Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister for Biosecurity) : I move, That the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee, and that the committee present its final report on or before 17 March.

This bill will resolve issues arising from a Court of Appeal judgment. The effect of it was to create an unworkable legal framework for the management of biosecurity risks at the border. If the law is not amended, we will have an unworkable situation at the border. We will impede imports, and we will potentially be at risk of inconsistency with our World Trade Organization obligations.

To understand what this bill is about, we need to look at the risk caused by organisms coming into New Zealand. There are two main ways that an organism can arrive here. It can be deliberately imported, usually with the intention of putting it to some specified beneficial use. Alternatively, it can arrive incidentally, coming in with a legitimate import. For a very long time, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and its predecessor ministries managed the risk from organisms coming in with traded goods. The statutory basis for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s role is the Biosecurity Act, which was passed in 1993. It works like this. If so-called risk goods might bring harmful organisms into New Zealand, they have to comply with risk management conditions before they are cleared for entry. The conditions are set out in an import health standard and ensure that any risks are safely managed. That is the process for organisms that may come into New Zealand incidentally.

At one time the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry was also responsible for managing the risk of deliberately imported new organisms. That changed, however, when the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act was passed in 1996. The Act set up the Environmental Risk Management Authority to make decisions about deliberate imports of new organisms. The intention, when the legislation was going through the House, was that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry would continue to be responsible for managing risks from incidentally imported organisms. That is apparent from the report of the Committee on the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Bill. Unfortunately, the drafting of the legislation did not reflect that intention, and the Act does not make any distinction between deliberate importation and incidental importation. Instead, the Act simply states that no new organism shall be imported without approval from the Environmental Risk Management Authority. That very general wording in section 25 of the Act led to a Court of Appeal judgment that in turn has led to this bill.

The Court of Appeal judgment was issued in a case brought by the National Beekeepers’ Association of New Zealand. It challenged a Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry import health standard for the importation of honey from Australia. The grounds for the National Beekeepers’ Association’s challenge related to a micro-organism referred to as Paenibacillus alvei. This organism is present in Australia but is classed as a new organism in New Zealand under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Both parties agreed that the importation of Australian bee products will inevitably at some point in time lead to the introduction into New Zealand of Paenibacillus alvei. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry thoroughly researched Paenibacillus alvei, and concluded that it does not pose a risk to New Zealand.

The National Beekeepers’ Association’s case did not, in fact, challenge that conclusion. The association’s legal challenge was a jurisdictional one. It asked the court to decide whether the correct decision maker was the Environmental Risk Management Authority, under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, or the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, under the Biosecurity Act. In February last year the High Court found in favour of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, but the National Beekeepers’ Association of New Zealand appealed. In December the Court of Appeal decided that honey or other bee products from Australia containing Paenibacillus alvei may not be imported without biosecurity clearance under the Biosecurity Act and approval granted for new organisms under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The court also said “if there were other known new organisms which might incidentally be imported in other products then, as we interpret the legislation, approval for them would be required from ERMA.”

The conclusion of the Court of Appeal judgment is that all new organisms imported into New Zealand must have prior approval under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. This will occur regardless of whether they are being imported deliberately or incidentally. The result creates an unworkable legal framework for the management of biosecurity risks at the New Zealand border. It is unworkable because of the fundamental difference between setting risk management conditions for goods that may incidentally have new organisms on or in them versus approving the deliberate importation of a new organism. The risks posed by an organism being imported incidentally are very different from the risks posed by that same organism if it is imported deliberately in large quantities in order to establish it in our environment.

There are various processes in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Officials have thoroughly investigated it to see whether they could be used to manage incidentally imported organisms. They unanimously concluded that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act cannot be used in that way. Someone would need to meet the application costs; someone would need to prepare all the necessary information for an approval to import a new organism. Who is going to do that when no one has any desire to actually import that organism? Even if someone was prepared to fill out the paperwork, do the research, and bear the costs, the information needed to approve the organism may not exist. Anyway, any organism has to reach a required standard such that the benefits must exceed its negative effects. Since no one wants it here, it is highly unlikely that the organism could meet that standard; there would be no benefits. In addition, an enormous number of invisible micro-organisms enter the country on goods and even passengers and tourists every day. They do not pose a risk to New Zealand; however, many would be regarded as new organisms under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Requiring prior approval to import them would be completely impractical.

The court’s conclusion has implications for other Biosecurity Act import health standards. Most, if not all, risk goods imported into New Zealand in compliance with an import health standard have the potential to bring with them new organisms. As a result, other import health standards may be vulnerable to legal challenge. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has suspended issuing new import health standards or amending existing ones until the law can be changed. This suspension is preventing new lines of trade. It is causing frustration for trading partners and importers who were expecting to receive approval to commence imports. Countries affected include those in the EU, and the United States, Australia, and Japan. This cannot go on. Parliament needs to respond. The only solution to the unworkable legal framework created by the decision of the Court of Appeal is to amend the legislation. The court itself anticipated that outcome when it stated “If … administrative or practical difficulties are likely to rise from our decision, then it is within the hands of Parliament to cure any such difficulties by statutory amendment.”

The key change that is made by the bill before the House today is to confirm that the Biosecurity Act rather than the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is the correct statute for making decisions on incidentally imported new organisms. In making this change, however, the bill will retain the status quo for all genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. There will still be an absolute prohibition on importing GMOs without a Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act approval. The current strict border controls that prevent the importation of unapproved GMOs will remain. The bill also includes provisions to ensure that the Biosecurity Act import health standard process is not used as a back door for deliberately introducing new organisms. Any incidentally imported new organism will remain a new organism under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The definition of “develop” in the Act will be expanded to prohibit incidentally imported new organisms from being isolated and used without an Environmental Risk Management Authority approval.

The last aspect of the bill I want to talk about is the validation clauses. The bill will ensure that existing import health standards and past decisions made by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry based on those standards cannot be challenged on the same grounds that the court accepted in the National Beekeepers’ Association case. Other grounds of challenge will, of course, remain available. The validation clauses specifically include the import health standard for honey from Australia. The Government is conscious of the general principle that Parliament does not legislate to deprive a successful litigant of the fruits of its judgment. At first glance it may appear to be unfair to use the legislative power of the House to validate this import health standard. We have carefully considered how that principle applies in this case. The Government has decided it should not prevent the honey import health standard from being validated.

There are two main reasons for that. First, the court’s decision did not confer any specific rights on the National Beekeepers’ Association. This is different from cases where, for example, the court has decided that the successful party should be granted some licence or permit, or other special status. Second, the National Beekeepers’ Association’s challenge did not call into question the reasonableness of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s risk management decision under the Biosecurity Act. Therefore, it is difficult to see what would be gained by repeating the lengthy and costly process required to develop a new import health standard.

This bill provides a solution to the unworkable legal framework created by the Court of Appeal’s decision. The border system is now exposed to legal vulnerabilities; they threaten disruption to our trade. In order to sort the situation out, it is important to pass this bill as quickly as possible. Although we should proceed with haste, it is also important that organisations with an interest have an opportunity to have their say. In order to do that, I intend to move that the Primary Production Committee consider this bill for a short period and report it back to the House on or before 17 March. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon DAVID CARTER (National) : The National Party will support the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill to the Primary Production Committee. At the outset I thank the Minister for Biosecurity and his officials for involving the National Party at an early stage with briefings as to the complexity of this legislation following a Court of Appeal decision that came out late last year. It is pleasing that an issue as important as a biosecurity issue is, on this occasion, discussed quite freely, particularly between the two major parties, because too often over recent years we have seen biosecurity made an issue of politics when in fact all of us here acknowledge the risks to New Zealand of any biosecurity breach.

When the position was put to the National Party caucus, we said we would support it to select committee, provided it was legislation that went before the select committee and gave an opportunity for the industry to be heard. At one stage there was a suggestion that because of the urgency of the matter—and I wish to discuss that shortly—maybe there was not time for the select committee to have the luxury of hearing from submitters. That position was unacceptable to the National Party, particularly in view of the fact that the National Beekeepers’ Association of New Zealand has incurred considerable costs to have a victory in the Court of Appeal, and because of this legislation it will now, I think, be a hollow victory.

I accept there is some urgency and I am surprised to hear the Minister today giving us a report-back date of 17 March; that was not what was discussed between myself and the Minister’s office, but I am conscious of the need for a tight timeframe and we will certainly do our best within the select committee process to cover that off.

There are two types of importations into this country. There are the deliberate importations and there are those that are inadvertent or not deliberate. The hazardous substances and new organisms legislation, which was, of course, passed under the previous National Government, was groundbreaking legislation. In fact, I think I could say it was the first of its type anywhere in the world. That legislation was designed to cover off deliberate importation whereby an importer wanted to bring something into this country that was recognised as a new organism. There have been criticisms around the complexity of that particular piece of legislation. In fact, the Primary Production Committee over some months did an investigation into the effect of the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation in slowing up some importation, particularly in regard to seed varieties coming into this country.

There are, then, the other types of importations that come in without us knowing about them—the particular nasties that could put the very economy of this country at risk. They, of course, are covered by the Biosecurity Act. What we saw through this particular court case brought by the National Beekeepers’ Association of New Zealand was a challenge to a decision of Biosecurity New Zealand regarding the importation of honey from countries outside New Zealand. It took the opportunity of finding what clearly is a technical difficulty between the two pieces of legislation whereby it was able to argue that a particular new organism not previously known in this country could accompany—in fact, in the Court of Appeal case it said it will inevitably at some stage accompany—the importation of honey into this country. The beekeepers said that that particular organism had not gone through the hazardous substances and new organisms process, and therefore on that basis the association won through the Court of Appeal.

That was in my mind a very innovative and clever argument advanced by the Beekeepers’ Association, but it did not, in actual fact, take a challenge, as the Minister alluded to, to the original decision of Biosecurity New Zealand around the import health standard, which is perhaps the way one would have expected it to be argued, and that is the way many others have argued it in the past.

We, as National Party members, were not prepared then to see the industry not have a chance to come and explain its situation and the fact that this legislation, in effect, overturns its win in the Court of Appeal. I have been speaking to the association today and I know that it intends to come before the select committee when the committee meets in a couple of weeks’ time.

The development of import health standards has been a real issue that the select committee has brought to the attention of the Minister, Biosecurity New Zealand, and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, because the progress involved in the development of import health standards has been too slow. A report that the select committee tabled before this House last year pointed out that as of 2006-2007 over 200 import health standards were in the pipeline. As a result of the select committee report to Parliament I note that the Government did advance some additional resources in the last Budget to tackle that backlog in the development of import health standards.

The select committee also took the opportunity in the examination of the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation to ask that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry take stock of the competency of the people employed within the ministry as to whether they had the ability to develop and progress these import health standards. The Government did come back and agree with that comment from the select committee, but I am not sure that the recommendations have gone any further than the Government’s telling the select committee that it had it right.

What we now have, and I referred earlier to the urgency around this legislation, is a situation where the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has stopped issuing all import health standards or amending those that are in existence. That is a serious issue for those in this country who want to import product into New Zealand. I had one case today of a fisheries factory calling me saying it wanted to bring something in that was essential to its business. It has been held up completely, following the court case of 4 December last year, so I accept there is an urgency. But to be fair to the Minister, he could have worked with his officials and had this into the House prior to Christmas. But be that as it may, we now have it before the House tonight, and it is our job now to progress it through the select committee process with alacrity, and we will do that.

The issue I will be teasing out in the select committee is around the decisions made by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in the development of import health standards. It does seem to me—perhaps not so much in the bee case, but particularly in the pork case, which I am aware of, and I suspect we will have the Pork Industry Board making a submission to the select committee—that in some of the development of these import health standards, the decision by the ministry to allow importation of more and more product into New Zealand tends to be coming more and more risky. That may well be a perception, and I am prepared to accept that at this stage until we have a chance to talk more to the officials. They have the full scientific information before them, and these decisions should not be made on a motion, should not be made on perception, and certainly should not be made on the basis of one industry trying to protect itself from fair and reasonable competition from other imports and exports, and I acknowledge that the full scientific information is sometimes not available to me as a member of Parliament when it is available to the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

But having said that, from watching the issue over a number of years, I do not think we want to become so pure around the issue of free trade that we actually risk bringing into this country diseases and organisms that are not here now and that will have a financial implication on the producers of this country. That will be something I will certainly be wanting to tease out through the select committee process.

I acknowledge the report-back date of 17 March put on the select committee tonight by the Minister. It is our intention, therefore, to work on this both with officials and with industry on one day, and one day only, but it will, of course, depend on how many submissions we actually get. There is no point in the Government holding a gun to the head of the select committee, allowing us to call for submissions from industry, and then not giving us the chance to adequately hear the concerns of industry if we get a number of submissions. We will then, of course, try to meet the deadline that has been imposed on us, but I say to the Labour Government, and particularly to the Minister, that having got it back before the House from the select committee we do not want to see what has happened in the past with other legislation whereby the select committee has been asked to rush its job, and then we find that the legislation sits on the Order Paper and does not progress through the further stages that must be completed in this House.

Hon Jim Anderton: You can always go for urgency now and then.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Well, the Minister is now saying we are going into urgency—that is one he did not mention earlier. But, no, I tell the Minister that the legislation can be done quite logically, and quite level-headedly, and there is no need for reaction around urgency. But once the legislation gets back from the select committee it must not then sit on an Order Paper, and there obviously must be far more cooperation between the Minister of Agriculture, Mr Anderton, and the Leader of the House, Mr Cullen, than has perhaps occurred in the past. I wish him well in those negotiations.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) : I rise to briefly speak on this bill, which has been put together by the Minister. I think it is very important that this matter be clarified, because clearly there is an issue in this case with the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Biosecurity Act. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act clearly relates to the deliberate introduction of new organisms, and the Biosecurity Act relates to the incidental release of any new organisms in the country.

This bill is to go to the Primary Production Committee, and after listening to Mr Carter I have to say that that committee has worked very well during this term. It has worked very constructively and cooperatively on many of these issues. I am sure we will endeavour to come to some conclusion on this bill by the date of 17 March, which the Minister has suggested. But clearly we will have to hear from the key players in the industry, and I think it is important and fair that we do hear from those in the industry who have something to say about this bill.

This legislation will be very important as this country becomes more global in its trade and people travel widely, and it will be particularly important in relation to climate change. As a scientist myself I see that the international climate change situation could bring a whole lot of new issues to the forefront in this nation as we deal with new organisms, and also, possibly, with any incidental release or introduction into this country of new organisms. We have to respond to any emergencies or difficulties that may come our way. Clearly, this country has been dependent for a long, long time on the release of new organisms, particularly in the area of pasture over the years. As a scientist I know that we have dealt with many new species of grass, clover, and other plants—flora—for our animals in this country. There is always a need to look at new organisms that are more suitable for extra pasture production and animal production.

So, clearly, biosecurity is a very important issue for this country. New Zealand is more reliant on primary production than any other developed country that I am aware of, because our exports come primarily from agriculture, horticulture, and, of course, forestry in recent times. Our indigenous flora and fauna are very precious to New Zealanders and tourists alike. A number of tourists come to this country to see the variety of flora and fauna and native species that we have, and they are core areas of our natural heritage and culture in this country.

The biosecurity strategy that we have had in place since 2003 has widened the mandate of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in biosecurity, to give it clear accountability for the management of the whole biosecurity system. That covers not only primary production but also the marine environment, human health, and indigenous flora and fauna. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has the capability to assess and manage the risks from passenger organisms. The ministry also has lengthy experience in this role, as I said earlier, as we have been dealing with these issues for many, many years. The ministry employs a lot of staff who are highly qualified in various fields, and in the biological sciences, to look into these issues. It is also worth noting that the legal challenge—in this case, the court case—did not call into question the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s risk management decision, but, rather, focused on interpreting the scope of the two Acts that are in place: the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Biosecurity Act.

Clearly, this bill is designed to clarify a number of those areas. This Government has a record of providing leadership and a vision for the future in terms of our agriculture and biosecurity, particularly in respect of the environment. The Acts we have in place now ensure that the environment of this country is protected, that the marine, forestry and pasture areas are maintained, and that the water bodies and lakes of this country will be in a more pristine condition. There is a very clear role here for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry people and the Environmental Risk Management Authority people to ensure that no organisms are introduced into this country by incidental means, and the Biosecurity Act and the clarification of the legislation contained in this bill provides for that.

I congratulate the Minister on taking an initiative on a matter that is very important for our bee industry, particularly through this bill, which provides further security for our nation. Thank you very much.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) : Along with my colleague the Hon David Carter, I rise also to support the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill going to the Primary Production Committee, which, of course, David Carter chairs. I ask that select committee, because I am not a member of it, to please give due consideration to the concerns that I know the submitters will raise. I have some concerns myself, and I intend not to run over all of the concerns that were raised by my colleague but to raise a few new ones of my own. The whole process has been a little bit too hasty. I am a little anxious that despite the fact that the committee will advertise to receive submissions as soon as it receives the bill, submitters will not be given due time to consider some of the detailed issues that I am sure they will raise.

There are some bits of information that I think misrepresent the Court of Appeal case. One is that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry was required by the court to withdraw its import health standards or to not issue any new import health standards. My understanding is that that was not the case; the case was that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry chose not to issue new import health standards on the basis that, of course, those import health standards could be challenged, and that is quite different. They might or might not have been challenged, but they could be challenged.

So in the process, I think it is overwhelmingly agreed that the Court of Appeal case identified a couple of areas within the two bits of legislation—the Biosecurity Act 1993 and the Hazardous Organisms and New Substances Act 1996—where there was an overlap. But we need to go back in time and look at the history of why those two particular Acts were set up in the way they were. The Hazardous Organisms and New Substances Act was set up, primarily, to investigate known new organisms that were going to be deliberately imported into this country—deliberately or, as is stated in this case, as a passenger. The Act was set up with that purpose. The reason for that is that at any one time the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry cannot and never will have the competency level on every single potential new organism that someone may wish, or may not even wish, to import into this country. So, therefore, the original purpose of those Acts is as sound today as it was when it was originally set up.

