a bill is introduced into Parliament—and I do not want to be too unkind to the member from ACT, but the bill is really introduced for political purposes. An issue as important as this to New Zealanders should not be tried to be changed in this way.

National has made it very clear that we will not change the antinuclear legislation without a specific mandate, either by way of a referendum or through a specific election policy mandate. We will not make any change without either of those mechanisms, whereby the public of New Zealand has a chance to express its view, either through a referendum or a specific election policy mandate. That is important, because an attempt to change this legislation politically is not in New Zealand’s interests, and it is not in America’s interests. Just the fact that one may get a change of Government in New Zealand and therefore try to change the legislation does not mean that that is in New Zealand’s interests. The only change that makes sense for either New Zealand or for the United States of America is a sustainable change—a change that the people of New Zealand want. That is the only change that makes sense—a change that the people of New Zealand want. Therefore, before this Parliament tries to change this legislation, we should give the people of New Zealand the chance to indicate what they want. After all, we do live in a democracy, and on something as important to New Zealanders as this issue we should show New Zealanders respect, by asking them what they want before we seek to change the legislation.

That is National’s policy. We agree this is a hugely important issue. We agree it is an important issue for New Zealand’s future—hugely important. It is very important that we should listen to the people of New Zealand, before attempting to make any change to the antinuclear law in this House. That is National’s policy, and it is very simple and very clear.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) : At least on this issue there is no ambiguity about ACT’s approach, unlike its erstwhile coalition partners in the National Party. At least members know where ACT stands on this issue. There is no ambiguity.

We have just heard a speech from Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, which, if it was not preparing the way, if it was not preparing the ground, if it was not softening us all up on the inevitable policy change that would happen under a National-led Government, then I do not know what would be. It was a fine speech. It was a very soothing speech. It was a very soothing sales pitch speech. But I think most people in this House who were listening to it would have heard a very key, clear message—“We will be preparing the ground for a change of policy.” He may not have echoed the words of his leader in January 2004, when Dr Brash told an American congressional delegation that if the National Party were in Government it would get rid of the nuclear propulsion section today, by lunchtime even—no, he was not saying that; he was saying that it would take a few months. But figuratively, they cannot get rid of it by afternoon tea or morning tea. It may take a few months. But the outcome is going to be exactly the same.

We on this side of the House are absolutely proud of New Zealand’s nuclear-free status, and our clear and consistent policy is to maintain that status. The Labour Party is not ambiguous on this issue. There is no ambiguity. It will be very interesting to listen to the other National Party speakers during this debate, as to where they stand on this bill.

To its credit—if I can use the word “credit”—there is no ambiguity about ACT’s position, just as there is no ambiguity about ACT’s position on wanting to send our troops to Iraq to support the coalition of the willing. The National Party in its heart of hearts had exactly the same policy, and indeed Simon Power, in one of those moments of absolute honesty, said on 1 May 2004—and I will quote him because this was a moment of non-ambiguity, a moment of absolute honesty, by Simon Power: “Without reservation we will support our close allies, Australia, the United States, and Britain, when and wheresoever our commitment is called upon.” That was very unsubtle code for saying that the ships will be back by afternoon-tea time. That was very unsubtle code for saying we would have joined the coalition of the willing to go to Iraq.

At least Simon Power was honest; at least he was upfront. There was no ambiguity about Simon Power. And for being upfront and honest he was dumped from that portfolio, but he absolutely gave us the hint of where a future National-led Government would go. Any party that was even contemplating any coalition arrangement with that particular party might do well to reflect very seriously, in terms of this nation’s interest in putting New Zealand first, and this nation’s interest in terms of what the National Party really wants to achieve.

