Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : We have in the chair the Minister for Building and Construction, Shane Jones, who says that things in the building regulation area are going swimmingly well. With this bill he will further drive up the costs for councils, for ratepayers, and for building consents.

In debating these three clauses, I remind the Committee of the absolute mess this Government has made of building regulation. This bill makes a complete mockery of the Government’s commitments to improve home affordability, because its provisions will make it even more difficult for New Zealanders to afford homes. Let me just run through what is going on out there for ordinary New Zealanders who are trying to get their building consents.

Last week I tabled documents from the Rodney District Council that show that, under the Building Act, it now takes 110 pages of bureaucracy to have even the most minor of building consents go through. The Wellington City Council said that before this Government’s stupid Act, it used to take three A4 plans and 20 pages of documentation to get a building consent for a standard house. Under the new Act, it takes 12 A3 plans and 200 pages of documentation. This Minister has increased the bureaucracy tenfold as a consequence of the Act, and the costs are going through the roof. A fortnight ago my own Nelson City Council announced a 50 percent increase in building consent costs. The Minister of Housing across the road there, Maryan Street, said that it will cost only $100. What planet is the Minister of Housing on? Under this Government the cost of a building consent is thousands of dollars, and the Government is driving it up by thousands of dollars more.

Hon Shane Jones: Where’s the proof?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me take the Minister through the proof.

Hon Maryan Street: It’s $100.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I ask Maryan Street to tell me more.

Hon Maryan Street: $100

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I will bet that Minister the best bottle of Nelson wine that the 50 percent increase in the Nelson City Council fees is a heck of a lot more than $100. But it is not just the Nelson City Council, I say to Maryan Street; the Dunedin City Council has announced increased costs of $1 million a year because of her and this Minister’s Act. I ask Maryan Street who in Dunedin City will pay the extra $1 million a year. Why does the member not take a call? The member is running for cover, she is running scared, because she knows in her heart of hearts that the Government has made a complete botch of this area of law.

What we see in this bill is the Government creating a huge Government bureaucracy, the Department of Building and Housing.

Hon Judith Tizard: You can’t have it both ways.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Judith Tizard would know all about building, would she not? Judith Tizard is part of the problem, because she and her stupid ministerial colleagues have hugely increased the cost of regulation in the building sector, and that increase is now being passed on to ratepayers. She and the Minister on their $240,000 a year salaries may not understand that those thousands of dollars of increased costs are hurting people who are desperate to get their own home, and are hurting ratepayers. What this bill does is dump on to the councils the costs of accreditation for the building consent process. What that means is that $4 million of Department of Building and Housing costs is being dumped on to the councils at the same time that this Government says it will make homeownership more affordable. Hang on a moment: the Government increases its charges by 50 percent, then says: “Oh, we care about housing affordability.”! In the last census we saw the biggest ever drop in homeownership since the census included the homeownership question.

Hon Shane Jones: It’s the market.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, Mr Shane Jones says it is just the market. Let me explain why it is not. When the Government puts up, as it does in this bill, the building consent fee by 50 percent, who pays that?

Hon Shane Jones: 101economics.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister says “101 economics” pays it. Actually, the building consent applicant pays it. I have another question for the Minister: in 2002 this Labour Government changed the provision for development levies and said that it would put the cost on to the developer; what does the Minister think the developer did with the cost? We have seen development levy costs increase from $8,000 a section to the latest figure of $26,000 a section.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Oh no!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member Parekura Horomia says “Oh no!”; those figures are from Local Government New Zealand. This Government’s legislation resulted in the development levies going up from $8,000 a section to $26,000 a section. Who does the Minister think paid that increase? This Government changed the legislation, with the result that those fees increased; who do those members think paid that increase?

Hon Shane Jones: Infrastructure levy.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member Shane Jones says “Infrastructure levy.” Yes, and it has gone up from $8,000 a section to $26,000 a section. Could it possibly be that it has actually put up the price of sections? Could it possibly be that the developer passed that cost on? Or does the Minister think the developer community decided to absorb that extra cost of $16,000? Let me tell Mr Jones the figures. When Labour came to Government, the average cost of a section in New Zealand was $76,000. The cost of a section today is $186,000.

Hon Shane Jones: Supply and demand.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Who is cutting the supply? Whose Resource Management Act is making it slow and expensive to bring new sections on to the market? This Government’s Act. Who has amended the Resource Management Act to make it more difficult than ever to get sections through? Who has passed Building Act amendment after Building Act amendment that has driven up the cost? This Government has. I say to the Minister in the chair that the next time he wants to give a speech about housing affordability, he should have a damn good look in the mirror, because this Government’s resource management policies and building policies have made homes for average New Zealanders more unaffordable than ever in our history.

I challenge the Minister to say whether anything in this Building Amendment Bill will make homes more affordable for struggling Kiwi families. The answer is there is nothing. The answer is that it will make it worse. This bill is just another exercise in red tape, and is putting more costs on the building sector. My contacts within the building sector say that the industry is in crisis. The industry is so buried in red tape that more tradesmen are leaving New Zealand to go to Australia than at any time in recent history, and that is because of this sort of impractical, bureaucratic, red-tape legislation, which is doing so much harm to our building industry.

The National Party is saying that help is on the way. There is a mood out there in New Zealand for change, a mood against the bureaucratic, red tape, unaffordable sorts of policies that we see in this bill. The best hope for those young families who are striving to own a home is a tax cut, fair interest rates, and sensible reform of the Resource Management Act and the Building Act to make homes genuinely more affordable.

The last point I want to make is this. We know, and the record shows, that homes have become more unaffordable during the 8 and a bit years of this Government than they have been under any other Government on record. If members ask the Parliamentary Library for the statistics, they will find that this Government has the worst record on home affordability of any Government in New Zealand history. Why would we trust this Government to try to address that situation? This bill should be rejected. A very different bill is needed.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) : This bill will pass. Soon this bill will become a permanent feature of our legislative landscape. I must say that the last speaker is promoting a reduction in standards, a departure from accountability, and a rejection of any liability, so that those who are most vulnerable will not be able to rely upon the quality of the builder, the integrity of the council inspections, and the professionalism of the designers. That member is encouraging the Committee to open up this area of governmental activity holus-bolus to the surge of the market, with no regulatory oversight at all. That is actually the conclusion of his very loud but largely incomprehensible, unhelpful—

Hon Member: Irrelevant.

Hon SHANE JONES: Well, it is irrelevant, because the man will not be on the front bench for much longer. There is a far more talented group of people. They are slightly younger and more energetic, and they have a better appreciation of where the spirit of the New Zealand family is.

Of course the average New Zealand family, when they are approaching house purchase, are concerned about the cost of money and concerned about delay, but deep down they do not want to see a perpetuation of the misery, the agony, and the dread associated with the collapse of the building industry, which led to the leaky houses.

Let us go back to the pith of what lies underneath these reforms. Admittedly, the member is able to dredge up information from Nelson, although he has been challenged by my colleague Maryan Street as to the accuracy and the veracity of what he says. I do not actually get quite as worked up as Minister Street does. We generally dismiss what Dr Smith says because it lacks accuracy and it is used and distorted for a purpose for which it was not designed. But one cannot escape the underlying story that the amendments associated with this bill are designed to ensure that we close the gaps that led to the development of the leaky homes hangover.

There are people who are still associated with these problems. They are looking for councils to remain thorough, and they are looking for building practitioners to improve their level of professionalism and skill. Dr Nick Smith does not want that to happen. He wants to dress up that kind of activity as unnecessary bureaucracy and overshooting regulation etc., whereas, in actual fact, underlying the problem is the fact that people want to be in secure homes. People want to be confident that where there is a problem they can rely on the process to find those who have put them wrong.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: 110 pages?

Hon SHANE JONES: Would the member say that homeowners should rely on something as skimpy as a small scrap of paper, the size, probably, of his intellectual pedigree, when they discover a problem and try to find someone to help them solve it?

One cannot walk away from that problem. I say to Dr Smith that one cannot walk away from the underlying challenge here, which is to ensure that the legislation improves the prospects of all Kiwis, whether they are buying an exceedingly expensive property or what we might regard as an affordable property, and to ensure that they can rely on the quality of the monitoring and the skill associated with the construction of the dwelling. Now, that is what this bill seeks to do.

This bill will pass. No doubt this is not the final iteration of the code and the associated regulatory framework for New Zealand housing. Far be it from me to say that this is the final word. But I must say, after going around and talking to people, that the insurance industry is waiting to see these reforms fully implemented, because councils cannot actually get any further insurance. They are not able to insure against the problem of leaky homes, which is what we have sought to remedy with the passage of this legislation.

It may be said that some councils are being over-zealous in the amount of paper they require. But we have a system of central government and sub-national levels of government. Those local government bodies, I say to Dr Smith, have at their disposal the ability to regulate the amount of paperwork they require, but they need a handsome, strong framework, which is what this bill produces.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : In the Minister’s contribution he questioned the figures I had used in my speech, and he used quite derogatory language to describe them. I seek leave to table the statement by the Nelson City Council, dated 28 February, which states that building consent fees in Nelson City would need to increase by 50 percent.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave is sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I seek leave to table the statement from the Tasman District Council about increasing its building consent fees by 36 percent in response to the Government’s building legislation.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I seek leave to table the document from the Dunedin City Council announcing a 67 percent increase in the building consent fees in Dunedin City in response to the Government’s Building Act.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave is sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I seek leave to table the statement from the Wellington City Council that the forms required for a standard home under this Building Act have increased from three A3 plans to 12, and from 20 pages of documentation to 200 pages of documentation.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) : I listened closely to what the Minister in charge of the Building Amendment Bill, Shane Jones, had to say. If people listened to his speech, on the surface they might have thought that some of those things he was talking about were probably reasonable. But the unfortunate thing is that this is the fourth building bill in 4 years that this Government has brought in. Every time the Government brings in a building bill it tells us that the bill will fix the issue. The first bill in 2004 was going to be the remedy; it was going to solve people’s problems. Unfortunately, it did not.

Hon Shane Jones: Minor tinkering.

JOHN CARTER: The Minister might say it is minor tinkering but it is not minor tinkering when someone has a bucket under a leak in the middle of the lounge, or someone has to put a cloth around a window because the wind is likely to be blowing it in as a result of the stupid regulations and rules that were brought in under the Building Act 2004.

The Government brought in another amendment bill and said that it had not got the legislation quite right but would fix it up with that bill. The Minister knows, although he was not in Parliament at the time, that unfortunately that did not happen. So the Government brought in another amendment bill to fix up the mistake it had made in the second bill, which was brought in to correct the first bill. Unfortunately, that did not work either, and here we are today with the fourth bill, to fix up the stuff-up in the third bill that was to fix up the stuff-up in the second bill that was to fix up the stuff-up in the first bill.

The Minister referred to the fact that there are leaky homes in New Zealand. He knows there are, we know there are, and local government knows there are. There are estimated at the moment to be 3,200 leaky homes, but actually there may well possibly be somewhere between 15,000 and 30,000 more out there that have yet to be discovered. The problem we have is that we are addressing just those leaky homes that we have been notified about and that we know of. I have to say, we are addressing them in a very convoluted way, which is costing a whole lot more in legal fees than it does to fix the leaky homes, but they are being addressed.

The problem is—and the Minister knows this because he has been told not just by me, by my colleague Nick Smith, or by my colleagues from this side of the Committee, but by the building industry itself—that leaky homes are being built right now. Leaky homes are being built right now across this country. They are not included in that number of 30,000, which is anticipated as being the maximum between 15,000 and 30,000 of leaky homes yet to be discovered. More are being built.

The Minister is in charge of a Department of Building and Housing that is meant to have set out quality control for the materials that are put into houses. I ask the Minister where the quality control is. The Minister knows it is not there, and this Committee knows it is not there. We know that of the 600-plus materials that can be put into a house, fewer than four have been certified, to date. I have stated that figure in the Chamber many times and it has never been challenged. Therefore, unless the Minister has some other facts and figures, he accepts that it is so.

The tragedy is that a whole lot of materials that have been imported from overseas, particularly from Asia, are being put into our houses today and they are faulty. The unsuspecting person who goes along and buys a spec home—a beautiful, well-finished spec home—will find that in 10 years’ time or less, the husband will go into the toilet and flush it, and the mother will end up getting a shower in the kitchen because the copper pipe has burst. It is a real tragedy waiting to happen.

This Minister says that it is OK; we will pass another law and more rules and regulations, which will make it all better. I say to the Minister that that will not fix it. I want this Minister to explain to me how writing more rules and regulations makes the builder put the nail in straighter. How does it make the guy who puts the glass in the window put in the putty better? It does not improve the skills of the tradesmen at all; indeed, it inhibits them. That is part of the problem.

We have now got to the stage where so many of our good, quality tradesmen are so frustrated by the rules and regulations they have to comply with that they are exiting the industry. We are losing good, competent people. The Minister is having a meeting, I think, in Northland this Friday week, and he will be told by the people he associates with up there that good, competent tradesmen who have been in the field for 30 years or longer will not remain in the industry, because of this Minister’s rules and regulations.

The real tragedy is that this Minister, in his heart of hearts, knows that this bill we are debating today will not fix the problem.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: He knows it won’t.

JOHN CARTER: He knows in his heart of hearts that this bill will not actually fix it. But the problem is, of course, that he is a Minister in the Labour Government. The Labour Cabinet has passed this bill, the caucus has passed it, and he has been told by his officials that it needs to be done, so here he is, standing up there, making speeches about how grandiose it is and how it is all going to work. But he knows in his heart of hearts—and this is the tragedy, and I am glad it will be recorded in Hansard, because one day in 5 or 10 years’ time I will bring it out and show him—that this legislation will not work. We will end up with more problems in this country because of this sort of legislation.

There is an answer. The real problem and the tragedy is that local government has become responsible for faulty building. I have to ask why one would make local government responsible for mistakes made by builders. Why does local government have to assume the total responsibility? Why does local government—and finally the ratepayers—have to pick up the tab?

Hon Shane Jones: What is an alternative solution?

JOHN CARTER: Well, there is an alternative solution, and the Minister, if he bides his time, will find it out soon enough, when National is ready to announce that is has a very good alternative. The Minister knows it, but again he cannot put it through in his policy because of his socialist Government, which he is right out of step with but unfortunately joined because he could not get on the National Party list but now just has to bide with. Let us use the analogy—

Hon Shane Jones: Come back to the bill.

JOHN CARTER: I say to the Prime Minister in waiting that I am just about to. The point is that if I go to buy a new car and it breaks down, I do not rush up to the Mayor of Far North District Council and say: “Brownie, my car’s broken down. Can you get the ratepayers to fix it for me?”. So why in the world should I be allowed to do that if the builder does not do my house properly because he or she could not understand the rules and regulations and did not have the skills?

This Minister knows in his heart of hearts that this legislation will not be the remedy that is required to fix the building problem. The Minister knows that it is, in fact, doing the reverse. The Minister and his Labour Government—led by Helen Clark—know that this legislation is putting in more rules, regulations, and costs. The Minister knows that it is driving good, competent tradesmen out of the industry. The Minister knows that we will end up with members of local authorities around the country holding their heads in their hands in horror and saying: “More rules and regulations.” As my colleague Nick Smith has said, they will have to write out more pages of building applications and there will be more forms to fill out. There are 110 pages in Rodney.

The Minister asked for proof of the cost increases. I have mentioned before that I recently got a deck extended and a retaining wall done; that cost $16,000. The fee costs on that were $3,600. The Minister asked where the proof of the cost increases was; I have to say that that is a fairly good bit of proof there, right there. Then the work I had had done could not pass its compliance, not because it was not constructed properly and not because it was not in place, but because I did not have a smoke alarm. Well, I have to say that I have not found the answer as to why one would have to have a smoke alarm on an outside deck and a retaining wall. If there is a fire, surely it will not hit the smoke alarm outside. One assumes that the wind will blow the smoke away. But I do not know; this is the sort of stupidity we are now getting in the rules and regulations being passed by this Government.

I say to the Minister that this bill will not work. It will be as good as the previous bill, which did not work. It will be as good as the bill before that, which did not work. It will be as good as the parent Act, which did not work. I say to the Minister that, sadly, New Zealanders, ratepayers, homeowners, the building industry, and the country will be paying the cost of this bill. The Minister has been told that the cost of compliance in regard to just a section is spiralling up to something like $50,000. That is not the cost of buying a section or putting in the infrastructure; it is the cost of just the rules and regulations.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) : It is a pleasure to take a call and speak on the Building Amendment Bill, and to take up some of the points that members on this side of the Committee have well and truly canvassed. I start by saying that there is a degree of sympathy from this side of the Committee towards the Minister in the Chair, Shane Jones, who makes utterances and pontificates that this bill will become law. That may be the case, but at the end of the day the Minister should always remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

There is another saying that is worth quoting at the moment. We have a situation that has become like an albatross around the neck of the Labour Party, and the accountability issue is that two wrongs do not make a right. In fact, we have had four wrongs here. We have tried to solve a problem, and in our effort to do so we have made the matter worse. I tell the Minister that the saying effectively means that once something has been made crooked it cannot be made straight. Sure, the bill might be passed into law, but it has been a huge disappointment.

Although the Labour Government started out by trying to solve the problem, the Government itself has become the problem at this stage of the legislation. It has lifted things to a level of unaffordability. It has lifted the level of bureaucracy and the size of the Department of Building and Housing to a level that has meant that the interface with local government has had to match that. When I went back to the Marlborough District Council, which is a unitary authority, council members said to me: “Colin, I bet you’re pleased that you’re not a Labour MP.” I asked why. They said: “If you were a Labour MP we would just about throw you out of here because of the amount of work that has been created for us around building consents, construction, and suchlike.”

Really, where we are today is that the Labour Government is in its final stages. It will be remembered for one major thing when it comes to what is traditionally known as being something that average New Zealanders aspire to, which is to own their own family home. I tell members on the other side of the Committee that they will be remembered for creating unaffordability. It is very, very sad, because the Government is not fully aware of that. There seems to be a conversation way up in the stratosphere and it is not connecting with the realities on the ground.

There are solutions, and I am certainly looking forward to the time when the National Party releases its policies, at a stage when we are confident they will not be stolen by the Labour Party, as have the other 14 policies already taken by the Labour Party.

It is quite interesting to see where we are at the moment with regard to the Building Amendment Bill after all the work, talking, and time. The Chair pointed out to us last time we addressed this bill that it has now been more than 4 months since we began the final stages of the bill. All we have been building under this Government has been growing bureaucracies. We have fewer houses being built, we have more costs being added, and we have fewer builders. Builders are leaving the country in disgust, and people are seeking other careers. There has been a reversal in affordability. The only dramatic growth we have seen is in the Department of Building and Housing, where we have seen a growth in bureaucracy.

It is hugely disappointing that we are confronted with the extra layer upon layer of bureaucracy, which is squeezing the very inspiration and aspiration out of young New Zealand families to afford their own homes. When we look at the whole range of policies that impact on the communities in our regions and throughout New Zealand we see that we are now confronted with some of the highest interest rates in the OECD. Not only do we have the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act impacting upon people’s housing costs but also the Labour Government putting on another layer of costs. The cost of $50,000 for a section is absolutely appalling.

When one stops and thinks about the young people coming out of universities and colleges, going into the workforce, and looking at the challenges and hurdles they have to get over one realises that it is a shocking situation.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : What Government members do not understand is that New Zealanders have had a gutsful of a busybody Government that wants to interfere in everybody’s lives, as we are seeing more of in this Building Amendment Bill

Let me put some basic, common-sense questions to the Minister in the chair, Shane Jones. Does he think it is reasonable that the standard building consent form from the Rodney District Council for a person who wants to put in a drain is 110 pages long? The silence is deafening. Why can the Minister in the chair not come to the common-sense conclusion that every National member can come to, which is that it is unreasonable and it is bureaucracy gone mad? I put the question to the Minister again. Does he think it is reasonable that the building application standard pack for anybody in the Rodney District Council area wanting to get a consent for anything from a home to a drain to putting in a kitchen unit is 110 pages long?

Hon Shane Jones: Address the Rodney District Council yourself!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister in the chair, Shane Jones, says “Blame the Rodney District Council.” I have spoken to the Rodney District Council, and it says that this building legislation that has passed creates exactly that scenario. I have spoken to my own—

Hon Shane Jones: How?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me tell the Minister how. This bill sets up the charging process around the accreditation of building consent authorities. His department is going to talk to building consent authorities in every corner of New Zealand, and members of that department, as busybodies, will tell them what they have to put on their building consent application forms in order to be accredited. And that is how many pages it takes to meet that requirement.

Does the Minister know how many of those 110 pages have the Department of Building and Housing’s logo on them? Sixty-two! The Minister in the chair says we should blame the Rodney District Council, but 62 of the pages come from his Department of Building and Housing.

Hon Shane Jones: No.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I tabled them in the House last week. What is even better is that on those pages are the words: “New Zealand Government—the key to sustainability.” Can the Minister explain to me how every one of our 70,000 building consents each year that are covered under this Act—

Hon Shane Jones: How many?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We have 70,000 building consents each year.

