Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of State Services) : I move, That the State Sector Management Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the State Sector Management Bill be considered by the Education and Science Committee, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 24 November 2010, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).

This bill is an omnibus bill that provides for machinery of Government changes across several sectors that have been well signalled. This bill provides for the amalgamation of the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology and the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology into a new Ministry of Science and Innovation. It provides for the Minister of Research, Science and Technology to appoint boards to make independent funding decisions, and it provides for the amalgamation of the National Library and Archives New Zealand into the Department of Internal Affairs.

Many State sector agencies will not receive increases in their Budget baselines for a considerable period of time, reflecting the tight economic times. At the same time, the New Zealand public’s expectations of what the Public Service can do for them continue to rise. We expect the Government sector to organise itself in a way that makes it more accessible to New Zealanders and delivers its services more efficiently. These changes are made in that context. These amalgamations are expected to improve services within the existing baselines, reduce costs in the short to medium term, and future-proof the long-term delivery of Government services. This is consistent with the Government’s overall direction for the State services and the Government’s aim of improving State service performance by moving resources to support the front line.

There are three parts to this bill. Part 1 amalgamates the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology and the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology into a new Ministry of Science and Innovation. It abolishes the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology as a separate entity, and it repeals the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology Act 1990, which is to be replaced with the provisions in this bill that are to be enacted in a new Research, Science and Technology Bill. This amalgamation addresses a number of perceived weaknesses in the present fragmented system of government support for research and development and for innovation. It addresses the duplication of policy advice on research, science, and technology planning and prioritisation between the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology and the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology. It addresses the confusion and complexity in relation to funding programmes, and streamlines those. The bill also deals with concerns about the long-term ability of two small agencies to retain critical skills and maintain services at the required level in a tight fiscal environment.

The bill will enable the Minister to establish one or more boards to make independent decisions on proposals for the allocation of specified funding for research, science, and technology. The funding decisions will be made for the purposes described in this bill, in accordance with criteria that will be set and notified by the Minister in the Gazette. They will also be made on the basis of information provided to the boards by the chief executive of the new ministry. The decisions must be made in an independent, fair, and transparent manner, and must be referred to the chief executive for implementation.

The bill transfers the staff of the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology and of the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology to the new ministry, which is being established by Order in Council.

Parts 2 and 3 of the bill provide for the amalgamation of the National Library and Archives New Zealand into the Department of Internal Affairs. These amalgamations recognise the increasing role that technology will play in enabling the Government to manage information efficiently and effectively, so that New Zealanders can access information in ways that suit them. Each of these three agencies stores and provides information that is collected by the Government for the benefit of New Zealand and New Zealanders. All three are investing to deliver information online 24/7, so bringing the National Library and Archives New Zealand together with the Department of Internal Affairs will support that development, with less cost and less risk. It will also provide opportunities for greater capability, economies of scale, and better public access. As the Minister responsible for the National Library, the Hon Nathan Guy, has already made clear, a large number of countries maintain their services in a similar way to that proposed in this bill. In undertaking this amalgamation, the legislation has preserved the statutory roles of the National Librarian, the Chief Librarian of the Alexander Turnbull Library, and the Chief Archivist.

Part 2 amends the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa) Act to reflect the change of status of the National Library from being a Public Service department to being part of the Department of Internal Affairs. It maintains the statutory role of the National Librarian and preserves the National Librarian’s functions within the Department of Internal Affairs. It maintains the statutory role of the Library and Information Advisory Commission and of the Guardians Kaitiaki of the Alexander Turnbull Library. It also continues the Alexander Turnbull Library and the functions of the Chief Librarian of the Alexander Turnbull Library, who is to be appointed by the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs on the recommendation of the National Librarian. The bill also provides for the transfer of staff from the National Library to the Department of Internal Affairs.

Part 3 amends the Public Records Act to reflect the change of status of Archives New Zealand from being a Public Service department to being part of the Department of Internal Affairs. It maintains the statutory office of the Chief Archivist and preserves the constitutional role requiring the Chief Archivist to make decisions independently of the Minister and the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs in relation to public offices and local authorities on the following: the disposal of records, the issuing standards, the provision of advice, the monitoring of compliance with the Act, and the exempting of a public office or local authority from compliance with a standard or instruction issued by the Chief Archivist. Part 3 also maintains the statutory role of the Archives Council and provides for the transfer of staff from Archives New Zealand to the Department of Internal Affairs.

It is intended that the bill be divided into the following three separate bills at the Committee of the whole House stage: a Research, Science and Technology Bill, a National Library of New Zealand Amendment Bill, and a Public Records Amendment Bill.

The substance of this bill has been well signalled. Its purpose is to streamline and improve the delivery of the public services of New Zealand. Important safeguards and constitutional arrangements are maintained in order to enhance and protect the role of some designated officers. It also brings New Zealand into line with the way in which a number of other jurisdictions deal with these areas. I certainly commend the bill to the House.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : I intend to move that all the words after “Education and Science Committee” be omitted from the motion to refer the bill to a select committee. The reason I do is that once again in this House we have the National Government creating a completely different kind of process for dealing with legislation, which ignores the Standing Orders about people being able to participate in this House. Once again, for a bill that the Minister himself has delivered to us in its first reading in a deadpan “there is nothing to see here; move along” kind of tone, he has come to the House and said “But, having said that, we will ignore all of the processes of Parliament.” This is happening with bill after bill, and it is simply not acceptable to members on this side of the House to see the Standing Orders overridden in that way by the Minister.

While the Minister is still here, I also note that participating in this debate is extremely difficult when he has chosen to withhold most of the information requested under the Official Information Act about the merger of the National Library and Archives New Zealand into the Department of Internal Affairs. That complaint is currently with the Ombudsman, who is waiting to hear back from the Minister on the Ombudsman’s recommendation. It would have been interesting to know from the Minister what about these papers is so difficult and so controversial that he will not release them so that parties on this side of the House can participate with the full knowledge of what lay behind the Government’s thinking in putting this bill together. But we stand here today without that information; the Minister is withholding that information from us.

Is it not ironic that in a bill that is all about access of New Zealanders to information in our public records, the Minister is withholding all of the information that led him to put this bill before the House? We would like to see a little more openness and a little more transparency from the Minister—not so much colour in the ties, but a little bit more transparency about this bill, because it is an important bill.

Before I return to the other aspects of the bill that I want to discuss, I think that given that this is a State sector management bill, it is timely to acknowledge the excellent work being done by State sector agencies in the Canterbury region at this time—in particular, in terms of local government, civil defence, the Ministry of Social Development, defence personnel, the police, and other State agencies that have gone above and beyond the call of duty in the last few days. I heard the Prime Minister even refer to Work and Income staff, who have rung all the elderly people who live alone in Christchurch. That is why we need a strong Public Service in New Zealand. Those people are there in times of need, and it has been great to see them step up in Christchurch.

Labour will oppose this bill, but I make clear at the outset that that does not particularly relate to the merger of the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology and the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology. We believe that there possibly is some value in that, although, as my colleague David Shearer will refer to at a later point in this debate, we are not sure that it is the biggest and most crucial and important issue for research and development in New Zealand. However, we do not take a position of opposition to that merger.

I shall concentrate in my speech today on the merger of the National Library and Archives New Zealand into the Department of Internal Affairs. It is worth noting that it was only a decade ago that Archives New Zealand was separated from the Department of Internal Affairs, and it is only 20 years ago since the National Library was separated from the Ministry of Education. There were important reasons and justifications for those separations, and they were about the important constitutional, democratic, and historical roles those two institutions play in New Zealand, and we should not understate the importance of those roles in our future. It is only through the work of the Alexander Turnbull Library, the National Library, and Archives New Zealand that we have information for Treaty claims, for instance. It is only through those institutions that we know where the power cables are when people go to do developments. Those are the practical things that people get out of those kinds of institutions. But the sense of national identity given to us by these institutions, and the importance of their independence, cannot be overstated. That is why they were separated, and that is why their re-merger into the Department of Internal Affairs, for the flimsiest of reasons, needs to be opposed.

This legislation is unnecessary. The Cabinet paper that was put forward by Minister Ryall about this merger said that Archives New Zealand and the National Library were “well-regarded and successful institutions”. If it ain’t broke, why fix it? These institutions are performing better than they ever have. If any stakeholders in the library and archives sector had actually been asked for their views—which they were not—they would have told the Minister that the two institutions were operating better than they ever had. Yet now we find them being merged into the Department of Internal Affairs, where, in the case of Archives New Zealand, there were significant problems in the 1990s. A court case was taken to try to solve those problems, because Archives New Zealand was not getting the attention it needed. It was being subsumed into a larger agency that did not have the concerns of our future archives, our future records, and the accountability of the Government at heart.

This measure is unnecessary, and it will not add anything to the way in which New Zealand’s constitutional framework fits together. The main justification that has been put forward in the Cabinet paper, and also by the Minister today, is about savings. Well, let us be absolutely clear about that. The Cabinet paper shows that the potential savings from this exercise will be between $3 million and $9 million over 4 years. But we have to take out of that figure a $2 million set-up cost, so we are talking about less than $150,000 a year in savings—and 15 jobs are going. We will have less than $150,000 a year in savings and 15 fewer jobs. That does not stack up on financial grounds, let alone on constitutional or democratic grounds.

The other justification that has been put forward—and it was put forward by the Minister in his speech moments ago—is about the importance of digitisation, the information technology justification. But I caution the Minister that the record of government in large super-platform information technology projects is not great. We are seeing it right now in Housing New Zealand Corporation; we have seen it before with the INCIS system for the police. The vision that somehow or other we will get a super-platform of information that will bring together all of our Government records, and all of our historic and civic information, is in fact likely to be paved with difficulties. I do not believe that that justification is enough for upsetting the arrangements that have been in place for the last decade and that are working well.

It is quite clear, when we look at the Government’s philosophy here, that it wants fewer Government agencies, and that it wants fewer departments. The Government is not looking at what these agencies and departments are actually doing. On this side of the House we are all for an efficient and effective Public Service, so let us find the savings and find the efficiencies. But why should we go looking at agencies that are actually doing a good job, that are performing the role that has been asked of them, and that have that important historical and constitutional significance? If we want to look for savings and if we want to look for efficiencies, then by all means we should do that, but I ask why we must upset the entire structure of these organisations. Reinventing the wheel seems to be the speciality of this Government.

I will quote from one piece of correspondence that I received from someone about this bill. It begins: “Dear Mr Ryall, I am now in my 90th year and I cannot believe that I have to write yet another letter to members of our Government because some of its inexperienced members are not able to grasp the significance of our national treasures.” The person goes on to say: “Does the British Parliament try to squeeze the governance of the British Library into some minor department, or the US Senate do the same to the Library of Congress? The scale may be different in New Zealand, but the significance to the respective nations is the same. These national repositories are unique.” That person is speaking for a lot of people across the library and archives community who do not want this merger to take place, and who know that it is an ideological exercise in creating fewer Government departments rather than in preserving our heritage.

In the brief time remaining, I will refer to one or two of the specific clauses in this bill—which, no doubt, will pass its first reading in the House today—which we want to look at when the bill comes to a select committee. In particular, I ask whether we can really be assured that there is independence for the Chief Archivist and National Librarian in this bill. We know there is some extension to that independence, but in the end it is not for the functions and powers but for the person to exercise his or her professional judgment. That is a big difference. That person is no longer independent in terms of his or her functions and powers, only in terms of his or her professional judgment. That is a limitation.

The other thing I will draw to the House’s attention is that with the way the bill is worded, these departments could be controlled by any large Government agency. The definition of “department” just states that it is the department that “is for the time being” in charge of these agencies. That means in future the Alexander Turnbull Library could be given to yet another department or agency, and that whole collection will have to be moved again. I am not confident that this bill gives us the independent and high-quality constitutional facilities that Archives New Zealand and the National Library provide. I think the Government is going down a very dangerous path. At the select committee we will want adequate time to be given to all submitters to be able to raise their concerns, because at this stage we are unconvinced that this is the way we should proceed.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) : The significance of the speech of the previous Labour speaker, Grant Robertson, will not have been lost on members on this side of the House, nor will it have been lost on the people of New Zealand who are listening in, because that member just advanced an argument against efficiency in government. It was an argument against efficiency in government.

One of the purposes of the State Sector Management Bill is to absorb Archives New Zealand and the National Library into the Department of Internal Affairs. That is an act of efficiency in government, and the Labour Party has made it very, very clear this afternoon that that is what it is opposed to—efficiency in government. The best figures that I have seen suggest that the potential savings from this merger alone will be in the order of $8 million a year—$8 million a year. So not only is the Labour Party arguing against efficiency in government butalsoit is arguingagainst thrift in government. The money that will be saved from this action, from the passage of this bill, is not the Labour Party’s money. It is not the money of individual Labour MPs. It is the money of the taxpayers of New Zealand. It is beyond me and beyond members on this side of the House that, in the difficult fiscal times New Zealand is living through, with all the other demands that the Government has upon it, the main Opposition party can get up in this House and argue against, firstly, efficiency in government and, secondly, thrift in government.

I am bound to say that as the chair of the Education and Science Committee I very much look forward to chairing the hearings on this bill, and I very much look forward to the Labour Party approaching those hearings in a positive way, as it always does in these matters. I am sure that we will work cooperatively on this exercise.

I will make just one observation about the National Library. It has been a pleasure to serve on the Education and Science Committee and to have been responsible for reviewing the performance of the National Library. That responsibility no longer rests with the committee, and I am sorry about that, because the committee worked in a most non-political way in terms of the interest that it took in the library and in fostering the library’s interests. As the chairman of the committee that had oversight of the National Library, I wanted to make that comment.

I move now to the other significant provision in the bill, which amalgamates the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology and the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology into a new Ministry of Science and Innovation. I am pleased to note that the previous Labour Party speaker indicated that the Labour Party was not in principle opposed to this action, and I express the hope that, in due course, that party will vote accordingly. There can be no doubt at all that this country, as part of its economic recovery and part of building a sustainable economy in the future, needs to rethink its approach towards science and the role that science plays in a growing, modern economy.

I can stand here and predict the next Labour Party speaker’s line on this. Do members know what it will be about? It will be all about more money—taking more money from the taxpayer to throw into science. I predict that now. Those members will want to throw more money at it, just as they did for 9 years when they were in Government. For any situation that came up, they threw other people’s money at it and said “She’ll be right.” But, of course, it was not right—it is not right. It is neither responsible nor correct. What is needed in the scientific community in New Zealand today is a coherent, planned, logical approach as to how this country can best develop and use science in the national interest.

Members on this side of the House are, obviously, supporting the State Sector Management Bill. I speak in favour of it. I look forward to chairing the select committee hearings on this bill, and I commend it to the House on its first reading.

DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) : I will make a couple of points straight off about the State Sector Management Bill. We oppose this bill because we oppose the amalgamation of Archives New Zealand with the National Library, which Grant Robertson spoke about. We are somewhat more agnostic towards Part 1, which relates to science and the amalgamation of the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology and the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology. I discussed the amalgamation with my colleague Pete Hodgson, who is a former Minister of Research, Science and Technology. He looked at the issue about 3 or 4 years ago, and he decided that although there were some advantages, it was not really worth the cost.

We do not have very strong feelings about this legislation, but I will make three points. The first point goes to what Mr Peachey was saying a minute ago about the costs. I do not know where he gets his costs from, but I have the Auditor-General’s report. The Auditor-General said about the amalgamation of the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology and the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology that the cost in the next 2 years will be $7.4 million. By 2014, in 4 years’ time, we will have saved $4 million. I ask Mr Peachey whether we will make up $3.2 million in the coming decade. He is absolutely and utterly wrong in terms of the costs. Although Labour members are willing to stand up and say that we are agnostic about this issue, that member should not use that admission to warrant saying that this measure will save us lots of money and that somehow Labour spends lots of money. I tell Mr Peachey that his party is spending the money here, not us. That is my first point. In the short to medium term, this bill does not create any savings, which is one of its objectives. It may create some efficiencies that we are yet to see, but it does not address the turmoil and confusion that will be created, and it does not address the loss of productivity that will happen when those two agencies are brought together. It is a little bit more difficult to estimate the costs that New Zealand will suffer. Let us think about the $7.4 million that we will be spending on this issue and the $3 million that we will lose after 4 years that could be spent more effectively on real science rather than the shuffling of deck chairs that the National Government is proposing.

The second point I want to raise is that the Government has decided on a new name for this amalgamation, which is the Ministry of Science and Innovation. I commend the Government for the new name. It is a good name and I think it identifies where New Zealand should be going. I give credit to the Government for that. It inspires thoughts of what is going on in like-sized countries like Finland, Denmark, Israel, and Singapore, where they spend upwards of 3 or 3.5 percent of their GDP on research and development. We spend 1.2 percent of our GDP on research and development. Most of that expenditure is in Government circles, not where it is really needed, which is in the private sector. Although the name sounds very good and very inspiring, the reality of where this country will go in terms of its real science and innovation falls somewhat short. In a way, this amalgamation is the same wine in an old bottle. We will not really be getting the step change that we have been promised for so long. Colin James wrote about the Budget and mentioned the so-called step change in the science and technology sector. He said: “But we do know it is not a step-change. Mr Key talked in his RST pre-budget speech of ‘igniting potential.’ ”—which is the report Dr Mapp put out—“But he used a small match, well clear of all but a little flammable material.” In other words, it was a fizzle. There was no real flame; there was nothing to inspire or inflame people in terms of moving forward in science and innovation.

We come to a significant point with this new ministry. It needs a new chief executive officer, and the new chief executive officer needs to be somebody who will inspire, who will lead, and who will be world beating in terms of the way that we address science and innovation. So what did our State sector do to advertise the position? It advertised the position for 2½ weeks in the middle of June and July, when in the northern hemisphere many people are on holiday. We have not really tried to find the best. We have looked around and said: “She’ll be right.” We will do the same old thing that we have always done: “She’ll be right.”—poke poke, nudge nudge—“You can have the job.” I do not have anything against the new person; I do not know who will be taking over this job. But I expect that person, whoever it will be, to have been picked out of an international pool of talent; I do not expect that person to be just the guy up the road who happens to be hanging around and giving somebody a wink and a nudge. That is not what we want for this ministry.

The third thing I want to mention is that this Government is always going on about how we need to catch up with Australia. Let us look at Australia’s spend on research and development and science compared with New Zealand’s. Australia upped its budget for research and development and science by 25 percent last year. What did New Zealand do? We spent 7 percent more, following the great Budget announcement in May. Of that figure, 5 percent will go towards inflation—we already know that—so in real terms it is a 2 percent increase in research and development spending by the Government, which is trumpeting this bill as a new march forward.

Hon Steve Chadwick: How aspirational.

DAVID SHEARER: It is not aspirational at all, and it is not inspirational. It is aspirational in the sense that it needs an aspirator in order to breathe. This bill is choking the innovation we want to see in New Zealand.

The Government’s new spending amounts to $56 million a year. Most of that figure will comprise grants and vouchers, for which companies will have to apply to the Government. This initiative will not lift the amount companies spend on research and development, as the research and development tax credit would have done. Rather than instilling a new culture in those companies as they think about research and development, it will instil in them what this Government has told us to avoid, which is dependence on the Government. Companies will now go cap in hand to the Government to ask for more money to spend on research and development. The Government will not increase the companies’ own innovations and thinking, or the new and exciting projects those companies are capable of.

Mr Peachey said he knew what I would say next, and I say to him that this spending is half of what National promised in 2008. It is half of what National took away from the previous Labour Government in terms of spending that was already on the book, in play, and functioning in the form of the 15 percent tax credit. The National Government has been money-pinching to a degree that has undermined spending on science and innovation in this country.

Amalgamating the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology and the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology may look like something inspirational, but it is far from what we need. It is an insipid, rather limp attempt to look like we are busy when, in fact, the real issues of the day are going untouched. Thank you.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party will be opposing the State Sector Management Bill because it could have a disastrous effect on both the National Library and Archives New Zealand. Those two institutions are important not only for the present generation but also for future generations of New Zealanders.

We are particularly worried that making Archives New Zealand a subordinate agency within the Department of Internal Affairs could undermine its important constitutional role. We believe it should not and must not lose the independence it has gained, particularly through the Public Records Act, which put into statute the independence of the Chief Archivist. We see in this bill a step backwards to the situation that existed last century, when National Archives and the Chief Archivist were subordinate to the Department of Internal Affairs and to the chief executive officer of that agency.

We have been heading in a good direction since the passage of the Public Records Act and the implementation of the 1985 Unesco guidelines on national archives, which insisted on the constitutional independence of the archives of individual countries. To understand the need for that independence we need to look at the reason for the independence of other bodies that are Offices of Parliament. In the case of the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General, a key reason is that potentially both of those offices could be in conflict with the Government. The Ombudsman and the Auditor-General sometimes give what could be described as very critical reports on the behaviour of the executive, so maintaining their independence is critical.

The role of Archives New Zealand in holding Governments to account is not fully understood. The Archives and Records Association of New Zealand states that that independence is important to maintain the “ability to keep governments accountable for their actions through the records they create and maintain.” There will always be a tension—and this tension was brought out during the debate on the Public Records Act—between the Chief Archivist and the chief executive officers of various departments about which records will be kept and which will not. There is always a tendency for chief executives to define certain material as classified and say that it should not be transferred to the archives, or to say that if it is transferred it should be kept classified. There is also a tendency for the departments to say that we should get rid of material that is embarrassing, and that it should not be transferred to Archives New Zealand. There will always be those conflicts.

We will have those conflicts about the Department of Internal Affairs’ own records when they are transferred to Archives New Zealand. If the Chief Archivist is subordinate to the chief executive officer of the Department of Internal Affairs, it will create a problem. We have already seen public debate over, for example, the transfer of some of David Lange’s papers to Archives New Zealand. There was an argument over some papers of the Government Communications Security Bureau and whether they were secret or classified, what should be done with them, and whether they should be culled from the archives. We have had a debate about SIS records and found out that, before the Public Records Act was passed, the SIS got rid of a lot of records it should not have. People have written recently to ask for their records, since the SIS, rightly, adopted a more open policy on the release of archives, but have found that their records were destroyed a few years ago. The archive on my own father, which the family asked for, was destroyed by the SIS a few years back. That was very bad, not only for the family but for the historical record.

That conflict over archives management is quite important. When we use the parallel of the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General we can see that if the Office of the Ombudsmen was made subordinate to the chief executive of the Ministry of Justice, it would undermine the independence of the office. Similarly, if the Auditor-General’s office was placed under Treasury, the Auditor-General’s independent role would be undermined.