No, the nuclear-free status will not be gone by lunchtime with a Labour-led Government. We will not be sending troops, in terms of the coalition of the willing, by lunchtime. Indeed, the words of Phil Goff say it all. This Government has “never moved from our point that the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders want this country to stay nuclear free, and not because we are paranoid about nuclear power. It is part of the way we see ourselves, part of the way we promote ourselves to the world, and for many New Zealanders it is also symbolic of New Zealand’s right to make its own decisions. That is why indeed so many ports, including those of London, Sydney, New York, and Boston, to name a few, also do not allow visits by nuclear ships.” They are joined by the port of Lyttelton, the Port of Tauranga, the port of Wellington, the Ports of Auckland, and the port of Port Chalmers. I am proud to be part of a Government that supports nuclear-free legislation. There is no ambiguity on this side of the House. There is a helluva lot of ambiguity on the other side of the House.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : On behalf of New Zealand First, I say that I think the comment made by Mr Gallagher about ambiguity is important. As I listened to Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith, I thought he was a little ambiguous, at least, in what he said. I just say on behalf of New Zealand First that our defence policy in our manifesto states that we will maintain New Zealand’s commitment to its nuclear-free policy. We say in our foreign affairs policy that we will remain strongly committed to New Zealand’s antinuclear policy. Is there anything ambiguous about that? In defence and foreign affairs we have made it absolutely clear that we have a nuclear-free policy.

As has been mentioned during the course of this debate, New Zealand First also opposed the sending of troops to Iraq. That is unambiguous; we clearly opposed it. Of course, when we look at New Zealand First’s ability to consider Middle Eastern affairs and affairs involving Islam, we can see we have the great advantage of having two members of our caucus who have been in the defence forces. Bill Gudgeon served in South-east Asia with the New Zealand forces, and that area has an Islamic background, and of course Ron Mark served in the New Zealand armed forces and then also served in the Gulf States. He has a smattering of Arabic, and has knowledge of the way the Islamic people in the Gulf States and the surrounding areas act and react. I, of course, having been born and brought up in a Muslim country, also know something about Islamic affairs. So New Zealand First is very well placed in so far as refusing to send troops to Iraq is concerned. As we all know, it is not a question of what they would do when they got there; the question is how we would get them out again. That was always going to be the problem in Iraq, and that is the problem that the Americans are facing in a big way. So we were opposed, and remain opposed, to the sending of troops to Iraq. From the point of view of our policy, we put New Zealanders and New Zealand first.

People have asked us what we will do after the next election. We will wait, first of all, to see what the people of New Zealand have to say. I understand that other political parties are making that statement as well, copying New Zealand First’s stand as usual. Whether we go with one party or the other party, or whether we decide to stay in the middle and do the sort of thing we have done this time, which is to support good policies and oppose bad policies, remains to be seen. It is dependent upon what the electors do on election day, and on the decisions that will be made afterwards. But New Zealand First’s policy is very clear: we support a nuclear-free policy, and we oppose the sending of troops to Iraq.

Indeed, we oppose nuclear energy altogether, even in so far as electricity generation from nuclear power is concerned. One of the things we are most concerned about—and I think Ken Shirley made a very, very good point about the building of nuclear-powered generators in New Zealand—is that the royal commission’s report of 1977 stated that we should have nuclear power-stations commissioned between 2005 and 2008. We should have had them by now, based on the population growth we had in those days, which was an increase of about 160,000 over 10 years. In the last 18 years we have seen New Zealand’s population rise by 25 percent, or by about 750,000 people. Indeed, in that time Auckland’s population has risen by 435,000, which is almost the entire population of the Wellington region, from day one. So we are looking nuclear power generation in the face, especially if the United Future leader has his way and New Zealand’s population rises from 4 million to 5 million in 10 years’ time. [Interruption] He says that it will, anyway. Mr Dunne and United Future support nuclear power generation That is their view. New Zealand First says that we have—[] The member said it will, anyway.

Hon Peter Dunne: I talked about population. The member made a comment about nuclear generation, which I have never spoken about.

DAIL JONES: If the member wants to interject, he takes the consequences of that. He said: “It will, anyway.”, and I said that was what he had said—that it will, anyway. I am just quoting what he said.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): It is a debatable point, which that member may clear up at the end of the speech, or in his own speech.

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although this is a robust debate, if members are being deliberately misrepresented by a speaker in the course of the debate, that then becomes a matter of order and the member has the right to seek your protection against that deliberate misrepresentation.