Hon Shane Jones: Sorry!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I say to the Minister that those are the numbers provided by Statistics New Zealand. I do not know which planet the Minister is on, but 70,000 building consents, at 100 pages each, means a pile of paper that is just over a kilometre high. Does he think that that is a reasonable set of building regulations for New Zealand?

I come to another question. This Parliament has set up the Commerce Committee inquiry into housing affordability. The Registered Master Builders Federation, which builds 65 percent of New Zealand’s houses, has told the housing affordability study that there is an extra $30,000 of unnecessary bureaucracy coming from this Government’s building regulations. That is not me saying it; that comes from a very detailed submission, in which the Registered Master Builders Federation sets out what that $30,000 is made up of. I ask the Minister in the chair whether he believes it is reasonable to have $30,000 of unnecessary building regulation costs being put on to the price of a new home. Again, the Minister is silent. I say to the Minister that for him to justify his $240,000 salary, his ministerial car, and his ministerial house he actually needs to be able to answer those questions, because his Prime Minister cannot shed crocodile tears about housing affordability when her own Minister is imposing those sorts of extra costs.

Let me tell members about my own experience. I applied in January for a building consent to put a solar water system on my house. I thought that it was a good thing to do; it reduces greenhouse gas emissions.

Hon Shane Jones: A what?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: A solar water heating system on my house. Do members know what I got back from the council? I received a note that asked whether I could please submit a plan telling the council where my fire alarms were. I asked the council why it had done that. I thought that putting some water on my roof was unlikely to increase the fire risk for my house. But the council said that the Department of Building and Housing requires anybody who lodges a building consent to automatically provide a plan of where his or her fire alarms are. I say to the Minister that that is the sort of mad bureaucracy that he is imposing on New Zealanders, and that is one of the reasons that he and his lot will get the arse later this year.

SUE MORONEY (Junior Whip—Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) : What a mess the Building Amendment Bill is. The bill states that licensed building practitioners must carry out, or supervise, restricted building work. What a neat way to put up housing costs! Tradesmen and carpenters will now have to pay $2,000 to become a licensed practitioner—not the $300 quoted by various bureaucrats. Where does the Minister think this $2,000 will go? It will be added to the price of a house. Two thousand dollars might not be much, but when one adds on hold-ups, the costs of getting permits, which are going up, and much other bureaucratic rubbish one sees that the price of a house is getting out of the reach of the middle to low income New Zealander.

We have seen some major problems in many areas in building. Councils are getting loaded up with bureaucratic demands from Wellington. We have to take the pressure off councils, otherwise permit charges will keep rising.

The Minister talked about leaky homes and what caused them. He has it all wrong. Tradesmen and carpenters did not cause leaky homes; the Building Industry Authority was the main party at fault. It is as simple as that.

Tradesmen and carpenters do not need to be licensed; we need better inspectors and better approval for materials. I believe that at the moment there are only three approved materials used in the building of houses. I say to the Minister that he should wake up and work out what the problem is first, and then he will be able to fix the problem.

DIY builders have not been clearly dealt with in these amendments or in building legislation. What can they do? The Minister should not tell me that they cannot build a house. Norm Kirk—Labour’s friend—would turn in his grave. He built his own house, of course. New Zealanders should be able to dream and achieve. They should be able to build their own house. If they build their own house, then any inspections by good inspectors should pick up whether they are doing anything wrong. Some of the best houses I have seen were built by DIY people—and they did a damn good job.

Again, I say to the Government that it should wake up, find the problem, and bring out a policy that fixes the problem. The Government has now had four goes at changing this bill, and it is still not fixed. I do not hold much hope of the Minister getting it right in the future. I say to Shane Jones that I would like to help him but he is in the wrong party. The Government should steer people and councils in New Zealand; they should not control people and councils. I say to New Zealanders that they should be patient; the National Party is coming. Subject closed.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): The debate on this part includes schedules 1 and 2.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) : I am very pleased to rise to speak in support of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill, but I would have been even more pleased to rise to speak on this bill back in early December, as was scheduled. It was a cause of great regret to me that we had to go through another Christmas and New Year period with young people—including kids as young as 11, who first stick their heads up and start looking around at the world about them and seeing what is on offer—being able to see benzylpiperazine (BZP), or party pills, freely available in convenience stores and dairies. Those young people, being under 18 years, did not see them in liquor outlets, but, of course, BZP pills for sale in liquor outlets brings with it its own perils, as, no doubt, the medical practitioners in the country’s accident and emergency wards will have discovered. So we have had another 4 months of BZP being visible in our community, and I say again that I regret that.

I want to address Supplementary Order Paper 180, if that is in order, and to note the proposed amendments as put forward by the Minister in the chair, the Hon Jim Anderton. His amendment to clause 2 proposes to omit “18 December 2007” and substitute “1 April 2008” as the commencement date. I say that this is a Supplementary Order Paper of shame. This bill should have been dealt with at the end of last year, or is this just an instance of another broken promise; just another delay?

The Supplementary Order Paper also proposes to amend clause 6 by omitting “18 June 2008”, which refers to the expiry date of the 6-month amnesty, and substituting “1 October 2008”. Again, I say that the Minister in charge of drug policy has failed the young people of New Zealand, in failing to address this issue of recreational drug use by young people.

It is now March 2008. I was elected to Parliament in September 2005, and practically the first person who came through the door of my newly opened electorate office was somebody who was very concerned about the use of party pills in our society. At that time, I thought this was only a small issue in my home town of Ōāmaru, but as events have subsequently shown, it is not. The sale of party pills is a fast-growing industry in New Zealand, and in the 2½ years I have been an elected member I have been working hard to get this legal drug trade shut down.

I turn to a press release by the Progressive party that was put out in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton, who made a couple of comments about National MP Jacqui Dean “taking up this issue”. It is interesting, is it not, that we both support this bill, yet in the press release he took me to task for bringing a petition of 7,000 signatures to Parliament. He stated: “All 7000 signatories and all those other New Zealanders concerned about party pills, should be assured that this government has acted, is acting and will continue to act to ensure these products are appropriately dealt with.” The Minister’s press release continues: “The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs will reassess BZP party pills as soon as all the research has been completed, which I am advised will be between June and November this year.” That is fine, and I say to the Minister that it is a good example of front-footing it, which is what the headline states. The trouble is that this press release was dated 15 March 2006—nearly 2 years ago, to the day. Far from front-footing it, I would suggest that “flat-footed” would probably be a more apt description.

The shame is that in those 2 years when we were waiting and waiting, the Minister could not see what was happening right in front of him in New Zealand society. More and more, and ever more, young New Zealanders have been cottoning on to the idea that in order to have a good time, one first must pop a pill. I think that is a shame.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) : I want to make a brief comment. No one was slow-footed in this regard. What was happening was that the Government was authorising, commissioning, and paying for research into benzylpiperazine (BZP) that had not been taking place anywhere else in the world. The Government was following an evidence-based approach to drugs. I would recommend that approach to the member; it would stop her suggesting that water should be outlawed by the Misuse of Drugs Act! If she had done her research properly, she would know things like that. That is—

Mark Blumsky: That’s a silly argument.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: It may be a silly argument. That makes the member who proposed it pretty silly, does it not?

Mark Blumsky: This is not relevant.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: It is relevant. When someone wants to raise the issue of the Government commissioning research so that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs could be well advised, in an evidence-based manner—

Jacqui Dean: This is a serious matter.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I wish the member could take it seriously, then. What the Government did was commission research that then advised the advisory committee in its decisions. I would recommend that the member show more commitment to an evidence-based approach rather than a knee-jerk reaction. If there were ever any possibility of any members opposite being responsible in Government, they would have to get used to the idea that one does not have, on the back of an envelope, something that one wants to ban next week, then turn up in the Chamber and try to do it. It does not work.

I advise the Committee that Supplementary Order Paper 177 in my name has been withdrawn and replaced by Supplementary Order Paper 180. Supplementary Order Paper 177 proposed to have an enactment date of 7 days following the Royal assent, but I have been advised by the Attorney-General and by the Ministry of Health that on consideration they believe that it would be better to have a specific date. To have a date in the legislation provides for certainty around when the classification will come into force. There are a large number of party pill retailers in New Zealand, and it is important to ensure that they are all certain of their obligations under the law. To have a date set in the legislation allows for greater clarity around this change of legal status of BZP. In addition, a set enactment date provides more clarity to users of BZP, and related substances, regarding the exact date on which the amnesty period will expire. This amendment is designed to give certainty to those dates so that there is no lack of clarification about when legal obligations come into effect.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : Thank you, Mr Chairperson, for the opportunity to speak on Part 1, which deals with the amendments to the principal Misuse of Drugs Act and also with the amnesty provision.

One of the words that I have heard emanating from Minister Anderton’s mouth repeatedly has been the question of having an evidence base, and it intrigues me that the letter of 4 December 2006 to Jim Anderton from the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs states: “The programme of research on benzylpiperazine (BZP) that has been undertaken has allowed New Zealand to take a strongly evidence-based approach …”. In actual fact, we do not need to have the word “strongly” in front of it; an approach is either evidence-based or it is not.

It is highly relevant that the only controlled respective trial on these side effects was undertaken by Professor Richard Beasley. The clinical trial was abandoned because he was concerned about side effects. I accept that Professor Beasley is one of the highly regarded international clinical trialists, and I very much accept his judgment that it was ethically appropriate to abandon that trial, but I believe that Minister Anderton ought to be very careful about saying that everything has a strong evidence base about it, when clearly we have a lot of anecdotal evidence around us that still remains quite contentious—not only as to whether it does have an evidence base but certainly from a political point of view.

That is the reason why I have put forward Supplementary Order Paper 181. I have not yet had time to discuss this Supplementary Order Paper with the Minister, but I believe that he does not intend to support it. I think that that is very unfortunate, because this Supplementary Order Paper proposes that there be a review by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs approximately 2 years after the Act comes into being. It is very important that that review actually does take place, and that a formal process be required by Parliament to ensure that it occurs so there can be a response from the Health Committee. I was advised that it was appropriate to get the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to do that review. Although there has been contention among some of the parties as to the fact that the advisory committee’s decision of advice to reclassify BZP was not unanimous, I believe that it is still the best instrument to use to make such a decision, in that it has the experts who are relevant to this drug and it probably has the best knowledge of anyone in New Zealand. The point is that there was great concern that reclassifying BZP might drive the drug underground, and I think we want to know both the social and medical effects of having this reclassification.

I am deeply disappointed in Minister Anderton for failing to grasp a highly constructive suggestion that would help to ensure that further evidence is discussed by Parliament, by law, rather than Mr Anderton suddenly deciding that, no, we will whip through this legislation and we will not even bother looking at it in a formal way in years to come. There is no doubt in my mind that this must be—

Hon Jim Anderton: What are we doing now?

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: No—the whole point, I tell Mr Anderton, is that it is very important that we look at the effects this legislation will have, both from a medical point of view and from a social point of view. The Minister was not listening at the time, but I am sure that he has heard the highly prevalent argument that the legislation may drive the use of BZP and related party pills underground. We want to know whether that happens. It will be great if that is not the case, and it will be great indeed if this legislation is effective in reducing the use of party pills in New Zealand.

I find it quite extraordinary that the Minister is not prepared to support a highly reasonable Supplementary Order Paper that is actually designed to assist the quality of this legislation. So I hope the Minister will review his thoughts on that. Once again, just to go over the fact, I think it is important to say that this legislation and the need for it have changed rapidly over the last 5 years. In 2004 the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs said that the legislation was not necessary, but it reviewed that position and ended up in the opposite direction 3 years later.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) : I rise to make a further point on Part 1 of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill, to address the amnesty provision in clause 6, which provides a limited period in relation to the use and possession for personal use of benzylpiperazine (BZP). In the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 180, the period is to 1 October 2008, during which time it is illegal to sell or supply BZP, but there is an amnesty period for those people who have BZP in their possession to be able to take it legally.

That is not a worthy provision in the bill; it is a sop to those drug users who have had plenty of notice that the Minister intends to act on this issue. It is a soft, unworthy Supplementary Order Paper.

I will quote from a man called Matt Bowden from the Social Tonics Association. He is a man who is associated closely with promoting this $30-million-a-year industry. He himself acknowledges that it is not a good idea for people to go crazy now they have a bit of extra time. He says that people should take a few weeks to recover between parties and to make sure they are not overdoing it.

That says two things. It says that now people have been given this out, this amnesty, they will stockpile BZP—whether for their own use we do not know. The gentleman from the Social Tonics Association also acknowledges—utterly acknowledges—that what we have here is in fact a dangerous substance. It is an acknowledgment that BZP is a dangerous substance, and when the promoter, the seller, of that substance says that it is not a good idea for people to go crazy, that they should take a few weeks to recover between parties, and that they should make sure they are not overdoing it, I think it really shows this Supplementary Order Paper for what it is.

I will go to the proposed amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison and say how sorry I am that I understand that the Associate Minister of Health Mr Anderton will not support Supplementary Order Paper 181, because a number of submissions to the Health Committee raised the issue of what happens when you drive a drug underground. The question raised a number of times through the select committee process was: “OK, you are going to do this; you are proposing to ban BZP. What will happen?”. Well, in my view, Dr Hutchison’s Supplementary Order Paper addresses that very issue, because it proposes to monitor the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs—the very committee the Associate Minister of Health has been so careful to take advice from—and to utilise that very expertise and knowledge in order to do a review of the effect of this legislation.

I would have thought that that was a sensible and pragmatic way to address whatever consequences there might be of banning BZP. And I would have thought that the Associate Minister of Health would welcome this Supplementary Order Paper with open arms, instead, I suspect, of just walking away once this bill has been passed into law and saying: “Oh well, there we go. That’s done; move on.” I am afraid that New Zealand society will not move on like that, because we have a whole generation of young New Zealanders who over the course of the past 5 or 6 years have now come to understand that drugs can be legally sold in New Zealand and that it is quite acceptable to medicate on pills about which they know very little and about which we as a society know very little.

We know, anecdotally, that a number of other so-called recreational drugs are being developed and are waiting in the wings. They will come on to the New Zealand market. I would have thought that a Minister who really cared about this issue would grasp the opportunity with open arms to have a review of the effect of this legislation.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) : Dr Hutchison suggested that there had been only one trial, in terms of evidence. There was not one; there were three. Two of the three trials strongly suggested that benzylpiperazine (BZP) was harmful, and one trial suggested there was no evidence of strong harm. The trial in Dunedin, at the National Poisons Centre, said that BZP should be classified as a controlled drug as soon as possible—and this is “as soon as possible”.

The second thing Dr Hutchison suggested was that there may be no evidence, if we made this drug illegal, that users would go on to more hard drug usage, and so on. The evidence is actually to the contrary. There is evidence, and the evidence is with drugs that have been classified previously. Those drugs that are classified have fallen away, in terms of use. The declaration of illegality, in terms of drugs, is useful in respect of reducing their use.

I point out that there are two very popular social and legal drugs—one is alcohol, and the other is tobacco. Having alcohol and tobacco in use, their being legal, and having them on supply in dairies and supermarkets has not reduced alcohol usage by much. It is only by the most strenuous work of the Government and other agencies that has reduced tobacco usage, which kills 4,700 people a year. If BZP did that, I think there would be riots on the street.

This amendment of Dr Hutchison is well intentioned but it is bad lawmaking, and he should know that.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Talk to parliamentary counsel.

Hon JIM ANDERTON: I have talked to parliamentary counsel. The Misuse of Drugs Act is currently up for a complete review, and that is the process and the opportunity to examine the role of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, rather than to do so by an amendment to this bill. If we want to change its relationship and want it to report directly to the House, and all the rest of it, we can do it in that review—if we want to. But at the moment the committee’s function is to report to the Minister. That is in the Act, and that is how Parliament determined it should be. The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs was established to report to the Minister, not to the House. That is how the legislation operates. If we want to change the primary legislation, we should change it. But we should not do it with an amendment like this to this amendment bill.

The Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs can now investigate, examine, and monitor in any way it wants to. MPs can ask it to, and they do, and members of the public can write to it, and they do. MPs and members of the public can write to me, and I can recommend or ask the committee to do it. So there is no lack of ability to get the committee to look at issues now and review them, and it does. This very bill is a review of BZP by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs when it made a regulation 2 years ago that BZP should not be on sale to those under 18, and that there should be restrictions on electronic and media advertising, and so on. Now it has reviewed it and has come back with a recommendation that it should be classified as class C.

There is another problem. If Parliament instructs the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs to do something like monitor, evaluate, or whatever, then who is going to pay the money? Does Dr Hutchison have some money that he is going to give to it? The committee has to have money allocated to it to do this work. The work of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, in terms of the research that was done, was paid for by the Ministerial Committee on Drug Policy. We paid about $300,000 or $400,000 for that research. Is Dr Hutchison or Parliament going to vote for that? They do not have any authority to do it. It is a pointless exercise to think Parliament can instruct the committee, under the present way that the legislation is informed. If we want to change that, it is up to the Parliament—that is true—but it should be done by a thorough review of the Act, which is on the table to be done now. I thought that all parties welcomed that.

In my view, the intention of the amendment is fine but it is misplaced. It is the wrong place to do it, it is not a good order, in terms of policy making, and the Committee should concentrate its efforts on getting this legislation through now, on this particular issue, then dealing with any reviews in the review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. That is the proper way to go about it.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : The Green Party has an amendment that will soon be on the Table. It is a very simple amendment to clause 2 in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 180. The amendment substitutes 1 May for 1 April as the date on which the Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill comes into force. It is not a huge change.

We have made it very clear that we oppose this legislation on principle, but there is a question here about the ability of businesses—particularly small New Zealand businesses, regardless of whether we think they are good businesses—to be able to rely on the law as it stands. We need to have practical law in place that enables them to comply with new law in good time when laws change.

The issue here is that between the time when this legislation is passed in this House and then comes into force, a large number of small businesses in this country will have to find a way, extremely quickly, to recall the product they have distributed in various forms around the place—I do not know quite how that works—bring it back to their own central offices, and then send it back to the distributor, as it will not be lawful for those businesses to sell that product or to hold it any longer. They simply cannot do it all in what could end up being only 7 working days. It will be simply impossible for them to comply with that aspect of the law.

As I say, this is not about whether we like these businesses or about what the businesses are engaged in. But if this Government and this Committee has any respect for small businesses and for the fact that businesses are entitled to rely on the law as it stands and should be able to be assisted at least with time frames to comply with changes in the law, then more time is needed. They do not need a heap more time and they are not asking for a heap more time, just a few more weeks to be able to put in place the mechanisms to recall the products they will need to recall.

I understand that they are asking for only 3 or 4 weeks in which to be able to do that. That is why we are not putting forward an amendment that will unduly mess with the legislation. It is not a delaying tactic. It is not designed to completely prevent the law from proceeding. We could have a whole range of amendments that do that. As members know, filibustering is possible, but the Green Party does not engage in it. We are very much engaged in practical measures to assist small New Zealand businesses.

I urge the Committee to support the Green Party amendment, which simply states that the legislation will come into force on 1 May, rather than 1 April. That will give these business people the opportunity and time to recall the products they need to recall, and make sure they comply with the legislation. Frankly, from the information I am getting from small businesses in general—those who deal with these products in particular—I see that they want to comply with the law. They want to be able to meet the legal regulations. They are not happy with the changes, obviously. The changes mean that many of them will go out of business. But they do not want to be in contravention of the law, because of the very serious consequences. That is responsible behaviour on the part of these small-business people.

These small-business people are doing their best to meet their legal obligations. Just as their product is legal now, it will not be legal in perhaps a week or so, and they want to comply effectively and properly. But they simply cannot, within the time frame they have been given.

I urge the Committee, the Minister, and the Government to seriously consider supporting the Green Party amendment, which will delay the introduction of the bill for just a month. That is not a very long time but it does give a great deal of assistance to these small-business people to do the right thing. That is a perfectly rational and reasonable approach for the Government and for the Committee to take. These are businesses, after all. They have employees whom they need to take care of. Employers will perhaps have to close down their businesses, reorganise all of their financial arrangements, fire the staff whom they have to fire, and give up their premises. They may have contracts for premises. They will have to deal with all those financial consequences, as well.

There is a lot they will have to do and comply with in order to be able to go out of business, if selling products containing benzylpiperazine is mostly what they are engaged in. They will have about a 7-day time frame in which to recall their products and manage their business while they are firing staff and getting out of other contracts that they may have to get out of. While bearing the financial burden of having to do that, it is perfectly fair that they are not given this extra burden of having to comply within such a short period of time. I urge the Committee to think seriously about this amendment. Thank you.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Associate Minister of Health) : I can respect the motives of the Green Party members, but I cannot agree with them. Originally, the time given was to be 7 days. That has been extended now to 1 April, to cover the issue of communications and all the rest of it. But to be fair, the people in the business community who sell these products—$30 million worth a year, roughly—have been under notice for about 18 months. If they had not known that this measure was coming up, then they must have been on some other planet, or at least in some other country. They would have known very clearly that there is very strong support in this House for the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill. They would have known that. The bill’s support was almost overwhelming when it went to the Health Committee, and it was clear when the select committee reported back that there was strong support for its passage. So anyone who did not know that this measure was coming in is being disingenuous when he or she says that, to be honest.

