JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) :

[The motion that the bill be read a first time was wrongly inserted and has been removed.]

When the debate on the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill was interrupted, I was beginning to speak about the first part, the disconnection provisions. The whole discussion on the issue of disconnection of electricity is a very timely one to have, for many reasons. The principal reason for the introduction of this bill, it would seem, is the tragic and untimely death of Mrs Muliaga, and we can understand the anxiety felt by other New Zealanders whose health issues mean they have to rely on electricity. Those same people will be wanting some assurance that the same fate will not befall them, should their electricity be disconnected.

But those people are not the only New Zealanders who worry about their electricity being disconnected or about the power going off. First of all, none of us likes being cold, and we do rely on electricity to keep ourselves warm. Secondly, some people rely on things like coal and wood. We know that under this Government those who rely on woodburners are feeling increasingly anxious. The reason is that the Government has proposed to adopt clean air standards by 2013, which will put significant pressure on many in my electorate in particular. I know that the people of Aoraki, after the very sudden disconnection of power for many thousands of them on 12 June, found themselves even more sure that they did not want to part with their woodburners. In some cases it was 23 days before the power came back on in Aoraki. So although the disconnection provisions might seek to tidy up where the Government believes there are some problems, they may seem a little shallow to those of us who face other legislative or regulatory requirements, in terms of turning our source of warmth to electricity only and not, in fact, being able to use our woodburners or coal fires also.

National realises that there are many reasons why we should be concerned about electricity generation into the future. In this respect, people will certainly find that a National Government will be willing to take some actions. Under National people will find that we will urgently—and we keep saying this—introduce a substantive amendment to the Resource Management Act. We will seek to amend that Act and do so as quickly as possible, because for many, many reasons that is urgently required by New Zealanders. We will also work with the electricity industry to develop a generating and transmission plan, because, you see, New Zealanders are worried that the lights will go out, not just because somebody turned them off but because there is not enough electricity generation to meet our ever-increasing needs.

We will also restructure the Electricity Commission, allow lines companies to enter into generation, and introduce transparency into billing so that consumers can see where the cost of electricity lies. We will also support the goals of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and work on practical measures to encourage more oil and gas exploration. With a Minister of Infrastructure under a National Government there will be the opportunity to oversee and help push through vital infrastructural development that will result in more generation of electricity in New Zealand. We will remove the barriers in the way of increased investment in electricity generation and transmission and in the way of oil and gas exploration.

The second part of this bill seeks to address low fixed-charge tariffs for people who are not using very much power. I want to tell members what the people of Aoraki said when they saw this reported in the paper. The first few words in the article in the newspaper included “scorn” and “disappointment”. Although the Minister of Energy, David Parker, had said low fixed-charges would be increased from 8,000 kilowatt hours to 9,000 kilowatt hours, the people of Aoraki very quickly got to grips with what that would actually mean in real dollar terms. For many it would mean a lessening of their power bills by—wait for it—$18 to $20. The man responsible for the Timaru Budget Advisory Service, Don Macfarlane, who is the coordinator of that service, put it very succinctly. He said: “Wow—that’s half a loaf of bread a week, if people buy the really cheap bread.” That really put it into perspective, did it not—$20 a year for these people?

We understand what it means for the people who are on low incomes, because over the last 5 years they have faced an increase in their residential power prices of up to 48 percent—48 percent! Industrial and commercial power prices have gone up by 25 percent over that time, but residential power prices have increased by up to 48 percent. It is therefore no wonder that my electorate office gets phone calls from constituents. Sometimes it is the constituents themselves who ring to say they cannot afford the power; the rest of the time it is people who ring on behalf of their neighbours or of elderly people who have discovered that the only way for them to survive the winter is to go to bed with their woolly socks on and a hot water bottle, and stay there. This is during the day; we are not talking about night time. These people are taking to their beds so they can survive the winter and the power price increases.

But it was not just Mr Macfarlane who had something to say about this change in the low fixed-charges for power. The president of Timaru Grey Power, Len Cummings, also said it was ridiculous. He said: “It’s not very much. I don’t know why they bother. It almost seems that they have a contempt for people.” Maybe the Minister thought this lessening of prices would be quite a good banner headline. But, in fact, the banner headline in the Timaru Herald was: “Govt chips at power bills”. That said it all. The Minister said that “a customer using 8,000 kWh each year in the lower South Island should be around $20 per annum better off”. So he knew how much or how little it was, but he still thought that this might get him a good banner headline. But wait, there is more! We then discovered that many people will be paying more for their power to allow South Island households to pay $20 per annum less.

Why do South Island households need this break? The reason, of course, is that they have to use a lot more power because it is a whole lot colder down there. Actually, we do not mind, because although it can get very, very cold we have beautiful sunny days after a hard frost. But, by golly, when temperatures are subzero we do need to heat our houses. TrustPower said it is very concerned about having to rejig power prices and about how much it will charge per unit, because, in reality, if it makes it cheaper for some consumers, then others will have to pay more.

So the bill is not the good news that New Zealanders thought it would be. The Government said that the intention is to make things safer for those people who have to rely on power, perhaps to keep themselves alive. But is this overkill? Do power companies not already have a responsibility to see that those people are protected? If that is the case, then this bill is unnecessary.

The National Party will support the bill going through to the select committee, because we think that is where these issues should be discussed. The bill is too little, too late for some, and certainly not enough for the people of Aoraki.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) : I want to take a brief call on behalf of United Future to discuss the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill. The speaker who has just resumed her seat queried, towards the end of her speech, whether this bill was overkill. I certainly do not think it is overkill, but I am lukewarm in my support for it, because mostly it merely provides for a new regulation-making power in certain areas.

If we look at the explanatory note, we see that the general policy statement states: “The purpose of this bill is to enhance the regulation-making powers in the Electricity Act 1992 in relation to the disconnection of electricity for domestic consumers; and the Low Fixed Charge … tariff options for domestic consumers.” So the bill, of itself, does not do anything; it merely makes possible, in certain circumstances, that certain steps might be taken. That is particularly so when we look at the provisions relating to what might happen with regard to disconnection procedures. It is very clear from reading the bill’s provisions in that regard—and I think it says so somewhere in the explanatory note—that this is really a measure of last resort. The capacity to make some regulations about how disconnections ought to be carried out in the interests of consumers’ protection would apply only if all other procedures had been tried and found wanting.

It is difficult to object to this bill on the face of it, because it appears to do so little under the guise of promising so much. In the wake of the recent unfortunate business relating to the Muliaga family, it is certainly clear that a number of procedures that have been applied over the years by electricity companies were somewhat less than adequate. I would have thought that the primary mechanism for ensuring that vulnerable and ill people are not switched off from electricity, as happened in the Muliaga case, is to have some connection between the district health board, as the provider of the health service to which such people are connected, and the power company, in order to make sure that when equipment is supplied that requires constant use of electricity that electricity is available to be used by the consumer. I would have thought that would be the area where we would want to make our prime intervention—to ensure that, in those cases where a respirator or some other form of equipment is supplied to a patient off-hospital site, the patient has access to electricity so that he or she can use the equipment.

It seems to me to going a little bit back to front to say that we are to put in place a regulation-making power that will enable, in certain circumstances, the development of regulations to require certain protections to be applied. That is useful to have as a back-up, but it cannot be the primary way in which we respond to these situations. I think that those who try to laud this bill as a giant step forward are somewhat deluded in that regard. It is a useful backstop measure, but it is no more than that; similarly, with the low fixed-charges proposal relating to the number of kilowatt-hours’ threshold for the low fixed-tariff options for South Island residents. As a South Islander by birth and by loyalty, even though I now live in this very temperate part of the lower North Island, I can recall, on rare occasions, those cold mornings that the previous speaker referred to. I can recall sometimes a wish that was expressed that maybe we should simply cut the cable and let the North Island sort out its own problems. So I can understand a measure of the member’s frustration about the increase from 8,000 to 9,000 kilowatt-hours per year. But, again, it is not actually that; it is simply a change in the regulation-making authority that the bill contains.

It is difficult to speak for any great length of time with enthusiasm or passion about this measure, and I will not endeavour to do so, other than to say that we support it going to the select committee. We look forward to what the committee’s examination reveals in due course; also to its decision on whether the bill is necessary or has served its purpose simply by being introduced in this way—sending a general warning about what might happen, if, in fact, power companies and other service providers do not get their act together with regard to vulnerable people, when it comes to the supply of electrical equipment. Beyond that, I think it is very hard to get too excited about this measure.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Commerce Committee.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Before I call the next member I wish to advise the House, under Standing Order 117(2), that when the second reading debate on the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill was last debated, on 24 July 2007, it was interrupted, and the honourable member Hone Harawira had 2 minutes speaking time remaining if he so wished. I have been advised that Dr Sharples will be completing the speech today under this Standing Order, which states: “An individual speaking time may be shared between two members of the same party or between two members of different parties if both parties agree.”

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) :Tēnā koe, tēnā tātou katoa. I te mutunga kua kitea kāre he tangata kei a rātou ngā tohu, ngā mōhiotanga hoki ki ngā tikanga o tēnā, o tēnā o ngā tūroro me ō rātau tono kākari. I tērā hepetema i pānuitia e Te Rau Hinengaro tētahi rangahau i kī, ahakoa te taumaha o te mate i roto i te Māori me te Pasifika, kāhore e riro i ēnei hunga ngā ratonga oranga hinengaro, kua whakaritea mō te katoa. E te Kaihautū, koia nei ngā take nui kia ora ai tō tātou iwi. Tāpiri atu ki ēnei take ko ētāhi pērā i te āhua o te kaikiri, o te whakahāwea, me ērā atu o ngā take ka taka mai hei whakawehe i te iti me te rahi.

E ngākaunui ana mātou ki te komihana me ōna tāngata. Ngā mihi ki a Mary O’Regan mō tōna ārahi i te komihana mō ngā tau neke atu i te 20, ā, kua rihaina i te mutunga o tēnei wiki. Ngā mihi ki a ia.

Ka tika hoki kia mihi atu ki ērā kaikomihana e rua, arā, te tiamana a Ruth Harrison, me Ray Watson o Kai Tahu, Te Āti Awa hoki. Mā rāua e tirotiro, mā rāua e whakamōhio i te mea, mā rāua tātou e whakatūpato mō te haerenga mai o ētahi kumi ihuroa. Nā, ko tā mātou he whakaatu i ngā wāhanga katoa o tēnei pire, he tono kia tū pakari te kaupapa tirotiro.

Kua mutu ake nei kai te Kaihautū, tēnā koe.

• [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Greetings to you, and to all of us. The situation in real terms is that there simply are not enough qualified, culturally appropriate workers in health to meet the urgent demand. The mental health survey released last September, Te Rau Hinengaro, revealed that despite a higher prevalence of disorder, Pasifika groups and Māori are less likely to access mental health services than other population groups. These issues are pivotal to the health and wellbeing of so many of our peoples. Associated with these issues are a whole range of other factors: the impact of institutional racism, discrimination, and other factors that impact on such disparities.

We have great confidence in the commission and its people. We particularly acknowledge the leadership that Mary O’Regan has demonstrated for over 20 years, and wish her well in her resignation from the commission at the end of this week.

It is fitting also to acknowledge the other two commissioners, Ruth Harrison as chairperson, and Ray Watson of Kai Tahu and Te Ātiawa. Both possess wide leadership experience and sector expertise in the mental health sector. We need them to monitor, we need them to report, we need them to warn us of any approaching crocodiles. And we will take up every opportunity at the committee stage of this bill to ensure their strong surveillance stand is protected.

I end here, Mr Deputy Speaker; thank you. ]

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I rise on behalf of United Future on the second reading of the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill. This bill received 22 submissions. Nearly a quarter of those were from individuals, and there was lots of advocacy from clients of mental health services and their families. Those submitters represent the value of this commission—the voice of those reliant on our mental health services—because, until funding, workforce, and service shortfalls are up to standard in a consistent way across the whole country, the need for the voice of the commission will remain.

I note with interest that 2015 has been set as the new date when we can expect to relook at the need for this commission. It makes me wonder two things. Firstly, it makes me wonder what services will look like in 8 years’ time and what sort of numbers we will be looking at in New Zealand for those who will be requiring those services from our mental health providers. Current figures suggest that 3 percent of New Zealanders at any one time are in need of mental health services, yet currently only about half of those people are registered in some way with a service. This means that we have a long way to go before we have a national service that can provide services at the kind of level that the blueprint for mental health suggests it should. Again, I say that the commission provides a vital voice for sufferers of mental health conditions.

Like previous speakers, I want to endorse the work to destigmatise mental health issues within New Zealand. Stigma is a fear-based response to circumstances that touch our lives more closely than we dare admit—even to ourselves. As the Hon Tony Ryall mentioned the last time this bill was being debated, it is not uncommon for folk to experience a season of poor personal mental health. For those who have experienced such an episode, the sympathy for those who live with permanent impairment is very real.

The current inquiry into disability services being conducted by the Social Services Committee has highlighted some particular challenges. Mental health clients, if they are to have any sense of self-determination, need to have a better say in the kinds of support services that they are able to avail themselves of. Services need to be tailored to the client rather than for the convenience of the provider. One submitter stated that he would like to trade vacuuming and dusting for a trip to the pub with his mates, but no, vacuuming and dusting is what is on offer. The need for a normal life is often denied by a model of care that is medically rather than socially designed. These issues are the bread-and-butter advocacy work of our commission and United Future happily supports the extension of its work and its role. We are happy to support the second reading.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : It is my pleasure as a member of the Health Committee that heard the submissions on the Mental Health Commission Amendment Bill to rise and speak in support of the bill’s second reading. The bill was generally agreed to and supported by the parties represented on the select committee, but members who have read the commentary from the select committee will note—in particular, in the introduction to the report—that there was a dissenting view on the timing of the proposed extension to the commission’s term, and that that dissention was from the National Party.

I would like to draw the House’s attention to this issue, because there is probably much more to it than meets the eye. The National Party is, of course, a party that sees itself as being the next Government. If the prospect of National being in Government is not frightening enough, I ask members to think about the way in which its members on the select committee approached the issue of the timing of the proposed extension of the Mental Health Commission to 2015. They said that it was their view that the principal Act should expire 3 years after the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent—that is, in common language, that it should expire significantly earlier than 2015. In fact, I think their first position on this may well have been that they wanted it to expire in 2009. National members wanted the commission to expire literally a year after the legislation comes into effect. Why might that be?

I think the House should really consider this question seriously. After all, the Mental Health Commission is a body that, under this bill, will act as an advocate. It will promote and facilitate collaboration and communication and will work independently with others to promote understanding and reduce the stigma of mental illness. Those are all good measures, and I think all New Zealanders would agree they are good things. The commission is really a watchdog body that will oversee what is happening in the area of mental health—an area that deals with some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Why would the National Party, on the basis that it thinks it will be the next Government, want to do away with this watchdog body earlier than the date being proposed by this Government? One can only assume that National, a party proposing significant tax cuts and knowing that the largest area of public spending is health, may not want a watchdog body looking to see what might happen to mental health services under a National Government.

Why else would the National Party have dissented on this particular issue at the select committee? It was not a controversial issue. In fact, none of the 22 submitters who came before the committee raised this issue at all. No one said: “Yes, we do want this commission to have its life extended, but only for a year or so, or 3 years.” None of the submitters said that. It was only the National Party members who sat down and thought: “Golly gosh, because we are so confident we’ll be the next Government, despite what the voters might think, we are not sure we would want such a good, strong advocate for mental health consumers and their families to be in place to watch while we preside over the wrecking of mental health services that were built up by the Labour Government.” I think that is a serious issue that this House needs to think about. Certainly, the public listening to this debate need to be aware that that was the push from the National members on the Health Committee. Fortunately, however, they did not have the numbers on the committee to shorten the life of the commission, and the proposal from the select committee was that the life of the commission be extended through to 2015.

I want to take a few minutes to remind members about some of the issues the select committee dealt with. We were concerned about the wording “eliminate inappropriate discrimination”, and we asked some good questions about it. The issue was raised by a number of submitters, and, as members, we were concerned to know what inappropriate discrimination may be. We felt that discrimination in total is probably inappropriate. At the select committee we talked about the fact that there were some forms of positive discrimination that should be allowed to exist through a bill such as the one we were considering. So, in looking at the whole range of issues around the use of the words “inappropriate discrimination”, we decided that it was in fact inappropriate discrimination that we wanted to ensure did not take place under the auspices of this bill, not positive discrimination, which can happen, should happen, and was supported by the members of the select committee.

I say in conclusion that there was generally broad agreement in principle on extending the life of the commission. Submitters, by and large, supported the role of the commission. Some debated the philosophies they felt were held by members of the Mental Health Commission, and I think that is a debate we always should have in our communities when it comes to mental health. If we are not constantly debating the philosophies and ideologies that are applied to the mental health service setting, then, probably, we have forgotten about the people it is there to serve.

I support the second reading of this bill. I have reservations about the reasons behind National’s wanting to bring the life of the commission to an early conclusion but was pleased to see that, in general, the select committee wholeheartedly wanted to see the commission’s life extended to 2015.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : National supports the second reading of Part 2 of the Mental Health Commission Bill. However, it is the National Party’s view that the principal Act should expire on a date that is 3 years after the date on which this bill receives the Royal assent. That is, of course, at variance with the bill, which extends the term of the commission until 2015. National feels that 2015 is too far into the future and considers that its proposal for a date 3 years after the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent is more realistic.

The Mental Health Commission was established and began work in September 1996. It has three key functions: firstly, monitoring and reporting the implementation of the mental health strategy; secondly, promoting better understanding by the public of mental illness and eliminating discrimination; and thirdly, and importantly, strengthening the mental health workforce. National supports the work of the Mental Health Commission but is concerned that we have not seen objective measurable outcomes. The Mental Health Commission has been in existence for 11 years, and the proposal of the Government bill would see the commission continue for another 8 years. National considers that the public spending and the work of the Mental Health Commission should be accountable and produce results.

Mental health is a serious health issue for New Zealanders, and the burden is increasing. A recent survey showed that nearly half of all New Zealanders will meet the criteria of having a mental illness at some time in their lifetime. There are many other serious findings, such as that 16 percent of New Zealanders had thought seriously about suicide at some point. A recent Commonwealth Fund report found that less than half of New Zealand practices felt well prepared for patients with mental health issues. Hospitalisations for attempted suicide have increased 20 percent since 1999. Is this due to increased awareness or increased reporting, or a combination? That is the conundrum? Certainly, the John Kirwan TV advertisements have destigmatised depression in the community and increased awareness. Those advertisements have cost between $7 million and $8 million over the last 4 years. I stand to be corrected, but I understand that they were a Ministry of Health initiative.

That brings me to another point—the split between the Ministry of Health and its mental heath directorate, and the Mental Health Commission. I wonder why there was a split and why these two agencies are working separately. That raises the interesting question of whether the Mental Health Commission should be brought back under the Ministry of Health at some point. I think that as colleagues ponder that question, they will come to the correct conclusion: if that question is on the table, it is very appropriate that the term of the Mental Health Commission should not be a distant 8 years into the future but a time more tangible and closer.

Another interesting question is how and why the Mental Health Commission became a Crown entity in 1998. Another example of a well-known Crown entity is, of course, Pharmac. I will just explain about Pharmac. It was established in the 1990s to curb the rocketing budget, and it was given Crown entity status to give it a degree of independence so that it could be kept at arm’s length and kept up with making the deals. But, of course, Pharmac has morphed into a law of its own. But that is another story in itself, and I will not digress. I also wonder about the sense in having the Mental Health Commission as a Crown entity. Was this really necessary, and should it be under the umbrella of the Ministry of Health?

An important function of the Mental Health Commission is to strengthen the mental health workforce, and this is an area where I feel it has let the workforce down. It brings me to the issue of the enrolled nurse, and the sorry tale that follows. In 2001, after Mark Burton, a psychiatric patient, killed his mother, an enrolled nurse was incorrectly implicated. In 2004, following a health and disability report that raised concerns about the enrolled nurse in an acute mental health unit, the Ministry of Health and the Nursing Council of New Zealand released a joint letter to all district health boards recommending that enrolled nurses should not be working in acute mental health units, and enrolled nurses were subsequently demonised. Subsequently, there was an ethnic cleansing of this workforce. In 2004 there were just on 4,000 enrolled nurses, with only 250 or so working in mental health. In 2005, the figures were much the same. I hate to think what will have happened to the figures in 2007 when they come to hand.

Where was the Mental Health Commission in all of this? Well, I went to its website and I looked up its archived press releases. I could not find one single, solitary release that referred to this issue or that supported its own workforce. It seems that the Mental Health Commission has left this invaluable workforce high and dry.

In summary, National supports the objective and role of the Mental Health Commission but is concerned that there seems to be a lack of accountability. National does not want the indefinite extension to 2015 that this bill would bring. A lot of money has been spent on reports and bureaucracy, and we are concerned that it has not been effectively targeted. National considers that the Mental Health Commission should have a greater monitoring role, and in all of this we are concerned that district health boards are underspending their ring-fenced mental health money. Supposedly, the lack of a mental health workforce is implicated.

National supports this bill, but we wish to amend it so that the commission’s term is not extended to 2015 but rather to 3 years from the day on which it receives the Royal assent. Thank you.

• Bill read a second time.