DAIL JONES: Speaking to the point of order, I ask the member whether he used the words: “It will, anyway.”? Those are the words I was quoting.

Hon Peter Dunne: I used the words “It will, anyway.” in respect of population. The member then went on to say I had used them in respect of nuclear generation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): The member has given an explanation, so we will move on.

DAIL JONES: The very clear fact is that New Zealand First is committed to a nuclear-free policy. We want, as a matter of interest, to ensure that our Defence Force expenditure goes up to 2 percent of GDP and we will not trade defence for trade. We will not give away our rights to defend New Zealand, in favour of getting a free-trade agreement, whether or not that agreement is with the United States. We will not give away our rights to China, as the Labour Party wants to do. We want to make sure that New Zealand is a nuclear-free country, and we certainly will not support the National Party’s policy on selling New Zealand out to every Asian country with low wages that the National Party can ever find for itself.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party will be opposing this bill. It seems clear that it is not really about nuclear energy or nuclear power but, from what Mr Shirley said, about getting a free-trade agreement with the United States. It is about playing up to the Bush administration. The explanatory note of the bill talks about the strains on the ANZUS relationship over a couple of decades. That is what the bill is about. It is not about nuclear power. It is about military power, and the projection of military power with the use of nuclear weapons.

I quote from an article in this year’s May-June New Zealand International Review by a respected defence commentator, Dick Gentles, who says: “The only nuclear-propelled ships operated by the US Navy are the Nimitz-class aircraft carriers and submarines. The carrier task force groups, including submarines, are the most critical element of American power projection capabilities. Their use depends on access to port facilities around the globe. The US Navy could not accept the precedent that would be set by a New Zealand policy precluding port access for these crucial assets. This is now a more important issue as the United States draws down its forces stationed in foreign countries and relies more on its power projection capabilities to protect US interests.”

That is what the bill is about, and ACT wants to go down the track of supporting the military power projection of the United States. Those carriers and aircraft carriers are the front forces of that country’s projection, including with the invasion of Iraq. Of course, ACT did support the sending of New Zealand combat troops, along with the Americans, to Iraq.

I refer to the question of safety, and of course the chances are not great that we would have a nuclear accident by a visiting nuclear-powered warship, but it is possible. So why take the risk? A nuclear accident could occur with a nuclear-powered warship ending up sitting on our seabed leaking radioactivity that would destroy our future for generations, in terms of fishing and everything else. Why take that risk?

Mr Shirley has portrayed those with nuclear-powered warships as being infallible, virtually. He said there was no chance of accidents in that respect. We know that accident after accident involving nuclear-powered warships has happened. Members might have seen on their television screens a couple of weeks ago that this year the USS San Francisco, a nuclear-powered submarine, struck an undersea mountain in the Pacific and smashed its front to smithereens. It was very lucky not to stay on the bottom. So these accidents do happen, and they have happened over the years with nuclear power.

There was the big incident in 1979 at the Three Mile Island power plant in the United States. In 1986 the Chernobyl disaster occurred, where between 300 million and 400 million people in 15 nations were put at risk and a nuclear cloud spread right across Europe. There are radiation leaks from nuclear power plants or nuclear reprocessing facilities. Over the years there has been big controversy about the Sellafield plant in Britain. The Irish Minister for the Environment, Martin Cullen, said just a couple of months ago that the plant should be closed down because it is still leaking radiation into the Irish Sea.

Lockwood Smith says there are great Americans. There are. There are great Americans who are fighting nuclear power and nuclear weapons. In fact, just a couple of days ago a whole combination of native Americans, actors—all sorts of people—have been fighting for an end to nuclear power in the United States, and particularly against the putting of 44,000 tonnes of nuclear waste into one of the Indian reservations in Skull Valley. There are people in America who are fighting nuclear power and the Bush administration’s policies around the world that have a nuclear spearhead. We should be alongside those Americans. Those are the Americans we are making friends with in order to end the more aggressive policies of the Bush administration and its policies in relation to nuclear energy, too.

