DAIL JONES (NZ First) : Last Thursday at about 2 minutes to 6, I was speaking on the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill.

Pita Paraone: You were making a good speech.

DAIL JONES: Thank you very much. This is a fresh day, and people who are extremely interested in this legislation would, I think, like to know just a little bit more about it. Of course, this debate is the third reading debate. It is the bill’s final reading, and after the vote today the legislation can be passed into law after the appropriate signatures by the appropriate people.

The bill amends the Copyright Act 1994 to address the emergence of technologies such as the Internet. It seeks to maintain the existing balance between the interests of the owners and those of the users of copyrighted works. It also seeks to create a more technology-neutral framework for the Copyright Act. Those of us who are up to date with technological matters, such as using iPods and copying things on to discs—the latter I get my son to do for me because I have not quite grasped how to do it yet, although the iPod side of things is very enjoyable—will be very interested in this bill, as it brings issues like that right up to date.

If people steal something, if they re-record music without being given the right to do so by the owner, or without being given any other rights, what they are actually doing is depriving artists of the income they deserve for having created the item in the first place. Stealing of copyright is theft, and something should be done to make sure that such people are caught. Of course, a law and order party like New Zealand First wants to make sure that workers are rewarded for what they do and that those people who want to steal the work of the workers are penalised.

The bill takes into account international developments in copyright law, and it incorporates many aspects of the two treaties negotiated by the members of the World Intellectual Property Organization, or WIPO—which is something very dangerous in the copyright area; the last thing people want to do is to wipe what they have just put on an iPod or whatever! Those treaties are the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty, and the World Intellectual Property Organization Performances and Phonograms Treaty.

This bill has been fully considered by the Commerce Committee, and we have also had a good discussion of it at the Committee stage. The bill covers a number of areas of interest for people in the educational field relating to copying for educational purposes, storing for educational purposes, copying by librarians and archivists for replacement, and conditions for libraries and archives that are making and supplying digital copies. The bill covers issues such as the observing, studying, or testing of computer programs. It also looks at communication works, and various issues under that heading, such as format shifting for personal use, time shifting, free public playing or showing of a communication work that is simultaneous with reception, and reception and retransmission of broadcast in cable programme service.

The bill has looked at Internet service provider obligations, and generally, I believe, it has done its best to bring issues up to date as much as they can be at the present time. One could say that more could be done immediately, but, as always, at least something has been done, and in fact it is quite a substantial something that is contained in this legislation, which New Zealand First supports. We will be voting in favour of the bill when the appropriate time arrives.

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : The Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill amends the Copyright Act 1994 to address the emergence of technologies such as the Internet. During the Committee stage I dealt at length with particular matters in both Parts 1 and 2, and I do not intend to repeat those comments here.

This bill is a major piece of legislation because it deals with, among other things, technological protection measures and Internet service provider liability. Those are very important issues, and I regret to say that I think this bill is very much a patch-up job and very much what I would call third-rate law reform. It is clear that the Copyright Act is overdue for comprehensive reform. If we look at the structure of this legislation, we see that a huge number of sections in the 1994 Act are amended. In my opinion, to introduce legislation that is episodic and, as I said, a patch-up job is simply not the way to serve the commercial and creative communities. I cannot understand why the Government did not take the opportunity to undertake comprehensive reform of the Copyright Act. As I said during the Committee stage, the Act is well overdue for comprehensive reform. It was last carefully reviewed in 1993 and 1994, and since that time there have been huge changes in technology. If any legislation justifies comprehensive reform, it is this one.

The National Party will support the third reading, not because it considers the bill to be particularly sparkling legislation but because it is in the interests of the commercial and creative communities that some of these changes be introduced at the first available opportunity. Had National been in a position to do so, it would, however, have undertaken comprehensive reform, because many issues have been missed in the course of this particular law reform exercise. Why is it that this Government is so lacking in vision and energy that it cannot initiate a comprehensive review of what I consider to be one of the most important statutes on the statute book? This Government is so lacking in ideas and intelligence that it does not even know what questions to ask, let alone the answers, and it is well known that one always judges a person by the questions he or she asks.

We have been told that there will be yet more reform. Further changes to the Act will be introduced some time this year, and legislation will be referred to a select committee, where, presumably, it will languish for months. Yet another patch-up job will be done on the Copyright Act.

The particular thing that I objected to in the whole shabby law reform exercise that constituted the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill was the way the Opposition was treated over eleventh hour Supplementary Order Papers. I made it quite clear at an early stage, when there appeared to be some very real concerns in the commercial community about some of the changes recommended by the select committee, that I would do anything I could to assist, because I regarded this bill as non - party political but none the less very important law reform. It was extremely important that all parties worked together sensibly in order to ensure that there was good law reform for the sake of the commercial and the creative communities. However, I received copies of the Supplementary Order Papers very late in the piece—indeed, on the day we were debating the bill in the Committee stage—and I think that that is discourteous to members of Parliament.

Above all—putting aside discourtesy—it is counter-productive for Opposition members to receive Supplementary Order Papers so late in the piece. If we are to do a good job with this sort of legislation, which, as I say, is non - party political but none the less very important, it behoves the Government to put aside the election-year sniping and election-year positioning, and get Supplementary Order Papers to members of Parliament so that they can have a good look at them and make sensible contributions in the Committee stage. Maybe I am old-fashioned and irrelevant, but I for one believe that debates in this place matter, and that we should approach our task as legislators with some degree of zeal and intelligence. How one can do that simply escapes me when one gets Supplementary Order Papers at the eleventh hour rammed down one’s throat and one has no real opportunity to study them and give them the careful attention that is required. So there we have it.

The National Party will support the passage of this legislation, but we are not happy with it. We think it is poor legislation. We think the process has been very poorly executed, and, as usual, we think that we have been treated with the customary discourtesy that we have come to expect from this Government.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Before I call the next speaker, I just wonder whether I could clarify something with the member. I have the official names listed down here, and I hate to call people by the wrong name. The names have you listed, sir, as Chris Finlayson. Do you wish to be known as Christopher Finlayson?

CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) : I made it very clear when I came in here that out of respect to the House, not out of respect to me, I thought that I should be called by my full name. I do not see that that should be a matter of joking or smarminess in any way at all.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): No, this is not a matter of joking. It is just that I have the formal list down here, and I want to make sure that I have yours recorded correctly. Thank you.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) : I agree with the member Christopher Finlayson that the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill is complex and in need of good, positive law reform. However, I cannot agree with him on the issue to do with the timing of Supplementary Order Papers. The problem with comments like that is that most members when they are in Opposition have a very, very short memory of what happens, and they have very long memories when they are in Government, and vice versa. In fact, I remember many, many occasions in the 1990s, when in Opposition, that Supplementary Order Papers appeared on the Table just as the debate started. I think there have been occasions when Supplementary Order Papers have not actually been available when second readings have begun, and sometimes even just before the Committee stage.

Of course, it is always the right of a Government to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper at any stage of the process. In an ideal world it is always good to have sufficient time for members to be able to look into the matters in the Supplementary Order Paper. I think I would probably go along and accept what the member was saying if he was willing to make a solemn pledge to this House that if National ever got back into Government—hopefully not in my lifetime—he would never ever introduce a Supplementary Order Paper without giving sufficient notice to Parliament.

Shane Ardern: We’ll probably appoint you to something. Don’t worry about it.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Well, I am very obliged to the member for that comment, but that was not the purpose of this speech, even though he might think it is. What I will say is that the member did make a big issue of it, and I think it is fair to say that he would not be able to make a personal pledge to this House that under no circumstances would he introduce a Supplementary Order Paper, if he was ever a Minister, without giving sufficient notice to the Opposition. It would never happen, and even if he did try to do that I am sure he would be advised and cautioned by members of his own team, because we know that sometimes these things do happen.

To put all that aside, I think one of the things the member was alluding to was the complexity of this issue, and I agree with him on that. The reality is, of course, that technology is changing very quickly and very swiftly, and our copyright legislation is built on issues that are really to do with last century. Now that we are moving into the digital era, with the availability of much copyright information on the Internet, how are Governments supposed to be able to control and protect the copyright of the creator?

This is one of the things we debated around the issue of parallel importing, and in particular parallel importing of films. The argument, as I recall from when I was the Minister of Commerce, went something along the lines that if the big production companies are going to put lots of money into investing in, for example, big blockbuster films, and if the DVD is able to be imported into the country virtually at the same time as the film appears in the theatres, or if it is able to be downloaded from the Internet for nothing, then how will the production company be able to get its money back and cover the cost of the significant investment it has made in that particular piece of entertainment? Of course, the same applies for rock bands, for orchestras, and for any group that comes together to try to put forward its own copyright in order to try to make money out of its own talent and ability, particularly in writing, then is not able to get a return on it. This is a very, very difficult issue.

What we did in the parallel importing area, as far as films were concerned, was to say that in the case of a major film, it was not able to be released in a video shop for 9 months. That proposal was supported by the theatres, particularly by regional theatres and some of the new independent theatres that were being established. They said they felt that people in New Zealand wanted to go back to the theatre and that even though people had gone through, firstly, the VHS revolution, and now the DVD revolution, they wanted the opportunity to go out. The people who invest in regional theatres said that it would be almost impossible for them to get a return on their investments if people could go down to a video shop and pick up a DVD on the same day as they were showing it first time up. I note that you are nodding in agreement, Madam Assistant Speaker. I know that you had something to do with this yourself, and that we had some discussions on this issue at that time.

They are very, very complicated matters, and I think that in the end we made the right decision. Some people were not happy about it, such as DVD owners. My own DVD shop owner, who is probably watching this debate, because he watches a lot of the debates in Parliament, was particularly opposed—

Shane Ardern: I would counsel him against that.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: I have tried to counsel him against it, actually. I have told him that he needs to watch a few more of the DVDs in his shop rather than this Parliament, because it is probably better for his health. But, having said that, what it shows me—and I am digressing a little—is that since we have televised Parliament, a lot more people are taking an interest in it, and I hope it provides better incentives for members to behave in the House. I am not sure whether that is true, but certainly a lot more people are interested in watching and hearing the debates on these matters, and they are complicated matters.

This bill reinforces the parallel importing ban. It continues the ban because we were not sure how it would all pan out, and I think that is a really good thing. As I said, I know that people were upset at the time this measure came in. I think that people used to be able to go down to the DVD shop and pick up a DVD virtually straight away. As I recall, we then went through the zone 3 and zone 4 thing, whereby some DVD players would play the DVDs and some would not.

Then, of course, there is still the age-old problem of straight-out piracy, which is still a crime, whereby a movie is run in some picture theatres around the world and at the same time another copy is being made instantaneously, which is then transformed into a DVD copy, and—

Mark Blumsky: It’s $2 in Kuala Lumpur!

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Mark Blumsky is right. I have seen copies of these things, and one would hardly ever—

Mark Blumsky: Great value, but there’s a head that pops up every so often when the person in front stands up in front of the camera.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: That is the more non-traditional view. One way of copying these things is taking one’s own video camera into the picture theatre, but then when someone in front gets up to go and get some popcorn that kind of ruins it. The more modern version of this is where counterfeiters run the DVD at the same time as the film is being shown, then go out and print off that. With some of those copies one cannot tell the difference between the copy and the original.

That is one issue, but I think the issue of copying generally is very, very difficult. We have known since the time of the Napster revolution that people are downloading CDs off the Internet. We know that there is now technology whereby people can download modern movies off the Internet. We know this. The issue for the industry is how to control that. It usually tries to build some kind of mechanism in to try to stop that from happening. How does the Government try to deal with the problem of copyright for people who deserve to be paid for their talents? This is the issue. I feel strongly about this, because I think downloading is a form of theft—there is no question about that. If someone writes a good song, a good book, or a good poem, or if someone plays in an orchestra, and if that person does that for a living, he or she deserves the right to get some return on that. The Government is trying to do something about this issue in this legislation.

I think that legislation will always be a catch-up—it will probably always be second best—and that Parliament will always have difficulty trying to keep up with innovations in technology. We do know that the digital age will require more and more amendments to this type of legislation. I think that even if we had a major review—which the member was suggesting—by the time the review was over the technology would have moved on and the solutions would probably be outdated. There will have to be incremental change. On the one hand we do not want to bring in regulation that is too hefty, cannot be followed, or somehow limits and restricts the openness of the Internet, but, on the other hand, we want to try to make sure that people who have creativity are getting paid for it, and that we try to retain that principle. The bill is looking to try to balance those two things. I support the legislation, but I predict that this is not the last time we try to deal with this issue in this House.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) : Of course, this is not the last time we will be dealing with these matters, because the Minister Judith Tizard has announced that this Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill is part of a raft of measures. I think a number of issues around copyright that are not addressed in this bill need to be picked up. We in the Green Party welcome the Minister’s announcement and think that it is an important continuing piece of work.

Let me begin by acknowledging that this bill is an attempt to address serious deficiencies in current legislation. There is no doubt that there is a real need to amend copyright legislation in order to make it compatible with digital technology and to protect genuine intellectual or creative property. I think it is fair to say there are some things in this bill that are deserving of support and that improve on the status quo. Some of those improvements are a result of amendments made both at the Commerce Committee and during the Committee of the whole House. However, the Green Party remains concerned enough about some of the provisions that we will continue to vote against this bill.

I am aware that the Minister stated during the Committee stage that some of the issues we have raised—both during the debate in this House and during private discussions with her—will be looked at by way of a review by the Ministry of Economic Development. She specifically referred to our concerns about the lack of protection for fair use in relation to copyright infringement, particularly when used for satire and the like. The Minister has indicated that her approach is likely to be one of providing specific protection for fair comment and parody, and I understand that this approach is the same as has been taken in some other jurisdictions. The Green Party welcomes that announcement. However, it is not adequate to cause us to change our position on this bill.

The gestation and passage of this bill has been lengthy, and we do not see why these issues could not have been addressed before today. In any case, we feel unable to put away our concerns on the basis of a future process with an unknown outcome. As I have said before, our concern is particularly around the Internet service provider liability provisions and the opportunity for corporate bullying that they provide. Under the bill, if an Internet service provider is informed that material it stores may breach copyright held by someone else, it is liable to a penalty if it does not, as soon as possible after becoming aware of the complaint, delete the material or prevent access to it. The triggering threshold is that the material is “likely to infringe” such copyright. As I have said previously, an Internet service provider will, in practice, interpret this very broadly. Internet service providers simply will not want to take any risks. Once notified of a potential breach of copyright, an Internet service provider will almost certainly take down the material—if they think there is even a possibility that it breaches copyright—and leave it to the courts to sort out, if, in fact, the matter ever even gets to court.

We have seen these kinds of provisions being misused in other jurisdictions. They can be used to clamp down on satirical websites and to inhibit genuine creative innovation. In fact, the world would never even have heard of breakbeat without the assertion of fair-use rights in creating new works by way of sampling, and the like. In the United States there have been massive corporate attempts to destroy musical forms based on sampling, such as hip hop.

The Greens would like to see, in opposition to the notice and take-down provisions in this bill, a notice and notice regime. As I have said, it would work like this: if someone makes a claim to an Internet service provider that some material that it hosts breaches copyright, the Internet service provider will notify the alleged infringer. In most cases the person would either admit guilt or just fail to respond, and in those cases the Internet service provider would simply remove or prevent access to that material. However, a small proportion of alleged infringers would contest the claim for genuine—if debatable—reasons, and the matter could then be adjudicated in court. We believe that this approach would provide fair protection for copyright holders while also protecting legitimate use. It would at least allow claims to be contested in an impartial forum. We believe that the current notice and take-down provisions do not provide any protection for fair use. Although the bill does provide a right to sue for unjustified proceedings, where a matter is genuinely contested that right will be of no value, because it will not be an unjustified proceeding; it will simply be a contested proceeding.

However, I thank the Minister for amending during the Committee stage provisions added by the select committee on how a copyright holder gives a notice to an Internet service provider of an alleged breach, because those requirements were unreasonably restrictive. I also welcome the amendments around the use of copyright materials by educational establishments and education resource providers that are not-for-profit organisations. These amendments make such materials available for legitimate educational purposes, and I think that those are important amendments that were much needed.

In relation to amendments made at the Committee stage, let me lastly state the Green Party’s support for the decision made by the Committee to vote against Gordon Copeland’s amendments, which would have provided satellite television providers with a right to retransmit works broadcast on a free-to-air format. That seems to us to be a simply commercial matter, and one best left to the commercial operators to sort out for themselves.

We do have issues remaining around the technological protection measures and around some other areas. I have canvassed all of those things in detail in previous stages of the debate, so I will not repeat them here. However, I would like to make one final point in this debate, which is around the Minister’s announcement that another copyright amendment bill is proposed. I understand that this bill will pick up any recommendations from the Ministry of Economic Development review that I discussed earlier in relation to fair use, particularly around the liability of Internet service providers. I guess that a specific exemption around fair use would have implications beyond just Internet service provider liability and would provide protection for a range of other fair-use activities. That would be a good thing.

The other thing that that bill is expected to pick up is work around the commissioning rule in relation to photographers, where photographers do not hold the copyright in published work by default. We understand this to be an anomaly internationally and an anomaly in relation to other forms of creative work. It is something that we believe needs to be addressed. We have discussed it with the Minister—we have had fruitful discussions—and although, clearly, that matter was not within the scope of this bill, it is something that needs to be picked up in future work. Thank you, Madam Assistant Speaker.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Tēnā koe, Madam Assistant Speaker. The definition of a generation gap is when one accidentally refers to a CD as a 45, or asks whether the track is available in LP form. With this bill, I wonder whether that gap is widening even further, with the realisation that over the past 5 years CD sales have plummeted a massive 23 percent.

The way of listening to a popular track is now commonly accessed through downloading and sharing of files. The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry in fact reports that some 20 billion tracks were downloaded illegally in 2005 alone. The Recording Industry Association told the Commerce Committee that even the legitimate digital business is expanding rapidly. Music is being made available now through lawful means via licensed services such as iTunes, digiRAMA, and Amplifier, with current projections expecting that in 2 years’ time at least 25 percent of all music sales worldwide will be digital.

So we are talking about a whirlwind industry that has relegated vinyl to the back shelf in favour of the iPod classic, the touch screen iPod touch, the video-capable iPod nano, or the screenless iPod shuffle. As of September 2007 the iPod was the best-selling digital audio player in history, having sold over 110 million units worldwide. We are in the midst of a sound revolution, and it is in that context that we in the Māori Party welcomed the amendments to the Copyright Act to address new technologies such as the Internet whilst also maintaining the existing balance between the interests of owners and those of users of copyright works.

As a performer and a writer myself, my interests in copyright have been about not so much the profits or gains entrenched in a music economy but the threats posed to intellectual and cultural property ownership issues. I do not expect to see any of my pātere or pao that I have composed available as a mobile phone ringing tone—although it would be a good idea; one could wake up to “E tāmarangaake!”. But I do have ongoing concerns about the need for protection around the appropriate transmission of our cultural heritage. The digital world is one of instantaneous communication, and it is absolutely vital that the cultural knowledge that has been developed over generations is protected from exploitation in a commercial age.

The concept of Māori cultural and intellectual property rights is, of course, extremely relevant as Aotearoa awaits the Waitangi Tribunal findings on Wai 262, some 17 years after the claim was first lodged by Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Kurī, Ngāti Wai, Te Rarawa, Ngāti Porou, and Ngāti Kōata. Wai 262 asserts exclusive rights to cultural knowledge and property, consistent with international discussions taking place in such fora as the World Trade Organization, the World Intellectual Property Organization, or the Convention on Biological Diversity. In essence, the concerns are to do with the commercialisation of knowledge that we may consider as taonga: ngā toi Māori, or arts; whakairo, or carving; history; oral traditions; waiata; and te reo Māori. Those treasures are increasingly being targeted in the international arena.

The protection and retention of mātauranga Māori, or traditional knowledge, is also to protect against the exploitation and misappropriation of cultural taonga. We have witnessed the most horrific abuse of our traditional artefacts, such as our moko mōkai, or preserved heads, being displayed hung on meat hooks, or the use of moko to promote a Halloween mask.

Tangata whenua have also been concerned about the failure of legislation and policies to protect existing Māori collective ownership of cultural taonga, and, in particular, the lack of equitable benefit sharing, and the lack of acknowledgment of the traditional knowledge protection mechanisms of indigenous peoples. Our cultural property has been created over generations, and exists far outside the realms of individual ownership. A particularly fascinating example of the complexity of copyright laws as related to Māori was described by Alistair Smith in a paper entitled Fishing with New Nets: Maori Internet Information Resources and Implications of the Internet for Indigenous Peoples. Smith traces an experience related to the works of the Bohemian artist Gottfried Lindauer. In 1996 Lindauer’s portraits of Māori chiefs from the last century were scanned and placed on the web by the Auckland City Art Gallery. This generated considerable outrage from descendants of the chiefs profiled in Lindauer’s portraits, who believed that the cultural property rights lay with them. Yet conventional intellectual property law applies only to Lindauer’s works, and because 50 years have passed since his death, the copyright law enables these portraits to be regarded as being in the public domain.