In truth, many retailers have stopped selling benzylpiperazine (BZP) now. I know that. I have seen them close their shelves in various shops in Christchurch, which seems to be the BZP capital of the world as far as I know, and there they have stopped selling it already. The retailers know that this legislation is coming in, they have stopped selling BZP, and it is a no-brainer. So those people who have not stopped selling BZP have taken the risk of carrying on, and there should not be any sympathy in this Committee for supporting them.

This $30 million business dines out on offering young people, primarily, a substance that we now know is harmful. We did not guess that; we did not make it up on the way here. We have been told by an expert committee on drugs, made up of professionals in this area, that BZP is harmful. Why would we want to continue to sell it? Why would we want to continue to sell something that is harmful? We are being conscious of the young people, mainly, who use BZP, and there is a 6-month period for them so that they do not rush into getting criminal offending going straight up. But, as I said before, once we make this substance illegal, all the evidence is that its sale and use will slow down and eventually become virtually nil, and that is the good news for the Committee.

Members should not forget that these businesses were actually expecting to have to stop selling BZP at Christmas. That is the truth. They all knew that; I made that pretty clear. But I am afraid that the Green Party made it very clear that it would not give us approval to go into urgency if we put this bill in the urgency motion then. We knew that, so we could not do it. In response to all the wailing from the National Party on this matter, I say that those members should just wait until one day—not in the immediate future—when they have to manage four or five parties in the House, and we shall see how they get on with that. I wish those members well; I think that the slippery sliding thing will be very obvious. Businesses have had another 3 months from last Christmas after the 18 months’ notice they were given. Christmas came and they still had 3 months, so why on earth would we want to give them even more time than that?

I cannot support the amendment. I am not suggesting that there are any ulterior motives behind it, but it just does not make sense.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : I will take just a brief call, firstly, to say that we are always interested in practical amendments that are put forward to the Committee, and I think it is a shame that once again the Minister in the chair, the Hon Jim Anderton, does not seem to have an open mind with regard to this one. But I will focus for a moment on Mr Anderton’s concern when he said that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs is supposed to report to the Minister, rather than to Parliament. Well, there is no doubt that it would be very easy for a responsible Minister to then report to Parliament. I think he is indeed being somewhat circuitous in suggesting that he will not support this very important practical amendment.

The point that should be emphasised is this. It was only in 2004 that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs clearly stated: “The Minister of Food Safety should be requested to consider the appropriateness of permitting the chemical, BZP to be sold as a dietary supplement in New Zealand when it has no known nutritional value.” That was only 3 years ago. The committee went on to state: “After considering the evidence the EACD believes that there is no current schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 under which BZP could reasonably be placed.” The committee has changed its view in 3 short years, and I agree that it is appropriate that it has changed its view, but the point I am making, which Mr Anderton seems to totally evade or misunderstand, is that this is a very rapidly changing area.

The Minister has just told the Committee that he hopes that once this legislation comes into place, suddenly and mysteriously party pills will no longer be used in New Zealand. But all the evidence I have heard anecdotally is that mischievous manufacturers will be putting these pills underground, and there is no doubt in my mind that Parliament should have a formal report from a respected committee such as the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs as to what is happening.

Minister Anderton talks about the review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Well, why on earth, after 8 years of this tawdry Labour Government, has this review not happened? Why did it not happen so much earlier? The Minister is now at the eleventh hour, 5 months before he is due to be tipped out, talking about this being the sort of thing the Government could put in the review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. I would say to the Minister that he is being particularly churlish in suggesting that the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs has to report to him. I believe that if he has any sense of responsibility, then he could easily support this practical amendment, which is the insertion in the bill of a new clause 5A. It merely requires “A report on the effects of the reclassification of BZP and related substances must be presented to the House of Representatives by the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs within 1 month at the end of the period in subsection (1).”—that is, 2 years after the legislation comes into play.

The point the Minister is making is on a technicality that it cannot be done. I would have thought that a responsible Minister, who is concerned about reacting to drugs on an evidence base, should support this practical amendment.

• The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 181 in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison to new clause 5A be agreed to.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Would it not make more sense to put Metiria Turei’s amendment first?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That amendment relates to clause 2, which is some way down the line.

KEITH LOCKE: Clause 2 is the first clause referred to on Supplementary Order Paper 180, and Metiria Turei’s amendment is also an amendment to clause 2.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, we are about to vote only on the Minister’s amendments on the Supplementary Order Paper that relate to this part. Ms Turei’s amendment will come later on in relation to clause 2—and we should be there shortly—but I am advised that it has no relationship to this part whatsoever.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 180 in the name of the Hon Jim Anderton to clause 6 be agreed to.

• Amendments agreed to.

• Part 1 as amended agreed to.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) : Part 2 contains the amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005. I make an observation of regret that the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my excellent colleague Dr Paul Hutchison was so narrowly lost. It was an opportunity for this Committee to make some sensible legislation. After all, we have heard from the Associate Minister of Health that there would be a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. In fact, he has been saying that for some time now. Back in November and December of last year I asked a number of written questions of the Minister about this review and I have had no firm reply. I wonder where this mythical review of the Misuse of Drugs Act is. When I asked the Minister about it he was unable to provide me with any terms of reference or any commencement date—in fact, he was unable to provide me with any information at all. So I question what stage that review is at. As the review is the course of action that this Government—until October of this year—has set itself, then I hope it does commence. How good it would be, in 2 years’ time or so, to have a report back to the House, as proposed by my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison, as to how this amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act is panning out.

A large amount of the debate around this issue from a number of other quarters has been the argument that if we make benzylpiperazine illegal, it will just drive the trade underground. The Minister himself indicated earlier in the debate that it was his belief that the use of benzylpiperazine would in time diminish away. Which of those two views do we believe? Why is this Committee—by a very, very small minority, or one vote—not prepared to take that very sensible concrete step forward and evaluate the effect? We all want to know what the effect will be of this amendment to the Misuse of Drug Act. What will happen to young people and drug use in New Zealand? It is a very important question.

My colleague has proposed a way forward, which, unfortunately, was not successful. The Minister will be a Minister for only another 4 or 5 months, but I would like to think that in that short time he will take seriously the issue of a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act and not merely walk away from this very important issue.

I do not rely only on the advice of the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs, which meets in Wellington, because—although the committee is worthy—actually the problem arises all around New Zealand. I pop into drug shops, where I am welcomed with open arms—nearly with open arms—because I am interested in the issue and do not shy away from it. Recently I was in Nelson with my very good colleague Dr Nick Smith, and in two of the three pill shops in Nelson—pills are freely available on the main street of Nelson—we asked the shop assistants how they felt about the oncoming banning of benzylpiperazine and its reclassification under the Misuse of Drugs Act. These shop assistants said they did not care. They said they were going out of business in these pills anyway, and that they did not use the pills, because they were dreadful things. So the prevailing attitude in the sample I did—and I speak of Nelson but there are other centres where I go into pill shops—is that the sooner we get rid of these drugs the better. This is from the people who sell them. Mind you, it is not from the people who are making millions of dollars out of the sale of benzylpiperazine, but these are the people who are taking a wage from it.

We need to remember that in delaying the passage of this bill, in delaying addressing this issue, we have created a market for these recreational drugs. In the 2½ years since I have been a member of Parliament, interested in this issue, and trying to engage with the Minister over this issue, and in the 6 to 7 years that these pills have been on the market, this market has been developing. We have a market in New Zealand that is worth $30 million a year. That is a lot of money; that is big, big business. By delaying the passage of this bill we have—and the Minister, who must take the responsibility for this, has—created a market in New Zealand. There are drugs just offshore and drugs being manufactured in New Zealand that will fill that market. I suggest that this is basic principles of marketing, and for me it is another cause of regret.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : I will take just a short call on Part 2, “Amendment to Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 2005”, and schedules 1 and 2.

I just make the comment that one of the great concerns that the Health Committee was faced with back in 2003-04 was the extraordinary dexterity with which manufacturers of illicit drugs would move when a drug was put on to the schedule; the manufacturers would immediately think of another isomer, or add on another molecule, to make the drug different and therefore legal. I am very interested to see the work of the committee members to try to cover as many of the derivatives of benzylpiperazine (BZP) as they could think of, and the combinations and permutations of them that could be manufactured. Schedule 1 encapsulates not just benzylpiperazine but “TFMPP … pFPP … MeOPP … mCPP … MBZP”, as well as the “isomers of the substances mentioned”, the “esters and ethers of the substances mentioned in clause 2”, the “salts of [those] substances”, and “Substances containing any proportion of a substance mentioned in clause 2, 3, 4, or 5.” Indeed, the committee has tried very hard to predict where the industry might try to make a preparation that would avoid the legislation. I think that is very important. The rapid rescheduling mechanisms were brought into the House back in 2003 and 2004 to go for the more serious types of drugs—in particular, methamphetamine, Ecstasy, etc. There is no doubt that if one brings in this sort of legislation, it is very important to cover all the possibilities that the sharp minds of illicit manufacturers may extend to. I think that is very important.

I reiterate that it is a pity that the Minister does not support there being a review in 2½ years of the effects of this legislation. He dismisses the fact that the consequences of this legislation could be profound. I would be delighted if, as the Minister suggested, the scenario was that BZP, its derivatives, and party pills in general faded from the market in New Zealand. Sadly, it is highly unlikely that will happen. That is why I thought it was so important that Parliament be required to relook at this measure in a couple of years’ time. It should not rely on the Minister coming up with a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. He has had an opportunity over the last 8 years to carry out a review, but he has miserably failed to.

• Part 2 agreed to.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) : I move, That the Limited Partnerships Bill and the Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill be now read a third time. The Limited Partnerships Bill repeals the special partnership provisions of the Partnership Act 1908 and establishes a modern limited partnership regime in New Zealand, with the objectives of facilitating the development of the venture capital industry in New Zealand and encouraging foreign venture capital investment in New Zealand. The Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill provides for the taxation treatment of limited partnerships. In particular, it provides that limited partnerships will have flow-through taxation status, which I shall discuss further as I move through these third readings. It also clarifies and simplifies the tax rules applying to partnerships more generally.

Attracting venture capital investment plays an important role in facilitating the Government’s economic transformation objectives, particularly in relation to growing internationally competitive firms. More specifically, venture capital investment plays an important role in helping new businesses to grow. It also can play a valuable role in encouraging new product research and helping firms to access new contacts and managerial and technical expertise.

Limited partnerships are a preferred structure for investing in venture capital internationally. However, international investors expect limited partnerships to have certain key features. Those include limited liability status for limited partners and separate legal personality and flow-through taxation status for the limited partnership. The existing special partnership regime that we have here in New Zealand lacks some of those key features and has consequently not been able to be effectively utilised by the venture capital industry in New Zealand. In place of the existing special partnership regime, these bills provide a limited partnership structure with regulatory features and taxation treatment that will encourage venture capital investment in New Zealand and which have the key features needed in order to be both recognised and accepted by international investors.

The limited partnership structure established by the Limited Partnerships Bill provides for two classes of partners. The first class of partners is the general partners, who are jointly and severally liable with the limited partnership for the debts and liabilities of the limited partnership, provided, of course, that the limited partnership is unable to satisfy those debts or liabilities. The second class of partners is limited partners, who are not liable for the debts and liabilities of the limited partnership so long as they do not take part in the management of the limited partnership. Both general and limited partners may make capital contributions to the limited partnership. Limited partners need to know what activities they can be involved in while not taking part in the management of the limited partnership, so that they can be clear that they are not potentially exposing themselves to liability. Accordingly the bill provides for “safe harbours” that have been based on international best practice, and which are those activities that a limited partner may take part in without being deemed to have participated in the management of the limited partnership.

Another important feature of the limited partnership structure established by the bill is that it will have separate legal personality. Separate legal personality is, of course, important in that it provides more assurance that a limited partnership will be recognised as such in other jurisdictions and, of course, it minimises the risk that a limited partnership may be treated as a general partnership in some other jurisdictions.

The limited partnership model is intended to be flexible and to allow limited partnerships to structure their affairs in the way that it best suits them. At the same time the bill contains provisions to ensure the good governance of limited partnerships and the protection of creditors. Under the bill limited partnerships are formed on registration. A register of limited partnerships will be maintained by the Registrar of Companies. The registration process is modelled upon that applying to companies, although there are some minor technical differences—for example, in the information that must be supplied on registration. Limited partnerships are also required to provide the registrar with an annual return each year.

The register of limited partnerships will be a public register, except in one respect: the details of limited partners held on the register are to be kept confidential, under the bill. Limited partnership details are not available on a public register in a number of other jurisdictions, particularly in North America. Keeping the details of limited partners confidential certainly does address the risk that some international venture capital investors could choose to bypass New Zealand as an investment destination in favour of another jurisdiction where this information was not available on a public register.

The bill also requires overseas constituted limited partnerships to register if they are carrying on business in New Zealand. The register of overseas limited partnerships established by the bill will provide clarity and certainty to third parties about the nature of the entity that they are dealing with, and should facilitate the ability of creditors or other third parties to bring proceedings against overseas limited partnerships that are carrying on business here.

The bill provides that limited partnerships may be liquidated or deregistered through broadly the same process that applies to companies, and they may use the new voluntary administration process for companies as well.

The taxation treatment of limited partnerships is a key issue in ensuring that they attract investment, and I would like to take this opportunity just briefly to discuss the contents of the Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill. This bill provides for flow-through taxation treatment for limited partnerships, which is a particularly vital issue in ensuring that the legislation fulfils its objectives around encouraging venture capital investment in New Zealand. In addition to flow-through taxation treatment, the bill also establishes the tax rules that will apply to limited partnerships and clarifies and simplifies the tax rules applying to general partnerships.

At the Committee stage changes were made to both bills by way of Supplementary Order Paper. The most significant change was to the commencement date of the Limited Partnerships Bill. This was changed to a date specified by Order in Council. The Limited Partnerships Bill cannot be brought into force until regulations are made setting out fees and forms relating to registration and those regulations are gazetted for 28 days. It is anticipated that the Limited Partnerships Bill will be brought into force on or about 1 May this year. The other changes to the Limited Partnerships Bill and Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill were of a minor and technical nature and largely designed to clarify or correct small issues in each bill.

I would like to take the opportunity to commend the Commerce Committee for its work in fine-tuning these bills, and also to thank all those who made submissions on the bills. I would also like to commend the officials from the Ministry of Economic Development and from the Inland Revenue Department who worked very hard on this legislation.

These bills are an important contribution to the Labour-led Government’s economic development agenda. They provide a limited partnership structure with the regulatory and taxation features needed in order to be recognised by international investors, and to meet the needs of the New Zealand venture capital industry. By increasing venture capital investment they will facilitate the growth of New Zealand businesses and encourage innovation, entrepreneurialism, and new product development. The Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill will also make the taxation law applying to partnerships simpler and easier to comply with.

On that note I commend both the Limited Partnerships Bill and the Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill to the House.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) : The Limited Partnerships Bill and the Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill are of a technical nature. I was fortunate enough to be able to sit on the select committee where we heard the submissions that came forward on this legislation, and very comprehensive submissions they were. I was also able to speak in the first and second readings of this legislation. National has supported this legislation right through and will continue to do so.

The Minister made some interesting points that we subscribe to as well. The legislation frees up the market and allows for investment to give confidence in the market, and I focus my debate primarily on the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund, which was established in 2002 as an investment vehicle but at an arm’s length from political interference or political involvement. It is an arrangement that is allowing co-investors with the private sector, and that is something National supports.

It was reported to the select committee that in 2004 the total investment value in New Zealand equity and venture capital investments was $158 million. This is a very small percentage; in fact it is only 0.11 percent of our GDP. So New Zealand is lagging very much behind our other competitors in other countries who have been able to attract investment—venture capital—and we are well behind the OECD countries. In fact, we need a 5 percent increase in funds just to compete with Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Singapore. So there is a lot of work to be done in that area, and this legislation helps and facilitates that sort of investment.

Also back in 2004, the fund surveyed 15 offshore investment funds representing in excess of $50 billion. They said they would consider investing in New Zealand if we had a world-class investment structure in the form of a limited partnership and flow-through taxation regime. Well, that is exactly what these two bills provide; they facilitate that, and that is very good news because it may now allow us to attract that important investment.

A number of other issues were canvassed during the course of the debate and I will mention just some of them; the Minister mentioned many. They were issues primarily that the select committee was able to consider and make some changes to. The extent of safe harbours was one, and the activities that a limited partner can be involved in without contravening the no-management rule was a significant improvement in the safe harbours position. The trigger point for when someone becomes a limited partner and can avail himself or herself of the protection of limited partner status was another. There was the extent of power in an insolvency to claw back distributions made to limited partners—the current test applies if the limited partner knew that the limited partnership would not satisfy the solvency test after the distribution, and applies for 3 years.

Written partnership agreements are compulsory for limited partnerships, and there is continued confidentiality of names and investments of limited partners, including where that information is contained in annual returns and the pass-through of all losses to investments. The question that probably needs to be asked—and it came up during the Committee stage—was whether these bills are really just a catch-up or whether we have learnt from overseas practice, and, in particular, whether we have learnt from the experiences of our competitors for venture capital; namely, Australia and the UK.

With those points, I say that National has been supporting this legislation right through, we are happy to support it now for its third readings, and we believe that it moves in the right direction to allow overseas investment through capital funds.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) : That was actually quite a helpful contribution from Lindsay Tisch in looking at the purpose of this legislation—it cut right to the chase. As the member says, it is an attempt to encourage the development of venture capital funds in New Zealand, which are important, obviously, for businesses particularly in the start-up phase. It is also important to bring us into line with rules that are set internationally, so that we become a more attractive haven.

The member mentioned the New Zealand Venture Investment Fund. I did not hear the bit where he said a good Labour-led Government introduced this—

Lindsay Tisch: I did say 2002.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I must have just missed that; I did not quite hear it at the time. Either the member forgot it, or I was not listening. Perhaps, just for the record, I will say that it was a good Labour-led Government that introduced the fund. I remember, when we came into Government in 1999, that one of the issues Cabinet faced was the point that the member made: internationally we had a very, very low venture capital fund, we were not a place where capital was being attracted to, and we really needed to do something about that. A lot of work went on at the time in order to attract funds. The member said that, relatively speaking to GDP, investment was low, and that is absolutely right. Hopefully if we get a regime like this in place that everybody recognises as the kind of regime that operates everywhere around the world, then there may be an opportunity for more funds to be attracted here.

So this is good legislation. The Commerce Committee worked well on it, chaired ably by Gerry Brownlee, and we are now in a position—hopefully—where, as a result of it, we are able to get more venture capital into New Zealand. The Law Society is suggesting that this is really important legislation: probably the next most important legislation after the changes to the Companies Act. The society is running a series of seminars around the country to encourage people to learn about the legislation, and I encourage people to take part in those. It is good legislation, operating with a good Minister in a good Labour-led Government, and I certainly support it.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) : It is my pleasure this afternoon to talk to the Limited Partnerships Bill and the Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill. This legislation is a new form of vehicle intended to encourage investment in New Zealand. It has the following key features: limited partners’ liability will be limited to the amount of their contribution to the partnership, it establishes safe harbours that allow limited partnerships to participate in the management of the investment partnership without tainting their limited liability status, and it makes a limited partnership a separate legal entity. This legislation also introduces new tax rules for limited partnerships and updates the tax rules for general partnerships. The legislation is a vehicle that encourages venture capital in New Zealand. Venture capital plays a critical role in driving individual company growth and innovation, and this will bring substantial benefits to New Zealand’s national economic performance over a period of time.

We have at this moment in New Zealand a capital market that is small and undeveloped by international comparisons. I understand that the reported total investment value for New Zealand’s private equity and venture capital investment in 2004 was only $150 million. This represents 0.11 percent of GDP. If members look at the OECD tables they will see that we lag behind key players at the top of the tables such as—as my colleague Lindsay Tisch pointed out—the United Kingdom, the United States, Israel, Sweden, Singapore, and many more. Overseas the reality is that investors in private equity and venture capital funds are typically long-term investors such as pension funds and other institutional investors. The standard investment vehicle used by those investors to invest in funds is the limited partnership vehicle.

The old provisions in Part 2 of the Partnership Act 1908 provided a much more restricted basis for special partnerships, but this legislation goes much further and it has been much needed in this area. In this legislation those who seek to invest are commonly referred to as limited partners. They have not only limited liability but also limited control over the management of the funds in the organisation. They invest significant amounts in private equity and venture capital funds for a long-term horizon—typically 10 years or more. The investment activities of the private equity and venture capital funds are undertaken by fund managers who are referred to as the general partners or partner.

