Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Economic Development) : I move, That the Major Events Management Bill be now read a third time. The bill provides protection from ambush marketing and certain other issues associated with the running of major events. The presence of such legislative protections will position New Zealand as an attractive destination to host major events. It will enable ordinary New Zealanders to take advantage of the many benefits—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but would members leaving the Chamber please show some courtesy to the member who is addressing it. Courtesy is contagious.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: What are you saying, Mr Assistant Speaker! What are you saying!

This bill provides for a clear, predictable, and fair regime for dealing with ambush marketing behaviour and related major issues such as ticket scalping and crowd behaviour. It accords with the broader Government objectives of maximising the return to New Zealand from Government involvement in major events, and positioning this country as a highly competitive and desirable destination for hosting major events.

New Zealand will host a number of internationally significant events in the near future that will attract large international audiences, and will result in valuable exposure for New Zealand on the world stage. These events include the Rugby World Cup in 2011, the World Rowing Championships in 2010, and the Under-17 Women’s Football World Cup in 2008, and we will also co-host the Cricket World Cup in 2015. Such events attract very large audiences, and organisations will pay significant sums to become official sponsors.

Ambush marketing is a term used to describe the actions of organisations that have not paid for the rights to be official sponsors of an event, but seek to capture the benefits of perceived association with a major event without the authorisation of the event’s organisers. Many major sponsors, in order to safeguard the return from their investment in major events, now insist that there be protection against ambush marketing before they commit to sponsorship contracts. Only events that are of truly international significance will be protected under the bill. The legislation will not apply, for example, to annual or regular events, or to events that New Zealand hosts as of right. The declaration of a major event will also specify the keywords and emblems associated with the event, and the period of time for which the ambush marketing protections will apply.

There are two main protections against ambush marketing in the bill. Firstly, there is a prohibition on any unauthorised representation that would suggest to a reasonable person that any good, service, or brand is associated with a major event. This prohibition will prevent the use of representations by non-sponsor organisations that seek to unfairly benefit from the publicity and goodwill associated with a major event. The prohibition against unauthorised association is subject to a number of safeguards and exceptions, which will ensure that it will not interfere with existing ordinary fair business practices. The second form of ambush marketing protection in the bill is the provision for the declaration of clean zones, clean transport routes, and clean periods. These measures will prevent ambush marketing by intrusion, where an ambush marketer seeks to intrude on the attention of spectators and television audiences for a major event.

The bill also bans ticket scalping, which is the on-sale of major events tickets for a price greater than the original sale price. Ticket scalping can dramatically increase the price of tickets, and can potentially put attendance at major events further out of the reach of many New Zealanders. Also banned under the legislation are pitch invasion and unruly crowd behaviour, such as bottle throwing. This kind of behaviour can disrupt international sporting events, and can create the potential for injury to participants, security personnel, and even pitch invaders themselves. It can also result in adverse media coverage, and can cause international sanctions to be applied to sporting organisations or to venues. This behaviour will be punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 3 months, which is currently the penalty for disorderly behaviour, or by a fine not exceeding $5,000.

I thank the people involved with the bill, especially the people from the Ministry of Economic Development, people from Sport and Recreation New Zealand, parliamentary counsel, people in my office, who have taken a leadership role, and members of the Commerce Committee, who I think it is generally agreed made small but significant improvements to the bill. This bill is an important step in ensuring that New Zealand continues to be seen as a viable and attractive host country for major events of international significance. The presence of such events raises our international profile, and the consequent economic opportunities mean that such events have obvious and real benefits for New Zealand businesses and the public at large. Thank you.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) : What a splendid speech we have just listened to, from the Minister. All the key points have been neatly missed.

In connection with the Major Events Management Bill, I want to say first that probably two aspects of this bill from a parliamentary process perspective are interesting. The first is that it is one of the few examples of recent legislation where we see the use of examples in the body of the text. That was a change made in the course of the select committee process. They are examples; they are not intended to cut across what is in the actual provisions themselves.

I take as an illustration an example from page 22 of the bill as reported from the Commerce Committee, which reads: “Existing Business A carries on its business from a private building situated on private land on Stevens Street. Although the land is located within the overall parameters of the clean zone, because it is private land it has not been declared to be part of the clean zone. Existing Business A has a large billboard on the roof of its building advertising Existing Business A’s services. This billboard has been there for many years. The advertising on the billboard is clearly visible from within the clean zone. Existing Business A does not have the written authorisation of the major event organiser for this advertising.”—and the answer—“This is not a breach of section 18 because of the exception in section 21(a).” So the use of examples is helpful, and is to be encouraged as a matter of drafting technique.

The second thing, which I believe is appropriately made by way of comment in respect of this legislation, is that the select committee did not make a lot of changes. That is in marked contrast to so many bills, which after a first reading go off to a select committee and come back with changes on virtually every page. Here we see many pages where there are no changes at all; and, where changes are made, they are minor.

This bill is also interesting and significant from a quite different perspective in that it looks at aspects of competition law that have not been fully explored in previous legislation. I am speaking specifically about the rules that have been inserted in relation to ambush marketing. The reality is that in the modern world of sport and events, many major sponsors now insist that there be protection against ambush marketing before they will commit to sponsorship contracts for major events. It is common practice for organisers of major events to require appropriate ambush marketing protections to be implemented by jurisdictions as a condition for hosting the event.

During the Committee stage some members suggested that there was something novel and new about ambush marketing legislation, but that is not so at all. Legislation containing ambush marketing protections has been introduced in a number of overseas jurisdictions, such as the nine nations of the West Indies for the 2007 Cricket World Cup; South Africa for the 2010 FIFA World Cup; China for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games; the United Kingdom for the 2012 London Olympic Games; and Australia for the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games, the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games, and the Australian Formula One Grand Prix.

New Zealand set about its now successful bid to host the 2011 Rugby World Cup and to co-host the 2015 Cricket World Cup. The Government, supported by National, gave assurances to the International Rugby Board and the International Cricket Council that ambush marketing protections would be in place. So it was that the bill was introduced. Other events are in the pipeline. I need only refer to the World Rowing Championships in 2010 and the Under-17 Women’s Football World Cup in 2008.

The essential elements of the bill are contained in Part 2, and I want to talk about that for a moment because it is in that part that one sees the detailed provisions relating to ambush marketing and two other aspects that drew comment in the course of the Committee stage. Those two matters are, first, the issue of scalping, and second, the creation of an offence for pitch invasion.

I will deal first with ambush marketing and what that is all about. It is a reality in the modern world of global sport and major events that some people seek to take clear advantage of those events to advance their own commercial interests. If we take just some examples, ambush marketing is things like, first, arranging aerial advertising over a major event venue immediately before or during the event so as to suggest sponsorship or association; second, the placement of billboards displaying the ambush marketer’s name near the venue; third, the unauthorised sale of goods or services at or in connection with a major event; fourth, the registration or exploitation of domain names; fifth, the unauthorised on-sale of tickets, which is scalping; six, the giving away of free merchandise such as caps or t-shirts bearing the advertiser’s logo, with the aim that where there is a sufficient collection of such material it will be picked up by television coverage or still photographs. That is why there are provisions in Part 2 relating to what is called ambush marketing by association, and ambush marketing by intrusion. It is also, as the Minister has commented, what leads on to declarations of clean zones, clean transport routes, and clean periods.

I would like to say something about scalping, because that did occupy some time in the House last night. There is a policy question as to whether there should be appropriate controls over scalping. The problem really is that individuals who genuinely wish to attend a popular event may well find themselves unable to get tickets as they have already been sold to ticket resellers. What happens is that the ticket resellers sell the tickets at market value with no effective loss because they had no intention of attending the event in the first place.

There is a fine line to be drawn between individuals who genuinely wish to attend a popular event and those who buy tickets in large quantities in order to resell their tickets for a hefty profit. Maybe one could defend the practice of reselling tickets on free-market principles, but if we look at what goes on around the world, we see that most countries have outlawed the unauthorised resale of tickets, usually with exceptions where the reseller does not profit from the transaction. That is what has been done in this legislation, and I commend that approach. There have been egregious examples of reselling occurring at significant disadvantage to consumers, and I spoke last night of what happened at the 2004 Glastonbury Festival.

I want to say something now about pitch invasion, because, as I have said, it attracted comment last night. The provision in respect of pitch invasion was inserted by a Supplementary Order Paper proffered to the select committee. It is all in one short clause—clause 25A—which creates an offence punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or a fine not exceeding $5,000. In New Zealand there have been some celebrated cases of pitch invasion. Probably the most significant of those was in 1981 during the Springbok Tour of New Zealand. At Rugby Park in Hamilton, 350 people pulled down a fence to invade the pitch, and after arresting a number of people police cancelled the match as they got word that a protester was piloting a light plane to fly around the stadium. Those of us who were at the last test at Eden Park witnessed an amazing disruption as a protestor dropped flour bombs on the pitch to disrupt the game. Images like these give the impression that New Zealand is on the brink of civil war. So pitch invasion is not new in New Zealand, and legislation in respect of it certainly has its place in other jurisdictions.

I commend this bill. It has only a short further distance to go before it is enacted.

MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) : I have just listened with great interest to the previous speaker, Dr Richard Worth. I cannot recall seeing him in Auckland in 1981, along with myself as a very peaceful protestor—

Dr Richard Worth: Oh, really? We were on different sides.

MARTIN GALLAGHER: Oh, really? I am sorry. I was trying to envisage a very young and youthful Richard Worth holding a placard.

Hon Judith Tizard: At least he knows which side he was on; his leader doesn’t!

MARTIN GALLAGHER: Judith Tizard is totally correct. At least with Richard Worth we know exactly where he stands and which side he is on. I say with due respect that he is clear and concise, unlike his leader. But let us turn to a very positive note. I want to compliment very sincerely the previous speaker on his analysis of this legislation, in what was a very impassioned and focused speech. I compliment him on that, as I compliment the Minister Trevor Mallard, who spoke first in the third reading debate. Also, I think it is appropriate that we should all thank the members of the Commerce Committee for their excellent work on this bill.

I will take the opportunity in this third reading speech to note the key points of the bill and state why it is important to have legislative protection for what are incredibly important international events. The reason we have legislative protection for such events is that we want them to go so well, and we are aware that in the future there is enormous potential for other similar events to come to these shores. We are also aware of the enormous potential for economic benefit.

I could not let this contribution go by without paying a compliment to our Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Helen Clark, for her eleventh-hour flight in the middle of the night to Dublin to help secure the Rugby World Cup. What a magnificent effort that was, and what a magnificent effort it was from the team of the Rugby World Cup—the promotion team—and the New Zealand Rugby Union for their wonderful result in bringing that event to us. But let us also note that in my own region we are going to be blessed with the World Rowing Championships in 2010. Also, New Zealand is to be blessed with the Under-17 Women’s Football World Cup in 2008, and, of course, we will co-host the Cricket World Cup in 2015. These are all major events that will keep New Zealand on the map and will have huge, huge significance in terms of international coverage—television coverage, etc—and the number of visitors and tourists who will come to New Zealand as a result of these very important events.