Hon JUDITH TIZARD (Minister of Consumer Affairs), on behalf of theMinister for Building and Construction: I move, That the Building Amendment Bill be now read a first time. After the bill has been read a first time it is intended that we will move that the bill be considered by the Social Services Committee. There is also an intention to move that the Social Services Committee be instructed to report back to the House by 5 November and that the committee have authority to meet at any time when the House is sitting, except during questions for oral answer, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week when there has been a sitting in the House, despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c). This is necessary because the legislation needs to be enacted before 30 November 2007, which is this year. It is important to make minor adjustments to the builder licensing regime before it starts to be phased in from November 2007, and we need to adjust the accreditation and fee-setting framework before the end of this year to allow for the implementation of the new product certification accreditation scheme.

With this amending legislation the Government is improving the clarity and effectiveness of the regulatory reforms set up under the Building Act 2004. This Act was passed as a response to the systemic issues that led to major building failure in the 1990s and, in a wider sense, to an expectation that New Zealand would re-establish our world-class reputation for quality-built buildings. The Act is the primary instruction for ensuring that New Zealanders’ homes and buildings are built right the first time.

The Labour-led Government is rolling out a major suite of reforms under the Building Act 2004 that includes: the licensing of building practitioners from November this year, initially on a voluntary basis, to ensure that competent people carry out building work; a registration scheme for accredited building consent authorities from November this year to improve the performance and accountability of building consent, inspection, and approval processes; and a new product certification scheme that will be tied in to international standards of quality and accountability from 2008. Accordingly, the Act is large and contains a lot of detail of these schemes, which increase the performance and accountability of councils, builders, and building products. The Act, like any large Act that introduces significant new schemes, needs some minor adjustments in order to get the details right.

The Act provides lead-in times so that we can talk through implementation details with the stakeholders and can fine-tune some of the systems and processes before they roll out. The suite of new schemes will be rolling out through to 2013 and we do not need to make any dramatic changes; rather, this bill contains minor changes to improve the workability of the Act across a number of areas to ensure the policy intent is matched by how the schemes are being rolled out in practice.

The bulk of the provisions in the bill contain corrections to minor errors, omissions, and inconsistencies that have been identified in the lead-up to the full implementation of the Act. I will touch on a few examples of these minor adjustments to the bill. The bill clarifies and reorganises building consent exemptions, in particular to ensure that the weathertightness remediation work proceeds with an appropriate building consent. It will also clarify that other matters exempted from building consents under the Building Act 1991 continue to have those exemptions. These include culverts, motorway signs, and certain pylons that are built by network utility operators, such as Transit and Transpower. It is not intended to change these policies from the 1991 Act and the bill will clarify this. For example, farmers should still be able to build small dams without needing the red tape of building consent applications.

The bill will fine-tune some elements of the scheme to license building practitioners that is due to be phased in, firstly, with voluntary licensing from November this year. Having listened to the sector leaders and to builders on building sites, we are clarifying the issue around liability. The Government has no intention of having licensing change the existing liability framework. This bill sorts out any potential confusion by making sure that there are no unintended consequences of new tort liability for licensing building practitioners.

The bill also sets up the framework for future regulations to define the limit of restricted building work that would be carried out or supervised by licensed building practitioners. The bill integrates the start-up dates for when it will become compulsory to employ licensed building practitioners for restricted work. Instead of splitting the dates across 2009 and 2011 for different trades, the requirements will all come into effect in 2010.

A minor amendment is needed to provide accreditation bodies with sufficient flexibility in the way they will charge fees. Currently, regulations allow accreditation bodies to charge fixed amounts only for applications. The amendment will allow future regulations to include hourly and daily rates, as well. The Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand will then be able to be approved and appointed as the product certification accreditation body so that the scheme can proceed as planned.

The bill makes some minor adjustments to the future dam safety scheme by aligning it better with the way that similar dam safety risks are dealt with overseas. For example, the bill adds intermediate new categories for earthquake-prone and flood-prone dams. These dams may develop emerging risks over time—for example, as a result of unusual levels of rainfall. Regional authorities will be able to require that a dam’s safety classification is reviewed in those situations. The bill also adds an incentive for dam owners to become accredited. Accredited dam owners will not need to provide annual dam compliance certificates. The bill also fixes a drafting error that inadvertently arose in 2004 by clarifying that small dams should be regulated by regional authorities as “dams”, not regulated by territorial authorities as “buildings”. It makes sense that all dams are regulated by the same people—those in regional authorities who have expertise in this area.

The bill introduces a new requirement for territorial authorities to make a statement of project information memorandum reports for public use buildings, flagging that there are accessibility requirements in the Act and the building code. This new flag within the existing project information memorandum process will assist in ensuring that people with disabilities can enter and enjoy public buildings, such as office buildings, retail shops, or sports stadia, by improving compliance with accessibility requirements at the building design stage.

There are further minor amendments and a large number of technical drafting corrections that will ensure that the Building Act 2004 is a more robust instrument to regulate the safety and quality of the building and construction industry into the future. This bill will also help fine-tune the Government’s key reforms of the New Zealand building sector under the Building Act 2004. These reforms are transforming the building and construction sector for the better, and this bill will help to maximise the effectiveness of the reforms as they are rolled out in the next few years. The building and construction sector is a large and important part of the New Zealand economy and it is vital to the lives of all New Zealanders in one way or another.

The Building Act reflects the Government’s commitments to ensuring that New Zealanders enjoy quality homes and buildings that meet our needs. For many of us our home is our greatest asset. The bill contributes to the Government’s aim of making sure that all buildings are designed, built, and inspected at the right time, which is the first time. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I put it to the House that the Building Amendment Bill is another sad chapter in the crisis of home affordability that we have in New Zealand. I want to share two very important basic statistics with this Parliament.

First, the latest statistics show that today it costs more for a section than it cost for a house when Labour became the Government. Let me just say that again; it is an extraordinary statistic. This is the worst Government in New Zealand’s history in respect of home affordability. Now, the second—

Darren Hughes: What is the point of the member’s statement—that land values shouldn’t go up?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I know that Darren Hughes does not care an iota for the families in Ōtaki that are struggling to own their own homes, and I want to ask that member to please explain why, during Labour’s tenure in office, it now costs more for a section than the amount that would have bought a house in 1999. Today in New Zealand, the average price of a section is more than the amount that would have bought a house.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Who says?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Parekura Horomia interjects, asking: “Who says?”. Statistics New Zealand says that. The Government’s own department provides the figures that show the appalling situation that we have in this country.

The second thing I want to point out—and maybe those members opposite will trust the census data—is that when Labour came into Government in 1999, 71 percent of New Zealand homes were owner-occupied. In every year that Labour has been in Government, homeownership has fallen back, to a level of just 66 percent now. That drop of 5 percent represents 120,000 fewer New Zealanders who own the roof over their heads. To members opposite, I say that is a tragedy.

I also say that Labour pretends that somehow it is not part of that problem. Well, the very Act that we are attempting to amend with this bill is actually part of the problem. Let me explain why that is the case. When Labour brought in the new Building Act in 2004, what was the very first decision it made?

Jacqui Dean: What?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Labour trebled the building levy. The building levy is a bit like a tax—and we are used to Labour putting taxes up—on homeownership. It went from $6 million a year, I say to Mr Hughes, to $18 million a year. I also want to point something else out that members opposite probably do not know, which is that this Labour Government amended the Resource Management Act in 2003. It removed the checks on the development levies that councils charge. Do members opposite know that the development levy imposed on a section price has gone from an average of $8,000 a section to $24,000 a section? And Labour wonders why house prices have gone through the roof! It needs only to look in the mirror.

Then, when we look at what is proposed in the bill, we get some idea of the mess that we have in our building laws. What I find extraordinary is this. This is the first reading of the Building Amendment Bill, intended to fix the botch-ups that Labour made in 2004. The ink is not dry on this bill, yet we have a Supplementary Order Paper to the bill. What sort of incompetence do we now have on the Government benches that we have that sort of mess in the legislative process?

Let me go through some of the detail in this bill. The first issue is that of do-it-yourself building—and I want to commend my colleague Bob Clarkson; he has been championing the cause of do-it-yourself builders. I want to read to the House the Hansard of Bob Clarkson’s questions to the Minister, because the Minister has said over and over again that the Building Act 2004 does not prohibit the do-it-yourself builder. Well, is it not strange that we now have a bill that amends those very clauses, so that we can allow the do-it-yourself builder to operate? Members on the Opposition side of the House have always said to the Government that it shot the wrong guy. It was not do-it-yourself builders who were responsible for the leaky homes debacle. It was always an error and a mistake to ban those people, but there is a sneaky little provision in this bill to address that issue. National believes that the right to get the hammer and nail bag out and to build a house is a pretty fundamental right. We think—

David Bennett: Norman Kirk did.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Norman Kirk would have been outlawed from building his own home by this Labour Government.

Darren Hughes: Rubbish!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Darren Hughes says that is rubbish. Well, I say to Darren Hughes that Norm Kirk was not a licensed building practitioner—is that not a lovely bureaucratic term—when he built his home in Carew Street, Kaiapoi. He would have been prohibited from doing that, and I say full points to Bob Clarkson, because the Minister has thrown up the white flag.

I also say this: the sneaky little clause here is only a partial guarantee. All that this bill does is to give the power, through an Order in Council by the Minister, to change the definition of restricted building work. So any future Labour Government could go back and ban the Norm Kirks of this world. We say that measure is a step in the right direction but that it is still wrong, and we want to see some changes in that regard.

Then we come to the area of the Supplementary Order Paper. In every area of the huge bureaucracy that Labour has created around building regulation in New Zealand, it is already behind schedule. For example, the Minister for Building and Construction, Clayton Cosgrove, has gone up and down the country, saying that every local authority has to meet his requirement to be an approved building regulating authority by 30 November. Over and over again he has said that no, there will be no move, and then today, at the last moment, in a Supplementary Order Paper on a bill at its first reading—have we ever heard of anything as stupid as amending a bill on the very day that it is tabled—he proposes to change that timetable. He is running late. Then there is the licensed building practitioner regime. It was to come into effect in 2009; now he says that will be in 2010.

Here is the real daddy of them all in this bill: we are going to require that building consent authorities be regularly audited. That is OK, but who will pay for the costs of that? This bill says the Government will make the rules, the Government will do the auditing, and the bill will be sent straight to the ratepayer. Members of the House up and down the country have been wondering why rates are going up, and they have even set up an inquiry into that. Well, I say to members opposite that they should look in the damn mirror! The reason that rates are going up is that they keep passing these sorts of bills, which just add to the costs and the bureaucracy of the building industry.

The last point I make to members opposite is that they have created a bureaucratic paper-war nightmare for the building industry. At the end of this debate, I want to table details of the amount of paper that was required in order to get a building consent for a garage in 2002—eight pages. Do members know how many pages, under the stupid Building Act that this Government has passed, that a person must have now in order to do that? It is 45 pages. We are burying the industry in bureaucracy and rules. We need to pull that back, and we need to improve home affordability. But, sadly, that will happen only under a John Key - led National Government.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) : That was the voice of the man who alone delivered to this country hundreds of thousands of leaky buildings. That was the man who, as Minister in the last National Government, ushered in a hands-free, no-responsibility Building Act. That was the man who put—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I notice that the member on his feet is making all sorts of accusations about my former role as a Minister. I seek leave of the House to table a speech by the Hon George Hawkins, given at the time the Building Act was passed in 1991.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.

Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a deliberate attempt to break up the speech from my colleague Russell Fairbrother. That sort of request to the House should have been made at the conclusion of the member’s speech. I think it would be only fair if Mr Fairbrother got to start—[Interruption] Mr Smith should not interrupt me during a point of order. I think it would be fair and reasonable for Mr Fairbrother to be able to start his speech from the top.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you for providing some assistance to the Speaker, Mr Hughes. I had considered that myself, before you actually raised the issue. Frivolous interjections designed to break up speeches are not a good thing, and they lead to disorder.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: We have just heard from that member the reason why so many householders in this country have lost their homes because of leaky buildings—it was the “I don’t take responsibility” speech. He says that because George Hawkins gave a speech some long time ago, it absolves him, Dr Smith, from responsibility for hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders losing their homes, their incomes, and their lifetime savings because of his total failure to take responsibility for regulating the industry.

What is worse is that Dr Nick Smith is the man whose free-for-all leaky home Building Act was preceded by volumes of building regulations. Before the Building Act came in, the building regulations, the building compliance codes—as Bob Clarkson would know, because he used to jack his car up with them—were in many volumes, which took a desktop or a table to house. That man, the last speaker, said National could do away with that, bring in the Wild West, and let anybody have a go. In his time a builder was a man who had a utility, a dog, and a radio—that is all a person had to have in order to build high-rise buildings.

In 2002 and 2003 we had an inquiry into the tragedy of leaky buildings. That man did not sit on the inquiry, but Dr Wayne Mapp did. Many, many decent people and qualified architects came before the inquiry and said that the leaky homes syndrome was part of a worldwide trend caused by legislatures abrogating their responsibility to pass laws to govern the construction of every family’s major asset. In 2002 and 2003 the country knew what had gone wrong.

But what did we have last weekend? Did we have the National Party saying it had learnt from the inquiry of 2002 and 2003? No, we did not. We had the leader of that party—who wishes he were leader of the Labour Party—Mr John Key, saying on 4 August that a high legislative priority for National will be to amend the Building Act to pull back the red tape and instead drive quality through greater commercial accountability. John Key has been reading the speeches of Dr Nick Smith in the early 1990s. That was the mantra that gave us the Building Act of 1991. That was the mantra that gave us the tragedy of the leaky homes syndrome. That was the mantra that drove many hard-working couples, professionals, trades, and businesses to near bankruptcy as they moved into homes and buildings where the water came in before their own furniture did.

What do we have under this very responsible Minister, Clayton Cosgrove? We have legislation that takes up this Parliament’s responsibility to set up an infrastructure that will guarantee that people who are buying a home do not need to also be engineers, architects, and lawyers just in order to stay dry inside their homes. The Building Act that we now have, and the weathertightness legislation, enable ordinary people to invest their savings in their houses, and to get on and live their lives, safe and secure in homes that will last longer than that man’s term of Parliament.

Darren Hughes: Well, certainly as deputy leader.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: Certainly as deputy leader.

I am delighted that this bill is coming for consideration to the select committee that I chair. We will call for submissions, and I can guarantee that the submissions will mostly concentrate on the provision that says it is not appropriate to exempt durability matters such as weathertightness repairs from building consent requirements. What is wrong with that provision? Nothing is wrong with it; it is basic. We have more complex building styles than previously, and we have buildings built by people who did not have the advantage of trade training, which was removed by that man and his Government in the 1990s. Those builders did not have the experience of formal training. It is important, therefore, as those men and women have acquired their skills on the job rather than by formal training, that issues such as durability and weathertightness always remain subject to building consent requirements. However, what this bill does do—and I would imagine, from what the last speaker said, that we will receive submissions on this, as well—is to ensure that councils can apply their discretionary powers to exempt work from a building consent in a manner consistent with the principles in and the policy intent behind the first schedule of the Act.

So this finely tuned amending legislation—the Building Amendment Bill—which is having its first reading in this debate, gives us two things. One, it ensures durability. Who, when buying a home, does not expect it to be durable? I ask Mr Clarkson this: who, when investing in a home, does not expect it to last? Who, when buying a home, does not want it to be dry? Those fundamental requirements for a building will now have to be part of the building consent requirements. Who can object to that? Nobody. But secondly, of course, there is the discretionary power that Dr Nick Smith was baying for in his last speech, so that work does not need to be subject to the building consent requirements if the work is consistent with the principles and policies in schedule 1 of the Act. This bill is finely tuned legislation that builds on the Building Act passed in 2004 by this House, an Act that had learnt its lessons from the weathertightness inquiry of 2002 and 2003.

It is strange, is it not, that that last speaker should stand up and lambaste this Government for the effect of market forces? The Opposition is clearly trying to find its way into the centre road.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s not market forces—it’s your taxes and levies!

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER: The member asks “What market forces?”. Mr Smith should say that to his land agent colleagues. Market forces push the price of land up, because there is demand for good-quality land. That is the open market. I do not necessarily agree with it, but surely the member’s basic principle is one of open market accountability. [Interruption] It may not be Mr Smith’s principle, but it certainly is his leader’s principle. John Key wants commercial accountability to replace any guarantee to homeowners of weathertightness and durability. Commercial accountability is another key phrase that means the market rules. Commercial accountability, which that leader wants to replace the safety and durability requirements of the Building Act, means just that: anything goes, and only when people are caught out do they pay for it.

BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) : I am very pleased. I think that past Minister has got it all mixed up.

Russell Fairbrother: Not yet.

BOB CLARKSON: But I am pleased to see he did not die from coughing there for a while, because we want him to last for at least this term.

In regard to the Building Amendment Bill, I say that National will support it to the select committee and will be debating it with vigour. We look forward to it. I get sick of this Government bringing bills, amendments, and variations to old bills to this House. We waste a lot of time debating bills that do not have a good end result. A good example was the dog-chipping bill. For some strange reason, dog chipping has not stopped—

Russell Fairbrother: Dog chipping isn’t in this piece of legislation.

BOB CLARKSON: I will start again, since the member interrupted. For some strange reason, dog chipping has not stopped dogs biting people.

Why do we waste time debating bills that are badly written in the first place? We now have another case of the building laws of 2004 not being up to standard and causing major costs and confusion in the building sector. Why can we not get bills right in the first place? I expect the problem is that we have a Minister who is a public relations officer. He would not know anything about building. I was going to say that he is also a consultant, but I had better not give him too many credits. He knows nothing about the building industry. Mr Cosgrove quoted that I do not know a screwdriver from a chainsaw. I will say that Mr Cosgrove does not know his arse from his elbow. [Interruption] I forget the term for that now, but it is not rude. We will debate it, if members wish.

I would know a lot more than Mr Cosgrove ever did. I have been building buildings for years. Some of the clauses in this amendment to the Building Act will add thousands of dollars to the cost of houses. We are desperately trying to build affordable houses at the moment. These amendments will put affordable houses further out of the reach of the family unit. Let us talk about the clause in the bill that deals with licensed building practitioners. We are expected to license tradesmen as building practitioners. I thought being a tradesman was a licence. I am a tradesman—a fitter and turner. I consider I have a licence to build steelwork, and all that sort of stuff. I cannot understand why a tradesman is not automatically licensed. There should not be any argument there. A tradesman carpenter obviously is there to build houses.

Why are we putting more costs on to tradesmen, who end up having to transfer that cost on to the houses they build? I suggest that it might be better to license the building inspectors. I am not talking about the building consent authorities, which will be certified, etc; I am talking about the people who are employed by the consent authorities. These inspectors were the people who did not, in many cases, check the building of houses that were incorrectly built a fair few years ago. There are many cases where houses built under the control of tradesmen and hammer hands were not built correctly. This problem should have been picked up by inspectors. There will always be builders, tradesmen, and various others who cheat the system. We need licensed inspectors who know what they are doing, to stop building buildings of a poor standard. I will make sure that the select committee has a good debate and listens to submissions as to whether we are getting these amendments right.

To finish I will turn to the DIY builders. I have no problem with DIYers building their own houses. I have not seen a leaky building that was built by a DIYer builder. Why are we attacking DIYer builders? Let us deal with the facts. The problem is with the inspectors. The Minister has got it wrong again. The Minister wants more rules, more regulations, and more bureaucrats. That is pretty normal in the Labour Government. Let us hope that the select committee convinces the Minister that he has got it wrong. We originally built houses that did not have all these rules and regulations. Let us get into the real world. Let us get the Building Act right.

PITA PARAONE (NZ First) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. I stand on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in the first reading of the Building Amendment Bill. [Interruption] Do not worry about my leader; the real issue is that at least my leader knows which party he is leading.

I come back to the point of the debate. Given that this country has suffered from leaky homes, and given that in recent months some householders have had to endure flooding and inclement weather, I would have thought this House would look at this bill as a form of helping those people who have had to endure the effects of those events on their homes and, in some cases, their livelihood. I believe that this legislation is responsible. It is aimed at addressing the issues that people who have already spoken in this House have mentioned. It ensures that homes that are given certification are, in fact, durable. It ensures that we as a nation are not confronted by the leaky home syndrome, which some families are still having to suffer the consequences of.

One speaker talked about affordability. I do not have any difficulty with the issue of affordability. I think that if we as a country are able to provide houses that our citizens can afford, well and good, but they need to be quality houses. How do we ensure that? I know that it has been part of the Kiwi psyche to do things for ourselves, but is it not important that people who buy homes that had work done on them by DIYers can know that the work was carried out by people who had the qualifications and necessary skills to do it?

Bob Clarkson: Hang on; DIYers do it better a lot of the time.

PITA PARAONE: Maybe so, but is it not important that people who are buying a home built by a DIYer know that, in return for the money they are expending to purchase it, they are getting a home of the quality one would expect from a qualified builder?

The bill clarifies and recognises building consent exemptions. In particular, it ensures that weathertightness repairs are not made without a building consent.

The bill makes minor adjustments to the future dam safety scheme. I know that that recognises some of the difficulties that some regional councils, particularly the smaller regional councils around the country, are facing in terms of having enough time to gain the required accreditation. The dams that we are talking about are in the South Island. I was born and bred in the area covered by the Far North District Council, and although it does not have any dams of the same magnitude as those in the South Island, I am sure that the notion of dams was given some thought during the recent flooding in that area.

The bill also clarifies the language and rules relating to the upcoming voluntary licensing of building practitioners. Licensing will not change legal liability, but will mean increased accountability and competence. Who in this House would argue against that? New Zealand First supports any move to improve the clarity and effectiveness of the regulatory framework governing the building and construction sector. It will be of benefit to all New Zealanders. We believe that it will go some way towards putting back ordinary homeowners’ confidence in the New Zealand building industry, in the wake of recent bad press and, for example, the leaky homes fiasco. It will ensure that the Building Act 2004 is a robust instrument for regulating a safe and high-quality New Zealand building and construction industry into the future.