Nuclear energy is not an efficient form of energy. It exists around the world only because it is heavily State subsidised. ACT should not be pushing it, because as far as I know it is not in favour of State subsidies.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) : United Future upholds and supports New Zealand’s nuclear-free status, and therefore will not be supporting this bill. But we also recognise one of the points that lies behind the bill, and that is the broader issue of our relations with the United States. We do think that, 20 years on, there is merit in reviewing where things are at and seeking to improve what has become a somewhat isolated relationship.

The blunt truth that both we and the United States should reflect upon is that both our countries, over the last 20 years, have got on to respective high horses that we find it very difficult to get off. The New Zealand position for a long time was: “Your move.” The American position has been in return: “No, it’s your move.” The reality is that both countries will need to make progress in the relationship at the same time in a way that respects their particular positions. What we ought to be concentrating on in this Parliament are the steps that we in New Zealand need to take to start that process from our end. Neither an arbitrary move to repeal certain provisions of our antinuclear legislation, nor our putting an untested issue to the public in a referendum, will produce the type of progress that we might seek. There needs to be some subtle diplomacy here.

I think the advice given by the American ambassador in his valedictory address of calling for some form of discussion between the two countries is an appropriate starting point. I note that neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade ruled it out completely at the time the statement was made. The question therefore becomes what is the best way in which this dialogue could proceed.

For some time the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee has had before it a proposition that we consider some form of inquiry into our relations with the United States. I think the climate has shifted now to the point where that becomes a real possibility in the next Parliament. Initially it would be at a low level, but ultimately it would involve the business community, political and defence interests, and education and cultural interests, to try to put on the table all aspects of the relationship between New Zealand and the United States, and to assess what common ground there might be, where the differences are, and what the prospects for progress overall might be in that respect. Changes that come, to any aspect of policy, flow out of that, but they also have to recognise the bottom-line positions of the respective countries. We do not expect the United States to change its defence policy. Equally, the United States should not expect New Zealand to change its policy. We need to move forward in a way where we are addressing this issue step by step to see what is achievable, what can be resolved, and what progress can be made.

Everyone agrees on one core point. Our shared values, our history, our language, and our sense of communication with each other give us a platform from which to move forward. The challenge is whether we actually decide to do anything, or whether both countries remain entrenched in their particular corners, lamenting the fact that the relationship is drifting apart, as the former ambassador noted.

I think the real issue is not whether we pass this legislation, or change our antinuclear legislation. The real issue is whether we in this country, matched by the Americans, have a commitment to sitting down and working out what we have in common, what we can achieve together, and what progress we can make. The challenge of this Parliament should surely be, in the interests of our people, to see what effort we can make in that regard, without compromising our basic principles.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries) : It is a real pleasure to have the opportunity to take a brief call on this most significant bill. I have been heartened by some of the comments we have heard in the House over the last little while. Like most New Zealanders I am very proud of this country’s nuclear-free status and our very clear and consistent policy over the years—more than two decades—to maintain that policy. I guess that for most New Zealanders that nuclear-free status has become a clear part of our national identity; one that we treasure as something that is unique about our position in the world. We are nuclear-free and we are proud of it.

I must say that one of the pleasures of being a member of this House is seeing the effect that that position has, along with other statements of our international integrity, when we have the opportunity to talk with parliamentarians and people from other countries. It is an often-stated cliché that New Zealand punches above its weight. That is certainly true in terms of international politics, and I think we should be very proud, because we have that integrity, that independence, and we make our own calls about our foreign policy. That is in no way to denigrate our relationship with other countries. It is essential that we do develop good-operating, cooperative relationships with everyone in the world, where that is possible. But the fundamental essential for this nation—as for any other independent nation—is for our foreign policy to be decided by sovereign, elected members and the citizens of New Zealand. That is the position we hold, and that is why our nation of 4 million people in the southern Pacific Ocean has the international respect that it does in so many areas of world activity.