It is very important to have what we call “clean” events, so that no other parties and forces will try to piggyback inappropriately on such major events. I am very pleased that there is an Order in Council declaration of what a major event is in terms of this legislation. Indeed, there are some very clear clauses around ambush marketing protections that seek to prevent the use of representations by non-sponsor organisations that seek to unfairly benefit from the publicity and goodwill associated with a major event. We know that that is a requirement of the international bodies that are behind the allocation of these events to New Zealand. The interesting thing in terms of the issue of clean transport zones is making sure that where there are going to be transport zones—for the team to go to the ground, in areas where there will be the potential for high television coverage—there are very clear and tight controls on advertising that is not appropriate and is not associated with that event.

The previous speaker, Dr Richard Worth, as did the Minister, talked about ticket scalping. I note that the bill bans ticket scalping, which is the on-sale of a major event ticket for a price greater than its original sale price. To state the obvious, in terms of the law of supply and demand, I say that ticket scalping can dramatically increase the price of tickets and can potentially put attendance at major events out of reach for many, many New Zealanders. I think it very good that there is that particular clause in the bill.

The issue of pitch invasion, which the previous speaker alluded to, is interesting. It is quite interesting that he should draw parallels with significant events in our country’s history of long, long ago. Dare I say what a blessing it is that our country is not faced with that kind of division, and that the world and our country have moved on from those events. Indeed, it is timely to remember what a blessing it is that we can welcome to our country, particularly from the Republic of South Africa, truly multiracial teams that are selected on merit, and that we have managed to move on and can enjoy things like the Super 14 contest, etc. But the bill is very much focused on the one-off event: the so-called streakers, people who are unruly, people who harass the referee, and bad behaviour. Obviously, there will be very clear penalties, because that kind of unfortunate crowd behaviour or individual behaviour will damage our reputation as the host of these internationally significant events.

I take this opportunity to reflect that this bill gives us cause to ponder the importance of many sporting events of an international nature that are not covered in this bill, because they have not been classified in terms of the Order in Council in respect of the bill. I am referring to repeat events. One would obviously expect the member for Hamilton West to make very favourable and passionate mention of the V8 Supercars rally that will be held in his city next year. Obviously, that event is not covered by this bill, but it highlights the incredible economic importance of events such as that one in terms of attracting tourists and visitors from overseas.

We in Hamilton are certainly looking forward to a whole swag of visitors coming over from Australia in particular as part of the circuit, and from other countries, as well. We are looking forward to extensive international television coverage. Again, I can only encourage Tourism New Zealand and other bodies to get behind this major event. A huge bouquet must go to the Hamilton City Council, and in particular to its chief executive, Michael Redman, who at that time was the mayor of our city, for his initiative and for the way in which he put the event together with a small team; we are all the beneficiaries of that. Of course, as Hamiltonians we are hoping this will lead on to other major events. I think it will be of major benefit to our city. Although I acknowledge that this is not the type of event covered in this legislation, it is an example of events around the country that have huge social and economic benefits for New Zealand. I think it is an example where central government, through agencies such as Sport and Recreation New Zealand and Tourism New Zealand, needs to work very, very closely with local authorities and other event organisers of this nature.

To return to this legislation, I say that the bill focuses us a nation on the need to ensure that any major international event is done to a standard of 100 percent—just like our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand. Just like any product we export around the world, we cannot have it 98 percent or 99 percent; it must be 100 percent plus. These events will be of major significance to our country. I thank the Commerce Committee, and I think that all members of this Parliament will agree that this bill will assist in ensuring that these are 100 percent wonderful events for our country.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) : It is a privilege to speak on the third reading of the Major Events Management Bill. Although I was not a member of the Commerce Committee that considered the bill, I have had the opportunity of speaking at each of the stages. I will take a little bit of my time to reflect on the debate and the discussion as the legislation has moved through the Parliament.

I am very, very pleased, for example, to learn that Mr Ron Mark shares my passion for American history. I was delighted in being able to assist him in his understanding of the role of Justice Thurgood Marshall. I take the opportunity to urge Mr Mark to use his influence with his party’s coalition partner in order to temper some of the anti-Americanism that comes from that side of the House. I was also very pleased to give the Minister in charge of the bill, Trevor Mallard, a mathematics lesson last night and to point out to him that 1962 came after 1960.

I have a problem, with which yourself, Mr Assistant Speaker, and this House may be of assistance. I hope the House realises that last night there were many people out there listening to the debate—and I made reference to that in one of my Committee stage addresses. When I got back to my office at 10 o’clock last night, I found a message on my phone. I think it was one of those messages that smart young people send with their thumbs and fingers. The message asked who the muppet was. I am not sure of the significance of the word “muppet”; I am not aware that it is unparliamentary, so I feel free to use it. I get the impression, though, that that generation of young New Zealanders who were fortunate enough to get through the schooling system before the previous Labour Minister of Education got his hands on the portfolio, use the term to describe somebody whom they consider may be less intelligent than themselves. Anyway, the question in the message was: “Who was the muppet who did not know that 1960 comes before 1962?”. I have not answered that question, because how do I tell that person—I assume a constituent of Tamaki—that it was actually the man who was the Minister of Education for 6 years? It may be a good idea if the Minister and I get together after class and I can take him through a few routines that will assist him to understand that 1960 came before 1962. I have made my point.

I will come back to being relevant about the bill. I particularly compliment the very, very fine member for Napier, Mr Chris Tremain, who went out there and won a seat that had been handed on a platter to a Labour member, and who will be in this House for a long, long time. What a privilege it must have been for that member to pay his respects to his late father in his speech. The point that Mr Tremain was making is one that I want to reinforce. This bill, shortly to be passed into law, is not just about a future. It is not just about a world in which major sporting events take place today, with all the commercialism and that sort of thing; it is also a very significant acknowledgment of the past of New Zealand and the role that sport has played in that past. One thing that Mr Tremain may not be aware of is that the very match he was talking about where his father scored the winning try for New Zealand in a gale was also the Saturday that the Millard Stand at Athletic Park was opened.

Christopher Finlayson: I was there.

ALLAN PEACHEY: Mr Finlayson is old enough to remember actually having been there. All credit to Mr Finlayson.

Christopher Finlayson: I was five.

ALLAN PEACHEY: He was five years of age. I had the great good fortune to become an acquaintance of Mr Millard in the 1970s, when I was a very young and junior teacher at Hutt Valley High School. Being a young and junior teacher at Hutt Valley High School in those days was a bit like being a backbencher stuck in the corner in this Parliament. We spoke when we were spoken to, and we did what we were told. Mr Millard visited Hutt Valley High School one day and he recognised me. He said: “Oh, you’re Mr Peachey, the coach of the first XV.” I said: “Indeed, sir, I am.” We engaged in conversation. It was one of those conversations that people more important than me came and interrupted, and I got shunted aside. When it was time to sit down, I quietly disappeared with my tail between my legs, as one does, out to where more of my level were gathering.

As I sat down Mr Millard—“Pasty”—came across and said: “Mr Peachey, why did you walk away from me?”. I said: “Well, Mr Millard, you’re up there with the important people. I am just a junior teacher.” I have never forgotten what “Pasty” Millard said to me. He said: “Mr Peachey, you are not just a junior teacher. You are a teacher. What is more, you are the coach of the first XV of a fine school. You will have more impact on this school than those flash people over there. Are you going to come over and sit with me over there, or am I going to sit with you here?”. That man, like Joe McManemin whom I mentioned last night, goes right to the core of the concept of community service in this country.

That is why I was so insistent at the Committee stage, and I remain persistent, in my support of the anti-scalping provisions in the Major Events Management Bill. In the tradition of those fine men, those men who went before, who could never have envisaged a bill like this being necessary and passed in this Parliament, it is an absolute insult to think that any person, through good fortune, or knowing somebody, or luck, or devious means, should be able to command tickets to sport that New Zealanders love with a passion, and therefore make a financial profit from that, and deny other New Zealanders the opportunity to be part of the event. Scalping is a most un - New Zealand thing to do. It is distinctly unfashionable, and it is great to see in this Parliament legislation that will make that message very clear. In doing that, we are not only acknowledging the realities of the commercial world that future great sporting events will take part in, but we are also paying respect and deference to those fine men and women who, over 100 years, have built a tradition of sport, participation, and respect in this country.

I also want to take just a couple of minutes, in the time remaining, to make a quick comment about ambush marketing. Again, I reiterate what I said at the Committee stage. Any person or any organisation that is prepared to invest large sums of money to make sure that an event occurs is entitled to some protections and is entitled to make a commercial benefit from that. I compare this to the great investments that drug companies, for example, make in new medicines and the opportunity that they have to gain a return from that.

The only other comment I want to make is to refer to pitch invasion. I think it is indicative of how far New Zealand has come that today ordinary New Zealanders, like the members in this House, find that sort of behaviour unnecessary and, frankly, unpleasant. The days when somebody, probably tanked up on alcohol, thought that his or her fellow New Zealanders or our international guests were more interested in a quick look at a bit of flesh than they were in watching the game have long since gone.

I appreciate the opportunity to have contributed at each stage of this bill. I congratulate everybody involved with it, and I look forward to its being a success.

RON MARK (NZ First) : There is not a lot more that can, or possibly should, be said about this bill at this point in time. I know that we have speakers lined up to go, but pretty much between the Minister and the speakers that have gone before me, particularly on the National Party side, most of the aspects of the bill have been rehashed, as they were pretty heavily and extensively last night through the Committee stage. New Zealand First will put it on record again that we support this legislation. We have supported it since its concept, since it was first envisaged. However, it seemed appropriate to us to make clear to the House that the areas on which we did have some discussion and some debate were the ones that also concerned, interestingly enough, the Greens, as they naturally would. They were questions of civil liberties surrounding pitch invasions—and the passing of the legislation will seek to make them an illegal activity—and the questions of ambush marketing.

Probably our deliberation over the ambush-marketing aspects was pretty short and sweet. New Zealand First is a party that unashamedly believes there should be limitations and restrictions placed on some commercial activities. Not every commercial activity is for the good of everybody and the community as a whole. We did say that we welcome this new era of enlightenment from some political parties that, up until this point in time, have championed radical and free-marketeering activities. They wrap it up in terms such as “global economy” and “entrepreneurialism”. Here we have, in the passage of this bill, an acceptance and a realisation from them that some people’s investments have a right to be protected. If we had suggested such a thing in 1990 when Ruth Richardson was in this House, we probably would have been damned out of the building for even daring to suggest an interventionist law change such as this. People like Roger Douglas from the Labour Party would have probably sided with her and thrown people out for daring to even consider that some sort of regulation or limitation through legislation should be imposed upon the entrepreneurial nature of business people who see it as their right to exploit any and every commercial opportunity that is presented to them.

The passage of these particular clauses in the bill shows the acceptance and pragmatic realisation of the fact that people who have invested huge amounts of money, and who have undertaken the responsibilities to their shareholders that come with that, have a right to conduct that business and continue to accrue the advantage of their work—their risk taking—without other people coming in from the side and exploiting it, to the extent where they are even seen by the public, incorrectly, to be the main sponsors and funders of the event and the organisation. New Zealand First agrees that such activities can only damage New Zealand’s reputation in the eyes of others internationally, and make it more difficult for us to secure major events of this type.