I know that one of this Government’s concerns was the ability of local bodies to obtain the necessary accreditation in order for them to continue to issue the documents that are required to allow building to proceed. Experience has shown that, to date, only one local body has been able to reach the original 30 November deadline. What happens if we retain that deadline and the rest of the local bodies around the country are not able to meet it? We will not see development; we will not see all the concerns that this bill addresses progress in this country. The Government has decided that, through this bill, the time should be extended to 30 June 2008. Again I ask who in this House would argue against that.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It is a mess.

PITA PARAONE: Well, this bill addresses the issue and tries to tidy it up. Why would the member want to oppose that?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why wasn’t it in the bill?

PITA PARAONE: Well, that might be so, but we have to deal with the realities at this point in time.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It is incompetent.

PITA PARAONE: I would not agree with the member that it is incompetent. At least this Government is addressing the issue, rather than just finding petty arguments to oppose the bill—yet at the same time not oppose it.

I commend this bill to this House. New Zealand First supports the referral of this bill to a select committee. Why? We have always believed that the people of New Zealand should be given the opportunity to discuss legislation that comes before this House, and referring it to a select committee allows that to occur. I commend this bill to the House and New Zealand First will be supporting it.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : I am taking just a brief call this afternoon to confirm that the Green Party will be supporting this bill, pending any amendments that may become desirable as a result of public submissions and consideration during the select committee process. We can see that this bill is a genuine effort by the Government to respond to problems and issues that have arisen in the building sector since the passage of the Building Act into law in 2004. As one of the members who have now sat through the consideration of two weathertight homes amendment bills, I cannot help but offer support to any measures that strengthen the security homeowners may want to feel around work that is being done to rectify the damage to leaky homes.

I also understand that the Government has made considerable effort to consult key organisations within the building industry and to consult local government, to ensure that these amendments do genuinely address the problems and realities of the construction sector. Now if that has not happened I am sure, as somebody who is on the select committee, that we will be the first to hear about it during the submission process.

I find it considerably ironic that Dr Nick Smith from the National Party should be critical of the Government over this bill in relation to arguments about housing affordability. It was under National in the 1990s that the leaky home crisis flourished, as relaxed regulations and inspection led to the situation we face today. Many homeowners are still suffering the horrendous consequences of that situation, which, in a very tiny way, this very small bill tries to address.

The Green Party supports the Government’s desire to get this bill through the House with as much speed as is practicable, as long as interested parties do have a fair chance to submit on its detail. Accordingly, we commend the bill to the House.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) : This is such a mess. This Building Amendment Bill is a huge, expensive, costly, embarrassing mess for the Government. I met recently with a building inspector—well, we used to call them building inspectors when that was all they did—in my own electorate because I was interested in the implications of these new amendments to the Building Act. This guy brought in a folder of work associated with these new amendments to the Building Act. We sat for about half an hour and he described to me what the engineering department of his small local authority was having to go through to comply with the requirements under the new provisions of the Building Act.

Of course, we know what those are, and we know the effect of them. We know that the number of building inspections, the requirements, the form filling, and the bureaucracy from all parts of this process have escalated. We know from talking to the building inspectors and also from talking to builders the huge increase in time and cost that these new provisions of the Building Act are imposing on the building industry. This, of course, adds to the cost of housing—well, why would it not? We have to lay the blame for this squarely at the feet of the Government. It worries, does it not, about housing affordability, yet all the provisions within this Building Amendment Bill work directly contrary to that, and for that it should be ashamed.

I would like to note that the Government says that these new requirements to the Building Act will overcome the many leaky homes we have in New Zealand, but when I asked my building inspector in Waitaki how many incidents of leaky homes we have had in our small local authority, do members know what the answer was?

Mark Blumsky: None, I don’t think.

JACQUI DEAN: My colleague says he thought the answer was none. The answer is, in fact, none. There was no problem in the lower South Island in Waitaki.

Bob Clarkson: That’s because there was snow on the roof!

JACQUI DEAN: Yes, there is snow on the roof—I thank “Bob the Builder”—and yes, the homes built down in the lower half of the South Island can cope with snow, rain events, and strong winds. There was no problem in the lower South Island that needed to be fixed.

So I have been extremely concerned at the impost in terms of cost, timeliness, and delays for councils, private builders, and developers. It is funny, is it not; to me, developers are people who are investing in our communities, yet to some of my Labour counterparts across the House they seem to be some kind of dirty word. Well, I can tell members that we do not subscribe to that view over this side of the House.

But the main problem I have seen for small local authorities is the requirement to comply by November. I tell members that a number of small authorities have been under considerable stress in trying to comply with the requirements of this legislation to be accredited by November 2007. Of course they would not be able to. It might surprise some members over the other side of the House who have not actually worked in the outside world that local authorities have to do a little more than comply with the regulations under this and many other pieces of legislation. They have to continue with the normal work of local government in the engineering and planning departments, which sometimes in some authorities are all together in one room, and that might surprise some members on the opposite side of the House. They have other things to do, quite apart from scrambling to comply with the requirements under this building legislation. I know this because people have come to me and complained about the added costs and the added bureaucratic requirements put on them by a Government that does not understand the effect of its legislation on small authorities. I am talking only about small authorities because that is what I know.

Members can imagine my surprise—and I guess they will imagine it—when I received in my in-box a press release from the New Zealand Government. It looks to me, from my reading, that Minister Cosgrove has done a huge flip-flop in terms of this building legislation—

Mark Blumsky: A big one—it’s a major one.

JACQUI DEAN:—a biggie! Minister Clayton Cosgrove stood in front of the Local Government and Environment Committee and said that local authorities would comply. He was confident that local authorities would have no problem in complying with the requirements of the building legislation. In fact, so confident was he that he was prepared to put a date—November 2007. Of course, Minister Cosgrove cared little for the effect that that kind of confidence would have on local authorities because, unfortunately for Mr Cosgrove, just because he says that it will be so does not mean that it will be so. That is not because local authorities do not want to be compliant, but because they simply cannot be.

So we have here today—and I am quite excited by this—a press release from the New Zealand Government that represents a major, major flip-flop and a reality check for the Minister. Local government cannot, despite its best efforts and despite $3 million worth of assistance—and I will say a few things about that in a minute—comply with the Minister’s wishes. That is not because local government does not want to comply, because it has tried to; it simply cannot. Minister Clayton Cosgrove needs to get off his cloud and get real.

So here we are, with the Minister for Building and Construction, Minister Clayton Cosgrove. I am going to give members a treat, because I know they cannot read the press release I have here. I am going to give them a treat and read it out, and then I am going to tell members what it really means. I am going to work past the spin. I know that the Labour Government is very good at spin, but I can see through it and I will share my findings with the House: “Building and Construction Minister Clayton Cosgrove plans to give local authorities more time in which to become accredited and registered as building consent authorities …”. Well, hello, Minister—he has finally seen the light. “Mr Cosgrove today introduced into Parliament a simple amendment to the Building Act …”—another amendment, yet another amendment.

Now, here we come to the interesting part: “Mr Cosgrove said councils are making good progress …” Really? That is not what they tell us. “… and have shown a lot of commitment,”—well, we would expect that of them—“with 71 of the country’s 73 territorial authorities having applied for accreditation …” Well, that means only that they have applied. The reality, reading between the lines, is that only one council—one council—has achieved accreditation. The rest of the councils are absolutely scrambling.

Now here we get to the $3 million Government assistance package. I challenge the Minister to front up to us—to front up to the House. He has thrown $3 million at this accreditation package, yet local government still cannot apply. So the Minister needs to answer some questions on this, and I do hope he does. How was that $3 million allocated to local authorities? Does that show that merely throwing money at a problem will not necessarily fix the problem? I think that the Minister needs to front up and say why he felt he should throw $3 million at local authorities—if, in fact, that is what has happened.

We have seen before, in the term of this Government, that assistance packages have been announced, but then, when those packages have been looked into, we have found that they have not actually been delivered; or else the Government has announced assistance packages, but when we have looked into them we have found that nobody can actually fulfil the criteria to get the money. I can cite several examples of that, to do with drinking water standards and small sewerage schemes. So I would like the Minister to front up as to how he allocated that $3 million. Clearly, the scheme has not worked. Clearly, this press release from the New Zealand Government today shows a huge back-down, and exposes the terrible, expensive mess that is the Building Act.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) :Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker, tēnā tātou katoa e kare mā. Ā, i a tātou e hoki mai ana ki roto i te Whare nei me tuku ngā whakaaro ki te hunga e rongo nei te āhuatanga o te pā pōuri i tēnei rangi. Ko tērā te pēpē e takoto mai rā ki roto i a Ngāti Raukawa, otirā, tērā aituā i pā mai ki a au ki roto i te Waiariki. Me pēnei rawa te kōrero, waiho rātou kia moe. Anei tātou e hui nei i tēnei rangi, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou.

• [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Greetings to us all, fellow colleagues. As we return to this House our thoughts are with those grieving a loss on this sad day, that baby lying in state among Ngāti Raukawa, and the one in my electorate of Waiariki. Allow me to say this: leave them there to rest. Here we are meeting today; greetings, and thank you.]

The stated policy objective of this bill, as stated in its explanatory note, sounds pretty good: “to improve the clarity and effectiveness of the regulatory framework.”, as it is currently. The Māori Party, of course, supports such a worthy goal. If there have been problems identified in the “workability of the Building Act 2004”, it seems pretty sensible to address them with this new bill.

But then we read on: “The Act’s purpose”, as stated in section 3, was to “address the systemic issues that led to major building failure from the mid-1990s to 2001:”, and to “significantly reduce the risks of building failure in the future.”

This is where we start to get a little more interest up—“systemic failure”, states the korou. Perhaps this is the bill that will finally do something about substandard housing and the major building failure that has led to low-quality, high-maintenance homes falling to bits. We are talking about the type of housing that the Auckland District Health Board has described as affecting physical health through allergies, pest infections, poorly functioning heaters or stoves, and toxic chemical exposure. Its 2005 research identified that the numbers of Auckland people living in garages and caravans are likely to be severely underestimated. The type of housing we are talking about, from the research of the Building Research Association, is identified as having one in four buildings in poor condition, and one in five with serious defects. This is the type of housing that my colleague Hone Harawira talked about recently—an ongoing reality of housing stress for Māori: overcrowding, substandard housing, and poor heating, and all further impacting on Māori health.

There is enough evidence to confirm that housing is an important determinant of health. Indeed, the Building Act and code of 2004, administered by the Department of Building and Housing, made explicit its expectation that quality housing would be “free from nuisance and unsanitary conditions”. We know that a number of current pieces of legislation give voice to that same expectation, so that any risks to illness or injury are minimised.

When I think of systemic failure, I am thinking of the following: the Housing Improvement Regulations of 1947, the Health Act 1956, the Residential Tenancies Act 1986, and, the latest, the Building Act 2004. If all those Acts give their commitment to quality housing, how can it be that far too many New Zealand homes are still affected by dangerous conditions, dampness, poor light and ventilation, inadequate drainage, insufficient disposal of waste, a lack of heating, and so on, and so forth—the list goes on.

The answer, it seems, lies in this whole notion of systemic failure—of the very Act we are talking about today. In the Building Act, a distinction is made between new and existing buildings. New buildings are required to meet much higher standards of health and well-being than existing ones. There are some limited provisions in sections 121 to 123 of the Act to investigate sanitation, dangerous conditions, and earthquake safety in existing dwellings, but these provisions are seldom called on.

In the Social Policy Journal’s March edition this year, Chris Cunningham, along with Sarah Bierre, Philippa Howden-Chapman, and Louise Signal summed up the current limitations upon the legislation. They stated: “Existing housing is rarely subject to the regulatory provisions of the Building Act, except in extreme cases.” They continued: “The cost for local authorities in taking a case to court is high, and uncertainty of the outcome of a hearing can influence the decision to prosecute. The lack of alternative accommodation for the occupants of a house can also influence the way that housing quality regulations are enforced.”

So what we are really talking about today is the fact that building failure in the future can be avoided if we concentrate on the houses we build today. Although this all seems pretty logical, of course the Māori Party cannot help but ask about the building failure that has characterised Māori housing forever—the building failures of yesterday and the days before that. We know that over two-thirds of the current housing stock in New Zealand was built before standards requiring insulation in new buildings were introduced, in 1977. Minimal housing regulations, low spending on maintenance, an over-reliance on the weatherboard style of housing, and inadequate consideration of energy-efficient heating means that housing quality is likely to be a problem of national concern for years to come.

Sixty-four years ago the Minister for Native Affairs, Rex Mason, stated: “Māori housing is the worst blot on the administrative system of New Zealand.” How much has changed today? Well, it may well still be the case that Māori can be expected to be excluded from the mainstream of Government administration and housing, as has happened again and again in the past. A study released by the Centre for Housing Research and Te Puni Kōkiri last year, called Māori Housing Experiences: Emerging Trends and Issues, highlighted a distinctive feature of being Māori that may account for the disproportionate rates of substandard housing. The study pointed out that Māori often accept substandard housing and living as a result of their wishes to be closer to whānau.

I am struck by a new term that is introduced in this bill, “the significant building project”, to facilitate a whole-of-building concept. Well, for Māori every project is considered through the eyes of whether it will facilitate a whole-of-whānau concept. In practice, it means that our cultural assets, the values and strength we place on whanaungatanga, are having explicit economic and employment costs.

Taking responsibility for caring for one’s whānau, contributing to community development, and restoring the cultural strength of a people, should not mean that Māori have to put up with inadequate lighting, ventilation, provisions for disposing of wastewater, hot and cold water supply, and wall and floor lining dampness and so on.

We cannot leave the Building Amendment Bill without also making some reference to the traumatic impact that adverse weather conditions have had on so many homes in rural areas where Māori are living. The bill introduces changes in consent requirements for culverts, small dams, plumbing, and drainage work. We believe that it is very important to explore the implications of those changes, given all of the recent flooding disasters that have confronted Aotearoa. We know that disasters will be more likely to occur with greater regularity as we experience more and more impacts of global warming. We have seen some of the warning signs about people potentially being forced to leave areas that have been caught out by flooding—much like the forced evacuation of areas that Work and Income has instigated with its creation of “limited employment locations”.

We have raised issues in this House about the concerns tangata whenua have, and their desire to seek to continue to live where they want to live—around our marae, our rivers, our mountains, and our lands, despite the suggestion from the Minister of Local Government that they be relocated. We hope the Building Amendment Bill will consider options to ensure that building consent processes, certification, and building practitioners are all committed to acting against systemic failure across all levels of building failure, today and tomorrow. Kia ora tātou.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I rise on behalf of United Future to take a brief call on the first reading of the Building Amendment Bill. United Future is happy to support this bill going to the Social Services Committee. We think it provides an interesting opportunity to hear from those involved in the building industry. I quite recently mentioned in the House an interesting conversation I had with one of the senior members of the master builders association. We were talking about home affordability, which is an issue that United Future feels very passionate about. A very interesting comment was made to me that needs exploring. That was that homeowners building their first home could quite possibly and reasonably save up to $30,000 on the cost of their house if we had a better regulatory system, simpler building consents and compliance mechanisms. With that reduction we would still have a system that is robust and safe.

The concern that the association expressed to me was that in the wake and in the shadow of leaky homes, we had gone into a regulatory frenzy in trying to address what had gone wrong, but, actually, what was needed in some cases was a reduction in regulation. What I notice about this bill is that the explanatory note claims there will be no new costs. That is good. I also notice, under the heading “Industry”, that it is believed that the consequence of this bill would be “reduced compliance costs for network utility operators and others who work across council boundaries.” We also note that there is an expectation that this will reduce compliance costs for do-it-yourself property owners doing minor and low-risk building work that does not require a building consent.

Again, that all sounds extremely positive. However, the current experience of many homeowners and prospective homeowners is that there is a huge amount of inconsistency across our 85 councils in regard to building consent. The consequence of this is huge amounts of delays. I had a member of my community in my office in Whakatāne recently, who could not understand two things. He could not understand why the council was not liable for the delay it had created, because it had acted, given advice, and caused foundations that had already been laid on a building to be dug up and done again on faulty information, and, when that was finally challenged, it was proved that the owner had worked to the correct dimensions in the first place. There was a huge amount of delay and cost to the owner, who could not understand why the council was not in some way liable for that cost.

The second gripe he had was that there was an identical building—because this was a kitset building—going up just down the road that the council had sat and watched go up. That building seemed to get its consents through in a very timely way, and the building was virtually finished before a spade had barely been put in the ground for an identical building. We did some writing to the council, we did some advocacy, and I think the outcome was reasonably acceptable to him, other than the fact that he was deeply disturbed at the level of cost that he still had to bear, and there was no willingness or ability, by law, for him to get any compensation for that.

United Future is keen to hear what comes out of the select committee process. We certainly believe there is room for improvement, and we hope this amendment bill delivers that which we believe the community is calling for.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) : I am pleased to take a call on the Building Amendment Bill. The National Party will support it going to the Social Services Committee, but for this reason: to expose this hopeless, incompetent failure of a Minister. I have to say that Minister Clayton Cosgrove will go down as one of the worst, incompetent, hopeless Ministers that one would see in a day’s march. Mind you, if we look at the members opposite, we could say that about any of those members. I will tell Pete Hodgson why this guy is an absolute incompetent failure. I will put this on the record of this House.

In this country the number of houses that do not have a compliance certificate is the same as the number of houses in the city of Wellington. Over 250,000 houses in this country are not compliant. Why? It is because so many rules and regulations have been made by this Minister, his Department of Building and Housing, and by the Labour Government. People are now saying there is too much compliance and too much cost.

But what is even worse is that although this Minister’s department employed 31½ people in 1999—I do not know what it did with the other half; it was probably Mr Cosgrove—today the department employs over 300 people. The department has different sections. One makes the rules and regulations, another vets them, and another audits them, and then passes them back to the first one because the rules and regulations are not quite right. They go round in circles.

There are a couple of really bad outcomes from all of this. In the building of houses—Bob Clarkson will confirm this—at least 600 different materials are used. I ask members to listen carefully, because this is really something. The Department of Building and Housing is required to certify those 600 materials that go into homes. Can anyone guess how many it has certified to date?

R Doug Woolerton: 10.

JOHN CARTER: No, four.

Hon Members: Four!

JOHN CARTER: It has certified only four of the 600. Today, under this hopeless Minister, we think we know about the leaky home problem but, believe you me, we are creating a leaky home problem for the future that we have no idea about.

Some of the materials coming into this country and being used are not certified at all. I am sure the Ministers sitting across the House will be interested to know that copper pipe imported from Australia has a certification of 50 years. Copper pipe imported from England has a certification of 60 years. But copper pipe imported from Asia has no certification. Testing done on copper pipe from Asia, which is going into our homes right now—in particular, spec homes—estimates that it will last about 7 years. So in 5, 10, or 15 years’ time someone will flush the dunny, and mum, in the kitchen, will get a shower! If we think we have a leaky home problem now, believe you me, we have a serious problem coming up. Parliament needs to understand that.

This Minister and his department, the whole 300 of them, are doing nothing about the problem. It has got to the stage where local government officers are so concerned that they have decided to start up a certification regime, irrespective of what the Department of Building and Housing is doing. So the Building Officials Institute of New Zealand says that because the issue is so serious and because the Department of Building and Housing is so incompetent and has managed to certify only four of the 600 materials, the institute has decided to take on the certification. I say: “Good on it!”. We have to have at least some people who are competent, because this Minister and this Government, and the department that they employ 300 people in, are not. They are causing failure.

What is even worse is that people in the building industry in this nation are starting to despair. If compliance issues, red tape, the lack of support, and all the other problems put before the building industry are not improved, then competent builders will be exiting the industry. It is getting to the stage where it is beyond their ability to survive. The delays, red tape, and frustrations in the building sector are tangible. One can feel it.

Of course the building inspectors in local government, who are on the other side, are feeling just as bad about it. It is unbelievable the expectations, and the rules and regulations in bound volumes, that these people have to try to administer. What is even worse is the whole situation where the Government is making rules and regulations—rules on rules, and rules on rules on rules—that people cannot understand, cannot follow, cannot comply with, and cannot keep up with, so they are avoiding them. We are seeing the building of houses that are not legal. We are seeing the building of sheds that are not legal. We are seeing people exiting the industry. We are seeing houses that are not compliant. Those houses will become leaky homes. The whole thing is a mess.

If there is any good thing about this bill, it is that at least it will give people the opportunity to come out and start talking about the shambles that we have in the building industry. I see the Ministers across the House are hanging their heads in shame, and so they should be. They know that if there is one area that is an absolute mess under this Government’s administration, then it is this one. They know that the building sector is not the only area, but it is typical. It will require the incoming Government to start cleaning it up.

It seriously worries me that if it were just about someone’s house, then that is bad enough. If it were just about that fact that somebody has not put in their investment and has ended up with a property that has no value because this Government has allowed the use of materials that will fail, then that would be bad enough. But what is starting to happen, because of the regime of compliance and red tape, is that we are stifling development and opportunity in this country. We are putting in unnecessary costs, and unnecessary rules and regulations, and inhibiting the ability of this nation to move ahead. It is another example of nanny State deciding that it knows best, that it knows how to run things, that it can organise individuals’ lives, and that it can organise a whole industry.

It does not have to be like this. Seriously, it does not have to be like this. There are better ways. There are ways in which we could restructure the whole thing so that we would avoid the leaky home syndrome, and so that the industry itself is responsible for the work it does. After all, if the car industry manufactures a car, then we do not expect the Government to step in and fix up any problem if it breaks down. I do not think so. The industry takes responsibility.