To assist in navigating some of these complexities, the Government has produced Te Mana Taumaru Mātauranga, which gives some valuable advice with regard to intellectual property rights, laws, and international agreements. Yet, while we all take part in the waiting game for Wai 262, both that guide and the bill before the House today are inevitably of limited value in protecting the expression of mātauranga Māori and associated cultural property. As such, we were fascinated at the choice of which issues were specified as requiring further review by the select committee in this Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill. We of course took note of the authorised comment from the outstanding three-time Academy Award director, producer, and writer, Peter Jackson. His comment, which was stipulated as able to be used only for the purposes of these submissions, argued that the director should be recognised as the author of audiovisual works, urging us, and I quote: “if we, as a country, profess to honour and promote our creatives then let’s get behind it legislatively and ensure that they can get some financial benefit from the sales of the works that they create. … Our Copyright Act should reflect this, let’s make it happen by keeping up with the rest of the world.”

Accordingly, the Ministry of Economic Development advised the select committee that it would begin work on this issue in early 2008. Yet, although concerns around intellectual and cultural property rights were raised by Te Rōpū Whakahau—the professional association for Māori who work in libraries, archives, and information services—the report back on the bill is remarkably silent on this issue. Te Rōpū Whakahau concluded: “we contend that there is a need to develop a category of collective ongoing and enduring rights that will ensure that Maori retain the right to control the appropriate expression and transmission of our cultural heritage. This control is one that can’t be invested in an individual and protected by conventional intellectual property mechanisms such as copyright.”

There are interesting international precedents that could have been examined. The Pacific Model Law for the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Expressions of Culture 2002 is an intellectual property - based sui generis system that draws on copyright principles to provide protection for traditional knowledge and cultural expressions. The concept of sui generis—one of its own kind—has already been introduced in Aotearoa in the Trade Marks Act 2002. Amongst its provisions, the Commissioner of Trade Marks is able to refuse to register a trademark if it is considered offensive to Māori. This was a very welcome and innovative move. It is considered that the Waitangi Tribunal ruling on Wai 262 will also recommend the implementation of sui generis systems in order to protect Māori knowledge. Another interesting model is that provided by the Sami people of Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia. They have established Sámikopiija—a reproduction rights organisation that represents the interests of Sami culture. The organisation has been set up to administer collectively their rights, and to ensure that appropriate remuneration is paid to the Sami for reproduction of intellectual property.

This bill was in the ideal position to build on all of these developments, both domestically and internationally, and, just as it did with the recommendations around the directors, also to grab the opportunity to demonstrate leadership in requiring comprehensive protection of mātauranga Māori—Māori knowledge. It is a matter of great disappointment to the Māori Party that the House has not been presented with such an opportunity. It is therefore inevitable that the Māori Party will be unable to support this bill. Thank you.

Hon SHANE JONES (Minister for Building and Construction) : Kia ora nō tātou. I sat on the Commerce Committee, along with a host of our other colleagues from both sides of the House, and—as I recall it, Mr Copeland—and waded through a host of very technical submissions dealing with the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill.

I follow Dr Sharples and share, in a moment of mirth, that he provided me with a story from the time when I went to St Stephen’s School about a—I think it was a 78—record that had been made collecting the ancient songs of the Ngāti Porou tribe. If I am not mistaken it was a Mrs Dewes, the daughter of the Rev. Pineāmine Tamahōri, who had been recorded singing ancient oriori and waiata from Cape Runaway through to Gisborne. Listening to it was hardly the most interesting thing that we wanted to do. But I am reminded that this bill shows how far we have moved on from there, because when we made a 78 record go faster than it should with a 78-year-old woman singing ancient laments from Hikurangi mountain, it sounded like something quite out of this world. That did not please the Māori language teacher, who—unfortunately for my backside, because caning was still around—decided that I should suffer some punishment.

It is unfortunate that I heard Dr Sharples announce that the Māori Party will not be supporting this bill. It caused me to recollect that great story about a scratched record. We are hearing from members of that party far too often that they will not support innovation and modernisation. They are condemned to their view of both our people and the place of Māori people in New Zealand society as being frozen in time, like some static image incapable of moving forward in any dynamic current. However, that is another matter, and we will deal with that in November.

When I was on the select committee there was a great deal of angst about whether section 88 of the parent legislation should go or should remain. We took some spirited submissions from people representing the Television New Zealand board, I presume, people representing Sky, and people representing TelstraClear, which may not actually exist much longer and could be consumed by Vodafone. In the end, it seems that a compromise has been struck. There was a sense of sunk investment and that people’s existing ability to access some transmissions via the TelstraClear platform, etc., in terms of the people who had already subscribed, would disappear. But I have no doubt that a future Government will return to address that issue.

Although this bill talks about somewhat arcane things, there is a key public policy issue at stake here, and it is one that I questioned the submitters about very intensely. It is whether copyright infringement should apply to civic institutions, such as public libraries, school libraries, and tertiary libraries. I was clearly of the view, as an individual parliamentarian who was sitting on that committee, that although the providers of that information should be concerned that undue profit might be made at their expense, access to knowledge is a great contributor to building civic virtue amongst not only our educated class but civil society in general. I was very, very keen to see that prop be upheld, so that our institutions can access information and make information available to our students in the most efficient way possible, without the students or their long-suffering parents having to pay a penalty, or the teachers or lecturers being pinged for unwittingly breaking the law to do with copyright.

Although libraries are required to keep written requests and maintain a database, the fact of the matter is that provided the material is not being used for pecuniary gain, there is scope so that when material is copied digitally, it remains the lifeblood of the young people. I remember that when I was studying law and economics, we suffered pages and pages of cyclostyled or xeroxed—whatever the term was in those days—material. The fact that it can now be accessed over the computer does reflect the fact that although the information still has a critical role in evolving the sense of obligation, duty, and right that we look to university graduates to uphold in society, their entitlement is finely balanced with that of the people who put the books together, and who suffer the deprivations of having to give up rugby, drinking beer, and being with the family to write scholarly texts that unfortunately may be read only by students as studious as Shane Jones was for that brief point in his life—something that Mr Tremain and others should, no doubt, look at in an admiring sense—

Chris Tremain: Take a leaf out of that book, yes?

Hon SHANE JONES: Yes. I think it is best to describe that—[Interruption] The Kiwi Tavern, unfortunately, no longer exists. It was an institution of great repute amongst the Māori boys and girls who went to Auckland University. It is actually a marae now, I understand, I say to Dr Coleman.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: I thought it was a car-park.

Hon SHANE JONES: Is it a car-park? I can say that if it is a marae, then it was already graced with great oratory before the university complex that now occupies that space turned it into a marae. Of course, the Kiwi Tavern was known as the brother hotel to the Globe Tavern, the “big eye”. Those matters have long since passed me by; we are on to far more important matters as parliamentarians.

However, the key point remains that the key public policy issue in this bill seeks to draw the right kind of balance. In relation to format shifting, Dr Sharples talked about the need for us to use modern technology to capture the remnants of not only our Māori history but the history of pioneer New Zealand, the history of families, and the histories of communities. One thing that we should dwell on when we are talking about such dry and prolix topics as technology is that unless this technology is used by our young people so they become more familiar with and express a greater degree of owning their own history, then our own sense of where we have come from as a country is, in my view, distorted.

A lot of people ask why we Māori are so hard out on giving our genealogy, and so insistent on reciting the names of our awas, our wakas, our maungas, etc. I think that is an unfair challenge to us, because that opportunity lies with every New Zealand family. All families should teach their children that their family came on the Ladybird, or whatever boat they came on. They should teach their children to be knowledgable about their history and to value their history, and not wait until an earlier generation has all but died off, then suddenly suffer an attack of anxiety and try to put the history together. Fortunately we are still a young country, and many families are in a position to do that.

But I will say that modern technology has helped a lot of our Māori families who have gone back and are now able to copy from master databases material such as the great speeches of the 1930s and 1940s that were collected by either Sir Apirana Ngata and his ilk or by Sir Apirana Ngata’s son, a great ethnologist. Those speeches lie in a memory bank somewhere in the State broadcasting system, but from time to time they are copied. They are copied in such a way that we can be driving down an electorate road, a pathway—of course some, like my friends from the Māori Party will not be on roads; they will be up the creek—and we can put on an iPod and listen to material that was recorded 40, 50, or 60 years ago. That makes it accessible to a generation who, in my view, spend too much time on the iPod anyhow and need to spend more time kanohi ki te kanohi talking, speaking, and debating.

The material covered in this bill allows for format shifting, downloading, etc. It does not all have to be Snoop Dogg and the wretched type of music that, unfortunately, blights too many of the rooms of my house. More for me are the Doobie Brothers, Stevie Wonder, Joe Cocker, and so on. However, that list, unfortunately, is used as an example of why my kids will not travel with me in the car. But they are able to help matua Shane Jones to download material and put it on to a system that then plugs into a radio. I can then drive knowing not only that I am generating great taxpayer value in the electorate of Northland but that I am also rehearsing my childhood memories and singing, etc., which will come in handy one day in the unlikely event that the rugby team enjoys a surge this year. But we will hear more about those matters from those on the other side of the House.

I commend this bill. Although the topic is somewhat dry, its application is exciting. I am disappointed that my whanaunga from the Māori Party will not support the bill, but such is life—more on that in November. Kia tātou katoa.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Due to the wide public interest in this interesting bill, I have received a phone call from a member of the public who would like to tell Mr Jones that the record in question was a long-playing 33, not a 78. So it is no wonder he got the speed wrong, and he probably deserved the caning he got.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Marian Hobbs): Strictly, that is a point of information and debate, not a point of order.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) : I take this opportunity as a member of the Commerce Committee to take this call in relation to the Copyright (New Technologies) Amendment Bill. I took a couple of areas as being of particular interest in this bill, which were to do with educational establishments and library provisions, particularly in regard to ensuring that, at the very least, students had the opportunity to gain information for their learning, and that they were protected in being given that opportunity.

Currently, for educational establishments, archives, and libraries, there are a number of exceptions for copies of works, so I suppose it was necessary for the bill to clarify how these exceptions will work in a digital environment. There are some minor amendments to the educational establishment provisions that are designed to overcome practical difficulties with the provisions, such as problems identifying the author of a work, particularly in regard to courses that a work would be used for but also in regard to the requirement for libraries to look at written requests and to make and retain declarations when they are copying digital material. These requirements were removed because they would have been administratively difficult for libraries to comply with, and there is no evidence that libraries have abused or would abuse provisions to infringe that copyright.

Some of the interest and concerns from the public were around the risk that works would be copied and transmitted by or to the general public, and that an educational establishment or library could effectively substitute for the role of commercial distributors or publishers. I suppose that the committee’s consideration was that the amended clauses did not condone copying or that the transmission of digital works in these actions continued to be an infringement of copyright; rather, they provide practical mechanisms for educational establishments and libraries to copy digital material in a way that is consistent with the current exceptions in the Act, with completely complex and unnecessary compliance requirements. So I suppose our consideration was aimed to ensure, at the very least, that there was the opportunity still for libraries and those establishments to be able to provide that material when necessary.

The other area that I took interest in, and my colleague speaking previously raised the matter, was format shifting—trying to deal with the fact, for example, of someone using an MP3 player whether in public or at home, and clarifying with that the existing position under the law: how an owner can contract out of a format shifting provision, and the requirement for a person to obtain the original sound recording in their possession if the format had shifted. So there was a real need for the deletion of a clause in the provision that would have meant it expired after 2 years. This was to avoid uncertainty about whether people who purchased older sound recordings would be able to continue to format shift in the future.

A further area was that of Internet service provider liability, where the provision that the limit of the Internet service provider liability for copyright infringement had to be applied in specific circumstances. Some amendments were made to these provisions as a result of our consideration of the bill, largely on the recommendation of specialist advisers—and I have to say that their advice was very handy in giving us some tuition and direction. The requirement in the bill was that an Internet service provider would have a limitation on liability only if they had adopted a policy around termination of accounts or repeat infringers. Some people were really concerned that this was unnecessary, as the standard of Internet service provider terms and conditions generally already allow for this, and that its scope and application were unclear.

In relation to changes to the notice and take-down procedure in the bill, the provision had specified that an Internet service provider is not infringing unless it knows or has reason to believe that the material is infringing, and also that it does not delete or prevent access to the material as soon as possible so they can become aware of it. As a result of that concern—that is, that it did not provide sufficient certainty for Internet service providers about when they would be required to take material down, and that it did not diverge from tests in other jurisdictions—the following change, we thought, was necessary. That was that a test was altered to clarify that the Internet service provider must either know, or have received a notice, that the material was infringing, and that there is a new requirement that notices must be properly completed, signed, and written in the prescribed form. There is a new offence for knowing or recklessly providing a notice that is materially false or misleading, and the requirement for an Internet service provider policy for termination of accounts of repeat infringers was removed because it was unclear in its scope and application and Internet service providers already generally have terms and conditions that cover that. There was a particular concern from Internet service providers that it would be difficult to determine whether they complied with the provision, which could leave them exposed to that liability. Of course, the new provision relating to this obligation is to remove material that provides that Internet service providers will not be shielded from liability if they have knowledge of infringing material. Therefore, notice would be required in this situation. We also looked at posing that the drafting of this provision could be clarified through a Supplementary Order Paper later.

The new offences apply only where a person knowingly or recklessly provides a false or misleading notice, and where those notices are false or misleading in a material way. An inadvertent or minor error in a notice would not give rise to that liability. So the provisions relating to the preservation of the injunctive relief in the bill were amended as a result of recommendations from the specialist advisers to the select committee. These amendments were to give effect to that clear policy and intent, which was to preserve the ability for rights holders to seek injunctive relief.

The last area I want to make note of is that of protection measures, and in the second reading debate quite a lot of speakers from the Commerce Committee raised this issue. It was in relation to extending the current technical protection measure provisions so that the technical protection measures, which protect all exclusive rights under copyright, were protected, to ensure that there was some form of penalty in relation to an offence for commercial dealing in technical protection measure circumvention devices, means, and information, and also to contain provisions to enable users to seek assistance from such trusted institutions as libraries and educational establishments to break technical protection measures to exercise permitted acts under Part 3 of the Copyright Act. I suppose key changes that we determined were the clarification of the technical protection measures to be designed for purposes other than the protection of copyright, and also the enabling of users to seek assistance from trusted institutions; it was simplified so that a user no longer needs to apply to a copyright owner before he or she seeks assistance from a trusted institution. There is also a new ability for the class of trusted institutions to be extended by Order in Council, as the amendments were made on the recommendation of those advisers who, as I said earlier, were really good in giving advice to the committee.

Those were the four areas that I thought were of particular interest, and I reiterate that although we are dealing with new technology everyday, I support this bill and recommend it to the House.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) : I move, That the Human Tissue Bill be now read a third time. The bill was introduced in November 2006 to update the Human Tissue Act of 1964. The bill provides a framework for regulating the collection, storage, and use of human tissue, primarily from deceased people. It also regulates trading in tissue, the export and import of tissue, and the issue of tissue for non-therapeutic purposes—for example, research, education, audit, and anatomical examination. The bill was examined by the Health Committee, which reported the bill back with some amendments, and I take the opportunity to thank the committee for its careful consideration of the bill, which I think has resulted in some improvements to the bill.

Firstly, on the consent framework, the bill makes informed consent the fundamental principle underpinning the lawful collection and use of human tissue. It replaces the use of lack of objection in the Human Tissue Act 1964 with informed consent, which is consistent with the Code of Health and Disability Consumers’ Rights. By specifying who may give consent for the collection and use of human tissue, the bill clearly provides for organ and tissue donation, and the collection and retention of tissue at a post-mortem examination.

The bill specifies a hierarchy of people who may give informed consent to the collection and use of human tissue. In general, the primary consent will be that of the deceased before he or she died, or of someone nominated by the deceased person to consent on his or her behalf. In the absence of consent to donation by the individual or the nominee, the decision will be made by the immediate family. The bill provides for decision making by a close available relative of the dead individual if the immediate family is unable to reach a decision.

The bill as introduced provided that the immediate family could not give consent unless a majority of the immediate family agreed with the decision. The committee recommended that the need for a majority decision be removed. This amendment means that a member of the immediate family may give informed consent or raise an informed objection once it is clear that all capable family members accept—or would, if consulted, accept—that decision. The amendment allows family members to reach a decision in whatever way is appropriate for them, as long as they agree collectively with the decision.

The bill describes some situations where the consent framework operates slightly differently. The Health Committee recommended the inclusion of flowchart diagrams to aid understanding, which I agree has improved the bill. The bill provides some exceptions to the general rule that informed consent is required to collect or use human tissue—for example, where tissue is collected or used under the Coroners Act 2006 or for criminal justice purposes. The bill also recognises that there are certain limited circumstances where, because appropriate safeguards are in place, the public good associated with the use of tissue outweighs informed consent requirements—for example, certain research where this is approved by an ethics committee.

On the matter of informed objection, one of the key amendments recommended by the committee is the introduction of informed objection. The amendment recognises the ability of decision makers to object to the use of human tissue as well as to consent to it. Both informed consent and informed objection will now have legal standing and will prevent others from consenting or objecting. Nevertheless, there will be situations where it might be appropriate for the collection or use of tissue to not proceed, even if a valid consent has been given. The bill now provides that clinicians and researchers need not act on a valid consent, as appropriate, and that organ donor coordinators, transplant surgeons, and others should be free to decide not to act on informed consent if the information available indicates that they should not do so, without fear of prosecution.

The committee had a considerable discussion about cultural issues and human tissue collection and use, and it recommended two amendments to give greater recognition to the culture of the immediate family. The first requires decision makers to take into account the cultural and spiritual needs, values, and beliefs of the immediate family. We want to encourage individuals who want to make a decision about the collection and use of tissue after their death to consider the impact of their decision on their family, but we also want individuals to retain the right to make a decision that the family does not, in the end, agree with.

The second amendment requires the person collecting or using human tissue to take into account the cultural or spiritual needs, values, and beliefs of the immediate family. It is entirely appropriate for clinicians, researchers, and others collecting and using human tissue from a deceased individual to do so with the proper recognition and respect for the immediate family. In the Committee stage the Māori Party proposed that families be given the power to veto the consent given by Māori individuals while they were alive. Although it is considered appropriate that cultural issues be adequately considered during this process, it was not felt to be appropriate to give families a legal right to override an individual decision.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the support this bill has received from both the major and the minor political parties. I commend this bill to the House, in order to provide clarity on the consent requirement for the collection and use of human tissue for the public, the clinicians, and others involved in the collection and use of tissue. In doing so I wish to thank members all around the House who have served on the select committee and who have been involved in the process. I wish to thank the officials and all those who have been consulted on the production of the bill, which I now commend to the House for third reading.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : The National Party supports the Human Tissue Bill, which is a Government bill. It replaces the Human Tissue Act 1964, which needed updating. When this bill was heard at the Health Committee it was heard alongside my member’s bill, the Human Tissue (Organ Donation) Amendment Bill, which had been facilitated by Andy Tookey. Andy had for a number of years been a campaigner for increasing organ donor rates in New Zealand, and he felt that a register was the way to go. The two bills were heard together and there were a number of submissions on both bills. The member’s bill allowed for a voluntary, opt-on organ donor register, where the donor’s wishes were legally binding. Unfortunately, support was not found for the member’s bill, but there is provision in the Human Tissue Bill—the Government bill—to allow a future Government to be able to regulate for a register if organ donor rates do not increase.

The organ donor rates in New Zealand have been appallingly low over the last few years, and there are a number of reasons for that. In particular, there is an increasing need for donated kidneys, with renal failure being the end-stage problem of diabetes renal issues, and there has also been a higher threshold. Where people are needy, they could have organs if they become sicker. This is not only New Zealand’s problem; it is an international problem. Many countries have taken on organ donor registers as the way to fix the problem. Already recently this year, in March, there were some media releases reporting that Michigan was strengthening its organ donor rights, and it is joining the national momentum to bring uniformity to organ donor laws in the United States. There is also Winnipeg, which is calling for a national organ donor register, as is Wisconsin. Many countries around the world are doing the same thing, including the United Kingdom. Even Gordon Brown was recently in the news, calling for there to be a presumed consent register in that country, and that bill is being debated at present.

It was with great sadness that I say we did not get support for the member’s bill, and now we are left with the situation where a future Government can provide for a register if organ donor rates do not increase. At the present time we do not have anything. We have a driver’s licence consent but that does not mean anything. It is not informed consent, so that is ignored. We really are relying on the public to tell their close relatives that they would like to donate, and hope that their close relatives will do the right thing. Otherwise, living wills are the only other way that people may dictate their wishes—how they wish their organs to be used, or not, as is the case.