I reflect again on some of the comments from Gerry Brownlee last night, when he was considering and pondering what might be considered major events in the future. Of course, the bill deals with how those determinations will be made. It probably does us well to think about that, because although most people will focus on World Cup events and world rowing events, it might well be that that is not the case; it could well be that one single V8 race could be classed as a major event. One simple soccer game, if it were played between the right nations, could also be classified as a major event, given the massive international coverage and interest in soccer. So a little bit of forethought and a little bit of vision is always a good thing, and that also seems to appear in the bill.

The question that vexed us most was that of civil liberties—that is, the rights of people. A large number of Labour Party members of Parliament have, throughout their careers, consistently championed their badges of honour through their involvement in the 1981 Springbok Tour protests and demonstrations. I, like others in this House, did not share the view that they had a God-given right to storm on to pitches and impinge on the rights of other people to freedom of association. Like Mr Peachey, some of us have read the words of Justice Thurgood Marshall. What an enlightened decision he made when confronted with the same question, which was whether the American Eagles should be prevented from playing the Springboks in 1981. It is interesting, when one reads back through that, how the Americans dealt with the potential and the possibility of disruptive pitch invasions, and how they noted, through the appearance in the United States of activists from New Zealand, that there was a strong desire to emulate and reproduce the violence and the thuggery that we saw here in New Zealand on American pitches. It was of great credit to Justice Thurgood Marshall, being a champion for civil liberties, and being an Afro-American appointed to the Supreme Court by Lyndon Johnson initially, then confirmed in that same appointment by JFK, that he stood firmly—

Allan Peachey: No, JFK served before Lyndon Johnson.

RON MARK: Mr Peachey is right; it is the other way around. [Interruption] This is good, because we share the same interests—he is right. Justice Thurgood Marshall reaffirmed the freedom of association and the rights of people to freely demonstrate and protest peacefully, without violence and without thuggery, and that is what we can now hope to see through the passage of this bill. It was interesting that he then made sure through his judgment that the protestors, who numbered 1,000, were able to protest, and that the people who were watching the game of football and participating in it, who numbered only about 400, were able to go about their lawful business and exercise their basic rights. This was an enlightened decision that New Zealand finally seems to have reached—how ironic—some 26 years later.

So New Zealand First, in considering the pros and the cons of this bill, comes down on the side that we will support the bill. We believe that it does protect people’s rights and it does protect people’s interests. People will not be prohibited from demonstrating if the Zimbabwe team turns up here and they take it upon themselves to make a point to Mr Robert Mugabe, but they will not be permitted to invade pitches and disrupt the lawful activities of other people and their freedom and right to associate and play sport with whomever they wish.

Those aspects of this bill will ensure that we remain a credible venue and a credible host nation of the future Rugby World Cup and of many events after that. They will ensure that we are seen by the international community as being people who protect the rights and the civil liberties of all New Zealanders and all other people who come to our nation to enjoy the sporting spectacles that we will be hosting. Those aspects of the bill will also ensure, above all, that these ventures and spectacles are profitable and that they return an economic advantage to New Zealanders that will be benefited, I guess, through the social services that the Government delivers, and through the general services that commercial enterprises deliver on an hour-by-hour, minute-by-minute basis all over this land. We support the passage of the bill, and we look forward to its final passage. Thank you.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : When the Greens are part of the debate on globalisation and the global economy, we often say that we are all for free competition between firms but that we want a level playing field. One of the problems when we bring in free-trade agreements without having that level playing field is that companies from the richest industrial countries—countries that are the biggest and most capitalised, with the best technology—tend to predominate and wipe out the competition in poorer and weaker countries with smaller economies. I take as one example the banana trade that has been contested internationally. Against Del Monte and what not—the big corporations that produce bananas from Ecuador—it is very hard for smaller Pacific Island or Caribbean producers to compete, so we think there is a requirement sometimes for a level of protectionism to protect smaller economies, in order to give them opportunities in the world economy.

But this Major Event Management Bill is going totally in the opposite direction. It is an over-the-top bill, which is why the Green Party has been opposing it. In fact, this bill is protecting, in the most extreme way, the most powerful people and companies in the world—that is, the big corporates, none of which are New Zealand companies, and the people who run them. We can refer to the sponsors of the coming Rugby World Cup in France, which may be the same companies that will sponsor the event again in 2011 in New Zealand. I do not think that any of them—the ones I saw a list of—are even French companies. The main sponsors are Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, Adidas, Goodyear and Heineken. Those companies are being protected by this bill, with all its legislative provisions against competition, from little New Zealand firms, and sometimes from bigger New Zealand firms.

For example, if Phoenix Organics, which sells drinks, puts up a sign 4½ kilometres out from the stadium where a Rugby World Cup game is being played in 2011, and if it puts up that advertisement on what is called a “clean transport route” under the bill, it could be liable for a fine of $150,000, because the official sponsor of the Rugby World Cup is none other than Coca Cola—well, it is in 2007 and may well be in 2011. This restriction will apply not just on the day of the game but for up to 30 days after the major event. That is specified in the bill. So small drinks manufacturers and people in clothing, food, travel, and car tyres, to refer to the business areas of those sponsors I quoted, could all be in the gun. New Zealand firms could be involved.

I had two amendments at the Committee stage on two of the most extreme provisions of the bill. One was to knock out that 5-kilometre clean transport route around stadiums. It was great that four parties supported my amendment—the Greens, ACT, United Future, and the Māori Party.

I also had an amendment to knock out the new offence of pitch invasion, and those same four parties supported that amendment, as well. There is absolutely no reason to put in a new offence, when any people who wander on to a pitch illegitimately at the moment are covered by disorderly behaviour provisions and given a very small fine. Generally there is no big deal, and certainly there has never been any contemplation by any judge to give a big fine, let alone imprisonment. The imprisonment section of the disorderly behaviour legislation is clearly shaped, as members will see if they look at the cases for people who do serious disorderly behaviour leading to violence or who provoke violence in association with other major crimes. It is just so stupid to have a 3-month sentence for someone who might wander on to a pitch during a world cup game, whether it be someone supposedly having fun being a streaker or someone involved in a political protest of the type that Ron Mark just mentioned—perhaps against a Zimbabwe team, or for some other reason.

I want to spend a little bit of time on the anti-scalping provisions. I did not actually have an amendment on these provisions last night in the Committee stage, but the more I think about it, the more, perhaps, I think I should have, because these provisions are quite stupid. Sure, the aim of the anti-scalping provisions, as other speakers have mentioned, is to try to keep ticket prices within the range of ordinary New Zealanders. There is no need for a law to achieve that; we have achieved it up till now. The way the system operates in New Zealand is that the distribution of tickets is kept pretty spread out, by releasing them on the Internet, to clubs, or whatever, and there is no reason not to perfect that system.

I find it a bit strange giving lectures on the basic principles, the ABCs, of business to the National Party and the Labour Party—to the National Party in particular. At least ACT seems to understand those principles a little bit better. I do not usually praise ACT members, but they seem to understand the basic laws of business here—that if there is a big demand, the price goes up; if there is not so much demand, the price does not go up so much. If the price goes up, and if people have a few spare tickets to a Rugby World Cup match—perhaps to a semi-final or a final—the price might be quite high. It will probably not affect a big number of tickets, but the price will be high.

Let us take a little example of a couple we will call Jackie and John. Jackie and John went to a lot of effort and bought tickets at the proper price—perhaps they stayed up all night queuing, or whatever—but now all of a sudden there has been an illness in the family, a family crisis, and they just cannot go. They will be breaking the law—they will be becoming criminals—if they sell these tickets and take any extra amount above what they bought them for. They will not even be able to take into account all the time and effort it took to purchase the tickets, because they will have to sell them at the price they bought them for. But in the case of huge demand for a Rugby World Cup final, or something like it, will they, in practice, become criminals? They will not be caught by the law, because they will not go out in front of any police officer and sell the tickets there; they will just put a rumour around at their workplace, down the pub, or somewhere, and people will rush up to them and offer $50 more, $100 more—whatever it is—for the ticket. So what are they to do? Are they to say: “Oh, sorry, I’ll be breaking the law if I don’t sell them at the proper price.”? It is just so stupid.

Representatives from TradeMe came along to the select committee and said: “Look, this creates problems. How are we going to do this? We’ll do our best if we have to, but it’s a bit stupid.” What will in fact happen is that people will just go to eBay, or whatever, and they will not necessarily even sell tickets through the normal trading system. They will say: “Couple of tickets for sale; phone such-and-such”, and they will get rid of the tickets at a high price. In this day of the Internet and everything else, there is no way we can stop that. So why make criminals of ordinary people? The San Francisco Giants, a baseball team, has a secondary market with its own Internet website. That is a better way to go—but it is better to distribute tickets properly in the first place.

With regard to pitch invasion, there is all this stuff about how we have to legislate against it because Trevor Mallard says there will be adverse media coverage if anyone wanders on to the pitch. Martin Gallagher says it will damage our reputation. But are we such a heavy-handed State that we need this provision to deal with a streaker who wanders on to the field for 30 seconds? Let us face it: in any of these major events, so many security people will be around the outside that streakers will not last more than a few seconds on the field. They will not interfere with the game very much, at all. Those sorts of people are just trying to have fun; they annoy some people and they amuse others. So what! I wonder who really cares if a protestor goes on the pitch. A previous speaker, Richard Worth, talked about people flour-bombing fields, but we are not talking about that sort of protest in this legislation. Indeed, Mark Jones, who did that in Auckland during the 1981 Springbok Tour, got 6 months in jail. We are talking about people such as Hone Harawira, who was on the pitch at Hamilton in 1981. He did not get thrown in jail. In fact, that action is a badge of honour in most people’s minds. So we say that this bill is quite Draconian. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa, e hoa mā, i tēnei ahiahi. For most tangata whenua across Aotearoa, this week will not necessarily be remembered for the time that the Major Events Management Bill passed its third reading in the House. In fact, this week will long be remembered as the day, and, indeed the week, that Tainui marked the first year of the reign of KīngiTuheitia. But as the nation has observed this historic moment in Te Kīngitanga, I feel it is appropriate to point out the sort of symbolic nature, or symbolic relationship, that exists between Tūrangawaewae Marae in Ngāruawāhia, and this debating chamber in Wellington. For if ever there was a major event in Māoridom, the Koroneihana would fit the bill.

In the middle of a significant and spectacular sense of occasion, a protest of sorts threatened to disrupt all the proceedings. The House will have noted that on TV there was an element of protest, and with elegance, with dignity, with mana, the people of Tainui moved into place, removing the young man who had caused a bit of a problem, and who was the focus of the problem, while at the same time Tainui women broke into a waiata—it goes like this: “Ehara i te mea; nō nāianei te aroha, nō ngā tūpuna, tuku iho, tuku iho.” It is a humble song, and often heard on marae, but the message is pretty straightforward and profound: “Love is not a new thing; it comes from the ancestors. It has been handed down through the passages of time.”