But this Government is so incompetent that it is allowing the industry to build houses that are not compliant, then it says that the taxpayers and ratepayers will pick up the bill. That is not right. Unfortunately, the Government has such a stupid regime in place to try to address the issue that the only ones who are getting fixed are the lawyers. It is not the houses, not the individuals, and not the communities. That is because this Government is going about things in entirely the wrong way.

If there is one good thing about this bill, then we knew, did we not, that this certification system would not to work. I certainly did. My colleagues on this side of the House have been saying so all along. We have said that unnecessary costs were being put on to local government, ratepayers, and taxpayers. On top of all that, we end up with a frustrated building industry and a frustrated community.

The only good thing to come out of this bill is that people will have the opportunity to make public submissions, assuming that the Government allows public submissions on the bill, and people will have the opportunity to tell the committee how frustrated they are, what a failure the system is, how complex it is, how much red tape there is, and why the building industry has got to the stage where, quite honestly, it does not want a bar of this. They will be pleased to have the opportunity to make a contribution to this bill.

• Bill read a first time.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction: I move, That the Building Amendment Bill be considered by the Social Services Committee, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 5 November 2007, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1)(b) and (c).

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health), on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I move, That the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Social Services Committee. I also advise the House at this time that I will be proposing that the bill be divided into three separate but related amendment bills at the Committee of the whole House stage.

The purpose of this bill is to enable the Ministry of Social Development to prevent and recover debts and to detect more readily the misuse of the social security student allowance and student loan systems by broadening data-matching provisions. The bill will make better use of data matches already in place between the ministry and three other Government agencies: the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), the New Zealand Customs Service, and the Department of Corrections. This enhanced use of information will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of existing processes. The bill will also reduce overpayments that create debt.

Data matching may not sound like a proactive social assistance policy, but the real purpose of this bill is in its title—debt minimisation and prevention. Debt is a two-edged sword. Used correctly and managed well, debt can be a useful tool, but uncontrolled debt can be a burden that inhibits people’s activities to live and work to their fullest. Of course, being over-indebted has financial implications in terms of people’s ability to make ends meet, but we also know that it can have negative impacts on people’s health and education, and that it can lead to them living in overcrowded, cheap housing in order to reduce expenditure, or taking part in crime or other socially undesirable behaviour.

Being over-indebted can also reduce the financial advantages of returning to work and may act as a barrier to employment. We know that when beneficiaries incur debt it can make it very difficult for them to enter the workforce, as the level of repayments is often reduced while a person remains on the benefit. Once the debtor is earning an income, creditors start seeking high levels of debt repayment. This can substantially reduce the financial gains from work. The sum total of all this simply is that having to meet debt and other repayments can place enormous stress on families and it can act as a barrier to entering and remaining in work.

As members know, the Government is very focused on helping all of those who are able to undertake paid work to successfully enter the workforce. Most people want to work and they see working as being the best way to ensure their own and their family’s futures. The bill that is before the House is part of a programme of welfare reform that aims to truly modernise our benefit system so that it sends the strong message that work is important, without undervaluing the caring roles that people have or the importance of caring for children.

Part of modernisation is making the most efficient use of the tools that are available. This bill makes better use of the existing data that is provided to the Ministry of Social Development, and that will increase efficiency. The bill amends legislation that specifies the purpose of information matches between the Ministry of Social Development and three other Government agencies: the Department of Corrections, New Zealand Customs Service, and the ACC. Currently, those three agencies provide data to the ministry to make sure that people get their correct benefit entitlement.

The data match does not include people who are no longer receiving a benefit but who still have an outstanding debt. To find people who have an outstanding debt, the ministry currently issues individual notices to the ACC and the Customs Service. Having a data match against benefit debtors who are no longer receiving a benefit will automate this process. It will speed up the process of clearing debts, and it will also mean that people have the opportunity to clear their debts while they are not in need of income support. The Customs Service data match identifies people who are travelling to and from New Zealand. This information is currently used to ensure that benefits are not paid to people who are overseas.

Being able to match this information against people who are not receiving a benefit but who have a benefit debt will give the ministry the opportunity to contact these people while they are likely to be in a very good position to pay that debt. The bill extends the use of information already transferred to the Ministry of Social Development to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the data-matching processes. The bill will speed up the process of locating benefit debtors and it will make better use of data that is already supplied to the Ministry of Social Development.

Of course, having debt to repay does not help released prisoners to establish themselves in their community; for example, the bill allows the benefit to be stopped as soon as a person enters prison. In 2007 benefit overpayments to people as they went into prison totalled more than $1.4 million. The bill will reduce this amount of debt being created by payments continuing while the processes specified in the Privacy Act are undertaken, because it will allow the benefits of prisoners to be stopped immediately. Data matching between the Ministry of Social Development and the Department of Corrections occurs daily. This means that the opportunity to take prompt action to cease benefit payments already exists. The bill allows the ministry to maximise this opportunity. This is an appropriate use of modern technology to help reduce the risk of debt and the amount of debt arising when a person is imprisoned.

The mechanism in the bill to allow immediate cessation of a benefit payment overrides section 103(1) of the Privacy Act 1993. Members may be concerned about the risk that the wrong person’s debt will be stopped without the additional steps set out in the Privacy Act. My officials have considered this matter carefully, because we know how devastating it can be to individuals or families if they are left without income because of a bureaucratic mix-up. The ministry assures me that it has robust processes and procedures in place to ensure that the correct benefit stops. We do not expect the correct benefit to be stopped; it is a fact, however, that errors sometimes occur, despite best efforts. On those rare occasions where a person’s payment is mistakenly stopped, Work and Income will reinstate the benefit immediately when alerted and will pay any costs incurred as a result of the error.

This bill will also identify wrongful claims of benefits, student allowances, or student loans by people currently in prison. The current data match provides details of people when they first enter prison, but it does not give any detail of the length of sentence, so the ministry is not alerted when the person is released. Extending the data match to include current prisoners will mean that the ministry will be able to identify when a person in prison applies for a benefit, a student allowance, or the living costs component of a student loan. It will also allow the ministry to suspend action to recover debt while the person remains in prison.

The extension of the data match to current prisoners does not mean that any additional detail about the prisoners is provided to the ministry. The same information that is provided when the person enters prison will simply continue to be provided as long as the person remains there. That continuing matching process will reduce fraud and benefit debt.

Under this Government there has been a drop in the amount of debt being established relative to total benefit expenditure. The establishment of debt has fallen from 1.61 percent of total benefit expenditure in 2001 to 1.29 percent of total expenditure in 2005. I do not think anyone would argue that unnecessary debt should continue to be created when we can prevent it—and this bill will reduce unnecessary debt. To give some idea of the problem, I can tell members that the amount of debt recovered by the ministry each year now stands at $261 million. That is a lot of money to families on lower incomes, but it is also a lot of money to taxpayers.

The Ministry of Social Development has been making a concerted effort to ensure that people get their full and correct benefit entitlement. The measures set out in this bill are a further advance in making sure that benefit payments go to people who are entitled and that they do not go to people who do not qualify.

This Government is committed to reducing debt—both debt to Work and Income and debt to unscrupulous loan sharks, who all too often prey on beneficiaries. My colleague the Minister of Consumer Affairs has recently announced new rules requiring all financial service providers to be registered and to belong to a dispute resolution scheme. That work is striking at the heart of the debt problem by dealing with the behaviour of the debt industry.

This bill also makes a modest but important contribution to debt reduction for a vulnerable group. This Government will not sit back and let low-income families incur avoidable debts. Debt can be a burden on families for years. The ministry is actively working to assist low-income people and families to meet their financial commitments and to avoid debt.

Since taking office in 1999, before which there was only darkness, this Labour-led Government has reduced unemployment benefit numbers from 160,000 to just under 23,000. Let me say that again—from around 160,000 to just under 23,000. Currently unemployment stands at a record low. We have undeniably succeeded in reducing the quantum of unemployment, but it is a fact that some of the people who remain unemployed require intensive support. This bill is one way we can provide that support and help people into work.

The Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill will help us reduce debt. This will, therefore, encourage more people to enter work by reducing the problems of debt repayment. The bill will help ensure that money goes to people who need it. By increasing the usefulness of data matches already in place, it will ensure that time-consuming manual processes in the Ministry of Social Development and elsewhere are replaced by a small increment in existing data-matching processes. I commend the bill to the House.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : The Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill has been a long time coming. It has taken a long time for this Government to start taking beneficiary debt seriously. It has been a long time coming.

I remember a meeting of the Social Services Committee just a few years ago. I can well remember the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development, Peter Hughes, say, in answer to a question from me about beneficiary debt, that 49 percent of beneficiaries were in debt to Work and Income. Now, according to the answer I eventually got from the previous Minister for Social Development and Employment, David Benson-Pope, that figure is actually around 70 percent. So about 70 percent of Work and Income clients—in other words, beneficiaries—are in debt to the Work and Income system and the benefit system.

Phil Heatley: Will that be the truth, though, from Benson-Pope?

JUDITH COLLINS: Well, I say to Mr Heatley that it will not be any less than that. I think that 70 percent of beneficiaries in debt is a hugely bad statistic.

As the Minister who has just resumed his seat, Pete Hodgson, pointed out, these people are the most vulnerable in society. They do not, in most cases, have any real means with which to repay debt other than at a very modest rate—say, $10 a week or something at that level. When I have asked parliamentary questions about some of those beneficiaries the answer has been that some of them will be paying off debt for more years than they can possibly live, because the debt is so huge.

Why does this happen? Sometimes it is about fraud. Sometimes there are very fraudulent people out there. I take into account the case of Wayne Patterson, who was sentenced earlier this year. He ripped off the benefit system for over $3 million, as I recall. That Government has sat by and allowed that to happen. He got caught out by a bank employee who happened to wonder why there seemed to be all those bank transactions from the one Internet address. Nobody, apparently, at Work and Income seemed to wonder why there were so many bank transactions to the one Internet address, or why all the notices and things were being sent to the same post box. So it was a very interesting situation where the benefit system was being defrauded of millions of dollars.

Now, of course, Mr Patterson is living on the largesse of the taxpayer in the Department of Corrections, no doubt with heated tiles that he can walk his little feet on. He is now enjoying himself and, more than likely, getting a student loan, which was revealed by the Opposition last year when we pointed out that all those prisoners were getting student loans to learn, no doubt, animal homeopathy. Of course, that was eventually discovered to be a fraudulent thing to do, and the Ministry of Social Development said it would get on to that and stop it. Well, a year later legislation finally turns up so that we can stop this.

After we listened to Mr Hodgson’s speech—and, of course, he is the Minister of Health; I do not know why we are not hearing from anyone on the social development side—we would think that all debt owed by beneficiaries came about innocently. In many cases, of course, it has. In many cases it will be a case of someone being overpaid, and often there has been overpayment upon death, because Work and Income will keep on paying after a person has died, even after it has been notified, and often for about a month or two. I have certainly acted as a lawyer for people who have been in such a situation. Suddenly, for example, widows or widowers have had to repay national superannuation that has been wrongly paid, and they had not realised it had been happening. They were trying to deal with funerals and other expenses, and dealing with grief, and suddenly they are asked to pay back what is a huge amount of money for them.

The National Party is keen to support anything that stops beneficiaries from getting into debt unnecessarily or wrongly but also fraudulently. We, however, are very concerned that it has taken this Government 8 long years and many, many hundreds of millions of dollars of computer systems later to finally work out that sometimes when a whole prison is full of people who happen to have student loans, there might be a little bit of something going on there and maybe it is not genuine.

RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) : I was going to address the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill without referring to the previous speaker, Judith Collins. I often find what she says to be so tempting to knock about the debating chamber, but I thought I would not lower myself to the level of utterance we have just heard.

But when she said she was surprised and shocked that it had taken this Government so many years to bring this legislation into place, having spent hundreds of millions of dollars on computer systems, she should have listened to herself and realised how even more idiotic than usual that comment was. Of course, until we have the computer systems in place, we cannot do the data matching. So until we spend the hundreds of millions of dollars—which, of course, is an exaggeration—and get the computer systems in place, we cannot do data matching. And she did not dare mention that if we get around to the pruning of Government spending, which those neo-liberals on the other side of the House are promising, then there will not be the money to develop the infrastructure to enable this very bill to come before the House. That is the key to this piece of legislation.

I would have expected the previous speaker to dwell upon the infringements of privacy of information aspects. As she has a legal background and is a neoclassical liberal, one would think she would perhaps have considered the fishhooks that might be there. They are not there, of course, and the fact that she did not even mention them underscores the point that this bill is, in terms of privacy, very tight and accurate.

One of the difficulties until now in achieving data matching has been the privacy law. It has been possible for a person to go to prison, for example, and for the Ministry of Social Development to know about that but not act upon it, because of the privacy barriers that are created. Now, with modern data-matching systems and the automated flagging systems that are contained in relational databases, we are able, as a Government, to identify movements of beneficiaries from situations of benefit to situations where they are not entitled to any benefit, and to act on that immediately. So no longer is the Privacy Act breached by endeavouring to trace individuals on such movements, and as we now have the computer systems, or are moving to have the computer systems, which will enable the tracking, this bill can come before the House.

I agree with the previous speaker in the National Party that this bill has come not before time. But the delay, if we can call it that, has been because it has taken 7 whole years to develop the much-neglected infrastructure of the previous administration. This is the unseen expense, which the National Party likes to bay about on the hustings. National members say: “We will cut taxes because the Government spends too much money on bureaucrats and committees.” Of course, they are never specific, and what they should say on the hustings is that they will cut the money and there will not be the infrastructure to develop a sound, rounded system.

This bill is the product of a sound, rounded system. This bill enables the computers to track beneficiaries so that when they move off the benefit, payments stop, and when they move on to a benefit, the entitlement can then resume. It is important to the integrity of a benefit system that those who are entitled to benefits are paid that to which they are entitled, but those who are not entitled to benefits should not receive a dollar more than they are entitled to. It is not a matter of taking a mean-spirited, public purse approach, because, ultimately, if there is an overpayment there has to be a repayment, and individuals on benefits are living so close to the level of sustainability—as they should be, on a benefit—that they do not have the leeway and the income to repay a debt not of their own making.

In the past we have seen beneficiaries who try to maximise their level of income by removing the debt provisions, and what they do is trot off to these third-level lenders, who are commonly referred to as loan sharks. For the temporary relief that comes from increasing the cash flow, beneficiaries create an even greater burden by borrowing money on the family car, television, or some other asset at exorbitant rental rates, which only worsens their position. So this bill will move beneficiaries away from the claws of unscrupulous loan sharks, because it will remove the pressure and tension that is created for beneficiaries when they unwittingly get into debt to the Ministry of Social Development.

This is a good bill. It deals with people with the best of intentions who are sometimes in desperate situations, and allows their situations not to become more desperate by official oversight or bureaucratic bungling. The system is so computerised now that individuals can be tracked with all the appropriate levels of anonymity, but at all times their interests can be safeguarded so that at the right time they receive benefits, at the right time the payments stop, and at the right time the payments commence. No longer do we have the debtor-creditor situation that is so corrosive to an individual or family who is dependent upon a benefit from the State. The situation is not only corrosive to the individual but also to the State, because people such as the previous speaker will stand in this House and lambaste the very good Ministers for Social Development and Employment that we have now and we have had in the past about the debt created by beneficiaries. That debt is usually created not through any ill will on the part of beneficiaries but through the bureaucratic inconvenience caused by beneficiaries moving off and on benefits.

This is a very good bill. It is a timely bill. It could not have been introduced any earlier, because this Government has spent careful years rebuilding a much-neglected infrastructure. That infrastructure is now tight and resilient. It can result in the bringing forward of legislation such as this bill, which speaks more loudly than any words or any TV images of the argument for a prudent fiscal policy and a prudent monetary policy. We must handle this issue of tax cuts with great caution, because for every tax cut made there is a cost, and that cost will sabotage initiatives such as the ones that lie behind this bill.

This bill is short in ambition, it is elegant in achieving that ambition, and as it comes before the Social Services Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing, I look forward to receiving the submissions that, hopefully, will address the issues in the bill. It seems to me on a quick reading of the bill that there is not much work that needs to be done in tidying up its provisions. It is a very elegant bill, it achieves a very worthwhile social purpose, and it is indeed a reflection upon a Government that cares and thinks about people and that builds up an infrastructure carefully. This is a bill for the year 2007 forward.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : I rise to take this opportunity to speak on this Social Assistance (Debt Prevention Minimisation) Amendment Bill, and it does seem a little bit premature for Mr Russell Fairbrother to be saying that it is a very elegant bill that does not need much work done on it and that the infrastructure is tight and resilient. The member is predicting that everything will go well. I am suggesting that under this Labour Government this bill, and the administration of it, is very unlikely to go as well as he suggests.

The general policy statement in the explanatory note of the bill states: “This bill is intended to enable the Ministry of Social Development to prevent and recover debts, and to detect more readily misuse of the social security, student allowance, and student loan systems, by broadening data matching provisions.” That is the reason the National Party is supporting the bill. But, as my colleague Judith Collins said, the question must be asked as to why it has taken 7 to 8 years, to the dying days of a Labour Government, before this Government is finally getting around to reducing waste and overspending. Why has it taken so long, and taken until its dying days, before it is putting in some legislation to reduce wasteful spending?

We have to look at student allowances and loans—which are substantial; they are worth about $5 billion—to recognise that over the last 7 years Labour has wasted a huge amount of money. It has not necessarily been in the area of loans and allowances but certainly in the area of the incessant reforms that the Government has carried out in the tertiary education system. We have estimated that Steve Maharey has spent something like $419 million on reforms that have got nowhere, and now we are seeing Dr Cullen about to start on another set of reforms that will probably cost a huge amount of money and will also bring us nowhere.

But that is only one aspect of it. The other aspect of it is the huge amount of money that the Government has wasted on soft courses—homeopathy for pets, twilight golf, and all the rest. It was hundreds of millions of dollars.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Come back to the bill.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: The member is asking me to get back to the bill, and that is exactly what I will do. The regulatory impact statement in the explanatory note states: “The most significant change proposed is an amendment to the Social Security Act 1964 to override section 103(1) of the Privacy Act 1993, which will allow MSD to suspend benefit payments immediately in circumstances where the match has detected that a recipient of a benefit is in prison, thereby significantly reducing overpayments. This proposal carries some risks, including the low risk of a beneficiary being incorrectly identified as being in prison, however strategies will be put in place to minimise and mitigate such impacts.”

This is one area where we have to make sure we can trust this Labour Government to ensure this does happen, because I note an article published in the New Zealand Herald when the Government announced that this bill would come before Parliament on 18 July. It stated that it will be harder for people with benefit debts to evade repayment: “However, the provisions mean people may be wrongly identified and have their benefits cut off without warning.” The article points out that there has been a low percentage of cases where that happens, but we all know the dreadful consequences for beneficiaries when that happens. The article stated: “A spokeswoman for the Minister of Social Development David Benson-Pope”—he is not about, any more; I think it is Minister Maharey who has taken over, but we will not go into that—“said work was underway to improve the accuracy of the matching.” I ask why Minister Maharey did not say something during his tenure that could then have been taken over by Mr Benson-Pope. It is almost certainly because Minister Maharey was off preparing his curriculum vitae for Massey University, but he did not concentrate on getting rid of waste.

The spokesperson for the Minister of Social Development stated: “… benefits mistakenly cut off could be reconnected immediately and paid overnight. Work and Income could also pay for emergency costs such as food or charges for unpaid rent.” That is where I am very concerned about whether the Labour Government can indeed live up to what it is saying.

We have heard Russell Fairbrother go on to say how wonderful this computer system will be, and that the infrastructure will be resilient and excellent—and we all know that computer systems fail. We also know that human failure—and human failure of the Labour Government—is one aspect that has been particularly prevalent over the last 7 years.

Just today, I was talking to one of my constituents who wrote me a letter, only in June, saying that back in January of this year she decided that, because of certain incentives, she would come off the domestic purposes benefit. Indeed, she had been running a small website design business and she decided that she would try to make a go of it. She had calculated that with a $60-a-week in-work payment, etc., she would build up the business and start to move ahead. Then, she said, this was when things started to go drastically wrong. Time and time again she contacted the Labour Government’s social agencies, and time and time again she was let down. In her final sentence she says that she is now asking me to tell her who will look after her rights and the rights of her children, because this Labour Government certainly is not. That is why we have just got to be so careful. The aims of this bill are fine, but we have to ensure that the details are adhered to.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) : On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to support the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill. It will be a very interesting opportunity indeed at the Social Services Committee to hear from those people involved in the submissions. One would have thought that this measure was already in place, so we are very pleased to see that at long last this is occurring, because this legislation will achieve a sound social purpose.

We in New Zealand First looked at the bill and thought that it was largely of a technical nature, and that it should enable the Ministry of Social Development to prevent and recover debts and to detect with greater ease any fraudulent use of the benefit system. I was interested to read that $29.4 million was overpaid in 2005-06 to people in the benefit system. Every party in this House would definitely support the notion that people should receive their full and correct entitlements, and they would also support attempts to assist with the recovery of any Crown debts in this area.

All members in this House want action, and they have said so at the select committee and during the business of the House. We all know that debts that are left to increase in this situation become unmanageable in a very, very short time, particularly when people are on a limited income. Of course, overpayments always mean that a repayment is necessary. That in itself can be extremely stressful for the people who are involved, and action does need to be taken. We do not want these people getting caught up with loan sharks.

In New Zealand First we believe that the social benefits of this bill are very great. We do not want beneficiaries to have debts. It is difficult enough to make a benefit stretch for the basics that people need, and for them to have to pay it back at $10 or $15 each time is an added stress in life.