In this case, the Paenibacillus alvei was well known, I would have to say, by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, when it put together the import health standard for the importation of honey—primarily from Australia, but not just from Australia; from around the world—that potentially could carry European foulbrood. Despite the fact that the ministry said that its import health standard was robust, the Auditor-General, on a number of occasions, has had a different view, and there have been breaches of import health standards in recent times. We all remember the case of a whole pallet-load of raw pork meat arriving on supermarket shelves in Tauranga from Korea, which potentially could have been devastating to the New Zealand economy. So import health standards can and have been breached.

So, really, what the National Beekeepers’ Association was saying when it disputed the science around the importation of honey from Australia was that it did not have faith in the system that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry had said would be foolproof, and the association has a reasonable point. The association also highlighted in that process the fact that some honey carries this new organism known as Paenibacillus alvei, and it could have some devastating effect. In fact, there has been research internationally, which the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has been aware of, to see whether Paenibacillus alvei could be used as a biological control against some insects. Clearly, that research would not have started, or would not have taken place, had it not been for the fact that there was some knowledge about this new organism or its potential effects.

So the question at this time is why the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, given the high profile of this case—a very high political profile—the protesting to Parliament, and all the rest of it, did not just subject this particular case to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, because at any time it can decide what should or should not be subjected to the Act. Why in this case was a decision taken just to ignore this Paenibacillus alvei and allow it in as an inconsequential passenger—call it what one will—of the importation of honey from this destination? There is further evidence to suggest that that is the wrong decision.

I guess the whole crux of this debate has been around the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry sailed ahead despite the overwhelming concerns, and in this case they related to two industries, because the pork industry was extremely concerned about a potential import health standard that is about to be developed in regard to importing unprocessed pork meat. One has to ask these questions, given the known effects of a devastating bacteria or disease in our bee colony.

However, it is not just about the honey industry—because this debate, particularly in the commentary floating around, has been honed down to the honey industry—but also about the potential effects for all of our primary industries, for all of our land-based industries. What seems to be missing in this discussion, particularly around the import health standard, is that bees do not just produce honey but also pollinate our agricultural land-based pastoral industries. The side effects of having a collapse of our bee colony, as is being experienced in other jurisdictions around the world, would be huge. Bees also pollinate our kiwifruit industry and our horticulture industries. Goodness knows what other effect this kind of disease importation could have on those industries, or on the other industries we have spoken of.

So I say to the Minister that yes, the bill should go to the select committee, but please give the select committee the time it needs to consider some of the unknown ramifications of what the experts in this field might bring forward. Please give the scientists a chance to express their concerns about what may or may not come about as a result of importing honey from Australia, in particular, and the potential importation of European foulbrood disease. Please give the committee the time to have a look at what could happen if we had a collapse of our bee colony in this country, as has been experienced in other countries.

Furthermore, why would one would take the risk, when we have in this country what one could call an organic brand—that seems to be very popular terminology these days—with the honey that we export? Surely we must be able to make exemptions when the science itself, and clearly the science in this case, is debatable, regardless of the ministry’s findings around the import health standard. Surely we must be able to make a case on an international stage, because clearly our international competitors do. We only have to look across the Tasman at the apple debate that is now before the World Trade Organization to know that other jurisdictions do that.

We have in this country a clean, green image that we must protect. It is a market advantage. Our export honey is organic. If European foulbrood disease were to take hold in New Zealand, then our honey would be treated with antibiotics, the same as is done by other exporting nations. This is a niche opportunity for us that we should not damage.

We have listened for months and years to stories about the risks to this country of genetic engineering, and there is hysteria when one talks about that, yet we can import known hazards into this country in the form of various organisms, and, at this time, that does not seem to constitute the same threat in the eyes of those who create such a noise around these other things.

I ask the Government to please consider those submissions—particularly the technical ones that I am sure will come from the various industries. Please give them due consideration in that select committee process. It is not too late to turn around this import health standard. It is not too late to allow one small industry in this country to have a little bit of a win. It will not reflect badly on the Government—quite the opposite. The industry has had its day in court and won.

R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) : It is, as usual, a pleasure to follow Mr Ardern, because he is a practical and sensible man. He talked sense in that last speech, and that is what we expect of him. We in New Zealand First will, of course, be supporting the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill, because we cannot have the untenable situation where our imports and exports are impeded in any way at all. Quite frankly, the sooner the bill is passed, the better it will be. I am very pleased there is to be a submission process, albeit a short one. It is important that people can come here, have their say, and be listened to. One of the strengths of our Parliament is that it has input from citizens, and I think that process should be upheld whenever it can be—even in a crisis situation.

I know, and the National Party knows, even if it does not admit this, that this administration has hugely increased the spend on biosecurity—not only the spend on biosecurity, but also the effectiveness, manpower, and the position it holds in the ranking importance of ministries in New Zealand. In the area of biosecurity, one would be hard-pressed to moan that it has not had every reasonable resource it has asked for. However, such is the increase in travel—in tourism and in people and goods over our borders—that it is never enough, and there is always some problem that we have to deal with.

The point I want to make follows on from Mr Ardern’s—that is, the bee-keepers took a case in order to make a point. They took a case, made their point, and won their case, but the reason they took it stemmed from their immense frustration with successive regimes because they believed they were not being treated well in this country. They have a great product, and they are afraid that more organisms will come in that may damage their industry. I know that Mr Ardern has mentioned that concern, and I share it.

I make the plea—and I choose my words carefully—that it would be nice if the Government of the day could consider that the court has seen the worthiness of the bee-keepers’ case. As Mr Shane Ardern said—I will use slightly different words—if the Government could put away for a moment the ideology of the pure, free market and just look at this case, it would see we have a niche market in the world for our honey. Even in New Zealand it is understood, and is used as a trade argument, that our honey—particularly our tea tree honey—is so pure that in many cases it is used as an antiseptic, as it has healing properties. It would be nice if the Government could put aside its ideology for a while and perhaps look on this case as being not so much a technical case, which is what we have been hearing today, but a message from the bee-keepers of this country to please do something to support them and to help them to keep their industry profitable. They are doing a good job, and they should be recognised for that.

If Parliament passes this legislation—which does need to be passed—and then does not treat bee-keepers with respect, they will see that as a slap in the face and we will be doing ourselves a disservice. Certainly, we will be harming an industry that I believe is, after all, one that does only good. If Mr Shane Ardern or any other member can think of one harmful aspect of the bee-keeping industry, I would like to hear about it. I cannot think of one, apart from a child perhaps stepping on a bee in a field of clover. Otherwise, I cannot think of one negative aspect of the industry. Surely if any industry deserves sympathy, this industry does. If we pass this legislation—and we will—and if the Government makes an accommodating factor for bee-keepers, we will have a win-win situation. Thank you very much.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. The Greens will be supporting this bill at the first reading—and we make no guarantees about further support—because we agree the current law needs some clarification, following recent court decisions. It seems clear that the original intention of Parliament was that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Biosecurity Act would cover intentional and unintentional introductions of various organisms, respectively. We have some reservations and concerns about the possible unintended consequences of this amendment; there may be better ways to resolve the ambiguity and the difficulty without reducing the standard of risk assessment. We expect that these issues will be canvassed at the select committee, and because we are so concerned that they are properly canvassed, and that we have good law in this area, we do not support the proposal to shorten the select committee process. So we will oppose that motion.

This bill needs to be understood in light of the recent court judgment in respect of Paenibacillus alvei in honey, where the Court of Appeal said that the unintentionally introduced new organism is a known new organism and therefore requires approval under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, prior to its introduction into New Zealand, even if that introduction is unintentional. The court concluded that the biosecurity import health standard for honey is contrary to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and therefore the honey cannot be legally imported.

Despite some disagreement about the level of pathogenic risk that the bacterium might pose, there was agreement that the risk of introduction of the bacterium itself is inevitable; it will arrive in this country eventually if we continue with the honey imports, and it will have some effect in New Zealand.

The court recognised that the organism is a new organism under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and that its use or development in New Zealand would require approval under that Act, but the risk assessment of an organism that may unintentionally accompany a good such as honey was designed to be dealt with under the Biosecurity Act, not the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. As a result the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Biosecurity New Zealand are in a very difficult, technical position of not being able to exercise fully the requirements under the Biosecurity Act because of the decisions of the court. That is just some of the background.

It is clear therefore that some kind of legislative change is necessary, so we will support the bill to achieve that. But the bill needs some more consideration, and one area is the logic of the stark differentiation between intentional and unintentional introduction of new organisms. It is true there are differences in the potential vectors of intentionally and unintentionally introduced organisms. We have seen some unintentional introductions in this country, maybe on a large scale and released in many areas and in great numbers for a particular purpose, whereas an unintentional introduction may be small in number and very localised, and might have much less chance of surviving in New Zealand’s conditions or be better able to be contained and controlled. None the less, a new and damaging organism, whether it is here on purpose or by accident, may have the same effect. We have seen that to be the case with the invasive and highly problematic algae didymo that was accidentally, unintentionally, introduced, and although it might have been only a tiny amount in a particular place at one place, it is now very well established in the South Island rivers.

So the potential impact of a new organism, regardless of how it gets here, is not necessarily greater just because it was brought in on purpose. The risk is no less real simply because of the way it has been introduced into our country. Indeed, the reverse argument may also hold true in some cases; more will be known and assessed about an organism’s nature and potential impact if it is assessed for its intentional introduction than if it arrives accidentally. The more we know, the more ability we have to respond quickly and effectively to contain and control that biosecurity breach. Clearly, didymo is a classic example of the sad failure to act swiftly and decisively when that algae arrived and was detected.

There are, potentially, alternatives to dealing with the problems that the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Biosecurity New Zealand, and the Government in general have, as a result of the court’s decisions. Perhaps the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act could be better amended to allow the Environmental Risk Management Authority to assess unintentional organisms. It is not what it is designed to do but it could potentially be expanded to do that. The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act does have a higher test threshold for assessing new organisms than the Biosecurity Act does. Although the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is not currently designed to assess the risks of passenger organisms, none the less it could do that job, but in part only if it is able to be tested against the benefits of its carrier good. For example, the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act test for a new organism weighs the positive and adverse effects of the organism, in isolation. It would struggle, for example, to approve the honey bacterium, on which the case was based, because the bacterium has no known benefit to the country. The benefit is solely in being able to bring the good in itself—the honey. That is not part of the consideration that the Environmental Risk Management Authority can undertake. So one option would be to enhance the authority’s mandate and process to allow it to deal with risk assessments for new organisms brought in unintentionally.

The alternative is that the precautionary principle inherent or explicitly set out in the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act could be introduced into the Biosecurity Act, and that just in and of itself is not a bad idea. The court noted that Parliament’s intention when enacting the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act and the Biosecurity Act was that passenger or associated organisms were to be dealt with under the biosecurity legislation, but it noted that the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act contains a precautionary principle, albeit a weak one.

So surely it is desirable that the assessment of risks for all organisms, whether intentional or unintentional, are exercised in a way that favours caution where there is uncertainty, and the question is whether the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act requires strengthening in this regard. These are issues that could all be canvassed at the select committee to make sure we have good-quality legislation.

We do not treat amendments to biosecurity and hazardous substances and new organisms legislation lightly. The protection of New Zealand’s environment is paramount; and security, particularly of our immense primary production sector, is of great importance. Despite what some may say about the Greens, we do believe that the primary production sector is very important.

Although on the face of it this bill would seem to clarify the issues for Parliament around this legislation, there is always the chance that legislation like this will have unintended consequences. That is what the select committee process is for—to work through those by getting the feedback from the community, those who are engaged with it and deal with these issues all the time to provide that feedback to parliamentarians so we can assess the practical implications, the practical risk, and where the unintended consequences might be.

One example might be in clause 12 where the Act currently prohibits unapproved new organisms, but the amended legislation simply states “restriction”, and it would be worth exploring the extent to which the change in just that wording might have unintended consequences.

The Greens have had very little time to examine this bill in detail, so again we will be looking to the submitters to the select committee for their views on this. No doubt the bee-keeper community will have very serious concerns about legislation that overturns a court decision that was held in their favour, and we understand the importance of that but also we recognise that we must make good law, and there is a problem here that does need to be resolved.

We would like to know how this bill might affect New Zealand garlic growers, who are faced with difficulties in getting new seed while the garlic that is imported has the potential to bring in passenger viruses. How will it affect the New Zealand pork industry, with the risk of importing the porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus into New Zealand? What will it mean for the honey industry, in practice, and what will be the risk to it from Paenibacillus alvei?

The Greens also want to mention briefly that we are very pleased that the amendment bill differentiates GMOs, and ensures that GMOs will remain completely under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, whether they are brought into New Zealand intentionally or unintentionally. That is a very important security measure for New Zealand, for our environment, and for our primary production areas. It is difficult to think of a GMO coming in as a hitchhiker, but that may be possible as more GMO vaccines are being developed and as technology progresses. So a whole range of issues need to be canvassed.

The Greens will support the bill to go through its first reading because there are good legislative reasons why that has to happen. But we will not support a shortened select committee process, because it is so important that the community must have the right to have a say—not just selected members of the community but the whole community who may be involved. Thank you.

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker; tēnā tātou katoa. It is somewhat ironic that the issue at the top of the Order Paper today in the Beehive features what has become known as the New Zealand icon, the bee. We know that every gift shop hosts the legendary Buzzy Bee, or Te Pingipingi Pī as our kōhanga reo know it, and Diabetes New Zealand’s mascot is the soft toy Barnaby Bee. So it is probably little wonder that it has become an issue of national significance to put in place measures to manage the risks posed to the bee-keeping industry. It is an industry that has been established in New Zealand for well over a century, even if it was originally resisted as yet another fad for the new colony. And it is an industry in which tangata whenua are playing an increasingly significant role, with new directions and trends establishing our unique role in international markets.

A classic example is Whakaari Beekeepers Ltd, established in late 2002 and based in the isolated coastal community of Whangaparāoa. Up until that point, although bee-keepers had routinely placed their hives on tribal lands, tangata whenua had not exactly been amassing untold fortunes from the industry. It was common for bee-keepers to leave pots of honey as a rental payment for using the land, which was not exactly making anyone a millionaire. So in 2000 Eddie Matchitt figured that local landowners should be able to benefit from the bees. Matchitt and his mates were also keen to support a district that suffered from high unemployment, where most of the income was from benefit payments.

I want to share the experience of Whakaari Beekeepers, as it is a good example of a new enterprise that can create wealth and employment, develop self-reliance amongst the people, support the Māori bee-keeping sector, and maximise returns from a local, abundantly available resource. In short, the enterprise was all looking good until Varroa jacobsoni came along. The risk of the varroa mite to bee-keepers and the industries they provide pollination services to has been a prominent issue in the agricultural sector for close on a decade.

But, as this bill demonstrates, there was to be another obstacle fly in the path of the bee—the bacterium Paenibacillus alvei, which is often found in association with the virus European foulbrood, a known and dangerous pest to bee larvae. The National Beekeepers’ Association believed that, given that risk, Environmental Risk Management Authority approval under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act was needed prior to honey and bee products being imported from Australia under the import health standard issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry back in 2006. As is now well established, the Court of Appeal decision in the National Beekeepers’ Association of New Zealand v the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry upheld this point and, as such, the ban on the import of honey and bee products from Australia has remained.

This bill is being debated today to respond to the unique set of issues that came out of that case about the way in which such risks are managed, and about the protections in place to care responsibly for our flora and fauna. As the last 200 years have demonstrated, hordes of seemingly innocuous organisms have been introduced, only for us to find dangers at a latter stage. We can think about possums, gorse, rabbits, ferrets, the household cat, and so on. In fact, in the last 5 years around 230 new pests have infiltrated our borders.

The current regulatory system is not working well. The legislation will bring together the current mechanisms under the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation and the processes in the Biosecurity Act. In doing so, it responds to the risks that emerge when organisms are deliberately imported, as well as those that may arise incidentally in association with traded goods.

I posed the question earlier as to this discussion being one on the national agenda, and I consider it so for two key reasons. The first is the economic and commercial imperative not only for the honey industry but for continued crop pollination and, more broadly, across other sectors of the agricultural and horticultural industries. The National Beekeepers’ Association has contended that in the face of insufficient information on the risk of any organism, importation should be denied until such information is obtained. In assessing the level of risk posed by Australian honey, the association relied on research suggesting that Paenibacillus alvei can be linked to human respiratory disorders and that it has also been suggested as a biological control of insects, indicating its impacts on the wider environment.

The common association with European foulbrood also cannot be discounted. European foulbrood causes bee larvae to rot and die, or results in the birth of a weakened bee that weakens the hive as a whole. Treatment for European foulbrood is with antibiotics, which would have a huge impact on the antibacterial properties of honey, and particularly of mānuka honey. We have specialist international markets for our mānuka honey, specifically because it is free of European foulbrood and has not been compromised by antibiotics.

The second reason why the management of biosecurity risks at our border should be an issue of national importance is the importance of active environmental protection to keep our natural resources and environment healthy, safe, and intact for everybody. This bill will have the effect of setting in place import health standards to ensure that any risky goods are cleared before entering Aotearoa, effectively overturning the Court of Appeal decision that is currently keeping Australian honey and bee products out of this country.

Risks from all organisms imported incidentally in association with imported goods will be managed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry under the Biosecurity Act. Any organisms introduced through the approval process of the Environmental Risk Management Authority will be dealt with through the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. But there remains a significant gap in the current statutory scheme that needs to be addressed, and that is not raised in the current version of this bill—that is, there needs to be a clear process that will allow the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to refer risk issues from known, incidental, new organisms to the Environmental Risk Management Authority for investigation and approval. If the authority does not have enough information to make that call, such information should be sought or research should be commissioned, instead of dealing with a gap via a bill to push concerns under the table.