Various lobby groups have been active since this move was announced, including a lot of people formerly in Archives New Zealand, leading people in Archives New Zealand, and librarians. All sorts of people have been very concerned about this move, and they have described what happened previously. When National Archives was subordinate to the Department of Internal Affairs, the result was the unlawful destruction of records, court actions, weakening of regional offices of the archives, and, not least, budgetary problems. It is easy for a chief executive of the Department of Internal Affairs to say it is a bit short this year because the Government has asked for cuts of 5 percent or 10 percent—whatever it might be—and that a body should slow up on the purchase of materials for the National Library or the transfer of material to Archives New Zealand for a year. They might say they could save a bit of money that way for a year, that few people would notice, and that they would get away with it. That is why it is important to maintain the organisational and budgetary independence of Archives New Zealand, so that they can continue to get their collections up to the proper standard. Once it has fallen behind it is very hard to catch up, and to purchase books that were in print and are now out of print.

The argument for all the affected agencies—such as Archives New Zealand, the National Library, and Births, Deaths and Marriages—to be under the Department of Internal Affairs is that it is all to do with digitisation of records and making records more accessible to the public. In fact, the role of the different agencies is significant. The Minister of State Services said that there is a common focus on using digital technology and making Government information widely accessible to citizens on the Internet. In fact, that would mean we are developing a more populist role for Archives New Zealand, rather than collecting information that we do not even know will be useful in the future. There was talk by a previous speaker about some of the archive material that iwi now use in Treaty claims. It was not necessarily collected because it was seen as useful at the time, but it is the historical record and was made use of by future generations.

There is nothing wrong with cooperating on digital platforms. Independent agencies can use the same platforms, exchange technology, use the same payroll systems, contract out for payroll systems, and whatever they might think appropriate. But they do not need to be merged in the way that this bill proposes.

There is also the question of the different roles of the Department of Internal Affairs, libraries, and archives. It can be argued, for example, that libraries are about the provision of information to people, to the public. Archives are about accumulating evidence, whether or not it is useful to the public at the present time. That is the importance of its constitutional role. A section of the Department of Internal Affairs is about the very opposite: censorship. In fact, the Library and Information Association of New Zealand in some of the stuff it has written about this move, which it opposes, said: “Libraries adhere to the general principle of Freedom of Information whereas the Department of Internal Affairs has a censorship role which could potentially result in a conflict.” So there are different roles. Librarians may want to put some material into a library, but the censors in the other part of the Department of Internal Affairs say that it should be banned or excluded, and it should not be made available. We see a conflict of roles here.

If we are to be true to the basic principles underlying our National Library collection and Archives New Zealand, they should remain separate from each other and independent of the Department of Internal Affairs, so that the Chief Archivist is not a subordinate player to the chief executive of the Department of Internal Affairs. Thank you.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. I am all for holding the State sector to account, particularly in respect of the Crown’s accountability to Māori. But just because a bill says it is about achieving “gains in terms of financial efficiencies, effectiveness and future viability of agencies”, that does not mean that there will naturally be any benefit to Māori. In fact, the restructuring of the State sector over the past 30 years has had quite devastating results for Māori—in respect of forestry, rail, and electricity—so we are not naturally inclined to accept restructuring as necessarily being of any value at all to the wider Māori community. But we do support annual reporting on the capability of the State sector to achieve outcomes for Māori, because such reporting will highlight the fact that in many cases what has been done for Māori by the Crown can normally be done far better and far cheaper by Māori for Māori, anyway.

In respect of this particular issue today, we recognise that whether it be through Whānau Ora, Māori economic development, housing, or education, the empowering of whānau, hapū, and iwi to develop their own future is the only model that can lead to genuine and sustainable success. Therefore, we are keen to see any outcomes achieved across the State sector that will improve the situation for tangata whenua. When we look at the provisions in this bill to amalgamate a number of existing agencies—the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology and the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology into a new Ministry of Science and Innovation, and the National Library and Archives New Zealand into the Department of Internal Affairs—we find we will need to reserve our support until we see whether that will lead to better performance and better outcomes for Māori. Government agencies are often restructured in the belief that the change will lead to better performance, but bigger does not always mean better, particularly when considering issues around the development and management of intellectual property.

I want to focus on the proposed amalgamation of the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology and the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology into a Ministry of Science and Innovation, because of the importance of research and development in driving Māori innovation. In the past, both the foundation and the ministry have made very little funding available for the achievement of Māori research goals or the development of Māori research capability. There have also been some quite glaring inconsistencies in the review of funding for Māori research. Māori researchers have spoken openly about their frustration in respect of Ministers who have not sought, or have ignored, advice from Māori research personnel. We will be looking to this bill to see whether the interests of the Treaty and of both Treaty partners are protected, and to see, for example, whether Māori will have equal access to the $140 million that has been set aside over the next 10 years for natural hazard funding, and whether Māori are actively involved in the water and energy funding from Vote Research, Science and Technology over the next year.

If this bill passes its first reading, we will raise questions in the select committee about whether the new funding arrangement includes any Māori-specific goals, such as the development of Māori research capability and the development of knowledge that will be of benefit to Māori communities. If so, we will be asking how much is allocated to such goals, and whether such funding is ring-fenced for Māori-specific goals or is just contestable funding.

As for the other key amalgamation of the National Library and Archives New Zealand, I will be looking at the submission of Te Rōpū Whakahau. This organisation of Māori librarians has been in existence since 1992 and has advocated for the improved management of Māori workers, Māori material, and Māori clients, and for the recognition and implementation of Māori intellectual and cultural property rights. The organisation has a key role to play in the improved management of Māori issues, taonga Māori, Māori clients, and Māori staff in the profession, and it is only right that it be specifically involved in any future development of this bill. I take the point raised by the previous speaker about the importance of the independent status of the National Library and Archives New Zealand, and the need to ensure that their future is not wrapped up with commercial expectations or the other political expectations of a Government department, such as the Department of Internal Affairs.

The Māori Party will support this bill in its first reading in order to allow time for all Māori groups and individuals who have a stake in this issue to tell the select committee what they think of this bill, and how they think it might be changed to improve services to Māori in the future. Our vote beyond the first reading will be determined by what we hear at the select committee. Tēnā koe.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) : It is a pleasure to take a call on the State Sector Management Bill. I will start with the purpose of the bill. It is concerned with creating financial efficiencies, effectiveness, and the future viability of the agencies. We notice a little bit of a murmur and a squirm from members on the other side of the House, but New Zealanders voted National into office to achieve gains in terms of efficiencies, because all New Zealanders at this time are tightening their belts and working their way through the most difficult recession in 70 years. New Zealanders are applauding the work and the strategy of this Government.

What grew out of the last 9 years of the Labour Government was a bloated bureaucracy lacking efficiency and cooperation. This Government is looking at a very systematic coordination in order to create efficiencies, and I applaud the Government for doing that. The way the Government will achieve those efficiencies is fundamentally through greater collaboration and cooperation, and combining those functions under the Department of Internal Affairs makes good sense. The National Library along with Archives New Zealand will come under the control of the Department of Internal Affairs. That move stands the test of what has been done with a number of other departments and organisations that are performing well. I take this opportunity to remind Opposition members that the AgriQuality and Asure organisations were amalgamated under the previous Labour Government and they are functioning very well. I am concerned that the thinking of Opposition members is back in the last century, but we are living in a time when we need greater cooperation.

Mechanisms are in place to ensure that digital strategies and suchlike can be tremendously advanced. I refer back to the National Digital Strategy, the development of which was led by the National Library. There was an abundance of money sloshing around in Wellington, and it took forever to achieve that strategy. The process was drawn out, dysfunctional, and disorderly. Given that the strategy was so low on the priority list of the previous Government, it is quite a challenge to understand the substance of the arguments of Opposition members.

This is an omnibus bill, and it reminds us that the biggest business in town is the business of the State sector. Therefore, it needs fine management. This bill will endeavour to meet that need, and in doing so it also addresses the urgent need to reorganise the research, science, and technology sector. This Government, in Budget 2010, directed an enormous amount of new money into that area. We realised that we had to restructure the fundamental structures of the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology and the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology. In order to do that, we needed to move to a science and innovation model. It was an absolute pleasure to hear the Minister of Science, Research and Technology talk about that issue in Marlborough the other day when he visited Cuddon Engineering. That company will potentially benefit enormously from the grants and supporting systems that the Government is offering. It is very, very important that all the money that is wasted in backroom functions is transferred to a sector where it will make a difference. This bill will go a long way towards making that difference.

We look forward to seeing this bill at the Education and Science Committee. The submission process will be positive and constructive. Opposition members support the research, science, and technology side of it, but they have concerns about combining the functions of Archives New Zealand and the National Library under the Department of Internal Affairs. The select committee is very collegial and looks forward to debating those things. I am quite confident that if any tweaks are needed, we can address those at the select committee, and the bill can come back to the House as an even better bill. It is an outstanding bill and I look forward to the opportunity to have input at the committee. I commend the bill to the House.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) : The previous speaker, Colin King, spoke absolute nonsense. I cannot actually believe that he compared Archives New Zealand with two meat-inspecting State-owned enterprises. I am absolutely staggered that he thought that was a legitimate comparison to make. AgriQuality and Asure are about meat inspection, whereas this bill talks about our Archives New Zealand and our National Library, and amalgamating those organisations into the “mother of all departments”—the Department of Internal Affairs. In fact, historians have raised some very legitimate concerns about that transfer and what it could mean. The Government should definitely be taking those concerns on board, rather than trying to compare them with meat inspectors, which is entirely inappropriate and something that clearly suggests a very thin understanding of what this bill does.

In a debate about the public services of New Zealand, it would at this time be appropriate to acknowledge the outstanding work that our public services are doing down in Christchurch. The Minister of State Services said this bill streamlined and improved the delivery of front-line public services. What we have seen in the last few days is that the New Zealand Public Service can rise to the challenge when it needs to put the resources into the front line.

We should remember that the civil defence agency is actually very small. It is not large; there is no huge army of people waiting to work in the case of a natural disaster, such as the earthquake in Christchurch. Civil defence pulls together the resources at very short notice, and it does an outstanding job. I think it has been doing very well in Christchurch, and that is an example of how our State sector serves New Zealanders very well.

When we talk about focusing on the front line and talk about improving public services, we should never forget that our public servants already do a very good job and they are already focused on the front line. In fact, broad descriptions such as “front-line public services” can, in fact, be very misleading. At most times civil defence is not a front-line public service. It is largely doing back-office planning and so on, and contingency planning. It is only when there is an emergency that civil defence is pushed out on to the front line. If we make these bald distinctions between back office and front line, I think that can be very misleading and potentially very damaging to the quality of the public services that New Zealanders have access to.

It is worth examining that issue in the light of the debate about red tape, which we often hear about when we are talking about public services. In fact, red tape has protected Cantabrians. A high level of building standards has protected Cantabrians. It is one of the reasons we did not have the huge death toll that has happened in other countries and in other parts of the world in an earthquake the size of the one they have just had down in Christchurch, because we have very high building standards in New Zealand. That may be regarded as red tape by some. I think that is very important and it is why we have a quality Public Service that can come up with these high-quality laws, rules, and regulations. I do not think that is nanny State, I do not think that is red tape. I think that is protecting New Zealanders and is something we should all be very proud of and support.

I shall talk a little bit about the abuse of the parliamentary process that we see with this bill, and we see it time and time again with bills put forward by the National Government. When the Government moves a referral to a select committee, it gives that committee the power to meet at all times whenever it feels like it, even when Parliament is sitting. That is incredibly damaging to our democratic system. The parliamentary process is designed so that members can attend select committees and put the effort into understanding and hearing the submissions on a bill, without the distraction of having to be in another place at the same time, such as the parliamentary debating chamber. Unfortunately, this Government does not respect that distinction. It expects MPs to be dividing their time between select committees and the House, or actually not dividing the time but doing both simultaneously. I do not think that is fair; I particularly do not think that is fair on the smaller parties in Parliament. For National with its 58 MPs, and even for Labour with our 42 MPs, it is a little bit easier to cover those things, but for the parties with only five or nine MPs, actually dividing time between select committees and the debating chamber, if those things are running at the same time, can be incredibly difficult. I know that for the small parties, if all the select committees are sitting at the same time, it can be a difficult challenge without also having to worry about the House.

So I am concerned that with bills such as this one where there is no pressing need for urgency, there is no need to push this through in a hurry, the Government is abusing the parliamentary process and is abusing its majority to force this through without giving all parties in Parliament an adequate opportunity to hear submissions and to hear what the public have to say. We know that this bill will be contentious, although not the part about research and development—because generally speaking, from what I have seen, there is a high level of support for that part of the bill—but when it comes to Archives New Zealand and the National Library it does appear that that will be controversial. It appears that a lot of people will want to have their say. Therefore, truncating the select committee process, which is what the Government is effectively proposing to do with its referral motion, is quite outrageous. That is something we will strongly oppose.

I shall talk about some of the concerns that will arise during the select committee process, particularly around the merger of New Zealand Archives and the National Library under the Department of Internal Affairs. That move will not save very much money and will not lead to much greater efficiency, but will potentially significantly undermine the independence of those institutions. The Chief Archivist needs to be in a position to enforce the law that requires other Government agencies to keep and deposit their records. That will be compromised by a merger into the Department of Internal Affairs. It was one of the reasons that it was separated out in the first place, so that it would have that independence and would be able to negotiate with some mana with other Government departments when it came to the storing of critical records of national significance. They should be in the archives and they should be protected by the independence of those archives.

When the National Library was taken out of the Ministry of Education, one of the reasons for doing so was that it had struggled to have a voice when it was subsumed under the Ministry of Education. The separation allowed it to develop a voice, to be a strong advocate. That is something we should really protect and defend. A merger into the Department of Internal Affairs is not appropriate for organisations that have very specific roles in the transparency of our Government and the protection of our history. The next thing we know, we could have the Government suggesting that the Ombudsman, for the sake of administrative efficiency, should be merged into the Department of Internal Affairs, because we would save about the same amount of money as we would save in doing these mergers. But that would be an absolute outrage, because it would clearly impact on the independence of the Ombudsman. It is something we would not do. The Government is not proposing to do that. I cannot understand why it is proposing to do it in this case, particularly when we are talking about savings of about $165,000 a year—not very much, at all. When I think about the fact that 15 jobs will go out of this exercise, I am not sure that it will save much money, at all. So there are a lot of concerns.

I will now turn to some of the concerns that have been raised about this already, before the select committee process has even begun. The New Zealand Historical Association president, Catharine Coleborne—and I apologise if I pronounced that name wrongly—said that historians were concerned that the merger could lead to political interference at Archives New Zealand, the agency tasked with collecting Government and community records. I will quote her: “We’re very uncomfortable about the threat that this could mean for the autonomy of national archives, and also of the Chief Archivist’s role within Government … To just create a new ruling that merges these institutions is very dangerous and unsound without the opportunity for comment and consultation.”

Of course, as I have outlined already, the Government is abridging the select committee process for comment and consultation, in what I think is quite an outrageous abuse of parliamentary process, in the referral motion that it is putting forward.

The New Zealand Society of Authors has raised serious concern. Maggie Tarver, who is the chief executive officer, is quoted as saying that this is obviously a cost-cutting exercise on behalf of the Government, and the society questions the validity of such a move, especially when it is clear that no significant savings will be achieved in the short term.

Tony Simpson, the president of the society, talked about research facilities being important not only to historians and writers of historical fiction but also for the protection of our history. I think that is something that is really important. It is really important that we look after our history. Do we want to go back to the days when the Treaty of Waitangi was left in a basement so that rats could eat it? Is that what we want to go back to? No, we do not want to go back to that. So I think the protection of the importance of these departments—

Jacqui Dean: Oh, that’s just silly.

CHRIS HIPKINS: It is not silly, at all. I say to Jacqui Dean that it is not silly, at all. When Archives New Zealand and the National Library are subsumed within the Department of Internal Affairs, they will not have a voice, and their budgets will be prone to cuts. When they have a Minister who is as ineffective as the Minister of Internal Affairs at the moment, who just refers any decision to the officials in the department and does not seem to know what is going on in his department, New Zealanders will have absolutely no confidence that the independence of our archives and our National Library will be preserved and will not be subject to unnecessary funding cuts. It is a bad bill.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research, Science and Technology) : I am taking a call on the State Sector Management Bill in my role as the Minister of Research, Science and Technology. In due course that title will change to the Minister of Science and Innovation. I will spend the bulk of my speech on those points.

Chris Hipkins: Is he still the political correctness eradicator?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I say to the previous speaker, Chris Hipkins, who raised all sorts of straw man arguments, that he needs to remember that when we became the Government, we inherited a National Library that was in huge physical disrepair. That party over there spent 9 years in Government, with 9 years of surpluses, and it did nothing. The previous Labour Government passed on, along with the rest of the problems in the Government sector, a National Library that was in physical disrepair. So if members of the public wonder why they are not able to access the library at the moment, I say it is because tens and tens of millions of dollars are being spent to refurbish that facility—$52 million, in fact, I am informed by the Minister of Internal Affairs. That will lead to a greatly improved facility. The reason why in the past the Treaty of Waitangi was damaged was that it had not been properly cared for. A new, properly refurbished library should have been provided years ago. We are providing it now. We will ensure that that sort of disgrace will never again occur. I can only say to the previous member that that was simply mock outrage on his part.

I will get on to the more important, and for me the material, part of the bill. The bill is significant in that it merges the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology and the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology into a single new ministry to be called the Ministry of Science and Innovation. That, amongst other reasons, is why this process is truncated. Mr Shearer talked about the problems of transition. There is no doubt that during a period of transition staff become concerned; they worry about their futures, and so forth. It is extremely important that when we go through a transition of this nature, it is done quickly. That is one of the lessons that Sir Roger Douglas puts out as one of the key principles of reform—to do it quickly, because that minimises disruption and enables people to get on with things and look to the future. That is one of the reasons why there is a shortened period. When a reform is fundamentally about the internal processes of Government, it is appropriate in that case to have a somewhat shorter process than might otherwise be the case.

The merger of the two organisations is part of the fundamental reforms that are occurring in the research, science, and technology sector. There are four parts to them. The first was to get a clearer set of priorities. The previous Government simply had not done that in its 9 years in office. I inherited a sector that, frankly, was disillusioned and dispirited. Certainly some things had been done in the previous 9 years, but an ad hoc approach had occurred over a number of years and there was no real sense of direction or sense of priorities. The very first thing that needed to be sorted out was getting a strategic sense. Last year we set out in a document much more transparent Government priorities. That made it apparent to the sector what the Government saw as the key priorities. Those priorities are at the centre of this Government’s reform process: improving the performance of the economy. The reason for that is that in the previous 5 years, export performance in this nation had been fundamentally flat. There had been a huge growth of credit, and we are reaping the consequences of that today.

When the Government talks about the years of economic mismanagement by the previous Government, it is focusing on quite specific things: the fact that under the previous Government economic performance had been flat for 5 years; and the fact that there had been a substantial growth in the public sector, which was essentially squeezing investment out of the private sector and leading to an excessive growth of credit. We have to deal with the consequences of that today. We have to put that right, and this reform is part of that package. Science and innovation form one of the six key drivers of this Government’s agenda.

The second stage of the science and innovation reforms was the work of the Crown Research Institute Taskforce. It has been well accepted around this House, and I do acknowledge Mr Shearer’s acceptance of the importance of that work. That is being implemented now.

The third phase of the reforms was primarily the 2010 Budget, which followed on from the increase in fundamental science funding in the 2009 Budget. In this area the two Budgets have to be seen as a package: 2009 was fundamentally focused on science; 2010 was more focused on business. Seen as a package, there has been a significant increase in overall science expenditure: nearly $100 million in the space of 18 months across the two Budgets. That is quite significant in the circumstances that we face, when we consider that the Government has a deficit in the region of $9 billion—nearly 4 percent of GDP. It is a significant challenge to increase funding in those circumstances, so I am surprised that the Opposition is not willing to acknowledge the challenge of increasing expenditure in a particular sector in the face of such substantial deficits. One needs to remind the Opposition members from time to time that they had 9 years of surpluses while they were in Government. Some of those surpluses were produced by increased taxes, but some of them were produced by overall increased economic activity during their 9 years in Government. It is much more difficult to do these things in the circumstances of the current Government, and the previous Government needs to recognise what we have had to inherit compared with what it inherited from us in 1999.

The fourth component of the reforms is the one that we are dealing with today: the merger and renaming of the institutions, and I want to emphasise that particular point. Research, science, and technology are three words that, as a package, tend to convey an impression that the ministry is primarily about the public sector as opposed to the private sector. The Ministry of Science and Innovation has two elements to it. Firstly, that simplifies the title; that is self-evident. But it also indicates much more a sense of direction for the package. There is science, which is more public sector - related, and we have innovation, which is more private sector - related. The new name is intended to indicate to the sector and more broadly outside the sector the direction of travel for this new ministry.

Although there will be some savings from the establishment of the ministry, that is not the prime reason for making this reform. The prime reason is to have a more effective ministry that will drive ahead this element of the Government’s agenda and start to get a framework in place that will enable greater effectiveness in terms of the expenditure that New Zealand taxpayers make. I understand that people say there should be greater expenditure. I understand that a number of other nations with which we might compare ourselves spend more than we do—although it is fair to note that they have a larger industrial component to their economies than we do, and that explains some of the difference.

In closing, the package of reforms that I have described is intended to lead to a cultural as well as an economic change. It is intended to say to the sector and to the private businesses that interact with it that this represents an opportunity, that the Government is backing the sector, and that we are looking at ways, both in Budget 2010 as that is rolled out and also in the future, to see what we can do better in a time of economic strictures. We will focus diligently over the next period of time on enhancing this sector. I have two portfolios. I understand that this portfolio is crucial to New Zealand’s economic future and growth prospects, and in my role as the Minister I intend to do everything that I possibly can to realise the potential of the sector.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) : The previous speech was made by Wayne Mapp, a Minister who understands his portfolio. It was pleasing to hear him endorse Labour’s spokesperson David Shearer, with his support—not so much his concern—for the amalgamation of the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology into this new organisation. That is not the aspect of the State Sector Management Bill that Labour is opposed to; our greatest concern with this bill is the merger of Archives New Zealand and the National Library into the Department of Internal Affairs.

When the Minister of State Services, Tony Ryall, came into the House today and spoke very quickly in a very quiet, moderate voice, people would have thought that this bill was absolutely inconsequential, quite dry and dusty, and with no impact on front-line services. From the Minister’s point of view it was just about an obvious merger. Far from it. It is quite ironic that today we have had a ministerial statement in the House on the Canterbury earthquake, which we are all concerned about. Government members opposite, when in Opposition, went around the country ranting about a bloated bureaucracy. Yet today here they are thanking front-line public servants in Canterbury for their initial response in working with local government down in Canterbury to help remedy the dreadful situation that people are in. So the “bloated bureaucracy”, which this Government is determined to stamp out, is, ironically, the very bureaucracy and Public Service that is helping in Canterbury today and doing such a brilliant job.