I was very pleased to read that section 103(1) of the Privacy Act requires agencies to send a notice of action to individuals before any adverse action is taken, and that 10 days pass before payment ceases. This should give the affected people time to respond to the letter in the case of a mistaken identity, because we do know that that can happen. It is absolutely essential that operational practices are put in place to minimise the occurrence of incorrect matches, and to put mistakes right in an expedient and fair manner when an incorrect match occurs. When loopholes are identified in the current system they need to be fixed, and they need to be fixed rapidly.

Although these matching provisions are a major departure from the system that has been operating in the past, New Zealand First believes that this bill is a very positive step forward. It is hoped that planning is under way for the resources that are required if this change is to be successful, and we all want it to be successful. Although we are aware that the majority of the proposed changes extend the use of the information already transferred as part of the matches to enable it to be used for other purposes, the resources must be in place, and here we are looking at personal information and a very sound computer system.

New Zealand First supports this bill. We look forward to the select committee report back, and we want to eliminate the chances of this very vulnerable group having avoidable debt that has not been incurred through any fault of their own.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. In my electorate of Tamaki Makaurau, moneylenders have become as much a part of the environment as the old kai cart in Ruatōria or the big carrot in Ōhākune. The promises of easy finance, flexible mortgages, and ready money are on the lips of money-pushers preying on the good people of Hunters Corner, of Māngere, of Ōtara, and of Manukau. These so-called loan sharks offer extraordinarily high interest rates, commonly around 30 percent, plus all the additional fees on items such as cars and appliances.

Predominantly, the people who are preyed upon by what John Minto has termed the “parasites of poverty” are Māori and Pacific Island people. The Ministry of Social Development’s living standards survey found that 20.6 percent of Māori families were likely to have fallen behind with hire purchase, credit card, or store payments. It is a big difference from the 8.7 percent of European families in the same position. Debts on cars, furniture, and appliances now comprise the biggest amounts of debts accumulated, accounting for some 38 percent of all arrears owed by clients of the Federation of Family Budgeting Services last year. The debt levels are even higher for Pasifika. In 2000, 24 percent of Pasifika people, 16 percent of Māori people, and a mere 5 percent of Pākehā had fallen into arrears with rent and mortgage payments.

But this Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill is not about families who have plunged into debt. This bill is not concerned with financial pain and the widening disparities between the different sectors in our society. This bill is about a Government agency, the Ministry of Social Development, which has an estimated actual forecast for 2006-07 of $1,124,430,000. The bill is to enable this agency to recover debts by targeting the vulnerable, specifically the prisoner population. It is a population of which the great majority, 60 percent, of all inmates are either Māori or Pasifika.

As well as focusing on jails, the bill also makes a target of the student allowance and student loan systems by broadening data-matching provisions. Again, this is an area where Māori are overrepresented in the debt ledger. Māori are more likely to have an outstanding student loan; the figure is some 26.6 percent against 18.8 percent of Europeans.

The final focus area is to enable officials to better detect the misuse of social security payments. In this respect, it is a case of “Play it again, Sam.” We have been down this road before, with the Housing, Restructuring and Tenancy Matters (Information Matching) Amendment Bill, which made similar proposals for Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants. That bill unashamedly targeted a particular population—the population of beneficiaries—and attacked their rights.

So rather than respond to the desperate situations that are being increasingly experienced by poor families in large households, this bill sets off another process. It is a process to undermine the stability of beneficiary households by increasing surveillance and information-matching processes. We have enough evidence in front of us to know that low-income families are becoming more and more vulnerable as their bills for essential services such as water, power, and transport rise, yet total gross family incomes are stagnant.

One of the key areas for the Māori Party is all about the priorities that our Parliament considers most worthy of attention. The Social Services Committee estimates revealed that in the year to April 2005, benefit fraud was detected in 68,000 cases, amounting to $36 million in non - data-matching activities, mainly from the benefit control programme. The estimates also reported an additional 50,000 cases amounting to $24 million from the data-matching programme. In essence, then, information matching within the Ministry of Social Development could already be seen to be very effective. A massive $29.4 million has already been established from overpayments as a result of these matches in 2005-06.

Let us be clear: the Māori Party is happy to support any proposals that aim to improve the efficiency and the efficacy of the administrative systems operating within Government agencies, but our overriding concern with this bill is to ask whether we have our priorities sorted out. What will be the long-term impact of targeting prisoners, students, and beneficiaries? Will it produce fewer or more victims, fewer or more offenders? Will it enhance general societal well-being and the health of the community? Or is this another case of the Government bringing in an unseemly and hasty patch-up of a problem while under political pressure to be seen to be doing something, which, in effect, perpetuates a perception that certain groups of the population are worthy of being snooped on?

We remind the House of the irony that the key department to be snooped on, the Department of Corrections, was painted out with a new name last year: Ara Poutama Aotearoa, which the department translated as being “Towards Wellness and Wellbeing”. How will wellness be attained by introducing new techniques to encourage the disclosure of prisoner information in order to ensure that prisoners are not receiving benefits or student allowances while in jail, or to enable debt recovery? What risk is there that escalating levels of surveillance and monitoring will compromise the basic human rights of prisoners? Although we are pleased to see the commitment that the Ministry of Justice will work with the Ministry of Social Development to resolve any associated human rights concerns, we wonder whether adequate attention has been given to privacy concerns in the first instance.

I think the prevailing concern for the Māori Party is about the type of society we are creating if we persist with the new measures to increase surveillance rather than trust, and with the new proposals to up the monitoring regime rather than to encourage behaviour or attitudinal change. We need to ask ourselves what the future is for prisoners, students, and beneficiaries. What will they become, and what might we become, as a result of the actions we are imposing on them today?

We know that the snooping culture has become a looming presence over our lives, alongside the political agenda of getting tough on crime, come what may. We believe that the ideal of a fair and just community is a far more appropriate focus to advocate for. We want to see the operations of our welfare system and the functioning of our justice system reflect the set of values and processes that lead to social harmony.

As part of that we believe that there are important ways in which institutions can help to encourage families and communities to assume responsibility for the well-being of their members without using the crackdown, punitive, hard stick approach. We believe that all inmates are entitled to receive custodial services in a safe, secure, humane, and effective manner, and that human rights for all New Zealanders are worth fighting for. It is because of these values that we stand to oppose this bill. Kia ora.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) : I rise to speak in the first reading of the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill. This bill addresses the prevention, detection, and recovery of debts and the misuse of social security, student allowances, and the student loan system.

It seeks to improve and broaden data-matching provisions. Earlier we heard from Mr Fairbrother, who talked all the time about tracking and the computer system we have in place to do this. This computer system has been in place for a long, long time. It has actually been matching data, not tracking data. There is quite a big difference. If we want to track people, then we will have to chip them. But we are not; we are only matching the data between two different systems—two different departments. That is actually what this bill is all about. If the Government wants to track people, that is all good and well, but that is not what this bill is about. Otherwise we would be putting little tags on everybody, or even in their little smart cards, so we could track them. This bill is not about tracking; it is about data matching.

There are two parts to this Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill. The first part amends the Corrections Act 2004 for the facilitation of disclosure of prisoner information to ensure that a benefit is not payable during imprisonment or detention in prison. We know that benefits are paid to prisoners. The system that the Government has in place at the moment is that someone goes into prison and says to prisoners: “Would you like to volunteer the information that you are on a benefit?”. And the prisoners say no. Of course, the agencies are not told that prisoners are now in prison, so they are still paying out benefits. So what happens? This voluntary system that is in place—which has been in place for a long period of time now—just simply does not work. Hopefully, this bill will close that gap just a little bit more.

Another of the functions of the facilitation of disclosure of prisoner information is to provide for recovery of debts due to the Crown. These are debts that mount up time after time as beneficiaries obtain more money more easily for things like washing machines and dryers. These are all very good things, but they are things that a lot of us save to get to begin with. They are not just given to us, and those debts are not then eventually just written off.

The facilitation of the disclosure of prisoner information is also to allow recovery of debts in respect of the payment of allowances, student loans, or other money to which people are no longer entitled. When a prisoner walks into the prison and is asked: “Would you like to voluntarily tell student allowances that as you are in prison, you are no longer entitled to an allowance?”, the answer is, of course, no. These individuals keep on getting paid, and, of course, these debts just keep on increasing. The bill also provides that students imprisoned or detained in prison are not entitled to receive any payment under those regulations.

Part 1 will also allow benefits, allowances, and student loans to be able “to be suspended, despite section 103(1) of the Privacy Act 1993, immediately a relevant discrepancy arises or is identified …”. This is probably the most controversial and important part of this bill, as it is where we start tampering with the Privacy Act. What happens now is that when people go into prison their data is matched in the prison system, for example. Three months ago it was once a week that this data would be matched. When a person went into prison, that person would not voluntarily want to say that he or she was now a prisoner, because that person’s benefit would be cut. It would then take another week for the corrections system and the relevant department to match the data to say that all of a sudden that person was a prisoner, so he or she was no longer entitled to a benefit. What the departments were not allowed to do was to cut a person’s benefit off straight away. They had to give a person 10 days’ notice that he or she had been matched and would lose that benefit. That would mean that that person would have his or her benefit paid not only in that 1 week in which he or she had not disclosed the information but also for another 10 days, because the department would have to wait in case that person wanted to appeal the matching process. So it might not have been 2 weeks; it might have been 3 weeks. If a person appealed the result, it could be a lot longer.

This amendment also authorises the disclosure of prisoner information for social security purposes. That is basically Part 1 of the bill.

Let us go on to Part 2. Part 2 addresses the amendments to the Customs and Excise Act 1996.

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

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : The Green Party will be supporting the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill through its first reading and its referral to the select committee. But I would like to make it clear that we reserve our position on subsequent votes, as we do have some reservations about certain implications of the bill.

The overall purpose of the bill as presented here is laudable. People should not be paid assistance that they are not entitled to receive and subsequently end up heavily in debt to Work and Income. A lot of so-called benefit fraud in the past has, in fact, happened as a result of Work and Income—in its previous incarnations, as well—overpaying people when their life situation changed, thereby creating debts and overpayments through no fault of the beneficiary. It is in no one’s best interests, least of all the interests of newly released prisoners, to end up with a substantial overpayment debt. The Green Party also understands that the Ministry of Social Development should be able to locate debtors readily, in order to facilitate repayment arrangements.

However, we do have some concerns about this bill that we would like to see addressed during the consideration process at the select committee. Payment of a welfare benefit while someone is in prison is, in some circumstances, discretionary under section 76 of the Social Security Act 1964. Immediate suspension of a benefit, as laid out in this bill, will unreasonably negate or fetter the exercise of that discretion. Safeguards need to be included in the bill to ensure that this discretion is properly exercised as soon as is practicable after a benefit is suspended because the beneficiary has been imprisoned.

A secondary concern is that the bill confers powers and obligations on the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development by way of amendments to the Corrections Act, which is not an Act that that chief executive officer is responsible for administering. Amendments in that regard to the Social Security Act and the Student Allowances Regulations 1998 would actually be more appropriate.

I would also like to note that although this Government, like its predecessor, is always quick to bring in laws that tighten up the administration of the benefit system, it is not always as easy to see related activity happen on the ground that takes into account the side effects of new legislation and regulation and the impact that that has on the lives of beneficiaries and their families. In this case I am referring to the situation of beneficiaries who are supporting a family and who find themselves in prison. If their benefit is to be cut off immediately, as this bill provides for, then I would hope that Work and Income and the corrections authorities will work closely together, as quickly as possible and in every prison in the country, to ensure that the adults and children left behind receive their full and correct entitlements in their own right, should they have entitlements—which is very likely in the circumstances—rather than leaving them destitute, even for a short period. Often the sorts of things that happen in difficult circumstances like those are too quickly seen by the State as deliberate malfeasances, when in fact all that is happening is that desperate people are struggling to survive as best they can.

I look forward to hearing some assurances from Work and Income during our work on this bill that no family of a prisoner will suffer unnecessarily or incorrectly, in terms of the social welfare regulations, as a result of this legislation, and that safeguards will be maintained to ensure that in some applicable circumstances discretion is properly exercised as per the existing law.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I stand on behalf of United Future to speak to the first reading of the Social Assistance (Debt Prevention and Minimisation) Amendment Bill. United Future will be supporting the first reading, but as in the case of the previous speaker there are a couple of areas where we will be keen to hear more detail and to hear what submitters say. I have just been checking through the Bills Digest that came into my office today. It describes the current situation and what happens under the current legislation. When the agencies identify that somebody is in prison, they have to give notification in writing that the benefit will stop. That gives the beneficiary the opportunity to confirm the position, or to deny it if he or she feels there has been an information mismatch, before payments cease.

We support the intention of the bill, because when people unnecessarily get into debt with a Government department that is an unhelpful outcome. But I do have a concern about the fact that many times a beneficiary is not the sole person who is dependent on that income. Beneficiaries may have partners and families who are reliant on it. If this measure becomes a blunt instrument, where gaps are created by a benefit being stopped due to incarceration but nothing is done in a timely way to remedy that for the rest of the family that has been relying on that income, then United Future would have problems with that. So we want to hear some information about how the family that is reliant on that benefit will be redirected before their income is cut off. Who makes an approach to the family to let them know that they need to reapply? Are there any time delays that could happen?

I am comforted, though, by several things that I have read in the commentary on the bill. I am comforted by the thought that the intention is to minimise any detrimental effects and to mitigate any negative impacts. However, even mitigation is weak if a person has gone through a period of time when he or she was in desperate straits, had no income, and had children around the table to feed on a particular night. The fact that 3 weeks later the department may say: “Oops”, and give that person a back payment does not solve the problem that existed right then. I think that is the kind of area where United Future will be really keen to ensure that what is proposed here is advantageous to everybody concerned.

Our concern is about people who could be unintentionally detrimentally affected by this proposal and we want to be assured that they have been identified and catered for. It is not the matching of information between Work and Income and other agencies about a person being in prison that is the problem. The issue is whether any efforts are then put in, before the benefit is cut off, to determine who else was reliant on that income, and to take appropriate steps to make sure that those people are catered for and there is not an untimely gap between one benefit stopping and another one kicking in.

The other issue I want to signal, which is one that comes up quite a lot in amendments at present, is the increasing ability of Government departments to match information. We do have to keep a watchful eye to make sure that this is not a horse that bolts on us. I am interested to hear what people like the Privacy Commissioner have to say about this kind of thing.

I think a previous speaker mentioned that quite often people with debt have got into debt because of an overpayment and the inability of departments to respond quickly to people’s changing circumstances. I just want to make sure the bill has been well-thought-through, and that families who have been reliant on the income from a benefit do not suddenly find themselves cut off at the knees and having to go to Work and Income with their hat out, asking for a temporary benefit. If members know anything about how that situation plays itself out, they will understand that when mum goes in and says the family does not have any income, during the time that it is all worked out sometimes they get irregular amounts of money. That income very rarely covers the basic needs of the family over the week. It can be a pretty traumatic time and can put a lot of pressure on people who, I imagine, if they have just had a family member go into prison, are already under severe stress.

So we support the intention of the bill, but we just want to make sure that it is very clear that those other consequences have been catered for and considered, and that there are mechanisms in place to make sure that any harm to families is minimised.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation), on behalf of the Minister for Land Information: I move, That the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill be considered by the Government Administration Committee. It is with great pleasure that I introduce this bill, which repeals and replaces the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 1946. The 1946 Act has guided the official naming of New Zealand’s geographic features for more than half a century, but it now needs to be modernised. The bill before the House today is the result of a comprehensive review and consultation process involving public, iwi, local government, and sectoral groups. The result is legislation that provides a sound framework for New Zealand’s official geographic naming needs into the 21st century. It will also help to ensure that place naming will reflect who we are as a nation.

In my ministerial role as decision maker in some place-naming submissions that the New Zealand Geographic Board deals with, I know that official naming of geographic features is important and taken very seriously by communities. The names of places that we know and identify with, such as mountains and rivers, as well as settlements and localities, reflect in a very real way our culture and shared heritage as New Zealanders. Knowing the correct names for places and their location is also important for people in all manner of everyday communications and activities, for businesses and their transactions, and for emergency services in responding to incidents.

This bill provides for the continuation of the New Zealand Geographic Board and its important place-naming work. The bill also extends the board’s jurisdiction, in particular to include the naming of undersea features within New Zealand’s continental shelf. It recognises the Crown responsibility in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi in the context of official geographic names, it refines public consultation processes for proposed names, it enables the public to have access to a record of official geographic names, it ensures board membership better represents a wider range of constituents and additional board responsibilities, and it provides for more transparent board accountability.

Extending the board’s place-naming jurisdiction to include New Zealand’s legal continental shelf is a significant step. New Zealand’s total continental shelf is up to four times that of the land. This area is of high strategic importance for New Zealand, and it is now the subject of increasing research and exploration activity. Right now the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf is considering New Zealand’s continental shelf boundary submissions, which encompass the approximately 1.7 million square kilometres of continental shelf outside our exclusive economic zone. The Geographic Board’s role in naming features of the continental shelf will play a part in New Zealand’s effective management of the undersea resources within our area. Extending the board’s jurisdiction to include the continental shelf is also consistent with the Government’s Ocean Survey 20/20 initiative, which is a coordinated work programme of projects that will contribute to the knowledge base of ocean and sea floor information over the next 10 to 15 years.

Another aspect of the bill is that it formalises the board’s Antarctic geographic naming activities, which are not provided for under the existing Act. The bill’s provisions recognise the Crown’s responsibility in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi, in particular with respect to the collection and use of original Māori names of geographic features on official maps and charts. In this context it is useful to acknowledge the valuable role that the Geographic Board plays in providing advice on proposed cultural redress for Treaty claim settlements where place names are involved—an example being the now official dual name of Aoraki / Mount Cook.

The Geographic Board’s current responsibility for assigning or altering the official names of suburbs and localities is continued under the bill. However, this function will be devolved to territorial authorities in the future through subsequent legislation. This devolution, agreed to by Cabinet and supported by local government, will include a naming code of practice, with the Geographic Board retaining concurrence in the process. The bill provides for a similar concurrence role for the board and for public consultation where names for Crown-protected areas are proposed under legislation administered by the Department of Conservation.

The bill will ensure that the public has access to a record of all official geographic names, and it will require documents to use official geographic names where they exist. The bill will also give the board discretion to determine effective consultation time periods and the best means of publishing final name decisions, thus relaxing what have proven to be overly prescriptive public consultation requirements in the current legislation.

Two new board members are provided for under the bill. The first new member is needed because of the significant extension of the board’s functions to include undersea feature naming within the continental shelf. The second new member is from the local government sector and is needed particularly because of the importance of official suburb and locality naming for standardised address information across our country. Accountability provisions relating to the Geographic Board are enhanced under the bill by the requirement to submit an annual report to the Minister on the board’s performance. The bill will now also be subject to the Ombudsmen Act of 1975.

This legislation provides a sound framework for New Zealand’s official geographic naming needs in the 21st century. It ensures that place naming reflects who we are as a nation. I commend the bill to the House.

MARK BLUMSKY (National) : It is nice to have the opportunity to speak on what I now understand to be incredibly important legislation. I did not realise just how important it was until I heard the Minister build it up. I would have to suggest that my colleagues and myself on this side of the House believe that this is a little bit of padding in the House, to be perfectly honest, and maybe a Statutes Amendment Bill would have been appropriate for legislation of this type, because when one reads through the context of the bill it really is just an administration bill to a large extent. But anyway we are supporting it tonight and I am very comfortable speaking on behalf of my colleagues in that vein.

I have to suggest to members that the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill is very interesting. I did not know we had a New Zealand Geographic Board, and I did my usual test of just how aware the public is of it. At the gym this morning I asked Rachel and the other gym members there whether they had heard of the New Zealand Geographic Board, and like myself there is a very large public unawareness of this organisation, if I can be so bold.

It is one of those organisations that sits a little bit under the radar, and I did a little bit of research this afternoon. The board has met eight times in the last 3 years, so I suggest to members that it is not the most incredibly busy board that we have within the list of boards that operate in New Zealand. It is interesting, though, because I have learnt how we name things or how various landscapes or whatever get named. I was not aware of that. In fact, the history as outlined in the bill is interesting. It talks about the fact that the Governor-General, in 1894, had the right to assign or alter place names. Then, of course, there was the 1946 Act, which the Minister referred to in his speech, that took over that right and gave it to the New Zealand Geographic Board. We now obviously have a guardian of names.

The board undertakes to assign place names, and I thought that that was more than appropriate. I also found very interesting the fact that if one of us wants to be remembered by a place name, and to have a name allocated, we have to be dead. I thought that that was rather sad. But I was reflecting on what potential names the New Zealand Geographic Board could actually assign over the next little while, and I noticed that it has the right to assign names to waterfalls. It occurred to me that we have the Huka Falls, but one day we might have the “Benson-Pope Falls”. I thought that was a very appropriate dissertation, if you like, on his legacy to New Zealand. Then I thought that if we had any cliffs, like the White Cliffs of Dover, we could well end up with the “Cullen Cliffs”, because I suggest that very many times he must feel like jumping off those cliffs—

Pansy Wong: Or be pushed.

MARK BLUMSKY: —or he might be pushed by members of his caucus, for sure. I am quite encouraged, I tell the Minister, by where this bill is going. The bill talks about the current responsibilities of the board, but it also talks about the fact that one day this naming function will be devolved to local government.