A very significant barrier to the growth of the New Zealand venture capital industry has occurred because of the lack of investment from international and domestic institutional investors. The industry needs to attract these investors in order to develop in both scale and maturity. The lack of an investment vehicle that is easily recognised by institutional investors has been identified as one of the constraints of investment in New Zealand for our growth and our economic development.

The Commerce Committee has made a large number of changes to the original bill. One of the most interesting changes is that in the Partnership Act 1908, where there was a constraint on banking or insurance activities being undertaken by special partnerships, the officials actually sought to maintain the separation. The committee has not accepted that position, and I think that in the result the officials yielded on this point because the select committee was satisfied that the generic regulation that applies to banking and insurance sectors today provides sufficient safeguards against the governance risks that may arise when a limited partnership operates as such a business.

The one point to consider is whether this simply catches up with overseas practice or whether it learns from experience and positions New Zealand more favourably than our close competitors for venture capital. For example, I refer to a management buy-out and investment option available to limited partnerships. A limited partnership is required to make a specified portion of investment in New Zealand. Is investment permitted in listed and unlisted companies? Do these issues separate us from other countries so that we will be more attractive to invest in for venture capital?

As this legislation is implemented I think we will need to consider things and monitor certain issues, such as the extent of our “safe harbours”, or activities a limited partner can be involved in without contravening the no-management rule. These are to be contained in regulations, which need to be developed well in advance of the enactment of this legislation. We need to monitor the trigger point for when someone becomes a limited partner and can avail himself or herself of the protection of limited partner status.

The draft legislation places the obligation on the general partner to get it right. In relation to the extent of the power in an insolvency to claw back distributions made to limited partners, the current test applies if the limited partner knew that the limited partnership would not satisfy the solvency test after the distribution, and applies for a 3-year period. Written partnership agreements are compulsory for limited partnerships, but there is no test as to the quality of their agreement. There is continued confidentiality of names and investments of limited partners, including where that information is contained in annual returns.

Lastly, I think we need to monitor the passing through of all losses to investors. At the moment this would be limited to the capital contributed to the relevant investor. I look forward to seeing the progress of these issues. National supports this legislation.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou i tēnei ahiahi. One of the common catchphrases in this place is that a week is a very long time in politics. So it is, from our perspective, with the two bills associated with limited partnerships. Last week New Zealanders awoke to the news that Dr Cullen had introduced urgent legislation overnight to constrain overseas investments and investment applications in connection with a select group of strategically important assets. As the sun sets tonight, the Government is pushing forward legislation that actually flings the doors wide open to investment structures for overseas venture capital. So we would suggest that it is no wonder the polls are dipping a little bit. It might be a case of the right hand not necessarily knowing what the left hand is doing.

That aside, these two bills—the Limited Partnerships Bill and the Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill—establish a new regulatory and tax regime for limited partnerships. Limited partnerships are the internationally preferred investment structures to attract foreign venture capital. Venture capital investment in Aotearoa is currently small, as I understand it, with the key sectors receiving investment being telecommunications, software development, biotechnology, and other high-tech developments.

As it stands, most Māori businesses are too small to even get a look in. But, perhaps more to the point, the issues of ownership and accountability are the main issues of those in Māori business. As Richard Jones, the Chief Executive of Poutama Māori Business Trust concluded in Tū Mai magazine back in 2006: “They will want to have a stake in the business as well as some control, even to the point of running it, so investment of this nature is not for the faint-hearted.”

This is the central hub of our concern as the Māori Party. We wonder exactly what interest foreign venture capitalists will have in Māori economic development. I am told that Te Ratonga Ture, the Māori Legal Service, advised the Commerce Committee that foreign capital investment will come at a price of shared equity and a measure of control. Te Ratonga Ture considered that foreign capital investment would also bring forward the possibility of moving the centre of control overseas. This is something we take very seriously. The new limited partnership business structure will open New Zealand up to foreign investment holus-bolus without, we presume from its absence in the legislation, any consideration for the Treaty partner to be able to monitor, to assess, to support, or, indeed, to oppose such investment.

We, the Māori Party, believe that it is critical that before agreeing to allow any foreign investor access into Aotearoa there needs to be extensive consideration of the conditions that will come with any such partnership. It is our belief that there are always ways to access funding without compromising what is important. The key point is not the limits of the funding but more the limits of our imagination in terms of considering possible funding partnerships and negotiating the right terms and conditions.

As an example of the type of innovative thinking we need, we have only to look in my electorate at the Tuarōpaki Trust, north of Taupō. The trust includes a $30 million geothermal power-generation plant, 30 acres of temperature-controlled export tomato and paprika crops, and satellite wireless communication. In their case the capital was raised through a non-recourse bank loan—the first of its kind. What it means in effect is that the bank has a claim over the project but not over the land. The Māori Land Court authorised the trust to form a single-purpose company, also known as a single-purpose vehicle, and the company was therefore able to apply for the loan. If it can work once, it can work again and again and again.

Another key factor in our analysis of these two bills is the suggestion from the select committee that confidentiality clauses should be incorporated into the legislation. The Commerce Committee recommended the deletion of clause 99 of the Limited Partnerships Bill and a replacement clause stipulating that the registrar must treat limited partner information as confidential. But in a really curious twist, what the select committee recommended next was even more secretive than the privacy constraints, because the select committee also recommended that the Official Information Act should not apply to limited partner information.

Submissions received by the committee put forward an alternative view. Lawyer Christopher Littlewood pointed out the inconsistency in the application of one law for limited companies and another law for limited partnerships. He maintained that public registers should be public and that there is no rational argument to justify hiding information such as contract details or the nature of the partnership. We of the Māori Party agree with Mr Littlewood’s logic that the public has a fundamental right to know whom they are dealing with and to verify that information by consulting with the register.

For another even more relevant opinion on the issues relating to privacy we were interested in the advice of the Office of the Ombudsmen, which put forward the view that the privacy of individuals can be addressed through the routine application of the Official Information Act. As such, the Ombudsmen believed there is no need to exclude application of the Official Information Act from this legislation.

Four short words sum up what has lifted most successful individuals above the crowd: a little bit more. Those individuals do all that is expected of them and a little bit more. These two limited partnerships bills reinforce for the business leaders that investment and supportive initiatives may need a little bit more—creative courage to search for the required funding from alternative sources. There is no reason to fear that the only finance available will be that with an overseas address tag—a tag that brings with it the downstream problems associated with majority-share ownership.

Large-scale foreign venture capitalists aim to buy in, make money, and get out, regardless of the consequences. When we look at some of the development scenarios being considered, we see that we have to start being concerned about these consequences. Biological materials from bio-prospecting activity on the foreshore and seabed, or geothermal developments are just some of the areas in which growth may bring with it additional risks and cost. Capital is often traded for some form of ownership control and relocation requirements. The question remaining for the Māori Party is precisely around this issue of control. How safe is any guarantee that we can retain ownership and control over our resources and over our development?

We have been thinking of the leadership and inspiration provided by organisations such as the Poutama Māori Business Trust, the Tuarōpaki Trust, and other Māori businesses that deliver beyond all expectations. Their managers and their boards went a little bit further in taking the risks necessary to be successful. We learn from their example, and the Māori Party believes that we must also give a little bit more in terms of responding to the model of leadership we see evident in Te Ao Māori. We know that Māori economic development, Māori businesses, can prosper without having to sell their souls. We know that confidence for business leaders will demand high standards of professionalism but also of open and brave accountability. We do not think hiding details away under confidentiality clauses, excluding potential investors from the reach of the Official Information Act, or throwing caution to the wind and opening up our domestic markets to foreign venture capitalists will work to support the long-term aspirations and best interests of tangata whenua.

Without a doubt, many Māori businesses need access to seeding capital to take them from concept through the start-up phase to a point where they are viable, long-term prospects. If that capital were more accessible, perhaps more Māori businesses would be in a position to negotiate with foreign venture capitalists. But what would remain of the fundamental questions of this time—the ownership and protection of customary resources and of whenua, of the traditional knowledge of forests, underground steam, minerals, water, and organisms on the foreshore and seabed? Those are resources that the Crown attempts to claim as its own, brokering deals for development that take ownership and profits elsewhere.

This bill comes before things that need to be in place or that are in place. We need settlement of the Wai 262 indigenous fauna and flora claim. We need the repeal of the Foreshore and Seabed Act, and we need fair and just settlements of Treaty claims. When these issues are resolved, the Māori Party can return to the question of limited partnerships. Until then, we will not be supporting this legislation.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I rise on behalf of United Future and, in particular, on behalf of the Hon Peter Dunne to speak to the third readings of the Limited Partnerships Bill and the Taxation (Limited Partnerships) Bill. This legislation introduces new tax rules for limited partnerships and updates the tax rules for general partnerships. The changes are designed to support the new regulatory rules for limited partnerships to make it easier for New Zealand firms to attract international investment capital.

Under the proposed rules limited partnerships will be taxed in the same way as general partnerships, with partners being taxed individually in proportion to their personal share of the partnership income. Limited partners will be subject to new tax-loss limitation rules to ensure that the losses they claim reflect the level of their economic loss. Limited partners will be able to offset only the tax losses to which they have exposure, which will help prevent limited partnerships being used as tax shelters.

The legislation also introduces a new comprehensive definition of “partnership” into the Income Tax Act and clarifies which forms of co-ownership are covered by partnership rules. The new tax definition of partnership is based on that contained in the Partnership Act and covers partnerships defined under that Act, as well. New Zealand resident partners of foreign general partnerships in certain foreign limited partnerships are part of that definition, as are joint ventures whose members choose to be treated as a partnership for tax purposes, and, also, co-owners of property, though not companies or trusts, if the all co-owners choose to be treated as a partnership for tax purposes.

The bill clarifies the appointment of income, expenses, and other items to partners for tax purposes. The new rules will ensure that income, expenses, tax credits, rebates, gains, and losses flow through to the individual partners, and those items will generally be allocated to partners in proportion to each partner’s share in the partnership income. The rules will allow deductions for expenditure incurred through the original partnership to be claimed by new partners, subject to them meeting the other tests of deductibility in income tax law.

The proposed rules make a number of useful changes that should reduce compliance costs for partners and increase certainty. These include not automatically treating a partnership as having dissolved when there is a change in partners, and ensuring that individuals leaving a partnership do not have to make tax adjustments when the tax effect is not significant.

In addition to these measures, the committee has recommended some extremely useful changes to the legislation to make it easier to comply with the rules. These changes include things like making the tax rules clearer when a partnership dissolves, ensuring the rule that treats transactions between partners or partnerships as being at market value will apply only when the transaction was entered into to avoid tax, clarifying that a partner’s share in the partnership income can be different from his or her share in the partnership’s assets, and, lastly, relaxing some of the restrictions on limited partners’ losses for amounts that are guaranteed by limited partners.

In the bill as introduced, a partnership was treated as having dissolved when there was a 50 percent or more change in the partnership’s ownership within 12 months. This was designed to prevent large asset transfers giving rise to significant deferral of tax liabilities. Submitters expressed concern that a deemed dissolution with an ownership change of 50 percent within 12 months was not appropriate, as the operation of the rule was not sufficiently clear. As a result, the committee recommended that a final dissolution for tax purposes should occur when the partnership dissolves by agreement of the partners, court order, or some other way, and when the partnership’s business ceases.

In the bill as introduced, most transactions between partners or partnerships would have been treated as being at market value for tax purposes. This requirement was designed to protect the tax base and ensure that assets could not be transferred in and out of a partnership under and overvalued for tax benefits. Submissions were made for this rule to be removed, and it was argued that the rule was a departure from existing law and practice and that it can be difficult to determine market value in many cases. The committee agreed that this rule should not affect situations where non-market transactions between partners or partnerships occurred legitimately. Applying the rule in these circumstances could result in high compliance costs, and the committee therefore recommended replacing this rule with a specific anti-avoidance rule that essentially deems a transaction to have occurred at market value if the transaction was entered into to avoid tax.

The committee recommended that the drafting should clarify that one partner’s proportionate entitlement to income from the partnership can be different to his or her share in the partnership’s assets. For example, in professional services firms, such as accounting or law firms, it is common for each partner’s rights to the profit of that partnership to fluctuate from year to year based on individual performance, but each partner’s share of the partnership’s assets remains the same. The drafting changes recommended by the committee clarify that this situation is within the policy intent of the new rules.

To prevent limited partners from claiming excessive losses the legislation restricts limited partners’ losses to amounts that limited partners actually have at risk. For the purposes of calculating the amount of loss that a limited partner is entitled to, in the bill as introduced amounts of guarantees were recognised only to the extent of that partner’s share in the partnership. The select committee recommended recognising in a wider range of situations amounts that are guaranteed by limited partners. The full amounts of the debt that has been guaranteed will now be recognised, subject to certain restrictions such as where other limited partners have also guaranteed the debt. United Future commends all those who have contributed to this bill, and we support its third reading.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Broadcasting) : I move, That the Broadcasting Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill will bring New Zealand’s funding agencies slightly closer to a digital age. Like our counterparts overseas, New Zealand is moving steadily into a new digital era where analog transmission will become obsolete within a few years. In this new digital world, broadcasting-like content will increasingly appear on a variety of media and devices. Audiences of the future will, as a matter of course, expect to access content through a choice of platforms and at times of their choosing. The Government’s public broadcasting policies under the broadcasting programme of action aim to maintain and enhance the availability of public broadcasting content in the digital era. The changes proposed in this bill will enable our broadcasting funding agencies to support the production of local content in this new and exciting environment. A rich variety of local content is fundamental to any well-performing public broadcasting system, and is crucial to that success.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Fire it up!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The member says: “Fire it up!”. Whenever he says: “Fire it up!”, I think of cigars! How could one think of anything else? Where there is smoke there is someone who is steaming.

This bill will allow New Zealand On Air and Te Māngai Pāho to fund types of content, archiving, and transmission that are likely to be integral to digital radio and television platforms such as the Internet, mobile phones, and other mobile services. The ability to do this—as members are all aware, I am sure—is currently outside the scope of the Broadcasting Act 1989. This bill has been thoroughly considered. It was hardly controversial; there were only two submissions on it. I want to thank those people on the Commerce Committee who considered the bill.

This bill does some really interesting things, like introducing the terms “content” and “transmit on demand”. In fact, we had to change “Contents” to “Particulars” because of the introduction of the new term “content”. Even in doing a bill like this, I learnt something.

Dr Richard Worth: Does the member believe in this bill?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I learnt that members of the House of Lords do not say “Aye”; they are asked whether they are “Content” with a piece of legislation. Even “Lord What’s-his-name of Monaco” learnt that as well, when I told him. So the definition of “content” was something particularly important.

Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not certain whether the current person addressing the Chamber was referring to me, but if he was, that was a wholly inappropriate appellation.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is not a point of order, and the member knows it. He has been here long enough.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is relatively sad, as far as that member is concerned, that the National Party has decided to put him up in Epsom so that Rodney Hide can win. I mean, that is a sad state of affairs for a member of Parliament.

The current definitions, which will apply elsewhere in the Act, will be retained, but for the purposes of the two funding agencies they will be supplemented by the new terms. The bulk of the bill is concerned with permitting the agencies to fund the desired forms of digital content, transmission, and archiving. It will allow Te Māngai Pāho to fund the archiving of Māori language and culture programmes. It has been a fault of, probably, both Governments that that was not able to be done earlier on. In addition, the bill carries over the Act’s existing protection against ministerial interference in decisions. Ministers cannot even suggest, let alone direct, what should be archived and what should not.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Tell us about the regulation you’re bringing in.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is a protection, I suppose, in the very long term, against a Tory Government. I would love to have the power, but in 20 years’ time it will not be—

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Tell us about the regulation you’re bringing in after this.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, no. What I said to the member—and if he was not in a cloud of smoke and if his ears were clean, he would know what I said—was that after we have had the digital review, which is going on, there will almost certainly be further legislation. The regulatory environment will change.

Dr Richard Worth: When?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It will change, almost certainly, next year, because that is how long it will take to work through that process. Anyone who has thought about convergence, which is touched on in this bill but is occurring—

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Touched on?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I do not want to sound too much like one of my colleagues, but it is a matter of both convergence and fragmentation. We are getting both of them happening at the same time, and we have to have a regulatory environment—

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Sounds like the Labour caucus—fragmenting and converging.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, no, I think not. I think anyone who looked at John Key in the House today saw how sad he looked, with those shocking bags under his eyes. He was doing an imitation of Mike Moore at his worst. That was John Key today. Clearly, the pressure is getting to that man.

Hon Mark Burton: He hasn’t done anything yet!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, no. He has clearly spent the weekend crying. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, members opposite asked me to discuss the regulation, and the inability of John Key to react to anything at all. I know it was a different regulation that he was reacting to, but the question from Jonathan Coleman was one that was more general.

I would like to thank the people who made submissions to the select committee. We live in an age where traditional models have to be responsive to new technologies. This bill will ensure in a very small way that the public funding mechanisms for local content reflect the potential of the digital environment. I look forward, next year, to introducing more substantive legislation than this bill, and I look forward to some members opposite debating it at that time. I think that one day we will have an idea from Dr Coleman, because when the digital review was introduced he said there was nothing in it, then he went on the radio and said there was a lot in it and everyone should make submissions. The way he changes his mind is a bit like the way John Key changes his mind. He might be trying to imitate the leader—to grease up to him, to be on the front bench—because he acts like John Key—

Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a Minister giving a speech on a third reading. I draw your attention to Standing Order 107(1) in terms of relevancy. This speech is far off the topic of what a concise Minister’s speech should be.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for his intervention and just mention that the Minister is responding to some interjections from the other side of the House, which do not actually help the debate.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I will go back to the essential point that this is a relatively small bill. We are likely to have a larger bill introduced to the House as a result of the consultation process occurring at the moment, and one of the things we will be interested in when that bill comes in is whether, by that stage, Dr Coleman has got his head round the convergence issues that are driving these changes, and whether he will get his head round the fragmentation issues that are changing the face of broadcasting—

Hon Paul Swain: He’ll be in Opposition so it won’t matter.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am an old-fashioned member; I think occasionally people can make a contribution from the Opposition. Clearly, Jonathan Coleman is not there yet.

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) : Well, that was a really interesting contribution from Trevor Mallard, because he probably spent a good 3 minutes talking about the Opposition spokesperson on broadcasting. I really think that when a Minister goes so far off the topic during what is supposed to be a third reading ministerial speech, it shows that either he does not know what he is talking about or he is severely rattled. Trevor Mallard really went off the script there. I mean, he started in a boring monotone, reading out the stuff that officials would have given him this afternoon. Then, with a little bit of interjection, Mr Mallard lost it completely. That is vintage Trevor Mallard—he loses it; he is out of here.

But what was really interesting during the Committee stage of this bill was the fact that Trevor Mallard assured us that after this bill was passed, there would be further legislation. And that was the big mistake he made, because we know that the legislation he is talking about will involve some heavy-handed regulation. The fact is that Labour has put out a consultation document through the Ministry for Culture and Heritage that is a review of digital broadcasting. It has laid out lots of options, and it is a couple of hundred pages long. It will be of a lot of interest to journalists, broadcasters, and politicians but not of much interest to the general public. But it is really a Trojan Horse for what the Minister wants to do, which is to regulate broadcasting heavily.

Labour has a real problem in broadcasting: it has a failed broadcasting policy that has really shackled Television New Zealand (TVNZ). Basically, with the charter, TVNZ can be neither fully commercial nor fully public. It is caught in the middle, and its finances are getting a lot worse. This Government has managed to halve the value of TVNZ. Steve Maharey managed to cut the value of TVNZ by half, and if he had had another term as Minister, I reckon he would have got it right down to zero. So, really, the next election will come as merciful relief for this Labour Government, in terms of broadcasting, because it is flat out of ideas. It does not have any ideas. This digital review is basically a bottom-trawl for ideas, which the Government will throw back up, and push through in legislation. Trevor Mallard has been quite open about that.

National is supporting this bill, as we have heard today. It will bring funding arrangements into line with newly developing technology. Trevor Mallard was right: he talked about fragmentation and convergence. That sounds like the Labour caucus, which is fragmenting and then converging to the right of the party. But there are some major technological changes, and this bill will mean that Te Māngai Pāho and New Zealand On Air will be able to fund content for new platforms. When the Broadcasting Act was passed in 1989 we basically had only radio and television. We have moved into a completely new age, and people are getting their content from the Internet, they are downloading things, and they are able to watch things on platforms such as mobile phones. The funding arrangements will mean that those broadcasting funding agencies can fund content for those new digital platforms.

But an interesting point is that National members are very keen to make sure that anything that receives public funds is available free to air to all New Zealanders. If content for a mobile phone platform will be funded, for instance, we would have some concerns if that were a pay-per-view service. So there may be one or two things that need ironing out, but in general we are very keen for the funding arrangements to reflect the new technology.