From our point of view this bill is certainly not a dry, dusty, and inconsequential bill. In fact, it goes to the heart of New Zealand’s national identity. In 2000, only a decade ago, after a review of the Department of Internal Affairs we separated out the National Archives and the National Library as stand-alone entities with their own autonomy. We think it is very important that that review be revisited. There is absolutely no justification for the merger other than the determination of this Government to supposedly improve services within existing baselines, reduce costs in the short to medium term, and future-proof the long-term delivery of Government services.

We cannot find any justification for why the Department of Internal Affairs is now going to subsume the independence of Archives New Zealand and the National Library. It is a pity to do so just in the name of efficiency and short-term cost saving. The actual cost savings are only $165,000 a year and 15 jobs will go. Those jobs are not inconsequential. They are done by 15 people with specialist skills both in the National Library and in Archives New Zealand, not just by bureaucrats pushing paper. Those jobs will go.

This is a cost-cutting exercise we are really concerned about. It is a step backwards for transparency and democracy. I was really concerned when Grant Robertson talked about trying to get access through the Ombudsman to find out why this legislation was necessary. Access to that information has been blocked from the very Government that talks about transparency.

This bill is about pure ideology. It is a rant against the Public Service that says we can get greater efficiency gains. If the Minister opposite had really thought about this bill, why did he not talk to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage? The Ministry for Culture and Heritage has the archival component of heritage in film. The Film Commission and Peter Jackson have been showing concern about the Film Archive, so why did they not just bung that in as well for efficiency? That organisation is crying out for reform. That was not even considered by this Government, which shows that the two Ministers do not talk.

The Minister of State Services said that this merger was because of technological advances and that it was now easier to put the two together. We are concerned that by doing this, just a decade after a massive change to the National Library and the Archives New Zealand, those organisations are, on a political whim, being put back into the Department of Internal Affairs.

We are concerned about the role of the Chief Archivist. This role needs legislative independence. We have no confidence, given the provision that the Chief Archivist has to report to the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs, that that independence will be protected. That aspect will be looked at during the Committee stage.

When the National Library was administered by the Department of Internal Affairs and the Department of Education, before Labour separated it out, the National Library struggled to have a voice. It did not have a voice, at all. The separation allowed protection for what we deemed to be an iconic institution: the Alexander Turnbull Library. But it does not matter now! The Minister now says that we can put them all together, that we should not worry about the iconic status of the Alexander Turnbull Library! We should not worry about the independence of the Chief Archivist, that that will be sorted out and will be a second-tier or third-tier position within the Department of Internal Affairs! Labour is very concerned about the operational efficiency of those roles, especially in terms of the protection of our history, which is a very vital role for us in terms of maintaining our national identity.

I too mention that the consultation on the development of this bill was very, very limited. That was of great concern. Organisations could respond only once they heard of the proposed merger of the National Library and Archives New Zealand into this omnibus department, the Department of Internal Affairs, where this Government thinks it can put disparate entities together. The professional historians of New Zealand have said that under this merger it is inevitable that the Chief Archivist and the National Librarian will become second-tier or third-tier divisional heads, losing the ear of the Minister.

I wonder whether the Minister, Nathan Guy, can give us the assurance that those positions will still be able to report directly to the Minister of Internal Affairs. The Minister has his head down; he obviously has no idea where those very, very important roles sit within the current department and what part of their independence is guaranteed under this new relationship. The New Zealand Society of Authors put it absolutely correctly when it said: “If it’s not broken then don’t fix it”. Tony Simpson, the president of the society, said: “Research facilities are not only important to historians and writers of historical fiction, but also to the protection of New Zealand history. It is crucial that the integrity of New Zealand’s research facilities be maintained and we are concerned that through this merger Archives New Zealand will lose its autonomy which would jeopardise its objectives with serious consequences for freedom of speech.”

Labour shares the view of the Greens today. I do not call this measure a new dawn, at all. There is no justification for it, other than political rhetoric and another tirade against the Public Service. There was no justification. Labour will vote against this bill, for the reasons that all the speakers in the Labour team have outlined today. Thank you.

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) : As the Minister responsible for the three departments concerned—the Department of Internal Affairs, the National Library, and Archives New Zealand—I am very pleased to be able to take a call on this very important bill. I have worked hard in this process, I believe, over the last 12 months. These three agencies share very natural synergies. They all have a common focus on using digital technology and making public information more widely accessible to citizens of New Zealand.

The principle behind the integration is simple. It will allow expertise and resources to be combined while at the same time sharing back-office costs. Any savings will be redirected into better front-line services for the public, and the strengths and qualities of these three combined departments will serve the public well, I believe.

Since becoming the Minister responsible for these three departments I have spent a lot of time talking to and listening to stakeholders. I have had regular meetings with the Archives Council, the guardian or kaitiaki of the Turnbull Library, and the Library and Information Advisory Commission. I have also met with Friends of the Turnbull Library, the National Library Society, and the New Zealand Public Service Association (PSA), amongst others. Key stakeholders were also given the opportunity to make a comment on the draft bill before it was finalised. I have listened very, very carefully through this process, and I am pleased that the legislation addresses a lot of concerns that have been raised by these various groups. The Government has always made it clear through this process that this is not about changing the major roles or functions of the departments concerned, and the legislation confirms this.

In particular, the independence and integrity of the Chief Archivist is safeguarded. This position will be responsible to the chief executive of the new integrated department and will be protected from any improper influence in performing his or her independent statutory functions. It is important to maintain the principle of an independent check on Government record-keeping. There are plenty of examples from around the world where the Chief Archivist works in a variety of different models with his or her independence preserved. Over the Tasman in Australia, for example, the Chief Archivist sits within the Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. In the United Kingdom the Chief Archivist sits within the Ministry of Justice. In Ireland the Chief Archivist sits within the Department of Tourism, Culture and Sport. [Interruption] I think it is important for Mrs Chadwick to understand Crown Law opinion on this bill, because that opinion has been sought and I do not think she has had the chance to hear about it. So I will tell her. I quote: “The opinion confirms that the nature of the services provided by Archives New Zealand and the National Library will remain the same.” That is the opinion of Crown Law.

What I want to tell Mrs Chadwick this afternoon is what the PSA said. National secretary Brenda Pilott said that the PSA is happy with the bill because it retains the statutory roles of the National Librarian, the Chief Librarian, and the Chief Archivist. Mrs Pilott went on to say that the PSA appreciated being consulted by the Minister, Nathan Guy, and that matters raised by its members have been picked up in the bill. I am not sure whether Mrs Chadwick was aware that the PSA came out in support of this bill. I am sure that she is indeed now aware of that. I am sure that Mrs Chadwick is now aware of the Crown Law opinion, and that will, I am sure, give her some reassurance.

I say in conclusion that it is important to note that this bill amends the National Library of New Zealand (Te Puna Mātauranga o Aotearoa) Act 2003 and the Public Records Act 2005 to reflect the change in legal status of these agencies. It represents the next chapter in what is a very exciting future for all three agencies. It builds on other work by the Government to modernise the way we store and preserve information and keep up with the latest technology. I am very proud, as the Minister responsible for Archives New Zealand and the Minister responsible for the National Library, to have secured in this year’s Budget $12.6 million of new money over the next 4 years to create a Government digital archive. That shows the commitment of this Government to ensure that we preserve and look after vital information for future generations of this country.

This Government has also invested $52 million in the National Library, and we can see that happening right now across the road. I was also given a wonderful opportunity to open the new library in Auckland. There has been a million dollars of investment in that area. So this Government is making a huge commitment to these iconic institutions that will be here for future generations to enjoy.

The Department of Internal Affairs, I know, is a very strong and professionally functioning department. Archives New Zealand and the National Library will soon have access to a greater range of resources and expertise than they have ever had before. I encourage everyone to please try to embrace the opportunities and maximise the benefits. I look forward to hearing more during the select committee’s deliberations.

Hon PANSY WONG (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of State Services: I move, That the State Sector Management Bill be considered by the Education and Science Committee, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 24 November 2010, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during oral questions), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): There is an amendment to the referral motion in the name of Grant Robertson to omit all the words after the words “Education and Science Committee”.

Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Justice) : I move, That the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill be now read a second time. I also signal my intention to move a Supplementary Order Paper at the Committee of the whole House stage. The Supplementary Order Paper changes the commencement date to 1 April 2011 to allow time for the industry to prepare for the changes and make some amendments to ease the transition to the new regime.

I am very pleased to present this bill to the House. As the name suggests, the bill regulates the private security industry. Indeed, the industry is very diverse. Normally when we hear the word “security” we think of uniformed guards patrolling barbed wire fences at night. However, there are many members of this industry who are much less visible—for example, people who monitor closed-circuit television cameras and install house alarms, and private investigators hired by insurance companies to detect fraud are all members of the private security industry. All of us rely on members of this industry to protect ourselves or our homes and family, whether at work, catching up with friends at the pub, or supporting our favourite sports team at the local stadium. We often take it for granted, but security personnel protect New Zealanders’ safety, security, and property 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The bill does not change the overriding purpose of the regulation of the private security industry. Its purpose is to reduce the risk of harm to members of the public by preventing unsuitable people from working in the industry, particularly those with convictions for serious offences of violence or dishonesty.

The main driver for change is that the current Act is over 35 years old. It is outdated and it does not adequately address the risks associated with some types of security work. This bill modernises the law and makes some important extensions and enhancements to address those risks. In particular, the current legislation does not cover security personnel who are responsible for protecting people or, indeed, for keeping order in today’s society. The bill addresses this significant gap.

As with any occupational regulation, the challenge is to balance the risks associated with the industry against the inevitable cost of regulation. I believe that this bill achieves a good balance between those competing issues. The new regime will benefit not only the public who rely on the services provided by the industry but also members of the industry itself. The industry’s reputation will be enhanced by stricter entry standards, training requirements, and better enforcement to weed out illegal operators and unsuitable individuals. The bill seeks to address the risks associated with untrained security personnel becoming involved in physical confrontation. In 2008 the Wellington regional coroner, Ian Smith, called for compulsory training following the tragic death of Cedric Joyce in Blenheim in 2005 after he was restrained by bouncers outside a pub.

Reform of the security industry is also timely, with the Rugby World Cup coming up next year. Under the bill, crowd controllers such as bouncers, who play an important role at busy bars and pubs, will be regulated for the first time. People working in this type of role must be suitable as they will be expected to deal with any crowd-control issue that may arise. The current legislation does not include any training requirements or minimum competency standards for security personnel. The bill will enable regulations to be made requiring industry members to be properly trained. This will assist in ensuring that security personnel have the necessary skills to perform their role safely and competently. The Government intends to require personal guards, property guards, and crowd controllers to be trained. The detail of the training requirements, including the timing of their introduction, will be determined when the regulations are developed after the bill becomes law. This change will benefit not only the public but also the staff themselves by increasing the value of their licence or, indeed, their certificate.

The bill will also improve enforcement. A dedicated enforcement body will be established called the complaints, investigation, and prosecution unit. The unit’s role will be to ensure compliance with the new legislation. This will include carrying out investigations, providing information to the new Private Security Personnel Licensing Authority, and prosecuting offences under the Act. Currently, this role falls solely on the police, who often have to give priority to more pressing matters. The new unit will be funded by the industry through licence fees.

The bill also updates offences and increases penalties. For example, the penalty for operating an unlicensed security industry business will go up from $2,000 to $40,000 for an individual and $60,000 for a company. This should act as a deterrent to cowboy operators.

The bill changes the licensing regime from an annual to a 5-yearly process. This will streamline processes and reduce unnecessary cost and bureaucracy. Instead of applying for a licence renewal each year, businesses and individuals will have to provide annual updates to the licensing authority. For example, they will have to advise the authority if they have been convicted of a relevant offence in that time.

I now turn to the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee, which worked very, very well as this bill went through the select committee. Before talking about the detail of those changes I take the opportunity to thank everyone on that committee for getting the bill to where it is now. I also extend my thanks to the 38 organisations and individuals who took the time to read the bill—which is not exactly light reading, with over 100 clauses—to think about the issues, and to draw on their own personal experiences to come to the select committee and make a submission on how the legislation can be improved. The committee, after considering those submissions, recommended several changes to ensure the bill met its objectives. Many of these changes are technical in nature, to clarify aspects of the bill and to make it operate as intended. I also acknowledge the Ministry of Justice officials who have helped through that process.

The most significant policy change recommended by the committee relates to clause 66. Clause 66 carried over a provision from the 1974 Act that prohibited private investigators from taking or using photographs or audio recordings without obtaining the person’s written consent. That provision has been controversial for quite some time, and generated much debate before the select committee. The prohibition made it very difficult for private investigators to do their work—work that is legitimate and often important, such as detecting fraud or locating missing persons. Private investigators were also prevented from doing what other members of the public, including—as we in this House know—the media, can do. The majority of the select committee recommended removing clause 66 and replacing it with a requirement to make regulations that prescribe a code of conduct for private investigators. The bill requires the code of conduct, at a minimum, to cover the surveillance of individuals by private investigators. However, it could also address other matters if necessary.

The select committee made several other amendments to clarify and improve the operation of the bill. An example is that the committee extended the range of matters that can disqualify a person from holding a licence or certificate, such as conviction for certain offences of violence and dishonesty. The select committee extended the list of relevant offences to include offences under the Arms Act 1983, criminal harassment in breach of a restraining order under the Harassment Act of 1997, and intimate covert filming offences under the Crimes Act of 1961. Conviction for any of these offences would reflect on a person’s suitability to do security work.

In conclusion, I am confident that the bill achieves reform that is proportionate to the risks. Most members of the private security industry are hard-working professionals, in whom New Zealanders can place their complete trust. However, regulation encourages all members of the industry to meet the high standards that we expect today in New Zealand. I believe that this bill will achieve that goal in an efficient and cost-effective way. I commend this bill to the House.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) : It is my pleasure to speak on the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. I acknowledge, first of all, the work that the Associate Minister of Justice has done on this bill, taking over from the good work of a Labour Minister. I believe it was Clayton Cosgrove who had this bill under his jurisdiction prior to the last election. I also acknowledge the Supplementary Order Paper that the Minister has indicated will be introduced, which relates to the timing of the enactment of this legislation, shifting the date from 1 December 2010 to 1 April 2011.

The Government has a tricky balancing act on its hands. Quite a bit of substantive work is left to be done by the new regulatory body that will exist, such as work on the code and certain other matters. As the Minister pointed out, the Government also has the balancing act of the Rugby World Cup. So I wish all those involved in the work on this bill the very best of luck. I will flag some concerns that Labour has about the residual work that will be carried out by those individuals, some of which I am not sure they will be able to remedy. From our perspective, the process, particularly in relation to clause 66, has been wrong. I will spend a bit of time on that issue.

I agree with the Minister that this area is in need of an overhaul. We have the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act 1974, but, obviously, things are a bit different in New Zealand now. The range of work that security guards undertake—and not just security guards but also those who consider themselves to be working in security, such as bodyguards, crowd controllers, and those who have private security businesses—means that it is a very different industry now.

This legislation had a range of competing demands on it. First and foremost, it is interesting to consider that those who monitor our doors at evening establishments are in many ways—as we heard from the hospitality industry—the first enforcers of alcohol legislation. Businesses can lose their liquor licences based on whether those individuals carry out their jobs properly. Yet we do not have a particularly comprehensive regime for those individuals. We have seen, for instance, the case of a bouncer whose restraint of an individual led to that individual’s death, which is one of the more high-profile reasons behind this new legislation.

There is a range of new, competing demands on the roles that these individuals play. We can see the expansion of this industry in the fact that, currently, we have about 9,000 people under the current regime. With this new licensing regime and its extension, we are looking at about 18,000 people coming within its ambit—and rightly so. This area relates to one of the more significant things that we will see changed as a consequence of this bill. Under the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act—and I think this will surprise some members of the public—individuals are not required to carry out mandatory training. That is something, I think, that was ripe for review.

So what are the bill’s three main provisions? We have no problem with—and, in fact, we wholeheartedly support—a significant part of this bill. The introduction of the comprehensive licensing requirements, which include police checks—I understand that one of my colleagues will speak on that later—will be extended to cover a wider range of people engaged in security-related activities: crowd controllers, bouncers, bodyguards, and private security staff guarding people in their legal custody. I think it is right that that regime be extended. It will, as I have already mentioned, take in a considerably larger number of workers.

Private security staff will be required, for the first time in New Zealand, to undertake training if their job is guarding property or persons, or keeping order. Again, crowd control, as we heard during the select committee process, is a growing area of business. Often, requirements for health and safety reasons mean that when a big contract is going out for an event, crowd control is part of that. Some concern was expressed that not all of the companies operating in that realm were doing so professionally, and there was enthusiasm from the industry to bring in a regime like this in order to even the playing field, and prevent those who are acting responsibly from being undercut. The training provisions will be significant, and will add in a positive sense to the way the industry is currently working. There is time to work with the industry, I hope, in developing the training regime that will ultimately sit around the industry. Those who are most successful in the industry are those who have had a huge part in building it; they are the ones who know its needs and know its requirements.

As the Associate Minister of Justice has already mentioned, there will be a dedicated enforcement body, the complaints, investigation, and prosecutions unit, which not only will ensure compliance but will have a range of other responsibilities. It is only right and makes sense that if we have extensive regulations governing the way that those who work in the electricity sector are regulated, then those working in an area like this should have a regulatory body also. They have constant interface with the public, in often fragile and delicate situations,

I will talk about the significant concern that both Labour and the Greens shared during the consideration of this bill. I acknowledge that concerns about clause 66 were raised most often by the industry itself. Just for the sake of clarity for the House, clause 66 restricted the taking and using of photographs and other recordings by a private investigator or a private investigator’s employee, and the making or using of other recordings without the subject’s written consent. Of course, the argument made to us by the industry was that the bar was higher for it than it was for the public. Basically, investigators argued that if members of the public wanted to take a photo of an individual, then currently they could, but investigators had a much tighter regime sitting around them. My response to that was: “For good reason.” Private investigators’ income is derived and generated by particular jobs where they pursue individuals for whatever reason that they have been employed to do so, and those reasons are many and varied. There is good reason why there should be protections around the way that the industry operates when it comes to an individual’s privacy. But we had quite a lengthy discussion on clause 66, which is too much of a blanket clause. We asked whether it was overly prescriptive and overly harsh in terms of the way that an investigator does his or her job.

The Justice and Electoral Committee considered this clause in the most appropriate way it could. It was aware that the Law Commission was reviewing the law of privacy, so committee members asked, rightly so, for the Law Commission to update the committee on the progress of that review. The commentary on the bill notes that the Law Commission said that although in its view clause 66 was too restrictive, it did not believe that it should be repealed until legislation had been enacted that provided some kind of protection against intrusive surveillance. A discussion in the select committee about timing followed this, in terms of whether it would cause too much disruption to the industry if we were to keep clause 66 in place and then come back and review it at a later date, whether we should hold back the legislation altogether until we had resolved this issue, whether we should repeal clause 66 on the condition of the establishment of a code—which is essentially what we have here—or whether the select committee members themselves should try to draft a replacement clause. I note that in that discussion the advisers took a view like the view of the Law Commission. Their view was that clause 66 needed to be reformed, but they advised against proceeding with the options discussed by the committee, and instead suggested that waiting for the result of the Law Commission’s work would provide the best advice.

Ultimately, Labour and the Greens were not in favour of clause 66 being removed and replaced with a regulation-making power. From my recollection, there was not enough certainty for us in that resolution. I do not believe that enough leadership was shown in determining the direction that the Government wanted to see privacy legislation going in, and my fear is that there will not be enough coherence between what we will ultimately have as a consequence of this repeal and what the Law Commission will produce as a result of its review. I look forward to discussing clause 66 at greater length in the Committee stage, because it remains a concern for me, in particular.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I rise to speak in favour of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. This bill came before the Justice and Electoral Committee. The committee members applied themselves to it in a very studious way and sought wide consultation on it. A number of people submitted to the committee. A lot of those submitters came from the industry, and some people submitted as individuals with concerns about where part of the bill might be going, relating to the ability of private investigators to take photographs, to videotape, and to use listening devices.

The main thrust of the bill is that technology has moved on to a place that was never envisaged at the time the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act, the legislation that the bill is replacing, was passed in 1974. We had a very graphic presentation from Trevor Morley, who was previously the president of the relevant industry association. He brought before the committee a number of pieces of fairly basic technology, like cellphones and digital cameras, and he made the point that although these pieces are seen as common, everyday items in most people’s possession, they are not allowed to be used in certain ways by private investigators. Bearing in mind that private investigators have been through a certification process and a vetting process, they are apparently more trusted than the average member of the public, yet they are not more trusted than the average member of the public when it comes to doing things like taking photographs and making sound recordings.

For instance, we have the ridiculous situation where if I was a concerned parent who had instructed a private investigator to go out and look for my miscreant, runaway 15-year-old daughter, I could give the private investigator a photo of my daughter and say that this is the girl I want him to look for. Under the current law, the private investigator cannot show that photograph to anyone else and ask that person whether he or she has seen her, but he could stand in front of that person and say that she is about 5 foot 6, has brown hair and green eyes, and all the rest of it. I ask whether that is ridiculous, and whether that is just dumb. That is why this bill has been brought before the House.

A number of other measures in the bill relate to security guards, personal guards, and a number of positions that will become invaluable during the smooth running of the Rugby World Cup next year, which is one of the reasons why we need to have this legislation passed through the House quite quickly.

As was previously mentioned by Jacinda Ardern, we had a discussion on clause 66. A number of members of Parliament certainly held some reservations in respect of that clause. Two members in particular, one from each side of the House, had been the subject of the ongoing videotaping of their houses at the time. We also then heard of the ridiculous situation where, although a private investigator cannot videotape a person’s home as a private investigator, he or she can approach that person’s neighbour and ask the neighbour to do the videotaping from his or her place. That is completely without any sanction whatsoever. Many private investigators acting in that way are contracted to do so by newspapers and other media outlets. They cannot do it, but a journalist can. The person who gets to write the story is able to do the taping, the sound recording, or the photography, but the certificated, vetted private investigator cannot. That seems a bit silly.

I will touch on one other point, in relation to training. It was suggested initially that people seeking certification under new provisions would be required to go through training. In the end, it was decided that this training should really be a display of competency, bearing in mind that a lot of people who will be working in this field have previously been working in it for a number of years, and a display of competency and ability is probably far more important than sitting in a classroom and undergoing X number of hours of training.

We look forward to the relatively smooth passage of this bill. We recognise that there are a couple of matters of contention, particularly for the Green Party and the Labour Party, but in the end I think that people can see that if we are to extend powers, it is better to extend them to people who are certificated and who are accountable, rather than to members of the public who are not.

We also have to remember that at the same time we have the transition of the Search and Surveillance Bill, which looks at regulating State agents and their ability to do similar activities. If we are constraining those activities, then we should be constraining, or at least monitoring and regulating, the activities of private security personnel and private investigators. Thank you.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) : I am happy to take a fairly brief call on the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. I did not have the opportunity to sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee for the entirety of the hearings on this bill. I was a fill-in member for some of the deliberation on the bill, and—

Hone Harawira: You were great.