There was much talk about a public information and public media campaign that would be needed to go alongside, to increase organ donor rates. But, quite frankly, we have heard nothing since. There has been much discussion, but there have been no hard facts, about when this organ donor information campaign might begin. The basic framework of the Human Tissue Bill is that it provides for informed consent, so that an individual’s rights have primacy. Members on this side of the House find it hard to see how, without an organ donor register, we can have an informed consent process for this.

So it is with sadness that I say the member’s bill was not supported. There is provision in the Government bill for a future organ donor register, by a future Government, if organ donor rates do not increase. I guess the spotlight now is on Organ Donation New Zealand, which is the organisation seen to increase organ donations in New Zealand. I know that it has its own structure, and its own way it wishes to go about increasing donor rates, and I think the spotlight will be on that organisation. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

LESLEY SOPER (Labour) : I rise as deputy chair of the Health Committee to speak on the Human Tissue Bill. I thank the Minister for shepherding through this very important bill, and the Health Committee gave it very careful consideration. I intend to give the House a bit more background on the wider policy issues that led to the bill’s introduction. I also wish to take a little time to speak on the issue of maximising organ and tissue donation in New Zealand.

The policy behind the bill was informed by a review, which included public consultation undertaken by the Ministry of Health on the regulation of human tissue and tissue-based therapies. The review identified concerns about the current consent framework for the collection and use of human tissue. The Minister has already discussed how these concerns have been addressed in the bill, and the amendments recommended by the select committee. The review also highlighted issues relating to the regulation of the non-therapeutic use of human tissue, import and export of tissue, and trading of tissue.

The non-therapeutic use of tissue is currently largely unregulated, with the exception of the schools of anatomy. The review found general agreement that an overarching standard for the non-therapeutic use of tissue was needed. The reason for such a standard was the need for clarity and consistency, and to allow for monitoring of the processes around tissue use. The bill will ensure the safety and quality of the non-therapeutic use of human tissue through standards prescribed or approved by regulation. These standards will apply to the collection and use of tissue for research, education, audit, diagnosis, post-mortems, anatomical examinations, and other non-therapeutic purposes. The bill contains additional requirements for schools of anatomy, including licensing of the schools, given the invasive nature of anatomical examination and the need for public confidence in that process.

The ministry’s review found general support for a more comprehensive oversight of the import and export of human tissue, to address issues such as safety and ethical concerns. Many respondents supported the import and export of tissue for quality assurance, peer review, diagnostic purposes, and transplantation purposes, where adequate safety levels can be assured. The bill provides for regulations prescribing or approving requirements and standards for the import and export of human tissue. This will, if necessary, permit rigorous monitoring of safety and quality. The bill also provides for requirements relating to informed consent for imported tissue. These provisions will enable more stringent informed consent requirements for particular types of tissue—for example, human embryonic stem cell lines. The ministry’s review found general support for a prohibition on the sale and purchase of human tissue, but found acknowledgement that there should be some allowance for recovery of reasonable administrative costs associated with the collection, analysis, and processing of that tissue. The bill repeals Part 3A of the Health Act 1956, which regulates trading in blood and controlled human substances, and replaces that with a similar but extended provision, covering, for example, trading in all human tissue. The sale and purchase of human tissue, including blood, will, as a general rule, be prohibited.

I will move on to the maximising of organ and tissue donation. During the select committee process a number of submitters took the opportunity to discuss organ donation and various solutions to increase the donor rate within New Zealand. Much of that comment did not relate specifically to parts of the bill, with the exception of an organ and tissue donor register. The key debate raised amongst submitters—and Mr Tookey has been mentioned—was whether there should be a national organ and tissue donor register in New Zealand. It is fair to say that all submitters were united in their desire, as was the committee, to see the rate of organ donation increase in New Zealand, but the views of submitters differed markedly on the best way to achieve that result.

To provide some context for the debate and to explain to people listening to Parliament what the select committee had to consider, as of January 2007 there were 433 people on the waiting list in New Zealand for a kidney transplant, 13 for a liver transplant, five for a heart transplant, eight for a lung transplant, and four for a pancreas / kidney transplant. Even if organs were retrieved from every potential deceased donor, the supply, particularly for kidneys, would still fall far short of the demand for them. Kidney transplants from deceased donors can only ever be a small part of the response to growing levels of kidney failure amongst New Zealanders. Only a very small number of New Zealanders die each year in circumstances that allow them to become organ donors, and this was something that surprised many of the committee members and many of the members of the public who were there during the submission process as we heard submissions. There is a belief that there are many organs that are just not being harvested in New Zealand.

Organ donation is possible when an individual is determined to be brain-dead, prior to their blood circulation ceasing, and this occurs only within an intensive care unit in a New Zealand hospital. A 2002 estimate put the number of medically suitable potential donors per year in New Zealand at approximately 100. In recent years there has been a reduction in brain death rates in intensive care units, due to a declining road toll and continuous improvements in clinical practice and survival rates from trauma. Data from Auckland City Hospital, for instance, shows an overall trend of fewer patients becoming brain-dead, with a reduction by about a third between 2000 and 2006.

When the bill was introduced, the Minister encouraged members on the select committee to carefully examine the international evidence on the impact of registers on organ and tissue donation rates. The committee did that, and recommends that a register not be established at present. However, what we did recommend includes a clause that permits the establishment of an opt-on register by regulation at a later date, should it become desirable to do so. We believe that that may happen in New Zealand. It will happen when the international evidence tells us that registers are useful in increasing donor rates. That evidence was not given to the select committee. What we were given was evidence that showed that registers are currently not a significant influence on the number of deceased donors available for transplantation. Other factors such as the religious and cultural views towards death and the body, the predominant cause of death, and the number and efficiency of the transplantation coordinators make a more significant contribution to the number of organs and tissues available for transplants.

We had a great deal of evidence, to come to the recommendation we made on organ donation. We know that Organ Donation New Zealand is developing a system of death audits in intensive cares units that, when implemented, will provide more information on processes such as identifying potential donors and requesting donations from families. Although it is reassuring to see that the number of deceased organ donors in New Zealand was higher in 2007 than in 2006, so far none of these approaches will result in a sufficient supply of organs to meet current or likely future demand. The best hope for reducing the excess demand for transplant tissue over time is to reduce the preventable causes of demand for organs such as type 2 diabetes.

This bill is a very carefully considered bill. We believe that the recommendations we have made to the House to improve the bill are very substantial and we are very proud to commend it to the House.

JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) : I rise to take a very brief call on the Human Tissue Bill, because I have been part of the debate throughout this bill and part of the Health Committee, which considered the bill. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to some of the people in my electorate, but also to the people of New Zealand who took the time and steeled themselves to make what was often an emotional plea to the committee to get it right in this bill. They were people who have, in some way, had their lives touched by organ transplants, and who felt that this bill could make a difference for New Zealanders in the future. Those people came before the committee and told us their stories.

I think it would be fair to say that if we looked at the front covers of the women’s magazines over the course of a year, we would almost always find that in the course of a few months there is a story about transplants or the incredible gift that is made when a family manages to steel itself to donate the organs of a loved one for the benefit of many other New Zealanders. On this occasion I pay tribute to those people and say that we hope that this bill will, in some way, improve organ donations. I understand my colleague Dr Jackie Blue’s concerns about the lack of a register, and we thank the members on the other side of the House for their assurance that that will continue to be on the page, so to speak, and will be considered in the future. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for this opportunity to pay tribute to those people. I was proud to be on the select committee and to hear those submissions at the time.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) : New Zealand First supports the third reading of the Human Tissue Bill. This bill was very carefully considered by the Health Committee. It is a very important bill that has far-reaching implications for many organisations, universities, and research institutions right throughout New Zealand. The submissions we heard during the select committee process made us very aware of the research and development that is being carried out. It is vitally important that this continues. The bill also has implications for the many individuals who were hoping that it would see the establishment of an organ donor register. Unfortunately at this time the latter group is going to be very disappointed, but I remind them that there is the provision within this legislation to ensure that an organ donor register could be set up at some later stage.

One of the many issues that were extensively discussed during the process was the trading of tissue. Not one of us wants to see organs and tissues traded on an open market, but there is a very real need for researchers and medical scientists to have access to the tissues they need so that research can be carried out. Some of this tissue is currently imported from many research institutions right around the world. We know it is absolutely essential that all of the vitally important research into human cell lines continues. This type of research is absolutely essential for scientific knowledge, as well as for the wellbeing of the health and development of the population at large. We are also very aware that at this point in time there are many conditions and diseases that are difficult to diagnose in a standard laboratory analysis. Because they are difficult to treat, it makes it very important that there are research institutions able to get this tissue. For the people managing this condition, it is the best hope that we can currently offer them. This is a situation where we had to look at the needs of our society. We would not want some of the fine learning institutions around the country to be handicapped because they did not have access to those tissues and materials that they needed to carry out research.

The bill is important. It is far-reaching, covering the regulation and the use of tissues from dead human bodies. It sets up a framework for informed consent for tissue use. It is a very complex bill.

It also regulates the export and import of tissue and the use of tissue for non-therapeutic purposes. When we look at the use of human tissue in a wider context, we see that it is important that researchers are aware that this bill does not make lawful any activity that is currently prohibited. As has always been the case in New Zealand, a person cannot sell their own tissue or tissue from a body that they are responsible for. I think the very last thing New Zealanders would want to occur is financial consideration for human tissue or human organs. We believe that the gift status these donations have been accorded must remain.

The bill also allows for the setting up of an organ donor register at some future time, when there is sufficient evidence available to establish an opt-on register. We considered this issue at length in the select committee, and discussed it very extensively with the officials. The data that the committee received from overseas countries regarding the mandatory establishment of an organ donor register does not show that setting up an organ donor register at this point in time results in increased numbers of people donating organs. We will follow this argument with interest as the converse can also be argued: without such a register, how can people indicate their wishes to be an organ donor? Here we have to acknowledge the tireless work of Andy Tookey for promoting an organ donor register.

Many people believe that their driver’s licence wish will be honoured, but it is a sad fact that the Land Transport database system remains a separate, stand-alone system with no transfer of the data to any health information system. Often one’s immediate family does not know what options are being ticked by the individual when he or she obtains or renews his or her driver’s licence. I have to count myself among those people who do not know what is on their spouse’s driver’s licence, but I do know what is on my son’s driver’s licence. We are only too aware that the Land Transport database cannot work, and it makes one question why one has to give an indication on a driver’s licence when it is of no value whatsoever. People advising the Land Transport system that they wish to be an organ donor is only an indication of their wishes. It is not legal consent for donation. This has often left grieving families unsure about what to do, so usually nothing is done.

In New Zealand First we believe that an extensive public marketing campaign is required for an opt-on organ donor register to be successful. Without this the problem of organ donation will always stay in the too-hard basket. There has basically been no public action at all since 2004 when the select committee recommended that a legally binding register be set up. We are very aware that organ donation rates are low, and aware too that clinical practice means that more people are now saved after being in car accidents or after suffering other trauma. The setting up of a register and a public information campaign need to go hand in hand, as the bottom line is that any register cannot be set up to fail. A register is expensive to set up and maintain, and it is essential that the additional resources result in an increased rate of organ donation. I think too that we have to be aware that not every organ can be used for transplant. The criteria are extremely stringent—as one would expect—and only a very small number of people actually meet them. Again, that is a situation we would expect.

The donation of organs can sometimes be controversial for families, particularly at a very stressful time in their lives. The select committee tried very hard to clarify the consent process—hence the flow charts included in the bill. In New Zealand First we believe that the bill should provide informed consent requirements and informed objection. Those must be met before any tissue collection or use. The bill has successfully set out to do that.

This issue will not go away. It has not been completed to the satisfaction of all New Zealanders. However, I remind people that the potential is there to develop an opt-on register. It was very interesting to hear from a few submitters over the course of submissions to the bill that some people believe that there should be mandatory harvesting of organs because the person would not need them any more and the health system would actually save millions and millions of dollars because people would not have to have the expensive treatments or medications they needed while they were waiting for an organ donor. That was a very interesting concept, we thought, but far beyond the scope of this bill.

In New Zealand First we believe that the bill clearly sets out the processes that need to be followed for the collection and use of tissue from human bodies after death, and sets up a framework for informed consent for human tissue use. It also regulates trading in tissue, the exporting and importing of tissue, and the use of tissue for non-therapeutic purposes. New Zealand First supports this bill. It needed updating and reviewing and we are pleased to have been part of the process.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : The Green Party is very pleased to support the Human Tissue Bill. I would really like to start by thanking the Health Committee for its very careful consideration of this very complex legislation. On the one hand the bill is extremely complex, dealing with a very wide range of issues; on the other hand it deals with quite an emotional subject, which touches on very sensitive cultural, spiritual, and emotional issues.

I believe that on this bill we had an example of a select committee working at its best. We went in with a very open mind. We listened to the evidence. We had very conflicting evidence: on the one hand people like Andy Tookey implored us to set up a register; on the other hand the intensivists implored us not to set up a register. They said it would not work for intensivists and that, above all, it would not increase the number of organs that are donated in New Zealand. So there were widely polarised views and some very, very compelling evidence from people who had experience with organ donation. We did our very best to steer our way through it all and come up with a bill that I think is a very reasonable compromise—not just a compromise but actually the right policy at the present time.

I know that when we began to consider this bill, I assumed I would favour the establishment of an organ donation register. The reason I assumed I would favour a register was that the Green Party is very keen to see an increase in the number of organs that are donated in New Zealand. Like other parties in this House, we are very, very concerned about the extremely low rate of organs that are donated, and it seemed to us that a register would be one way of increasing the number of organs that were donated. But in fact when we listened with an open mind and looked at the international evidence, we heard and saw that there was no compelling evidence that establishing a register would result in more organs becoming available. Because that was our overriding objective, it did not seem sensible to recommend the rather expensive, quite complex establishment of a register if it would not achieve the purpose of increasing the number of donated organs.

One of the things that most surprised me during the select committee deliberations was the realisation, which previous speakers have alluded to, of how few organs can be, if you like, harvested from people in New Zealand. I just assumed the problem was that organs were available and that all we needed was for more people to give their consent to having their organs harvested at the time of their death. I assumed that ipso facto that would increase the rate of organs being donated and would solve the problem. So it was actually a great surprise to learn that it would not matter how many people had actually signed a register and said they would consent to having their organs harvested at the time of their death. It would not matter how many people had signed such a register, because there would be only an incredibly small number of people every year who would, in fact, be able to have their organs harvested. As previous speakers have said, they estimate that about 100 people in New Zealand could be suitable. First of all, those people have to be brain-dead, have to be in intensive care, and have to have organs that are in a good condition—they cannot have any old organs.

So when one actually looks at that, one realises that simply having a register will not solve the problem. It could be a step in the right direction, but it has not proven to be so internationally. The reality is, unfortunately, that there will only ever be a very small number of people whose organs will be able to be harvested. What we have said, as others have pointed out, is that although there is not any compelling evidence yet to recommend establishing a register, should that evidence be forthcoming—in other words, if, when we continue to look at the international experience, we find that in those countries that have registers it results in an increase in organ donors—then without requiring further legislation, by a simple regulation a future Government can establish a register. So the provision for a register is there. It can be done relatively easily, but we require that we do it based on evidence, rather than just because it feels good and so politicians can say “Look what we’ve done; we’ve established a register.” There is not much point in doing so if we know that the register will not result in an increase in organ donation rates.

The other thing I will make a point about is that more and more people in New Zealand will require donated organs. In fact, some people are saying there will be an explosion in the need for donated organs in coming decades, because of the incidence of obesity and diabetes and the number of people who will need renal dialysis. Unless we do seriously get into preventive measures, such as improving our diets and the quality of the food we eat, we will have an explosion in the number of people who need donated organs. In the United States, the number of people who are waiting for kidneys has more than doubled over the past decade, and the average person waits more than 3 years for an organ. Authorities in the United States are debating whether to set up a rationing system, and are considering, for example, giving priority to young people and saying that older persons, people over the age of 70 or 79, would not be accepted for organ donation. So that sort of thing is already being debated overseas.

I think the real lesson for us is that we will not solve that problem with, if you like, the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. The only real solution is to reduce the number of people who are developing preventable diabetes—type 2 diabetes—obesity, and other diet-related chronic diseases. Only in that way will we begin to manage the issue. We will not manage it by simply setting up a register as if that is somehow a magic wand.

Finally, I would say that the Greens supported an amendment to the bill by the Māori Party to require that the whole whānau be involved in consenting to tissue donation. Unfortunately, there was not sufficient support in this House for it, and we are disappointed in that. We felt that very compelling evidence was given that the spiritual beliefs of tangata whenua around death and dying must be respected in organ donation, and we do not think that the bill does address the concerns of Māori. We wish that that amendment had been accepted. Nevertheless, we feel that overall this bill is very good legislation. As I said, and as others have mentioned, it deals with many other complex issues that I have not even touched on, such as giving much greater oversight to the import and export of tissue, and more stringent informed consent provisions around the use of human embryos. There are complex but very important issues, such as the licensing of schools that use human tissue. The issues are very important and very complex. I really do believe that the Health Committee considered this bill very deeply and in a very wise fashion, and has come up with amendments and a bill that I believe are the most appropriate way forward at this point in time.

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kei te rere kē te wairua o tēnei pire.

[Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. This bill has a strange spirit about it.]

Just under 10 years ago, Te Puni Kōkiri produced a guide, Hauora o te Tinana me ōna Tikanga: a guide for the removal, retention, return and disposal of Māori body parts, organ donation and post mortem: Māori and their whānau. In the course of its investigation, the reference group was told of one instance where body parts had been retained in a hospital. It appears that the Māori health services consultant had discovered a freezer full of body parts, all of them labelled with tags identifying the owners as Māori. Despite the ire of medical specialists, the consultant set about advising iwi and notifying the owners, nearly all of whom were extremely angry. They could not understand how the clear instructions they left with clinicians had been overturned. The Māori health consultant bore the full extent of their wrath.

This case illustrates at many levels the range of contradictory and complex reactions that come with issues at the core of this bill. It demonstrates the deterioration of the relationship between Māori and the health system, and the lack of trust or confidence that their cultural beliefs would be respected. It illustrates also the reluctance of officials to actually respect what Māori had to say about such a sensitive and sacred area. It revealed a distinct lack of accountability amongst medical professionals to their clients, and it displayed the levels of discomfort Māori staff are exposed to when attempting to remedy cultural errors. All this was on top of the utter offence that was caused in the first place by the discovery of body parts “banked” by the hospital without any acknowledgment of the distress this would cause the families involved.

Human tissue and organ transplantation has become an effective way of treating serious health conditions such as heart disease, and kidney or liver failure. We in the Māori Party do not underestimate the critical importance of advancing any knowledge we can to counter the rise in chronic disease and chronic medical conditions. At the hub of this issue is the fact that transplantation usually depends on donations from people who have died in crisis, most often as a result of brain damage through stroke, or accidents. Culturally, the importance of being buried whole is absolutely central to this discussion. Concepts such as whakapapa, mauri, ira tangata, tapu, and noa are significant in our world view, as is informed consent, ensuring that information we have about organ donation is relevant and meaningful. What I continue to learn is that, for some, nothing is sacred.

Informed consent is not an individual prerogative. The application and use of human tissue requires the recognition of both individuals and collectives in the consent process. It was on this basis that we in the Māori Party brought a range of amendments to the bill, to ensure that the collective involvement of whānau was provided for in the provisions of the legislation, and we thank the Greens for their support. The amendments we produced would have enabled an overriding objection to the collection or use of that tissue to be raised by a member and on behalf of that individual’s whānau or extended family. The effect would have been that the collection or use of the tissue was prohibited. In our world view, allowing individuals to be the sole decision-makers regarding whakapapa material is entirely contrary to our tikanga and the preference for collective involvement. Although the bill does include some consideration of the wishes of the immediate family, it is by no means sufficient to accommodate the views of whānau decision-making processes.

Tangata whenua evidence was once again ignored. Dr Jessica Hutchings, the resident scholar at Te Mata o Te Tau, in Massey University, has undertaken research in the area of genetic and nanotechnologies that confronts the critical issues around the cultural, ethical, and spiritual implications of the collection and use of human tissue. It was her analysis that the issue of informed consent is critical. She has asked the question as to whether our current health system is capable of responding appropriately and sufficiently to issues of protection, informed consent, Māori control of information and medical processes, and access to information and medical care. Dr Marewa Glover from the faculty of medical and health sciences at the University of Auckland raised the concern also that Māori have not had the opportunity as whānau, hapū, and iwi to hui and discuss this matter. Her challenge to Parliament was that Māori need to be engaged in a real way. Having a few Māori on a committee or writing submissions is not good enough to constitute proper engagement. Māori need good information and relevant statistics in order to discuss and make decisions of such importance.