Rather than an either/or system, there need to be workable connections between the Biosecurity Act and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. Given the issues we have seen recently with asbestos, painted apple moth spray, dioxin poisoning, and other intrusions in the environment, we need to ensure we are putting in place proactive measures to prevent such risks from impacting on the sector before any other problematic organisms arrive. The 4-year investigation by the Ombudsmen into the impact and effects of aerial spraying of pesticide should have given sufficient warning to the Government of the need for ensuring future protection of crops, people, and land, and for investing in the safety of affected populations.

We in the Māori Party will support this bill to go to the select committee, in order for a wider resolution to border security to be discussed and found, but we cannot complete our analysis without reminding the House of our desire that the biosecurity statutory framework should include a total prohibition on genetically modified organisms in the interests of a GE-free New Zealand. Only then can we be really proud of our environmental clean, green image. Kia ora.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I am pleased to stand to take a quick call on the first reading of the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill. Quite a long path has led to this legislation being here in this House. Again, it reminds us that a careful balance is required when we are dealing with biosecurity.

Although on the one hand I think everyone in this House has acknowledged the importance of bee-keepers and the role they play in the New Zealand economy, they are not often the first people we think of when we think of the primary production sector. Certainly, without bees to pollinate the clover, which carries out the important environmental act of fixing nitrogen in the soil, we would be in a very dire situation indeed. With the varroa bee mite wiping out the feral bee population, our bee-keepers have felt under some pressure, as have bee-keepers around the world.

It is important to acknowledge that this situation is not unique to New Zealand. We have seen, particularly in countries like the United States, that bee-keepers now charge for their services, as do bee-keepers here. I believe that kiwifruit pollination is often paid for. A lot of bee-keepers in America have moved to doing that; they have not been able to make a lot of money from selling the honey itself, so they have moved to making money from the pollination service that the bees provide. I join everyone here in acknowledging the very important role that bee-keepers play.

But at the same time I also know, as a former member of the Primary Production Committee, that we need to be equally careful on the other side of the coin. That very important balance needs to be protected and preserved in whatever work goes on at the select committee. I was very pleased to hear the Minister for Biosecurity acknowledge that the bee-keepers had taken a judicial review, and had achieved a result that meant that the import health standard that had been introduced that would have allowed Australian honey into New Zealand was put on hold for the time being. That is not to say it would have stayed that way had the Environmental Risk Management Authority gone through the process; the authority may well have gone through the process and the import health standard would have taken effect.

Effectively, the stay that was put on that import health standard will not be there when this legislation is passed. I was pleased to hear the Minister acknowledge that it is rare that we pass legislation in this House that does that, but unfortunately that Court of Appeal decision has thrown up some very difficult circumstances with far-reaching implications for import health standards. I know, again as a former member of the Primary Production Committee, that one of the biggest criticisms we always had of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, whenever it came before us for a financial review, was the length of time taken to process import health standards. The threat of judicial review hanging over every single import health standard that came before the ministry could only lengthen the time it took, because the ministry would want to make sure that it was going through the proper process. It also would mean that everything would be held up in the courts for a lot longer—every import health standard could possibly be judicially reviewed. I agree with the Minister that it is only right that this Parliament confirms what we always believed to be the case under the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation: that organisms unintentionally brought into the country were not meant to be covered by that legislation.

I remember when we first went through the import health standard process with the bee-keepers. It was a process that I was quite involved in; local bee-keepers had come to me for assistance. As the Minister will well remember, we had a number of meetings in his office where we challenged ministry officials on the questions that bee-keepers were asking about the efficacy of heat treatment of honey to remove European foulbrood, which is the disease that was worrying the bee-keepers. As members have rightly pointed out, we have a thriving mānuka honey industry, and if we have to start dosing our hives with antibiotics, that will damage it. The ministry officials had really done their homework. As we have seen, the science was backing up and backing up, meaning that the Australians were saying to us that they can now prove that heat treatment kills foulbrood, and that Western Australia does not have it. Just as we have found with our case to export apples to Australia, where our scientific evidence has been showing time and time again that adult apples cannot carry fire blight, it became very, very difficult for us, as a matter of trade, to continue to keep a product out when the science was telling us overwhelmingly that there was no risk there, that heat treatment would kill foulbrood.

I find it interesting that the judicial review was not taken on European foulbrood; it was taken on a companion bacterium. Initially, I understood that it would be European foulbrood that would be challenged. I do not know whether that is telling. I know that the bee-keepers were worried that one of their expert witnesses had not been taken enough account of, and I can only assume that they felt that that challenge would not have held up in a court of law, because it was not the step that was taken here.

I would like some clarification from the next National Party member as to whether we have seen quite a significant shift in National’s trade policy and it is now saying that we should have exceptions in certain areas to not allow certain products in—for example, Australian honey. The feeling I was getting from the National Party was that its members were saying that actually we do not need to be so pure on this. The line that we have always taken has been that we do actually need to be pure. We are a very small country. We have a very open market.

Hon David Carter: A matter of balance.

MOANA MACKEY: Well, it is a matter of balance, absolutely. But the fact is that we cannot stand up in the World Trade Organization and criticise a country for ignoring our scientific evidence, if we are doing exactly the same thing in the other direction. It has always been the understanding that we have to make sure the science could back up whatever position we took on trade. The process of bringing that science forward was not challenged in the judicial review, and I can only assume that that is the reason—[Interruption] Eric Roy is primed, ready to leap to his feet. I assume that that is the only reason that that case was not taken.

This is not an easy issue. I acknowledge the work that the bee-keepers did in bringing this case forward, but, unfortunately, it has thrown up a number of very difficult issues that we do need to deal with very quickly. The interpretation that the Court of Appeal has taken is not the understanding of this Parliament. I look forward to this bill being passed very quickly so that the Primary Production Committee can get back to challenging the ministry on why its import health standard process is taking so long. I commend this bill to the House.

ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) : I would like to make a contribution to the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill. I do not see anybody else positioning himself or herself for a quick call, so this may well be a summing-up of the issues. I just acknowledge the comments made by Moana Mackey. Such an erudite and candid response makes me wonder why she was not promoted in the last Cabinet reshuffle. I thought she certainly made a valuable contribution to the debate. It is interesting to note that this bill is being supported by all parties around the House to be referred to the select committee. I think that does indicate to us that there is an issue. Although this is a hazardous substances, new organisms, and biosecurity bill, it is really about trade and trade issues. I think I should set out some principles for a start, and indicate where they interface with the legislation and the need for this bill.

New Zealand’s lifeblood is trade. Clearly, our export earnings are very much steered by the performance of our primary industries. We rely on trade much more than the countries that export to us do. This situation has arisen over the importation of honey into New Zealand from Australia. We could be very, very tempted to say that because there is an issue around fire blight in apples—we cannot get apples in there; the science on that is not very robust—and the Australians pinched Robbie Deans, this would be a chance to give Australia the flick. But there can be only one basis upon which international trade and phytosanitary and sanitary conditions apply, and that is the basis of science. We cannot afford to play minor games, because New Zealand’s prosperity is at stake in terms of having robust, reliable, and accepted standards for the phytosanitary and sanitary conditions around trade. That is the first principle. We need to have robust science, in terms of protecting not only our borders but consumers with regard to the products that we are keen to trade with.

The second principle is that we want to prevent any unwanted incursions into this country. Herein is a subject we could launch much debate around.

Then there is the issue of us needing a very clear road map to help us to bring in the products that we need in order to advance industry in New Zealand. There are a number of issues surrounding that. We require a number of things: new plant material, germ plasm, and chemicals. We are always looking for those things, and they fall into the area of hazardous substances and new organisms.

So accidental incursion falls into the lap of the biosecurity legislation, and the things we need an actual road map for fall into the area of the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation. We have had a bit of a crossover there. There needs to be a demarcation so we clearly understand where responsibility lies.

The issue surrounding this particular matter is about the incidental attachments—things coming in that, to all evidence, are not significant yet are attached to product. We have a situation now where the bee-keepers—as has been mentioned—chose to challenge an incidental attachment in court and say it should have been processed under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act. The repercussions of that are quite clear and quite scary. Already we have been shown, in a briefing, a schedule that, I think, had nine items on it that were held up because of the threat of an incidental attachment and the need for those products to go through the hazardous substances and new organisms legislation.

I have mentioned how significant and important it is that we have a flow of trade. An entity could go to court over an issue relating to tourism and say we are should not have any tourists come in, because they may have an incidental attachment of dandruff, athlete’s foot, or anything else.

Hon David Carter: I don’t think that’s a new organism.

ERIC ROY: No. Well, it does not have to be a new organism. If an attachment is incidental, people could be held up; that could, in fact, happen. I think the potential is there for someone to choose a particular ethnic group and choose something that could be attached to people from that group. Quite clearly we have an anomaly, and the demarcation needs to take place.

I will just say something about the Primary Production Committee—I have already acknowledged the comments by Moana Mackey. That committee, under the Hon David Carter, is continuing its fine tradition of actually resolving issues.

Nathan Guy: That’s right—getting on with it.

ERIC ROY: Getting on with it. We have a pretty tight time frame to deal with this bill. I will say to the House that if the submissions raise issues that need more time—

Hon David Carter: We need an extension.

ERIC ROY: The Hon David Carter says we need an extension. Our intention is to resolve this issue. But if there are issues that need some really serious consideration and cannot be resolved within the time frame, then we will seek an extension of time to deal with them. So that is also an important principle with regard to this bill.

There have been quite a few comments about honey and the—how does one say it?

Hon David Carter: P. alvei.

ERIC ROY: Paenibacillus alvei. It is a companion-type disease or bacterium that can be affiliated with foulbrood. The interesting thing for me is that the bee-keepers, instead of going to that first principle of science, actually chose to do this on a technicality—in my humble view; I have not had a briefing from the bee-keepers. To all intents and purposes, they have chosen to take the issue to court on a technicality. Why did they do that? Well, they may very well be able to introduce to the select committee some information about the risk that we are not aware of. But I suggest there is possibly another rationale for it: bee-keepers are still pretty stressed about the whole issue of varroa and what has occurred in their industry in relation to it. They have lost an element of trust in the biosecurity process, because although a range of activities and a talk-fest took place, basically nothing was done in the North Island. Then a protocol was put in place in the South Island, yet when varroa showed up there the whole protocol kind of evaporated. So I have some sympathy for the bee-keepers; I have some understanding of why they have chosen to take a very resolute and vigorous approach to stopping the P. alvei—one can understand that.

However, we clearly have a situation where we have impediments to trade. As I said at the beginning of my speech, trade is what we live and breathe on. We need to have integrity in terms of how we deal with trade on the way in, and our customers need to have absolute confidence on the way out. If we applied the incidental argument in New Zealand, it would not be very long before it applied overseas. I do not know what the value of the honey that could be exported from Australia to New Zealand is—I guess it could be $5 million; it may be more. But under the World Trade Organization’s rules, although one might say they are not fair, Australia could choose any item—which could, for example, be worth half a billion dollars—and apply the same sanction to it in a countervailing way.

We need to get the legislation tidied up, and National will support the referral of this bill to the select committee. However, our support for its referral to the select committee is not to say that we are happy about the standard of incursion clearance and the protection against the incursions that have occurred. In no way are we signing off on that. We are simply saying this is a trade issue, and the demarcation needs to be sorted out. Trade is important to us. We need robustness in our processes, and we need to have the confidence of the people we trade with, in order to continue that trade and keep New Zealand’s position in international trade.

• Bill read a first time.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister for ACC) on behalf of the Minister for Biosecurity : I move, That the Biosecurity and Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Legislation Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee for consideration, and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 17 March 2008.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) : I move, That the Financial Advisers Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Finance and Expenditure Committee and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 20 June 2008.

The reason for the choice of select committee and the report-back date is to catch up with the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill, so that both bills can be dealt with at the same time. This is important, as the review of financial products and providers and the review of financial intermediaries are very interlinked, and to separate them at this point would, I believe, do a disservice to what has been a very good process to date. Without wanting to comment on the approach the select committee may choose to adopt, I suspect that a number of submitters will want to be heard on both bills. It may be convenient that the hearings be scheduled together.

When this bill did not get its first reading before Christmas I took the liberty of sending a letter to all stakeholders to advise of its delay and to draw attention to the fact that it had been introduced, so that they could get on with drafting their submissions. Given the number of discussions I have had with some of the stakeholders since the bill was introduced, there is no doubt that this bill has been widely read. It has focused the attention of a number of institutions and organisations on what they do that could be caught by this bill, and on what ought to be caught by this bill. There is a distinction between the two approaches.

This bill arises from the Task Force on the Regulation of Financial Intermediaries that was established in 2004. The task force was asked to consider options for reform that would ensure that quality financial information and advice is provided to the public, and would assist New Zealanders to make the most of their savings. In its report back to the Government, the task force made three core recommendations for reform. It recommended that the Government develop enhanced standards for financial advisers; enhance the redress, sanctions, and enforcement applicable to financial advisers; and improve disclosure made by advisers. In developing its recommendations, the task force consulted widely, including surveying the market for financial advice, holding meetings with industry and consumer stakeholders, and releasing a consultation document, which attracted a wide range of submissions. The Government considered those recommendations, developed them further, and, following another discussion document, has now introduced this bill.

So getting the bill to this point has been a long, thorough, and open consultation process, but that does not mean that the bill is perfect. The intention of this bill is to foster consumer confidence in those who hold themselves out to be financial advisers, and to ensure that those who claim to be professionals in this important area are held accountable for their performance, integrity, and competence. Recent events have shown the significance of the role of financial advisers not only in terms of people making investments in finance companies but also in terms of investments in property companies and other vehicles.

That leads me to the definition of “financial adviser”. The bill was drafted with the intention of encouraging people to think about what is meant by the term “financial adviser” and about how the bill applies to them. This Government wants to ensure that people who provide financial advice in the course of their business are appropriately qualified and competent to provide that advice, so that the public can have confidence in the quality of that advice. However, it is not the intention of this bill to capture every person who discusses a financial matter with a client or offers a product or service that might have a financial implication; rather, it aims to ensure that people providing financial advice in the course of their business or as their full-time occupation are competent to do so. It is they who are expected to be members of approved bodies. I am very happy for the select committee to listen to the submissions and report back to the House on a tightening of the definitions, in order to achieve this objective. As I have said before, a bank teller who just describes the interest rate on a product or range of products offered by the bank is not a financial adviser and is not intended to be caught by this legislation. In clause 6 of the bill we have made that crystal clear by stating: “For the avoidance of doubt, the provision of information, whether orally or in writing, is not advice unless it is accompanied by a recommendation, an opinion, or guidance.”

I guess the question I have asked myself is who the public should be entitled to rely upon for advice if they are investing their hard-earned money—recognising, of course, that we cannot legislate away all risk. At the end of the day, people have to make their own decisions about what they invest in, and given that the rate of return is directly related to the level of risk people are taking, then they have to be alert to the detail of what they are being offered.

From the consumer perspective, this bill is about needing to have confidence in financial advisers and that those advisers are qualified to undertake their role. From the industry’s perspective, competent advisers should not have their professional reputations tarnished by the bad apple who gives everyone a bad name. This bill aims to do that by ensuring adequate disclosure, competence, and accountability on the part of financial advisers. Any person who is bankrupt, who has been convicted of certain crimes involving fraud, dishonesty, money laundering, or terrorism financing, or who is subject to orders under securities, companies, or consumer law will not be permitted to provide financial advice. The bill will also require advisers to disclose any conflicts of interests and fees, and sets minimum competency standards to ensure that the financial adviser is equipped to recommend financial products that match a client’s investment needs and, most important, the client’s risk profile. These include requirements for the adviser to act with reasonable care, diligence, skill, and integrity, and not to act in a manner that may be misleading or deceptive. Conduct requirements also apply to handling money received by clients.

This bill sets up a co-regulatory framework for financial advisers, based on self-regulation by the industry through approved professional bodies as the front-line regulators with oversight by a central regulator—in this case, the Securities Commission. The Securities Commission will ensure there is consistency across the approved professional bodies, setting minimum standards with which the industry must comply, while enabling industry to deal with the day-to-day regulatory issues itself. These minimum standards and the rules established by the approved professional bodies will ensure that all advisers are held accountable for the advice provided. The bill establishes a regime for the approval of the approved professional bodies by the Minister of Commerce, and provides enforcement powers for the Securities Commission and the courts, based on the existing provisions of the Securities Markets Act.

Issues have been raised in the interim, though, about the potential cost associated with a multiplicity of approved professional bodies, particularly in relation to disciplinary processes and consumer dispute-resolution systems. I hope the select committee takes careful note of the submissions it receives in this area, as many of the professional organisations and statutory bodies will have insights into how this might be best managed.

The proposed professional body is required to have rules that meet the criteria of rules set out in clause 51 of the bill. The criteria have been adapted from International Organisation of Securities Commissions principles, which will ensure that all approved professional bodies will have the requisite governance systems and processes in place in order to appropriately monitor and supervise financial advisers.

It is important to note that the application of the proposed bill is wide. As I said earlier, this was intentional. We want everyone who works in the area of providing financial advice to think about this bill and its implications, but at the same time we do not want to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I invite the select committee to ensure that the bill meets its objectives. I am open to—and, indeed, anticipate—there being changes through the select committee process to better reflect this intention. I encourage the stakeholders to remain actively involved in the development of the bill through the select committee process. This will ensure that we have legislation that is workable and effective in achieving its objectives.

I record my appreciation of the participation of the industry through the consultation process, and of the work that has gone into the drafting of this bill by officials to support parties and others for their backing of this important legislation, which contributes to the building of a sound and effective regulatory environment. I believe that by creating such an environment we will encourage market participation, facilitate investment growth, increase confidence, and put us further along the path to transforming our financial sector into one that is a world leader. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) : I thank the Minister for outlining her faith and confidence in the select committee process in looking at some of the issues the National Party views as remaining outstanding or, at the very least, requiring a further look and perhaps some drafting amendments and tightening on some particular definitions. But we will come to that shortly.

I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for involving the National Party in initial discussions, with officials present, about the process she undertook on behalf of the Government in respect of the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill and the ongoing discussions around wider reviews and subsequent legislation coming from those reviews. I think it is worth making the point that the Minister, if I heard her correctly, is talking about a report-back date of 20 June for the Financial Advisers Bill. The Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill has a report-back date of about 10 June, the last time I looked at that particular set-up.