CHRIS HIPKINS: Sorry, what was that?

Hone Harawira: You were fab.

CHRIS HIPKINS: I missed that altogether; it probably was not worth hearing, anyway. I acknowledge the member who spoke before me, Chester Borrows, for the way that, generally speaking, he chairs the Justice and Electoral Committee. He does that on a pretty sound basis, and members from all sides have the chance to ask their questions and have their say. However, I will pick up one or two points that he mentioned, particularly with regard to clause 66.

Clause 66 gives private investigators the ability to use photographs, recording devices, and so on without any form of control of the way that they can use those devices. Mr Borrows’ argument was that providing they are registered private security investigators, it is not a problem. Actually, we are giving them greater powers than New Zealand police currently have. New Zealand police do not have the powers that are being conferred on private investigators in this bill. I think we should take a moment to reflect upon that, and it is probably one of the reasons why it would be more prudent to wait and see what the Law Commission has to say about the matter before we push it through in this legislation.

I was open to some of the arguments put forward in the brief period of time that I sat on the select committee about why the current law needed to be changed in this area. We asked whether it was right that I, as a private individual, could take photographs and make recordings in a way that a private investigator could not. Private investigators were much, much more constrained in what they could do than average private citizens. I understand that some of the constraints on them may be unnecessary, but I think that going the whole way and removing any constraint on them in respect of the way they can use cameras and recording devices is going too far in the absence of a more coherent and perhaps deeper consideration of issues of privacy that the Law Commission is currently looking into. I think we would be wise to maybe slow down a little bit on that and give those issues some more thought.

The aim of this bill is to reform the law relating to private security personnel. In particular, the bill aims to prevent certain people from either running businesses or working in various roles within the industry. Labour certainly supports that, because some people should not be working in the industry. The bill ensures that participants in the industry have a minimum level of appropriate training. Most people at home would be surprised to learn that one does not need any form of training at the moment to be a private investigator. Most New Zealanders would think that some form of training should be required.

The bill will require industry participants to comply with appropriate rules of conduct, and I think that New Zealanders would agree with that. It would be fair to say that across the board New Zealanders will generally be pretty suspicious of the idea of having lots of private investigators running around the place; I know that I certainly am. However, it is a reality, it is happening, and we need to make sure that we have a law that reflects that and places constraints on what they can do. The legislation prescribes penalties for offences, and it allows for the effective administration of laws that are coming into place.

This bill was introduced by the previous Labour Government to ensure that suitable checks and balances were placed on the private security industry, which has been broadening its scope in recent years.

The law in this area has been largely unchanged since it was passed in 1974. Obviously, there has been massive technological change since that time. Neither cellphones would have been in the mix, nor laptop computers in the way we use them now, nor digital cameras. A whole lot of technology out there now we could not have even imagined. In 1974 I could not have imagined future technology, because I was not even born then, and no doubt the House could not have imagined it when it passed in 1974 the current laws, so it is probably well past time that the laws in this area were updated. [Interruption] I missed that.

Simon Bridges: The moment’s gone; I don’t want it recorded in Hansard.

CHRIS HIPKINS: I am sure that happens to the member quite a bit. The bill was prompted partly by the death in 2005 of a Blenheim gentleman who was restrained by a bouncer. After that tragic incident, the coroner recommended that the laws regarding private security personnel be reviewed and changed. This bill has had a gestation period since 2005, and it has been reasonably slow-moving in this term of Parliament. As I said, it was introduced by the previous Labour Government. It was sent to the select committee by National when it took office, but it has been sitting at the select committee for 11 months, so I think it is probably past high time that this bill was put through.

I come back to clause 66. I think it is really important that this House always balances a person’s right to privacy with allowing private investigators to carry out their work, which can, of course, include investigating criminal and fraud cases. We are not sure that the bill gets that balance right. As I said before, there should be some controls on private investigators who use digital devices such as cameras, voice recorders, and so on. I do not think they should have carte blanche to use those devices in any way that they see fit, which is effectively what this bill allows them to do.

The bill ensures that private security personnel have appropriate levels of training. It allows the licensing authority to weed out people who have serious criminal convictions, and that is something I am very supportive of and most New Zealanders at home would be very supportive of. The idea that we could have a whole bunch of private eyes who have criminal records running around the place is not something that New Zealanders would be very keen on. I think it is good that the bill is dealing with that particular issue. As an example of that, it would very inappropriate for somebody with violent criminal convictions who is working in the private security industry to be dealing with potentially violent situations. The fact that this bill allows for them to be removed from the sector is a very good thing.

The bill extends the licensing requirements and introduces mandatory training for private security staff. This measure brings New Zealand into line with comparable countries like the UK and Australia, and it is something that we support. It is estimated that around 18,000 people will be licensed under this new legislation, which is nearly double the number under the current Act. That is quite a lot of people when we are a country of just over 4 million people. I cannot remember the exact current figure; it is 4.3 million or something like that. To have 18,000 people working in this industry signifies that it is quite a large industry. While in Government, Labour made an effort to keep costs down for people working in this sector by requiring relicensing only every 5 years rather than every year. I think that that was a very positive move.

The Justice and Electoral Committee recommended that changes to the licensing scheme be introduced sooner than planned so that they are in place for next year’s Rugby World Cup. I note the comments the Minister made in his introductory remarks about the new date for the regime to come into force being April next year.

To sum up, Labour supports the bill. It was introduced by the previous Labour Government and we are voting for it. Our concern primarily rests on clause 66, regarding the use of electronic devices such as cameras and recording devices. There will now be no constraints or controls on the way they are used by the private investigating industry. We do not think that that is right. We think it tilts the balance away from privacy too much. The law as it stands now needs to be updated, but we are very concerned that this bill is going too far in that regard. However, on balance, we think that most of the changes in the bill are worthy and need to be put through, so we will be voting in favour of the bill. Thanks very much.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : The Green Party will also be supporting the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill, but we have similar criticisms to those outlined by the Labour speakers about the elimination of clause 66.

There has been a huge expansion in the number of security guards in New Zealand. A figure of 18,000 has been thrown around by two previous speakers, although that 18,000 covers both security guards and private investigators. When I think back to when I was growing up, we hardly had any security guards in our society. When we went along to a dance, there might be somebody on the door who could be described as a security guard, although in those days they did not tend to wear uniforms. Now everywhere we go there are people in different uniforms running around, doing security duties. It makes one wonder what has changed in our society. I think that one of the problems is that our society has become more unequal. There is more alienation and the problem is greater of people who will descend into bad behaviour, theft, and things like that. So I think that we have to address this problem. Although we are supporting this bill because it will put certain organisation and restraints around the operation of security guards and private investigators, which is all to the good, we have to look at the underlying problem of why this industry has expanded so much. We also have to recognise—and the bill recognises this—that people who are security guards and have these uniforms on do not have any more rights or powers than any other citizen. I think that has to be taken into account.

Private investigators, who are covered by one part of the bill, do create certain difficulties in society, and it is appropriate that they be regulated. Some of them get a bit out of hand. There has been a lot of controversy over a particular company called Thompson and Clark Investigations, which was discovered a couple of years back putting an agent into a voluntary group called the Save Happy Valley Coalition, which was trying to protect a pristine area on the West Coast, its trees, and its wildlife from despoliation by unnecessary mining. Thompson and Clark Investigations, which is a private investigating group, put an agent into that group, creating suspicion among members of the group about who might be an agent, who might not be, and all that sort of thing. It is quite wrong to infiltrate groups in that way, and it should only be done by the police when dealing with really serious criminality. Otherwise, if we are dealing with good people—and in this case they were good people—it only creates suspicion and erodes the solidarity that is necessary for voluntary organisations to prosper in society. It was a great intrusion into the privacy of the individuals of the Save Happy Valley Coalition.

More recently, Thompson and Clark were discovered, in an article published about a month ago in the Sunday Star-Times, to have put a tracking device on the car of an animal rights activist named Rochelle Rees, who had been involved with others in an animal rights group campaigning against factory-farmed chicken, sow crates, and the like. For that, her privacy about where she was moving in society was being tracked by private investigators. Now that we see private investigators using that technology and being so intrusive into the lives of others, it is appropriate that they be properly restrained.

Chester Borrows chairs the Justice and Electoral Committee on this and other bills very ably, and he said that, apparently, because of the regulation, training, and everything else that private security guards and investigators undertake, they should be trusted more than the rest of the population to carry out certain functions, but they are actually less trusted in that they somehow have fewer rights because of restrictions on their use of audio and video recording and taking of photographs. He also referred to the Search and Surveillance Bill, which is currently before the select committee. I think that bill explains why we have to be careful about getting rid of clause 66 of this bill. The Greens are somewhat critical of the Search and Surveillance Bill, but there are some good aspects to it, in terms of regulating the use of search and surveillance by police and other State agencies. The idea is not that those agencies are any less capable or skilled—of course, they are trained as well—but because their particular task involves intruding on people’s privacy through search or surveillance work, they are subject to certain controls and regulations, and rightfully so.

It is the same with private investigators. In this society they make their money by intruding into the privacy of people, often in quite an extensive way, and, with the growth of new technology, digital technology, tracking devices, and all the rest, they can intrude to a greater degree than in the past. Restraining them from using those devices is appropriate. The world has not fallen over through the restrictions that have been imposed on them to date in terms of using audio and video devices and taking photographs. Why not continue? We say “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.”, and as it is not really broken, we should restrain security guards in that way. It was wrong to say that we should get rid of clause 66 and that instead we could have a code of conduct further down the track. I do not think that is a sufficient way to operate. There should not be a change in the law or the current practice until some alternative is sorted out, and the Greens do not necessarily think that a code of conduct will be the most appropriate way forward.

The other thing is that the Law Commission is still in the midst of trying to work out appropriate changes to privacy legislation for the population as a whole. It is true that at the present time members of the public have greater rights, to a certain extent, than some of the agencies. For instance, at the moment anyone can put a tracking device on my car or anyone else’s car, or put a tracking device on someone’s clothing, and that is completely within the law. If the police do that, they must have a warrant, and under the Search and Surveillance Bill other people will need to have a warrant as well. The question of the new technology being used in an intrusive way is being dealt with by the Privacy Commissioner and the Law Commission at the present time. The Law Commission has done a lot of work on the area. I think we should wait until all that work comes back before we go ahead and give such agencies more powers.

We are discussing in debates on other bills such as the Identity Information Confirmation Bill the fact that technology allows for more and greater intrusions into our privacy than ever before. Facial recognition systems are being used at our airports to compare the appearance of people going through airports with the photos that are on their passports, but now they are being more used in general society too. That can intrude on people’s privacy, as their whereabouts, identity, and movements can all be tracked to a certain extent by facial recognition systems. Those systems are now being used by the Google company in its Picasa Web Albums. Using that new technology people can check a photograph of a person’s face against thousands and thousands of other photographs all at once. I use that as an illustration to show that when discussing the expansion of technology that intrudes on our privacy we have to consider carefully how it might be applied by private investigators and the like in our society today. Thank you.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : The Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill is important in ensuring that security guards, bouncers, and doormen provide relevant police information, wear authorised badges, and hold licences, or else cop fines of up to $60,000. It was encouraging to see submissions from the industry itself calling for a private investigators’ code of conduct to be established. It may well be that further amendments are needed to make that happen in the interests of the rights and safety of both the public and security staff themselves.

This bill is also important because many of the people engaged in the industry are Māori and Pacific Islanders, many of whom were originally enticed into the business because of their size and menace, without any serious consideration being given to the need for proper training—an area that hopefully will also be standardised within the industry from now on. I know from mixing with security personnel at various pubs, clubs, and sporting events around the north that many of them already undergo training as part of getting their formal New Zealand Qualifications Authority qualifications, and that many are expected to get referees and even police checks. But I note that those standards differ between agencies and that in some cases staff have no qualifications at all, nor are they encouraged to do anything about getting them.

I also take this opportunity to speak briefly about facial tā moko and the difference in standards as they apply to people around the country who carry the moko. Some years back a Gisborne woman was banned from a bar because of her moko, and last year one of Aotearoa’s leading tā moko artists, Mark Kōpua, was banned from entering Christchurch’s Bourbon Street Bar because his moko was supposed to represent gang markings. In his response Mark Kōpua said of his moko: “It’s my heritage, where I’m from, who my ancestors were, it’s everything about me”. He laid a complaint and, to its credit, the Bourbon Street Bar apologised and created a new policy to ensure the same mistake would not be made again. Mind you, my own view on this particular issue is that those who choose to wear the moko will do well to steer clear of places where drunkenness, ignorance, and violence are likely to degrade the mana of both the moko and the wearer.

The Māori Party will support this bill at its second reading, but also we will be advocating for the inclusion of clear cultural standards consistent with tikanga Māori to ensure that the boorish insults that Mark Kōpua had to endure do not happen to others in the future. Kia ora tātou.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) : It is good to take a call on the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. I will pick up on a couple of the comments made by the Associate Minister of Justice, Nathan Guy, in this second reading. He spoke, quite, rightly, about how the bill modernises this area of law. We have legislation that is a bit over 35 years old, and of course it is quite right that we modernise this area. As I think Chris Hipkins said, and I agree with him on this point, we are dealing with an area where technology plays a very substantial role. The use of new surveillance devices, recording devices, and computers, and the ability of people to listen in and observe what others do, has never been greater. We often hear speeches in this House about how the law is being modernised, but that is particularly important in relation to this legislation, given the nature of what it is dealing with, which is security and investigation, and given the technological advances we have seen in this area.

I think, for example, of a story I read in the New Zealand Herald earlier this week. The chief press officer for the current British Prime Minister is involved in a series of stories because at one time he was the editor of News of the World. His position is that he was not aware of this, but at the time he was editor the paper was tapping in, in quite a substantial way, to phone calls of members of Parliament. It was listening in to what they were saying. It was also listening in to ministerial phone calls. For example, one of the alleged cases was an alleged affair by the then Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott. We can see what technological advances mean in this kind of area. Investigations can become quite intrusive. As I say, the law needs modernising, and this bill does just that.

I will pick up on another point that the Minister made. He said that we are striking the right balance here. Again, we hear that comment quite a bit, but again it very much is the case here that on the one hand if we get things wrong we can have a lack of security and real problems at that end of the ledger in our society. On the other hand, if we are not careful, we can have, as I think some would argue they do in the United Kingdom, a surveillance State where one cannot go anywhere without being caught by security, closed-circuit television, and the like. In a very real way, we are putting forward a balanced bill, and a bill that modernises the area of law here.

It would be true to say that at the Justice and Electoral Committee, the debate on clause 66 was one of the most interesting debates we had. I was going to say it was heated and controversial, but I would not characterise it in that way. The debate was thoughtful, and certainly I thought the points raised by the likes of the Hon David Parker were well made, although in the final analysis I did not agree with them. Clause 66 is the clause that carried over the provisions from the old Private Investigators and Security Guards Act of 1974, prohibiting private investigators from taking or using photographs or recordings of any kind. I can understand the position taken by Labour colleagues on the select committee, that this provision should be carried over, because such powers can be quite intrusive.

But, ultimately, the position I came to, as did other colleagues, was that if we took that to its logical conclusion we would be getting into the silly situation where private investigators could not do something that anyone else could do—that individuals, private citizens, and actually journalists could do, although some would say that journalists do not always maintain the highest ethical standards. We were getting ourselves into a silly situation, particularly when, as we have done, we have put in the provision to have, and a requirement for, a code of conduct for private investigators so that they will be beholden to higher standards than private citizens will be in this area when taking photographs and doing visual recordings.

Let me just flesh out the point I am making. I was very mindful in the select committee of the situations I had seen in court cases. I must confess that at the time I did not realise the reason for this—it was only at the select committee that I did. In accident compensation cases and Work and Income fraud cases, where the police were not involved, private investigators would be used to do the legwork and to investigate whether the complaint had any substance. We would often come to court, where I can think of particular examples of a private investigator, someone privately paid and in his or her own firm, who would not be presenting photographs but would laboriously go through what he or she had observed. I had never really thought about why that was the case, but the reason, of course, is that those private investigators came under the old law—and we are changing it—and they were prohibited from taking photographs and video recordings.

I will give one example of a case where a person with, it was said, a very bad back was receiving accident compensation and was playing golf at a golf course nearly every single day. In fact, he had put in his score cards and was one of the best golfers at the course. Common sense would suggest that all the private investigator should have been doing was taking some photographs, or maybe making a video recording, of this guy swinging at the ball and playing some pretty good golf. As I say, under the old law private investigators could not do that, and that, to me, seems silly.

I will give another example of man who was receiving accident compensation who had one of the biggest private lawnmowing businesses in the Bay of Plenty. Again, it was difficult to prove. A person can swear black and blue that he or she has not been mowing lawns and has a crook back, but in fact that person has been mowing lawns every other day, and the private investigator, who under this new law will be governed by a strict code of conduct, cannot take photographs and the like.

I contrast that again with the situation we have had, and will continue to have, of any citizens out on the street being able to take photographs and do what private investigators, who are beholden to a higher standard, cannot do.

To speak of another News of the World example, we get into cases like the one involving Fergie, as she is known. She was video-recorded by journalists, and caught in a very compromising position. The situation in this country would have been that everyone else could do that, but private investigators would not be able to, because their code of conduct would probably prohibit that sort of unethical entrapment.

I come back to the point that we are modernising the law, and we have balanced legislation. In respect of the interesting provisions in clause 66, although I accept the points made by the Labour members, as far as they go, that privacy is important and that we need to be balanced and responsible in this area, I think it is right that we have a law whereby private investigators can, for legitimate purposes, and often very much in the public interest, take photographs and video recordings, to be used in court and the like, if they are admissible, because they will be beholden to a strict code of conduct. This will mean that they should have the ability to do this in the public interest.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) : I will go back to when the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill was first introduced. I remind the House that it was introduced by the previous Labour Government. It was introduced by Clayton Cosgrove in response to an actual event that happened in 2005, when a Blenheim man died after he was restrained by a bouncer. It was after that tragic accident that Labour responded and saw a need for the legislation to be reviewed, and that is exactly what happened.

It has taken a bit of time for National to actually push this bill through. It would have been good if National had taken into consideration the well-being of New Zealanders and the fact that they are at risk out there because this industry is not regulated. Although a number of incidents have prompted a call for the regulation of this industry, the only thing that prompted National was the fact that the Rugby World Cup is on the horizon—not a genuine concern for the safety of New Zealanders. This bill is being pushed through so that the law will be in place by June 2011. It will be in place by the time the Rugby World Cup is held in New Zealand. That is good, but it could have been done a little bit earlier. But never mind, the time has gone and here we are discussing the bill in the House.

I will discuss three main provisions of this bill. The first is the licensing requirements, including police checks for criminal convictions. These requirements will be extended to cover a wider range of security-related activities—in particular, crowd controllers, including bouncers, bodyguards, and private security staff who guard people in legal custody. I go back to something that Hone Harawira said. When I first picked up this bill I thought about the fact that a large proportion of this workforce is Māori and Pacific. Many of them have fallen into these jobs largely because of their size and because they suit the work, so they are hired into those positions. I agree that there needs to be a level of licensing. Part of this bill relates to training, and there needs to be a level of training not only to protect the general public but also to protect the people who work in those jobs. We need to ensure they are well equipped to deal with the situations they encounter, keeping in mind that many of those encounters can be a little bit worrying and can involve alcohol. So it is important that they have the right training to be able to deal with them.

With regard to the licensing requirements, I want to see a level of discretion in respect of the licensing authority that will be issuing those licences. I know of a number of people practising in these particular roles who have been doing so for years and who have previous criminal convictions going back many, many years but who have not had any problems since they have been in those positions. For example, people may have been security guards for 10 years but had a criminal conviction 20 years ago. It may have involved violence, but during the extent of their time doing the job they have had no issues. I think that the licensing authority may need to take that into consideration, particularly if some of these people had entered into this job as a career and intended to stay in it for a longer period. If they have had no issues, despite the fact they have a criminal conviction, and if they undertake the training and are able to achieve the standards that are set out by the licensing authority, then there should be a level of flexibility and a level of discretion that the licensing authority can exercise to ensure that those people are not convicted twice over in their life. If they have served their time, come out of prison, and are living a decent life and working safely in one of these positions, we should not be punitive towards them or punish them in any way. That would be my first concern, and Labour will be bringing that issue up in the Committee stage to ensure that the licensing authority is given that level of discretion.

A second point is that the bill brings us into line with the United Kingdom and Australia with regard to regulating the industry. For the first time in New Zealand private security staff will be required to undertake training if their job is guarding property, guarding persons, or keeping order among groups of people. Essentially, training will be required if the nature of the work is such that there is a significant risk of physical violence occurring. The details of the training requirements will be made explicit via an Order in Council.

The third point is that a dedicated enforcement body—the complaints, investigation, and prosecution unit—will be created to ensure compliance with the new legislation and heavier penalties for offending. A penalty for unlawfully employing an unlicensed security guard will go up from $2,000 to $20,000. The penalty for unlawfully operating an unlicensed business will go up from $2,000 to $40,000 for an individual, and $60,000 for a company.

I refer again to the incident in Blenheim in 2005 where a 25-year-old was killed outside a nightclub. That was one of many situations where things got out of control and a security person became involved in some sort of altercation with a member of the public. Another example was referred to by the father of the man who was killed. Having gone through the matter of his son’s death, he found out from another woman that her son had been thrown down the stairs by a bouncer and now has brain damage. I am sure that many of us—maybe in our earlier days, not these days—have seen altercations outside bars between bouncers and members of the public. At times we may have wondered whether the security personnel had taken things too far, or whether, on the other hand, the member of the public had provoked and provoked, so the altercation had been from both sides.

Labour will support the bill but we have questions. I raised the first question earlier, and it relates to the discretion that the licensing authority will have when granting licences, taking into consideration criminal convictions but not being too punitive, particularly if that person has been in that role for a long period.

The other issue we have relates to the deletion of clause 66, which would have restricted a private investigator or employee from taking photographs or making recordings without consent. The Justice and Electoral Committee, as we have been told, heard divergent views on that topic. Some people argued that the restriction would inhibit the work of private investigators and that the public interest in investigating criminal activity outweighs public privacy. Others argued that the clause should be retained to avoid abuse and unfairness. The select committee recommended that, despite concerns expressed by Labour and the Greens, clause 66 should be deleted and a new clause 106A be inserted to create a regulation-making power to allow codes of conduct to be made for licensees.