One thing that is an issue is the TVNZ charter. As Richard Worth said, I think in the second reading, the problem with the current charter is that it is just a bunch of aspirational statements with no concrete, measurable goals. That is causing a problem, because it means that the charter is essentially meaningless. The Government has had a review, which has rehashed the wording of the charter, and it is being brought back before the Commerce Committee, but it will not make any difference. There are still no measurable goals. We have to ask ourselves, in relation to the TVNZ charter, whether there is any difference between what is on our screens now, compared with the time before we had the TVNZ charter. The basic reality is that there is no difference. There is absolutely no difference. I mean, what is charter programming? People at TVNZ can say that it is absolutely anything. Dancing with the Stars is supposedly charter programming. So I think we need to get to an environment—

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: It shouldn’t be.

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, it should not be; it is nakedly commercial. But we really need to have some transparency around where public broadcasting funding goes, and we need to have a charter that is actually meaningful and that provides some concrete, measurable goals. Clearly, there is a need to look at what is happening in broadcasting.

I think we can say—quite succinctly—that Labour’s broadcasting policy has been an absolute failure. What we have is the State broadcaster basically going down the drain. Labour has eroded the value of the State broadcaster. We now have new FreeView channels, which are getting $104 million of public money. There is no certainty that they will survive commercially, because if those TV6 and TV7 channels are to succeed, they will have to draw audiences across from TVNZ. That will be a problem for TVNZ, because there will not be any advertising on those two new digital channels. So there is an environment where audiences will be sucked across to the new channels, and Television One and TV2 audience numbers will be dropping. As a result of the audience numbers dropping, the advertising revenue will drop, TVNZ’s revenues will drop, and the bottom line will continue to deteriorate. This is the result of broadcasting policy under this Government.

So just to come back to where we were, I say that National does support this bill. As I say, it brings the funding arrangements into line with modern technology, but it raises some serious issues. This bill illustrates where technology is going in broadcasting, and that raises a whole raft of issues around the sustainability of TVNZ and how it will continue to remain financially viable. It also brings up the point of the terrible burden the charter has saddled TVNZ with. Basically, we have a Labour Government that has failed New Zealanders in terms of broadcasting. It has been a case of poor stewardship of public broadcasting and poor stewardship of public money, and it is time for change in this field. In summary, National is supporting this bill but there are real challenges in broadcasting ahead. The real danger is that, as Trevor Mallard has said, Labour is very keen to get in and regulate this particular sector, and it will do so under the guise of the review of digital broadcasting. Thank you.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) : I was hoping for a bit of policy there from National, and some knowledge of what it would do, but that was a bit of a wasted effort. Never mind! I support the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. It is a very good bill. It actually brings New Zealand into the 20th century. The 21st century will come up next year with, potentially, some new legislation. The bill simply allows transmission on other forms of technology, including the Internet and cellphones. This is good legislation and it needs to be supported by the House.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : National supports the Broadcasting Amendment Bill.

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

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Prior to the House being suspended for the dinner break at 6 o’clock, the honourable member Georgina te Heuheu was speaking. As she was interrupted after only a few seconds had passed, I have decided that she should have a full 10 minutes of speaking time. I invite the member to seek the call.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: At least I had time to say something that is more important than anything, which is that National supports the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. There are obvious reasons for this. The bill brings New Zealand’s broadcasting funding agencies into line with the digital age. It enables those two broadcasting funding agencies that we have, New Zealand On Air and Te Māngai Pāho, to support the production, transmission, and archiving of digital content. Obviously, with the development of digital broadcasting in New Zealand and internationally, these agencies need to be able to respond to the opportunities and challenges of the digital world—to meet the changing needs and expectations not only of broadcasters, but particularly, of content producers and the New Zealand public.

In other words, the bill is about funding content for the new digital platforms. Specifically it permits New Zealand On Air and Te Māngai Pāho to fund such developments as video on demand, interactivity between broadcaster and audiences, and the re-visioning of content for non-broadcast platforms like the Internet and mobile phones. The common feature of this is that transmission occurs at the demand of the individual viewer or listener, in contrast to traditional broadcasting, where, of course, the broadcasters themselves, like those in television and radio, rule—or so they think.

As I say, this legislation is about the listener and the viewer, and being able to bring to them what they want and what they need in a digital era. These new platforms are the mechanisms by which broadcasters and content creators seek to retain and expand their audiences, and to serve them better. In that context, this is a simple but important bill. Audiences expect to access content through a choice of platforms, and at times they do choose to do so. That is why essentially National supports the bill.

One other important change I want to mention—although I have certainly raised this in the second reading debate, and maybe in the first reading debate—is that the bill will allow Te Māngai Pāho to fund the archiving of Māori language and culture programmes. This has been a bit of an anomaly in our law, in that New Zealand On Air has had such a function in relation to general broadcast content and Te Māngai Pāho has not. Given the very important role that Te Māngai Pāho plays not only in funding Māori programming but in funding programming that enhances, adds to, and supports a unique New Zealand identity, this is extremely important, as well. As the bill is such a necessity now, given the modern developments in the digital age, one wonders why it took the Government so long to bring it to the House.

I must say I was interested to hear from the new Minister of Broadcasting—and he is new; I have not heard him say all that much about broadcasting since he took office.

Christopher Finlayson: Who is it?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: I know who it is because he stood in the House this afternoon. It is the Hon Trevor Mallard. I am not surprised that my colleague Chris Finlayson does not know who he is. As I say, I cannot recall that I have heard him say much about broadcasting. I suppose this is a nice little tidy bill for him to bring to its third reading and to pass into law.

Of course content, and particularly local content, reigns supreme in the sense that the New Zealand taxpayer shells out millions of dollars each year to fund local content. In that regard, although we are making provision for the funding of alternative platforms, I have to say that sometimes we look at Television New Zealand (TVNZ) programmes and wonder whether it has come to grips with the traditional platform, seeing that over a period of 9 years the value of TVNZ has been wiped pretty badly. It has not come to terms with its twin remit of commercial and public broadcasting, and it has lost audience share quite dramatically over the last few years.

On the one hand we have to keep up with modern developments, particularly in terms of the digital era, but, in other respects, it seems that on some days TVNZ is way, way behind the eight ball. That is a shame. This Government has spent so much of the last 8 years wringing its hands and finding itself in trouble with the goings-on at TVNZ that, frankly, the actual introduction of FreeView to make digital transmission available to all audiences in New Zealand for free has been rather halting, as well. With the move to digital transmission—the digital age internationally—New Zealand still seems to be lagging behind.

I turn to the issue of content, and especially local content. If Dancing with the Stars is meant to satisfy our need, or the needs of New Zealand audiences, for local content, I point out that this programme follows an international format. Sure, it has local people, New Zealanders, dancing around on the floor—and very nice they look, too—but I really do not know that that programme meets the responsibility of TVNZ to make sure that it satisfies the public broadcasting element of its remit, and to make sure that New Zealanders see something of themselves.

I do not intend to go on. Given that the bill is urgently required, and given the pace of digital technology and digital platforms, we support the bill. We will be very pleased to see it pass into law, not a moment too soon.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) : In the context of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill we have an opportunity, just for a moment, to reflect on the strength of public broadcasting in New Zealand across the various media—I am thinking obviously of television and of radio. I have had an opportunity, as this bill has progressed through its various stages, to talk about some aspects of it at some considerable length, but I certainly do not plan to do that tonight as this is, from any view of it, simple legislation. But what I have done is bemoan the fact that we have lost an opportunity in this bill to be so much better than we might have been.

Those in the Māori Party who are here tonight made a really good point in the earlier stages of this bill. They said that here was the opportunity to provide a secure funding line for Māori television and Māori radio—and I would add to that non-Māori television and non-Māori radio—to ensure that these facilities are appropriately resourced. Yet the bill, as we know, is quite silent on this issue. Sure, it gives effect to the Government’s decision to enable the broadcasting funding agencies—the Broadcasting Commission, known as New Zealand On Air, and Te Reo Whakapuaraki Iriangi, known as Te Māngai Pāho—to be able to support the production, transmission, and archiving of digital content with the development of digital broadcasting in New Zealand and internationally. It makes some other changes to the Broadcasting Act that are particularly important. But my issue is this: in a setting where National supports this bill, why did we not go further when we had the opportunity to deal with the issue that the Māori Party has raised, and with another issue that I would like to dwell on just for a moment.

That issue concerns those charter arrangements that burden and, in my view, cloister Television New Zealand from being something more than it currently is. I started off in this debate by saying that we should be proud of public broadcasting, and are we? I do not think that we are. If we ask the further question as to why we are not, then the answer to that is in substantial measure around this Television New Zealand charter. This charter will, I hope, be scrutinised and closely examined by the Commerce Committee in terms of the references that are made in legislation to it. But it is an impossible deal. We have a current charter, we have a charter that was redrafted, and now we have a charter that has been redrafted following the input of submissions. The charter is structured under a number of headings—eight in all—and we need only to look at the headings to see immediately what the problem is.

I dwelt in earlier debates on one part of it, “An Informed Society”, and I looked at the elements that were stated as part of that broad heading, to describe them as meaningless, aspirational, sentimental, and non-measurable. So what I thought I would do tonight is to look at another part of the charter.

Christopher Finlayson: They were the good parts.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: Well, we searched for a good part, I say to Mr Finlayson. I thought I would just pick up the second heading, which is “National Identity and Citizenship”. That is the main heading, and there are a number of subheadings. The subheadings are “To provide entertaining, educational, and informative programmes that reflects”—it should be “reflect”, but it states “reflects”—“the diverse range of cultures and interests that contribute to an understanding of who we are as New Zealanders,”. That is the aspirational statement. Then come the fulfilment provisions, including “Provide shared experiences”—I ask what that means—“that contribute to a sense of citizenship and national identity;”. Who is sharing that? Is that Television New Zealand sharing with us—the listeners, the viewers—that sense of citizenship and national identity? The second is “Provide programmes that contribute towards intellectual, scientific, cultural, sporting, and spiritual development;”. I just pause to reflect on that phrase “spiritual development” for a moment.

The third element is another opportunity: “Enhance citizens’ opportunities to participate in public life by featuring programmes that provide a forum for critical and many-sided debate;”. Well, I am not sure that those who sit at home and watch Television New Zealand think: “Wow, I feel great about this. I am participating in public life.” Surely, that is a complete nonsense. Then there is an element: “Provide programmes about the diverse cultures, history, heritage and natural environment of New Zealand, and its regions;”. We would say that is great; I would say that it is great also. There is also “Provide programmes that cater for minority interests;”, “Provide programmes intended for general audiences that address minority interests;”, and, finally, “Strive to enable New Zealanders of all abilities to engage with the fullest range of programmes.” What does that mean in the context of a broad-based, aspirational charter?

That is why I have said in the debates centred around this bill that we need to look again at that charter. We need to set some hard-nosed, measurable goals so that it will be possible in that setting to say, yes, Television New Zealand is a good public broadcaster because it has achieved some goals that were set and are able to be reckoned in the market place as having been fulfilled or not.

As for the bill itself, as others have commented, it is in two parts. It is a short bill, consisting of Part 1, “Amendments to Broadcasting Act 1989”, and Part 2, which is headed, dangerously, “Miscellaneous”. So one looks in Part 2 at a raft of stylistic amendments that have been made. I think we were both entertained and concerned by the comments in speeches that the Hon Georgina te Heuheu made in the Committee of the whole House in connection with Part 2, because she appropriately—very appropriately—drew to our attention the shortfalls in Part 2. It is a very curious part. One of the clauses is headed “Stylistic amendments to Broadcasting Act 1989”, but, as the Hon Georgina te Heuheu explained to what was, as I recall it, a hushed Committee and a crowded gallery, these changes are much more than stylistic. They touch on punctuation, they touch on grammar, they touch on style, and they touch on a raft of issues.

I will conclude now—somewhat sadly, I suppose—by just saying that here is legislation that could have been so much better. We have supported it because of its principal thrust. It is a really good example of a Government that is uncaring and that is not really prepared to go the extra distance that would produce strong and good work. Instead, it is a Government that is exhausted and is simply not prepared to look for perfection where perfect outcomes are possible. So the bill completes its final reading—this, the third stage. What lies beyond? It is the Royal assent only. I express the fervent hope that the Governor-General of New Zealand, as commander-in-chief, will sign this bill into law. He assuredly should do so in terms of the constitutional conventions, but it could have been a lot better than it is.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. The fact that we are considering this Broadcasting Amendment Bill at this time is very, very auspicious, for a number of reasons. On this day 21 years ago, on 11 March 1987, the Maori Language Act was passed, declaring Māori to be an official language of New Zealand. The Māori Language Commission was also established and given a specific responsibility to promote te reo Māori as a living language.

The importance of the Māori language to Māori broadcasting, of course, is that it was the Court of Appeal decision obligating the Crown to protect and promote the Māori language that led to the funding and the growth in Māori radio and the eventual creation of Māori Television. It is also worth noting that policy and funding for Māori broadcasting was seen by the Waitangi Tribunal and accepted by the Crown as a way for the Crown to honour its Treaty obligations to protect and promote te tino rangatiratanga o te reo Māori—not just Māori language but “an authentic and independent Māori voice”. It is the very same authentic and independent Māori voice that the Māori Party has so very clearly become in this very Parliament.

The fact that the Broadcasting Amendment Bill is being read for a final time this week is also worth noting, because for many Māori this week will also be notable for another ending. This week we had the announcement of Whai Ngāta’s retirement as general manager of Māori programming at Television New Zealand. As we move to digital transmission and aim to strengthen the archiving of Māori programming, we are also farewelling one of Māori broadcasting’s true veterans. He is a man who has helped steer Māori broadcasting for more than 30 years, who won the 1980 Mobil radio award for his documentary on the 28th Māori Battalion, and who, 20 years ago, was made deputy head of the brand new Māori programmes department of Television New Zealand, which was responsible, in its first years, for three new programmes: Kōhanga Reo, Tagata Pasifika, and Waka Huia. Just a year ago he was awarded the title of Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit for services to Māori broadcasting and television.

As we celebrate Whai’s commitment to advancing Māori broadcasting in Aotearoa, we think, too, of those others who have been at the vanguard of Māori broadcasting—legends like Ernie Leonard, Wīremu Kerekere, Wīremu Parker, Hēnare Te Ua, Haare Williams, Selwyn Muru, Hēnare Kīngi, Huirangi Waikerepuru, and many, many others who have made a significant contribution to the industry, including the Māori Party’s candidate for the Ikaroa-Rawhiti seat, Mr Derek Tini Fox.

In amending the Act to allow Te Māngai Pāho to fund the archiving of Māori programmes, this bill will allow us to honour many of those people I have mentioned, and a veritable host of others whose stories have been passed down through waiata, karakia, haka, whaikōrero, and interviews, many of which were recorded through programmes like Te Puna Wai Kōrero, Koha, Ngā Take Māori, Te Mana Māori, He Rerenga Kōrero, and other Māori programmes that are a vital part of our sound and visual archives.

This week is also auspicious for another reason. Come this weekend all eyes will be on Rotorua for the hosting of the annual Māori Media Awards, a ceremony initiated by Te Whakaruruhau o Ngā Reo Irirangi Māori under my chairmanship. The awards are an opportunity to celebrate Māori excellence in the field of Māori broadcasting. As we recognise many of the talents within the burgeoning Māori broadcasting sector, it is timely that we recognise the importance of the digital world and embrace the latest in broadcasting and communications technology, along with the people who have the skills to maximise our opportunities from that technology.

Mind you, for all of that celebration there is still much to be done, including addressing the age-old problem of Māori programmes being shunted around to suit the commercial ratings of Television New Zealand. Twenty-one years ago Hone Kaa said that Television New Zealand’s decision to screen the current affairs programme Ngā Take Māori at 10 p.m. on Sundays “shows a lack of commitment to Maori programmes”. Well, as we all know now, those were actually the good old days, when 10 p.m. was almost prime-time viewing, compared with the midnight slot that Te Karere has been ghettoised into. Yet there is nothing in this Broadcasting Amendment Bill that addresses this marginalisation and denigration of Māori programming. There is a big hole in this bill in that it can talk so easily about valuing the past through the archiving of Māori programming, and about preparing us for the future by funding things like video on demand and managing content on other platforms, but completely ignore the present demand for prime-time viewing of Māori programmes on mainstream television.

The Māori Party will support this bill because it has a positive focus on archiving and on digital development, but we remain critical of the fact that Labour’s Māori MPs have remained silent during the three readings of this bill on the issues that matter most to Māori: one, why there is no commitment to the ongoing funding of Māori broadcasting; two, why Māori programming on Television New Zealand gets shunted to midnight to suit commercial ratings, when Māori is an official language in this country and when Television New Zealand has a charter obligation to promote the Māori language; and, three, why the Crown will not allow Te Māngai Pāho to be appointed by the Crown and Māori in the same way that the Māori Television board is appointed. This last issue raises, of course, a fourth issue: why will the Crown not allow the Television New Zealand board to be appointed by the Crown and Māori in the same way that the Māori Television board is appointed?

We take this opportunity to again challenge Television New Zealand to lift its game by accepting its obligations to honour the significance of the Māori voice, by giving the Māori voice the recognition that comes with prime-time viewing, by enabling Māori to be full players in the growth of new technology, and by recognising the increasingly more important role that Māori are playing in the future of our society.

Finally, we wish Television New Zealand’s new Māori programme commissioner, Kath Graham, of Ngāti Korokī Kahukura, all the best in her challenge to increase the number, the quality, and the placement of Māori programmes on Television New Zealand’s channels. The Māori Party is committed to a future that includes a continued growth in Māori broadcasting, Māori programming, and Māori people who themselves are focused on increasing Māori programming in all broadcast media. We will be supporting this bill on that basis. Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā hoki tātou. I want to make one or two comments about the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. Although New Zealand First will support the bill, I ought to say that we certainly share some of the disquiet expressed by previous speakers, particularly in terms of the ongoing funding and placement of Māori programmes. As we live in 2008, with the digital age well and truly upon us, it seems appropriate that the sort of funding provided for in this bill is supported.

I looked up the Broadcasting Act 1989, which the bill before the House amends. I would think that those who are strongly pushing things Māori would have taken the opportunity of submitting a Supplementary Order Paper to include the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in this amendment bill.

Hon Member: Why didn’t you?

PITA PARAONE: Members know why members of New Zealand First did not—because we do not believe in them.

It seems to me that this country can have legislation that affects Māori that does not need to include the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It just reaffirms the point that New Zealand First has always argued, which is that the principles do not exist. They are a figment of someone’s imagination, a figment that much of this House supports. I would have thought that some members would raise the issue, given that this amendment bill is all about enabling the broadcasting funding agencies, like Te Reo Whakapuaki Te Irirangi, commonly known as Te Māngai Pāho, to fund the production, transmission, and archiving of new forms of digital content.

There has not been any reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, particularly from those Māori members who have spoken in the past with regard not only to this bill but to a lot of other bills where a lot of emphasis has been placed on those principles. I would think they would have taken the opportunity to do so in respect of this amendment legislation. Quite clearly, this House does think we can have legislation—even legislation that, as in this case, refers to Māori broadcasting—that does not need to make any reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

I know that my leader and other members of New Zealand First have often asked those who have supported the notion of the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi to actually articulate just what those principles are, and, if they are able to articulate them, to explain why the principles are not listed in legislation. I hope that someone who has very strong views on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi being included in legislation might take a call after me to suggest that the principles should be included. But I signal to anyone who has that notion that New Zealand First will certainly not support it.

As the previous speaker from the Māori Party pointed out, it is almost 21 years since the Maori Language Act came into being. I believe that this amendment will add impetus to what the Māori language is all about.

Hone Harawira: Stop pushing in on our research here.

PITA PARAONE: My brother from Te Tai Tokerau, Mr Harawira, must have had an oversight on his part, or in reality he believes that there is no such thing as the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and that we can have good legislation like this amendment bill without making any reference to those principles.

But I have to say that New Zealand First certainly supports the Broadcasting Amendment Bill.

Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to point out that New Zealand First’s bill was actually a bill to oppose the Treaty of Waitangi.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is out of order, and the member has been here long enough to know that.

PITA PARAONE: It is important that those who are charged with the fiscal provision for organisations like Te Māngai Pāho will take this amendment into consideration when they are placing requests for increased funding, because surely they will need it. As a number of our old people pass on, I think it is important that the recorded comments they have made are properly archived so that the mita o te reo is maintained.

I acknowledge the increased use of the language today, but much of the language that is in use today is different from when I was growing up. Be that as it may, it also shows that te reo Māori is a living language and moves with the times. In conclusion, I reiterate the point that New Zealand First will certainly be supporting this amendment bill. Kia ora.

DIANNE YATES (Labour) : I rise to speak on the third reading of the Broadcasting Amendment Bill. I have not been involved in this legislation at all, and I was not on the select committee, but I am surprised at the very short report that has come through from the Commerce Committee. I note that there were only two submissions on this bill, and that there was unanimity at the select committee. I found the speech from Dr Richard Worth on this matter to be rather strange—he said that it was a pity that there were not more amendments—because the committee obviously had every opportunity to make amendments if it had considered them to be necessary. One or two little changes looked more like typo changes and changes in numbering, but apart from that the content of the bill has stayed as it was through the select committee deliberations and through the Committee stage until now.