In National’s view, hearing a submission that could be relevant to both those bills at the same time is a significant advantage for the industry. I would encourage those who feel as though they have a stake in this legislation to have a say at the select committee. I encourage not just those in the industry but also consumers and those who are taking the opportunity to look very carefully at the type of investment decisions they are presently making, with the unfortunate collapse in recent months of various organisations that could be described as second-tier lending institutions. This is an opportunity for those people also to have a say at the select committee and to put forward suggestions about what types of protections they believe should be available to investors.

I know the Minister is fond of using in her speeches and releases the phrase “Governments cannot legislate for risk.”, and I happen to share that view. Having said that, I think there are more things that this Parliament can do to protect investors who are making decisions along these lines. The bill as proposed will need close scrutiny by the select committee. I am still of the view that the definition of “advice” contained in clause 6 provides a wide open door in some circumstances. I have looked carefully at clause 6(2), the “for the avoidance of doubt” clause, and my initial reading of it is that it does not avoid that doubt. I think there is still room for improvement there, because clause 6(2) states: “For the avoidance of doubt, the provision of information, whether orally or in writing, is not advice unless it is accompanied by a recommendation, an opinion, or guidance.” That does not go anywhere near to clarifying the issues that I know the Minister has been looking at very carefully over the last couple of months.

The Minister’s view that the select committee should spend time looking closely at those clauses specifically indicates to me that she is open to the suggestion that that drafting can be tidied up. In fact, with all the concerns that have been raised about the definition of “financial advice” and “financial advisers” over the course of the last 2 to 3 months, I have to say I do not think that gets us to where we need to be in order to exclude the so-called bank teller example or, for that matter, a real estate advertisement that gives an indication that a particular rental property today is returning 6 percent on the investment. In my view, the “avoidance of doubt” clause would not preclude either of those examples at first glance. However, I am sure the select committee will test that further.

Indeed, the definition of “financial advice” in clause 6 does not help us either. Clause 6(4) states: “Whether advice is financial advice or not is not affected by—(a) how the advice is given or communicated;”, whereas clause 6(2) states: “For the avoidance of doubt, the provision of information, whether orally or in writing, is not advice unless it is accompanied by a recommendation, an opinion, or guidance.” I think there is still quite a lot of work to do in marrying up those particular clauses so that we get a better net capturing some of those more tricky examples we have talked about. In fact, I think that in an effort to clarify those definitions tightly by inserting those catch-all clauses, we may find that we might have added to the confusion rather than clarified the specific nature of the advice that the Minister was looking to capture.

I think, too, that we still have some questions to answer—as the Minister herself pointed out—around the issue of approved professional bodies. There is a really interesting question as to whether a pyramid-shaped regulatory framework should exist for financial advisers—with the Securities Commission at the top of the pyramid, followed by a few or several approved professional bodies, and the consumer at the bottom—or whether we should have just a linear framework that has the Securities Commission, one approved body, and then a range of financial advisers being captured by a regulatory framework such as this legislation. If the select committee were to adopt that model, of course, we would want to avoid—and I am sure the Minister would agree with me on this—one approved professional body capturing a monopoly and driving up commissions and the like on those investors. That, I think, will be an important discussion that we will need to have.

Central to this particular legislation is the issue of disclosures of fees and commissions—something that will need a pretty close look as we work our way through these particular pieces of legislation. I think we also need to think a bit—and I know the Minister has made many comments in speeches and in press releases about the kind of educative nature that some of these bodies need to take up—to ensure that we are not simply upgrading the size of the disclosure document that is dumped on the investor but, rather, are taking the opportunity to make sure that crucial advice is covered and that the information that is passed to the investor prior to the decision being made, or at the point that the decision is being made, is clear and concise and can be understood. That is, I guess, the vocational imbalance that might exist between the adviser, who has access to the information, and the investor who is making that decision to put in monies.

I think we should look at other international models for this regulatory framework. Hong Kong is a good example. It operates a much more stringent licensing regime. I think it is worth the select committee asking whether that model is achieving a different outcome from the one proposed and whether there is anything we can learn from the way those models have worked that we might be able to import into some of this legislation—again, without wanting to crack a nut with a sledgehammer, as the Minister says. This is a bit of a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have a good look at these particular regimes.

I understand the reasons for the Minister sending the legislation to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, although I think it is a shame that it is not coming to the Commerce Committee where, no doubt, we would give it equal weight and due consideration. None the less, National will be ably represented on that committee as this bill passes through, and I will continue to keep a close eye on its progress.

The National Party will be supporting the first reading of this bill and its referral to the select committee on the terms sought by the Minister. We remain concerned about those aspects I have raised today—that is, definitions around “advice” and “financial advisers”, the role or proliferation of approved professional bodies, and issues of fees, disclosures, and disclosures of commissions. We also take the opportunity to encourage comparison with international models and, most important, we say to people who invest in finance companies that this is their opportunity to have a say as much as it is the industry’s opportunity to have a view on the legislation that will go before the committee.

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

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) : Talofa lava and my greetings. This Financial Advisers Bill, whose first reading the Minister of Commerce, Lianne Dalziel, led off earlier in the afternoon, is a further commitment by this Government to promoting confidence in the financial sector. There are many New Zealanders who at the moment are looking to Parliament and this Government to do that—given recent events in the non - bank financial sector, in particular—as part of our ongoing reform of that sector, which brings this bill before the House. It will promote greater accountability and transparency for financial advisers, ensuring they are competent and act appropriately when managing conflicts of interest—again, something that the public will be very keen to see enacted.

The bill will set up a co-regulatory regime between the Securities Commission and industry-based approved professional bodies. The bill sets up that regime for financial advisers, and its main provisions will require disclosure of financial advisers’ conflicts of interest, their fees, and their competency to ensure that members of the public can make informed decisions. It will require competency of financial advisers to ensure that they have the experience, the expertise, and the integrity to effectively match a member of the public to a financial product that best meets that person’s need and risk profile. It will ensure that financial advisers are held accountable for any financial advice they give, and that there are incentives for them to manage appropriately conflicts of interest.

In her speech the Minister indicated that she invited the Finance and Expenditure Committee to look at the various definitions in the bill, and to ensure that members of the public, as well as the industry, make submissions on this bill. Obviously the bill has companion legislation, which we are working on, and it is important to have that set in place by the middle of this year. As a member of the select committee that will deal with this very important legislation, I look forward to hearing from the public and from the financial advisers industry itself so that we can put together good legislation and report it back to the House so Parliament can pass it. I know there will be many people out there nursing some wounds from their own investments over the last year or so who will be welcoming this Government’s move.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) : Late last year under urgency this Parliament passed the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill. The bill that we have before us tonight is the Financial Advisers Bill of 2007, and the commentary that has come via the Bills Digest suggests that these two bills, the one I previously mentioned that went to select committee last year and this bill, should form one new Act. I am not going to go into the pros and cons of that, but there are certainly some similarities between the two. National supports this bill going to select committee and the need to establish a co-regulatory regime for financial advisers where the Securities Commission and industry-based approved professional bodies, to be known as APBs, will work together to create and monitor standards for financial advisers. The industry-based approved professional bodies will be front line, day-to-day regulators, while the Securities Commission will be responsible for the oversight and maintenance of standards of approved professional bodies and for ensuring the overall health of the sector.

National agrees that there needs to be an update to the legislation governing the activities of financial advisers. However, it is impossible to eliminate risk from financial decision-making, so a balance must be struck between minimising risks for investors and minimising the costs to investors. Legislation is not the only response to minimising the risks of financial investment; improved financial education and literacy need to be a part of improving New Zealand’s investment culture.

The range of financial advice in related services captured by this legislation is much broader than previously. However, there needs to be caution to ensure that the providers of simple or uncontroversial services do not incur undue costs. In researching some background to this, I note that in Singapore the Monetary Authority of Singapore sought amendments to its Financial Advisers Act back in October of 2007. The key features of that review, for which submissions were sought, were implementing a perpetual licensing regime for capital market services and financial advisers licence holders, replacing the current licensing framework for licensed representatives and exempt representatives, and replacing the Financial Advisers Act with a new representative notification framework. Even countries that are very versed in financial matters look to review their legislation from time to time.

With the finance company collapses over recent months, and the likelihood of more, the question is whether this bill actually addresses the real issues. The extent of economic and social harm from deficient financial advice will not be fixed by this bill in its current form. Many large and small investors who have suffered financial loss as a consequence of bad advice. Many of these investors are elderly and have lost life-savings after being given advice by so-called financial planners.

The move to approved professional bodies, which will be a regulatory regime, may sort out some of the rogues. However, if we look at the genesis of this bill, we see it goes back over 4 years, when the issues I have just raised were not as paramount as they are today. If we were to look at a bill today and start from scratch, I am sure we would see a different type of bill, one that moves to protect the investor through a regulatory framework that would address the major deficiencies of financial adviser disclosure law and the compulsory disclosure of advisers’ fees and commission.

This would enable the investor to identify any economic incentives that the financial adviser may incur and may gain from the advice he or she has been given. At the moment, advisers have to disclose their position only if the client requests disclosure, and many people do not know that they have that ability to do so, and subsequently do not ask. The law requiring compulsory disclosure comes into effect on 29 February of this year.

There is also a need for a banning orders regime against breaches by financial advisers. That would give investor protection, and, if we look at the Australian model, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission has done exactly this for cases identical to cases that have recently occurred in New Zealand—yet we do not have that provision in this bill, nor has it been envisaged. As part of the select committee process, which we welcome because we are supporting this bill to the select committee, there may be the opportunity to tighten up and to give that sort of protection that I mentioned before.

The purpose of this bill should be to protect the mum and dad investors, who may not have the financial acumen to make the right financial decisions, so they become very reliant on advice from the so-called advisers, and there are many of those. Some of them, I have to say, have been quite unscrupulous, and we are seeing the results of this today with so many businesses falling over and so many people who have been caught in that trap.

Many people who lost money because of breaches of, and by, financial advisers were, in fact, prudent savers. They had saved for many years. And now, in the latter years, after they have invested possibly their superannuation or possibly the money put aside for a rainy day with people in whom they had trust and confidence, those people have been found wanting.

There are many cases where confidence has been breached and abused and there has been no desire to make reparations. In fact, I do not know of any cases where there has been a requirement for a financial adviser to make reparation to someone who has lost money. National will support this bill to select committee, but we will be looking to strengthen the safeguard for innocent investors.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : Let me make it clear from the onset that New Zealand First will most definitely be supporting this bill to go to a select committee, not because we think the bill is 100 percent correct and we have it right, but because we believe there is a need for this type of legislation in this country. I can recall that quite some years back—1987 as a matter of fact, and I will just give the House a little bit of my personal experience with financial advisers—I had coming to me two chunks of money, both fairly significant, with an interval of time in between. This was before the crash of 1987. I saw an advertisement in a newspaper or a financial magazine. I contacted the principals and in due course an agent came to see me, gave me a prospectus, and gave me an investment statement, for want of a better term, and I thought it was pretty good. I gave him the chunk of money and told him another chunk of money was coming in so many weeks’ time. In the intervening time the crash of 1987 started to occur, and in due course this financial adviser—financial whizz kid; call him what you like—turned up at my home, and I had a second chunk of money. He gave me the impression that investing with that particular organisation was safe—as safe as houses as we would say, as safe as Bob Clarkson’s buildings—and, of course, I duly gave him the money.

What happened? A few weeks later I found out that not only had my first chunk of money diminished somewhat but the second chunk of money had also diminished. If the truth be told, somebody would have known that as soon as I gave him that cheque it would shrink by quite some amount.

Bob Clarkson: You should have come and seen me!

PETER BROWN: I tell Mr Clarkson that I missed his comment, but I am sure he is—

Ron Mark: He said “Buy a race track.”

PETER BROWN: Yes—[Interruption]

Ron Mark: He said he rorted the council.

PETER BROWN: That is very honest of him, is it not? But to get back to this bill; I say that that was a serious situation, and I was quite disappointed, obviously, as members can imagine. That money that I had invested had turned into a fraction of what it was when I invested it. I approached the finance house and I got little satisfaction. At the end of the day, though, with being a little more shrewd, I did not lose too much. I managed to work the system, and I mean that honestly; I did not short-change anybody. But we can think of the mums and dads, and perhaps, even more important, the retired folk, who have put their life savings into investment houses in recent times and come out, in some cases with nothing, and in other cases with very little and a good deal less than they invested.

But I go back to my experience. I got a prospectus and I got an investment statement, which is all I could call it. But this bill states in clause 6(3) that “Financial advice—“(c) does not include advice about the procedure for taking or implementing a financial decision; and (d) does not include any of the following: (i) a prospectus; or (ii) an investment statement;” But I have to tell the House that thousands of people invest on the strength of those two pieces of paper. They get a prospectus and then they ask the agent or adviser whether they can prepare an investment statement for them. That is what has happened, and that is what does happen, but this bill says that that is not giving financial advice.

Now I turn to clause 8, which states: “Act does not apply to lawyer who performs financial adviser service in course of professional practice”. Well, I have had some experience with those guys.

John Hayes: You’ve got your boss.

PETER BROWN: My boss is a bloody good lawyer, and a very honest one; the member can have no doubt about it. I have to say that the lawyer I am about to talk about—and I am not going to name him because it was some years ago—attended to some legal matters for me, and he proved to be an excellent lawyer when it came to the legal side of things. But I also invested some money with him, and some of it went astray. Luckily I got my investment back; the law firm honoured it. But there were many who perhaps were not as persistent as me, or as determined as me, whatever, who lost thousands. I have to ask, with that experience, why this legislation does not apply to a lawyer who performs financial adviser services in the course of professional practice. I think that that is something the select committee has to look it, because I am aware that in this country over a period of quite some years several lawyers have taken money from members of the public, and it has disappeared without trace. Indeed, some of those lawyers have ended up in prison. I really cannot understand why the Minister has included that clause in this bill. There must be a reason, but I would urge the select committee to look at the clause in some detail and with some scrutiny.

I do not want to give the impression that New Zealand First does not understand that when people invest money there is some risk, and one cannot legislate totally against risk. But we are talking about legislation that is meant to be giving the public the best security it possibly can when they invest their money. As I said earlier on, with some of the events of the last 18 months and with organisations keeling over almost every month for the last 18 months or so, one has to wonder where the ethics are, why the industry works the way it is, and why it has not made a more positive attempt to tidy its own backyard up. This bill is needed, but as I said earlier I have read the bill only very briefly and I have found some flaws in it.

Another flaw that I found—and I can accept that I am not fully au fait with the whole thing—is in clause 35, “Protection of client’s money held on trust”, which states “The money of a client that is received or held by a financial adviser on trust—(a) must not be used to pay the debts of any other creditor of the financial adviser;”, and there is another paragraph, paragraph (b). Well, that is self-evident, I would have thought: one does not take money that belongs to a client and pay one’s own debts. But there is no penalty clause for anybody who does that—at least, if there is, I cannot find it. There are penalty clauses in preceding clauses—clauses 30, 32, 33, and 34—but when we get to clause 35 and see that it states that the adviser must not use money to pay debts, there is no penalty for the person who does that. Maybe the provision has to be read in conjunction with one of the earlier clauses, but it does surprise me that there is no penalty attached to a financial adviser who takes money that legitimately belongs to a client or has been given to the adviser by the client and who uses it to pay the debts of any other creditor of the adviser.

New Zealand First will support this bill. We urge the select committee to give it a thorough examination, because we think, and suspect, there are some flaws in it. If we are going to produce legislation like this, it is in the public’s interest that we examine it, and we want the best legislation there possibly can be.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) : I rise to speak in favour of the Financial Advisers Bill. I will take up an issue that the previous speaker, Peter Brown, raised about lawyers, which I will attempt to answer as I work through my contribution.

I think it is fair to say—and I think the member touched on it—that there has been a lot of uncertainty, as far as the public is concerned, about issues relating to financial advice over the last 18 months at least, and this has been highlighted by some of the performances by some of the financial advisers, particularly over the last 12 months or less. There is no doubt about it that this is a bill whose time has come.

I have to say, I suppose, without a great deal of enthusiasm, that when I was the Minister of Commerce this issue was raised. I actually recall it being raised by the leader of New Zealand First, who was looking into this matter. There was no question that this issue needed to be addressed; the problem was what its level of priority was. The first level of priority when we came into Government in 1999 was protecting small investors, which is important. That was done through the Takeovers Code, to ensure that all investors or shareholders received rights similar to those of the big investors, which had not happened in New Zealand. That was something that was really important. We then had to try to deal with things such as insider trading, and toughening up the powers of the Securities Commission and giving it more funds. I know that the Minister of Commerce has been beavering away on a number of other matters relating to this whole financial services area. Now we are in a position to be able to do something about financial advisers, and I think it is critical. It is about having confidence in this important area of the financial sector.

The previous speaker spoke about people who have a small nest egg and who want to invest it to try to protect their future, only, often, to be let down by advice. There do not seem to be any particular penalties that can be brought against advisers, apart from taking them to court—a protracted series of events. The idea here is to try to build the fence at the top of the cliff, and that is a good thing. The bill is looking to try to promote accountability and transparency for financial advisers, and I would hope that the financial advice sector welcomes this with open arms. I have not yet heard anybody opposing it, and I would be interested to see whether anyone is prepared to put his or her head over the parapet, given what has happened in New Zealand over the last little while.

Some people will be asking whether this bill is the appropriate model. It sets up a co-regulatory regime, and it is a regime that provides for established codes of practice within the industry, to be overseen by the Securities Commission. There is a balance between, on the one hand, having the Government totally regulate, which is always a difficult thing to do, because often the Government cannot keep up with every modern piece of information that is happening within the finance sector, and, on the other hand, self-regulation, which has proved to be absolutely hopeless—the kind of thing that is now being addressed in the real estate area. I think that balance is really, really critical.