Labour opposes this change. It is not in favour of deleting clause 66 and replacing it with a regulation-making power, because the outcome of the Law Commission’s review of privacy is uncertain, and the shape of the new legislation in the privacy area is not clear. Also, the amendment could give private investigators wider surveillance powers than enforcement agencies such as the police. Labour’s preferred option is to proceed with clause 66 as introduced, and to consider reforming this provision once the Law Commission has released its final report. The commission has already recommended that Parliament enacts a new Surveillance Devices Act, which will include new offences relating to the recording, trafficking, and filming of people.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : Members will be aware that in my short time in the House I am always extremely pleased when the House can agree on a matter. This is another one of those relatively rare occasions when there is agreement on all sides. Even better than that, I am moved to rise—I was not going to—to register our support for the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill, and also my agreement with an excellent speech made by Ms Sepuloni.

Carmel Sepuloni: Gosh!

DAVID GARRETT: Yes, I never thought either that that would occur, I say to Ms Sepuloni.

Carmel Sepuloni: I’m worried.

DAVID GARRETT: Well, I am sad to hear that; I really am. Some of the nastier members on that side of the House have done that, as well. When I have got up and praised one of their speeches, some of the nastier members have said they will have to change their mind. I did not think that Ms Sepuloni was one of those members. I am very saddened that she has moved to do that when I have made the effort to get up and say to her “Well done.”

As all members will know, I am a compassionate man. One of the things that I have drawn attention to in the “three strikes” legislation is the manifestly unjust proviso that allows judges to avoid considering the consequences of sentencing. I have said in speeches on that topic that one of the situations where I think that it would be manifestly unjust to apply that law as it is written is where there are earlier convictions in one’s youth, followed by a lengthy period of exemplary living, and then something else happens. That issue is linked very closely to this bill, in fact. A night out down Courtenay Place, sadly, can turn wrong for all sorts of reasons; a fight can turn into a death for all sorts of reasons. Like Ms Sepuloni, but not just in my youth, I have seen examples of the instances that she talked about. I have said to audiences that in my view it would be manifestly unjust if the “three strikes” provision were to be applied in that way: that if someone had had 10 or 15 years of blameless living, then clearly it would be manifestly unjust to send that person to jail for life for a manslaughter that occurred in a fight. I agree entirely with Ms Sepuloni on that point.

I think that if security guards—bouncers; men of my generation know them as bouncers—have had some convictions in the past, but have then cleaned themselves up and come up with a perfectly respectable and legal occupation, which is not a profession of course, it would be unjust to deny those people continuing employment. I am against injustice. So we support the bill, and I applaud Ms Sepuloni for that speech.

I will add, since everyone seems to have an anecdote in this debate—Simon Bridges talked about the lawnmowing contractor—that I lived for a considerable time in New Plymouth, and a close friend of mine worked for the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). I remember her huge frustration when it was known even in the town that a fellow with a terribly crook back who could not work at all, not even in a clerical capacity, was nevertheless a champion bowler. As the older members of the House will know, bowling involves a fair bit of bending. My friend was very frustrated about that—and she is to this day a very sensible woman. She said to her employer, ACC, that surely it could get private investigators along to photograph the guy. He was even reported in the paper as having won certain cups at bowls tournaments. But, no, it was against his human rights for him to be photographed while bowling, although it was quite OK for him to claim money from ACC, which is of course tantamount to theft from the hard-working taxpayer.

That is my anecdote, to join the others. We are very happy to join the rest of the House in supporting this measure. Thank you.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) : It is my privilege to participate in the second reading of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill this afternoon. This bill highlights concerns demonstrated by the review of the 1974 Private Investigators and Security Guards Act. This bill repeals and replaces the Act.

There have been major developments since that Act was enacted in 1974. Public and private security personnel did not have access to cameras and other surveillance equipment in those days, as they do today. The bill will ensure that in future there will be better screening and monitoring of all personnel entering this industry, and it will bring New Zealand in line with the United Kingdom and Australia.

Due to terrorist attacks worldwide and other security threats, security personnel may find themselves in a situation where there is a risk to their lives, and may even encounter physical confrontation. This bill regulates all people involved in this industry to undertake some kind of training to handle such situations. In particular, bouncers will now be required to undertake training and hold a licence. I know that everyone in the House will have heard stories about patrons of bars or clubs being seriously hurt or killed in altercations with bouncers or other customers. We all know about, or can imagine, the damage that can be done through the improper use of personal and confidential information. This bill addresses these very real and very significant risks.

The other thing I want to mention in relation to the bill is that the good people in this industry—the vast majority, who carry out their roles with the highest degree of integrity and take pride in their work—stand to gain as much as society. Any industry is degraded by the presence of cowboys. Therefore those who hold themselves up as able to perform these roles with integrity and skill are protected and insured by this bill. We can have faith as a society that people carrying out these roles have skills and training and that they serve to enhance the reputation of the profession as a whole.

Volunteers, such as people performing volunteer neighbourhood patrols, do not have to hold a licence or a certificate of approval. In-house security personnel—people who are employed to provide security services directly to their employer—do not have to have a licence or hold a certificate of approval. The exception is that an in-house crowd controller, such as a bouncer employed by a bar, has to have a certificate of approval. It is very important for crowd controllers to be trained, as we will be hosting the Rugby World Cup next year. These crowd controllers should have adequate training to handle such a situation.

This bill also provides for an increase in penalties to individuals and companies who employ someone without such training from $2,000 to $20,000. Any individual operating an illegitimate business will be fined $40,000, and any company operating without a licence will be liable to pay $60,000.

During the select committee process many submissions were received and heard. The main concern was about clause 66. Clause 66, like the Act of 1974, prohibits private investigators from taking or using photographs or audio recordings without obtaining a person’s written consent. This clause is quite controversial. The select committee has a majority undertaking to remove clause 66, which will be replaced with a regulatory code of conduct for private investigators.

With its balanced approach to regulation, the bill provides for a modest, low-cost, and self-funding occupational regulatory regime in response to concerns that the 1974 Act is out of date. It strikes the right balance between the regulatory cost and the risk associated with the industry. The bill will ensure better screening and monitoring of individuals who want to enter this industry. I support this bill in its second reading.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : As other members have indicated, it is a—[Interruption]—goodness me, I thought the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill was fairly non-contentious, but all of a sudden things have heated up a little bit. I was going to say that, as other members have said, it is a pleasure to rise and speak on a bill that has cross-party support. This is something we know happens quite regularly in the House. People outside feel that the Opposition opposes for the sake of opposing, sometimes, but we know that that is not true. Mr Garrett has spoken about his appreciation of the Opposition’s support of this bill, and the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill was originally tabled by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove when Labour was in Government.

David Garrett: It’s got to get something right, now and again.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Mr Cosgrove did a lot of things right, I say to Mr Garrett. He did a lot of things right and he looks forward to the opportunity of getting more things right when Labour returns to Government in the future. As people have said, this bill is about tidying up a very, very old Act that was in desperate need of review and desperately needed bringing into the 21st century. The Act dates from 1974 and is actually a lot older than a lot of the people who have spoken in the debate this afternoon. It is definitely important that we do this sort of work to tidy things up. A number of concerns that Opposition members have with the bill have already been described, but it is important to note that clause 66 has caused the most concern. The submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee on that clause were not unanimous by any stretch, which is why the conversation needs to continue, and I hope the Government is open to the amendments that the Opposition will put up at the Committee of the whole House. The select committee heard divergent views on this topic, and although a number of people argued that the original restriction would inhibit the work of private investigators, and that the public interest in investigating criminal activity outweighed public privacy, a number of people argued that the clause should be retained to avoid potential abuse and unfairness.

In a way, that goes to the heart of what this bill is all about. As Richard Worth said in the first reading of this bill, most members of the industry are professionals and are people in whom New Zealanders can place their trust. This is so often the case with legislation: the vast majority of operators who fall under the legislation are happily operating within the bounds of it, and their business will not be affected—if anything, it will be enhanced. The legislation is about picking up people who are not operating appropriately or effectively and who need a little bit of legislative support to encourage them along that way.

So when we look at clause 66 we need to think about how the amended clause, as it has come back from the select committee, might potentially be abused. The conversation continues, there are different points of view across the House, and we have an opportunity as this bill progresses to look at that clause and come to a consensus approach around it. It is important to remember, as well, that the Law Commission’s privacy review is still continuing, and the outcome of that is uncertain. Any new legislation that might result from that Law Commission review still is not clear. It makes sense to retain the status quo, look to what the Law Commission is doing in this area, and perhaps revisit the legislation when the commission’s advice, after all the research and consideration it is putting in, is available.

One last thing I note is the importance of having this legislation in place before the Rugby World Cup. Our international reputation is hugely important to us here in New Zealand, tourism is a big industry, so what we do in environmental policy, what we do in terms of law and order, and how we treat tourists when they come to New Zealand is incredibly important. There is no doubt that a number of people will come to the attention of private security personnel. Those personnel need to be consummate professionals, they need to have the proper training behind them, and they need to treat those tourists well and with respect so that even if they have come to the attention of those private security personnel they will still go home feeling as though they have been treated fairly and appropriately.

This is a good bill and it has good support in the House. It needs some tidying up, and the Opposition looks forward to being able to offer good suggestions during the Committee of the whole House, but we are happy to support it through this reading.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : It is a sign of the mood of the House today that all political parties support the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Bill. They see the need for reform in this area. The last reform of the legislation was many years ago in 1974; many of us were just young children at that time.

The reform is necessary because this is practical legislation that impacts on a lot of people’s lives, not only those working in those industries but also those taking advantage of the hospitality industry. They need to feel safe and secure in the environment that they are in. People working in the hospitality industry also need to feel that they have the right powers and responsibilities, because public opinion of what is demanded in the hospitality trade and also public expectation of what somebody can or cannot do in that occupation have changed over time. There has also been a change in customers’ perceptions of what can and cannot be done to them, should they get into a situation dealt with by security guards—or bouncers, as security staff are more commonly known.

This bill also deals with private investigators, security technicians, and other security-type arrangements. It sets out a code that, although self-regulating to some extent, is not aggressively restrictive or regulatory. In that way, not too much expense is incurred in satisfying the public policy element that the bill seeks to provide for in its updated approach to the legislation.

The parties in this House see this bill as something they would like to support, and we thank them for that support as we work through the individual clauses. Opposition members have raised concerns over clause 66 and have talked about the amendments they would like in that area. I am sure those concerns will be discussed further as the bill goes through the political process, and we will take into account the Opposition’s point of view on that area.

Essentially, this bill updates an area of our law that has for a long time been without the degree of modern regulation that it should have. It provides security for those in the industry and also for customers of organisations that provide that kind of security. We support the bill as it goes through this House. Thank you.

• Bill read a second time.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : I move, That the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I thank the Health Committee for its careful consideration of the bill and its recommendation that the bill be passed with some amendments.

The bill clarifies and implements the policy intent of section 10 of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004, which deals with the storage of human gametes and embryos. The Act provides that gametes and embryos may be stored for only 10 years, although it allows for extensions to the storage limit in particular cases. The 10-year limit on storage starts from when the Act came into force on 22 November 2004, or from when the storage of a gamete or an embryo began, whichever is later. The Government received legal advice that indicates that as the Act is currently written, the 10-year limit starts from when a gamete or embryo was stored. This means that some gametes or embryos placed in storage prior to 22 November 2004 are in unintentional breach of the Act. To enforce the Act as it stands would require the destruction of these gametes and embryos. That would be unreasonable and unfair on the couples concerned and on fertility clinics who had been acting in good faith.

The bill also clarifies the roles of the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology under the Act in extending the storage of gametes and embryos. When approving extensions to the storage limit, the ethics committee must apply the relevant guidelines and advice issued by the advisory committee.

The Health Committee received eight submissions on the bill.

Hon David Parker: 80 or 8?

Hon SIMON POWER: Just eight. All supported its purpose, although they proposed a number of useful amendments. Some submitters expressed concern that the bill was not clear about how the 10-year storage limit is calculated for gametes or embryos that have, for a period, been stored outside New Zealand. The committee recommended making it explicit that any storage time outside New Zealand is included in calculating the 10-year limit on stored gametes and embryos. This is not an area that I have a great deal of expertise in, and it is a bit of an anomaly that the Minister of Justice is dealing with these issues, but I will do my best. Reproductive technology allows embryos to be created from previously stored gametes, so the committee has recommended clarifying that the 10-year storage limit runs from the first storage date of any gamete used to make a stored embryo. In addition, any extension that has been granted for the storage of that gamete also applies to the storage limit for any embryo created from that gamete.

The committee has also suggested amendments to address concerns that the Act would place an unnecessary burden on clinics if they were legally obliged to dispose of a gamete or embryo on the day that the storage limit expired. The committee has suggested the inclusion of a 6-month grace period to dispose to gametes and embryos after the storage limit expires—a sensible suggestion. Finally, to ensure that section 10 of the principal Act can be enforced, the committee has recommended amending section 67(2)(c) to ensure that the Act’s enforcement provisions are available for any storage that contravenes section 10.

This bill will provide certainty to couples who are trying to have children, and for that reason I implore the House to deal with it expeditiously. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) : That was a wonderful exposé from the Minister of Justice, and it was quite accurate. I was on the Health Committee with Dr Paul Hutchison at the time the House passed the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill.

Dr Paul Hutchison: That was a good time.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: Those were the days, I say to Dr Hutchison—those were the days, Dr Paul. I acknowledge Di Yates, who is no longer a member of Parliament. The original legislation began as her member’s bill, and prior to the passing of the legislation in 2004, there was no regulation about human-assisted reproductive technology. I think it is interesting for us to note in 2010 that about 15 percent of couples in New Zealand have difficulty conceiving a child, and about 5 percent of couples have in-vitro fertilisation treatment.

I can remember managing a women’s health service when obstetricians would go out and get fresh samples of sperm, take them back to their clinic rooms, put them into women, and hope and pray that they conceived a child. There was no regulation, no record-keeping, and no management of the information relating to where the sperm donation came from, and that was only in my day, in 1990. So we have moved a long way in the 20 years to 2010.

I think the original bill was remarkably good. Di Yates worked with doctors in the field who were our advisers on the bill, and we got it remarkably correct at the time. I think Heather Roy was also on the Health Committee at that time. We worked in a very constructive way together, but there is, of course, no way that we always get it all right. The intention of the original legislation was that a gamete be stored for 10 years. We thought we had that sorted at the time, but, as the Minister said, the Crown received legal advice that the storage period needed technical clarification.

Labour supports the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. I think there should be a sunset clause and a revision clause in this bill, because technology moves very fast. We are not sure that we got it all right in 2004. Any legislation that involves an element of science and technology ought to be looked at again in order to see that its implementation is a reflection of the intention of the committee at the time and a reflection of new science and new evidence that comes before the committee.

This is a very good bill. I think the 6-month grace period makes sense. Those working in the field of human-assisted reproductive technology do not like having to face the destruction of gametes, but often neither the donor parent nor the woman hoping to use the egg can be found.

There is also a new international influence. Many infertile women have chosen donor gametes from Australia, America, or the UK. So the provision in this bill to look outside New Zealand to make sure that we are not using expired gametes is a very, very wise move, and it is good to look at the international example. When the bill was introduced it was seen as world leading, actually—

Hon David Parker: Di Yates.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK: Yes, I have mentioned Di Yates. In respect of the original legislation, I think we got it remarkably right. We are making only a couple of technical amendments to it about the advisory committee and the ethics committee and their scope in terms of advice to the Minister. I think it is simply astounding that more than 6 years later, all we are looking at is this amendment bill, which just clarifies something we did not make clear enough in the original bill.

Labour supports this amendment bill. I think it is interesting that there were only eight submissions. That is astonishing considering the length of time we took at the select committee prior to the original bill’s passing in 2004. Labour unanimously supports this amendment bill, and I hope it helps people working in this field and prospective parents to be confident that we have addressed the issue of clarification.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) : Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. I must agree with Stevie Chadwick that the science in this area has gone a long way over the last 30 years. The first birth of an in vitro fertilisation baby was in 1979, but prior to that, certainly in New Zealand, it was an area that was extraordinarily unregulated. The member’s memory of obstetricians going out to collect sperm and bringing them back, with few records kept, is absolutely accurate.

During the first reading of this bill Lianne Dalziel questioned why it was that it came to the attention of the House. I understand that it was the media—the good old media—that had made inquiries of the Ministry of Justice as to whether some of the clinics, even though they were acting in good faith, were illegally storing embryos and gametes. Of course, gametes are defined as sperms and eggs. There was a little bit of confusion about this from Radio New Zealand during the first reading, and it is important to make sure that it is aware of that.

This bill endeavours to make the rules absolutely crystal clear, because that is vital for the clinics involved and, of course, for the patients, who are very emotionally involved in these issues. Embryos and gametes must be disposed of after 10 years from 22 November 2004, or, subsequently, 10 years after the date of storage. The Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology has the ability to extend storage, and that is very important in situations where, for example, a young person aged 17 or 18 who has testicular or ovarian cancer may not want to start a family until they are 28 or 29. So it is very important to have that flexibility.

There were eight submitters on the bill and all of them supported the need to clarify the storage times. I believe that the Health Committee worked extremely well together and that, in general, there is cross-party agreement on the essence of what this bill is about. I also note that Dianne Yates, in her submission, was concerned about the science behind storage. She had the view that it was not well evidence-based, whereas in actual fact we do know that, provided there is a steady-state freezing environment that is devoid of irradiation, sperm, embryos, and eggs can be stored safely and consistently for many decades, probably. The technical difficulty is in both the freezing process and the thawing process. If the environment is not even, then one may damage the embryos and gametes. I think Dianne Yates compared it a little bit to Wattie’s frozen peas and their recommended life of 2 years. That is certainly not the case in the very sophisticated environment where human eggs, gametes, and embryos are stored.

Just to give a bit of an idea as to the extent of what is going on in New Zealand, every year about 1,100 babies are born as a result of in vitro fertilisation. In Australia it is about 8,500, and around the world it is literally hundreds of thousands, mainly from the Western World. They comprise between about 1 and 3 percent of all births in most OECD countries. The data we were given showed that in 2010 there were 12,000 embryos, about 68,000 eggs, and 75,000 straws of sperm—each straw containing many, many millions of those excellent little sperms—stored in New Zealand. Fertility Associates estimated that 33 percent of its stored sperms and 18 percent of stored embryos would be affected by the bill.

As the Minister said, issues were brought up during the submission period, including a grace period after the expiry of the 10-year storage limit. This is important so that patients have time to appeal to the ethics committee if they want an extension, and also there is the technical applicability for clinics of not being able to dispose of the gametes and embryos on a particular date. I think that is a very practical and realistic thing. There is the issue of stored gametes used to create embryos that are then stored. Of course, the clock starts from the moment the gametes themselves are stored. One cannot have two goes at it by converting the gametes into an embryo and then having another 10 years. In relation to gametes and embryos stored in other countries, it will apply from the beginning and will extend for 10 years. We were told at the Health Committee that this was becoming more and more of an issue as people came to New Zealand who had undergone an initial harvest overseas and required the treatment here in New Zealand.

The ethics committee’s role in making decisions about storage periods is very important. As I pointed out earlier on, each case is quite distinct. It could be a young woman of 16 with ovarian cancer who wants to have children in the future. Her ovarian tissue may be stored for a period of time of more than 10 years. It is clearly impossible to legislate for each specific case.

I note that during the first reading Te Ururoa Flavell made the point that the Māori Party has a considerable sense of sadness that we even have bills such as this in front of the House. He went on to say: “I cannot say that anyone in the Māori Party is at ease with the discussions around assisted reproductive technology, but we would be even more uneasy if these discussions went on without Māori being engaged in a real way.” I absolutely agree that it is vital that Māori are included, but it is important to bear in mind that the genesis of the original Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act occurred over a long period of time—over a decade—and it involved ethicists, consumers, scientists, clinicians, psychologists, and lawyers. Eventually the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Bill was enacted in 2004. I think it is also important to point out that the clinics, the consumers, and the clinicians have really not found any major problems with the Act at all, and although it is very useful that we are making this amendment today for a minor point regarding clarity, in terms of a review the fact that the Act is flexible is very much in tune with the complexity of the science and the change of science with time. I do not believe that there is a need for a review at this stage of events as the legislation was enacted only 6 years ago, but maybe that is something for the future.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) : I will make a few remarks on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. The first thing I should do is recall the work of Di Yates in this general area. I am sure that other colleagues on my side of the House, and hopefully those on the other side, will have done that, as well. She pushed this policy area for years, and she did so not because she was for or against human-assisted reproductive technology but because she knew it was here and that it needed to be well regulated. She did not see it as being an issue of ethics, or of anything of the sort; she just knew that a good nation, if it was to run well, would pay attention to the detail about how this new technology would be regulated and put together. It is just as we did with genetic modification technology, and just as we must do with all technologies that come our way and all the nuclear technologies that have come our way in recent decades, and on it goes. Di Yates picked up the human-assisted reproductive technology regulation and championed it, if you will, over the years.

I would watch with some amusement, because veterinarians, and I as a veterinarian, have been involved with some of these technologies for decades—for longer than has been the case in the human area. The reason is that reproductive technology in humans is a sensitive issue. It is sensitive because one needs to be clear about how gametes are collected, how gametes are stored, and how gametes are destroyed, when destruction is the right thing, and about the fact that a little child can be born with these human-assisted reproductive technologies. There is a little child in my life—she is coming on 2 years and 4 months—who is here because of this technology, and who would not be here without this technology. She is a delight, and I last saw her on Sunday. I do not know when she is coming for her first sleepover, but it will not be long. Human-assisted reproductive technologies have altered my life, as well, but in much earlier times I was involved in the equivalent technologies as a veterinarian. I say let us hear it for Di Yates.

It is interesting that this legislative change is tiny—it is tiny. The reason we are giving it the time of the House is that it is important that we get our legislative framework clear, accurate, and unambiguous, so that everyone knows what the rules are. Whatever the rules are, so long as they are clear, people can follow them. But they have not been clear. They have not been clear about at what date the age of an embryo starts—what the birth date is of an embryo. It was not clear whether that birth period started in 2004 when the legislation was passed, or whether the birth of an embryo was the time when the embryo was collected. This bill makes it clear that it is the latter, so that is good.

The reason we are taking that time is that it is easy for society to get upset about something that is perceived to have gone wrong. The best way to avoid that is to be clear about the rules, and so it is with other technologies that are similar. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis—if that is the right terminology, and I will be in trouble if I have got it wrong—

Dr Paul Hutchison: You’ve got it right.

Hon PETE HODGSON: I have got it right, says the obstetrician and gynaecologist amongst us, and I thank the member. The technology needs some clear rules, and we have clear rules so that we are able to use that technology wisely. We do not use it for designer babies; we are not allowed to. We do not use it to predetermine gender; we are not allowed to. We use it to determine whether an identifiable and preventable genetic condition will be inflicted upon a young New Zealander. We can stop that, and that is great. We have a sensible approach to these technologies in general, and so too in this case.

I think I will wrap it up there. The House is pretty quiescent; everyone seems to be of the mood that this is a good thing and there seems to be no argument for me to bash back, so I shall not bother—

Hon Simon Power: That’s not a word you hear very often.