I guess we all acknowledge that in most recent times that respect stems from the political interventions of people like Norman Kirk; of leaders of this country such as David Lange, and, most recently, the superb leadership we have from our current Prime Minister. I think most New Zealanders would acknowledge that this country has been put back on the international stage by those interventions and by that activity.

I was pleased that my colleague Martin Gallagher mentioned earlier the issue of port closures to nuclear ships, including in the United States. I think it is a telling criticism of the ACT bill, and a telling criticism of the American policy itself, in fact, that even some of America’s own key ports, such as Boston and New York, are closed to the sorts of vessels that were referred to earlier—not just London, Sydney, the port of Otago, Port Chalmers, and other ports around the world.

I say to Mr Shirley that I am glad my parliamentary colleague Mr Locke did refute some of the extraordinary comments he made about the safety of nuclear power and the use of nuclear energy. I do not know where Mr Shirley has been!

Hon Ken Shirley: Read the literature.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I have read the literature. I have read the literature in several languages about Chernobyl, and I taught in Germany at the time when there were continued demonstrations about nuclear storage and waste disposal in Gorleben. I read the German and English literature about the failure of nuclear plants in France and in Germany. So I say to Mr Shirley that, like a lot of his policies, I find no connection between the proposed legislation and the reality of the literature, as he tells it, or recent history in terms of the dangers and the failures of nuclear power-plants and nuclear waste disposal in many parts of the world.

With regard to the position of the opposing parties, I guess I would agree with Mr Gallagher that the one redeeming factor of the ACT policy is that at least it is upfront, unlike its extremist friends in the National Party, who have about six positions that we can calculate, on this issue; about five positions on related issues around Iraq; and as for tax, well, they are breaking their promises there already. The fact of the matter is that the Opposition policies of extreme-right Opposition parties in this House cannot be trusted. Clearly, the ACT party—not much longer for this place because of its extremism and because of the fact that its policies have been pirated by the National Party—at least has the integrity to put its policies on the table. Unfortunately, Dr Brash and his friends do not have that same honesty, but they can, none the less, be no more trusted.

I am very pleased to support the position that the Government has taken on this issue. Clearly, the Government will not be supporting this bill.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT) : In view of the time, and in view of the fact that this will be the last member’s day of this Parliament—my calculation is that there is one ACT speech remaining, to be given by my colleague Stephen Franks, and that I then have 5 minutes in reply—I therefore seek the leave of the House to complete the debate on this member’s bill.

Jill Pettis: But Labour has a speech.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Clem Simich): I am aware that Labour has a speech. We will just see what happens. Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : I am proud to rise to support my colleague’s bill on the nuclear propulsion issue. I am proud because it is in the long tradition of bills, motions, and amendments that ACT has brought on matters that other parties simply will not touch. I believe that that is a function that the Greens too, from the other side of the spectrum, perform in this Parliament. They raise issues that the big parties would rather not debate. In this case it is essentially a foreign policy matter. I heard the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, the Hon Marian Hobbs, tell us in relation to the bill debated earlier tonight that one of the things she wanted was to have the hard issues discussed in this House—to take matters that were important to New Zealand, but that were difficult, to a select committee, where New Zealanders could express their views on them. She said, in ringing tones, that she would vote for the Green bill we debated earlier tonight because she wanted to send it to a select committee. Then I heard the Labour speakers on this bill wanting to close the debate down. They want to close it down because they know that the submissions would be embarrassing.

We have been a shameful, crawling, craven, lefty country. The kind of credit that David Lange secured by talking about uranium on the breath has long since run out. We now get our credit in international fora by going to the cocktail parties in New York of people who cannot pay their bills—the representatives of countries that cannot even feed themselves. We have elevated that kind of posturing to an art. New Zealand has managed to embarrass itself with the British, who have nuclear-propelled vessels, with the Americans, who have nuclear-propelled vessels that are now accepted in almost every other country in the world, and with the Australians. All three countries are our longstanding and natural allies, and we have got ourselves into a position whereby we have reneged on defence arrangements with all of them.