I cannot help but contrast this reaction of the Tainui people to the changes to this bill as reported back from the select committee, which now prohibits and creates an offence of pitch invasion. What the legislation now sets in place is that any protestors doing so, will be liable for a $5,000 fine or 3 months’ prison. But, then again, the coronation is not a major event! The fact that up to 60,000 people, including foreign dignitaries, attended the week-long coronation ceremony was in fact incidental. The event was so significant that in addition to our own VIPs, the Governor-General and Māori leaders from across Aotearoa, it also drew to our shores King George Tupou V of Tonga, Princess Kekaulike Kawananakoa of Hawaii, Prince Teriihinoiatua Joinville Pomare of Tahiti, Niue Deputy Premier Fisa Pihigia, and Cook Islands representative Sir Frederick Goodwin. The final climax involved three waka tauā carrying 120 paddlers down to present a spectacular salute on the Waikato River. But no, that was not major!

I make the point that “major” is clearly in the eye of the beholder. We have spoken throughout this debate about our wish that the eyes of the beholder actually include Māori eyes. At the first reading of this bill I asked that if the Governor-General is to have the final say, then the Minister for Economic Development must consult not only the Minister of Commerce and the Minister for Sport and Recreation but also the Minister of Māori Affairs. We saw the involvement of the Minister of Māori Affairs in the decision-making process around declaring events to be “major events” to be a key way of protecting and promoting the status of tangata whenua in our land. We saw it also as being vital to ensure Māori had a say in measures to prohibit exploitation of intellectual property.

This bill sets in place certain protections for events declared to be major events in order to obtain maximum benefits from it for New Zealanders. Are Māori—and the events that we have referred to throughout this debate—not included in the scope of the benefits for all New Zealanders? I am referring to the major indigenous sporting events such as the Waka Ama IVF Va’a World Sprint Champs; the major indigenous cultural events such as Matatini; major events of historic standing such as the Koroneihana and the annual Rātana gatherings; and others.

This bill is also driven by the need to prevent unauthorised commercial exploitation at the expense of either an event organiser or an event sponsor. The bill provides for agreed-upon emblems and words to be declared as such, and given legal protection for a specified period. The irony of this, of course, is apparent when we consider the skimpy—indeed, minimal—legal protection that is accorded to Māori cultural and intellectual property. Indeed, not long ago, 26 June to be a little bit more precise, in reference to an international security firm branding itself as the Maori Group, our Prime Minister told a press conference that this was merely one of many examples of international businesses exploiting indigenous culture to promote their products and services. She stated, as a matter of fact: “there is no international mechanism which could provide redress for Māori.” So the question is: how come legal protection is fought for, for the Rugby World Cup but not for Māori? I would like to remind the House that less than a week ago the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination reported that it remained concerned that such steps “tend to diminish the importance and relevance of the Treaty and to create a context unfavourable to the rights of Māori.” So on one hand we have a bill to protect big-scale organisers and big-business sponsors, then on another the exploitation of Māori culture and intellectual property is discarded as being of hardly any issue at all.

Such ongoing arrogance on behalf of the Crown would pretty much lead a man to protest. The right to protest is, of course, a right that we have strongly upheld throughout the course of this bill, including our staunch support for Keith Locke’s Supplementary Order Paper to delete clause 25A, “Offence to invade pitch at major sporting event”. It is probably not lost to the House that Māori have no problem associated with taking up the democratic right to express their concerns via the means of protest. At this very time we know that Bruce Ngaromoa and Montana Kelly are taking, along with a Viet Namese man, action on the roof of Sydney’s Villawood Immigration Detention Centre to argue for improved health at the centre and the right to allow family visits. Of course, the nation as a whole took up the power of protest just 2 weeks ago, at 12.12 p.m. on 8August, a time chosen to remember the 12 children a year who die from child abuse in New Zealand. At the same time as the silent vigil took place, another protest action was inspired by Allies of Whānau o Aotearoa. Their action was to fight for whānau to have their own dreams and solutions calling for an acknowledgement that Māori have the answers. Their protest was called the Make Some Noise Campaign, telling the world to love their whānau by honking the horn, ending the silence, and standing up to protect our tamariki.

It was in light of this history and current strength to preserve the freedom of expression that we have been moved to oppose the bill at both the second reading and Committee stage. We saw the new offence of pitch invasion, and the threat of a term of imprisonment or a fine for going on to the playing surface at a major event, as being unnecessary and pretty much completely over the top. There are already mechanisms within current law to charge pitch invaders with disorderly behaviour, including a fine.

The bigger crime for us is the blatant and ongoing reduction of the rights of Māori. The offence I am referring to is that reported by the UN that Government actions continue to diminish the importance and relevance of the Treaty and to create a context unfavourable to the rights of Māori. It is the ongoing and persistent poor performance, indeed, the failure of the New Zealand Government to honour indigenous peoples that will be noted again on the world stage when the UN General Assembly considers the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on 13 September 2007.

The Government has an opportunity to do right by Māori in this bill by welcoming and inviting Māori involvement in the decisions around what are major events. Māori participation could be actively protected through measures taken to safeguard Māori cultural and intellectual property in the brands, goods, and services being associated with major events. We know that our finest Māori sportspersons will be actively engaged in the Netball World Championships in November this year, the World Rowing Championships in 2010, the Rugby World Cup the following year, and the Cricket World Cup in 2015. We honour their right to participate and we celebrate the amazing success of New Zealand sporting talents across the world scene. We will not stand in their way, and we will support this bill at its third and final reading, noting that our concerns have been put to the House.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) : Tēnā koutou. I commence by acknowledging the coronation of King Tuheitia this week. It is an event that the House and the rest of New Zealand should acknowledge.

I begin my speech on the Major Events Management Bill by saying that my fine colleague Mr Christopher Finlayson was but a 5-year-old boy in the Millard Stand during the 1961 test match when the All Blacks sneaked home in a 5-3 nail-biter against France. That match was played in an 80 mile per hour gale that whipped off the southern ocean and came straight down Athletic Park. Mr Finlayson will remember that. With 15 minutes to play, the game was tied at nil all and a try finally came, not to New Zealand but to France. The conversion was missed. From the restart McKay narrowly missed scoring. But from a scrum on the French line Lacroix passed back to Lacaze to clear. The fullback’s kick was charged down by Tremain, who fell on the ball 10 yards in from the corner. Don Clarke took the conversion attempt on that day back to the 25—it was 25 yards in those days, not 22 metres as it is today. He carried the ball back to the 25 and kicked almost parallel to the goal line for the wind to catch the ball and miraculously carry it through the uprights over the bar to give New Zealand the lead and cruelly dash the French hopes.

Hon Mahara Okeroa: Was that your father?

CHRIS TREMAIN: That was my father.

In 1961 major events such as that test match did not require legislation to protect them from unauthorised commercial exploitation at the expense of major sponsors. Today we live in a different world where every opportunity is taken to exploit major events for promotional gain. The Major Events Management Bill seeks to address that issue and give some protection to major sponsors. The bill outlines criteria for a major event, such as whether it will raise New Zealand’s international profile; generate significant tourism; attract international media attention and sponsorship; or offer sporting, cultural, economic, or social benefits to New Zealand. I challenge Mr Flavell to raisewaka ama so that that sport can also be seen as a major event.

The bill arises from the successful bids made for major international sporting events—the world rowing champs in 2010, the Rugby World Cup in 2011, and the Cricket World Cup in 2015. Similar legislation has been passed in France, England, and Australia, whereby once an event is designated as a major event it is allowed the sorts of protections outlined in this bill. One example that I was recently involved in—which would, unfortunately, fall below the line; the event Te Ururoa Flavell was involved in—would probably not be classified as a major event. It took place in the fine town of Ōtaki, up the coast a little way. It was an event played by the Parliamentary Rugby Team, and our sponsors were looking for a clean stadium. But, unfortunately, we were not able to deliver that on behalf of the Parliamentary Rugby Team. We were unable to deliver a clean stadium for Visa and Air New Zealand, the great sponsors for this team, so in the future we will perhaps be looking to bring the Parliamentary Rugby Team’s annual events under this legislation!

The bill is primarily intended to deal with ambush marketing, which is associating a name, a brand, or a product with an event without having the right to do so. The bill prohibits advertising from intruding on a major event or from implying an association with an event. As other speakers have said tonight, it creates clean zones—clean transport routes where advertising and street trading are restricted. It also prohibits activities that might compromise the smooth running of the event. My fine colleague from Tāmaki, Mr Peachey, talked about ticket scalping and pitch invasion.

Last night I spoke about the Nike example at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, where the key sponsors had to cough up $50 million just to be on the deck. But Nike did not do that. It came to the Atlanta Olympics without any intention of paying a sponsorship dollar. It used its Swoosh flags, it used city-wide billboards, and it used a huge events centre to promote its brand at those Olympic Games. The research done after the games showed that many people thought Nike had been a major sponsor of the event. That is not good enough.

Another example of that, which is more local and occurred only a few years ago, was a pitch invasion—and a number of speakers from the Greens and the Māori Party do not like this part of the bill. Vodafone admitted to sponsoring the streakers who interrupted a Bledisloe Cup game during a crucial All Black goal attempt. Members will recall that the streakers ran around All Black fly-half Andrew Mehrtens as he readied himself for a crucial penalty kick, which he later missed. The streaker in that case had a Vodafone emblem on his back. Vodafone’s managing director Graham Maher agreed to pay the fine incurred by the man who had carried out stunt. The fine was under $5,000, yet the promotion that Vodafone was able to get out of that branding opportunity was huge, and this is where the issue of the using pitch invasion as a promotion has a place.

Major events cost big money. They cannot be put on without sponsors’ contributions, and there needs to be a guaranteed return for those sponsors. Mr Locke spoke about Phoenix drinks and about Phoenix not being able to have its drinks located in the stadium, but unless that company is prepared to pitch up and put the money on the table to help sponsor the events, then I am sorry but that is the way the deal has to be.

New Zealand is well-placed to host international events going forward. We are a safe country, we have a great environment, and we are poised to take on a lot more events. These events can have a huge impact on our GDP. Currently, our current account deficit is the worst it has ever been, at 9 percent of GDP. Some $14 billion in net funds per annum is flowing out of the country. This bill gives us the opportunity to bring more and more events into the country. These events bring foreign currency into the country and help us to reduce that current account deficit.

The legislation will also have a huge impact on my own local economy. In the case of the Rugby World Cup, Napier will have the right to host a number of games. That will bring revenue into Napier and Hawke’s Bay that we would not otherwise have.

Hon Member: Well, you’re winning now.

CHRIS TREMAIN: We are on a winner there; we certainly are.