The bill basically requires financial advisers to address things like conflicts of interest, fees, and competency. It requires financial advisers to be competent, to ensure that they have the experience, expertise, and integrity to give the public confidence, and it ensures that financial advisers are held accountable for any financial advice that they give. There are some definitions that are probably worthy of repeating. In clause 6(5) a “financial decision” is considered to be anything to do with “(a) saving money: (b) investing, holding, or realising money or property: (c) borrowing money: (d) incurring a debt: (e) giving a security, including a guarantee or indemnity: (f) taking out insurance: (g) making financial provision for the future.” A “financial adviser” is defined in clause 7(a) as a person who “(i) is a member of an approved professional body and is registered:”—under the financial services providers legislation—“and (ii) performs a financial adviser service in the course of the business of that person or of another person;”.

The member made quite a good point, actually, which is that the bill excludes lawyers, and that is right—it does. We faced this issue in respect of the Immigration Bill, when we were looking at trying to regulate immigration advisers. The question really was that if lawyers provide immigration advice—yes, they do—should they be bound by a sort of regulatory regime similar to that for other people who are providing immigration advice? Yes, they should. But, actually, when one looks at lawyers, one sees that that profession does have its own accountability screens within its own legislation. There is the ability to penalise wayward lawyers, and there is the ability to address the concerns that the public have. In the immigration advisory area, it was my view that to try to create a dual system where lawyers are accountable not only to their own system but also to a new immigration advisers bill was a bit of overkill. The lawyers, of course, supported that position, as one would expect, and it was always my view that we should keep an eye on it and see whether the regime that we had introduced was working effectively. It has been a while since I have had anything to do with it, so it has been difficult to see how it has worked through, but I imagine that a similar kind of logic or thinking has applied in this particular case. That is an area that the select committee will need to look at.

If I had anything to do with the select committee, my advice to the people on that committee would be to look at the immigration advisers legislation, which excludes lawyers because they have legislation covering them, to see whether it was working, to see whether there had been any complaints in the immigration advice area that had not been able to be resolved, and to see whether that kind of regime needed to be duplicated here, or whether there was something here that was over and above just ordinary—for example, immigration advice that meant the bill should apply to lawyers. Probably one would have to say that the need to regulate financial advice was more important than the need to regulate immigration advice, but that is something the committee would want to look at.

Peter Brown: So you’re agreeing with me?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: No, I am not agreeing with the member; I am saying he raises a good issue, an important issue. I do not think it is as the member indicates. I do not think it is worth voting against the bill from that point of view—and the member has indicated he will not do so—but I think the important thing is that this is one of the issues that the select committee would need to address. I can see some logic as to why the Minister of Commerce has excluded lawyers, but I think it needs to be tested out at the select committee. If the committee felt that it was an area that needed to be addressed, then it could come back with alternative recommendations.

I think it is a bill whose time has come. People will argue that it should have been done sooner—the old “too little, too late” kind of thing—but a huge amount of work has gone on in the whole securities market and financial market area since this Labour-led Government came in, in 1999. A huge number of reforms have been built to try to make sure there is more security and more stability within the sector, and this bill is another important piece in the armoury to make sure that people can invest with confidence.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) : This legislation before the House tonight, the Financial Advisers Bill, is truly important legislation. In the last 18 months, 14 finance companies have collapsed, and I am certain there will be many more collapses, given the structure of those organisations and also what is going on in the context of New Zealand investment.

I want to deal with a number of issues in the time that is available, and to start by saying that National supports this bill going to a select committee. It is particularly unfortunate that we are dealing with two bills—the Financial Advisers Bill, which is the subject of this debate tonight, and the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Bill. The reason is that although both bills will go to the same select committee and although the time frames are broadly comparable, there are similarities and substantial differences between the structures of those bills, which are really intended to form a coherent whole.

In looking at the market in general terms and asking why this bill is necessary, it is right to say that if all of these finance company collapses had been known at the time a process of consultation was occurring, then this bill would not have been in the form that it is. Just by way of a starting point in that regard, members may know that finance companies that are non-bank deposit taking institutions—and I am excluding savings institutions—account for about 44 percent of total non-bank lending institutions’ assets. The impact of these finance company collapses on individual households is in excess of $1 billion.

I think it is interesting that these failures reflect the relatively high risks that finance companies have taken in their business operations. There is a significant heterogeneity across the deposit-taking finance companies. The lending institutions with higher credit risks are typically involved in property-development finance, mezzanine lending, and consumer lending. It is also right to say that the failures that have occurred to date have been caused fundamentally by underlying solvency problems to do with asset quality, connected lending, and credit management, and that liquidity pressures would have been the trigger for closure in some cases. Many companies are under continued liquidity pressure, particularly given the risk of reduced rates of reinvestment in the sector, and there is good data about that particular topic.

We have also seen, since the failures of 2006—and I am thinking of companies like National Finance, Provincial Finance, Western Bay Finance, and, more recently, Bridgecorp and others—that reinvestment has substantially declined, reflecting the squeeze in liquidity in the sector and an increased reliance on other forms of funding. That is in marked contrast to what has been going on in the savings bank area.

An important element of this episode has been that many investors have not received appropriate returns for their risk. For example, although finance companies engage in riskier lending than banks, this is only partly reflected in the returns on short-term deposits. The average difference between the interest rates on 1-year term deposits at banks, and 1-year finance company debentures has been consistently around 1 percent. So one can ask why an investor would put money into a finance company and not go off to a bank like Westpac or Rabobank and earn a monthly rate of interest, on a reasonable deposit sum, of around 8.2 or 8.4 percent. Deposit-taking finance companies, on average, have a margin between debentures and loans—and I am talking about the interest spread—around twice that of banks, and it is significantly more for companies lending for consumer purposes. That is all very odd.

So far as this particular legislation is concerned, one would have to say that the scope of the bill is commendable. Its purpose is to require disclosure of financial advisers’ conflicts of interest, fees, and competency. Requiring competency of financial advisers and ensuring that financial advisers are held accountable for any financial advice are clearly worthwhile, laudable objectives. But I share the reservation of earlier National speakers that it may be that although we support sending this legislation to a select committee, there are some fundamental mishits in it. Clearly, one of the complexities of the legislation will be all around the requirement that financial advisers are required to be members of an approved professional body and registered on the register of financial service providers. There is the opportunity, in the context of the bill, for there to be multiple providers, with multiple complications associated with that. There are also disclosure obligations for financial advisers, and provisions that basically track the existing law on conduct obligations for financial advisers.

One of the big problems will be the meaning of “financial advice” and “financial decision”. I believe that errors have been made by the Government in drafting those policy provisions—in particular, in clause 6(2). How might that work? A customer may go into a trading bank and say “I have $20,000 to invest. What do you suggest I do?”, and the teller says whatever he or she thinks. Clearly there is reliance in that setting whereby the person who has the money is unsure of what the possibilities might be. That seems to me to be clearly within the provisions of clause 6(2). It is in oral form—it is unlikely to be in written form; it does not need to be in written form—and it is, in effect, a recommendation, an opinion, or guidance. Although the Minister says that it was not intended that bank tellers would be picked up by this legislation, with the way in which it is drafted, sadly, they will be. But other classes of occupation will be similarly caught. I would instance, for example, the person giving advice on rental investment and rental returns.

It is also relevant to note in this regard that although there are some exceptions in this legislation, the parallel legislation words the exceptions in a slightly different way, and that is calculated to cause confusion. I think it is also possible to argue—and it is why I made the preliminary comment that if these finance company collapses had been known, there would have been a different financial model—that this legislation is substantially about self-regulation. We are one of the very few countries that have not moved to regulate this type of financial activity. I know there is criticism of the Australian model—and maybe that criticism is justified—but there is a case to say that, given the extent of the calamity we are looking at in terms of finance company collapses, a self-regulation model may, in fact, not be the best plan.

The final thing I would like to say is just on an aspect that relates to the enforcement provisions in this legislation. We have the collapse of Bridgecorp, we have talk of representative and class actions being mounted by disgruntled investors, and it is right to say the law in New Zealand, as it relates to class action—and I am talking about the procedural rules around the law—is not wholly satisfactory. They are in marked contrast to what goes on in Australia. So I would express the hope that the select committee that looks at this bill will contemplate substantial changes that will enable class actions to be advanced and will protect investors as an investment group.

• Bill read a first time.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Minister of State) on behalf of the Minister of Commerce: I move, That the Finance and Expenditure Committee consider the bill, and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 20 June 2008.

• Motion agreed to.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) : I move, That the Policing Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate point I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee, that the committee report back to the House before 31 May 2008, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c).

I am proud to open the debate on the Policing Bill. It contains the most far-reaching legislative proposals on policing to come before this House in half a century. The bill will replace the 1958 Police Act and two smaller statutes dealing with aspects of international policing. It will fast-forward New Zealand Police legislation into the 21st century.

These reforms are long overdue. The complex challenges of today’s world cannot be met with laws grounded in an earlier era. The context for contemporary policing is radically different from that faced by the lawmakers in the 1950s when the current Police Act was passed, not the least of which are new forms of offending, and technological advances that can now be used to combat crime. Indeed, in some cases, the leap we need to make is not just from the 1950s. Several provisions in the existing Police Act—especially in the areas of governance, employment arrangements, and ways to manage staff conduct—trace back to Victorian times.

Although there have been incremental changes to the Police Act over the years, the current legislative framework for policing is still left with unnecessarily prescriptive rules and confused lines of accountability, amongst other drawbacks. In confronting these challenges, the bill reflects the outcome of a wide-ranging review of the 1958 Act that has been undertaken during the past 2 years. The review was not a narrow administrative exercise but sought to promote a national conversation about the future of policing, in order to fundamentally re-imagine what sort of legislative arrangements might best support the needs of a modern New Zealand Police.

In many ways, the Police Act review has been a model process, and the bill now before the House shows the benefits of all the effort that has gone into developing, consulting, and refining proposals for new policing legislation. I pay tribute to all those who have contributed to the success of the Police Act review and who took the opportunity to contribute their ideas on the best form of legislation for police. This includes important contributions made by independent bodies such as the Law Commission, the Human Rights Commission, and the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. They helped to ensure that the proposals in the bill are consistent with the basic rights and protections guaranteed by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

The review also includes the views of front-line police, as well as of the two main police staff associations, which have been fed into the preparation of this bill. Those at the sharp end of policing are uniquely placed to provide advice on legislation that most appropriately supports the New Zealand Police in the future. Their participation has been a key strength of the law reform process and has led to practical suggestions for this bill. The spokespeople of our various political parties in this Parliament have had access to all the information and have been involved in the process from the beginning, and I thank the members for that.

The Commissioner of Police took responsibility for leading this review, and he and his deputies have been closely involved throughout. Indeed, they have led the work. I am pleased to say that the draft legislation now before the House is roundly supported by police senior leaders.

As well as input from police themselves, a diverse range of individuals, groups, and organisations have contributed to the shape of the bill. Three distinct consultation phases allowed New Zealanders to articulate what kind of police service they want, and gave them a voice to identify the kinds of legislative arrangements that can help deliver that style of policing. It was very pleasing to see genuine engagement and debate about policing legislation from communities throughout New Zealand. For example, territorial local authorities played a prominent role in each of the three public consultation rounds, as did several non-governmental organisations such as the Māori Wardens Association.

As another means of grounding the proposals for the new policing legislation, public research was commissioned on what New Zealanders want and expect of their police service. This too helped thinking about how policing in this country might best be enabled by legislation. These multiple strands of consultation, together with testing and refinements, have come together in this bill. It represents an emerging consensus that has described a broadly based, shared vision of how the law should deal with issues as diverse as the overall role of the New Zealand Police, high-level governance, and accountability arrangements, right through to some of the more administrative nuts and bolts that allow a large State sector organisation to work effectively and efficiently.

Given the role of the police in society and in our constitutional system of Government, police-enabling statutes should command the broadest possible cross-party support. I therefore look forward to working with all members of this House, and hope they will take an active interest in the Policing Bill and provide a strong, clear, durable legislative platform for our nation’s police service. I do not believe there can be any place for political playing with this particular bill.

I turn to the main provisions, and I will mention only a few in the short time I have. There are many, many parts of this bill but there are two main objectives. The first is to reform the legal structure under which the New Zealand Police is mandated and organised; a special focus here is on clarifying the functions of the police, policing principles, and the constitutional relationship between police and the Government of the day. The second goal is to equip the police to better meet the needs of New Zealanders. This involves updating personnel management provision and putting in place a clear and modern framework for specially authorised employees exercising policing powers.

Although the bill breaks new ground in a number of areas, it is important to note that cherished aspects of our policing history are also carried through. The measures in the bill represent a careful blend of continuity and change. For example, in confirming the relative areas of responsibility of the Commissioner of Police and the Minister of Police, the bill’s provisions strike a balance between setting out some of the basic reference points in statute, but do not attempt to legislate for all aspects of the relationship. This allows us to preserve, and continue to benefit from, important common law concepts that have stood the test of time, notably the doctrine of constabulary independence, while giving added strength and transparency to the principle of police operational independence.

In the human resource area, the bill aims to create a simplified and more flexible environment that offers much greater scope for modern management and industrial relations practices. The personnel provisions of the bill will help to achieve that. The bill gives a statutory basis to the code of conduct for the police, for example.

Secondly, the bill confirms a longstanding prohibition against the involvement of police staff in elections for political office. Clause 97 drives at the need for police employees to ensure that their participation in elections does not bring them into conflict with their duty to act in a politically neutral way. This clause is one that I know will be closely looked at by some members in this House, and I invite those who feel strongly about this point to make submissions on the bill. I know that Mr Mark has a particular view on this.

I am sure that none of us wants to unpick the large measure of consensus that has developed around this bill. I want to focus on arriving at the best possible form of legislation we can. It is critical that we get it right; policing is simply too important not to get right. If the 1958 Act is anything to go by, the work we do in this Parliament on the new statute for police may well be on the law books for another 50 years.

There is a reservoir of public goodwill towards our police, and a large measure of respect for the citizens in uniform who maintain safety and security in our communities. Those men and women do not routinely carry firearms, which makes the New Zealand police service one of the few unarmed police forces anywhere in the world. This is a consent-based form of policing that is keenly valued by Kiwis and visitors alike, and which is possible only because of the widespread public support for, and confidence in, the New Zealand Police. The Policing Bill is designed to build on that powerful legacy. I commend the bill to the House, and I look forward to receiving broad-based support from the people’s representatives in this Parliament.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I rise to speak in respect of the Policing Bill, and to give an indication that the National Party will be supporting the bill to go through its processes. It is good to be part of a process that is non-contentious, as the operational workings of the police go beyond political intervention. That is the goal, and that is the way in which they operate on almost all occasions. And that is what we should aspire to on every occasion. So it has been a pleasure to be part of a process that has been open and transparent through the consultation and investigative processes in putting together this bill.

The bill recognises the need to reform legislation governing the provision of policing services in New Zealand. Although many of the principles underlying policing have remained the same over the past century or so—in fact, they did not change a heck of a lot between the beginning of last century and the time the Police Act was written—our current policing legislation does not reflect the realities of modern policing. You see, it is interesting to note that nowadays almost every part of core policing business in this country is carried out by people other than members of the New Zealand Police—in other words, by private operators. That is the stage we have got to over time, in this country.

But it is good to note too that the principles that are fundamental to the Police Act have remained very strongly evident, and are bolstered in the Policing Bill as it is before us. Those principles are described in the bill as: “principled, effective, and efficient policing services are a cornerstone of a free and democratic society under the rule of law:”, and “effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence:”. This public support and confidence, although it has been attacked and slightly eroded over recent times, still remains fervently in the hearts of most New Zealanders, who want to believe and do believe in the integrity of the New Zealand Police and of the men and women who make up the ranks of those police officers, sworn and non-sworn.

Policing services are provided under a national framework but also have local community focus, and I think that one of the fundamentals of policing within New Zealand over the last hundred years or so is the local focus that many police have had. It has been a bit of a shame to note that maybe over the last 15 or 20 years, after the corporatisation of the public sector, we have tried to look at a one-size-fits-all model. As we go around the traps we come time and time again to those people who long to live in the days when the local policeman was the rule of law for the local community, and for the various uniquenesses of the local community.

I have to say that we cannot go back. I think back to 1958—well, I do not think back to 1958, because I was a 1-year-old at the time—but from the stories that came out of the police about policing in those times, and because of the fact that we had a piece of legislation, even though it was hacked around a bit from time to time to make it fit, we know that some weird and wonderful things happened back in those days that now, I think fortunately, are consigned to folklore.

In 1958 the Taranaki police district had one police car. It was a 1955 DeSoto—Harry Duynhoven would probably be salivating if he were in a position to listen to this—and driven by the driver for the local district commander. If police had to attend a job they walked, took a pushbike, or caught a taxi. There was no such thing as a police car being available to policemen in the way it is now, or even in the way it was 30 years ago. The police in Taranaki used to get a bit bored on a night shift—I do not know why, Taranaki being the hub that it is of all sorts of activity—and they would disconnect the speedo cable from under the DeSoto and go for a drive around the mountain in the middle of the night. There was not much to do, so they would call in at Rāhotu, Pungarehu, Ōkato, and all those little hamlets around the mountain as they were then. And they could hide the fact, obviously, that they had converted that police car by disconnecting the speedo cable, but they could not hide the fact that they had used all the petrol. So they used to slip down to the local bus station and siphon some gas out of the buses and put it into the back of the police car. I have just recalled, of course, that there is no statute of limitations in crimes, so maybe I should stop about there.

But that was the country we were living in. A policeman attending a job had his whistle, his baton, and his notebook, and that was about it. And that was the way it remained for a long time. I guess the thing I lament about the passing of those days is that policemen relied a lot more on their tongues and their ability to communicate than maybe they do today. When we look at their belts today, we see that they look more like electricians, with things for everything they do hanging off their belts.