I go back to that awful example of the freezer of tagged body parts. We believe that it is an entirely reasonable expectation that in any laws or practices involving human remains, one would acknowledge the world views of tangata whenua as the indigenous peoples of this land. In doing so, we believe that in a tikanga context, any issues relating to human body parts should be included in a discussion that enables the collective wishes of the whānau to be taken into account alongside those of an individual.

I want to pay particular tribute to the chair of the Health Committee, Sue Kedgley, for her commitment to really try to facilitate discussions at the table that recognised the complexities of the cultural context for the legislative agenda related to human tissue. I acknowledge also the legal advisers inside and outside of Parliament who worked hard to put forward options to widen the lens to enable whānau to be able to decide the fate of the bodies of their loved ones upon death. We came to this bill as we do to every bill—determined that all legislation can and indeed should recognise tikanga Māori as was anticipated in the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. But ultimately we were disappointed in the failure of the bill to recognise important cultural values and beliefs outside of a pre-imposed, predetermined Western framework of individual rights. Is it not time for Western values and beliefs to sit alongside those of tangata whenua when making these decisions, not compromising either?

No doubt this bill will pass, despite our lone opposition to it. Parliament has missed out on an important opportunity to open up the consent process to recognise indigenous world views, and that is a weakness. The discussions that need to be had around the protection and preservation of whakapapa materials have not been provided for by this legislation, and that is a pity. I have to wonder how we will stimulate education and debate to face the challenge of the critical need to give life alongside our tikanga.

What will be different? Tangata whenua will know that we in the Māori Party argued passionately and proactively for solutions that could ensure Māori were informed and included in the wider debate around human tissue, organ donation, and quality health-care, access, and choices. We support live donations of organs between whānau members, and we have discussed this matter in our constituency. We have been extremely challenged by this bill, and the life and death choices that are being debated before the House. Our vote of confidence must always be a vote for whānau decision-making, a vote for whānau rangatiratanga, and a vote for the safeguarding of whakapapa. We will not be supporting this bill.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the third reading of the Human Tissue Bill, and like others who have spoken before, I reflect on the fact that New Zealand, like a lot of other countries, does not have a particularly high organ donor rate, and that the challenges that that provides us as a nation are not easily solved. My background with this issue goes back to the last parliamentary term when I was on the Health Committee. We had some interesting contact with people like Andy Tookey, who was a long-time campaigner for asking Parliament to find some way to improve donation rates in this country. What I remember most clearly was our discussion with medical staff who work at the coalface of this issue, on wards where people on life-support machines have been declared brain-dead, and therefore the machine will be turned off. It is at that moment, during that window of opportunity, that an approach can be made to a family to see whether there is any openness to organ donation. We were told by the medical staff that we can write whatever we like into law, but they will not remove organs from a body if the family objects, because the reality that they deal with is such that they will not comply. So whatever we feel and believe about the need for improved donor rates, we have to live with the reality of what is achievable and possible. However, I still feel that we must not drop the ball on this matter.

United Future believes that we must continue to think laterally and creatively around what possibilities we may not have yet explored for improving donor rates within New Zealand. What occurs to me at this stage—and I have thought about it over a considerable period of time—is that the obvious point, or crux of the matter, is the hearts and minds of family members at what is a very traumatic time in that family’s life. They are the people who decide, and even if they know that their family member was keen to be a donor, the pressures and emotional turmoil they are facing at that time can cloud the issue. This is a stone that I believe has not been fully turned over and explored yet.

I agree with others that the fact that we have this silly donor provision on our driver’s licence is a complete nonsense. When we sign up for a driver’s licence we want a driver’s licence; we are not thinking about donations. When the question is put to us at that point we make a kind of snap and fairly thoughtless decision one way or another. It is a bit of a blunt instrument and it means nothing. But it occurred to me that we have one other activity in New Zealand, which is in the area of blood donation, whereby when people go and become a blood donor they are in donation mode—that is what they are there for, and that is what they are considering. I think that we miss an opportunity in those circumstances. We have people who sit in a waiting room, have a blood test, lie down and give blood for 10 minutes or so, then sit and have a cup of tea and a biscuit. People can be in the centre for at least half an hour, sometimes even longer, in donor mode, and we do not seem to take what I think is a really respectful opportunity to discuss with people—who are obviously open to making a donation of human tissue—what the options are, and what the ethical issues are, around being a donor, should that sort of tragedy hit them. It occurs to me that that would provide a better opportunity to sign up people or to engage with them on this matter.

I am not completely convinced yet that a register would do anything, and that is certainly what the medical staff said to us. They said that we could write diddly-squat in a book but they will not take any notice of it when they are dealing with hard family emotions. But what we could do is provide people who express a willingness to be an organ donor, at that point, with material to give to their family in advance, prior to any tragedy being even a possibility. That can help them engage with their family and have a discussion that could be helpful in the midst of a tragedy when people are making all-important decisions. I have to believe that there is a big difference between somebody ticking a box on a driver’s licence application and saying that he or she is happy to be a donor, and a person who has sat down with his or her family and explained and articulated his or her wishes, the reasons why, and any reservations he or she may have.

One of the things we learnt is that people who want to be donors may be happy to donate an internal part of their body but they may have a hang-up about donating eyes, retinas, or things like that. They may find eyes a very sacred thing, but there may be other parts of their body that they would happily be a donor of. If people have the ability to sit down and think through those issues with their family and talk about it, in a moment of tragedy there may be an increased willingness by the family to think about that discussion and make that call.

I suggest to the House that we have not thoroughly examined every opportunity yet. My suggestion may not work, either, but I do think there are other options. I think that particularly in relation to cultural matters and the issues that the Māori Party has sought to address—which I think are very, very real—individual families, iwi, and extended families would love the opportunity to sit down and talk through what their response might be ahead of time. Whether that would make a difference at the end of the day, who knows—I cannot make that call even for my own family. But certainly since the last parliamentary term and the petition by Andrew Tookey, I have sat down with my family and clearly articulated to them my wishes should anything happen, and I have clearly articulated to them my reasons behind them. We ended up having an extremely good discussion whereby they went away and thought about their wishes and we talked about it as a family. There were differing views and positions within our own immediate family, but we came out of the discussion with a really clear understanding of what we would like to happen in our family. I do not how we would react if a crisis ever befell us—and God forbid that it ever should—because we can never predict how we would react in those circumstances or in the situation in which we find ourselves, but I do know that the fact that we have had this discussion will be a helpful thing.

I wonder how it is that we as a nation, and the Government, could help to facilitate those kinds of discussions in families and in other appropriate circumstances where it really could make a difference. I suggest that blood donors would be a good place to start because we are dealing with people who are already willing to make donations of this kind. I think it would be a wasted opportunity to not start there. I do not think that people would feel at all imposed upon in those circumstances, because they are already there making a donation.

United Future is happy to support this bill. We are glad there are some provisions in it that keep the discussion open around organ donation, but we think a lot more could be discussed and that a greater range of options could be considered.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : I welcome the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Human Tissue Bill as I was on the Health Committee at the time when submissions were heard on this bill. I know that members opposite are interested to hear from members of the select committee about how those submissions proceeded. This was a difficult bill for the select committee members to hear. I thank the members of the select committee and the chair, Sue Kedgley, who spoke before, because we were dealing with issues about untimely deaths, deaths that families were not prepared for, and there were some quite difficult discussions that went on around that issue.

I take the opportunity, while I am on my feet, to pay my respects to our Waikato firefighter Derek Lovell in the event of his untimely death. I also pay my respects to his family, his wife Milli and his daughter Tiffany, who I have visited. Our thoughts go out to those people in the event of that untimely death.

In the select committee we heard many such tragic tales of personal circumstances that people had found themselves in. We thought about the trauma they had gone through and considered the issue of organ donation and what that meant for them. We also had some submissions from families who had found themselves in that position and did not contemplate the issue of organ donation as it had never been raised with them. They were there to say to the select committee that as difficult as it would have been for them at the time, they wished there had been quite a standard process whereby they had been asked to consider the issue. So we did hear submissions from all aspects.

There were quite a number of aspects to this bill. People have spoken about the organ donation issue substantially in the course of this third reading debate, probably because that was the one that really touched our hearts the most, I suspect, and because it was very controversial. However, there are many controversial aspects to this bill. It covers how to deal with human tissue with regard to research and education, and it also deals with a range of other very sensitive issues. I want to speak to a couple of those issues today.

We heard from previous speakers that the bill as first introduced to the House had a number of significant amendments recommended to it by the select committee. Two of the more technical amendments concerned foetal tissue and the collection and use of gametes and embryos. I alert the House to the fact that although organ donation is controversial and emotive, we had several other equally controversial and emotive issues to deal with. I want to briefly outline those two important amendments today.

With regard to foetal tissue, the amendment recommended by the select committee clarified the consent process for use of human tissue from dead foetuses. Although the Human Tissue Act 1964 specifically excludes stillborn children from the definition of “body”, the Human Tissue Bill includes dead foetuses and stillborn children as a specific type of foetus, thereby ensuring that situations not covered by the Code of Health and Disability Consumers’ Rights are in fact covered by the consent framework in this bill.

Foetal tissue that is removed or obtained in the course of a health care procedure is covered by the code and not by the Human Tissue Bill. This includes foetal tissue removed as a result of termination or stillborn children delivered with the assistance of a health practitioner. In these situations the foetal tissue is treated as a body part of the mother, and the mother would have the right to make an informed choice about the use of that tissue.

Having described that, I imagine that listeners to this debate can well understand the range of emotive issues and very tricky situations that the select committee considered. We were helped in the course of our deliberations by the officials, who were able to talk to us about the technical realities of the decisions we were making as a select committee.

The Human Tissue Bill covers foetal tissue that is not removed or obtained in the course of a health care procedure. So the consent framework applies to foetal tissue that is inside the body of a dead mother; to foetal tissue that has issued from the mother but not in the course of a health care procedure, for example through a miscarriage or birth of a stillborn child without assistance from a health practitioner; and to foetal tissue where the mother gave consent to collection and use of tissue under the code and where the mother has since died and someone wants to use the tissue for a purpose not covered by the original consent. Although there will be few situations where the bill rather than the code will apply, it is important that the bill makes clear who can consent in these situations. The new clause does just that.

The second important amendment that I want to outline to the House today is with regard to the collection and use of gametes and embryos. This second amendment ensures that the collection and use of gametes and embryos from dead people is covered by the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act—known as the HART Act—which was passed in 2004. This bill amends that Act to provide for regulations requiring informed consent for the collection of gametes and embryos from dead people for reproductive procedures, reproductive research, or other lawful purposes. The specific form or content of the regulations will reflect the outcome of the consultation process currently being led by the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology. This is a sensible approach. The consent framework in the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act, which requires consent of the individual, is more appropriate than the consent framework in this bill, which allows consent to be given by various people other than the individual concerned.

I return briefly to the issue of organ donation, which has been well canvassed in the course of this debate. There has been some discussion about drivers’ licences and whether they are the appropriate place for an individual to indicate willingness to donate. I would argue, outside the scope of this bill, that as an educative process it is actually very useful for people when being issued their drivers’ licences to think carefully about the issue of organ donation. I think the choice whether to indicate willingness to donate causes people to think seriously about the responsibility that comes with having a driver’s licence issued to them. It raises that prospect of the thing that we never like to think about—that is, an unexpected or untimely death. I think it is quite appropriate in the issuing of drivers’ licences that people do stop and reflect on the responsibility that has been handed to them when they take up a driver’s licence and get out on our roads.

Of course, we know that road accidents are a major cause of unexpected and untimely deaths, so I think it is appropriate that people are called to think about that with regard to that process. However, members have quite rightly put before this House today in this debate that the option of indicating willingness to donate on drivers’ licences has not resolved the issues about the consenting that goes with that. It is not a legally binding document and it does not give effect as people had perhaps, in a misguided way, thought it would when they made that decision and stated a willingness to donate on their drivers’ licences. I think it is entirely appropriate that in addition to that process the consent processes are spelt out now in this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) : I will take just a brief call on this Human Tissue Bill. I think the issues have been well canvassed. As members know, National will be supporting the bill. I note, though, that there would have been a great opportunity for an organ donor register to be established. I know that this bill has provision for that to happen in the future, but I listened with interest to the arguments saying that we cannot establish an organ donor register because there is no evidence that it will be effective. The very people who are making that argument will want to regulate through the Public Health Bill for fairly Draconian measures for which there is no evidence either. So there seems to be a fairly inconsistent approach there. I think maybe the Green Party and some members of the Labour Party need to look carefully at the issue of evidence to be considered before a measure is instituted.

This bill updates the previous legislation so that the cultural needs and beliefs of our nation as we are in the 21st century are taken into account. We think that is a very good thing. The committee heard a range of submissions. There were some very compelling stories, and certainly this bill was the most intellectually challenging that the Health Committee has been confronted with.

The bill involved a great deal of questioning and reading, but it is good that this legislation is coming to pass and that the House will be passing it today. My only regret is that it would have been a great opportunity for the establishment of a donor register, but the door is open and I am sure a future Parliament will be called upon to consider the issue, again. Those are my concluding comments, and it is good this bill will be passed today.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Associate Minister of Health) : I am pleased to come down to the Chamber to take a call on this Human Tissue Bill. It has a very interesting history. It began with a Law Commission report that prompted us about ways forward to care for human tissue. I acknowledge that we started it off really with Jackie Blue’s Organ Donation Bill, which was discharged, and then this Human Tissue Bill came into being. The Human Tissue Act is 44 years out of date and this bill is really needed today.

I think we have become a little bit confused about some of the issues that we all find to be very, very sensitive. In the past, I used to be in charge of a service that linked very closely with intensive care and intensivists, the collection of organs for organ donation, and Auckland hospital. Never were the wishes of family overridden. But we were lucky; we were in a hospital that set up an environment that encouraged cultural participation, with Te Whakaruruhau and the Hunga Manaaki Service walking alongside families. I knew the sensitivity of these issues and how that ought to be reflected in a bill. It was interesting when I was pursuing a member’s bill and went up to Auckland to talk over these issues with the intensivists and found that they were really aware that those issues could be addressed through the training and cultural awareness of all staff who need to deal with the retrieval and management of human tissue. I believe that this bill is really just setting up the framework for regulating the collection, storage, and use of human tissue, and any health provider involved in this aspect of medical care, which is a very sensitive one, really needs to be well educated on the cultural issues. I remind the House too that those cultural issues are not the exclusive domain of Māori; they are also issues for Pākehā, Indian, or anybody when they are dealing with the care of the deceased and the retrieval of organs from the deceased. I want to cover off here that that is primarily what this bill is about.

Organ Donation New Zealand is well established, and it is run from Auckland. It looks after the retrieval of organs right throughout New Zealand, and it is absolutely adamant that its role is about education and raising the community’s awareness. Although I know it is a sensitive issue for many families, hopefully they will look at issues like the advanced directive or what the will of parents and family are, if they were to meet with an untimely death. My family knows exactly what to do with my human tissue, and what I would want to see if there was anything useful left there to use. It is an open discussion in our family. We are a bicultural family yet it is not an issue that has really spooked us, at all. We have had the open discussions, and I know how my family will look after my remains if something happened to me. Many families in the hospital setting, when somebody comes and walks beside the family and explains, along with clinicians, about the intention and the purpose for human tissue retrieval, and when they get time to reflect, and are not pressured, are usually quite happy to make a decision. No intensivists will move, unless that environment has been set up for families. Those are the issues that intensivists take notice of. Intensivists told me, as they told Judy Turner, that they would never look at the motor vehicle licence and whether the person had ticked the donor box. Just because someone has signed the motor vehicle licence to say that he or she would like to be a human tissue donor, it is not going to cloud their decisions on diving in to retrieve organs. I understand their reasons for not doing that. They want to provide the right clinical environment, which supports families to make the right decision on behalf of their deceased loved ones.

One of the underlying principles that I like about the Human Tissue Bill is that of informed consent. I believe we have to have a clinical environment in which we trust clinicians to deal sensitively with patients to bring out the issue with wider family about what informed consent really means. That means covering off how the tissue will be stored, how it is collected, and whether they can later have access to that tissue. I think New Zealand learnt a lot when we were all horrified by the infant hearts’ issue at Green Lane Hospital. We realised, absolutely, that there was no system around the collection and maintenance of those organs. That horrified us all.

We have come a long way since that Green Lane Hospital infant hearts’ issue. The public discussion around both Jackie Blue’s bill and this Human Tissue Bill, involving very, very complex issues, has been fantastic. We can now talk openly with families about what they think about this, what they feel comfortable with, and that is what is to be applauded. We now have that environment in the clinical setting, but we need more discussions out in the community.

This bill is consistent with the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights, which is a very important document in every clinical setting so that patients know their code of rights, and the bill does comply with that. I am pleased that my colleague Sue Moroney rounded off very carefully the issues that are dealt with in the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act, because they should not be confused with this bill.

This bill is very sound, and I congratulate the Health Committee under the chairpersonship of Sue Kedgley. It has come up with a very sensible option, and the bill will be very well received by New Zealanders.

NATHAN GUY (National) : I will take just a brief call on the Human Tissue Bill before us this evening. It is hugely important to this country, and National will be supporting it. National members on the Health Committee did a lot of good work on the original member’s bill brought in by Jackie Blue.

The reason this legislation is very important is that there is a shortage of vital organs for donation. It is pretty hard to talk about people’s inner anatomy in detail but basically there is a shortage of organs, particularly kidneys, livers, and hearts. When people have been in an accident and are fighting for their lives, we need to ensure there are enough of those vital organs available for them. When one reads through this bill, it appears there is a shortage of them, and, unfortunately, this bill also does not capture the organ donor register issue. It is a very, very topical issue and I think that in time Parliament will have to revisit it.

National will support the Human Tissue Bill because it is of vital importance. I acknowledge the hard work of the Health Committee. This bill is very complex. I have just had a read through of it and those listening may not realise that it comprises 70 pages. I believe that this Parliament will need to address the organ donor register. It is one of the most important parts that are missing from this bill, and that is a challenge going forward.

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

• Bill read a third time.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) : The National Party has been supporting this bill to, and through, the select committee. The bill ensures that the Government can regulate the content of voluntary disconnection guidelines that the Electricity—

Hon David Parker: It’s been to select committee.

PHIL HEATLEY: That is right. We supported it being referred to the select committee, we supported it coming out of the select committee, and we continue to support it through this House.

One of the issues we raised during that time was what Helen Clark herself said—this was all brought about, members will recall, by the Mercury Energy debacle—that Mercury Energy was in breach of the social responsibilities written into the existing law under which State-owned enterprises operate. Why then was there a rush by Labour to further regulate? We knew at that time that Labour was cultivating the perception that the law is loose and needs changing, but in reality Mercury Energy and its board should not have been let off the hook that easily.

This was a reaction that the Government took to an incident that either it should have known was going to come over the hill in a widespread way, and therefore fixed it, or it should have recognised that it was a one-off incident that does not require further onerous regulation. None of those questions were asked at the time. Essentially we had a family put in a tremendously difficult situation, and the Prime Minister had to front up and say she would pass more regulation. There was no thought put into it at all.

The bill went to the Commerce Committee, and members worked hard to improve it—National members certainly did cooperate. The bill has now come out of select committee, and we are happy to support it. But we were anxious about the ease and speed at which this Labour Government decided that regulation and more legislation would fix the problem. That is its reaction to everything: if it moves, regulate it; if it moves again, tax it. We cannot run a country like that because it simply grinds everyone down. It grinds them down with the costs, and it grinds them down with the paperwork.

But the select committee members, as I say, have improved this legislation to a point where we are happy to support this bill now, and I let the House know that the National Party will be voting for it. Thank you.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) : I rise to speak in support of the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill, and I thank National members for their indication that they are going to support it. The bill has two main parts. The first relates to amending the definition of “low-use consumer” for the purpose of the low fixed-charge tariff option. I would not want to overstate the benefits that that tariff option confers upon low users of electricity who can opt for a lower fixed-charge option. Rather than choosing a higher fixed-charge option and lower variable costs, those electricity users can chose a low fixed-charge option and higher variable costs for the electricity that they use, where that is to their benefit.

The rules as they are now—before this bill—confer additional benefits to the areas in the country that are warmer and as a consequence do not have to spend as much on heating as colder districts. The effect of that, for example, is that more Auckland consumers, on average, benefit from the low fixed-charge option than Invercargill consumers, notwithstanding the fact that in some ways the Invercargill consumers need the low fixed-charge option more because they live in a colder part of the country and therefore have to spend more, on average, on heating, and they have higher electricity bills. It is rather unfortunate that the rules as they currently stand apply the same threshold for the low fixed-charge option across the country and do not differentiate between different parts of the country based on average use that reflects how cold it is in different parts of the country and how much people have to spend on electricity.