I think that the select committee process will be a good opportunity for the local government sector to become involved in where this bill goes. Local government should become involved, because this is another piece of legislation that has the risk of adding to its workload. It is another piece of legislation from this Government that could add to the financial costs of local government, which would therefore carry those costs on to the ratepayer. I think it is important that local government does get involved in the bill at this stage, because there is an impact on what it will be doing as per its role, over time. So local government should be consulted, and needs to be consulted. I hope that local government is involved, and has it made very clear what its responsibilities are and what the costs of those responsibilities will be.

The local government sector will have to be careful, though, I would suggest, because when it does take over the naming of locations, suburbs, or landscapes, I can assure members, from history, that that is a very fraught area in local government. The community can become very, very divided over what something is named. For example, a battle is occurring right now at Rotoiti, in Nelson, because there is a settlement there called St Arnaud but people are looking to change that name to Rotoiti. The community is very divided as to where they should go with that name change. So it is no easy task, when we want to pass this type of role on to those in local government, and it is with care and a warning that I suggest local government looks at where this bill will take it when those functions are devolved.

In summary, National is supportive of this bill. We believe that it is a padding of the programme in the House and does not actually warrant the status of being a bill in its own right. But we understand the need to update the 1946 Act and we support that. However, we send a message to local government that it should become involved early, because yet another example is being shown by this Government of how it wants to pass the roles it has had on to local government and, as I have said, the sector then has to debate whether there is a cost involved. This side of the House supports the bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

DIANNE YATES (Labour) : I rise to speak to the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. It is very interesting that this bill replaces an Act that goes back to 1946. This bill is about the naming of names, and I think that that is very, very important. Most times when I come down to Parliament we fly around New Plymouth and we fly past Mount Taranaki. I notice that from time to time pilots talk about Mount Egmont, and I think “Taranaki”. Where is this name from, how did it change, how does this process of change go, how are names registered, and how do we come to use names?

I note tonight, Mr Assistant Speaker, that you have been very careful in your use of Māori language and Māori names. We have just had Maori Language Week, and I must commend Radio New Zealand also on its use of Māori language in Māori Language Week, and I note that it is continuing that use.

It is very important to New Zealand that, as this bill says, we name names in New Zealand to indicate what places are about. This bill is not coming before my select committee, but I note that in my select committee we had a bill called the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Bill where we dealt with where wines come from, what wines are named, and how they are named in terms of export, and so on. Our names in New Zealand are very, very important. It is important that we get them right, it is important that there is a process, and it is important that there is public consultation.

This bill does three things, in that it repeals and replaces the old Geographic Board, it extends the board’s jurisdiction, as we have said, to New Zealand’s continental shelf, and it recognises the Treaty of Waitangi responsibility in the context of official geographical names. What is in a name? Everything is in a name, and the names we use for things are extremely important, as is the effort we go to in New Zealand to get things right. I have noticed recently that new schools in my area have been named, and people have gone to a great deal of trouble to do research on the area that the school services, and on who owned the land previously and what the names were. People have gone to a great deal of trouble, not only in the naming of the name but in following up on the tradition of that name, so that it carries on in the name of the school, the name of the place, or the name of the street, and so on.

I note, as we have said, that the bill will help to ensure that place naming will reflect who we are as a nation. I remember going on a trip to the Pacific where somebody asked me what a tui was—what was the meaning of that New Zealand word “tui”? I explained that it was a bird, and the questioner said that that was interesting because he had just bought a piece of land and had dug up a whole lot of tins that all had the word “Tui” on them. He was quite impressed that the tui was not just a can of beer but also the name of a bird. That piece of land—I think it was in Vanuatu—was then going to be called “Tui” and the farm was going to be called “Tui”. The tradition had been carried on from soldiers who were there during World War II. So traditions do carry on. We can look around the walls of this House and see place names, and they are place names that are very significant to New Zealanders.

It is important that we have a geographic board, and that the naming of names occurs in the way the bill intends. As we have said, the bill extends the board’s jurisdiction to cover the continental shelf, and it recognises responsibility in relation to the Treaty.

The bill also mentions—and I am very pleased with this—the public consultation process. That is very important in New Zealand. There have been some tremendous arguments about names of places and about changes in names, and it is very important that we get that sorted out. The bill enables the public to have access to the record of official geographic names. The bill also ensures that board membership gives a better representation of people who are involved in this process. It provides for more transparent board accountability. I think these elements are true of what we are seeing now with legislation. Not only are we feeling proud of New Zealand’s processes in forming legislation but, more and more, we are involving more people and having more public consultation. We are ensuring greater democracy when people are involved in the naming of geographic places.

I note now that some places have dual names, which recognise the official languages of New Zealand. For example, we have Aoraki / Mount Cook. As I mentioned in respect of Taranaki, we have a greater recognition, in many cases, of the original names that were used by people and have significance to the culture and the history of this country.

I thank the Minister and the officials involved for the formulation of this legislation. I am sure that it will be a very interesting process for the select committee to look into the implications of the bill, and I am sure there will be some very interesting submissions on this bill about the history of naming.

In looking at the introductory summary of the bill that I have before me, I see that it refers to Aoraki / Mount Cook. I notice that so often now when we look around the country, we see that things have two names. There is an interesting television ad about who we are, which shows No. 1 bridge, No. 2 bridge, No. 3 bridge, and so on. The ad says that New Zealanders are very economical with names. We are also very concerned to have names that people recognise, names that are significant, and names that recognise who we are and our history. I look forward to the progress of this bill through the House.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : The Green Party will take a very brief call just to say we are pleased also to be supporting the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. It is great that the Government has seen its way clear to update the 1946 Act after 61 years.

We are also pleased to see that a significant part of this upgrading involves a new Māori name for the board and other provisions to recognise the Crown’s responsibility in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi. This is particularly important because so many of us, particularly, of course, tangata whenua, are keen to rediscover, acknowledge, and rename places with the names with which they were originally blessed.

Although this is clearly not the most significant legislation to come before this House in 2007, the board does carry out absolutely necessary functions, and we support its emergence in a new 21st century incarnation.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago) : I rise to speak in favour of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill going to the Government Administration Committee, but I wonder about it, because I have taken a wee bit of time this afternoon to read through this bill—about half an hour. I just wonder whether this bill would not have fitted in nicely to a Statutes Amendment Bill. I reflect on the number of members of Parliament who are sitting in this House this evening, and I wonder whether this is the kind of business that the House should be concerning itself with, in such a solemn nature. It appears to me upon reading this bill that although it is laudable, and I look forward to seeing what the select committee comes up with when it gets to chew it over, I wonder about the Government’s legislative programme when we spend our time debating a bill of this lightness. However, that is possibly for the Government to answer.

The New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill updates the 1946 Act, and we support that. Of course it is terribly important that we have a robust process for naming places we hold dear to our hearts in New Zealand, so we support it from that point of view. But I have a number of questions to raise, and I suspect that the select committee to which this bill passes will discuss a lot of the questions that I and my colleagues have already raised. Mr Blumsky has raised a couple of very important issues to do with this terribly, terribly weighty bill, which I believe could have been dealt with more effectively in a Statutes Amendment Bill.

However, one of the major questions I have about this bill is the proposal to devolve to local authorities, in the future through subsequent legislation, the responsibility for assigning or altering the official names of localities and suburbs. So does that mean there will be another bill all by itself, or will the legislation be tucked into another Statutes Amendment Bill? I just raise that question to be helpful to the Government, whose legislative programme seems to be a bit light. Maybe this is an opportunity for the Government to pop in another little bill, and this might be the way to do it. But what concerns me about devolving part of the responsibility for the naming, assigning, or altering of official names is that the board will retain a concurrent role in that process. Well, shucks, that looks to me like another layer of bureaucracy, and it looks like some more reports and some more joint meetings, and people will have to have lunch and travel. It just looks to me as if this will be a very cumbersome, expensive, and slow process. So I wonder whether the select committee that considers this bill might also consider the wisdom of having a concurrent role in the naming of significant areas for us.

I turn now to the functions of the board. My colleague Mr Blumsky noted how many times the board was to meet per annum. I did not hear the answer; was it four times per annum or two times per annum? Nobody is telling me, so I do not know, but it does not appear to me that the board would meet too often. The questions I would probably have are where would the board meet, and how much would it cost ratepayers—well, it will cost ratepayers, with the devolution of responsibilities to local government—and taxpayers? Will we be paying twice for this?

We see that the functions of the board include signing, approving, altering, or discontinuing the use of official geographic names—that is fine. Clause 10(2) also requires the board to review any proposals that include naming or altering the name of a Crown protected area. So the board does have a function.

Further to that, the board is to administer the Gazetteer and develop policies. That sounds a bit suspect to me, because I thought all the board was to do was to name things, but, no, it will have to develop policies. Of course it will, because if local government is going to be brought into it, then local government will have to bring up a policy under the Local Government Act. We know that. Maybe this issue will be so significant that the board will have to trigger off the requirement to have a special consultative process. So where will the consultation end? Where will the cost end, in the simple naming of a place? I just raise the question, and I am hoping the select committee can do some asking in respect of that. The duties of the board are to develop policies, rules, guidelines, or standards for naming Crown protected areas. For goodness’ sake, this board will sit there hour after hour after hour developing policies in conjunction with local government. I ask how much that will cost, because I believe there is a whole minefield of cost, and talk, talk, talk, within this bill.

I support clause 33 of Part 3, “Miscellaneous provisions”, going to the select committee. Clause 33(1) will allow the board to apply to the High Court for an injunction to prevent the publication of an unofficial name in an official document. That is one of the sensible things I read in this New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill.

Those are about all the comments I have. I have waded through this bill, and I wish I could provide a weighty 10-minute speech, but this is not a weighty bill. I have done my very best to give it the weight it deserves. When the bill goes to the select committee, I will be very interested in the submissions of the local government sector, and I hope the sector’s representatives do not feel the need to travel to Wellington to make a submission on this bill, because I do not believe it is worth the cost of air fares or train fares to do so. I think that written submissions or submissions via videoconferencing could pretty much cover the making of submissions, although that is up to individual councils.

I have another small concern about devolution to local authorities—that is, when a decision like this gets too small, then feelings grow. When we have a small community with one family here and another family there, and then suggest a name using that of a third family or something like that, then maybe decision making in a little wider sphere could be helpful.

Finally, to end my weighty speech on this weighty bill—

Russell Fairbrother: Good!

JACQUI DEAN: I know that Government members have enjoyed it, because they have just said so. I thank them for their encouragement.

I note that Bridges 1, 2, and 3 are on the magnificent Lindis Pass. I also note that one of the nicest names we have in New Zealand is the Pigroot. One might think that the Pigroot would be pronounced the “Pig Route” but it is the Pigroot, and it is accompanied by Pigroot Creek. If that does not say “New Zealand, South Island”, I do not know what does. I thank the House for the opportunity to give a weighty speech on this weighty bill.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. The great Te Arawa thinker Socrates gave us a lead in understanding the importance of naming rights and the powers and duties of naming. He said: “Regard your good name as the richest jewel you can possibly be possessed of—for credit is like fire; when once you have kindled it you may easily preserve it, but if you once extinguish it, you will find it an arduous task to rekindle it again.” That was Socrates from Te Arawa.

The focus of this bill in clarifying the procedures for Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa around approving geographic names has everything to do with retaining the value of names as the richest jewels in our cultural heritage. The Māori Party is very pleased to support the development of rules, protocols, and guidelines to ensure a systematic and standardised approach to the official naming of geographic features. The power to name is linked to the distinct languages, to mita, stories, ancestral memories, and tribal heritage of tangata whenua. Naming our places, our landscapes, the reserves, the parks, the streets, the cities, the towns, is therefore very important to Māori. And within this, we believe it is vital to foster community respect and understanding for the vital contribution that indigenous peoples can make about the significance of land and the duty to care.

Our attachment to places is far more than physical. Describing and naming our landscape are significant in connecting with our emotional, spiritual, and cultural heritage. I give as a example one place in my electorate of Waiariki—the town of Tūrangi. It takes its name from the rangatira Tūrangitukua, who is central in the history and ongoing life of Ngāti Tūwharetoa. The people of Hīrangi Marae in Tūrangi reference themselves to Tūrangitukua as guardian of Rongomai, of the Tongariro River, at the head of Lake Taupō. The name, Tūrangi, therefore links between the past and the present—references back to tupuna and the whakapapa that is vital to the people.

The names we use and promote colour the way we perceive them. Those in a position to name, hold the power to also shape the perceptions we hold of places. In this light, I am so pleased to see that the title clause permits this bill to be known either by the English title, the New Zealand Geographic Board Bill, or its Māori title, Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa Bill.

We know in Aotearoa that the process of colonisation has often brought with it a renaming of much of our land, resulting in particular histories being shared, and others being marginalised. We need only look at the recent history—early last year in fact, for my colleague Tariana Turia—to see the extent of this alienation. The name of their awa, their iwi, their rohe, suddenly lost a letter—the infamous letter “h”. To add insult to injury, the mayor of that city, Michael Laws, sent out a directive telling organisations who spell the name as “wh” to now reconsider their position or justify it to the community. His position was to rename the town with the made-up word, Wanganui, without the “h”.

Whanganui iwi lobbied the Wanganui District Council to include the “h” in the name, telling the council it was meaningless without it. They went so far as to lay a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, advising the commission that it is a fundamental human right to ensure that the integrity of the language is upheld. I give this example today, because I believe it is critical that in the debate around naming rights, we consider the relationship between Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa and the local authorities. Although the board will apparently retain the responsibility for official naming of localities and suburbs, it is suggested that this will be devolved to local authorities in the future through subsequent legislation. If the experience of the Whanganui district council teaches us anything, it is that the value of mana tupuna, of naming rights, is not being consistently honoured at all by this local council.

The importance of process, of respecting the authority required to alter or assign place names is, however, demonstrated in another instance that I want to share with the House. This is the experience of July 2005 when the New Zealand Geographic Board recommended to correct the spelling of Mount Parahaki, in Whangarei, to be Mount Parihaka. The local iwi brought forward their expert advice—that Mount Parihaka is the original Māori name of this landmark. Objections were received. The board considered submissions, made its own investigations, and, in due course, advised the Minister accordingly.

As this House will be aware, the board acts in an advisory capacity where it receives objections to a name proposal and sends a recommendation to the Minister for a final decision. In this case, the luck was all good. The iwi were lucky, in that the Minister for Land Information at the time was the Hon Pete Hodgson, who had grown up in Whangarei, and therefore had a personal association with the importance of this landmark. Due process was therefore followed; the decision was formalised; the new old name was published in the New Zealand Gazette; and the world in Whangarei still goes on. That was a good process. The power to name, the power to claim as put forward by mana whenua, was supported by the Crown. It gives a very good precedent to future functions and responsibilities for the board.

The people who first put names on the map in this country were not linguists. They were not aware of the importance of paying careful attention to the subtleties of pronunciation. They were generally Europeans—surveyors and explorers who would travel through the land and write up the names that they “thought” they heard. In this respect, although we understand how mistakes come about, it does not, however, detract from the importance of getting it right now, to ensure that the geographic features, the Crown protected areas, and the landscapes of Aotearoa are respected and consistent with the original names attributed to this place.

I can perhaps illustrate the importance of naming within kaupapa Māori. Our identity as tangata whenua is based upon our ancestral waka, our physical landmarks such as maunga and awa—a body of water, a river, the moana—the sea; and a significant tupuna, our ancestors. In this way, the names we know of our places are not just neutral markers of the geography. They are our very identity and culture of our people and our communities. To make mistakes with spelling is therefore far more serious than a typing error. All of this explains the need for ongoing and meaningful consultation with Māori to guide the board’s jurisdiction across territorial authorities, across protected areas, across rohe.

Finally, I refer to a quote by the Tūhoe identity Tame Iti in 2005. When he talked about the silencing and denial of the use of Māori language in post-colonial Aotearoa, he had this to say: “If you can imagine yourself in a room, and you are the blackbird and then the other blackbird decided that nobody is allowed to sing like a blackbird, it’s all the seagull language.” So members can imagine that there is going to be resistance.

This bill, in establishing and supporting Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa, is a way of ensuring that both blackbirds and seagulls can sing together, and that there is policy in place that invests in the value of names as the richest jewel in our cultural heritage. The Māori Party is therefore happy to support this bill. Kia ora tātou.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) : National will be supporting this bill. We do have some questions, however, as to why we are debating it now. The principal Act has been around since 1946, so 61 years later it is to be amended. When I look at the progress of this bill, I see the first genesis of a review was done in the release by the Government of a discussion paper in October 2003 and here we are, 4 years later, now looking at a bill that changes names and gives further powers. One would have thought, however, that because this is really not such important legislation as to need to take up the House’s time, it could be covered in a Statutes Amendment Bill. In Statutes Amendment Bills we have a number of bills that we think can be passed, and if all parties agree then the bills proceed on that basis. The measures in this bill could have been covered by a Statutes Amendment Bill.

But when I look at the Order Paper I can understand why the Government has brought this bill forward, because the Order Paper is very, very light. Out of the 26 bills on the Order Paper today, 12 are second readings, five are at the Committee stage, and four are third readings, so it is not going to take very long for the Order Paper to become depleted. Tonight the Government is moving in this bill to take up the House’s time; otherwise it will find that its legislative programme will be very, very much reduced.

Since 1946, when the principal Act was passed, there have been significant changes to geographic names. Their importance has increased for local, national, and international purposes, so this bill is required. The question National asks is, why? Why do we need a bill, when names have been changed over many, many years? I remember that my mother, who was born at Egmont Village, always referred to the mountain as Mount Egmont. Although she has passed on now, she always referred to it as Mount Egmont, even though it is known as Mount Taranaki. There will always be people in local areas who see their local landscapes, the geographic features, and refer to them by the names they had when they were brought up.

The bill provides for a number of new functions to be carried out, including new administrative functions, and the territorial authorities will be involved in those. The question that needs to be asked—and certainly other speakers on the National side of the House have asked this—is, what will be the compliance costs associated with implementing this new legislation?

I note that Māori place names are significant in maintaining, and certainly promoting, our culture and heritage. From a tourism perspective, they are one of the advantages that make New Zealand uniquely different from other places in the world. The Associate Minister of Tourism well knows that visitors to New Zealand can climb mountains, go bungy jumping, and ski anywhere in the world, but what they cannot do elsewhere is to experience Māori culture. That is significant, and we support the legislation along those lines.

I had reason to visit a town in northern France—Arras—which members may have heard of. During the First World War there was an underground city where the citizens of that city were able to go. It had a 700-bed hospital. I have been fortunate enough to go through those caves. They have been there for centuries, but the New Zealand tunnelling company was very much involved at the time in making the place safe for citizens to shelter in during the war. I mention that because each of the street names that came off the main thoroughfare was the name of a New Zealand town. The names were those of towns of significant New Zealand importance, and many of those names were Māori.

I note that clause 8 is an important clause. Although the board will have the powers and functions, along with the territorial authorities, to name certain places—including places on the continental shelf and the Ross Dependency—one thing the board will not be able to do is to alter the name of New Zealand. That is certainly reassuring.

Clauses 16 to 21 concern the process for the approval of names, and clauses 22 and 23 look specifically at the names of local authorities, districts and regions. I mentioned before that the compliance costs need to be looked at closely. When this bill goes to a select committee, no doubt those sorts of issues will be raised at that time. I also note another point that, no doubt, will come out in the select committee. In clauses 27 to 29, where the board cannot agree on a name when the matter has been referred to the board for review in accordance with the policies, then the issue comes to the Minister of Conservation for final determination. No doubt a question will be asked as to how that process will work.

Finally, it is important that clause 33, as Jacqui Dean identified in her address, allows the board or any person to apply to the High Court for an injunction to prevent the publication of an unofficial name in an official document. That safeguards our heritage; it safeguards the important landscapes and names within New Zealand.

Although National does not think this bill is as important as other bills, it is certainly one that National will be supporting.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : It speaks volumes about the death throes of the Government that, here we are, we have the highest interest rates in the Western World, each week 760 New Zealanders are getting on a plane to leave the country, old people in pain are sitting in hospital emergency departments for 3 days waiting to get a hip operation, we have an export industry on its knees with a record high dollar, one in four New Zealanders is leaving school unable to read and write, and what is on the Government’s legislative programme for our House of Representatives? It is the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Amendment Bill.

I suggest this is hardly the issue on the minds of New Zealanders that they are wanting this Parliament of ours to address. We are going to be making some very minor tinkering changes. The New Zealand Geographic Board—wait for it—is going to be able to assign names for areas in relation to the continental shelf. I am sure that has people excited out there in Kiwi country. I am sure that is the issue on their minds that they want Parliament to be addressing. But even with this bill, it is a botch-up. Let me tell members why.

Back in October 2003 a discussion paper was put out—and the discussion paper shows just how slowly the wheels of Government spin—about how we might name places in New Zealand. The core issue was whether the decision should be made by the local council or by the Geographic Board. Well, listen to this from the explanatory note. It states that the function of assigning names to localities and suburbs “will be devolved to local authorities in the future through subsequent legislation and consequential amendment.”

Bob Clarkson: What the hell does that mean?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It means: “We haven’t decided.” Three years ago we had a review to decide whether the decision-making power over the names of places should be made by the local council or the board—quite a reasonable thing to be debating—and the Government has introduced a bill that says the Government has not made its mind up yet and it will do that in the future. I have to say that that is hopeless. The Geographic Board has been in place since 1946. There is no great urgency for the House to address the very minor issues covered in this bill. Why can the Government not do the job properly, make a decision about whether our local councils will have this function, and then introduce a bill? Would that not be a pretty logical way to go about it?

Bob Clarkson: That’s common sense.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My good friend and colleague Bob Clarkson says it is common sense. Well, we do not get much of that from the Government. We will put a select committee to all the work of hearing submissions. We will advertise up and down New Zealand, and the very issue that people want to debate is whether the councils or the Geographic Board should decide, but they cannot do that because the Government decided that that issue will be dealt with in a consequential amendment.