Back in those times too, in 1958, it was 13 years after the end of the Second World War. Everyone’s father, uncle, or whoever, had been involved in the Second World War, and the country was fully involved in things like discipline, respect, and all that sort of thing that went with those times. But just 10 years down the track we had a change; we had a different involvement militarily. We had different views on whether we should have been involved, and we had public protests—not for the first time—which were a real kickback on the way people reflected on authority. So the way in which citizens reflected on the police’s ability to deal with them changed significantly.

We had police regulations, which were many and varied, and really strange, but we were largely policing, for instance, by the Police Offences Act, which was 1927 legislation. It was illegal in those days to have one’s tools of trade open to view on a Sunday. It was illegal to allow a stallion to service a mare within public view, at all. Those provisions were all parts of Acts that the country was being policed under at that time.

So we have come now to a place where, through the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, the job of the police has changed hugely, and the expectations on police have changed hugely, too. For instance, with the introduction of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in 1990, and then the merger between the Ministry of Transport and the police, there was a completely different public expectation of the way in which the police would carry out their job.

I recall the day when, as a constable at Pātea, a father turned up to me and said “I have just caught my boy pinching things out of the house. I wonder whether you could chuck him in the cells for a couple of hours to teach him a lesson.” So I did. I put him in the cells for a couple of hours. It was totally illegal, but I did it in the spirit of community policing and all the rest of it. I am relating this story for a particular reason, and I will carry on with it. I put him in the cells. He was sitting in an ugly old wooden cell at the back of the Pātea Police Station. It came to lunchtime so I went over to the house, carved off a bit of cold roast, poured over some cold gravy, and cut a big slab of bread. I took it back to him and said “Here’s your lunch.” I went back about an hour or so later, expecting to find it sitting on the bench. He had consumed the whole lot, and asked whether there was any more.

The reason why I relate this story is that in New Zealand in those days we tended to think—and some people who are living in the past tend to think we are still there—that we could treat people in that way and it would always be of benefit to them. What actually happened was that that kid was permanently hungry. His father was a criminal who beat the hell out of him constantly, so that child learnt nothing from that style of policing. Those people who are constantly on at us to bring back the days when the good old bobby could put his size 11 boot up the backside of someone or give someone a clip around the ear and that would be the cure of all ills are absolutely ignorant, unfortunately. We now know more about the reasons for offending and the reasons why people offend. I also believe we are more determined to do something practical and with integrity to prevent that.

I believe that the introduction of this Policing Bill will take us to a new place in policing, where people within the community will take more ownership of the way we police. The New Zealand Police itself, which is a wonderful organisation, in spite of the odd lapse and in spite of some members of the public taking smacks at its members on every occasion, is an organisation that will be enhanced by this legislation. It will more truly reflect the New Zealand society in which we live, and I look forward to the positive workings of this bill once it passes through its parliamentary process.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) : As chair of the Law and Order Committee I say that we very much look forward to receiving the Policing Bill. I acknowledge the presence in the House tonight of the deputy chair of that committee, Ron Mark, and I know that he is literally just about rolling up his sleeves, getting ready to work on this very important bill. I acknowledge the previous speaker, Chester Borrows, as a member of the committee, and I certainly acknowledge his professional background. I think he will make a very good contribution to the select committee, along with the other members.

I am sure members of Parliament will agree that the reforms proposed in the Policing Bill are timely. As we are aware, and as the Minister pointed out, the Policing Bill replaces the 1958 Police Act and creates a fresh foundation for the legislation that guides the New Zealand Police. This is a law that is more suitable for the 21st century. Indeed, I acknowledge that this forward-looking bill builds on the solid base that this Government and previous Parliaments have already established for policing in New Zealand. In that sense, although we want to update and upgrade the policing legislation, I think it is very important to remind ourselves, but not in any smug sense, that our police service is second to none in the world. We need to reflect sometimes that every service, every group of people, is human. But certainly, as members of the Police Association would remind this member and others, we do have a police service that is second to none in the world. I challenge any member of the House to name another country that has a better police service than New Zealand’s.

But that is no reason to rest on our laurels. That is no reason for smugness. Indeed it is very important that, in order to maintain policing services that are relevant to New Zealanders and appropriate for our unique situation, we ensure this bill reflects changes in our society, supports the dedicated women and men who work in the police, and equips them with the right law to maintain a truly world-class police service. Those are important and ambitious goals, and the bill seeks to achieve them through two key areas of reform.

The first is to bring the governance, accountability, and organisational arrangements into line with the modern legislative environment, the expectation of New Zealanders, and the strong and accountable public sector that New Zealand is recognised for internationally. It is very important that we also reflect on the fact that, in terms of the index of honest Government, honest public service, and non-corruptibility, New Zealand is about the second or third-listed nation. Obviously that is something that we, along with our New Zealand police force, armed forces, and agencies of the law, wish to maintain. As the current Police Act offers virtually no guidance on the parameters of the relationship between the Minister and the commissioner and little clarity about the respective parties’ specific areas of responsibility, we might all agree that there are benefits in the bill’s proposal to more clearly outline the responsibilities and independence of the commissioner, and to highlight specific situations where the commissioner must act very clearly and concisely, independently of the Minister.

The second key area of reform that I note, and it is the one that I would like to focus on in my contribution tonight, is the support for effective policing. There are a number of ways that the bill seeks to achieve more effective and efficient policing, and that has been the result of very wide, comprehensive consultation. I acknowledge that members opposite certainly agree with me on that, and obviously I thank them for their very positive approach to this legislation.

I would like to talk about one issue in particular, which is the collection of identifying details from people detained by the police, as featured in clauses 32 and 33 of the bill. Those provisions are not a significant departure from those in the current Police Act, as I am sure you, Mr Assistant Speaker, will be very interested to know. The Act already allows the police to collect particulars of identification, but clauses 32 and 33 refine a number of aspects in order to better reflect the modern-day opportunities presented by faster and more readily available technology. The refinements in the clauses include suggesting limitations in order to protect individual privacy and human rights during the process.

Taking particulars of identity is the daily task of many front-line police. However, the routine of that activity belies the very critical importance of that function. The activity and the identification details collected play an important role in sustaining the very core of the confidence we have in the justice system that the persons put before the court by the police are indeed who they say they are. Accordingly, I am very interested to note and support the clauses that enable this important part of our policing and justice system to proceed in a way that is practical, efficient, certain, and fair. I know that members of the select committee will also support them, because this is an area of critical concern in terms of ensuring that the community is adequately protected and indeed ensuring that we do achieve the right balance between detecting lawbreakers and protecting members of our community. It is necessary to ensure that we do have checks and balances in that system, obviously.

Clauses featuring modernisation, reform, and clarification are found throughout the bill, and the opportunity for refinement and discussion in the select committee through the submission process, and through the interchange between the select committee members and our advisers, will benefit from the extensive consultation process that underpins this bill. From my perspective as chair of the select committee, I want to say how excellent that consultation process appears to have been.

I am particularly interested in the overall theme also of professionalising and reinforcing the quality of our police. Members should not get me wrong; the police service of this country is very, very professional. However, numerous clauses are aimed at moving the police towards a modern and professional employment framework. As part of that, it is envisaged that the New Zealand Police will continue to develop the existing system of certification, with the possibility of establishing a regulated system of professional police registration at a later point in time. Indeed, members of this House may wish to explore whether there are opportunities to provide for such a model within the bill, and it may be that the select committee process will stimulate further discussion in that area.

It is timely to acknowledge the very important contribution of the New Zealand Police in advising us on the bill, and also the very, very important role of the Police Association. I know that the deputy chair of the select committee will strongly agree with me when I say we will look forward very closely to the input from the Police Association as, of course, it represents the men and women on the beat—on the ground, so to speak.

In conclusion, I say this legislation will clearly enable the police to provide the best policing services for New Zealand, and that is vital as we advance further into the 21st century. I am very confident that the bill will provide a solid footing on which to do that. As I said, I acknowledge the role of the police already. I, along with other colleagues, represent the city of Hamilton, and I acknowledge the role of the New Zealand Police in Hamilton. I look forward to receiving local government submissions on the bill. The Hamilton City Council, for example, has an excellent relationship locally with the police—and I know Councillor John Gower will agree with that. But I think we are really looking forward to the maximum number of submissions coming from a wide range of local government and other community organisations, so that we can truly come to a situation where we have the best tools by which to advance what is frankly the best police service in the world.

I commend the bill to the House, and, like other members of the select committee, I look forward to seeing the submissions made on it.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) : As a previous speaker has said, the National Party will be supporting this legislation. Before I actually talk about the bill I will pause for a minute to make this comment to the people who are listening. So often we hear criticism of this Parliament. We hear that we are always bickering and playing politics, etc. and that we are always at each other’s throats. There are times when we actually work together to come to some agreement, but, sadly, I never see those times reported. I think it is worthy for us to pause and note that this bill certainly has support and will be worked on at the select committee, where it will, no doubt, be further developed. So here we have legislation on which we have been working constructively as a Parliament. Sadly, it will pass without much recognition.

Having said that, I note that the bill itself is extremely important. The first thing I will do is add my comments to those of the previous speakers who have already recognised the very good police force we have in this country. Like every organisation, it has its moments. There is the odd person in the police who lets them down from time to time, but, in the main, they are good men and women who have their hearts and minds in the right place. They are certainly servants of the community. We can be proud of them as they are the people of this country who represent the front line as far as our fight against crime goes.

There is no question that times have moved rapidly recently, and times have certainly moved rapidly since the legislation that this bill is replacing was passed. Today it is common to see the police working not just with the community but in the community, as well. Police are also working not just as policemen or policewomen but as part of the community. They work, for example, with the Māori wardens, in schools, and in traffic policing. The police work closely with all sorts of different organisations, such as St John Ambulance and the New Zealand Fire Service. The police work with many different organisations that provide service to the community, and they have become a big part of those sorts of functions within the community. We can be proud that they have moved with the times.

I am sure we all have one or two stories to tell. I remember the good old days when police officers were more, I guess, individualistic. At times, particularly in smaller communities, they decided that maybe there were some things that could be straightened out on the spot. I have been proud to work with and become a very good friend of a number of these people, who are very decent New Zealanders—good people.

I remember an incident that occurred when I was a clerk of a local authority up north when we had the Project Employment Programme (PEP) schemes. It was Christmas time and I had to go across from one town to another in order to pick up the payroll, which in those days was all in cash. The amount of money was in excess of $100,000. I was a little nervous at having to drive 30 kilometres with this amount of money from the township where I had picked it up. So I said to the local constable: “Look, I’d really appreciate it if you could spare an hour and a bit and come with me to make sure there are no problems.” I asked mainly because about 9 months earlier there had been an incident where something untoward had happened. He said it was no problem. The said constable went into his office, got out his pistol, and put it in his pocket. We hopped in the car and away we went. We had a lovely chat all the way to the bank. Halfway back, with a boot full of $100,000 in notes, he said he had a bit of problem. He said he had a bit of a tummy upset and was caught short. He asked me to pull over to the side of the road so he could fix himself up. He jumped out of the car, left the pistol on the seat, and shot into the bushes. I was sitting there thinking: “Man, I hope no one comes by now, because I don’t know how to fire this pistol, and I don’t think the constable’s in any position to rush back and do anything at the moment.” So there I was sitting on the side of the road with $100,000 in the boot. Those are the sorts of things that happen.

The other story is about a jail in that particular township that was actually never used. It became a chook house. One evening the said policeman decided he needed to arrest someone. It was quite late, and it was dark. He arrested a gent just to keep him in overnight. He took him to the jail and pushed him halfway through the door—there was no light on, of course—and all of a sudden the chooks decided to fly out and started flapping round the guy’s ear. Well, I can tell members that he went straight from being quite drunk to being sober. He ran straight over the top of the cop and up the road, and no one saw him for 3 weeks. It certainly solved the problem. It is those funny little incidents that we remember fondly. There was probably so much more respect for the police then than there is today. I must say that the atmosphere around that town was one of fairness and respect, and there was a view that the town was well settled. These days it is different.

We also need to consider things from the point of view of our police doing the job. When one speaks to a policeman or policewoman one-on-one, one finds that part of the worry they have is that they feel we as a Parliament, but particularly our laws and the courts, do not support them enough in the work they do. They are unhappy with some of the laws they have to administer. They do not like to think that people they spend many hours searching for, tracking down, and finally finding—people who have offended against the community—can then just walk away by getting bail or getting some smart lawyer to represent them, and they do not get their dues. I think that is an issue that this country needs to think seriously about. The community wants this Parliament to think about it. The police, too, would be happier if there was a better outcome in a lot of cases where they actually do their job and apprehend people, rather than finding that the wet bus ticket comes out and insufficient punishment is meted out. If we are expecting the police to support the communities in the way that communities expect, then we must make sure we give them every opportunity and every support where we can.

This bill will do a lot to help in that way. It will focus more on policing in a modern age. It is the sort of thing that has a lot of support across the country and across the community, and, as I said, that is reflected here today in this Parliament. That is a good thing. It is a good step forward, and I hope it will have support. No doubt people will have their views, and that is how it should be. There will be good debate in the select committee; I have no doubt about that. This bill will be thoroughly examined. I am sure the public will take a very keen interest in it. I am sure, as has been said previously, that local government will want to make sure it has an involvement apart from just representing its communities generally. The police themselves, I am sure, will be keeping a close watch on what we do. This is a good bill and we should move it to the select committee to allow it to be considered in more depth.

RON MARK (NZ First) : I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak in support of the Policing Bill. Firstly, I extend my compliments to the Minister of Police, the Hon Annette King. As far as New Zealand First is concerned, the way this bill has been put together and the way in which the review was conducted and managed cross-party should serve as an example to all Ministers in the Labour Government. I would be lying if I said there were not other Ministers who in their time have shown a distinct inability to act in such a way. That has been something of a shame, because, in areas such as policing, the impact on the nation as a whole is hugely important. This is not the type of legislation we want to come back to in the term of a new Government to amend, simply because the governing party of the day was so ideologically driven or intractable as to be unable to accept the recommendations of outside parties or opposing parties. I mean it sincerely when I congratulate the Hon Annette King, her staff, and the Commissioner of Police on the way this bill has been brought to the House and on the processes it went through.

It is fair to say that the police have taken a bit of a hammering over the last 8 years. Both New Zealand First and I have played our part in that, where we felt it was appropriate. Some of the criticisms that have been levelled at the police were fair and occurred through activities and conduct of their own making and doing. That is regrettable. In the main, we have seen adjustments made, but not always. I have to say that some of the criticisms have been entirely unfair and have been made by people who have no understanding whatsoever, other than in their narrow, confined area of interest, of the greater security needs of communities, of the nation as a whole, and, in fact, of the rights of wider New Zealand to expect and demand the sort of police service they do.

New Zealand has changed a lot since 1958, as has been said in this debate thus far. There are matters dealt with under the Police Act 1958 that are entirely inappropriate now, and procedures and protocols that no longer fit. New Zealand now is more widely exposed to media scrutiny and criticism and to political scrutiny. MMP, in itself, has brought a whole new focus upon all Government departments. As law and order is so often one of the big issues come election years, politicians have—rightly—put the police under a lot more scrutiny that ever was the case before. That is not to mention lawyers, members of the judiciary, civil libertarian campaigners, and human rights activists, who all have their expectations and demands, and many of them legitimately so.

New Zealanders have high expectations of the police and demand their accountability. New Zealand expects and demands protection from the police. New Zealand expects and demands response from the police. New Zealand expects and demands top priority from the police. New Zealand is right to have such high expectations. That is why New Zealand First has been so driven in its support and championing of a greater separation of the complaints process from the police, in respect of the independence of the now newly established Independent Police Conduct Authority. We have applauded those changes, but we would go still further. We would ensure the absolute, unequivocal independence of that office by giving it statutory independence through making it an Officer of Parliament, and we have consistently said so. That is something we will, hopefully, have an opportunity to address in Government.

New Zealand believes that the public’s high expectations of the police need to be met with the equivalent resources, structure, powers, and command and control mechanisms that this bill seeks. It also needs to be recognised that the lot of a police officer is not necessarily a happy one. If I cast my mind back over the observations I have made of many of my extended family members who have served this nation in the uniform of the New Zealand Police I can say that it is sad but true that after police officers have been exposed to the criminal fraternity, the large number of domestics they attend, and the tragedies they witness on our roads every day of every week of every year, they become hardened and cynical. Police officers lose patience with and tolerance of the criminal fraternity who continue to appear in front of them time and time again, pleading their ignorance when they are as guilty as all hell, will be so again, and are often proven to be.

It is understandable that police officers—men and women—are human beings who look at the tragedies they have to deal with, week in and week out, and they look at their family and ask themselves: “Why are we back dealing with this character again, and who the hell is he to have the nerve to now go complaining to this person and paint us as being a bunch of brutal, non-caring, unthinking, violent, and oppressive people, who just happen also to be police officers?”. It saddens me that those criticisms are levelled at them, but I understand how, often, these police officers can become a little jaded and worn by the very work they do. We need to recognise that. We need to stop paying the little bit of lip-service that we do, on occasion, and recognise that these police officers seek to do one thing—that is, serve our nation. They serve the people, the community, and their families by making sure the communities are a safer place for them to live in.

Therefore, it is sad that, on occasion, we have seen officers subjected to what is described in these documents and in the Bills Digest as being something of a Victorian process when it comes to their being held accountable for indiscretions, a lack of discipline, or a failure by themselves to comply with the law or with the police general instructions. They are put through the hoops. I have seen police officers hung out to dry, complete with their families, and have their name splashed from one end of the country to the other in newspapers for 12 or 24 months, only to be proven innocent. They do not receive one apology or one red cent of compensation for the trauma they have been put through by people who have lied their way through the entire police complaints process, and have even lied their way through the courts.

I have highlighted in this Chamber on numerous occasions the case of Constable Kerry Joyce down in Christchurch, who was part of the early-bird team that policed the square in Christchurch. All the MPs in Christchurch know is not a safe place, although the former mayor Garry Moore got most offended when someone said that Christchurch is not a safe place. The work that officers like Kerry Joyce and Colin Campbell did in the early-bird patrols made, for a brief point in time, the square in Christchurch a safe place.