This bill fixes that problem by creating more than one region within New Zealand for the purposes of the low fixed-charge option. It creates a regulation-making power under the legislation, the Electricity Act 1992, which enables regulations to be promulgated that have that effect, so that we have more equity in terms of the operation of the low fixed-charge option between Auckland and Invercargill, to use the example I just referred to. This will be of benefit to low-quantity electricity consumers. The threshold is currently 8,000 kilowatt hours throughout New Zealand. That threshold will, in due course, be lifted for some parts of the South Island where the low fixed-charge option is currently unavailable to some people, because most people use more than 8,000 kilowatts an hour, which is the threshold. Most people in Invercargill would use more than that because it is colder and, as I say, they have to use more electricity to heat their houses.

There are some other minor alterations in the bill. There is a power for the Minister to grant exemptions from the low fixed-charge option. This provision is directed to small, isolated networks that are not connected to the national grid. For example, on some of our offshore islands where there is a very small pool of customers paying for the network, the cost of servicing those customers can be higher than is the norm for the larger grid networks in other parts. The provision enables those who are running power systems in those isolated areas to have an exemption from the low fixed-charge option, because it is not practicable or fair to apply it in those areas.

The other change that is made under the Electricity Act is that regulations can now be made to protect vulnerable consumers from inappropriate disconnection. We had the terrible situation last year where mistakes were made that led to the disconnection of someone who was in need of electricity for medical support, and that is a situation that I do not think anyone wants to see happen again. At that time the Government found that it did not have a regulation-making power that would have entitled the Government to fix the situation; we were reliant upon voluntary efforts on the part of the electricity companies. The electricity companies, in fairness to them, have responded very well, and unnecessary disconnections have decreased as a consequence of their looking again at what their rules and procedures should be surrounding disconnection. The electricity companies have done this under the guidance of the Electricity Commission, which has developed guidelines that electricity retailers until now have adopted voluntarily. We were in the position where had that voluntary agreement not been secured, we would have lacked the legislative power to fix it.

Despite the fact that most people in New Zealand realise that it ought to be within the power of Governments to require electricity companies to do things in a certain way, we did not have the ability to require it. Now it appears that these powers will not be needed to be used in the near future, but it does seem responsible that the Government has these powers. If, in the future, regulations are necessary to protect vulnerable consumers who might need electricity to maintain electrical devices they need for their health, for example, it seems appropriate that the Act should include regulation-making powers to enable the Government to make those regulations.

I thank the Commerce Committee for its consideration of the bill, and I thank the other parties who are going to support it. The committee was unanimous, I note, in its report back, and the only change made to the bill was a minor one. I look forward to the passage of this bill. Thank you.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Minister of Tourism) : I will take the opportunity to speak briefly on this bill, which I think is very sensible legislation and another necessary piece, I guess, in putting Humpty-Dumpty back together again. I acknowledge the efforts of my colleague the Hon David Parker in the part he has played, because the reality is that when Max Bradford deregulated the electricity industry, Humpty-Dumpty fell off the wall. Since that time we have been trying to put him back together again so that we have a fully integrated energy system, delivering reliable electricity to people up and down this country. There were investments over decades and decades to have an integrated system, but of course that was all thrown to the wind by the National Party.

Mr Heatley, who spoke just before, clearly identified the tried and disproved theory that the market will deliver to everyone. Well, the fact is that it will not, and in electricity in particular we need to protect the integration, the coordination, and the cooperation of all participants to make sure that when we turn the switch on, the lights will come on as well—particularly for those consumers who rely on it.

This bill, as my colleague said, does two things. It strengthens the regulation-making powers, if needed, to ensure that the disconnection practices of electricity retailers adequately protect the needs of vulnerable customers—people who are relying on electricity for their lives, in effect. In the tragedy last year in May—where I am sure the electricity retailer had no intention of causing harm in any way, but the cold hard market reality of disconnection applied because bills were not paid—we saw, unfortunately, the death of a New Zealander. We do not want that situation to continue and I think it is good that we have legislation that allows these regulations to be made. It does not impose them; it just allows them to be made.

The next component of the bill is something I have some knowledge of, in coming from the West Coast. We are fortunate that although we live in a mild climate it does not get freezing cold, but there is the need for energy and many constituents have access to coal. So over those winter periods they have used relatively small amounts of energy. They are superannuitants and they are beneficiaries, for the most part, and they watch every penny because they have to—and good on them.

The bill raises the threshold of the low fixed-charge eligibility so that it allows them to use not 8,000 kilowatt hours but up to 9,000 kilowatt hours, on average, below which they will be entitled to a low fixed-charge regime from the retailer. That means there is an incentive for them to use less power, and they will not be penalised adversely as they were in the past.

Shane Ardern: They’ll get taxed for greenhouse gas emissions.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Again, it identifies the need for the Government to intervene through regulation, through guidance, in a way that the National Party, I tell Mr Ardern, would not have any idea of. He still thinks that the market will deliver to him and his farming mates. But they know well that they need some guidance from time to time. They need guidance from time to time, and regulation, to ensure we have a good sound economy that will not run off the rails.

This bill is necessary to take us one step further down the path to try to reconstruct a fully coordinated energy system that provides the right incentives for energy efficiency, and that allows people to come in with new ideas, but that protects consumers and businesses from the rorts that could occur under a market model, because electricity is a vital component of both industry and private living. It is therefore important that we have guidance through the Electricity Commission. Again, I applaud the efforts of the Hon David Parker and his oversight—

Shane Ardern: What’s he going to do for the West Coasters who burn coal?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR:—of changes that have further improved the regime to ensure that this economy can carry on, particularly in rural areas. Mr Ardern does not give a damn, because he thinks that the market will deliver to his rural constituents. No, no, we do require guidance, particularly in the area of electricity. In fact, one of the key proposals in Max Bradford’s wonderful restructuring was that beyond 2013 there would be no obligation to provide electricity to rural consumers. What a ridiculous proposal! The Government has stepped in and said that that obligation will continue, as it rightfully should, but Mr Ardern and his National colleagues, led by Max Bradford some time ago in restructuring the industry, thought that they could remove the obligation for lines companies to provide for rural consumers. This is the heart and soul of the New Zealand economy; these are the people out shearing the sheep, milking the cows, and living in rural houses. These people need electricity, but Max Bradford and the National Party said that it was not necessary to supply beyond 2013. Well, we have stepped in and said that that obligation will continue. We will also continue to step in where necessary, and when the Electricity Commission comes to us seeking further guidance, to ensure that we have a fully integrated, working, operative, and fair system of delivering electricity across this country so that we can get on and develop the economy in the way that it needs to be developed.

If we reverted to the policies that drove the electricity sector under National, we would have people ripped off left, right, and centre under the market model, we would have no obligation to supply—unless there was an opportunity—and we would see a rundown of electricity supply to the rural sector; there is no doubt about it. Mr Ardern knows that. He knows full well that his party’s restructuring of electricity was flawed. It failed, and without the passage of legislation such as this that we have in the House today, not only would we see social ruin in this country but we would have economic ruin, as well. I applaud the initiatives of my colleagues and Mr Parker in moving this legislation forward, and I look forward to Mr Ardern getting up and saying something in support of his rural constituents.

Does Mr Ardern agree with the Government when it says that there should be an ongoing obligation on lines companies to provide electricity beyond 2013, or does he say, as his party says, there should be no obligation? I look forward to him standing up and taking the opportunity that he has in the House now. He has the opportunity to stand up and say what he is doing for his rural constituents. We need to pass this legislation to protect vulnerable New Zealanders who rely on electricity for their lives, and we need to pass it to ensure there are incentives for energy efficiency for low users of electricity in regions such as the West Coast—where there are options other than electricity, but where they would otherwise, under the market model, be hammered by high lines charges and probably by high unit costs under a National Government as well, without any oversight or regulation.

It is really important that this legislation progresses. I am very happy to have taken the call and taken the opportunity to put a few points on the table, and to challenge the National members and ask whether, in 2013, they would remove the obligation to continue to supply rural constituents and rural electricity users. That is maybe one little question that National members could answer, because they cannot answer any of the big ones, particularly around the issue of electricity. Would those members sell off Meridian Energy? Would they sell off the State-owned energy generators in this country? I put it to the House that they would have to in order to pay for their extravagant tax cut promises, although we never know. That might change tomorrow, as happens with most National Party policy.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) : This Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill is a very unambitious little bill that will not change the status quo very much. The Greens will vote for it because it does no harm and it may do a little good, but it will not take us very far towards the further unravelling of the Bradford mess that was created a decade ago now.

Nobody could disagree that vulnerable consumers with perhaps a poor command of English, with health problems, on low incomes, and with all the vulnerability that goes with that socioeconomic status ought to be protected from the terrible fate of the Muliaga family. I think that nobody would object to the fact that there will be guidelines that can be regulated and made mandatory if the industry does not play ball. I am quite sure that the industry learnt its lesson from the tragedy that occurred in Auckland and the publicity that surrounded it. I am quite sure that the industry will take a lot more care in future not to let that happen again, but, just in case, there is a power to regulate here, and we support it.

The other main thing the bill attempts to deal with is tweaking the low fixed charges. Low fixed charges came about initially as a compromise offered by a former Minister of Energy, the Hon Pete Hodgson, when I approached him to implement what used to be Labour’s policy on energy. It is still Green policy that there should be no fixed charges. Many other industries have high overhead costs, as well. They have fixed costs, and they cover those fixed costs in their per unit charge. If I drive on to the forecourt to buy petrol, I do not have to pay $20 to get on to the forecourt before I start filling up and then get the petrol at 50c a litre. The high fixed charges the petrol station has are covered by the per unit cost.

So it should be for electricity, because having any fixed charge is a very perverse incentive. It is a perverse incentive to save electricity, because electricity at the margin is cheaper, and one is locked into this fixed cost, regardless of how much one uses. It is a perverse incentive to invest in energy efficiency, as it mitigates particularly strongly against those on low incomes who use small amounts of power, and it makes electricity proportionately cheaper for the homes with spa pools, underfloor heating, three bathrooms, air conditioning going all summer, and five heated towel rails that are never turned off. It has always been Green Party policy that there should be no fixed charges, and it was, for many years, Labour Party policy that there should be no fixed charges, but that was dropped when Labour came into Government.

In 2000 or 2001 I debated this issue with Peter Hodgson, and he offered the compromise approach whereby every company should be required to offer an optional tariff, where the fixed charge was no more than 30c a day. That would make sense if people were low users and it would not make sense if they were high users. Well, it was a very compromised, ineffective solution, as it turned out. It was probably slightly better than nothing, but not a whole lot better.

The Minister is now tweaking it so that the level at which that low fixed charge becomes economic for people varies, depending on the climate zone they are in, and that is a sensible thing to do, too. But it does not go any way at all towards addressing the real problem of electricity pricing, which is that electricity pricing is trying to do two things at the same time. It is trying to make electricity affordable for those who can least afford it and who still have to keep warm, cook their food, and have light. It is a social necessity, and we should make sure that it is available to all citizens. At the same time, the pricing needs to send a signal that people will save money if they save electricity, that it is worth being efficient, that it is worth putting in more efficient technology, that it is worth investing in insulating houses, and that it is worth putting in solar heating and all the other things that can be done.

How do we do both those things at once? The first one requires low charges; the second one requires high charges. There is a solution to that problem. I have put it forward many times. I put it forward in my first reading speech on this bill. The solution was considered by the Commerce Committee and discounted, and I put it forward again now. It is that people should pay a low rate for the first part of their power bill and pay a higher rate for the last part of their power bill. In other words, the price at the margin needs to go up to give the signal that it is cost-effective to be energy efficient, and the price for the baseload needs to go down to make sure that a basic amount of electricity, to keep body and soul together and warm, is at an affordable price. It has been done in other countries. It is entirely doable. We give every household a basic block of power at a relatively low tariff, and then we have ascending steps of tariffs above that, with the top tariff being quite a bit higher than it is now.

The intent is for the overall system to be revenue neutral. We would not be asking the power companies to subsidise anything. We would simply be following the costs of supply in that our old hydro lakes, which everybody deserves a share of, are cheap to run, and everyone should have a share of those. The power that is really expensive is the last thermal station that was built, which is much more expensive to run. We should let the people who make that necessary pay those higher prices. It is a well-established formula, and it could be achieved. But, unfortunately, there was nobody on the Commerce Committee that considered this bill who understood progressive pricing. The Greens, with only six members in the House, do not have the right to a seat on the Commerce Committee, so we were not there to argue the case.

The select committee report states: “Some submitters said that they would prefer progressive pricing to low fixed charge tariffs. … However, we disagree with this view for the following reasons. First, designing a progressive pricing scheme is complex,”—well, I would ask whether anybody can point to anything in the electricity industry that is not complex these days—“and raises issues such as how to prevent retailers from raising other prices to recover the loss of revenue resulting from the restriction.” Well, that is exactly what retailers are meant to do. Retailers are meant to design a stepped tariff so that they recover the revenue from the top step to make up for the revenue they lose on the bottom step. That is the whole purpose of it, and it is meant to come out revenue neutral. It is a little bit like a progressive tax system, where people who earn only $15,000 a year pay a lower rate of tax than those who earn $150,000. So I do not think that the select committee’s first concern stands, at all.

The select committee report goes on to state: “Secondly, a progressive pricing scheme might encourage retailers to actively seek to shed small consumers to minimise loss.” That is a genuine concern, but I think that it can be managed through the regulatory system, and there is a prohibition now on just disconnecting people. The report goes on to state: “Thirdly, progressive pricing tends to distort marginal cost price signals, resulting in less efficient consumption and investment decisions.” I am sorry, but that is absolutely what it does not do. Progressive pricing gives us a high marginal price signal, which encourages people to invest in energy efficiency and renewables, and it thereby saves the cost of the next power station, which is always more expensive than all the preceding power stations. So it is really unfortunate that nobody on the Commerce Committee was prepared to take this up, and therefore the bill remains largely unchanged in this respect.

RON MARK (NZ First) : I stand to take a short call on behalf of my colleague Peter Brown, who is unable to take this call tonight. Energy is his portfolio. Having listened to the previous speaker, Jeanette Fitzsimons, the leader of the Green Party, I did a quick skim back through the membership of the Commerce Committee. I noted that not only were the Greens not there but also New Zealand First members were not there. Maybe some of these committees lack the extra peripheral vision that sometimes comes with having alternate parties represented more strongly and more forcefully on them. One of the sad realities of having a Parliament dominated by the two old-hack parties is that we tend to get the same two old-hack views. When alternate parties do not get a seat, we clearly do not get alternate views.

John Hayes: “Mr Xenophobia”.

RON MARK: We have people like John Hayes, the outgoing member for Wairarapa, sitting there and championing Max Bradford’s reforms, which were going to be the solution to all of our electricity problems. Clearly they are not. I guess it is a source of embarrassment to National members every time I say “Max Bradford”, and Wayne Mapp has just shuddered visibly in front of me in the House. I can understand why he would do so.

I cannot help but notice a couple of things. Mr Hayes should not chuck such unparliamentary terms as “xenophobia” across the House, and he should not accuse a member of being xenophobic. Mr Hayes entered into a rather horrible deal with a lady of Asian descent, and a figure of about $980,000 was involved. I heard on the grapevine that after some considerable pressure he has paid most of that money back to her.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Narrow.

RON MARK: I know that I need to narrow the debate, but xenophobia has nothing to do with the electricity legislation before us, and if Mr Hayes is able to make such interjections he does deserve a bit of a slap-down on that note. If he would just look after the Asian investors whom some people have accused him of ripping off, we would not be in these embarrassing situations.

I want to say, at this point in time, because it seems the entire House is in agreement, that New Zealand First will support this Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill. Sometimes when we are passing reforms through this House, such as those of the previous National Government, under the guidance of Max Bradford—who gave us the wonderful electricity reforms that were marketed as giving higher competition into the market, giving our farming community a better choice, and giving businesses a better choice, and through those choices there would be cheaper prices—we get so fooled by the smoke that Cabinet Ministers put up that we fail to see the reality until it smacks us in the face. Sadly, the incident that arose that brought this legislation to the House smacked us all in the face.

Some of those people who today sit on the Opposition front bench—including the three seats occupied by Nick Smith, Lockwood Smith, and Maurice Williamson, and they were all sitting there this afternoon—were front-bench Cabinet members in that Government. And this is supposedly the refreshed look of the incoming Government! There ain’t nothing refreshing about those faces. They are tired and old. We would have more confidence if we saw some of the younger, more enlightened members who are sitting on the Opposition backbenches, like Shane Ardern and Nathan Guy, coming to the front bench. If they came to the front benches, we might be able to have some confidence going forward that we would have a better looking Government-in-waiting.

I was trying to say that all of us, as members of Parliament, spend our time trying to help low-income families, particularly those on fixed incomes such as the elderly, to make ends meet. All of us from the Canterbury area and, I assume, from down in the lower regions of the South Island where it is colder—some of those marginal areas that have been discussed this evening—end up dealing with people who are too afraid to turn on their heaters in their homes because of the cost of the bills. I know, from the experience of knocking on doors at 11 o’clock in the morning, in Christchurch in the winter, that I have very often found elderly people sitting wrapped up in quilts because they have been too afraid to put on their electric heaters. This is complicated by the fact that Christchurch then ripped all the fireplaces out of the State homes and the council homes, in pursuit of a clean-air policy.

My only message to some parties in this House is that when they pursue particular philosophies, like market-driven forces and the idea that the “market will deliver”, and they repeat that mantra, or when they pursue policies on the environment and advocate that at all costs we must clean up the air, we need to spread our vision a little bit and think about the consequences. The consequence of taking all the fireplaces out of the homes of the elderly and the low-income families in Christchurch was that many froze to death. They could not afford to turn on the electric fires in their homes, and they were too terrified of the consequences of doing that in peak winter consumptive periods. Unfortunately, the tragedy that occurred in Auckland, and the death in respect of that case, brought that message home loud and clear, but it is a message that came home far too late.

I think New Zealand First’s only plea to people, particularly to the members of the two major parties, because they tend to dominate what happens in this House, is to apply a little peripheral vision, a little less of the ideology, a little less of the mantra, and a little bit more practicality. The members of those parties should go down to the farm and talk to some of the cockies who have been living through these conditions and trying to manage businesses in the most extreme climates and in the most demanding of times. They should take a dose of reality. They should go into the low-income suburbs such as Aranui in Christchurch, and in west Auckland and South Auckland, and look at the real impacts. When those members start preaching the mantra that the market will deliver, they should please remember that the market’s prime motive, and the prime motive for the electricity industry—an area where we cannot afford to lose our conscience—when given that free rein, is to make a profit. That is all.

It is good to see this legislation here, because it does return some conscience to the operation of the electricity industry. This legislation returns a little reality, and it brings a wider view to all of us in this place that we have a wider responsibility to taxpayers, to the consumers of electricity, and to the citizens of this nation than simply to return a profit and a bottom line to our ledgers.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Many people in the history of our great nation are remembered for their exploits—Hone Heke for chopping down the flagpole, Sir Apirana Ngata for the work he did as a parliamentarian, Sir James Hēnare for leading the Maori Battalion and for his work as a statesman, Buck Shelford for his leadership in rugby, and so on. Unfortunate though it may seem, the name Folole Muliaga will now forever be associated with this Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill. This is a bill that reminds us of the helplessness and the tragedy of daily life for far too many New Zealanders. The tragedy is not the fact that we have low-income families in our midst. There will always be those who struggle. The tragedy is how deaf we have become to the plight of an ever-increasing sector of our community, and the helplessness that poor people feel about a society that treats them like a boil on the butt rather than as people in need.

We know of the Electricity Commission’s guidelines on arrangements to assist low-income domestic consumers, the recognition of the special needs of those with health or disability issues, and the fact that the commission wanted the power companies to deal with low-income consumers. But we also know that the existence of such guidelines is recognition of the growing gap between the haves and have-nots in our society. We know that New Zealanders are being crippled by the massive hike in housing prices. We know that 250,000 households get Work and Income’s accommodation supplement for low-income earners and beneficiaries. We know that some 230,000 kids miss out on support from the Working for Families package, simply because their parents are on a benefit. We know that far too many New Zealanders are being forced to buy cheap, nasty food because their money is being gobbled up by rents and other things. We recall with great sadness, even though the guidelines existed, that there was nothing in place to deal with the heartless response of the call centre that flat-out refused even to discuss any other payment arrangements for the Muliaga family.

We welcome this bill if it helps to improve the training of the call centre staff, if it helps people threatened with disconnection, and if it helps poor people understand their rights, how to talk to power companies about what different charges mean, how often bills come along, what the penalties are if people are late in paying, how people handle any disputes, and how people find out whether there will be any power shutdowns. The challenge, of course, is how to communicate all this to the consumers. Will a pamphlet or a note on a website do? How do power companies tell who is at risk? What happens when a household is close to being cut off? How do power companies teach vulnerable consumers about their rights? How are other agencies involved, such as iwi, health and social service groups, Work and Income, and budgeting services?