The bill is poignant for me for two other reasons, as I mentioned in the Committee stage. I will address just one of them because I am running out of time. The bill is poignant because my local electorate chairman, Tom Johnson, was a member of the team that first proposed the Rugby World Cup concept. He attended an International Rugby Board meeting in Canada in the mid-1980s, and that meeting resulted in the first Rugby World Cup being held here in New Zealand in 1987—which we won. I think that all members in the House tonight would gather with me in wishing Sir Brian Lochore and his team, who are going over to the Rugby World Cup in France, the best of luck. He certainly has the country’s emotional heart at stake. The world today is different from the world of my father’s day. Sir Brian Lochore and Colin Meads played in that era, but now things have changed. Sponsorship is now a key part of everything we do in sport, and that is why this bill needs to form part of our country’s laws going forward.

This type of legislation is a reality for countries holding major events, and it is often required as part of a hosting agreement. It is common practice in many countries. It is important to ensure that New Zealand can be a viable host country for significant international events, with all the benefits that brings. Lastly, I say that sponsors will not be prepared to make commitments without protections like these being in place. Either New Zealand goes along with this or we will not be in the running to host major international events. I for one am not prepared to miss out on the opportunities that they bring to our nation, to my province, and to our sporting heroes.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) : Indeed, it is a pleasure to speak to the third reading of the Wills Bill, which has enjoyed the support of the House. I acknowledge the work that the Law Commission and Sir Geoffrey Palmer did—the sterling work they did in reviewing the wills legislation. Some of the statutes involved actually went back to 1837, so this legislation is certainly well due. I also commend our members of the Justice and Electoral Committee, and indeed the staff and all the officials who helped us with the bill, on ensuring that the bill was in good condition to bring back to this House. I also acknowledge the submitters who came to the committee and gave good submissions on the bill.

In fact, if I reflect on Mr Finlayson’s speech last night, I think that that was an indication of why this bill is so good: because it is in plain English. When I listened to the waffle and pontificating that went on last night, I thought that it was very good to see a bill that is in plain English, is very easy to understand, and is clear and accessible to all people. There are some really important points in this bill. It reduces the chance of a will or gift failing, because there is certainly more clarity. It makes it easier for young people to make wills, and I think that that is a very, very good thing. It also brings us up to speed with the modern world that we live in, in that it recognises our de facto and civil union relationships, and it moves towards the interests of the will-maker’s intention when making a will, rather than being too pedantic. In fact, wills, in order to be recognised, will no longer need to be signed if the intention of the will-maker is very clear. So that is all very good, progressive stuff.

It is not frequently—but I suppose it is not infrequently—that we have legislation come before this House that is supported by the entire House. But it is very good, and it is common sense, to do so when a bill provides clarity, effectively cleans up a number of statutes, and makes very clear—

Hon Members: Which ones?

LYNNE PILLAY: I have been asked which statutes—the statutes that go back, in fact, to 1837, and cover the laws that there were.

I do not have much more to say, except to add that the committee did valuable work and I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) : I thought I would start by talking for a moment about the purposes of the Wills Bill, and by highlighting two of them. The first is to replace the Wills Act 1837 of the United Kingdom with an Act written in plain language, and the second is to make some rather minor changes to the law contained in that legislation.

It is fair to say that the Wills Act 1837 is written in turgid language. Indeed, as law students, I recall that when we were taught the law of wills it was done in the context of a topic called “Equity and the Law of Trusts”. It was a huge challenge for any of us as keen young students to stay awake, as the intricacies of wills were explored at very great length. Let no one be mistaken, there are huge complications around the law of wills. I will start by quoting a small section of the Wills Act 1837. Some would say that New Zealand was not around in those days, but this is English legislation, imperial legislation, which in a curious way has persisted, and will persist as part of the New Zealand law, until the Royal assent is given to this brand new Wills Bill.

I will read from section 6 of the Wills Act 1837, and I defy listeners to see what they make of it. The section is headed “Devolution of estates pur autre vie not disposed of by will”, and reads in this way: “If no disposition by will shall be made of any estate pur autre vie of a freehold nature, the same shall be chargeable in the hands of the heir, if it shall come to him by reason of special occupancy, as assets by descent, as in the case of freehold land in fee simple; and in case there shall be no special occupant of any estate pur autre vie, whether freehold or customary freehold, tenant right, customary or copyhold, or of any other tenure, and whether a corporeal or incorporeal hereditament, it shall go to the executor or administrator of the party that had the estate thereof by virtue of the grant; and if the same shall come to the executor or administrator either by reason of a special occupancy or by virtue of this Act, it shall be assets in his hands, and shall go and be applied and distributed in the same manner as the personal estate of the testator or intestate.”

So pity the young law student in year 2 of his or her study!

One of the points about this legislation is that it is primarily procedure-based. It does not actually alter the law of wills in any significant way.

I guess it is appropriate to reflect for a moment on some wills in history that have drawn comment. The first I would like to refer to is a will made by Charles Vance Millar. His will was notorious for offering the bulk of his estate to the Toronto woman who had the greatest number of children in the 10 years after his death. This particular issue was known as “The Great Stork Derby” in Toronto folklore. A number of attempts were made by would-be heirs to invalidate this will. They were all unsuccessful, and the bulk of Millar’s fortune eventually went to four women. Another famous case—that of the estate of a Mr Kidd—involved a will found on a deceased Arizona prospector, who left his entire $250,000 estate “for research or some scientific proof of a soul of the human body which leaves at death”. He added in the will: “I think in time there can be a photograph of a soul leaving the human at death.”

From my perspective the most significant points—and there are only two of them—that should be made about the Wills Bill are that, first, many of us have a view that there is a freedom of testamentary disposition. By that I mean that we have a clear right by will to dispose of property unrestrained by other third-party involvement. But it is important to say that over the years legislation has intervened and a testator no longer has complete testamentary freedom in New Zealand.

Prior to 2002, the two most important pieces of legislation were the Family Protection Act 1955 and the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949. I do not want to get into the detail of those statutes, but where it was shown that appropriate provision had not been made for a deserving relative, the courts would intervene to deal with that perceived injustice. That is what happened under the Family Protection Act 1955. Then the Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act 1949 dealt with those cases where promises had been made in exchange for services rendered to the testator and allowed a rewriting of the will.

As I have said, that was the position prior to 2002. Then there was a substantial and significant further intervention, because the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 2001 came into force. That Act renamed the Matrimonial Property Act 1976 as the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 and extensively amended that legislation. So there are now huge inroads on testamentary freedom. There are also significant ramifications for lawyers working in the area of estates and estate planning. It is probably fair to say that in the 1970s and 1980s, not much money could be made by lawyers in this area, but all of that has now changed very significantly and estate planning is an art that occupies substantial legal effort and acumen.

So that is the first substantive point I would like to make. The second is to comment on issues of formality touching wills. This is a reasonably arcane area of the law—and I will come to those formalities that are picked up now in the Wills Bill—but there is a class of will known as a holographic will. A holographic will is a will and testament that has been entirely handwritten and signed by the testator. The normal rule is that a will must be signed by witnesses who attest to the validity of the testator’s signature and intent. But in many jurisdictions, unwitnessed holographic wills are treated as being as valid as witnessed wills.

I will give one example. Holographic wills often show that the requirements for making a valid will are minimal. For example, the Guinness Book of Records lists the shortest will in the world as “All to wife”, which met the minimum requirements. There was a very famous case in 1948 in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan where a farmer, whose name was Harris, trapped under his own tractor carved a will into the fender. The fender was probated and stood as his will. Apparently, that fender is currently on display at the law library at the University of Saskatchewan. So I just say that sitting in behind this legislation is a raft of subtleties and complex substantive issues.

Generally, the requirement around the attestation—the signing of wills—has a substantial element of formality. It used to be the case that if one were a beneficiary under a will, one would never witness the signing of that will because, if one did, one would not be able to take the bequest. All of that has been changed in the Wills Bill and is no longer so, although the general proposition is that if one witnesses a will and is a beneficiary in the will, one has a major problem in persuading the court that that disposition should be made in one’s favour. The requirement is that the will is signed by the testator or, as it is said in this bill, the will-maker, in the presence of two witnesses who must sign at the same time. There are lots of subtleties around that, which include the position of blind testators and blind witnesses.

I said something about holographic wills. The bill is also keen to protect the position of informal wills made by military personnel and by seafarers, who may well not be in military service but may be in the mercantile marine. These may be oral wills—they may be made wholly orally—but they will nevertheless have binding impact. So it is that this legislation now proceeds to its final stage. It replaces old imperial legislation.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. Once again the jagged juxtaposition of Māori customary traditions alongside Western practices has been played out in full drama in the media. For the whānau pani at Upokorehe marae at Kutarere, the commitment to their loved one required that they bring him home to his ancestral urupā, the resting place of the line of genealogy from which he descended. As the sister of the deceased was reported to have said: “His umbilical cord is here, we can’t stretch it to the South Island.” Yet in the South Island are also whānau, loved friends, and family of the man, who are now feeling cast adrift from the final rituals of his life.

The tragedy of losing this loved one has been that the loss has been intensified through the differing perspectives associated with death and the process of tangihanga. It brings home to us all the enduring significance of cultural traditions and the ever-dynamic need to ensure that everyone is able to discuss, debate, and learn from each other the range of views that are held. It is always best if such debates take place in life rather than in the immediate days following a death.

However, it is often not only a discussion across cultures but also a discussion across families, hapū, and iwi. Such discussions are core to our very being as tangata whenua, for they are about a return to the ūkaipō, the whenua. The importance of our stories, our experiences, and our wishes being heard long after we leave this earth is, therefore, extremely well-recognised by tangata whenua.

Earlier in the passage of this Wills Bill, we in the Māori Party raised the concept of ōhākī—the formal speech that was traditionally given by our people nearing the end of their lives. The practice of ōhākī would announce the wishes of that person to their assembled relatives regarding the disposal of personal property. We believe that our customary traditions to do with bequests are critical concepts in the understanding of Māori succession law, and we hope that there will be opportunities in future justice policy work to review and give respect to such concepts.

I was interested to note in the submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee from the National Council of Women a view that in addition to having the safeguards in the bill, its members suggested that any witness to a will should declare his or her interest and have it recorded. Having different interpretations available to us on DVD or video recordings is another way to ensure that the ancient Wills Act of 1837 moves into this new century, some 170 years after it was introduced in the United Kingdom Parliament.

Given the passage of time that has passed since that first Wills Act, the Māori Party has been very pleased to support this Wills Bill. We are pleased that the changes will make it far easier for whānau to be able to receive the last word of their loved ones, in plain, modern language that is clear and accessible. We are pleased also that the legislation relating to wills is now to be as uncomplicated as possible and, as such, will be useful to both those who wish to make a will and those who are affected in any way by a will.

To demonstrate exactly how important these matters are, I want to bring to this debate an email that came into our office shortly after the second reading. It states: “I have a situation in my family I’d like to share. I am very grateful for the 1993 Maori Land Act. Succession in my view is the fairest and simplest means of keeping Tūrangawaewae tangata whenua and whakapapa safe for all whānau. In our situation there has been a lot of misinformation put about to confuse the meaning of succession when it should be a simple concept.”