I note that the aim of the bill is to amend the Broadcasting Act 1989, and that the bill will allow Government funding for a wider range of digital programming in a variety of formats. I think that is something to be praised, because it means that technology will come on board. This will enable the agencies to fund a variety of services, and it is about Government funding keeping pace with that technology. In itself it is basically a technical bill, in that it enables broadcasting as we have it now to keep up to date and to enable that funding to be directed into those areas.

As has been mentioned, the bill also amends the Act to allow Te Māngai Pāho to archive funded Māori language and culture programmes. I think that is extremely valuable not only to preserve the language but also for the speaking of older people—perhaps we should call it “classical Māori”, as opposed to “modern Māori”—to be archived.

I have had the privilege of attending some of the concerts and works that have been presented during the New Zealand International Festival of the Arts. Those works that have been New Zealand - orientated have paid tribute to Māori language and to Māori music in many ways. Some of the music is taken from ancient music and ancient instruments that have been revived in New Zealand, and I think it is extremely important. I know that Hineani Melbourne, who worked in Hamilton for a long time and who has sadly passed on, was one of the people who enabled the recording and the revival of traditional Māori instruments. I am pleased to say that this bill will enable archives to be funded, to be kept alive, and to be used. It is one thing to have archives and to bury them, but it is another to be able to access them and to use that material for the benefit of people today and for the benefit of our culture and heritage in New Zealand. It is something that I think New Zealand can be proud of. We can generally be proud of the standard of broadcasting and the standard of New Zealand On Air.

It is with pleasure that I speak at the third reading of this bill, which is, as I said, a technical bill about technical changes that allow funding for us to utilise those facilities in New Zealand. As I get near to retiring, I say that I think the new facilities in this House for recording what we have, archiving what we have, and keeping New Zealand in better contact with what goes on in this House are to be commended. I commend the Broadcasting Amendment Bill on its third reading to the House, and I look forward to its implementation.

• Bill read a third time.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) : I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time. As the House will be aware, the Statutes Amendment Bill is a useful vehicle for making minor technical and non-controversial amendments to a number of Acts at one time. It allows amendments to be made that would not usually receive sufficient priority in their own right to be progressed. This is achieved with the support of all parties in Parliament, and I thank them for that. The bill was reported back by the Government Administration Committee on 21 February 2008, and I thank the Government Administration Committee for its careful and expeditious consideration of the bill.

The bill amends 14 Acts administered by eight different departments. The amendments proposed by the bill include an amendment to the Crimes Act 1961 to correct and remove an outdated reference to the death penalty, which, as we all know, was abolished in 1989; and an amendment to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995, which substitutes the term “video record” for the outdated term “videotape”. This change in terminology is to reflect the definition in the Evidence Act 2006, which is broad enough to cover digital video recordings. The amendments proposed include an amendment to the Historic Places Act 1993 to amend a drafting error, and to remove ambiguity in a provision that creates an offence and imposes a penalty for the damage or destruction of a property in the control of the Historic Places Trust.

There are also amendments to the Veterinarians Act 2005, to close a gap in the legislation that permits people who hold a recognised veterinary science degree to be registered only on the basis of their qualifications. Veterinarians will now have to satisfy the Veterinary Council of their fitness to practise in order to be registered. This change brings the Veterinarians Act up to date with comparable legislation for other professions—for example, that of lawyers and teachers. An amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975 will reflect changes in the terminology used in the armed forces.

The select committee received only two submissions on the bill, and it has reported the bill back to the House unchanged. To conclude, this bill proposes a number of positive changes to the statute book that are minor or technical in nature. I again thank the select committee and the officials for their work, and I commend the bill to the House.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) : The Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) was referred to the Government Administration Committee, as the Minister said, on 20 September 2007. The closing date for submissions was 9 November. By that date we had received two submissions.

The Statutes Amendment bills probably need a bit of explanation in the Chamber, because I do not think too many people, in public or in Parliament, really understand the purpose of these bills. They are designed to provide a legislative vehicle for minor, technical, and non-controversial amendments—generally typing errors or other such minor amendments—to legislation or Acts of Parliament. They are known as omnibus bills. Unanimous cross-party support must be obtained prior to the bill being included in debate and going to a select committee.

The select committee received an interesting submission from a Mr Graeme Edgeler, who is a lawyer in Wellington. He raised the issue of the bill potentially crossing the line of being non-controversial and of potentially introducing a statute amendment that would have an effect on people. He did not disagree with the change; he disagreed with the fact that it should happen in a Statutes Amendment Bill.

My colleague Mr Finlayson may later describe the issue around the Historic Places Trust that was raised by this gentleman.

Christopher Finlayson: No, I won’t!

SHANE ARDERN: He may not, but we will wait and see. We received advice from the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and various other Government advisers. On balance, the committee decided that the issue was not outside the normal gambit of a Statutes Amendment Bill and therefore supported the bill coming back to the House.

But it raised an interesting point, which is that the executive needs to be reminded at times of just exactly what these Statutes Amendment bills are for. They are an interesting and useful tool for Government. Government needs that tool, and all Governments, regardless of their political persuasion, need this vehicle. If the executive were ever to start venturing out into more controversial amendments, then these bills would get vetoed, and potentially a vehicle would be lost whereby it could otherwise normally carry out such work.

I know that the Assistant Speaker has a keen interest in the Standing Orders, and the Standing Order concerned in regard to Statutes Amendment bills is 263(1)(e). I thought I would just point that out to Mr Assistant Speaker in case he needs it later in the debate.

The Statutes Amendment Bill we are debating here tonight, the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), received the support of the select committee. This particular bill includes amendments that involve the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, the Ministry of Fisheries, the Ministry of Economic Development, the Department of Conservation, Land Information New Zealand, the Biosecurity Act—which is one I myself am particularly interested in, being the spokesman for that particular subject—the Cadastral Survey Act, the Fisheries Act, and the Veterinarians Act.

Fourteen various statutes and 50 clauses in total were involved, so we have to pay close scrutiny to make sure that amendments are just minor and not any more substantial than was designed. The select committee, as the Minister very kindly spelt out, did its work in that regard.

From time to time in the Government Administration Committee we have sought support on various issues from the Regulations Review Committee, but in this case we received the standard response from the committee, which was that the bill was fine. With those comments, I say that the National Party supports the bill and I recommend it to the House.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : I am very pleased to make a contribution to the second reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), and I think some speakers have already noted the background of Statutes Amendment bills—that they are designed to provide minor, technical, and non-controversial amendments to existing statutes. The amendments in these bills cannot affect policy change, and unanimous cross-party support must be obtained prior to the inclusion of an amendment in a Statutes Amendment Bill. This Statutes Amendment Bill is typical. It sought to amend 14 statutes, and there were just two submissions, which the Government Administration Committee considered and took advice on. I do commend the cooperation of the select committee and the officials in returning this bill expeditiously to the House.

I would like to address just one of the statutes that the bill will amend, which is section 35(a) of the Crimes Act, and that will remove an outdated reference to an offence punishable by death. I must admit that I was somewhat astonished to discover that we still had a reference to the death penalty in statute despite the Abolition of the Death Penalty Act in 1989.

I am glad to live in a country where we do not have the death penalty. Around 124 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, but it troubles me deeply that there are still some notable exceptions such as China, Iran, the United States, and Viet Nam. Those countries accounted for 97 percent of the executions recorded by Amnesty International in 2004. Between 1976 and 2005, 1,004 people were executed in the United States and over 3,000 prisoners were awaiting execution on what is known as death row. In China in 2001 alone, a Government crack-down on crime resulted in the execution of at least 1,781 people in about 4 months. Those statistics are barbaric. So I am particularly pleased that New Zealand, under our Prime Minister, Helen Clark, has been working with other countries in the United Nations for the abolition of the death penalty worldwide.

On 18 December 2008 the General Assembly of the United Nations voted by an overwhelming majority for a resolution calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. This was the objective of the World Day Against the Death Penalty held on 10 October. As our Prime Minister said at the time, “Capital punishment is the ultimate form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. The death penalty violates the right to life … It is known to have been inflicted on the innocent.” Quite simply, the death penalty is a failure of justice.

The first execution in New Zealand was that of a young Māori named Maketū, convicted in Auckland in 1842. Walter Bolton was the last to be executed when he was hanged at Mount Eden Prison in 1957. In total there were 83 verified executions for murder and one for treason in New Zealand between those dates. The method of execution was hanging, and before 1862 executions were conducted in public. Colour Sergeant James Collins of the 65th Regiment was the first to be executed out of public view, and he was executed at Wellington in January 1862. The official method of execution was outlined in an 1880 “Memorandum upon the Execution of Prisoners by Hanging with a Long Drop”. The offences that carried the death penalty in New Zealand were, in accordance with English common law, murder, treason, and piracy.

Interestingly, the Labour Party had opposed capital punishment, and after it took office in 1935 it commuted all death sentences to life imprisonment. This policy was confirmed by the abolition of the death penalty for murder in 1941. The National Government restored it in 1950, and from 1951 to 1957 there were 18 convictions for murder and eight executions. Labour returned to office in late 1957, and the following year made the death penalty inoperative.

With that matter seemingly swinging from one situation to another depending on which party was in office, it was put to a conscience vote in 1961. Members of Parliament were not forced to vote according to party policy, and accordingly 10 members of the National Government voted with the Opposition, and capital punishment was removed from the statute book.

Sandra Goudie: Get with the programme.

DARIEN FENTON: I am with the programme; I am talking about one of the—

Sandra Goudie: The history was that it was National that did it.

DARIEN FENTON: No, I say to the member that that is not quite correct; it was a conscience vote. With all due respect to the member, it was a conscience vote.

Treason, mutiny, and treachery in the armed forces are no longer punishable by death, under the terms of the Abolition of the Death Penalty Act 1989. The last execution was of Walter Bolton when he was convicted of poisoning his wife Beatrice and was hanged for her murder at Mount Eden Prison. According to the reports at the time it was gruesome, and it was believed that some of those in the death chamber had to swing on his legs after the hangman miscalculated and Bolton did not die instantly from a broken neck.

The death penalty for murder was abolished in New Zealand in 1961 and there were claims that this was due partly to the circumstances surrounding Bolton’s case. But we should not think that this issue is not still alive in the minds of some New Zealanders. At times of perceived increases in violent crime or when there has been a particularly high-profile murder, debate about capital punishment comes up and inevitably there is a call for the death penalty again in New Zealand.

Some believe that the death penalty will deter people from committing crime, and although I have empathy with those who have lost a loved one through violent crime the facts from the United States and other countries just do not back that up. In some countries, as we know, executions go way beyond violent crime; executions for political belief, for speaking out against the ruling power, for trade union activity, for being gay, and many other reasons, are still being carried out today.

Although this Statutes Amendment Bill is like others in that its changes are minor, technical, or inconsequential in nature, it is an important moment in New Zealand’s history that the last remaining reference to capital punishment in New Zealand’s statutes is finally being removed. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am glad I live in a country without the death penalty; long may it stay that way.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : I am delighted to speak to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). It is meant to be a non-controversial bill, so I am surprised that the previous speaker, Darien Fenton, has found occasion to take a little bit of grandstanding in regard to it. One would have to question whether in fact the provision is as non-controversial as she tried to make out, or whether it is quite the contrary. Having said that, one of the aspects of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) is the fact that because it is non-controversial it means that if any matters are raised that are questionable and will challenge the non-controversial nature of the change, they are removed and do not proceed. One of those matters was the changes that were proposed in relation to the Companies Act. A submission was received from Chapman Tripp that raised a number of concerns around the provisions that it was suggested should be included in the bill in regard to the Companies Act. It was proposed that the bill should amend sections 224 and 223 to also require notice to a person who is entitled to a security interest in respect of which a financial statement is registered on the Personal Property Securities Register. It all became a little bit dry but it was quite clear—

Hone Harawira: Settle down, settle down!

SANDRA GOUDIE: I cannot help it. It all became a little bit dry but it was quite clear that it was not quite as non-controversial as it first appeared to be, and so the matter was actually dropped out of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) forthwith. It showed that it is quite an important process and that people take notice of the process and make submissions. The submission from Graeme Edgeler raised his concerns but had no quarrel with the changes proposed, and it was very interesting to see what his concerns were.

Some of the other parts that are in here—and they are quite varied—are technical. They include amendments to the following Acts: the National Parks Act; the New Zealand Horticultural Export Authority Act; the Radiocommunications Act; the Reserves Act; the Historic Places Act; the Fisheries Act; the Veterinarians Act; the Criminal Investigation (Bodily Samples) Act 1995; the Crimes Act, which has just been described by the previous speaker; the Cadastral Survey Act; and, as I said before, the Biosecurity Act. All of these Acts have had a number of minor amendments made to them, and I do not think we need to go through them in any great depth. As has been explained previously, these matters are non-consequential; they are really just technical amendments, and National is happy to support the bill going through.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. The Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) is another one of the buffet of bills that come within the context of minor, technical, and non-controversial amendments to existing legislation, as other members have talked about. I sometimes wonder why we bother to look at them when they are such minor adjustments. I would be interested in learning from members who have been here for ever and a day about the real value of these statute amendments coming into the Chamber rather than being done by other methods. Some suggest, say, an Order in Council, but I leave that for others to consider. That aside, the fact that some proposed amendments do not hit the table because they have been vetoed by parties tells us that this kind of bill might be an efficient way of dealing with what we might say are straightforward pieces of legislation.

Having said all that, I say there are some issues of interest here that the Māori Party is pleased to put forward for debate. In the first instance, the amendments in Part 1 to the Biosecurity Act 1993 will enable deputy chief technical officers to appoint inspectors, authorised persons, and accredited persons. That means, in effect, that they are able to delegate some of their functions. It is interesting that this provision is being discussed today, in light of the major risks that have become apparent to the local and national $200 million mussel industry following the defouling of the Ocean Patriot oil rig in Tasman Bay last December. As a result of that fiasco, bio-fouling was carried out within the 12-nautical-mile boundary in Tasman Bay. The issue I raised in question time today was that asked by iwi of Tasman Bay—namely, Ngāti Rārua, Ngāti Kōata, Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Rārua-Ātiawa Iwi Trust, and the Wakatu Incorporation—and it is all around accountability. They want to know, regardless of whether the oil rig was being de-fouled inside or outside New Zealand territorial waters, who is responsible for the clean-up to prevent the potential biosecurity risk from Perna perna—the potentially invasive South African brown mussel.

The question that is raised in my mind by this Statutes Amendment Bill is whether the delegation of some functions under the Biosecurity Act will actually do anything to address the obvious flaws in the low level of biosecurity standards required for the aquacultural industry. Will the amendment to enable deputy chief technical officers to appoint inspectors, authorised persons, and accredited persons have any impact on the aquacultural sector, or will they be allocated to, and work within the boundaries of, the horticultural and agricultural sectors only?

Keeping with that Minister, Jim Anderton, another set of amendments in this bill, to remove the requirement to gazette the Minister’s notification of fish stock or species ceasing to be subject to a moratorium, seems to be a more logical position than the current arrangements. The amendments to the Fisheries Act 1996 require that such stock or species will cease to be subject to a moratorium from the start of the fishing year, rather than the date of the Minister’s notification of the decision in the Gazette. The fishing year date would, by all estimates, be far more meaningful to fishermen than a randomly selected publication date of the printed Gazette.

We are very pleased to support the amendment to the Crimes Act 1961, which has been referred to by other members. It will remove an outdated reference to the death penalty, which was repealed in 1989. There seems to me to be some irony in that this amendment will pass through this House with barely a murmur whereas another amendment, to repeal section 59 of the same Act, which dealt with the hitting of our tamariki, created enormous reaction—reaction that still is generating some heat judging by the petition being promoted by various lobby groups. In fact, so hotly debated was that particular amendment that Parliament agreed that the law would be reviewed after 2 years, and it appears that every Government department in town is gathering information, to be ready to be assessed and evaluated.

The other interesting amendment, perhaps, is that relating to the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995. This amendment updates the definition of “videotape” to “video record”, in line with the Evidence Act 2006 definition, which allows for digital video recording. Well, that is all well and good, but I cannot help but think that, in light of some of the changes we were discussing today in relation to the Broadcasting Act, the impact and influence of digital platforms and new technologies would have meant the definition was expanded to also include, say, DVDs and CDs.

I was reflecting today, as we celebrate the fact that, as stated by my colleague Mr Hone Harawira, on this day, 11 March, in 1987 the Maori Language Act declared Māori an official language in Aotearoa, on the advancements that have been taking place in the revitalisation of te reo rangatira that absolutely demonstrate the power of information technology at its best. We can download Māori language lessons and linguistic interpretations. Some of our more innovative tertiary institutions promote language use through distributing CDs and DVDs. Last year, two of our talented young leaders, Pōtaua and Nikolasa Biasiny-Tule directed a team of volunteers from around Aotearoa in translating Google search pages into a Māori language option. Te Ara Poutama of Auckland University of Technology has trialled te reo Māori on an iPod. We can access Microsoft Office and Windows in te reo Māori. In other words, almost anything literally is possible.

Speaking about te reo, I briefly congratulate Jemma, an air hostess on my Air New Zealand flight this morning, on welcoming and farewelling all passengers in Māori, and taking real care with her pronunciation of Māori names. It was really refreshing to have someone consider the pronunciation of Māori names. It is something pretty simple, yet so many cannot be bothered. Kei runga noa atu koe, Jemma—too much. I promise that the Māori party is not receiving any political sponsorship for this—although we are very happy to—but if one goes to a BNZ ATM machine, one can now choose te reo Māori as an option. Ka rawe nē? Awesome!

Let me get back to the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). The other point I want to raise is in relation to the amendments to the Historic Places Act 1993 that set out procedures for dealing with extraordinary vacancies on the trust board. The trust is governed by a board of trustees comprising nine members, six of whom are appointed by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage. It is a board of high calibre, including in the current membership Te Auē Davis, Merata Kawharu, Tumu te Heuheu, and Judith Binney—a very impressive line up, I would have to say. Although we understand the rationale behind specifying procedures for dealing with extraordinary vacancies, we are interested in some of the wider context to this amendment. We support the concept of inserting those procedures into that Act, but merely wonder whether provision for vacancies created by death, resignation, or removal from office is included in legislation for other such boards. I just ask that question.

The Māori Party is happy to support this bill going forward.

DIANNE YATES (Labour) : It gives me pleasure to speak on the second reading of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) and to congratulate the Government Administration Committee on the work it has done on this bill. It is a very interesting committee to be on because it does have such variety, and these omnibus bills illustrate that variety.

I note the changes that the committee agreed on in regard to the Biosecurity Act, and that it makes matters clear in relation to the appointment of inspectors and accredited persons and their delegation of authority in terms of the Biosecurity Act. Unlike the previous member, I think these people do a fantastic job. New Zealand can be duly proud of its biosecurity and of the people who carry out the legislation and ensure that this country is kept free of things that could attack our agriculture and otherwise affect our exports.

I note also that there are changes to the Cadastral Survey Act. Some of those are to do with issues around who is a licensed cadastral surveyor, some are about disciplining surveyors, and some are about complying with the digital cadastral survey data sets. I suspect that some of the change in this legislation came about through a complaint made to the Regulations Review Committee, some many months ago. I am sorry that members from the Regulations Review Committee are not here to make that clear, but there was a complaint about changes in measurement, changing to digital data sets, and the possibility that there could be some sort of slippage in how much land one actually had. I suspect that this change in the legislation came about through this complaint, which was upheld by the Regulations Review Committee.

If that is the case, and this is the legislation that refers to that, then I am glad to see that the processes are working and that complaints to the Regulations Review Committee can then bring about changes to the substantive Act. That is very important, and it is important that the process actually works. These types of omnibus bills, which make little corrections, some of which can seem very boring, are very, very important for some people and they can make a huge difference.

I note that my colleague Darien Fenton has referred to the death penalty and the changes made to the Crimes Act. I also notice that some interesting changes have been made in terms of the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act. I like this little bit from the explanatory note in relation to Part 10: “The amendments reflect the following name changes: the New Zealand Fruitgrowers Federation, the New Zealand Vegetable & Potato Growers Federation (Incorporated), and The New Zealand Berryfruit Growers Federation Inc have been changed to Horticulture New Zealand Incorporated; and the New Zealand Nurserymens Association Incorporated has been changed to The Nursery and Garden Industry Association of New Zealand Incorporated.”

The New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Act was enacted in 1987. At last we have a non-sexist name for the New Zealand Nurserymens Association, which has realised that a certain number of nurserywomen are involved in the industry. That is a really good change.

If Horticulture New Zealand Incorporated are the people who produce Grower magazine, then I want to say that I think it is one of the best magazines we get in this House. Of course, I am from the Waikato and I am concerned about what we grow and export in New Zealand, and I think that Grower is an excellent magazine.