I ask these questions because something else we in the Māori Party know is that putting information on websites, putting out more pamphlets, and telling people they are welcome to discuss various aspects of their power bill does not work, for the simple reason that poor people do not ask rational questions about power supply and default procedures. They do not know how to ask. They are too shy of looking dumb, so they look at the ground, they smile, they mumble a “yes” when asked whether they understand, they shuffle their feet, they nod while being talked to, but most of them just want those helping them to go away, because they feel uneasy standing on their porches next to rotting rubbish bags or smelling the stink of clothes in the wash house.

We know that disconnection affects a family in heaps of ways, such as no TV, no kai, not being able to flush the toilet, no hot water to wash with, no light for homework, and the heater cannot be turned on. People start blaming one another, families start bickering and fighting, and kids sneak off to their mates’ places because they hate being in the dark. We also know that disconnection leads to dangerous situations like fires in unsafe places from candles being close to beds, and people trying to hot-wire their houses in the dark.

Sure, none of us wants to see people get their power cut off, but in a time of rising food prices, rising petrol prices, unreachable house prices, and rising electricity prices disconnections are a fact of life that we have to deal with. Electricity price rises and disconnections affect not only poor people. The Federation of Family Budgeting Services has issued a warning that while in 2002 the average debt owed by clients was $2,500, today that debt is a staggering $6,000. The federation has also warned that more and more middle-income people are struggling with mortgages, rent, and making ends meet.

What happened to the Muliaga family last July was a tragedy. What happened to the rest of society was a brutal wake-up call. Hopefully, this bill will lead to better things. It would be nice to think that power companies have learnt something, and we hope the new measures proposed in this bill will help consumers understand how to better manage their power costs. But I worry that our response will look great on paper but still go right over the heads of the people it is intended to serve. Having good information is meaningless if those who need it never see it. We urge Parliament and the electricity industry to put more energy into working with people who know their communities, and engaging with them to ensure that the people of those communities genuinely understand the issues and how they affect them and their families.

Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs) : Kia ora, talofa lava, and warm Pacific greetings. I rise to support this second reading of the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill. I rise with sadness, as I remember Folole Muliaga and the tragedy of her death, which should never have happened. We hope that something like that never happens again. The tragic circumstances surrounding Mrs Muliaga’s death shocked our nation. I personally will never forget the sorrow of visiting her husband, her children, her extended family, and her community knowing that her death was so unnecessary. The way the Muliaga family dealt with losing their mother, wife, auntie, daughter, sister, and friend provided all New Zealanders with a glimpse of how the generosity of spirit and the humanity of the Pacific people can deal with a horrific event, leading to reconciliation and healing.

Electricity is an essential service. Following the Muliaga tragedy, the Electricity Commission began working with electricity retailers, Government departments, and our community organisations to develop guidelines understood by all dealing with disconnections. These strengthened guidelines require a sense of social responsibility from electricity retailers in protecting some of our most vulnerable whether it is for reasons of age, health, disability, financial difficulty, or, if I may add, culture and language. The guidelines make it clear that electricity providers must advise consumers having difficulty paying their bills of the avenues of assistance or help available to them from Government agencies and community service providers. Electricity retailers must take steps to identify vulnerable consumers and consult with the Ministry of Social Development before disconnecting. They must also identify and ensure that those reliant on electricity for medical equipment to maintain life are protected.

The purpose of this bill is to enable regulation should compliance with the guidelines be unsatisfactory. This bill amends the Electricity Act 1992 to strengthen the regulation-making powers in relation to the disconnection of electricity and the low fixed-charge tariff options for domestic consumers. I strongly support the bill’s amendments to improve the ability to regulate regarding disconnection. This provides electricity retailers with terms and conditions for billing and payment options, overdue accounts and disconnection processes, the supply of services, and a process for identifying consumers who would be at risk if their electricity was disconnected.

The bill also amends the low fixed-charge tariff options for domestic consumers. Low fixed-charge regulations were introduced in 2004 to assist low-use electricity consumers and encourage greater energy efficiency. Currently, over half of the households in the north of Auckland are on the low fixed-charge tariff, as opposed to only 9 percent of households in and south of Christchurch. The amendment to increase the eligibility threshold from 8,000 kilowatts to 9,000 kilowatts for the low fixed-charge tariff will allow more households in Christchurch and the deep south, excluding Westland, to take advantage of the rate for low electricity as the higher threshold of 9,000 kilowatts is closer to the average consumption of those living in that beautiful but colder part of the country.

As already stated, electricity retailers have been given the opportunity to follow the guidelines for electricity disconnections and this bill will allow for the guidelines to be implemented if they are not adhered to voluntarily. When announcing that the Electricity Commission was preparing guidelines, Prime Minister Helen Clark said it was very important that electricity retailers had a clear idea of the Government’s and the public’s expectations. At a community forum in south Auckland a few weeks ago, I was encouraged to hear from a budget adviser based in Māngere who used to have large numbers of people coming into his office because their power had been disconnected. He was pleased to report to the forum that this no longer happens. It should not have taken the death of Folole Muliaga for these changes to be implemented. However, I am happy and pleased that the electricity retailers have taken notice following this tragic event and have taken the opportunity to follow the voluntary guidelines. I am also advised that companies have made overdue bills, credit letters, and automated phone calls clearer. Written information has also been provided in a number of languages, including Samoan, Tongan, Māori, and Japanese. I am confident that the industry will continue to follow the guidelines and act in a socially responsible manner, with this bill providing the regulating power, if necessary.

In my maiden speech I said I would pursue a permanent interest in advocating and promoting the interests of women, Pacific people, Māori, the elderly, ethnic minorities, and all New Zealanders who are struggling to live a life of dignity. At the time of Mrs Muliaga’s death I assured the Pacific community that our Government was taking this issue very, very seriously. I am pleased to be part of a Government that is bringing this bill to the House, protecting our disadvantaged consumers, and ensuring the safety and well-being of all of our families in New Zealand. The Commerce Committee has cross-party support for this bill and I strongly commend it to the House. Thank you.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) : I rise on behalf of the National Party to support the second reading of the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill. I compliment the Minister who spoke before me, Luamanuvao Winnie Laban, on the sensitivity of her remarks. I know that none of us who serve electorates in this country and who have a concern for the people we represent would like this to have happened to any of those people. I pay my respects to the Minister. However, I want to reflect for a moment on the comments on this bill from the New Zealand First member Ron Mark. His speech brought to the realisation of this House just how irrelevant that pathetic little rump of a party and its seriously diminished members have become. This is a highly serious matter. The only consolation I take from that is that the electorate itself will have figured that out.

You know, when we look at this bill we see another attempt by the Government to regulate. That is what we have come to expect from that crowd over there. One has to come back—[Interruption] Let us listen to the Labour members. The rest of us have meetings in caucus rooms; they meet in the commissariat room. That sort of thinking leads the Government to believe that if it regulates, regulates, and regulates, then it can control the lives of all New Zealanders. We must not lose sight of something the Prime Minister herself said. The Prime Minister—now in the dying, gasping days of her administration—made the point that Mercury Energy was in breach of the social responsibilities written into the existing law under which State-owned enterprises operate. The Prime Minister made that point. So we need to ask why we are rushing into enacting legislation. What is the rush? This legislation is rushed.

I acknowledge the efforts of the National Party members of the Commerce Committee who considered this bill for their common sense and for the tidying-up that has occurred as a result of their work. This country is fortunate that in this House there is an Opposition that does its job properly, scrutinises proposed Government legislation with rigour, and makes sure that we bring back to this House the very best legislation that can come out of a select committee.

Sue Moroney: And then they normally vote against it.

ALLAN PEACHEY: Oh, well! We can hear the Government members over there; they are on their way out.

I have to express some reservations about the bill. Is it really absolutely necessary to once again regulate, particularly in light of what the Prime Minister, who is now in her dying days as leader of the Government, shared about Mercury Energy? But we have this legislation before us, and we have to deal with it. The National Party is seeking to contribute positively and helpfully to the debate, unlike the New Zealand First member who spoke earlier.

I do not think there is a New Zealander—I certainly do not know of a New Zealander—who would not want to protect people who require electricity for something like critical medical care. There would not be a person in New Zealand, I suspect, who would not want that to be done. There would not be a person in New Zealand who was not upset and concerned about what happened. But members should just remember that Governments can regulate as much as they like, but at the end of the day, when all the chickens are in, it is the conduct of individual people and the decisions they make that will determine outcomes. You see, one of the reasons why this country is losing its direction relates to the silly interjections that come from the Government side of the House. Government members do not understand that by regulation, making more rules, meeting in their commissariat room, and deciding what is best for the rest of us, they fail to figure it out. But we know—this House knows—that very shortly those members will be gone.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) : Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I take this opportunity to stand in support of the Electricity (Disconnection and Low Fixed Charges) Amendment Bill. I will start with a couple of comments particularly to the previous speaker, Allan Peachey, around his question of whether it is necessary to regulate. I honestly think that in the absence of, in this case, the electricity retailers observing a sense of social responsibility it is our responsibility to give serious consideration to regulation. My colleague Luamanuvao Winnie Laban spoke previously of the loss of the Muliaga family. None of us wanted to witness or experience that situation. But at the end of the day, we needed to ask ourselves the question of who was responsible—who would take that responsibility. Is it the responsibility of the electricity retailers? Or is it indeed our responsibility, in our role as members of Parliament, to ensure that we have some protections in place, particularly for those families that are in need? So I think the answer to my friend’s question is “Yes, it is necessary to regulate, particularly for that reason.”

I have also learnt when working in the community of Māngere, which now has Su’a William Sio, of the difficulties surrounding some of the families in that community over this issue. I can assure them that we will continue to monitor and offer assistance wherever we can. But there is another scam—well, I do not know whether it is a scam but there is another situation—occurring within the industry. I refer to the meter-powered boxes in some of these houses. It is a “pay as you use” card top-up system. I do not know whether members have heard of it. People roll up to the garages or retailers that have these boxes and top up their cards. It can be guaranteed that on benefit night there are queues of people trying to top up their cards. It is that group of people, the beneficiaries, who are using these cards.

I understand that the system has changed to being a top-up on the telephone. That is nice and easy. That is all very well; people do not have to queue up. But if they top up on the telephone then they have to pay an extra $5 levy, on top of what they are applying for, for their power. People can go on to the Internet, which costs nothing, but how many within that group of people have a computer? So there are ongoing issues within that industry that we need to be mindful of, to ensure that we are at least giving the right consideration in the right places.

I do think that this bill strengthens the regulation-making powers in the Act, and, as I said earlier, it responds to recent concerns about the disconnection practices of electricity retailers. It also ensures that we as the Government have the opportunity to regulate the content of the disconnection guidelines that have recently been developed. We heard from the Minister earlier that the voluntary aspect within the industry is working and working well, but there is a need for the Government to be associated with ensuring that we regulate the content of those guidelines if necessary. The bill also raises the threshold of lower fixed charges under the Act, from 8,000 kilowatts per year to 9,000 kilowatts per year for domestic consumers, particularly in Christchurch and south of that city.

I want to reflect on two parts of the bill. The first is the low fixed charges, where we are targeting around the regulations for the low fixed-charge tariff options for domestic consumers. The low fixed-charge regulations that were introduced had the purpose of assisting low-use domestic consumers and encouraging energy efficiency. Prior to their introduction, low-use consumers in many areas faced unreasonably high fixed daily charges for their limited or low electricity usage. The introduction of the regulations provided these low-use consumers with a tariff option that was more equitable for low-energy usage and more compatible with the Government’s energy efficiency objectives. At present, these regulations require networks and retailers to make available a low fixed-charge tariff option to all domestic consumers that they service who have consumption at their primary dwelling of less than 8,000 kilowatts per annum. The same 8,000 kilowatt threshold is used across the entire country, despite the reality that in colder parts of the South Island average power use is higher in large part, because of the climate—it is colder—and there is little gas in that area.

The second change in the bill that I want to refer to is the extension to the Minister’s powers to grant exemptions from the application of the regulations to electricity distributors and retailers. We must have that opportunity to ensure that there is some monitoring and therefore disciplines applicable to those regulations. In particular, in some small isolated networks the cost of servicing consumers can be far higher than is normal for grid-connected networks, particularly in circumstances where the compliance requirements and business costs of administering the low fixed-charge tariff can be excessive.

So those are the two aspects of the bill that I wanted to raise, but in particular I wanted to reiterate the moral argument surrounding the purpose of this bill, particularly in relation to the question raised by the previous speaker. Yes, I do think it is absolutely necessary, particularly with regard to an industry that had lost its way in terms of the problem at hand. So bearing in mind that the changes in the bill will require electricity retailers to observe a sense of social responsibility in respect of those in financial difficulty, I commend the bill to the House.

• Bill read a second time.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister for Land Information) : I move, That the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill be now read a second time. It is with pleasure that I move the second reading.

This bill repeals and replaces the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 1946. After 60 years of good service, the Act needs to be modernised. This bill being read again in the House today is the result of a comprehensive review that has taken place, and of consultation processes that have involved the public, iwi, central and local government, and sectoral groups. I know that the official naming of geographic places and features is taken very seriously by communities. From my role in some of the place names that the New Zealand Geographic Board deals with, I know the strength of feeling that names can generate. We identify with the names of mountains, rivers, settlements, and localities, because they reflect our culture and heritage as New Zealanders.

Knowing the correct names for places and their location is also important for businesses in their transactions. It is important to enable emergency services to respond quickly to incidents, and it is important for New Zealanders generally in all manner of everyday communications and activities. This bill provides for the continuation of the board and its work in a modern context, and it provides for public input. New Zealanders want a say over their place names and place naming.

Another piece of the modern context is that New Zealand extends beyond the land we see on everyday maps. Our legal continental shelf is 24 times the size of New Zealand’s land area.

John Hayes: So what? What are you going to call it—the continental shelf?

Hon DAVID PARKER: We hear “So what?” from the former Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade diplomat. Well, the “so what” is that the continental shelf, which is 24 times the size of New Zealand’s land area, is of high strategic importance, and it is the subject of increasing research and exploration activity. It is important that New Zealand exercise its sovereign rights in respect of it. That is the “so what”—it is important that New Zealand exercise its sovereign rights in respect of it.

This bill extends the Geographic Board’s jurisdiction to include the naming of features on the continental shelf, because currently the board does not have that power. The member should read the bill and understand what it is about before he spouts off, dismissing it as irrelevant. It is important that New Zealand exercise naming rights as part of our sovereign rights in respect of the continental shelf. Place naming plays a part in New Zealand’s effective management of the undersea resources within that area. The exercising of naming rights in these areas is another demonstration of our sovereign rights to them, and it further secures our rights to those valuable parts of New Zealand for the future. So I would suggest to members of the National Party that they not make light of the issue but actually understand it, and that they support the extension of the legislation to include naming rights in respect of our part of the continental shelf.

The bill refines public consultation processes for proposed names by enabling any person or organisation to submit a proposal. It has more flexible arrangements for public input, which should be welcomed.

John Hayes: What’s wrong with the current legislation?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The current legislation, which is over 60 years old, includes only land and not the continental shelf. I have said that three or four times now. If the member has not picked it up, I suggest he read the bill or talk to one of his colleagues who can explain that simple principle to him. It has obviously gone over his head the three times I have explained it so far.

The bill requires Land Information New Zealand to provide public access to a record of official geographic names by publishing and maintaining an online gazetteer of official names. Again, this is what happens when we update legislation. There has been a change in technology in that we have the Internet now. We can provide this information via the Internet in a way that is convenient to people.

Sandra Goudie: So?

John Hayes: So what?

Hon DAVID PARKER: The members opposite seem to think that is unnecessary bureaucracy. I happen to think it is a way we can save costs for the New Zealand taxpayer and make information more readily available for the benefit of New Zealanders. This record will contain location and historic information for these names. An easily accessible online gazetteer is needed for both official and public purposes.

The bill gives the board a concurrent role in determining names for protected areas managed by the Department of Conservation. The bill does this formally by involving the board in the naming processes for Department of Conservation land.

Under the bill, the addition of two new positions on the board ensures it better represents a wide range of constituents, and fulfils additional responsibility. One new position is an ex officio position for the official who has primary responsibility for hydrographic standards in New Zealand. That is an important step, given the vast area of ocean that New Zealand has jurisdiction over. This new member is required because of the significant extension of the board’s functions to include the naming of undersea features on the continental shelf. The other new board member is from local government and is nominated by Local Government New Zealand. This is because the bill proposes to devolve responsibility for official suburb and locality naming to local authorities. At the same time, it is necessary to ensure that that naming is consistent with the need for standardised but not duplicated address information across the country. So rather than our making more centralised bureaucracy, this measure is an example of our devolving some of these rights to local government, and it agrees that that is a sensible course.

The bill provides for more transparent board accountability. Accountability provisions relating to the Geographic Board are improved under the bill by a requirement for the board to submit an annual report to the Minister on its performance. The board will also be subject to the Ombudsmen Act 1975. The board is already subject to the Official Information Act 1982, and that will continue.

I thank the Government Administration Committee for its work in examining the bill and considering the public submissions. It discussed various amendments to the bill but was unable to reach agreement, so the bill is being reported back to Parliament unchanged. As a result of this, I now wish to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to make relatively minor changes to the bill. The proposals in the Supplementary Order Paper include an amendment to the bill’s commencement date from 1 July 2008 to a date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. The Supplementary Order Paper also includes amendments to various Antarctic-related provisions in clause 8 of the bill, to allow the board to assign Antarctic geographic names outside the Ross Dependency in consultation with other relevant place-naming authorities. In addition, a new definition and several corrections are proposed to specify the scope of the jurisdiction of the board in terms of the Antarctica Act 1960, and to specify a definition of “Antarctica” in clause 4. Proposals are also included to clarify in clause 25 the scope of the consultation required about features outside of the territorial limits of New Zealand, and to clarify that the board must appoint the chair of any committee that is established.

The proposal to amend the bill’s commencement date is to ensure proper coordination and timing around the implementation of the new function. The proposal to amend various Antarctic-related provisions of the bill will allow the board to assign Antarctic geographic names outside the Ross Dependency—New Zealand’s Antarctic territory. Land Information New Zealand is working on mapping areas outside the Ross Dependency. These areas are of scientific interest to New Zealand. Any naming of features in areas outside New Zealand territory will be undertaken only in consultation with the place-naming authorities of other countries that have an interest in the area.

I commend the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill, and the associated Supplementary Order Paper, to the House.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) : I respect your sound judgment in giving me the call, Mr Assistant Speaker. I acknowledge some of the work that the Minister of Land Information, David Parker, spoke of that went on in the Government Administration Committee. I think that to some extent his Supplementary Order Paper covers some of the issues that were described in the submission process and also by the officials in discussion. But having said that, I point out that the National members could not come to the conclusion that this legislation was of benefit to New Zealand. Therefore, I rise in opposition to this bill.

I shall outline to the House a number of reasons why the National members on the select committee came to that conclusion. Probably the most important one was concern about the impact that clauses 32 and 33 may have on private entities—that is, the changing of the terminology around an official document and an official place name. For example, any tourism operators who may be using a place name as part of their promotional material could find themselves in a completely compromised position and potentially unable to continue that commercial activity. We saw that as not only a risk to one of our largest industries but also an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy when it came to amending the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 1946.

The Act itself has worked absolutely fine for all of that time—62 years, I say to the Hon David Parker—and no evidence to the contrary was brought to the Government Administration Committee. There seemed to be no real urgency to this amendment. The overall approach taken by the select committee was to look at how the bill will enhance the grand scheme of things going forward in terms of place names. I gave the example of the coast of Taranaki, where one can start in South Taranaki at Manaia or Hāwera, then go along the road to Ōeo, Pīhama, Ōpunake, Rāhotu, Wārea, Ōkato, and Ōākura. Every single one of those names is a Māori name. We used to have a mountain called Mount Egmont because Captain Cook had sailed past and said it looked like Egmont. There was enough local concern about that for the mountain now to be officially known as Mount Taranaki, which, of course, it was traditionally known as by the local Taranaki iwi. Based on all of the evidence presented to us, there was no conclusion that the 1946 Act would benefit from these moves.

I think that the Minister does make a point in regard to the continental shelf, and given that the Minister has the numbers for this bill to pass, that issue could be a potential advantage. I wonder why the rest of the provisions had to be included in the bill at the same time. In fact, if that were the purpose of the bill, then cluttering it up with the other areas of concern was, in our view, unnecessary and outweighed any advantage that may come from the proposal the Minister outlined earlier on. That is equally so with the Ross Dependency and Antarctic naming rights, which New Zealand has always enjoyed. I understand that those types of decisions are made by consensus through an international forum, and that has been happening. New Zealand has had the ability to influence those decisions up till now. There is no issue in regard to New Zealand being overruled or not having a fair say in those issues. So even in that regard, where there may have been some select committee sympathy for the amendments, there was nothing to suggest to us that the amendments are necessary.