Hon PETE HODGSON: The word “quiescent” has just awoken the Minister of Justice, but I shall not myself rise to the fact that he has awoken; I shall instead resume my seat.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green) : I will begin by heaping some praise on the officials who worked with the Health Committee on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill, both those officials who helped us out with the technical aspects of what is in fact quite a technical bill and those who worked on the extensive task of drafting the amendments to the bill and assisting us with that aspect of our work.

Previous speakers have referred to the submissions we received, and I greatly appreciated those submissions. They were not great in number but they were high in quality. All of them made, I thought, useful and thoughtful contributions to the debate around the issue, so I pass my thanks to the submitters. As the chair of the select committee has indicated, there was a high degree of agreement from submitters on the central points of the bill, and where there was difference between submitters it tended to be on issues that were not included in the bill.

The third point I would like to make is to say that it was a pleasure to participate in a discussion at the select committee that was non-partisan in nature, where all members of the committee were looking for the best outcome and worked very well together, as I think the chair has indicated—a pleasure that is all too rare, I have to say.

Michael Woodhouse: Not that rare.

KEVIN HAGUE: Well, it is all too rare in the House, as opposed to our fantastic select committee. Members will have noted from the revision-tracked version of the bill that it differs very substantially from the bill that was initially introduced to the House. A simple bill was introduced, and the bill that has emerged from the select committee process is much longer and more complicated. That reflects an interesting thing—and others have alluded to this fact—which is that this area of law is one that touches on deep and complex ethical and emotional issues. It is a fast-developing area of science, and things get very complicated very quickly in that field.

The next point about that is that, as others again have alluded to, this is an area of science that has only recently been addressed by law but, in my view and in the Green Party’s view, is not yet well addressed by law. It is interesting that in the first reading debate, a number of speakers referred to their belief that the Act had contained a provision requiring a review after a certain amount of time. Given that perception, it was very interesting, when we went back and looked at the Act in detail, to find that it did not include such a review provision. I take the alternative view to that expressed by Paul Hutchison; I think that, as Steve Chadwick has said, because of the complexity of the area of science it touches on, this is exactly the kind of situation where a review ought to be automatically built into law. Certainly, in the select committee’s report, I am one of the “some of us” who believe that the Minister ought to conduct such a review.

I am interested not only in the extent to which this Act has addressed the particular issues it is intended to address but also in the scope of the Act compared with the scope of the area of human-assisted reproductive technology. That is now of very much larger scope than the Act covers. Those areas outside the scope of the Act are now not addressed by law, and it seems to me that they ought to be. I will return to that theme in my third reading speech on this bill.

In relation to the detail of the bill, fundamentally, as others have said, the bill sets out to clarify something that was unintentionally not clear in the original Act. The Green Party absolutely supports that principle. We also believe that, if possible, legislation ought not to be retrospective, and there are ways that the existing law could be perceived as being retrospective, so that was certainly an important issue to address.

I also take up the submission by Di Yates, because it was the one submission that raised a concern about an aspect of the bill—a substantive concern—in her reference, as Paul Hutchison noted, to the select committee’s original consideration of the bill that became the Act. At that time, the evidence that was before the select committee suggested that the science was uncertain as to the length of time that gametes and embryos could be safely stored. The committee has satisfied itself on the point that the science is no longer uncertain.

The other significant thing that the bill provides for is to clarify the relationship between the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology and the Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology. The Green Party also continues to support that change although, as I raised in my first reading speech, we continue to have a concern about the more fundamental issue, which is effectively a constitutional issue, and that is whether issues such as these ought to be addressed by guidelines rather than by regulations. We believe that that is a really important issue, and we believe that the Act has it wrong. We favour a regulations approach, because we believe that makes the law more certain, and that has to be a good thing. We greatly preferred Di Yates’ original formulation of the bill that became the Act, and it is appropriate in this debate that members recognise the great contribution that Di Yates made to this area of law. It would have been a greater contribution still had her original bill been taken up by the House. That said, though, the Green Party continues to support this bill, and will vote in favour of it with pleasure.

HEATHER ROY (ACT) : The ACT Party will be supporting the second reading of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. As the debate has been going on this evening, I recalled being on the Health Committee at the time that we grappled with many very thorny issues concerning what at the time was still quite a contentious issue. Things have moved on. Dr Paul Hutchison mentioned Louise Brown, the first baby born by in vitro fertilisation in 1978, and things have moved on significantly from then.

We were very fortunate at the time of the 2004 bill to have Dr Paul Hutchison on the select committee to provide us with some quite technical expertise, and we are fortunate to have him here with us now so that he is still able to provide that very good advice to us. Dr Hutchison said tonight that 1,100 babies a year are born through in vitro fertilisation, which is a staggering number, and it makes such a huge difference to the lives of so many families.

The bill, as several other members have mentioned, is just a very tiny amendment bill. I have to say that it is gratifying, 6 years down the track, for those of us who sat on the select committee that heard the original bill to know that largely we got it right. We had to grapple with many thorny issues at the time, as I have said. Some issues were very contentious, and some of the submitters we heard from came and spoke with a great deal of passion and emotion, but they took very different sides of the arguments. As we are making only this very small amendment here in the House now, it is gratifying to know that we did largely get it right.

I think that the intention of the committee at the time was certainly for the 10-year period that gametes and embryos could be stored for to be from the time of storage, so the 2004 argument, which has become the legal aspect of this debate, was not what was originally intended. It is good that we have the opportunity to clarify that tonight and to do something about that. Others have also mentioned the 6-month period of grace in the bill. I was not able to hear the submitters, but I understand that that was a popular concept. I think it makes a good deal of sense, and certainly the ACT Party is happy to support that measure tonight.

The other part of the bill that I think is important—and the Green member mentioned it just prior to me getting to my feet—is that the clarification of the roles of the ethics committee and the advisory committee is very important. Unlike Mr Hague, I support guidelines as opposed to regulation, but I do not think that that will come as any surprise to him. I think that the ethics committee and the advisory committee are chosen very carefully. The people who are on them are there because they have a breadth of experience. They have a lot of technical expertise. I think that they need the freedom that guidelines can provide, so that they can have flexibility and are able to make the decisions they need to make wisely, but it is also welcome that this amendment bill is providing clarification of the rules for those committees.

Some of the problems that arise are still thorny, and the expertise of the people on the committees is greatly valued. They take their jobs very seriously, and it is important that they have those guidelines within which to operate. The ACT Party is very proud to support this bill tonight. We welcome it, and I think it is worth thanking the members of the Health Committee in 2004 who did a very good job at the time. Thank you.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare. The Māori Party wants to raise three very specific concerns in this discussion to amend the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act 2004 to state that in vitro embryos must be disposed of before the expiry period of 10 years or any later date approved by the ethics committee. The first is the lack of consultation regarding tikanga Māori, the second is the status of whakapapa, and the third is the critical issue of ethical responsibility in respect of Māori ownership and participation in decision making. All of these concerns are wrapped up in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. As tangata whenua and as a Treaty partner, we restate the constitutional obligation of all agencies of the Crown, including ethics committees, to ensure Māori participation, protection, and partnership in all decision making.

When we think about tikanga in this field, I note that a separate Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology has been established to review and approve research involving new technologies or treatments for human reproduction and infertility—technologies that can be highly invasive and even exploitative. They are technologies such as tissue banking, genetic engineering, the manipulation and storage of human embryos, therapeutic cloning, pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, the splitting of embryos, and the creation of hybrid embryos or transgenic life forms. Although this legislation is specifically restricted to the storage of embryos, I want to make reference to the wider field and the particular risks and concerns it poses for Māori.

One of the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology’s seven guiding principles states that “The needs, values, and beliefs of Māori should be considered and treated with respect.” Those needs, values, and beliefs are all part of the tikanga that we desperately want to see applied throughout all processes, be it the process used for the handing over of, the storage of, or the burial or cremation of embryos. These are specially charged moments for Māori, and they need to be properly considered, managed, and handled in line with tikanga Māori.

The Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology has already highlighted Māori concerns about the protection of whakapapa and the need for collective discussion about cultural implications, kaitiakitanga, and appropriate tikanga in its report Consultation on the Use of In Vitro Maturation in Fertility Treatment, which was released last year. Having documented the concerns, we believe it is now time to take action to give effect to the report’s recommendations. Yet in this bill, both the issues and recommendations in respect of Māori concerns are simply nowhere to be seen.

The second critical aspect is about the law recognising the authority that whānau should have over their whakapapa and any embryonic material that contains such whakapapa. It is a concept that is clearly spelt out in an article by Dr Mārewa Glover and Dr Benedicta Rousseau, entitled “ ‘Your Child is Your Whakapapa’: Māori Considerations of Assisted Human Reproduction and Relatedness”. Their study noted that for Māori these issues could not be confined just to the mechanics of technology or objective technological interventions; they were about what constitutes human life and relationships. They were about the importance and uniqueness of Māori identity. They were about whakapapa, and they were about the right of whānau to determine what happens to their embryos rather than allow that decision to be made by a few people on a detached committee. The reason is simple: those eggs, those embryos, those foetuses, those babies, belong to the whānau, not to the scientists.

I come to the issue of the ethical responsibility of what happens to unused eggs after 10 years—who owns them, whether or not they are destroyed, and how decisions are made about them. I refer the House to a key resource on ethical consent around Māori issues, Te Tauranga Waka. It was put together by the Pūtaiora Writing Group of Khyla Russell, Barry Smith, Moe Milne, Paul Reynolds, Stephanie Palmer, and Māui Hudson. The group recommended gathering and reporting data relevant and meaningful for Māori to provide for proper assessment of issues, understanding critical issues such as kaitiakitanga and their place in the decision-making process, and ensuring Māori participation in decision making itself.

Finally, we raise again the whole question of whether human embryo use in research will help sustain us or contribute to our demise as a people, the ownership that whānau should have over any of their own embryonic material, and the right of whānau to be fully involved in all relevant decision-making concerning any issues to do with their whakapapa.

There are too many weighty issues involved in this bill. Although we understand and support its general intention, we simply do not believe that there has been sufficient korero with whānau, hapū, and iwi for us to do anything other than oppose this bill at this time. Kia ora tātou.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : I am pleased to speak in the second reading debate on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. I would like to make some introductory comments about infertility in New Zealand and about in vitro fertilisation. As members know, in vitro fertilisation was first undertaken in New Zealand in 1983, 5 years after the first in vitro fertilisation baby, Louise Brown, was born in England. Since then in vitro fertilisation has become an increasingly common treatment for infertility. It has certainly improved over the last decade or so, with drug treatment regimes and egg retrieval mechanisms. There are better fertilisation techniques and better methods of culture, cryopreservation, and transferred embryos.

In New Zealand about 15 in every 100 couples have difficulty conceiving a child, and about five in every 100 go on to have in vitro fertilisation treatment. We have heard tonight that hundreds and hundreds of in vitro fertilisation babies are born each year to New Zealand couples. It is excellent to know that success rates are increasing all the time. About 50 percent of women under the age of 38 who have in vitro fertilisation treatment become pregnant in their first cycle, and that is a fantastic result. For women under the age of 38 the chances of pregnancy increase to over 70 percent after two cycles, and to 90 percent after three cycles. These are excellent success rates.

Unfortunately, infertility has been rising in New Zealand, and there are a number of reasons for that, but it is pleasing to know that treatment centres are available around New Zealand. The causes of infertility are numerous. A common reason is the increased age at which women start a family. Other reasons include obesity levels in men and women, sexually transmitted diseases, and reduced quality of sperm.

This amendment bill was introduced because there was uncertainty over when one could dispose of gametes and eggs that had been stored prior to the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act coming into force. Although this bill concerns only a technical amendment, it was felt that there should be some clarification, and this bill clarifies that sperm, eggs, and embryos stored before 2004 can be stored until 2014.

I acknowledge the important work of Dianne Yates and the Health Committee during the last Parliament, and I acknowledge the comments to the effect that the committee got the original legislation pretty much right. This bill just amends the Act and improves on it. If fertility clinics have clients who wish to extend storage beyond 2014 they will require the approval of the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology before that 10-year storage limit is up.

The select committee made a number of changes to this bill, and these changes have been adopted by the Government. We heard about some of those tonight, such as the 6-month grace period in relation to the expiry of the 10-year storage limit and any extensions to it. Importantly, during that 6-month grace period any other uses of the material are prohibited. That amendment has been made for more logistical reasons, to make it easier for fertility clinics to dispose of gametes and embryos in accumulated lots.

Another recommendation that was agreed to was that the permitted 10-year storage period for embryos created by stored gametes should run from the earliest storage date of those gametes. Also, there is clarification that any storage period outside New Zealand should include a calculation in relation to the 10-year storage limit on gametes and embryos in New Zealand, and that was taken into account. This bill is not contentious. The changes and amendments are minor, but they will improve the original Act. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) : It gives me a lot of pleasure to speak on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. Although it is mostly a technical amendment bill, and a bill that is largely uncontentious and has gained almost complete consensus within the House, nevertheless it is noteworthy for some of the reasons that members have already discussed. In particular, it deals with technology that is rapidly changing over time, and, therefore, legislation has to be able to keep up with that changing technology. Also, it deals with an area that is very emotive. It involves a lot of passion, often a lot of heartache, and a lot of difficulty for families. Knowing that the legislation is absolutely right and that people have clarity about the intention of the legislation is important. As Hone Harawira said, we are talking about human life and relationships. It is easy to forget sometimes that, despite all these words on a piece of paper or the submissions that we hear in a select committee in a very clinical environment, we are actually talking about human life, relationships, and people and their desire to grow a family. It is important that we get these things right.

For the most part it seems that the original bill had it right. The amendments being made in this bill are fairly minor, given the area we are dealing in. They ensure that current practice is legitimate and is appropriately accounted for in legislation. I was interested to hear from Heather Roy that when the original bill went to the select committee, there were submissions from either side of the fence, it was a passionate argument, and there was a lot of heat in the debate in those days. It was quite different from what we heard at the Health Committee hearing on this bill, where the submitters were all more or less of one mind and were looking for us just to tidy up some aspects of the bill as it was written. That shows that people can move on, how issues that seem very divisive can settle down, and how people can take the path chosen by the Government of the day and see it as being the right direction. It is important to remember, when the debate seems quite vehement and heated on a particular issue, to stick to our guns and follow a path, if we believe and know that is the right thing to do. This legislation has turned out to be absolutely the right thing to do.

The bill we are debating tonight makes some technical amendments to the original Act, mostly on the storage of sperm, eggs, and embryos. The current 10-year storage limit applies retrospectively, and there are some practical problems in the way fertility organisations have been storing those gametes and embryos. Labour passed the original Act when it was in Government, and members have acknowledged the work of former MP Di Yates. It is important to acknowledge her efforts in an environment in which this was a difficult issue to grapple with. It is much easier for us to look back on that problem retrospectively, but at the time it was a difficult issue, and I have no doubt that Di Yates had people lobbying her in all different directions. The fact that she guided such good legislation, which needs such a small amount of amendment, through the House in that environment is something worth noting. Fertility treatment and reproductive research had been advancing rapidly for some time, and Labour was keen, at that stage, to ensure that New Zealand kept pace with the changes, while ensuring that decisions made were consistent with the values of all New Zealanders.

The use of in vitro fertilisation is growing in New Zealand and tonight we have already heard that around 5 percent of couples use in vitro fertilisation treatment, and around 1,100 to 1,150 babies are born annually using embryo transfer cycles. The first baby born through assisted reproductive means was born back in 1978 which, as it happens, was the year I was born, so it sticks in my mind.

Michael Woodhouse: That explains so much.

IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: It explains a thing or two, I suppose. That is a period of just a little over 30 years; things have developed considerably in that time, and it is important that we keep pace.

The main thing this bill does is to clarify that the 10-year storage limit goes back to when the Act came into force, and is not retrospective, as is the current practice. Under the current legislation, some embryos or gametes could have been destroyed, had they been stored for more than 10 years. The Health Committee offered some amendments, and it is pleasing to hear from the Minister of Justice that he sees those as sensible amendments and that we can expect them to be supported by the Government. Of course that includes introducing a grace period after the 10-year storage limit, which enables fertility clinics to have a small period of time within which to ensure gametes and embryos are disposed of appropriately, and not to have to worry constantly about going through the disposal process. Importantly, restrictions are placed on what can be done during the 6-month period, and the period is only for disposal; no other uses of those materials are allowed within those 6 months.

Another amendment addresses the possible argument that the storage period established in the bill as introduced would begin when an embryo was created from the stored gametes themselves. That would lengthen the period of time, if a stored gamete had been stored for, say, 5 years, the embryo was created after that 5 years, and we added an extra 10 years on top of that. It was an area that needed tidying up to be absolutely clear that the storage period is for 10 years, and 10 years only. The bill also ensures that where gametes and embryos are stored in other countries, the period of time they are stored outside New Zealand is calculated in the 10-year storage limit. Some recommendations were also made on the role of the ethics committee, but those have already been well and truly canvassed in the debate this evening. It is important, in the Opposition’s view, that the legislation has a review mechanism, and we expressed our disappointment at the select committee, and have done the same this evening, that there is still no desire from the Government to include a review mechanism. In an environment where the technology is changing rapidly, and because it is an emotive area as well, we think it would be appropriate to have a review process in place. Having said that, we have confidence that should future amendments be needed, the House and committees will work together to make sure that they are done appropriately and in a timely fashion.

This is a good bill. It reflects an Act that was well constructed in the first place. Some good work has been done by officials to ensure that these amendments are tidy and easily understood by people who are operating within the bounds of the Act. The Labour Opposition is very happy to support its further progress.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) : I begin my short call on the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill by acknowledging the growing number of New Zealand couples for whom fertility issues are not straightforward. I think Steve Chadwick mentioned that 15 percent of New Zealand couples have difficulty conceiving naturally, and 5 percent resort to in vitro fertilisation treatment. There could be any number of reasons for that. First-time parents are getting older, and diet, lifestyle, and even men wearing jeans that are too tight have all been considered causes.

Hon David Parker: Cycling.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Exactly—apparently cycling has some problem associated with it, which is a very good reason not to do too much of it. There are a number of reasons that scientists are still coming to understand.

There is no doubt that it is a difficult journey, but I think it is made easier thanks to the outstanding work of our medical scientists. I was amazed at the statistic that my colleague Dr Jackie Blue came up with, when she said that 70 percent of people having two courses of in vitro fertilisation treatment are successful in conceiving. That is probably considerably more successful than the old-fashioned way, although not nearly as fun. It certainly is a tribute that in the 32 years since Louise Brown was born our human-assisted reproductive technology has come as far as it has.

It would also be a rare thing indeed for a health select committee anywhere in the world to be chaired by someone who could speak with as much authority on human-assisted reproductive technology as the Health Committee’s chair, Dr Paul Hutchison. He has been an obstetrician and gynaecology specialist, and has a wealth of experience on this issue. Under his leadership the Health Committee, which is pretty collegial overall, certainly benefited greatly from his wisdom and experience in this area. That is not to say that we agreed on all things; the Green member of the committee, Mr Hague, is an example of that, with his suggestion that the bill should be subject to review, which Mr Lees-Galloway also mentioned. I think that 5 years was suggested as the review period.

I will pull back from the bill specifically and touch on the issue of review generally. It seems to me that there is a bit of a mood for review among the Greens, and a preference for somehow curtailing the powers of the executive by instituting the review process in bills that are passed. To my mind it is both unnecessary and logistically cumbersome. In the case of this bill an issue was identified, a remedy was put in place, and amending legislation in the form of this bill will hopefully be passed. There is no need for an arbitrary review. It would be cumbersome as we could easily become bogged down in reviews of legislation because an Act arbitrarily requires it, getting in the way of other matters that might be more pressing.

As Mrs Roy mentioned, the science in the past may have been described as uncertain, but I prefer to consider it dynamic. As Heather Roy and Paul Hutchison pointed out, the old uncertainty about how long embryos, gametes, and eggs will last in that state has largely gone away. In the UK, I understand, in certain circumstances there is provision for storage of embryos and gametes for up to 55 years. I am not sure who on earth would want them after 55 years, but it is an indication that the science allows for storage over that length of time. The recommendation that the 10-year limit not be a hard limit is a really good one. There are many reasons why we might not be able to find the people who have ultimate ownership of them, and it would be inappropriate to have the embryos destroyed after 10 years and 1 day.

Finally, I add my thanks to the officials, who did a great job of answering our questions and the suggestions of the committee and the submitters. I think the officials were mostly from the Ministry of Justice. I thank Mr Beresford in particular, whom we will be seeing during the Committee stage. I commend the officials for helping the committee through this process. With those comments I commend the bill to the House.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : As prior speakers have said, the Labour Party will be supporting the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. The bill does a number of things. It clarifies that the 10-year limit on the storage of embryos or gametes began when the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology Act came into force, rather than at the earlier date when those gametes or embryos were first stored. That is necessary for practical reasons. The bill also clarifies some of the powers of advisory committees.

One thing that I will mention, which arises from this debate, is the contribution from the Māori Party. I was somewhat surprised to hear Hone Harawira say that there is a special Māori perspective here that has not properly been taken into account. I do, at times, get a little tired of the assertion that the Māori perspective under the Treaty is different from the one that applies to the general populace, and I think this is a case in point. After Mr Harawira made his contribution—which did not make common sense to me, given that Māori men and women suffer from infertility problems on occasions, just as non-Māori men and women do—I could not see the difference in principle that arose.

It caused me to look at the paper record that we have before us in this Parliament. We heard from other contributors that public submission processes were available to people in respect of this bill, and I am sure they were faithfully recorded by the Health Committee. I looked at the select committee’s report to see whether there was any special circumstance relating to Māoridom that would mean some special rules were necessary to protect some alternative interest in respect of Māoridom that was not properly catered for by the current law. What did I find? I found nothing. There was not one submission that said there was some special principle, as articulated by the Māori Party, that was applicable to Māori that was not adequately covered by the current law.

Then I thought to myself: what is this law doing that is so offensive to the Māori Party that causes its members to come to the House and speak against this bill? I looked at the provisions in the bill, and I considered what Hone Harawira had said. He was concerned that there be appropriate recognition of different interests. What we are doing here, in respect of this bill, is tightening up the rules for the advisory committee. We are also adding the power of the advisory committee to revoke a prior approval that it had given. That seems to me to be exactly the sort of thing that would be assuaging the concerns of the Māori Party. But, no. The Māori Party came down with one of its, at times, cant repetitions of its normal position in these things—that there has to be some sort of separate system to take account of their interests, which cannot be properly taken into account through the normal processes of the advisory committee.

Given that that was the submission, I would have thought that the Māori Party might have turned up to the select committee and made that point, but they did not do that either. Having heard the contribution from Hone Harawira, I think that in this case it had as much substance as some of the Māori Party’s rhetoric in respect of the foreshore and seabed debate, which we can see laid bare this week as being largely smoke and mirrors as well, given that the Foreshore and Seabed Act does not change nearly as much of substance as the Māori Party has previously pretended was necessary.