I commend Grower magazine for its very, very good articles on food miles. It produced some of the best counterarguments to the British scare about our exports, food miles, and the amount of fossil fuel it was taking to get our goods to Britain. It explained in its articles that, on the whole, the amount of fossil fuel that is used to get vegetables from the supermarket to the kitchens of British housewives added up to more per vegetable than the actual fossil fuel used in getting them from New Zealand to Britain. So I congratulate Grower magazine, particularly on its food miles articles. I photocopied many of them and sent them to people in Britain, especially to Kiwis living in Britain, saying: “Hey, here is a really good counter to that fuel - food miles argument. Leave them lying around in your supermarket, please.” So I congratulate the authority on that and on the name changes.

I also note that there are considerable changes to the Veterinarians Act. I note that there were only two submissions on this bill, but I am pretty sure that one of them would have been from the Veterinary Association because it is, once again, a very active organisation. As I come from the Waikato I am very, very aware of the tremendous contribution that veterinarians make to our society in keeping our animals alive and well. People are putting a lot more money into their animals because they are much more valuable now than they used to be. Veterinarians are highly valued, especially in the dairy industry. I trust that the association did make a submission, and, obviously, that it has agreed with the changes in this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2).

As I say, the bill seems very routine and technical, but many of these changes are very, very important, otherwise they would not be made. Some of the changes are made because, as we have seen, technology catches up and the language has to catch up with modern times, so Acts have to change. Sometimes other Acts change and, in order to keep Acts of Parliament consistent with each other, changes have to be made in Statutes Amendment bills.

However, I remember that some time ago there was a recommendation that Statutes Amendment bills should say a little bit more in their headings about what they are about. A Statutes Amendment Bill is about amendments to statutes, but which ones? There was a suggestion some time ago that these bills should have a little bit more in their title in order to explain them, so that they are easier to trace, easier to follow, and so on. We could not possibly include every Act that a Statutes Amendment Bill changes, but there should be something in the bill’s title that is more indicative as to what the bill is about.

But once again, I give a big thanks to the select committee, to all the people who advised the select committee, and to the staff who worked in this regard. I commend the passage of the bill.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker—

Russell Fairbrother: Oh, this will be good!

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I hope it will be good for Mr Fairbrother’s sake, because a number of important matters need to be stated tonight. The first is that sometimes people say Statutes Amendment bills are nothing more than pettifogging trivia, and, indeed, I suppose in some circumstances they could be. None the less, as the previous speaker Dianne Yates said, they are important. They pick up errors that should have been detected some time ago. The obvious example of that is Part 3 of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), which deals with the Crimes Act. That was a piece of sloppy drafting that should have been dealt with 20 years ago. Another example of sloppiness is in the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995. Again, that is another amendment that should have been dealt with at the time the Evidence Act 2006 was being dealt with in this House.

There are a couple of other statutory amendments to Acts that particularly interest me, about which I will say something in a few minutes—minor changes to the District Courts Act 1947, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, and the Summary Proceedings Act of 1957. It is all very worthy stuff, and, as previous speakers have said, not things that need detain this House for more than a few minutes.

But it seems to me that an enormous amount of effort is put into a Statutes Amendment bill. If only the same effort was put into other legislation. As the Minister of Health would doubtless say when evading questions—and incisive questions at that—from my friend the member for Bay of Plenty, “Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.” That is a quote from Horace that essentially says: “The mountains labour and a ridiculous mouse is born.” In fact, when I think of that quote, I think it would probably be beyond Mr Cunliffe, who rarely gets beyond trite expressions such as inter alia. The point I am trying to make is this: an enormous amount of effort goes into this kind of miscellaneous statute, but the same effort does not go into legislation that could have an enormous impact on the nation’s criminal procedure.

Let us look at the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) again. Part 3 deals with the Crimes Act of 1961, yet the Criminal Procedure Bill also deals with important issues under that statute. In regard to the District Courts Act 1947, the Criminal Procedure Bill deals with questions there, too. Again, in regard to the Summary Proceedings Act of 1957, the Criminal Procedure Bill deals with issues there.

So while this useless Government spends an enormous amount of time on minor pieces of legislation contained in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2), it does absolutely nothing with very important legislation that has languished at number 17 on the Order Paper for many, many months—that is, the Criminal Procedure Bill in the name of the Hon Annette King, Minister of Justice. Now, that is a piece of legislation that amends a number of statutes and on which a lot of work ought to be put in. It is legislation that significantly reforms criminal procedure to provide, for example, trial by judge alone in exceptional circumstances. It deals with the issues of double jeopardy, majority verdicts, the codification of criminal disclosure, and the partial abolition of preliminary hearings. One particular change is contained in Part 3 of that bill and deals with the District Courts Act 1947. That, if passed, would create huge improvements in the High Court jurisdiction, because so many of those methamphetamine trials would be able to be dealt with in the District Court.

So what does the Government do with an exquisite lack of sense of priority? It pushes through legislation like the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) but does nothing about the Criminal Procedure Bill, which, as I said, is languishing at item 17 on the Order Paper, yet the criminal bar, the judges, and society generally are crying out for that bill to be given some attention. It is one of those unfortunate things that we deal with this minor stuff with some urgency. We give the minor stuff priority but we do not pay the attention we should to legislation like the Criminal Procedure Bill. I think that is a source of great regret. I would ask someone who is reasonably sensible on the Government side, a very rare bird on the Government side—well, Mr Fairbrother actually, when talking about criminal matters—to stand and explain to the House why it is that this useless Government can spend so much time on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2) but give no priority whatsoever to the Criminal Procedure Bill. I invite either Mr Burton, who was the Minister responsible for this legislation, or Mr Fairbrother to take the next call and perhaps explain this rather sad event to the House.

NATHAN GUY (National) : Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker. Congratulations on your recent appointment as Assistant Speaker, and I wish you well for your upcoming trip. I will make just a small contribution on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill went to the Government Administration Committee in September last year, and there are 14 Acts amended in it. I will make a small contribution to what I think are very, very important parts of this bill.

In particular, when we are talking about Part 6, which amends the Fisheries Act 1996, I want to highlight how the permit moratorium is currently not subject to the quota management system. At the moment the moratorium could actually lift part way through the fishing year, which ends or starts on 1 October. Currently there could be a lot of fish caught in the small period leading up to 1 October so, in essence, there is a good amendment to ensure the system is in place and that the fishing stock is sustainable.

The other contribution I will make is on Part 14 of the bill, which amends the Veterinarians Act 2005. This will, in effect, give the Veterinary Council more power, which is very important. In this House we probably do not appreciate the good job that veterinarians do around the country. Currently we have a shortage of veterinarians in New Zealand, and the Labour Government is having to spend tens of thousands of dollars trying to attract them into New Zealand because we are not training enough of them. Government representatives are over at recruitment expos in the United Kingdom, trying to attract veterinarians into the country.

The significant point in this amendment is that the Veterinary Council will have more powers. In essence, it will be a bit like a warrant of fitness regime. It will streamline the process when veterinarians are between graduation and registering and that is very, very good. But I come back to the significant point. Although the primary sector—particularly the dairy sector—is booming, we have a shortage of male veterinary students who are needed to deal with the big bovine animals. Currently there is a higher proportion of females coming through that course at Massey University.

This is a 14-Act amendment bill that is supported by the National Party, and we recognise the good work that the Government Administration Committee did under the very hard-working chair, Shane Ardern.

• Bill read a second time.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Tourism) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I move, That the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill introduces amendments to the current data-matching processes for social assistance, to achieve three positive outcomes. Firstly, they will allow the Ministry of Social Development to prevent people from accumulating debt. This is a positive move, because repayment of debt is a considerable burden on people with low incomes. This Government recognises the negative impact that debt can have on people, and through this bill is taking a positive step towards reducing debt in one area—that of benefit overpayments. Too much debt inhibits the ability of people to enjoy life and it restricts their ability to participate in their communities. It can have negative impacts on the health and education of children, especially those living in overcrowded or substandard housing as a result of a family struggling to repay debts. We need to take what steps we can to lessen these impacts.

The bill introduces amendments that will allow the Ministry of Social Development to immediately suspend benefits, student allowances, and the living component of student loans when a data match indicates that a recipient is in prison. A person in prison does not qualify for these payments. The changes set out in this bill allow benefit payments to be stopped in a timely way. This change will help prevent overpayments, which in turn reduces debt.

At present, when there is a positive data match, the ministry has to write to the person and wait for 5 working days before taking any action to stop payment. This wait can result in a person being overpaid, and therefore the creation of a debt. The bill will allow for the suspension of benefits and allowances from the date the person enters prison, and written notice will be issued at the same time. Benefits are paid in arrears, so in most cases the suspension will not be immediate. There will still be time for the person to contact the ministry if an error has been made. In addition, where the person entering prison has a partner, the ministry will separately write to that partner to ensure that any appropriate support required by the family members not in prison can be provided. The result of the more timely suspension of benefits will be that the debts that prisoners face when they are released will be significantly reduced. Lower debt levels make it easier for rehabilitation to occur and also lessen the possibility of a person’s reoffending. Secondly, the amendments will allow more effective recovery of debt, where this has occurred.

The bill will allow more effective use of data matches already in place between the ministry and three other Government agencies—the Accident Compensation Corporation, the New Zealand Customs Service, and the Department of Corrections. The bill will allow for the information provided by these agencies to be matched against the records of people with a debt who are no longer receiving a benefit. Contact can then be made and recovery arrangements put in place, where appropriate. This enhanced use of information will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of existing processes that support debt recovery.

Last, but by no means least, the amendments will allow early detection of the misuse of the social security, student allowance, and student loan systems by broadening data-matching provisions. The bill provides for the information currently provided when a person enters prison to continue to be provided as long as the person remains in prison. This will allow an application for benefit, student loan, or student allowance from a person in prison to be detected quickly.

This change will not make it more difficult for prisoners to undertake studies to improve their prospects on release. Prisoners will continue to have the same access to assistance with study costs. It is the assistance for student living costs that will be restricted. The change simply puts in place systems to more clearly identify applications for student allowances and living costs from people whose living costs are being met from the corrections system. The combination of the amendments set out in this bill will help to ensure integrity and proper use of Crown moneys, and this will serve to increase confidence in the administration of the benefit system.

I appreciate that people are concerned about the possibility that an incorrect match could result in the suspension of a person’s benefit, in error. In taking a more proactive approach to the suspension of benefits, the Government has had to balance the individual’s right to take time to reply against the need to act quickly to prevent debt. Although I acknowledge concern about incorrect matches, the Ministry of Social Development has safeguards in place to ensure that if this happens, there is minimal impact on the person concerned. Up to a week before payment is scheduled to cease, affected people will receive a letter informing them that their benefit has been suspended. This will give them the opportunity to have their benefit reinstated before actually missing a payment. In addition, when the ministry is alerted that a payment has been wrongly stopped, the money will be put into the person’s bank account overnight.

The Social Services Committee has recommended that a new provision be inserted to make it clear that the ministry can still allow the 5 days to pass before taking any action, when this is appropriate. I appreciate the committee’s insight in this regard. Having this discretion is important. For example, it allows time for the ministry to clarify that the correct person has been identified when there is a partial or inconclusive match. The committee has also recommended a number of other minor changes to the bill. These changes are positive and reflect the committee’s expertise in this area.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the select committee members for their work, which has improved and clarified a relatively technical bill. The Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill will help reduce debt and help ensure that money goes to the people who need it and are entitled to receive it. The bill reflects this Government’s commitment to helping low-income people towards a better future, and represents the efficient and effective use of technology, time, and money. I commend this bill to the House.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : It is very nice to follow the Minister the Hon Damien O’Connor, who made a very worthy and workmanlike speech, with no flourish or excitement, as is appropriate. Frankly, the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill has been a long time coming. There have been 9 long years of a Labour Government, and in that time beneficiary debt—owed to Work and Income—has increased from about $320 million to $760 million now. That is three-quarters of a billion dollars owed by beneficiaries to Work and Income.

This little bill, which the National Party supports, could have helped to reduce that debt and to stop it getting into that situation. Not all of the debt is from people defrauding the system. Quite often it is because there has been an overpayment by Work and Income, or sometimes it is simply a matter of a beneficiary or a beneficiary’s family failing to report to Work and Income that the benefit is no longer required or that the person is no longer eligible for it.

Just a matter of 2 weeks’ owing on a benefit can be a huge amount for a beneficiary, because in most cases we are talking about people who have very, very little, and who effectively have to live week by week. To say to them “Well, it doesn’t matter, you can just pay it back.” or “We overpaid you.” is a pretty harsh call. Certainly, I have had beneficiaries in my electorate office in Papakura who have said just how hard it is—and I can well believe it.

Then, of course, the amount owing is reduced by payments of $10 a week, and this goes on and on. Effectively, people are getting further and further into poverty because when they had that extra cash they thought “Gosh, I can go and spend it.”

Unfortunately, we have had the Government and Government agencies contributing to the situation—in fact, encouraging many beneficiaries to get into debt by the very slack attitude that the Government and Government agencies have taken.

I have welcomed, in the select committee process, the Government actually acknowledging that beneficiary debt is a problem. I know that the issue has come about because National members and other people in this Parliament have made it an issue. We do not think it is fair for beneficiaries to owe three-quarters of a billion dollars—

Hon David Carter: Saddled with debt.

JUDITH COLLINS: —and to be saddled with debt. These people have the least ability to repay it. They are saddled with that debt and suddenly find they cannot get out of it. And half of that money is actually owed by former beneficiaries, so it is not even being deducted each week. About half of it, in fact, is owed by former beneficiaries, so even once beneficiaries have gone back into work, they have found it impossible to be able to pay back that interest-free money provided by the taxpayer.

This is a terrible situation, and clearly this Government has done very, very little about it. It has obviously felt that it was a good thing to keep giving people interest-free loans from the taxpayer, with no particular need to repay them at any stage, other than by a $10-a-week payment. Of course, the Government does not really worry about what happens to these people. The Government does not really worry about it; it thinks it will all sort itself out and that people might as well go and get that money because it is free. Well, nothing is free. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and anybody who pays his or her taxes knows that.

All those many beneficiaries have been encouraged into debt by a Government that cares more about securing votes than it does about securing the benefit and well-being of beneficiaries and their families, about helping them into homeownership, and about helping them to get into the sort of work environment where they can get ahead. Half of that $760 million is still owed by former beneficiaries; people who are in work. It is owed right now to Work and Income.

Frankly, this is a bill that we have been pleased to see finally come through. It is a matter of a few pages. National has supported it all the way through. We have helped to alleviate some of the difficulties that could have occurred. We have made comments about the minimisation of hardship to families. We have made comments, and supported comments made in the select committee, regarding how families who find that a family member has been put in prison can in fact know about it, can understand, and can access the right benefit so they themselves do not end up getting further and further into debt.

We have a Government agency, Work and Income, within the Ministry of Social Development, that is huge. It is huge; it has 9,000 employees and it spends $18 billion of taxpayer money a year. It is an agency that is much better able to look after its own money, to stop overpaying people when they should not be paid, which gets people into debt, and to stop doing the awful thing of telling them about 6 months later they have to repay their debts after they have already spent the money. That is a very cruel thing to happen.

So in essence and in conclusion, National is pleased to support the bill. It has been an awfully long time coming, when all the Government had to do was give us a call on the phone and we would have helped it out straight away—which of course we did as soon as we knew of it.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) : It is my pleasure as chair of the Social Services Committee to follow the deputy chair, Judith Collins, and her latest version, the 2008 version, of beneficiary bashing. That speaker’s coded speech was “We’re out to get beneficiaries; we’re going to take the benefit system back to 1992 when benefits were slashed.” They were slashed to save Government spending, and slashed so that the then Government’s rich mates could avoid paying more tax.

That was the coded message from the last speaker. She was trying to dance on the head of a pin, in order to avoid saying “We want to hit beneficiaries whenever we can.” This is a great example. If this bill is misused it will be another attack on beneficiaries. Well, this bill will not be misused, because it will be administered by Government departments led by Ministers who have hearts committed to social justice.

The people of New Zealand need to realise that if they have a change of Government in some future time, they will give away social justice for the extraction of a few dollars of tax benefit. That is what that last speaker was warbling on about in her tremulous voice, as she avoided the issue at hand.

Judith Collins: Ha, ha!

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: I was trying to say “lightweight” nicely. This bill is really about one piece of legislation called the Social Security Act 1964, and that Act feeds through this bill into three other pieces of legislation: the Corrections Act 2004, the Customs and Excise Act 1996, and the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act 2001. Each of those three Acts relates to the Social Security Act 1964, in that they all give away a degree of privacy that is owned by the beneficiary. The Social Security Act enables data matching to take place with the greater resources of knowledge of the Ministry of Social Development about the status of an individual, to make sure that when an individual’s status changes, either by going into prison or by leaving the country and going overseas—which is where the Customs and Excise Act comes into it—there is no continued payment of a benefit when the eligibility to receive the benefit stops.

The Social Security Act is not really a beneficent Act to try to stop people from getting into debt, nor is it a punitive Act trying to penalise beneficiaries; it is a morally neutral Act that is a movement towards greater efficiency. I note that when my very good friend, the last speaker, Judith Collins, spoke at the first reading of this bill, she adopted an oxymoron as an argument, which she did not dare repeat tonight. But on that occasion, which she touched on tonight, she said that this bill had been 8 long years coming and that it had involved many hundreds of millions of dollars of computer systems to get here. Of course, she admits that we could not have data matching until this Government brought up to date the computerised infrastructure of Government departments so that they could work well.

This Government, in 1999, inherited a hotchpotch of computer systems, with no investment in infrastructure, and we could not match data. It has taken 8 years for this Government to be in a position where it can even operate efficiently, and the people of New Zealand will ignore that to their ultimate regret.

It is a simple fact that a boat cannot be turned around in a few seconds. To turn the ship of State around to a state of efficiency has taken 8 short years. We as a Labour Government can now start delivering the benefits of social policy and social conscience—the social contract we have with the voters of New Zealand.

This legislation is a prime example of that. People talk about it being a short piece of legislation. I tell Mr Finlayson not to confuse size with quality.

Christopher Finlayson: What?

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: I wanted to wake up the member; that was all. This legislation tidies up the whole benefit system. I do not really place much emphasis on the argument that it benefits beneficiaries and stops them getting into debt. It also benefits the State because it stops overpayment of benefits. The legislation is simply neutral legislation that ties in the status of beneficiaries with the needs of the State to make sure that when benefits are paid, they go to those who qualify, and when people stop qualifying, the benefits stop.

However, the select committee was concerned about the erosion of privacy in the three pieces of legislation—the Corrections Act, administered by the prison service; the Customs and Excise Act, administered by the Customs Service; and the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act, administered by the Accident Compensation Corporation—and that the concession of privacy contained by the amendment of this bill was covered by data matching and the 5-day notification period, which were touched upon by the Minister in his second reading speech. So that allows an opportunity for a beneficiary to be aware of what is going on and to make any necessary corrections, should, for some reason, the data matching be based on some wrong premise.

But the Social Services Committee uttered in its report a word of warning—and I think that it is worth repeating for the record—that when individuals are sentenced to imprisonment, people often think that that is a matter of glee for everybody, but the passing of a sentence of imprisonment is one of the most sombre acts a judge has to undertake in a court. Many fine judges have said that the passing of a sentence is often, and usually, much more onerous than any trial process, particularly if imprisonment is involved. The passing of a sentence of imprisonment is traumatic for all in the court, and no more so than for prisoners and their families.

The select committee report recommends that Work and Income representatives be in court whenever possible so that they can speak to families concerned and explain the process that happens from the time of the passing of a sentence. It is at that time when families are at their most vulnerable, when their minds and emotions are running with a confusion of feelings, and when there are conflicting emotions—concern often for the victims of crime and for themselves, and despair for their loved one and their supportive one. That is the time when someone from Work and Income can sit down and with a cool head say “Well, your benefit change occurs now, and let’s talk about how we can help you through the transition period.”

The recommendation of the committee was that Work and Income become proactive, as proactive as the computer system will be, to make sure that at these times of transition, when people go to prison or leave to go overseas, which is a different situation entirely, the benefit stops appropriately and that the indebtedness that may occur does not occur.

The concern of the committee was really to minimise hardship to beneficiaries. The majority on the committee did not set out to engage in any form of benefit-bashing enterprise. We accept that the payment of benefits is an act by the State. It is not based on charity but is the right of individuals to support from the State. There is a degree of trust involved. Most individuals who receive benefits—in fact, the vast majority—adhere to that trust very, very well. There are a very, very small few who bring the majority into discredit. That very small number of individuals who approach their receipt of a benefit with a degree of distrust is exaggerated by Opposition members, who use those individuals as a punching bag to demonstrate that beneficiaries should be penalised by cuts and more stringent measures.

For anybody to say that this legislation is an attack upon beneficiaries, as was referred to by Dr Pita Sharples—a man whom I respect considerably—in his first reading speech, is to misunderstand the purpose of this bill we are addressing today in its second reading. It is a morally neutral bill. It is now possible because after 8 years of trying to bring the infrastructure of this country to a state where we can be proactive and start to achieve real policy, this bill reflects the ability of the various Government departments to work cooperatively for the benefit of those who receive benefits, and the taxpayers as well.