When Kerry Joyce was accused of kicking a person in the mouth and breaking his dentures and was then hung out to dry by some rather vigorous prosecution, which took place by an officer from the professional standards division of the police, many of us looked at the case and said that it was a load of rubbish and he would be proven innocent—and he was. The problem is that the process had Kerry Joyce suspended for almost 2 years and it dragged his name and his family name through the muck publicly. I have yet to see the police say sorry or reimburse him. Thank God we have a Police Association that stood by him and assisted with the legal costs. It is good to see that this bill seeks to deal with these issues and to modernise them.

In my closing minutes, I note the welcome changes in the clauses to section 53 of the Act that now make it an offence for anyone—either a man or a woman—to refuse to assist police. The section in the Act states that only a man can be prosecuted for refusing to assist police. The clauses also up the penalty from $500 for that refusal to $2,000.

I note also clause 97, which seeks to deal with the politicisation of the police force by allowing serving officers in uniform to be elected to local government. I simply say to the House that New Zealand First will be looking closely at this because we say that local government now has a greater impact on people than central government in many, many respects. If it is inappropriate for a police officer to stand for Parliament and be an MP whilst a serving uniformed officer, then it is equally inappropriate for him or her to be in local government. Some of the stories published about things that have occurred down in the Waimakariri area have been well canvassed through the media. I will be looking forward to input from all parties that have a view as to whether a police officer in uniform should be a local government politician at the same time.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party supports the Policing Bill. The bill updates a lot of police legislation and is a basis for police regulations. The provision for a code of conduct in this bill and the development of a code of conduct is very important, particularly in the wake of the Margaret Bazley report, which showed so many problems historically in the police force that a clear code of conduct was essential. Also the bill strengthens the internal accountability arrangements in the police—there is a very clear expression of them. Alongside that, of course, there is what we might call the “external” accountability, which takes several forms. The first of those, which has been referred to already, is through the newly established Independent Police Conduct Authority, which has started off quite well. I think it has more resources than the previous less-resourced Police Complaints Authority, and under Justice Goddard it is coming out with decisions at a much quicker rate and hopefully that will continue.

Another form of accountability, of course, is to the Government. That is often a vexed relationship and it is hard to put down specifically in legislation. I think this bill states just that the police are to obey lawful Government directives. It is tricky because on the one hand we do not want the Government’s sticky fingers in the day-to-day operation of the police, and the politicisation of the police through that. So the autonomy of the police is, for operational purposes, very important. But on the other hand there can be a tendency, sometimes, for the Government to go the other way and not get involved, not give directives, and not be part of decisions where there is a significant shift in policing taking place, potentially disrupting the good relations of the police with the community.

I am thinking of the issue the police are currently mulling over—and have done a trial on—and that is whether to introduce the Taser stun gun. It is true that the police approached this issue seriously. They had the trial, and did the reports, and we appreciate that. There could be a bit more openness in the reporting on that trial. The point I have made on behalf of the Green Party is that when we are going into such a new domain with a weapon that can kill people, that can be quite frightening to the general public, and can disrupt good relations with the community. The Government should also be involved in that process as a representative of the community, and I have continued to criticise the Government for having a hands-off attitude to that.

It is good that the bill talks about the importance of good relations between the police and the community, and other organisations. I like some of the wording in the explanatory note that says “Policing legislation should also reflect that the Police does not have a monopoly on policing. Successful policing relies on a range of partner organisations in the public and private sectors,” and that has happened. The police and different Government agencies are working together better in terms of protecting the border. There is now a very close relationship with the Defence Force, with the Department of Conservation, with Immigration, and with the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. You name it, they are all working together, and the police are an important part of that. That is going very well. Clause 8 is very clear when it states: “(b) effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence:” and “(c) policing services are provided in a manner that respects human rights:”. All of that is very important and is another reason why I referred to the Taser weapon, which would disrupt that.

One of the provisions in the legislation reinforces the point that the police do not have the right to strike. That makes the Police Association very important for representing the rights of police officers to the administration. I have been disturbed over recent times—in the last year or two—that the Police Association is getting a bit combative in relation to the community. If anything happens—be it the Bain case, be it a police shooting, be it a pepper spraying, the use of a Taser, or whatever—where there is a bit of community criticism, we can almost count on the Police Association, at least through Greg O’Connor, coming out with a statement that really bashes anyone who dares to raise questions, or to criticise. Such people are considered as wishy-washy liberals who live in leafy suburbs, etc., etc. That is not good enough if we are to have trust between the community and the police, and have legitimate challenges.

A good dialogue improves things for whatever side—whether some people in the community think the police have exceeded their mandate, or the police think that some members of the public are getting a bit chippy and do not have proper foundations for their criticism, it is good to have a dialogue and it should be carried on as respectful dialogue.

As to the question of biometrics, the Green Party is always a little bit worried when biometrics is introduced but in this case we realise that there is the importance of police DNA and that the biometrics applies to the police—that police DNA can be excluded from crime scenes and things like that. So there is more merit to introducing a certain amount of biometrics in relation to the police in this bill, compared with some of the introductions that the Green Party is worried about outside of the bill.

There are other provisions, such as for people who have not been arrested to be detained to get their identifying details—a whole lot of identifying details. There is a certain merit to that, too, but we have to be just a bit careful that such provisions are not used too much as a reason to do the sorts of things that were spoken about before—with police exceeding their mandate. But it is just something to keep an eye on.

The provisions about the police in overseas operations are a good addition, because our police are playing an increasing role and in some ways New Zealand is specialising in this work. People think a lot about the Defence Force in peacekeeping but what we might call the police peacekeeping overseas in the Solomons, etc., is equally—sometimes more—important. It is work on the ground directly with the local community, as in the Solomons today, and our police have been very successful at that work. Laws around that are tricky because sometimes there is a double jurisdiction. With the Defence Force, there are State forces’ agreements between the New Zealand Defence Force and the local Government—the Solomons Government or the East Timor Government, or whatever it happens to be. The legislation covering the police in that respect is equally important to work out—if police officers commit an offence overseas—when they are subject to the jurisdiction of the other country, be it the Solomons, or when they are subject to police regulations in New Zealand jurisdiction on the spot or when they get back to New Zealand. Working that out is quite tricky and it is good that the bill addresses that.

All in all, the Green Party supports this bill. We will be interested in the submissions at the select committee and in getting a good dialogue and seeing where things can be improved, perhaps by looking at the relationship between the Government and the police a bit more closely and what their respective responsibilities are. I take the points from earlier in the debate that the community has a huge role to play in policing. That is why it is important to get it right—to get the relationship between the community and the police right. Thank you.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. The question of public confidence in the police has been uppermost in the minds of many New Zealanders for many years now. The group of New Zealanders for whom confidence in the police has been most tenuous would have to be tangata whenua.

The tension evident in the relationship between tangata whenua and the police came sharply into focus one Monday last October, when the police embarked on Operation Eight in Rūātoki. The police raids were conducted at dawn using warrants issued under the Arms Act and the Summary Offences Act, accompanied by threats of invoking the Terrorism Suppression Act. A cordon was established on the confiscation lines at Rūātoki. Over 60 houses were raided in Rūātoki, Whakatāne, Auckland, Wellington, Christchurch, Palmerston North, and elsewhere—and the rest is history.

Subsequent to that day the Solicitor-General referred the Terrorism Suppression Act to the Law Commission for review. Suppressed evidence was flashed across Fairfax media outlets, and before long the Solicitor-General determined that Fairfax should be prosecuted for contempt of court for its publication. Alongside those actions, a raft of complaints were being filed with the courts, the Human Rights Commission, and the Police Complaints Authority. Internationally, the United Nations bodies on human and indigenous rights and on countering terrorism have also engaged in dialogue with the Government about the perceived heavy-handed police tactics.

Everywhere we turn it is apparent that the opportunity to debate the appropriate framework for the exercising of policing powers has never been timelier. Absolutely central to this Policing Bill is the vital issues of meaning and the functions for the governance and administration of the New Zealand Police. What should our police force do and, more to the point, what are the key values that should underpin their role?

In a 2002 review of the New Zealand Police undertaken by Te Puni Kōkiri, former Commissioner of Police Rob Robinson reported that previous research about the perceptions that the New Zealand Police and Māori have of each other made for grim reading. He described Māori trust and confidence in the police as being low. The challenge 6 years on is therefore to consider whether this bill will do much to restore confidence.

We are pleased to see one of the key recommendations from Dame Margaret Bazley’s report of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct given life in this bill. The bill clarifies governance and accountability arrangements, including specifying a description of the roles of Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of Police. Within this it explicitly states that the commissioner will be responsible to the Minister for the general conduct of the police.

It was the firm belief of Dame Margaret that introducing a code of conduct for sworn police officers would bring the police into line with other State sector employees. A code of conduct should be the basis for identifying and addressing behaviour that does not meet expected standards. As this House is more than aware, there is a host of evidence out there in the public arena about police behaviour that does not meet any standards of acceptability. The Māori Party is proud to stand by policies and practices that are derived from kaupapa tuku iho values, which provide for the well-being of all. These values and principles guide our behaviour and instruct us in the way in which we carry ourselves in all aspects of our lives.

As an example of such values, we stand by the pursuit of manaakitanga towards others. It is our practice and principle that we take care not to trample on the mana of others while clearly defining our own. It was because of these beliefs that we joined with ACT, United Future, and the Greens to call for a code of conduct for all members of Parliament. It was to our utter amazement that the other parties could not see any value in setting a desirable code of conduct for MPs. Of course, it raises the issues for this House about transparency, accountability, and consistency. How can any party not support a code of conduct for themselves then expect any Government department or agency to take one up? It is a case of “Do as I say, not as I do.”

We welcome the move towards an environment in which a code of conduct has meaning. We also welcome the opportunity for the other 59 recommendations of the Bazley report to be debated in relation to this bill. Although many of the recommendations signal changes at the operational level, it would appear to us that if this is a once-in-50-years review of the Police Act, it would be sensible for everything to be dealt with at once.

It is very pleasing to see up front in the bill that effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence—it is pleasing and absolutely vital. As an example of how this principle could work in action, we need to think only about the recent publicity around the police’s preoccupation with introducing the Taser. The Māori Party raised our concerns about the proposed introduction of the lethal Taser weapon, in a formal complaint to the Human Rights Commission. It was our view that decisions on weapon use need to benefit from public input—input that the police have relentlessly avoided.

The business case for trialling the Taser was developed in 2005 and made public in late 2006 as a result of an Official Information Act request. In that business case, the police suggested that there were no particular implications for Māori and Pacific peoples. That consultation had been restricted to specific sections in the police bureaucracy. Looking a bit further at this issue, the statistical data now available from the Taser trial of last year indicates that 56 percent—almost 60 percent—of Taser subjects were either Māori or Pacific peoples. When we took these issues up in mediation with the Police Superintendent, John Rivers, his explanation for the disproportionately high numbers was that “Māori and Pacific people have a greater propensity to commit violent crimes.” That remarkable statement was then followed by his observation that “There is no racism in policing.”

Clearly, it was the view of this police official that Māori and Pacific peoples just have an inclination, a tendency, towards crime. It is a view that would be useful to have tested with the police’s own iwi liaison officers or Responsiveness to Māori officials. These types of statements must form a basis for consultation with the wider public. This whole issue of how consultation is undertaken and whether priority is given towards achieving wider support and confidence must be a key focus of inquiry in the select committee process.

In the case of the Taser trial we argued vehemently that public consultation should have occurred prior to the trial, given that policing is carried out, in part, to ensure public safety. It would therefore seem important that the public have a say to ensure that policing should be publicly accountable. We are very pleased to see that it now seems to be a call supported by the principle in the bill that effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence. In the case of the so-called terror raids, we argued that the network of iwi liaison officers, the Māori advisory committees with representatives from local Māori communities, and the Māori Focus Forum should have been called on to not only work with the Māori communities involved but also be expert advisers to the police senior management.

Whether the issue is Tasers or raids on communities, the relationship between the police commissioner and the Minister is a critical one, as is the question of who sets policy directions for policing—a publicly elected Government or appointed bureaucrats. Although the bill spells out the role of the Commissioner of Police, it fails to specify the responsibilities of the Minister. We will be very interested in select committee feedback on this point.

Finally, in the interests of the first principle of the bill that “principled, effective, and efficient policing services are a cornerstone of a free and democratic society under the rule of law:”, we will be very interested as the bill proceeds through the select committee process to hear the results from what the explanatory note of the bill describes as being a “robust consultation process”. The Māori Party supports this bill.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) : I rise on behalf of United Future to indicate its support for the introduction of the Policing Bill, and to place on record our admiration and support for the work that the men and women of the New Zealand Police routinely carry out day in, day out.

One of the most telling experiences I can recall with the police occurred one Christmas Day, when I was keeping my brother company at his Christchurch radio station. He was doing the shift during the day, and nothing else was going on in the city. We were joined by the two young constables who were the only two police in Christchurch on duty that day, only to get a phone call from Christchurch Central Police Station asking to speak to the more senior of the two. He took the call, and he came back ashen-faced and said: “We have got to go, my partner and I have to go out, there’s been a road accident and we have to go and explain to a family why their husband and father has been killed on his way home from work with the Christmas presents.” I doubt whether those two young constables would have been much more than in their early 20s, yet that was the job they had to do on that Christmas Day. I can tell members that every Christmas Day I think of that occasion and how I am sure it certainly ruined their day, not to mention, obviously, the day of the family who was suffering. But it is just part and parcel of the duty we place on the police and expect them to carry out on our behalf.

When I look at the explanatory note of the bill I see that the reasons set out as to why it is important to replace the Police Act 1958 are that the current legislation includes “unclear responsibilities and confused lines of accountability: constraints around the ability to place the right people in the right jobs: an overly prescriptive system for managing staff performance and discipline issues: little guidance to work with partner agencies, domestically or internationally: few supports to enable the use of modern policing tactics.” When one reflects on the conditions under which the 1958 Act was passed, none of those criticisms are at all surprising. Mr Borrows, in his opening remarks, made a social commentary about the situation of New Zealand in 1958 and some of the customs that occurred around policing at that time. I think it is important to talk about the state of the police in 1958, or immediately beforehand, that gave rise to that legislation, because that, in turn, will show how out of date it has become and why the need for change that this bill contains.

During the 1950s in New Zealand the police were in an even bigger state of crisis than we might imagine them to be as a result of certain activities of late. In 1953 a new police commissioner had been appointed, somewhat surprisingly—Commissioner Eric Compton. I think he had jumped from the ranks of the inspectorate straight into the police commissioner’s job because the hierarchy of the police at that time was deemed to be too old. Indeed, I recall an account where the existing Commissioner of Police said that his appointment would take place over his dead body, and so it proved to be, apparently, a week later. That was symptomatic of the state of the police then. The problem with Commissioner Compton was that he had a very dubious record in terms of his association with various gambling elements in Wellington. He did not have a particularly good record, I understand, in terms of the clearance rates of murders in this city. The net effect was a lack of confidence in his appointment—this bold new face for the future—which led to a commission of inquiry that led to his retirement in 1955, and, for the first time in the history of the police, the appointment of a civilian Controller-General of Police, Mr Barnett, between 1955 and 1958.

So it is hardly surprising, when one looks at the criticisms of the 1958 legislation, to see the comment about unclear responsibilities and confused lines of accountability, or an overly prescriptive staff management performance and disciplinary regime. It is a direct product of the culture of the time and the malperformance, if one likes, of the New Zealand Police at the time that gave rise to that legislation. It is clearly not appropriate in the context of 2008 to be moving down that same path and to be retaining those provisions.

The 1958 legislation was criticised as having little guidance to work with partner agencies domestically or internationally. Well, clearly, in 1958 international policing was not an issue. Most travel to New Zealand was by ship. It took days, if not weeks, if one was coming from Australia. There was certainly not the degree of instant communication and instant movement of criminal elements across the borders then that there is now. Nor in 1958 was there the threat of international terrorism, or the need for better intelligence about movements. There certainly was not the drug scourge that we face today, and in 1958 the police had only just given up their role in terms of domestic security. The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service had been established just a couple of years earlier and the old special branch of the police that was the security service had been either abolished or absorbed within the Security Intelligence Service.

So the situation that the police have laboured under, I think extraordinarily well, for the last 50 years has been of a time that is clearly well beyond us. The circumstances of the time, the structure of the time, and the custom and wider social mores have also moved beyond what was the case in 1958. So it is important to have a review now that this legislation gives effect to that recognises not just those changes, but also deals with a number of the recommendations that came out of the Bazley report, and a number of the specific instances of police conduct—and I do not mean particularly the recent trials, but police conduct more generally—that have arisen over recent years, and some of those have been alluded to in the course of the debate already this evening.

The old notion of the constable on the street corner who was virtually in one’s face—I can remember Constable Ribbons down the road from us with his big, wide handlebar moustache who would shoo kids biking on the footpath away by fear and terror—has gone. When one rings the police now, it is often difficult to get them to come and respond to an incident unless it is particularly serious. So there are challenges afoot. We all imagine it may be a factor of our growing older that the police seem younger and less experienced today than we remember them being in earlier times—

Dr Wayne Mapp: That’s not true.

Hon PETER DUNNE: I know it is not true, but it is the perception, and perception sometimes guides reality. I realise that Dr Mapp has this air of eternal youth about him, but it is the reality for a number of other people. We do grow older and we do have differing perceptions.

Chris Tremain: It’s the hair that will tell you.

Hon PETER DUNNE: The member raises a good point, and he can draw his own conclusion. I think that this bill is timely. I think it does recognise that a number of situations have changed over the years and they need to be accommodated in law. References have been made by Mr Locke and one or two other speakers to the role of the Independent Police Complaints Authority. Again in 1958 when this legislation was put in place, or even when the regulations in 1992 were amended, the authority was either non-existent 50 years ago, or it was in a very different state 15 years ago than is the case now.