The situation that this woman referred to followed the death of her mother, who had experienced dementia at the end of her life. She revoked her will and left more than half of her Māori land interests to one daughter—a decision that impacted severely on the seven siblings. As my correspondent continued: “Given that the land is the place where we all grew up and live it is very difficult to accept that the rest of us and our succeeding issue are forever alienated should our sister succeed solely.” This family was forced into a situation where it had no alternative but to go to the Māori Land Court to have the will overturned.

I have chosen to share this story because it illustrates the critical differences that must be considered when one considers the disposal of Māori land under a will. Section 108 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 provides a specific description about how best to understand succession to Māori land. Section 108 of that Act also limits the persons to whom Māori freehold can be left by a will. Without having in place that protection of clear and specific guidelines around the disposal of land, the whānau concerned in my story would have been even more traumatised by the experience than they are now.

It reinforces to us all the importance of legislation and guidelines being accessible, and the importance of the law being free of ambiguity or confusion. It is also important to take great care to determine whether what is claimed to be an expression of a will-maker’s wishes is genuinely so, because when a will operates on the death of that will-maker, he or she is no longer present to speak for himself or herself.

This bill has raised a very complex set of issues around individual and collective rights. Although Te Ture Whenua Maori Act enables our tupuna practice of honouring collective rights to be followed, Western law is governed around the notion of an individual and his or her individual wishes being respected in the form of a will. This is where we run into difficulty in looking at the differences between succession of land and the bestowing of individual property.

There does, of course, appear to be similarities between our customary notion of an ōhākī, the dying wish of an individual, and the Western notion of a will. One is spoken, the other is written; both are witnessed in order to gain validity. Perhaps this could have been explored in greater depth in considering this bill.

Now more than ever the enduring significance of having a strong whānau to call on is paramount. We could not support legislation that might reduce the strength of those whānau bonds. We do, however, support the Wills Bill. We look forward to the changes that have been made in the legislation being of real benefit to both will-makers and whānau at very difficult times in the transition between life and death. Kia ora.

KATE WILKINSON (National) : In speaking in support of this Wills Bill at its third reading, I must admit that I have some cautions regarding introducing new, albeit plainer, language that is previously untested in the courts. However, I appreciate and recognise the advantage of restating the existing law relating to wills in a single statute and in plain modern language that is clear and accessible. It should be noted that although this may make the statute easier to understand, it does not necessarily mean that the will itself will be easier to understand.

The definition of a will is fairly simplistic. Clause 8 of the bill defines a will as a document that basically disposes of property. I think, for the record, that it is useful to compare this definition with that which is in the existing statute, which is the Wills Act 1837, to illustrate just how much simpler this bill really is. The current Act states: “The word will shall extend to a testament, and to a codicil, and to an appointment by will or by writing in the nature of a will in exercise of a power, and also to a disposition by will and testament or devise of the custody and tuition of any child, by virtue of [the Tenures Abolition Act 1660], or by virtue of an Act passed in the Parliament of Ireland in the fourteenth and fifteenth years of the reign of King Charles the Second, intituled ‘An Act for taking away the Court of Wards and Liveries, and tenures in capite and by knight’s service’, and to any other testamentary disposition;”. That is what our current law states. In this bill a will is defined simply as a document that disposes of property. Without a doubt, the definition is simpler.

The Wills Bill also says that all property may be disposed of by will. If I may, I beg the forbearance of the House and will, for the history books, remind the House what the previous wording of the Act was in respect of this provision. Section 3 of the Act, entitled “All property may be disposed of by will”, states: “It shall be lawful for every person to devise, bequeath, or dispose of, by his will executed in manner hereinafter required, all real estate and all personal estate which he shall be entitled to, either at law or in equity, at the time of his death, and which, if not so devised, bequeathed, or disposed of, would devolve upon the heir at law or customary heir of him, or, if he became entitled by descent, of his ancestor, or upon his executor or administrator; and the power hereby given shall extend to all real estate of the nature of customary freehold or tenant right, or customary or copyhold, notwithstanding that the testator may not have surrendered the same to the use of his will, or notwithstanding that, being entitled as heir, devisee, or otherwise to be admitted thereto, he shall not have been admitted thereto, or notwithstanding that the same, in consequence of the want of a custom to devise or surrender to the use of a will or otherwise, could not at law have been disposed of by will if this Act had not been made, or notwithstanding that the same, in consequence of there being a custom that a will or a surrender to the use of a will should continue in force for a limited time only, or any other special custom, could not have been disposed of by will according to the power contained in this Act, if this Act had not been made; and also to estates pur autre vie, whether there shall or shall not be any special occupant thereof, and whether the same shall be freehold, customary freehold, tenant right, customary or copyhold, or of any other tenure, and whether the same shall be a corporeal or an incorporeal hereditament; and also to all contingent, executory or other future interests in any real or personal estate, whether the testator may or may not be ascertained as the person or one of the persons in whom the same respectively may become vested, and whether he may be entitled thereto under the instrument by which the same respectively were created, or under any disposition thereof by deed or will; and also to all rights of entry for conditions broken, and other rights of entry; and also to such of the same estates, interests, and rights respectively, and other real and personal estate, as the testator may be entitled to at the time of his death, notwithstanding that he may become entitled to the same subsequently to the execution of his will.” That was one sentence; there were no full stops. Now the Wills Bill simply says that all property may be disposed of by will. National accepts that the bill makes the legislation simpler. Without a doubt the current bill is simpler. It may have been a long-winded point to make, but the Wills Bill is simpler.

It is also important to note that under the current legislation an appointment in the nature of a power can be a will. In other words, under current wills law it is possible to appoint, for example, trustees of a trust—to give a person a power of appointment under a trust. Under this bill, that may not necessarily be accorded the status of a will. Accordingly, there may be some doubt as to how binding a document is that merely appoints a trustee without actually disposing of property. Under this bill a will is actually limited to a document that disposes of property to which a person is entitled or to which a person becomes entitled. I suppose that my point is that a will that merely appoints a trustee of a trust may not actually be a will under this new legislation. Therefore, a question that may be asked is what status the courts will accord such an appointment. That is a question that, hopefully, will be resolved—and will be easy to resolve—without having to resort to lengthy and traumatic court proceedings at a time when families least need that extra trauma. Maybe common sense will prevail, but I have to say that common sense does not always prevail.

Be that as it may, I accept that the interpretation of wills should not be the sole domain of qualified lawyers. It is important that wills are understood by all. It is important that a person’s last wishes are understood and complied with as simply and as easily as possible.

National supports this bill. We note that its commencement date has been changed three times so far. We certainly hope that the bill will meet its objective of making the law relating to wills easier to understand and comprehend. In relation to the commencement date, we hope that it is third time lucky. Despite the Minister’s motto of “Do it once; do it right”, in this case it is “Do it thrice; do it right”. National supports the Wills Bill at its third reading.

• Bill read a third time.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister for Courts) : I move, That the Family Courts Matters Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will propose that this bill be referred to the Social Services Committee. The bill is largely technical. It is an omnibus bill that seeks to further increase the openness of Family Courts and to make improvements to processes and procedures. It is not designed to be a major overhaul of the Family Courts.

Overall, the Family Courts do a commendable job in dealing with sometimes very complex and difficult issues. A sign of the success of the Family Court is that approximately only 5 percent of applications are finally decided by a judge. The Family Court treats the welfare of the child as the most important priority. Who could disagree with that? The emphasis is on ensuring that parents put aside their grievances with each other in order to ensure the best long-term outcome for their children, without resorting to a court hearing. A range of free services and information is provided to assist parents to resolve disputes themselves, including counselling programmes and mediation. The Family Courts Matters Bill takes this even further by extending who can attend counselling, and taking the first steps towards introducing family—non - judge-led—mediation as a permanent service.

This bill extends the openness of the Family Courts to all proceedings, in the same way as we have done for guardianship proceedings under the Care of Children Act 2004. It contains a number of other useful improvements and tidying-up of legislation designed to improve the processes and procedures in the Family Court. Many Family Court proceedings are restricted in terms of both who can attend and what can be written about them. This reflects the private and, very often, very personal information that might be raised, and the need to protect children and other vulnerable people. However, protecting people’s privacy has resulted in concerns about the lack of transparency in how the court makes its decisions, and even allegations of secrecy and bias. I refute such allegations. I do not accept that restrictions on attendance and reporting have made it more difficult for the public to understand how the courts operate.

The Law Commission examined the question of openness as part of its review of the structure of the courts, and concluded that most exceptions to the openness principle in New Zealand are justified. However, the Law Commission made some recommendations to improve the current provision that the Government has accepted. Support persons and accredited news media representatives are allowed to attend proceedings. There are no restrictions on reporting family proceedings, other than those involving children or domestic violence, unless the court orders otherwise. In cases involving children, domestic violence, and Youth Court proceedings, media reporting is permitted, but details of those involved in the proceedings cannot be published without the leave of the court. As I mentioned earlier, the recommendations dealing with openness in guardianship cases were implemented in the Care of Children Act 2004. The remainder of the recommendations are implemented in this bill. I hope this leads to better-informed debate on how the Family Court operates. The Ministry of Justice will review the openness provisions after 1 year. It will look at the impact on parties and children, and how the openness provisions impact on the judge’s ability to effectively manage proceedings.

Non - judge-led—or family—mediation involves an independent mediator working with the parties to identify issues between the parties, and to try to get agreed outcomes. The purpose of family mediation is to divert less complex family disputes away from the formal court proceedings, and to resolve them quickly and inexpensively. Overseas studies indicate that mediation should reduce the demand for counselling and conciliation services, and reduce the number of cases returning to the Family Court for further assistance. Agreements arising out of mediation should be more workable, and people will feel a greater sense of ownership, because they are involved in the decision making and know what will work best in their particular circumstances. People being directly involved also means that they are more likely to stick to the agreement. An added bonus of participating in mediation is that people can learn skills that will help them to resolve matters in the future so that they may not need to come back to the court.

The Government agreed to a pilot on non - judge-led mediation, as part of the formal response to the Law Commission’s report Dispute Resolution in the Family Court. It took place in 2005 and 2006, and an evaluation of it was published earlier this year. The pilot was successful, with 257 couples participating on a voluntary basis. Of the completed mediations, 59 percent reached agreement on all matters, and 30 percent reached agreement on some matters.

The Family Courts Matters Bill is enabling legislation that takes the first step towards non - judge-led mediation as a permanent tool to help resolve relationship disputes under the Family Proceedings Act, and guardianship matters under the Care of Children Act 2004. Family Courts will be able to direct people to attend mediation for these proceedings. Children, wider family members, and support people will be able to attend, and the children’s views and best interests will be represented. Following this legislation’s passage through the House, the next step will be to explore options for funding.

As an omnibus bill, the Family Courts Matters Bill provides the opportunity to make a number of minor changes to improve processes and procedures in the Family Court, and to tidy up legislation. Registrars already have a range of functions and responsibilities under different legislation, and the Law Commission and Family Court judges have suggested that registrars could take on some of the administrative functions currently performed by judges, to help reduce the demand on judges’ time.

This bill extends registrars’ powers. It allows registrars to appoint a lawyer to act for the child, under the Care of Children Act 2004 and the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, and to represent a person under the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988. They will be able to appoint a specialist report writer under the Care of Children Act 2004 or the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988, and will be able to make directions about serving copies of applications in proceedings under the Family Protection Act 1955.