I am sure there are other speakers who want to elaborate on some of the comments I have made. The National Party found that it could not support the passage of this legislation.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe, kia ora tātou. I did not want to interrupt the member Mr Ardern in the delivery of his speech, but I am wondering whether members, when they are debating this particular bill, could attempt to take a little bit of care in respect of their pronunciation of Māori names.

Once upon a time, about a year ago, I brought this matter to the attention of another member, not out of disrespect but to make the point that as we debate place names, and Māori place names at that, members might like to think about proper pronunciation. I am available, sitting right here, for any members who want to take any lessons before they deliver their speech, to help them out. Louisa Wall and Dr Pita Sharples are here, as well. Kia ora.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for raising that point. I am sure that members will ponder on it.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : I thank our Māori Party colleague Te Ururoa Flavell for those comments. They fill me with great confidence as I take a call in the second reading debate on the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. Despite this bill seeming on the surface to be fairly simple, I found it extremely interesting. Particularly interesting was the history of legislative provisions for place naming in New Zealand. These provisions were initially administered under the auspices of the Royal Geographical Society in London until the Designation of Districts Act in 1894 gave the Governor of New Zealand authority to alter or assign place names in the colony.

John Hayes: I can read that too. It’s in the bill.

DARIEN FENTON: I will get there, if the member would be patient.

One of the reasons for a place names authority was to avoid confusion in the naming of post offices, railway stations, and so on. In 1924 the Minister of Lands approved the formation of a board to adjudicate on questions generally concerning place and feature names in New Zealand. The first board was known as the Honorary Geographic Board of New Zealand. However, this board lacked the legislative power to enforce its decisions and acted only in an advisory capacity until the New Zealand Geographic Board Act was passed in 1946 and the present New Zealand Geographic Board was established.

In 1959 a United Nations resolution paved the way for the establishment of the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names, in recognition that: “Consistent use of accurate place names is an essential element of effective communication worldwide and supports socio-economic development, conservation and national infrastructure.” New Zealand has supported the principles underlying the UN group’s programme, with, for example, the move towards dual Māori-English place names in some circumstances.

As the Minister has said, this bill came about after a comprehensive review and public consultation process involving the public, iwi, central and local government, and sector groups. It is part of Labour’s plan for the future, and it will help keep and preserve our unique national identity in the future. It provides a sound framework for New Zealand’s official geographical naming in the 21st century, and it will also help ensure that place naming reflects who we are as a nation.

The bill repeals and replaces the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 1946, as other speakers have said. It modernises the official naming process of New Zealand’s geographic features. The bill also extends the jurisdiction of the board to the naming of undersea features on New Zealand’s continental shelf, and it revises procedures for public participation in the place naming process. Finally, it aligns the provisions of the Act more clearly with the Treaty of Waitangi, and it updates administrative provisions including the composition of the board.

During the first reading debate, National members indicated their support for the bill, but they went to great lengths to disparage it as a lightweight bill that could have been dealt with more effectively in a Statutes Amendment Bill. Jacqui Dean said she wondered about the time spent debating a bill of such lightness. She said she regretted that she could not give a weighty speech on such a lightweight bill. Mark Blumsky said he did not think the bill warranted the status of being a bill in its own right, although he did warn about the consultation procedures being passed on to local government, and he expressed concern about the implications of extensive consultation. Lindsay Tisch said this bill was not important enough to take up the House’s time and that it could be covered in a Statutes Amendment Bill. Nick Smith called the changes in the bill very minor, tinkering changes and said the House should not be wasting its time on such minor bills.

If the bill is so minor, tinkering, and such a waste of time, why, then, is National not supporting it tonight? I can agree that the bill is small and not overly significant in the scheme of things. It should have been very easy to get through the select committee process. But even simple bills like this one seem too complex for some members of the National Party, particularly those on the Government Administration Committee. If we are talking about wasting time, I have to say that the select committee wasted a huge amount of time while one of the National members tried to show her scholarly skills by arguing with officials, making mountains out of molehills, and seeing phantom traps in every clause of the bill. Can members guess who I am talking about?

The changes that Labour will propose by way of Supplementary Order Paper are sensible and reasonable. The objections that National members are raising are not. Let us take the first one.

Sandra Goudie: Why are they being done by Supplementary Order Paper?

Hon Mark Burton: It wasn’t that member, was it?

DARIEN FENTON: I could not possibly answer that question. I will leave members to guess that.

National objects to the fact that clause 24 gives a new discretion on whether to consult the public before a place name is changed. The National Party minority report on the bill states: “National members believe it is a fundamental right for all New Zealanders to be involved in this decision-making process”. Well, that is not what National members said during the first reading debate. Lindsay Tisch, as I have already said, warned about the compliance costs of consultation. Jacqui Dean asked where the consultation would end, and where the cost would end, in the simple naming of a place. Actually, the bill does not hinder public consultation. It does nothing of the sort. It gets rid of bureaucracy by allowing the board to make changes quickly on non-controversial proposals, such as when everyone agrees. [Interruption] I would have thought National members would be keen on getting rid of bureaucracy.

Clause 24, which National objects to, applies only to recorded names and discontinued official geographic names, not to new name proposals or the alteration of a name. Despite the legal advice that the committee received that that discretion is judicially reviewable, National members persisted in their bizarre objection to clause 24. I see this as typical slippery National under John Key’s leadership. In their first attack on this bill National members claimed it is too bureaucratic. In the second attack they claimed it is not bureaucratic enough. Well, which is it?

Hon Mark Burton: Very slippery.

DARIEN FENTON: Well, it is slippery, of course, and we cannot expect any clear answers from National under John Key’s leadership.

National members also derided the board in the first reading debate, despite the information available to them that although the board may meet only for two 1-day meetings a year plus teleconferences and other tasks, this very productive board makes an average of 100 decisions per meeting on New Zealand names and 60 on Antarctic geographic names.

The New Zealand Geographic Board is an important institution. It is through this board that any name changes need to be applied for. For example, recent proposals to rename land features after Sir Edmund Hillary will need to go to this board. I note that John Key, the leader of the National Party, was very quick to jump on to that idea. It is important, of course, to wait for a respectful period after the death of that great man, and the right feature needs to be found before the board pursues these proposals. However, I am advised that the board has already approved two names in Antarctica: the Hillary Coast and the undersea Hillary Canyon.

Names of places 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. So although National has decided to treat this bill with disdain, the Labour-led Government knows that the official naming of geographic features is important to communities and needs to be taken very seriously.

I take this opportunity to thank the officials for their patient advice. Boy, did they need to be patient in that select committee! I also thank the other parties that see that this bill is sensible and very necessary. I am very, very pleased to support the bill.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : I think it is appropriate that I follow the previous speaker so that I can outline some of the process issues around introducing bills into Parliament. A party will go through the first part of whether it will support a bill going to a select committee for the simple reason that it needs to scrutinise the bill, in the first instance, to see exactly why there was a bill in the first place—what is the problem to be fixed—and, in the second place, to find out any other untoward features of the legislation proposed so that it can determine whether it wants to support it going any further than the select committee.

Clearly, this New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill seemed innocuous at first glance, but on closer inspection, as it came under the scrutiny of the Government Administration Committee, it was quite clear that it was not as open and transparent as it could have been. National has major concerns with the two key parts to this bill, and our concerns have been totally ignored. In the first instance there is no real definition of a problem. There is nothing wrong with the previous Act; no problems have been identified. That is the first point.

The second point is that there is a new provision in the bill that gives the New Zealand Geographic Board the discretion about whether to publicly notify name changes. That discretion is quite extensive, and National feels that that is wrong, particularly when even the Minister has said that place names are important to people. Whether it is Diggers Gulch, Mount Taranaki, or whatever, place names are important to people.

I give the example of Simpsons Beach in my neck of the woods, where a group of people came in and said they wanted to call it Wharekaho. Well, there was a huge bunfight over that. It is now called Wharekaho and underneath, in brackets, is Simpsons Beach. What does everybody still call it? They call it Simpsons Beach. If there are to be name changes, even if they are dual names or whatever, and there is no opportunity for public consultation, then that just embeds antipathy in a community where people with opposing points of view argue ad infinitum about a place name, and nothing is settled.

This bill, which I am very proud to say National is opposing, has a provision that allows the board not to consult the public on a range of matters, if the board so deems. Those matters are the alteration of a name of a district or region, the assignment of names to geographic features outside territorial limits, the adoption of existing names for undersea features, the process for review, and the validation of certain names. National has concerns about those sorts of issues. The board now has the discretion not to notify the public or to go through a public consultation process. National is not happy about that.

Another issue relates to clause 32, “Official geographic names must be used”, which my most excellent colleague Shane Ardern referred to earlier. The official geographic name for a geographic feature or area, if one exists, must be used in all official documents. One description in the definition of “official document” is a publication intended for travellers or tourists. That clearly affects every single tourism operation in the country, because generally they include place names in all their brochures.

The tourism industry is based on offering opportunities for tourists to see our places and spaces. Place names are a big part of that, and if there is an official geographic name, then tourism operators must use it in all their documents. They cannot use a colloquial name like Simpsons Beach; they have to use Wharekaho. But if they already have Simpsons Beach on all their paperwork, then they have to state that Simpsons Beach is not the official geographic name. If they want to retain the colloquial name of Simpsons Beach on their paperwork, then they have to change all their brochures to state that it is not the official geographic name.

I do not think that anybody gave any thought to the cost involved for all the tourism ventures up and down this country. They either have to state the official geographic name or a make a statement saying that it is not the official geographic name. I have never heard of anything more stupid and ignorant. It ignores the effect on, and cost to, all the tourism venture operations throughout this country. I really do not see how this issue was conveyed to the tourism sector. National opposes this bill for those two very fundamental reasons.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : It was with some interest that I sat and listened to the dull, dour, head-down monotones of Labour Ministers David Parker and Damien O’Connor earlier in the evening. It is quite clear to me that they are in a tunnel of despair and depression, and they can see a light quite some distance away. What they do not realise is that it is a large locomotive with a big blue sign with a big “N” on the front, and it says “National”. It is racing through that tunnel and, within a matter of months, it will hit them and move them from those Treasury benches.

This bill is one of the reasons why we will remove them from the Treasury benches. This bill is absolutely unnecessary. It simply adds to bureaucracy, red tape, complication, and cost. Sure, the New Zealand Geographic Board Act has been in place since 1946, but it has stood the test of time. No reason has been given so far this evening as to why the Act is unnecessary or unsatisfactory. Clearly, there is a board that is associated with naming these places and it has met eight times in the past 3 years. That is hardly a huge workload.

If there is nothing wrong with the current Act and the way it is operating, then what are the compelling reasons why this bill needs to be passed? It is just another example of time-wasting, bad government by Labour. This is bad legislation.

Clause 24 gives the board discretion on whether to consult the public before a place name is changed. It was interesting to listen to the speech made by Darien Fenton who said, on the one hand, that she had noticed that John Key wanted to involve Sir Edmund Hillary’s name in some places and said “but we must wait a discreet distance for that to happen”, but, on the other hand, she started talking about the “Hillary Shelf” and other features in the Antarctic. Where was the process of public consultation with the community? This Government is about cutting the community out of government in any sense or form. We see that in the Electoral Finance Act and in this bill. I think we need a strong Opposition to stand up against this and to vote against it.

Another reason that I think the bill is very bad legislation is that we are duplicating effort. Fewer than 18 months ago in this House we passed the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act. We set up a new bureaucracy to meet, discuss, and decide on areas that will be provided with names for wine and spirit regions. Why is this bill necessary, when duplicate legislation has set up a completely different place-name arrangement and bureaucracy to deal with only wines and spirits? The fact is that if we had a Government that was on the boil, if we had a Government that had a coherent legislative programme, these areas of naming would have been amalgamated into one simple authority. That is a fair enough change to the 1946 legislation, but this bill is totally unnecessary and it represents totally inefficient, bad government. It is simply creating more bureaucracy and giving jobs to the boys. Mr Barnett shakes his head, but he will have seen it in the list of bills, and his party forgot about it. His party has forgotten about it and has prepared new and unnecessary legislation. Labour could have easily amalgamated these two bills into the one measure and had one cohesive agency in this country dealing with all place names.

Clauses 32 and 33 will potentially have a significant, negative impact on commercial tourism ventures that rely on colloquial themes or place names. We are talking about Simpsons Beach, or Wharekaho, up in Thames. Well, I can say there is a Wharekauhau in the Wairarapa. It is a significant part of the Wairarapa’s growth industry and it is a luxury lodge. The clauses require the use of official names for geographic features, and, if people fail to comply with the legislation, it could result in a court action by the board. Many tourist attractions hold their appeal because of their name and it is commercially unattractive or impractical to start suddenly using only the official name. I think this is simply an unnecessary bureaucratic cost being imposed on a tourist industry.

Overall, the bill takes an impractical approach towards private entities. More consultation is needed to address the commercial viability of a number of clauses in the bill and to ensure that a more practical approach is adopted. This is why I come back to the point I was making earlier: if we had a cohesive, coherent, strong, well-thought-out legislative programme, we would have amalgamated the changes that are being proposed in this legislation with the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act. The fact is there was nothing wrong with the legislation that has served this country for 62 years. Nobody has identified one problem with it. It seems to me this legislation is totally unnecessary and I will be joining my colleagues in the National Party to vote against it. Thank you.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Kia ora tātou e te Whare. On 13 September 2007, 143 countries of the world united in an inspirational act of solidarity—they signed up to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as a standard of achievement to be pursued in the spirit of kotahitanga or partnership and mutual respect. One of those standards, article 13 of that declaration, gives us an important global perspective from which to understand this new bill, the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. Article 13 states: “Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions, philosophies, writing systems, and literatures, and to designate and retain their own names for communities, places and persons. States shall take effective measures to ensure that this right is protected.”

This bill, then, in repealing and replacing the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 1946, is the ideal opportunity to enable a systematic and standardised approach to the official naming of geographic features with particular respect to indigenous place names. The resurgence and revitalisation of te reo rangatira, te reo Māori, including original place names, is arguably one of the most significant features of the Māori renaissance in Aotearoa. The Māori Party is pleased that this bill is consistent with the aspirations of Māori as recognised through the provision of clause 6, which is inserted to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to take appropriate account of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Far from being symbolic, Treaty justice will be seen through three specific provisions. They are, first, to collect original Māori names for recording on official charts and official maps; second, to encourage the use of original Māori names on official charts and maps; and third, to seek advice from Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori on the correct orthography—that is, the spelling and macrons—of any Māori name.

As well as these specific functions, schedule 1 of this bill has been extended with an additional two persons to be appointed to the board on the recommendation of the Minister of Māori Affairs. The Māori Party is very pleased to see such provisions.

The designated responsibilities outlined in the new functions of the board give clear emphasis to the kaupapa of mana tupuna—whakapapa—that connection that links us to our ancestors and to our heritage. And importantly, the recognition of the importance of mana whenua representation on the board demonstrates the significance that has been placed on the kaupapa of kotahitanga—moving together as one in pursuit of nationhood.

Just how vital this issue of respect for Māori geographical names is, has been powerfully demonstrated in recent weeks by the unfortunate marketing gimmick that caused enormous offence through the association of Māori place names with an English term of abuse. The gimmick, members may recall, involved a gross obscenity being placed alongside three place names, namely Whakamaru, Whakatāne, and Whakamoa. Although the dignity of this House requires that I avoid identifying the exact profanity used, the word’s literal meaning takes its source in a highly offensive term denoting that the subject engages in sexual intercourse with his or her mother. It was a classic play on words. Yet, in linking three indigenous place names with one of the most offensive profanities in the English language, it is difficult to think where anyone in the world would find some sort of humour in it.

In fact, a study published in 2002 found that British people considered this term of abuse second in severity only to a term identifying a female’s anatomy. I repeat that British people found this term of abuse distasteful. What was even more horrifying was that this gimmick, which the Māori Language Commission described as demeaning Māori people, the Māori language, and indeed, the reputation of our nation, was treated as light-hearted and funny by a political party that supposedly takes some interest in family policies. The comments from Mr Peter Dunne stating: “Only when we can laugh together will we be able to move on.” strike me as simply distasteful when thinking about the issue of incest, as indeed a letter to the Whakatane Beacon pointed out. The letter to the editor from “Ngāti Awa female of Whakatāne” concluded: “Gentlemen, some jokes depending on their use and context applied are simply over the top, therefore deeming them to be offensive”.

I have gone into quite some detail about this issue as I am hoping that the point will be taken that the placement of obscene profanities alongside Māori geographical names could not have been more offensive than in this instance. Dunedin, Dunsandel, Dunstan, “Dunn-e”? Is that still funny? No, not really. Due respect for the whakapapa denoted in the place name, as well as for the revitalisation and status of te reo Māori, will, however, be greatly assisted through the provisions of this bill we are debating tonight, and perhaps may see us avoiding being in such a situation again.

There are, however, three points of particular interest to us in the Māori Party that we will be interested in monitoring in the subsequent stages before the House. The first is that pertaining to the proposal to devolve the official naming of suburbs to territorial authorities, and the official naming of protected areas to the Department of Conservation. Although we understand the rationale behind supporting the move towards the autonomy of the local authorities to best know their own communities, we are, of course, worried by the precedent set by the Wanganui District Council 2 years ago in overthrowing the correct name of the area as recommended by iwi—that is, Whanganui with an “h”—for a made-up word. This was an issue I conveyed in depth in my kōrero, my speech, at the first reading but, suffice to say, it is a real worry for most tangata whenua to see how the regime of “majority rule” is used against Māori.

We in the Māori Party believe that although there must be sufficient consultation with territorial authorities to ensure their advice about naming decisions is taken to heart, there must also be the meaningful consultation with Māori, free of political or commercial influence at the local level.

The second major issue we will be watching out for is the proposal to align place name changes in future Treaty settlement processes more closely with the board’s standard consultation procedures. This again raises some difficulties for us. It would be our view that claimants need to negotiate directly with the Crown as Treaty partner, and final settlement decisions, including place names, need to be made by those parties, otherwise the process could be compromised and seen as less durable.

Finally, the issue that we note the National Party has indicated particular concern around is the new discretionary element set out in clause 24, detailing whether the public should be consulted before a place name is changed. It would appear from analysis of submissions that most groups considered that the existing consultation processes are generally working well. We did note, of course, that there was a strong preference for the board to undertake direct consultation with iwi rather than use the present arrangements of a proxy consultation process with Te Puni Kōkiri. The support for a more robust and culturally appropriate consultation process was strongly supported, as I understand it, where a place name proposal occurs in the rohe of the iwi concerned. Submissions also identified the need for an adequate level of funding to ensure appropriate consultation takes place.

There was also some advice from some local government submissions that the consultation principles in the Local Government Act of 2002 could be used as a guide for board consultation processes. As we well know in this House, the Māori Party has always taken a keen interest in the adequacy of consultation processes initiated by the Crown. For the purposes of this bill, we are keen to ensure that the maintenance and protection of culturally appropriate place names remain a priority across all levels of local and central government. We have borne witness to the cultural offence taken by mana whenua when tupuna names are misappropriated, misspelt, and mispronounced, or are shortened, for the benefit of the English-speaking population. Every iwi has experiences of names that have been treated with such contempt over generations. In some areas, such as was the case in the correcting of the spelling of Mount Parihaka in Whangarei, the mana has been able to be restored through respectful and meaningful consultation. We have a particular and enduring interest in ensuring that geographic place names are respected and protected, and we will continue to support this bill on that basis.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) : I want to talk about the New Zealand Geographic Board Act of 1946, which this new bill will replace.

Shane Ardern: You can remember when it was passed, George?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Of course, I was born in 1946, and as people here will know, the Labour Party is going through a renewal process. As I was born in 1946, people have suggested that perhaps it is time for renewal for me. But of course it is not.

I am pleased to be able to speak about this bill, because I think it underlines a change in New Zealand culture. When I went to school as a 5-year-old, the national anthem was “God Save the Queen”, and we all sang that heartily as 5-year-olds. When I was a teacher, we were singing “God Defend New Zealand” in English. Now kids very proudly sing our national anthem in Māori. So things change. For Sandra Goudie to talk about a beach changing its name as causing serious harm to the industry of tourism is a nonsense. We have to change.

I am in an electorate where I have a large Māori population. Most of them vote for me, even though Pita Sharples wishes they would vote for him. Of course, we have to respect the indigenous people of New Zealand. It is interesting. I went down to Egmont in January for a holiday. In days gone by I would have said I went to Mount Egmont.

Shane Ardern: You would, but now it’s Taranaki.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: But now it is Taranaki, and New Zealanders accept the change. Everyone welcomes it, of course, apart from the members of the National Party. Those members have their heads in the sand, and when their heads are in the sand, they deserve a kick in the rear end. They have to change. It is all right being conservative; it is all right grabbing hold of those things that are of value to New Zealand—

Ron Mark: What about Mount Cook?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: We are all proud of the name change to Aorangi / Mount Cook. We have accepted the change. I did not know where Aorangi was when I was at school. I learnt about Mount Cook, and I think it was 12,349 feet, or something like that—I probably have that wrong. Those were the things we learnt about.