So all these things need to be worked into the environment within which the police operate to make sure that we can give them a legislative framework within which they can continue to do the job we ask them to do, in difficult circumstances, with confidence and aplomb. I am confident that once this bill is through the select committee we will be satisfied, as a Parliament, that we have a very robust and sound piece of legislation to work with.

My only plea in closing is that it is not another 50 years before it is reviewed. I think that the select committee should give some consideration to whether it wants to put either a sunset clause into this legislation or make a very strong recommendation about when it is that the Act, as it will become, should be reviewed further. It is clearly a nonsense now to be debating a bill that is 50 years old, that has well passed its use-by date, and to be thinking of putting in place another piece of legislation that, unless we are very prudent, will have the same logical outcome in due course. I think that is a matter the select committee could consider, and, like other members, I look forward to what the select committee may conclude and to the bill coming back to the House in due course.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Deputy Leader of the House) : I rise to take a brief call in support of the first reading of the Policing Bill. I think it is pretty clear from all the speeches we have heard tonight that this is important legislation, but it is also showing the House at its best. I think that the bill the Minister of Police has brought before the House for debate tonight, which was tabled in the last week before the House rose, has been quite a good model of the way that legislation such as this, which needs the broad support of political parties in Parliament, plus the support of all New Zealanders obviously, has been able to develop. I know that there has been a lot of consultation and development on it. Mr Dunne made the point that when a piece of law is 50 years old one questions its relevance, so taking 2 years to do the consultation and listen to people to get ideas to develop the bill into its current form seems to me to have been time spent that has been well worthwhile.

I know that the New Zealand Police has taken this rare opportunity very seriously and has provided a lot of opportunities for people in organisations that deal with the police, such as Neighbourhood Support or Victim Support, right through to territorial local authorities, and councils that have a daily relationship with the local police in a way that local members of Parliament do not have to the same extent, from a central government perspective. All those people who have such an important role to play have had their voices heard, and I think that has been a very important way of building up support for this legislation.

Nearly every speaker has mentioned what New Zealand was like 50 years ago, and I take their word for it. But one thing I do know is there were only just over 2 million people living in the country then, and now we have just over 4 million—4.27 million actually, I am advised by Statistics New Zealand. But there has been a huge change just in the size of the police organisation, from a little over 2,000 staff to 10,500 now, and with another 1,000 police on the way, of course, as part of the Government’s relationship with New Zealand First. So the police are playing more and more of a role in our society, but in a much broader sense.

I think all of the speeches and the consultation that has gone on—the articles that have been written—point towards the different ways that the New Zealand Police now interacts with our communities. That means that the need for reform has been very well established. The existing Act has within it very unclear responsibilities, and it is overly prescriptive for the kind of age we live in now. So the bill sets out pretty clearly why the need for change is evident, and the way it will then be done. I hope it will be done in a way that is open for continual change as the country evolves and develops, as Mr Dunne made reference to, and I am sure that when the Law and Order Committee considers the bill, the committee will give it the best consideration it can. In a funny way, a lot of the consultation has already been done, so it will be interesting to see the kinds of things that come up specifically about the bill as it has been written.

We all accept that we need a police force today that is much more networked and connected into the community and the law needs to be written in a way that does that, in terms of the relationship with the community, but also the police need this for their own internal procedures. I know that one of the things the bill changes is in the employment area. The police are moving from more of a military style of dealing with employees, to a more modern employment practice. I am looking forward to the bill coming to the Law and Order Committee where hopefully we can improve what is already good legislation, and maintain the multipartisan support that it has, and I am sure that the New Zealand community will appreciate that.

I will close similarly to the way that Mr Dunne started, and say that the police touch all of our lives at different points, both individually and also in the community work that we all do here. In my own constituency this week there was the terrible, devastating air accident at Paraparaumu Airport, where three young men lost their lives. A lot of responsibility fell on to the local police officers who work in our community, and are from our community, to deliver some pretty tough messages and also to try to get things back to order in the way that they could, in that calm, solid way we expect the New Zealand Police to be there and to be relied upon. So no matter what point in time we are at there is always a local example such as that where one is reminded of the work the police do. As the member for Otaki I want to record my thanks to the police for the very tragic work they have had to undertake this week. It proves that police work is a living occupation, it is important to our community, and legislation like this needs to be relevant to today. I support the first reading of the bill.

KATE WILKINSON (National) : I am pleased to rise today to also speak in support of the Policing Bill at this first reading. We in the National Party are strong supporters of our police force. These men and women do a difficult job, and for the most part they do it exceedingly well, in difficult circumstances. We all must be strong supporters of the police in New Zealand, and in that sense I am pleased to see this bill recognising the need to rewrite the 50-year-old Police Act of 1958—when my colleague Chester Borrows was 1-year-old—to reflect the realities of modern policing and equip the New Zealand Police to provide the best policing services that we can to all New Zealanders. I also firmly hope that this legislation will be an important step in restoring public confidence in our police force after a series of knocks in recent years.

The Police Act, which dictates the governance, organisation, and administration of the New Zealand Police, was in dire need of reformation, and the facts speak for themselves here, with more than 25 amendments being made to it since 1958. Our society has changed enormously since the introduction of the Act in 1958, and therefore the context—and we have heard about this several times tonight in the speeches—of modern policing in New Zealand must change along with it.

I am pleased to see that this bill stays true to the spirit of the original Act and to the first principles on which it was founded. These basic principles, as referred to earlier by my colleague Mr Borrows, largely remain the same within this Policing Bill and are described as having stood the test of time. The new bill applies these principles to the situations we now face in the 21st century, and better positions us for the future. I think it is important to reiterate and reflect on those principles, and I think they are worth repeating and are worth re-emphasising. Those principles are that principled, effective, and efficient policing services are a cornerstone of a free and democratic society, under the rule of law; that effective policing relies on a wide measure of public support and confidence; that policing services are provided under a national framework but also have a local community focus; that policing services are provided in a manner that respects human rights; that policing services are provided independently and impartially; and, finally, that in providing policing services every police employee is required to act professionally, ethically, and with integrity.

Many members of the public will be happy to see the incorporation of many of the recommendations made by the Bazley report of April 2007 in response to the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct. The establishment of the new code of conduct, which from 1 February 2008 now applies to all New Zealand Police employees, both sworn and unsworn, outlines the standards of behaviour expected and allows everyone to better understand their professional responsibilities and the way in which this impacts on the organisation. The cornerstone of this code is that all employees of the New Zealand Police will work to the highest ethical standard. Internal disciplinary arrangements have also been aligned with the new code of conduct environment. It is important that the New Zealand public understands that policing in our country is done in a legitimate and principled way, and that issues of the past have not undone the trust and the faith that we have put in this organisation.

The review of the Police Act is encouraging in that it has already been subjected to an extensive round of consultation before getting to this point. New Zealanders have been given several opportunities to have their say about the future face of our police force. As well as over 80 meetings that took place around the country, including over 1,200 people, a Policing Bill wiki was launched, giving ordinary New Zealanders an innovative way to suggest wording for the new Act by posting their suggestions on a website—similar to an online whiteboard. This wiki format, which is similar to Wikipedia—an online encyclopaedia—has generated a lot of attention both here and overseas. It has been a great tool in encouraging the public to actively engage with the public sector and to put their views forward. It is something that we may see more of in the future.

Another important feature of this Policing Bill is the recognition that the police do not have a monopoly on policing. Although this may seem obvious to some, it is the first time there has been an acknowledgment in legislation that says policing is a shared responsibility—shared between a number of partner organisations and both the public and the private sector—as well as recognising the efforts of individual citizens. We can all help to uphold the law, keep the peace, and prevent crime. Social agencies, along with local authorities, can work alongside the police in supporting the social well-being of our communities. We can, and we all must, make a positive contribution to a safer New Zealand, and we must take up this challenge.

I hope that through this bill we are able to allow greater support and guidance for police work, and confirm and strengthen police governance, accountability, and organisational arrangements in a way that really does reflect 21st century New Zealand. I hope that we can improve effectiveness and establish a clear framework for the exercise of policing powers by particular police employees. By doing this, we will allow for the delivery of better policing services for New Zealanders, and it is only then that we can have a truly modern police force in New Zealand.

It is also important to reflect on the police mandate and their key areas of responsibility, which are: crime prevention, keeping the peace and maintaining public safety, law enforcement, community support and reassurance, national security, participation in policing activities outside New Zealand, and emergency management. We cannot overemphasise the vital role of our police force. It is imperative that it has this mandate—the right tools to undertake that role. This bill adds to that tool kit, and we support both the police and this bill.

• Bill read a first time.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Police) : I move, That the Policing Bill be considered by the Law and Order Committee, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 31 May 2008, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c).

• Motion agreed to.

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Corrections) : I move, That the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee. This bill is intended to reinforce and strengthen the Corrections Act 2004.

The most significant provisions are in two areas. First, there are measures to enhance the safety and security of our prisons through the further reduction of contraband and the suppression of cellphone use. Secondly, there is improved provision for agencies to share information about the highest-risk offenders to assist in the monitoring and reintegration of those offenders on their release from prison.

By the end of the 1990s, drug use had become endemic in our prisons. For example, in 1999 at least 34 percent of inmates in some prisons were testing positive for using drugs. I am very pleased to say that by last year we had more than halved that rate, but we can do better still. Changes in technology have also increased the problem of access to cellphones, which are smuggled into prisons. On occasions these have been used to organise crime from inside the prison. On one occasion they were used to arrange an armed escape, and they have also been used to intimidate people outside the prison.

A lot of progress has been made in the fight against contraband through increased security and surveillance. Some 17 kilometres of security fences have been erected since 1999. Electronic security devices, cameras, closed-circuit television, motion detectors, and microwave sensors are amongst the additional security measures that have been put in place. Increased surveillance has included doubling the number of drug-dog teams to 12—they have proven very effective—and regular checkpoints set up outside the prison to screen visitors and staff. These new measures have resulted in the detection of much more contraband.

This bill is needed to complement these operational initiatives. It includes a number of important changes to the Corrections Act that will make it harder for anyone to bring prohibited items into prisons, and easier to detect such items and punish prisoners and others for using them. The changes include enhanced procedures for searching prisoners, and increased powers to search in specific circumstances. There is also provision for random searches of areas of a prison, including staff lockers. Offence provisions relating to contraband are tightened up, with the introduction of new offences and some increases in penalties. Prisoners who possess or use any electronic communication device such as a cellphone will face the prospect of an extension to their sentence. Anyone who knowingly possesses an unauthorised item while visiting or working in a prison will also be committing an imprisonable offence. A zero-tolerance approach to criminal or corrupt behaviour by staff is reinforced by increasing the penalties on staff passing contraband, from the current 3 months’ maximum sentence of imprisonment to 1 year in prison, and doubling the maximum fine to $5,000.

In addition, the bill addresses the problem of prisoners who tamper, or attempt to tamper, with tests for drug and alcohol usage. For example, there is a provision for retesting if a prisoner’s sample is diluted, tainted, or otherwise contaminated. There is also provision for strip-searching in those circumstances when a prisoner has to be retested.

It may not be possible to stop all cellphones from getting into prisons by use of normal search and seizure provisions. Action to jam, detect, and monitor cellphone and other radio-based communications within prison boundaries is another important way to stop misuse of cellphones by inmates, and this bill provides specific authorisation for the Department of Corrections to do this. The bill creates the legislative framework for the implementation of a range of technical solutions, such as jamming technology, in prisons throughout the country. The Department of Corrections and the Ministry of Economic Development have been working with Telecom and Vodafone to develop and trial these solutions. I have to say that the ongoing support of Telecom and Vodafone in this work is much appreciated.

I turn now to information sharing. Current legislation does allow the Department of Corrections to share certain information with the police regarding highest-risk offenders when they are released from prison. However, the information that may be disclosed is not always sufficient to enable police identification of the offender. Further, because disclosure is only to the police and only for monitoring purposes, it does not assist with the reintegration of those offenders into the community. This bill will allow disclosure of information on highest-risk offenders that is sufficient to allow a coordinated response by the Department of Corrections, the police, and, where appropriate, relevant social agencies.

The opportunity has also been taken to tidy up a number of other, smaller issues in the Act. The Crown is provided with appropriate protection from liability in situations that may arise in epidemics or other emergencies affecting prisoners, such as when a prisoner may be required in those circumstances to stay beyond the full term of the sentence. Although there is a general prohibition on alcohol in prisons, for obvious reasons, it is made clear that prisoners are allowed to take Communion wine in small doses. There is a general prohibition on prison staff carrying firearms, but under this bill firearms may be used in prisons—for example, on prison farms for such purposes as humanely killing animals. Communication with prisoners may be prohibited where this prejudices the well-being of a victim of a crime committed by that prisoner. This is another example of the Government’s putting the interests of victims first. The department’s ability to read prisoners’ mail is provided for, consistent with the current ability of the department to monitor prisoners’ telephone calls. Electronic communication and written communication should be basically subject to the same rules. The forfeiture and disposal of items involved in the commission of offences in prisons are authorised.

This bill is important for the effective management of our prisons. The Corrections Act 2004 established a sound legislative framework for the operation of the corrections system. This bill now implements further improvements within that framework. I commend this bill to the House.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) : The Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) is the Government’s first public admission that all is not well in the Department of Corrections, and that substantial moves have to be undertaken to amend the Corrections Act 2004 in order to address many of the issues that have been raised with the Government by the National Party in Opposition over the last 2½ years. This bill is an attempt to deal with problems in the Department of Corrections that have otherwise been minimised and denied by the Government up until this point. Many of the matters the Minister raised in his first reading speech of course have been denied at various times by various Ministers of Corrections as being problems or issues in the prison system—denied not only through the media but in this House, during question time, over the last 2 to 2⅓ years.

National has indicated to the Government that it will support this legislation going to a select committee for its first reading, for two reasons. Firstly, many of the problems that this legislation purports to deal with would not even have come into the public arena had National not raised them. Secondly, this bill will give the Law and Order Committee an excellent opportunity to look at issues of contraband, prisoner communication, visitor contraband, and the like in our prison system. I know that Martin Gallagher, who is a firm but fair chairperson of that select committee, will allow wide-ranging evidence to be brought to the committee during the discussion of this particular bill, and I look forward to the Corrections Association, various staff members, and others coming before the committee to tell members about the practical nature of some of the issues that have been raised.

As the Minister said, the bill amends the Corrections Act in order to create new search, detection, drug-testing, and offence provisions to help to control contraband. That is a problem the previous Minister of Corrections stood in this House week after week and denied was a problem. It is a problem that the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections has made several statements on—in particular, in relation to staff-assisted contraband and so-called corruption. It was a problem the chief executive denied, saying that the figures in this area represented “a few bad apples” and “We are probably talking about five in the whole organisation”. Well, the referral of this bill to the Law and Order Committee will give an opportunity to test out those statements and to gather evidence that will help us to determine whether these issues need the type of approach that the Government is offering, or whether in fact we need to be tighter than the approach the Government is offering.

We will remember, of course, that these problems are not theoretical. We know, for example, that upon the release of Rachel Nāmana, she claimed that whilst she was in prison she had had access to a range of drugs, including P, and to a cellphone. We know that in 2006 a prostitute was allegedly found in the grounds of Rimutaka Prison after a cellphone was used. We know that in 2006 at least two inmates from Christchurch Prison were allegedly sending obscene text messages to others. Yet the Government told the House that those matters were isolated, one-off incidents, and now Phil Goff has stood in this House and been quite prepared to tell the country that the issues are serious enough to warrant amendments to the Corrections Act in order to bring in new, wide-ranging powers.

In fact, the question that the select committee needs to examine during the course of considering this bill is the sources of the contraband. Is it just the visitors to our prison system? Is it indeed, as has been alleged from time to time, the staff in our prison system? Those will be issues that a diligent select committee would look at thoroughly before recommending the implementation of a further course of action to the House.

We know, for example, that the number of prisoners testing positive for P in our prison system has increased steadily from 35 such identifications in 2001 to 139 in the 2006-07 financial year. We know that the Department of Corrections, in its own report in 2006, said that its Identified Drug User programme “provides little scope for prisoners identified as drug users to mitigate their actual demand for drugs” and that “a significant amount of drug use in prisons goes undetected.” We are not talking about a small problem here. We are talking about a problem that, after 8 years of denial, head-shaking, and counter-accusations, the Government has finally realised it can no longer ignore relating to issues that the Parliament has been raising with all six Ministers of Corrections since Labour took office at the end of 1999. We see today the Government finally realise that the polling it is doing shows it is being clobbered in the areas of law and order, our justice system, and the prison system. It is a problem that it has finally had to admit to and bring legislation to this House to allegedly deal with.

I note that the Minister is talking about a pretty short time frame for the report back of the bill. So I will be interested to see that the chairperson of the select committee does not hurry this matter unnecessarily, and that we all get an opportunity to deal with this legislation as we would like to.

One of the most interesting and complicated provisions or components of the bill will be the use of advanced technology to ensure the use of cellphones and the like is blocked, so they are unable to be used from within our prison system. We will spend some time, no doubt, in the select committee on looking at the issue of disabling and disrupting transmissions within prison boundaries and stopping unauthorised electronic communications. The Minister is right when he says that written communications should be treated no differently from oral communications, or indeed text communications, as part of that package. The use of cellphone jamming will be one issue that no doubt the committee will want a full technological explanation of. We do not want that technology to work only in some prisons or, worse still, in some parts of one prison. That would be an inadequate approach to that issue.

As I said, National will support this bill at its first reading, largely because it attempts to deal with issues that this party has been raising with the six Ministers of Corrections since 1999, and particularly in the last 2 to 3 years, where we have failed to get decent, straightforward answers to some of the questions that have been raised. This bill will give us the opportunity in the select committee to put those questions to a wide variety of witnesses.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) : I commence my contribution to this very important debate as chair of the Law and Order Committee, and I also note the presence of the deputy chair in the Chamber at present. I say that we are both very, very keen, along with the other members of the committee, to see the Corrections Amendment Bill (No 2) be referred to that committee. I think this bill is indeed appropriate and timely. We certainly look forward to taking submissions on it.

• Debate interrupted.