Family Court judges have expressed a concern that Family Courts are sometimes not taken as seriously as other courts. Although the Family Courts try to resolve matters in a less formal way, there are times when defended hearings and binding court orders are necessary. To help ensure that judicial functions of Family Courts are taken seriously, the bill removes the restriction on Family Court judges wearing gowns in court. The Principal Family Court Judge has indicated that he will develop guidelines about when it is appropriate for Family Court judges to wear gowns.

Paternity testing is a complex issue, and a number of issues need to be considered prior to the new law on this area being developed. Common law does not permit a sample of blood or tissue to be taken from a person without his or her consent. Taking a bodily sample against a person’s will raises issues in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and common law rights about personal liberty and trespass, and privacy issues. There are also broader issues surrounding legal parenthood issues, such as the implication of assisted reproductive technologies and who can and should be recognised as a parent.

Although the Government agrees in principle with the concept of paternity testing, it is questionable whether the Family Courts Matters Bill is the appropriate vehicle to implement what would be a significant policy change. The Family Courts Matters Bill is not designed to be a major overhaul of Family Courts policy; it is a largely technical bill that focuses on making improvements to processes and procedures. Proposed changes surrounding paternity testing will have significant policy implications, and, as such, the issues do not fit within the intent of this bill. The Ministry of Justice is currently undertaking policy work in this area, and this will inform our actions in the future.

This bill makes a number of other minor changes to improve court processes and procedures by allowing increased attendance at mediation conferences; allowing counsellors to make recommendations about what should happen next in family proceedings—these will be suggestions, and will not be binding—extending counselling provisions to anyone who enters into, or proposes to enter into, an agreement relating to the day-to-day care, contact, or upbringing of a child to help resolve matters; allowing regulations to consolidate existing court fees, to introduce filing and hearing fees for applications made under the Property (Relationships) Act, and to enable the waiving of fees; and clarifying processes under the reciprocal agreement with Australia on child support, to make sure that New Zealand orders can be enforced in Australia.

Finally, this bill provides an opportunity to tidy up a few incorrect references and inconsistencies in the legislation. I commend the bill to the House and its reference to the Social Services Committee.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) : National will support the Family Courts Matters Bill at its first reading. I must say I was very concerned to hear the Minister Rick Barker say at the start of his contribution that this bill was just a technical bill. Actually, it makes substantial changes to the way the Family Court operates. In fact, the openness of the Family Court to proceedings has been a very controversial issue for quite some period of time. Had the Minister read the explanatory note of the bill, he would know that it states that proceedings in a Family Court are closed to the public in order to protect the privacy of the parties. This bill proposes to increase the openness of Family Court proceedings. That is not a technical matter, that is not a minor matter, and that is not a mechanical matter; that is a substantial change from what up until this point has been the status quo for many, many years.

Many members of Parliament will have been approached by constituents concerned about the openness of the Family Court and the ability to have their side of the story told. The submissions process at the Social Services Committee will provide, I imagine, an extensive opportunity for submitters to comment on the effect of opening the Family Court, in certain respects. The explanatory note notes the significance of the bill, and had the Minister bothered to read it, he would know that it states: “Any change to the openness of Family Courts must strike a balance between open justice and the privacy of the individuals, children, and families that are involved.” That is not a technical or minor matter; that is a substantial weighing of competing interests between critical parties to proceedings before a court of law in this country. For the Minister for Courts to say that this bill is merely technical is to mis-state the significance of the legislation. The bill amends the current legislation in order to increase the openness of Family Court proceedings and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Family Courts by making changes to processes and procedures. My colleague Judith Collins will spend some time in her contribution talking about those changes to processes and procedures.

As to the opening of the Family Court, let this House not underestimate the significance of the balancing of those weighted interests in making this decision to support the bill. The Social Services Committee that has to deliberate on this bill, with the submissions that will come before it on the bill, has a significant responsibility when dealing with the bill to weigh and balance the right to open justice and the privacy of individuals, particularly children, whose rights and interests are so often represented at the Family Court.

The main points laid out in this bill allow the media to attend hearings of certain proceedings. That is not a technical matter, that is not a mechanical matter, and that is not a minor matter. It is a significant shift to legislate in that way. The bill also proposes to allow support persons to attend proceedings, and, most significantly, it allows reporting on Family Court proceedings in a way that we have not seen before. But if the case involves vulnerable children, the leave of the court is necessary in order to publish identifying information. This exception is welcomed by the National Party, because these considerations as to the needs of the children, as opposed to allowing sunlight on the proceedings, are the most crucial two parts of the equation to balance.

The Family Proceedings Act and the Care of Children Act are amended in relation to non-judicial mediation, with the registrar having power to determine whether mediation is appropriate in certain situations. Matters relating to dress of judges and counsel will be covered in the legislation, as well. This will be spoken directly about by my colleague Judith Collins. There are significant amendments to a number of other pieces of legislation relating to penalties if the provisions on reporting are breached, and they are aligned with other legislation that will deal with matters of this nature.

As I said at the commencement of my contribution, National will support this bill to a select committee in the first instance, but will listen carefully to submissions and will balance the rights of those who are dealt with by the Family Court against the principle that justice should be open and available for people to see. The question as to whether the reporting provisions on the media attending hearings are balanced properly by the wording of the legislation to hand are important considerations for the select committee.

I just conclude by saying—as I do not intend to take a full 10 minutes—that it is wrong for the Minister to describe this bill as merely technical; it is not. This is a significant change to the premise that has operated for some time as to the way our Family Court system operates. Yes, there are some technical amendments further back in the bill, but the main provisions of this legislation to pry open the workings of the Family Court in certain instances are a significant step, which should not be underestimated by this House. I know that the Family Court bench are supportive of a more open and accountable Family Court system, and that is to be welcomed and listened to carefully.

Although I will not sit on the select committee that considers this matter, I urge members of this House who will sit on it to ask the judiciary to appear before the committee to explain not only what the legislation will mean for them in presiding over the proceedings that appear before those courts but what in practical terms some of the procedural amendments that are being proposed will mean. I urge the select committee to be assured that the judiciary will continue to exercise its discretion in a way that limits the harm or exposure that could occur to those who are vulnerable—in particular, children—whose rights and entitlements are dealt with by the Family Court.

National will support the first reading of the bill. I leave it to my colleagues to go into some of these matters in detail, but let me say that National does not consider this bill to be a technical one. National considers this to be one of the most significant pieces of legislation affecting the way our court system—and, in particular, our Family Court system—operates that we have seen for some time.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) : It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Family Courts Matters Bill. Indeed, as the previous speaker Simon Power said, this bill works towards increasing the openness of Family Court proceedings. I think that is a very, very good thing.

The bill builds on the Care of Children Act 2004, which increased openness in relation to guardianship and care proceedings. This bill will introduce similar changes to other Family Court proceedings, where that is appropriate. The bill also allows accredited news media to attend hearings of certain proceedings and will allow anyone to report on the court, provided that that person does not use information that would identify vulnerable people, or children, without the leave of the court. So although there is that openness in reporting, there is also that safeguard in terms of both children and vulnerable people. I think the provisions to enable support people to attend proceedings with the judge’s permission are a good and progressive step.

As with so much legislation we see before this House, this bill is the result of work carried out by the Law Commission. The commission’s 2003 report on dispute resolution in the Family Court was the basis of a lot of the work done on this bill.

In the bill there are a number of changes relating to administration, management, and procedures—in particular, relating to the registrars’ power. There are also changes relating to court fees, non - judge-led mediation—and I want to spend just a little time talking a bit more about that—and counselling services. A mediated process can divert less complex family disputes away from the formal proceedings and resolve them, certainly, more quickly and less expensively. When we are talking about the rights of a child and a family, then there is an obvious benefit to all if these issues are resolved through mediation that results in an agreement. I am certainly of the belief that a mediated agreement is a much better outcome than going through the entire court process.

The bill also enhances access to counselling services. It seeks to extend provisions to anyone who enters into, or in fact proposes to enter into, an agreement relating to the day-to-day care of, or contact with, a child. This will help people to make their own arrangements and reduce their reliance on the Family Court. I do not think any member of the House would disagree with the view that mediation and agreement on issues relating to children is a much better way of doing things than going through the entire court process.

That is why I am very pleased to speak on the bill, and I am very happy the National Party will support the bill going to a select committee. I know that the committee will probably consider a wide number and variety of submissions. It is with great pleasure that I commend the bill to the House.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : I have been listening with care to the previous speakers. I have to agree with my colleague Simon Power who said that this bill is very important and is not just a technical bill. I note that it relates to, and amends, 12 other bills concerning children. It is a very significant bill. I note also the comments made about the openness in the Family Court. I think I am correct in saying I am one of the few people in this House who have ever practised any law in the Family Court. I am not sure whether anyone else here has—

Kate Wilkinson: I have.

JUDITH COLLINS: One more member has, on our side. I have to say that very rarely is it, in my opinion, in a child’s best interests for anything to go into the Family Court. I say that not from the point of condemning the parents who cannot agree and everything else, but from the fact that, at the end of the day, the Family Court can help only when parents cannot help themselves. I feel very strongly that the judges in the Family Court do their utmost best to deal with a very, very difficult set of circumstances that they face—every day, all day. Frankly, I would rather be in this place on a really bad day than in their place on a really good day, because I do not think they get many good days. I would like to make a comment with the leave of the House—I know it is not usual to refer particularly to a judge—to commend the Principal Family Court Judge, Peter Boshier, for the work he has done, across parties, to enable this legislation to be brought forward. He knows this legislation is very important, particularly in relation to openness in the Family Court.

As the National Party’s family spokesperson, amongst my other roles, I have quite a lot of occasion to deal with issues relating to the Family Court. Unfortunately, the closed nature of the court made it always appear to people who were not satisfied—and let us just accept that at least one party is never going to be satisfied in the Family Court—that there was some form of conspiracy going on to prevent them from having what it is that they wanted. Some people may, in fact, have got completely offside with the court, completely offside with the judge, reacted in a somewhat hysterical way, and maybe were right to feel offside and that they were never going to get a fair go. This bill at least gives those people the opportunity for a form of openness, which I hope will be to the benefit of those parties who go there—in particular, to their children—and not a detriment to them.

I note the Minister said that about only 5 percent of matters that are filed in the Family Court are ever finished in the Family Court. Well, I thought it was more like 6 percent. So, hopefully, that is an improvement. I also note that some matters never finish in the Family Court, because, frankly, they never finish! They keep going on, year after year, and the Family Court is used as some sort of arena in which gladiators turn up. I note the concerns of the Principal Family Court Judge that there be more formality in the Family Court; so there should be. For the people who constantly go back and forth into the Family Court asking for changes of this, that, and the other thing, very little of it is about the actual rights and betterment of children; mostly it is about power and control, frankly. Those people do not respect the Family Court, and they generally do not respect the judges of the Family Court. They have become familiar, and that familiarity has brought a contempt. Unfortunately, it has proven absolutely important for the Family Court to say: “Look, this is a court of law. It is not a kumbiya session, although we can do those too. It is a very serious issue, and the fact that you are in front of a court today means that you have not been able to resolve, as adults, matters generally in the best interests of your children.” Whether it is about access issues, custody or care of children, or whether it is about matrimonial property, they are all issues that involve children, when there are children in the families, because it is the children who pay.