We have paid dearly for that. The Government may sit quietly and pretend that none of that matters, because it has hidden quite a lot of the costs. The Minister of Transport knows just how much this country paid when Australia decided to give us the fingers on theopen skies agreement, when Australia decided to tell New Zealand that it had better hand part of Air New Zealand to Qantas or else, and when Australia decided that we were untrustworthy. Dr Cullen therefore had to go crawling to the Australians, and ask whether they would make things up with us if we gave them our banks. He asked them whether, if we gave them absolute control of our banking sector, they would not trash our economy.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: This is just stuff out of fairyland.

STEPHEN FRANKS: It is out of fairyland. In terms of the New Zealand Government’s foreign policy, the Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control has managed not to intervene in support of our so-called sovereignty. The police are about to destroy $2 million worth of perfectly sound sporting firearms, because we do not have enough guts to say to the United Nations that those firearms are lawful weapons in this country and that we do not like to waste money. Instead, we are kowtowing to the spirit of an agreement that does not even require us to destroy them.

What connection does that have with this bill? It is that we are primitives. It is that no one is prepared to say that the emperor has no clothes. We have a Government that simply will not stand up and say that it made a big mistake 20 years ago: that it could have banned nuclear weapons, and that it could have achieved a situation where it preserved its defence relationships, but instead it wanted to punch the nose of the big boy on the block, in order to distract itself from internal debates it could not otherwise win. It is pretty much like the student loan bribe. But I will get back to foreign policy. It is like the president of Indonesia picking a fight with Malaysia, because he had domestic trouble. This country has been no better than that. Now, we are picking a fight with Zimbabwe, a little country, because we are too scared to tell Mbeki and China that they should stop supporting Mugabe. The vaunted sovereignty position of this country is in absolute disgrace.

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) : I have to say, in seeking what I think will be the last call in this debate, that I am pretty disappointed in the quality of the debate in the last speech. That is disappointing, because in many ways I have quite a lot of respect for that speaker. His logic has failed him pretty badly. The first bit of logic that failed him was on the issue of who was in Government at the time when Ansett convinced the Australian Government to renege on the open skies agreement. If that was done on the basis of Labour’s antinuclear stand, then why did the Australian Government kick New Zealand when it was under a National Government that was so pro-America that it actually changed its position twice on the nuclear issue at the 1990 election? This flip-flop nonsense is nothing new. Mr Shirley knows that well, because, like me, he was a member of Parliament from 1987 to 1990, and was then defeated. We had to watch National lying its way around the country at the time. I told the candidate in New Plymouth at the time—in 1990—that I would be back in 1993, pointing out to the people how right I had been on those issues. The National Party, which became the Government, changed its position twice on the issue in days.

It is no surprise to me whatsoever that, on issues of nuclear policy, National has changed its mind—has it been six times so far? Have we heard six different stories from the National leader? I am not quite sure where the National leader is today on the issue, but I can tell him where New Zealanders are. They are overwhelmingly opposed to nuclear ships coming to our ports. And I say to Mr Shirley that it is not just New Zealanders who oppose nuclear ships; it is people right around the world. Other countries have the same antinuclear policy as ours, in a very similar way. Denmark is an example of that. Denmark has had visits from US ships, because the US ships have been prepared to tell it that there are no nuclear weapons on board.

I say to the member as well that today I had a visit from a very charming doctor who is doing some research on the European Union. She happens to be Ukrainian and to remember extremely well what happened at Chernobyl. I am sure that that has been rehearsed many times during this debate. Kiev is a major city that still suffers today from the after-effects of Chernobyl, and its medical bills will be going through the roof. We know that there have been nuclear accidents right around the world—nuclear leaks. We have seen leaks from nuclear plants, including leaks from the very ship-type reactors that Mr Shirley wants to have American ships bring back here.

Hon Ken Shirley: What about the one out in Upper Hutt?

Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN: I say to Mr Shirley that we are not talking about, nor is he talking about, a small device for medical use. We are talking about nuclear power reactors and nuclear ship reactors. If those reactors are so safe in ships, what happened to the ship-type reactor that the Americans installed at the McMurdo base to replace the diesel generators, because of the pollution from the diesel and the risk of spillage of diesel, etc., at the height of the American enthusiasm at the time for things nuclear? The US base at McMurdo put a ship-type nuclear reactor there. Sometime later, after it leaked, I tell Mr Shirley, not only was the reactor dismantled and taken back to the US for decontamination, etc., but so was a whole lot of the material below the reactor—the subsoil, etc.—taken back to the USA for decontamination. Now, not many people live there, and we do not know what the effect on the environment was—whether there was a long-time effect or not. But today the US is generating again by diesel at McMurdo. If nuclear power generation is such a safe technology, why was the use of the nuclear reactor discontinued?

I tell Mr Shirley that we are respected throughout the world for our stand on this issue. I fully agree that some countries are saying that they have to look again at the issue of nuclear power, while other countries are dismantling their nuclear reactors. We can do one of two things here: we can pass this bill, or we can throw it out. I am firmly for throwing it out.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT) : I thank the members of the House for their considered comments. There were many I disagree with, but that is the purpose of this House—for the various views to be expressed. I have to say I am disappointed in some.

There are a number of points in reply that I would like to make. Firstly, I draw the House’s attention to a recent Herald-DigiPoll, a nationwide poll of 750 New Zealanders. It was a published -DigiPoll, done under its normal, stringent conditions. When asked the question whether, based on the fact that the US had removed nuclear weapons from its surface ships in 1992, we should allow nuclear-propelled US ships to visit this country, 65 percent of the 750 people polled said yes. Yet speaker after speaker in this debate said that the New Zealand public does not want that. Well, that is partly why I changed the commencement clause of my bill to say that it would not take effect, and my bill would not commence, until a majority of New Zealanders, by way of a referendum, said that we should remove section 11. Those parties that are not going to support this bill are denying the voting public of New Zealand—New Zealand citizens—a say. What are they scared of? This bill would not become operative until it was carried by popular referendum.

I agree: I think this issue has become such an iconic issue in the New Zealand psyche that it is wrong for this Parliament, or any party within this Parliament, just to thrust such a change on the New Zealand public. It is up to the New Zealand public to express its view by way of a referendum. This bill provides for that, yet, in spite of it, Labour is saying it does not want to hear from the New Zealand public. National, although its policy is to have a referendum, is saying, when tested, that it does not want to pass this bill, either. Well, there is not much credibility in that position.

A number of other issues are raised. I give this example. How many people here know what, following the Boxing Day tsunami and the disastrous earthquake off Sumatra that measured 9 on the Richter scale, the first support on-station was for those devastated communities? It was the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt, a nuclear-propelled aircraft carrier with a whole mobile hospital and helicopter support crews. Let us think about this scenario. New Zealand is a very tectonically active zone. It is very similar to Sumatra. We could, perish the thought, have something of equal proportions. Wellington and the Cook Strait could be devastated. Would we say, if all transport were down, and if we were offered help in the form of a ship like the , which has a mobile hospital and helicopter support, that such a ship could not come here because we had nuclear-free legislation and we did not think it would be appropriate? I say to Mr Duynhoven that we should think about it. It is absurd.

The other point I make and reiterate is that if we pass this legislation, we are not saying that these ships can automatically come here; they can come here only if invited by the New Zealand Government. All that the bill is saying is that we should not keep legislation that was introduced to be anti-American, that has been an incredible irritant, and that has cost this country dearly, because of some cold war, chest-thumping bravado that has more to do with the Labour Party in the 1970s than it has with contemporary New Zealand in the 21st century.

The time has come to revisit the legislation, and I call upon the House to vote in support of my bill and refer it to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee. How can the House not at least refer it to a select committee for further consideration? Others have made the point that the bill needs further debate and consideration. Well, let us give the opportunity for New Zealanders to make submissions on this bill. This issue is an important aspect of New Zealand’s foreign policy, and our trading policy, for that matter. Let us have a parliamentary select committee consider the bill, with public input. I urge every party here to vote in support of this bill.