This is a good bill. It clarifies that the limit on the period for which gametes and embryos can be stored is 10 years normally, but there can be a period of extension. Paul Hutchison told the House why that is necessary, and I agree with him. There are circumstances when a storage period of greater than 10 years can be appropriate where, for example, the person for whom the gamete or the embryo is being stored does not yet want to have children. That could be for a proper medical reason. The person might have needed medical intervention, or might have become infertile for a reason, and might want to have children in the future. It is appropriate that there be some discretion to enable the storage period to be longer than 10 years. The general rule should be that it is 10 years, but that the 10 years should run from the date of the Act, rather than from the date of the original storage.

I also think it is appropriate, for some of the reasons that the Māori Party said, that we make clearer the advisory committee’s role. But I reject the idea that this legislation is somehow flawed because it does not properly take into account the interests of Māori. The interests of Māori in this instance coincide with the interests of non-Māori. Were that otherwise, I would have expected at least one submission to the contrary, which we did not receive. With that, I am happy to close by recording once again that the Labour Party supports this bill.

JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) : I am very pleased to stand in support of the Human Assisted Reproductive Technology (Storage) Amendment Bill. As we understand it, this amendment bill is necessary because of the Government’s receipt of legal advice that fertility clinics, acting in good faith, may have unknowingly breached the storage limit because the law was not clear. It is incredibly important to have some clarity, good sense, and parameters around this bill. It is an issue that is full of concern, emotion, aspiration, and disappointment for people, so it is good that we have clarity and sense around it. We understand that a number of couples in New Zealand have great difficulty with fertility issues—20 percent has been the figure quoted—and it is great that we have the technology to assist them.

Subsequent legal advice has raised concerns that the 10-year limit starts whenever a human sperm, egg, or embryo is stored. This means that any person who stores sperm, eggs, or embryos for more than 10 years is in breach of the Act. This bill now clarifies that situation. Sperm, eggs, and embryos stored before 2004 can be stored until 2014. If fertility clinics have clients who wish to extend storage beyond 2014, they will require approval from the Ethics Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology before the 10-year storage limit is reached.

This amendment bill brings some clarity to one particular issue that needed addressing, and it does so with largely the support of the House. I am very pleased to support the bill. Thank you.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those who support that motion will say Aye; to the contrary, No. The Ayes have it.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : I forgot to record our party’s vote. I seek leave to record it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I say to the member that the only way votes can be recorded is if a member calls for a division and for a party vote. The situation the House is in now is that the vote has been called, and I have declared the result. There was no call for a party vote. The Clerk has now read the bill a second time. The House is in a very difficult position to go back again. In order to be constructive, I say to the member that if the member seeks leave to have the vote retaken, and if every member of the House agrees, then that is what will happen.

HONE HARAWIRA: My apologies to the House. I seek leave to have the vote recast.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Is everybody clear on that? Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) : It is my pleasure to speak in the interrupted second reading debate of the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. This legislation gives legislative import to a Treaty of Waitangi settlement. This, again, as we have seen before, is legislation that commenced prior to the introduction of the bill itself. The bill was introduced by this Government in August 2009 and had its first reading in November 2009, but clearly much of its content derives from an earlier history and some earlier negotiations. I acknowledge the work done by the previous Labour Government, and I acknowledge also, as we do repeatedly on these occasions, the work of the current Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations for bringing this legislation to the House, from its inception to this point of its second reading.

The Labour Party supports this legislation. It is about the transfer of assets in an on-account settlement of historical claims of the Whanganui iwi. The substance of the bill simply puts into law an agreement that was made in principle and, I suppose, codifies in legislative form an agreement arrived at between Whanganui iwi and the Crown. The preamble to this bill describes some of the content of the bill. Basically, it states that this agreement between the Crown and the Southern Whanganui Cluster / Tupoho working party to enter into an on-account settlement was an outcome of discussions between northern Ngāti Apa and the working party about aspects of the Ngāti Apa settlement package. That was contained in the original agreement in principle between Ngāti Apa of the North Island and the Crown. Ngāti Apa went through the process of consulting with neighbouring iwi on the agreement in principle, and what we have now is the result of that. It does transfer the ownership of land and it transfers the ownership of Crown forest land, in particular the northern part of the Wanganui Forest.

I am always particularly pleased when the Treaty of Waitangi settlements that come before this House for codifying in law include bits of Crown forest. My interest in this area goes back some years to my work as a trustee on the Crown Forestry Rental Trust, and nothing gives me greater pleasure as an ex-trustee of the Crown Forestry Rental Trust than to see the map of Crown forests diminishing and land going back to what are usually the rightful owners of the land—or without exception the rightful owners of that land, proven by claims before the Waitangi Tribunal—and knitted together as part of historical Treaty settlements. As that map diminishes I am heartened, and it gives me great cause for optimism that the historical Treaty processes will be behind us in short order. The Government wishes that all historical Treaty negotiations should be concluded by 2014. I seriously wish it well in that respect, and certainly there will not be any unnecessary objection on the part of the Labour Party seeking to derail or hold up any of those Treaty of Waitangi settlements, as long as they are fair and address the grievances that various iwi bring to the table.

It is important to note that even the transfer of this small part, the northern part, of the Wanganui Forest addresses old grievances. Typically, in these circumstances we find the iwi being more generous than they could be in respect of settlements and transfers of land and assets. Huge injustices were done in the past. But in a spirit of goodwill and the wish to move this country forward and get past the Iwi/Kiwi nonsense that characterised former campaigns, Māori frequently do not exact everything that they might exact from the Crown.

It is interesting that in the report back of the Māori Affairs Committee it had only minor technical amendments to make to the bill, but it did seem to get embroiled for some time in the issue of the spelling of Whanganui. I cannot speak to this bill without drawing attention to that point. If the House remembers correctly, on 18 December 2009 the Minister for Land Information decided, after the Geographic Board had put a bit of a conundrum to him, that over time Crown agencies would adopt the spelling of Whanganui with an “h”. He made that decision on 18 December 2009 largely because it was close to Christmas, and most people would have gone home. However, the select committee said it felt very strongly about this issue; in fact, it wrote the words “strongly feel” in its report on the bill. It chose to put the “h” into Whanganui, except where there is a historical reference—I think there is only one instance in the bill, in clause 4—to legislation that has Whanganui without the “h” in the title. That has been left there as a correct historical record. But from now on, by changing and amending the bill, clearly the select committee has recommended that Whanganui with an “h” should be the legal record of this transfer of assets, and I welcome that. I think that was a good response for the select committee to make, and I commend it for making those amendments.

This legislation takes us another step forward in the Treaty settlement process, and it is a welcome step. Every time that we get to the end of the process in a Treaty settlement, there is a celebration. We are in the middle stages of this settlement right now, and I look forward to its proceeding without further ado and to our getting to the third reading of the bill in short order. Thank you.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I will leave the definition of “on account” to my learned colleague Paul Quinn. The Māori Affairs Committee recommended that the spelling of Wanganui be changed to “Whanganui” throughout the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui Kaitoke (Prison) and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill, with the exception of the reference in clause 4 to the Corrections (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison) Notice 2008 but including clause 1, the title clause. We had fun in recommending that Wanganui be spelled with an “h”, considering all of the hullabaloo over that.

The agreement by the Crown to enter into an on-account settlement was an outcome of discussions between Ngāti Apa and the working party to address concerns Whanganui hapū had with aspects of the Ngāti Apa settlement as part of the overlapping claims consultation process. The bill in essence protects Whanganui iwi interests in the northern part of the Wanganui Forest and the half share in the land under Wanganui Prison. This may seem to be an innocuous piece of legislation, but it gives an indication of some of the issues that come about in the negotiation of Treaty settlements.

I will briefly say that the select committee had a very, very good hearing up at Turakina Māori Girls College. It was supported very well by the Māori Party, the Labour Party, and, of course, the Government. I think what that says about the difficulties with Treaty settlements is that there is a possibility for there to be an agreement with two “conflicting” iwi. I am quite happy to stand here and speak on this bill. I will say that it was not a hard decision to put the “h” back where it belonged. I, for one, am very, very pleased that our select committee, in the interests of brotherly and sisterly love, was able to come to an agreement on the spelling of “Whanganui”. Thank you.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) : Back in 1989 Muriwhenua elder and New Zealand Māori Council member Sir Graham Latimer went to court on behalf of Māori to challenge the Government’s right to sell some land that was subject to historical Treaty of Waitangi claims. It was decided that the land would not be sold, although assets on the land such as forests could be sold. The decision was to have the land remain in Crown control, because it was realised that the land could potentially form part of a future settlement of grievances under the Treaty of Waitangi. That is also what is happening in this Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill.

Aside from Sir Graham’s actions in ensuring that the Crown maintained ownership and control of the land, he, along with others, also ensured that the rental of the property to forest owners generated an income that went into the Crown Forestry Rental Trust. The trust accrued the rental income and the interest on it, and Māori were able to access that rental income in order to advance Treaty of Waitangi claims. With the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill, we have reached the point where some of the land that would have been sold but for the actions of the Māori Council and Sir Graham is being returned to Māori in the Whanganui area. It is certainly something to celebrate.

The principle that saw owners of forests pay rental income to the Crown landowners is also being applied to the land under the Kaitoke Prison. The land that the Kaitoke Prison sits on becomes Māori-owned, but the buildings remain the property of the Crown. The Crown then rents the land and Māori are to derive a rental income from it.

The land in question has overlapping iwi interests, which caused some interesting debates and discussions. Overlapping interests are one of the key challenges in many Treaty settlements. It is a difficult area with no easy answers. In these situations, the Crown has an obligation to negotiate with both iwi in good faith. The Whanganui iwi and Ngāti Apa have come to an arrangement, and it is an incredible achievement. It is a huge credit to both iwi. In my opinion, what counts now is not so much what the past held but what the future holds for these iwi. Their commitment and connection through the debate and in getting to a better place is something that we can all take lessons from. They now have an opportunity to put grievances to one side and focus on a successful future for themselves and the mokopuna of the future generations. That, in my opinion, is a key objective in the settlement of Treaty claims. It provides the opportunity for Māori to emerge from the shadow of grievance and into the light and dawn of a prosperous future.

The Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations needs to be commended for the effort that he has put into this settlement. I also want to commend myself and other people in the previous Labour Government who worked hard on this settlement; I thought that I had better say that too. But I do commend the Minister and his colleagues for that, because people forget to say it.

Nothing will ever compensate for the fragmentation and the degradation of the land, culture, and language, and the loss of social, political, and economic opportunities caused by alienation from land. This settlement puts a lot of that right for Ngāti Apa and the Whanganui iwi.

The alienation of the Māori language—which the previous speaker, Tau Henare, talked about in relation to the select committee’s activities—leads me to the main concern in the report of the Māori Affairs Committee on the bill. A small but significant part of the Māori language for Whanganui people is a simple letter, the letter “h”. Nowhere in the Māori language in any Māori dictionary can one find the word “wanga”—that sounds more like Aborigine. It has no meaning, no connection, and no mana or status of any kind for any tribe, not just the Whanganui tribes. It is not a word that exists. Therefore, it is with immense satisfaction that the word “Wanganui” has been erased from this legislation and replaced with the real Māori name of Whanganui.

It strikes me as the ultimate act of arrogance that the language of one people can be taken control of by another ethnic group. I struggle to comprehend how a Pākehā in Whanganui can believe that he has any right to deny Māori the correct use of our language. But certainly, as we are all encouraged as New Zealanders by the haka, and as mana and aroha are commonly used words, we know that there are a lot of better Pākehā who appreciate the word Whanganui and who are certainly supportive of it.

The iwi of Whanganui have the right to walk through the central business district of Whanganui and see their language written correctly and to hear it pronounced correctly. It is no different from what most cultures would appreciate and expect of other people. Respect is a two-way street, but many non-Māori view respect only from within their own cultural bias. The effort that has been put in by these two iwi to consolidate and settle this settlement, along with the Minister and Co., is something that needs to be recognised and respected.

I am thrilled that throughout this bill the meaningless word “Wanganui” has been replaced with “Whanganui”. Over the coming years “Whanganui” will subsume “Wanganui” in all legislation, on all Automobile Association signposts, and in the consciousness of all people. History will look back at the objection to changing the name Wanganui to Whanganui and see it as what it blatantly is—a redneck attack on the rights of indigenous people to practise their language and culture on their own terms.

The ancient Whanganui debate reminds me of the furore over the correct pronunciation of Taupō, and the outrage and indignation expressed when Joanna Paul opened the news with “Kia ora.” Likewise, there was the battle that Naida Glavish, a telephone exchange operator, had when she was demoted for greeting callers with “Kia ora.” So we should take a collection on every Pākehā who says “kia ora” now, but it is an accepted use of language in this country, and that is wonderful unification.

If we are serious about nationhood, then the essence of this bill is just that. It can help to leverage that and be serious about recognising and respecting other peoples’ wills and needs. So it is for me with the name Whanganui. A whanga, I can picture. Where I come from, it has two meanings. One meaning is a noun; the other meaning is a verb, but both conjure up a picture in my mind. “Whanga” means a bay, and “nui” means something large, in which case, when I hear whanga and nui combined, a picture of a large bay springs to mind.

I use this example to attempt to explain our connection to our language. It is not there just for fun; it is something that many non-Māori would understand, and it is certainly a joy to share that knowledge with them. I find it incredibly ironic, as I said, that one of the literal translations of “Whanganui” could mean a long wait, which is exactly what Whanganui iwi have had to experience to get to the stage where a fraction of their land is about to be returned, not as compensation but as the right thing to do to correct historical injustices.

To finish, I acknowledge the work of the Tūpoho working party, whose members have worked hard. They have had to stand and stare down people, and work and develop with them. They undertook a robust ratification programme to ensure that the deed of on-account settlement was well supported by Whanganui iwi. Ka nui ngā mihi atu ki a rātou me koutou katoa. I tautokotia atu te kaha rawe i roto i a rātou, mai rā nō mō tō rātou kaha e tae pai atu i tēnei wāhi. Nō reira, tēnā tātou.

[I greatly appreciate them, and you all. The good intentions among them have been first class, and supported from the outset, and as a consequence the matter has arrived at this place in good shape. So acknowledgments to us.]

DAVID CLENDON (Green) : I am pleased to take a short call on the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. I will begin by acknowledging the Green Party’s respect for the work and the endurance of the hapū, the whānau, and the people of Whanganui who have brought this matter to this stage and who are bringing closer a time when they will have returned to them what is rightfully theirs.

Clearly, there is general satisfaction with the shape and form of this bill; the most that the Māori Affairs Committee could do was to insert the “h” into “Whanganui”, which was a critical matter. It was an important matter and the previous speaker, the Hon Parekura Horomia, very eloquently traversed the significance of that “h”. I commend the continuing embedding of it into this legislation.

The Greens have supported this bill along the way. We will continue to do that and are very pleased to continue to do that. We will support all settlement bills that seek to right a wrong, to return mana and to acknowledge mana, and to return property and resources to people who should have them.

This is an interesting bill to the extent that it is on account and I reflect on the comments made by the co-leader of the Māori Party Tariana Turia in the first reading when she noted: “Addressing overlapping interests is one of the key challenges in Treaty settlements. It is a difficult and a complex area and there are no easy answers.” She went on to note: “The on-account settlement with Whanganui iwi demonstrates the challenge that the Crown confronts in trying to find flexible and creative solutions to these very difficult issues of overlapping interests.” This legislation is a good example of an approach that does not simply dictate that one interest will take precedence over another, but seeks to accommodate and balance out those interests and to allow internal Māori debate to finesse some of the cruder, shall I say, disposition of resources that this bill entails.

As I noted, the symbolic acknowledgment of mana and kaitiakitanga is important, but so, too, is the return of resources of material benefit. The return of land and resources provides the necessity and the basis for the re-establishment of an indigenous economy in a very new and different circumstance, but Māori in Whanganui will demonstrate and prove, as has happened elsewhere, that Māori are capable of rising to the challenge of recreating a new economy by taking the best of the old ways, and incorporating opportunities and models as a step towards regaining self-sufficiency, which was taken away along with their land, along with their livelihoods, and along with lives lost in the confiscation of that land.

We tend to think of the economy and economics in a much too narrow basis, somehow imagining that they are modern inventions. But every people at every time have had an economy, and the pre-contact Māori economy was clearly one that was land-based. It operated within a well-understood and managed set of principles, including a rights-based approach. There was the notion of user rights rather than ownership, which came in later as a Western model and a Western term. The pre-contact Māori economy was collectivist. It was based on mutual management and control rights and the occupation and use of land and other resources. It was also based on negotiated agreements between hapū and whānau that were worked out when it was deemed to provide mutual benefit to do so, or when it fulfilled an obligation or a commitment between two groups of people.

In the early period of colonisation, Māori proved themselves to be very successful in adapting to the new realities of the cash-and-exchange economy imported from Europe. In fact, the rapid emergence of Māori as successful producers and traders added to the pressure to alienate Māori from their lands as they successfully competed against Pākehā interests. Māori developed both a willingness and some flair for adapting and adopting Pākehā technologies, expectations, and needs, and meeting those needs for themselves and for the new arrivals.

Treaty settlements, which are all too slowly rolling out, are very much about economic opportunities, but it is also worth reflecting for a moment on the broader notion of the Treaty relationship and how it is evolving in 21st century Aotearoa. I recall some years ago a Pākehā legal academic commenting with, he acknowledged, 20/20 hindsight that perhaps we jumped too quickly in the mid-1970s and 1980s into the settlement process before we had negotiated a national dialogue about the place, the mana, and the status of the Treaty. Perhaps we jumped a little too quickly into constructing mechanisms for settling claims on a case by case by case basis, rather than establishing a national consensus about the rightness of the Treaty and the settlement process. It is simply now a matter for reflection and consideration, but this evening in the dinner break the Greens discussed the way forward in establishing the Treaty and its role in modern New Zealand society. We clearly do not have the answers—we do not pretend to have the answers—but we have a commitment to doing what we can to see the potential of the Treaty relationship fulfilled, developed, and evolving over time to enhance and make possible a genuine release from the grievances of the past, so that we can move on to a much more positive and productive future. Kia ora koutou.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Kia ora, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. I begin my speech tonight by offering the gratitude of the Māori Party to the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia, for all of his efforts in helping to bring the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill to this point.

The Māori Party supports this bill, which gives effect to certain provisions of a settlement signed by the Southern Whanganui Cluster / Tūpoho working party on behalf of Whanganui iwi and the Crown on 31 July 2009, and also protects Whanganui iwi interests in the northern part of the Whanganui Forest and the half share in the land under the Wanganui Prison. We note that under the agreement in principle, Whanganui iwi were originally to receive 100 percent of the prison lands—Lismore Sands and Lismore Hills—but that now Ngāti Apa will receive 50 percent of Lismore Sands and 65 percent of Lismore Hills as part of their settlement. We hope that the Crown takes the same flexible and innovative approach to resolving the difficult issue of overlapping claims between Ngāti Apa and Whanganui iwi.

We note furthermore that the deed of on-account settlement provides the working party with the opportunity to acquire a half share in the land under the Whanganui Prison and the half of the Whanganui Forest not offered to Ngāti Apa. The agreement to enter into an on-account settlement was an outcome of discussions between Ngāti Apa and the working party to address concerns that the southern hapū of Whanganui iwi had with aspects of the Ngāti Apa settlement. If Ngāti Apa do not purchase a half share of the land under the Wanganui Prison or the southern half of the Whanganui Forest, the Crown will retain the properties until it has reached a comprehensive settlement with Whanganui iwi of their historical Treaty claims.

The on-account settlement means that these assets will be taken into account when the Crown and Whanganui iwi enter into their comprehensive settlement. The on-account settlement is not a comprehensive settlement and therefore it is not full and final. But we well understand that the key to this settlement’s success rests in the way in which the relationships play out between Whanganui iwi and Ngāti Apa, or Ngā Wairiki. We also well realise that this matter is best resolved internally.

The other amendment, of course, refers to the Southern Whanganui Cluster working party call for Whanganui to be properly spelt with an “h”. As a result, the select committee recommends amending the spelling of Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest to Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest throughout the bill. Te Kēnehi Mair of Whanganui iwi said in a submission to the Geographic Board that “The name of our rohe, our awa and our iwi is how we are identified … Whanganui was the name given to the area by our ancestor over 600 years ago. Te reo Maori is a vital part of our nation’s culture, a source of pride for Maori, and a symbol of our collective identify. The name Whanganui has a whakapapa, a history. It carries meaning and significance. The name must be spelt properly, otherwise it loses integrity.”

We support the bill because of the subject matter and the importance of the on-account settlement to Whanganui iwi in settling part of their historic grievances against the Crown and securing lands of cultural significance to Whanganui Māori. Kia ora tātou katoa.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) : It is good to speak wholeheartedly in support of the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. The bare bones of the bill and what it does can be stated pretty simply and succinctly. The Crown entered into settlement negotiations with Ngāti Apa, and in the midst of those negotiations it was clear that there were some concerns from Whanganui hapū with aspects of the Ngāti Apa North Island settlement as part of the overlapping claims consultation process. As a result of that, we have got into this on-account settlement situation, whereby this bill protects the Whanganui iwi’s interests in the northern part of the Wanganui Forest with Ngāti Apa taking the southern part, I think, of the forest in their claim, and a half share in the land under Whanganui Prison also going in this on-account settlement.

What we see with on-account settlements is the Crown being able to flexibly and cleverly adapt and creatively make solutions so that iwi interests are well accommodated. “On-account” means, of course, that the value of the assets transferred in the settlement will be taken into account when the Crown makes an offer of redress for the final settlement of the Whanganui iwi historical claims. I suppose it is in a sense a deposit on something, with the rest to come in due course when the full and final settlement for the Whanganui iwi is made. The total value of this settlement will not be known until the transfers of the properties occur. The current book value of the land offered in the settlement is, as I understand it, approximately $2 million.

Another interesting fact is that this is the second on-account settlement that has been offered to the Whanganui iwi. The first was the transfer of the Wanganui courthouse with a lease-back to the Crown, which occurred in 2004. So we have an on-account settlement here—if you like, a deposit for the Whanganui iwi—that arose out of Ngāti Apa’s work in negotiations with the Crown. That is good indeed, and it is good to have been a part of this process.