There is a tremendous amount of legal aid that is paid out in the Family Court area. I would really like to see the day—and this is not going to win me too many votes in my legal fraternity—when people can actually feel free to attend at the Family Court for mediation and assistance on a matter without having to feel that they have to file proceedings and affidavits, which effectively ruin any chance, in many ways, of their ever having a decent relationship. I have seen affidavits prepared and sent to me for witnessing, by others, that are patently untrue. I have had to say: “I am sorry. I do not believe this. Is this true?”. I remember quite clearly a woman who turned up in my office in Auckland one day bearing an affidavit about how she was frightened of her ex-husband, how she needed these protection orders, and everything else, and how she needed to stay in the house. I just said: “Is this true?”. She said: “No.” So I asked her why she had the affidavit. She said she had been told that if she did not say this, then she would not be able to get him kicked out of the house. Frankly, that is illegal activity. That woman was prepared to perjure herself, and it was not that the lawyer had told her to say that. It was her friend who had told her to say that. Her friend had obviously been party to a particularly bitter matrimonial dispute and was full of brilliant advice. The brilliant advice could have landed that woman on a perjury charge. But we know, those of us who have practised in this area, that there would have been an absolutely zero likelihood of that ever happening, because once the allegation of domestic violence had been made against the husband he would be tarred with that brush for ever. In fact, maybe that is what has to happen, but it seems to me that there can be, in fact, and often is, an abuse of that court process.

I have seen that abuse of the court process used in terms of getting legal aid. I have seen that from my time when I was on the legal aid subcommittee of the Auckland District Law Society approving legal aid applications. I have seen applications made where I felt that they were, in fact, being made on the basis of a way to get legal fees paid rather than for the betterment of the people involved. The dispute was not necessarily about domestic violence—it was, in fact, about property—but this was a way of getting instant legal aid granted.

When we see these abuses coming through, I think we need to be able to say that it is not OK. Hopefully, the opening up of the Family Court to a limited degree will give judges the opportunity to be able to say in a reasonably open court setting what they think of this behaviour. At the moment judges do not really get a chance to say anything much in open court. They do not get the opportunity, for instance, to say that Child, Youth and Family has completely failed to bring forward a social worker report as required by a judge. They do not get a chance to say that, because it happens all of the time, and I note my colleague Mrs Tolley agreeing. It is absolutely true. The judges want to have openness in the court, and part of the reason is that they want to open up the court to the disinfectant of the sunlight. In other words, they want to be able to say why things take so long. They want to be able to show some adults the mirror so they can see how their behaviour is destroying their children. They want to be able to say to people: “Look, we’re just the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff; don’t blame us, give us the chance to do the right thing, but let us do it so you see the work that we do.”

I commend this bill to the House. I am very pleased that I am the deputy chair of the Social Services Committee so that I can be one of the members who looks at this bill. I am sure it will be a very, very well attended hearing, or many series of hearings, and I look forward to be able to help this law become better law.

RON MARK (NZ First) : I have to say that New Zealand First has listened intently to the last two contributions from the National Party, from Mr Simon Power and Judith Collins, and it has been something of a pleasure to listen to those.

New Zealand First does not have anyone on the Social Services Committee where this bill will be going for consideration, but we signal here that we support this bill through its first reading to select committee. We look forward to reading the select committee’s findings, and will no doubt do our best to sit in on some of those hearings, which is somewhat difficult given the size of our caucus.

I do not think there is a member of Parliament who has been in this House for more than two terms who has not had representations before them from disaffected parties to Family Court hearings. Of course, we are all very familiar with many of the pleas of certain men’s organisations and lobby groups against the unfairness of the process, the disadvantage of the privacy or closed nature of the Family Court, and how their proceedings are dealt with.

We accept Mr Power’s view that one should not take lightly the proposals in this bill, for it does strike at the fundamentals of the manner in which the Family Court has operated up till now. But we welcome these proposed changes, because we believe much has been done that has been to the detriment of innocent parties, simply through the confidential and closed manner in which the courts have operated to date.

We look forward to possibly getting copies of the submissions as they are presented before the committee, because no doubt the considerations that have been made by the Law Commission are deep and are well-thought-through, but there is no denying the high level of public concern. I guess one of the things that sits foremost in our minds right now is that for justice to be done, it must always be seen to be done. Therein lies one of the fundamental problems of closed hearings—of hearings that do not have the eye of the media or public scrutiny. There are definitely some issues with respect to the protection of children and vulnerable people, but in the wider picture of guaranteeing to the community at large and our nation as a whole that justice has been done, we must, where possible, ensure that it is seen.

We support this bill through its first reading and we look forward with interest to the report back from the select committee.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker; kia ora tātou katoa—as we wind down the clock to 6 o’clock. The history of the Family Court’s relationship with Māori has been extensively documented. I found out recently that Donna Durie Hall and Joan Metge had reported on seven statutes in the area of family law, and they came to what they described as the inescapable conclusion that the statutes had been, in most cases, “formulated and passed on the basis of commitment to Pakeha values and objectives, without regard to their compatibility with tikanga Maori”. I find that explanation of an inescapable conclusion interesting, on two counts. Firstly, I am interested in the reference to Pākehā values and objectives, as the area of Pākehā culture has often been neglected or inadequately described. Secondly, although we make no judgment as to the value of Pākehā culture, the key point is that the saturation of Pākehā culture in family law has led to what Donna Durie Hall and Joan Metge conclude, which is that Māori family forms and values are being placed under great stress.

The Law Commission study that was commissioned by the Government and was reported back in 2002 concluded that greater provision needed to be made for the participation of whānau in Family Court processes. It further identified that the Family Court was plagued by a lack of culturally appropriate specialist services, such as Māori Family Court counsellors and specialist report writers. The report also advocated for paid kaitiaki—Māori advocates—to help to smooth the way for children and whānau.

Faced, then, with that reality, what does the Family Courts Matters Bill do? As I understand it, the purpose of the bill is to increase the openness of the proceedings of the Family Court and to improve both the efficiency and effectiveness of the Family Court by making changes to the processes. In itself, we welcome the commitment to openness and transparency—awesome! We see that as being very much in keeping with Māori conceptions of whānau. The late John Rangihau has described that in ways that demonstrate the collective responsibility and accountability for children through to the tribal group. A child was not to be viewed in isolation, or as an exclusive chattel of his or her parents. He stated: “The hapu or tribal group is bound to provide for the physical, social, and spiritual well-being of the child and its upbringing as a member of a particular hapu. This responsibility would take precedence over the view of the birth parents.” In that way the proposal to allow support persons to attend proceedings with the judge’s permission lends itself well to Māori values and protocols associated with the concept of whanaungatanga.

We in the Māori Party firmly believe that the responsibility for children must be widely shared across whānau. The responsibilities and rights that are derived from whakapapa are not necessarily upheld by limiting child-raising to being the role of birth parents exclusively. Indeed, the very sensitive issues around the value that is placed on children are, we consider, but a consequence of the fragmentation of whānau. The child has a right—as does the whānau to that child—to know his or her whānau, hapū, and iwi, and we hope that principle will permeate every aspect of the Family Courts Matters Bill.

I will talk about media reporting for a while, because we are concerned at the suggestion in this new bill that Family Court proceedings could be reported on. Although it is helpful to see the provision for a penalty to be applied if the provisions on reporting are breached, we believe that the whole issue around the sensationalised reporting of Family Court cases needs thorough debate. We have previously come to this House and reported on studies that show newspaper and television sources have proven to be unfairly balanced in their treatment of Māori people and issues. In general, studies have reported that bad news predominates over good news, and that in some media denigrating and insulting comments about Māori have been reported. Given that, we think it is neither appropriate nor safe for any aspect of the proceedings undertaken in the Family Court to be subjected to the trauma of media exposure.

In terms of the amendments to process and procedure, the bill introduces a whole raft of changes that we might summarise as tinkering around the edges of Family Court law. Uppermost in that tinkering, surely, has to be the come-back of gowns for Family Court judges. I want, briefly, to mention three points.

Firstly, we welcome the opportunity for increased attendance at mediation conferences. Again, that is consistent with the essence of whanaungatanga relationships.

The second is the issue of extending the administrative powers to enable Family Court registrars to—amongst other things—appoint a lawyer to act for the child. That, again, is an issue that we believe needs far more discussion. We believe that the initiative of having a counsel for the child would benefit from wide discussion amongst whānau, hapū, and iwi. We wonder how the important role of having someone to champion the cause of the child—a concept we endorse—can be supported by whānau as having authority and credibility for all parties.

The third aspect of change is the proposal that anyone who has entered into a parenting agreement—not just parents and guardians—should be able to request counselling to help resolve matters. The question we ask around that is inevitably coloured by the awful, lousy, terrible family violence data that this nation is becoming known for. The studies reveal that virtually all of the children who have died from physical abuse—that is, 95 percent—were abused by parents, step-parents, or de facto spouses of their natural parents. Over 80 percent of the physical abuse cases resulting in hospitalisation were caused by either the child’s parent or de facto parent. The issue we have is around the means by which step-parents or de facto spouses are enabled to benefit from the provisions around counselling. If those individuals have not gone through the process of guardianship, what is the likelihood that they will sign up to a parenting agreement? Counselling may, however, be extremely helpful to them in terms of making the difference.

I want also to touch on the issue of non-judicial mediation. We in the Māori Party have placed great faith in the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act of 1989 and the highly significant Puao-te-ata-tū – Daybreak report, both of which gave explicit value to the involvement of whānau, hapū, and iwi in decision making about the lives of children and young people. We acknowledge the work of Ani Mikaere, who prepared a summary of the key principles underlying Māori child raising—namely, the significance of whakapapa; that children belong to whānau, hapū, and iwi; that rights and responsibilities regarding children are shared; and that children have rights and responsibilities to their whānau. Those principles say it all, yet—surprise, surprise—we cannot see any recognition of those principles in the proposals for non-judicial mediation.

Finally, I say that the Māori Party will support the bill’s referral to the select committee, in order to allow whānau, hapū, and iwi, and Māori professionals and kaitiaki who work in the Family Court area, to have a say. I note with particular interest that Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aoteaora is holding its conference at Waipapa Marae in Auckland, beginning on 6 September, which includes a practical workshop presented by Judge Hikaka, Nicole Walker, and Hana Ellis. The workshop is entitled “The Role of Whanaungatanga in Family Court Processes”. Perhaps the select committee might take time out to take part in that workshop, to ensure that the history in the space between this House and me, and between this bill and reality, is addressed.

Koinā ētahi kōrero hei whakakōpani i waku kōrero i tēnei pō. Huri noa, kia ora tātau.

[So, those statements end my address tonight. Greetings to us throughout the Chamber.]

• Debate interrupted.