I simply say to the Government that it should do the job once and do it properly. But the truth is that the Government’s legislative programme is so weak and so light, and it is so bereft of ideas about where it may take New Zealand, that it brings half-baked, stupid ideas like this bill to the House simply to use up time. Members on the National side of the House simply say that is not good enough. We say that if the Government wants to bring in a bill, it should resolve the issue as to what the approach and role of local authorities will be, include that in the bill, and let the House do the job once and let it do it properly.

The National Party is saying the House should not be wasting its time on such minor bills. As my colleague Lindsay Tisch said, this is the sort of minor tinkering that should be dealt with in a Statutes Amendment Bill. There are many important issues facing our nation—everything from the quality of our education system, fixing up the mess in the health system, dealing with the crisis in our export sector, and dealing with the issues of the overburden of tax, to dealing with the burden of compliance costs that this Government has imposed on people. If National was on the Government benches those are the sorts of issues we would be addressing, rather than trivia and trash like this bill, which makes such a small difference.

I simply challenge the Government and say that if it wants to reform the Geographic Board, that is fair enough, but it should do it in a single process. If it is going to make a ruling that these decisions about names will be made by local councils, it should not put the House and the process through the pain of debating this minor bill and subsequently bring in amendments at some future time to make that substantive change. If the Government is going to have a rational reform process around the—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Rational! That’s rich coming from you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Maybe Mr Cosgrove can explain. Why are we not going to make a decision through this bill about the role of councils in the naming process?

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You’re not rational.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I asked the Minister in charge of the bill a very reasonable question. The bill says that the role will be devolved to local authorities in subsequent legislation. Why not do it in one process? It seems a pretty rational question to me—that if the Government is going to do it, it does it in one process.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It’ll be the first time for you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Those members have become so desperate in Government that they cannot answer the questions. All they can do is resort to personal abuse. I simply challenge members opposite and say that is not a sensible way to do it. If they are going to change the role and who decides what name is for what place, if they are going to give that function to local authorities, for goodness’ sake include it in one bill so that we can have one intelligent debate about the proper process for naming places in New Zealand in 2007. This bill does not do it.

This bill is just a time-waster for a Government that has no legislative programme, no vision for New Zealand, and is wielding bills into the House that are ill-prepared, where the policy work is not done, and as a consequence we waste the time of this House and this country. This country needs the sort of bold agenda that John Key set out at the weekend, rather than this sort of pathetic—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Selling State houses again.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Clayton Cosgrove interjects that we might sell State houses to the tenants in them. We think that is a great idea. I ask Mr Cosgrove what he has against homeownership. We know that in every single year Labour has been in office, the rate of homeownership has declined. And, yes, a John Key - led National Government will change that, because—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Keep saying it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have to tell Mr Cosgrove that when I talk to my State housing tenants in Nelson and say: “John Key is going to give you the opportunity to own your own home.”,—

Bob Clarkson: Aha!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —they say, just as Bob Clarkson says: “Good job, bring it on, change the Government, and focus on the real issues.” When there is reform of the Geographic Board it will be done in a logical way.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I am very happy to take a call and deal with various aspects of Part 2, and in particular with the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper, which relates to omitting any reference in the schedule to the Evidence Amendment Act 1980 (No 2) and not substituting any reference to the Evidence Act 2006. I raised this matter when the House was in Committee on 19 June. I queried the reference to the Evidence Amendment Act (No 2), and I said that I had difficulty finding any particular reference to an equivalent provision in the Evidence Act 2006, which, as the Committee knows, the House passed a few months ago. So National has no problem with the proposed amendments that are made in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. They make a lot of sense.

A couple of other points arise from the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 129, dated 24 July. There are a number of consequential amendments, and, as I understand it, there will be a need at some stage to go back and deal with clauses 2 and 4, but I am particularly focusing on clause 33 and then following on from the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper. National has no problem with the proposed change to clause 33, which seeks to insert a more appropriate definition of “military or seagoing person”. The changes are very minor, but they do clarify the matter, so National has no problem with that.

Then there are a couple of references to the commencement date of the legislation. The Minister really should have dealt with this matter in June, but he did not. It provided that the legislation was to commence on 1 July 2007. Instead, the Minister is proposing that the date of 1 November 2007 be substituted. Again, that seems to make a lot of sense, although one hopes that for the benefit of testators and testatrixes, and also for the profession, we would be able to get this legislation through before 1 November. The only thing I would say, bearing in mind that 1 November is All Saints’ Day, is that I would have thought a more appropriate date would have been 2 November, which is—as the Minister knows, as an old boy of St Bede’s College—All Souls’ Day, when we commemorate the dead. Given that we are dealing with wills legislation, I would have thought that was a more appropriate date. But that having been said, I say that the proposed changes outlined in the Minister’s Supplementary Order Paper 129 make sense and National will support the legislation.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : I am very grateful to my learned colleague Chris Finlayson for setting out the reasons why 2 November might be a more appropriate date for the commencement date of this legislation. I would have to say to the Minister, given the relatively light legislative agenda that the House is faced with these days, and given that so much of the work of the House seems merely to be implementing Law Commission reports—which, of course, is why National is tending to vote for such measures—this kind of legislation is non-contentious.

It is an irony, is it not, that we have had a Government voted into office with an agenda, and it has ended up in its eighth year with the best it can do being merely to have a programme of law reform with its directions and orders coming from Sir Geoffrey Palmer of the Law Commission. I thought that Governments were elected with a plan and programme that they would carefully implement, but this year, truthfully, we have been doing—effectively—a legal toolkit repair job. That is valuable work, and I can see the importance of it, but it is not actually why Governments are elected.

Governments are elected on the basis of fundamental platforms that they have put before the public. Was this legislation ever really put to the public? Would Government members have been elected if they had gone out to the people and said: “Do you know what we will be doing in the next 3 years? We will be implementing Law Commission reports, because we are a thoughtful Government that is concerned all about law reform. Give us your vote on that basis.” Well, I think that the public might have told those members that they do not really vote for Governments for that purpose.

Even in the context of implementing a programme of law reform as directed by the Law Commission, the Government has still managed to muck it up. Today we are debating the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper 129. Even more remarkably, we are debating Supplementary Order Paper 132, dated 7 August, because the Minister just forgot something—do members know that? He forgot that the Government had repealed the Evidence Amendment Act 1980 (No 2), so he thought that he had better go around and check the rest of the Government’s legislation to see whether it was up to speed on this matter. Finally, in the dead of night and on the last possible day one could make such amendments, this ad hoc repair job is now being undertaken. Finally there is a recognition that the Evidence Amendment Act 1980 (No 2) was, in fact, repealed some time ago and was replaced by the new Evidence Act 2006. I say to the Minister that it was 2006 we were talking about.

As for the other point raised by my colleague, to do with the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 129 omitting the commencement date of 1 July and substituting 1 November 2007, that is also something of a repair job. I have another Supplementary Order Paper, Supplementary Order Paper 118, dated Tuesday, 19 June, and I have to ask the Minister why his repair job was not done in that Supplementary Order Paper. Why was the date not corrected and properly put into place in the Supplementary Order Paper dated 19 June 2007, when it was blindingly obvious by that point that the 1 July date could not be achieved and that the legislation would not be in force on 1 July 2007? So here we have the situation where we are debating, by way of a repair job, three Supplementary Order Papers, whereas a competent Minister and Government would have had a single Supplementary Order Paper dated 19 June and covering all three items, because they were all entirely predictable back in June 2007.

This Minister prides himself on being one of the success stories of this Government. He likes to see himself as an up-and-coming thruster in the Labour Government, and I guess he will be a thrusting front-bencher in the future Labour Opposition from 2008. I guess I will see Mr Cosgrove sitting on the front benches in 2008, in the Opposition. But if he had been really on top of his game, then he would have fixed this matter up with a single Supplementary Order Paper. He has a whole department, for heavens’ sake! It is supposed to look at these things. Instead he is reliant on colleagues on the Opposition side of the Chamber pointing out the problems. Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, mindful of the importance of good-quality law reform, has had to point out to the Government that what it was doing was simply inadequate and that it ought to be correcting this kind of situation properly. I see this as being a symbol of the decay of this Government, a symbol of the declining levels of competence, and, in a sense, a symbol of failure—failure in the most basic ways that Governments are measured.

Are Government members competent to do ordinary jobs of law reform? This bill is kind of important to individuals but, let us be honest, it is low-level stuff in terms of this Parliament. Yet even on non-controversial legislation, and even on legislation that the entire Parliament is supporting, Government members have still managed to muck it up. They still do not reach that minimal level of competence that the country has a right to expect of its Government. I would say to members opposite that they should be embarrassed. They should be embarrassed by the fact of this failure, because it is a symbol of a deeper malaise and a deeper failure that has occurred in this Government. It is a symbol of a lack of ability to govern any longer. That is what it really says.

I have to say to Government members that if this is as good as it gets, then frankly it is about time that they surrendered their offices and said that they had failed the public of New Zealand and were no longer up to the job of governing in the way that the public have a right to expect. There is a sense that we are seeing the last of this Government, because even the simple things it can no longer get right.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) : This is probably a day for St Bede’s College old boys, because I join with others in condemning why it is necessary so late in the piece to have these last-minute changes. If one looks at the legislative history of the Wills Bill, it is to be seen that it was first introduced on 8 September 2006, it had its first reading and was referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee on 10 October 2006, and those who have charge of this legislation and those who are responsible for the process of parliamentary business in the House came to the clear view that the legislation should take effect from a date described in clause 4 as 1 July 2007.

I do not doubt—as Dr Mapp has wisely said to members of the Committee—that it is grossly unsatisfactory that we should be presented with three Supplementary Order Papers, some of which are of major significance. For a moment, I dwell on Supplementary Order Paper 129. Now these are not minor issues at all. There are typographical errors in this legislation. I would have thought that a careful and conscientious Associate Minister of Justice would have read carefully through the Wills Bill and identified where these gross spelling and grammar errors have occurred. It is not as if the Associate Minister carries a substantial bunch of responsibilities. He is a Minister who has time on his hands to carefully survey legislation and identify points of difficulty and difference. Has he done that? No, he has not. That is just one change that we are confronted with in Supplementary Order Paper 129, a document that is short but not without substance.

The second change is an important change in the context of those who take an interest in military issues, which is that an amendment in the Supplementary Order Paper allows members of the armed forces to make informal wills, even if they are under 18 years, if they are on active operations or if they are at sea. This is something which has been very much treasured by the military; it is a part of the history of the military aspect in will-making that there has existed—from time immemorial, almost—this opportunity of such informal wills.

But I want to focus on the third point, which is the point that Christopher Finlayson, shadow Attorney-General, has raised with members of the Committee, and that is the commencement date. I just wonder why those who are so much of the St Bede’s College persuasion who have time on their hands did not have a bit of a think about why 2 November would not be a better date than 1 November. So I would just like to dwell for a moment on that, and extend the arguments that Christopher Finlayson has made about the importance of All Souls’ Day, 2 November, and to suggest not that date but another date. All Fools’ Day might be a better date for seeing this legislation in place, given the delays that occurred.

All Souls’ Day is 2 November, as the Minister well knows, and that is the day that Roman Catholics devote to prayer and alms-giving on behalf of the faithful and the departed. My understanding—and I am not a Catholic—is that according to tradition, a pilgrim returning from the Holy Land took refuge on a rocky island during a storm. There he met a hermit who told him that among the cliffs was an opening to the infernal regions, through which flames ascended, and where the groans of the tormented were distinctly audible. The pilgrim—and I see the member and the Minister acknowledging their knowledge of the history of this matter—told Odilo, the abbot of Cluny, who appointed the day following, 2 November, to be set aside for the benefit of those souls in purgatory.

I think we need, just for a moment, to reflect on what the importance of this legislation is. Not many statutes go way, way back to 1837. We are talking about imperial law here. I believe that the Minister owed it to this Parliament to get the commencement date right. He had that opportunity when he carefully nominated the date, which he did, and now I would suggest that 2 November, All Souls’ Day, is, on any view of it, a much better date.

KATE WILKINSON (National) : This is a bill to simplify wills, and although it is to simplify wills, one must not underestimate the importance of it. I suppose, giving due importance to the legislation, it is disappointing—as has been noted by my colleagues who have spoken beforehand—that some of the small details seem to have been overlooked. In the context of wills, it is very important that the words are correct. After all, when we are dealing with wills, if the testator has used the wrong words, then it is too late. In this bill, it seems that the Minister has also used some wrong words, which, thankfully, we now have the opportunity to rectify by Supplementary Order Paper.

But one would have thought—and it has been mentioned—that when this Wills Bill, which is not very long and had a commencement date of 1 July, was being drafted, the legislative agenda was known at that stage. One has to wonder why the time it would take to pass the bill was not accurately assessed in the first place. The bill is not contentious. Opposition members are not actually contradicting anything. We are not even making any amendments to it. We are agreeing to the bill. But we have a Wills Bill that had an original date of 1 July, the date then was purported to be amended to 1 September by a Supplementary Order Paper, and now it is extended even further, to 1 November.

It would be an interesting exercise to see how much taxpayers’ money has been wasted on this movable feast. What sort of competence is displayed when a bill has to have its commencement date—a simple, simple clause in a bill that is not contentious—altered not once, not twice, but three times?

Dr Richard Worth: Three times!

KATE WILKINSON: The commencement date of this Wills Bill has had to be amended three times.

Some of the other amendments, which I would have to say are pretty basic, change the expression “is it”, being a question, to “it is”. Although that might sound simple, again, it is important, and, again, it should have been pointed out right from the outset. I think it is up to us in Parliament to give New Zealanders confidence that legislation we are passing is accurate, especially legislation in relation to wills If a testator, relying on this bill, which will soon become an Act, writes his or her will in all due faith but makes a mistake because the Act is wrong, then dies, it is too late, for obvious reasons, to go back and find out what was intended.

I accept that the bill is to simplify wills. I accept also that it is important that wills are simple and straightforward, but I wonder whether what this bill is doing is actually making the legislation around wills more complicated, more complex, and more uncertain. Yes, it uses simple words, but that in itself can cause misunderstandings, because that new terminology, those new terms, have not yet been tested by the courts.

As an example, if one looks at clause 11(3), one sees that it is quite straightforward. It states: “The will-maker must—(a) sign the document; or (b) acknowledge that a person directed by the will-maker signed the document in the will-maker’s presence.” I ask what the meaning of “signing” actually is, because I have had occasions where will-makers cannot sign. They might put a cross, or they might put a squiggle. I would like the Minister to elaborate on what safeguards have been put in place to make sure that the document—the will, which has been so-called signed by a will-maker—is indeed the last will and testament of that person. In law and in practice there have been safeguards put in place previously. For example, the witness explains why the testator or will-maker has signed with a squiggle or signed with a cross. But in this bill a definition of witness is not included, so the witness might be somebody under 18. Those safeguards simply have not been put in place.

We must look at the legislation on the basis that it will be misunderstood. I believe that this bill, although it is supposed to be simple and straightforward, has the potential to lead to uncertainty and misunderstandings. Frankly, I think it is too hard for a family having gone through the trauma of losing a loved one to then have to try—just because of laziness and because of trying to make the bill too simple—to second-guess what their loved one actually meant in his or her last will and testament, because the will is deficient and was not properly drafted. The testator may have had the good intention of having a simple will, but it has ended up being complicated and complex. A whole new regime of court cases may start, to try to work out exactly what this Wills Bill means and intends. Although National members are in favour of simplifying wills, we have to be confident that making the language clear and accessible does not at the same time, by that very fact, make wills unclear, inaccessible, and subject to even more misunderstandings.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) : Are we surprised on this side of the Chamber? Are we surprised to find that this legislation now needs a change of date? This is from a Government that seems to be pushing legislation into the House as if there were no real requirement to get it right the first time. We have Supplementary Order Papers 129 and 132, and a further Supplementary Order Paper, as we have already heard from other speakers. Why were these things not put right in the first instance? Instead, we are finding ourselves doing repair jobs on things that should never have been wrong in the first place.

I think that this is an indication of a Government in a difficult spot. The New Zealand public must be so pleased that they at least have a sense of security they can draw from the quality of service they get from the National Party benches. It is no wonder that all members on this side of the Chamber are regularly stopped in the street by passers-by who identify them as a National Party politicians and wish them well in the next election. It is a frequent event. Thank goodness for the likes of my colleague Mr Chris Finlayson, the shadow Attorney-General, who can apply not only his knowledge of the law but also his knowledge of the Church calendar to proposing an appropriate future date for this legislation: 2 November, All Souls’ Day—a good choice.

This legislation was introduced in 1837; it was originally brought in then. I recall speaking in this debate before, and I recall saying then that I was pleased to be a layperson involved in a debate on a legal matter—a debate designed to simplify the process, to make legal terms into more common speech. I think it is important that laypeople understand these matters. Well, here I am in this debate, finding that even the finest legal minds in the Chamber—and one could say they are all on this side—are unable to keep up with something that changes its date not once, not twice, but three times. I guess it is tied up with the way this Government is caught up with the past, rather than the future—let alone the present.

Let us dwell on that just for a moment. One has to listen only to the responses at question time in the House. I say “responses” because there is no way that the mealy-mouthed mumblings of mediocre Ministers could be described as answers. The responses to the questions inevitably draw the Ministers back to the 1990s, because that is how they answer almost every question that is put to them. Oh, the happy time when they were in Opposition—that is where they were comfortable, that is where they were confident, and that is where they will go back to. But let us hope that they get this sort of bill correct before they go.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) : I will just take a very short call. There was one item of significance in those eminent dissertations—those fine speeches, dealing with the date change, that have dragged this out for some time. I often wonder when listening to those speeches whether members would prefer us not to correct things—and I exclude Mr Finlayson from this, because I acknowledge some very relevant points of his throughout the debates on the bill. I thank him for his biblical history, which reminded me a little bit of my Sunday school lessons that I am rusty on. I appreciate that. But sometimes when listening to the speeches of Opposition members I wonder whether they would prefer us not to correct these things, and to send the bill out as it is.

Ms Wilkinson raised one point when she alluded to the meaning of the word “signed”. I am not a lawyer, and she is, but I will make this point. She somehow felt there was danger because the word “signed” had not really been defined, and she was not sure whether this would cause uncertainty. I am advised that the same word, the word “signed”, is used in the current legislation, and that it is well understood. I am also advised, as a layman and not as a lawyer, that there is legal interpretation going back to 1837. I would argue—and my officials have advised me of this—that there is sufficient legal interpretation on the books in case law to determine, if one puts a squiggle across a circle, or other symbol, that the courts would interpret it as they have done in case law and precedent since 1837. I think that that creates a large amount of certainty—around 170 years of it.

• The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 118 in the name of Metiria Turei to clause 10(2), to add paragraph (c), be agreed to.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Associate Minister of Justice) : I seek leave to reconsider Part 1 for the purposes of considering the amendment to clause 4, set out on Supplementary Order Paper 129.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course to be adopted. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : Although I absolutely and totally endorse the comments of my good friend the member for North Shore about the Government’s rather lackadaisical and shallow legislative agenda, I for one am pleased that the Wills Bill is shortly to be passed because, as the commentary states, it restates the existing law governing wills. Some of that law—almost unbelievably, I am sure listeners will say—is incorporated in several statutes that go back to 1837. In my opinion it is high time that this Parliament looked at the legislation governing wills and made some necessary changes, in particular to bring the law together in one single statute and to express the law relating to wills in plain modern language that is clear and accessible.

There are very few certainties in life, and as the cliché goes, two of those certainties are death and taxes. We are all going to die. I am not simply referring to this Labour Government that is going to die. I am referring to those mere mortals who make up this House of Representatives from time to time. Whether or not we like it, we are all going to die. Therefore, it is necessary and indeed desirable that we have up-to-date wills that express in clear and accessible terms for our loved ones, and for the trustees who will administer estates, just what exactly it is that we want to be done with our property after death. That is why we need clear legislation in this area, above all.

I think the Law Commission is to be commended, because by and large it has done a very good job in this area. It came up with some good reports and, notwithstanding the valid criticisms made from this side of the Chamber about the legislative programme, as I said, the Minister is to be commended for getting this legislation into the House and getting it through its stages.

The changes proposed in the Supplementary Order Papers are, by and large, pretty minor fare and I am not going to quibble too much over them. But I do think I raised a very incisive point that the Minister has not addressed, and I want to dwell on it a little bit more because of the outstanding contribution—as, indeed, all his contributions are—of Dr Richard Worth, who picked up the point I made that 1 November is not the right day for the commencement of this legislation. It should be 2 November, because 1 November is All Saints Day or, I think as some Anglicans call it, All Hallows Day. Hallows comes from the old English halig, meaning a holy man or a saint. Of course in these modern and non-sexist times we would of course say “a holy person”. The Festival of All Saints was originally held on 1 May and was changed to 1 November in 834. Those of us who know about these things will know that Halloween—which also has that term hallows, coming from All Hallows Day—is held on 31 October.

But the important point, and this is why it is so exquisitely appropriate that we have 2 November as the commencement date, is that All Souls Day, certainly in Roman Catholic traditions—I do not know what the Protestants do—is the day one devotes to prayer and alms-giving on behalf of the faithful departed, who presumably and hopefully had signed wills before they went to meet their maker. I am not going to go into the detail of what Dr Worth said about how All Souls Day came to pass, but the fact of the matter is that it is an appropriate day for the commencement of this legislation, which as I said amounts to the first substantive reform of the law of wills since 1837.