This bill went to the Government Administration Committee. It is not often that a select committee cannot agree; committee members work together to try to get agreement. I think Shane Ardern is a good chairman, but it is a pity that the select committee did not come together more on this.

You see, it is very important that we look to see how things are changing. We have to change. We have identified the names of our mountains and our rivers, and for most of the time people do not worry about it. In respect of the Waikato River, everyone talks about the Waikato, and it does not worry people because it is not an issue. However, when people like Sandra Goudie get up in this House and say that changing the name of a beach will cause all sorts of problems—you know, it will cause the tourism industry great concern—I say that is a load of rubbish. But what do we expect from Sandra Goudie but a load of rubbish? And we got it.

It is interesting. We had some Japanese visitors at home the week before last, and we were having a look at the map of New Zealand. It is really good to see so many changes from the old maps of the 1970s compared with the latest maps. We do change. People have talked about the changes in names to recognise the life of Sir Edmund Hillary, and people accept that changes will come for one reason or another. It is important that we also have jurisdiction over naming features on the continental shelf. This is very, very important; if we want effective management of undersea resources in that area, then we should be looking more seriously at it.

When I was mayor of Papakura, one of the great debates we always had was on the names of new streets. People used to get very passionate about the names of new streets. Well, in Auckland there are new suburbs practically every month, and the naming of them is important. It is great to see so many people lobbying over naming rights. They want to name a street after their great-grandfather, their grandmother, or someone else.

Shane Ardern: Where’s Hawkins Boulevard?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: They never named a street after me, unfortunately—

Hon Rick Barker: I mean a whole suburb—Hawkinsville!

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: There should be a Hawkinsville—yes, that is right. Street naming is something that people are keenly interested in, and it is important that we show people that we recognise the indigenous people of New Zealand more and more in this country. For many years we just went along naming things after European settlers—for example, Dannevirke. Dannevirke is in Hawke’s Bay, I think. Of course we have other places named after early settlers, and some of that is good, because it is right that we understand our history. It is right that we understand our origins, but it is also right that we recognise indigenous names, as well. Sometimes, a dual name is quite appropriate and at other times we go a bit further. But having listened to the speakers on the other side, I—

Hon Rick Barker: What about passing Martians? Do they get a say, or not?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Talking about margins, I remember John Hayes. I was going to talk about him, because he is in a marginal seat. They will not be naming his seat after him once he goes later this year. We do have—

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: Dream on!

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Dream on? I daresay that John Hayes never dreamt he would be here, and he will probably get his wish later this year, when he goes.

With this bill we had a situation where people could not agree in a select committee, and where people just could not come together to talk this through. Any legislation that is as old as I am has been around a long time, and when we have been around a long time, we get a bit of knowledge. I am very willingly going to support the second reading of this bill, and I am pleased to see that my colleagues from the Māori Party will support it, as well. I think it is important that Oppositions act as Oppositions, but that they do not always carry on in the way they are acting, in a very narrow manner, over this particular legislation. In a few years’ time this will not be an issue, at all. People will have accepted it. They will have moved on, and this bill will be legislation.

Chris Tremain: You commenced your speech talking about renewal.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: There we have the member for Napier—the temporary member for Napier—who is sounding off. I ask whether the member knows the Māori name for Napier. No, he does not know the Māori name for Napier. He has not thought about it. I do not know what it is, but if I lived there, I would most certainly find out. But that member has not. He has not bothered to learn what Napier’s Māori name is—what the indigenous people called it originally.

Sandra Goudie has just walked back into the Chamber. I hope that she will be able to find her beach and spend her time lying in the sun, thinking about what it was like in Parliament when she was there, because she will be going at the end of this year.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That member was out of order when he referred to one of my colleagues returning to the Chamber. That comment should be withdrawn.

Hon Mark Burton: I do not think that the member was so much remiss in the reference to the member’s return; it was rather the inference that the member was absent that would put him at odds with the Standing Orders.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Correct; those references should not be made. I thank Mr Hayes.

Hon MARK BURTON (Labour—Taupo) : I would like to pick up, in a sense, what my colleague the Hon George Hawkins started.

Sandra Goudie: Why bother?

Hon MARK BURTON: Well, because for once we had some useful contribution to the debate. I must say that I thought I had lived a long time and that the day would never come that I would have cause to stand up and have something to say in response to Sandra Goudie, because that in itself is quite a remarkable thing. But I have to ask this question—and I did ask the member by way of interjection; I was serious at the time. She was lamenting the renaming of one Simpsons Beach. The questions I pose to the member are simply these: when was it named Simpsons Beach, and did it have a name before that? I really do not know the answers to those. I suspect there were some people around before those people who called it Simpsons Beach, and I suspect they probably had a name for it. But apparently it has not occurred to that member that that might be the case and, you see, I think that just denotes the point.

We have heard so much from members opposite as to why this New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill is unnecessary. They seem to think that time is locked not only for once and for all but also for a very narrow band, which began, apparently, at some point about 100 years ago and is frozen there for the rest of time. Well, that may be the Tory view of the world but, I am sorry, it is not the way it really works, because culture and life is a dynamic thing. It is a living, breathing, moving thing. Things do change and evolve—yes, they do, and there will be controversy and debate from time to time. The power to name is one of the most profoundly powerful things that human beings can do. To give a name, an identity, and a reality to something is a very powerful thing. Of course it is. To be able to identify and name a mountain, a river, or a place is a profoundly important thing. But for the members opposite to suggest that somehow we are now locked in for all time and that the New Zealand Geographic Board Act 1946—

Hon George Hawkins: A good year.

Hon MARK BURTON: —a good year as it may have been—is also locked in time is unrealistic. As we witness tonight, just as that member, who was born small and perfectly formed in 1946, has evolved and changed, with some rough changes along the way and with some improvements—

Hon Rick Barker: Where?

Hon MARK BURTON: —damn! I should not have gone down that track; I am sure there are some good improvements in that member—similarly, there has been a need for change in this area of legislation.

I will just cite for the members opposite, who seem unaware of it, the research that was done. [Interruption] This is a novel idea. I know that Mr Hayes is relatively new, but he might find it useful. If he goes over to the Table, there are several pieces of paper there. One of them will be called by the name of this bill. If he is to read it, he will see that on the first two pages there is an explanatory note. That is something the member may not have encountered before, but an explanatory note tells us a bit about the bill. It tells us its purpose for being. That bill identifies in a mere 1⅔ pages why the historical background justifies this legislation and why we need to update the 1946 Act, which had its genesis even further back in the Designation of Districts Act 1894. I am sure members opposite will think that that Act should have stayed just as it was, giving, as it did, the Governor of New Zealand the authority to alter and assign place names.

Of course, by 1946 it was clear there was a need for modernisation and change; the same situation applies now. For instance, there is the use of geographic names for identifying correct emergency incident locations. The need for that in the modern technological environment in which we now live and operate is simply and fundamentally different. On the matter of naming in relation to the continental shelf and the Ross Dependency—again, these are large extensions of the role and function. The legislation needs to reflect that, and there needs to be change in order to enable that to occur. There is research underpinning this bill. It has led to and identified some of these areas of required change. This bill creates a more flexible environment that is more suited to the 21st century.

Sandra Goudie: What about the effect on tourism operations?

Hon MARK BURTON: I know that Sandra Goudie is locked in the early part of the 20th century and is barely dragging herself out of the 19th century, but I tell the member that for the rest of us, life has moved on. The world has moved on; it is the 21st century. Even my good friend George Hawkins has accepted that we have moved from 1946 into the 21st century. Things change; things are required in order for us to effect that change in an appropriate way. This bill gives the board a concurrence role in determining names for the protected areas that are managed, for instance, by the Department of Conservation. That is a refining of its function and role, and it does this by formally involving the board in the naming process on conservation land.

I also want to identify who is involved in making decisions, because one of the criticisms that members opposite have made is about representation. Of course, had the members read the bill they would know that two new positions have been created on this board. The reason for that is the widening of the functions of the board. Therefore, because of the range of constituents it represents and the additional responsibilities it carries, those additional persons are needed to better reflect the range of constituencies that the board must consider in its decision making.

All in all, I say to members opposite that it is the 21st century, and that they have to get with the programme. It is time to change this legislation. It has served us well, but it does need to better reflect the needs of 21st century New Zealand.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) : About a month ago a journalist for the Sunday Star-Times wrote an article lamenting that my dulcet tones had not been heard in Parliament for some time, so by popular demand I am back. I suppose the fact that I am speaking tonight is also evidence that global warming really is happening. Let us think about that for a moment.

The most significant thing I want to say on the New Zealand Geographic Board (Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill is that the National Party opposes it, and opposes it for very good reasons. I was a member of the select committee that wrote the commentary on the bill, and I want to commend it to the House by reading the last paragraph of that commentary, which summarises National’s position on the bill very well. Members opposite should have taken the time to read it, because when they get out into their constituencies—if they have them—their constituents will be raising this issue with them. The paragraph states: “National members hold strongly to the view that consultation is not only important but necessary, and that a more practical and commercial approach towards private entities should be adopted. In the absence of any changes to address our concerns, National opposes the bill.”, and our position certainly has not changed.

TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) : I am very proud to speak in the second reading stage of the New Zealand Geographic Board (Nga Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa) Bill. I am just checking with my colleague Mr Flavell that my pronunciation is adequate for this moment. I would like to begin by acknowledging what in springtime would be like the appearance of the cuckoo: the appearance of Brian Connell, in a rare and very important peroration.

He provided a very useful service to the House by pointing out to Mr Hayes that not only was there an explanatory note to the bill but also something called a report of the Government Administration Committee. Mr Hayes, in all of his wonderful 7 minutes of speaking on the bill, did not make any reference to the arguments that his National colleagues put forward in the commentary. But anyway I shall ignore that just for a moment.

It seems to me that the quality of any democracy is best measured by the effectiveness of the Opposition. I have to say that sitting here as somebody who has had, up to this stage, a casual interest in this legislation—

Hon Rick Barker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders make it very clear that a member is not entitled to shift his or her seat for the purpose of interjecting. There has been a stream of interjections from Mr Hayes. I am prepared to accept that maybe it is only the end of his interjections, but I feel that if Mr Hayes is going to interject in this manner he should be required to go back to his designated seat.

Brian Connell: This House is robust and I do not think that Mr Hayes’ interjections were over the top; I think they were reasonable. In fact, I found them quite funny. I think it would be a shame if the House were to sit here in stony silence. I think he was making a significant contribution. I note that he has been sitting there all night. I have been watching the debate with some interest from my office, and I can assure the House that he has not moved seats.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I do not need any further assistance. It is my view that John Hayes did not move his seat for the purpose of interjecting. That should be obvious to anyone.

TIM BARNETT: I was actually imagining that Mr Hayes’ involuntary shouts in the Chamber were just a reflection of the fact that since the beginning of this debate he now understands both what a commentary is and what an explanatory note is. Maybe we are moving on in the course of this matter this evening.

As I was saying, it seems to me that the quality of any democracy really is measured by the effectiveness of the Opposition. As someone who has had only a casual interest in this legislation up until now, I listened very carefully to try to understand why the National Party is opposing this legislation. In doing that I listened most carefully to Sandra Goudie, who seems to me to be the sharp end of the National Party’s opposition to this legislation.

Sandra Goudie started by offering to explain how bills are introduced to Parliament, which was very useful. She then offered the very useful reflection that we had to look at any bill to work out what was in the legislation. Then she suddenly said that the bill was innocuous. That is very strange, because she said that the bill was innocuous in its first reading at the same time as her colleague Lindsay Tisch said it was very bureaucratic. We can explain that by saying it is a bit slippery. But let us move on from there.

We have now heard from Shane Ardern that the bill is not bureaucratic enough. We have a bill that is innocuous, not bureaucratic enough, and too bureaucratic. That is fine. Then I listened to Sandra Goudie’s two particular issues around the legislation. One was that she said there was no definition of a problem. I will come to that afterwards, but it seems to me that this legislation has a forward-looking and very important element at its core. Secondly, she mentioned the problem with discretion over public notification, which none of her colleagues even bothered to mention, so I can really ignore that one.

Then there was a fascinating little byway that Sandra Goudie took us on, in talking about a place that she regards as having been called Simpsons Beach from the beginning of time. She called that the real name of the beach. But it was given its original Māori place name again and that, according to Sandra Goudie, is its colloquial name. So we go from having had a nation with a colloquial naming policy to real names—from Māori to English. That is an extraordinary statement about values, the importance of language, and, as my colleague Mark Burton was saying, the importance of naming and the importance of history.

I realised at that point that whatever this legislation is about, it is about something pretty important. When I started to look at it in more detail and to listen to the wise words of my colleagues here I thought to myself that the key part of this legislation, which is so important, is that it is extending the ability of the board to grant naming rights to an area 25 times the size of the current land area of New Zealand.

This legislation recognises that one of the places in the world that contains wealth and that will be particularly important in our future is the seabed. This legislation is extending the area of the geographic board from the land area of our country to a sea area 25 times that size, over which Sovereign rights can be exercised. New Zealand needs to show that it has an interest in naming it. As Mark Burton said, that is fundamental to a nation expressing an interest in a place and is a recognition of the characteristics of that place.

Asserting naming and mapping rights is at the heart of this legislation. That is recognising that the seabed, in our extraordinary position as a developed nation in a massive expanse of sea, is actually a strength for our nation and not a weakness. I commend both the Minister and the Labour members of the select committee for recognising the strengths of this legislation. I am very proud to commend it to the House.

LINDSAY TISCH (National—Piako) : I have been listening to this debate with some interest, as my name has come up a couple of times. It is always reassuring to know that we had an impact during the first reading of a bill. I notice that one of the speakers, George Hawkins, talked about the name of a significant mountain in the North Island, always known as Mount Egmont, having been changed to Mount Taranaki. I have a particular interest in that area, because my mother came from Egmont Village and went to school there. With this legislation, I wonder whether the name of that village will now have to change to Taranaki Village. The village is synonymous with the mountain; that is why it had the name Egmont Village. Now that the mountain is named Mount Taranaki—and we accept that—the point is that if this legislation goes ahead, do we have to change the name of the village that lies under the mountain? It could well be that people in the future will refer to that little hamlet as Taranaki Village.

I am sure that the people who live there or who went to school there, like my family did, are going to say that that is absolute nonsense. They were brought up knowing that those places were Mount Egmont and Egmont Village, only to find that the names are to change because a few people are to sit on a board and decide that that is how it will be in the future.

We said right in the first reading of this bill that this was going to be a bureaucratic nightmare. There will be a compliance cost associated with having a board constituted to make decisions about what names should be. My colleague to my left, John Hayes, talked about the regulatory impact. In this legislation, there is not one mention of a regulatory impact statement or that there will be a compliance cost for businesses. Tourism has been mentioned on a number of occasions, especially by Sandra Goudie. Should names be changed at a whim—hopefully there will be a consultative process, but that is probably unlikely—there will be a huge compliance cost to be met by the sorts of businesses that will have to comply.

Let us remember that tourism is New Zealand’s number one export earner—worth $18.6 billion—and this legislation will put a huge compliance cost on those areas. I doubt whether tourism operators know that this legislation is before the House. They will soon know about it, because I will tell them. So if we were to look—

Brian Connell: Read the commentary.

LINDSAY TISCH: It is in the commentary; Brian Connell has made a good point. The thing about it is that I am sure that if it were not for the National members putting their views in there, then the industry at large—and New Zealanders at large—would not know the significance of this legislation.

So I support my colleagues here in saying that this bill is not necessary. I ask where the mischief is. Why, after all these years, do we have to make changes? Where is the mischief that means that this legislation should proceed? National has opposed this bill, and I am happy to be taking a call to oppose it as well.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) : I move, That the Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill be now read a second time. All of us are required to give our personal information to the Births, Deaths and Marriages registry whenever we have a child, get married, or enter into a civil union. Our personal information will again be collected when we die. This information is used as part of the basis of our country’s official population statistics and provides an invaluable source of information for demographic, historical, and health research. It also provides official evidence that an event has occurred.

There are therefore two key concepts underlying the main provisions of this bill: first, that people must be able to access and obtain evidence of the information that supports their identity and family history; and, second, that it is vital that the public trust the Government to be a responsible steward of their personal information. Those concepts are especially important in light of the fact that today the world’s social and technological conditions have changed since the registers were first established here in the mid-1800s. In particular, the ability to gather and search across large amounts of personal identity information now that the registers have shifted from a paper-based environment to a computerised environment, and a public concern about the prevalence of identity fraud have meant that the traditional position of having virtually all registered information publicly available, practically without any controls, is no longer appropriate.

The bill as introduced proposed a robust regime for gaining access to the registered information relating to births, deaths, marriages, and civil unions. Access was to be granted for legitimate purposes that were consistent with the reason why the information was collected from individuals. A great deal of misinformation about the bill’s effects was reported in various media sources, which was unfortunate. Despite that, I have said in this House, in the media, and to people who have written to me and approached me personally that I would consider any workable suggestion that achieved a balance in the law between ensuring that individuals and families have their personal information protected from abuse, and ensuring that members of the public can access other people’s records for legitimate purposes.

On 10 October 2007 I wrote to the Government Administration Committee to suggest an alternative approach that could be taken to achieve an appropriate balance. I express my gratitude to the Labour members of the committee and to Mr Keith Locke, a non-voting member of the committee, who adopted and developed the suggestions I made to the committee to amend the access provisions. Although the contribution of Mr Peter Brown, another non-voting member of the committee, is not reflected in the committee’s report, I am also grateful to him for working with the Labour and Green members to develop a workable amendment that could be accommodated by the Government, including addressing some of the technical issues raised in some of the 151 public submissions made on the bill.

Although it is disappointing that the committee could not agree on the amendments to the bill, I intend to put forward a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage to incorporate the suggestions made by those select committee members. The changes set out on the Supplementary Order Paper will mean that any member of the public could still generally access another person’s registered information. However, there would be a new mechanism that increases the individual’s ability to know and control when his or her personal information is released to other people. When applying to access a record—for example, in the form of a birth certificate—an applicant will have to present adequate identification. People will be able to check an access register in order to find out who has applied to access their records, and public sector agencies will be able to search the access register for maintenance of law purposes.

People will be able to request on certain grounds that their records not be disclosed to the public for a certain period. The grounds for and duration of those non-disclosure directions will be prescribed by regulation. I would not expect the regulations to provide that everyone will be able to apply to a non-disclosure direction for any reason, but instead that they will require applicants to point to some substantive reason for needing protection. Setting the grounds and the time period in regulations will mean that the Government can respond more quickly and efficiently to changing societal conditions and expectations, by making the mechanism narrower or wider as appropriate. Where a non-disclosure direction is in force, a person who wants to access the record could get authorisation from the subject of the record. Otherwise, a person who wants such access would just receive confirmation that the record existed.

If the subject of the record has publicly disclosed personal information about himself or herself, any person could apply for that information to be verified against that person’s records. That would meet concerns about fraudsters attempting to mislead the public and conceal relevant information where there is a public interest in the correct information being known.

A review of the operation of the access provisions 5 years after their commencement will ensure they will provide an effective and efficient process that balances our interests, as the subjects of the records, in the protection of our own personal information with our interests, as members of the public, in being able to access other people’s records for legitimate purposes.

The Supplementary Order Paper will also address a number of technical issues that arose during the select committee process, including delaying the commencement of the bill by 6 months to ensure that the bill’s provisions can be implemented in the most effective manner.

I also intend to put forward a second Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage to address a technical issue that has arisen from a recent Family Court decision declaring that under the Act’s current provisions, an overseas-born transgender applicant’s birth certificate should be now changed to show the applicant’s nominated sex. The Supplementary Order Paper will clarify the ability of overseas-born applicants to seek similar declarations for the future, although it will ensure that the Births, Deaths and Marriages registry is not necessarily involved in applications that relate to people whose details are not registered in New Zealand, and that the Family Court’s processes are not abused by applicants who do not have a genuine connection with New Zealand.

A third Supplementary Order Paper will update the bill in the light of the Human Tissue Bill, which has just passed its third reading. This is a technical amendment.

Before closing, I will make some brief comments about another aspect of the bill where some confusion arose during the first reading debate. This is in respect of the new requirement that both parents sign the notification form when registering the birth of their child. The bill provides an exemption to allow only one parent to sign in cases where the other parent is missing, is unknown, is unable to sign the form because of a medical condition, or has died, or where unwarranted distress would result from trying to get the second parent’s signature. In those cases, although only one parent would be required to sign the form, the details of both parents can be registered. Therefore the child would not miss out on learning about both parents, as some members had feared. In cases where there is only one parent at law—for example, where a child was conceived as a result of an assisted reproductive procedure—

• Debate interrupted.