I take note of something that David Clendon said. He expressed concern that we perhaps started the Treaty settlement process too early in the 1990s and that there needed to be a fuller discourse and discussion in this country prior to doing that. I would say to David Clendon that we had to start the settlement process somewhere. We needed to get our hands dirty, as it were, somewhere. Now, under Minister Finlayson, who, of course, follows on from other Ministers, we have picked up the pace to a big extent. We are well into settling Treaty grievances, and that is a good thing indeed for all New Zealanders—Māori and Pākehā.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) : Ā, kāti ake kia ora tātou kei te Whare. Hoi anō rā kua hoki mai anō rā tātou ki tēnei pire e pā ana ki te iwi o Whanganui ki te Tonga, me tērā o ngā iwi o Ngāti Apa. Hoi anō rā āhua roroa te haere o tēnei pire. E mātorotoro haere ana i waenganui i a tātou. I tēnei wā ka tata tonu nā ki te mutunga o tāna hīkoi, tāna mātoro, ā te wā, ka puta nā ko te ture, ka oti.

[So greetings to us, the House. We have come back again to this bill relating to the people of southern Whanganui and Ngāti Apa. The process for this bill has been a somewhat lengthy one. We have deliberated it and taken it apart amongst ourselves. At this point its journey and deliberation is nearly at its conclusion. In time it will be enacted, and then it is done.]

I congratulate all the previous speakers who have spoken in support of the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. I do that because I am impressed by the level of collaboration and cooperation that there has been throughout the parliamentary process—in particular, during the select committee process. During the hearing of submissions I witnessed a strong willingness to get the bill through the House. Southern Whanganui iwi and Ngāti Apa expressed very strongly that they had reached a conclusion on how these matters should be settled, and they therefore wanted to expedite the bill without any delay.

The problem with being as far down the speaking order as this is that one is often left with very little to say.

Chris Tremain: I can’t believe that.

Hon MITA RIRINUI: I thank the senior Government whip; now I will take an extra 10 minutes because the member wants me to continue speaking.

My colleagues on this side of the House have covered all the technical aspects of the bill. They have even made reference to the addition of the “h” in the pronunciation of Whanganui. One thing I find very unusual is that before the “h” was an issue, I pronounced Wanganui as Wanganui; after the “h”, I pronounced Whanganui as Wanganui. I wonder to myself whether te reo Māori has a problem or written English has a problem, because nothing has actually changed. I cannot work out why there is all this emotion around the “h”. We talk about the tino rangatiratanga of our te reo Māori and ōna tikanga katoa, yet the “h” in the English alphabet can become such an issue in the pronunciation of Māori words. Hoi anō, that is my opinion, and it may not be shared by too many in the south. I cannot for the life of me understand why it is such an emotional issue.

At this point in time I should also acknowledge the commitment of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Chris Finlayson. My colleague the Hon Parekura Horomia has acknowledged him in his speech. I congratulate the Minister on supporting the bill through all stages of the parliamentary process. It needs to be acknowledged that the bill is one of many settlement bills that this Government has picked up, but it is yet to actually go through a process where it not only initiates negotiation between the Crown and iwi but also completes it. I am waiting with bated breath for that to happen. Hopefully, in the next 18 months we may see that aspiration manifest before us. I will not talk about any area in particular.

I come back to the bill. Earlier I mentioned the level of cooperation between MPs, particularly the members on the Māori Affairs Committee. The incredible cooperation between the Ngāti Apa iwi of the North Island and the southern Whanganui iwi needs to be acknowledged. In particular, I am referring to the fact that during the initial negotiations the Whanganui iwi raised the issue that they had interests in the whenua of Kaitoke Prison—in the prison site—and also a 50 percent share in forestry. Usually when these issues are raised it takes quite a bit of time to resolve them and it is not an easy undertaking. In fact, some of these issues can delay settlement bills for a year or so, and I have experienced such situations. Some instances still exist whereby issues of overlapping interests have been raised and have yet to be resolved. I can think of one example in particular, where it has probably been a couple of years since negotiations about overlapping interests were entered into, yet today they have still not been resolved.

In terms of this settlement bill the iwi in question understood that there were overlapping interests and that they themselves had the responsibility to resolve them. They called the various stakeholder groups together with the intention of resolving the interests and achieving a win-win outcome in relation to all overlapping issues pertinent to the iwi mentioned. We have to congratulate the negotiators involved and the Crown officials who participated in facilitating many of the discussions on the overlapping interests, and to congratulate the iwi and the officials on the outcome, which, in this case, is an agreement that southern Whanganui iwi did have interests in these two particular areas.

Contrary to what the previous speaker, Simon Bridges, stated, this is the first on-account settlement in the Whanganui district. The Whanganui courthouse matter was not a settlement; it was outside the settlement process—but let us not split hairs over that. I congratulate the Whanganui iwi and Ngāti Apa on this ground-breaking decision to agree to an on-account settlement. This is the first time I have seen an on-account settlement introduced to the House by way of legislation. I was a Treaty settlements Minister for some 6 years, and I do not recall a specific bill being introduced over that time to that effect. This is ground-breaking territory and everybody involved has to be acknowledged and congratulated.

If anybody were to visit the Whanganui district and look at the countryside—at the rivers, the mountains, the hills, the farmland, and the farming operations—he or she would admire the primary sector in that area for the advances that have been made in agriculture and horticulture, and other primary industries, particularly forestry. But what is not apparent in the district is Māori participation in these primary sector activities. What is expected from this settlement is that Māori in the area—Ngāti Apa and southern Whanganui iwi included—will no longer be bystanders watching development opportunities pass them by. In fact, they will actively participate in contributing to the local economy, particularly in the primary sector.

Once again, I congratulate the Minister. He has certainly picked up the challenge as the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and taken on all the fine work that the Labour Government put in place. Hopefully, he will be able to bring to completion much of what he has taken on board. I look forward to some of the challenges that are ahead of him. Thank you.

PAUL QUINN (National) : Tēnā koe, Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I take this opportunity to speak on the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. I was going to focus on some of the technical aspects of the bill, and, hopefully, I will have time to do that a little later.

In the initial part of my contribution to this debate I will focus on a couple of the points that were made by previous speakers. I noted with mirth some of the comments on a number of items from my friends and colleagues on the opposite benches. Firstly, to deal with the contribution of Maryan Street, she waxed lyrical about her knowledge of the Crown Forestry Rental Trust. I listened with amusement as she said that she took pride in the fact that the assets of the trust were, once again, being transferred to their rightful owners. She said that she had been part of that process and claimed that Labour was responsible for it, as it was for many things. Well, let me give her a little history lesson. The Crown Forestry Rental Trust was set up in 1989, and I know everything about it because I negotiated it. Even Shane Jones admits that, and it is recorded in Hansard. Let me tell Maryan Street one other thing about the Crown Forestry Rental Trust negotiations. When negotiations were settled, the agreement said that all forest claims would be settled within 4 years. Now here we are still settling these claims. Of course, we have had Maryan, and my friends Parekura and Mita, waxing lyrical about—

H V Ross Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that the honourable member opposite is well aware that he cannot address members by their Christian names in this House. He must address them by their title, the position that they hold, or the constituency name. The member has, on four occasions now, used first names. I ask that he be brought to order. This is a House of Representatives.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: When a point of order is being considered there will be silence. The member knows that, and I ask that in future he use the correct name.

PAUL QUINN: I must apologise to Ross Robertson, who I am sure as a former Assistant Speaker knows with thoroughness the books and rules of this House. None the less, I thank him for his contribution and guidance in this matter. I guess I just got carried away. The collegiality in the Māori Affairs Committee is so great that we actually use Christian names and friendly names. I must check the Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings to see whether we are allowed to use Christian names in the select committee or whether we must use full names or constituency names. I just got carried away in the spirit of friendship and understanding. For that I apologise to Mr Horomia and Mr Ririnui, if I have offended them. I really am sorry for having done that.

I was sharing with my parliamentary colleagues the fact that, when the Crown Forest Assets Act was passed, it was agreed that the Crown Forestry Rental Trust negotiations would all be settled within 4 years. But here we are today discussing the settlement of another forest claim.

We have heard from our friends on the Labour side of the House that this bill is another great step forward and a great reflection of the work Labour did on the bill. But the records show that in the 9 years that the previous administration sat on this side of the House, it managed to do only one and a half settlements a year, and it got to that level only because of the accelerated and focused attention of the Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Dr Cullen, who clearly, and for whatever reason, decided that things needed to move along a little quicker than they had been moving under the Hon Margaret Wilson, followed by that chappie from Taupō, the Hon Mark Burton. So I think it is important to put things in perspective.

I will also comment briefly about the contribution of the Green list MP David Clendon. My colleague Simon Bridges, the constituency member for Tauranga, commented on him, noting that Mr Clendon was pleading for a pause to have a cup of tea. Let me share with Mr Clendon, as someone who has been involved in these issues since 1984, that there is no time for a cup of tea. Māori people—iwi, whānau, and hapū—want to get on with it.

Hon Member: My people!

PAUL QUINN: No, no, they are not my people; I am their servant. I am just the boy at the feet of the chiefs. I think it is appropriate to understand that people are keen to move on—to get out of grievance mode, to move into development mode, and to get on with things. This particular bill, the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill, which is now before us in its second reading, will be another one of the many bills that the Government has already passed in this House under this administration, and under the superb leadership of the current Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, a fine gentleman scholar and Minister.

We should also put on record the excellent leadership that the chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, the Hon Tau Henare, has contributed in terms of ensuring a harmonious relationship within the select committee and amongst its members. It is a pleasure to serve on the Māori Affairs Committee. It is a pleasure, firstly, because they are such fine people—gentlemen, all of them—and, secondly, because of the work the committee does to accelerate and move through settlements so that the Māori people, whom the committee aims at assisting, can get on to development and into forward thinking. So with those few words, I commend the second reading of this bill to the House. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) : Listeners could be forgiven for getting slightly lost through the contribution of the previous speech from Paul Quinn. If there was ever an example of 10 minutes that said very little in relation to the bill at hand, that was it.

I will raise a number of comments with regard to the second reading of this Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. Members on both sides of the House gave due recognition to a process we have in New Zealand that is second to none—that is, the Treaty settlement process. Yes, it was begun by National, but it was continued by Labour, and now National is continuing it. Both sides of the House recognise that the Treaty settlement process, and the reconciliation of historical injustices throughout this country from the time that colonisation took place, are necessary moves towards becoming the type of country we want to become. I do not think any particular member on either side of the House could take the moral high ground on the necessity of our continuing down this track, but let me commend former Ministers for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and, certainly, the current Minister for recognising how important that process is. Iwi relish the opportunity to go into direct negotiation, to stump up with their experts—historical experts, legal experts, technical experts—in front of Crown negotiators, to put their issue on the table, to work towards a settlement, and then to get to the point of presenting legislation to the House so that the process can be continued, which is where we are at.

I think the direct negotiation process that has been embarked on, particularly with the Whanganui iwi and Ngāti Apa, has raised a number of interesting learning points for both sides. But the important thing—and this is the point I want to make to members of the House—is not how many settlements we get through in a year; it is whether people feel they have been treated fairly throughout the process. Often the process can be long and painstaking. With regard to this settlement, the way in which the Government has addressed the overlapping claims in Whanganui can be commended. It provides a window of opportunity to the people of Whanganui, and certainly to Ngāti Apa.

If that window of opportunity is that the ownership of Kaitoke Prison will be returned to Whanganui, it is absolutely in line with some of the messages from members of that iwi that they see themselves in time getting into the management of prisons, and I can well understand that. Given that one of the Ministers in the Māori Party is a promoter of that particular policy, in light of this settlement it is easy to understand where the window of opportunity is and to understand the logic of their thinking. However, it is one thing being an owner of a prison; it is another thing managing a prison. When one is managing a prison and policies like “three strikes and you’re out” being promoted by the Government, which will see more prisons being built, it does not add up. I suspect that there will be more issues regarding whether, as a result of this settlement, Whanganui iwi or Ngāti Apa will on the one hand own prisons and on the other hand actually consider managing prisons under the current policy regime of this Government. I think there is more talk to be done there, and I am sure that they will want the types of policies that would see fewer Māori in prison, not more, and would see fewer prisons being built, not more. That is a really important point.

There are some serious challenges for the Government in moving forward with Whanganui iwi. We know that the river is a key identifier of who the people of Whanganui are, and they are eager to ensure that the resolution of their river claim can be reached within this term of Parliament. Labour members are, too. We would like to see that happen. I see that the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is nodding his head. He understands exactly what I am saying. A substantial number of the lands that can be returned to Whanganui reside in Department of Conservation ownership. It is a challenging issue for the Government, and we are eager to see how the Government responds to the very serious and comprehensive nature of the interests that Whanganui have within their particular rohe.

I will raise one other issue. Points were made in the first reading of this bill about the potential opportunity of iwi being handed back prisons. My issue is simply this: when iwi become landlords and the Crown becomes the tenant, I hope that iwi are not treated as if they do not want to generate revenue from their lands for the betterment of their people—to return revenue to their people. When it comes to simple things like rental reviews of a prison, which may over time see incremental increases, I hope that Whanganui iwi will not be a punching bag for any future Government. Iwi need to take on board the commercial aspect of the types of assets that are being returned to them. They must manage them for the future long-term benefit of, and the return of benefits to, their tribal members. On past experience that has provided some points of tension from previous settlements. I would urge understanding from across this House, because it is a contentious issue.

Members of the Māori Affairs Committee rightly rectified references to “Wanganui” in the bill to include the “h”—“Whanganui”, as I would say it—and I think that is really important. It cuts to the heart of what we are trying to achieve through Treaty settlements, which is resolving historical injustices and recognising historical references. If there was any type of recognition that the Government could give leadership on, for Whanganui iwi it would be to include the “h” in their name. I am glad that the Māori Affairs Committee rightly saw the opportunity to correct that. I just regret that the Government did not give stronger leadership on this particular issue, because the correct naming of places is a really important aspect of Māori tribal cultural identity. If in such a small, small manner leadership could have been given on that particular point, I am sure it would have satisfied the many representations that had been put forward by people within Whanganui.

I will not take up much more time, but I endorse absolutely the contributions made by my colleagues in the Labour team who in the previous Government had some input into many aspects of Treaty settlements. I reiterate that we too see New Zealand’s Treaty settlement process—the opportunity to go into direct negotiation—as being second to none, and that has been recognised in international fora in terms of working with indigenous peoples. I am absolutely confident that where there is an opportunity here, the people of Whanganui will grasp it, but it will present very serious challenges for the Government going forward towards a comprehensive settlement. It will also pose challenging questions within Whanganui iwi, but that is their challenge; it is not ours. All we can say at this point is that the on-account settlement is a pragmatic and, I think, sensible way to deal with overlapping claims in this particular area. I look forward to the comprehensive settlement for Whanganui iwi. Kia ora.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Whanganui Iwi (Wanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Wanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill. Clearly, I am not a member of the Māori Affairs Committee, which considered this document, but I support very much the pragmatic leadership of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and of Tau Henare in guiding this bill through the select committee process.

Looking at this bill from the point of view of someone from across the ranges from Whanganui, over in the Wairarapa, I am delighted to see that in this situation overlapping claims are being protected through this bill. But I am also saddened, because on my side of the hill, in the territory stretching from Ngawī up through to Hawke’s Bay, we have two iwi, Ngāti Kahungunu and Rangitāne o Wairarapa, who face an identical situation to the one that we have in Whanganui. The difference is that in the Wairarapa the leadership of Ngāti Kahungunu cannot pull together so that the Treaty negotiation process can begin. That saddens me greatly, because we have the better part of $80 million plus or minus—this being the claim that can be settled—being held up by squabbling, dysfunctional leadership. I think that is really unfortunate. One of our iwi, Rangitāne o Wairarapa, is ready to go, and it is being held up by this very unsatisfactory situation.

The second general point that I would make, from the point of view of looking at the sweep of history in this country and our relationship with Pacific people, is that if we had asked Pacific people 30 years ago how they felt about the relationship between New Zealand Pākehā and Māori, I think people in the Pacific would have looked at us sideways. I have always felt that Pacific people judge how things are going in New Zealand by looking at the relationship between Māori and Pākehā. I would particularly urge Pacific people who are listening to this debate tonight to think about how the relationship between Pākehā and Māori has changed and improved, with significantly better outcomes for both Māori and Pākehā as we move forward in this country. I hope it will be possible one day to transpose the model that we have developed for the relationship between Māori and Pākehā so that it also applies, for example, to Pākehā people and Niuean people, or to Pākehā New Zealanders and Tokelauans, or even to people of Cook Islands extraction and the New Zealand community. This is fundamentally important because we all carry the same passport and the same nationality.

I think this is very pragmatic legislation. Protecting the interests of people from Whanganui is really important, and it also means that Pacific people can judge their relationship with the Crown in New Zealand, and in particular the honourable behaviour of the Crown. With those words, I say I am really supportive of this bill. I think the agreement by the Crown to enter into this very pragmatic relationship can only take us forward in leaps and bounds. With those words, I would like to commend entirely this bill to the House. Thank you.

CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) : Ki te Whare, tēnā koutou. Ki te Kaikōrero, tēnā koe. Ki ngā mema Pāremata, tēnā koutou. I will make a few comments as we draw to the end of the day. First, I acknowledge all of the people down in Christchurch who are working to rebuild their city as we speak, all of the members of Parliament down there working hard, and all our friends and colleagues down there.

I will say a few words about the Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill, and put it into the context of how settlements are benefiting Māori. When I am in my electorate I talk to a lot of Pākehā people, and they still struggle with understanding the benefit of settlements and why the Crown is going on and on with these settlements.

I will use a brief slot now to show an example. Probably the best example that crystallises some of the benefits of the settlements in New Zealand at the moment is the BNZ advertisements that are being portrayed on television. If we look at those ads we see that they talk about what has happened down in Kaikōura with Whale Watch Kaikōura. As the advertisements point out, Kaikōura was a community with many on the unemployment benefit. They saw an opportunity with Whale Watch Kaikōura, and they threw in a combination of entrepreneurism and, in particular, settlement proceeds that went through to Ngāi Tahu as part of its settlement process. They were able to invest in a business that, if the ads are to be believed—and I certainly believe them—now employs some 75 people.

The people of that community are now employed. They are sending their children to university, and they are investing in their rugby clubs, league clubs, and wider community through donations. They are now part of the wealth-creating engine of our economy. That is the nuts and bolts of what the settlements are about. The more we see of that, and the quicker we can get through the Treaty settlement process, the more we can help iwi, hapū, and whānau become part of the wealth-creating engine of New Zealand, and the more we will get to the heart of the negative statistics that we see in this country that many of us in this House deplore.

I am certainly in favour of these settlement bills. Today we are debating this particular Whanganui settlement, which is quite a unique opportunity—and one out of the box—to make a settlement in advance with Whanganui iwi, taking into account the Ngāti Apa cross-settlement issues. In this case, the bill settles some land issues in advance of the wider settlement with the Whanganui iwi.

Again, it is an example of the Government being extremely proactive, and of the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, Chris Finlayson, thinking outside the square, finding ways we can make settlements in advance, and getting on with the settlement process. The more we do that, the more we can create communities like the one that has been created down in Kaikōura. The more we can make those communities become part of the economic engine of New Zealand, the better this nation will be, and the quicker we will be able to put behind us the issues of past Treaty grievances. Thank you.

• Bill read a second time.

• Name changed to Whanganui Iwi (Whanganui (Kaitoke) Prison and Northern Part of Whanganui Forest) On-account Settlement Bill.

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) : I move, That the Identity Information Confirmation Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee.

The Identity Information Confirmation Bill makes the data validation service available not only to the public sector but also, importantly, to the private sector. The service is a new tool in the fight against identity fraud. In particular, the service will combat the creation of fictitious identities, as well as tombstone fraud and name-change fraud. The service is a web-based system run by the Department of Internal Affairs. It allows agencies to check whether the identity information presented to them is consistent with that held by the department. There are three sources of information the service can check: the citizenship registers, the passports database, and the various registers of the Births, Deaths and Marriages registry office.

Let me give an example to show how the service will work. Let us pick a name. Lindsay is a new customer for a bank, and the bank needs to be certain of who he is. The bank will ask for his details and whether he will consent to having a confirmation check made on those details. If Lindsay consents to that check, the bank employee will enter his information into the service website, and the service will respond that his information is consistent with the department’s database. The bank will then know that he is not using a fictitious identity; that knowledge, together with other processes the bank considers necessary, will give the bank confidence that the person being dealt with is actually Lindsay. Alternatively, the service could return a message that the information that he provided is not consistent with the department’s databases. It could be that Lindsay has adopted a different surname through marriage from that on his birth record, or it could be that someone is trying to conduct identity fraud using his name. The service can also provide an exception message in response to a search when a death or name change has been recorded against Lindsay’s birth record. The only other information that may be provided, for which there can be an exception message relates to the validity of the identity documents. For instance, when a passport presented by a customer has been reported as stolen, all of these exception results target specific identity fraud methods, and provide agencies using the service with an alert to a risk of fraud.

I would now like to take just a couple of moments to talk about the substance of the Identity Information Confirmation Bill. The bill will make the service available to the private sector and more widely available within the public sector. Organisations that wish to use the service will have to demonstrate a genuine need to use it. They will also have to demonstrate that they have appropriate security and privacy procedures in place.

Under the bill, organisations will need to seek the consent of the individual concerned before checking information. The bill provides that the agency must maintain another process for dealing with a person who does not consent to the check being made. This is to prevent people from being forced to consent through the withholding of access to a product or service. It also ensures that a person retains control over what happens with his or her information, and is aware of how his or her information is being used.

The bill establishes that organisations using the service will have to enter into an agreement with the appropriate statutory officer from the Department of Internal Affairs. The bill provides for the creation of a generic agreement so that its terms and conditions can be used as a template for agreements between the department and multiple organisations. The Privacy Commissioner will be consulted on the development of any generic agreement, as well as any agreement between the department and an agency using the service that does not use that template. Furthermore, the Privacy Commissioner will also be able to order regular reviews of the agreements as she thinks necessary.

The bill also protects privacy in a number of other ways. The Privacy Commissioner will have the power to require the department to provide reports to her on the operation of the service, such as statistics on how many people present information that is inconsistent with the records of the department. I have already mentioned that the organisations that want to use this service will need to show that they have a genuine need for the service, and have appropriate security and privacy practices. The organisations that enter into agreements to use the service will also be listed on the department’s website.

Finally, I want to give the House another example of where data validation would have been useful to fight identity fraud and save the taxpayer money. I refer to September 2006 when the Government was alerted by Kiwibank to some suspicious activity that was occurring across a number of bank accounts that were receiving deposits for the pension. On investigation it became apparent that the Government was giving $56,000 each fortnight to 123 false identities that had been created by Mr Wayne Patterson. Mr Wayne Patterson operated by creating false birth certificates. He took these certificates into various Work and Income offices throughout the country, and his operation was solely reliant on the fact that there were, at that time, no routine checks to ensure that these birth certificates had real information on them. Mr Patterson is now part-way through an 8-year prison sentence. Overall, the Government was defrauded of $3.4 million by Mr Patterson’s scheme. However, it is likely that Mr Patterson would never have received a single cent from the Government by these fraudulent means if this service had been available and had been used by Work and Income, banks, and other organisations.

• Debate interrupted.