So there we have it. The Justice and Electoral Committee worked hard on this legislation. There were not a great many submissions, but the two people I want to mention in particular who made a great contribution are Professor Bill Atkin from Victoria University and Professor Tony Angelo. They are examples of great submitters who not only went through the legislation in policy terms but, as it were, undertook a detailed exegetical analysis of the legislation to point out various faults, as a result of which some useful changes were made. The bill is a good piece of work by the hard-working and diligent Justice and Electoral Committee, some of whose members are enjoying a junket to Melbourne this week and some of whom are working hard in the Parliament dealing with this legislation. But putting that all to one side, it is good legislation. Let us move on and get it passed into law as quickly as possible, but hopefully bringing it into law on 2 November not 1 November.

• Clause 1 agreed to.
• The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 129 in the name of the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to clause 2 be agreed to.

• Amendment agreed to.

• Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

• Bill reported with amendment.

• Report adopted.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for Sport and Recreation) : I move, That the Major Events Management Bill be now read a second time. Firstly, I would like to thank the Commerce Committee for the thorough work it did on the bill, and the people who made submissions to it.

This bill is designed to position New Zealand as an attractive destination for major events. It is a careful balancing of commercial and public interests, and the committee’s careful deliberation has resulted in a number of improvements to the legislation. It provides for a clear, predictable, and fair regime for dealing with ambush marketing issues, it accords with broader Government objectives of maximising the return to New Zealand of involvement in major events, and it positions us as a highly competitive and desirable destination for those events.

We will host the World Rowing Championships in 2010 and the Rugby World Cup in 2011, and we are to be the co-hosts of the Cricket World Cup in 2015. These kinds of events attract major audiences, and organisations will pay very, very significant sums to secure the rights to promote themselves and their goods or services in association with the event. In essence, ambush marketing describes the actions of companies or advertisers who are not official sponsors, who try to capture these benefits for themselves without the authorisation of the organisers. Many major sponsors now insist that there be protection against ambush marketing before they will commit to sponsor events, and it is common practice for organisers of major events to require ambush marketing protections to be implemented by jurisdictions as a condition for hosting the event. This sort of legislation has been introduced in other jurisdictions, including Australia, the United Kingdom, South Africa, and the West Indies.

Before recommending that an event is declared by Order in Council to be a major event, the Minister for Economic Development must consult the Minister of Commerce and the Minister for Sport and Recreation—the second one while shaving, presumably! The Minister must also take into account the specified criteria to determine whether the event is of international significance and will offer sufficient sporting, cultural, social, economic, or other benefits to New Zealand or New Zealanders. Only events that are of truly international significance will be protected under the bill. It would not apply to, for example, annual or regular events that New Zealand hosts as of right.

It was suggested by some people that the bill should apply to nationally important events that may not meet the current criteria—for instance, the Big Day Out concert, or the Super 14 rugby competition. But the committee opted not to do that, as it was critical that the protections in the bill not be overused, and that the threshold for declaring a major event remain high, and I thank the committee for that. The declaration of a major event will also specify the period of time for which the ambush marketing protections will apply.

Before I go into more detail, I want to stress what the bill does not do—there have been some very misleading comments, including from one member in this House—and correct the factually incorrect reportage on it. The bill does not prevent businesses from going about their normal, everyday activities, including their normal advertising. There are a range of safeguards and exceptions for existing rights and honest business practices. The bill does not impose a blanket ban on advertising within a 5-kilometre radius of a venue. It does not prevent people from wearing their personal branded clothing or taking other personal branded items to an event if the brand is not an official sponsor. And it does not introduce, or increase, the prison sentence for pitch invasion.

I say to Mr Locke, who has said the opposite regularly in an attempt to mislead the public, that this bill does not introduce or increase the prison sentence for pitch invasion. There is the same maximum jail term of 3 months that has always been there. It is the monetary penalty that has increased under the legislation. I do not know whether Mr Locke pretends not to understand or is really ignorant. I do not understand which approach he has taken, but he has been wrong time and time again. The member knows the penalty for disorderly behaviour is—

Keith Locke: Is pitch invasion a new offence or not?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The penalty for it is the same for disorderly behaviour, which is the current charge. The member knows that. He has probably been charged with it on a number of occasions. If he cannot remember, because he has been joining Tim Groser in too many sessions, then that is his problem.

The Commerce Committee has recommended a change to the bill to ensure that a person who pays for, commissions, or authorises infringing representation, and a person who receives consideration for the placement or location of the representation, are equally liable. It has proposed new exceptions for representations of personal opinion for no commercial gain, and that, I think, protects the media in the area of comment. Clean zones will consist of major event venues and areas immediately approximate to such venues, such as a road circulating a venue, or an adjacent car-park. Existing business advertising that is in accordance with honest business practices will not be banned. The clean period will be no longer than is necessary, and may, in some cases, be only for the day of the major event.

Also banned under the legislation is pitch invasion, and behaviour such as bottle throwing, which disrupts international sporting events, and creates potential for injury to participants, security personnel, and, in fact—as we have seen in incidents with cricket bats—the pitch invaders themselves. This behaviour can result in adverse media coverage and international sanctions for the sporting organisation or stadium owner. The behaviour will be punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding 3 months, as is currently the case for disorderly behaviour, or a fine not exceeding $5,000, which is an increase.

The Major Events Management Bill is an important step in ensuring that New Zealand continues to be seen as a viable and attractive host country for events of major international significance. I commend this bill to the House.

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) : I am very happy to follow the Minister for Sport and Recreation this evening in making positive comments about the Major Events Management Bill. I did note one particular comment by the Minister that I think was a little unfortunate, but it probably leads me to say that had it not been for the National Party input on this bill, it would not be the fine piece of work that it currently is.

One of the great things about this bill is that it is essentially a celebration of what New Zealand can be, what New Zealand should aspire to, and what New Zealand can achieve. There are aspects here that some people have objections to, but if they were to really think about the best interests of this country, then many of those objections would fall to one side. I want to refer to a couple of the objections that have been mentioned by the Minister that I think deserve additional comment from us.

The first is the issue of ambush marketing. It would be putting one’s head in the sand for anyone to think that there are not commercial costs involved in running events such as the Rugby World Cup, the Cricket World Cup, or even the golden oldies cups, which are available in a range of sports, and for which thousands and thousands of people come to this country. I imagine that an event that took place a couple of years ago, the World Firefighters Games, would probably be captured by legislation like this. These are events for which a lot of people choose to come to New Zealand, not only to participate but also to see what is happening. So the events are very, very important to this country’s economy, if we remember that we are now dependent on tourism for 40 percent of our domestic economy, when it comes to services and other ancillary arrangements around the tourism industry. So ambush marketing is a very important aspect of this bill, because none of these events take place without a cornerstone sponsor—without some organisation with international reach saying its reach can be expanded by virtue of its association with a particular event.

One of the interesting things during the select committee process was that a number of us were a little sceptical about the whole aspect of ambush marketing. We asked, I think, quite appropriate questions of those who were in support of the provisions in this bill, and were given answers that were more than adequate. The one that sticks in my head is the issue that was put in front of us around the last soccer world cup, where one airline had spent literally tens of millions of dollars promoting that event, making sure it was successful, and minimising the cost for all those many spectators who turned up to the games to watch those events and to enjoy the experience of such a big occasion in their country. But that airline was denied the full benefits of those many millions of dollars that had been put into sponsoring the event, by virtue of the fact that another airline chose to paint the nose of its plane in the image of a soccer ball. In other words, another airline associated itself with the event without facing any of the costs involved. That, we might say in relation to a sporting bill, is not cricket.

Essentially, the ambush marketing provisions in this bill make sure everybody—

Hon Trevor Mallard: A bit of a Hawke’s Bay approach, you’re saying to me.

GERRY BROWNLEE: It was a Cantabrian approach, actually, I tell Mr Mallard, and he will know what a fine province we are, and what a huge record we have, for playing cricket to the highest levels and with the greatest success against the rest of the nation and, indeed, many international touring teams. But that diverts me from the point.

The point is that if an organisation chooses to support an event, and the benefit of that choice accrues to a large number of people, the question arises as to why someone else should be able to piggyback on the back of that, and take benefit from it. The provisions in the bill around ambush marketing effectively deal with that situation. The idea that the corner dairy close to the venue that advertises a pie and Coke, as such shops always do, on the blackboard outside will be penalised under this particular legislation is quite wrong, and many extrapolations of that example are also wrong. The legislation is about a direct association with the event for that purpose.

I think, in that regard, the law that will now be put in place to deal with pitch invasion is extremely important, as well. Pitch invasion, although it may well be transgression on to the pitch, can also be in the form of an ambush marketing type of arrangement, where, for example, someone takes footage of the pitch, for a payment places it on YouTube, and it attracts many, many viewers. That would be equally wrong. In this case, also, if people choose to go to a venue and disrupt the activity that is taking place there, albeit for what they perceive to be some pretty important humanitarian reason, that transgresses against the wishes, the desires, and the rights of the many people who pay for tickets to go to the particular venue to enjoy a particular entertainment—in this case, whatever the major event might be. Therefore, I think it is appropriate that we have that particular provision in the bill.

I was fascinated by the Minister’s reference to bottle throwing, given the Minister’s past references to bottles and activities that might transpire. I say that in the context of a remark the Minister made that I found particularly unsavoury—his particular comment—but I will go no further than that.

One thing that was quite interesting to me, and to a number of other people on the select committee, was to learn how big these events can be for New Zealand. In the case of the Rugby World Cup, for example—and it would be true, I suspect, for the Cricket World Cup also, which will follow not too many years after it, and for any other events that will be captured by this bill—the size of the audience is enormous.

Steve Chadwick: The parliamentarians’ rugby game.

GERRY BROWNLEE: My colleague over there has mentioned the parliamentary rugby team, and I can tell her that a particular entry on YouTube at the moment is getting an enormous number of hits. I suspect that the person who is the subject of that particular piece of footage has a very big career in front of him, and I want to say publicly at this stage, to Graham Henry and his fellow selectors—my good friend Steve Hansen, my old teaching associate Wayne Smith, and of course Mr Henry himself—that I remain ever available, should they require those services.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, Somerville’s not looking good. If I were you, I’d be waiting for the call.

GERRY BROWNLEE: The member is right—Greg Somerville is not looking too good. Greg Somerville lives in my constituency. I am a huge fan of his, and I hope he makes a satisfactory recovery. I noticed over the weekend that Neemia Tialata, whom I also have a great deal of time for, is a little bit suspect, so we never know our chances in a big event like the Rugby World Cup!

But let me just get back to the point of the bill, and that is that this country spends an enormous amount of money—quite appropriately, in my view—trying to promote the tourism industry, which is now so much part of our economy. We celebrate the fact that we got through a rough period economically because of The Lord of the Rings films, and I think that is good. But we must realise that the number of people who will turn on TV sets, go to the Internet, or go to any other media arrangement that allows them to view or to understand the Rugby World Cup is tens of thousands greater than the number who will ever watch The Lord of the Rings, or ever take a look at many of the other sporting events this country is well known for.

All in all, this is legislation that, in my view, makes a positive statement about the future of New Zealand, and makes a huge contribution towards a sustained economy at the highest levels inside New Zealand. It also, I think, tells New Zealanders that we in this country can do what anyone else anywhere in the world can do, not only just as well but perhaps even better. National is delighted to support the bill. Thank you.

MARYAN STREET (Labour) : I am delighted to follow the previous speaker, Gerry Brownlee, who was, of course, the chair of the Commerce Committee, which deliberated on this legislation.

The Major Events Management Bill has something for everybody. In the course of the select committee deliberation we had the concept of national identity and national reputation. We had the balance between civil liberties and protections for the public. We had the presence of commercial interests, and all the power they bring to bear. We had issues of confidentiality because of the highly competitive and commercially sensitive nature of some of the issues with which we were dealing. We even had a little farce in there, as well. There was humour, but there was a very serious purpose to this legislation.

I absolutely endorse the previous speaker’s comments about the ability this bill has to present New Zealand to the world, and to make us an attractive investment proposition for sponsors who have an interest in the way a major event is conducted. The key elements of this bill centre on four or five things. First, there is the process of determining which events will become major events. The Minister for Sport and Recreation referred to that in his second reading speech. Although we were petitioned by submitters who said what about including the WOMAD festival or other annual or biennial national events or international events, the select committee chose to come down on the side of a fairly restrictive view, because the kinds of provisions that this bill sets out should not be enacted frequently, but should be there in the event that there is a particularly major international fixture that draws a lot of attention and a lot of tourists and attendees to New Zealand.

The second point that was a critical one, which the honourable member Gerry Brownlee commented on previously, was the issue about ambush marketing. This became a very interesting debate. The debate was about ambush marketing by association and ambush marketing by intrusion. Ambush marketing by association was just that kind of example that Mr Brownlee gave a moment ago, where somebody could ride on the coat-tails of others’ investment and capitalise by association, without having paid for, or invested in, the advertising programme. They could, by association, travel in on the coat-tails of other big investors and sponsors. Ambush marketing by intrusion, however, was a different proposition entirely. That will be traversed much more fully in the Committee stage of this bill. It gives rise to the notion of clean zones, clean transport routes, and clean periods for advertising. In other words, for a period of time an area around a venue and transport routes to the venue are demarcated by this legislation and are reserved, so that the integrity of the sponsorship arrangements that support and underpin the event can be observed and can be honoured.

Two other things that the bill provides for are a matter of some interest. One of them is the ticket-scalping protections. That was considered in detail by the select committee. We talked about the ways in which ticket-scalping might happen. Tickets could be advertised on TradeMe or another Internet vehicle, or a person could simply buy a lot of tickets, stand outside the venue prior to games, and make a huge profit, way over and above the cost of the tickets. That has become an offence under this bill, and anybody who commits an offence in this respect is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine of up to $5,000—which is likely to be far more than any profit the person might have made out of the tickets that were bought up and sold off.

Beyond that, the other point I want to raise is the one about pitch invasion. There was a little exchange, earlier in the House, about whether pitch invasion was a new offence. Quite frankly, pitch invasion is a term that more appropriately describes the kind of offence that we are trying to proscribe in this bill. “Disorderly behaviour” was the title by which such an offence was prosecuted previously, but pitch invasion and its two definitions—that is, running on to a pitch or on to a playing surface, and throwing something on to it—make it absolutely crystal clear what is meant by pitch invasion.

This was a moment in the course of the select committee hearing where there was a bit of farce, because there was a submitter—and I say this with the greatest of respect to her—who came to defend her right to invade pitches. We heard her with a deal of respect, but I have to say her submission lacked content, and did not win our support. This celebrated pitch-invader clearly was the woman who had invaded a playing surface in the past, and then proceeded to make a lot of money on TradeMe by auctioning the little piece of clothing that she was wearing at the time of the pitch invasion.

Dr Richard Worth: Anywhere else, she’d be called an entrepreneur!

MARYAN STREET: She appeared before the select committee to defend her entrepreneurial right to do that. However, when we coupled the idea of pitch invasion with the idea of ambush marketing we on the select committee clearly came down on the side of ensuring that this became an offence, and was properly described as such in this bill.

This was a most interesting bill to hear. A wide range of submissions were heard and opinions canvassed in the course of that. What I am most proud of, I think, in the upshot of this bill is that we have something that balances individual liberty and individual rights with legitimate protections for a major event—which, of course, we are looking forward to hosting in a very short time. Thank you.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next call goes to the National Party. Two speakers will share it, with 5 minutes each. The first will be select committee member Dr Richard Worth.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) : I thank the House for the opportunity of talking on the Major Events Management Bill. I have a very short time to talk about a couple of issues that, I think, are of moment, and I do that, of course, to a crowded gallery and a hushed House. But is it not interesting that when we ran the America’s Cup in New Zealand, we did not see the need for this legislation. Yet the America’s Cup has to be one of the great sporting contests of all time, with all of the aspects around sponsorship, competition, and ambush marketing, which are seen as critical in this legislation.

I want to talk about three issues, for just a moment, in the context of the second reading of this bill, which National supports. The first is that we are seeing in this legislation, and it is pretty unusual in this Parliament, a legislative drafting style that is only starting to creep in. I think it is a good thing. What I am referring to, and there are several illustrations of this in the legislation, is the inclusion of examples in the body of the statute. For those members of the gallery who have copies of the bill in front of them, I direct their attention, for a moment, to an example in clause 21. On a tricky issue that took a lot of time in the select committee, there is an illustration of what might happen. It is set out in textual form on the face of the legislation. It is an example relating to “the clean zone and the clean period, as well as the clean transport routes and the associated clean periods, set out in the examples in section 15.” What the draftsmen have done—I think cleverly and appropriately, and what is not done in many other parliaments in the Western democracies—is to give an example.

The example states: “Example 1. 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 that 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.” The example concludes that “This is not a breach” of the relevant section.

Throughout this legislation there are these scattered examples. I say to members of the House that this is a great parliamentary drafting style. We have seen flow diagrams and now we are seeing examples in the legislation. In the context of quite technical issues—and tax would be the great one—the greater use of examples is clearly worthwhile.

The second thing I would like to note is a topic that I think the Commerce Committee found quite vexing, and I am glad that members of the Government are leaning forward to listen with interest to what I now say. It is about the issue of scalping; the issue of tickets and the deal where people buy tickets for the game at fair value then sell them at a substantial premium. This legislation outlaws scalping, and I am not, in my own mind, persuaded that that strikes the very best balance that might occur.

The final thing I want to say in the minute that remains to me—apart from acknowledging the incredible work that the Commerce Committee chairman, Gerry Brownlee, did in guiding the committee in its deliberations, and in offering, on those very tricky issues where we were uncertain as to how to proceed, perhaps the beacon that would lead us to something that was truly worthwhile—is about an issue that I took charge of in the select committee. It relates to the aspect of enforcement. In the example I gave, I touched on clean zones, clean routes, and those sorts of issues, but what the legislation originally proposed was that officers who were acting under a warrant from the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Economic Development could go in and carry out enforcement activity. I instinctively felt that was wrong. I am delighted to see that a change has been made so that those enforcement aspects are done in the context of a police presence.

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to talk on this important legislation, and to pay tribute to Mr Brownlee.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : I am very pleased to be able to speak to the Major Events Management Bill. I had the opportunity of sitting in on the Commerce Committee on two separate occasions when the bill was being considered. The interesting thing about the bill, of course, is that nowhere does it actually refer to the Rugby World Cup, but everyone in the country, I suspect, knows why this bill is being considered.

The Major Events Management Bill is being considered because of the Rugby World Cup and, more particularly, the debacle that occurred in our country some 4 years ago when we missed out on co-hosting rights. One of the reasons we missed out on co-hosting rights was that our legislative framework was not strong enough for us to be able to, essentially, guarantee to the promoters of the Rugby World Cup that it could be run in a modern, professional way. Other countries had made these legislative adjustments, we had not, and the New Zealand Rugby Union was unable to give the undertakings that the international board required. Its members wanted to, but they found themselves contractually prohibited from being able to do so. It was and is imperative that as a nation we fix up this deficiency. Other countries have done so, and it is high time we recognise the reality of modern international competitions, if we want to host them effectively and provide the level of spectacle that is expected.

We heard on a number of occasions—from both the international board and the New Zealand Rugby Union—why it is so important that the brand of the event be protected, and that commercial organisations not be able to, in essence, piggyback on the huge investment that has gone into building the event and the promotion. A number of examples were given to us. The most notable one has already been referred to by Mr Brownlee, whereby an airline had a soccer ball painted on the nose of its aircraft, even though it had not paid any money to the international soccer federation for that privilege. Other promoters had put huge sums of money—admittedly, for their own commercial benefit—into promoting that event, and other people, commercial organisations, were coming along and effectively exploiting the event. That puts the financial viability of these kinds of events in jeopardy. New Zealand simply has to update its law to deal with that.

I know that the Green member Mr Locke is concerned about a very particular issue, which is that of pitch invasions. He is wrong; to invade a pitch is clearly a criminal offence—and it already is, effectively, under the disorderly behaviour provisions. It is surely better to have a specific offence, but with the same penalty, effectively, to cover that particular event. I know that a submitter came along and talked about what a spectacle it was, and so forth. But that is false, really. People do not go to see pitch invasions. They want to see the event. They do not want the game disrupted. It might be amusing to the participants, and it might briefly amuse the crowd, or at least a proportion of the crowd, but it is not what the event is, and we as a Parliament surely cannot be in a position where we facilitate that kind of activity. To seriously suggest doing that, I would have to say, is effectively to endorse disorder. Maybe that is what the Green member wants. Maybe that is his view of freedoms and liberties. Maybe that is his style—let it all hang out, so to speak. Well, I say to the Green Party that it should grow up on this occasion and understand that there are bigger issues.

I want to close on this point. These major events seldom come to New Zealand. We have to really work hard these days to get them. We have to ensure that our legal system fits 21st century reality, so that we can host these events when, once every decade or so, we get the opportunity to host them.

RON MARK (NZ First) : I rise to put on the record of the House the fact that New Zealand First is pleased to support the passage of the Major Events Management Bill, although I cannot help but notice a couple of ironies that really do need to be mentioned. Who would have thought that sport would bring sense to the National Party, curb its rabid desire for free markets, and actually have it impeding entrepreneurial ventures? Who would have thought the National Party would be moving to curb and block entrepreneurship? Who would have thought the Labour Party would now be condemning the 1981 pitch invasions during the Springbok Tour of New Zealand? Who would have thought that both those two grand old parties, which have ruled this nation alternately—hand in hand on occasion—would do the flip-flop of all flop-flips? Here we are talking about banning pitch invasions, yet so many Labour members of this Government proudly carry their badge as pitch invaders in the 1980s.

• Debate interrupted.