This is very tidy legislation. It does have a human element to it, but essentially it is technical legislation that reflects the very efficient computer systems that are now established in our Government departments. There is a nice data-matching process that can proceed by the slight release of confidentiality that beneficiaries have under the three Acts I have already referred to.

I commend this legislation to the House. I thank the Social Services Committee for its attention to the detail involved in this legislation, and particularly for the humane approach that all members on the committee took to this issue and for their very full consideration of the privacy issues that are involved. One should never underestimate their importance.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : I am grateful for the opportunity to support the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill on behalf of National. Of course, we are supporting it because this is one of the first times we have seen this Labour Government make some gesture towards being serious about the mounting debts we have in the system.

It was quite extraordinary to hear Mr Fairbrother claim that the Labour Government is operating efficiently. Clearly, he is in total denial. In respect of the raw data, I tell member that when Labour came into office, beneficiary debt owed by beneficiaries to the then Department of Social Welfare was in the order of $320 million, and it has more than doubled in these 7 to 8 short years that Mr Fairbrother was talking about. That is disgraceful. That shows no signal whatsoever that the Labour Government is operating efficiently.

We have just been hearing Mr Fairbrother wax lyrical about the computer systems that this Government—[Interruption] That is none other than the chair of the select committee; I refer him to Project Socrates in the disability sector, or perhaps the system of Tribal Education Ltd in the Ministry of Education. I ask any of the users of those computer systems whether they are working efficiently. They will tell us that the systems are an abysmal failure, and that users are very doubtful about whether the Labour Government is investing wisely. Certainly, it is not implementing efficiently.

I was also interested to hear Russell Fairbrother say that this was a morally neutral bill. We heard the views of the Privacy Commissioner, who said that her office does not oppose the proposal to override section 103 of the Privacy Act, but it does note that this section provides a basic protection of the principle of natural justice when Government agencies operate automated information-matching systems. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner was deeply concerned about the balance there. But there is no doubt that the bill itself does make efforts to minimise hardship when incorrect data-matching occurs.

I will end by saying that the real emphasis is that at long last the Labour Government, in its dying days, is bringing in a bill to minimise debt and bring about debt prevention. This is long overdue. It is an absolutely classic example of just how hopeless this Labour Government has been in terms of looking after taxpayers’ money, and, of course, in looking after beneficiaries. During this time the Government has allowed beneficiaries, who are vulnerable enough as it is, to get into a huge amount of debt—$760 million worth. As I understand it, Peter Hughes mentioned a few years ago that 49 percent of beneficiaries were in debt to Work and Income, but now the figure is 70 percent. So when Russell Fairbrother has the gall to suggest that this Government is operating efficiently, he is in total denial.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) : On behalf of New Zealand First I rise to support the second reading of the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill. We are very pleased to be supporting this bill. It is one that we would have thought was already in place, but because it is not we are very pleased to see it occurring at long last. I think that this bill particularly reflects the efficiency of the computer systems that are available today. We know that technology is advancing quite rapidly in all areas, and it is good to see this bill in place and this data matching occurring.

I note that the bill amends the legislation between the Ministry of Social Development, the Department of Corrections, the New Zealand Customs Service, and the Accident Compensation Corporation. As the commentary on the bill states, more sharing between these organisations is expected to prevent the recipients of student allowances, student loans, and those on benefits from accumulating debt. This legislation should do that. I think most people in New Zealand would have been quite horrified to hear that 70 percent of beneficiaries are in debt today.

The bill also introduces measures to help recover the debt that beneficiaries owe to the Crown, and that is really important. Any changes that can be used to prevent overpayments in order to reduce debts need to be implemented. If technology can assist, then we need to grab it with both hands and use it to its fullest extent. New Zealand First supports the notion that every person should receive his or her full and correct entitlements from the State, and would support assistance with the recovery of Crown debts. We know that debts can become rapidly unmanageable, and the fact that one is on a limited income means that debt can mount very quickly. It can take a long time to pay back any debts that are owing, and, of course, there is a lot of stress associated with debt. It is an unfortunate fact that pawn shops, second-hand dealers, and unscrupulous money dealers are often the very first places that beneficiaries go to when they need money to repay debts, and this can create far greater challenges than the ones they had initially. The deals that seem too good to be true—and we see them advertised on television and in many of the community newspapers—are often far too good to be true. The short-term problems disappear, but further down the track the problems are often magnified beyond our comprehension, and, of course, this can be very stressful for those who are involved.

We in this House all know that it can be extremely difficult to manage on a benefit and, with the rises in the cost of living, to have to repay a debt of $10 to $15 a week is an added stress. To ensure that the debt is not incurred in the first place is absolutely imperative. We all know that being over-indebted has a negative effect on people’s health and well-being, and that it can also reduce the financial advantages of returning to work. As we know, and as everyone knows, levels of repayment are often reduced while a person remains on a benefit, so we have a whole group of people who may be staying in poverty unnecessarily.

We were also pleased to see that changes focused on minimising hardship were included in this bill. They are important. We feel very sorry for beneficiaries who get into this downward spiral of debt unintentionally and unnecessarily, so we in New Zealand First support this legislation. Any measure that stops this type of hardship is very worthy of our support.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) : I stand tonight to speak to the second reading of the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill. This bill addresses the detection and recovery of debts and the misuse of social security payments, student allowances, and the student loan system, and it seeks to improve and broaden data-matching provisions.

This bill is really simple. It affects anybody who has broken the law and goes to prison. When those people who go into prison are receiving a student loan, a student allowance, or some type of benefit, be it a sickness benefit or an unemployment benefit, they are not entitled to that benefit while they are in prison. It is as simple as that. Currently what happens is that prisoners can say voluntarily that they are receiving a benefit, they will be matched off, and the benefit will stop. But, obviously, there is a flaw in the system currently, which is that it is voluntary. Not many of the prisoners who are on a benefit go through and volunteer this information. There is a delay in the time matched to the benefit they receive, which then means that an overpayment has been made. When those people come out of prison there is an overpayment, a debt, that is then owed by them to the Ministry of Social Development and Work and Income.

This is not a new issue; it has been around for a very, very long time, and only in 2008 is it now being addressed. Basically, it is very simple legislation that matches data. It allows databases to be matched between the Ministry of Social Development, the Department of Corrections, the Customs Service, and the Accident Compensation Corporation. It matches the prisoner to the database so that the agency stops the payment from being made. It is as simple as that.

I am taking just a short call tonight to say that National supports this bill. We think that it is a step in the right direction, and it is just a shame that this bill has come so late.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Kia ora, Madam Assistant Speaker; kia ora tātou e te Whare. We can tell it is election year, because everybody is jumping on the law and order bandwagon, condemning the rise in crime and attacking the criminal justice system. We have been witness to a number of highly charged political reactions to the homicides so far in 2008, including a whole tool box of answers ranging from boot camps, to lowering the age of criminal responsibility, to keeping kids in school until they are 18, to locking up the parents. New Zealand’s youngest killer has once again been pushed into the media spotlight because of his impending parole in September, after 7 years’ incarceration in various youth institutions. The victim’s mother has spoken out, and Victim Support says that the key focus for election year must be on strengthening the rights of victims in the criminal justice system. It would appear that everyone is targeting criminal justice as an issue to grab headlines and votes.

So it is that we come to the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill, which is using prisoners to trial a range of increased surveillance and monitoring strategies. Why is it using prisoners? Well, because they are a captive audience, and because most people do not like them, anyway. Yet the truth is that the overall crime rate is actually dropping. Last year there were 102 recorded offences for every 1,000 people, compared with 128 in 1997. But if we listened to all the doomsayers, then we would think that Aotearoa was the most crime-infested den of dishonesty in the Western World. Mind you, the fraud statistics are nothing to shout about, though. In 2005 nearly 20,000 cases of fraud were brought before the courts. There were 12,000 cases of white-collar fraud and only 8,000 cases of benefit fraud, but to nobody’s surprise this bill targets benefit fraud, because beneficiaries are easier to dump on and because within that group prisoners are quite literally a captive audience.

The purpose of this bill is to stop payouts to beneficiaries who go to jail, by hooking them into the Big Brother computer system—that is, matching information between the Department of Corrections, the Customs Service, the Accident Compensation Corporation, and the Ministry of Social Development and suspending any benefits, allowances, and student loans immediately if a data match is identified. Although that all sounds OK, we are talking about people here: brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunties, uncles, and whānau members who are, in many cases, the sole breadwinner of the family. Whole families are being dumped on by snooping bills like this one. The Ministry of Social Development confirms cases where the families of prisoners are hugely affected by shock interruptions to benefit payments, and it says that the fault lies with the families for not contacting it immediately. It blames the poor, dumb victims again, which is typical behaviour from a Government that does not care about the poor. It is not as though Work and Income never causes hardship itself. The only difference in that situation is, of course, that when we complain about Work and Income we are trespassed off the premises, it ignores our complaints, and we never get our money back, anyway.

A study released earlier this year, Improving Work-Life Balance for Domestic Purposes Beneficiary Sole Parent Families, included a number of comments that confirm what we hear from people about the hassles they get at Work and Income. It quotes people like Amelia, who said: “The way I have been treated at Work and Income is just shocking. They look down on you”; Beatrice, who said: “It’s just the way they treat the person. They look down on you as … like a bludger. It makes you feel uncomfortable”; and Marie, who said: “I actually feel sick in my stomach every time I have to walk in their door. Some of them make you feel unworthy”. Even the principal of our local kura kaupapa Māori, who went to Work and Income looking for an employee, felt so chastised and ignored by the process that she decided never ever to go back to Work and Income again to look for somebody to work at our kura.

This is a Government department we are talking about here; an agency of the Crown that is supposed to provide fair and just treatment to the beneficiaries who come through its doors. But it is not doing that. We have a right to expect far better service than that shown by the experiences that I have related to the House tonight.

Another issue identified by the Social Services Committee itself is that income support may be improperly suspended as a result of data matching, without the families being notified, because of a policy that the notification of benefit suspension will now happen after the suspension has been acted on, not before, as happens at the moment. That problem is already happening, and it will simply become worse under this legislation. We express our concern for upholding the human rights of all citizens of this great land, including those in jail. We do not support the notion of targeting prisoners through increased surveillance simply because they are prisoners. Being locked up is the punishment. Punishing prisoners a second time by depriving them of their human rights is unacceptable in an open society. We are also concerned about prisoners being deprived of the opportunity to study, given that student loans and student allowances are included in this bill as well as other forms of assistance.

We accept that information sharing can reduce bureaucracy and may help people to be not saddled with debt while they are in jail, but we believe inmates and their families should not be left in a worse position simply because of poor communication. We support the call of the select committee that all efforts should be made to ensure that the potential hardship for other family members is minimised and that families are not saddled with debt when the imprisoned family member gets out of jail. The Māori Party will support this bill, but we point out again the invasive nature of data matching and the focus on the poor, when in actual fact the most significant fraud continues outside the prison walls. Kia ora.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) : I am very happy to speak today in support of the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill. This is a very sensible and common-sense bill. It is intended to—

Christopher Finlayson: What does it provide?

LYNNE PILLAY: The member knows what the bill provides, and if he sits quietly and listens, I will tell him about it. The bill works very hard to enable prisoners to not incur debts while in prison through some mistake in payments, whether it is to do with benefits, loans, or allowances. I think that is a very sensible thing. I heard Russell Fairbrother say before that when people are in prison it puts stress and anxiety on their families. Indeed, to have debt mounting—and debt mounting through mistake—is not a good thing, and it would certainly add to the stress of those families. So I think there are some very good, common-sense moves in this bill.

I think it is very important to note that this bill will not change the rules for prisoners wanting to take up study whilst in prison. It will not make it difficult for prisoners to undertake study to improve their prospects on release. That is a very important thing. Prisoners will continue—

Christopher Finlayson: Why?

LYNNE PILLAY: The member asks why it is important. That is the sort of question I would expect from Chris Finlayson. Someone who works in the law profession asked why it is important that prisoners have the opportunity to study in prison. Well, I will tell him. It is important because it gives prisoners options and opportunities when they leave prison. Under this bill prisoners will continue to have the same access to assistance with study course costs as if they were out of prison; it is assistance for student living costs that will be restricted. That means that for prisoners the right to assistance with course costs is not taken away. The change simply puts in place systems to identify clearly applications for student allowances and living costs, because for prisoners living costs will be met at that time through the corrections system.

The other thing, which I do not know whether other speakers have mentioned, is the very constructive suggestion from the Social Services Committee about having Work and Income representatives at court. Madam Assistant Speaker, I think I saw you nodding rather wisely there. I think this is the first time I have spoken in this House since you have been in the Chair—

Phil Heatley: Since your maiden speech.

LYNNE PILLAY: —and it is a real privilege. No, it is not since my maiden speech, as that member well knows. I think the select committee commented that it was very concerned that some circumstances might prevent beneficiaries who are entering prison from receiving notification that their benefits were to be cut as a result of a data match. The suggestion was that Work and Income consider placing representatives at major courts to adjust the benefits immediately when a recipient is imprisoned. This would serve to prevent any stress whatsoever to family members and, obviously, it would be the system working in a very logical way.

This bill is very important. In amending the legislation it allows a better sharing of information between the Ministry of Social Development, the Department of Corrections, the New Zealand Customs Service, and the Accident Compensation Corporation. We know that this better sharing of information will prevent recipients of allowances, loans, and benefits from accumulating debt. As I said before, that is a very sensible, common-sense move. I think that the support for this bill certainly reflects that. I am very happy to stand in this House and commend this bill. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

• Bill read a second time.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : It has been quite a while since we discussed the Human Tissue Bill; I believe it was in November last year. To recap, the bill will replace the Human Tissue Act 1964. It is quite an old Act, and it is time it was updated. At the same time that the Health Committee looked at the Human Tissue Bill, it looked at my member’s bill, the Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill. Unfortunately that bill did not get the support of the committee, and in Part 3 of the Human Tissue Bill there is a provision for an organ donor register for a future Government to bring in if it feels one is necessary.

To me that is not satisfactory. I believe there is a need for an organ donor register. At the moment we have Organ Donation New Zealand, which looks after the retrieval of organs throughout New Zealand. We have had terribly low organ donor rates in New Zealand, and although they seem to be picking up we are still way back from where we were a few years ago. It seems to me we are not making much progress, and without a register where people can indicate their wishes for where their organs are to go after death, there is no framework for an informed consent process. That is basically what this bill is all about; it gives a consent framework in which the individual’s wishes, if they meet the definition of informed consent, are given primacy. I think we are no better off. We will only be treading water and waiting for time and waiting for organ donor rates that might improve a little. But really we are going backwards. We have a diabetes epidemic, we have a tidal wave of renal failure coming our way, we have hepatitis issues, and we have end-stage liver failure problems, and so forth.

I will digress a little. In the news today there has been the story of an 18-year-old woman with a young baby who wishes to donate part of her liver to her young child, a baby who has a liver disorder. By the time the child is 3 years of age she will need an organ donor. Although this is a live organ donation, this bill is about deceased donor organs. I make the point that it is never too late to review the situation. In the Auckland transplant unit the ethics committee was very careful 7 years ago when the unit first started to do this organ donation procedure, and the ethics committee decided that 21 should be the age for consent. This liver donation procedure is now pretty much standard 7 years on, and I think it is time to review that age of consent. I hope the doctors will go back to the ethics committee and ask for some discretion on moving downwards to age 18. I hope that will happen quite quickly so that this young woman can donate part of her liver in order to save her baby’s life. I think that is all about the primacy of an individual’s wishes, and about moving forward. I make that point just to show that it is never too late to go back and review something.

In the UK, Gordon Brown has come out and said “Look, they need presumed consent.” That is a step further than the voluntary, opt-on register that I proposed in my member’s bill. So the UK is not reinventing the wheel; it is actually going further than what I proposed. I do not believe New Zealand is ready for a presumed consent register, but I think we desperately need an organ donor register so we can have an informed consent process. I keep coming back to that. This whole bill is about providing a consent framework where an individual’s wishes, if they meet the definition of informed consent, are given primacy. Basically, without an organ donor register there is no way an individual can give informed consent or dictate to people what that person wishes to do with his or her organs, unless he or she has some sort of living will or hopes that the relatives will do the right thing by him or her after death. Some people do not have a family. It is a very private decision, and those people may want to keep it to themselves. I keep coming back to the fact that without an organ donor register, people have no way of registering their consent.

That is probably all I have to say, and to sum it up, I am very unhappy about the situation.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 155 in the name of the Hon Pete Hodgson to Part 3 be agreed to.

• Amendments agreed to.

• Part 3 as amended agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): The amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 156 in the name of the Hon Tariana Turia are out of order.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : I would like to talk about the title of the Human Tissue Bill. This bill is very comprehensive. The Health Committee took a long time and there were a lot of submissions on it. As I said before, we looked at this bill as well as the organ donation member’s bill. We had a lot of submissions on both bills. There were grave concerns, as I indicated, about the fact that an organ donor register was not supported by the Health Committee. The provision in Part 3 of the Human Tissue Bill basically gives an opening for a future Government to bring in a register, but the fact is that our organ donor rates have been appalling. They are picking up slowly at this point in time, but we are only really where we were 5 years ago. Without a mechanism whereby people can register whether they want to donate their organs after death, there is no informed consent process. Really, that is the basis of the whole bill, which the National Party absolutely supports. The desire of an individual to donate his or her organs should have primacy, and if a person follows an informed consent process that should be upheld at all costs.

I know that the Māori Party had concerns with regard to its own people. If a dead person was Māori, that party thought that the family should have primacy over determining where the person’s organs should go. When that was discussed in the Health Committee, we felt there were a number of clauses that covered the Māori Party’s concerns. They are, from memory, clauses 10C, 27C, and 37A. They all say similar things in different ways, but basically they say that the people taking the organs should take into consideration the cultural context of the donor and his or her family. That really is the out for Māori, and I think that will be respected. That is why those clauses are there. So I hope that in time the Māori Party will see that this legislation does work.

There were some other changes in the bill regarding matters that had to be exempted. We heard from CordBank, which is a private bank in Auckland that takes blood from the umbilical cord of babies. Umbilical cord blood is very rich in stem cells, which are very basic cells that can be turned into other cells over time. The treatment now for children who have blood cancers is that their stem cells can be used to help treat various types of blood cancer, if they go on to develop one of them. Of course, if the blood is chucked out at birth, it is lost. The blood cannot be used if it is discarded, and we cannot go back and get the stem cells. That blood is a rich source of stem cells. CordBank pays midwives or other individuals to collect the cord blood, and that is not allowed for in this bill, so a special exemption had to be made for CordBank.

We heard from universities that were very concerned that some aspects of the bill in its original format would have stopped all forms of research—they would have made it just too difficult. We heard from universities that were very concerned that research would come to a standstill because of the logistics that would be required to try to trace back informed consent to where the original cells had come from. Again, exemptions were made, and now, in the bill’s final form, universities can work comfortably in their research development.

The whole point of the bill is to cover the potential use of tissue that comes primarily from deceased people. It also covers the use of tissue for education, research, and audit purposes, and the use of cadavers in medical schools. It covers the regulation of the trade in tissue, both export and import, and also covers schools of anatomy. Certainly it allows for the provision of an opt-on organ donation register, if a future Government sees fit to introduce one.

I guess organ donation is a bee in my bonnet, but it is something I feel quite passionate about. We are left with Organ Donation New Zealand, which is doing its best in trying to upgrade the services around New Zealand. But we have no education programme. The public are passionate about this issue. Talkback is going mad about the young woman who wants to donate part of her liver to her young child. This is a live donation issue; it is about the right of an adult. Now this woman is 18, and when the ethics committee first started to look at this procedure it was very careful and wanted to tread very carefully, so it said the age should be 21. But 7 years on, when this procedure is now a standard practice, the committee should revisit that. The committee hopefully will go back, review that, and give the doctors some discretion, so that they can look at using a donation from an 18-year old woman.

JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) : I rise to take what will be just a brief call. My colleague Dr Jackie Blue has outlined in this debate on clauses 1 and 2 of the Human Tissue Bill a lot of the detail that we went into in the Health Committee. It was an arduous task, because for many of the committee and even for those of us with some form of history around the health professions, there was the issue of the technology: a lot of jargon, and a lot of things that we had to get our heads around in the bill.

I want to say just very briefly that this bill, I believe, has had a secondary effect that we may not have expected of it: a lot of publicity has been generated around not just this bill but also Dr Jackie Blue’s member’s bill. There has been a lot of debate about how important it is that New Zealanders who are able to donate their organs come forward and do so, and also that the one thing, in essence, that intending donors must do is to discuss their wishes with their nearest and dearest, the people around them. Those people need to understand the person’s wishes, so that in the unfortunate circumstance of the person becoming a potential donor, it is clear to all exactly what that person would have as his or her own particular wishes. This publicity, I understand, has meant a slight jump in the number of donors in the last year. The number of donors is nowhere near the number that New Zealand needs, whether they be live donors or people who have unfortunately died, but nevertheless there has been a small jump in that respect.

• Progress reported.

• Report adopted.